Global sales of XBox are so bad developers wonder if supporting the console is worth it for them

There's an easy fix...

...Stop charging a subscription to play online.

Immediately MS will have a marketable reason for people to flock from Sony's Playstation network to Microsoft's Xbox network. Furthermore, it shouldn't be as painful for MS as they charge most a subscription to use MS Office - Which is something Sony can't do.

There's absolutely no reason why anyone should have to pay a subscription to play online.
 
jbltecnicspro said:
What's an Xbox? Is that like Matchbox cars? :D
Click to expand...

Lakados said:
No it’s an easy bake oven but black and green so boys might like it more.
Click to expand...

I thought it was a refrigerator?

maxresdefault.jpg
 
Mazzspeed said:
There's an easy fix...

...Stop charging a subscription to play online.

Immediately MS will have a marketable reason for people to flock from Sony's Playstation network to Microsoft's Xbox network. Furthermore, it shouldn't be as painful for MS as they charge most a subscription to use MS Office - Which is something Sony can't do.

There's absolutely no reason why anyone should have to pay a subscription to play online.
Click to expand...

But Sony does it. Also, consoles are generally sold at a loss. They make up for it in the subscription and software sales. Have they reached a break even point yet on the current systems? I think the big problem with the Xbox is the Series S. They more or less have to optimize for a lower end console right off the bat. Makes their porting time take longer than it would have. A higher end model mid cycle is okay, but day one having to work with a weaker version must have been troublesome for some developers with limited time.
 
Flogger23m said:
I think the big problem with the Xbox is the Series S.
Click to expand...
Combined with the policy that if you want to release on Xbox you need to have a S working version, that seem to be what they say in the clip, because if you have a PC and PS5 version, doing the Xbox-X is probably not that big of a deal.
 
Flogger23m said:
But Sony does it. Also, consoles are generally sold at a loss. They make up for it in the subscription and software sales. Have they reached a break even point yet on the current systems? I think the big problem with the Xbox is the Series S. They more or less have to optimize for a lower end console right off the bat. Makes their porting time take longer than it would have. A higher end model mid cycle is okay, but day one having to work with a weaker version must have been troublesome for some developers with limited time.
Click to expand...
Lets remember: Sony started charging a subscription to play online because Microsoft did it and got away with it. I remember playing FPS games online on my PS3, and there was no cost involved at all.

By removing the cost barrier regarding an online subscription, you entice more developers to your platform, as they know customers will be motivated to buy their game on a platform where there isn't a cost associated with online game play. By enticing more developers to your platform you make more money from game sales via the Microsoft XBox store.

I know that personally, I will not pay to play online. So as a potential customer, both Microsoft and Sony have lost me straight off the bat - No matter if the console is the Xbox Series S, Series X or the PS5.
 
Last edited:
I think it is mostly all about good exclusive, nice gamepass price and service, nice controller, etc... can play in the margin, but the switch sell because of Zelda and what not, when you are behind trying to win by having a little better Call of duty experience with free multiplayer will be rough, they needed Starfield to bring people, Flight Simulator help, etc..

If Elder Scroll 6 is big, the next Xbox that will have launched around the same time will be big.

The error could have been too aggressive or not in the right way with the Series S, instead of cutting on the ram that much, maybe weaker cpu would have been easier, 10 GB of total ram for GPU-CPU, the OS, etc... must be rough, PC had at least the double of that for a very long time now
 
LukeTbk said:
I think it is mostly all about good exclusive
Click to expand...
That, sadly, is almost all of it. The reason everyone I know who has a PS5 has one is "the exclusives were better". It's sad that consumer unfriendly tactics like that work... but they do. Sony paid devs to get exclusives people wanted more, so they went with the PS5 since everything cross platform performs near enough the same as to make no odds.

I wish exclusives weren't a thing, but they work on consumers. Tell people "You can only play this game on the PS5" and rather than say "That's anti-consumer garbage, I'll skip that game," they say "Well, guess that means I'm getting a PS5!"
 
