As the former lead of CoreAI at Microsoft steps in to replace Spencer, the question remains. What does the future of Xbox with AI look like?
So, who exactly is she? Well, externally, she’s the former VP of Product and Engineering at Meta, CEO of Instacart, and current board member for Coupang and Home Depot. She only recently came to Microsoft in 2024 as the President of CoreAI. Don’t worry, if you’re double-checking to see if any of that is related to gaming in some sort of way, let me save you the trouble; it’s not.
well. The console network fees fund infrastructure
I mean where they spend the money is irrelevant. If I rob you, is it suddenly okay if I spend your money responsibly? No.
PC has had online multiplayer since the creation of the internet, and PC did it without ever having a fee on top of internet access.
I would also argue that playstation plus membership fees, with all their millions of dollars, have not created a better environment than what available on PC for free, so…
So it’s ok to pay money for infrastructure for your car to use, but when you have to pay for the infrastructure for your video games it’s robbery? Now I feel like you’re the one being arbitrary.
PC has had online multiplayer since the creation of the internet
This tells me you weren’t around for the early days of PC gaming. On the contrary, PC gaming went through a couple phases when it came to online multiplayer. Early multiplayer games often didn’t have matchmaking or dedicated server discovery at all, then there was the Gamespy era where a bunch of games delegated their multiplayer matchmaking to a third party with limited functionality and ads unless you paid a premium subscription.
It was the game consoles that really fixed multiplayer early on with their party systems that persisted outside of each game. Today Steam has similar functionality, but Valve is just eating those costs, just as Sony used to. Difference is Valve doesn’t have to sell you your computer at a loss, they they can have loss leaders like that in different areas.
but when you have to pay for the infrastructure for your video games it’s robbery?
We already discussed this. The Playstation Plus subscription isnt paying for internet infrastructure. PC has no monthly fee, and it’s infrastructure is exactly the same.
This tells me you weren’t around for the early days of PC gaming
Oh I was… So Xbox game pass released in 2002, PlayStation followed much later in 2010.
In 2002 Warcraft 3’s multiplayer was fine. In 2002 Battlefield 1942 was fine; It was a good as Halo’s multiplayer, which somehow ALSO had fine multiplayer at release in 2001 despite the subscription service for multiplayer not until a year after the game had already launched.
It was the game consoles that really fixed multiplayer early on with their party systems that persisted outside of each game.
Even if I gave you that, the subscription “fee” isn’t what fixed multiplayer design, that was fixed by… Game developers.
We already discussed this. The Playstation Plus subscription isnt paying for internetMultiplayer infrastructure.
It is. The party system, voice chat services, and the ability to join on or invite friends in a universal way regardless of the game without having to make an account for that game all requires expensive infrastructure and manpower to build and maintain.
Oh I was… So Xbox game pass released in 2002, PlayStation followed much later in 2010.
Xbox GamePass released in 2017 and has nothing to do with multiplayer. The multiplayer service Xbox live released in 2002 and PlayStation followed in 2006. You’re not beating the allegations.
the subscription “fee” isn’t what fixed multiplayer design, that was fixed by… Game developers.
Game developers were uninvolved in the fix for multiplayer design. Game developers are unsurprisingly, only involved in the development of their game. The reliable third party social systems were designed by engineers at Xbox and Sony, and on the PC side at Valve. Multiplayer existed on consoles prior to Xbox Live and PlayStation Network, but just like their PC counterpart, it was clunky, unintuitive, and inconsistent between games. The PlayStation network and XBL were created as a direct result of those issues.
It is. The party system, voice chat services, and the ability to join on or invite friends in a universal way regardless of the game without having to make an account for that game all requires expensive infrastructure and manpower to build and maintain.
Yeah sorry, what is this… Like the third time I’ve stated this? PC did all of the things you’re claiming without an extra subscription fee. Sure, maybe Xbox took some subscription fees and funded infrastructure, that’s not my point. My point is they didn’t need to, as evidenced by someone else who did the exact same thing without the subscription model.
Playstation and Xbox, as a publicly traded hardware and software company, are much more pressured to discover and capture extraneous revenue sources; and the vast majority of the subscription income went to investors. Maybe it’s helpful to point out that Valve doesn’t have public investors, and the vast majority of game development companies also don’t have investors. The simplest solution here is that the subscription fee was created out greed, not necessity.
Yeah sorry, what is this… Like the third time I’ve stated this? PC did all of the things you’re claiming without an extra subscription fee.
