Xbox Game Studios Stupidity Hate Thread Game Pass Edition

[Incecticyder]

It's also not a PC. By definition, PCs run whatever the fuck you tell them to run, and they STFU and obey. A "personal computer" that can't run Steam because it's intentionally designed not to is explicitly not a PC.

Just for reference, I can literally run Steam on a Linux-only ARM64-based mini PC (a Minisforum MS-R1 in case you're curious) and it can play x86 and amd64 Windows games via dynamic translation.

Creating a computer capable of running user-installed software that cannot run Steam is a technological accomplishment at this point.

Not that they won't try, of course. It'll just be really funny watching the jailbreak.

What is to gain from it though? You spent a ton of money to get a stupid product that no one will want and then what? People will just buy a PC or the Steam Machine. Their determination to not benefit the consumer is impressive.

 

[Computer Guardian]

What is to gain from it though? You spent a ton of money to get a stupid product that no one will want and then what? People will just buy a PC or the Steam Machine. Their determination to not benefit the consumer is impressive.

The only benefit the new Xbox willl even have is if it can release before the Steam Machine even gets a release date or Valve reveals it at price point where even the diehard steam users wouldn't buy it, which I doubt will happen, even if I gave MS the benifit of the doubt and assumed Valve will almost certainly fumble it.

 

[moocow]

What is to gain from it though? You spent a ton of money to get a stupid product that no one will want and then what? People will just buy a PC or the Steam Machine. Their determination to not benefit the consumer is impressive.

Dude I have never found an adequate explanation for the astonishingly stupid decisions game console makers make. It's like they're instinctively driven to figure out what the consumer wants most, and then do the most perfectly-opposite thing to that imaginable.

 

[Incecticyder]

The only benefit the new Xbox willl even have is if it can release before the Steam Machine even gets a release date or Valve reveals it at price point where even the diehard steam users wouldn't buy it, which I doubt will happen, even if I gave MS the benifit of the doubt and assumed Valve will almost certainly fumble it.

Oh yeah, because people won't save their money for something better. PC priced machine with no Steam is worthless.

Dude I have never found an adequate explanation for the astonishingly stupid decisions game console makers make. It's like they're instinctively driven to figure out what the consumer wants most, and then do the most perfectly-opposite thing to that imaginable.

MS hasn't figured anything out since the beginning. Their plan can be summed up as "throw money until we conquer th console industry" and that has been the case since forever. No real strategy, just brute financial force.

 

[Computer Guardian]

Oh yeah, because people won't save their money for something better. PC priced machine with no Steam is worthless.

True, but that wouldn't stop the people who would throw money at it because it's new or "there currently isnt an alternitive that does the thing this thing is doing", only to learn the hard way how cucked thier shiny new xbox branded device is.

 

[Incecticyder]

True, but that wouldn't stop the people who would throw money at it because it's new or "there currently isnt an alternitive that does the thing this thing is doing", only to learn the hard way how cucked thier shiny new xbox branded device is.

Just saying that relying on impulsive idiots isn't always a profitable idea. Yes, some will buy early but will that be enough? Don't think so.

 

[guiltyspark85]

I'm starting to think they're not specifically going to block Steam or other stores. Instead, the only PC games installable will be those from Xbox Windows store and there'll be no "Windows mode" for accessing 3rd party games and other software. That would deliver on the promise to be able to play PC games, while allowing Microsoft to inevitability screw up creating a product no one wants to purchase for playing PC games.

 

[Pissmaster]

I'm starting to think they're not specifically going to block Steam or other stores. Instead, the only PC games installable will be those from Xbox Windows store and there'll be no "Windows mode" for accessing 3rd party games and other software. That would deliver on the promise to be able to play PC games, while allowing Microsoft to inevitability screw up creating a product no one wants to purchase for playing PC games.

I could see this happening. It even bakes in the question "okay so why couldn't you just make everything Xbox Play Anywhere and allow Xbox Ones & Series Xs to run PC games?", which of course won't have a real answer.

Hey, remember when Windows 10 was supposed to be the last Windows ever? With the idea that everything moving forward would just be updates? And then Windows 11 happened, and now Windows 12 is happening. Why bother changing anything in any kind of sensible matter when you can just keep on doing shit that doesn't work out well for anyone?

 

[Tanner Glass]

What is to gain from it though? You spent a ton of money to get a stupid product that no one will want and then what? People will just buy a PC or the Steam Machine. Their determination to not benefit the consumer is impressive.

The benefit is simple, it's the same "walled garden" approach that's been done thousands of times prior.

For every user they lock into the "xbox ecosystem" - that person has a large incentive to stay there. Extra controllers will be Xbox controllers, game pass subscriptions, and digital games will all generate a profit for Microsoft and not another company. It's not just Microsoft's strategy, but Apple's, Sony's, Steam's, and Epic's also (and most other companies also). The center of the strategy this time is around digital games and digital libraries.

