Crayon
Member
Yeah probably not the best idea but I'm horny.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
[Windows Central] Microsoft is exploring options around letting third-parties build Xbox-branded devices
- Thread starter bitbydeath
- Start date
- Rumor
Yeah probably not the best idea but I'm horny.
Parazels
Member
Microsoft is a champion of failed advantages!
Last edited:
playbignbox
Member
They sure know how to screw things up lolMicrosoft is a champion of failed advantages!
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Gabe wouldn’t sell to MS, he hates them.
Gamezone
Gold Member
I'm the end it's about money, not feelings.
bitbydeath
Gold Member
Gabe has money so no issues there.
sachos
Member
I mean if they manage to mix Windows gaming with Xbox gaming melted into one ecosystem with PC parts this could be a really good SteamMachine V2. Like imagine when you boot it up you can select "Xbox" or "Steam" and you get different SKUs from $500 all the way up to $1500 or something. It would be a smart way to get "Xboxs" playing Playstation games lol.
Last edited:
Geometric-Crusher
"Nintendo games are like indies, and worth at most $19" 🤡
If an Xbox runs Steam automatically it will become a common PC (that can even be bought now).
If MS are struggling to sell 4 million series consoles per year with an entry price of $300 or less then I don't see how it's possible to sell 2 million units of a hybrid pc Xbox out of Surface division for $1000+. Maybe 1 million at the very most. Doesn't seem worthwhile but they do have unlimited money to play with from time to time.
Gamezone
Gold Member
Same with Elon Musk. He hasn't retired yet.
KungFucius
King Snowflake
Xbox branded PCs and portable PCs seems reasonable for a company that makes PCs and portable PCs to be willing to work with MS on.
I wonder if they will have a streamlined XboxOS that provides better gaming experience or just stick with Windows.
I wonder if they will have a streamlined XboxOS that provides better gaming experience or just stick with Windows.
Burger King
Member
They definitely have to do something by the end of next year, otherwise I think the damage will be almost irreparable.
TheGodfather07
Member
Lol at "exploring". They already decided a while ago. It was all leaked. The most accurate leak of all time.
Last edited:
AmuroChan
Member
No, Valve is valued at $7B. Assuming even a 3x premium, many companies can buy Valve for $21B if they're on the market.
That valuation seems too low to me. Valve is also a game publisher with well alive economies (Cs2, dota2, TF2), they organise esport events all around the world, the steam decks are selling well, ... Microsoft paid $8 billions for zenimax and $2.5 billions for Minecraft (back then). CD project red (which owns GOG) is currently valued at $4.5 billions on the stock market.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
I'm sorry for your loss. But you clearly know how Windows Phones ended, right?
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Most people don't care about multi-ecosystem hosting devices, though. They just care for the ecosystem that appeals to them most, and they probably already know what that ecosystem is.
So it'd be less of a pitch for MS to go "Hey! This lets you access games from multiple storefronts!!" and more of a pitch to sell the device on things they are legally allowed to sell it on. Bringing outright attention to multi-storefronts runs a bit of a risk in convincing buyers to not purchase titles off the Xbox Store (I think I saw another person here mention that MS could just put AppX versions of their PC releases on the Xbox Store in the future if they move away from specific Xbox binaries, which would work since MS Store and Xbox Store both host AppX titles), so that type of marketing would probably be reserved for smaller, more enthusiasts-focused spaces.
About these new Xboxes being a problem for Nintendo & Sony...eh, not really. You're not understanding that these devices are going to cost a good deal more than their Nintendo & PlayStation counterparts when offering similar performance, because MS (and partners) will want to go for a no-subsidization model. MS could soft-subsidize by tying in access to alternative storefronts to a fixed-term Game Pass contract (which I think they will do for at least a cheaper SKU), but in the end you're still paying the difference when all's said and done.
That pricing will dictate the amount of volume that gets produced, and these new Xboxes won't have the market to push the 8-million-a-year or so XBO was managing. They may not even have the market to do 4 million/year, which even the current Xbox Series is struggling to hit. These new Xboxes won't be doing 15-20 million/year as Nintendo and PlayStation do in their peaks, and that's perfectly fine.
