Xbox Series X/S Discussion *xbs*
20-Jun-23 12:47pm
#1 Anxiouz
I was wondering why Xbox chatter got quiet but I see the old thread got closed (due to lack of activity I presume?). Spinning this back up.
I'm excited about some of the Xbox stuff coming later this year (can't wait for Forza to finally get here!) but for my gaming tastes GP has been pretty terrible most of this year. My son is getting a lot of mileage out of it but he and his friends jump games a lot so it works out great and makes for a nice deal.
#1 Anxiouz
| This topic had many older posts which were moved here: https://gametz.com/V... |
I was wondering why Xbox chatter got quiet but I see the old thread got closed (due to lack of activity I presume?). Spinning this back up.
I'm excited about some of the Xbox stuff coming later this year (can't wait for Forza to finally get here!) but for my gaming tastes GP has been pretty terrible most of this year. My son is getting a lot of mileage out of it but he and his friends jump games a lot so it works out great and makes for a nice deal.
26-Jan-24 6:07pm
#41 TalonJedi87
Yeah but once game pass becomes like a $30-40 dollar a month premium who’s really going to use it as much? Even at the rate it’s at now I only subscribe for like 3 months out of the year and gorge myself on all the games available I want to play at the time then say peace out for another 8-10 months.
#41 TalonJedi87
Yeah but once game pass becomes like a $30-40 dollar a month premium who’s really going to use it as much? Even at the rate it’s at now I only subscribe for like 3 months out of the year and gorge myself on all the games available I want to play at the time then say peace out for another 8-10 months.
26-Jan-24 6:14pm
#42 benstylus
TalonJedi87 wrote:
Yeah but once game pass becomes like a $30-40 dollar a month premium who’s really going to use it as much?
Once all games are streaming only you won't have a choice
#42 benstylus
TalonJedi87 wrote:
Yeah but once game pass becomes like a $30-40 dollar a month premium who’s really going to use it as much?
Once all games are streaming only you won't have a choice
26-Jan-24 6:23pm
#43 TalonJedi87
Blah. The future of gaming access kinda sucks. Think I’ll just go back and replay all the disc games I’ve been saving for those depressing rainy future days.
#43 TalonJedi87
Blah. The future of gaming access kinda sucks. Think I’ll just go back and replay all the disc games I’ve been saving for those depressing rainy future days.
26-Jan-24 6:26pm
#44 Feeb
Just like everything else- once the young are convinced this is the way it always was we will look like the loons for saying this isn’t the way.
#44 Feeb
Just like everything else- once the young are convinced this is the way it always was we will look like the loons for saying this isn’t the way.
26-Jan-24 7:28pm
#46 Anxiouz
Feeb wrote:
I’m not sure why MS is hellbent on dying on this gamepass hill.
Money. A consistent revenue stream and making like $200M+ each month off it is nothing to sneeze at. It takes away the pressure of having a AAA title flop. Over 2 billion dollars a year is one hell of an incentive to carry on down this path.
I think GP is a great value, especially compared to PS+. PS+ mostly just gets things that GP already had a year prior.
#46 Anxiouz
Feeb wrote:
I’m not sure why MS is hellbent on dying on this gamepass hill.
Money. A consistent revenue stream and making like $200M+ each month off it is nothing to sneeze at. It takes away the pressure of having a AAA title flop. Over 2 billion dollars a year is one hell of an incentive to carry on down this path.
I think GP is a great value, especially compared to PS+. PS+ mostly just gets things that GP already had a year prior.
26-Jan-24 8:21pm
#47 TalonJedi87
This is true. At least GP gives you new releases right away sometimes. PS+ is always on a delay with new games.
#47 TalonJedi87
This is true. At least GP gives you new releases right away sometimes. PS+ is always on a delay with new games.
26-Jan-24 8:38pm
#48 Feeb
Sony made a mistake trying to provide a GP alternative. If you have your hedgehog don’t be baited into a pissing contest.
I’m not sure on numbers for these things. Is this data even public? Especially on the MS side they are historically very stingy with numbers. I know a couple of years back Sony made almost a billion more than ms in subs. It’s a user base game basically- and ms has been forced to leave its own base to keep up.
#48 Feeb
Sony made a mistake trying to provide a GP alternative. If you have your hedgehog don’t be baited into a pissing contest.
I’m not sure on numbers for these things. Is this data even public? Especially on the MS side they are historically very stingy with numbers. I know a couple of years back Sony made almost a billion more than ms in subs. It’s a user base game basically- and ms has been forced to leave its own base to keep up.
26-Jan-24 9:24pm
#49 Slickriven
Not trying to bang on Sony for their approach with PS+ but I feel like I read the head of Sony just recently said that he didn't think GP made any sense because people only play one game at a time.
