In an interview with Microsoft’s CEO of Gaming during the annual Game Developers Conference, Spencer told Polygon about the ways he’d like to break down the walled gardens that have historically limited players to making purchases through the first-party stores tied to each console. Or, in layperson terms, why you should be able to buy games from other stores on Xbox — not just the official storefront.
Spencer mentioned his frustrations with closed ecosystems, so we asked for clarity. Could he really see a future where stores like Itch.io and Epic Games Store existed on Xbox? Was it just a matter of figuring out mountains of paperwork to get there?
Chris Plante at Polygon
The answer is yes, Spencer claims. I don’t know how realistic any of this is, but to me it makes perfect sense, and the gaming world has been moving towards it for a while now. At the moment, I’m doing something thought unthinkable until very recently: I’m playing a major Sony PlayStation exclusive, Horizon: Forbidden West, on PC, through Steam on Linux. Sony has been making its major exclusives available on Steam in recent years, and while seeing these games on Xbox might be a bit too much to ask, I wouldn’t be surprised to see storefronts from companies who don’t make game consoles pop up on the Xbox and PlayStation.
Games have become so expensive to make that limiting them to a single console just doesn’t make any commercial sense. Why limit your audience?
They are now trying to look for an exit, as their hardware is not selling as good as they hoped.
To be fair, the predictions are not good for Sony side either. In terms of consoles sold, PS5 is expected to be less than the PS4 from previous generation. And yes, Xbox Series could stop at slightly above 50% of their own previous generation.
So, they have two options (or three):
1. Drop the hardware. But this means they also lose the lucrative services and 3rd party software sales, along with the highly marked up accessory market.
2. Open the hardware. This sounds like the first one, as the alternative stores will prevent their 30% cut, but they don’t need to actually go so far to make it a generic Windows gaming system, but rather enable stores selectively.
And bonus: Go Mobile: There is a lot of chatter for a mobile Xbox, and I would be first on the line to buy it. The recent AMD Z1 Extreme chipset found in handhelds like ASUS Rog Ally, or Lenovo Legion Go is already powerful enough to run this gen games, and has actually more features than the PS5 or Xbox Series (RDNA3 vs partial RDNA2 on the consoles). This could usher a new desire to buy more Xbox hardware. However this would probably be bundled with (2) as well.
I can only imagine that a mobile Xbox is going to be a walled garden – more Xbox than Steam Deck. This would put it at an EXTREME disadvantage compared with Steam Deck or Rog Ally or any of the other handhelds that can run Windows, or an alternative OS. For me, mobile Xbox is dead on arrival.
Then again, I almost didn’t buy a PS3 or PS4, never owned any Xboxes, and don’t plan to buy a PS5. Now that PCs are finally mature enough to run in the living room (due largely to SteamOS/proton/gamescope), why would I ever opt for a closed box that some manufacturer controls?
What could MS do to get me to buy Xbox? They’d need to allow an alternative OS. Even if they “opened up” Xbox by allowing Windows on it – I just don’t trust them.
I really wish Valve would try again with a Steam Box – something like SteamDeck, just more powerful meant for living room. I suspect they are trying to play nice with Sony, but I don’t see why they should care. A mass produced box similar to PS5 (standardized, fast, inexpensive) running SteamOS for TVs would be absolutely perfect. it’s true that you can build a PC – but that is lacking the simplicity and cost effectiveness of a mass produced box (see GPU prices…).
Microsoft can do what they like; I will not support the Xbox platform or brand again after what they wanted to pull on gamers with the Xbox One.
As for Valve, they had the right idea and are definitely onto something with the Steam Deck. After all this time, the Windows interface is still absolutely terrible on any mobile device that has a small screen and no physical keyboard. This has clearly opened an entry point for a new platform that can play PC games and is explicitly designed with the portable form factor in mind, e.g. navigable with a gamepad and having larger fonts/buttons, which is exactly how the custom software from Lenovo on my Legion Go works, and where the brilliance of the Steam deck also fits in.
Mobile gaming will probably be the next thing that Microsoft misses, after the smartphone and the tablet. If I were Valve, I would be marketing Steam OS very hard to device manufacturers to conquer the shiny, new mobile PC gaming market before (if) Microsoft wakes up and provides an appropriately navigable/usable interface in Windows.
The only reason I got the Legion Go instead of the Steam Deck is the more powerful hardware and the larger screen.
kdb,
I think one of the reasons steam isn’t on mobile (beyond remote screen sharing) is that apple blocks competing app stores. If it weren’t for such restrictions, I believe we would already have multi-platform mobile app stores promoting portable apps and I also believe they would be extremely popular with users. Having an unencumbered app store could even pave the way to other new hardware platforms. It’s hard to imagine a future beyond today’s absolute duopoly, but de-tethering applications from device specific app stores is a key step.