I realized that you like Xbox but understand, some ideas only work on an abstract level but not in reality.
read this thread
Screen on the controller what do you think about it in 2024 ?
As we all know to date, almost 2025, only the Sega Dreamcast and Nintendo Wii U have had controllers with a built-in screen. VMU - The vmu is completely inspired by the 1996 phenomenon, the Tamagotchi. There were a few reasons why Sega created vmu First, they couldn't make internal memory...www.neogaf.com
It's nothing new in the industry what MS will do, believe me it will sell less than the Dreamcast
a traditional console like xbsx at least sells like the N64.
Yes it's not a new concept, but the tech and market infrastructure wasn't in place for the idea back in the day. Don't forget, even successful technologies & markets today had periods where society just wasn't ready for them.
I've been doing some research over the weekend and came across the fact that certain memory types and video compression algorithms we rely on today, simply performed poorly early on because the infrastructure wasn't there to support them in the market yet. Even within gaming we can see this; online gaming was a thing well before Xbox Live, but there's a reason it took until Xbox Live for modern online gaming to see some actual market success; it was the right implementation at the right time.
No, I don't expect the next generation of Steam devices or the next Xboxes or PC handhelds to genuinely compete (individually and arguably collectively) for market share with Nintendo and PlayStation anytime soon, no one should be expecting that. Even if MS for example, do everything right (and there's a big chance they could do everything wrong), their console/PC hybrid Xbox devices will be fortunate to hit 40-45 million market penetration over a typical 7-8 year period. If that were a traditional console, we'd call that a failure.
But for console/PC hybrid market, that's a success, especially if it means they're making good profits on each system sold and achieving their general goals. Same would be the case with the Steam devices; in fact, having that said, only one of the two (Steam, Xbox) are going to likely hit that 40-45 million install base figure over the next few years; the other will be a distant second but how distant a second is the question. Anyway, point is that yes, these hybrids won't present any real market challenge to Nintendo & PlayStation devices that can move 100 million a gen each, but these PC hybrid gaming devices can eventually build up a market over 2-3 generations where they eventually do manage that.
And, if Nintendo & SIE don't innovate with post-Switch 2/post-PS6 systems strongly enough in terms of features, form factors, QOL etc. while maintaining acceptable performance...they could start losing hefty market share to these PC/console style hybrids. Could begin gradually happening even sooner, you never know. The thing is, PC gaming is generally getting more and more user-friendly with time, and the lines between what's a PC and what's a console for gaming are blurring more as time progresses, too.
With consoles and PC now using much of the same technologies, this kind of gives an inherit benefit to PC, it just could take a few generations to fully manifest. In any case, I think both Nintendo & SIE would be perfectly able to adapt to such changes while still maintaining their own hardware and likely remaining all or mostly closed ecosystems; it's just something they'd have to consider beginning shifting towards maybe 10 years from now, not this year or next.
True, Valve don't feel a need to compete in that way with other platforms. I guess it just goes to show how ingrained Steam is in gaming culture at this point, especially on PC. They kind of have an Apple-like brand appeal but an Android-style market share (Android has more smartphone market share than iOS IIRC).
Well it depends on how many diehard Xbox users still have Xboxes, and haven't just moved over to PC to play all of MS's games and all the new 3P titles.
They better, if they want this to work and not be a colossal failure before even launch.
TBF Valve don't have a ton of massive IP to their name; Counterstrike and DOTA are their biggest IP in terms of sales and revenue by far. Half-Life is well-known for sure, but it was never a mega-seller in its day. Like yeah, it did a lot better than games like System Shock 2 sales-wise, but didn't have anything on something like Halo 2 or 3's sales, sticking to shooters. Deadlock has been doing very well but it's also a new IP, and stuff like Portal are basically legacy IP at this point.
Comparing that to Zenimax who have several major IP in active state like TES, Fallout, DOOM, etc. and it's easy to see why they could end up similarly valued.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Gabe doesn't hate MS? where have you heard this?
Gabe hates walled gardens. That's pretty much the main thing he has expressed.
twilo99
Member
Musk can also afford to buy Steam
twilo99
Member
Steam wouldn’t exist if Windows was a walled garden so he surly has an extra appreciation for open platforms such as Windows