PlayStation Network's outage over the weekend should serve as a reminder to Microsoft and Xbox on what can happen if you "put all your eggs into o...

[Windows Central]

All networks have downtime, but Microsoft is historically uniquely keen to rely on other networks to reach customers. PSN's prolific downtime this weekend is exactly why having your own ecosystem is important.

PlayStation Network's outage over the weekend should serve as a reminder to Microsoft and Xbox on what can happen if you "put all your eggs into o... : Read more

 

[fatpunkslim]

PSN being down is perhaps ironically as much as an issue for PlayStation as it is for Xbox

Honestly, even PlayStation's problems are becoming Xbox problems with you! We've reached a point where it's really laughable! Maybe take some vitamin D, I don't know!

PlayStation is terrible with everything related to OS, online services, and data security, it's nothing new, it's all there is to remember! The rest is just speculation, extrapolation, and funny associations of ideas, even if I understand where you're coming from.
What's even funnier is Sony's response and the 5 free days of PS+, it shows how stingy they are. Their PS+ service is already too expensive for what it is, and that's all they could come up with: 5 little days, what a joke! Based on what I'm reading on Reddit, PS fans don't seem very happy.

put all your eggs into one basket

If there's one thing Xbox doesn't do, it's putting all its eggs in one basket. Among all the manufacturers, it's the one with the most diversified strategy and the one that has put the most eggs in several different baskets. In the cloud basket, the mobile basket, the console basket, the Game Pass basket, the multiplatform basket, the portable consoles basket, and the exclusive games basket. Unlike PlayStation, which has practically put all its eggs in the consoles and exclusive games baskets, but it's starting to diversify its eggs because this strategy is clearly unsatisfactory.

It's only in your mind that Xbox doesn't put eggs in the exclusive games basket and the consoles basket. It seems that putting some eggs in the multiplatform basket necessarily means removing them from the consoles and exclusive games baskets.

As proof, among many others, is the entire marketing campaign that Xbox is doing around Avowed, an exclusive game. Why invest so much in an exclusive game if it's not part of their strategy? Aren't they putting eggs in the exclusive games basket this way?

Maybe Jez would be more reassured if MS put all its eggs in the exclusive games and consoles baskets, not putting any in the multiplatform basket. But undoubtedly, his twisted mind would still find something to complain about there too?

 

[solracson]

This has to be the dumbest perpsective I've ever read. Talk about the xbox hate bandwagon and a ps troll if I ever did see one. So sad you actually call yourself a gaming journalist. Pathetic.

 

[fjtorres5591]

Click.Bait.

But as long as we're here:
MS puts their games on XBOX, which is getting a new generation.
STEAM.
Battle.net.
Windows store.
Also Macintosh:

• Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020)
• Forza Horizon 4 and Forza Horizon 5
• Ori and the Blind Forest and Ori and the Will of the Wisps
• Gears 5
• Sea of Thieves
• State of Decay 2

IOS
ANDROID

They make sure they run on STEAM OS, which means LINUX.

Oh, and they put all *their* new games on cloud, which means everywherr there is good broadband, bluetooth, and a browser.

So yeah, MS putting 5 games on Sony is putting all their eggs in one basket.
Riiigghhttt...

Funny how no mention is made of EA (75% from PSN), UBISOFT, TAKE TWO, SQUARE ENIX, et al.

Or, Sony itself.

Or the biggest single basket vendor, NINTENDO.

Rather Orwellian that suddenly single channel distribution is supposed to be safer than multichannel. Also, how easily the illogical leap from grabbing easy money from a competitor with vintage games to assuming the sky is falling despite all the *legally actionable* reassurances that dedicated hardware will remain a part of the ecosystem.

One last time: MS cannot get out of the console business any time soon because two thirds of Game Pass subscribers come via console. Because without consoles (and Series S in particular) they can't get third parties to develop games they can reliably stream. Because without console sales (even if "only" 30% of leading edge living room boxes) to defray the development costs of their game streaming server blades cloud streaming as a business collapses.

Because, golly gee, 40M customers paying $10-20 a month for services plus buying games, DLC, and microtrasactions plus generating live service fees from free to play, is somehow not a viable business?

I know economic literacy isn't a requirement to be a journalist (proven daily by the old "mainstream" media opinion peddlers) much less for online punditry but can't we at least stay within range of rationality?

Yes, it is Microsoft that runs XBOX. And yes, they are "eeeevile!"
And yes, they are overturning the status quo of the ossified, stagnant console business. Boo hoo. New rules. New ways to measure success.

Tough.
The 90's ended a generation ago.

