Precisely how I feel about it, too. I’m glad ActiBlizz employees will hopefully have a better working environment. Plus, I can play WoW again without supporting a human-sized scrotum. 😁
But the sheer size of Microsoft at this point is a bit alarming. It’s like watching Disney buying Marvel and LucasArts: a looming giant that will either fall or trample everything underfoot.
I’m excited for CoD to not be a $70 gamble on whether or not the game is good. Like, 2019 was pretty good, 2020 was great, 2021 was bad, 2022 was bad, 2023 is most likely going to be bad, and 2024 is most likely going to finally be some good CoD again. It’d be real nice if I just had access to this via $15 subscription day one.
And speculative pipe dream hope: Activision has a load of currently unused IPs that I’d love to see Microsoft bring back.
That is a circular problem. People don't buy Xbox because it doesn't have exclusives appealing enough to make them pick it over the alternatives. As much as I'd wish game exclusivity wasn't a thing, it does effectively attract customers. They had many IPs which could attract players, even before the ActiBlizz acquisition.
The Xbox Series S sounds appealing in theory but they could have gotten all the benefits of that simply by supporting the Xbox One for an extended period of time. As for cloud, I doubt it is that which is holding back their sales. If they say the demand is still small they are likely not keeping too many units for that.
That's true of PlayStation now too. Sure, it takes a couple of years, but I'm fine with that if it means saving hundreds of dollars and not having a machine next to my TV that only collects dust after playing 3 games on it.
Xbox because it doesn't have exclusives appealing enough to make them pick it over the alternatives.
Soon. Their acquisition of Bethesda and now Activision will push a lot of in-demand titles to Xbox and PC going forward. They'll be a lot more "competitive" with Sony now.
I'm skeptical, because they had Halo, Banjo & Kazooie, Conker, Perfect Dark, and they don't seem to know what to do with those. Killer Instinct 2013 was nice but it's been a decade we don't get anything else from that. We are only now getting to see some of the projects from the newer studios they have been acquiring, but Redfall definitely didn't get my hopes up.
Are they gonna keep buying publishers whenever their output dries up under them? Is the problem really a lack of studios or is it that they can't manage them well.
Their management kind of sucks but that isn't rare in games publishing. Publisher make insane moves all the time. Unfortunately for MS, from your list only Halo is relevant and that has had rocky releases for quite a while. Now that they can sequester Bethesda and Activision games they can probably be hands-off and just wait for exclusive sales to come in.
The problem is that development times exploded upward, so it takes so, so long to get a game out the door, and it appears as if they've done nothing. The first game from the Zenimax acquisition that started development under Microsoft leadership likely won't come out until 2026, for example. Sony already released most of their heavy hitters, and the next big Sony first-party game similar to God of War, Horizon, Uncharted, or The Last of Us is likely several years away still (Wolverine, maybe). The next one after that will probably be a PlayStation 6 game.
As for Killer Instinct, rumor has it we'll see another one in the near future, probably from Bandai Namco now that they're not working on Soul Calibur or Smash.
If I've got money to invest now, I'm going to invest in two things that are likely to make money rather than waiting to see if the first one makes money over a couple of years. Especially when ActiBlizz was on a fire sale.
Do you think the Bethesda acquisition by itself, before Activision, would have been enough to turn PlayStation's 2:1 market lead into something far more even? Because I don't. And I think that's why the deal didn't get blocked. There's also tons and tons of third party competition in the gaming industry worldwide, so I don't think they're a threat to competition there either.
I believe this framing is misleading to begin with. Not only Microsoft as a whole is already a much larger company to Sony, so the whole idea that it deserves a boost to catch up is missing the forest for the trees. On top of that, it seems like a remnant of Console War mindset to consider the ideal of the market to be a 50/50 or a 33/33/33 split.
It is better for the industry to have more publishers and studios which are beholden to no platform owner. The idea that whoever is below the top 3 is entitled to swallow up everything under them so that they get a chance to reach #1 is a convoluted way to justify consolidation. It's not fine just because Microsoft is #4 rather than #2. Being #4 is not such an insignificant position in first place, and it's weird that it's assumed that Microsoft is owed an even position.
And I'm sorry, if freaking Microsoft can't use the many studios it already has to make their platform they have appealing, the issue is not lack of studios and IPs. I don't think the "competitiveness" of taking games that already could be available to everyone and locking them to a platform is actually making the market any better (no, not even when Sony does it). It's a net negative for everyone except the acquiring company itself. If they want to make their platform more appealing, they should make better games for it.