Maybe I didn't catch that correctly, but if so, I have no clue where they got that from. Maybe before GP I was more like that, but in the past 2 weeks or so I've played at least 7 different games on my XSX alone, plus likely 4 more on my PC.
For me with GP, I did the $1 upgrade initially and had right around 2.5 years when I did, then I got a full 37 months and did it again, only for the full 1 month price of $15 then. When that runs out in about 13 months I don't think I'll renew. I've accumulated so many games on that system and others that don't get as much attention, so I'm good with letting the sub lapse and maybe I'd go back to the old Live which is of course now GP-core or whatever - but maybe not, I had Live to play with my college buddy who lives far away, but he's a dad and doesn't play much period and even less so co-op.
I also know other people who didn't game a lot on their X1 but opted to try GP for the $1 price and then didn't pay attention and kept getting charged the $15/month and played virtually zero games via it before I believe eventually waking up to the fact and canceling. I'm sure like with most subs, M$ hopes folks do that and pay for it whilst hardly playing games. I presume that most GP contracts have an 'acquire' component to get games and then a 'use based' fee - meaning that if Ubisoft opts to put AC Syndicate on there, M$ pays them a flat fee and then tracks how much Syndicate gets played and then pays Ubi for time usage and/or number of players whom actually played more than like 30 mins. Clearly that's my assumption, but that model would mean that 1000s of active subs paying $15+/month and playing almost nothing period or think of those CoD only type of players, results in a good bit on income vs. pay outs. Not that GP doesn't seek to promote it's breadth of games, it does, but I'd bet they love folks who really only play 1 or a few games a bunch, vs. folks who play lots and lots of different games.
#49 Slickriven
Not trying to bang on Sony for their approach with PS+ but I feel like I read the head of Sony just recently said that he didn't think GP made any sense because people only play one game at a time.
Maybe I didn't catch that correctly, but if so, I have no clue where they got that from. Maybe before GP I was more like that, but in the past 2 weeks or so I've played at least 7 different games on my XSX alone, plus likely 4 more on my PC.
For me with GP, I did the $1 upgrade initially and had right around 2.5 years when I did, then I got a full 37 months and did it again, only for the full 1 month price of $15 then. When that runs out in about 13 months I don't think I'll renew. I've accumulated so many games on that system and others that don't get as much attention, so I'm good with letting the sub lapse and maybe I'd go back to the old Live which is of course now GP-core or whatever - but maybe not, I had Live to play with my college buddy who lives far away, but he's a dad and doesn't play much period and even less so co-op.
I also know other people who didn't game a lot on their X1 but opted to try GP for the $1 price and then didn't pay attention and kept getting charged the $15/month and played virtually zero games via it before I believe eventually waking up to the fact and canceling. I'm sure like with most subs, M$ hopes folks do that and pay for it whilst hardly playing games. I presume that most GP contracts have an 'acquire' component to get games and then a 'use based' fee - meaning that if Ubisoft opts to put AC Syndicate on there, M$ pays them a flat fee and then tracks how much Syndicate gets played and then pays Ubi for time usage and/or number of players whom actually played more than like 30 mins. Clearly that's my assumption, but that model would mean that 1000s of active subs paying $15+/month and playing almost nothing period or think of those CoD only type of players, results in a good bit on income vs. pay outs. Not that GP doesn't seek to promote it's breadth of games, it does, but I'd bet they love folks who really only play 1 or a few games a bunch, vs. folks who play lots and lots of different games.
26-Jan-24 9:40pm
#50 Feeb
I tend to play a single game to exhaustion before I move on. It makes more sense to just own them if I’m putting 100 hrs in over a few weeks. It also keeps me a bit more honest- I’ll actually play what I invest in instead of just moving on and forgetting it. Good and bad. I only play things I know I like and don’t branch out too much. This is fine by me- I don’t have all the time to try it all and I know I’ll enjoy the time I do have.
#50 Feeb
I tend to play a single game to exhaustion before I move on. It makes more sense to just own them if I’m putting 100 hrs in over a few weeks. It also keeps me a bit more honest- I’ll actually play what I invest in instead of just moving on and forgetting it. Good and bad. I only play things I know I like and don’t branch out too much. This is fine by me- I don’t have all the time to try it all and I know I’ll enjoy the time I do have.
26-Jan-24 10:48pm
#51 Slickriven
There's zero wrong with that @Feeb and I was more like that before getting GP. I dumped days worth of time into The Division and its sequel and have lots of hours spent in the Forza Horizon series. I also see the value of playing only 1 at a time for at least a single genre, like I can't generally be playing 2+ FPSes at once b/c of controls or things that might be different. But I also have played a lot of smaller titles in the past few years, so playing multiple works for me. Plus of the several I've played on my XSX recently, some were more of a try it out type vs. diving in deep. I do like to explore in games as well, to get more from them and collecting things, so I hear you on that front too.
