by Gamatroid 🕹️
 |
| AI interpretation for illustrative purposes (I thought it was kind of funny) |
So... Microsoft recently unveiled more about its next generation console, code name: Project Helix.
From what they've said so far, we know Helix will be a PC/Console hybrid, playing native Xbox games plus games made for Windows PCs, seemingly allowing access to storefronts like Steam, Epic and GOG.
Microsoft also committed to keeping its backwards compatibility in-place, providing access to more than four generations of Xbox games. (Backwards compatibility is one of my favorite features of the current Xbox.)
Helix will also be the most powerful console on the market when it launches, including "an order of magnitude increase in ray tracing performance and capability, beyond what's currently possible with the Xbox Series X and S" and additional hardware features that will deliver a "massive uplift in performance and enabling massive real-time simulation and large complex worlds using runtime-generated geometry and large-scale interactive worlds". (Having best in class hardware is great, but Xbox Series X can already claim that in the current generation, even though game fidelity and performance appears equivalent to PS5 for most gamers.)
So far, so good on the actual hardware plans, but I've been thinking a lot lately about what Microsoft needs to do in order for Helix to be a "success", and I don't think the current Helix plans are going to do that.
And before I get into the reasons why I think this, it's important to separate the pending success of Helix from Microsoft Gaming.
Why?
Well, Microsoft could have tons of success just being the world's largest video game developer / publisher. They have amazing franchises and currently they can sell their games across PlayStation, Nintendo, and PC to great success. One could argue they honestly don't even need hardware at this point (or you could argue they really do to ensure long term success - but that's a story for another day).
But for the purposes of this article, let's just focus on the success of Helix itself.
.png)
In order for Helix to be a success, Microsoft will need to sell a lot of them. Obvious right? But there's the thing...
What does "success" look like?
It's very clear Microsoft has not been satisfied with the sales of Xbox consoles in either the previous generation or the current generation.
Here's a chart I developed using data from VGChartz.com to illustrate the Xbox console sale situation:
From a worldwide console sale perspective, Xbox has been behind from the very beginning. Even the lauded Xbox 360 generation was only "successful" in North America. From a global perspective, PlayStation 3 sold more units than Xbox 360, but just barely.
But I fully believe that when Microsoft looks at "success" it's primarily focused on the North American console market, so let's zoom in on that.
Here is the same chart showing just North American Console sales:
Just looking at North America certainly puts Xbox sales in a better light than its global performance, with Xbox 360 beating both PS3 AND the Nintendo Wii (honestly that was a shock for me.)
This was the "golden era" for Xbox, and likely what their team is benchmarking against when they are thinking about success.
Let's dive into that a bit more:
- Xbox 360 sold 55.9% more consoles than PS3.
- Currently the Xbox Series X/S sits at 39.3% BELOW PS5.
- Currently, PS5 is still 16.4% below lifetime PS4 sales.
Even if Microsoft was content with selling an equal number of consoles as PS5, it would have to sell 12.5M more Helix than it did Series X/S, and that could be a very hard sell. Why?
.jpg)
The Xbox Series had an affordable entry point (with the S, which launched at $299 versus the PS5 and Series X both at $499) and when it launched they still had exclusives (Halo, Gears, Forza). Helix doesn't look like it will have either of those advantages, although it will launch with Gamepass, which the Series consoles didn't have at first (although it doesn't seem to be much of a console seller, especially not at its recent price point).
And remember, this current console generation launched during COVID when EVERYONE WAS STUCK AT HOME and gaming was at its highest point in years. There were people playing games and starting Twitch channels that wouldn't have done so under normal conditions, and Microsoft STILL couldn't sell a significant number of consoles.
Furthermore, for the Series S, there was a period of time when you couldn't even find a PS5 and the only available console was the Series S (which is how I got mine).
Helix won't have any of these advantages.
.png) |
| Master Chief realizing they're screwed |
Also, Helix is rumored to be expensive ($1,000+) and, at this time, doesn't have any committed exclusives AT ALL. Now it likely won't have any direct competition, since Sony is looking to launch PS6 no earlier than 2029, but Sony also has the PS5 Pro, which will cost significantly less than the Helix, and it has PlayStation's exclusives in its library PLUS all of Microsoft's multi-platform games (which at this time looks to be all of them).
I'm not saying that Helix won't sell any consoles, but can it sell enough to be "successful"?
Xbox Series X claimed it was the most powerful console on the market (which it technically was), but the majority of gamers didn't care. Even when the PS5 was unavailable, or only available through scalpers, many gamers still held out for a PS5 over an Xbox Series X or S. And remember, this is when Xbox still had exclusive games on its platform.
Now they are going to launch a very expensive console that has games you could also just buy on PC or PlayStation, and they are going to sell more units than the "failed" Xbox Series X/S?
Unlikely.
.png) |
| RIP Helix |
And what about the games?
IF Microsoft is committed to making Helix a success, the BEST way it could do that would be to pull back its flagship franchises and only make them available on Helix. However, given their recent direction, and the fact that would result in massive revenue losses, it is VERY unlikely.
Even if they don't have any exclusives, couldn't Microsoft at least force its own studios to ensure that Helix is the best place to play its games? Meaning, they could ensure the games look and play the best on Helix?
Sure... at least in the beginning.
.png) |
| Halo Campaign Evolved looking sweeet :) |
If Microsoft ensures their own development teams have access to Helix dev kits as early as possible, it could push them to take full advantage of Helix's hardware in order for the games to look and play best on Helix at launch.
But if they don't sell a significant number of Helix consoles right away, how long will they allocate extra development time and resources to optimize for Helix over other platforms?
My guess is... not very long.
So where does that leave Helix?
.jpg)
I think the best case scenario seems to be it could become the high-end living room PC hybrid that Microsoft has always wanted, but have a limited number of sales.
So long as Microsoft makes money off of each Helix sold, such that it helps support the profitability of their gaming division, it may not matter if it is able to go head-to-head with PlayStation or not. Whether Microsoft considers Helix a success, really depends on its own internal expectations and measures of what success means going forward.
But one thing is almost certain.
PlayStation and Nintendo seem destined to continue ruling the living room console market for the foreseeable future.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