Not only Microsoft as a whole is already a much larger company to Sony
With regards to this industry, it really doesn't matter.
On top of that, it seems like a remnant of Console War mindset to consider the ideal of the market to be a 50/50 or a 33/33/33 split.
That is the ideal. It means each one has to try their damnedest to earn the dollar of their consumer. Like you, I'd prefer that it was achieved by any means other than exclusives, but as long as it's a legal business practice, it will be an effective one.
It's not fine just because Microsoft is #4 rather than #2. Being #4 is not such an insignificant position in first place, and it's weird that it's assumed that Microsoft is owed an even position.
They need to be successful enough that they don't leave the console market entirely. Otherwise you create a monopoly in that space. There are some industries that are just colossally difficult for a new competitor to enter, and the console market is one of them. If you lose a competitor, it ruins the market for everyone.
If they want to make their platform more appealing, they should make better games for it.
Yeah, they've got this game Starfield coming out, plus Hellblade II, Fable, Clockwork Revolution, South of Midnight, etc. But games just take so long to make that it takes forever to make up for a deficit they created last generation. It doesn't make the market better for the customer, but it's far worse if Sony's lead is so immense that a console manufacturer doesn't profit from making consoles. That is, unless the entire console market disappears, but I don't think that'll happen for several decades at the earliest.
Not only Microsoft as a whole is already a much larger company to Sony
With regards to this industry, it really doesn't matter.
Yes it does matter. It still gives them advantages, from the wealth and influence their other endeavors amass as well as technology being directly related to gaming. These matters don't exist in isolation.
This makes it harder for upcoming innovators to compete, when that is what they have to face (or be bought out by).
On top of that, it seems like a remnant of Console War mindset to consider the ideal of the market to be a 50/50 or a 33/33/33 split.
That is the ideal. It means each one has to try their damnedest to earn the dollar of their consumer.
It's shortsighted to assume Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo is what this industry will ever be and it's the most competitive we can expect it to be. In fact, letting them gobble up any other significant publisher is an obstacle towards more competition. Nevermind that even among those three, third-party developers create an incentive to make their platforms appealing beyond simply being the only place that has that game. Features and services.
Yeah, they've got this game Starfield coming out, plus Hellblade II, Fable, Clockwork Revolution, South of Midnight, etc. But games just take so long to make that it takes forever to make up for a deficit they created last generation.
That is the business that they are in. Lets see how they are doing and how much they need more when these come out. Why should they acquire more if it isn't even proven that they are handling the others well? If anything, those layoffs are not a good indication.
It doesn't make the market better for the customer, but it's far worse if Sony's lead is so immense that a console manufacturer doesn't profit from making consoles.
Worse for who? Nintendo's consoles are profitable and Microsoft can definitely afford to sell units at a loss so that they can sell games, which is the same that Sony does. And is it better for Sony and Nintendo customers if they lose access to third-party games because Microsoft gobbled them up? Sure it would be better for the customer if Microsoft made good games that made their consoles a more appealing option, but gating existing franchises isn't helping them in any way.
I see a lot of these arguments are ultimately taking pity on Microsoft, for being behind, because it should do what is more profitable to it, but they don't actually help the customer any. It's funny to see this "poor little Microsoft, they have it so hard" when Nintendo is a smaller company with a weaker console under the same difficulties and they are doing better than them. Of course you don't hear of big acquisions from Nintendo because they don't have as much spare money as Microsoft does, which it can take from profits of other segments.
Yes it does matter. It still gives them advantages
Which haven't manifested in market share.
This makes it harder for upcoming innovators to compete, when that is what they have to face (or be bought out by).
It's shortsighted to assume Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo is what this industry will ever be and it's the most competitive we can expect it to be.
No, it's the only thing one can reasonably expect short an absolutely unpredictable paradigm shift. The longer this market has existed, the more difficult it is for a competitor to get into because the stakes and production values have been raised so high. There's a reason you don't see companies lining up to get into the microprocessor business, and it's because working with silicon requires an enormous capital investment. The only new players who emerged in this industry did so when mobile processors became that paradigm shift to shake things up. While these things are pretty much inherently unpredictable, the only one I can see happening is if consoles disappear entirely in favor of a more unified, open format akin to a PC, which means these three players are no longer in the industry for the reasons they are now.
That is the business that they are in. Lets see how they are doing and how much they need more when these come out. Why should they acquire more if it isn't even proven that they are handling the others well?
