Support NeoGAF

[mcrommert]

I'm not seeing evidence of female habitation...


Which is why we have to have a console...

LOLOLOLOL
Was about to add this in a slightly less disrespectful way. Would not fly in my house. Needs to be hidden and easy to use so my wife can watch netflix and plex

 

[vcc]

Well yea, obviously things become problematic when its a case of "this is what the console is" which later needs to be corrected to "well, actually this is what the console is now". That's not a similar conversation to the Wii U, and our theoretical XB1.5.

You just asked Trup1aya to explain this to his mother/father. I'll redirect that back at you, and ask you to use the Xbox One as it is right now. Do you tell them something along the lines of "these are XBOX ONE consoles... they play the games labelled XBOX ONE".. or do you start trying to fill them in on the differences between a standard Xbox One and an Xbox One Elite with the SSHD drive and Elite Controller?

You don't bother with that, because it's not what a customer like that even needs to know right? The target audience for the "upgraded" Xbox One Elite will know what the differences between it and the standard console are. The important thing is that every console labelled as an Xbox One will play all the Xbox One games, and this would remain true for Xbox One Ultimate (1.5).

They basically have to 'relaunch' their console though as they need XB1.5 to sell. A part of why other attempts at spec upgraded consoles have failed is because 3rd parties ignored the spec upgrade. So they have to push this out almost as a new console but also not push it too hard as a new console.

I'd agree you want to keep the message minimal. You can't explain details or nuance without risking muddling the message. The whole strategy is fraught with massive risks and costs.

I just think there needs to be more stuff in the space under the TV. Maybe put the consoles there or something.

Not directed at me? I have way too much under my TV. I should really put away consoles I don't play. Like my NES.

 

[Trup1aya]

Explain it to your mother/father while they're cooking then ask them about the details to see how much they retain.

I get questions from parents all the time regarding video game purchases all the time. Having solid naming conventions goes a long way.

Surprisingly, even the transition from 360 to xb1 didn't generate the confusion I expected in terms of game compatibility.

The WiiU was confusing because people didn't realize it was a successor. Calling it a Wii2 would have made thing crystal clear.

I don't think people will expect their xb1 to play xb2 games any more that people would expect a ps3 to play ps4 games.

I'm not seeing evidence of female habitation...


Which is why we have to have a console...

I found this way funnier than I should have

 

[MilkyJoe]

LOLOLOLOL
Was about to add this in a slightly less disrespectful way. Would not fly in my house. Needs to be hidden and easy to use so my wife can watch netflix and plex

HA ha it's so true though, isn't it!

If I lived alone I'd buy a super PC to run a Rift, a steering wheel a copy of Project Cars and I'd never leave the house. She won't allow that...

 

[JaggedSac]

I hate when people talk about that because this is where I play my PC and my consoles.

Do you sit in a fort?

 

[Synth]

They basically have to 'relaunch' their console though as they need XB1.5 to sell. A part of why other attempts at spec upgraded consoles have failed is because 3rd parties ignored the spec upgrade. So they have to push this out almost as a new console but also not push it too hard as a new console.

I'd agree you want to keep the message minimal. You can't explain details or nuance without risking muddling the message. The whole strategy is fraught with massive risks and costs.

Not directed at me? I have way too much under my TV. I should really put away consoles I don't play. Like my NES.

They don't need to relaunch the console though. The audience that would give a shit about a new Xbox One console that does 1080p/60fps or whatever, is us.. here. We'll know. Just like we know about the Xbox Elite and the Elite Controller.

They don't need the new console to sell in significant quantities. They need any Xbox One to sell. All of them will play the same games, so the 1.5 version only really needs to exist for a smaller portion of the userbase, and much of what it would provide is symbolical... i.e. it'd lessen discussions about Xbox One being weaker etc, even though this would remain true for the most popular model. It also allows them to double up on some of their more enthusiastic users, by selling them a new Xbox console, despite them already owning one today.

And yea... I didn't mean to quote you in that second paragraph.

 

[Trup1aya]

Microsoft is fine, but Xbox may not be. Notice how the message has changed from "Xbox is the best game console with the best games" to "Xbox is synergistic with the greater Windows platform". This reeks of a division that's trying to maintain its position at Microsoft, not of one that the brass is happy with.

To me it doesn't seem like a division that's trying to maintain position in the company.

It seems the the company has decided exactly what role the Xbox division is going to play, and that is if a gaming brand that follows users wherever or however they choose to play.

 

[Zedox]

I hate when people talk about that because this is where I play my PC and my consoles.

If that seat has a built in toilet and to your right you have a fridge, you have the closest thing to the manliest techman chair ever. LOL.

 

[Crayon]

They don't need to relaunch the console though. The audience that would give a shit about a new Xbox One console that does 1080p/60fps or whatever, is us.. here. We'll know. Just like we know about the Xbox Elite and the Elite Controller.

They don't need the new console to sell in significant quantities. They need any Xbox One to sell. All of them will play the same games, so the 1.5 version only really needs to exist for a smaller portion of the userbase, and much of what it would provide is symbolical... i.e. it'd lessen discussions about Xbox One being weaker etc, even though this would remain true for the most popular model. It also allows them to double up on some of their more enthusiastic users, by selling them a new Xbox console, despite them already owning one today.

