PeteBull
Member
Thats how u know company is cooked, their CEOs/top heads are living in a bubble and lost contact with reality very long time ago.
How about we get such an Xbox Boss for a change:
Last edited:
How about we get such an Xbox Boss for a change:
GHG
Member
You were previously arguing there would be a "translation layer" to get regular PC/steam games running on this box, and that's what I disputed while stating they would end up just running windows in the background instead. It looks like they simply intend to use Windows, so you're free to apologise any time.
The console BC side of things is not something I disputed/debated, that's up to them to solve with an emulator (which actually looks like they will be using a chip of some sort similar to the way that the early PS3 models solved BC).
Last edited:
bitbydeath
Member
If MS keep cutting them to the bone then theirs huge risk of them performing/delivering way worse than today, wouldn't MS just close them down entirely if this dream of AI doesn't work as hoped?
Is this a guinea pig like test to see what they can get away with and not caring about the results?
drganon
Banned
The 360 was awesome. I skipped the ps3 entirely that gen. If you'd told me then how badly they would fuck things up in the future, I wouldn't have believed you.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
If I was MS, the first gaming people I'd fire are all those brainers who came up with Xbox fridges, kleenex boxes, and all the meme-ish junk. What a waste of time and marketing.
Moridianae
Member
I'm not him, but I'm going to simply wager that each of those games will be ported over to PlayStation(in the case of Hellblade, as an Enhanced Edition and probably also SoM).
The reason is to squeeze out any additional revenue from those who will buy it and then those studios will arguably be in danger of cuts or shuttering right after...I think this is pretty much what happened to Tango.
State of Decay will probably launch on PS5 and porting takes time--chances are that may be a reason why you haven't heard anything..they suddenly had to make a PS5 version.
Dorfdad
Gold Member
Crushing it!
Pop
Member
Yeahhhh if they could hurry up on that
SneakersSO
Member
M Moridianae is pretty warm. I'm not going to pretend to know the business rationalization that was used to decide which teams were cut or closed this week, but what I can tell you is that teams that had projects that are due in the short term were clearly having their potential layoffs mitigated as those ports and projects make their way out in the coming year. This is why you didn't really see folks at Coalition or Playground get affected all that much, although some of those teams are affected in ways that I might just dive into in another post down the line.
But like I have been saying - the layoffs aren't done. This is the 5th round of layoffs at the wider MS since Jan. 2024, and each round came not long before a major end to a fiscal quarter or year. Behind the scenes, an absolute truck-load of projects were cancelled this week that folks had no idea about, and many of those projects were things that were further out than 12-14 months, although some did have the prospect of launching sooner via early access or what have you. Suffice it to say, as long as the larger MS is navigating the waters of the very unstable AI market, they are going to be cutting into other sectors to try and shore up the risk in their very much over-leveraged AI stake, which means that in future quarters or End-of-Year fiscal reports, they are going to need more sacrifices. The only IPs that are in anyway safe are the big names, the billion-dollar IPs. The World of Warcrafts, the Minecrafts, the Call of Duties, the Forza Horizons, the Overwatches, the Elder Scrolls or Fallouts. Anything that doesn't fall into that sort of category, whether its an IP or a studio, is basically not going to be safe as long as MS is in this position.
Even if MS comes out the other end of their AI position, I personally feel that, long-term, Xbox was always intending to cut the fat as it were. They are a 3rd party publisher now. These are literally the sorts of moves you saw ABK do for over a decade before the purchase. This is what Ubisoft and EA have also done. Without a console they need to differentiate, there is no necessity to having these smaller projects or teams, never mind the fact that project management is their absolute worst trait at Microsoft. One of the first projects they canned after the ABK deal went through was the promising new IP survival game from Blizzard, despite in the late fall of 2023 SPencer doing this big show of having literally every new ABK team do a pitch for a new dream project.
