• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

[Jez Corden] If Microsoft really IS bringing Steam, Epic Game Store, etc. to Xbox consoles, it needs to answer these big questions

Topher

Identifies as young
Microsoft has already opened one Pandora's (X)box, and now they've been teasing opening another: bringing Steam and Epic Game Store to its Xbox consoles.

Microsoft opened Pandora's (X)box earlier this year.

Following rumors and speculation, Microsoft revealed that it will bring Sea of Thieves, Grounded, Pentiment, and Hi-Fi Rush to PlayStation, ending decades of console gaming tradition. Microsoft's increased support of the PlayStation ecosystem will inject even more cash into the Microsoft Gaming operation, which leaped by 40% in revenue last quarter, thanks in part to the acquisition of Activision-Blizzard.

Microsoft has insisted that its initial experiment will only involve those four games, but given how high Grounded and Sea of Thieves have been riding on the PlayStation Store, it's fair to assume even more Xbox games will come to PlayStation in the future. Halo, Forza, Gears of War, Starfield — we have no real idea if anything is off the table, which begs the question — how will Xbox differentiate and drive interest in the next generation without the promise of exclusive games?

Microsoft has discussed internally with its teams that the next Xbox will represent the "biggest technological leap" in a generation so far. Xbox Game Pass also continues to be the best value subscription in all of gaming, which should eventually see games like Call of Duty itself enter the service. But perhaps Microsoft is banking on yet another unique "feature" to remain competitive next gen, too.

Xbox lead Phil Spencer hinted in a recent interview that it wants to see PC storefronts, like Epic Games, Steam, itch.io, and GOG.com, available on Xbox, too. This would be a huge departure from established console doctrine, which suggests that the closed ecosystem subsidizes comparatively cheaper hardware while remaining competitive with mid to high-end gaming PCs (although, obviously, nowhere near the super high-end). Opening up Xbox to competing stores potentially disrupts that model, too, which, by extension, could also disrupt today's Xbox console user.

Microsoft has a lot of questions to answer before it opens yet another Pandora's (X)box, and Xbox's paying customers deserve answers to these questions before any formal announcement is made, in my view.

1. Will we still have to pay to play online?​


As I noted in the intro, console hardware is subsidized heavily by the services and software attached to them. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo sell consoles at very slim profit margins and make up the difference by selling games, microtransactions, and subscription services on top of it. It's similar to how the printer business models work, where companies like HP sell you the printer relatively cheap and make money back on the far more lucrative closed-ecosystem ink services. You can even buy ink subscriptions these days, and there's even ink DRM.

In any case, one of Microsoft's most profitable "innovations" was the creation of Xbox Live, complete with its monthly subscription. Xbox Live Gold (now Xbox Game Pass Core) gives you access to multiplayer services, exclusive discounts, and a small pool of older games to play at your leisure for $10 per month. Xbox Game Pass Core continues to generate enormous amounts of revenue for the Xbox platform, and removing it overnight would eat a huge chunk out of the profitability of Xbox consoles in general. Even though it feels like a relic of a bygone age, removing it would be difficult — console platforms are already enduring squeezed profit margins owing to the sticky price of silicon, inflation, and other factors.

If Microsoft opened up Xbox to Steam, Epic Game Store, GOG, and so on — would they still require Xbox Live Gold to play online on those storefronts? Steam et al. do not charge a fee to play online on their respective platforms. Nor will they ever. I can't imagine Microsoft will paywall Steam etc. on Xbox for access. But that creates another question — how will Microsoft monetize the Xbox console hardware in this scenario? Will the hardware end up being more expensive to be more profitable? Will that make the prices less competitive with Sony's PlayStation 6 and the Nintendo Switch 2? It could offer some powerful differentiation against those competitors if Microsoft was to drop the Xbox Live Gold multiplayer fee, but I wonder if the economics work long-term in that situation.

It would indeed be an odd universe if I could play Call of Duty, Fallout 76, or Sea of Thieves premium multiplayer experiences for free via Steam on my console, but need to pay a subscription to play it via Xbox. Furthermore, how will these experiences sit side-by-side in the first place?

2. How will you avoid degrading the 'console' experience?​


Sticking with the topic of Call of Duty and other multiplayer games on a future Xbox console, how will Microsoft reconcile the multiplayer pools between these separate game versions?

On Steam, games like Call of Duty, Overwatch, et al. often have anti-cheat layers installed on top of them to prevent hackers (with mixed success). They also expect keyboard and mouse inputs and often have aim assist disabled. Some games are more "peripheral aware" than others. However, Microsoft and other platform holders have already shown a near-total inability to detect hacking tools like XIM, which convert keyboard and mouse signals to spoofed controller signals on an Xbox console, giving players an absolutely massive advantage.

