Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
XBox (Games) Microsoft

'Just Making Great Games' Won't Change Xbox Console Market Share, Says Spencer (videogameschronicle.com) 54

Posted by msmash from the existential-questions dept.
While claiming that "the console is the core of the Xbox brand," Microsoft's head of gaming has reiterated the company needs to focus on the wider gaming market if it's to be successful. From a report: During the Kinda Funny Games Xcast podcast, Spencer was asked if Xbox has taken its eye off the console market by focusing too much on PC. In response, Spencer said Microsoft would be wrong to think that just building great console titles could help it overtake Sony and Nintendo in terms of hardware sales. Instead, it has chosen to pursue a different strategy to the Japanese companies, one focused on fulfilling developers' vision of enabling customers to play their games on any screen. "We're not in the business of out-consoling Sony or out-consoling Nintendo," Spencer said. "There isn't really a great solution or win for us. And I know that will upset a ton of people, but it's just the truth of the matter that when you're third place in the console marketplace and the top two players are as strong as they are, and have in certain cases a very, very discrete focus on doing deals and other things that kind of make being Xbox hard for us as a team, [and] that's on us, not on anybody else."

He added: "I see commentary that if you just built great games everything would turn around. It's just not true that if we go off and build great games then all of a sudden you're going to see console share shift in some dramatic way. We lost the worst generation to lose in the Xbox One generation where everybody built their digital library of games. So, when you go and you're building on Xbox, we want our Xbox community to feel awesome, but this idea that if we just focused more on great games on our console that somehow we're going to win the console race, I think doesn't really lay into the reality of most people." Spencer claimed that 90% of the people who buy a console every year already own a PlayStation, Nintendo or Xbox console, and their digital game library lives on that ecosystem.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Just Making Great Games' Won't Change Xbox Console Market Share, Says Spencer More

'Just Making Great Games' Won't Change Xbox Console Market Share, Says Spencer

Comments Filter:
  • Not making great games is a sure way to fail. Why would anyone buy a console that doesn't have good games?

    • Every console is going to have great games. When you have a bunch of older games that are still fun and easy to play, why switch systems? There's a lot more inertia to just stay with the system you have.

      I have an Xbox One with a bunch of digital games. If I buy a new console, it makes a lot of sense for me just to stick with an XBox One X (over a PS5), so I can still play my whole library of older games. It doesn't really matter which system has better games, unless the difference is huge.

      It's not like

      • If I buy a new console, it makes a lot of sense for me just to stick with an XBox One X (over a PS5), so I can still play my whole library of older games

        Yeah but you have no motivation to buy a new console then. If there are no new good games, you'll stick with your old console.

        • Good games with a substantial online component become no longer good once the operator of their online component stops operating their online component. During the PlayStation 2 era, for example, games' online modes were infamous for showing DNAS error -103 "The software title is not in service," indicating a permanent shutdown of online matchmaking, while the game was still sold new in box on store shelves. This can extend to an entire console's library, such as the switchoff of Xbox Live for games for the

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by edwdig ( 47888 )

          Your PS4 games run on your PS5, and they get the increased CPU and GPU speeds, and the SSD load times. Even if you don't buy a single PS5 game, the PS4 games you already own run noticeably better. If you had a PS4, it's a very easy call to buy a PS5. An Xbox Series is a much harder sell, as you'd be starting over on games.

          Microsoft can make a similar pitch to Xbox owners, but there ere a lot less Xbox One owners than PS4 owners.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by rykin ( 836525 )
            The Xbox Series S/X is just an Xbox one with higher specs. It doesn't reset anything. Most saves are stored on the cloud, so you can continue where you left off regardless of what system you play on, so I'm not sure what you meant by that comment.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by edwdig ( 47888 )

              The point is if you owned either a PlayStation or an Xbox last generation, it's a very easy decision to upgrade to the newer model of the same system. It's strictly better and there's no disadvantage to it. It's much harder to convince someone to buy the other system.

              PlayStation outsold Xbox something like 3:1 last generation, so Sony is in a much better position than Microsoft right now.

