Microsoft is reportedly going to put a bunch of "exclusives" out on PS5. Is MS inevitably going third party?

The Verge has reported that in addition to Hi-Fi Rush and maybe Starfield, Microsoft is considering putting the Indiana Jones game out on PS5.

This makes a lot of sense. Xbox has lost the console war, badly, again and there doesn't seem to be a good way to turn it around. With people having large digital libraries and established friend groups online it's not nearly as easy to switch horses as it was back when Sony's PlayStation dethroned Sega and Nintendo. There is now continuity between generations that gives companies momentum. Additionally Microsoft just doesn't seem to be able to make the industry defining games that both Sony and Nintendo put out to sell their machines. Forza and Starfield didn't do much of anything in that regard, and those were the biggest arrows in Microsoft's short-term quiver.

There just isn't much that can be done to convince people who don't have an Xbox to choose one over the PlayStation 5. They've tried power with the Xbox One X (and recent price cuts.) They tried price with the Series S. They've taken their shots and come up short.

So now why not make more money from the software and at least build brand awareness for your IP? Hi-Fi Rush is acknowledged as a great game so why not sell more copies of it if it's not going to sell more boxes? A lot of people want to play Starfield on PS5 and you can make money off that. They're not going to buy an Xbox to play it. They had that chance and they rejected it.

But it raises the obvious question of why anyone WOULD buy an Xbox at this point. I have bought every generation of Xbox and I play my Series X quite a bit. Game Pass is still a compelling value for me. I have a huge digital library that I'm now pretty worried about (what happens to that if Xbox leaves the business.) Yet I don't really recommend getting an Xbox to anyone because the PS5 is just a much better machine unless you want Game Pass, and if you are enough of a gamer to want Game Pass then you've already made your decision.

Maybe Microsoft's plan is to give up on this generation, build the value of its IP, and come back with another box later. Maybe it will just keep making Xboxes because they eek out enough money to make sense and it's a great place for Game Pass. Apple makes the Apple TV even though you don't need it to watch the Apple TV service. Amazon makes fire sticks and tablets. You don't have to be the market leader to be profitable. Game consoles are more complex and expensive to develop, but maybe Microsoft just puts less money into that, slaps some on the shelf or close to it components together and lets people buy an Xbox if they want one but doesn't make that the core business.

I kind of doubt it though.

I think that if Microsoft actually does this then Xbox's days are numbered. I think services and the cloud are where Microsoft would rather compete and after closing in on 25 years in the console business Microsoft understands that it's never going to break out of third place (I guess it was briefly in second during the Wii U era if you don't count handhelds) and the juice may not be worth the squeeze. What happens to the online infrastructure and digital game libraries? They probably stick around for a reasonably long time (Microsoft will not want to alienate the most loyal fans of its IPs and franchises) but in the long run they get Zuned.

It's kind of a scary thought for a number of reasons.

On the other hand I may be wrong. Microsoft certainly has the money to stay in the fight for as long as it wants and maybe the console business makes sense for various strategic reasons even if it's not a huge money maker. Maybe I'm wrong about the economics of third place. One thing's for sure, though. If this actually happens it will change the shape of the console business and the video game market as a whole in some important ways. And it will give Sony even more of a deathgrip on the high end of the console market. Then again the console business as a whole may not last more than another decade. We're in interesting times.

I think Xbox problems have started to move beyond games, the Series was too much of the same they should have taken a leaf out of Nintendo's playbook.

@thepanzini: They tried. They just tried like a software company. Play Anywhere. Seamlessly move between PC and console. Backwards compatibility. Game streaming. Gamepass.

All of these were ways that Microsoft tried to present games as something different while integrating with the traditional console. They were Microsoft's attempt at the hybrid Switch model but done through software and streaming instead of portable hardware. It's also worth noting that Nintendo's "try something different" approach had very poor results with the Wii U. And of course, in the distant past, Virtual Boy.

It just hasn't really worked. At least not yet. And ultimately the Switch's success HAS been driven by its exclusive games. If it doesn't launch with Zelda we might have a very different story.

@bigsocrates: Nintendo was always successful in the handheld space which they leveraged for their home console. MS presented more of the same without fixing its problems, it was already destined to fail. Backwards compatibility, streaming and Game Pass don't entice people much outside the platform.

Poor localization across the EU still hasn't been address within its games and console, its gotten worse source. Physical is still very strong across Europe MS burned a lot of bridges with the Xbox One yet the Series S continues this MS push.

