Going back and listening to the Xbox Business Update, there are a few things people are not listening to.
1. "When everybody plays, we all win" - this is the current bumper sticker being bandied about as the "winning" campaign slogan that proves that PlayStation & Nintendo also
publishing fewer exclusives & going multiplat is inevitable. But where did that Madison Ave soundbite start? It was actually a claxon call for the gaming industry to address accessibility. This is an ESG venture. One of the things corporations point to as proof of their good
intentions. It's one I believed in. Spencer now refers to it as a "business strategy". (time 5:53 - 6:08)
2. I've said dedicated software for dedicated hardware makes a better experience 9 times out of 10. Here's what Sarah Bond had to say:
3. The math. Everyone touts that this is Xbox getting ahead of everyone else, b/c they say the number of console players is finite, that they are doing this b/c "the industry" isn't growing, & therefore everyone else will have to also. But if you're taking your console games and
publishing them to other consoles, how is that "winning"? Just making those games available on other consoles doesn't make Nintendo sell more Switch's or PlayStation sell more PS5's. Other than the ones people might b/c they no longer see a need to own an Xbox if they're
publishing some of their exclusives catalog to those other consoles. And so the addressable market remains the same, if this fan theory being touted as a credible hypothesis is to be believed?
Booty speaks to this but it's really just a matter of this being good for XBox. Things
it HAS to do in order to compete & stay relevant, given its dwindling comparative market share. Disguised under the same type of snow job as Apple claiming they're the security and privacy choice for smartphone buyers. A political obfuscation that Xbox Sympathizers &
access-beggars are trumpeting. It's a thing you have to do when you have < 10% market share. It's not something you're compelled to do when you have 45% market share and face no competition. Exclusives matter and yield better products, as Sarah Bond corroborated. Publishing
exclusives to Xbox DOESN't help Nintendo and PlayStation. Day-and-date on PC DOESN'T help PlayStation except for GAAS games. Multiplatform, which dilutes the brand value, is not something every platform owner has a business incentive to do. Xbox is selling wolf-tickets and this
is a delaying tactic to get Amy Hood off the GLTs back. Their play is the Cloud market that they and their fanatics tried to tell you wasn't a market at all and one where there was no way Microsoft / Xbox could exert market dominance by getting there first. They literally say
this every time they open their mouths now. This multiplat dogma is meant to sow a ploughshares movement, rile up the disenfranchised, cover their tracks, trickle an added revenue stream to quiet Hood & Stuart, while they continue racing to get the Cohesive Hybrid Compute Gaming
platform in place. By the start of gen10. Before Spencer is out of time.
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Regardless of business models, what CE-oh-mouthpieces say, how you say whatever vendor defines "platform", getting on your jump-to-conclusions mat and extrapolating whatever made-up conclusions you get to...at the end of the day, a brand needs to provide gamers great games. And
when you make them, gamers will show up. No gamer cares about mediocre games on your platform, her platform, Uncle Pookie's platform, your dog's platform, access to shooter-dumb-lappy on your baby monitor...the brands focused on delivering great games to their players...that will
continue to be their focus. Because that wins. Dynamics in the industry change every year. They change due to generational influences. They change due to shifts in disposable income across age demographics. They shift due to accelerators in technology. But also many things stay
On exclusivity and price in Gaming: no one had to be "convinced" that exclusives were "good for them". Dedicated HW paired with dedicated SW, will yield a better product 9 out of 10 times. People want good things for the money they spend. If one approach to a product yields a
better thing 9/10 times, market demand will align accordingly. I keep saying, different consumers have different demands. Some want the best experience they can have and are willing to pay for it. Some are willing to take a lesser experience for a better price and more options
where it can be played. Both wants are fine. The market aligns accordingly, and the suppliers respond to that demand signal. What's not cool is the ongoing effort by lots of people to guilt or shame the people who, quite honestly, are representative of the majority of the demand
Different consumers have different requirements. Some are only concerned with low cost of access and the compromised quality that comes with that. The race to the bottom. That's fine. They just want volume. Entitlement. Some consumers want a more bespoke experience. Their
requirement priorities are sometimes performance. For some of them it's image quality. For some, there are less tangible contributors to a bespoke experience that they consume, but don't or can't attribute to a source, like common development tools and utilities, production
& CI/CD pipelines, compilers, automated test tools, storage technologies. There is no single right answer. Other than that. That there is no single correct answer. The only dopes that are wrong are the babies in diapers, running around, writing their initials on walls with 💩 on
Saying "only YOU can ultimately "devalue" the gaming console YOU supposedly prefer" and putting the blame on you as the consumer is some toxic, country bumpkin, bury your head in the sand, product of a bottom-ten public school system, snake-oil, used car salesman bullshit. Most
consumers who were taught to, at a minimum, understand enough about money to balance their ‼️checkbook ‼️before they were pushed out into the world to fend for themselves, have the concept of ROI for major purchases. When you buy a car, you expect it to return value
for the amount of money you invest. Through some nr of miles/travel. When most consumers by a $500 console, they have some perception of how much value that device will return over time. And that rubric is different for each consumer.
This running narrative of games needing to go to every screen, zero growth in the console industry, AAA games being unsustainable...if you don't understand why growth has slowed, it's due to lack of competition, lack of innovation, and consolidation -
Pretty simple. Nintendo and PlayStation have bracketed the market high/low, and they do not pursue the same addressable market/consumer demographic (there is some overlap, but the Venn diagram is more differentiated since Nintendo went lower-end hardware). Nintendo did
this to avoid competition with XBox+PlayStation. XBox sold ~80+mn 360s, ~50mn XB1's, and now <30mn XB Series'. Add the ATVI acquisition, Embracer, other market consolidation...decreasing competition leading ⬇️innovation...XBox doesn't present the threat to PlayStation that it did
People should dig deep into the details. Regardless of how many good 2023 games there were...let's pause there...there were many critically acclaimed games...but no one that I've seen has produced a Codex Hammurabi that details that all of those games...let's say some subset of
the top 100 games on Metacritic for 2023...were all profitable ventures whose dev studios suffered no layoffs...the gaming industry, already, prior to the Post-Pandemic Pinsetterification of the game dev workforce, was already a high-risk prone industry, with the percentage of
video games that ever leave early pre-prod and go on to turn a profit being 4 - 5%, and of the ones that make it to store shelves / digital market places being profitable being around 20%. So if you combine the historical norm of an already high-risk market, and the dynamic of