this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
43 points (95.7% liked)

Games

16796 readers
850 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

But since closing the Activision deal last fall, Xbox has made a series of moves that have left fans and analysts baffled about its overall strategy. It has laid off thousands of staffshuttered studios and been unable to articulate a consistent message about how it plans to release games. Xbox fans assumed those big acquisitions would lead to more exclusive games that helped justify their console purchase, but the opposite has happened.

Early this year, Microsoft began putting some of its former exclusives on PlayStation, starting with smaller, older titles such as Hi-Fi Rush. This week, the company announced that another big, new title will follow the same route. Indiana Jones and The Great Circle, coming in December to Xbox and PC, will arrive on PlayStation in the spring of 2025.

Ditching console exclusives is good news for players who can only afford to stick to one piece of hardware. And Microsoft was able to squeeze the Activision deal past regulatory scrutiny in part because it promised to continue releasing Call of Duty on PlayStation. But Xbox’s release strategy has been so confusing, it requires a massive spreadsheet and a full-time job to keep track of it all.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Microsoft is winning a war Sony doesn't know they're in. They've all but destroyed the concept of exclusivity. Everything is a computer now. Games are multiplatform by default. Turns out - more sales means more money. Why wouldn't Sekiro be on PC, or Halo be on PS5? Just so people can feel special about which brand they bought?

The Xbox has always been an agenda more than a platform.

Yeah, Xboxen have been outsold by Playstations at every step, but in so doing they've dragged Playstation hardware into lockstep with their machines. The literally-a-PC Xbox-the-first tricked Sony into bundling the PS3 with a then-expensive hard drive, and Sony barely got the memo in time to give it a video card. PS3 ports still sucked for years while the 360 had CryTek running 1:1 devkit demos. And then, yes, the PS3 came from behind on system and game sales, but not in any way that vindicated the ways it was weird versus the ways the 360 was weird. Microsoft choosing PowerPC was unthinkable... but they proved it didn't matter. And then - the PS4 and Xbone were basically the same. Only dumb software and worse camera optics gave the PS4 a leg-up that it never lost. Both machines got about the same upgrades at about the same time. They even looked about the same. Do you want your console in bold, or italic?

And now - the practical difference between Microsoft's glorified AMD laptop and Sony's glorified AMD laptop is negligible. It only affects which color boxes you buy. Fanboys have been crying "Playstation has no games!" since the PS3 era, and what they mean is, "all the Xbox kids can also play these games, waah."

Sony loves that attitude. Sony wanted 1996 to last forever - back when games came out for a machine. The games the PS1 didn't get, didn't matter, because Sony could show off whatever the N64 and Saturn didn't get. (Which, for the PS1 and PS2, was admittedly quite a lot of whatever.) They were still doing it for MGS4 and Uncharted and so on. They're still kinda doing it for God Of War. (No, the other one.) But around the time the PS2 was printing money, this little game called "Grand Theft Auto 3" released a basically identical port on PC. And then their machine got basically identical ports of Quake- and Unreal-engine games. And by the time EA purchased and strangled RenderWare, the whole damn industry had seen the mountain of cash waiting for anyone who built the same game once for two audiences.

Nintendo, of all companies, caught onto this. Their rebranded Android tablet flies off shelves because existing games just kinda work. Slowly. (But I would be zero percent surprised if big-boy GPUs adopted hardware ASTC.)

Sony finally got their head around it with Helldivers 2. As with Microsoft publishing on PS5, Sony's sudden PSN demands don't make sense, unless you look further out. Helldivers showed Sony how much money they could make if they were just a PC publisher - and it scared the shit out of them. They need a platform, to stay relevant. Nintendo has world-class design and mythically popular characters. Microsoft-- is fucking Microsoft. Sony's not even having a great time as a music and movie company. If they have to be a games company, instead of owning a whole-ass platform, it's a fundamental loss of power. So getting dead serious about their ecosystem, to the point of pissing off millions of existing customers, is an effort to maintain that grip.

Microsoft treating them as just another machine, instead of a lockstep rival, seems like a strong countermove. They're not losing money on Xbox, or games, or subscriptions. But they're willing to burn through entire studios in pursuit of much larger goals. They don't want to win a fair fight. Competition is for the little fish. So at this point, they might end the console war, by simply not participating.

Or maybe they're just idiots. I mean, it's Microsoft. They've fumbled bags larger than this one.

[–] Eggyhead@fedia.io 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I am more inclined to think they are just selling to other platforms because they have to after dropping so much money on Activision, Bethesda, and trying to keep games pass a decent value proposition.

Granted, I think selling multi platform is a good move and I hope they stick with it, but I think the PS5 is trouncing the Xbox enough worldwide that even without a whole lot of first party games, PlayStation has no real obligation to throw Xbox any bones in kind. PC ports seem to be enough.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They're fucking Microsoft. Why would they "have to?" Only Nintendo has a bigger war-chest, and Nintendo's been sitting on it for a hundred years.

PlayStation has no real obligation to throw Xbox any bones in kind.

Serious question: does that matter?

... are PC ports not also 'throwing Microsoft a bone?'

[–] Eggyhead@fedia.io 4 points 3 months ago

Does Microsoft get a cut of all pc games sold? Do all pc games play on Xbox consoles?

I don’t think any of it matters, I’m just stating things as I see it. Microsoft wants profits, the examples I listed before have not been as profitable as probably predicted, so they are trying to make it up by selling older exclusives to eager PS customers. Sony sending exclusives to Xbox probably isn’t seen as profitable to Sony, so maybe they won’t do it.

load more comments (2 replies)