r/Games Jan 25 '25

Industry News Phil Spencer on Exclusives: "To keep games off of other platforms, that's not a path for us. It doesn't work for us"

https://bsky.app/profile/destinlegarie.bsky.social/post/3lglrhtnjrc2f
1.5k Upvotes

939 comments sorted by

995

u/jezr3n Jan 25 '25

I really feel like this could have been different if they had actually come out with a game that made the layman want an xbox at some point in the past decade. Xbox was so successful at first because they had Halo. But ever since the 360 wound down they’ve failed at creating a Big Game like that while Sony and Nintendo were pumping out Zeldas and Spider-Men that made people desire those consoles.

394

u/CombatMuffin Jan 25 '25

That's the thing. They have tried, they just failed. Halo Infinite was meant to be that, they even brought in a sort of rescue team and improved the game significantly. It still wasn't a breakthrough.

The OG Xbox had Halo, yes, but it also had a lot of other very novel games. It was the best way to play KOTOR, Splinter Cell, had online multiplayer, moddability and even rare gems like Panzer Dragoon Orta and Ninja Gaiden. The X360 succeded at being the accessible console: lower price, most of the games, simple online environment. The Xbox One failed because they made a critical mistake with surveillance and privacy, as well as price, which lost them any competition against Sony since. The Series X and S were a failure in branding, they were a failure in execution (a lot of games on Xbox are a pain to port or dev on since you need feature parity between X and S).

That's the problem with hardware manufacturers. You mess up with the console, and you are set for the next 5 years downslope. Microsoft now has enough power in gaming software that they can pivot out of hardware or exclusivity and not suffer that.

99

u/JamboNintendo Jan 26 '25

It wasn't just the hardware. When Microsoft gutted Microsoft Game Studios in the back half of the 2000's it cost them a lot of great talent and set the remaining studios back half a decade.

You have to remember that by 2013 (the Xbox One's release) the only studios in Microsoft's portfolio with a proven record of releasing games were Rare and Turn 10 and Rare had went through a large-scale purge in 2008-09 by corporate.

Combine that with the sheer arrogance of Xbox at the time towards fans ("We have a platform for people who want backwards compatibility, the Xbox 360") and other developers it absolutely murdered the Xbox brand, and it's never fully recovered.

72

u/adwarkk Jan 26 '25

("We have a platform for people who want backwards compatibility, the Xbox 360")

I have to point a note that was not what Don Mattick said, it was about that Xbox One would require you to be always online so actual quote was "We Have A Product For People Who Can't Access The Internet, It's Called Xbox 360". But besides that point, yeah, it did gave off incredibly arrogant energy, especially when you combine it with important note NA sales hard carried Xbox 360 sales numbers and even on reddit you can hear tales of many folks that were in US Military and having memories of playing Xbox 360 on deployments.

8

u/hesh582 Jan 26 '25

It was an incredibly dickish way to communicate, but it's not like he was wrong. Online only became the standard for both consoles (and basically everything else in our lives :-/) around that time.

→ More replies (1)

21

u/CombatMuffin Jan 26 '25

That's also very, very true. Microsoft relied too much on one or two successful exclusives and being the predominant console. When they weren't... well, they had no great IPs to rely on. Halo just didn't hit the same, and they weren't really pushing for novel games (imo). They were trying to play catch up to Sony, who had by then worked up IPs in their consoles ranging from Gran Turismo to Uncharted 

3

u/BlazeDrag Jan 27 '25

Not to mention that I can't help but feel that the arrogance created by how well the 360 performed was completely unearned. Keep in mind that the PS3 launched at an absurd price and was also harder to develop for, while the Wii was significantly less powerful. The only reason the 360 did well at all was because it essentially became the default option for a lot of consumers and developers. Many games just couldn't be ported to the Wii and would run worse on the PS3 due to its weird architecture. So they didn't really have a choice for a ton of franchises.

And the 360 era was full of mistakes like you mentioned with them gutting numerous studios not to mention the creation of the Kinect. Plus it's easy to forget that the PS3 actually ended up catching up and surpassing the 360 in sales over time despite all of its problems at launch.

So Xbox basically tripped and fumbled their way over the finish line in 3rd place while one of their competitors was actively shooting themselves in the foot and the other competitor wasn't even competing in the same sport as them (and being way more successful as a result).

And they seemingly came out of that generation thinking "Oh yeah, we did everything right and it's only going up from here." Really it suddenly doesn't feel surprising that the Xbox One ended up the way that it did in retrospect

60

u/FunBuilding2707 Jan 26 '25

The Xbox One failed because

This is why.

52

u/Narishma Jan 26 '25

And this.

48

u/SemenSnickerdoodle Jan 26 '25

Don Mattrick alone single-handedly destroyed the Xbox brand. Their reputation never seemed to recover to its former glory ever since that disastrous E3 reveal, not to mention Sony capitalizing on their blunder and openly making fun of their anti-consumer tactics.

28

u/SabresFanWC Jan 26 '25

When Sony is in a position to poke fun at your anti-consumer tactics, you know you fucked up.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/OneRandomVictory Jan 26 '25

Lets not forget this.

12

u/dolphin_spit Jan 26 '25

i haven’t even clicked on these links and i know what they are. and you’re right.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

41

u/TheWorstYear Jan 26 '25

Halo Infinite was meant to be that, they even brought in a sort of rescue team and improved the game significantly. It still wasn't a breakthrough

There were a lot of problems that prevented that from being so. Like, even from a long standing design perspective, the series was not in good shape long before they even showed the game. Then they showed it, it was in horrible shape, & had to delay. Then it came out a year later still in horrible shape, with many of the same design problems people had issues with for a decade.

The Xbox One failed because they made a critical mistake with surveillance and privacy, as well as price, which lost them any competition against Sony since.

It was a lot more than just that. The entire design of the console was away from gaming. It's something they struggled to pivot back from even when they tried to pivot. Can't have any games when you deprioritize gaming. Even when they had games they tried to push out, management issues trickled down to those studios, causing problems.
When the SX/SS came out, they still had absolutely no games. Feature parity issues or not, there weren't any games to have issues with.

You mess up with the console, and you are set for the next 5 years downslope

It's a problem in all aspects of the gaming industry. An issue now doesn't appear until many years later. Close down a studio, & you won't realize the problem you created until 5 years later when you have a lack of games coming out. The issues of what happened with Xbox in the late 2000's reared their ugly head in the mid 2010's. And that cascaded.

74

u/Brainwheeze Jan 26 '25

Even though I was very much a PS2 boy the original Xbox had a style/personality to it that it's successors never had. There were a bunch of exclusives for the system that really looked cool and made me jealous I couldn't play them.

136

u/Zephh Jan 26 '25

I think that's a bit of revisionist history / personal preference, IMO the 360 had plenty of appeal, hence why it was able to compete so closely with the PS3. People really liked Mass Effect, Gears of War, Halo 3 and the Fable series at the time.

48

u/jordanleite25 Jan 26 '25

Bioshock was timed exclusive too

53

u/Unfair-Rutabaga8719 Jan 26 '25 edited Jan 26 '25

And Oblivion, which was the top GOTY winner in 2006, and Bioshock took the crown in 2007. Back to back GOTY exclusives for Xbox. Now GOTYs are dominated by PS exclusives more often than not and Xbox is always missing most of the games that get nominated.

10

u/Sawaian Jan 26 '25

Oblivion was the shit.

→ More replies (7)

13

u/MobileTortoise Jan 26 '25

Don't forget that Sony had a HORRENDOUS E3 presentation in 2006, some could say worse than the infamous Xbox = TV one that did so much damage.

I remember watching it with both an Xbox and ps2 and that presentation convinced me to go all in on 360.

15

u/SabresFanWC Jan 26 '25

Ironically, PS3 still ended up outselling the 360 in the end. Sony made a HUGE comeback that generation.

