The live-action Halo series was so good. Anything else like it these days? I also liked Pantheon, Arcane, Atlas (2024), I Am Mother, Tau, and probably some others I'm forgetting. Total sucker for advanced tech/magic systems that are consistent.
(I even like some kids' shows too, like Tales of Arcadia and Miraculous Ladybug, just for having consistent tech/magic systems... also Daniel Spellbound)
I know of some much older shows with incredibly huge lore, like Star Trek and Stargate, and I do love reading about them, but I'm still struggling to get started with any of their shows/movies themselves, they feel a bit dry.
The second season was actually really good. Unfortunately, I think the first season turned too many people away, and by the time the show got better, it was already too late. Cancelled. Such a shame.
If it came out 15 years ago it would have been a big success. These days there isn't a lot of patience from srudios execs and audiences to allow for a TV series to get it's footing. I'm seeing this with a lot of older good TV shows that wouldn't be successful in today's environment (for example star trek TNG)
That was probably one of the worst video game adaptations I've ever seen. Especially in comparison to recent additions like The Last of Us and Fallout. No disrespect.
To be fair last of us after season 1 was pretty bad too. Halo got better in season 2 but the awful first season killed it. Other then fallout and arcane there haven't been any good game adaptations (on TV). I'd go as far as say that twisted metal was more fun than any of them.
The Last of Us season 2 was fine. They didn't follow the chronology and structure from the second game and it suffered because of it. People who didn't play the games probably didn't notice this.
It wasn't anywhere near the (low) quality of Halo season 1. Did they continue to show Master Chief's face in season 2? Because that alone ruined it for me. And they didn't even get his appearance right!
The architectural differences that made a console more compelling than a standalone PC are largely gone. (Nintendo is a bit of an exception here, but they were always playing a different market than Sony and MS anyway)
This means it's harder and harder to say "here's a unique experience you only get on Xbox" (or Playstation for that matter)
The price advantage is going away fast, especially with talk that next-gen consoles will top USD 1000.
All they have left is their prestige first-party products, which they don't seem to really know how to use effectively. Some of them have solid cultural penetration, and could spawn broader media franchises with the right handling.
Another attraction for publishers was (historically) a much lower adoption of piracy.
Part of the sales pitch is you need more than just a torrent client to pirate.
Now in the world of AI I think this moat is evaporating. Hypervisor exploits are dropping like rain and determined individuals can vibe code a reasonably performant emulator in a couple of weeks.
In that world the only reasonable edge you have left is high prestige exclusives and merchandising/physical sales.
Nintendo has this cornered, one of the few companies who can pull off a rabid fan base buying a console they already own because this time there’s a triforce on it.
Meanwhile Sony and Microsoft are diluting their own IP and going full digital. Writing is on the wall if you ask me.
The exclusives business model worked for Sony for the ps4 generation for sure. But it seems that the cost of developing ever larger and more ambitious games has ballooned in recent years. Intentionally limiting your distribution seems misguided. Even Sony has been releasing their exclusives on PC too after some exclusivity time.
On the other hand it seems to work for Nintendo which keeps their consoles intentionally underpowered and don’t try to compete with the AAA game expectations with the majority of their titles.
The thing is the whole set of companies making games at Sony and Microsoft are completely built for what we call AAA games. Tons of middle managers, large teams of artists and visual effect specialists, a whole human pipeline built to sand off every single pain point in every moment of their game to make a good content tube. Those studios are incapable of just making a bunch of indie games. They would need to be completely reorganized to an insane degree.
The idea is that the hardware overlaps enough that consumers would rather only buy the generic version which is the PC. It works for gaming and everything else. There was a time consoles thought they could steal share from the PC market by including browsers and whatnot but I think that never panned out as expected
Step outside an echo chamber and you'll see that in most countries, including East Asia and the Middle East, if you take a walk around any big mall, you don't see kids pestering their parents to buy them a PC. They ask for a PlayStation or an Xbox or a "Nintendo" (yep that's what people still call the Switch)
In conbinis, there are Xbox and PlayStation gift cards hanging from the shelves, in the local currency.