If Xbox comes closer to Windows to enable Win32 games like those delivered by Steam, won't that simply ramp up the "hackability" of an Xbox console? It's a question many will ask.

Furthermore, if Xbox is now offering the Steam versions of identical Xbox games, complete with free multiplayer, that could negatively impact matchmaking speeds on Xbox consoles. Already, the setting to disable "cross-play" between console and PC is so obscure on Xbox, and the fact that cross-play is enabled by default has degraded the console pool of competitive multiplayer on Xbox. Players who disable cross-play end up in a much smaller pool of players, making matchmaking completely impossible in some regions and in some games. Cross-play was a great idea for co-op and PvE games, letting players play together, but cross-play in competitive shooters has been a bit of a disaster for game quality and balance. Mouse and keyboard players can turn faster and acquire targets more rapidly with a mouse, and on the flip side, aim assist on consoles will provide an uneven advantage in other situations and in other games, too.

By opening up the floodgates to PC players this way, Xbox is potentially going to force even more Xbox players to matchmake with PC players, which could mean more hackers, fewer console players in the pool, and lead to a downward spiral of general FPS quality on the console that pretty much pioneered competitive console FPS. That is, if Microsoft doesn't have a plan in place. I suspect people would like to know what the plan is.

3. Why would developers still support Xbox Store versions to sit side-by-side with Steam?​


With Microsoft putting Steam and Epic Game Store on the Xbox, it will, of course, bring a lot of benefits. Games that have historically skipped Xbox, or simply aren't interested in the console ecosystem, or simply can't factor it into their development costs, will become de facto available on Xbox as a result. This could even extend to Sony's games, which are available on both the Epic Game Store and Steam store via PC and Windows. God of War running on Xbox hardware becomes a little more likely in this situation, but Sony may opt to block the games there rather than deal with the "optics" it could present.

Either way, it also creates a problem. If a developer already has tight costs and thin margins, it may simply become more logical to forego an Xbox version of a game entirely. Microsoft has worked incredibly hard to bring games and franchises like Yakuza, Final Fantasy 14, Persona, and more to the Xbox ecosystem. And now, developers who perhaps were already questioning investment in the "Xbox Store" will do so even more.

If it's a truly open system at that point, Microsoft can't force developers to offer their games on the Xbox Store in exchange for availability on Steam. Furthermore, Steam and Xbox Store versions of games often have different price points, different sales events, different launch dates, and more. Microsoft might be opening a can of worms here. What's to stop a scenario where Xbox players are forced to use Steam simply because developers don't think an Xbox port is worthwhile? What about Xbox customers who don't want to use Steam and simply want the Xbox experience and Xbox library they've always had? Has Microsoft asked any of its existing customers if people actually want the scenario they're proposing? Are the benefits worth the costs? Are there even any real benefits to begin with? Or could this be another case of "you WILL like it," like the bundled Xbox Kinect nobody wanted in 2013?

So many other questions​

There could be huge benefits to bringing Steam and other PC stores to the Xbox console ecosystem. Getting games that have console exclusivity on PlayStation potentially as a consequence of Xbox being more "PC-like" is a clear benefit. Dropping the Xbox Live Gold paywall for a more Steam Deck-like offering could also offer huge differentiation against PlayStation as well. But there are so many unanswered questions.

I doubt players will be booting into a Windows desktop environment, installing programs, and dealing with Windows UAC pop-ups, but it does beg the question. What will the user experience look like on this console-PC hybrid? Will PlayStation block their games via Steam and Epic Games Store on Xbox hardware? Will Steam Workshop and other mods be supported? Will I be able to sideload stuff like the Genshin Impact or Riot Games launchers? Will the hardware remain subsidized and affordable, with Microsoft getting less of a cut or maybe even no cut at all, if players flock to Steam instead of Xbox? Is Xbox Game Pass alone good enough to fund all of this? How do you guarantee that the console experience will remain unmaimed when it comes to hackers, cross-play, and different input modalities? Etc. Etc. Etc. Ad Nauseam.

I can't help but feel like Xbox could be walking into another "2013 Xbox One reveal situation" here, where they create heaps of confusion by trying to upend familiarity chasing "predictions" and trend data. Ironically, many of Xbox's predictions in 2013 for the future of gaming became true in the end — but people didn't want to hear them nor accept them. People don't like being forced to accept change, and even if all console competitors are gearing up for a more open future like this, being unclear about the plans is potentially even worse than just saying nothing at all.

I hope Microsoft is prepared, and furthermore, I hope Microsoft doesn't take its console audience for granted (again).