@thepanzini: Nintendo did have its handheld space, but Microsoft tried to move into PC (again) which is its native platform with somewhat mixed results (Game Pass on PC is still growing and is really the only growth vector so it's not a total failure; and Sony's move to put games on PC shows that Microsoft's PC port initiative wasn't a bad idea.)

You haven't really identified what they should have done differently or leveraged beyond what they tried. They attempted to play to their strengths (PC, service/subscription models, seamless transitions between platforms, streaming) and it didn't work. Should they have made their own version of the Vita?

The other issues you cite are real but they aren't a matter of failures of innovation. They're failures of execution. Not localizing well is just...poor performance. Microsoft does create physical games they just don't do a great job of it (and PS5 also launched with a digital only version, which is now the default, so I don't think that it's really fair to single out Series S there.)

Personally I think that while Microsoft has made some strategic blunders, specifically in the back half of the Matrick era when they went all in on Kinect and bungled the Xbox One launch to an almost comedic degree, most of their issues have been in execution.

I think that with Xbox One X, which was an actual good console without a lot of the problems of the Xbox One OG, if they'd had strong games on the level of Uncharted or Last of Us or God of War or Horizon: Zero Dawn they could have made up some ground.

Instead they launched with like New Super Lucky's Tale and then proceeded to produce a bunch of middling stuff for the rest of the gen and into this one. I like Microsoft exclusives more than most (Quantum Break is good gosh darn it! Forza Horizon should be seen as a tentpole franchise!) but very few of them are must play.

It's not like Sony reinvented the wheel with the PS5. They just had a more compelling lineup. And that all important momentum.

@thepanzini: The worst thing with localization is that sometimes in Microsoft's games they go with your system language and you can't select it, so you're stuck with awful machine translations unless you have an English language OS. The most memorable example to me was that a friend had game say "[news reporters] [interstellar] to start"... or what would've been in English: Press space to start

Don't know about physical being strong in Europe, at least not in Nordic countries. The bigger problem with Xbox One was that the console came out so much later to market with it due to them fucking up with Kinect (and localization related to Kinect), so most people had already bought a PS4. Nobody wants to wait a year to get a console if they're in the market for a new console.

@retris: From the leak Playstation's first party has 60-70% physical split, not just EU worldwide really.

@bigsocrates: I have no idea what they should have done differently, beyond not releasing first party games day one on GP and building hardware that doesn't loose so much money.

As we all know MS greatest weakness is games both hardware and GP attributed to this, and Xbox hasn't addressed any of its long standing problems.

@thepanzini: I think putting the first party games on Game Pass day 1 was exactly the kind of big, splashy, move you are talking about and made some sense at the time. It doesn't appear to have worked out but it was innovative and aggressive and changed things. Microsoft was willing to eat the cost when it though Game Pass might have Netflix like adoption, which it did not. But it was a big bet! Just didn't pan out.

The Series consoles being expensive to produce was, I assume, not intentional. Their hardware engineering just isn't as good as Sony's, which is unsurprising when you look at the two companies.

I do think that using proprietary memory cards for extra storage on the Series consoles was something of a self-own, in the same style as Sony's using proprietary storage on the Vita (though not as impactful) but ultimately I think MS has not been able to overcome the disaster of the Xbox One and their inability to regularly produce industry-defining games, and I don't know how they could have (besides just...making better games, which is easier said than done, especially after the studio structure was destroyed during the Matrick disaster era.)

Strategy-wise, I truly don't give a shit what the richest company in the world does, particularly after they decided they absolutely needed to lay off nearly 2,000 people. I know there are concerns based on hypothetical scenarios (PS has a virtual monopoly being the one I've seen people wring hands over), but the discourse around it is so polluted that I'm fairly disengaged with that aspect. A lot of it probably stems from the hardware being an expensive investment and the fear of losing access to a digital library built up over decades. It's understandable but litigated to death online.

Personally, I feel like top of the line consoles are becoming more inessential by the year, at least within my social and work circles. Most of my friends have fully abandoned the console space, and those that haven't are mostly Switch owners. Anytime I encounter someone who likes video games at work, it's almost always mobile or Switch as the preferred platform. The sales numbers seem good for the consoles, but it also clearly feels like they exploit the most hardcore userbase. I find my own reasons to have a PS5 or Series X are fully inertia-based, as I don't care about most of the AAA properties either company produces (God of War and Horizon Zero Dawn have been gathering cobwebs in my Steam library for years now). If the Xbox released no hardware at all for the next gen, it would probably have minimal impact in my gaming life.

