Xbox CEO just gives up

[Rozalia1]

2 hours ago, dimonemt said:

All i care about is the fact that they are enjoying backwards compatibility and we are not.

 

 

I think Jim Ryan was speaking his mind there. And also Phil Spencer sitting down and candidly answering tough questions in a lengthy interview during one of the worst weeks for his company is the opposite of being "fully trained PR man". PR men like that usually hide behind twitter jpegs.

 

The reality is the people who'd go play those games are a tiny minority and as I stated to you, PlayStation is not a money pit like Xbox. Jim Ryan has basically nothing to do with the matter and I'm sure had he been the boss during the PS3 era he wouldn't have gone with the Cell (which was an expensive gamble) so this wouldn't have become an issue.

 

Yes, this interview was especially notable because Spencer was a broken man largely unable to be as he normally is. Normally he is very good at the PR game, granted he is also backed by the Microsoft astroturfing machine. This is another thing I really shouldn't have to be explaining. Spencer being a a slick PR man is a well known thing.

Edited May 8, 2023 by Beyondthegrave07
Don't feed the trolling

[dimonemt]

15 minutes ago, Ashande said:

You want to talk about facts? Facts are that Xbox Series has had three exclusives. One jumped ship almost immediately (The Medium). One’s okay, but very much AA and lacking mass-market appeal (Hi-Fi Rush). The last is a bloody disaster that someone should have looked at before launch and said “Uh, hey, boss? This is… pretty terrible.” (Redfall.)

Hi-Fi Rush was very fun actually and i've always avoided rhythm based games before it came around. Redfall did not appeal to me from the start, and being a bad game it's a hard pass. Have you heard about Immortality? It's a game from the creator of Telling Lies and Her Story. One of the best games of 2022 for me. Sam Barlow, the creator and director is very tight lipped for now about possible PlayStation release, but if it does come out, i cannot recommend it enough.

As Dusk Falls is a first party game the likes of the Dark Pictures anthology, but grounded in reality. Definitely not a system seller, but worth checking out on pc.

That's about it, that's all they've put up this generation.

[dimonemt]

2 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

 

The reality is the people who'd go play those games are a tiny minority and as I stated to you, PlayStation is not a money pit like Xbox. Jim Ryan has basically nothing to do with the matter and I'm sure had he been the boss during the PS3 era he wouldn't have gone with the Cell (which was an expensive gamble) so this wouldn't have become an issue.

 

Yes, this interview was especially notable because Spencer was a broken man largely unable to be as he normally is. Normally he is very good at the PR game, granted he is also backed by the Microsoft astroturfing machine. This is another thing I really shouldn't have to be explaining. Spencer being a a slick PR man is a well known thing.

 

I see your point. To sum things up. Imo Jim Ryan is great for Sony's business, but bad for players, my concern is that Sony might fall into an arrogant state again, just as they were around launch of PS3. We already seeing that as they are raising prices on their hardware and software, while denying us promised features such as 3d audio for home theater systems. In order to avoid all this I'm rooting for a healthy competition, that will push PlayStation to innovate and improve. At this point Microsoft is the only direct competitor of theirs, who is fighting an uphill battle right now, and i don't want it to fail for the reasons stated above.

Edited May 8, 2023 by dimonemt

[ElektrickRage]

Fire his ass! But seriously I knew Xbox was going down hill ever since Bungie stopped making games exclusively for them and when Halo 4 came out I was disappointed and switched to PlayStation. They have released shit all over all these years. Like WTF are they doing? Sitting on their hands?

[AJ_-_808]

1 hour ago, dimonemt said:

All i care about is the fact that they are enjoying backwards compatibility and we are not.

Buy a ps3 if you're so concerned about backwards compatibility.  Most people aren't buying a ps5 to play old games

[Beyondthegrave07]

I removed some off topic posts of just people going in circles about Nintendo.  Please take it to a PM or start another topic specifically on Nintendo. It doesn't belong here and only derails the thread.

[dimonemt]

26 minutes ago, AJ_-_808 said:

Buy a ps3 if you're so concerned about backwards compatibility.  Most people aren't buying a ps5 to play old games

 

I have two of them at home, and this is not what backwards compatibility is all about.

This is:

 

 

 

[AJ_-_808]

4 hours ago, dimonemt said:

 

I have two of them at home, and this is not what backwards compatibility is all about.

