Microsoft CEO on Xbox Multiplatform Strategy: 'We're Going to be Everywhere, On Every Platform' - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 28 October 2025 / 6,679 Views
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella in an interview with TBPN was asked about his outlook on the gaming industry and states Xbox will continue to release games on as many platforms as possible.
"Remember, the biggest gaming business is the Windows business," said Nadella (via VideoGamesChronicle). "To us, gaming on Windows, and of course, Steam has built a massive marketplace on top of it and done a very successful job. So to us, the way we are thinking about gaming is, first of all, we’re now the largest publisher [after acquiring Activision].
"So therefore, we want to be a fantastic publisher, similar in approach to what we did with Office. We’re going to be everywhere, on every platform. So we want to make sure, whether it’s consoles, whether it’s the PC, whether it’s mobile, whether it’s cloud gaming, or the TV. We just want to make sure the game is enjoyed by gamers everywhere."
Nadella also discussed the next-generation Xbox console and mentioned consoles suggesting it will be closer to its PC business than in the past.
"We want to do innovative work on the system side on the console and on the PC," he said. "And it’s kind of funny that people think about the console and PC as two different things. We built the console because we wanted to build a better PC, which could then perform for gaming. And so I kind of want to revisit some of that conventional wisdom.
"But at the end of the day, console has an experience that is unparalleled. It delivers performance that’s unparalleled, that pushes, I think, the system forward. So I’m really looking forward to the next console, the next PC gaming."
Nadella added, "Most importantly, the game business model has to be where we have to invent maybe some new interactive media as well, because after all, gaming’s competition is not other gaming. Gaming’s competition is short-form video.
"And so if we as an industry don’t continue to innovate, both how we produce, what we produce, how we think about distribution, the economic model, right, the best way to innovate is to have good margins, because that’s the way you can fund."
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012 and taking over the hardware estimates in 2017. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel. You can follow the author on Bluesky.
More Articles
WE NEED OUR THUMBS DOWN BUTTON BACK!
"outdated and abused"
If that was your experience, I can only assume you had some very unpopular opinions lol
It was definitely abused... It turned the comments section into a popularity contest.
I concur. I fell victim to that shit even when I tried saying nice things.
Yes. It was ruined by assholes.
Weeeee! 3rd party publisher mode in full effect
Yeah. I don't know why they don't just drop out of the hardware market completely. They'd save so much money, and we wouldn't have to constantly feel talked-down to after every single article haha.
Just 4 games
"Is Indiana Jones comming to Playstation" Phil - "No not Indiana Jones".
In short: "We are a publisher now."
Yeah we know, Satya, we know
As if this hasn't been going on for almost 2 years now lol
A locked down PC you mean, sounds like a low selling device just to appease and convince Xbox diehards that it is still a console.
It is still a console because it will play all Xbox console games, including all the BC games. So it's not like anyone will be losing anything. MS is just doing what Valve is doing with SteamOS except with Windows. I'd still prefer the former. Windows is too much bloatware, too much spyware, too much AI integration, etc. Too much everything I hate about modern technology.
The Ally X is essentially their test bed. I tried it out and the software is definitely in beta form lol. There's an insane amount of tuning and optimizing needed. Probably why they opted for a partnership for their first device. Because apparently the official first party Xbox handheld is still coming. I have my doubts as well because what they're attempting has never actually been done before. I read that Teams being installed by default was an actual choice to be included. So there's a reason you can't remove it.
Steam Machines was just your Steam library. What Xbox is doing merging Console/PC gaming is some risky business.
The thing that's getting me is Nadella comparing it to Office. Gaming is about creativity, passion, and fun. Office is productivity software. Like, they're not in the same vein whatsoever. Why would you want that kind of mindset when going all in on gaming? This is why it was better when Xbox was nothing more than a rounding error on Microsoft's spreadsheet. Completely invisible from higher ups prying eyes.
But hey, Bill Gates finally gets what he was originally promised. Windows in the living room.
You can play games from other stores on SteamOS, you're not locked to your Steam library.