All that being said, if they invest in a multiplatform strategy and don't dramatically rehaul the Xbox PC app, they're fully deranged. You can see how Epic Games Store has fared with a miserable UX.

@bigsocrates: Yeah totally day one first party or even GP itself was a bold idea.

The XB1 sold well out of the gate the issue was the second half of the generation and you could see GP wasn't having an impact on hardware, the leaked emails show Xbox was conflicted about day one first party and it impacting profitability.

The Series X has a compact design with split motherboard and vapor chamber cooling, these are all far more costly than boring black box or Sony's router. Spencer would not have design the box but definitely agreed to the ethos behind it, MS from the outset would have know their box is harder to produce with a higher component price and therefore more difficult to reduce costs for.

MS could have had another Titanfall or two if they built the Xbox 1.5 and even capitalized on the chip shortage.

@allthedinos: I don't really care about Microsoft's fortunes as a whole (and it will be fine) but as a games hobbyist and Xbox owner I'm somewhat invested in how the gaming strategy plays out. I think it will be pretty bad for gaming if Xbox gets out of the console space. Competition drives innovation and I think even more people will lose their jobs, plus the games will likely be less ambitious which doesn't matter as much but hey, it's not ideal.

You're certainly right that consoles are not where the growth is in games (especially globally) and I will further say that new hardware has made less of a case for itself than ever over the last 10+ years. The difference between a PS4 and PS5 game is often minimal if there is any, and for all the talk about how SSDs would be game changers, outside of loading times (which do matter) I haven't seen much. Spider-Man 2 did some fancy tricks via SSD but wasn't fundamentally different from Spider-Man 2018 the way that God of War 2018 was different from God of War III.

Microsoft the makers of Windows being unable to put together a slick and good app for its games store and Game Pass remains baffling. It's not like Microsoft can't make good software! It makes a lot of good software. However it may be relatively okay with selling on Steam at this point.

@thepanzini: The Series X was designed the way it was because that's the best way they could think to get the power they wanted. I'm not saying it's a good design or the right design or that Spencer wasn't responsible, I'm just saying that if they could have made it cheaper and retained the power level (which is similar to the cheaper PS5, so not impossible) they would have. They just did a poor job.

I would note that the Xbox 1.5 does exist and it's called the Xbox One X. Also they could not design the Series X around the chip shortage because when designs were being made nobody knew the shortage was coming. That was largely caused by Covid.

Series consoles also sold well out of the gate, or at least well enough to be out of stock everywhere for over a year. Early adopters and all that. Also for Xbox One MS had a big Xbox Live install base and achievement install base from Xbox 360, which helped. I will say that when my friend bought a console in February of 2014 there were Xbox Ones available but no PS4s, so at least anecdotally the Xbox One was not doing as well immediately, and then over time the Xbox 360 userbase moved more towards PS4 and things snowballed.

@bigsocrates: I think your point about the shrinking marginal benefit of new console upgrades is a good one. This is probably a tangent, but I wonder how closely previous graphical upgrades followed TV tech getting dramatically better for a couple of decades. I remember the first time I plugged a 360 into an HDTV, and it felt like the next gen was the first to really take advantage of it. There's some benefit to 4K (not enough to seek one out for most people), but 8K really feels unnecessary. Puts a lot more pressure on the console design to do something more, and I don't think Sony or Microsoft have really delivered on that front.

@allthedinos: I mean to some degree there were improvements from the 1970s to the 2000s in terms of better input methods (bye bye RF hello composite) but I think those were not the true drivers. Instead it was chip speed, the CD-Rom, the DVD, and other similar tech advances. Most PS2 games were intended for standard definition so technically would work fine on a TV set from 1978 with an RF adapter, though the PS2 could do high def too in some titles.

I think that HD TVs were a big mover for the Xbox 360 and PS3 (though remember the Wii and its SD shenanigans at the time; the biggest selling console of the generation!) and then Xbox One and PS4 could do high def better without the terrible frame rates that PS3/360 often had.

But I think in general graphical advances have slowed down, even on PC. We've just reached a level of fidelity where a little more definition or higher poly counts matter less, and those assets are much more expensive to generate too. I certainly can tell the difference between PS4 and PS5 games (especially pre PS4-pro games) but it's harder to care than it was going from Killzone 2 to The Order 1886 (at least in terms of graphics.)

People say that Arkham Knight looks better than Suicide Squad, and while part of that is art style part of it is true technical superiority (such as Knight having better water effects) and where Suicide Squad is technically better it just matters a lot less.