LukeTbk said:
I think it is mostly all about good exclusive, nice gamepass price and service, nice controller, etc... can play in the margin, but the switch sell because of Zelda and what not, when you are behind trying to win by having a little better Call of duty experience with free multiplayer will be rough, they needed Starfield to bring people, Flight Simulator help, etc..
Click to expand...
We're beyond exclusives. Exclusives do matter, but at this point it's because PC is destroying the console industry. The original Xbox was built with the PC as the main idea. Why you think Nintendo is delaying the Switch 2 and went after the Yuzu emulator? The Steam Deck and it's clones are going to make buying a Switch 2 a hard choice.
If Elder Scroll 6 is big, the next Xbox that will have launched around the same time will be big.
Click to expand...
Elder Scrolls 6 could be the biggest game of the year, but it'll be on PC. Xbox is so bad that Microsoft can't afford not to port their games to PC. Delaying the release to PC won't even matter, because people have too many games to play.
The error could have been too aggressive or not in the right way with the Series S, instead of cutting on the ram that much, maybe weaker cpu would have been easier, 10 GB of total ram for GPU-CPU, the OS, etc... must be rough, PC had at least the double of that for a very long time now
Click to expand...
If console history has taught us anything is that the most powerful hardware will rarely win. Technically the Xbox Series X is more powerful than the PS5, but the PS5 is kicking it's butt. A lot of it is due to PC gaming displacing the Xbox. It's just far too convenient to game on PC over Xbox.

  • PC has infinitely better backwards compatibility compared to Xbox. Microsoft has put the more effort into backwards compatibility compared to Sony and Nintendo, but it pales compared to PC.
  • PC is compatible with all peripherals compared to Xbox.
  • PC doesn't charge a monthly fee to play games online.
  • PC has emulators so you can play older games on it.
  • PC has mods so you can add huge boobs when the woke developers won't.
  • PC is portable, so you can game on a laptop or a Steam Deck.
  • PC has games from Sony as well.
Unless Microsoft turns the Xbox into a Windows PC, it has no chance. Look at the Steam Deck and copy their ideas.

View: https://youtu.be/hbA7H3738BI?si=E2JokT2gWRO790tD
 
DukenukemX said:
The Steam Deck and it's clones are going to make buying a Switch 2 a hard choice.
Click to expand...
I doubt parents will hesitate between the steam deck and the switch 2 for their kids.

DukenukemX said:
Why you think Nintendo is delaying the Switch 2
Click to expand...
One possible reason is how crazy well the Switch (consoles and games) are still selling, the very old Switch sold more than twice as many units than the 2020 Xbox last year apparently. But how would it help Nintendo versus PC gaming competition to delay the Switch 2 here, would it not push them into releasing it earlier instead of later if they felt the PC competition got too good, it seem completely arbitrary to spin the narrative either way? Not sure I follow the point being made. You could easily say console is so strong they can still sale in 2024 10 years old tegra on 16-20nm node....

That sound quite the confirmation bias, let just that if consoles makers just had shortened their generation and all launched new one this year, we could have easily see that because the PC competition is so strong.

DukenukemX said:
We're beyond exclusives. Exclusives do matter, but at this point it's because PC is destroying the console industry.
Click to expand...
PS5 has sold around 55 millions devise has of now, that seem a bit dramatic, 45 millions consoles of the main 3 were sold in 2023.

DukenukemX said:
Elder Scrolls 6 could be the biggest game of the year, but it'll be on PC.
Click to expand...
Depend what the next Xbox look like price point wise, it will be bigger on PC, but Xbox X and the next Xbox that will launch before it, could be big, specially if the Xbox X2 version of the game take a pc not that many have.

DukenukemX said:
The original Xbox was built with the PC as the main idea.
Click to expand...
Not sure exactly what that mean, if you mean Microsoft saw that making Windows-DirectX was so much easier than PS2 games from a developper point of view that they could make a small console PC quickly and sell it, yes.
 
Last edited:
Sycraft said:
That, sadly, is almost all of it. The reason everyone I know who has a PS5 has one is "the exclusives were better". It's sad that consumer unfriendly tactics like that work... but they do. Sony paid devs to get exclusives people wanted more, so they went with the PS5 since everything cross platform performs near enough the same as to make no odds.

I wish exclusives weren't a thing, but they work on consumers. Tell people "You can only play this game on the PS5" and rather than say "That's anti-consumer garbage, I'll skip that game," they say "Well, guess that means I'm getting a PS5!"
Click to expand...
IMO, third party exclusives isn't why PS5 dominates, it's not the primary motivator for customers. It's firstparty, Sony invests a lot in their in-house studios, which make some of the best titles. I realize this isn't news.

Microsoft understood the critical importance of firstparty when the first Xbox in 2001 launched. But beginning with Xbox One they seemed to forget this, and it's been a head scratcher level of nonexistent firstparty ever since, just crutching along on annualized Call of Duty and Madden mass appeal fishfeed.