I think if any upgraded xbox comes out it will be as you describe and no more than that. Just like the elite controller. A halo product.

 

[vcc]

He didn't make me accept anything. My standpoint has always been the same. How you read and perceive how I look at thing is of your own outlook on how and what I say (i'll get to the "wtf")

What I have stated (not in this thread mind you so I can't blame you for not knowing everything I said, that's ridiculous) is that I like what I see what MS is doing and I hope for other companies to do the same as I think it's better for technology as a whole, I've stated that competition is good (I think I said "I love competition").

Sony being the only player at the mainstream console is pretty shitty. Unless they've learned their lesson for good it may mean we get a mid-low PC power console for $600 next time; and they may stop trying; may stop funding as many internal studios etc... Nintendo isn't trying to compete in the same space.

We'd agree that MS bowing out is bad for console gamers. What we disagree on is that I think this move is neutral or bad for current XB1 owners. I feel you think it is neutral or positive. The shifting of MS internal priorities doesn't seem like it points to solid support for the XB1 but more a wild shake up with a hanging threat if it fails.

This is one of the "WTF" moments and I'll explain myself. I bolded the part where I stated that why would people be confused at the concept of how this would work, that's crazy. I said "look at the phones", people don't get confused at that concept (which, maybe we can agree upon is what we speculate is happening with the Xbox One) of another X years pass by a new product, more spec bump and a little bit more features. People understand that concept, so why would people be confused at the same concept but with a phone? I never said that they wouldn't be pissed at it and be like: "why did I just buy the xbox one a year ago and a new one is out?", but the concept of evolving the product incrementally isn't a brand new concept around the world. No different than a 2016 version of a Honda Civic vs. the 2015 version. This isn't a new concept. So for people saying that there would be confusion, I think that it is crazy...hence the gif I made.

sure.

I am not stating that MS is going to close the nature of PCs (they can't do it with that monopoly anyways) and they aren't. The PC will still be open. You can write Win32, Silverlight, UWA, etc... apps all day long and distribute it as you want (UWA isn't restricted to Microsoft's store for distribution unless someone can prove me wrong...). When I state lock-in, for those apps that ARE in the store, there's an inherit lock-in nature to it. Just like all app stores and most services. They don't all work nicely with each other and I'm sure you understand why, no need for elaboration on that. All companies want you to use only their stuff if there's competition, duh. All I was stating is that this is just another avenue in which MS wants to lock-in another customer just as any company would. This isn't a farfetched idea.

I'd agree, the point to the w10 store initiative is to acquire customers and keep them around. Forza 6:Apex and to an extent all their former XB1 exclusives are their Trojan horses. They have a steep hill to climb because it's a very soft lock on an open system. Folks can come and cherry pick what they want.

Hell yea, I remember that was the whole purpose for .NET. The only reason why I believe it a little bit more this time is that MS has to work with other companies now as they aren't the big dawg (and I don't want them to be in that same position again...that's how you get stagnant...that's why I love competition). Also, they are showing it. Using Linux on Azure, having the .NET core that usable on Unix machines. Visual Studio Code on Unix, and Mac. I wish that they could make a UWA of Visual Studio that not one ran on Windows but also Mac and Unix. Remember, as a dev, it would be much easier to have the dream code "once" and have it run everywhere. I think MS is getting closer to it, not there yet, there is promise but we definitely still have to see and they have a SHIT ton of work to do.

You can code once and run everywhere; you just have to accept the trade offs of using a interpreted language. Like Java and it performing like shit and eating all your memory.

Believe me, if I was like that...I would also think racism didn't exist and I'm black...yea, reality settled for me a long time ago. Now back to games and speculation.

I'm Asian, I know the score there even if the flavor of it is different.

 

[vcc]

They don't need to relaunch the console though. The audience that would give a shit about a new Xbox One console that does 1080p/60fps or whatever, is us.. here. We'll know. Just like we know about the Xbox Elite and the Elite Controller.

They don't need the new console to sell in significant quantities. They need any Xbox One to sell. All of them will play the same games, so the 1.5 version only really needs to exist for a smaller portion of the userbase, and much of what it would provide is symbolical... i.e. it'd lessen discussions about Xbox One being weaker etc, even though this would remain true for the most popular model. It also allows them to double up on some of their more enthusiastic users, by selling them a new Xbox console, despite them already owning one today.

And yea... I didn't mean to quote you in that second paragraph.

I do think they need to do more if they want to pull in publisher support.

They're caught in a catch 22. They need publishers to target the higher spec so they can at least remove the stigma of being lower powered and get more customers. Otherwise it's just better frame rate. But the publishers will be reluctant to do extra work to target a even smaller pool or potential customers.

Moving their first parties exclusives to w10 store makes this even harder. Because potential customers don't have those games to justify their purchase. Unless MS goes hard on cross buy.

It's a steep hill to climb and in good old MS fashion one group (w10 store) is making it harder for the other group (xbox).

 

[Bitch Pudding]

I'm not seeing evidence of female habitation...


Which is why we have to have a console...

LOL.

 

[Trup1aya]

I do think they need to do more if they want to pull in publisher support.

They're caught in a catch 22. They need publishers to target the higher spec so they can at least remove the stigma of being lower powered and get more customers. Otherwise it's just better frame rate. But the publishers will be reluctant to do extra work to target a even smaller pool or potential customers.