That's like a 9 year difference. Now compare Arkham Knight to 2005's Batman Begins or 2003's Rise of Sin Tzu and...well...

Yeah, graphical advances have slowed. Even if you want to go back 1 generation to the original Arkham Asylum the difference is huge.

For me, I doubt Xbox will go third party, but what if it's true, then I'm so going to miss the Xbox as the first-party console brand. Well, I had fond memories of loving the PlayStation and Xbox console brands in my childhood and teenhood.

To the point about how the latest consoles seeming like an incremental upgrade rather than all-new machines, I 100% agree. Usually when I get a new console I get pretty excited about it. When I got a Series S, I was weirdly unexcited. Then when I fired it up I came to the stark realization that "huh, this is just an Xbox One with bigger performance numbers and an SSD" and was immediately disappointed. It's such a soulless console. There's no personality to it at all. The 360's blades were fun and colourful, but even later versions of their UI at least had something interesting about them. That's gone from modern Xbox. The Series UI is yet another boring Netflix-like grid of squares with images. Within a few days of buying the thing I regretted it. When I thought about selling it a few months later I didn't bother because most of the local classifieds were filled with people trying to offload their own Series consoles for cheap (which is telling enough as is. I almost never see people selling PS5s yet see tons of used Xboxes for sale).

I recently realized that, other than for software updates, I haven't actually used my Series S in over a year. There's just no reason to. If I want to use Game Pass, everything big now also comes to PC Game Pass so I just get that instead (there used to be a big difference in the libraries of console Game Pass and PC. Not so much anymore). I use the controller that came with the Series S with my PC while my DualShock 4 charges and that's about it.

I don't think Microsoft is going third party. I think they're realizing that they lost the "most important" console generation in the PS4/Xbone because people built their digital libraries up then. They're realizing it and pivoting. They realize that there are roughly twice as many PS5s than Serieses. So, they have an opportunity to increase sales by putting their games over there. I think they also are hoping this is an inroad to putting Game Pass on PS5. Ultimately, I think this is what they really want. They want to have Game Pass available in as many places as possible, because subscriptions can bring in so much revenue (especially when people forget to cancel them).
I picked up a Series S (because I got one for cheap) and it's been a fantastic Game Pass machine. If I only needed a Sony machine and a Nintendo machine, that would be pretty sweet.

Remember when Microsoft brought Halo to PC? I don't mean the Master Chief Collection, I mean somewhere in the early 00s there was a port of Halo Windows Vista that they pretty much erased from existence. Microsoft has been here before with strange and inconsistent porting decision, and it's actually been a breath of fresh air that they are at least momentarily putting everything on PC. But I imagine the reason Starfield is potentially going multiplatform is because it's not very good and at some point Xbox just has to start making money for the business to make sense. If they ever put out a genuine system seller, I'm sure they'll keep that to themselves.

What I don't understand is why Microsoft is so obsessed with buying studios instead of buying games. Nintendo secured Bayonetta 2 and 3 without buying Platinum. Microsoft on the other hand buys a massive studio that then starts putting out bad games and they're left with the bill for it. For my money Bethesda still hasn't put out a game that would justify the purchase and it's not because they haven't had time.

I still like my Series S but I don't play a whole lot of it. My concern right now is the 3rd party support because I like playing 3rd party games on Xbox even though they would be available elsewhere. But if that support goes, then the console is truly finished.

Someone above mentioned the localization in the EU, I doubt that it's the reason the Xbox isn't selling here but the one thing that drives me crazy is that Microsoft is one of those companies that thinks your physical location corresponds to your language as if people don't move around for work and family reasons in the 21th century. No matter how many times I've set everything into English, Microsoft thinks that they're doing me a favor by automatically setting some games and services to Polish, a language that I don't understand. It's stuff like that that makes me think that maybe they genuinely just don't understand the European market.

@apewins: Hi-Fi Rush is very good and that was the first game we heard about them porting. Maybe it's not a system seller per se, but it's at least a strong complimentary game. I guess the next Forza Horizon will be the big test.

Microsoft was infamous for "money hats" in the 360 era and it's a strategy that doesn't always yield results. I mean you bring up Platinum I'm going to bring up Scalebound. But there are lots of other examples. Microsoft bought studios because it wanted to feed Game Pass and it didn't want to be beholden to paying huge money to get games on the service. There's also just a lot of vertical integration in media in general now. Streamers buying or building studios, Sony buying studios etc... The economics just make sense in times when you have lots of cash (one of the big reasons that Microsoft bought Activision is that the parent company was sitting on a huge amount of cash at the time.)