There are accessories for PS/Xbox/Switch everywhere, more than PC gaming accessories.
And it's not because the PC stuff gets sold out while the consy stuff gathers cobwebs: If that was the case the consoles would stop getting restocked after a few months, but they keep stocking newer stuff. Meanwhile I have to hunt around and specifically request for Razer or Mad Catz or other PC-specific brands.
> The architectural differences that made a console more compelling than a standalone PC are largely gone.
If you go hang out at someone's home, nobody says "Let's go to my bedroom desk and play something on the PC", no they crash on the couch and turn on the TV and fire up FIFA or some other normie shit.
> Step outside an echo chamber and you'll see that in most countries, including East Asia and the Middle East, if you take a walk around any big mall, you don't see kids pestering their parents to buy them a PC.
This is still the case in the U.S. for the most part. The point is moreso that barrier to entry is lowering. The SteamDeck is a PC/console and a good example of a possible trend in that direction.
Just a couple weeks ago in Bali someone said "Oh you have a Nintendo too?" and pulled out their Switch. Meanwhile I haven't made a Steam friend in the wild in years
Hell I saw PlayStations in barbershops in Vietnam! There's no way you'd see a PC in those environments.
The Steam Deck certainly reduces the gap, but I've yet to see it penetrate "normie" social circles, and it's still rare in random gaming shops compared to console stuff. Have Valve released their OS for other handheld manufacturers to use? That's probably the only way to end Windows' dominance and improve the coolness factor of "PC" gaming.
Usually means your comments are getting flagged by other users. I’m not going to dig through your comments to speculate on why, but I don’t think there are any automated filters that will kill only some of your comments.
The game has changed. Now I can only post a few times per hour and they're automatically flagged. No moderator has given me any contact to explain what I'm being punished for, so I guess I'll be making a new account and hope the same glitch doesn't occur again.
It feels like the problem was the market ended up in a race to the bottom and so most of the made-for-PC controllers just sucked. The best option was to buy your preferred console controller and use that with PC.
> Meanwhile I have to hunt around and specifically request for Razer or Mad Catz or other PC-specific brands.
Since you mention conbinis, I'm guessing you're in Japan. Having just been there, game software is receding from the smaller hobby stores, and then in the tech stores like Bic Camera, the PC gaming stuff is one floor down.
> The architectural differences that made a console more compelling than a standalone PC are largely gone.
No, the main driver is still there. People do not want to build and maintain PCs. Your 14-year-old nephew doesn't want to do it, either. People want to turn on a box and play a game. I am technical and I want absolutely nothing to do with maintaining a PC. I'll take the console experience every single time.
The performance cap on a console makes a big difference to me which is why I only play on the PC. It’s also not rocket science, you can just buy a good gaming PC. Games look an order of magnitude better on the PC in some cases.
You’re mostly correct but there’s truth to the original statement. Back in the PlayStation/N64 through to PS3/Xbox 360, consoles were so different to each other and PCs that porting games was a major task that resulted in very different outcomes.
Since the PS4/Xbox One, they’ve been similar enough in underlying architecture that engines like Unreal have been able to smooth over the differences enough to make multiplatform technically viable. It’s meant companies like Capcom with RE Engine have made a huge success out of selling across all platforms, including PC. That freedom for publishers is a problem for console manufacturers who have fewer 3rd party exclusives as a result.
People can buy a prebuilt pc running steamOS automagically updating itself with immutable images.
The advantage of consoles are:
- No minimum/recomended config to check and insurance that a game or an accesorry bought for a console gen will work well for that console gen. In term of game compat this is something Steam tried to with the steam deck but has no way to enforce really and the biggest one imho. When you buy a brand new "budget" computer in the price range of a console you usually knownyou won't be able to play some of the upcoming AAA titles at least woth decent graphic quality.