This is:

 

 

 

 

Looks nicer on newer system that can upscale it? Shocking.

 

You've already been told repeatedly about the ps3 cell architecture

 

Nevermind. Feeding the troll.  I should probably know better considering you're citing Bethesda as a first party studio

Edited May 8, 2023 by AJ_-_808

[Sikutai]

 

I would have bought an Xbox a long time ago if there was a common trophy and game collection list.

[Vault-TecPhantom]

2 hours ago, Sikutai said:

 

I would have bought an Xbox a long time ago if there was a common trophy and game collection list.

 

In some ways I'm glad there isn't. It gives me the incentive to replay games I really want to replay by getting all the achievements for them again on my series X. Plus its backwards compatibility extends to the 360 as well which means you can download games from there rather than tolerate poor stream quality. Plus the series X has a frame rate boost for a lot of the old games as well so you get to experience them all again in 60fps.

[dimonemt]

4 hours ago, AJ_-_808 said:

You've already been told repeatedly about the ps3 cell architecture

 

Nevermind. Feeding the troll.

 

There are previous posts of mine that address this very issue.

Also the only reason I've posted these videos is the fact that you don't seem to know what backwards compatibility is.

[ExHaseo]

On 5/6/2023 at 3:14 AM, mcnichoj said:

Daily reminder the people that go on the internet and proclaim that consoles need exclusives are a minority. The majority of people buying consoles just pick the one that has their favorite button pictures, mostly play multiplats and don't go on the internet to talk about video games.

 

You waited till about the time they dropped the New 3DS to get the console? You missed out on a lot of great games.

And where's any kind of proof of this? Everyone I know who plays on console, does so for exclusives. Everyone else plays in PC. Even then, most do so because of PC exclusive games, the rest because they prefer mouse and keyboard.

 

Also, if this was remotely true, Nintendo wouldn't be successful at all, and Sony wouldn't have such a commanding lead. The split between PS and Xbox would be significantly closer if people didn't care about exclusives. Sony also wouldn't be taking a loss on exclusives if they weren't doing anything.

 

And fun fact, when a game comes out, it's out forever. You can't "miss" a game by getting a console later during it's life cycle. Except in very limited cases where something is delisted. Until the end of a console's life, that's generally reserved for licensed games specifically anyway. Even then, the 3DS released in 2011, KHDDD released in 2012, the new 3DS didn't get released until 2015. I got one before most people did. I missed the cutoff for the ambassador program by a month, and it was largely considered a failure at the time, because so few people were buying them. Largely because it didn't have many good games yet.

[majob]

20 hours ago, dimonemt said:

I agree, Sony definitely took and implemented the worst from Microsoft. I was hoping for PS3 backwards compatibility.

I don't know about that. It seems to me that Sony pulled every dirty money trick this generation under Jim Ryan: Immediately jumping on 70$ games bandwagon, charging 10$ for PS5 upgrades, raising prices for PS5 in every market they can get away with it and so on. There will be no other competitor to PlayStation other then Xbox in the foreseeable future. Personally i would take Phil Spencer over current PS c.e.o. Can't wait for Jim Ryan to be gone.

I honestly have to wonder if economics is still taught in today's school system. Games are $70 now due to inflation, nothing stays the same price forever and that $70 is still cheaper than what we used to have to pay during the SNES/Genesis era. My older brother would literally spend his entire check buying one game during those days. Plus people act like discounts and sales aren't a thing. The PS5 price went up in other countries because their currency dropped in value so the price rise was done to ensure it matched the US dollar. People whine about companies being greedy but this isn't one of those cases.

Edited May 8, 2023 by majob

[starcrunch061]

21 hours ago, yowzagabowza said:

I agree Sony needs a competitor, but not one who races to the bottom. 

 

Agreed. I've put my hopes on MS to put out a competitive product for years now, and they've done nothing but let me down. 

 

16 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

What your words imply is the idea that Microsoft/Xbox cares more about games than Sony/PlayStation because Jim Ryan did a gaff on one of his rare interviews because he ain't a fully trained PR man like Spencer is.

 

Sony needs to invest in a fully trained PR man. Jim Ryan comes off as a dumbass in his (admittedly rare) interviews, and there's no reason to piss off people. To his credit, though, he has kept his mouth shut recently. 