The fact that they didn't become a runaway success immediately after acquiring all of those other companies, including Mojang and Bethesda, is why the merger was allowed to go through. If we're talking about breaking up Microsoft, as a non-expert, I imagine the gaming arm of it stays in one piece.
If anything, those layoffs are not a good indication.
Everyone in tech had layoffs. Not only is it common after a merger, it's also common when credit becomes more expensive and the economy contracts.
Worse for who? Nintendo's consoles are profitable and Microsoft can definitely afford to sell units at a loss so that they can sell games, which is the same that Sony does.
It's worse for the consumer if Sony doesn't have a Microsoft to keep them in check. Now if you want a console that plays Grand Theft Auto VI, there's one place to go (because you're not playing that game on a Switch). The market is cornered. Microsoft can only sell consoles at a loss and stay in the market if their install base is large enough to make that money back later. No one knows what their break-even point is, but if they don't sell enough consoles, they're not getting enough game sales or Game Pass subscriptions to make that math make sense, and they have no incentive to continue producing consoles.
I see a lot of these arguments are ultimately taking pity on Microsoft
Don't mistake anything I'm saying as pity for Microsoft. They are where they are in the market because they tried to sell a horrible product back in 2013, for more money than their competitor did, and they divested themselves of a lot of studios that, long-term, could have dug them out of that hole in favor of some bad bets for where the market was headed. Also, I'm a Linux nerd. I could hardly be less interested in seeing Microsoft succeed. What I would hate more though is if Sony ran away with an entire sector of the market when they're doing a lot of nasty anti-consumer stuff too, including trying to acquire exclusivity of a lot of the stuff Microsoft just bought.
Once again you talk about it like the are owed the #1 place rather than having to, you know, compete for it. Are you going to tell me that they didn't get any market benefits from, say, experience with OS and the hardware architecture as well as the networking and cloud technologies that they use? It would make more sense to assume that if not for this they could be even further down, but you are not even counting it because they are not exactly on par with Sony. You gotta do better than to just dismiss this.
By the way, a paradigm shift is already happening. For a lot of people their phones are their primary computing and gaming platform, and while I'm not a fan of the practices in it, a significant change in the market is anything but unpredictable. The second largest gaming company is Tencent, a mobile-focused one. Mobile revenue has surpassed consoles.
But that says nothing of the consoles that we could have tomorrow. It used to be that SEGA was one of the biggest console manufacturers and Sony wasn't even in the market.
It's worse for the consumer if Sony doesn't have a Microsoft to keep them in check.
Sure, but what is the point here? The question here is whether Microsoft should acquire ActiBlizz. If it has enough capital for that, it's not going bankrupt. It would be a false dichotomy to treat acquisition and leaving the gaming market as the only two options. After all, aren't all the other companies they already acquired appealing enough? Or weren't they worth it? And if they weren't, why would this fix anything?
Even if Microsoft is not so interesting a platform right now, Sony cannot relax or they could catch up, like they did in the 360 era. The only thing lacking here are Microsoft's own efforts.
What I would hate more though is if Sony ran away with an entire sector of the market when they're doing a lot of nasty anti-consumer stuff too, including trying to acquire exclusivity of a lot of the stuff Microsoft just bought.
Well if you are concerned that the top player resorts to anti-consumer tactics, you shouldn't be defending that the playing field is "levelled" (only between two large players) through more anti-competitive and anti-consumer tactics. If you think it's shady that Sony paid to have FF16 as an exclusive, why are you defending that Microsoft does that to Starfield? At least when it comes to Sony, Microsoft could have outbid Square for exclusivity
Which I want to make clear, it can do. Because it has a lot of money, enough to buy Activision Blizzard, the 6th largest game publisher. It could be funding new studios, it could be playing from Sony's handbook, but they decided to one-up them instead by consolidating the market and taking away options from everyone else in a far more concrete way.
The ideal solution here, is that Microsoft's acquisition should be blocked but Sony should also be punished for anti-consumer tactics.
Once again you talk about it like the are owed the #1 place rather than having to, you know, compete for it.
Not at all. I'm saying they have little chance of making Sony even sweat without the acquisition or something like it. Even after this deal, they will not be the #1 console. It will just be closer, and close enough that they decide to stay in the console business.
By the way, a paradigm shift is already happening. For a lot of people their phones are their primary computing and gaming platform, and while I'm not a fan of the practices in it, a significant change in the market is anything but unpredictable.
