Why would it take publisher approval to add games to a launcher? There are lots of third party launchers out there that aggregate your libraries across services.
Steam hosting a bajillion asset flip games and such probably skews those numbers a bit, to be fair. Iâd imagine itâs not quite 75% for âproperâ games. (But Steam obviously still dominates.)
Also curious to know if those stats include subscription downloads (Game Pass, EA, Ubi,) or just sales?
Unfortunately the source report is behind a $500 paywall, but the articles around it suggested downloads rather than purchases - ensuring that subscriptions, free-to-play and free from EGS games were all included.
Itâs only for the US market it seems - the UK is likely similar, Europe may skew differently and Asia Battle.net or regional launchers may have more of a foothold given the popularity of StarCraft etc. I guess
2 Likes
One game isnât enough to turn the tide and besides that the game is big on consoles not PC. Steam indeed has the market share but I think consoles have more share in the industry and if this platforms can convert them to PC they would compete very well with Steam.
To me when I look at the Microsoft PC store or Epic store they just seem empty even GOG and Battle.net. Steam has a very robust library that makes those others feel so empty. I think for example if the entire library of Xbox games were play Anywhere it would have a bigger market share and if they made their games exclusive they could emerge better. Steamâs dominance for example hasnât translated into the handheld space and outside PC is almost non existent. Content is key in the end and that matters in every way from the size to the quality of content. If Epic is to compete, they would need a robust library of content both in quality and size. Itâs funny Tencent owns 40% but doesnât really support the store with their games the way they do mobile. If Sonyâs PC app doesnât bring their console library, they might as well not even try but if they can bring their entire library to PC their console base will follow and that will be a big leg up for them. Epic would be better of hoping Xbox or the consoles support the store front system and give them a time window before other stores are allowed in.
Technically there are 3 different VM environments, perhaps 4. The two you mentioned and then the X360 Games. The 4th might be for the OG Xbox games.
2 Likes
Pretty sure the OG xbox games still run via the emulated 360s BC, unless that changed with the Series
third partys want double dipping sales
1 Like
So for those of you having issues accepting Xboxâs new strategy do you really think Xbox should after 20 years still try and compete 1 to 1 with Sony in a traditional Console model knowing Sonyâs brand allows them if they wanted to sell a box of shit to millions of people just cause the Box says âSonyâ and Xbox ends up 3rd place again or do you understand why they are pivoting to expand Xboxâs reach at a time when Console Hardware is completely stagnating and younger gamers think of Consoles as boomer gaming?
I think if Xbox did NOT change in the way they are that brand would be dead but by doing what MS is doing the Xbox eco system will live well past the concept of local hardware and dedicated gaming consoles.
For people interested in game preservation and a company that respects your purchases and will keep your game library active and available regardless of the hardware you use to access it Iâd say Xbox is a lot safer bet long term then companies still trying to push the old model of dedicated local hardware.
3 Likes
Yeah, thatâs the part where Iâm not sure. Itâs at least an adjusted process different from how X360 games are dealt with. Launching an OG Xbox Game does not show the X360 Boot Screen, it shows the OG Boot Logo and you donât login to Xbox Live again and you donât have the X360 Blades Dashboard interface during the game. If itâs using the X360 BC Emulator, itâs not run inside the X360 VM. Hopefully itâs possible to bring future enhancements to it with each newer set of hardware.
2 Likes
Should make the Xbox UI blades again for the hell of it
2 Likes
In all honesty, while I will never agree with Microsoftâs decision to port their games to Sony/Nintendo platforms, at this point, I donât really care what they do. What I do care about are the 13 games that im interested in from their already announced games roadmap. As long as these games are great or better for me, they can do whatever the hell they want which letâs be honest, theyâre going to do anyway so no point for me to go nuts or anything anymore. Just give me great or better first party games. Thatâs all im asking for at this point. 
1 Like
Same, I go where halo, gears, elder scrolls, and rest of Bethesda goes
2 Likes
I have thought about this and I can say with 100% honesty that I donât have any problems with Sony or Nintendo players enjoying Xbox games, because they will always be available on Xbox and on Game Pass, which is even better.
But I am also realistic, this could make Xbox consoles sales even worse and therefore make third party support even worse.
That is where I am losing as a Xbox console player. That is the gist of it.
5 Likes
Iâm curious about achievements lasting too
1 Like
I feel like the talk about PC software support serving as a âfall backâ mitigates any potential loss in third party support. It wonât be a purely native Xbox experience so there are still some negatives with that, but Iâd be more than willing to give up stuff for much better game access. I know people have different priorities though, and some will place that console/ecosystem experience above game selection.
3 Likes
This reminds me of something - if the next Xbox has the Steam storefront on it and you can download the games after purchasing them from Steam, wouldnât there have to be different variations of the next Xbox specification wise? One at $500 for minimum specifications with low/medium settings and one at maybe $1500 for recommended settings with medium/high settings? And so forth?
Not necessarily, they could still have a single fixed spec.
True but the specifications would have to be pretty beefy to get high settings which also means that it could be very expensive.
Why assume theyâd run high settings? I think theyâll just put together a spec based on what makes sense for price/power (like normal) and the settings you could use would vary by game. Some games in the future may not even be playable.
While less console sales and less third party support could be a thing, I think MS is going to counter that by spending less money on exclusivity and more on Game Pass deals and development. Like for example we can assume Sony is spending a small fortune on Final Fantasy exclusivity. Yet are they making that money back in increased console sales? Is FF better off? Wouldnât the market be better if Sony spent that money on game development, and FF being free to release everywhere?
2 Likes