GamrMag's Christian Orkibi discusses GamesCom 2013.
"So GamesCom 2013 has come and gone and while the show floors may still be busy, the major conferences have been cleaned away. So what’s the verdict, which company had the best showing, who made a mess of the floor, and who ultimately…won the show? In my opinion, that answer is quite clear."
Former Xbox executive Ed Fries comments on the early days of Xbox, the opinion of Japanese game companies, and more.
Replies(2)I dont think that'll ever happen. But i must say back in the day, they were definitely trying because they were more cash rich than their competitors.
I think MS were and still are the richer company. They tried to acquire Sega back in the day (and considered doing so again more recently), they obviously bought exclusivity to Halo which was originally shown as a Mac title. I don’t think as a company MS can claim the moral high ground here. It’s a wilful lack of self awareness.
Of course Sony would try exactly the same if they had the resources, but when the PS2 dominated the industry was in a much healthier place with an abundance of great third parties.
This has been a depressing generation as far as first party decisions are concerned. The fact we are debating business plans rather than which game is better is a sad reflection of the state of things.
There was Nintendo as well, Sony wouldn't have had a monopoly. In fact, the world would be better today if Xbox never existed in the first place. They pretty much brought all bad practices we have today. We might have gotten all of it either way, but not this early. In term of franchises, I don't think there is anything Microsoft released that would actually be missed if it didn't exist. Even Halo the world wouldn't notice if Halo didn't exist.
I think almost everyone will agree that a monopoly is not good for the industry. But that being said, the competition needs to be smart and strategic with their business. Simply buying up publishers and traditional third-party studios just to keep them out of the other companies reach is not a sustainable practice. That goes for all parties so don't think I'm just referring to Xbox.
I'm no business guru by any stretch of the imagination but I firmly believe that the best way to drive consumers to your software and hardware is to invest smart in your first-party studios. Give them full support and guidance in making unique, fun games that are only available to play in your ecosystem and the gamers will come.
But first party studios aren't enough. They only make up a small portion of the industry. Without 3rd party there would be no industry for Microsoft or sony.Developing games take time and money and sometimes you gotta make moves to stay competitive.
Nah, I never said first-party was enough. I said it’s the ‘best way’ to drive gamers to your platform. 3rd-party is a free-for-all and there’s no guarantee that gamers will use your hardware to play the game. If you want to push your own software and/or hardware you need first-party, or at least exclusive deals with third-party studios.
Then why be so emotional and continue to talk about it. Xbox will never die be ause it stays in so many people's head.
How can you even see him being "emotional" in that comment?
If anything, you're the emotional one, constantly trying to go at anyone that says anything against Microsoft. So when you call him emotional, it comes off as deflection
Replies(2)
Microsoft’s new Xbox chief, Asha Sharma, has signaled that Xbox Game Pass pricing is about to change. In an internal memo to Xbox employees, obtained by The Verge, Sharma admits that “Game Pass has become too expensive for players” and that Microsoft needs “a better value equation.”
Microsoft has been talking about adding commercials to get the cost down. Not in game, but before you start a session. I would just open my game then get all the stuff I need to done, before sitting down to play.
If they cut the price down enough to justify it, I'd do it. Most Sub services are giving the option now. If it's worth it!
Multiple tiers. You decide at what level you want the ads. Obtrusive gives you access to more games. This will allow ads to play during crucial moments of gameplay, almost guaranteeing you fail/die. However you gain access to more games. Unobtrusive only shows ads before/after you play, however you get a fraction of the games. /s
FUK ads ... dont u have enough? MS should just make games and sell them, for indie or AA games get them on GP so to give visibility to small studios. They got into a business model which is not sustainable as it is killing their first party studios. Their fault .. .
You do realize that has been one of the big reasons for the mass exodus of people leaving subscription services. Getting ad's while paying for a service and having the price continually jack up and ad time.
What you said is not what I saw. What I read said at THE START of a session! Why be a jerk? It isn't like, I was intentionally lying, like so many do! Also, commercials will be an OPTION! Just like Netflix, Hulu, Prime, etc, offer them. GP is also aiming for free Cloud gaming with an AD supported tier.
I mean, do you even use GP? If you do and don't want commercials, you can pay not to have them. I in my OG comment said I might go the commercial tier IF it's worth it. No I wouldn't have all my loading screens be an ad like you said.
Have a great day.
I will never understand why people want forced ads in their faces in their games or their console. It's never worth it not even with a lower price tier.
Replies(4)
Microsoft owns a massive collection of iconic IPs, yet somehow they keep proving they have absolutely no idea how to run the video game business.
Its not their job to run the game business. Everyone has a business model. You do what works for you. You react to changes in the market. Thats really all you can do.