[Dinniestar]

the reason which annoys me the most is good games aren't the main reason people buy a console 

 

I bought a console to watch Netflix on my smart tv 

 

of course its for the games its all about games and best place to play them for someone so high up in xbox very out of touch with whole industry 

 

xbox needs to actually employ good studios to make decent games not just trying to buy up everything and anything so were all forced onto system 

 

it should be my choice to  go to xbox not be forced to do it (even though it would never happen)

[starcrunch061]

12 minutes ago, majob said:

I honestly have to wonder if economics is still taught in today's school system. Games are $70 now due to inflation, nothing stays the same price forever and that $70 is still cheaper than what we used to have to pay during the SNES/Genesis era. 

 

Misleading. Game hardware was significantly more expensive during the SNES/Genesis era. Cartridges were not cheap. Remember that when PS1 came out, one of the big draws was the fact that the games were significantly cheaper than what had been on offer, and what was on offer currently. 

 

There's nothing wrong with raising prices, but there's also nothing wrong with questioning every aspect of such a price hike. Yes -inflation is a thing. But profits themselves are at record levels. 

[majob]

36 minutes ago, starcrunch061 said:

 

Misleading. Game hardware was significantly more expensive during the SNES/Genesis era. Cartridges were not cheap. Remember that when PS1 came out, one of the big draws was the fact that the games were significantly cheaper than what had been on offer, and what was on offer currently. 

 

There's nothing wrong with raising prices, but there's also nothing wrong with questioning every aspect of such a price hike. Yes -inflation is a thing. But profits themselves are at record levels. 

Very true I will admit but compare a full priced game from the beginning of the CD era with today's money.

 

 

And while profits are up, so are costs, which is why prices have followed suite. I'm not saying any and all price increases are justified but in this case they were inevitable 

Edited May 8, 2023 by majob

[dimonemt]

1 hour ago, majob said:

People whine about companies being greedy but this isn't one of those cases.

 

I hope you are right about that, but time will tell.

Edited May 8, 2023 by dimonemt

[Rozalia1]

Thank you to @Beyondthegrave07 for dealing with that.

 

1 hour ago, starcrunch061 said:

Agreed. I've put my hopes on MS to put out a competitive product for years now, and they've done nothing but let me down. 

 

Sony needs to invest in a fully trained PR man. Jim Ryan comes off as a dumbass in his (admittedly rare) interviews, and there's no reason to piss off people. To his credit, though, he has kept his mouth shut recently. 

 

I don't agree. While he has done some gaffs Jim Ryan largely doesn't speak up unlike Spencer who you constantly hear from. That is actually very good for Sony because Microsoft as stated has a massive astroturfing machine to twist anything he might say into a negative. For example, do you remember the whole "crying Jim Ryan" stuff? That Jim Ryan was a liar out there saying Microsoft getting CoD was going to hurt their business heavily, that accepting the bad deal (that Microsoft kept secret until just recently) would cause PS Plus prices to go up, so forth. Microsoft before and after that did much more extensive talk about how they suck, Sony is out to destroy them, so forth. To not even get into stuff like trying to get US officials to get Sony's exclusivity contracts banned. And yet... there was nowhere near the amount of online activity over all of that. How can that be when as Microsoft even admits PlayStation has more than double the fans and is a stronger and more beloved brand that has actually been serving its customers? Astroturfing. They have literal Xbots, low level shills, high level shills (many claim being independent/neutral) they either directly employ (that Florian Mueller guy for example has been known to be a Microsoft owned shill for ages) or shower with gifts/interviews/and the like.

 

 

This in essence is Jim Ryan's response to what you've said and I agree with it. Both PlayStation and Nintendo's bosses rarely speak up because it ain't really the role of the "king" to go down to some random local town meeting. Both PlayStation and Nintendo let their actions (the games) speak for themselves and they're heavily successful for it. Spencer meanwhile does the PR because he can't let Xbox's actions speak for themselves.

 

1 hour ago, majob said:

I honestly have to wonder if economics is still taught in today's school system. Games are $70 now due to inflation, nothing stays the same price forever and that $70 is still cheaper than what we used to have to pay during the SNES/Genesis era. My older brother would literally spend his entire check buying one game during those days. Plus people act like discounts and sales aren't a thing. The PS5 price went up in other countries because their currency dropped in value so the price rise was done to ensure it matched the US dollar. People whine about companies being greedy but this isn't one of those cases.