With some additional work, yeah. Took me a lot of trial and error to get Battle.net to run on my Steam Deck. It's not for the inexperienced. Especially if they're multiplayer games.
I's the same amount of additional work it takes to get Steam and other stores on the Windows "Xbox", have you tried the Heroic launcher?
I have not, but I'm looking into it right now. Thanks for the tip!
Hearing that Teams was a choice is even more concerning. Sounds like they are going to try and use this windows gaming PCs to try and steer people into their other products and services instead of focusing on gaming. Similar to the screw up with the Xbox one and focusing on TV.
Satya Nadella has such a punchable face.
Guy is talking like he is high on something.
We're all better off when Xbox games are available on more platforms. And we're all (probably) better off if they do in fact invent some sort of new interactive media. So, I'm down with this (not so) new direction that MS is going.
The only thing I worry about is that Sony doesn't have a very good track record of making good decisions when not facing strong direct competition. So that part could be a negative for gamers. I guess we'll have to see.
We probably aren’t in the long-run.
If the next Xbox costs $1000+ as expected then it going to put people off buying, especially if the PS6 is cheaper and has all of Xbox franchises anyway.
That would likely result in a major drop in Xbox’s install base which is already way behind Sony and Nintendo, who have certainly aren’t rushing to put their games in Xbox. Have to see what impact that has on Xbox finances given the ABK merger debt, effect in Gamepass subs and online store sales. Likely will push it to towards being even more third party.
Perfect Dark, Redfall, Halo Infinite...Pepperidge Farm remembers, Satya.
Halo on Dreamcast when?
I mean... Halo Combat Evolved at the engine level had a fixed function rendering path that the Dreamcast could have leveraged thanks to it's TnL capable PowerVR chip... The real limitation would have been memory.
16MB System Ram + 8MB graphics card on the Dreamcast is simply insufficient without a drive to stream data from... On PC it needed 128MB system ram and a 32MB graphics processor... And the OG Xbox got away with running it on under 64MB of total ram by streaming from the hard drive.
The levels would need to be reworked with more frequent load points and significantly downgraded visuals.
Maybe a demake like Grand Theft Auto might happen in the future?
"We just want to make sure the game is enjoyed by gamers everywhere." - Then print a real physical copy with 97% of the game's data on it.
97%? Not 100%?
There's always a missing 3% for meaningless updates that squash one or two minor bugs. I'm not going to hold them to an impossible standard. I just want real physical games from Xbox game studios. Not a 1MB stub that immediately connects to the internet to download the remaining 99.99 GB of the game.
"because after all, gaming’s competition is not other gaming. Gaming’s competition is short-form video. "
Good lord... I'm getting sick of this nonsense.
Awesome news
Downvote
Why?
Because some people do not like opinions that are not negative when they are negative. Just the way humans are.
Or maybe because I don’t see anything awesome in the PR speak that is on display.
Than just say so like you just did.
What exactly dont you agree with what is being said?
Lets see
‘Gaming’s competition isn’t other gaming’ Pull the other one
‘We want to be a fantastic publisher’ This is PR speak 101, and is directly contradicted by their actions in the last 18 months.
‘We have to invent maybe some new interactive media’ what is he even talking about here?
That just a few snips but the whole thing reads like your typical corporate PR release which says a lot without saying anything.
So you dont agree that they want to be a fantastic publisher?
That they want to grow and compete with juggernauts in other industries? And gaming is bigger then just the console market? Seems they are doing exactly that and are telling you that.
As for interactive media, that could be anything from narrative driving gaming like what Sony do, or simply making more interactive games.
How is wanting to be a fantastic publisher is double speak when they are putting all of their games on every system then can. That doesn't make sense.
Interactive media is just that, media you interact with. AR, VR, combintion of both. More interactive aspect in gameplay, hell it can be a umber of things as far as games goes.
As for what he says reading like PR, well it is. All public statements are PR because why would they ever say negative stuff about their direction. It either works or it doesnt.