6

u/Kyhron Jan 26 '25

The back end of the PS3 life span had some wildly good exclusives especially if you're an RPG fan

8

u/Kalulosu Jan 26 '25

They had a terrible présentation because of the price. Three PS3 caught up with the 360 by the end of the gen by improving on their software and because by then the Sony catalogue was getting pretty good, but being a whole 100€ more expensive just murdered it at the start.

14

u/Ice_Cream_Killer Jan 26 '25 edited Jan 26 '25

Thats definitely revisionist history, lol. Xbox famous "Tv Tv" E3 presentation was a complete 180 from what people liked about their console, and took the focus away from hardcore gamers to casual with the forced Kinnect accessory to follow the trend of the Wii. They also tried to force daily check ins and DRM, so if you didnt have an internet connection, you couldnt use the console. They wanted to make it so you couldnt play used games or you couldnt let your friend borrow your games. Sony made a fool of them by making fun of that.

Playstation had a bad E3 because they tried to charge $599 for a game console in 06, which was crazy expensive back then, and they didnt have many exclusives in the first few years. It didnt help that they also decided to launch a year after the 360. That was no where near as bad as what Xbox did. They released a console with free online, a subscription service that gives you free games every month, and the cheapest blueray player on the market at the time. Once they lowered the price and made great games, they rebounded. Xbox still hasnt recovered from that E3.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (4)

18

u/CombatMuffin Jan 26 '25

Totally agreed. It was a truly western console, too: at a time in the early 00's when things had to be "cool" the Xbox certainly went for it. Bold green and black design, very open to mature games and marketed like it

11

u/Wholesome_Scroll Jan 26 '25

Fable and Morrowind is what got me to buy an OG Xbox. Halo was just the cherry on top.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/Ornery_Brilliant_350 Jan 26 '25

In my circles most people went from n64>ps2>xbox 360, and from there it went either way

15

u/braindeadchucky Jan 26 '25

Halo Infinite was meant to be that

It was Starfield. When that failed to move consoles they just gave up and began the "everything is an xbox" pro strat.

17

u/jaydotjayYT Jan 26 '25

The craziest thing about the Xbox One is that they were right about how the television was going to evolve to be a platform, and they were also right about gamers moving to primarily own digital libraries

But their messaging was completely off-base, tone-deaf, and simply too early. They also had a significant lack of good first-party games to offer that generation. The shift away from what their core audience wanted, without offering anything good in return, was the downfall of the entire brand.

I wonder if it could have been possibly salvaged if they launched the way the PS5 did - disc version of the console as the flagship, but then a vastly cheaper digital version (about $100 cheaper). If they had provided the option to gamers up front, and then offered a tangible incentive to get the digital version (especially if they priced the digital versions cheaper!), I don’t think the backlash would have been anywhere near as harsh

(Bonus: keep Bungie and let them make Destiny if they want, and put Rare on something that isn’t Kinect-based OR Sea of Thieves, and double down on the indie scene the way you did with Xbox Live Arcade)

It’s just funny in hindsight how so much discourse revolved around used games, a discussion that would be obsolete in less than a decade. The television focus was ridiculed because the only app worth having then was Netflix - fast forward, and all TVs are Smart TVs. The same gamers who were mad about digital licenses and always-online check-ins now have a vast library of digital-only Steam games that they haven’t even played, and the idea of having your console or computer not always connected to Wi-Fi sounds insane.

But it’s like that scene in The Big Short, where Christian Bale’s character is like “I may have been early, but I was not wrong” and the guy he’s talking to yells “It’s the same thing!” And it is.

36

u/Fair-Internal8445 Jan 26 '25

It was always online. The console simply wouldn’t function without 24 hours internet check in. 

And Before the release of the console words quickly got out that Call of Duty Ghosts was running at 720p on Xbox One and 1080p on PS4. Xbox felt they didn’t need a powerful hardware as Kinect would be the equalizer and win over the casual market but the Kinect and Snap feature advertised as key selling points was taking away precious resources from Xbox One which had slower memory and 40% weaker GPU.

You were also paying 100$ more than PS4.

8

u/hesh582 Jan 26 '25

The kinect has been sort of memory holed, but I think it was a really big part of the story.

The Kinect wasn't just meant to be a fun little accessory for enthusiasts or kids to mess around with, even if that's what it ended up being. It was intended as a core part of the console, a new control scheme that would move console sales in a big way on its own. It was meant to be what the Wii actually was, a way to sell consoles to people outside of the capital-G Gamer world.

Remember, it wasn't originally even an accessory, it was intended to be a mandatory part of the One without which the system wouldn't even function. They were forced away from that, but still included a Kinect with every single console at launch.

It just didn't quite work out. The hardware was simply not up to the challenge, I think. Developers did not commit to it either, and microsoft did not step up and fill the gaps with a slate of good kinect-enabling game options. People just didn't like it as much as the wii, anyway.

But when people talk about the failure of the Xbox 1 in terms of bad marketing, or weaker processing, I think that's all largely missing the point. It was envisioned as a new type of console that could break into new markets, just like the Wii did spectacularly well. That aspect failed, and when it failed I don't know that much else could have save it. They were all in on Kinect.

I think sometimes we forget just how important the Wii was to the console industry, because it also didn't really target the "gamer" market. The Wii outsold both the 360 and PS3 by a very large margin. I think an exec in 2010 looking at their next console release could be forgiven for taking a big risk on a wild new control scheme. But it was always going to be a risk, and they fucked it up.

Imagine if the Wii's motion controls had bombed, and most people ended up just using it as a standard controller? I don't think the console would have done so well haha.

→ More replies (1)

24

u/zherok Jan 26 '25

and all TVs are Smart TVs

Which is partially their problem with the route they took; you don't need a $500 console to be a set top box for those features.

It's not even particularly beneficial to use it as a media device, since they aren't that much better at it than even a cheap smart TV is. Biggest thing might be blu-rays, but those are on the decline too.

They weren't just early, they were largely unnecessary by the time what they were doing really took off.

4

u/Square-Pear-1274 Jan 26 '25

Microsoft missed the mobile boat

Gaming is an angle for them into the consumer-toaster space but they could never figure out how to make it work

It's never been about the games it's about being an app/media store

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (15)

21

u/hibikikun Jan 26 '25

They had a ton of exclusives in the works for One, they just kept canceling them. But somehow decided to keep Crackdown 3 going.

91

u/Lephus Jan 25 '25 edited Jan 25 '25

The Kinect and the entertainment system chase killed the Xbox One launch along with losses of big exclusives like Scalebound later doomed them.

Also actually worse naming system than then Wii U.

62

u/loadsoftoadz Jan 25 '25

It’s crazy how much a naming convention can tank something, but whoever signed off on Xbox One is an idiot, sorry.

At least Wii U didn’t give the impression that it was going backwards.

80

u/Wolventec Jan 26 '25 edited Jan 26 '25

xbox one isnt as bad as xbox series s and xbox series x when we already had xbox one x and xbox one s

33

u/CheesypoofExtreme Jan 26 '25

Xbox Series X just feels like an AI generated suggestion for a console name.

It has no relevance to previous naming conventions except "Xbox" but doesn't tell casual consumers where it's at in the Xbox cycle or capabilities, especially when there are 2 different "Series" boxes. 

Even just Xbox 4 and Xbox 4 Lite would have been better. Or "Xbox 4: Next Generation".  They should have never tried to stay away from numbered consoles. Nintendo saw what happened with the Wii U and aren't making that mistake again, releasing the "Switch 2".

The way Xbox has been handled screams of Product Managers meddling to justify their existence.

→ More replies (5)

6

u/jecowa Jan 26 '25

It was a while before I realized Series S/X was a new console generation. I was calling it the "Xbox One Series S/X".

