And if Sony puts out all it's game on PC then no I wouldn't buy their console. I would stick to PC.
So yes they would get my money for the game but that doesn't mean that I'll keep buying games from them.
Well your argument was that if they are exclusive, you'll buy them, but if they are on PC, you'll just buy them on PC. So if they had a store with exclusives, the effect would be basically the same, no?
Sony is said to be leasing xstream from microsoft, so probably you'll be able to play all those games with a subscription and good internet via PC. So this isn't just theoretical, if playing those exclusives is your sole reason for having the console, that may be redundant soon.
Now, if we exclude the people who don't own or play a PC and who would buy a console regardless, you got to consider all others are potential gamers who won't be regulars on your ecosystem. And these are more often than not actual gamers who spend a lot more money than casuals who will often just buy few games here and there.
Maybe. It's hard to say who buys the most games, but this could be a factor. However, if you have two competing systems to buy games on, you might buy less games on the one platform.
Also we got to consider the image of the console with more games. In a direct competition between two consoles, the reasons why people will buy one console over the other are the differences between them and exclusives and game library are the differences not 3rd party games that are present on both.
IDK if this is entirely true. There are differences in the sales methods/services, the controllers and third-party accessories, and the graphics power/hardware itself. More of things you don't actually want isn't useful either, nor do all games on PC, end up on playstation (being easier to port to xbox). What matters to the gamer at the end of the day, is if their platform has the games they WANT, in the format they like to use (hardware, software interface, service model)
Actually no. I don't agree. Sony has just about as many services as MS. Sony has PS+ and PSNow. The difference is that MS are focusing way more on these services than Sony.
And what is the focus with something like Game pass?
It's about quantity of games. Looks at the ads and how they are promoting it. It's all about quantity of games. So push games through the service. Quality reality doesn't seem to be the priority. We've seen it with 3 of the last 4 major games that they released. The unfinished, flawed or buggy games with missing basic features. Games like SoT, SoD2 or Crackdown 3.
Can't say I've played any of those. I think though Xbox studios, and all it's subsidary studios have released more games than that recently.
You literally just said above, that the consumer wants the platform with more games. Why does this suddenly not apply to a subscription service? And why does it impact quality, in your mind? Surely, having BETTER games in a subscription service, that people want to play, is more important than simply having LOTS. MSFT doesn't just push how many, it pushes it's best titles.
Game pass is a solid reason for choosing xbox, if you want a console.
Nintendo doesn't depend on exclusives? Then why don't you think they put their games on other platforms?
Well, you might be right, in that nintendo, because some of their releases (unlike say, switch) haven't had as many crossplatform releases. Possibly streaming will kill some of their moat in terms of portable gaming too. But generally they are relied quite a bit on hardware innovation.
If nintendo wasn't playing third player, and had a history of crossplatform support, I doubt they'd rely as heavily on their own IP.
Do you have a link for that? Can you show me when gaming actually ever made a profit for MS?
Personally I don't think the XB division ever made a profit for MS but if you have proof showing the opposite please post it. (And we are talking about profit not revenue)
I can see your angle here. They buy quite a few studios every year. Perhaps it's a loss investment scenario like netflix. They had 10b revenue last year, but maybe they are spending all of that to grow the business. Still it's a solid business, and if they needed to, they could stop doing that.
You can't say netflix is failing because it's borrowing money. Everyone still generally sees them as succeeding, but they are investing so that their competitors can't beat them.
Same deal with MSFT. If their revenue continues to grow at recent rates, and MSFT continues to reinvest in gaming houses, they'll be well ahead of the competition in terms of profits later on.
https://www.geekwire.com/2018/micro...0b-gaming-year-compares-rivals-sony-nintendo/
One moment you talk about people who only play consoles and now here you are talking about people who are also on PC? So if they are on PC, why do they need to buy a XB1 already?
Almost all XB1 games are on PC. It's been years since there was a real XB1 exclusive.
Well there are some exclusives. Xbox has never been soaked in exclusives TBH, even going back to the original xbox. But the selling point here isn't just playing on PC, xbox games. It's playing on any device, xbox game pass games. Not just stream from your device, or stream to specific devices ala playstation. It's unbound, or at least will be.
I think eventually playstation will go a similar way, with their sub service if game streaming is successful.
Sorry what? Can you tell me how Horizon ZD, The Witcher, Fallout or even Red Dead or GTA are linear and the same?? Have you played and finished these games?
I didn't say those games specifically are the same. There is a lot of overlap between console style AAA's tho. Special vision/ability button. Cutscenes leading down a linear plot on a central arc.