Moving their first parties exclusives to w10 store makes this even harder. Because potential customers don't have those games to justify their purchase. Unless MS goes hard on cross buy.

It's a steep hill to climb and in good old MS fashion one group (w10 store) is making it harder for the other group (xbox).

I don't think they need to target the higher spec. The stigma around power is generally related to framerate and resolution. If they can provide a console that can get better performance through brute force, rather than through targeted development, they can achieve that goal. At least for 3rd party titles.

Exclusive games going to win10 won't have the impact on xb1's value proposition that you expect. If someone wants to play quantum break AND they don't want or can't afford an expensive rig, they are going to buy a Xbox one. These types of gamers make up a large portion of the console gamers. For many people the console will still be the only option considered.

 

[Synth]

I do think they need to do more if they want to pull in publisher support.

They're caught in a catch 22. They need publishers to target the higher spec so they can at least remove the stigma of being lower powered and get more customers. Otherwise it's just better frame rate. But the publishers will be reluctant to do extra work to target a even smaller pool or potential customers.

Moving their first parties exclusives to w10 store makes this even harder. Because potential customers don't have those games to justify their purchase. Unless MS goes hard on cross buy.

It's a steep hill to climb and in good old MS fashion one group (w10 store) is making it harder for the other group (xbox).

I don't think it's require much from publishers if the XB1.5 plays every XB1 game and vice-versa. Then you'd be looking at the games running better in general, but this would also mean that developers would also be able to toggle graphics profiles (that would likely already exist due to the DX12 PC versions) and then only have to test for stable performance. Game runs at 720p (Dice), set it to 1080p and test how it runs. Turned off/down effects that are present in the PS4 version? Put them back if it's an XB1.5. I don't think a high quantity of consoles would be required in other to justify changes like this. Fundamental changes to the game and engine aren't happening regardless of how many upgraded consoles are out there. No game is going to be its own completely unique port for the new console. They'd pretty much just be doing the sort of tweaking that we do for ourselves on PC games, but ensuring that performance holds up throughout.

 

[Zedox]

Sony being the only player at the mainstream console is pretty shitty. Unless they've learned their lesson for good it may mean we get a mid-low PC power console for $600 next time; and they may stop trying; may stop funding as many internal studios etc... Nintendo isn't trying to compete in the same space.

I agree. I think Sony will stay just because of the money it brings in. Nintendo is just a game company through and through so they have to find ways to keep themselves relevant (numbers-wise) in my opinion.

We'd agree that MS bowing out is bad for console gamers. What we disagree on is that I think this move is neutral or bad for current XB1 owners. I feel you think it is neutral or positive. The shifting of MS internal priorities doesn't seem like it points to solid support for the XB1 but more a wild shake up with a hanging threat if it fails.

I agree that we both disagree. That's a totally valid outlook on our views.

I'd agree, the point to the w10 store initiative is to acquire customers and keep them around. Forza 6:Apex and to an extent all their former XB1 exclusives are their Trojan horses. They have a steep hill to climb because it's a very soft lock on an open system. Folks can come and cherry pick what they want.

100% correct.

You can code once and run everywhere; you just have to accept the trade offs of using a interpreted language. Like Java and it performing like shit and eating all your memory.

Right. I believe UWP runs on C# and C++. Most of the "apps" can use C# and XAML but for more intensive stuff you can use C++, not saying you can't make a game with C# but for DX12 stuff it is based off of C++. So that will help with the memory issues but still...that's not .NET, I guess I went off topic a little bit, but yea there are inherit issues with using an interpreted language.

I'm Asian, I know the score there even if the flavor of it is different.

 

[Fafalada]

Moving their first parties exclusives to w10 store makes this even harder. Because potential customers don't have those games to justify their purchase. Unless MS goes hard on cross buy.

I was more under impression they want to push software onto UWP - in which case you could do one binary serves all with XB1 positioned as entry level spec to approve the app. Once enough of XB1 library is either ported or running in that manner - you have the ecosystem argument for playing with hw-upgrades and/or transitioning users to other devices - and more importantly a differentiator they need to avoid competing with Steam.

 

[vcc]

I don't think they need to target the higher spec. The stigma around power is generally related to framerate and resolution. If they can provide a console that can get better performance through brute force, rather than through targeted development, they can achieve that goal. At least for 3rd party titles.

Resolution will also take some work and Q&A. Would just those 2 be enough?

Exclusive games going to win10 won't have the impact on xb1's value proposition that you expect. If someone wants to play quantum break AND they don't want or can't afford an expensive rig, they are going to buy a Xbox one. These types of gamers make up a large portion of the console gamers. For many people the console will still be the only option considered.

When someone is going to buy a XB1 or XB1.5, they do have to justify it to themselves. There are may reasons why people buy things but taking away reasons does not help. The mental math people do is complicated and weighted by their own values, desires, and financial constraints. Changing the math for people has more far reaching implications than to the 'tiny demographic' you made up in an argument before.

QB will likely sell okay and there may be a few people who would have bought a XB1 for it but Gears, the next Forza and next Halo will the major system sellers not QB.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

I find it astonishing that there are PC gamers that live in such a small bubble that believe their PC/Comfy couch setup represents the majority of PC gamers.