It did not do all those things. Not until very recently, and only through Steam. You can say it as many times as you want, that doesn’t make it true lol.
My point is they didn’t need to, as evidenced by someone else who did the exact same thing without the subscription model.
Sony did it for awhile without the subscription model too. Thats not evidence that they didn’t need to. The cost of infrastructure needed to maintain this model has gone up in the last 25 years with more players, higher expectations, and added complexity contributing to more manpower and higher salary expectations.
A free service doesn’t scale very well when it gets exponentially more expensive to maintain as time goes on. Sony was able to subsidize that service at one point in time but very understandably they can’t do that in the big 26. They already sell the hardware at a loss, if they continued to provide that infrastructure for free, leaving them only with commission on PS store sales, but also we don’t want them to take that big a cut from game developers, and we want them to still provide disk drives so we can buy and share games outside their store, and also we don’t want them to buy studios and make games exclusive to their platform… like corporate greed is one thing but also god forbid we just pay a reasonable price for the things we use.
Valve on the other hand doesn’t have to worry about this because they were never in the hardware game to begin with, and now with the Steam Machine they’ve already confirmed they’re not subsidizing hardware.
Now you’re being a bit unfair by bundling together console hardware and software while keeping PC hardware and software separate.
To be fair you would need to take into account every available piece of software to make the determination if those features were available for PC before, at the same time, or after consoles.
If I had to guess I’d say that in 90% of cases the innovation occured on PC due to it being an open ecosystem with freely available development hardware and higher numbers of developers. Big successful companies generally don’t come up with big new good ideas, they steal them from other products that have already been proven.
But let’s just looks at this differently. In 2004 the Microsoft video game division reported profits of 2.75 billion. The Xbox live service reported 750,000 subscribers each paying $50 a year, or $37,500,000. The absence of Xbox live would have reduced Microsoft game divisions profits from 2.75 billion to 2.71 billion. Basically a rounding error. Microsoft could have easily funded any of the developments absent the subscription just as Playstation did for years later; just as PC does until this day
To be fair you would need to take into account every available piece of software to make the determination if those features were available for PC before, at the same time, or after consoles
Taking into account every available piece of software, those features appeared on PC 15 years or so after consoles. And only really achieved similar feature parity with early consoles in 2018, and only if you buy all your games from Steam.
Big successful companies generally don’t come up with big new good ideas, they steal them from other products that have already been proven.
In this case the PC company Valve “stole” them from Xbox and Sony. That doesn’t really help your argument at all here, on the contrary it just goes to show how much easier valve has had it as all they’ve had to do is follow a blueprint, keeping their costs lower which uniquely helps them subsidize them.
In 2004 the Microsoft video game division reported profits of 2.75 billion.
In 2004 the Xbox division of Microsoft reported $0 in profits. Xbox division became profitable for the first time in 2008. Know what was the driving force behind that sustained profitability?
Do I really need to tell you the answer or do you think you can guess?
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Rules
1. Submissions have to be related to games
Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.
This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.
2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.
We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.
3. No excessive self-promotion
Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.
This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.
4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you’re submitting before posting to see if it’s already been posted.
We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.
5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW
Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.
No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.
6. No linking to piracy
Don’t share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.
We don’t want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.
I mean where they spend the money is irrelevant. If I rob you, is it suddenly okay if I spend your money responsibly? No.
PC has had online multiplayer since the creation of the internet, and PC did it without ever having a fee on top of internet access.
I would also argue that playstation plus membership fees, with all their millions of dollars, have not created a better environment than what available on PC for free, so…
So it’s ok to pay money for infrastructure for your car to use, but when you have to pay for the infrastructure for your video games it’s robbery? Now I feel like you’re the one being arbitrary.
This tells me you weren’t around for the early days of PC gaming. On the contrary, PC gaming went through a couple phases when it came to online multiplayer. Early multiplayer games often didn’t have matchmaking or dedicated server discovery at all, then there was the Gamespy era where a bunch of games delegated their multiplayer matchmaking to a third party with limited functionality and ads unless you paid a premium subscription.
It was the game consoles that really fixed multiplayer early on with their party systems that persisted outside of each game. Today Steam has similar functionality, but Valve is just eating those costs, just as Sony used to. Difference is Valve doesn’t have to sell you your computer at a loss, they they can have loss leaders like that in different areas.
We already discussed this. The Playstation Plus subscription isnt paying for internet infrastructure. PC has no monthly fee, and it’s infrastructure is exactly the same.
