Support NeoGAF

[intheinbetween]

ROTR got funding but is releasing on PS4?

Okay.

Please, ellaborate instead of finishing your post like that.

ROTR got funding for temporary exclusiveness, what's the problem with that? Again, I don't think this isn't any new, this happened and will happen again, and not only because of MS.

I wish all exclusives were just temporary like ROTR instead of permanent ones (Shenmue, FF VII, SF V, Bayonetta 2, etc.)

 

[Kayant]

Why not? Because you believe Sony or Nintendo funded those titles? I'm sure ROTR got funds from MS

Because ROTR was already being made without MS's "funds" and was a multi plat when first formally revealed at E3. There is nothing that supports them needing help for the title to be made unlike with Bayonetta 2 which wasn't coming out at all and SFV which had it's development accelerated.

 

[Bastables]

But we are in a business where hardware sales isn't the leading driver of revenues, software and services are, and increasingly so.

Looks to me that MS is on a clear path to making the barrier to entry (purchasing a console) an optional one.

I don't think it means they intend to leave the console space. Rather they want to offer products and services to gamers regardless of where they choose to play.

And this has resulted in revenues falling as per MS own quarterly report.

 

[Conduit]

Why not? Because you believe Sony or Nintendo funded those titles? I'm sure ROTR got funds from MS.

And what about Shenmue? A title which is also supossed to be released on PC, but Sony kept the console exclusive.

SFV and Bloodborne ARE NOT the same thing like ROTR.

 

[MilkyJoe]

And this has resulted in revenues falling as per MS own quarterly report.

You think if a company doesn't make more revenue than it did in the same quarter of the previous year, it is going out of business?

 

[intheinbetween]

Because ROTR was already being made without MS's "funds" and was a multi plat when first formally revealed at E3. There is nothing that supports them needing help for the title to be made unlike with Bayonetta 2 which wasn't coming out at all and SFV which had it's development accelerated.

I didn't say the funds were necessary. To me it seems like, MS saw the game, liked it a lot so they offered a sum of money to S-E to get the exclusive for XB1 and Windows Store, S-E considered the offer and accepted it, so they recoup investment by allowing a 1 year exclusiveness to MS.

Where's the problem with that? It's just business, the same business Sony, MS, Sega and Nintendo (even VR platforms currently) have been doing for years.

 

[Bits N Pieces]

So after a run of little stories you're down to dank memes.

Yeah xbox rise up with the power of Mattrick.........

Little stories? What you mean posts on a message board?

Are you OK, dude?

 

[Welfare]

Edit, just looking back as well if PS sold 80 million PS3 in 9 years, that's 8.9 million a year or 22.25 million in 2.5 years. Xbone is a little over 2.5 years and at 21 million units sold.

Is xbox doing really bad or is PS4 doing unfathomably well?

The problem is that the Xbox One should be doing more than that right now. It should've been the market leader in the US and UK and still trying to make progress in mainland Europe and Asia, but even if the system is still tracking ahead of the Xbox 360, it has lost its market leader status in the US and UK, has lost even more relevance in Asia (kinda went downhill mid 360 life cycle) and has been stagnant in mainland Europe at best.

Off the success of the 360, the Xbox One should be doing closer to PS4 worldwide numbers. Not beating it, but closer.

 

[MilkyJoe]

The problem is that the Xbox One should be doing more than that right now. It should've been the market leader in the US and UK and still trying to make progress in mainland Europe and Asia, but even if the system is still tracking ahead of the Xbox 360, it has lost its market leader status in the US and UK, has lost even more relevance in Asia (kinda went downhill mid 360 life cycle) and has been stagnant in mainland Europe at best.

Off the success of the 360, the Xbox One should be doing closer to PS4 worldwide numbers. Not beating it, but closer.

But the problem is it's a bit of a turd, so to be fair, it's really not done to bad.

 

[intheinbetween]

SFV and Bloodborne ARE NOT the same thing like ROTR.

I didn't mention Bloodborne, I know (I own it) it's a Sony Japan title developed by From Software. But what's so differnt about SF V? Capcom says they didn't have enough funds to develop the game, so instead of reaching other publishers, or even asking for investment to MS and Nintendo, they went all the way with Sony? I'm sorry, but I feel in worse situation because XB1 owners can't play the game, and apparently they won't be able to play it.