It's not like these sorts of games have several wildly different endings, generally speaking (not talking about specific examples). The production values and investment tend to lead away from significant player choice. Open world is a little different, but the main story beat arcs in say GTA V, are the same regardless of what side stuff you do. This is different from say pillars of eternity 2, or dragon age origins, where the main story has multiple endings, despite some linearity.
One might argue that's illusory, but I like the illusion. I think you could say red dead is a bit different in this regard, but often AAA's are primarily cinematic, and use similar mechanisms and gameplay style mix (elements of RPG, third person, lots of cutscenes, action driven etc).
This certainly doesn't apply every AAA, but look at the recent dragon age; it's more like other AAA console games, and less like it's former self. There's a certain convergence on what sells, as with say, blockbuster movies, a certain mix of popular ingredients, and this makes them FAR less varied, than AA's, or indies.
A console-only gamer who will want to buy a console will often look at game library and move toward the console which offers the most games. Some will go towards the one which is more popular, and throughout console history the consoles that sold the best are the ones with the more number of games and exclusives. That's just facts through history.
IDK if that's sound logic. I think console buyers will be attracted to numerous factors. In terms of games, they might prefer the console which has the most titles of their particular genre liking. And in particular, for the best price. If one liked say, rpgs of a non-japanese flare, xbox might be a solid choice. Likewise if they preferred japanese style rpgs, playstation might be a solid choice. Remember, of cross platform titles, not everything hits both consoles. There is more cross compatibility between xbox and pc, and so it's cheaper to develop an xbox title in addition to your PC title, than to do a playstation port as well.
For a huge game, this might not matter, but for indies and AA's, it does.
The other reason people buy consoles, is as a media centre. An xbox makes a rather handy media center, with the bonus of more storage than smart tv's typically have, and gaming. So does a PS pro.
Almost no one is going to use a PC as a media centre, and TV native offerings are fairy anaemic. If you have even a passing interest in gaming, it's a worthy investment, particularly because the consoles themselves are sold with no real margin, and often on special.
There's also the issue of WHICH exclusives if you were to factor that. The offerings are not identical in play style, and most players have preferences. Simply having 'more' exclusives, is useless if you don't like any of them, or most of them. One reason Nintendo has never appealed to me; less crossplatform, and the exclusives are barely interesting to me.
For me, PS is a similar deal. There are about maybe two game IPs I'd actually play that are exclusive. And there are similar titles elsewhere anyway. PS is loaded with jrpg style games which is great for some, but never tickled my fancy. I played like one final fantasy, and they have gotten pretty generic since (not that these are exclusive any more).
By your logic, why wouldn't MS release their games on PS4 or switch? Why are they going with these timed exclusives? Why aren't Nintendo or every company put their games only on their console?
They are, they are releasing minecraft games on switch. More coming I suspect. PS, I doubt. But MSFT is leasing them xstream, so they are hardly playing anticompetitive.
Why does MS fans talk about exclusives when it comes to comparison vs Stadia but don't want to talk about it when it comes on consoles?
IDK. I don't think that'll be the primary POD. I think the sales model and streaming quality will be, as well as the in built audience for xbox, and the difference in hardware costs (afaik, xbox only needs a controller, whereas stadia requires a controller with inbuilt SoC). How either do remains to be seen, and will probably be mostly down to marketing.
Err, Halo, Forza, Gears, Uncharted, Mario Kart, Last of us, GT, Mario, Zelda, MLB The Show, God of War...
Horizon Zero Dawn is an example of a studio given creative freedom and being allowed to make the game they want to make. It's not going to be sequels after sequels.
All the studios under xbox studios have significant creative freedom. I don't think 'Outer worlds' or 'wasteland 3' are going to be hampered or altered in any way, nor any future titles from inxile or obsidian.
What I am saying though, is that cross-platform IPs are very strong. It's capitalism really, if you have a game that 100% of sit down gamers can buy, as opposed to 40% of sitdown gamers can buy, that's more sales. If exclusives were the most robust, economically, then all games would be exclusive, as opposed to the majority of AAA, AA being cross-platform to some degree.
It might make sense to the console makers, in terms of giving their platform 'flavour' versus the competition consoles, but I think saying it offers developers the most freedom is misleading. Crossplatform developers have a lot of freedom, including those under the xbox studios brand.
IDK about sony, or their contracts, but first party distributors often have fairly restrictive contracts. If the makers of horizon zero dawn wanted to make say, a RTS strategy game, and then a complicated tactical top down RPG, and leave off another true sucessor for 5 years, they probably couldn't.
If obsidian wanted to do the same, or inxile, I bet they could, at least to a greater degree. I don't think that's freedom the exclusive thing, I think it comes with a tonne of expectations. There are distinct expectations with such a contract. Whereas xbox studios contracts are often fairly open, so long as money is made, they have a lot of license. To me, as an outsider (i'm not a dev), this appears to be more freedom.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram