Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
XBox (Games)

Microsoft Abandons Xbox Exclusivity in Risky Gaming Strategy Shift 48

Posted by msmash from the change-in-strategy dept.
Microsoft is significantly shifting its Xbox strategy, moving away from console exclusives in a bid to reach gamers across all platforms, Windows Central reports. The company's "Project Latitude" initiative will make previously Xbox-exclusive titles available on PlayStation and other platforms, with even flagship franchises like Halo no longer guaranteed exclusivity.

This strategic pivot comes as Microsoft faces both opportunities and challenges in the gaming industry. While Xbox is seeing record users, according to company statements, the broader gaming market faces stagnant growth and rising development costs. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella frames this as "redefining what it means to be an Xbox fan," emphasizing accessibility across devices rather than hardware loyalty.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Abandons Xbox Exclusivity in Risky Gaming Strategy Shift More

Microsoft Abandons Xbox Exclusivity in Risky Gaming Strategy Shift

Comments Filter:

  • This is a reasonable move considering that Microsoft has bought up practically everybody and will presumably continue to do so.

    If they went Xbox exclusive then they'd be declining sales to Sony customers.

    Selling consoles has also historically been a difficult way to make a profit, so they are also probably hedging their bets in that way. Controllers have more profit in them than consoles do, and they could make them compatible with other brands easily enough — especially since they're now all bluetoot

    • Microsoft bought up companies that were beloved for their past products, but can't seem to make a game worth owning to save their lives. Starfield was a disappointing mess and there's nothing from Activision-Blizzard that looks appealing either.

      This tells me that the people running the gaming division are clueless idiots. If they wanted to make a splash they should have poached the talented developers who made the games that turned companies like Bethesda and Blizzard into the bloated studios they are to
      • Bethesda and Activision were already pretty decadent at the time Microsoft acquired them. Also, executive meddling by itself isn't a problem. But rather than if executive and development layers have conflicting visions then both will fail to make what they want. In order to have more or less harmonized visions executives would have to have game dev background themselves too. Because you can't manage things that you don't understand.
      • Sales figures say something different. Because YOU don't like what these companies put out these days, doesn't mean others share the same feeling, maybe vocally, but in reality still buying the games.
        • There is certainly some inertia to sales, but you can only burn your fan base so many times before they move on. If the sales were amazing, Microsoft wouldn't be goin down this route. They envisioned an outcome where not only were the games successful and increased sales, but that the nature of their exclusivity also led to people buying Xboxes just to play them. That clearly didn't pan out.

        • I bought Starfield, so my sale counted. But at the same time I thought it was very disappointing. It is a mix of good and bad. First person action is good, ship editor is fun, but everything else is dumbed down and kind of bland.

          Ship combat is really bad despite the interesting builder. It is dumbed down arcade garbage. Seriously they need a dev to pick up a 20yr old copy of Freespace and figure out what decent space combat sim looks like

          But as the OPs are saying Bethesda burned a bridge here. I hav

          • I want Wing Commander back. :-(

          • I didn't get my expectations too high, so I rather liked Starfield. I think some put too much hope in it being the absolutely cutting edge, when really it's exactly what you expect from a Skyrim/Fallout in Space. I liked the ship combat, but then there's really only 2 or 3 I played in the past with ship combat. It's sort of like people hating Fallout 4 because it didn't have modern shooter mechanics, even though it wasn't a shooter game. But it was far too huge a scope to expect custom encounters and lo

          • Seriously they need a dev to pick up a 20yr old copy of Freespace and figure out what decent space combat sim looks like

            That's your opinion on that a decent space combat sim looks like. I quite like the arcade space combat sims like the old X-wing/wing commander, I don't like 'realistic' combat, that actually ruins a game for me. So for me it isn't "arcade garbage" as I like "arcade" and don't like realistic sims.

      • Don't forget that they sold the early Xbox products at a loss, in order to get into the market. But they've also in more recent years have been buying up studios, promising to leave them alone, then interfering with them.

        I actually liked Starfield though, it had too many instant trolls review bombing it on day one. Reviews with obviously false complaints, hoping to drive away prospective players (ie, "all leaders are female, it's too woke!"). Then they praise Baldur's Gate 3 which is 20 times more woke.

      • Microsoft bought up companies that were beloved for their past products, but can't seem to make a game worth owning to save their lives. Starfield was a disappointing mess and there's nothing from Activision-Blizzard that looks appealing either.

        Black Ops 6 was the top selling game in October, Indiana Jones and the Great Circle entered the UK charts at #18 this week.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kriston ( 7886 )

      Xbox controllers are not BlueTooth.
      The Xbox Series X|S don't even have a BlueTooth radio in them.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      This is a reasonable move considering that Microsoft has bought up practically everybody and will presumably continue to do so.

      If they went Xbox exclusive then they'd be declining sales to Sony customers.

      Selling consoles has also historically been a difficult way to make a profit, so they are also probably hedging their bets in that way. Controllers have more profit in them than consoles do, and they could make them compatible with other brands easily enough â" especially since they're now all bluetoot

  • Incorrect link (Score:3)

    by HalAtWork ( 926717 ) on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @10:55AM (#65022285)

    The post probably meant to link to this story [windowscentral.com]

    Another interesting read is this one [windowscentral.com] by the same author titled "Why Xbox customers are right to be angry about Microsoft putting more 'exclusive' games on Nintendo or PlayStation"

    • That second isn't interesting as much as it is a discussion about entitlement and self-importance of the gaming Karen. Seriously no one is affected by the fact Microsoft is releasing games cross platform, especially since they are championing cross platform multiplayer as well. The Xbox user is today just as invested in the Xbox and will receive just as much Xbox love as they did before, regardless of whether a Play Station user is also able to play the game.

      Not everything Microsoft does need to benefit xbo

  • windows as well? with maybe no Linux lockouts?

    • There are no Microsoft PC games with Linux lockouts. There's only games that are unsupported on Linux due lack of EAC or Denuvo or whatever being available on a platform. The likes of Proton are not actively being undermined.

      The exception to this rule is Epic games, a company which has taken same games which had first party Linux support and pulled them from Linux (e.g. Rocket League).

      You're more than welcome to play many Microsoft PC titles under Linux.

  • Microsoft is learning the lesson Hollywood re-learns every decade or so. If you make it easier to buy your stuff, people will buy a lot more of your stuff. The amount profit lost through other factors (pressuring some people to buy an XBox) is far offset by selling millions of dollars in more games on multiple other platforms.

  • The tricky part is maintaining control of the platform so you can keep taking that 20 to 30% cut of all digital sales.

    But the fact of the matter is modern AAA games aren't profitable if you're tied to one platform. They're too high risk. And with everything being a PC in a box the porting costs are relatively small.
    • Microsoft owns the studios. That means if they sell on PlayStation they get 70-80%. Sure they get more (100%) by selling on their own platform and through their own store, but I think the real problem is that the games they're trying to sell just aren't good enough to hit the sales targets they've set internally. If TES VI is the same bland Bethesda experience we've gotten lately then it won't sell on Sony's console much more than it does on their own.

      Further evidence of this can be found with third part

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Guspaz ( 556486 )

        People like to point to a handful of Microsoft games like Starfield underperforming and use that to make blanket statements about the entire company. Microsoft has had published plenty of successful games in recent history. But not every game is a hit, and that's been the case as long as the video game industry has existed.

        I think there's a separate discussion about the viability of modern AAA game budgets, but that's hardly a problem limited to Microsoft.

        • Also, all those games are on Playstation already. Microsoft has always seemed less exclusive than Sony (I could be wrong though).

          Also underperforming isn't a failure. Microsoft is getting plenty of profits from Starfield, just not the magnitude that they wanted. Modern business means you must always exceed expectations at all times, or you're liable to be chopped.

  • people get specific consoles because they want to play games exclusive to that console, not because they're loyal to it. corporate people have a weird way of saying things.

    • But very few people get two consoles just because some games are exclusive. Yes, some people do it. but it's painful to make that second console since it's like paying $500 just to play a single game. Thus most people ignore that single game.

  • Might as well focus on PCs and skip making reference hardware. Open source gaming distros like Bazzite will commoditize gaming hardware eventually, Xbox and PlayStation are just offering walled gardens for a set price. Even Nintendo will be affected, there's only so much they can rehash Mario and Zelda.
  • I couldn't care less if the game I play can be played by others on different consoles. Never understood the excitement about exclusive titles.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Walled garden. If the customer has made an investment in my h/w platform, they will be more likely to invest it its games. To the exclusion of my competitors'.

  • Where have you been ? (Score:3)

    by big-giant-head ( 148077 ) on Wednesday December 18, 2024 @01:25PM (#65022741)

    Halo Franchise, Gears of War and several other M$ Games have been available on STEAM for years ....

    • Yes STEAM that store that infamously does not run on the PlayStation (the console this story is about which previously did not have the games listed)

      • You're implying that Steam runs on Xbox? Hmm, it seems it can recently. Though I suspect it's like Steam on Linux, where the game you really really want doesn't work there.

        I was considering a playstation emulator for that one game Sony won't release their grip on, Bloodborne, but setting that up seems amazingly complex, and requires you (or a friend) to have a playstation anyway just to download the game and convert to a binary file. Bleah.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      Halo Franchise, Gears of War and several other M$ Games have been available on STEAM for years ....

      Yep, this is not news.

      It's not just XBox, a lot of previously exclusive to PS games are appearing on PC too.

      The exclusivity wars are over and both sides lost. Exclusivity has never generated additional sales and the only losers, or maybe best described as innocent civilians, are the gamers. Fortunately no more.

      Another golden age for the PCGMR has dawned and brothers, it is glorious.

  • I can't pretend to understand the economics of these systems, but I wish Sony would consider doing the same.

    My wife's favorite games of all time are the first two LittleBigPlanets, which remain Sony only even though they don't even make consoles for it. Seeing as we only have a Switch, which is perfectly capably of running it, wouldn't it be nice if they relaxed the license and simply sat back and took the money from people who want it on another platform?

  • Seeing as exclusive games haven't been a good business strategy in over 15 years. Nintendo is the only company it has ever really made sense for. Nintendo has always been making games in-house since their inception. They're a gaming company that got into hardware. Sony and Microsoft are hardware (sure, and software) companies that got into gaming. And have bought other studios to be "theirs", but it really isn't the same thing.

  • All I want for Christmas is Starfield [on PS5]

Slashdot Top Deals

Torque is cheap.

Close