 

It was inevitable pretty much. To include Xbox in that discussion in case anyone missed it. When Sony announced the increase (they weren't the 1st by the way as that is often stated) Xbox came out with PR that they weren't going to the same and blah blah blah, good guy Microsoft. They gave it what? Two months? And came out that they were going to do it too as it was untenable to not do so. Cherry on top was that you couldn't even say that the delay at least meant some people got games cheaper as they didn't release any games during that period, Redfall actually being the first game to come out at the new higher price (really selling the price increase).

[automechtech1]

On 5/6/2023 at 11:52 AM, Rozalia1 said:

 

What exactly is "console wars" about the OP? We can't bring up what Xbox's boss said now? As I stated, Xbox from its fans real or otherwise to its very management engages in the console wars like no one else. As such please spare the rest of us with this "don't pick on Microsoft" stuff.

 

Taking risks and having diversity is a point he makes that goes towards expanding Gamepass across many devices, the idea that if you have diverse offerings then you can reach the maximum amount of people. What he said about good games not changing market share related to the Xbox console itself.

 

Though as you want to talk further context. It wasn't in the OP because again, didn't want to colour it with my own comments, but the exact language he used involving bringing up these good games not making people sell their PS5s. Why indeed would Xbox putting out good games make people sell their PS5s exactly? Freudian slip as they say. The strategy Microsoft has had of attempting to buy out large amounts of the third party market is being followed not to add value to Xbox, that is secondary and will be largely thrown away the moment they no longer need it as most of their games simply aren't profitable (largely due to Gamepass), it is being done to take away value from PlayStation.

Criticism is fair game, but when you fill your post with sensationalist nonsense like "Xbox CEO just gives up" surely you can understand why it's easy to doubt the faithfulness of your arguments. Also, stop using a fallacious argument "Well the other guys do it too!" as any sort of defense. I am in no way saying you can't construct a discussion around Microsoft's and Xbox's failures, so stop pretending that my disagreeing with you somehow translates to anything close to "don't pick on Microsoft".

 

Yes, you are correct about the specific contexts for the comments on Game Pass and selling Xbox consoles. But within the larger context, Game Pass is a cornerstone to Xbox's strategy on console as well as other devices. And what Phil Spencer said isn't incorrect; good games alone aren't going to magically change their positioning in the console market. Nintendo carved out their own market with the Switch, and there's not much chance that Xbox will be able to leap PlayStation anytime soon even if they had a stream of well-received AAA titles every year. That being said, Xbox is long overdue for some strong first-party titles and Phil Spencer's stance would be more sympathetic if Xbox weren't putting out some stinkers (Halo Infinite being a massive disappointment in that regard).

 

Also, I'm not sure what you are on about the acquisitions of third-party publishers. Yes it's obviously a benefit to the Xbox brand as well as a tool of leverage against PlayStation. Market analysts, regulators, and those familiar with the laws will be the first to tell you that exclusives are generally seen as a good thing for competition. Seeing that Xbox was largely noncompetitive for several years following the Xbox One announcement and subsequent launch, these purchases would be seen as a positive for the Xbox brand (remember that the ABK purchase was only blocked by the CMA for the cloud streaming market, not because it would have afforded Xbox an unfair advantage or market share). And it's not as if PlayStation wasn't using the opportunity afforded by their momentum during the early PS4 years to secure exclusive contracts of their own. PlayStation has been able to completely edge out the Xbox brand in many markets; look at Japan as an extreme example where they were able to enjoy the lack of competition from Xbox and secure long-term exclusive contracts to further stifle any chance of Xbox being able to reclaim some measure of market share.

[AJ_-_808]

2 hours ago, automechtech1 said:

 

Also, I'm not sure what you are on about the acquisitions of third-party publishers.

It's really not that hard to understand. Buying small developer studios is ok, buying major publishers with several multi-platform studios and making multiple long-time multi platform games exclusive in the name of "competition" is not ok.

 

Instead of buying up the market, they should invest in their current studios or buy smaller ones and maybe, I don't know, manage them properly.  

 

 

2 hours ago, automechtech1 said:

 

Seeing that Xbox was largely noncompetitive for several years following the Xbox One announcement and subsequent launch,

 

Their own fault.  Just because they failed doesn't mean they should be allowed to use daddy's money to buy up the market.  Failed businesses need to either adjust their model or shutter.