I mean, seriously?

The number of gamers that have, or can afford a PC that can keep up with today's games at a level above the consoles is already a minority. The number within THAT group that has a comfy couch setup is a minority within a minority.

That's why this Windoes 10 push ultimately will have no real negative impact on the Xbox console business.

 

[vcc]

I don't think it's require much from publishers if the XB1.5 plays every XB1 game and vice-versa. Then you'd be looking at the games running better in general, but this would also mean that developers would also be able to toggle graphics profiles (that would likely already exist due to the DX12 PC versions) and then only have to test for stable performance. Game runs at 720p (Dice), set it to 1080p and test how it runs. Turned off/down effects that are present in the PS4 version? Put them back if it's an XB1.5. I don't think a high quantity of consoles would be required in other to justify changes like this. Fundamental changes to the game and engine aren't happening regardless of how many upgraded consoles are out there. No game is going to be its own completely unique port for the new console. They'd pretty much just be doing the sort of tweaking that we do for ourselves on PC games, but ensuring that performance holds up throughout.

It still asks for more work and in reality for the same 'return' as if XB1 was the only SKU. Which is going to be the achilles heel of this idea.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

Do you sit in a fort?

Hey, don't knock it until you've tried it.

 

[vcc]

I agree. I think Sony will stay just because of the money it brings in. Nintendo is just a game company through and through so they have to find ways to keep themselves relevant (numbers-wise) in my opinion.

I disagree with that angle with Sony. Sony got into gaming because former CEO Ken Kutaragi had a keen interest in it and he rose up the Sony ranks via gaming.

He made the SNES sound chip without his bosses permission and tried entered into the gaming biz with Nintendo. The PS1 was their revenge motivated passion project which got the entire company involved when Nintendo burned them on the deal. Previous to that the board wanted to fire Kutaragi over the SNES chip and only the intervention of Norio Ohga kept him with Sony.

He got 'promoted' out after the PS3 but Sony still has deep roots in the business and current CEO Kaz Hirai also came up through Sony Computer Entertainment. They also seem to be doing good (but slow) things with their 1st and 2nd party studios.

After the PS3, they could have cut there losses and left. The launch was a 5 billion dollar debacle. But they kept on rolling.

 

[Zedox]

It still asks for more work and in reality for the same 'return' as if XB1 was the only SKU. Which is going to be the achilles heel of this idea.

Yes. That's the issue that MS has to "sell" to developers. Why is it worth it? Obviously developers do the same thing to a certain extent on PC, but that's still a different environment than console development. Typing that out I see why MS has this crossplatform play with the development side of UWP. The differences you would be "scaling" your game for on PC would be relative to what you would do on the XBO (obviously that's just me theorizing and if I was a PR person for MS that is what you would have to prove to the dev).

GDC is going to be very insightful. GDC, to me, is going to reveal some things that may lead one to believe how MS is going to sell UWP and how the skills would apply to both PC and an upgraded XBO. I'm definitely going to be watching a lot of MS talks on ch9 to see how they are going to (if) accomplish that goal. Especially since this code is supposed to scale not only from PC and Xbox but to also phone and small tablets. MS is pretty ambitious. If they could pull it off...that would pretty impressive. But let's see what happens. (Actually, I should say let's keep talking since we don't have anything else to do in this thread without more information given).

I disagree with that angle with Sony. Sony got into gaming because former CEO Ken Kutaragi had a keen interest in it and he rose up the Sony ranks via gaming.

He made the SNES sound chip without his bosses permission and tried entered into the gaming biz with Nintendo. The PS1 was their revenge motivated passion project which got the entire company involved when Nintendo burned them on the deal. Previous to that the board wanted to fire Kutaragi over the SNES chip and only the intervention of Norio Ohga kept him with Sony.

He got 'promoted' out after the PS3 but Sony still has deep roots in the business and current CEO Kaz Hirai also came up through Sony Computer Entertainment. They also seem to be doing good (but slow) things with their 1st and 2nd party studios.

After the PS3, they could have cut there losses and left. The launch was a 5 billion dollar debacle. But they kept on rolling.

While all of that is true, I only disagree with you on the premise of how PS is one of the bright spots for the company. If they "bow out", to me, it would only be if they fail at the PS5...not the PS4.

 

[vcc]

Yes. That's the issue that MS has to "sell" to developers. Why is it worth it? Obviously developers do the same thing to a certain extent on PC, but that's still a different environment than console development. Typing that out I see why MS has this crossplatform play with the development side of UWP. The differences you would be "scaling" your game for on PC would be relative to what you would do on the XBO (obviously that's just me theorizing and if I was a PR person for MS that is what you would have to prove to the dev).

GDC is going to be very insightful. GDC, to me, is going to reveal some things that may lead one to believe how MS is going to sell UWP and how the skills would apply to both PC and an upgraded XBO. I'm definitely going to be watching a lot of MS talks on ch9 to see how they are going to (if) accomplish that goal. Especially since this code is supposed to scale not only from PC and Xbox but to also phone and small tablets. MS is pretty ambitious. If they could pull it off...that would pretty impressive. But let's see what happens. (Actually, I should say let's keep talking since we don't have anything else to do in this thread without more information given).

My own opinion is the obvious answer is true. Either aim low or aim twice.