The Bethesda acquisition showed signs of life for a return to exclusives, but the timing feels 5-10 yrs late as it will take years for the acquisition to really start paying dividends.
 
DPI said:
IMO, third party exclusives isn't why PS5 dominates, it's not the primary motivator for customers. It's firstparty, Sony invests a lot in their in-house studios, which make some of the best titles. I realize this isn't news.

Microsoft understood the critical importance of firstparty when the first Xbox in 2001 launched. But beginning with Xbox One they seemed to forget this, and it's been a head scratcher level of nonexistent firstparty ever since, just crutching along on annualized Call of Duty and Madden mass appeal fishfeed.

The Bethesda acquisition showed signs of life for a return to exclusives, but the timing feels 5-10 yrs late as it will take years for the acquisition to really start paying dividends.
Click to expand...

It doesn't help that most of Xbox's recent exclusives ranged from bad to okay but nothing that great. I liked Gears 4/5, but those were certainly not quite system sellers. Halo and Gears are Xbox/360 era games no longer made by the original studios and Microsoft seems to think making endless sequels is the answer.
 
Flogger23m said:
It doesn't help that most of Xbox's recent exclusives ranged from bad to okay but nothing that great. I liked Gears 4/5, but those were certainly not quite system sellers. Halo and Gears are Xbox/360 era games no longer made by the original studios and Microsoft seems to think making endless sequels is the answer.
Click to expand...
I'm sure them announcing new DEI guidelines for developers will turn things around. /s
 
Flogger23m said:
But Sony does it. Also, consoles are generally sold at a loss. They make up for it in the subscription and software sales. Have they reached a break even point yet on the current systems? I think the big problem with the Xbox is the Series S. They more or less have to optimize for a lower end console right off the bat. Makes their porting time take longer than it would have. A higher end model mid cycle is okay, but day one having to work with a weaker version must have been troublesome for some developers with limited time.
Click to expand...
Generally console costs around 600€ and the lifecycle costs from subscriptions is 1000€ which is just insane. If the console itself was free, then the subscription would make sense.

My use for a console would be basically playing CoD or Battlefield online. So this forced subscription is making these games cost me a whopping 1000€, no thanks.

Sony would get around 1000€ from me with the console and these type of games, but since the subscription is there, Sony will get 0€ from me.
 
Lepardi said:
Generally console costs around 600€ and the lifecycle costs from subscriptions is 1000€ which is just insane. If the console itself was free, then the subscription would make sense.
Click to expand...
Not really, you can still sell the console after you done using it and recoup some of the initial cost. If you just subscribe to it, it's all lost.
 
DukenukemX said:
We're beyond exclusives. Exclusives do matter, but at this point it's because PC is destroying the console industry. The original Xbox was built with the PC as the main idea. Why you think Nintendo is delaying the Switch 2 and went after the Yuzu emulator? The Steam Deck and it's clones are going to make buying a Switch 2 a hard choice.

The steam deck and all other similar devices have zero effect on Switch sales.
Click to expand...
The steam deck and all other similar devices have zero impact on Switch sales. How can Nintendo delay something that has no official announcement. The Switch is still printing money for them.
Lepardi said:
Generally console costs around 600€ and the lifecycle costs from subscriptions is 1000€ which is just insane. If the console itself was free, then the subscription would make sense.

My use for a console would be basically playing CoD or Battlefield online. So this forced subscription is making these games cost me a whopping 1000€, no thanks.

Sony would get around 1000€ from me with the console and these type of games, but since the subscription is there, Sony will get 0€ from me.
Click to expand...
15 years is the life cycle of a console?
 
Kotaku? I don't even want to click the link,

It's probably 90% click bait bullshit reporting on a scenario that's been the same since the launch of the original X-Box, as it's sales in Europe (and pretty much anywhere that isn't the US) have always been trash (almost as bad as Kotaku's articles). Most console sales over there are PlayStations just to play Fifa. I'd be surprised if more than 20% of them even knew other video games existed :ROFLMAO:.
X-Box and by extension, GamesPass is doing just fine, the market is plenty big enough now to where these "2004 console war" discussions are as close to pointless as something can be.
 
vegeta535 said:
The steam deck and all other similar devices have zero impact on Switch sales. How can Nintendo delay something that has no official announcement. The Switch is still printing money for them.

15 years is the life cycle of a console?
Click to expand...
PS3 was 14 years for me. Bought in 2010 with BFBC2 as my main game, and now EA shut the servers down.