As much shit as I like to give Jez Corden for being really insufferable at times, every now and then he puts away the Microsoft fanboy hat and asks some really good questions. Thought he did a pretty good job here.

Another question I have is whether or not Microsoft will be able to achieve anything that is being speculated about the future of Xbox. Phil Spencer and company keeps leaving hints like putting other stores on Xbox, what he wants in a handheld and such like that anything less than is going to be seen as a big disappointment to many. Phil and company have built up so much hype that Microsoft loyalists are scratching their heads trying to figure it all out. They better be prepared to amaze.
 
Last edited:

FunkMiller

Gold Member
Ha ha.

He still thinks they care about the consoles.

The Office Lol GIF
 
Last edited:

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Microsoft also recently hinted that the subsidized hardware model doesn’t really work.

So if they just sell PCs I don’t see this as a good strategy. If it’s a PC that also has Xbox OS on it that could be better value, but also don’t see that as a winning strategy.

Xbox and “winning strategy” got divorced over a decade ago so it all tracks.
 

NickFire

Member
If Xbox going forward is a cheap HTPC that I can access Steam from with a good UI I am interested in buying an Xbox for the first time in a long time. I just don’t see how it benefits MS unless they are selling hardware for a decent profit.
The existence of a second console comparable to PS benefits all 3rd party pubs who don't want Sony dictating financial terms to the 3rd party pub.
 

NickFire

Member
Xbox as a console platform is cooked. The 360 days are never coming back.
My point was only that MS might be willing to sell hardware without a big profit margin, so that an alternative to PS would exist. If Xbox went away completely, Sony would be able to demand better terms to let MS Gaming publish on PS.
 

T4keD0wN

Member
Why would they do that, isnt the whole point of those machines that you are forced to use their store without any alternatives?

It would be really nice if ms were willing to take a loss on hw and make zero money on software though. They might aswell skip a step and deposit money directly into my bank account, haha.
 
Last edited:

it needs to answer these big questions...So many other questions​


The fact that Phil Spencer made that comment (which is fucking stupid to begin with) just shows that he's throwing shit at the walls, ceiling, doors, and windows to give the remaining fans something to look forward to.


its over, it's so fucking over....deal with it.
 

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Why would they do that, the whole point of those machines is that you are forced to use their store without any alternatives?
To increase the reach of PC gaming. This is likely about a windows capable device. Microsoft has recognized they have probably more potential sales just focusing on PC + PS5. Xbox could become just a brand, or they might build the Xbox OS into the device as well.

Might be an initiative to sell their Windows ARM ambitions and hasten to the shift to it / mass test their x86 emulation since gaming would give them a huge amount of data on general comparability issues.

Or it’s Spencer talking out of his ass.
 

Punished Miku

Human Rights Subscription Service
I just don’t see how it benefits MS unless they are selling hardware for a decent profit.
MS now is probably the biggest publisher in the industry at this point. Best thing they can do now is keep existing customers happy, keep GP going since it could still explode into a Netflix situation at any point if they ever get some viral uptick of users, and try and slowly over a period of 15 years de-emphasize closed ecosystems where they lose 30%. They don't have a competitive future in closed hardware.

Over a very long period of time what will happen is 1) devices transitioning to open store, 2) all digital, and 3) all those stores being available on every device. Then at that point when nothing is truly exclusive to a single device, everyone can keep their stuff on their own store and keep 100% of sales money because consumers will have access to it on anything so it wouldn't be monopolistic. Indies, smaller studios and 3rd parties without a ton of releases can be on everyone's stores. This transitions into the cloud future of 15 years from now where there's multiple app stores or subs. In the meantime they can put some minor influence into steering things that direction with console-esque and handheld hardware not sold at a loss, which costs them nothing while they wait for 15 years to pass. In the meantime, if they have a Xbox style UI they can make some minimal money also on ads / storefront exposure.

For it to make sense you have to look 2 or 3 steps down the road and imagine if people demand more decentralization. In the end that basically ends up benefiting all 3rd parties (and now MS is the biggest 3rd party). There's not that many large publishers. TVs in 15 years could easily load up apps for MS, Sony, Nintendo, SQEX, Capcom, Ubisoft, Steam, Epic, etc. It would be around 10-12 apps or so large enough to survive, max. None of those apps would have to sacrifice 30%, and they'd be on everything so they'd have install bases much larger than any single console. That's my best guess anyway. It's all pretty theoretical.
 

rm082e

Member
If Microsoft is releasing a Microsoft branded gaming pc that require Xbox live to play online, it's DOA. Why would anyone buy that when you could just by a regular pc?