 

[wapplew]

Not really.....sony announced their ps4 almost a year before it came out and they also didn't even have a box to show off

ms now have a year to get people used to the play anywhere titles and tweak the user experience on the xbox to be more pc and xbox together instead of separate.

if they do it right they really have a great chance to turn around the brand.

Fall 2017 could be a lot different situation in gaming market.
Scorpio not only compete against reduced price Neo, it have to compete with NX too, NX could be the new hotness and eat up a lot of console market.
By then, the only thing make Scorpio special is the power, sure hardcore Xbox fans will buy it regardless and maybe people who want best performance multiplat too. But the mass market got a lot more options, they could've spend those money intended for Scorpio before it launch.

I guess it doesn't matter since many have said, console sale is not important for MS.

 

[Kayant]

I didn't say the funds were necessary. To me it seems like, MS saw the game, liked it a lot so they offered a sum of money to S-E to get the exclusive for XB1 and Windows Store, S-E considered the offer and accepted it, so they recoup investment by allowing a 1 year exclusiveness to MS.

Where's the problem with that? It's just business, the same business Sony, MS, Sega and Nintendo (even VR platforms currently) have been doing for years.

There's nothing wrong with that like you said it's business the reply was because the question was about SE/CD needing funds to develop ROTR which they didn't based on what we know.

 

[Primethius]

Please, ellaborate instead of finishing your post like that.

ROTR got funding for temporary exclusiveness, what's the problem with that? Again, I don't think this isn't any new, this happened and will happen again, and not only because of MS.

I wish all exclusives were just temporary like ROTR instead of permanent ones (Shenmue, FF VII, SF V, Bayonetta 2, etc.)

Those are pretty much different scenarios.

The initial post said that MS paid to keep games off the competitors platform. That's the ROTR scenario. MS paid SE money to keep it off of PC for a bit and PS4 for a year. They did not fund the game. Had they actually funded it, it would not come out on PS4. They might have helped with marketing, bundling, etc but actual funding of the development of the game? Nope.

SFV, Bayo 2 are different scenarios for obvious reasons with that in mind. Is Bayo 2 ever going to come out on a non-Nintendo platform? Nope.

And when you understand that difference, then you'll see why there is a distinction between paying to keep something off anothers platform vs funding a game. They both require two different scenarios to even begin.

Nintendo did not pay Platinum to keep Bayonetta 2 off other platforms. MS did to keep ROTR XB1 exclusive for a bit.

 

[LordRaptor]

You think if a company doesn't make more revenue than it did in the same quarter of the previous year, it is going out of business?

Making less money when selling more product is generally accepted as an unsustainable business.

 

[twobear]

Those are pretty much different scenarios.

The initial post said that MS paid to keep games off the competitors platform. That's the ROTR scenario. MS paid SE money to keep it off of PC for a bit and PS4 for a year. They did not fund the game. Had they actually funded it, it would not come out on PS4. They might have helped with marketing, bundling, etc but actual funding of the development of the game? Nope.

SFV, Bayo 2 are different scenarios for obvious reasons with that in mind. Is Bayo 2 ever going to come out on a non-Nintendo platform? Nope.

And when you understand that difference, then you'll see why there is a distinction between paying to keep something off anothers platform vs funding a game. They both require two different scenarios to even begin.

Nintendo did not pay Platinum to keep Bayonetta 2 off other platforms. MS did to keep ROTR XB1 exclusive for a bit.

So what you're saying is that if Sony had paid for SFV to exist, it wouldn't have come to PC? 🤔

 

[MilkyJoe]

Making less money when selling more product is generally accepted as an unsustainable business.

Microsoft points to a decline in consoles sold and a lower average price for the Xbox One as the big reason

So they have to adapt and do something about it...

 

[semiconscious]

Going to be an exciting couple of years ahead and even more exciting to see how they position the games, hardware and brand together.

Time for Phil and his team to vanquish the spectre of Mattrick for good.

yep. i can almost see the 'hang on to your hats!' sign flashing from here ...

