• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Phil Spencer promoted to CEO of MS Gaming

IDKFA

Member
Why would they do that? It’s like they giving up Facebook.

Your misunderstanding the concept.

Facebook didn't invent the metaverse and don't own it either, just like no person or company owns the internet. This is why it's open source and why other companies are developing their own metaverse spaces and software.

Think of it like the internet, but in VR and AR and more interactive, but like the internet nobody owns it and everyone can contribute to it.
 

NickFire

Member
Second time I've seen this. Consoles are one of the primary ways to get Game pass to people. How does dropping consoles allow MS to do that? Nintendo and Sony don't have any devices that have Game pass so MS dropping consoles would be a major step backwards to the goal of getting Game pass everywhere. Not to mention games sales on their platforms makes more money instead of having to do a split with other platform holders. I don't see them dropping hardware anytime soon why would MS go the Sega route?
I don’t think they are dropping hardware. That said, if you were MS, how might They be able to get GP onto Nintendo and Sony? Where could they find that leverage?

And about that low market share in Japan. Is it accurate that Switch is really popular there? Is Switch powerful enough to stream xcloud?
 
Last edited:
Your misunderstanding the concept.

Facebook didn't invent the metaverse and don't own it either, just like no person or company owns the internet. This is why it's open source and why other companies are developing their own metaverse spaces and software.

Think of it like the internet, but in VR and AR and more interactive, but like the internet nobody owns it and everyone can contribute to it.
So Facebook wasn’t the one who developed the vr world they showed? Who did them? Because I’m pretty sure it’s called metaverse and they are called meta now, so you’re telling me someone else created it?
 

IDKFA

Member
So Facebook wasn’t the one who developed the vr world they showed? Who did them? Because I’m pretty sure it’s called metaverse and they are called meta now, so you’re telling me someone else created it?

Imagine the metaverse as an extension to the internet. The internet is open source. Nobody owns it and anybody can develop and contribute to the internet.

Same with the metaverse. It's open source and anybody can develop content for it. The metaverse and it's concept long predates even the creation of Facebook. You could argue that Second Life was an early model for the metaverse.

However, recently we've come to the stage where technology has caught up for us to develop a real metaverse. Facebook, Microsoft, Epic, Nvidia and many other companies and governments all want to help develop this and are all working on their own metaverse spaces. What Facebook showed off was their own metaverse space. Microsoft's will be different, so will Epics and as the metaverse is open source, even you could make your own little space in the metaverse.

 

yurinka

Member
So Facebook wasn’t the one who developed the vr world they showed? Who did them? Because I’m pretty sure it’s called metaverse and they are called meta now, so you’re telling me someone else created it?
Same with the metaverse. It's open source and anybody can develop content for it.
Corporations need a new buzzword from time to time to hype their inversors. This time it's 'metaverse' because they saw the Ready Player One movie and saw potential there as a premium of the Zoom calls or social media.

But it's nothing new, it's basically the same than Second Life or PlayStation Home: a virtual world where you can customize your avatar or other stuff (in PS Home I had a house, the fucking batcave with the batmobile and a pirate ship) with items you can unlock or buy (so potential to license stuff, PS Home had stuff from games like Resident Evil, Tekken or Street Fighter, and from movies like Ghostbusters or GI Joe), to visit theme park-like locations (there was a cinema or promotional stuff from Resident Evil or Audi, each one with minigames) and interact with other players via text/audio chat (which means a nightmare for moderation/censorship) and I assume to launch external games/apps as you did in PS Home.

At least in the case of FB, their idea is to make it in VR. And the idea of these corportations is to use it in addition to in a social media or gaming context, to expand it to a corporate context so you could make online meetings there while at work.

He is no longer in charge of xbox. He’s in charge of multiple gaming divisions. They also now have a multi platform division, cell phone mobile divison… hell xbox might be their smallest division now. Candy Crush pulls huge numbers. I think it pulls in 4 billion a year. Still dont know how they got Activision so cheap.
I may be wrong but until 2013 he was 'Corporate Vice President, Head of Microsoft Studios', when he became 'Corporate Vice President, Head of Xbox'. And in 2017, since they decided to stop focusing on Xbox and to release all their games day one on PC to 'Executive Vice President, Gaming', dropping the Xbox name from the title. And now changed to 'CEO of Microsoft Gaming'.