It's also part of why the Xbox 1 was such a disastrous launch for Microsoft - previously a "game collection" was mainly physical - so you could buy/sell/trade used copies with other people, on internet sites, or through brick and mortar stores (Gamestop, but even Walmart and Best Buy got into it for a while). This console generation was digital, so, as the PS4 established complete dominance (outselling the Xbox 2:1 or possibly even higher to 4:1, based on estimates) - it was putting those users into a walled garden.

Now when the PS5 and XBX launched - it wasn't an even playing ground anymore. A random user was roughly 200% more likely to a PS4 user and that user likely had a digital library (either raw purchased games, DLC, and/or games gotten from Playstation Plus) that could transfer over to the PS5, but not the XBX. It was a powerful tool that likely swayed many purchases (and will do so again, if Sony isn't completely retarded and makes sure PS4 Digital games work on PS6).

It's also part of why Epic Games is willing to spend so much money trying to poach Steam users - the ones they do will spend money on that platform instead - but they just can't make the economics work.

The Xbox team (and every team) has a set of metrics in front of them that they're desperately trying to tweak.

Cost to Acquire User = x
Average User Spend = y

X is anything they use to get you in - console bundles, pack in games, discounts, etc - any money they "spend" on getting you in. This also includes having the console as a loss leader (if needed), marketing, free games, and so on.

Y is how much profit the average user generates on the platform - they have specific user trends and such but only the average matters.

As long as X > Y - the company is successful, and when X < Y - the company is dying*. The main issue is existing digital libraries feel like a value add to users, but Xbox doesn't care - they want whoever they can get into their walled garden.

PS4 users had ~7 years to build up their libraries and were limited mainly to first-party-approved titles. Steam has been around for ~23 years and the average user has a massively larger library - where in it became a literal meme. There's a 0% chance Xbox will let Steam just run natively on any hardware they put out (unless Steam just buys their gaming division).

* Epic Games can do this because of Fortnite money and they're putting all of their hopes and dreams into walling in a bunch of people first before extracting value from them - but it won't work.

 

[Incecticyder]

The benefit is simple, it's the same "walled garden" approach that's been done thousands of times prior.

For every user they lock into the "xbox ecosystem" - that person has a large incentive to stay there. Extra controllers will be Xbox controllers, game pass subscriptions, and digital games will all generate a profit for Microsoft and not another company. It's not just Microsoft's strategy, but Apple's, Sony's, Steam's, and Epic's also (and most other companies also). The center of the strategy this time is around digital games and digital libraries.

It's also part of why the Xbox 1 was such a disastrous launch for Microsoft - previously a "game collection" was mainly physical - so you could buy/sell/trade used copies with other people, on internet sites, or through brick and mortar stores (Gamestop, but even Walmart and Best Buy got into it for a while). This console generation was digital, so, as the PS4 established complete dominance (outselling the Xbox 2:1 or possibly even higher to 4:1, based on estimates) - it was putting those users into a walled garden.

Now when the PS5 and XBX launched - it wasn't an even playing ground anymore. A random user was roughly 200% more likely to a PS4 user and that user likely had a digital library (either raw purchased games, DLC, and/or games gotten from Playstation Plus) that could transfer over to the PS5, but not the XBX. It was a powerful tool that likely swayed many purchases (and will do so again, if Sony isn't completely retarded and makes sure PS4 Digital games work on PS6).

It's also part of why Epic Games is willing to spend so much money trying to poach Steam users - the ones they do will spend money on that platform instead - but they just can't make the economics work.

The Xbox team (and every team) has a set of metrics in front of them that they're desperately trying to tweak.

Cost to Acquire User = x
Average User Spend = y

X is anything they use to get you in - console bundles, pack in games, discounts, etc - any money they "spend" on getting you in. This also includes having the console as a loss leader (if needed), marketing, free games, and so on.

Y is how much profit the average user generates on the platform - they have specific user trends and such but only the average matters.

As long as X > Y - the company is successful, and when X < Y - the company is dying*. The main issue is existing digital libraries feel like a value add to users, but Xbox doesn't care - they want whoever they can get into their walled garden.

PS4 users had ~7 years to build up their libraries and were limited mainly to first-party-approved titles. Steam has been around for ~23 years and the average user has a massively larger library - where in it became a literal meme. There's a 0% chance Xbox will let Steam just run natively on any hardware they put out (unless Steam just buys their gaming division).

* Epic Games can do this because of Fortnite money and they're putting all of their hopes and dreams into walling in a bunch of people first before extracting value from them - but it won't work.

Here's the thing though: MS does not have the bait to invite people into its trap. You can't trap people in a wall if you can't get them to come in. And if they do, then what? Will they come in high enough numbers? No, MS lost the gamers. They don't make consoles or games anymore. Just Game Pass. As we have seen, that isn't enough, especially with an expensive machine. XBox is cooked.