While all of that is true, I only disagree with you on the premise of how PS is one of the bright spots for the company. If they "bow out", to me, it would only be if they fail at the PS5...not the PS4.

Depends on what you mean by bright spot. It is currently profitable and giving them a decent ROI. My point was more they're there because they have internal folks with power who want them to be there. Much like how and why MS jumped into the industry.

Yes, they would only exit if it staying threatens the existence of the company. Japanese companies are weird. It take enormous fails to get them reconsider their course; and often it's by pushing out their leadership. American companies are much more ruthless and results oriented. (I'm a Canadian, our companies are soft and complacent mostly. Except our mining companies, they're unethical murderous thugs).

 

[Synth]

It still asks for more work and in reality for the same 'return' as if XB1 was the only SKU. Which is going to be the achilles heel of this idea.

Well, I guess we'll see. I think the man-hours required for something like that are miniscule, and would probably mostly blend in with the general testing of multiple PC configurations. Even in regards to PS4 stuff you could argue that just using the XB1 graphics profile would simply be easier rather than determining different profiles that suit each individually... but that's not what generally happens, because the segment of gamers that actually care about the smaller differences (which would make up most of the people with a 1.5 consoles) are the type to get extremely pissy if they know you simply x-copied the same graphics across leaving much of the resources unused. It's probably less about having something to gain in that regards, rather than having something to lose by not doing something simple.

 

[Trup1aya]

Resolution will also take some work and Q&A. Would just those 2 be enough?

For a stop-gap console? Yes I think so

When someone is going to buy a XB1 or XB1.5, they do have to justify it to themselves. There are may reasons why people buy things but taking away reasons does not help. The mental math people do is complicated and weighted by their own values, desires, and financial constraints. Changing the math for people has more far reaching implications than to the 'tiny demographic' you made up in an argument before.

QB will likely sell okay and there may be a few people who would have bought a XB1 for it but Gears, the next Forza and next Halo will the major system sellers not QB.

I just used QB as an example. But I think the tendencies will remain the same regardless of the IP.

I think you are grossly overestimating the number of console gamers who actually know or care about what games PC gamers have access to. I really don't think PC is generally a part of a console gamers mental math.

Where you will see a loss in percieved loss in value proposition is in people who are on the fence about jumping into PC gaming or who dabble in both. Of those people, the value proposition will come down to why they like consoles. If it's just because of exclusives, they'll skip on the console IF they don't mind the Win10 store.

So while the news of Exclusive games will steer SOME potential users away from Xbox one consoles, I think you have to be realistic about how many of those potential users would have become actual users.

 

[vcc]

Well, I guess we'll see. I think the man-hours required for something like that are miniscule, and would probably mostly blend in with the general testing of multiple PC configurations. Even in regards to PS4 stuff you could argue that just using the XB1 graphics profile would simply be easier rather than determining different profiles that suit each individually... but that's not what generally happens, because the segment of gamers that actually care about the smaller differences (which would make up most of the people with a 1.5 consoles) are the type to get extremely pissy if they know you simply x-copied the same graphics across leaving much of the resources unused.

Having a setting to detect and switch up probably won't be that hard. QAing it and working out the rough patches when the higher or lower setting fucks something is a lot of where the work will be. Just having 2 targets means you QA twice or just aim for the lowest setting and skip the higher one.

but that's not what generally happens, because the segment of gamers that actually care about the smaller differences (which would make up most of the people with a 1.5 consoles) are the type to get extremely pissy if they know you simply x-copied the same graphics across leaving much of the resources unused. It's probably less about having something to gain in that regards, rather than having something to lose by not doing something simple.

Yup. Audience is a issue. You have 2 tiers, now justify my purchase of tier 2 sort of thinking.

 

[4Tran]

To me it doesn't seem like a division that's trying to maintain position in the company.

It seems the the company has decided exactly what role the Xbox division is going to play, and that is if a gaming brand that follows users wherever or however they choose to play.

This theory doesn't match up with the kind of risk they're putting Xbox into. Moreover, even if Microsoft is certain about Xbox's position in the company, they're still making what looks like a desperate move. And it still speaks to how disillusioned Microsoft is with their original vision for the division.

 

[vcc]

I just used QB as an example. But I think the tendencies will remain the same regardless of the IP.

I think you are grossly overestimating the number of console gamers who actually know or care about what games PC gamers have access to. I really don't think PC is generally a part of a console gamers mental math.

Where you will see a loss in percieved loss in value proposition is in people who are on the fence about jumping into PC gaming or who dabble in both. Of those people, the value proposition will come down to why they like consoles. If it's just because of exclusives, they'll skip on the console IF they don't mind the Win10 store.

So while the news of Exclusive games will steer some potential users away from Xbox one consoles, I think you have to be realistic about how many of those potential users would have become actual users.

You forget there are other options other than a XB1 and PC.

Person has Y money

XB1 = X value
PS4 = P value
WiiU= W value
PC = C value

Person will roughly maximize sum of all value for the money

A person looking to buy a console will be thinking what is the most value they can get for the money. The value is personal, everyone has different weightings. Halo may have a huge value to them or persona 5 could or xenoblade or league of legends.

Folks who do not own a XB1 and are considering one can now look and see X is lower, C is higher.