In addition to being promoted, seems they created a company for the division. Maybe because it could help them with regulations with the ABK and potential future acquisitions.
 
Last edited:

yurinka

Member
Like the internet, the metaverse will be open source, but because it's VR based it means you'll need a VR headset of some description to access it, just like you originally needed a PC to access the internet.
Facebook didn't invent the metaverse and don't own it either, just like no person or company owns the internet. This is why it's open source and why other companies are developing their own metaverse spaces and software.
Metaverse is only a new buzzword for virtual worlds where users can interact, like Second Life or PlayStation Home. Many companies are working on their own ones and some are VR. In the same way Second Life, PS Home or the FB one aren't open source as their apps or games aren't open source, same with happens with most other metaverses. As far as I remember, the only open source one is the one that Epic is making.
 

DragonNCM

Member
That remains to be seen I think? So far he's mostly been spending a lot of money (like billions and billions and billions), but Xbox is still far, far behind PlayStation. None of those investments have actually resulted in anything yet. But the expectation is that they will, of course.
Do you know how sige works?
MS are slowly getting positions around Sony gaming division, cutting resource's slowly and eventually they will get all what is nedded to make PS capitulate. That will not go fast but in 10 years maybe 20, we will see what will happen.
Sony need to think fast about this, if they don't have resource's to make gamepass equivalent subscription service they need to join forces with Google or Amazon or Netflix or they will parish.
Big fishis always eat small ones.
I don't think MS will stop using money to force push & accelerate things faster.Their mad goal is all people to use their gamepass platform to play games & they are prepared to pay enormous amounts of cash to reach that goal.
Because if they don't do that, they will soon face big players like Facebook, Amazon and Google.
Just my 2c.
 

JLB

Member
Ok. New prediction.

Phil leaves end of 2023. Why? The gamepass subs will finally cost full price, subs won't renew and apart from older games they already have, xbox won't want to burn more money on new 3rd party AAA.

So quality of gamepass will begin to dilute at the same time subscription costs start to go up.

Phil knows this so he'll threaten to leave. It's win win for him. If he stays it's on his terms. If he leaves he can cash out.
Brady Bunch K GIF
 

DragonNCM

Member
Ok. New prediction.

Phil leaves end of 2023. Why? The gamepass subs will finally cost full price, subs won't renew and apart from older games they already have, xbox won't want to burn more money on new 3rd party AAA.

So quality of gamepass will begin to dilute at the same time subscription costs start to go up.

Phil knows this so he'll threaten to leave. It's win win for him. If he stays it's on his terms. If he leaves he can cash out.
From this price they offer right now simply they can't go up & be competitive.
Right now they need more subs to fulfill their goal in gaming metaverse and number of 25 million is far from their desired number
 

NahaNago

Member
I'm guessing it's because of all of the mobile gaming he just got from bliz/acti that his position changed to this title. Plus acti and Bethesda's studio employee count were probably larger than the old xbox gaming division so this title has them all report to him while keeping those companies working in the same manner for now until they get completely transitioned into the xbox first party ecosystem.
 
Last edited:

DrJamesOxford

Neo Member
I definitely like Phil but hate Bill. I am happy to buy a new Xbox but there is no way in hell I am injecting something in my arm every few months to satisfy a narrative.
 

Whitecrow

Gold Member
He is still the good boy facade in front of a cannibalistic company. Xbox new games are as dead as they were at the end of x360 era.

But hey, you can still play a lot of past decade games, xbox saved
 

RoadHazard

Member
Do you know how sige works?
MS are slowly getting positions around Sony gaming division, cutting resource's slowly and eventually they will get all what is nedded to make PS capitulate. That will not go fast but in 10 years maybe 20, we will see what will happen.
Sony need to think fast about this, if they don't have resource's to make gamepass equivalent subscription service they need to join forces with Google or Amazon or Netflix or they will parish.
Big fishis always eat small ones.
I don't think MS will stop using money to force push & accelerate things faster.Their mad goal is all people to use their gamepass platform to play games & they are prepared to pay enormous amounts of cash to reach that goal.
Because if they don't do that, they will soon face big players like Facebook, Amazon and Google.
Just my 2c.