 

[Tanner Glass]

Here's the thing though: MS does not have the bait to invite people into its trap. You can't trap people in a wall if you can't get them to come in. And if they do, then what? Will they come in high enough numbers? No, MS lost the gamers. They don't make consoles or games anymore. Just Game Pass. As we have seen, that isn't enough, especially with an expensive machine. XBox is cooked.

Not to be an Xbox defender, but, who knows what happens next generation. If you were there at the end of the PS3 vs X360 generation you would have thought "no way Microsoft fucks this up" but here we are.

The PS5, while it has market share, is not a venerated console like the PS4 was and while the PS4 library was massive and good, it's very old now and not the value add it once was. The PS5 library, by comparison, is wet dogshit.

Nintendo's Switch 2 launch has been pretty bad as well, with a huge cost increase on the console and sneaking in "Switch 2 Version Upgrade" skus.

I don't think that Xbox is going to turn it around - but the PS5 and Switch2 certainly aren't unassailable this generation. All it's going to take is Sony or Microsoft to start unfucking their product and subsidiary studios but at least Xbox just had a big leadership shakeup and generally they can't make it worse than it was.

 

[Incecticyder]

Not to be an Xbox defender, but, who knows what happens next generation. If you were there at the end of the PS3 vs X360 generation you would have thought "no way Microsoft fucks this up" but here we are.

Not to be too much of a hater but the consoles getting ringed was an omen in my book. Yes, they fixed things but a lot of faith had been lost. Even PS3 was catching up by then. I was at the end of that generation and it was more of a coin toss. Everyone was eager to see what Sony had to show if only to speculate on what the games of the generation will be like. We know how that story ends.

The PS5, while it has market share, is not a venerated console like the PS4 was and while the PS4 library was massive and good, it's very old now and not the value add it once was. The PS5 library, by comparison, is wet dogshit.

Nintendo's Switch 2 launch has been pretty bad as well, with a huge cost increase on the console and sneaking in "Switch 2 Version Upgrade" skus.

I don't think that Xbox is going to turn it around - but the PS5 and Switch2 certainly aren't unassailable this generation. All it's going to take is Sony or Microsoft to start unfucking their product and subsidiary studios but at least Xbox just had a big leadership shakeup and generally they can't make it worse than it was.

I get that but here is the thing: MS never had a real plan for consoles. Nintendo always try to release fun games, Sony tries to make a console that can play as many games as possible (except for the PS3) but what is the MS plan? With Xbox it was PC games on consoles, with 360 it was flooding the market with cheap machines, with the Xbone it was resting on their laurels and with the Series it is to be the Game Pass console. No unified identity in its strategy. Just throwing stuff at the wall.

 

[Pissmaster]

With Xbox it was PC games on consoles, with 360 it was flooding the market with cheap machines, with the Xbone it was resting on their laurels and with the Series it is to be the Game Pass console. No unified identity in its strategy. Just throwing stuff at the wall.

360 actually seemed to be a good effort to get people into the Xbox ecosystem. They launched a year earlier than PS3 & Wii, and were the first to have a whole storefront where you could pay money for downloads, and build up a digital game library. And of course, the first to have paid online subscriptions required to even just play online. But, all the online features like achievements and being able to message people made it so you'd want your Xbox online, even if you didn't pay for Live.

Xbox One ruined it all because they invested way too heavily in Kinect, and designed the whole console around it, only to renege a year later. Their announcements also treated miscellaneous stuff like hooking up your cable box through your Xbox so you can watch TV picture-in-picture as arguably more important than the games you could play on your game system. I remember reading something about Xbox One being named that because "it's the one place for all your entertainment" or something. Just, lots of weird stuff that got too far away from the comfort of a straightforward game system, while Sony nailed that with the PS4. Mostly.

Series X|S is a new model of the Xbox One. It even has the same UI as the Xbox One. It exists because games are now made to have ray tracing and DLSS and shit, and I guess something's gotta compete with the PS5. I don't know why they don't just stitch an Xbox Series S to the back of a Surface tablet and call it an Xbox Deck.

 

[Super Hans v2]

I'm starting to think they're not specifically going to block Steam or other stores. Instead, the only PC games installable will be those from Xbox Windows store and there'll be no "Windows mode" for accessing 3rd party games and other software. That would deliver on the promise to be able to play PC games, while allowing Microsoft to inevitability screw up creating a product no one wants to purchase for playing PC games.

I agree this will probably be the case, but then why the fuck is MS even having this conversation? Xboxes already support KBM, a console has a fixed configuration so you're not going to get to customize the settings (past a Performance / Quality setting like now), and bull fucking shit is MS going to allow any modding when they already heavily restrict it for PC Game Pass.

