Discussion Gameindustrybiz's Dring on Xbox:Xbox sales flatlining in Europe, majority of Xbox games coming to PS5 at some point, MS putting less focus on Gamepass

[9-Volt]

I'm stunned Xbox/Bethesda didn't have something like a remaster of 3/NV ready to go to capitalize on everyone loving the Fallout show

I'd be surprised there isn't a collection of some sorts in the works right now. To be released within this year. Oblivion is rumored to get a remaster from Virtuos, they could handle fallout 3-NV as well.

Microsoft's own 360 games are in dire need to be remastered too. Fable, Gears of War, Viva Piñata, Crackdown... Maybe they use this opportunity to bring the IP's other platforms as well.

 

[Hailinel]

I'm stunned Xbox/Bethesda didn't have something like a remaster of 3/NV ready to go to capitalize on everyone loving the Fallout show

They did just release the Fallout 4 next gen update, but it hasn't exactly impressed people in terms of what it actually updates and and broke a lot of mods.

 

[Steve]

They did just release the Fallout 4 next gen update, but it hasn't exactly impressed people in terms of what it actually updates and and broke a lot of mods.

It was also delayed for an entire year, I think just with that people expectation started to become slightly more higher.

 

[Giancarlo]

could Xbox turn into a Sega, with all this concerning results

 

[Steve]

could Xbox turn into a Sega, with all this concerning results

No… but I can see them undermining the hardware sector and only selling consoles within their own Microsoft stores, online and maybe also physical stores.

 

[Soul Skater]

They don't just spin their own financials, they also end up spinning larger narratives about their industries. Instead of focusing the conversation on how Microsoft's post-360 offerings have been underwhelming, Phil and others have used to PR to distract from Xbox's sad reality.

The amount they spin how they are actually winning by losing is starting to sound like this

Gaming industry’s face to foot style

 

[Síriocaz]

I finally realized why the sales are flatlining, it's because remote play works only half of the time.

 

[Razgriz]

I'm stunned Xbox/Bethesda didn't have something like a remaster of 3/NV ready to go to capitalize on everyone loving the Fallout show

The thing is that Fallout 3 hasn't aged particularly well narratively speaking (and the DLC mangles up the endgame) and even when we talk about the Fallout show, the focus there is on the west coast. The east coast generally is a mess in terms of narrative and the connection between Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 is pretty tenuous at best since they kinda did a quiet reset of the Brotherhood of Steel between those games. Out of all the Fallout games, 3 is the one you will probably never see a remaster of because it's the black sheep of the games; it doesn't do anything particularly right and it's reputation is kinda controversial at best.

New Vegas meanwhile is so buggy that a rerelease would probably mean more work for Bethesda than they'd probably gain from doing it. It's an iteration on their already kinda buggy version of Gamebryo right before Bethesda would turn it into the Creation Engine for Skyrim (which is what they've been using for all their games since then). It's several generations old by now and Bethesda's tech debt has only gotten worse since the release of Fallout 3.

 

[Hailinel]

The thing is that Fallout 3 hasn't aged particularly well narratively speaking (and the DLC mangles up the endgame) and even when we talk about the Fallout show, the focus there is on the west coast. The east coast generally is a mess in terms of narrative and the connection between Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 is pretty tenuous at best since they kinda did a quiet reset of the Brotherhood of Steel between those games. Out of all the Fallout games, 3 is the one you will probably never see a remaster of because it's the black sheep of the games; it doesn't do anything particularly right and it's reputation is kinda controversial at best.

New Vegas meanwhile is so buggy that a rerelease would probably mean more work for Bethesda than they'd probably gain from doing it. It's an iteration on their already kinda buggy version of Gamebryo right before Bethesda would turn it into the Creation Engine for Skyrim (which is what they've been using for all their games since then). It's several generations old by now and Bethesda's tech debt has only gotten worse since the release of Fallout 3.

And to make it more complicated, New Vegas was made by Obsidian using Bethesda's Gamebryo engine work.