- availability in retail stores
- ability to sell games in the second hand market but I don't think this is something that is here to stay with the disappearance of physical medias
This is why I've never gotten any of the more recent consoles (since the N64 or so)... many of my friends have them, and every time we try to turn them on to play a game they start updating and rebooting and updating... I can play games on my computer, which I have other incentives to keep up to date, so the maintenance time is amortized; just double click and it works.
My take is that almost nobody has a standalone PC anymore, especially kids. Kids these days all start with iPads, them maybe they move up to Macbooks once they get to high school or college. Other than the local LLM fanatics I see here on HN, I have no idea who's buying those PC towers anymore, they seem like fringe relics from the past century.
People who want their games to look prettier and run smoother than what you can get out of the thermal and power budgets of laptops would be the ones still buying the desktops. If you additionally value a not too noisy environment home, then water cooling is way better and more accessible in the desktop form factor (though this is still niche at least for the gpus where all-in-one units are basically non-existent). Laptops are by all means nice toys as well, but on the go phones are better entertainment while in transit, and once you're somewhere you left the comfort of your home to experience it's rarely for your gaming hobby (however it might be a setting where you're reminded that computers are still relatively cheap compared to certain music instruments or sports equipment).
Consoles also had performance advantages up to PS2. The lightweight execution environment and exotic accelerators used in consoles allowed better gaming experience than CPU/GPU at that time. Cycle-perfect consistency of consoles also allowed games to be better "optimized", such as data aligned to boudaries and arranged on game discs to be streamed and such.
Consoles slowly started losing that plot after the launch of Xbox and GPU development mess of PS3(the PS3 CPU was supposed to be the world's first APU but Kutaragi dropped the ball big time) and now consoles are just a Nespresso experience, with just marginally cheaper hardware tied to proprietary full-priced game discs, which is not worth much.
OS argument is practically valid but... Frankly IMO that's more of a disadvantage of PCs coming from horrible near nonexistent engineering discipline of software engineering than an advantage of consoles.
I know the theories about Microsoft selling Xbox or spinning it off are common on the internet these days. They might even make sense from a high level business prospective. However, I don’t understand how they could do it from a technical standpoint without still having huge leverage on the company buying it. Xbox runs a customized version of NT, DirectX and HyperV as far as I know. Any company buying it would have to get some licensing deal from Microsoft to further develop and maintain NT and HyperV or rely on Microsoft doing the development which both seem unrealistic for any company to wanna pick up, or for Microsoft to give away. I know they don’t really care about Windows these days, but still.
I’m sure if they are forced to (legally or otherwise) they can find a solution, but it would be a thorny thing to split.
In this case it is none of the above and it is about deals on selected ip characters for movie/shows production but there are many ways to "buy" stuff. In theory Microsoft could just shutdown the xbox divisions and just sell the XBox brand + some selected IP rights. The buyer would be free to use whatever tech they decide on next iteration of console/OS.
Yes, I know that this article is about IP rights for Netflix shows and movies. OP said they initially thought it was for all of Xbox, which is a theory that's been gaining traction online in gaming and tech spaces that Microsoft is trying to sell the Xbox business maybe to Tencent, a Saudi fund or private equity[0]. There were a bunch of threads about it on various gaming subreddits.
Netflix saturating the landscape with poorly executed adaptations of Microsoft owned media properties is almost certainly not worth the short term dollars for long-term erosion of their perceived value, especially without some certainty of securing complementary title launches. Given the shuttering of studios to right-size for the cambrian explosion of slop for COVID era hardware, Xbox probably wouldn't be able to make that capital work for them any better than sitting on licences until they accrue nostalgia.
Halo could be (peak) Game of Thrones level in the right hands, which means the right execs, producers and investors just as much as it does creatives.