 

[Conduit]

I didn't mention Bloodborne, I know (I own it) it's a Sony Japan title developed by From Software. But what's so differnt about SF V? Capcom says they didn't have enough funds to develop the game, so instead of reaching other publishers, or even asking for investment to MS and Nintendo, they went all the way with Sony? I'm sorry, but I feel in worse situation because XB1 owners can't play the game, and apparently they won't be able to play it.

SFV wasn't in development. Capcom didn't had money for it. So, they asked for help. On other side, ROTR was in development for quite some time and it was a multiplatform title before MS came in.

 

[intheinbetween]

Those are pretty much different scenarios.

The initial post said that MS paid to keep games off the competitors platform. That's the ROTR scenario. MS paid SE money to keep it off of PC for a bit and PS4 for a year. They did not fund the game. Had they actually funded it, it would not come out on PS4. They might have helped with marketing, bundling, etc but actual funding of the development of the game? Nope.

SFV, Bayo 2 are different scenarios for obvious reasons with that in mind. Is Bayo 2 ever going to come out on a non-Nintendo platform? Nope.

And when you understand that difference, then you'll see why there is a distinction between paying to keep something off anothers platform vs funding a game. They both require two different scenarios to even begin.

Nintendo did not pay Platinum to keep Bayonetta 2 off other platforms. MS did to keep ROTR XB1 exclusive for a bit.

MS, Sony or Nintendo pay to keep exclusiveness to their platforms, it doesn't matter the end of it, it's business. They pay a sum of money not to "help" the studio, or developers, they do it to get the "product" as one of their exclusives, and that means keeping it away from competition, which is right.

Sony paid for No Man's Sky, SF V, Shenmue, none of those titles will be released in other console platforms, and that's because they paid for it.

 

[Primethius]

So what you're saying is that if Sony had paid for SFV to exist, it wouldn't have come to PC? ��

I mean, if you want to ignore the mountains of articles detailing why the PC version of SFV exists and why Sony let it happen, be my guest.

Try not to let it stop you from understanding my point though.

MS, Sony or Nintendo pay to keep exclusiveness to their platforms, it doesn't matter the end of it, it's business. They pay a sum of money not to "help" the studio, or developers, they do it to get the "product" as one of their exclusives, and that means keeping it away from competition, which is right.

Sony paid for No Man's Sky, SF V, Shenmue, none of those titles will be released in other console platforms, and that's because they paid for it.

I don't really think you understand why you are even arguing with me. This was the quote:

"or paying devs money so they don't launch their games on competing platforms"

That applies to ROTR. Not SFV/Bayo 2. I tried to be very specific with what I said for a reason.

 

[OléGunner]

I don't feel like I'm being too harsh. They had the cash to do it, and it was a decent enough gamble to make (PCXL thought otherwise though), they just haven't gotten the traction they needed. I'm not sure what other ways you could break into the console gaming market these days besides throwing buckets of cash at it...

The crazy but necessary amount of money thrown about by MS to enter the console space is not the only key to them not dominating as is.

Imo MS is waaaay to obsessed with America and the U.K., thinking things like Fifa bundles will make their brand relevant everywhere else. Sony have been smart building a legacy that treats many global markets respectfully and fairly with localisation efforts and concentrated regional marketing etc over 20+ years.

Kids in the UAE bitch Xbone doesn't even have Arabic language settings which is insane in this day and age!
So money wasnt a guaranteed key to ww success but poor globalised efforts for xb1.

Having said all that, I still believe they made some fantastic inroads ww during 360 days, but their hubris caught them with their pants down in 2013.

I'm talking about the UK only.

That's still a pipe dream my friend.

 

[cantona222]

Phil Spencer is doing his best. I really hope that his time as head of Xbox ends up as a success.

 

[intheinbetween]

I

I don't really think you understand why you are even arguing with me. This was the quote:

"or paying devs money so they don't launch their games on competing platforms"
.

I do understand your point, but again, for me it's just another temporary exclusive, in the same way as No Man's Sky or Shenmue (which shouldn't need funds from Sony, Nintendo or MS, just take a look at its KS), which are worse because they are permanent exclusives.

And as I said before, it's the same situation, Sony paid to avoid those games on competing platforms.