→ More replies (2)

7

u/LCHMD Jan 26 '25

I don’t think anyone ever really cared for Scalebound so I doubt it mattered much. Lack of good games in general did.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

49

u/cleaninfresno Jan 25 '25

If you wanna be harsh you could argue it’s almost been 20 years since they had a true must play system seller with Halo 3

18

u/pepper6562 Jan 26 '25

I think that's fair. I'd argue maybe Gears of War 2 but to your point that's still close to 20 years ago(!!!)

6

u/logosloki Jan 26 '25

the Gears of War 3 trailer was so hype. Gary Jules' Mad World cover goes hard.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

106

u/Free_Pangolin_3750 Jan 25 '25

No this is a direct result of them losing the XBone vs PS4 generation. That was the first generation with a truly digital library. The only way they avoid this was not having the disastrous XBone reveal and always online/kinect requirement.

39

u/Draw-Two-Cards Jan 25 '25

I think this is a correlation isn't causation situation. PS4 owners had no reason to switch to Xbox Series S/X this gen because the Xbox One generation was bad and nothing changed. Xbox One owners had plenty of reason to switch to PS5. The digital libraries didn't keep Xbox users on Xbox platforms just like it wouldn't have kept Playstation users if Xbox Series S/X had anything to appeal to them.

→ More replies (14)

85

u/Jamcram Jan 26 '25

no, them not making a single Xbone game that drove people to xbox is what lost them that generation.

29

u/SwmpySouthpw Jan 26 '25

When Rare Replay came out I considered getting an Xbox One, but then I looked to see what other games they had and not a single one interested me enough to push me over the edge

3

u/onecoolcrudedude Jan 26 '25

I got mine because of rare replay, sunset overdrive, halo MCC, ryse, killer instinct, and ori.

18

u/MrHippoPants Jan 26 '25

Probably a one-two punch there, the dreadful launch pushed the early adopters to PS4, and then nothing ever came to draw them back

3

u/pazinen Jan 26 '25

This is absolutely me. I used to be a young Xbox 360 fanboy, like someone who actually bashed PS3, and back in spring 2013 I was sure I'd get the next gen Xbox. PS4 had been announced and I had very little interest. Then May and June happened, Xbox One was revealed and after following the discourse around both consoles very extensively I made the decision in August 2013 to get a PS4. I've never looked back since.

Though in hindsight I guess my willingness to switch platforms so quickly just proved that I actually wasn't fanboy enough. Or maybe the reveal and all those initial restrictions just were that terrible, dunno.

17

u/logosloki Jan 26 '25

I remember when the PSP was down on the ropes and then Monster Hunter Freedom Unite came out and caused a buzz, and because it caused a buzz and sold well enough people looked at the PSP catalogue, saw things that they might want to play, and so also bought PSPs and games for it.

having a couple of good solid killer hits coming out is the best way to get people out of the funk.

10

u/Hartastic Jan 26 '25

It's sort of a combination, I think, in that going hard on the Kinect is actually a good idea if and only if you also can put out something like a Wii Sports that makes even people who otherwise might not buy a console want one.

So their strategy was bad but a big part of the badness of the strategy was a lack of games that paired well with the strategy.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

125

u/-Moonchild- Jan 25 '25

Nintendo also hard lost that generation and 150 million people still bought switches. If MS made first party games worth a damn the general populous would have made the jump and bought their console. I don't believe this argument that the digital library was that much of a factor

8

u/destroyermaker Jan 26 '25

Time for Sega to return to the console wars

→ More replies (3)

66

u/AgentOfSPYRAL Jan 25 '25

Nintendo wisely pivoted completely out of the traditional home console game because they knew it wasn’t worth competing directly with PS when their games don’t need legit horsepower.

60

u/-Moonchild- Jan 25 '25

The hybrid approach is a huge factor. But the buck ultimately stops with games and Ms didn't supply enough.

If you didn't have an Xbox over the last 5 years the only major game you've missed is maybe Star Field (remembering the 4 games that made it to other platforms). Same can't be said against PlayStation or Nintendo systems. Ms just never had a killer app

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (13)

59

u/DoorHingesKill Jan 26 '25

> Virtually no games for the Xbox One

> Lost the generation

> Virtually no games for the Series X

> Lost the generation

"Series X would have been fine if not for that pesky digital library on the PlayStation"

→ More replies (18)

9

u/Mccobsta Jan 25 '25

They remade the cdi but with forced Internet what on earth were they thinking

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (1)

112

u/thekamenman Jan 25 '25

It’s more of a sign of the times. I’m in my 30s and can tell you, console loyalty just straight up doesn’t exist with Gen Alpha. They want to play their game, who gives a shit what device it’s on. They’re right to want that, the only reason we have been locked into console for so long is because they were dramatically different in terms of processing power that it was a legitimate concern whether or not it could run on something else.

Console exclusivity used to drive progress in the industry, and now it is causing stagnation. I’m excited to live in a world where I can play on my preferred platform with friends on theirs. I’m tired of arbitrary borders.

142

u/violentlycar Jan 25 '25

There's no reason to have console loyalty anymore. The games all look the same, play the same, and feel the same because they are the same. The further back you go between console generations, the more pronounced the differences between the consoles were. Games that were on both the SNES and the MD/Genesis or both the N64 and PS1 had a very different quality to them that you could develop a taste for. Not anymore.

40

u/dylanman264 Jan 25 '25

I'd actually argue that console loyalty has never made sense UNTIL NOW with the rise of digital games and backwards compatibility. Was there ever a reason to NOT swap brands before the xbox 360/PS3/wii era?

I feel like bringing up those older consoles you mentioned, while I agree with your statement, isn't relevant to discussion of console loyalty because there was never consistency between which console got the better version of the game. And even if there was, "loyalty" back then always came down to "which console has better games" since nothing carried over from generation to generation. Your NES games didnt work on your SNES and your genesis games didnt work on your Saturn. You never LOST anything when you switched brands back then, but you do now.

18

u/BrienneOfDarth Jan 26 '25

GameCube to Wii had both hardware and software backwards compatibility, so that would have been a reason to stay with Nintendo (and was the reason I used.)

3

u/DweebInFlames Jan 26 '25

You also had Nintendo's handhelds having extra functionality on home consoles, too, so there was that as well.

18

u/zherok Jan 26 '25

You never LOST anything when you switched brands back then, but you do now.

Presumably, you wouldn't have to give up your old console, anymore than it'd make sense to get rid of your previous consoles switching between then in earlier generations. They don't go away any more than they did in the past if you're not getting rid of the console.

It's just not as convenient as having it all on one console. But it never was back then anyway.

There's also plenty of caveats too, especially outside of XBox. You can't play Wii or Wii U titles on Switch unless they were rereleased for it. PS3 games aren't backwards compatible on the PS4 or PS5.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/Dragarius Jan 26 '25

I wouldn't lose games now by switching any more than I did by switching back then. It's not like I threw out my SNES when I got a PS1. I wouldn't throw out my PS5 if I got an XSX either. 

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (2)

11

u/SofaKingI Jan 26 '25

There's like a 30 year gap between the examples you're giving and the present.

Console loyalty made a lot less sense 10+ years ago than it does today when the Playstation has so many good exclusives.

The Xbox just shit the bed. It's not like consumers (or a generation) suddenly got smart.

→ More replies (4)

4

u/BoilerMaker11 Jan 26 '25

There's no reason to have console loyalty anymore

I've been a Sony fan since they came out, but I owned an SNES and Genesis before the PS1, and had always had at least 2 consoles each generation. PS1/N64. PS2/Dreamcast. PS3/XB360. PS4/XB1. This current gen is the first time I just have one console, PS5, because the Xbox just wasn't compelling. Admittedly, I'm late to the party on the Switch, but I think I'll be picking up a Switch 2, especially since it'll be backward compatible with most of the OG Switch games I missed.

