I don't quite understand MS strategy

On a business point, bringing their games to as many platforms as possible is understandably a good move, and I'm not just talking about Xbox/Windows ecosystem, but also Nintendo and Sony, with the exception of selected few games that will stay exclusively on Xbox and/or Windows.

That begs the question though, as what kind of scenario this "openness" may possibly mean for Microsoft and for their future in the console business.

How is the average gamer enticed to buying a Microsoft platform knowing that their games are also available elsewhere?

Are they merely focusing on the services provided within the Xbox ecosystem, and exported outside of their own hardware, in order to reach a bigger chunk of market? If that is the case, what kind of role does their console/s really play in such a scenario?

Throw spanner in the works for other versions and give perks to the version they really want you to buy.

This isn't new at all btw, Sega was releasing stuff on Nintendo, Commodore, Spectrum and PC long before their hardware business went bust.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y75M95UdaK0

They just ported the smaller budget games that didn’t sell that well anyways. Like Ori, Super Luckys Tale and Cuphead. Those games can easily run on the Switch. Surprised they haven’t put Quantum Break and Recore on the PS4 to recoup sales. I think Sony/Insomniac own the full rights to Sunset Overdrive now and would make the call on a PS4 port.

They're really only going to be concentrating on Xbox and PC at this point. Unless of course Xbox consoles are successful again, which they'll immediately walk back on Play Anywhere. Putting games on Switch was just a short-term scheme to boost XBL numbers for investor reporting.

Phil was full of shit with his motto of playing Xbox games "How you want, wherever you want". It's just PR in the end. They only play nice-nice for so long with their rivals before looking for the next scheme to crush them.

@BenjaminBanklin: ding ding ding!

MS’ strategy changes everyday And will continue to do so. Xbox going subscription based is just to show a constant revenue stream on their quarterlies. That’s it.

Well it’s my understanding that most of the games coming out on other systems are just ones that the developers were working on prior to them being purchased by Microsoft. After that I think they’ll be focusing their subsequent games on Xbox and PC.

Because Microsoft has accepted they will never beat Sony PlayStation in the console war. So they figure “why not just make everything available everywhere? Cut our losses and try and make some money?”

Their strategy is the “exit” strategy. They know the Xbox brand has been a complete failure for the last 20 years and they are slowly killing it off.

They just want to suck the last couple million gamers dry of money who are still subscribers lol

Step 1 Charge a dollar

Step 2 ....

Step 3 Profit

A company that pivot being a Service Based by Nadella want the gaming sector to be service based too. No more spending billions to develop hardware if his plan works.

they want you to be a part of their services, and forget to unsubscribe

My take is that Microsoft kind of views the game industry like the smartphone industry now. They know their hardware and service are quite good, but they offer their software on different systems.

If you want the absolute best version of a Microsoft game, you will buy the XBox One X. Microsoft is kind of like Google in a way - you can get Android on any Android device, but if you want the full, intended experience then you will go for the Pixel, or the XBox.

Ever since the Mega Drive/Genesis, the standard console business model has been to sell the hardware at a loss (or minor profit at best) and reap the real profits on the software. The hardware is merely a vehicle, a means to an end, to sell the software.

In the 16-bit era, the SNES outsold the MD/Gen in hardware, yet the MD/Gen outsold in software, with a 16:1 attach rate (compared to the 8:1 attach rate of the SNES).

But generally, there is typically a correlation between hardware and software sales. That's why Sony and Nintendo sell way more software than Microsoft. With the exception of the 16-but era (MD/Gen sold the most software and SNES sold the most hardware), every other generation's top-selling console hardware also sold the most software.

A worthy discussion, but why do you care?

Go where the money is.

No matter how successful the hardware division is, it will never amount to anything but a blip on the earnings radar for the mammoth that is MS. Beef up software because that’s where the margins lie and everything else can be a company pet project.

Fixed. :)

I think the key to understanding what they are doing, is to look closer at what you expect them to be aiming for.

The strategy is simple. Software and services = money.

Obviously they're hoping Game Pass becomes the video game equivalent of Netflix/Amazon Prime.