Fortunately for Xbox it's easier than ever to port between PS5 and Xbox Series so I think that it won't be in a Saturn or N64 situation. The machines are quite similar so even modest sales can be worth it.

If you were a true Xbox fan you'd learn Polish like your console keeps telling you to. I find your lack of dedication to the Xbox lifestyle disappointing.

my plan was to buy an Xbox for Hellblade 2- so while it remains to be seen if something like that makes its way to PS5- Microsoft wouldn't be wrong to presume fans of single-player 3rd person narrative games live there.

it still feels like a bit of a pipe dream, but playing gamepass games on Sony hardware is kinda a net win for my preferences.

I think if you look at the consoles, each one has a fairly concise sales pitch:

Switch - A lower price point and portability.

PS5 - Big, AAA, "Prestige" games.

Xbox - Game Pass

However, what Nintendo and Sony do, and what I think Microsoft has really struggled with, is to align the games they offer with the selling points for the hardware. In other words, a lot of the great Switch games lean into the fact that the system is all about portability. Maybe they aren't the latest and greatest graphically, but they're tons of fun on the go. And you want to be on the go, you need to buy a Switch.

On the other hand, Sony tends to stand on big, tent-pole games that make use of every ounce of the PS5's power. They're high-quality, glossy experiences that often dominate their particular release cycle, so you if want to be "up" with the hobby, you need to buy a PS5.

And then there's Microsoft with Game Pass. While it's a great concept, it doesn't necessarily connect to the hardware itself in any meaningful way. For as much great content as there is on Game Pass, it also doesn't scream "You need to buy an Xbox!" Most of what's offered is also offered on the other systems, which are frequently the better places to play those games anyway. For example:

Smaller/Indie Games - Ok. That's something Sony doesn't necessarily focus so strongly on, so that's good. But a ton of those games cross over to Switch, which is both cheaper and you can take on the go. So you should probably just go buy a Switch and spend the money you save on a ton of games.

Big, AAA, "Prestige" Games - Well, the Switch can't usually run this type of game, so the Xbox wins out there. But Microsoft hasn't shown the inclination or ability to produce enough big, quality games in a short enough to time go head-to-head with Sony. It's hard to compete when your answer to Horizon or God of War is . . . Redfall and Starfield.

Older/New Classic Games - Things like Gears of War, or Mass Effect, or Titanfall. Game Pass does have a pretty shocking number of really great titles from the last couple of gens on Game Pass. And that's great! Plus, it's something that neither Nintendo or Sony really do, so it seems like a really good value proposition. But practically, I'm not sure if it really works as a selling point.

Because those games are from prior generations, a ton of potential subscribers probably own those series on prior gen consoles. If I really want to boot up Mass Effect, I don't need to buy a Series S/X or get a Game Pass subscription to do it - I can just boot up my 360. Plus, am I really going to play those games again? I mean, I love Mass Effect, but am I really going to play through it again? Really for reals? Probably not.

My impression is that Xbox (the brand) is not going anywhere. MS just has a different revenue model than the others and it's not too dependent on having its own big boxes in your living room. My gut feeling is that MS can afford to keep on putting out hardware to supplement its brand and sales but is not reliant on it in any way. Valve might be a good comparison - they can release the Steam Deck and make some profit off of it, without having to sell 50M+ units for it to be considered a success, because Valve's main revenue stream is in software sales and they don't control a closed ecosystem like Playstation or Nintendo do.

But this is all assuming that Game Pass is very profitable and they have long-term confidence in this model. I'm not a financial analyst so I don't know to what extent that is the case.

I still own the disc. My POS computer could play it and it was great to play online.

The only console I own is a Switch, so I don’t have much skin in this game.

Still, if Microsoft goes third-party only, I’ll eat my hat. And I mean proper eat it, not like Ryckert licking some stuff off of some paper that one time.

I think what we are likely to observe is less Microsoft leaving the console hardware market and more pivoting to a model that others have done in tech and Microsoft has already done so with its Surface line: the hardware is a niche, moderate success, but the software underneath the hardware is the money maker. Valve is basically doing this with the Steam Deck, and whether it be Asus or Lenovo or Microsoft, others are following this template.