Unfortunately, the right hands potentially no longer exist. The current generation seems largely unable to produce good things, with few exceptions (notably Andor)
I think Halo could successfully get the Andor treatment (intentional departure from the tone and scope of mainline entries) in the right hands, but so could pretty much anything, and such hands are hard to find.
The majority of GOT isn't hot naked sexy people or swords: it's conversations in rooms. Most good shows are conversations in rooms, which is why it's so surprising we've lost the ability to produce and write them.
Babylon 5 demonstrated that you can keep absolutely everything else crappy (effects, costumes, heck acting and even cinematography), so long as you're good at conversations in rooms.
I don't think you understand the appeal of Halo if you think it can be about people talking in rooms. Halo would have to be something far more complex, like Band of Brothers.
Exactly: it would have to be like Band of Brothers, or like Space: Above and Beyond from the 90s, but with a 2027 budget and effects. Or screw the effects: just good 2027 talking-in-rooms writing is nearly enough.
The Halo universe offers a lot to mine from, just like the Star Wars Universe did for Andor. It's just waiting for the chosen one writer to be allowed to do the job. Who's the J. Michael Straczynski or Tony Gilroy for the Halo universe?
Anything could be game of thrones (early seasons) if it well written. You don't really need any Halo rights if you have good writers and can make a good show. The point of having Halo rights is they let you produce a mid show but have an automatic audience.
It seems that way, but it's not that easy. Starcraft competitions are still on tv in South Korea 28 years later because they got the balance just right, and all the dirty little details of that universe.
In theory you can make any sci fi show about future humans and a couple other species going to war. Should be straightforward.
But getting the balance of that universe right in terms of little details is tricky: Halo has done the heavy lifting already.
> Starcraft competitions are still on tv in South Korea 28 years later because they got the balance just right, and all the dirty little details of that universe.
Are they? I thought after the pro league failed it's transition to SC2 and the GSL ended that it mostly went to streaming platforms.
Halo and Starcraft are both about the Terrans going to war with alien species.
Same old story, right?
But getting the balance of technologies, motivations (e.g. jihad-dynamics), and nitty-gritty details (e.g. the splinter factions) right is the trick: it's much easier to do wrong than to do right.
Not trusting in Netflix at the moment to deliver (though I own some stock). Fallout, which Amazon exexuted, was on par with Andor ( a Disney series) in my book. Case by case deals make sense to me.
Fallout on par with Andor??? Wild take. The only thing Netflix has ever done that comes close to Andor imo is Bojack. I felt Fallout had one good season then quickly became rudderless and at this point is half a notch above all those shows that I can't even remember how many seasons I've watched because it all blends together.
Beef, Dark, Mindhunters, The Haunting of Hill House, Midnight Mass, and Narcos are also in the same tier as Andor for me. Black Mirror also although it didn’t start with Netflix.
Andor is in a league of its own imo. Once in a generation kind of show.
But it is similar to Fallout in that it was able to break out of its universe. Andor is enjoyable even if one hates Star Wars; Fallout is enjoyable even if you dislike gaming.
I fundamentally do not understand the direction of Xbox. Microsoft seems to lack the commitment to any strategy and seems unwilling to wait for investments to pay off before trying to cut perceived losses.
My “hot take”: they’re going the direction of Disney/Marvel hybrid. Have a few handful of IPs that are extremely successful, milk it out with licensing deals in every vertical (toys, games, merch, cross-dlcs, books, etc). They’re just missing theme parks. The actual game development portion would probably be very small.
Would not complain if Microsoft wanted to drop a few billion on a new US theme park. The Pacific Northwest is pretty light on amusement parks and I could imagine a park with Halo, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, and Minecraft "Lands" doing gangbusters. Supposedly they're already working with a UK amusement park operator on a Minecraft experience
There are rumours that Microsoft is internally demanding 30% margin from Xbox, and the gaming industry simply doesn't operate with those types of margins long term and it's not even in a position to dictate industry pricing.