That seems to be a parallel market rather than one that would overtake it. There's a non-zero amount of overlap, and you can find plenty of examples, but there seem to be games built for mobile and games that aren't. If this is the paradigm shift you expect to shake things up, are you saying you expect Apple or Samsung to enter the console market?
It would be a false dichotomy to treat acquisition and leaving the gaming market as the only two options. After all, aren't all the other companies they already acquired appealing enough? Or weren't they worth it? And if they weren't, why would this fix anything?
You know how Spotify has exclusives besides Joe Rogan but still got Joe Rogan exclusive? It's the same answer. A bunch of smaller acquisitions move the needle a little bit each. One large acquisition moves the needle a lot on its own. In aggregate, they all make the product desirable. Microsoft needs to move the needle a lot to catch up to Sony.
Sony cannot relax or they could catch up
Maybe now after this deal they can't relax, but they've been going down this path of requiring arbitrary upgrades from PS4 to PS5 in a way that Microsoft had not been, which is the kind of move you only make when you're relaxed enough to take advantage of your customers. Plus their own exclusivity deals.
If you think it's shady that Sony paid to have FF16 as an exclusive, why are you defending that Microsoft does that to Starfield? At least when it comes to Sony, Microsoft could have outbid Square for exclusivity
Defending is the wrong word. Why do you think Microsoft has Starfield? Because they outbid Sony. This acquisition happened because they outbid Sony as well. At the scale that Microsoft is operating at, they may as well buy them outright; and word on the street was that Zenimax and Square Enix were both seeking to be acquired. Activision only makes like 4-6 franchises anymore anyway, so it's basically the same thing as buying exclusivity to those franchises but with more upside.
It could be funding new studios, it could be playing from Sony's handbook
Exclusivity and studio acquisitions are both out of Sony's handbook. Microsoft just has a bigger pocketbook.
The ideal solution here, is that Microsoft's acquisition should be blocked but Sony should also be punished for anti-consumer tactics.
The ideal solution here is one that forbids exclusivity, but I have no idea how to do that ethically.
It will just be closer, and close enough that they decide to stay in the console business.
Again, when this has been in question at all? Does anyone really think the 4th largest gaming company is going to drop the market? Despite all that they already invested even before ActiBlizz?
At the scale that Microsoft is operating at, they may as well buy them outright;
Exclusivity and studio acquisitions are both out of Sony's handbook. Microsoft just has a bigger pocketbook.
We've just been talking of if it matters that Microsoft is a larger company in general, and here you are spelling it out like it's a gotcha at Sony, which, seeing as it will lead to more exclusivity, it's not even in your interest as a customer.
I'm just wholly baffled with the way people take Microsoft's side simultaneously like it's a desperate underdog and as if it would be a fool not to crush it all and take it all over with piles of money. As if whatever is more profitable and advantageous to them would be good for the customers losing options too. And that would be fair???
But seeems like you are set in seeing it this way and there's nothing I could say that would make any difference, so I guess I should just drop the matter.
To state one last time, my perspective is that all exclusivity sucks, but it's better that Microsoft buys them than for Sony to have an uncontested high-end console market. That is not me taking Microsoft's "side". It's me not wanting a monopoly.
No they aren't. First of all, because Sony is not monopolizing the market. Microsoft is there and so is Nintendo. There is a difference between being a market leader and being a monopoly. Sony doesn't actually control SquareEnix, they can release games for different platforms, which they do. Octopath Traveler II is multiplatform, Dragon Quest Treasures is a Switch and PC release.
The horror scenario of Microsoft leaving and Sony dominating everything isn't going to happen. Xbox is just half as popular as Sony, which is still a sizable chunk of the market.
But lets say it goes as you wish, Microsoft bravely acquires most of the market to match Sony... and then they just keep buying. What do you get then? Microsoft will be able to just tell Bethesda and ActiBlizz not to release for any other console, and refuse any deals.
If you are a Linux user you should know that MS doesn't stop at what's reasonable.
Still, that's not saying that Sony is acting fine. Which is why I believe they should be prevented from making exclusivity agreements for games that aren't entirely funded by them.
Exactly. Microsoft also has the benefit of double-dipping - they have Xbox, but they also get a healthy cut from PC as a vast majority of gamers are going to be running Windows.
This article feels very much like a fanboy wanting to keep the stupid “console wars” going, when really Microsoft is happy to just rake in the cash.
vast majority of gamers are going to be running Windows.
Vast majority of PC gamers are on windows, yeah. But overall the PC gamer market and console gamer markets are similar. There's a lot of overlap too as PC gamers also have consoles.