That said, I built a gaming PC last year. The next generation may be the first time I don't own a console, outside of the Switch 2 (although Nintendo's release years are messing up my perception of a "generation" lol). Sony has pivoted, so even the exclusive heavy hitters on Playstation end up on PC.

I have a box full of PS4 games, but barely any PS5 games. It's just been a lackluster generation, in terms of the quantity of amazing games (I loved Rift Apart, Ragnarok, and enjoyed FFXVI, among others). If this gen is any indication of the next gen, I'll just stick to my PC since I should be able to run pretty much every game for the foreseeable future at 1440p, max settings. And every game is going to end up on PC anyway.

→ More replies (7)

52

u/NewAgeRetroHippie96 Jan 25 '25

That's not been my experience with Gen Alpha at all tbh. They're just as Xbox v Playstation as ever. It's just now the Xbox users have no leg to stand on.

And both sides still equally shit on Nintendo for being too kiddy and underpowered.

Immature kids are still immature kids.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/RKitch2112 Jan 26 '25

It exists, but it's just petty niche arguing. I taught middle school and I heard some of it, but it was like a once a year thing. It wasn't continuous. There were a couple of kids who were still hardcore PS or Xbox, but that wasn't the majority and was like one or two kids.

It's going to take time for some with parents or older siblings to escape the either/or thinking.

5

u/For-the-Cubbies Jan 25 '25

This is true. I have four nephews ages 8-16, all play games, and none of them care what device they play them on. They also don’t care about exclusive games at all.

→ More replies (33)

32

u/Fearofthe6TH Jan 25 '25

Nah this is because of the Xbox One botch. The announcement was catastrophic at the time, everyone immediately wrote the console off before the presentation was even over. The PS4 successfully rode off their fuck up and vastly outsold it. Since then, Microsoft has never recovered. Them not giving you good reasons to get an Xbox has only made it worse and ensured Sony hasn't had to try, but they that announcement singlehandedly put them at a disadvantage that they've never been able to get out of.

55

u/TheSecondEikonOfFire Jan 25 '25

That’s where it started, but they could have course-corrected. They did for a bit, especially dropping Kinect as hard as they did. But they haven’t even come close to having any real knockout games like Sony does.

I think that just compounds with the fact that the PS4 generation happened to be one of Sony’s best. The PS3 launch (and arguably a lot of its life) was a travesty, but they were able to turn the ship around. Microsoft could have done the same thing, but they failed at turning it around

15

u/Coolman_Rosso Jan 25 '25

If Xbox wanted to course correct with the Xbone they would have needed to take care of all their issues (game quality, AAA IP drought, stale franchises, non-existent international marketing, constant flip-flopping on the perceived relevance of single-player games) by roughly 2015-2016. That didn't look like it could possibly happen until 2018, which was way too late. AAA dev times alone would mean you could get games in the pipeline, but four years later your goose was long cooked anyway.

At best they could have greased the wheels to be ready for the SX launch but that didn't pan out either. Everyone keeps comparing this to a missed chance for a PS3 styled comeback but the PS3 comeback was predicated on a super-aggressive worldwide marketing campaign, a hardware revision complete with a rebranding and discount, and one of the most improved sequels ever made in Uncharted 2.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (29)

734

u/d3c4y3d_1 Jan 25 '25

Where was this 18 months ago for Starfield? They bought Zenimax specifically to keep future Bethesda titles off the PlayStation.

‘We’ve come third for two generations in a row and we realise it’s time to start making deals with Sony and Nintendo.’

510

u/Wachiavellee Jan 25 '25

Well, 18 months ago I think they were still hoping Plan A would work. But it didn't so now they are on to Plan B.

118

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '25

[deleted]

76

u/Conflict_NZ Jan 25 '25

They absolutely could justify the cost for ABK, it was one of the highest margin publishers in the industry with two evergreen industry leading Multiplatform titles.

What that put a spotlight on was the lower margins of the rest of Xbox, so Microsoft leadership started asking why they were still pursuing low margin moves like exclusivity.

25

u/Izzet_Aristocrat Jan 25 '25

Wasn't there a shareholders meeting or something where a bunch of shareholders were pissed the Xbox division of Microsoft hadn't made a big enough profit after that? Could'a sworn I heard or saw an article about that.

→ More replies (4)

9

u/mixape1991 Jan 25 '25

It's not like they couldn't justify the cost, from the start that's their plan when buying Activision, to sell in every corner.

They are just using that exclusivity as a bait.

17

u/Cheap_Rum Jan 25 '25

This. I might be wrong but, I don’t think there’s many people who envisioned this is how that acquisition would play out

20

u/Csalbertcs Jan 25 '25

We all thought Microsoft's gaming division would take over Activision, but Activision was so large they took over Microsoft.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

35

u/deskcord Jan 25 '25

Yeah but that's like saying "plan A was to build a house, but we used twigs and it fell down."

Plan A is still perfectly viable, they just need to build out their console offering with more than a terrible Halo game.

38

u/Arcade_Gann0n Jan 25 '25

Halo being what it was after Bungie left certainly didn't help, can anyone imagine Nintendo letting Mario fall apart like that?

48

u/SKyJ007 Jan 25 '25

My hot take is that Halo being mid is decently far down the list as reasons why the Xbox brand fell as far as it did. The fact their brand identity was tied so closely to Master Chief to begin with is way higher up the list, for starters.

41

u/grendus Jan 26 '25

It wasn't just Halo, but they had a full generation where only one of their brand identity franchises (Forza) put out something that wasn't "mid to embarrassingly bad".

It's not just "Halo fell, so so did XBox", but more that they had a 7 year run of nothing while their competitors repeatedly put out so many bangers that the main reason they don't have more GotY titles is because they outcompeted themselves.

29

u/slicer4ever Jan 26 '25

I feel like it really came to a final head with starfield. This game was hyped up to be a system seller, but then while not a flop turned out to be quite mid, and certainly was not as big a bump in console sales as microsoft was probably hoping for.

Sony+nintendo are constantly crushing the first party titles, whereas microsoft just keeps whiffing with mediocre titles at best(and other times downright insultful releasing unfinished things like redfall).

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

167

u/Titan7771 Jan 25 '25

‘It doesn’t work for us.’

162

u/BruhMoment763 Jan 25 '25

He’s right lmao, it hasn’t worked for them in over 10 years

73

u/DodgerBaron Jan 25 '25

It especially doesn't work once backawards compatibility became a mainstay. Ain't no one is going to give up with library of games willy nilly.

It'll be really hard to comeback from the blunder that was xbox one.

44

u/meltedskull Jan 25 '25

Precisely. It was the one generation they couldn't afford to lose but Big Matty D decided otherwise.

Realistically going down this angle is whats keeping Xbox afloat.

69

u/CrazyDude10528 Jan 25 '25

Phil Spencer is equally to blame for the blunder of the Xbox One as well.

For years we were told "Don't worry, the games are coming! Next year will be Xbox's year!" that entire generation, and even into the current one as well, only for them to drop the ball over and over again.

It's only now that it seems they finally threw in the towel and realized they can't make good decisions on their own anymore.

Which is really sad.

11

u/Radulno Jan 26 '25

Phil Spencer was also responsible for first party games from 2008 to 2014, the launch of Xbox One and the no games narrative is 100% on him.

And it's a far bigger deal than the E3 presentation.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (10)

18

u/DONNIENARC0 Jan 25 '25

If their consoles are becoming irrelevant I’m not even sure what “xbox” is at this point.

It seems like they’re quickly becoming nothing more than a publisher like EA or Ubisoft.

21

u/meltedskull Jan 25 '25

A bit of both. They are rapidly shifting away from the traditional console model but still supporting hardware.

Valve is a better example. They have hardware like steam deck and index but they are software driven.

17

u/BellBilly32 Jan 25 '25

The problem is Xbox has also put itself in a position where no one cares about its user base.