It's like the entire company is only satisfied with being #1.
The whole thing is very confused and lacks consistency. The latest rumours are they are going to break up its Game Pass subscription offering so there are different subscriptions for multiplayer, cloud, games, etc. Isn't that the opposite of an effective subscription strategy?
GPUs that were planned for cloud streaming are much more valuable now. It (unfortunately) makes sense for the only real cloud streaming player to significantly revisit pricing.
Success in business is all about short-term thinking. If they destroy the Xbox brand today they can still pick it back up next year. Who else will you go with - Sony?
I love Steam but this is just backwards. If it was about recouping fixed costs the threshold would be 10k not 10M with the rate dropping down to 15 or 20% after that.
Game revenues follow a power law type distribution so they're hurting indies and leaving money on the table.
Valve targeted the big releases / industry players specifically because the context in which Valve added that was where all the big players were making their own store fronts: EA Original/App Ubisoft launcher, Blizzard Battle.net. And Epic Game Store, where Ubisoft (or another big player I forget) was talking about abandoning their launcher for Epic which has a lower revenue cut like ~12%. So it seemed Valve made that change to shore up keeping the big industry players releasing on Steam.
Valve isn’t trying to make a bunch of games with AND pay for/off all the studios they bought, all while trying to advertise and compete with Sony and Nintendo in hardware.
Steam just sits back and takes money, for the most part. The hardware/software/advertising spend is probably a drop in the bucket compared to MS.
I initially misunderstood OP. However the more I think about it, the more it seems similar though. If Steam is charging game developers a 30-20% cut, that must mean those game developers margins are higher than 30-20% or there will be no point selling on Steam. It seems that Xbox would be expecting their Studios to operate at the same efficiency as others in the market then, no?
No, they’re not even remotely the same. The retailer keeps 30% of the retail price and, out of that, they pay for the upkeep of the store. It’s not 30% pure profit, it’s not even gross profit given they need to pay the card processing fees out of that 30%.
I’m not following how that is a response to what I said. I’m not talking about Valve’s profits. I’m talking about the profit of the game developers selling their games on Steam.
I think I understand why Microsoft costs are higher than others due to their a spending spree, so the break even is much higher.
You said “they’re similar” and I’m refuting that by pointing out that they operate very differently. One is a retailer and one is a developer/publisher. Their operating models are different, so you can’t point at two percentages and say “they’re similar” in any way.
If you're talking about the margins of a video game sale, the gross margins on that are like 99.9% in absolute terms.
You don't seem to understand the difference between the margins on a sale and the averaged margins once the studio development costs are included.
If the store takes 30% you are still left with 70% gross margins but if you have development costs, you maybe only have enough sales to break even or just barely be profitable. A 30% margin on the entire studio means the studio must produce guaranteed successes consistently.
It might also not be obvious but if Microsoft imposed 30% margins, those are a floor, whereas a fee reduces the ceiling. They are not the same even if we assume the target is met.
You’re confusing 2 different things. Microsoft isn’t demanding a “cut,” it’s demanding its business units achieve a 30% profit margin on its investment. I think industry standard is closer to 10% once you factor in games that don’t make a return on their investment.
This type of internal financial management is a sign that the people running Microsoft aren’t interested in how any of the divisions actually work or making strategic decisions about their portfolio. They’re accountants pushing the difficult decisions down
And the actual margins are about 3%. No one in gaming makes the sorts of margins that Satya is demanding Xbox makes. It's pretty clear to see where this goes. I'm also not sure that the unionization pushes in their studios isn't the real story.
I was really hoping Sing would have a more Producers sort of vibe. Failing theater and director. It was there for the taking, but apparently Disney doesn't think Springtime for Hitler is a good look?
it's easy. imagine a bunch of execs with kids. the execs don't play any video games. their kids aren't allowed any screentime. okay, now they're trying to make a product whose primary audience is Bart Simpson. do you see how that leadership is completely disconnected from their audience?