I don’t think it’s hardware. It’s a differentiator. Tell me why I (or whoever) should pick an Xbox over a PlayStation?
Microsoft tried to answer that question with Game Pass, seemingly going all in on that concept, paying or outright buying publishers to bring their games to Game Pass. Some people may love Game Pass, but most people I know either never subscribed to it or only tested it when it was like 1,-€ for a month or whatever.
What else differentiates it from the PS5 in a positive way? Sure, the Series X is a bit more powerful than the PS5, but it’s close enough that it basically results in slightly different behavior for games with dynamic resolution scaling, with the PS5 sometimes even pulling ahead oddly enough (probably a more mature SDK, not sure).
The controller is…well, a decent controller. It doesn’t do anything special like adaptive triggers, yet it costs almost the same as a DualSense, and if you count in the optional (!) battery pack, it’s quite a bit more expensive even.
Playing online costs just as much as on PS5 (why do you have to pay extra to play online in 2023, anyways?).
Of the few mentionable exclusive games, most are honestly just mediocre (also in terms of critical acclaim).
What’s left? Backwards compatibility for 360 games? Sure that’s nice, but surely not a system seller for most people, especially when they don’t already have a ton of 360 games.
I just don’t see many cases where someone would prefer the Xbox Series X to a PlayStation 5, without even taking into account what platform their friends are on.
If you want to win market share, deliver a better product. With better services. With better conditions. For lower prices.
That is how it works. Crying to the public about how unfair it is because Sony has such a large installed base already because of how Microsoft fucked up the Xbox One generation (at or even before launch) is NOT how it works.
I don’t think it’s hardware. It’s a differentiator. Tell me why I (or whoever) should pick an Xbox over a PlayStation?
What else differentiates it from the PS5 in a positive way?
The thing is, it’s not even Games Pass or the hardware. For me, as a PC gamer, having an Xbox would be redundant. Anything an Xbox can do, my PC just does strictly better without a cumbersome UI and additional online subscription.
I own a PS5 for access to Sony exclusives when they launch, instead of waiting 1-5 years for the PC ports. I also get access to PS Plus’ extensive classic collection and indie collections, which, regardless of the price of the subscription, broadens my gaming library extensively–something Xbox simply doesn’t do.
Why would I purchase a console that only gives me access to the same games on a worse system vs a console that expands my library considerably?
100% this. I was bored and felt like setting money on fire a week ago, and figured I should grab a Series X finally. Went and looked through exclusives and, woof.
I have a PS5, but wanted to get the Series before Halo Infinite came out. But since it was on Xbox One as well, I justified the purchase because Fable would eventually be out as an exclusive.
I definitely would have waited if I knew Infinite was going to be shit.
The console experience is different enough though. I have a PC I can game on with no issue, but I rarely do, because i love my sofa, my LG OLED and my soundbar. At the end of a tiring working day, after taking care of my chores, putting the kids to bed, I just can’t get back to the computer, especially if I had to use it all day long for work…
But, at the end of the day, it’s all a matter of preference: do you like PS 1st party kinds of games? Go for PlayStation. Are you more eclectic? Go for Game Pass. Your kids want a potent enough machine for Roblox and Fortnite? The Series S is there for you. Do you travel a lot? Go for a Switch or a Steam Deck (loving mine btw).
Plus, the ultimate question: How much does a PC/a console or a new game cost in your country?
At the end of a tiring working day, after taking care of my chores, putting the kids to bed, I just can’t get back to the computer, especially if I had to use it all day long for work…
Those are the days I Miracast my PC to my TV and curl up on the couch with a wireless controller.
My soon-to-be 7-year-old has a Switch that fits his Minecraft / Pokemon / YouTube needs, and I have my PS5 for exclusives that don’t have a PC port yet (I’m currently playing through FFXVI, for example.
Plus, the ultimate question: How much does a PC/a console or a new game cost in your country?
I currently live in the States, so any average price you look up in USD will apply. I built my own PC, I purchased my PS5 on sale, and I will build myself a new PC when my son is old enough to be trusted (under supervision) with my current PC, if any of that matters.
@Vestria@narc0tic_bird Yep exactly. When it comes down to similar platforms, experiences you can't have on the other platform(s) are what differentiate them at the end of the day IMO.
It's ironic and somewhat revolting to see the behemoth that is Microsoft crying that it can't compete and it needs to acquire other publishers, when it already has a collection of studios and franchises, means to fund brand new studios and make even better hardware. If they aren't competitive now, it's because of their own bad decisions.