There’s wanting to be a fantastic publisher, and then actually being one - which they haven’t been since the ABK merger. Layoffs and studios closures, even from games with hits, making more of their Xbox releases digital only, canning highly anticipated games. Those aren’t marks of a fantastic publisher.
You missed the bit where it said new. What ‘new’ interactive media is he talking about?
And sure that’s how PR works, but tis still just waffle that doesn’t really mean anything.
They are releasing more games then anyone and closures and cancellations are not exclusive to MS this gen. Odd Cherry pick.
Fun Fact, Closures and cancellations have been happening since the beginning of gaming.
Remember Satya thinks of software and services being everywhere. That has now bleed into gaming. He doesn't understand exclusives, locking software to a single platform. His mindset is why aren't they releasing their games on the more popular platforms that can run their games (Switch / Switch 2 and PS)? He's just a guy that doesn't understand exclusives and doesn't see a need for them. Which is obviously fine since everyone has a different perception, but you cannot say for a fact if he's right or wrong.
Exclusives are anti consumer
Only if you feel entitled to them.
Which is the majority
Tell that to nintendo
There is always 1 outlier
Technically, charging money at all is also anti-consumer. I'll take something being "anti-consumer" if it is pro-art and creativity. Exclusives are often the games that push the industry forward in art and design. If there were no exclusives we get a lot more bland games.
So if one of your favourite exclusives gets removed from your platform of choice and locked away on another platform you dont own is consumer friendly?
Make it make sense
"If one of your favorite exclusives gets removed from your platform of choice and locked away on another platform you don't own is that consumer friendly?"
You just described 3rd party moneyhats. They can be beneficial if a dev needs money to make a game. For example: If Atlus needs 30 million to fund the production of Persona 6 and Sony or MS are willing to pay 30 million for said game to be a one year exclusive then that's still a good outcome. Sure, some people may have to wait a year to get to play the game but the opposing choice is the game doesn't get made at all.
Oh, and just a helpful hint here. MS bought several studios which had games that were already funded, and then proceeded to lock those games to MS platforms only. So hilariously enough MS is doing the exact thing you supposedly hate.
Im not talking about what benefits the devs, im talking about whats Anti consumer. Poor attempt at detailing.
Is it consumer friendly for YOU if your Favourite titles were locked away on a platform you dont own?
Ill wait for your answer.
Given the choice of a favorite title being locked away on a console I don't own, or a favorite title flat out not existing, I'll choose the title existing. P.S. I own 20 different systems so that's not the best question to ask me. If a system has enough games that are exclusive to it I'll buy it. I'm not poor like you.
Hyperthectical: Lets say Amazon made a new console, its $1000, requires an always online connection and subscribion to operate and is inferior to PS5/XSX interms of power. Amazon then goes on and Money hat's the next Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Tomb Raider and GTA6. Is that consumer friendly to you?
No, because that is anti-game ownership. If the exclusives actually came on a physical disk with 95% of the game's data on it then it would be fine. And if those companies had to make a choice between shoving microtransactions in their games, cutting content, or taking a one year moneyhat from Amazon, I would be happiest with the one year moneyhat. Hell, even if those games remained exclusive to Amazon's console that would be preferable to microtransactions or the game not existing at all (this of course assumes there is no always online requirement and there is a full data disc ).
What's really funny here is that your hypothetical describes several things MS has done in the past. MS made online paywalls popular. MS tried to do always online with XB1. MS bought Bethesda when Starfield was almost done on PS5 and cancelled it. MS bought doublefine and then cancelled all physical versions of Psychonaughts 2 outside of the kickstarter pre-orders. You can't talk about anti-consumer and anti-game ownership practices as if they are bad and then be an ardent Xbox defender.
So then lets change the hyperthetical to you can own the physical game on the new Amazon without an always online fee but the system costs $1500. For you to play your favourite game you now need to buy the new Amazon console, is that consumer friendly?
Also Lets not turn this into a Xbox only issue, Sony have been doing this since the PS1.
The entire point is exclusives are anti consumer because it forces those who want to buy the game to buy more hardware they dont need or want. When it happens agaisnt your favourite plastic box you wouldn't be happy especially if its a favourite game you love and can no longer access because of a paid moneyhat without forking out big dollars for more hardware.