While I agree, a confusing part for non gamers, is to differentiate Xbox, the games console, from Xbox, the business unit, from Xbox, the Microsoft games publishing business.
Only Xbox, the games console, is having a bad time, the publishing part is doing great with movie licenses, and all the studios that belong to Microsoft, regardless where they sell their games.
As someone who was a die hard Xbox fan since the original all the way up to the One X… Microsoft are just terrible. Getting rid of exclusives, constantly focusing on the wrong things, it’s just a mess. Terrible leadership.
I think they genuinely don't know what to do other than to keep the lights on. The original goal for the Xbox program was to take back American presence in gaming, which they achieved, but shutting down Xbox will undo that with Nintendo still around and Chinese phone games making banks.
XBox was fine up to the Xbox One -- that's when the XBox was co-oped for some broader push for the living room computing and broadcast television integration right at the time this was on the out.
The next failure was Xbox Live. The video game market is a hit-based market with big tent-pole franchises doing large launches. For a modern example, look at the hype around GTA6. Launches sold games and exclusives sold consoles. Microsoft put huge game launches on Xbox Live for their relatively low monthly cost and lost millions on those launches.
They also bought a bunch of game studios which is a terrible strategy for a console maker. Meta made the same mistake with the Quest.
It's was never the lack of commitment to a strategy -- it was just having the wrong strategy to begin with.
(I even like some kids' shows too, like Tales of Arcadia and Miraculous Ladybug, just for having consistent tech/magic systems... also Daniel Spellbound)
I know of some much older shows with incredibly huge lore, like Star Trek and Stargate, and I do love reading about them, but I'm still struggling to get started with any of their shows/movies themselves, they feel a bit dry.
It wasn't anywhere near the (low) quality of Halo season 1. Did they continue to show Master Chief's face in season 2? Because that alone ruined it for me. And they didn't even get his appearance right!
The architectural differences that made a console more compelling than a standalone PC are largely gone. (Nintendo is a bit of an exception here, but they were always playing a different market than Sony and MS anyway)
This means it's harder and harder to say "here's a unique experience you only get on Xbox" (or Playstation for that matter)
The price advantage is going away fast, especially with talk that next-gen consoles will top USD 1000.
All they have left is their prestige first-party products, which they don't seem to really know how to use effectively. Some of them have solid cultural penetration, and could spawn broader media franchises with the right handling.
Part of the sales pitch is you need more than just a torrent client to pirate.
Now in the world of AI I think this moat is evaporating. Hypervisor exploits are dropping like rain and determined individuals can vibe code a reasonably performant emulator in a couple of weeks.
In that world the only reasonable edge you have left is high prestige exclusives and merchandising/physical sales.
Nintendo has this cornered, one of the few companies who can pull off a rabid fan base buying a console they already own because this time there’s a triforce on it.
Meanwhile Sony and Microsoft are diluting their own IP and going full digital. Writing is on the wall if you ask me.
They’re gaming appliances and that will still be a huge draw.
PS: Sony gave up PC publishing, so that argument no longer holds. It was a dumb move as you said.
> This means it's harder and harder to say "here's a unique experience you only get on Xbox" (or Playstation for that matter)
That’s also been the case for a very long time. That’s why they sign deals for exclusives.
On the other hand it seems to work for Nintendo which keeps their consoles intentionally underpowered and don’t try to compete with the AAA game expectations with the majority of their titles.
Look at all the amazing stuff in the indie space. Let your developers go wild and make neat games that don’t cost $200 billion each.
You could have so many test exclusives like the more fun and experimental stuff we had in the PS1/2 era.
You don’t have to give up the big games. Just don’t focus entirely on them.
Same problem movie studios have. They chase the “sure things” and just pump more money in to be “more sure”. It’s all more fragile than ever.
You're out of touch.