 

[grobla123]

I like the hopium that like digital foundry and older and legacy western outlets and reviewers have and want some of it. So much has to go right for Microsoft for it to work out and they've stepped on their own feet so far.

Microsoft makes money selling 3rd party games and taking their cut. That's the business. So they need a strong platform/sales store to sell these from. So far this isn't really Xbox any more and it sure isn't the Microsoft store app on PC (it completely broke for me again recently, unfixable without a factory reset and fresh windows install, hooray I'm not even going to bother this time), nor is it for their streaming services/mobile efforts, yet.

The idea of a PC-like box/handheld is intriguing, especially if they get hybrid that can play full series S/and backcompat titles in like 2026/27 with next gen.

Microsoft should be able to use AI somewhat and new tech in upscaling, but it seems Sony is well on the way their too.

But Idk what Xbox adds to windows apart from gamepass, or what PC features add to xbox apart from steam/piracy/mods (which Microsoft likely doesn't want). Its hard to imagine a new thing that doesn't add the some of the negatives of either platform. Buying for only one platform is kind of nice, and that works for a handheld/companion device.

I don't know if Microsoft can ever compete with steam directly at this point. Even full parity with steam features and prices/sales/mods support, it would feel late and PC bros have not responded well to other launchers/apps. A slow and steady burn with consistent effort would be necessary. But all the talk of needing quicker ROI from higher ups... I have my doubts.

A new OS mode in windows for gaming could be good and feels very needed in the handheld space. But what makes windows is the legacy/broad software support and I guess easier UX than Linux. Can they maintain that in a gaming oriented OS mode, do they even want to?

There's room to grow, but I can't see them not play second banana to other platforms no matter where they go from here. Except for maybe streaming/mobile gamepass with King. That's a key revenue path, and Apple may need to allow more stores and Google getting slapped for anti competitive behavior, that might be viable.

That is without a consistent slate of quality games (and probably timed exclusives). Lets hope that Actiblizzion can put out some more quality titles I guess and the various games announced 4 years ago do well.

Xbox will likely never be Sega because I can see at least some form of gaming store on Windows existing forever, and they will definately keep trying something at least.

 

[Ricimer]

The thing is that Fallout 3 hasn't aged particularly well narratively speaking (and the DLC mangles up the endgame) and even when we talk about the Fallout show, the focus there is on the west coast. The east coast generally is a mess in terms of narrative and the connection between Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 is pretty tenuous at best since they kinda did a quiet reset of the Brotherhood of Steel between those games. Out of all the Fallout games, 3 is the one you will probably never see a remaster of because it's the black sheep of the games; it doesn't do anything particularly right and it's reputation is kinda controversial at best.

New Vegas meanwhile is so buggy that a rerelease would probably mean more work for Bethesda than they'd probably gain from doing it. It's an iteration on their already kinda buggy version of Gamebryo right before Bethesda would turn it into the Creation Engine for Skyrim (which is what they've been using for all their games since then). It's several generations old by now and Bethesda's tech debt has only gotten worse since the release of Fallout 3.

What? Non-hardcore Fallout fans love FO3, it's an incredibly mainstream and popular title. It will definitely see a remaster or remake one day.

 

[Silky]

I genuinely feel as if the narrative for a platform needing a killer app is only reserved for people who still abide by enthusiast conversations. None of those alleged killer apps provide the same financial security and player engagement as the usual suspects that are chart toppers on PS and Xbox -- Roblox, Fortnite, GTA, 2k to make examples.

Industry has shifted to where these killer apps and exclusive titles are just supplementary experiences for people to fit alongside of their forever games. A palate cleanser before going back to Roblox, Fortnite, GTA, 2K.

Of course, Nintendo is an exception, because people do not buy Nintendo consoles for anything not Nintendo.

 

[Mer.Saloon]

I genuinely feel as if the narrative for a platform needing a killer app is only reserved for people who still abide by enthusiast conversations. None of those alleged killer apps provide the same financial security and player engagement as the usual suspects that are chart toppers on PS and Xbox -- Roblox, Fortnite, GTA, 2k to make examples.