I don't know what the word "sige" means, so no.
 

DJ12

Member
As much I'm not a fan of some of his moves, I have to admit the guy indeed simply brough back xbox to life. It was no small task.
And then killed it with a far more palletable idea for the Microsoft hierarchy.

Xbox is dead, long live Microsoft gaming. Everyone soon to be welcome.
 

yurinka

Member
He is no longer in charge of xbox. He’s in charge of multiple gaming divisions. They also now have a multi platform division, cell phone mobile divison… hell xbox might be their smallest division now. Candy Crush pulls huge numbers. I think it pulls in 4 billion a year. Still dont know how they got Activision so cheap.
MS has a single gaming division for all platforms and all their gamedev studios from all platforms report to it.
 

DJ12

Member
Lmao, what does this even mean?
There are 2 xbox positions in Microsoft gaming, and 10-12 gaming positions.

Xbox is being sidelined, MS gaming is the strategy going forward and that for sure includes Sony and Nintendo.

As we know MS has already asked for gamepass to be allowed on PlayStation. This happening is a case of when not if at this point.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Second time I've seen this. Consoles are one of the primary ways to get Game pass to people. How does dropping consoles allow MS to do that? Nintendo and Sony don't have any devices that have Game pass so MS dropping consoles would be a major step backwards to the goal of getting Game pass everywhere. Not to mention games sales on their platforms makes more money instead of having to do a split with other platform holders. I don't see them dropping hardware anytime soon why would MS go the Sega route?

I don't even see why GP on Switch/PS5 would be that desirable to them. You'd think they would much prefer that Nintendo/PS users accessed their content on a PC/Chromebook/Streaming stick/Smart TV/Tablet/etc. In all of those other cases GP can be a gateway to a complete MS platform, they could easily allow you to purchase additional games and content outside of the GP library (think Stadia) that's something that is never happening on a competitors consoles and they can sell their full GP package not some bastardized 1st party only option.

Yeah, it's going to be easier to snag users on their standard gaming device of choice, but, MS now has the content to draw them somewhere else.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
It pisses me off posters here weren't even considered for the job.

Yep, you know they were looking around online and like that rando is guy/gal we need.

PS. If you are head hunting here MS please give me a call, Live user SportsFan581 all contact info up to date, English please not secret code. I'm totally above these other yahoos.

:messenger_beaming:
 
Last edited:

Skyfox

Member
From this price they offer right now simply they can't go up & be competitive.
Right now they need more subs to fulfill their goal in gaming metaverse and number of 25 million is far from their desired number
Many people took advantage of all the gamepass deals. This is what I mean. You could get gamepass way cheaper. Those users will have to pay full price in a while.
 

NickFire

Member
There are 2 xbox positions in Microsoft gaming, and 10-12 gaming positions.

Xbox is being sidelined, MS gaming is the strategy going forward and that for sure includes Sony and Nintendo.

As we know MS has already asked for gamepass to be allowed on PlayStation. This happening is a case of when not if at this point.
I'm not convinced that they will be dropping hardware if that is what you meant by sidelined. But everything else is spot on I think.

My gut check reaction to this news was that MS wanted to dominate hardware by screwing over its competitors customers. As soon as I stopped trying to rationalize all of the dichotomy in statements from MS over the years, and asked if there was any chance they are consistent with a singular long term vision, something dawned on me. My gut check reaction was based on the assumption that this primarily software company cares more about winning the console war than selling as much software to as many people as possible. And that assumption also blinded me to what access to Sony's eco-system would really mean. It wouldn't really mean 15 million or so PS5 consoles that MS could move software on. It would actually be somewhere in excess of 100 million PS4's, plus 15 million PS5's. And if Nintendo was thrown in with streaming options for games that would make Switch melt in native form, are we potentially looking at a new customer base numbering between 150 million and 200 million consoles being drawn into MS Gaming.