Although it seems that despite their hardware not being as popular, they seem to sell GamePass for PC at least decently.
Can’t compete… because Sony is paying publishers to make games exclusive for the PS5.
As a PC gamer at heart exclusives suck.
Over the years I almost bought a console on a few occasions due to exclusives, or games shipping first on console.
Red Dead Redemption and GTA IV, then GTA V.
By the time RDR2 came out I had bought an Xbox One S - because it was the cheapest 4K BD player on the market.
Oh, the irony. Still haven’t bought a 4K BD. Prices were ridiculous. Probably still are. Found that 4K streaming titles on Apple TV were so good I didn’t need better than that.
But since stumbling into the One S led me to buy RDR2 on release day.
Halfway through I upgraded to the One X, and when Series X came out I had it less than a month later after putting in a pre-order about a month before release.
A colleague who pre-ordered PS5 six months before I even thought about the Series X had to wait 7 months from release for his.
I agree that exclusives suck, but acquisitions are worse in every way. At least with a deal you can hope that eventually the game will be out for everything, or the next one will. Now if anyone hopes to get a Bethesda game on other consoles again, they are out of luck.
But also, if first-party XBox games were more appealing they wouldn't be in this situation. Sony can't lock Nintendo out of the market because people want Mario and Zelda anyway.
And yet Sony's Horizon series has been overshadowed by Zelda.
Only hardcore gamers, who make up for a small part of the market, believe that Nintendo somehow doesn't count as far as how this market competes. That somehow it's a separate market because the specs aren't comparable. That's not how it works at all. The entertainment budget being fought over is the same.
In any case, all this is a separate matter. The point is that aside from Microsoft, the other console makers manage to attract buyers through first-party games. Same goes for Sony. A lot of people bought Playstations for God of War and Last of Us.
Of course they did, but the world be so much better if games were available for all platforms and the platforms competed on the merits of their hardware and software instead of the merits of their exclusive titles.
Switch is the third best selling console of all time behind the PS2 and the DS. I highly doubt that most people who own switch own something else. What you’re saying applies maybe to the core gamer audience, which is honestly pretty small.
In fact, the issue is that Xbox “never”* has done it’s own thing, and because of that they are hardly relevant in the console market.
*their entire branding is “gaming box for gamers”. The only time they strayed from this was with xbox one where they for some reason decided a “DVR that can also play games” was the way to go.
You're right. Hardware is close enough to parity to be irrelevant. The competition in the 2-party console market (Nintendo doesn't count, they're in a different league) is in exclusive titles. It's why the MS-Activision merger had so much focus on Call of Duty and such: MS will take all their new titles exclusive as soon as they can and that's what drives sales. People choose consoles based on what games they want to play, or what consoles the friends they play with use if there are cross-platform titles.
Exactly. Nintendo has targeted game styles that are largely being shared by smaller developers. AAA devs pretty much have to push visual boundaries in order to sell consoles while Nintendo focuses on whatever new major feature their newest console has (Wii: motion, WiiU: semi-handheld, Switch: hybrid handheld). Nintendo hasn't tried to compete with the big consoles at least since Gamecube. And their focus on few, high-quality titles for first party series means they have nearly guaranteed success every console generation (actual guaranteed success with pokemon).
I don’t think it’s hardware. It’s a differentiator. Tell me why I (or whoever) should pick an Xbox over a PlayStation?
They know it's a losing battle to try to build the same product as an entrenched competitor after they burned themselves with the Xbox One, which is why they much prefer you're a subscriber to Game Pass, with an Xbox or not.
Some people may love Game Pass, but most people I know either never subscribed to it or only tested it when it was like 1,-€ for a month or whatever.
They've got like 25-30 million subscribers, so it's quite popular. Probably half or a third as popular as Microsoft would like, but it's popular. I myself have plenty of friends who want to play more games than they can afford, and now they can afford them because of Game Pass. Especially the flash in the pan zeitgeist stuff like Exoprimal or Rainbow Six: Extraction that they can say they've played but will never touch again.
What else differentiates it from the PS5 in a positive way?
Quick resume. To be honest, what sets the PS5 apart from the Xbox hardware in a positive way? The SSD speeds that ended up not even mattering much for Ratchet & Clank, from what I hear of the PC port.
The controller is…well, a decent controller. It doesn’t do anything special like adaptive triggers, yet it costs almost the same as a DualSense, and if you count in the optional (!) battery pack, it’s quite a bit more expensive even.