Industry has shifted to where these killer apps and exclusive titles are just supplementary experiences for people to fit alongside of their forever games. A palate cleanser before going back to Roblox, Fortnite, GTA, 2K.

Of course, Nintendo is an exception, because people do not buy Nintendo consoles for anything not Nintendo.

This has always been the thing though. Killer apps are the gateway to a console. Then the third party stuff props it all up and people migrate their third party habits onto the new machine. But a killer app is only half the story.

N64 did really well at first on the back of Mario 64, but the lack of solid and regular releases just made the platform drop. Had it not been for the strong quality of the lineup it probably would have sunk harder.

3DS' revival wasn't down to just the release of Mario 3D Land and the price cut, but a swam of new high quality games that followed after to prop up things.

PS1 had killer apps in Crash Bandicoot, and Final Fantasy, but people stayed for pretty much everything else.

Even Switch. Breath of the Wild was the gateway, but that solid first year lineup and strong 3rd party support kept it alive for so long.

 

[Hailinel]

This has always been the thing though. Killer apps are the gateway to a console. Then the third party stuff props it all up and people migrate their third party habits onto the new machine. But a killer app is only half the story.

N64 did really well at first on the back of Mario 64, but the lack of solid and regular releases just made the platform drop. Had it not been for the strong quality of the lineup it probably would have sunk harder.

3DS' revival wasn't down to just the release of Mario 3D Land and the price cut, but a swam of new high quality games that followed after to prop up things.

PS1 had killer apps in Crash Bandicoot, and Final Fantasy, but people stayed for pretty much everything else.

Even Switch. Breath of the Wild was the gateway, but that solid first year lineup and strong 3rd party support kept it alive for so long.

Yeah. Compare that with the Series S/X, and Microsoft didn't really offer a solid reason to buy the console (or upgrade from an X1 if you had one). Halo Infinite should have been that game in theory, but they completely mismanaged 343 Studios (cycling devs out on contracts????) and ended up with a game that didn't really satisfy anyone. And that was after the year-long delay following the disastrous PR around the gameplay reveal.

By contrast, Nintendo put every bit of their marketing, including an entire E3, into promoting Breath of the Wild, which which was both ready to show when they began the marketing push (so no "Craig" moments) and was positioned as the reason to buy a Switch on day one.

 

[Silky]

This has always been the thing though. Killer apps are the gateway to a console. Then the third party stuff props it all up and people migrate their third party habits onto the new machine. But a killer app is only half the story.

N64 did really well at first on the back of Mario 64, but the lack of solid and regular releases just made the platform drop. Had it not been for the strong quality of the lineup it probably would have sunk harder.

3DS' revival wasn't down to just the release of Mario 3D Land and the price cut, but a swam of new high quality games that followed after to prop up things.

PS1 had killer apps in Crash Bandicoot, and Final Fantasy, but people stayed for pretty much everything else.

Even Switch. Breath of the Wild was the gateway, but that solid first year lineup and strong 3rd party support kept it alive for so long.

The nature of how games are played in this day and age have shifted significantly though, the idea of a 'killer app' doesn't carry the same appeal as those forever games that I listed in my last post.

I firmly believe people do not buy consoles for first party content unless, of course, if it pertains to Mario. They gravitate to what their friends and associates would be playing CoD, GTA, Roblox, Fortnite etc. on. first and foremost.
--

Yeah. Compare that with the Series S/X, and Microsoft didn't really offer a solid reason to buy the console (or upgrade from an X1 if you had one). Halo Infinite should have been that game in theory, but they completely mismanaged 343 Studios (cycling devs out on contracts????) and ended up with a game that didn't really satisfy anyone. And that was after the year-long delay following the disastrous PR around the gameplay reveal.

By contrast, Nintendo put every bit of their marketing, including an entire E3, into promoting Breath of the Wild, which which was both ready to show when they began the marketing push (so no "Craig" moments) and was positioned as the reason to buy a Switch on day one.