          • This. The PS5 is worth it strictly as a PS4 Pro Pro. They haven't even really started making PS5 games that really take advantage of the hardware yet.

            The PS5 is a drop in upgrade for the PS4, and it's awesome.

    • Its oversimplifying the problem.

      Nintendo has massive brand loyalty, but the switch is objectively a dinosaur in terms of capability compared to the XBOX and Playstation. But theres a lot of kids who just want to play Mario or whatever.

      I mean yeah, those Nintendo games clearly are great games (you cant fool kids, if the game isnt fun they wont even attempt to play it) but theres more going on with these things, and thats something Microsoft *cant* just engineer its way into. Its culturally incapable of being

      • I don't think you understand that different people play video games for different reasons.

        Yes, the Switch is about on the same capability level as an Xbox 360.

        Who cares? It's more fun, and easier, to have another couple over, get drunk and play Mario Party than it is to do something similar on the xbox or playstation.

        Though the PS5 does sometimes get moved upstairs to play Knowledge is Power and That's You! With quite a few hoops being jumped through.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by skam240 ( 789197 )

      Of course he's not suggested they stop making great games so what's your point?

  • From what I can see they have a string of several failures including this weeks flop Redfall. Making bad games is a sure way to fail. The only MS game I enjoyed at all was State of Decay 2 and it is still buggy as hell.

  • If Xbox is basically a "specific and slim system config" for PC games, that's not a bad place to be. Ideally Xbox wouldn't have any games that PC doesn't, being like a higher-end Steam Deck. Would work well for consumers.

    • I'm still surprised that they removed the optical drive from the entry level model, but I guess streaming means most people don't use optical much anymore. It's still 90% of what my Xbox gets used for, especially now that I can stream Steam from the PC to the television.
    • I would love that. I'm not sure if it works for Microsoft though. Consoles are cheap computers, that pack quite a bit of hardware power for a low price because they expect to make the money back via games. If the Xbox was just that, a slim system that allows me to run my PC library (i.e., would give you access to Steam)... they'd never make significant profit from it, I would have no incentive to buy Xbox games.

      On the other hand, if I'm restricted to "console" titles, but the titles available are not as g
    • With the super high cost of modern game consoles third place isn't going to cut it. Microsoft can afford to lose unlimited money because of the office and windows monopolies but sooner or later their shareholders are going to say enough and just by Nintendo and Sony stock instead. Remember the majority of stock is owned by a handful of people and those people are the ones who get to vote and get to sit on the board of directors. They don't particularly care about competition between game consoles. So unless
  • He has accomplished nothing. All these people get to the top and they get to fuck up over and over with no punishment.

  • How are they losing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CodeInspired ( 896780 ) on Thursday May 04, 2023 @03:31PM (#63497702)
    Honestly, I'm not sure how they are losing the console battle. I have them all and Nintendo and Sony aren't even close. Nintendo is by far the worst. Ridiculously priced games (even used) for a system that still says "close software" and antiquated dialogs, etc. It's terribly confusing but I guess they do have the Mario franchise so that keeps them going. Playstation is decent game wise. But, unless you're into their exclusive games, you're far better off playing on a Series X. XBox Live and it's ecosystem are light years ahead of Playstation's one-off gaming experience.
    • If you don't like party games, you aren't going to like Nintendo. It's the multi-player mode that really does it for them. You can invite four friends and all have fun together on the same screen.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by skam240 ( 789197 )

        If you don't like party games, you aren't going to like Nintendo.

        Nonsense, of the half dozen people I know who own Switches 90% of game play is single player. Furthermore, their highest rated games are primarily single player https://www.metacritic.com/bro... [metacritic.com] and in terms of sales their primarily single player titles do just fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

        I love same screen multiplayer and all and that's certainly a strength the Switch has over other consoles but Nintendo would be dead in the water without their strong library of single player games.