#51 Slickriven
There's zero wrong with that @Feeb and I was more like that before getting GP. I dumped days worth of time into The Division and its sequel and have lots of hours spent in the Forza Horizon series. I also see the value of playing only 1 at a time for at least a single genre, like I can't generally be playing 2+ FPSes at once b/c of controls or things that might be different. But I also have played a lot of smaller titles in the past few years, so playing multiple works for me. Plus of the several I've played on my XSX recently, some were more of a try it out type vs. diving in deep. I do like to explore in games as well, to get more from them and collecting things, so I hear you on that front too.
27-Jan-24 11:17am
#52 MrBean
See, this just annoys me.
Wanted to grab Lego Star Wars for my kid on Xbox, digitally. $60! Yet, it's $15 physically, insane.
#52 MrBean
See, this just annoys me.
Wanted to grab Lego Star Wars for my kid on Xbox, digitally. $60! Yet, it's $15 physically, insane.
27-Jan-24 11:25am
#53 benstylus
Yep. With physical, the market decides what the price will be because used games exist and also because stores eventually want to clear out stuff that isn't selling to replace it with stuff that will. With digital, if the publisher never wants it sold for a penny less then full MSRP then that's where it stays.
Your only hope at that point is to try to get the currency to buy it at a discount, and most of those deals are 10% or occasionally 15%.
(On the other hand, I'm also opposed to paying a ridiculous sum of money for a physical copy as opposed to a cheap download)
#53 benstylus
Yep. With physical, the market decides what the price will be because used games exist and also because stores eventually want to clear out stuff that isn't selling to replace it with stuff that will. With digital, if the publisher never wants it sold for a penny less then full MSRP then that's where it stays.
Your only hope at that point is to try to get the currency to buy it at a discount, and most of those deals are 10% or occasionally 15%.
(On the other hand, I'm also opposed to paying a ridiculous sum of money for a physical copy as opposed to a cheap download)
27-Jan-24 5:07pm
#54 Groo
MrBean wrote:
See, this just annoys me. Wanted to grab Lego Star Wars for my kid on Xbox, digitally. $60! Yet, it's $15 physically, insane.
standard $18 and deluxe $21 on eshop
#54 Groo
MrBean wrote:
See, this just annoys me. Wanted to grab Lego Star Wars for my kid on Xbox, digitally. $60! Yet, it's $15 physically, insane.
standard $18 and deluxe $21 on eshop
5-Feb-24 3:27pm
#55 Finn
So with all these rumors and announcement of MS going third party... We now possibly have Starfield being brought over and Gears of War being talked about. You have to ask yourself was buying Activision Blizzard a good thing? If you love the Xbox and how things traditionally were, you are probably thinking no. MS I think has finally realized that GP is not sustainable and that it's not going to give them the ROI they needed. I think this also finally pours cold water on the "MS has deep pockets and can play a long game"
I think it's kind of weird that Starfield could be headed over and the reason MS bought Zenimax was to keep it off. I mean. At least they will make more money of this.
If they release the first Halo on PS5 I will buy it just to have it on my shelf.
#55 Finn
So with all these rumors and announcement of MS going third party... We now possibly have Starfield being brought over and Gears of War being talked about. You have to ask yourself was buying Activision Blizzard a good thing? If you love the Xbox and how things traditionally were, you are probably thinking no. MS I think has finally realized that GP is not sustainable and that it's not going to give them the ROI they needed. I think this also finally pours cold water on the "MS has deep pockets and can play a long game"
I think it's kind of weird that Starfield could be headed over and the reason MS bought Zenimax was to keep it off. I mean. At least they will make more money of this.
If they release the first Halo on PS5 I will buy it just to have it on my shelf.
5-Feb-24 3:31pm
#56 Feeb
The way MS has handled its house over the last 3-4 years I’d definitely be concerned about the quality and frequency of releases moving forward. Maybe we’ll be surprised and this expedites blizzard’s ridiculously long dev times.
#56 Feeb
The way MS has handled its house over the last 3-4 years I’d definitely be concerned about the quality and frequency of releases moving forward. Maybe we’ll be surprised and this expedites blizzard’s ridiculously long dev times.
5-Feb-24 4:01pm
#57 DCGX
The rumors over the last few days are all sorts of weird and unnerving to me. I finally got back to Xbox after loving the original, the 360, moving completely to Sony because of the Xbox One mess, but the Series X bringing me back. Now all the third party talk...I don't know. Maybe they dug too big a hole with Game Pass and the Xbox One.
Spencer said they'll talk about it next week, but from a purely Xbox standpoint, that seems like an eternity. Maybe someone leaked these rumors to dissuade Xbox from doing them. I guess we'll see.