There is never going to be a point in time where Halo will ever be that kind of product for Microsoft anymore, and I say that as a Halo fan. The audience that would make that so have moved on to CoD and Fortnite. Halo exists in a hyper-competitive genre that have long since passed on the elements of what made Halo revolutionary.

There's nothing based in reality that would suggest that was ever the case after 343 took over the franchise. CoD came and did it's thing lmao.

I'll have to agree with contractual work -- it's a notoriously stupid thing in MS and what will ultimately harm a lot of the dev force they recently acquired.

 

[Mer.Saloon]

The nature of how games are played in this day and age have shifted significantly though, the idea of a 'killer app' doesn't carry the same appeal as those forever games that I listed in my last post.

I firmly believe people do not buy consoles for first party content unless, of course, if it pertains to Mario. They gravitate to what their friends and associates would be playing CoD, GTA, Roblox, Fortnite etc. on. first and foremost.

The main impact of a killer app is in a machine's first two years. That's when the most eyes are on the thing just because it's the new hawtness.

A killer app isn't going to save Series X after what 3 years now on the market? It's a sinking ship. Killer apps couldn't save the Wii U when they came waaay too late and there was no backup. Killer apps couldn't save the gamecube without backup either. Killer apps are only really killer during the early life, and they're nothing without backup.

The only system in history that had a late Killer app revival was the Gameboy with Pokemon, and that will never be replicated again on a singular piece of hardware.

 

[Silky]

The main impact of a killer app is in a machine's first two years. That's when the most eyes are on the thing just because it's the new hawtness.

A killer app isn't going to save Series X after what 3 years now on the market? It's a sinking ship. Killer apps couldn't save the Wii U when they came waaay too late and there was no backup. Killer apps couldn't save the gamecube without backup either. Killer apps are only really killer during the early life, and they're nothing without backup.

The only system in history that had a late Killer app revival was the Gameboy with Pokemon, and that will never be replicated again on a singular piece of hardware.

Are those games not significantly impacted when the install base for those forever games will just migrate to those titles instead?

I'm agreeing with the idea that a killer app isn't going to save it. But I also think that the idea of a sought after title on a platform no one wants is a fools errand.

 

[Mer.Saloon]

Are those games not significantly impacted when the install base for those forever games will just migrate to those titles instead?

I'm agreeing with the idea that a killer app isn't going to save it. But I also think that the idea of a sought after title on a platform no one wants is a fools errand.

Well no one wants the platform mainly because it doesn't stand out. Otherwise the Series X is a really good console. Gamepass is an absolute steal of a deal if you utilize it, and you have access to incredible backwards compatible titles that frankly puts Nintendo and Sony's efforts to shame by how incredible they are. But well, to a layman there's nothing about that which really stands out.

It's not like the Wii U, where it's objectively bad hardware trying to be propped by sporadic but high quality 1st party software.

Edit: To answer your first question, yeah they are impacted, but that's later down the line I'd argue. The 1st and 2nd year software takes the lion's share of legacy sales. And it's where the biggest 1st party software should come out.

 

[Brock Reiher]

They're missing out. Xbox is definitely the best platform to play non-Nintendo games right now. Especially indie games since the notable ones are usually free on Gamepass. Best current gen controller as well.

 

[JazzPotatoes]

I think my main takeaway from the MS financials is that Microsoft the company is going all in on a cross platform approach that is going to do absolutely nothing for Xbox hardware sales.

Dropping -31% YoY at this stage of the generation is a pretty dire warning of the things are heading. Gamepass isn't driving demand for hardware. If Microsoft still want to have a hardware platform where they get the owner's cut of sales across all games, then they need to start focusing on getting active great exclusives out there to make people want the hardware. But at this stage, I'm not even sure that's what they want.

I think there's been a pretty big lack of imagination from the Xbox higher ups. It seems like they're resigned to a mindset of "People already have their Playstations, so we'll just go to there they are" rather than trying to compete with any sort of unique selling point. Imagine if the Nintendo higher ups looked at the exodus of third parties during the Wii U era and surmised from that they couldn't compete with PlayStation. Instead, they presented the Switch as it's own thing that competes on its own terms, and has a completely different appeal than just being another console box.