        • The OP is not saying the only reason for the Switch is party games as if single player games do not exist on that platform. Party games are just better on the Switch. Anecdotally, before the pandemic, every house party I attended had a Switch being used the entire night as adults played games like Super Smash Bros all night.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by skam240 ( 789197 )

            The OP is not saying the only reason for the Switch is party games as if single player games do not exist on that platform

            What? They are saying exactly that. I even quoted them in my post "If you don't like party games, you aren't going to like Nintendo. " as if one can not enjoy the Nintendo Switch if one doesnt enjoy and engage in party games.

            • "If you don't like party games, you aren't going to like Nintendo. "

              He never said "You going to like Nintendo ONLY IF you like party games". That is your interpretation of what he said.

    • Honestly, I'm not sure how they are losing the console battle.

      Sales

    • Because if you want to play all the games, many games you can only play on Nintendo and some games you can only play on PlayStation. If you want to play XBox games, you buy a PlayStation and you get to play almost all those games plus a lot more games.

      The other reason is the PS4 had a ton more games than the last XBox and many people switched to PlayStation. Also Nintendo stole some people as well having a console that is travel friendly.

    • That's funny, I have a switch amd I can't see why people would want anything else...
      They have the games I want, and it is portable for trips.
      Heavier computation games will run on PC and better than on xbox and ps5.

    • Probably in terms of metrics such as:
      - Market Share
      - Revenue
      - Profitability
      ?

      I'm sure "Console used most by Slashdot user 896780" is something they hold dear, but it's not really much of an indicator of comparative success.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It all depends what games you like. Nintendo has Mario, Zelda, Splatoon, and many other exclusive titles. It's also portable.

      Playstation has Gran Turismo which is a big deal, not least because it is a popular e-sport. Forza just isn't in the same league - literally, Gran Turismo has FIA official events and championships.

    • The number one reason Nintendo is still relevant is they have the only real portable console. The second reason is Nintendo has many exclusive games. Anything in the Zelda/Mario/Pokémon universe is only on the Switch. The third reason is even the new Switch OLED is still cheaper than an Xbox Series X. Many parents I know get them as a portable entertainment center for their children.

      As for Sony, their number one reason is they have better exclusive games. Frankly, I cannot name a single Xbox only game

  • Nintendo does not compete directly with them. There is nothing for them to lose as a platform company by going all-in on supporting Nintendo on a "Current generation - 1" basis. When the Switch 2 comes out, Microsoft should just go all in. Port Fable, port Gears, port all of the XBox One and below Halo titles.

    Microsoft doesn't need to own mobile gaming on a platform basis. If they become one of Nintendo's most important 3rd party studios, they'll own the best part of mobile gaming basically bury any chance

    • When the Switch 2 comes out, Microsoft should just go all in. Port Fable, port Gears, port all of the XBox One and below Halo titles.

      This is a really good idea that hadn't occurred to me. You're basically suggesting they pull a Sega back when they stopped making Dreamcasts. I like this idea! Sega back then is sort of like Microsoft is now.

  • but great isn't enough. You need a killer app to win back market share. Either that or you need regulators to OK your attempt to buy up the industry.

    But every successful console in history did it on the back of a killer app. 2600? Space Invaders. 8-bit NES? Super Mario. Sega Genesis? Sonic The Hedgehog. N64? Mario 64. PlayStation? FF7.

    It's not 100%. The Dreamcast had multiple killer apps (Soul Calibre, NBA2k & NFL2k) and the PS2 hype train couple with Sega's suddenly collapsing Arcade business (
    • PS2 slaughtered Dreamcast just like PS1 slaughtered Saturn. The quality of PlayStation was so much higher.
      • You need to go look up the launch titles on the PS2. With the exception of Tekken tag tournament they were crap or tech demos. It was a long time until the PS2 could match the quality of the Dreamcast and it only managed to do that because it became such a dominant force in the market with brilliant programmers pushed the console well beyond its capabilities.

    • Seemingly, Sega of Japan wanted to launch the Dreamcast for $250, but Bernie Stolar decided to push it for $200. This helped the system sell well at first, but made it basically impossible to recoup the costs.

      • They were actually doing just fine. The business models say they had was to be unprofitable for three or four years and then make a ton of money in year four or five. I know that sounds crazy but to be honest that's how most consoles work.