 

[Achtung Bitter]

games, Sony tries to make a console that can play as many games as possible (except for the PS3)

‘Sony’s plan’ was flooding the industry with convoluted hardware in an attempt to prevent devs from porting software to other platforms. That plan died with old SCE, Kutaragi and teh cell.

If they try to make a console which plays the most videogames then why does my SeriesX play software from 2003 and ps5 doesn’t?

 

[Incecticyder]

360 actually seemed to be a good effort to get people into the Xbox ecosystem. They launched a year earlier than PS3 & Wii, and were the first to have a whole storefront where you could pay money for downloads, and build up a digital game library. And of course, the first to have paid online subscriptions required to even just play online. But, all the online features like achievements and being able to message people made it so you'd want your Xbox online, even if you didn't pay for Live.

As I said before, this prevented attachment. If the console needs replacement all the time, you do not get attached to the machine and you lose faith in their hardware. That goes a long way.

Xbox One ruined it all because they invested way too heavily in Kinect, and designed the whole console around it, only to renege a year later. Their announcements also treated miscellaneous stuff like hooking up your cable box through your Xbox so you can watch TV picture-in-picture as arguably more important than the games you could play on your game system. I remember reading something about Xbox One being named that because "it's the one place for all your entertainment" or something. Just, lots of weird stuff that got too far away from the comfort of a straightforward game system, while Sony nailed that with the PS4. Mostly.

XBONE almost felt the need to commit seppuku for the crime of being a game console. "Forgive me guys, I can do other things too! I can have you watch shows! I beg for forgiveness! Games aren't even my main thing! Please have mercy!" Seriously, what came over them? I get that they wanted to do the PS thing of playing DVD/Blue Rays but that isn't how you go about it. It is a game console. As for the Kinect, they liked it more than the public. Bundling it was the last straw.

Series X|S is a new model of the Xbox One. It even has the same UI as the Xbox One. It exists because games are now made to have ray tracing and DLSS and shit, and I guess something's gotta compete with the PS5. I don't know why they don't just stitch an Xbox Series S to the back of a Surface tablet and call it an Xbox Deck.

Series sucks. But it isn't entirely its fault. This generation has been unnecessary. I do believe that it started early for machines that are too expensive for little improvement. Sony and MS should have come to the table and decided not to release early.

 

[The Last Stand]

Series X|S is a new model of the Xbox One. It even has the same UI as the Xbox One. It exists because games are now made to have ray tracing and DLSS and shit, and I guess something's gotta compete with the PS5. I don't know why they don't just stitch an Xbox Series S to the back of a Surface tablet and call it an Xbox Deck.

I consider the Series X Microsoft’s best console since the Xbox 360. Of course, that’s because they rectified the many design flaws the Xbox One has now. Better D-Pad from their revised controller, backwards compatibility with multiple generations, faster start up times, faster boot process, a stable console that could stand vertically.

The problem is that since they’re focused on Game Pass, they’re going about it the wrong way. That Call of Duty acquisition bit off more than they could chew, their exclusive games are mediocre filler for Game Pass in mind, Ubisoft games are just copy paste slop now.

 

[Focken Kiwi]

If you were there at the end of the PS3 vs X360 generation you would have thought "no way Microsoft fucks this up" but here we are.

They fucked it up the moment it was revealed the Xbox One required you to connect online to use. More specifically, I think it was every 24 hours to authenticate your purchases and use your device. This led to to this absolutely legendary PS4 advertisement:

Now look where we are. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are all fumbling the ball.

 

[Übertroon]

‘Sony’s plan’ was flooding the industry with convoluted hardware in an attempt to prevent devs from porting software to other platforms. That plan died with old SCE, Kutaragi and teh cell.

If they try to make a console which plays the most videogames then why does my SeriesX play software from 2003 and ps5 doesn’t?

PS2 architecture was just as weird as PS3.
It wasn't a conspiracy to make porting more of a hassle than it was worth, it was the result of hardware development moving in multiple different directions and PC architecture being was less universal.
For its first three consoles Sony attempted to use in house hardware development that used novel tech.

https://arstechnica.com/features/2000/04/ps2vspc/

As PC architecture became more common and Sony recieved more and more negative feedback from developers they elected to make the PS4 more familiar to people used to PC hardware

 

[Incecticyder]

PS2 architecture was just as weird as PS3.
It wasn't a conspiracy to make porting more of a hassle than it was worth, it was the result of hardware development moving in multiple different directions and PC architecture being was less universal.
For its first three consoles Sony attempted to use in house hardware development that used novel tech.

https://arstechnica.com/features/2000/04/ps2vspc/

As PC architecture became more common and Sony recieved more and more negative feedback from developers they elected to make the PS4 more familiar to people used to PC hardware

The PS2 was the cheapest DVD player of its time AND played games. It was worth porting games into it for that reason.