Access to 150 - 200 million potential console customers is worth a lot of money to a software giant. A hell of a lot.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
I'm not convinced that they will be dropping hardware if that is what you meant by sidelined. But everything else is spot on I think.

My gut check reaction to this news was that MS wanted to dominate hardware by screwing over its competitors customers. As soon as I stopped trying to rationalize all of the dichotomy in statements from MS over the years, and asked if there was any chance they are consistent with a singular long term vision, something dawned on me. My gut check reaction was based on the assumption that this primarily software company cares more about winning the console war than selling as much software to as many people as possible. And that assumption also blinded me to what access to Sony's eco-system would really mean. It wouldn't really mean 15 million or so PS5 consoles that MS could move software on. It would actually be somewhere in excess of 100 million PS4's, plus 15 million PS5's. And if Nintendo was thrown in with streaming options for games that would make Switch melt in native form, are we potentially looking at a new customer base numbering between 150 million and 200 million consoles being drawn into MS Gaming.

Access to 150 - 200 million potential console customers is worth a lot of money to a software giant. A hell of a lot.

The thing about it is that it would be very limited access. With streaming we are reaching a point where these specific hardware devices are inconsequential, with users in far greater numbers having other devices that could act as avenues for the MS gaming platform. And those other devices wouldn't have the strings and limitations attached that come along with a competitors console.

We'll see how it all goes.
 

NickFire

Member
The thing about it is that it would be very limited access. With streaming we are reaching a point where these specific hardware devices are inconsequential, with users in far greater numbers having other devices that could act as avenues for the MS gaming platform. And those other devices wouldn't have the strings and limitations attached that come along with a competitors console.

We'll see how it all goes.
Limited access? No, and not even close. Access to one PS4 is access to 100 Million of them. And have you followed any of the news about how popular console only games have been on PC? Or how popular MLB was on Xbox last year. What you project as limited access, has already been shown to be a massive market of very hungry gamers IMO.

And there is no chance, at all, that they think their investors benefit more from gamers incrementally adopting firesticks as their platform of choice, than accessing them all in one full swoop.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Limited access? No, and not even close. Access to one PS4 is access to 100 Million of them. And have you followed any of the news about how popular console only games have been on PC? Or how popular MLB was on Xbox last year. What you project as limited access, has already been shown to be a massive market of very hungry gamers IMO.

And there is no chance, at all, that they think their investors benefit more from gamers incrementally adopting firesticks as their platform of choice, than accessing them all in one full swoop.

If they have their eyes closed maybe.

Assuming they know what they are doing they would see that their presence on competing consoles would be very limited with a lot of strings attached. Can they have anything on GP besides first-party? Are they splitting the platform cut with Sony/Nintendo? Giving it up entirely? Seeing that most of MS's teams seem done with cross-gen development, PS4 support would almost be limited to streaming anyway (as is the X1), though Activision will likely be different although maybe not by the time MS actually takes over.

On a more generic MS streaming platform they can have their own first-party content and 3rd parties (the full package), plus sell additional content outside the GP library, plus earn the platform holder cut for MTX and DLC. Every Streaming customer is basically a console owner, just the console is in the cloud. And you can almost guarantee that every one of these PS4 owners already has a compatible device (they can use their existing controller too). Basically just like Stadia, but MS has a few things that Stadia didn't (GP, exclusive software to draw in users, a console so that users know their purchases are more digital than imaginary, and so on).

It depends on if MS really still sees the gaming market as something very small (and thus they are still concerned about 200m consoles sold by competitors) or if they are really trying to leverage something bigger.
 
Last edited:

JimmyF

Member
Congratulations to Phil, however I'm a bit confused. Who was the CEO before Phil then? Or was the title just created to promote him?
 

Ozriel

Member
There are 2 xbox positions in Microsoft gaming, and 10-12 gaming positions.

Xbox is being sidelined, MS gaming is the strategy going forward and that for sure includes Sony and Nintendo.