 

 

2 hours ago, automechtech1 said:

 

And it's not as if PlayStation wasn't using the opportunity afforded by their momentum during the early PS4 years to secure exclusive contracts of their own.

 

Their momentum from failing early with ps3 and going back and fixing their stuff.  A good chunk of their exclusives came from studios that largely didn't develop for Xbox for a number of reasons, including they straight up didn't like ms/Xbox.   Other exclusives that were timed was something done by both platforms, so get over it.

 

 

2 hours ago, automechtech1 said:

 

PlayStation has been able to completely edge out the Xbox brand in many markets; look at Japan as an extreme example where they were able to enjoy the lack of competition from Xbox and secure long-term exclusive contracts to further stifle any chance of Xbox being able to reclaim some measure of market share.

Actually, that would be Nintendo reigning supreme over there.  Again, stop blaming xbox's failures on everyone else when it's their own business model and decisions that did them in.

 

[Rokukou2]

I truly hope Xbox recovers because the game consoles need to be more competitive and Sony is greedy as hell and don't want them to get more greedy.

[Rozalia1]

31 minutes ago, Rokukou2 said:

I truly hope Xbox recovers because the game consoles need to be more competitive and Sony is greedy as hell and don't want them to get more greedy.

 

I've responded to this comment before with how we're all safer without Microsoft being involved and current Microsoft not really even being competition anyway, but lets actually take that comment head on shall we. 

 

PS1. Utterly dominant generation for Sony. Costs of games fell sharply under them.

PS2. Another utterly dominant generation, even more so. Once again costs were low to the point that even the console itself hit 99 bucks by the end.

 

Past evidence doesn't suggest that Sony are going to jack up the price the moment they have "no competition" (not the case anyway if Microsoft drops out). Maybe people think the PS3 is evidence of this? The PS3 was pricey as it was because Sony attempted to push both Blu-ray (which succeeded and became the standard) and the Cell processor (which didn't become a standard for computers), and even at its large asking price Sony was still losing loads of money on it as the tech mentioned was bleeding edge.

 

As you may well say this I'm going to cut you off right now, please don't even bother responding with "Well those previous bosses might have been good guys about it, but Jim Ryan is evil and he'll do it".

 

3 hours ago, automechtech1 said:

Criticism is fair game, but when you fill your post with sensationalist nonsense like "Xbox CEO just gives up" surely you can understand why it's easy to doubt the faithfulness of your arguments. Also, stop using a fallacious argument "Well the other guys do it too!" as any sort of defense. I am in no way saying you can't construct a discussion around Microsoft's and Xbox's failures, so stop pretending that my disagreeing with you somehow translates to anything close to "don't pick on Microsoft".

 

Yes, you are correct about the specific contexts for the comments on Game Pass and selling Xbox consoles. But within the larger context, Game Pass is a cornerstone to Xbox's strategy on console as well as other devices. And what Phil Spencer said isn't incorrect; good games alone aren't going to magically change their positioning in the console market. Nintendo carved out their own market with the Switch, and there's not much chance that Xbox will be able to leap PlayStation anytime soon even if they had a stream of well-received AAA titles every year. That being said, Xbox is long overdue for some strong first-party titles and Phil Spencer's stance would be more sympathetic if Xbox weren't putting out some stinkers (Halo Infinite being a massive disappointment in that regard).

 

Also, I'm not sure what you are on about the acquisitions of third-party publishers. Yes it's obviously a benefit to the Xbox brand as well as a tool of leverage against PlayStation. Market analysts, regulators, and those familiar with the laws will be the first to tell you that exclusives are generally seen as a good thing for competition. Seeing that Xbox was largely noncompetitive for several years following the Xbox One announcement and subsequent launch, these purchases would be seen as a positive for the Xbox brand (remember that the ABK purchase was only blocked by the CMA for the cloud streaming market, not because it would have afforded Xbox an unfair advantage or market share). And it's not as if PlayStation wasn't using the opportunity afforded by their momentum during the early PS4 years to secure exclusive contracts of their own. PlayStation has been able to completely edge out the Xbox brand in many markets; look at Japan as an extreme example where they were able to enjoy the lack of competition from Xbox and secure long-term exclusive contracts to further stifle any chance of Xbox being able to reclaim some measure of market share.