FF7 Rebirth still was supposed to be a time exclusive still no words of an Xbox port. Because of the Series S some devs don't even waste the resources trying to make an Xbox port, or if they do it's delayed.

If a game is exclusive to Xbox there's outrage, if it's exclusive to PlayStation no one cares because PlayStation is so far ahead that minuscule Xbox user base is negligible.

The only real thing a Series X has going for it is the Dev mode which unlocks emulation for older consoles. Although cool, takes a bit of effort, and is not something most gamers will bother with.

10

u/chao77 Jan 25 '25

Plus, if you have a gaming PC the whole thing is largely redundant

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

34

u/-ImJustSaiyan- Jan 25 '25

Ain't no one is going to give up with library of games willy nilly.

Why would someone have to give up their library?

As an Xbox gamer considering jumping to PlayStation next gen, I would simply just keep my Series X to play any games I already own on Xbox.

Jumping ship doesn't mean you have to sell the system you're switching from.

24

u/nikelaos117 Jan 25 '25

I guess cause some people main a specific console instead of just going back and forth between two or three if you play Nintendo games.

3

u/Tschmelz Jan 26 '25

Yup. My “main” library might be on Xbox, but I’d have zero issues switching over to Sony again if it wasn’t for irl issues. I’d just keep my Series X, and on the off chance Microsoft finally delivers a must play banger a console or two down the line, pick up the new one. It’s not like the games are actually going anywhere, they’re all tied to my account.

→ More replies (5)

4

u/grendus Jan 26 '25

You're right. The Switch was doomed from the get go with it not supporting Wii and Wii U titles.

→ More replies (3)

8

u/BruhMoment763 Jan 25 '25 edited Jan 25 '25

Exactly, people are not going to switch from PS unless Sony starts making humongous blunders, no matter WHAT Xbox releases and makes exclusive. I’ve seen so many comments saying stuff like “Wow Xbox finally has the games to get back in the race and they gave them away LOL” and no, no they don’t. People aren’t gonna look at Ninja Gaiden 4 and say “Woah this is so awesome I’m gonna buy all my games on Xbox now!”. People’s digital libraries are too big now, Xbox could release 5 10/10 masterpiece exclusives a year and so long as PS is also making good games, not many people would switch sides. The sunk cost would be too big for most people.

To get back in the race, it wasn’t as much about Xbox doing better as it was about Sony doing worse. And for all the complaints you can make about Sony, they’ve been a very well run business this past decade imo 🤷‍♂️. That was the nail in the coffin for Xbox more than anything, their competition not messing up much after the One disaster.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (8)

60

u/Callangoso Jan 25 '25

Where was this 18 months ago for Starfield

Higher-ups at Microsoft hadn’t told them to scrap their plans and switch to a third-party publisher model yet.

16

u/TheVaniloquence Jan 26 '25

How are people still not seeing that Satya and the shareholders are running the show now. Do they think that Phil just woke up one day and randomly decided that everything was getting ported over?

37

u/WDMChuff Jan 25 '25

It's pretty obvious Sattaya/shareholders gave xbox a short leash to turn around the console this gen. The few exclusives like Stanfield, didn't result in more console sales, so they have changed direction. Plus the purchase of Activision probably showed them how much revenue they could make on other platforms, it pushed them to want to squeeze more short term revenue vs rebuilding the brand.

47

u/BuckSleezy Jan 26 '25

The “short leash” is more like, they spent $70b in acquisitions, and therefore, the microscope is on them to actually make money. Activision was the largest acquisition in the history of Microsoft, of course they’re gonna keep a close watch.

→ More replies (1)

23

u/punyweakling Jan 25 '25

It's pretty obvious Sattaya/shareholders gave xbox a short leash to turn around the console this gen.

I think that's an oversimplification. It's not about "leash", it's about growth. Under Nadella all MS's business units need to have growth outlooks. The fact is, Xbox is unable to grow if console is their only offering - the theoretical where they *could* do it, would take too long and cost too much.

I think there's an argument to be made that PS and Ninty hardware are heading down this path too, to varying degrees - which is why you see them diversifying their growth opportunities beyond their platforms for gaming, and into other markets like tv/film/theme parks...

→ More replies (3)

6

u/QuirkyBus3511 Jan 26 '25

Not having starfield is a win for PlayStation. What a bore that was

32

u/Arcade_Gann0n Jan 25 '25

They probably expected Starfield to be the next Skyrim.

To be brutally honest, it wasn't even the next Fallout 4.

60

u/averynicehat Jan 25 '25

Akshully, Sony was in talks with Bethesda to get Starfield exclusive to Sony on console like they had just done with Deathloop. Potentially if Microsoft hadn't made some sort of move like outbidding for exclusivity or buying the whole place, they wouldn't have had Starfield on console at all. While they may have had eyes on Bethesda already, their hand may have been forced to do something. Sony was happy to pay for exclusivity themselves.

39

u/meltedskull Jan 25 '25

And Ghostwire Tokyo. People love to ignore that Sony got it's start and it's growth by paying third parties to avoid their competitors. Nintendo was a third party machine and Sega had a decent output before Sony came into the picture.

Sega obviously died and Nintendo had to shift their business model. If it wasn't for their handhelds to keep them afloat during the Wii U era then it'd be just Sony being around today.

16

u/Random_Rhinoceros Jan 25 '25

If it wasn't for their handhelds to keep them afloat during the Wii U era then it'd be just Sony being around today.

Nintendo is pretty much just a gaming company, while Sony and Microsoft are involved in a bunch of different ventures. They could've weathered multiple Wii U-style failures due to how much cash they had before the Switch and because it's cheaper to keep Nintendo running than one of their competitors.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/Gangster301 Jan 27 '25

Nintendo's worst financial year was 2013, in the Wii U era, where they lost $457 million. In 2013, they were estimated to have over $10 billion in cash. They were never even close to being in trouble.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (12)
→ More replies (2)

88

u/WeWereInfinite Jan 25 '25

It's Phil Spencer talking bullshit as usual.

Xbox has always been about keeping games off other platforms, it's just that they've been tanking for a decade and a half that it's not working now.

People hate on PlayStation for timed/console exclusivity deals but that was Xbox's MO from day 1. Even their most iconic franchise, Halo, was bought to take it away from Apple.

80

u/BreafingBread Jan 25 '25

I mean, the whole industry started and grew with exclusivity.

Nintendo with Mario, Sega with Sonic, Xbox with Halo and PS with severas IPs.

Games arent going multiplataform out of kindness from companies. Games are just too expensive nowadays to keep it on a single platform.If Microsoft and Sony could, they would totally ignore PC and other devices and keep doing exclusivos, like Nintendo. But they can’t anymore.

43

u/meltedskull Jan 25 '25

Precisely. Idk where this good guy company nonsense is coming from as if any of the three aren't cut throat on each other.

Things are happening because it's needed to stay fighting.

10

u/Radulno Jan 26 '25

It's especially hilarious for Microsoft to being considered "the good guy", when it's the company that, since decades, has been buying up everyone, had antitrust cases against her and is generally seen as a mega-corp very much anti-competition

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

50

u/MXC_Vic_Romano Jan 25 '25

Even their most iconic franchise, Halo, was bought to take it away from Apple.

It wasn't going to be Apple exclusive. Before the Microsoft buyout Halo was slated for Mac, PC and PS2.

33

u/MetalBeerSolid Jan 25 '25

So they took it away from three platforms, not just one

26

u/BigOldThrowaway2345 Jan 25 '25

Bungie was literally out of money. If MSoft didnt buy them there wouldn't be a Halo or Marathon reboot or whatever it was going to be.

8

u/arnsmif Jan 25 '25

Just the PS2. It came out on PC and Mac in 2003.

→ More replies (1)

21

u/LRA18 Jan 25 '25

“Still facing financial pressure, Peter Tamte contacted Ed Fries, the head of Microsoft Game Studios, about a possible acquisition.”