In the case of Valve, they are attempting to create hardware wherein they can still claim their software or OS works best there, but they are already sounding the alarm that they are happy to let others use Steam OS, as long as you pay up. It's a toll booth monetization system wherein consumers and manufacturers all pay to cross the bridge, but the person who collects is the person operating the toll booth. However, the goal is slightly different. With Valve, they are aiming to get AYA, Lenovo, and Asus to ditch Windows and their own in-house operating systems for Steam OS, and Microsoft is aiming to get their Game Pass service on PlayStation.

Nonetheless, it still holds that Microsoft and Valve need their own dedicated hardware where they can go to others and say "Hey! This is how this is done and how it should work!" The hardware sets the bar for the experience and even a brand name like Microsoft needs that.

@zombiepie: yeah I think eventually a dockable, switch like game pass machine that I can play COD on is a likely outcome of all this.

Until the figurehead of the Surface division left because Satya Nadella shit-canned some of their more experimental SKUs, the rumor always was that the Surface Team was directed to explore the possibility of making a Steam Deck alternative that ran Windows on a portable PC device well.

I still would be very interested in that.

@zombiepie: This is all possible, but the issue I have with how it will work is that R&D and manufacturing set ups for consoles is really expensive. Consoles, if they're going to compete on power and price with PlayStation, may be based on off the shelf components these days but they're modified and redesigned and put together in funky ways. The devices you describe make sense for PCs but are much more niche than something like an Xbox, which has sold well over 10 million units to help defray the costs (and even then may not have.)

Now Microsoft has basically unlimited money so they can certainly afford to try this strategy, and the original Xbox was more off the shelf than other consoles so perhaps they just do away with the customization stuff and let PlayStation have a power advantage, but I'm just not sure how this works. Steamdeck works because it's not competing on power so they can just build whatever is cost effective and let that be the power level and it also doesn't require special versions of games because of its OS. Maybe you could make Xbox in a similar vein, but if you're just a Windows box that's not really competing on power like a console does then even if it's still called Xbox it's basically just a PC and we're down to PC vs PlayStation in the high end gaming market.

@bigsocrates: If Xbox goes third party with its own hardware just for Game Pass and the few customers that like the ecosystem, I very much doubt they'll compete with Sony, they'll have a box if people want one.

You'll either get and Pro with higher margins geared towards performance or Series S low spec box which basically breaks even, the end user will help pay for the R&D.

@thepanzini: The thing is...while they might still technically have a box in that situation they will have, in effect, left the console market. Certainly in terms of their ability to push Sony and keep it in check in any way, and in terms of innovation (and Xbox has been responsible for a number of innovations, many good and some bad, over the last 20 years.)

You can have a box called an "Xbox" that runs Windows or Windows-lite on it and maybe even is backwards compatible with the old Xbox games (since Microsoft are compatibility wizards and the Xbox OS has Windows elements and Direct X in it anyway) but it won't be a console in the same way the Series X is.

Then again I'm not convinced that we'll necessarily have consoles in the way we do now by 2035.

@bigsocrates: Why would Xbox care? They'd probably prefer people buying games without the cost.

Playstation & Nintendo will carry on as normal physical is still too important for them, 14 Apr 2023 - Sony Opens Its First PlayStation Exclusive Store In India.

@thepanzini: Xbox wouldn't care but that's not the point mostly being discussed. The point is how this is likely to impact gamers and games in general.

I don't care about Microsoft as a company. They're doing fantastically well and also they do a lot of horrible stuff (mostly outside the gaming division). My interest is in how this is likely to affect consumers.

On the one hand PS5 and Switch gamers will get access to more games, which is a good thing, but the long-term implications could be not great.

@bigsocrates: I have no idea, it could be good or bad until it happens we won't know. This generation Playstation and Xbox have already been rising prices in tandem along with everyone else.

I didn't like Xbox hardware but bought it anyway cause I'm an idiot, and I'm not a fan of Game Pass the concept I'd rather people purchase the stuff they want, so is that good or bad.

Third party with hardware could easily be a plus more revenue steams to prop up the console, game pass or anything else. We might get multiple vendors or even different publisher backing it as they won't be too happy with Sony having so much control.

I'd guess Playstation would make an effort to encroach on Nintendo, maybe Portal is the start we've already had rumblings of a new handheld. More Nintendo like games on Playstation would be a plus.

I don't see this as a net negative some good some bad, Nintendo cut $100 off the 3DS price without outside pressure and that'll always been there.

Xbox - "We have Indiana Jones, Hellblade 2 and Avowed coming this year"

Playstation - "We have no first party exclusives this year"

Xbox - "We give up!"