By contrast, I know tons of people who hate the PS5 controller, not the least of which for its short battery life and inability to swap batteries like you can for Xbox. As a fighting game player, I know competitive players who hate the d-pad, and Sony did everyone dirty by requiring the use of a PS5 controller only even though the entire scene has had controllers for a decade that would work just fine, and even work on the PS5 when running a "PS4 game" on a PS5. Xbox's controllers are backward and forward compatible. If Sony had some kind of reason for requiring the functionality of the new controller, sure, have at it, but they put this requirement in place for games that make no use of the new controller's features at all, which is a dick move.
If you want to win market share, deliver a better product. With better services. With better conditions. For lower prices.
I think they did exactly that, but as far as which console sells more units, it's still PlayStation, because they have a couple of games that, at least for a couple of years, you can only play on PlayStation. But I think Microsoft saw that they were never going to be able to compete with that directly, at least before their acquisition spree, so the Xbox is just a low-cost machine that gets you into Game Pass, long-term.
Is the Xbox controller being backwards/forwards compatible actually a feature? I thought that the only difference between them was the presence of a share button. Not to discount your point about it being bs that ps5 games require a new controller.
I guess the answer to your question about what hardware advantage the ps5 has it has to primarily be the controller. The new vibration and adaptive triggers are super engaging. I also personally prefer the way it feels to a ps4 one. Unfortunately I don’t have an Xbox so I can’t compare. Obviously that’s a personal preference thing though, it’s completely valid for you to dislike them.
That said, let’s be honest, I got it for the exclusive games.
It's for playing a PS4 game vs playing a PS5 game. If you want to play the PS4 version of Street Fighter 6 on a PS5, you can use PS4 controllers. If you want to play the PS5 version of Street Fighter 6 on PS5, you must use PS5 controllers. Basically just arbitrarily forcing you to buy new controllers when the others would have worked fine.
Game Pass is great if you want to try a lot of different games and see what you like without having to do research or worry about whether or not a particular game is worth your $$. Especially if you like playing small indie games and tend not to replay them anyway - this way, $10-15 and you can play multiple new and old indie games for the price of one (or less), plus try a few of the big games, and maybe get surprised by games you didn’t think you’d like but gave a shot because they were included. And if you do want to replay any eventually, by then, the price will have dropped and you’ve still saved $$.
This is offset however by the fact it’s still buggy and frustrating as all hell sometimes. I hate the way it works with virtual drives. And it doesn’t work for stuff you want to mod or play the dlc for (no way no how am I actually buying a game/dlc on that platform).
I’m not. I’m playing on PC 95% of the time, and I play the Sony exclusives only in single player on my PS5 anyway.
What I’m saying is that this could be a differentiator for Microsoft that they just don’t seem to be interested in (it would obviously lose them a lot of revenue from existing customers at first). I feel like more people would get an Xbox for multiplatform games if they save over 50 bucks a year because they don’t have to pay for online play. Heck, I’d probably spring for a Series S for the odd round of Sea of Thieves and the likes on the big screen TV (I know, I could connect my PC, but it’s just very comfortable that way). But having to pay for online is a no-go for me, especially because it’s not my primary platform.
I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the folks that only play FIFA or the likes would get a Series S if it’s marketed correctly, and they didn’t have to pay for online play.
That was a royal “you” in direct response to the question in your post. Regardless, the cost of multiplayer on consoles has been a factor since multiplayer started and will continue to be because it’s a guaranteed way for those companies to subsidize the massive overhead that is their server farms.
If you don’t understand or can’t figure why a service like Game Pass requires a fee, then you are either woefully ignorant of how technology and security works, or you are being willfully disingenuous motivated by loyalty to a specific platform.
That’s exactly what I’m trying to say. These services cost actual money and MS historically has had a significantly more reliable online service and a huge reason why is the Live charge. Sony only managed to have a reliable service when they started charging for it. I feel like a lot of people with the sentiment above didn’t play games when online CONSOLE multiplayer was born.
I was talking about the ability to simply play games that I already purchased online. Game Pass was a different paragraph and context.
If you really think Microsoft or Sony requires this yearly subscription fee to keep the service running, just look at equivalent PC services like Steam (or, you know, Xbox Live online play, which is free on PC) and realise how wrong you are. Microsoft and Sony get a big chunk of game sales (30%+), they are fine.
Actual game servers are hosted by the game publisher, not by Microsoft or Sony (unless it’s a first party title, of course). Publishers don’t get a single piece of the subscription.