 

[Celine]

Edit, just looking back as well if PS sold 80 million PS3 in 9 years, that's 8.9 million a year or 22.25 million in 2.5 years. Xbone is a little over 2.5 years and at 21 million units sold.

Is xbox doing really bad or is PS4 doing unfathomably well?

We will see in the end if Microsoft will ever announce XBO LTD.
Many don't know that Xbox 360 sold more than half its LTD in US from 2010 and forward.
Both PS3 and 360 were late bloomers.

PS4 is doing currently very well.

EDIT:
BTW PS3 hit 80 million worldwide (shipment) in about 7 years while Xbox 360 did it in about 8 years therefore the yearly average are higher (respectively 11.4M and 10.0M)

 

[Trup1aya]

Making less money when selling more product is generally accepted as an unsustainable business.

But going out of business isn't the only option.

Most companies try to find a way to make more money first.

 

[Primethius]

I do understand your point, but again, for me it's just another temporary exclusive, in the same way as No Man's Sky or Shenmue (which shouldn't need funds from Sony, Nintendo or MS, just take a look at its KS), which are worse because they are permanent exclusives.

And as I said before, it's the same situation, Sony paid to avoid those games on competing platforms.

Sorry, the end result might be somewhat similar, but the methods, the intention and how it's executed are all too vastly different for me to brush them under a singular umbrella.

ROTR was a game that was multiplatform, which was paid by MS to be timed exclusive. This fits the initial quote I responded too. I'm not talking about end results or overarching statements about gaming as a whole. I'm not saying any of that.

But what MS did with ROTR is intrinsically different then what has happened with the other games you cited.

 

[MilkyJoe]

We will see in the end if Microsoft will ever announce XBO LTD.
Many don't know that Xbox 360 sold more than half its LTD in US from 2010 and forward.
Both PS3 and 360 were late bloomers.

PS4 is doing currently very well.

EDIT:
BTW PS3 hit 80 million worldwide (shipment) in about 7 years while Xbox 360 did it in about 8 years therefore the yearly average are higher (respectively 11.4M and 10.0M)

I can see them lumping the sales in with Scorpio, the same way PS4 will with the 20 million next year prediction with PS4 and Neo

But going out of business isn't the only option.

Most companies try to find a way to make more money first.

He doesn't seem to understand.

 

[Celine]

I can see them lumping the sales in with Scorpio, the same way PS4 will with the 20 million next year prediction with PS4 and Neo

To be sincere I don't think MS will ever announce XBO in any form, I hope to be wrong.

 

[wapplew]

To be sincere I don't think MS will ever announce XBO in any form, I hope to be wrong.

They will if the number is good, like elite controller.

 

[MilkyJoe]

To be sincere I don't think MS will ever announce XBO in any form, I hope to be wrong.

I fear you are right

 

[LordRaptor]

But going out of business isn't the only option.

Most companies try to find a way to make more money first.

They're only gaining those customers by subsidies that amount to losing money to acquire each one.
How do they monetise those customers further? Not just to recoup the expense in obtaining them, but to actually turn those customers profitable?
Like, what is the actual gameplan there?

Because the last time they used that exact gameplan they ended up $5 - 7 billion in the red.

 

[Kayant]

They will if the number is good, like elite controller.

Elite was just what is being manufactured not sold but chances of them doing XB1 numbers again are slim unless it's something that beats their expectations by a lot.

 

[MilkyJoe]

They're only gaining those customers by subsidies that amount to losing money to acquire each one.
How do they monetise those customers further? Not just to recoup the expense in obtaining them, but to actually turn those customers profitable?
Like, what is the actual gameplan there?

Because the last time they used that exact gameplan they ended up $5 - 7 billion in the red.

I think Microsoft know a little more about righting the tracks than you.

 

[LordRaptor]

I think Microsoft know a little more about righting the tracks than you.

And yet all available evidence points to the contrary.

 

[MilkyJoe]

And yet all available evidence points to the contrary.

Well the business model has shifted and so we will see how they get on the new path.