 

How is it sensationalist? The guy was a broken man who you could feel/see/hear the hopelessness of and got to stating that he might be close to being fired, was way overpaid considering the work he does, and that Xbox is basically doomed in the "console race" as he put it no matter what they do. Two wrongs certainly don't make a right no, but this ain't that. Spencer at no point had to even bring up Sony and console war rhetoric, yet he did, and you're going to admonish us for engaging with what he said? Come now. When PlayStation/Nintendo have their management running console wars against Microsoft and using massive astroturfing to aid its efforts do get back to us.

 

Why does Xbox have to leap PlayStation soon? Why can't they put in the work and like with the PS3 and slowly gain back credibility? Obviously one good game isn't suddenly going to fix everything, you need many good games over a period of time so people can start trusting you. I've stated the answer before and you know full well. It is because Microsoft is not interested in that and seeks a monopoly where they can squeeze everyone for the maximum money possible. If Xbox can't "carve out" its own market which involves destroying the current then everyone should be pleased that they're failing again and again. Their plan if successful will only degrade game quality, punish smaller creators, and in the end for all of the talk of saving money it'll lead to higher prices. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it.

 

@AJ_-_808 has already answered but I will repeat just in case in my own way. Sony and Nintendo work with companies and when they get them on board the gaming market doesn't lose anything as the games those companies were making were exclusives anyway. On top of that Sony and Nintendo both are known for great assistance to the teams they work with which leads to those companies later putting out even better games. Microsoft by comparison buys companies that are already established to do multi platform games and then is "hands off" which they actually even pat themselves on the back for as we saw with this interview, and so we have a situation where as Microsoft doesn't provide assistance and their buyouts often cause some of the best staff to leave, that Microsoft buying these companies actually makes them worse. There are exceptions in all of this of course, but that is the difference. Sony and Nintendo add value, while Microsoft detracts it.

 

Things could of course be so much better. Xbox has never been ran all that well granted, but were certainly at their best when they were more limited (but didn't have a guillotine above their head as they do today) and couldn't count on unlimited support from Microsoft. Even Spencer himself when he took over had to shutter numerous studios as they had become unsalvageable, which while a negative would have given them a reset to allow them to slowly build themselves back up the right way (PlayStation literally showed them the blueprint), which if they had I am sure Xbox would be in a better place. Then the gamepass dream shows up and Microsoft gives them unlimited funds and the buyouts start flowing with no care taken to be smart about it as who cares if the studios are unprofitable and put out bad games, just keep buying and you'll win in the end through sheer financial might alone. In the end Xbox isn't collapsing because of "big bad Sony", they're in that state via their own making, or to be even more accurate, via the making of their tasteless Microsoft master.

[ElektrickRage]

Xbox sucks, do something ya morons. They think they can play with the big boys and make their shitty money when they release nothing! Like Jesus they need more companies making games for them. So long now they have been lazy and unorganised. Microsoft doesn't give a crap because they are making all their money from PC gaming and steam.

[Rozalia1]

14 hours ago, ElektrickRage said:

Xbox sucks, do something ya morons. They think they can play with the big boys and make their shitty money when they release nothing! Like Jesus they need more companies making games for them. So long now they have been lazy and unorganised. Microsoft doesn't give a crap because they are making all their money from PC gaming and steam.

 

Selling games on Steam for Microsoft is a result of failure, so I wouldn't call it a success. They're selling games on Steam at the moment because of their consistent failures to have a successful online store. At first it seems baffling that a trillionaire software company like Microsoft would be unable to put together a store that works correctly, heck even their precious gamepass on PC has a number of serious issues such as putting out broken versions of games (they insist on verifying patches so other stores get PC games that have had weeks of extra patching) and straight up blocking off good parts of your storage space until you reformat (incompetence). Then you remember that Microsoft is as Steve Jobs said, tasteless, and so it makes complete sense that Microsoft is completely incompetent at putting out such a thing as they didn't buy out someone else's work and then slap their own name on it. 

 

PC gaming I've heard said is a possible reason that they may try to keep holding on to the Xbox. DirectX, Microsoft's API, is well known these days to be a mess and is being outdone by the competing Vulkan. As Xbox uses DirectX, albeit a slightly different version that'll perform better (still has its issues), it promotes companies not simply cutting DirectX off. If that goes then it could well mean very bad things for Microsoft in that space.