No, actually reacting to the market is how Sony threw $400 million (reportedly) at Concord.
Interesting, isn't it?
Halo, Forza, Gears of War, Fable, Minecraft, and now Bethesda games... These should allow them to print money!
Especially selling them to the huge Playstation base. I say add Nintendo to the release schedule if it is truly about selling software. Get the games to the most gamers.
But, Microsoft heads set the price in the first place. Don't scapegoat Phil and Sarah on that as I don't think made those calls, and a $650 Series X and $400 Series S is a nonstarter for most.
The cost of the consoles is outside of their control, they aren't going to sell at a loss when they aren't making money off games sales cos xbox players hardly buy any games thanks to games pass, which costs far too much to run and make the first party titles for. The console prices are determined by various global factors effecting hardware atm.
This is actually correct and what made things harder for Phil and Sarah was Amy hood demanding a 20% return on top of that
I get all of the outside forces here on console pricing. They aren't selling at all which was also one of the reasons they went multi-plat, so there seems to be no answer here for them as are you saying a 5 year old Xbox costs you more to make in 2026 than in 2020? If that is the case there is nothing further to say. I have two Series Xs so I hope they last.
@hiawa23 yes that is exactly what I'm saying same for ps5. Remember these devices would have been finalised 208/2019. They were designed during a period of particularly low hardware and rare earth materials etc. They aren't designed to be efficient and are large and have large heat footprints. Both new consoles will benefit from new manufacturing process reducing amounts of silicon although the leaks about next gen xbox strongly suggest it has a much larger chip set than ps6, in line with average pc chips etc size and cooling. All of this now costs alot more than it has previously. Meanwhile leaked documentation about ps6 explicitly states that Sony following recent global shocks like covid and Ukraine war wanted to future proof ps6 from cost perspective. This means lower emergy usage, smaller chips etc and likely form factor and thus weight. This will also lead to cheaper shipping costs. I fully expect base ps6 to come in at cheaper then ps5 pro. Which is likely to be discontinued.
They'll probably just end up killing off the surviving Xbox users who are left and that are into that model. They won't regain the vast majority they lost either.
Content creators are receiving Xbox Project Helix merchandise alongside a note from Microsoft Gaming CEO Asha Sharma.
Well they are doing what they can to revive the brand. They have a lot of work to do.
yep agree 100% ... and some more. The hype machine is warming up and the performance numbers sheet will be filled in no time to guarantee that the winner on paper is revealed way before the launch day ... BUT as we all know only 1st party games and brand idenity will declare the real winner. Only problem is the price tag needed to get into next gen ...
Next gen will be a massive failure for Microsoft and Sony, you could say it's already started. Game sales at an all-time low and the high cost of consoles and controllers, the PlayStation 5 Pro is the first indication on the pricing of next gen consoles and that's been a sales flop for Sony. Some people will say that people are paying eye watering prices for PCs, but that's an entirely different market, what I call OCD gaming. As I mentioned in another post, the PlayStation 5 Pro here sells for just under £800, which is just over $1000, games can top £75 ($100), including Switch 2 games. Some of us would like to see a single format, but that'll never happen. Microsoft and Sony would laugh at the idea of stepping off the gas pedal with the tech and do what Nintendo has done with the Switch 2. Three hybrid consoles fighting against each other, basically taking current tech and adding a few bells and whistles. Who's up for a PlayStation 6 for $999 and $99 games? Let me know in the comments.
The simple solution is dont buy what you cant afford. You dont have to move on just because the companies do. If people want better hardware and better games theyre gonna be more expensive. People need to be content with what they have.
You know a lot of those sales are dads and moms buying for their kids and teens. Consoles have alway been a reasonable price to a degree. But you start heading far north of $500, I don’t see as many parents buying for their kids or teens……will it still sell? Yes but will it sell a hundred million or more…..that’s the real question. Hopefully ram prices drop.
@Agent75 There is no need to lie to make your point. The ps5pro is selling as a percentage about as well as the ps4pro. The recent pssr2 update has actually improved its value. Your attempt to group the ps5 a console (that is about to cross 100 million sold and is by far Sony's most profitable generation) with the abject failure that is xbox is laughably stupid. Truth is Sony shouldn't even consider launching another console until 2029 at the earliest.
Everyone except you knows the pro is a profit machine that is why its expensive.
Ps6 will not be even close to it in price
What happens if ram prices remain high? Do you think Sony or MS would eat those costs? Depends on how much they would have to absorb.
nextgen stuff,(ryse, titanfall, online Cloud) MS wins
overall stuff (curren gen+handheld+indie games shown), sony wins
I can't pick a winner since every conference lacked huge software announcements
Nope. They didn't.
That's pretty obvious they win Gamescom. Sony made a poor conference.
Call of Duty is Activision, not EA.