Step outside an echo chamber and you'll see that in most countries, including East Asia and the Middle East, if you take a walk around any big mall, you don't see kids pestering their parents to buy them a PC. They ask for a PlayStation or an Xbox or a "Nintendo" (yep that's what people still call the Switch)
In conbinis, there are Xbox and PlayStation gift cards hanging from the shelves, in the local currency.
There are accessories for PS/Xbox/Switch everywhere, more than PC gaming accessories.
And it's not because the PC stuff gets sold out while the consy stuff gathers cobwebs: If that was the case the consoles would stop getting restocked after a few months, but they keep stocking newer stuff. Meanwhile I have to hunt around and specifically request for Razer or Mad Catz or other PC-specific brands.
> The architectural differences that made a console more compelling than a standalone PC are largely gone.
If you go hang out at someone's home, nobody says "Let's go to my bedroom desk and play something on the PC", no they crash on the couch and turn on the TV and fire up FIFA or some other normie shit.
This is still the case in the U.S. for the most part. The point is moreso that barrier to entry is lowering. The SteamDeck is a PC/console and a good example of a possible trend in that direction.
Hell I saw PlayStations in barbershops in Vietnam! There's no way you'd see a PC in those environments.
The Steam Deck certainly reduces the gap, but I've yet to see it penetrate "normie" social circles, and it's still rare in random gaming shops compared to console stuff. Have Valve released their OS for other handheld manufacturers to use? That's probably the only way to end Windows' dominance and improve the coolness factor of "PC" gaming.
Sure, there are advantages to using a keyboard+mouse in a FPS game but it’s a much different gaming experience than a handheld controller.
I will never forgive Microsoft for killing SideWinder.
But I don't get why HN is randomly shadowbanning half my comments and not the other half! This one wasn't shadowbanned.
This one came pre-flagged.
Since you mention conbinis, I'm guessing you're in Japan. Having just been there, game software is receding from the smaller hobby stores, and then in the tech stores like Bic Camera, the PC gaming stuff is one floor down.
I use that word for any similar convenience stores in all East Asian countries now ^^
No, the main driver is still there. People do not want to build and maintain PCs. Your 14-year-old nephew doesn't want to do it, either. People want to turn on a box and play a game. I am technical and I want absolutely nothing to do with maintaining a PC. I'll take the console experience every single time.
And you don't need to build a PC to have a PC.
Since the PS4/Xbox One, they’ve been similar enough in underlying architecture that engines like Unreal have been able to smooth over the differences enough to make multiplatform technically viable. It’s meant companies like Capcom with RE Engine have made a huge success out of selling across all platforms, including PC. That freedom for publishers is a problem for console manufacturers who have fewer 3rd party exclusives as a result.
With the notable exception of the original Xbox, which used mostly standard PC hardware [0] and ran mostly standard Windows [1].
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_technical_specifications
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_system_software#Original_...
The advantage of consoles are:
- No minimum/recomended config to check and insurance that a game or an accesorry bought for a console gen will work well for that console gen. In term of game compat this is something Steam tried to with the steam deck but has no way to enforce really and the biggest one imho. When you buy a brand new "budget" computer in the price range of a console you usually knownyou won't be able to play some of the upcoming AAA titles at least woth decent graphic quality.
- availability in retail stores
- ability to sell games in the second hand market but I don't think this is something that is here to stay with the disappearance of physical medias
This is why I've never gotten any of the more recent consoles (since the N64 or so)... many of my friends have them, and every time we try to turn them on to play a game they start updating and rebooting and updating... I can play games on my computer, which I have other incentives to keep up to date, so the maintenance time is amortized; just double click and it works.
My take is that almost nobody has a standalone PC anymore, especially kids. Kids these days all start with iPads, them maybe they move up to Macbooks once they get to high school or college. Other than the local LLM fanatics I see here on HN, I have no idea who's buying those PC towers anymore, they seem like fringe relics from the past century.