As we know MS has already asked for gamepass to be allowed on PlayStation. This happening is a case of when not if at this point.

Microsoft gaming is the umbrella division including Xbox, mobile and cloud. Xbox is in no way being ‘sidelined’. In fact, Xbox’s position within Microsoft has NEVER been stronger.

Gamepass isn’t ever coming to PlayStation as native games. Basically cloud streaming, if it ever comes. And their gaming strategy is not focused on Sony or Nintendo.
 

NickFire

Member
If they have their eyes closed maybe.

Assuming they know what they are doing they would see that their presence on competing consoles would be very limited with a lot of strings attached. Can they have anything on GP besides first-party? Are they splitting the platform cut with Sony/Nintendo? Giving it up entirely?

On a more generic MS streaming platform they can have their own first-party content and 3rd parties (the full package), plus sell additional content outside the GP library, plus earn the platform holder cut for MTX and DLC. Every Streaming customer is basically a console owner, just the console is in the cloud.

It depends on if MS really still sees the gaming market as something very small (and thus they are still concerned about 200m consoles sold by competitors) or if they are really trying to leverage something bigger.
Yeah, I do expect a lot of strings attached. My guess is Sony will require a modified version of GP without all the 3rd party, and I bet MS will happily charge PS customers a slightly reduced rate for a lot less content. And I have no doubt that if GP on PS is limited to MS Gaming 1st party games, which will include COD, Starfield, and every single exclusive that has mattered (Flight Sim, Forza, Halo), it will move a massive amount of subscriptions (I bet in excess of 5 million in under 30 days, and in excess of 10 million within 90 days if they time it right in relation to a big new AAA game). And it will probably only be accessible via accounts paid through Sony so that they get their platform holder share, which MS would be fine with because that adds to marketing about better with Xbox (as in, via Xbox you get all this, but via Sony its limited).

As for streaming, I am not discounting it. I think streaming is their eventual inroad to Switch actually, and by extension the entire Japanese market that has eluded them for 20 years. I am only discounting the business plan of not doing business with Sony because we can sell something akin to a Roku, since it worked out so well for Google.

Finally, you have completely lost me with the suggestion that looking towards 200 million possible instant users would suggest they see the gaming market as small. Expanding their reach by those numbers is the epitome of trying to leverage something bigger, and in no way, shape, or form would that mean they see gaming as small.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Finally, you have completely lost me with the suggestion that looking towards 200 million possible instant users would suggest they see the gaming market as small. Expanding their reach by those numbers is the epitome of trying to leverage something bigger, and in no way, shape, or form would that mean they see gaming as small.

Because they can't really do both in a credible fashion. You put all of your first party content on PS and you kill the Xbox as a consumer console, period (because which console do think people are buying if one console has everything and the other doesn't). Now they have to sell a lot of subscriptions on PS just to equalize the losses of killing their existing platform. Then, on top of that, they are losing their leverage in drawing users to a new streaming platform (or a traditional Xbox console if that's the route they want to take) by creating options for users to stick to the status quo. If they want to reach beyond they have to be willing to drive users to accept a different platform, and Starfield and the like is the way to do that (this is specifically what Stadia lacks).

I don't think consoles are the end-all-be-all to MS, however it seems like they are still trying to build a platform in the cloud (something that would never really happen on a competing console). You can just look at Ubi+ and see what a tough road to hoe that is, to try a do the subscription thing with 100% owned content. You basically have a service with a handful of games being added to it per year. If they feel they need to put CoD on PS to make the numbers work, it just seems like the better option would just be to put that over there at $70 and let that be that.
 
Last edited:

DJ12

Member
Because they can't really do both in a credible fashion. You put all of your first party content on PS and you kill the Xbox as a consumer console, period (because which console do think people are buying if one console has everything and the other doesn't). Now they have to sell a lot of subscriptions on PS just to equalize the losses of killing their existing platform. Then, on top of that, they are losing their leverage in drawing users to a new streaming platform (or a traditional Xbox console if that's the route they want to take) by creating options for users to stick to the status quo. If they want to reach beyond they have to be willing to drive users to accept a different platform, and Starfield and the like is the way to do that (this is specifically what Stadia lacks).
You seem too be ignoring that Ms already asked Sony for a gamepass presence on playstation even before the intent to buy Activision.