If any of the other values were close, the change in X and C may shift what they spend on.

This is why this can be seen as a negative for XB1, some number of people will not buy a XB1 and it's tough to say how many. Folks with NPD access could compare febuary and march numbers. Maybe march to may. That will give a rough idea of how many potential customers were on fence and this swayed them.

People are also not purely rational. Some portion will have a strong brand investment and not care but others will take it personally. This ill will has influence too.

 

[Trup1aya]

This theory doesn't match up with the kind of risk they're putting Xbox into. Moreover, even if Microsoft is certain about Xbox's position in the company, they're still making what looks like a desperate move. And it still speaks to how disillusioned Microsoft is with their original vision for the division.

That's where we fundamentally disagree.

From the POV of top brass, This is exactly the kind of risk you don't take to save a division in your company that you don't need or see a particular use for. If they didn't see potential, they would just cut ties unceremoniously instead of sinking additional $billions.

I just don't see why MS would be 'desparate' to "save" Xbox. They don't need it. They could cut it off at anytime and be just fine. They WANT xbox because it IS an important brand in gaming, and gaming is an important segment for success in consumer electronics. What this is: an aggressive play at what they see as a promising market.

No doubt they are disillusioned with the original vision for the division. Because had they taken this approach from the beginning, before all the competition got entrenched, they'd be sitting pretty right now in this space.

 

[Sydle]

This theory doesn't match up with the kind of risk they're putting Xbox into. Moreover, even if Microsoft is certain about Xbox's position in the company, they're still making what looks like a desperate move. And it still speaks to how disillusioned Microsoft is with their original vision for the division.

It's not a theory. The CEO has explicitly stated that Xbox is going to be used to drive Windows. It's clear he thinks there's a bigger opportunity with Windows + first-party games and Live than chasing the traditional console model any more. Locking down software to a single device actually flies in the face of his mobile vision and the value proposition of UWA. If he didn't think it could work then he probably would have dropped the Xbox division all together.

The single biggest digital life category, measured in both time and money spent, in a mobile-first world is gaming. We are fortunate to have Xbox in our family to go after this opportunity with unique and bold innovation. - Link

I just think about three things. There are a few other efforts we do, and I’ve been very clear about those efforts and why they exist and why we are proud of them. But, there are three products in all of this. There is Windows, there is Office 365, and there is Azure. That’s it. Everything else to me is, of course, you can call them features, you can call them parts of that... - Link

Finally, we will build the best instantiation of this vision through our Windows device platform and our devices, which will serve to delight our customers, increase distribution of our services, drive gross margin, enable fundamentally new product categories, and generate opportunity for the Windows ecosystem more broadly. We will pursue our gaming ambition as part of this broader vision for Windows and increase its appeal to consumers. We will bring together Xbox Live and our first-party gaming efforts across PC, console, mobile and new categories like HoloLens into one integrated play. - Link

 

[tiredheadcrab]

So I listened to Podcast unlocked. Ryan did an interview with Phil Spencer and once again Phil said the console is their focus. So for the 3rd time this week and probably like the 5075297527 time this year that Phil has said they are dedicated to consoles. Anyone else care to chime in with MS exiting the console market?

 

[Mr. Giggles]

So I listened to Podcast unlocked. Ryan did an interview with Phil Spencer and once again Phil said the console is their focus. So for the 3rd time this week and probably like the 5075297527 time this year that Phil has said they are dedicated to consoles. Anyone else care to chime in with MS exiting the console market?

My friends cousins uncle works at MS.

Apparently they're exiting the console market

 

[justsomeguy]

That's where we fundamentally disagree.

From the POV of top brass, This is exactly the kind of risk you don't take to save a division in your company that you don't need or see a particular use for. If they didn't see potential, they would just cut ties unceremoniously instead of sinking additional $billions.

I just don't see why MS would be 'desparate' to "save" Xbox. They don't need it. They could cut it off at anytime and be just fine. They WANT xbox because it IS an important brand in gaming, and gaming is an important segment for success in consumer electronics. What this is: an aggressive play at what they see as a promising market.

No doubt they are disillusioned with the original vision for the division. Because had they taken this approach from the beginning, before all the competition got entrenched, they'd be sitting pretty right now in this space.

Right. This is Microsoft doubling down on PC Gaming not abandoning xbox. Even the phrases "pc gaming" and "console gaming" are going to start changing into "windows gaming".

 

[tiredheadcrab]

My friends cousins uncle works at MS.

Apparently they're exiting the console market

LMAO. Yeah the thread from yesterday.

 

[Trup1aya]

You forget there are other options other than a XB1 and PC.

Person has Y money

XB1 = X value
PS4 = P value
WiiU= W value
PC = C value

Person will roughly maximize sum of all value for the money

A person looking to buy a console will be thinking what is the most value they can get for the money. The value is personal, everyone has different weightings. Halo may have a huge value to them or persona 5 could or xenoblade or league of legends.

Folks who do not own a XB1 and are considering one can now look and see X is lower, C is higher.

If any of the other values were close, the change in X and C may shift what they spend on.

This is why this can be seen as a negative for XB1, some number of people will not buy a XB1 and it's tough to say how many. Folks with NPD access could compare febuary and march numbers. Maybe march to may. That will give a rough idea of how many potential customers were on fence and this swayed them.