 

[JazzPotatoes]

The nature of how games are played in this day and age have shifted significantly though, the idea of a 'killer app' doesn't carry the same appeal as those forever games that I listed in my last post.

I firmly believe people do not buy consoles for first party content unless, of course, if it pertains to Mario. They gravitate to what their friends and associates would be playing CoD, GTA, Roblox, Fortnite etc. on. first and foremost.
--

I seem to recall Breath of the Wild being absolutely pivotal to the launch day response to the Switch.

I must be mistaken...

 

[Silky]

I seem to recall Breath of the Wild being absolutely pivotal to the launch day response to the Switch.

I must be mistaken...

There is obviously a very stark difference of brand strength between something like Zelda and everything else.

It is difficult to compare Nintendo's practices to everyone else within the industry because, unlike everyone else, Nintendo's priority over their brand strength is their bread and butter. Sony, MS, have nothing to compare to that.

 

[Pillydillsy]

There is never going to be a point in time where Halo will ever be that kind of product for Microsoft anymore, and I say that as a Halo fan. The audience that would make that so have moved on to CoD and Fortnite. Halo exists in a hyper-competitive genre that have long since passed on the elements of what made Halo revolutionary.

I mean Mario Odyssey didn’t do anything too revolutionary, and it came from a genre that was fading in popularity for years (3D platformers), yet it was still a massively popular game that even non Nintendo fans adored. I really don’t see why a Halo game with as much love as Odyssey and a consistent development team wouldn’t be the kind of smash hit Xbox so desperately needs

 

[Danny]

The nature of how games are played in this day and age have shifted significantly though, the idea of a 'killer app' doesn't carry the same appeal as those forever games that I listed in my last post.

I firmly believe people do not buy consoles for first party content unless, of course, if it pertains to Mario. They gravitate to what their friends and associates would be playing CoD, GTA, Roblox, Fortnite etc. on. first and foremost.
--

There is never going to be a point in time where Halo will ever be that kind of product for Microsoft anymore, and I say that as a Halo fan. The audience that would make that so have moved on to CoD and Fortnite. Halo exists in a hyper-competitive genre that have long since passed on the elements of what made Halo revolutionary.

There's nothing based in reality that would suggest that was ever the case after 343 took over the franchise. CoD came and did it's thing lmao.

I'll have to agree with contractual work -- it's a notoriously stupid thing in MS and what will ultimately harm a lot of the dev force they recently acquired.

People have never bought PS because of first party games. Sony themselves have acknowledged that they have always been fully dependant on third party games. The only difference is what kind of third party games they are dependant on. It used to be stuff like Final Fantasy, now its Minecraft, CoD and Fortnite.

 

[robertman2]

The whole "exclusives don't matter!" is pure and utter cope on the part of Phil Spencer.

 

[Silky]

I mean Mario Odyssey didn’t do anything too revolutionary, and it came from a genre that was fading in popularity for years (3D platformers), yet it was still a massively popular game that even non Nintendo fans adored. I really don’t see why a Halo game with as much love as Odyssey and a consistent development team wouldn’t be the kind of smash hit Xbox so desperately needs

It doesn't have to do anything revolutionary. It's Mario.

Mario 3D World on Wii-U sold 6 million and we don't even know if Halo 5 even passed Halo 4's marker of 8 million. That should give you an understanding of how small Halo is compared to Mario.

Consider what Halo has to compete against versus what Mario doesn't have to compete against. a $70 sku on a platform no one wants, and a platform it's done it's damndest to make itself known as a lesser entity. (You can't even buy Halo 5 on PC lmfao.) Who is a theorhetical smash hit Halo game for? The people who have migrated off of Xbox in favor of just getting a PC? The audience disgruntled by Call of Duty's consecutive blunders? (This audience does not exist, and if they were, they are a supreme insignificance to reality lmao.) How does Halo prop itself up as a must-have title lmao, by being a complete sku or some shit? Gears did that TWICE and people still didn't buy it because there's just no place for those franchises in the greater operating space.