Be it streaming or native versions, gamepass will be coming to other consoles.

I imagine original xbox games will stream, stuff that has always had a ps presence will continue to have a native playstation app.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
You seem too be ignoring that Ms already asked Sony for a gamepass presence on playstation even before the intent to buy Activision.

Be it streaming or native versions, gamepass will be coming to other consoles.

I imagine original xbox games will stream, stuff that has always had a ps presence will continue to have a native playstation app.

We'll see. It almost seems like that would be the dumb decision that completely unravels MS gaming or at least limits them to being a third-party publisher reliant on the whims of others, but again, we'll see. Companies do stupid shit all the time. Would at least open up opportunities to get an XSX, since most series buyers would probably be frantically trying to sell them while they still had some value.
 
Last edited:

DJ12

Member
We'll see. It almost seems like that would be the dumb decision that completely unravels MS gaming, but we'll see. Companies do stupid shit all the time.
I don't think it's dumb for a software company to want to reach another 200 million + other interested potential consumers.

Dumb would be going all in on a software service and not doing so.

Gamepass will not really be successful on pc, it needs console gamers.

PC gamers will dip in and out when there's something they want to play or there's a deal on.

Like it or not xbox took a monumental oversight from crazy Ken to even get close to beating Sony. If you cannot beat them, join them.

I don't think xbox will die off, but it's not going to be important going forwards to Microsoft ultimate goal.

In my opinion and reading between the lines from all the comments from Phil recently.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
I don't think it's dumb for a software company to want to reach another 200 million + other interested potential consumers.

Dumb would be going all in on a software service and not doing so.

Gamepass will not really be successful on pc, it needs console gamers.

PC gamers will dip in and out when there's something they want to play or there's a deal on.

Like it or not xbox took a monumental oversight from crazy Ken to even get close to beating Sony. If you cannot beat them, join them.

I don't think xbox will die off, but it's not going to be important going forwards to Microsoft ultimate goal.

In my opinion and reading between the lines from all the comments from Phil recently.

We'll have to agree to disagree there.

For me, if my choices were to bring a gimped version of my service to a competing platform in a very limited fashion, or using my leverage to bring my software services to consumers via devices that allow a complete ecosystem, I'm doing the latter. Especially if I'm really thinking big and from that perspective the entire existing console market is a spec in the ocean.
 
Last edited:

NickFire

Member
Because they can't really do both in a credible fashion. You put all of your first party content on PS and you kill the Xbox as a consumer console, period (because which console do think people are buying if one console has everything and the other doesn't). Now they have to sell a lot of subscriptions on PS just to equalize the losses of killing their existing platform. Then, on top of that, they are losing their leverage in drawing users to a new streaming platform (or a traditional Xbox console if that's the route they want to take) by creating options for users to stick to the status quo. If they want to reach beyond they have to be willing to drive users to accept a different platform, and Starfield and the like is the way to do that.
I think you're looking at this from the perspective of why you don't want them to be multiplatform.

You think it would kill their console business, but how many Sony fans said the exact same thing about Sony games being ported to PC in the past year alone? A ton did just that, and they were all 100% wrong. On top of that, didn't you suggest they don't need access to 150-200 millions PS4, PS5, and Switch consoles, because they can just sell those people something like a firestick type of device instead? If it worked as you suggested, it would simply accomplish the exact same thing you are afraid of (devaluing Series hardware), at a greater cost (having to make them), and take years and years longer to reach the end goal (moving subs). Never mind what happens to hardware if streaming becomes the primary means of distribution.