#57 DCGX
The rumors over the last few days are all sorts of weird and unnerving to me. I finally got back to Xbox after loving the original, the 360, moving completely to Sony because of the Xbox One mess, but the Series X bringing me back. Now all the third party talk...I don't know. Maybe they dug too big a hole with Game Pass and the Xbox One.
Spencer said they'll talk about it next week, but from a purely Xbox standpoint, that seems like an eternity. Maybe someone leaked these rumors to dissuade Xbox from doing them. I guess we'll see.
5-Feb-24 4:35pm
#58 Feeb
When 75% of your product name is box you really need a console. It really speaks to the idea that Xbox is a culture and not necessarily a machine that plays games. This is good and bad in that it promotes an unhealthy brand loyalty and emotional ties to inanimate products. This idea is not exclusive to MS stuff of course. Some extreme behavior on all fronts. It’s also an intended consequence of the loyalty they push. Sega don’t do what nintendont anymore - but that’s an example of the tribalism these guys try to create. You reap what you sow- the backlash will be emotional as well- which is usually not rational. Don’t think for a second that MS wanted to abandon these strong console based ties. Spin it as “obvious way to make more money” but realize the bombardment of how “pro consumer” Xbox was touted to be only to now espouse the idea of them only being in it to maximize profits. Not mutually exclusive but definitely a feel of hypocrisy- for me personally.
#58 Feeb
When 75% of your product name is box you really need a console. It really speaks to the idea that Xbox is a culture and not necessarily a machine that plays games. This is good and bad in that it promotes an unhealthy brand loyalty and emotional ties to inanimate products. This idea is not exclusive to MS stuff of course. Some extreme behavior on all fronts. It’s also an intended consequence of the loyalty they push. Sega don’t do what nintendont anymore - but that’s an example of the tribalism these guys try to create. You reap what you sow- the backlash will be emotional as well- which is usually not rational. Don’t think for a second that MS wanted to abandon these strong console based ties. Spin it as “obvious way to make more money” but realize the bombardment of how “pro consumer” Xbox was touted to be only to now espouse the idea of them only being in it to maximize profits. Not mutually exclusive but definitely a feel of hypocrisy- for me personally.
5-Feb-24 4:36pm
#59 benstylus
I don't regret buying my Series X but if I was hit by financial woes and decided to sell a console, it would likely be a top contender.
Probably would sell the PS4 first though since I have a PS5 and that makes it a bit redundant
#59 benstylus
I don't regret buying my Series X but if I was hit by financial woes and decided to sell a console, it would likely be a top contender.
Probably would sell the PS4 first though since I have a PS5 and that makes it a bit redundant
5-Feb-24 5:03pm
#60 TalonJedi87
Yeah nothing is sacred anymore when they’re all chasing after the same thing. Money. I member when the console wars were in full bloom and having an Xbox meant you can only play Halo and Gears on an Xbox and having a PlayStation meant I could only play games like Final Fantasy VII and Crash Bandicoot on PlayStation. Man times have changed when corpos want not just some of the money, but all of the money. It indeed does beg the question as to why MS spent almost 70 billion dollars on Activision if their goal is to go multi-platform though. Do they feel their selection of games and revenue will make for a large return on investment in say 10 years or less? That’s the only thing I can think of is analysts told MS to do this now and come out ahead and then some in the years to come.
#60 TalonJedi87
Yeah nothing is sacred anymore when they’re all chasing after the same thing. Money. I member when the console wars were in full bloom and having an Xbox meant you can only play Halo and Gears on an Xbox and having a PlayStation meant I could only play games like Final Fantasy VII and Crash Bandicoot on PlayStation. Man times have changed when corpos want not just some of the money, but all of the money. It indeed does beg the question as to why MS spent almost 70 billion dollars on Activision if their goal is to go multi-platform though. Do they feel their selection of games and revenue will make for a large return on investment in say 10 years or less? That’s the only thing I can think of is analysts told MS to do this now and come out ahead and then some in the years to come.
5-Feb-24 5:38pm
#61 benstylus
Because when they own the biggest brands I'm gaming, they can sort of dictate the direction of the industry.
They are pushing hard for the all digital, zero consumer ownership future where every gamer is a continuous revenue stream. Being far and away the largest player in the industry allows them to dramatically increase the pace towards that goal.
For every one of us old guard who says we won't take part of that there are plenty of younger gamers who will.
#61 benstylus
Because when they own the biggest brands I'm gaming, they can sort of dictate the direction of the industry.
They are pushing hard for the all digital, zero consumer ownership future where every gamer is a continuous revenue stream. Being far and away the largest player in the industry allows them to dramatically increase the pace towards that goal.
For every one of us old guard who says we won't take part of that there are plenty of younger gamers who will.
Xbox Series X/S Discussion *xbs*