So what Halo, Gears and any other console shooter that isn't CoD have to do is re-evaluate the audience who DOES play this game and strive to provide the best package for their diehards. It's all that's left.

 

[Aether]

I mean Mario Odyssey didn’t do anything too revolutionary, and it came from a genre that was fading in popularity for years (3D platformers), yet it was still a massively popular game that even non Nintendo fans adored. I really don’t see why a Halo game with as much love as Odyssey and a consistent development team wouldn’t be the kind of smash hit Xbox so desperately needs

It's....mario. generally hard to compare to, but also:
There isn't much else comparable, it singlehandedly kept the 3d platformer alive (I'm blowing it out of proportions, I'm aware)

And it set a milestone where some argue it could be counted as the best 3D platformer there is.

That's far from "it's fine" I as a not halo fan could read even from it's fanbase, in a genre that has way more to offer.

 

[Pillydillsy]

It doesn't have to do anything revolutionary. It's Mario.

Mario 3D World on Wii-U sold 6 million and we don't even know if Halo 5 even passed Halo 4's marker of 8 million. That should give you an understanding of how small Halo is compared to Mario.

Consider what Halo has to compete against versus what Mario doesn't have to compete against. a $70 sku on a platform no one wants, and a platform it's done it's damndest to make itself known as a lesser entity. (You can't even buy Halo 5 on PC lmfao.) Who is a theorhetical smash hit Halo game for? The people who have migrated off of Xbox in favor of just getting a PC? The audience disgruntled by Call of Duty's consecutive blunders? (This audience does not exist, and if they were, they are a supreme insignificance to reality lmao.) How does Halo prop itself up as a must-have title lmao, by being a complete sku or some shit? Gears did that TWICE and people still didn't buy it because there's just no place for those franchises in the greater operating space.

So what Halo, Gears and any other console shooter that isn't CoD have to do is re-evaluate the audience who DOES play this game and strive to provide the best package for their diehards. It's all that's left.

Admittedly comparing Mario to most any franchise isn’t fair, but at the same time I think the point stands that Halo does have a large audience of people who would play if Xbox just played their cards right. When the Halo Infinite online launched for free it was a smash hit at first, as was the 60 dollar campaign. The amount of people playing was comparable to other shooters like COD or Battlefield, and the consensus was pretty positive on the games quality as well. If Xbox had prepared a roadmap of content ahead of launch, really kept that momentum going, Halo would absolutely be doing great right now

 

[Silky]

Admittedly comparing Mario to most any franchise isn’t fair, but at the same time I think the point stands that Halo does have a large audience of people who would play if Xbox just played their cards right. When the Halo Infinite online launched for free it was a smash hit at first, as was the 60 dollar campaign. The amount of people playing was comparable to other shooters like COD or Battlefield, and the consensus was pretty positive on the games quality as well. If Xbox had prepared a roadmap of content ahead of launch, really kept that momentum going, Halo would absolutely be doing great right now

Maybe if Microsoft had the workhorse of CoD developers endlessly making CoD content, sure, but this isn't the case. MS will not divert that many resources for a brand like Halo. So I'll have to disagree.

The only way Halo has a leg to stand on to even be that sort of franchise is if they completely abandon single-player and co-op content, and pivot towards multiplayer and user-generated content. But that will never happen because the audience for those feature suites are way too large to ignore. So what do you do? Divert resources to the same 6-8 hour campaign, co-op, multiplayer, creative suites etc? Like people swear up and down that Battlefield needs single player content but that has never been the case lmao

 

[JazzPotatoes]

There is obviously a very stark difference of brand strength between something like Zelda and everything else.

Before BotW, the last mainline 3D Zelda was Skyward Sword, arguably the least popular and most divisive 3D game among the fanbase. Before BotW, no Zelda game had sold more than Twilight Princess at around 8 million sales. Before BotW, the series had been increasingly trending away from the GOAT-tier status of games like Ocarina and Link To The Past, and was seen as a series becoming increasingly locked into the same old design templates while the rest of the industry moved on.