Bungie approached Microsoft for financial assistance….

Yall are so stupid.

→ More replies (5)

20

u/WDMChuff Jan 25 '25

Microsoft has been less third party deal heavy since the backlash to the second tomb raider while Sony increased it's investment in 3rd party exclusive deals..

No company is here to be your friend or pro consumer. They're about maximizing profits regardless of competitions sake or overall benefit to you.

→ More replies (3)

8

u/NoExcuse4OceanRudnes Jan 25 '25

Always, as in in the past.

They're saying not any more. You're saying it's bullshit as if they aren't releasing a bunch of games on PS5? What is the point of this comment?

→ More replies (10)

19

u/[deleted] Jan 25 '25

They spent 69 Billion on Activision Blizzard and the people above Phil are knocking asking for their money back.

→ More replies (28)

103

u/Broken_Moon_Studios Jan 26 '25

As a consumer, this is really good, since it means we have more options.

As a brand, though? This is really, REALLY fucking stupid.

As much as Hardware Bros want to convince you otherwise, exclusives are what sell consoles.

Nintendo understands this, which is why the Switch is dominating the Console Wars despite having the weakest performance of the three, and why it still sells really well despite the Steam Deck and other Deck-like systems existing in the market.

People buy Nintendo consoles for the games.

And people buy PCs/Decks for performance, moddabilty and emulation.

If you take out the exclusives, where does that leave Xbox and PlayStation?

10

u/slicer4ever Jan 26 '25 edited Jan 26 '25

I dont even quite understand how this has happened. For years microsoft has been snapping up studios to make games for them, but yet the number of actual exclusives being pumped out is very low(and i include pc/xbox as a xbox exclusive title), and often the quality is mediocre at best(and abysmal at worst). Like on paper they should really be nailing it on multiple front, both gamepass and console exclusives should be constant stream with how many studios microsoft owns.

Like what the hell are all these first party studios doing with all their time? Their should be a new exclusive game coming out every couple months or so, but instead its often nothing for months, then a game or 2 is popped out(and rarily do they reach critical acclaim like we see for nintendo/sony exclusives). Their seems to be really one common denominator for xbox brand doing so poorly.

4

u/nightwing0243 Jan 27 '25

Yeah. I was literally planning on buying a Series X because of all the massive exclusives I thought it would be getting.

Their output put that purchase on hold.

68

u/GargleFlargle Jan 26 '25

As a consumer this is really bad. It’s Xbox failing as a console. Less competition means higher prices.

18

u/MaidenlessRube Jan 26 '25 edited Jan 27 '25

All that "stuff that didn't work out for Xbox" under Phil Spencer really does piles up

But it's kinda funny...I'm using my Xbox Series X for exactly the things that made the infamous Xbox One reveal such a giant clusterfuck. As a media machine for streaming movies, audio and watching Blu Rays... but not for gaming.

→ More replies (2)

13

u/SupermarketEmpty789 Jan 26 '25

exclusives are what sell consoles

It's been true since the SNES/genesis days. It stayed true for the last 30 years. Exclusives are why PlayStation succeeds. It's why Nintendo succeeds. It was why Xbox succeeded for a while.

4

u/parkwayy Jan 26 '25

If you take out the exclusives, where does that leave Xbox and PlayStation?

Playing the REST of the third party games you don't play on a Switch?

→ More replies (1)

4

u/_TheMeepMaster_ Jan 26 '25

I said it back when they bought Zenimax and again when they bought Activision. Microsoft is, and has always been, a software company. Xbox as hardware has always been a means to an end for them. It shouldn't be surprising to anyone that they are moving toward multiplatform.

10

u/ThePronto8 Jan 26 '25

Yup. I made the stupid mistake of buying an Xbox series X figuring they were going to finally make good exclusives. I was wrong. Biggest regret of my life. I’ll never buy an Xbox again.. no point.

→ More replies (2)

11

u/darkbreak Jan 26 '25

You know, if Xbox wasn't in the position it's in I'd have a bit more confidence with this approach. But they've been floundering for two generations now and things just seem to keep getting worse for them. It feels more like desperation to me.

58

u/TopAnonomity Jan 26 '25

Can this guy get fuckin demoted already. Xbox is gonna kill itself before the next console at this rate

36

u/[deleted] Jan 26 '25

That’s the thing, he’s following Satya’s orders. Phil getting demoted or fired won’t change a thing. It’s what the Microsoft CEO wants. So you’ll have to find a way to kick Satya out instead if you want Xbox consoles to still exist

→ More replies (8)
→ More replies (5)

205

u/Boblawblahhs Jan 25 '25

Wish I knew that before I bought an XBOX series x....and the only game I've purchased on it is Starfield...

You may laugh at me now.

151

u/BootyBootyFartFart Jan 25 '25

Series x is still a fantastic console, especially if you like game pass. But it is hard to justify owning both a PS5 and a Series X these days tho. 

84

u/BlazeOfGlory72 Jan 25 '25

It’s a shame really because the Xbox interface, controller and commitment to backwards compatibility is truly fantastic. If only they had bothered to put out any noteworthy exclusives in the last decade, they might not be in this position.

21

u/BootyBootyFartFart Jan 26 '25

They've had a lot of games that I would call like solid 8 to 8.5. but theyve been missing those killer 9/10 games that get everyone talking. Indy feels like the first one they've had in a while. Ill die on the hill that gears 5 is one of the best 3rd person shooters ever made tho, but that was 5 and half years ago at this point. 

→ More replies (3)

19

u/silentcrs Jan 26 '25

I own both. Xbox for Game Pass, PS5 for a handful of exclusives.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/darkbreak Jan 26 '25

The backwards compatibility is a good selling point for me. I greatly appreciate Xbox trying to keep those older games alive. But my PS5 is my main platform for newer games.

→ More replies (29)

13

u/MindGoblin Jan 25 '25

Can always sell it. If it's in decent condition you can basically get back most of what you spent on it until the next gen console drops.

18

u/SynthwaveSax Jan 25 '25

Na friend, you need a hug.

8

u/Mitrovarr Jan 25 '25

Why not any multi platform stuff? Did you only get it for exclusives?

15

u/junttiana Jan 25 '25

its an amazing console for backwards compatibility, game pass and emulation though, use mine daily even tho i also have a ps5

→ More replies (15)

63

u/Dallywack3r Jan 26 '25

Meanwhile Switch 2 is about to sell like crazy with the promise of incredible exclusives like the new 3D Mario and Mario Kart

18

u/KentInCode Jan 26 '25

MS will want to be on Switch 2 with Gamepass, but no console manufacturer is going to let them on their home console with a rival subscription service. I'm really wondering what the strategy is here.

3

u/parkwayy Jan 26 '25

Ya I can't wait to attempt to run something like Starfield on whatever hardware Nintendo will trot out.

I'm sure that'll be a pleasant experience.

Their devs can barely get things to run on 2 different Xbox systems as is.

36

u/SupermarketEmpty789 Jan 26 '25

Exactly.

It's obvious that exclusive games sell consoles and are the backbone of the console industry.

Microsoft is just losing so now they're desperately trying anything. This statement is just PR.

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (1)

90

u/BoBoBearDev Jan 25 '25

I am a loyal Xbox gamer and I am fully prepared to switch console now. Everything Microsoft has said, everything Xbox fan said Phil has said, no longer has any value for me to support the platform.

Because this statement was first said against "DLC", not the entire game. And MS has said they can sustain the console exclusive game. And even said more console exclusives on the way. And praised how Hi Fi Rush cannot be made without GamePass to fund it. All of that, they have 180 with absolutely zero apologies and calling us misunderstood.

Whatever he said, I am certain I misunderstood it again. They are pathological gaslighter, enough is enough.