Consoles slowly started losing that plot after the launch of Xbox and GPU development mess of PS3(the PS3 CPU was supposed to be the world's first APU but Kutaragi dropped the ball big time) and now consoles are just a Nespresso experience, with just marginally cheaper hardware tied to proprietary full-priced game discs, which is not worth much.
OS argument is practically valid but... Frankly IMO that's more of a disadvantage of PCs coming from horrible near nonexistent engineering discipline of software engineering than an advantage of consoles.
I’m sure if they are forced to (legally or otherwise) they can find a solution, but it would be a thorny thing to split.
[0] https://www.theverge.com/games/962837/microsoft-xbox-spin-of...
Unfortunately, the right hands potentially no longer exist. The current generation seems largely unable to produce good things, with few exceptions (notably Andor)
Babylon 5 demonstrated that you can keep absolutely everything else crappy (effects, costumes, heck acting and even cinematography), so long as you're good at conversations in rooms.
The Halo universe offers a lot to mine from, just like the Star Wars Universe did for Andor. It's just waiting for the chosen one writer to be allowed to do the job. Who's the J. Michael Straczynski or Tony Gilroy for the Halo universe?
In theory you can make any sci fi show about future humans and a couple other species going to war. Should be straightforward.
But getting the balance of that universe right in terms of little details is tricky: Halo has done the heavy lifting already.
Are they? I thought after the pro league failed it's transition to SC2 and the GSL ended that it mostly went to streaming platforms.
Same old story, right?
But getting the balance of technologies, motivations (e.g. jihad-dynamics), and nitty-gritty details (e.g. the splinter factions) right is the trick: it's much easier to do wrong than to do right.
For 12 years of rights.
But it is similar to Fallout in that it was able to break out of its universe. Andor is enjoyable even if one hates Star Wars; Fallout is enjoyable even if you dislike gaming.
Do you meam potential upcomimg game that may be vaporware for a decade or two?
so they switch course midway to focus at AI
It's like the entire company is only satisfied with being #1.
The whole thing is very confused and lacks consistency. The latest rumours are they are going to break up its Game Pass subscription offering so there are different subscriptions for multiplayer, cloud, games, etc. Isn't that the opposite of an effective subscription strategy?
Game revenues follow a power law type distribution so they're hurting indies and leaving money on the table.
Valve targeted the big releases / industry players specifically because the context in which Valve added that was where all the big players were making their own store fronts: EA Original/App Ubisoft launcher, Blizzard Battle.net. And Epic Game Store, where Ubisoft (or another big player I forget) was talking about abandoning their launcher for Epic which has a lower revenue cut like ~12%. So it seemed Valve made that change to shore up keeping the big industry players releasing on Steam.
Steam just sits back and takes money, for the most part. The hardware/software/advertising spend is probably a drop in the bucket compared to MS.
I think I understand why Microsoft costs are higher than others due to their a spending spree, so the break even is much higher.
You don't seem to understand the difference between the margins on a sale and the averaged margins once the studio development costs are included.
If the store takes 30% you are still left with 70% gross margins but if you have development costs, you maybe only have enough sales to break even or just barely be profitable. A 30% margin on the entire studio means the studio must produce guaranteed successes consistently.
It might also not be obvious but if Microsoft imposed 30% margins, those are a floor, whereas a fee reduces the ceiling. They are not the same even if we assume the target is met.
Only Xbox, the games console, is having a bad time, the publishing part is doing great with movie licenses, and all the studios that belong to Microsoft, regardless where they sell their games.
The next failure was Xbox Live. The video game market is a hit-based market with big tent-pole franchises doing large launches. For a modern example, look at the hype around GTA6. Launches sold games and exclusives sold consoles. Microsoft put huge game launches on Xbox Live for their relatively low monthly cost and lost millions on those launches.
They also bought a bunch of game studios which is a terrible strategy for a console maker. Meta made the same mistake with the Quest.
It's was never the lack of commitment to a strategy -- it was just having the wrong strategy to begin with.