Oh I was… So Xbox game pass released in 2002, PlayStation followed much later in 2010.
In 2002 Warcraft 3’s multiplayer was fine. In 2002 Battlefield 1942 was fine; It was a good as Halo’s multiplayer, which somehow ALSO had fine multiplayer at release in 2001 despite the subscription service for multiplayer not until a year after the game had already launched.
Even if I gave you that, the subscription “fee” isn’t what fixed multiplayer design, that was fixed by… Game developers.
It is. The party system, voice chat services, and the ability to join on or invite friends in a universal way regardless of the game without having to make an account for that game all requires expensive infrastructure and manpower to build and maintain.
Xbox GamePass released in 2017 and has nothing to do with multiplayer. The multiplayer service Xbox live released in 2002 and PlayStation followed in 2006. You’re not beating the allegations.
Game developers were uninvolved in the fix for multiplayer design. Game developers are unsurprisingly, only involved in the development of their game. The reliable third party social systems were designed by engineers at Xbox and Sony, and on the PC side at Valve. Multiplayer existed on consoles prior to Xbox Live and PlayStation Network, but just like their PC counterpart, it was clunky, unintuitive, and inconsistent between games. The PlayStation network and XBL were created as a direct result of those issues.
Yeah sorry, what is this… Like the third time I’ve stated this? PC did all of the things you’re claiming without an extra subscription fee. Sure, maybe Xbox took some subscription fees and funded infrastructure, that’s not my point. My point is they didn’t need to, as evidenced by someone else who did the exact same thing without the subscription model.
Playstation and Xbox, as a publicly traded hardware and software company, are much more pressured to discover and capture extraneous revenue sources; and the vast majority of the subscription income went to investors. Maybe it’s helpful to point out that Valve doesn’t have public investors, and the vast majority of game development companies also don’t have investors. The simplest solution here is that the subscription fee was created out greed, not necessity.
It did not do all those things. Not until very recently, and only through Steam. You can say it as many times as you want, that doesn’t make it true lol.
Sony did it for awhile without the subscription model too. Thats not evidence that they didn’t need to. The cost of infrastructure needed to maintain this model has gone up in the last 25 years with more players, higher expectations, and added complexity contributing to more manpower and higher salary expectations.
A free service doesn’t scale very well when it gets exponentially more expensive to maintain as time goes on. Sony was able to subsidize that service at one point in time but very understandably they can’t do that in the big 26. They already sell the hardware at a loss, if they continued to provide that infrastructure for free, leaving them only with commission on PS store sales, but also we don’t want them to take that big a cut from game developers, and we want them to still provide disk drives so we can buy and share games outside their store, and also we don’t want them to buy studios and make games exclusive to their platform… like corporate greed is one thing but also god forbid we just pay a reasonable price for the things we use.
Valve on the other hand doesn’t have to worry about this because they were never in the hardware game to begin with, and now with the Steam Machine they’ve already confirmed they’re not subsidizing hardware.
Now you’re being a bit unfair by bundling together console hardware and software while keeping PC hardware and software separate.
To be fair you would need to take into account every available piece of software to make the determination if those features were available for PC before, at the same time, or after consoles.
If I had to guess I’d say that in 90% of cases the innovation occured on PC due to it being an open ecosystem with freely available development hardware and higher numbers of developers. Big successful companies generally don’t come up with big new good ideas, they steal them from other products that have already been proven.
But let’s just looks at this differently. In 2004 the Microsoft video game division reported profits of 2.75 billion. The Xbox live service reported 750,000 subscribers each paying $50 a year, or $37,500,000. The absence of Xbox live would have reduced Microsoft game divisions profits from 2.75 billion to 2.71 billion. Basically a rounding error. Microsoft could have easily funded any of the developments absent the subscription just as Playstation did for years later; just as PC does until this day
Taking into account every available piece of software, those features appeared on PC 15 years or so after consoles. And only really achieved similar feature parity with early consoles in 2018, and only if you buy all your games from Steam.
In this case the PC company Valve “stole” them from Xbox and Sony. That doesn’t really help your argument at all here, on the contrary it just goes to show how much easier valve has had it as all they’ve had to do is follow a blueprint, keeping their costs lower which uniquely helps them subsidize them.
In 2004 the Xbox division of Microsoft reported $0 in profits. Xbox division became profitable for the first time in 2008. Know what was the driving force behind that sustained profitability?
Do I really need to tell you the answer or do you think you can guess?
Okay. Pick a gaming feature that you believe was created by console manufacturers from 2002-present.