People are also not purely rational. Some portion will have a strong brand investment and not care but others will take it personally. This ill will has influence too.

I get all that. What I'm saying is that among the when you consider the typical person who is partial to console gaming (parents who won't buy a capable rig, kids who want to play online with their friends, and so many people in between), the equation doesn't include the "C value" at all. This is case for the majority of the console base.

So the fact that a game is going onto PC, has no effect on their decision making process.

Among those people who don't don't consider PC at all, the existance of Xbox games on PC has no effect on how they value X in relation to P and W.

If they want to play Quantum Break or Gears, they'll still need X.

 

[silentQ]

I get all that. What I'm saying is that among the when you consider the typical person who is partial to console gaming, the equation doesn't include the "C value" at all.

So the fact that a game is going onto PC, has no effect on their decision making process.

Among those people who don't have don't consider PC at all, the existance of Xbox games on PC has no effect on how they value X in relation to P and W.

If they want to play Quantum Break or Gears, they'll still need X.

Even if a Console person doesn't even consider PC I think that would change if some PC Manufacturer came out with a console like box with Windows 10 installed and some kind of user friendly interface and said, you can play all your Xbox One games on this box and play on this thing called Steam, and various other stores. If its priced competitively the bottom line to the consumer is more games similar price.

 

[vcc]

I was more under impression they want to push software onto UWP - in which case you could do one binary serves all with XB1 positioned as entry level spec to approve the app. Once enough of XB1 library is either ported or running in that manner - you have the ecosystem argument for playing with hw-upgrades and/or transitioning users to other devices - and more importantly a differentiator they need to avoid competing with Steam.

They want that windows store to take off. This is clear.

They really can't avoid competing with steam as they're both stores with many of the same clients and customers.

Ecosystem is a weird PR construct.

Why does someone want a PC or Console? For software. They need some game or program which draws them. A large number of those help.

Ecosystem is just a abstraction of that and the purpose is to try to avoid people asking the question of how do you get the software. No number of shitty apps will compel me to buy in. You need at least one or more programs that strongly appeals to me.

There is a question of leverage on the business side too. On the XB1, they hold the keys and they can say "if you want access to our 21m install base, you need ot pay use $7 per unit off the top." For the w10 store the sell is harder, the system is open and they need to offer some upside to selling it stand alone or paying steam for the exposure.

They run into the problem of 'cherry picking'. So they bought QB. They made an account on the w10 store and gave MS their money. But for COD they prefer it on steam. Hearth Stone they got from bnet. Witcher from GoG. They don't have the advantage of XB1 nor a phone where there is only one place to get the software.

How's any of that feedback to XB1? more 'apps'. What type for what purpose? Doesn't it still make it a worse deal? Pushing w10 store at the XB1s expense?

 

[Trup1aya]

Even if a Console person doesn't even consider PC I think that would change if some PC Manufacturer came out with a console like box with Windows 10 installed and some kind of user friendly interface and said, you can play all your Xbox One games on this box and play on this thing called Steam, and various other stores. If its priced competitively the bottom line to the consumer is more games similar price.

Maybe, but we have yet to see come thing like that price competitively or marketed to compete with consoles. Until little Jimmy starts begging mommy for an Alienware Win10 game box, I don't see the dynamics changing much.

 

[silentQ]

Maybe, but we have yet to see come thing like that price competitively or marketed to compete with consoles. Until little Jimmy starts begging mommy for an Alienware Win10 game box, I don't see the dynamics changing much.

True, but I could see any PC Manufacture seeing this announcement trying to figure out how to drive their price down to Console levels to attempt to take some of this market away from Microsoft. Even if they could get within $50-$100 of Xbox One's price they might be able to market this and make a killing.

 

[vcc]

I get all that. What I'm saying is that among the when you consider the typical person who is partial to console gaming (parents who won't buy a capable rig, kids who want to play online with their friends, and so many people in between), the equation doesn't include the "C value" at all. This is case for the majority of the console base.

So the fact that a game is going onto PC, has no effect on their decision making process.

Among those people who don't don't consider PC at all, the existance of Xbox games on PC has no effect on how they value X in relation to P and W.

If they want to play Quantum Break or Gears, they'll still need X.

It can and does influences the decision regardless if they have or would consider a PC. The value of X changes; so even if PC's were never a consideration the value of the XB changes which changes how some people will make that decision.

Also announcing upgrade will destroy your near term sales. So this move is puzzling. Phil has just reduced XB1 sales until they make their plans known AND release the next iteration.

 

[Trup1aya]

They want that windows store to take off. This is clear.

They really can't avoid competing with steam as they're both stores with many of the same clients and customers.

Ecosystem is a weird PR construct.

Why does someone want a PC or Console? For software. They need some game or program which draws them. A large number of those help.

Ecosystem is just a abstraction of that and the purpose is to try to avoid people asking the question of how do you get the software. No number of shitty apps will compel me to buy in. You need at least one or more programs that strongly appeals to me.

There is a question of leverage on the business side too. On the XB1, they hold the keys and they can say "if you want access to our 21m install base, you need ot pay use $7 per unit off the top." For the w10 store the sell is harder, the system is open and they need to offer some upside to selling it stand alone or paying steam for the exposure.