What if it's a PC with an Xbox branded skin/store front (just like Steam Deck), but they have an option for you to sign into all the other storefronts (Epic, Steam, Ubi, EA, etc.)? What if they let you install any of the games you own on those other platforms and run them, but the storefront on the box is Xbox? Also, what if they've developed what amounts to emulation for all previous Xbox games, so any existing Xbox fans will keep their library as they move forward?

That's basically taking the existing Xbox platform and making it open instead of a walled-garden.
 

Sorcerer

Member
wtf is Jez smoking? this plan isn't happening for a ton of reasons.

Also Spencer didn't even mention Steam in that interview either..
Why would Spencer want Epic? Isn't Sony invested in Epic? Is it a case of gathering up the lesser players such as Gog and Epic, so they can compete with big boy Steam on a 2 to 1 store (3 if you include MS themselves I guess) basis?
 

Astray

Member
Why would Spencer want Epic? Isn't Sony invested in Epic? Is it a case of gathering up the lesser players such as Gog and Epic, so they can compete with big boy Steam on a 2 to 1 store (3 if you include MS themselves I guess) basis?
The idea that Valve managed to make PC gaming on Windows a success and denied Microsoft that money still rankles with MS top brass to this day. I still remember when they tried the UWP shit way back when. Valve was founded by ex-Microsoft people too so that adds to the asspain.
 

StereoVsn

Gold Member
If Xbox going forward is a cheap HTPC that I can access Steam from with a good UI I am interested in buying an Xbox for the first time in a long time. I just don’t see how it benefits MS unless they are selling hardware for a decent profit.
Surface team runs Xbox hardware now and if you have seen Surface device pricing, cheap ain’t in their dictionary! 😉.

However, if you are looking for overpriced, outdated and non upgradable, boy, do I have a product line for you!

Edit: It will be interesting to se what happens with Xbox Next, Xbox Handheld and MS game publishing, that’s for sure.
 
Last edited:

SHA

Member
I'm afraid sometimes down the road Gabe may change his opinion and cancel the whole process, I know he's a smart guy and wish this thing to never happen.
 

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
If Microsoft is releasing a Microsoft branded gaming pc that require Xbox live to play online, it's DOA. Why would anyone buy that when you could just by a regular pc?
If it’s a PC they won’t be able to force paid multiplayer on Windows. That’s just a non-starter of a conversation.

They could do that if they just let 3rd party storefronts exist on Xbox, but that idea makes zero sense from any perspective.

The most logical conclusion is that if Spencer isn’t talking out of his ass he is saying “Xbox” will release with windows in the future (and possibly with a streamlined way of also having Xbox OS present, or just straight up dual boot.)
 

Iced Arcade

Member
what would be the benefit business-wise for MS to do this?

console hardware makes little to no money and the money is made off percentages of software sold (and subs)
 

King Dazzar

Member
Sounds like a PC to me... Only main difference will be a locked down, alternate UI, focused around the games, services and adverts. I reckon UI conceptually will be something like a gaming equivalent of a Fire TV cube.
 

Punished Miku

Human Rights Subscription Service
what would be the benefit business-wise for MS to do this?

console hardware makes little to no money and the money is made off percentages of software sold (and subs)
1) They're losing all of those 3rd party sales anyway if Xbox collapses. This way they keep a small bit of it and build for the future trying to encourage customers into more open devices.
2) Any device sold allows GP. PS6 doesn't.
3) Devices likely will not be subsidized, more for a niche hardcore market curious about PC or wanting PC with more streamlined convenience features. Surface is a small portion of PC but still $7 billion a year and slowly growing.
 

Oppoi

Member
Good things MS has a monopoly to lean on now that their efforts on being the Apple of video games had to admit defeat. Their new song is titled "friends friends friends". The wheels keep turning.
 
Last edited:

Punished Miku

Human Rights Subscription Service
that could make sense then.
I honestly don't see them getting a cut of any Steam sales. I think they'll have to try and win people over on conveniences. GP will be on there. GP games get discounts when you buy them through that store. Games will be cloud playable off the same purchase. Games available on the handheld also. Achievements, friends list, MS Rewards, maybe some kind of quick resume.

Steam will still be there if people want to use it, and I don't think they get a cut of any of it ever. This is why hardware isn't sold at a loss. This is also why nothing is going to be blocked, because it will just have PC stores like everywhere else. Who knows though. No idea.

Epic, I could see them getting a very small cut of that. They're desperate enough for that kind of partnership.
 
Last edited:

Puscifer

Member
Honestly if Microsoft could sell me a decent sized boxed with enough power and could start an initiative for optimization I would jump ship personally.
 
Top Bottom