Whenever people ask which console they should buy, my first question is “what do your friends play on?” Hardware/Games you can argue till you’re blue in the face. Playing with friends should be a main motivator in deciding what platform you choose, if you are limited to one.
Xbox owner here. I love the xbox for gamepass, have been subscribed for years. Think I also prefer the xbox controller. I miss some of the exclusives of PS5.
But it’s very much an opinion I believe. I totally understand if people buy a PS5.
You do realise that the game developers/publishers need to host the actual game servers themselves, and they don’t get any piece of the PS+/Xbox Live subscription cake, right?
Yeah sure, the store, friends network, voice chat and what have you do cost money to keep operating, but how does it all work so well on PC then - where it’s free - yet on console they want >50 bucks a year for it? They get 30%+ from game sales, you can’t convince me that paying for online is anywhere close to being required for sustainability of the service.
I used to think that not having a built in rechargeable battery was a dull idea.
However: Whenever I wanted to play on my PS3 the batteries were empty and the controllers needed to be recharged.
Around the time I got my first Xbox I came to the realization that I had more units than I ever thought consuming AA or AAA batteries, so I decided to go all in on rechargeable batteries.
I love it. Whenever my Xbox tells me that the controller needs new batteries it takes me 20 seconds to swap in a new pair.
I don’t ever think about having to plug the controller. I don’t care if I pick it up and it’s dead. Etc. etc.
And best of all, there’s literally no drain when it sleeps. My switch controllers drains the battery when it’s resting. The PS3 drains the controller. Don’t know about the PS4 and PS5.
Honestly, if I had not been burned previously by Xbox losing my online purchases, I think I would consider buying an Xbox for game pass.
I don’t hate the concept, and I’ve heard great things about the Xbox game pass library.
I’m also not a big fan of not actually owning my games. I have 40 year old games that I still return to every year. The idea of finding something special on Gamepass and having it just disappear like a streaming show does… Not compelling to me.
@Hdcase Microsoft has a focus as publisher to publish on PC/Steam, Playstation and Switch, alongside mobile platform and TVs with pre installed streaming and access to Game Pass. The Xbox consoles is only a slice of the entire eco system Microsoft is building up.
20 million units of a gaming console hardly sounds like a crisis. People have gotten far too used to sales number of mobile phones. Consoles are not something everyone buys.
I don’t think it’s hardware, more brand and exclusives. The casual player bought a PlayStation 4, so they buy a PlayStation 5. The gaming enthusiast knows that there’s just more varied and interesting games coming out on Sony’s platform. In terms of performance, the Xbox also frequently under performs against the PS5 regularly (not by significant margins usually, but still) when on paper it should be the more powerful console.
Myself, I have an Xbox Series S along with a crappy old 1080p plasma and 3 years of Game Pass, and I’m at a time in my life where I don’t have the time I used to to play loads of games all the time. I’m happy with the Series S, but if you’re coming fresh to this generation of consoles, I can’t see why you wouldn’t just buy PS5 as that’s where the games are.
Call me dumb if you want, but I still see a big issue in MSFT's naming convention for XBox. They need to stop trying to be clever and just do something sequential.
I agree with you about the brand loyalty. But the fact remains, they put out a console in 2020 that in some ways was actually weaker in power than the console they put out in 2017. Great for customers since it’s so cheap, but not great for developers when other modern systems are so much more powerful. Larian can’t even put out Baldur’s Gate 3 on XSS because it can’t handle split screen for that game, which means no XSX version either.
As for games… Everyone’s different but as a big fan of the Xbox during the 360 era, the Xbox Series have no (exclusive) games that have appealed to me personally. And the ones that I am excited about (Fable, State of Decay 3, Everwild) have no release dates and are almost certainly years away.
Yeah. I stopped buying XBox after they let my account get hacked and restored none of my purchased content.
I occasionally consider giving Xbox another try, but then the whole tiers of systems and naming nonsense takes long enough to parse that I remember why I stopped buying Xboxes.
As a current Switch owner deciding what to pick up next time I spring for a new system, the lack of anything portable from Microsoft and Sony is kinda wild to me.
It’s got some ground to make up if it’s going to try to take on the ROG Ally. Still, competition is exactly what this space needs ATM - can’t wait to see where the market is in a few years!
These devices are honestly quite fast, the overhead is similar to the overhead on an entry level gaming PC (to be fair, that is still a substantial overhead, but people accept it)
I second this. I’m planning to start switching my devices from Windows to Linux in a couple of weeks due to good experience I’ve had with the Steam Deck
windowscentral.com
Najstarsze