If PS3 had had these current subscriptions, it would have cost me additional 1000€.
 
Lepardi said:
PS3 was 14 years for me. Bought in 2010 with BFBC2 as my main game, and now EA shut the servers down.

If PS3 had had these current subscriptions, it would have cost me additional 1000€.
Click to expand...
That is for you. PS3 was long discontinued by then.
 
DukenukemX said:
Unless Microsoft turns the Xbox into a Windows PC, it has no chance. Look at the Steam Deck and copy their ideas.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I've hoped MS would turn the Xbox into each time they release a new hardware. I'm hoping that Valve's success with SteamOS and the Steam Deck, MS will see the benefit of a more open platform. With the way Spencer has been talking about 3rd party launchers and exclusives - that's the exact path I think they're planning on taking.

Armenius said:
Microsoft really shot themselves in the foot at the starting line with the Series S and the requirement that all games support the weaker-than-Xbox One X hardware.
Click to expand...

I think the idea was alright, but the execution wasn't good. They should've matched the RAM of the X, or been a handheld. The fact it couldn't run B/C as well as the One X was the main reason I didn't go for one (I liked its small form factor and didn't need a disc drive.)
 
Considering that the Gamepass Ultimate is only$17 a month, which is the same or cheaper than most streaming services, I think the pricing is just fine. Being able to play all those games on the Series S, without having to buy the game, it is big boon for users.

As for the Series S being weaker than the One X, I do not agree, I personally find that the Series S is software locked, in my opinion, and that will not change. In fact, could you imagine the outrage if they allowed One X games and found that they could have ran them all along?
 
I've had no need for one ever since they made all Xbox exclusives also available on PC. I like that, too. If infusing life into the Xbox means that'll go away then I say "let it die."
 
Mazzspeed said:
There's an easy fix...

...Stop charging a subscription to play online.

Immediately MS will have a marketable reason for people to flock from Sony's Playstation network to Microsoft's Xbox network. Furthermore, it shouldn't be as painful for MS as they charge most a subscription to use MS Office - Which is something Sony can't do.

There's absolutely no reason why anyone should have to pay a subscription to play online.
Click to expand...

That nonsense sounds like communism.
 
Twisted Kidney said:
That nonsense sounds like communism.
Click to expand...
Or playing Diablo/starcraft on battlenet in the 90s, there a lot of (steam, the maker of the games and so on) that do a lot of what those console provide for "free".

ManofGod said:
As for the Series S being weaker than the One X, I do not agree, I personally find that the Series S is software locked, in my opinion, and that will not change. In fact, could you imagine the outrage if they allowed One X games and found that they could have ran them all along?
Click to expand...
That is quite the statement if I understand it, you disagree that the gpu-memory of the Series S is in reality weaker than the Series-X, and you think that it exist video game that run only on the Series-X ?

As of now, all Xbox game must run on the series S and do, even Baldur's Gates 3 had to do it.
 
LukeTbk said:
Or playing Diablo/starcraft on battlenet in the 90s, there a lot of (steam, the maker of the games and so on) that do a lot of what those console provide for "free".


That is quite the statement if I understand it, you disagree that the gpu-memory of the Series S is in reality weaker than the Series-X, and you think that it exist video game that run only on the Series-X ?

As of now, all Xbox game must run on the series S and do, even Baldur's Gates 3 had to do it.
Click to expand...

I am speaking specifically of One X enhanced games, since the S will only run One S versions, out of the box.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Halon
like this
Templar_X said:
is that the large wave of blind rage going around for a single sub-point on a list of several areas on an optional set of guidelines that says something like "Consider if they [female characters] have exaggerated proportions?" oh yeah that's straight up demanding developers to only make ugly characters :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Define "exaggerated." Looking around at recent Microsoft releases they think a waist to hip ratio of smaller than 90% is exaggerated.
 
Bigbacon said:
this is a good chance for someone like Steam to really push steam deck type products to gamers.
Click to expand...

If Valve parlayed SteamDeck's success and the SteamOS advancements into rebooting the SteamBox concept that blew up on the launchpad last time, I think it'd find some success now that Valve has much more supply chain experience building VR hardware as well as the Deck. And then god forbid a SteamOS general desktop release - a gaming-focused Linux with MacOS-like dummy-proofing, would just be icing on the cake. These tend to be spreadsheet decisions nowadays, but Valve has had more of their calculated risks pan out than not.

BTW I just looked and Steambox was announced.. Jan 6 2014 - has it really been a decade already? good god.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top