@tp0p: I think that's actually a big part of what's going on, though. Xbox is seeing that even with more games and even when Sony is in a bit of a lull they just aren't gaining ground. It's the same with the deep price cuts they made over the holidays. They're throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks because they understand that the current strategy isn't working and they think "just execute that strategy but better" isn't going to fix it.

Does anyone think that if Starfield had been substantially better than it was and Redfall hadn't been a dumpster fire that the console market would look substantially different today? Maybe Xbox could have sold 5 million more boxes or whatever it would be, but they're behind by 30 million and Sony's structural advantages in reputation and global uptake wouldn't be gone.

You're not going to crack the European and Japanese markets if Starfield is really really good, and you're not going to do it with Indiana Jones and Hellblade 2 either.

@bigsocrates: you gotta start somewhere. Xbox announced that they had acquired Ninja Theory to compete with Sony first party and before the game even releases, they are throwing in the towel lol

@tp0p: Xbox made a bet they'd bring in enough subs to cover the money being spent on those studios, given how wildly they missed those targets I'd guess they haven't, especially so with COD on the horizon.

@tp0p: They did start somewhere. And that was with Bethesda. Starfield was supposed to be the big game changer and the only thing it changed was Bethesda's reputation for the worse.

The idea that Hellblade 2 is going to upend the market doesn't match the actual impact of Hellblade 1. Hellblade sold like a million copies. That's great for an indie but it's not exactly a world beater.

Microsoft bought Ninja Theory in 2018. Since then it has made a lot of acquisitions and it has had almost 6 years to try to compete with Sony but has only fallen further behind. Maybe they could give it one more year for Bethesda to have a bit more of a chance (though other than Indiana Jones what does it even have?) but since Activision Blizzard is going to continue making multiplats with their biggest games anyway I just don't see what they've got left in the quiver here.

Hellblade 2 might be a critical and commercial success on the level of Hi-Fi Rush (a similarly sized game) but Hi-Fi Rush changed absolutely nothing except that people said "Oh, it looks like Microsoft can still make good games other than Forza Horizon once in awhile."

@bigsocrates: starfield came after a year with Jack shit for releases as well as the redfall dumpster fire. Xbox went from negative momentum to neutral due to starfield. I bought a series x for starfield.

Honestly, xbox has a losing mentality. Just watch the Phil Spencer interview last year. Saying that no one switches over to another console because their digital library is in one place? One of my friends switched to PS because they thought hogwarts was exclusive and he has a huge library of xbox games. It obvious that Microsoft and Xbox have a glass half full idea. I think Phil reads twitter too much.

Xbox and microsoft are pathetic in the sense that they are just giving up. It pisses me off as an Xbox owner.

You know it's a crazy industry when selling millions of consoles isn't enough because the competition is selling millions and millions more, the scale is insane, i'd be happy selling 50 of anything. What's weirder is i don't know anyone who owns a PS5, all my friends and colleagues stayed with Xbox and all seem to be getting PC's one by one.

Live service is the trick of the day and you don't benefit at all from a platform exclusive live service game, more players is ALWAYS better for both income and longevity and it's something 3rd parties have taken massive advantage of. I'd be willing to bet Microsoft were surprised by the amount of add ons people buy in Flight Simulator, so now they have to make a choice to either keep the worlds most premium flight sim as one of its platform's advantages, or they could put it out on Playstation and expose the in-game marketplace to millions more people.

Flight sim is fine and all, but i only use that example because there's nothing else to talk about when it comes to MS games, i guess Halo was supposed to be huge before it stumbled? Forza stumbled... I guess Gears is next on the rodeo but it's not really a big mtx money maker and it's a bit of a tired franchise... their biggest problem is they haven't got anything to brag about.

@cikame: It's not selling 50m, the Series is on about ~28m and last year was Xbox worst for 17 years, sales collapsed they're forcasting significant drops over the next two quarters. Its not far off the original Xbox 24m which MS killed at this point. Their install base just isn't big enought to support all the studios they own.

@tp0p: Forza also released last year. And Hi-Fi Rush. It was actually a pretty big year for Xbox in terms of number of first party releases.

Your friend switching to PlayStation because they thought it was exclusive just shows the strength of the PlayStation brand. And also that your friend spends a LOT of money without doing research. But while people obviously DO switch, Spencer is right that it's harder to get people to switch than it used to be.

I don't think Xbox has a loser mentality. I think they have execution issues. I've owned every generation of Xbox and have a big Xbox library so I want Xbox to succeed personally. But I look at the last 10 years and despite a bunch of big swings they're mostly spinning their wheels and feel less relevant than ever.