Sometimes the world needs to hear the “I told you so!”!!
People forget the past. Epic started as a sick leach. Publishing indi games and taking 80%, 90%, or more of the sale cost.
They have never had good intentions for anyone other than the company.
First Apple, then Google; now Microsoft…
My opinions left out of it, epic wants complete control over every aspect of the game. For one reason, loot boxes, aka slot machines for kids.
Total complete billing control, content control, aspect control…
lostinlodos,
That’s what all capitalistic companies want. They are *all* guilty of this greed. But the ideal free market does not actually try to eliminate the greed, it simply provides us with sufficient choices to keep markets efficient. When people get to meaningfully vote with their wallets and companies are forced to compete for those dollars, then the level of greed self regulates. In a free market prices naturally follow supply and demand, but only in efficient markets… not in oligopolies or monopolies.
While I am a believer in free markets, problems do arise when too few companies become dominant. They start being able to control the market without fearing competitive repercussions. Without real choices & competition, capitalistic ideals start to fail turning into a dystopian nightmare. Greed is no longer balanced by the need to stay competitive and companies shift their efforts to market control strategies. This is always a disaster for consumers.
I fully support your choice not to buy through Epic. I say go vote with your wallet! But they’re not the root cause of the market’s greed and stagnation, that is the result of abusive market restrictions that have kept competitors out of the market. If you want to keep corporate greed in check, and as a consumer you should, then we need more competition.
I get where you’re going with that. And it wasn’t my point to head into that.
More, nearly all in media have framed this as big evil apple stepping on poor little epic.
Epic is a devious … uh.
It was not about “choice”! It was about direct access to payment to bypass Apple’s child protection system.
Now they are looking to do the same with other services.
From a business standpoint, it’s smart. Remove the layer of buffer and mediation in payments.
But news in general needs to pick up on that aspect. Because it’s very real and very clear to anyone who knows Epic’s history and how payment systems work.
lostinlodos,
To me it’s not about apple vs epic and nothing else. Both of them are asses. Rather it’s about these companies competing on merit without the presumption that they can control the market without the need to be competitive. This can only happen if regulators force them to cease all abusive market tactics that tax competitors and/or prevent consumers from having a freedom of choice.
It’s not apple’s business to police other competitors. Say Bank A has a program to protect children and Bank B does not. That may well be a selling point for Bank A that consumers factor in, but ultimately it does not grant Bank A cart blanche to interfere with consumers who want to use Bank B. Same goes for Apple.
/quite
It’s not apple’s business to police other competitors. Say Bank A has a program to protect children and Bank B does not. That may well be a selling point for Bank A that consumers factor in, but ultimately it does not grant Bank A cart blanche to interfere with consumers who want to use Bank B. Same goes for Apple.
That’s the primary point. Currently payments are processed by the platform. Be it Apple App Store or Xbox store etc.
these platforms have always been single pay by design. (Mind you developers agreed to that as well).
The question is if they should be allowed to circumvent the design with a separate payment function.
I’m actually ok with that as long as it’s A) very clear to the end user that they are not using Apple or Microsoft or whatever, and B) the option can be locked out completely by the user in settings.
The premise of these single-pay systems in general is a first line of defence built in for payment issues.
A single contact for all concerns. And the vast majority of developers appreciate that just as much as the vast majority of consumers. It reduces overhead support costs considerably.
That said, some developers (eg Spotify) have legitimate concerns. Other predatory companies (eg epic) want the ability to abuse.
The solution is quite easy. Allow 3rd party options, as above, and mandate the ability to use either.
What you don’t do is take away the main selling point of the device, security and security.
I fear ignorant regulators will simply open the flood gates and in doing so make the world a more dangerous place. That’s how antitrust works out historically. The consumer never wins. It’s always worse the the public in the end.
Developers didn’t “agree”, they were forced. Apple literally blockings competitors from implementing their own NFC payment stack. Apple doesn’t get the benefit of saying “oh look, everyone’s using our payment API” as a justification for blocking competing processors. That type to tautological argument doesn’t fly when it comes to antitrust.
I’m glad we can agree on this, but apple disagrees with us. They want to monopolize transactions, which is why regulators must step in to allow alternatives to compete.
Apple can do what it wants with it’s services, but they must not deny users the right to make their own choices. Obviously that’s the reason these antitrust lawsuits are happening.