Console Gaming today competes with video streaming, online free to play, cheap ebooks, internet radio, and, oh yes, living life. All on the same budget.

There is serious cognitive dissonance in claiming that expanding distribution of your product and increasing the size and number of your revenue streams is "putting all the eggs in one basket."

That only computes if the real fear that XBOX might be headed towards Windows level domination. Is that it? Well forget it. Nintendo and Sony brand loyalty will limit MS console domination. They'll get their money in other ways.

Or is that the fear? That XBOX will prosper? Not good for clickbait FUD?
Jeeze...

 

[fjtorres5591]

Oh, about Sony's network: they don't own many, if any.

Like Walmart, they are data center customers, not operators.
So the Sony "network" is a cost center, not a profit center.
And we all know that in the business world cost centers are minimized and run as cheaply as possible.

MS on the other hand, is a hyperscaler in data centers, second only to AMAZON's AWS and well ahead of Google, ORACLE, FACEBOOK, IBM, and a couple hundred other players none of which is Sony.

Now XBOX isn't invulnerable. Way back in the early days of digital game distribution (2007) they had an 11 day outage. But even then, offline gaming was not impacted because going back to the OG XBOX, MS established the concept of the HOME XBOX. And all digital games are locked to the user account and default-authenticated to the designated HOME CONSOLE so outages, typically only hours because their datacenters are *profit* centers, while a pain do not stop you from playing *owned* games.

Sony is different.
And if Sony does explain what happened, it may very well be that they don't really know. It's not their responsibility, but of their data center contractor.

Different business models.
So what happens with Sony, stays with Sony.

So all we'll likely get is rumors (fired employee revenge, network hack, whatever) or a non-apology apology from PR flacks. No lessons to be learned from this.

 

[d0x]

Jezz sometimes you have the most out there takes..

I don't think MS really cares about the edge market share do you? They aren't exactly hurting for cash over there and that's not the only issue with the take I have but.. well it's foundation to the entire argument

 

[fjtorres5591]

Jezz sometimes you have the most out there takes..

I don't think MS really cares about the edge market share do you? They aren't exactly hurting for cash over there and that's not the only issue with the take I have but.. well it's foundation to the entire argument

It isn't.

And in today's gaming market, 2025 (not 2001) empty hardware market share no more matters than in video, audio, or ebooks.

Digital media is about *access*.
Access to content is what consumers care and access to consumers' money is what producers (should) care about. Fretting over console hardware sales is like the multinational corporate publishers limiting ebook sales (70% margin) in favor of print books (25% margin) because the lower retail price "devalues" books. Long story there for another day. (let's just say they bragged about 1% revenue growth in an age of 2% inflation. Or 9%.) It's retrograde thinking.

Consoles are sold to generate income, right?

Well, for now, the relevant fact is Sony sells consoles but the people that buy them aren't buying *their* games. The consoles themselves have either minimal or negative profit margin. Which is how an operation selling $20B total (2023) ended up with $1.4B net profit. 7% margin. Down to 5% in 2024. Still dropping in FY25.

The dirty secret of retail is that some customers, you don't want.
But Sony and their apologists prefer bragging rights to actual profits.

Real world numbers that matter is that 70% of gamer engagement on their boxes is on live service games and close to 90% (at a minimum) on third party games. Including Microsoft owned games. So Sony brags, while others rake it in.

BTW, even if XBOX gamers were equally extreme third-party game consumers (they clearly aren't because a good portion of the live action and time sink games on XBOX belong to Microsoft) they still pay for the ultimate live service game, GAME PASS that was recently credibly reported to have brought in $1B in profit. In one quarter. (Thank COD and INDY.) Which is to say that GAME PASS ALONE OUTEARNS PLAYSTATION. Again, that is net, after the cost of bringing in games and running the system. So yes, 38M (a number that recently has come under attack as an undercount of at least 9M) is more valuable than 65 or 79 or whatever number Sony brags about to obscure the 6% of those consoles that bought SPIDER-MAN 2.

That is what Microsoft cares about: that two thirds of their consoles are signed up to GAME PASS. Not how many are playing RIVALS.(Which still brings in money, mind you.) Not 6% or even the 50% that Sony feared in the leaked document that Mr Corden himself verified was real in Dec 2023.

It's not the number of shoppers that show up in your store that matters but the money they give you to pay the staff, keep ownership happy, and grow your productions. Because if they don't do all three, the leadership doesn't get the millions worth of stock.

Brags vs bucks, which will keep the ecosystem flourishing?

XBOX doesn't care about those edge buyers because their business proposition is value. Customers who care about what they get for their money is what they want. Not bragging rights.