@thepanzini: xbox gaming - "we've had our greatest revenue generating quarter ever!"

Also xbox gaming - "we can't afford to make our games exclusive!"

@tp0p: Revenue is not the same as profit. If you pull in $100 after spending $80 that's a healthy profit. If you pull in $200 after spending $250 then you've doubled your revenue and now you're unprofitable.

But it's also not about what they can afford. It's about what they think will be the most profitable long term strategy. Let's say they ARE profitable right now, which we don't truly know. If they think they can be MORE profitable by putting exclusives on other hardware then they'll do that even though they can afford not to (and it's Microsoft so they can afford anything.)

@bigsocrates: they're just cutting and running. Did you see what microsoft did to mixler? Microsoft phone?

I find it funny that it was probably Satya Nadellas decision and not Phil's because Satya has stated that he regrets microsoft leaving the phone business and now he is cutting and running on xbox. See the articles years from now where Satya regrets cutting and running from xbox lol.

Also, the profitability part:

Microsoft exec: "omg! Call of duty makes so much money and it multi plat! Why arent we doing that? Let's do that! Money money money!"

Probably the same exec that wanted to fucking buy nintendo. Microsoft execs gotta be the dumbest bunch of morons.

@tp0p: They are not leaving the video game space, obviously, if they're talking about putting their games on other devices.

And unlike with the phone Microsoft has been in the console space for 4 generations and over 20 years. It's not like they gave this a try for 3-5 years and then gave up.

And we don't actually know what the plan is. For all we know they're going to stay in the console business and they either think they can do it without exclusives or they're just going to keep other games as exclusives (like Forza Horizon and Halo) or they're going to try to rebuild next gen with exclusives but try to get people into their franchises first (You can play Starfield on PS5 but Starfield 2 is Xbox Series Z only.)

We'll find out next week.

A thing that hasn't been mentioned in this discussion, but the timing is certainly interesting, is the GI.biz report that Xbox are basically pulling out of physical in Europe. So if they're pivoting, it feels like a big one.

Also, because I was curious, I checked the online store for where a lot of collector's editions etc get sold in Sweden, because that's the big chain that focuses on games I could think of (Game and GameStop have both left the Nordics).

Xbox Series games, including upcoming, available in their catalogue: 67

PS5 games: 180

SOMETHING is up

Where did you hear that SteamOS costs money? OEMs have to sign distribution license agreement but they don't have to pay anything

The reason why AYA/Lenovo/etc don't want to use SteamOS is because then they'd be competing with Steam Deck and that's a losing battle (Steam Deck is heavily subsided by Valve). By having Windows preinstalled, they can put themselves in a different price bracket and not compete in the same space (in their minds at least).

It's funny, I wrote a blog post back in 2016 about Xbox's Play Anywhere initiative and saw the same sky-is-falling responses as I do now. Here's the blog if anyone's interested. I don't know, Xbox One ending that generation with 50 million+ units sold (more than the Super Nintendo or Sega Genesis, mind you), and the Series consoles selling at a similar pace hardly feels like a failure to me. Third party support for the platform has not waned, and current Xbox owners are well served by a fantastic console experience. We'll see what happens next week at Microsoft's press conference thing, but I'm going to call it now that there is no way they are abandoning console hardware this gen.

As for why anyone would still want an Xbox if their games end up on Playstation, it's the same answer as when Xbox games showed up on PC. Or when Playstation games ended up on PC, for that matter. You like the ecosystem, your friends are there, and there are games you want to play on it. Microsoft games going on Playstation doesn't change the fact that they will come out on Gamepass on Xbox, will grant you a PC license if you purchase on Xbox, or that Quick Resume remains a very useful feature. I still quite enjoy my Series X, and I fail to see how PS5 players being able to purchase Starfield for their platform affects me.

Of course, there are the what-ifs. What if they stop releasing day one on Gamepass? What if they pull a Dreamcast and kill of the Xbox tomorrow? What if Phil Spencer commits seppuku on a livestream for his supposed failures? First, I'd say most of the scuttlebutt is poorly sourced forum speculation, but even if this all comes to pass, I'd still have a console that has given me fantastic value and awesome first party games for the past three years. I was a Dreamcast owner when the news hit, and I still have that Dreamcast hooked up to my TV to this day. It'll be fine, it's just video games.

HUH! It seems like MS might have tactically leaked they are working on a dockable Steam Deck or Switch-like and it is aligned with Xbox. Also the console revision we saw in the leaked court paperwork seems to be confirmed for 2026.