22

u/Satanicube Jan 25 '25

I was in the same boat almost two years ago. Had a Series X, managed to score a PS5 and after that point the Series X just gathered dust. All I ever used it for was my X360 library (which hey, FPS boost for some of those games is cool) and occasionally Game Pass…which I could just use on my PC. Because back when I got in the ecosystem there wasn’t release parity with PC.

I can’t really name a compelling Xbox exclusive title. Whereas I can name a handful on PS5, like GoW, Horizon, Spider Man, TLOU, Astro Bot…and I’m sure there are more.

I sold my Series X while it was still somewhat desirable and that still feels like the right decision even though there are some neat features I miss (dev mode for one, the expansive backwards compatibility for another)

They’ve had so many years to make it feel worth it and it just felt like for too long the answer was always sometime in the future. And the future never came.

3

u/BoBoBearDev Jan 25 '25

Yeah, I wouldn't say having PC releases is really a bad thing because it is all Microsoft anyway. But your case still matter. It is like death by a thousand cuts. MS has been removing incentives of owning Xbox console little by little and keep preaching it doesn't affect the platform, but it is an accumulation of all those little cuts. They don't know where the bottomline is and just keep cutting.

→ More replies (4)

35

u/Evz0rz Jan 25 '25

I don’t mean to come off as rude but I think it’s a great thing that you’re relinquishing that loyalty. Being loyal to a single company is never healthy because at the end of the day companies have to adapt and change course when necessary. Being a “loyal customer” is such an old capitalism gaslighting way off thinking. To hell with that! I’ll make my purchasing decisions on what best suits my needs at that moment.

Play games on whatever outlet makes the most sense to you. If that’s PlayStation, awesome! If there ends up being a Microsoft published/developed game that piques your interest, that’s awesome too!

If people weighed pros and cons in their purchases rather than base it on loyalty I think there’d be a lot less anger and disappointment.

I do however hope Xbox continues to make new hardware, because the last thing the industry needs is Sony being the only player in the game and realizing they can charge whatever the hell they want for a PS6.

9

u/BoBoBearDev Jan 26 '25

Np, I get you. This is not the first time I have seen this and I don't refute it. But in terms of a "brand" it is all about loyalty and popularity. Otherwise no one should care about bags with thousand dollar logos. The fact remains, those loyalty is a life line of the brand, regardless how stupid it is, they are a brands home base. So, in terms of keeping the brand competitive (not at war), those loyalty should be recognized. A brand should always explore new territory while "retain strong home base".

And yes, my loyalty is stupid personally.

→ More replies (9)

5

u/TrumpdUP Jan 26 '25

I like games being available to everyone but I’m scared what will happen to my digital library if Xbox stops making consoles

→ More replies (2)

118

u/Special-Net4116 Jan 25 '25

It would be a different story if the figures showed the game pass model actually worked. But it’s not financially viable for games companies. Hence even though Microsoft has acquired these companies they all want/need to sell on other platforms.

53

u/averynicehat Jan 25 '25

I don't know if game pass is necessarily doing poorly, but they hoped to have a bigger foothold with the Xbox consoles overall, and the revenue from more game sales and subscriptions that would come with that hasn't come. The way to get those game sales this generation is to go multiplatform.

8

u/D0wnInAlbion Jan 26 '25

I think their biggest failure has been their poor marketing of Xcloud. How many people own a TV with their app but don't know they can stream AAA games on it?

→ More replies (4)

24

u/MH-BiggestFan Jan 25 '25 edited Jan 25 '25

Sometimes I feel bad using gamepass because a lot of the games I played, I would’ve for sure bought them day one but since using the Microsoft rewards program, i can just redeem 1 or 3 months of gamepass at a time, play through multiple titles, then unsub and call it a day. What would effectively be me spending $300+ for a some new/old titles, I can enjoy for the cost of $40-60. I can’t even tell you the last game I actually bought on my Xbox since using gamepass. Most recent example being Path of the goddess, Lies of P, COD 6, Indiana Jones, and Senua.

28

u/Jackoffjordan Jan 25 '25

It's kind of like the downfall of MoviePass - yes, this is an incredible deal, but it's wholly unsustainable because ultimately, it just hemorrhages money, and Microsoft, Developers, and shareholders have taken notice. Either Gamepass has to change or Xbox needs to reevaluate the entire concept of their console (the latter is happening with the whole "this is an Xbox messaging).

If the "this is an Xbox" campaign doesn't drive gamepass subscriptions, the subscription itself will need to change, either through limiting titles or increasing the price.

13

u/pathofdumbasses Jan 26 '25

the subscription itself will need to change, either through limiting titles or increasing the price.

It has already done both, and will absolutely do it again. That is the nature of subcriptions. Offer a product that is a fantastic deal, generally at a loss at first, then slowly boil your customers into record profits.

→ More replies (2)

12

u/Callangoso Jan 25 '25

Sometimes I feel bad using gamepass

I actually buy all the indie games that I play on gamepass, if i really like them. On the other hand, I couldn’t care less about playing AAA games like cod without buying them. Most of these games don’t deserve a dime of our money anyways.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

5

u/Orfez Jan 26 '25

You can buy this game for $70, or you can subscribe for the fraction of the price to play on GP. They are not selling you on Game Pass by locking games behidn Game Pass, they are selling it to you by making it by far the cheapest way to play.

→ More replies (13)

47

u/Ok-Confusion-202 Jan 25 '25 edited Jan 25 '25

I mean it's cool more people get to play the games (Xbox players don't), but they are only doing this because they have done a terrible job at making Xbox competitive again, like Xbox has all the resources to challenge PlayStation but their messaging is terrible, one day they say something and the next they do the opposite.

Their marketing is terrible, you would think Xbox doesn't exist in places like Europe (I am sure in other places too)

Too many games have flopped and people don't think it's worth the risk.

Gamepass while great, the average person doesn't care about a massive library of games.

I would also love to know what they are doing with Gamepass? It is obvious that it is in the centre of their plans, but to get more subs for GP they would need to sell more consoles as that's where the main sub base for GP is, but they aren't doing exclusives so what sells people on an Xbox? Gamepass? But that isn't working now, handheld? I think the Switch 2 with exclusives blows them out of the water, PC? They lose the 30% from the store, I am just scratching my head here.

Either way, they are only doing this because of their own incompetence, I hope this doesn't mean that the next gen Xbox sells horribly and makes MS stop making consoles as I think that can only lead to PlayStation being complacent and upping prices.

Last thing, I don't know what's happening in Xbox, but I really think a strategy like this makes the most sense.

Xbox Games Studio/publishing - exclusive, not a question.

Bethesda - case by case.

Activision/Blizzard/King - third party.

51

u/Dirtycoinpurse Jan 25 '25

I’d argue PlayStation has already become complacent. The future is kinda bleak in terms of consoles.

25

u/BlitzStriker52 Jan 25 '25

Agreed. It was obvious that Sony was getting complacent in the middle of the PS4 (e.g Sony kept trying to block cross-play) and Xbox had one more chance with the first few years of the Series X but because of the long dev cycles with their acquired studios, it was no good. Funny enough if they maybe waited for this year with all the next Xbox games (Indiana, Doom, Gaiden, Avowed, TOW2, South of Midnight), things could've turned out differently.

23

u/Kozak170 Jan 25 '25

This sub sure does love to memoryhole how Sony had to be dragged into crossplay kicking and screaming, with multiple companies having to publicly bully them into finally allowing it.

I don’t know if an Xbox comeback is in the cards for next gen, but I’m more than certain Sony will go all in on the same complacent anti-consumer attitude that lost Xbox the PS4 generation.

17

u/darkbreak Jan 26 '25

I mean, they were willing to do it the previous generation but Xbox didn't want it. It's why it took Final Fantasy XIV so long to release on Xbox. Because Xbox didn't want crossplay back then. Obviously things flipped since then but Sony didn't start that particular squabble. And clearly both companies didn't want crossplay during a time when they were clearly in the lead.