They run into the problem of 'cherry picking'. So they bought QB. They made an account on the w10 store and gave MS their money. But for COD they prefer it on steam. Hearth Stone they got from bnet. Witcher from GoG. They don't have the advantage of XB1 nor a phone where there is only one place to get the software.

How's any of that feedback to XB1? more 'apps'. What type for what purpose? Doesn't it still make it a worse deal? Pushing w10 store at the XB1s expense?

I don't see how cherry picking is a problem. In fact, I think MS expects people to cherry pick, just as they do currently when people primarily use steam, but use Origin for the next EA game.

Everytime someone plays a Win10 game it grows their active users, which in turn grows the attractiveness of their store in the eyes of developers... This effect occurs even if this player also uses other stores.

It feeds back to xb1, when a developer is drawn to the appeal of making a game that they can sell on xb1 and the growing Win10 store.

 

[vcc]

Maybe, but we have yet to see come thing like that price competitively or marketed to compete with consoles. Until little Jimmy starts begging mommy for an Alienware Win10 game box, I don't see the dynamics changing much.

Oh that one is easy.

Mom I need this computer for school.

This is how I got my first PC
486dx33, 4mb ram, 14.4k modem, sb16 and a 1mb vga card.

It's how tons of low to med end gaming PC's are sold.

 

[Quazar]

Didn't realize GDC is right around the corner. Hopefully we hear more on March 14th

 

[vcc]

I don't see how cherry picking is a problem. In fact, I think MS expects people to cherry pick, just as they do currently when people primarily use steam, but use Origin for the next EA game.

Everytime someone plays a Win10 game it grows their active users, which in turn grows the attractiveness of their store in the eyes of developers... This effect occurs even if this player also uses other stores.

It feeds back to xb1, when a developer is drawn to the appeal of making a game that they can sell on xb1 and the growing Win10 store.

They don't have a 'lock' on that customer. They still have options.

It really doesn't feedback into the XB1; it's one way on-boarding of the XB1 base to the w10 store. You still have to do distinct things to make a PC game vs a XB1 game even if you made a w10 version. They might make it easier but the business case for doing it stays the same. The w10 store install base has no influence on it. Unless they aimed super low in scope. But most of those games don't draw gamers.

 

[Trup1aya]

It can and does influences the decision regardless if they have or would consider a PC. The value of X changes; so even if PC's were never a consideration the value of the XB changes which changes how some people will make that decision.

Also announcing upgrade will destroy your near term sales. So this move is puzzling. Phil has just reduced XB1 sales until they make their plans known AND release the next iteration.

I just don't think the bolded is true. If someone is extremely interested in a game that's available on 2of4 systems, but is only interested in 1 of the 2 systems, I don't see the person gravitating to a system that doesn't have the game at all. It makes no sense. They'll go where they can play the games they want.

I don't know about impending new releases killing sales. People are all about instant gratification. I mean people always know that a new iPhone will come out next year, it doesn't stop them from getting one this year.

 

[gamz]

Trup1aya

Is killing it.

 

[silentQ]

Oh that one is easy.

Mom I need this computer for school.

This is how I got my first PC
486dx33, 4mb ram, 14.4k modem, sb16 and a 1mb vga card.

It's how tons of low to med end gaming PC's are sold.

You have that and also with the way PC's are and if a Console priced version of this existing, how long before Little Jimmy figures out on Google that he can play all of the games on the PC Console vs XBox only games on the Xbox PC?

 

[dookeh]

HA ha it's so true though, isn't it!

If I lived alone I'd buy a super PC to run a Rift, a steering wheel a copy of Project Cars and I'd never leave the house. She won't allow that...

Super PC--check. Wheel--check. Rift preorder--check. Missing my ex-gf, no check.

 

[vcc]

I just don't think the bolded is true. If someone is extremely interested in a game that's available on 2of4 systems, but is only interested in 1 of the 2 systems, I don't see the person gravitating to a system that doesn't have the game at all. It makes no sense. They'll go where they can play the games they want.

Your trying to strawman again. The reality is the value to a potential customer is now different; some choices will change.

Folk rarely buy a system for just 1 game. It's often a handful of games and the potential for more. Each system may have some interest to them and now one of the system is less unqiue.

It's not like this is really novel thinking. Folks in all those companies get paid to look at things like this. I am nearly reading a marketing text book to you.

 

[Trup1aya]

Oh that one is easy.

Mom I need this computer for school.

This is how I got my first PC
486dx33, 4mb ram, 14.4k modem, sb16 and a 1mb vga card.

It's how tons of low to med end gaming PC's are sold.

That's a real stretch IMO. Even if little Jimmy is this clever, Little Jimmy still wants to play with all his friends

Will be monitoring the lil Jimmy situation closely...

Your trying to strawman again. The reality is the value to a potential customer is now different; some choices will change.

Folk rarely buy a system for just 1 game. It's often a handful of games and the potential for more. Each system may have some interest to them and now one of the system is less unqiue.

It's not like this is really novel thinking. Folks in all those companies get paid to look at things like this. I am nearly reading a marketing text book to you.

Nah man, I'm not straw-manning at all, there are buying tendancies that we just can't ignore.

The availability of a games on a platform I don't want isn't going to Make platforms that don't have these games more attractive.

People are generally less interested in being unique than they are having access to the games they want to play.