 

[Zedox]

Dude of the three it (MS) has sold the least amount of consoles.
Home Console sales by company
Nintendo 282.91 million
Sony >381.29 million
Microsoft 128 million *(added another 10 million to bring Xbox one to 20 million, wiki only has it at it's last reported number of 10 million).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_game_consoles


We're in a thread where Xbox divisions revenue is falling because of poorer hardware sales/profits. Waffling on about how theoretically they're ok with not being number one is pretty disingenuous. Matt's pointed out how tenuous things are for MS in the console space, how is any of this hard to understand? Unless you're being deliberately obtuse?

You're the one mewling about admitting things, now you're blithering on about catching people out in lies.

So now we're going to say MS is number #3 because of how much consoles they sold overall. Well, I see them as #2 based off of "this generation" of sales. If that's your viewpoint. That's totally fine.

Again, you literally took my words and had rebuttal for it like I said something that was inaccurate and it is not. MS can find a way to stay profitable and not be the market leader (I've stated this and I agreed with someone who stated this). I don't understand what's so hard for you to understand that statement and the comparison of it to Apple when they aren't the market leader and haven't been for some time. You want to pull out these other facts like competitors can get forced out and all that and here are companies that did, no shit they can. But at the same time, that doesn't refute my point. If you want to be right and I'm wrong, you can go ahead and have it.

You said that "Sure, but note how Atari, Amstrad and commodore pc's don't even come to mind for you." and I said "No, they did not and I have no problem admitting to it." because they didn't come to mind but how you worded it was like I was trying to take some spin on something. "Yeah you have no problem admitting to it after the fact " , that statement is stated in a way that you somehow "caught" me. You didn't catch me in anything. My comparison has been the same.

If you think what I said is disingenuous as you stated, then fine, you got it. *shrug*

 

[Dredd97]

If xbox sales remain flat or even worse, then I'll not be surprised if MS put releasing the scorpio on hold while they address 'difficult marketing conditions' and such not...

 

[Bitch Pudding]

They will if the number is good, like elite controller.

I agree. All I expect are some good old fashioned PR spins, like "Best launch of a console named after a star sign in the history of ever"... Sorry, couldn't resist.

If xbox sales remain flat or even worse, then I'll not be surprised if MS put releasing the scorpio on hold while they address 'difficult marketing conditions' and such not...

Just... no.

 

[MilkyJoe]

If xbox sales remain flat or even worse, then I'll not be surprised if MS put releasing the scorpio on hold while they address 'difficult marketing conditions' and such not...

Oh bless...

 

[gamz]

If xbox sales remain flat or even worse, then I'll not be surprised if MS put releasing the scorpio on hold while they address 'difficult marketing conditions' and such not...

Lol

 

[Dredd97]

I agree. All I expect are some good old fashioned PR spins, like "Best launch of a console named after a star sign in the history of ever"... Sorry, couldn't resist.



Just... no.

Oh bless...

Lol

so your saying that if xbox sales take a nose dive MS will still release a rather expensive console to halt the decline...?

lol...

 

[MilkyJoe]

so your saying that if xbox sales take a nose dive MS will still release a rather expensive console to halt the decline...?

lol...

Anyone want to take this?

 

[Dredd97]

Anyone want to take this?

hey i posed a question, i never said it would actually happen, i put it out there..

after all MS shuttered their mobile business for similar reasons... they'll not keep xbox going if it continues to make losses year after year...

 

[gamz]

hey i posed a question, i never said it would actually happen, i put it out there..

after all MS shuttered their mobile business for similar reasons... they'll not keep xbox going if it continues to make losses year after year...

Mobile and Xbox aren't comparable. Like at all.

Xbox would have to fall off the face of the earth for your proposed situation to become reality.

 

[MilkyJoe]

hey i posed a question, i never said it would actually happen, i put it out there..

after all MS shuttered their mobile business for similar reasons... they'll not keep xbox going if it continues to make losses year after year...

9% down does not mean a loss it means 9% down on last year.

This time last year

Microsoft reported its results for the fourth quarter of its 2015 financial year, and while the company made a gargantuan loss, Xbox and the division it sits in made a tidy profit.