        The problem is they going to have is they want to subsidizing the Dreamcast with profits from their arcade business and the bottom dropped out of the arcades suddenly. Much quicker than anyone anticipated. I don't just mean Sega I mean pretty much nobody expected the a
  • Have mercy and don't hurt me again, I jus wanna spend a measwy $69 billion dollars uwu

  • You'd need to make some great games and test that first. Instead we've got Halo Infinite, Redfall... ummm, I guess the best thing you've made, and that was two years ago, was a game that you bought in production, Psychonauts 2? And technically you owned the studio that made Pentiment, which was a little niche (but great) game. Oh wait, and you get full credit for Forza Horizon 5 - the one big MS studio game that just launched as a great game in good shape in years.

    Meanwhile, Redfall was an EA-esque disas

    • Hi-Fi Rush got a lot of praise earlier this year. But your point still stands: most their recent big games weren't great.

  • I got a ps5 early and have enjoyed the hell out of it since then playing at least a little bit every week and sometimes binging (with a brief blackout period of 2-3 months when I was doing a cross country move). It isn't perfect. The external ssd write speed is fucked. Games crash if left running too long. A few lesser annoyances. But overall loving it and stopped playing PC games,

    A few months ago I played on my friend's same gen Xbox (whatever the top Xbox is right now, I dunno, don't follow it). It

    • When they created the tiles interface on the 360 the soul was just sucked right out of the xbox. It became sensory overload for advertising, streaming services it seems mostly with the current game disc being relegated to the smallest tile and your downloaded games being IIRC 3 button presses away. Sony's worst move was making "What's New" the default selection on the PS4 which while irritating is insignificant compared to the xbox's "fuck you, buy stuff" approach.

      It's all the little things. The culture sur

    • I think it was a decision since the Xbox One to pivot away from gaming . . . on their game console. Both Sony and MS want their consoles to do more however MS has always wanted to leverage all their business towards PC dominance. Hence their focus of launching their studio games on both Xbox and PC.

  • nintendo has mario, zelda and metroid, playstation has horizon, god of war, spiderman, etc.

    xbox has halo and gears of war. while they are good, they are not as good as the competition.

    this is why ms bought bethesda and now they want activision

  • It's just not true that if we go off and build great games then all of a sudden you're going to see console share shift in some dramatic way

    While it is true that making great games won't in and of itself guarantee success, not making great games will certainly guarantee failure.

    Even if they are trying to use a subscription model rather than sell individual games, most subscription entertainment services work by having a sufficient number of tentpole products along with the average stuff.

  • Make it the central controller of your smart home. Add voice activated assistant and personal news aggregator.

    • Trying to be "more" than a gaming console is part of what killed the One before its launch. TV, sports, TV, Netflix and TV... There's value in value-add features, but they tend to engender loyalty in existing customers rather than sway large numbers of fence sitters. No one is going to sell their PS5/Switch for an Xbox because it has Alexa in it.

      They need games and they don't have them. And IMHO the reason the games they do have didn't work is because they were designed as service style economies where the

      • Yes MS seems to forget that the add part of "value-add". All those other features are great in addition to a good gaming platform. Selling the additional features as if they are the core value was not going to go well with gamers.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jezwel ( 2451108 )

          Yes MS seems to forget that the add part of "value-add". All those other features are great in addition to a good gaming platform. Selling the additional features as if they are the core value was not going to go well with gamers.

          I'm not a console gamer, neither is my partner, and I've yet to introduce our kids to the concept of consoles. I'm looking for a system that becomes our TV home screen for media playing, home automation management (hook into and manage all those voice activated nodes and our security cameras), and can also play great games, rather than great gaming console that can do other things. Guess that's not yet a big enough market though.

    • They've always wanted to head that way, the X360 was one of the first things to stream Netflix easily and had good support for IR remotes vs a PS3 that needed add ons. They also had attempts at this with Windows as a Media Center, and you'd think these in synergy would've been a boon but presumably hampered by the same kind of siloization you see elsewhere.

Slashdot Top Deals

Anything free is worth what you pay for it.

Close