As for the lost leverage in drawing in new users, again, look at PC. No one who uses GP on PC actually needs an Xbox. But MS still sells as many PC users a GP sub as possible, and there is no evidence the platform has suffered for it. On a similar note, I'm curious as to when Xbox started focusing on console sales again in the eyes of its fans? I'm talking generally here, and not about you specifically. I'm just having flashbacks as I type to a few million snarky posts ever since Bethesda got bought, that its all about GP these days. Every single day, every single enthusiast website's forums / comment sections, its all about GP, its about GP. Now, suddenly, MS has the leverage it needs to expand GP to the last two closed gardens, and GP takes a back seat to hardware?
 

TGO

Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
Why would MS create a separate division for gaming outside Xbox.... unless..
 

DarkMage619

Member
They wouldn't go the SEGA route.

As noted from the Apple Vs Epic court case, Microsoft have never made a profit on their console hardware. In another time this would be a problem, but with streaming combined with Gamepass, they don't need to worry at all about console sales at all.

Give it time and dedicated gaming hardware will be a thing of the past.
If MS drops hardware to make PlayStation games how is that any different than what Sega did? When has MS ever claimed then wanted profit from hardware sales? They are the only company allowing customers to play current generation games on last generation hardware via streaming. Hardware is just one means to an end but dropping hardware entirely moves them backwards especially if they are making games on a platform they don't control and doesn't have Game pass. Unless you are saying EVERY ONE will drop hardware there is no way MS gets out of the hardware business especially now with over 30 in house studios.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
I think you're looking at this from the perspective of why you don't want them to be multiplatform.

You think it would kill their console business, but how many Sony fans said the exact same thing about Sony games being ported to PC in the past year alone? A ton did just that, and they were all 100% wrong. On top of that, didn't you suggest they don't need access to 150-200 millions PS4, PS5, and Switch consoles, because they can just sell those people something like a firestick type of device instead? If it worked as you suggested, it would simply accomplish the exact same thing you are afraid of (devaluing Series hardware), at a greater cost (having to make them), and take years and years longer to reach the end goal (moving subs). Never mind what happens to hardware if streaming becomes the primary means of distribution.

As for the lost leverage in drawing in new users, again, look at PC. No one who uses GP on PC actually needs an Xbox. But MS still sells as many PC users a GP sub as possible, and there is no evidence the platform has suffered for it. On a similar note, I'm curious as to when Xbox started focusing on console sales again in the eyes of its fans? I'm talking generally here, and not about you specifically. I'm just having flashbacks as I type to a few million snarky posts ever since Bethesda got bought, that its all about GP these days. Every single day, every single enthusiast website's forums / comment sections, its all about GP, its about GP. Now, suddenly, MS has the leverage it needs to expand GP to the last two closed gardens, and GP takes a back seat to hardware?

I'm just a random dude on a forum, LOL, so obviously MS will do whatever they want and we'll just deal with it at the time. Doesn't really matter if I'm 100% right or wrong at the end of the day.

The big difference between a generic streaming app and streaming or local apps on PS is that a generic app can act as a console in the cloud, customers on other platforms could never be as valuable. Plus, there is just no way that Xbox consoles can ever exist in a space where PS consoles have access to all the games, yet Xbox doesn't have the Sony games. That simply never happens. Therefore whatever they gain from selling subscriptions on PS has to replace the entire revenue stream being generated by Xbox, including most of their existing full price GP subs (to be replaced by this cheaper first-party only option on PS).
 
Last edited:

Ozriel

Member
I don't think it's dumb for a software company to want to reach another 200 million + other interested potential consumers.

Dumb would be going all in on a software service and not doing so.

Gamepass will not really be successful on pc, it needs console gamers.

PC gamers will dip in and out when there's something they want to play or there's a deal on.

Like it or not xbox took a monumental oversight from crazy Ken to even get close to beating Sony. If you cannot beat them, join them.

I don't think xbox will die off, but it's not going to be important going forwards to Microsoft ultimate goal.

In my opinion and reading between the lines from all the comments from Phil recently.


They don’t need Sony or PlayStation for any of that, and I can’t see any way for the service to come to PlayStation. They’ll be able to reach any console gamer by streaming on the TV they use to play their games.

Hardware is absolutely important. It’s a key driver for Gamepass subs, and it makes them a lot of money from third party games and their cut from MTX.
 
Top Bottom