Have you ever tried to setup a Windows container let alone one on an Xbox? Even Microsoft knows windows containers are fucking shit, just look at azure Linux, it’s the entire reason for it’s existence
Even Microsoft knows windows containers are fucking shit
The Xbox System Software contains a heavily modified Hyper-V hypervisor (known as NanoVisor) as its host OS and two partitions. One of the partitions, the “Exclusive” partition is a custom virtual machine (VM) for games; the other partition, the “Shared” partition is a custom VM for running multiple apps including the OS.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_system_software#System
Xbox already runs two VMs. Just throw in a third with real Windows.
Are there any other virtual stores on the console? There’s obviously physical store fronts, but I’m pretty sure there’s only the one digitally on console.
Are there any other virtual stores on the console?
No but since none of the console vendors have a monopoly, antitrust laws don’t apply. They can do practically any shit as long as none have a dominant market position.
So Nintendo can force everyone to buy a Switch to play Mario games? From what I see, consoles are locked in as well and we are forced to have PS/Xbox/Switch for their exclusive games. And this is legal because they aren’t as big as Apple? Why can’t I buy one console to play any game I want just like I can install any OS on Android?
Did not know that. So it’s just the sales numbers then because iPad is the same as an iPhone in terms of functionality and restrictions. Mac is more open compared to their mobile devices.
So it’s just the sales numbers then because iPad is the same as an iPhone in terms of functionality and restrictions.
Sales numbers and more specifically market power of the Apple App Store on iPhones. In absolute numbers there are more Android devices out there but that includes super low-end devices where the owners don’t spend as much money on apps.
Apparently tablets aren’t being seen as big of a factor in the overall market, at least according to the EU. The special exceptionfs announced recently by Apple for the EU also for the most part are only about iPhone.
“The changes do not apply outside of the EU, nor do they apply to iPadOS in any country.” --https://www.macrumors.com/2024/03/06/alternative-ios-app-stores-eu-grace-period/
I’m fully aware of that but if history showed one thing it’s that Microsoft runs game developers into the ground.
Also Take Two, Nintendo, EA, and Sony exist. Microsoft has no monopoly just because they bought a crap publisher. The lastest Call of Duty game on mobile already tanked.
I agree that it is about market power, but one could make the argument that Xbox/PlayStation have a duopoly similar to iOS/Android.
Although I think PlayStation dominated with roughly a 70/30 split worldwide (higher in Europe). Nintendo is somewhat in its own category imo, since they mostly do their own games and don’t directly compete in that sense.
But I guess in a way consoles also compete with PCs.
It’s not the same model though, is it? I can buy XBox, PS an Nintendo games in a shit ton of physical or digital stores. So there are different channels. There is no equivalent on iOS. If you don’t want to publish in the app store, no one will be able to install your app (developers with own certs and enterprise customers with mdm excluded).
A chunk of those sales go to the platform, regardless of where they’re bought. And you can’t just sell an Xbox/playstation game without permission and royalties
Right, but I feel that this method of distribution is very similar to gift cards in that the retailer has no control over pricing, promotions, etc. additionally, these codes cannot be re-used.
Steam suspicously absent from this conversation, but I’m willing to be patient and see.
It’s a positive attitude for Spencer to take, but would have to see it in practice to be able to make judgment on if he really stands behind those words or if he is simply making a strategic business decision whose real motives are simply masked by these words.
The latter is par for the course for corporations, so we don’t have a lot to lean on in favor of him truly holding these values, sadly. One can hope, however, that miracles can and do happen.
That’s not where Valve makes their money from though. Their money primarily comes from store purchases, so anything to expand Steam’s reach is better for them. Plus, keeping Steam as relevant and ubiquitous as possible will in turn promote sales of the Steam Deck. The Xbox and Steam Deck cater to fundamentally different use cases anyways.
Yeah, they still haven’t fixed the slow ass scrolling performance in the client and have barely introduced any platform features to their store. It’s so bad.
No, there won’t be another xbox. Phil Spencer is angling to get gamepass on nintendo and sony. But he’s going to have to force it through the courts and government legislation, much like epic is doing with mobile stores now.
It’s a play for the consumer’s money, and when the consumer has better options than the traditional console model, the console model breaks down. They’ve got at least one more Xbox in them, whether or not that next Xbox is just a PC with different branding.
The “better option” is subscription services where you own nothing and the bottom drops out of the industry, just like music and film. You can cheer for that if you want, but it is not in the interests of the consumer.
I wasn’t cheering for subscription services. I was cheering that this exclusivity model of walled gardens no longer makes economic sense, while open platforms are on the rise. Microsoft is hoping that their pivot will result in more subscribers to their subscription service, but all signs are pointing to them having a rough time of growing beyond where they stand now, for all sorts of reasons.
You’re forgetting the other advantage of the switch is how cheap it is. If Microsoft can manage to make something that’s inbetween the price of a steam deck and a switch it could be pretty enticing.
Leave it to microsoft to join the party years late with a product that completely misses the point of what makes the original to their copy actually popular
What does Xbox even have that I couldn’t already play on my PC? Halo’s dead; there’s no reason to humor Xbox as a console anymore. Microsoft’s still-surviving exclusives are all mid; so really, why would I get one of these when I could just play on my PC, or pick up a Steam Deck to have access to my PC’s library?
Valve only makes the deck available in a handful of countries while Xbox hardware is available pretty much everywhere, so I’d say it’s natural to assume a hypothetical dexbox would too
Because Xbox deck wouldn’t be made by a tiny gambling company. It would be made by a massive corporation with footholds for tech already established in practically every country.
I don’t think this guy understands what innovation is. The Steam Deck and Wii aren’t particularly innovative. The Wii is a bit unusual, but pointer controls didn’t stick (though gyro controls have, in a minor way). The Steam Deck is just a regular handheld but with an x86 CPU.
I don’t think people are going to buy small consoles to play big games. And a powerful handheld is overkill to play small games. If people want to play small games, they use the phone they already have.
The handheld console sweet spot is slightly more powerful than the Switch. But the Switch’s selling power isn’t its hardware, but its library. Nintendo games have selling power. And even outside of that, the Switch has a surprisingly large library of third-party games like Skyrim and Doom. But if people really want a console that will do everything, they’ll get a Deck, because I know you won’t be able to do whatever you want on Microsoft’s handheld.
When the C-suite says “innovation” they tend to mean either “things other companies did that this company hasn’t done yet” or “obvious stuff that we should have done already but didn’t”.
Valve are the only ones confident enough in their systems to do that. Valve’s mindset seems to be that trying to lock people in is a losing strategy, long term. Instead they are just making sure that their offerings are better than anything else available. If done right, it has all the advantages of locking people in, with none of the downsides. It also combines with the perceived openness, which gains you a lot of credit with the geek community.
Microsoft are too reliant on lock-in to risk opening it up.
People pretty often completely understate the Vita’s popularity/lifespan. Less than the 3DS for sure, but early metrics were stupidly counting hardware sales when it was moving early to digital.
In Japan it stayed popular long after the USA stopped talking about it.
This is cool but I miss being able to grind for skins. Playing events and earning a bunch of loot boxes just for playing was great. I’m not giving them any money.
polygon.com
Gorące