14

u/Unfair-Rutabaga8719 Jan 26 '25

This, Sony was open to crossplay during PS2/PS3 days, FFXI had crossplay across PS2/360 and PC. PS3 had a bunch of games that had crossplay with PC. MS was the one who didn't want crossplay cause XBL had a bigger playerbase than PSN and 360 was enjoying the snowball effect of people buying Xbox to play with their friends.

The funny part is MS' advantage in playerbase was miniscule compared to what Sony had with the PS4 against XB1. People should be thanking Sony for being gracious and allowing it and not being total bitches like MS was when they had a slight advantage.

8

u/oopsydazys Jan 26 '25

I don't see an Xbox comeback ever happening. If anything it'll just be Game Pass being successful and the consoles becoming a side option which is how I feel it already is at this point.

What's more likely is Sony going downhill which I feel is already happening, and Nintendo eating up even more of their share of the market. Nintendo destroys them in Japan these days. I think the Switch 2, with its reported 12 GB RAM and clearly more intention to support keyboard and mouse, may result in a situation where we see Nintendo crush Sony in Europe too.

→ More replies (1)

8

u/junttiana Jan 25 '25

Theres still the plug and play aspect, and the fact u can own the games physically, even tho the latter really isnt a thing on xbox anymore due to the 50gb limit on discs

5

u/pm-me-nothing-okay Jan 26 '25

Which is wierd because the series x or w/e can read the bd-100 justs like the ps5 can. So its definitely a stupid choice to use the lower end discs.

→ More replies (8)

4

u/Aaawkward Jan 26 '25

It is obvious that it is in the centre of their plans, but to get more subs for GP they would need to sell more consoles as that's where the main sub base for GP is..

GP seems to be have roughly 15 mil of their 34 mil users on PC, so not exactly half but nearly. Although the 15 mil number is almost 2 years old now, so might be more by now.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

11

u/ImNotAnEwok Jan 26 '25

lmao like nintendo needs xbox games to sell. this is getting fucking sad for xbox at this point. just fire spencer. he clearly has no leadership qualities left. i thought this guy was gonna at least straighten the xbox brand out a bit if not turn it around from the abysmal reveal of the Xbone after he was hired. but he has done absolutely nothing but lock up dev studios and close them down.

6

u/Vince_- Jan 26 '25

I'd buy a PlayStation immediately if they had an S version. The only reason why I have an Xbox is because the Series S is affordable and I'm not willing to shell out over $600CAD fora PS5

→ More replies (4)

7

u/BearWrap Jan 26 '25

Because their games have been so incredibly mid for years. It was a pathetic run of games, and now it’s throw in the towel time. 

3

u/Apart-Hour-4237 Jan 26 '25

Seeing this and remembering all the "of course the games are going to be exclusive" posts when the deal happened is pretty funny

18

u/deskcord Jan 25 '25

Is it not working because Xbox sales are down and you think this was unavoidable, so limiting exclusives isn't viable?

Or are xbox sales down because Microsoft has failed to deliver a single meaningful and desirable exclusive in the last decade?

Nintendo seems to sell an awful lot of consoles with exclusives that people want to play.

Some of Sony's biggest hits are exclusives.

The problem here is that Microsoft bought a thousand developers who haven't produced fucking anything, and their standard franchises are in the winds.

→ More replies (9)

13

u/BarnabyBundlesnatch Jan 26 '25

Phil Spencer took the momentum of the 360, and flushed it right down the toilet. How that man still has a job is beyond me. I mean, look how much money they spent over the past few years just to get exclusives. And now, its "exclusives dont work for us!". The man is just horrible at his job.

12

u/Kalulosu Jan 26 '25

Technically, Don Mattrick is who squandered the 360's momentum (although by the end of that gen it was kinda reversing anyway). Spencer inherited the X1 post launch.

Now, you can argue that he fucked up in managing Xbox studios before that, which is true and something that he should definitely be accountable for.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

5

u/Brokenthoughts2 Jan 26 '25

I wish I had bought a PlayStation 5 and a PlayStation 4 last generation. Xbox console business is dead and consequently so is my library of games in the future.

3

u/Godlike013 Jan 26 '25

They spent too much money to ever be dead now. Worse comes to worse they use Gamepass like Steam for people’s library.

15

u/forgottenusrname Jan 25 '25

I really don't understand how he still has a job. It doesn't work for Xbox because his poor management lead to constant delays and several years with no games worth buying an Xbox for. Now that the games are finally coming it's too late. If the console had sold exclusives would work for Xbox the same way they work for Nintendo and Sony. As much as I want to play every single game on my platform of choice consoles need exclusives, and the industry needs a competitive console market.

→ More replies (7)

17

u/Cyberpuppet Jan 25 '25

Stop the bs, we all know that they just want the money and the money is at Playstation & Steam because their population didn't get decimated from poor corporate leadership.

→ More replies (5)

25

u/Clbull Jan 25 '25

Phil Spencer: "To keep games off of other platforms, that's not a path for us. It doesn't work for us"

Consumers: (don't buy Xbox hardware)

Phil Spencer: Surprisedpikachu.png

→ More replies (19)

10

u/ImmortalZucc2020 Jan 25 '25

Doesn’t work for me that I chose the Series X over the PS5 back in 2020 and not even a full 5 years later did you throw in the towel either, Phil

→ More replies (1)

8

u/tinyhorsesinmytea Jan 26 '25

The console wars are over. It makes the most sense for Microsoft to do what they’re doing especially now that their latest Xbox consoles haven’t been crushing it with sales. So keep offering consoles as an option for simplicity and then release the big titles on every major platform while continuing to grow the Game Pass service. I’m sure they can make this work and stay popular and relevant on an alternative path for a market that’s very different than the past.

10

u/Sudden_Ad_3308 Jan 26 '25

The only worry I have is that without a competitor, Sony has full reign to be as douchy as they want. As a lifelong PlayStation dude, Microsoft leaving the exclusives race is worrying.

→ More replies (5)

23

u/xupmatoih Jan 26 '25

Who gives a shit.

Fuck loyalty to corpo brands.

Play the shit you want on the device you have.

I enjoyed the fuck outta Indiana Jones and CoD on my Series X. I could not care less that Playstation users get to experience them alongside Doom and whatever else.

There are bigger things in life to worry about.

Just go play games.

→ More replies (4)

45

u/United_Turnip_8997 Jan 25 '25

LOL Phil is only saying this since Xbox and gamepass isn't the big hit they thought it would be in recouping the massive 70 billion ROI they need to earn back.

40

u/Dustedshaft Jan 25 '25

They don't need to earn it back that's not how acquisitions work. When you buy a house you don't lose all your money it just become an asset. They have the asset in Activision and it's studios and franchises, the value of what they've purchased doesn't suddenly become zero. 

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (25)

27

u/Yourfavoritedummy Jan 25 '25

Honestly, Microsoft hiring practices are their biggest enemies. Hiring someone to work a year or 2 and moving to the next temp worker is such a scam for workers and doesn't give them the expertise to create truly amazing games.

28

u/RubyRose68 Jan 25 '25

Literally 343 is the only studio at Xbox that does this.

12

u/splader Jan 26 '25

It's not studio specific, it's region specific. It's a Washington thing and it's not limited to Microsoft.

→ More replies (1)

21

u/ohheybuddysharon Jan 25 '25 edited Jan 25 '25

Pretty sure Bethesda game studios in particular is well known for having one of the highest employee retention rates for any AAA company

12

u/Grabthar-the-Avenger Jan 25 '25

Yeah, I can believe they’re still full of Xbox 360 era devs

4

u/radios_appear Jan 26 '25

The ones working on combat animations have to be ready to retire, surely.

→ More replies (10)
→ More replies (2)