The point being, there was absolutely no guarantee that a Zelda game of all things was going to blow the lid off the Switch and become the most important launch title since Wii Sports. Nintendo smashed it out of the park, then then kept hitting home runs. They managed to make a Mario + Rabbids game a genuinely hyped, anticipated part of their first year lineup. If Nintendo (and Ubisoft) can make Mario and Rabbids of all things a big deal, why can't Microsoft get people excited about Halo?

It is difficult to compare Nintendo's practices to everyone else within the industry because, unlike everyone else, Nintendo's priority over their brand strength is their bread and butter. Sony, MS, have nothing to compare to that.

The point is that if MS actually focused on their brand strength and tried to make that more of a priority, they wouldn't need to spend $70 billion buying publishers just to keep their gaming division afloat.

 

[Lozjam]

Maybe if Microsoft had the workhorse of CoD developers endlessly making CoD content, sure, but this isn't the case. MS will not divert that many resources for a brand like Halo. So I'll have to disagree.

The only way Halo has a leg to stand on to even be that sort of franchise is if they completely abandon single-player and co-op content, and pivot towards multiplayer and user-generated content. But that will never happen because the audience for those feature suites are way too large to ignore. So what do you do? Divert resources to the same 6-8 hour campaign, co-op, multiplayer, creative suites etc? Like people swear up and down that Battlefield needs single player content but that has never been the case lmao

A multiplayer, online game is never going to push the envolope and sell systems nowadays. Especially when you can play Fortnite, or CoD for free. The competition there is just too strong.

These games can absolutely be huge successes, and make a lot of money. Just look at something like Helldivers. However, they aren't system sellers.

There is obviously a very stark difference of brand strength between something like Zelda and everything else.

It is difficult to compare Nintendo's practices to everyone else within the industry because, unlike everyone else, Nintendo's priority over their brand strength is their bread and butter. Sony, MS, have nothing to compare to that.

Here are the sales of the previous Zelda games before BotW:
Triforce Heroes: Less than 1.3 million copies
A Link Between Worlds: 4 million copies
Skyward Sword: 3 million copies.

The series wasn't really doing anything that great before BotW. Most Halo games have outsold pre BotW Zelda, with the exception of Twilight Princess.

 

[grobla123]

I think its pretty funny to say killer apps don't matter for getting people on to your ecosystem/storefront because big GaaS titles exist. Microsoft gets all the same big GaaS titles and are in a distant third (fourth if you include steam). And to immediately have to carve out an exception for Nintendo. That's a non starter.

I wonder what ever the difference could be? People lack confidence in Microsoft and generations of having less exclusive offerings have everything to do with that. People talk about TV, digital only and bungled marketing and that did hurt, but most casual players didn't see any of that, they just see less Halo and little of everything else.

But that was then and this is now. Maybe it IS too late to win people back with traditional exclusive competition (I don't know, I'd like to see them try though, but modern game dev is expensive sans some indies).

But every single sales platform needs something they offer that other's dont, especially when competition is entrenched. Maybe that's gamepass, but that is expensive to run as is and eats at full game sales. It's not nothing, but it seems profit growth potential in that space isn't huge from here, but it's certainly been an improvement for Microsoft and gotten good word of mouth.

For Amazon its prime/delivery/convenience/ultra cheap and stolen designs and their own various products. For Nintendo and Sony its a combination of exclusives, the continued consumer belief more exclusives will come AND the strong and supported ecosystems.

Sony will certainly make more games available on PC and maybe GaaS services on Xbox even. But a 3-4 year gap for say God of War or Uncharted or something feels like the best of both worlds. selling 5m on Console and another 1m on PC later with the timed exclusivity, is better that 4.7m on console and 1.5m on PC right now, in my eyes anyway (maybe another 0.5-1m on Xbox too if Sony wanted to go that route).