Xbox, though, appears to be doing well enough to keep the bailiffs from the door. Total Xbox revenue grew 27 per cent based on "strong" growth in consoles, Xbox Live transactions and first party games, Microsoft said.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-07-22-hows-xbox-doing

 

[Future PhaZe]

i really don't think the s model would have enticed people that weren't already interested in the xbox one to jump the fence, so they did the right thing with trying to create some buzz with scorpio reveal

they've got some good stuff coming...they've just gotta take these body blows until the hardware relaunch

 

[MilkyJoe]

i really don't think the s model would have enticed people that weren't already interested in the xbox one to jump the fence, so they did the right thing with trying to create some buzz with scorpio reveal

they've got some good stuff coming...they've just gotta take these body blows until the hardware relaunch

Aye, show the end game then weather the storm.

 

[Sydle]

What does that even mean? I'm sure Apple would say the same, if you replaced "Windows" with "Apple stuff." If anything, it sounds like he's saying he wants MS to be more like Apple — building their own hardware to put their best foot forward. Is he saying he wants Dell to start making Surfaces too or something? What exactly are MS doing differently from Apple here?

Well, MS makes the majority of their revenue from software and services. Apple makes their revenue mostly from hardware sales.

MS sells licenses of Windows to manufacturers. Apple keeps their OS exclusive to their own hardware. If MS wanted to be more like Apple then they'd make their OS and services more exclusive to their hardware.

No, they want Dell and other manufacturers to showcase how Microsoft's one Windows OS works on many different device forms. Nadella's stressed multiple times that they have just one Windows and that the experience of the software and services built for Windows can work across all those screens. It doesn't take a big leap to see how Universal Windows Apps (software and services) fits with this strategy.

I don't believe Dell makes a 2-in-1 convertible like the Surface Pro, but I think Lenovo and HP do. They're doing the same with Continuum on mobile phones, where I think HP and another manufacturer are making their own Windows Phone.

Pretty sure Apple know the software is at least as important as the hardware if not more so, because it's the software that causes people to choose the hardware. Apple's hardware is very nice, to be sure, but it's generally not the very best, at least when it comes to specs and such. The software is the main attraction, and Apple have always known this; keynotes have always been mostly software-focused, and oh, one more thing, we refreshed the hardware again so it's faster again.

Pretty sure Apple's main revenue stream depends upon people buying more hardware.

In any case, Nadella has said many times that getting more active and revenue-generating Microsoft accounts is what's important, and he believes that enabling mobility of experiences across every screen is their differentiator, which is what has driven the whole Universal Windows Platform.

Comparing Surface to iPad makes far more sense than comparing Surface to XBox, and you're the one who brought up Surface in the first place. ;p

The comparison to iPad makes no sense given the context in which I brought it up. My question was is it going to be held to the same standards Nadella holds on all their other devices in showcasing innovative uses of Windows and creating a category-defining product? We'll have to wait and see, but I already said it's hard to imagine what they'll do. Maybe it's an exception, or maybe it's going to be something a little different.

C'mon now. You know full well he was talking explicitly about mobile when he talked about how important gaming was and how the XBox brand may be useful to them going forward. Let's not go putting words in to the man's mouth. He wasn't reaffirming a commitment to consoles, he was saying he thought these game devs may help him gain some traction in the very important mobile space, where Surface sits, speaking of.

No he wasn't, he's clarified several times when he says mobile he means mobility of the experience.

When we talk about Mobile-First, we are talking about the mobility of the experience. - Link

He's also explicitly said that he means to use Xbox first-party and Live in one integrated play across Windows devices including consoles, PC, tablet, phone, HoloLens, and other devices. See here:

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

 

[LordRaptor]

They're transitioning Xbox to a service brand, aligning it closer to the models of their other services.

Which is an argument for dropping the Xbox hardware division, not maintaining it, and adopting something akin to the 3DO model where you can buy a Panasonic Xbox, a Samsung Xbox, well, maybe not a Sony Xbox, but...

 

[Peterc]

Don't worry, MS knows this already. They probably don't release a next xbox(not upgrade). They want to focus on hololens and multiplatform. Thats why they maybe release a pc xbox instead that can run games on tv with some dongle. Much better as all consoles we have today. Why do we still need a xbox? It's doing nothing else as ps4. This looks me logical step for them to leave xbox as we know it and make this global.