Nobody would buy a system for $1500. If you have to change the hypothetical to ridiculousness it stops being useful.
"Sony have been doing this since the PS1."
No, Sony gave money, coding libraries, and PS1 dev kits to Insomniac, Naughty Dog, and other developers. These developers like Naughty Dog were stuck making shovelware games until Sony partnered with them. I swear, you just blatantly ignore history in order to push your "both sides" nonsense.
By your logic patents are also anti-consumer because they force people to buy from the inventor of said product regardless of the high price. Imagine making a new groundbreaking invention only to be told by the self-entitled that it should be cheaper.
Yet you miss the point of the hypothetical. Everyone has different budgets and the point was to show you that taking games away and locking them away on hardware others dont own is anti consumer.
Remember the reception of TR exclusive to Xbox One, by your logic that was consumer friendly.
The hypothetical has no point, because it falls apart upon examination. Stop acting as if all exclusivity is the same.
No, I don't remember the TR exclusive backlash, because an 11 month delay in a game means absolutely nothing to me. That TR game is in my collection but I still haven't played it because it's not high up on my "games to play list". In fact I might never get around to playing it.
I'm pretty sure I'm on record from a decade ago saying that I don't care about TR being a 1 year exclusive. Sadly, vgchartz' thread search function is busted and I think they are deleting older threads to save space. -_-
The hypothetical had a simple point but i can see you dancing around it multiple times, which tells me all I need to know.
Plus TR had the internet in flames and no one knew if it was timed. Further proof that its anti consumer if it upsets consumers.
Also again the point is just because it may not affect you because it may not be a game of your interest doesnt mean its not anti consumer to many others who may actually like the game.
Its really simple logic, would you hold the same energy if it happened to one of your favourite games.
The hypothetical fails because it has a faulty premise, that all exclusivity is bad, as well as other faulty premises.
TR maybe had your corner of the internet in flames. Mine couldn't care less.
"Would you hold the same energy if it happened to one of your favorite games?" This is a rigged question, that presupposes that permanent 3rd party exclusives, timed 3rd party moneyhats, and 1st party exclusives games are all equally anti-consumer, regardless of context. Your question is a perfect example of question-begging. It presupposes that which it is trying to prove. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Begging-the-Question
Again, not once answering the simple question, instead you are trying to dismantle the question so you dont have to answer it.
If a company swooped in late and moneyhatted your favourite 3rd party game and locked it to a console you dont own, that will bother you, stop pretending it wouldn't.
Its anti consumer.
It really depends. Was the studio going bankrupt and needed moneyhat funds to save it? Did the studio already have a PS5 and Switch 2 version in development and then was paid to cancel said versions? Not all exclusivity deals are anti-consumer. You just think they are because Xbox is almost always on the losing end of them. And not only that, but many companies put development of their games for Xbox and PC on the backburner because they know they can sell more copies on PS5/Switch/Switch2. So the PS5/Switch/Switch2 versions gets prioritized.
All exclusives are anti consumer. Even if a company a company revives a project, releasing it on everything allows everyone to play it and simply sells more and makes more money. So it doesnt matter what the reason is.
I primarily game on PC and which is the largest audiences in this industry. And seeing PC games reach more platforms people is a good thing for Devs and customers.
You are hopeless. Not all exclusives are anti-consumer. Especially not ones made by a company that simply doesn't want to pay a 30% Royalty to another platform holder. Feel free to ignore the economics of game consoles that make exclusives more profitable than going multiplatform. Hint: Owning a platform and raking in a 30% royalty on every game sold beats going multiplatform for profitability.
You again fail to see the bigger picture. Selling more games in general even with a cut of 70% is better then missing the sale altogether. Why is Sony releasing games on PC and even Xbox? Hmm
Anti Consumer is also when a consumer cannot access or is forced to buy another platform to play a game. Thats not consumer friendly.
Its really not a hard concept to grasp.
He's basically a rent-seeker in the gaming world. Nothing more.