If it gets people buying COD and Fortnite skins and battle passes on your platform then a couple of mill on a loss leader isn't a big deal. It's like supermarkets selling their own branded milk at a loss. (If the milk was a creative and expensive to develop product. Well its more like Netflix vs Disney+ exclusives really).

There's the argument that a random dev could make the next fortnite or probably a smaller but still big hit and have their own ecosystem like Fortnite/epic or roblox does and that's the future. But how do you capture that? What is an existing platform holder's strategy to extract or value add on those high risk unknowns from 3rd parties? How does Microsoft do it? Well they buy Cod and Warcraft and King...after they've been at the peak of their success and for a very hefty sum. No one ever sells anything for less that they think it will be worth in the long term. Big acquisitions famously are more miss than hit for the buyer in the long term with some exceptions, usually for removal of competition or a complete reinvigoration/upheaval of the industry (And for that matter Sony bought Bungie and invests in GaaS which has had its own controversy).

Its seems the best strategy is simply to have the bigger platform, to get a bigger share of sales. And how do you get a bigger platform in the first place? Exclusives baby. (And maybe that handheld thing will work out for Microsoft, they're still a bigger name than Steam... I think? total sales wise maybe not. But a console UX may be better for the average gamer than Steam OS+ Linux? Maybe? Or maybe it goes down like the Vita who knows. Steam doesn't seem to think its worth outbidding to for parts to flood the market with Steam decks right now. Maybe Microsoft still has some strong business connections to leverage, or are more happy to eat the immediate costs upfront. Maybe a companion piece to boost the overall platform for mobile/streaming/nextbox strat. That's expensive but it could be worth it.

Actibilizzion King cost 75.4b and Microsoft executives wants that return now. King itself makes over net revenue of 2b a year and mobile is key growth space so that could be big, I could see that. And the total of Activision blizzard is similar. Not a huge return but hopefully the games and IP in their existing catalogue and new stuff helps boost gamepass/new platforms (Again relying a new games, almost like that's the industry Xbox exists within).

I guess if Microsoft goes lean (can cod/overwatch go much leaner and still make a viable product? my understanding is the seams are already starting to show and sales are finally dipping, but trends can be reversed with...more investment and vision). The games can sell with lower expenses. Maybe A.I smashes expenses and overall quantity of games of all sorts takes off?

But there's really nothing stopping the competition from going leaner either, getting more smaller or GaaS games out. If there is one business case to fault Sony on its expenses. They really like to push that tech and its probably gotten out of hand. But its still working for them for now, its still profitable. And there's probably room to cut expenses without compromising game quality too much. Quantity has been crushed by Covid and booming costs. And this year is a no big old IP year apparently. Not that Sony has shown off the new IP for a full year either.

Frankly I have my doubts that Microsoft will be any better at pushing GaaS and smaller titles than Sony would be. Online games are a different beast though and old pipelines/skills don't necessarily translate. Maybe it really is the great equalizer.

Its also pretty neat that handheld/hybrid talk is back at all. And Microsoft is in a neat position to target Series S specs in like 2026/27. I guess Sony could make one too but PS4/pro would be the only viable target unless they are happy needing ports of PS5 games. Heck they could probably put one out next year if they really wanted to.

Its true that if traditionally Xbox is never profitable, why make an Xbox at all, or not shift to releasing on all platforms. What do they have to lose at this point? Being a big publisher at minimum isn't the worst business in the world even if it cost 70b to get you there. You just do the best you can with what you have.

Microsoft overall could probably use tech for other cases like business and (and maybe military). Though gaming feels like more of a little extra bonus then. But using gaming as a place to develop such tech may be valuable.

 

[amiigo]

Chiming in real quick to mention that saying Mario Odyssey didn't do anything revolutionary is some coked up revisionist history

 

[Pillydillsy]

Chiming in real quick to mention that saying Mario Odyssey didn't do anything revolutionary is some coked up revisionist history

Mario Odyssey is one of my favorite games, but I don’t really feel like it did anything that new. It mainly just perfected what previous 3D platformers had done