They need a lot more big games day one for that to happen and I mean outside of the studios they've bought and I just can't see that ever happening.

Can you imagine Twatovision or EA or Ubisoft giving up all their day one Microtransaction frenzy and giving it all away for free on Gamepass? Never, ever, ever going to happen.

I'm not sure what their endgame is. As it stands though, Gamepass is the best thing to happen to gamers who own a PC or Xbox One. So I hope they succeed somehow, I just can't see it happening.

To GP? Definitely not. EA has Access, and Ubi now has Uplay+, which is their own version of GP. I don't think Acti has anything yet, but just give that time.

MS will probably do the same thing and release all first-party titles, but continue to accrue a library of older games. Uplay+ has a bunch of old Ubi titles, which is cool... I actually preferred it over Origin Access.

@lundy86_4: Yeah I know what MS plan is but gamers aren't like Netflix users who are happy to pay a fee and browse to see what they want to watch. They want all the best stuff they don't care about the rest.

I don't see how MS can supply enough top quality content (God I hate describing games in that way but it is what it is) so I just don't see their endgame or if they even have one. I definitely prefer Gamepass to Access and Uplay etc in fact I haven't even considered touching the others.

Interesting times ahead for sure but I don't see any online game service monopoly happening any time soon they are all grabbing desperately at our wallets but not prevailing lol. My money's on Gamepass it's currently unbeatable.

@blueinheaven: MS are pretty much squarely where the other services are. EA's last big release was Anthem, and Uplay+ had Odyssey/Breakpoint. They all utilize older titles to keep people interested, whilst releasing newer titles day 1.

As for who prevails, I definitely agree. They're all scrambling but prices are approaching $100+ per month for gaming, and similar for TV/Movie streaming. It's shocking that piracy exists... I'm dumbfounded lol.

@lundy86_4: EA Acess or Uplay doesn't offer a huge selection of big games and a ton of minor ones for a very low fee you can still get Gamepass deals for next to nothing.

This aggressive stance from MS is an amazing deal for gamers and anyone who can take advantage of it should do so now because the price will definitely rise. Publisher exclusive services such as you mentioned aren't even on the same planet as what's being offered by Gamepass.

How long MS can sustain it is what remains to be seen but it's indisputably the best deal on the table by a million miles, IMO.

Pretty simple to understand. MS is taking XGS and expanding it to other platforms besides Xbox hardware. Gamepass/Xcloud are services to bring in more customers to tap into gamers/devices that arent xbox/pc hardware.

XGS is sustained by MS to boost profile of azure/cloud services(also its goal of making gaming accesible to everyone).Hence Sony Deal along with many more down the road. This bolsters azure/Xcloud and XGS benefits by acquiring more studios and increasing value of Gamepass and growing Xcloud service.

Gamers get the benefit of playing games and having more options. Game on local hardware via xbox/pc, stream via Xcloud on whatever device as the service grows and enjoy Gamepass, it's only going to get better.

Since Balmer left, thier strategy has been to expand services and products to as many platforms as possible. You see this in almost everything they make, from visual studio code being the most popular IDE for node developers, to them being one of the highest rated developers on the iOS store. Additionally, they have opensourced almost all of their development languages. This strategy has helped them get to the 2nd most valuable company in the world (Apple overtook them by a few million yesterday).

They want to offer games to other platforms as a cost of acquiring new customers for their services.

The strategy of their great games and great consoles seems to be working well. Thank you Microsoft!

Basically I get from this generation they want 1st party games everywhere.

@pitty8982: did u miss the part recently where MS said that their AAA games wouldn’t be on anything but Xbox and PC going forward?

I know plenty of people that simply do not want to build, buy or maintain a gaming PC. That is what the console is for. And it’s stupid to think with all their new studios that better software isn’t going to come out in the future. That and their gamepass and services are what they are looking at to entice people to buy in. It isn’t hard to understand at all. It just remains to be seen.

P.S. I love reading all the MS haters try to talk about “quarterlies” and investors. I’ve been a series 7 registered broker, have owned MSFT stock for a long time. None of u know what the fvck you’re talking about lmao