MS is the type of corporate entity that is hyper aware of where the lionshare of revenue comes from in each of their core departments, and they know how to scale up & down based on what is the Minimum-Viable-Product (MVP) for each of these departments to still retain their profitability. So, for example - they aren't going to radically touch things like the CoD pipeline or Mojang, or the WoW team over at Blizzard. Even with something like Betheda Game Studios, as long as Fallout and Elder Scrolls can be the massive hits that they are with releases, then they will be left alone going forward.
This stands in contrast to say, 343i/Halo Studios. This is a team that has weathered multiple layoff rounds now in a very short amount of time, all while they were switching over to Unreal and trying to navigate a kind of insane development pipeline restructure that they needed to implement both because MS forced it on them and because the cuts necessitated it unless Halo dev cease to exist at this point. This management-death-by-a-thousand-cuts wouldn't be happening with Halo if Halo still had the market performance and impact that it had even when Halo 4 dropped.
It isn't a guinea pig like test though, because this is how Microsoft leadership has basically operated since the 90s. This is who they are at their core. They don't develop and deploy compelling products - they use capital they gained from another market to come into an established or growing market, buy out all competition which forces the remaining folks in said industry to work with them, reduce those competitive forces in the sector until theres barely anyone left who can offer a viable alternative, then basically crash out their position as the enormity of the financial stake they put in to do said maneuver catches up with them. You can literally look at how they've approached the tech market for 35+ years and observe this.
This was the primary concern folks had when Microsoft first entered gaming, because everyone at the time knew just how absolutely destructive Microsoft can be in a market segment or industry. And really, this sort of 'build-up/cut-down' cycle isn't even new for Xbox - a decade ago, we were weathering articles from Spencer about how they had to 'learn a lesson from the Lionhead closure', but even the height of the 360's growth in the first half of its lifecycle was driven primarily by 3rd party deals, whereas loads of teams they either founded or bought in the lead up were slowly axed and cut. This isn't new behavior for them, not just as a larger entity, but even at Xbox. Buying up talent to starve out their competitors to then cut those positions is literally the core business of Microsoft.
Moridianae
Member
I think when you see things like we all just did(and read credible information about things we didn't see), there isn't really a way to "spin" it.
Even a "check clearing" doesn't have the same effect. It's "blood money", so to speak, and even the hardest of shills(like Jez) may have a hard time anyway if they have a shred of empathy for what Microsoft just did.
SamuraiEdge
Member
HeisenbergFX4
Member
Xbox will throw him a bone here soon and have him leak something good and its back to business as usual
Topher
Identifies as young
Xbox will throw him a bone here soon and have him leak something good and its back to business as usual
Well...we will see how this goes. Would not be surprised if Jez returns to form as an unofficial PR guy for MS, but right now, he's giving them the works....
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Isn't he the one that still has meltdowns about Windows phone from time to time?Guys….Microsoft has lost Jez.
Why Microsoft's enshittification of Xbox, Surface, and even Windows itself — are all by design
With Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and CFO Amy Hood placing unrealistic expectations on Xbox, Windows, and others — the damage is becoming increasingly untenable.www.windowscentral.com
Moridianae
Member
Well...we will see how this goes. Would not be surprised if Jez returns to form as an unofficial PR guy for MS, but right now, he's giving them the works....
While I applaud him doing so, it won't be a good look if he returns to his shilling ways for sure.
I think it's very important to people to task and ask very tough questions. I would hope if anyone does do an interview with Phil Spencer, they should really grill him speak on this stuff, or Satya.
GoodData
Banned
Well...we will see how this goes. Would not be surprised if Jez returns to form as an unofficial PR guy for MS, but right now, he's giving them the works....
Jez is southern, right? Isn't there a thing where southern people do the thing where they take the roundabout way of saying things when others are talking over them? Jez is saying they're doing all they can! He's being ironic!
Topher
Identifies as young
No, he's English. I'm southern, but I'm not sure what you are referring to.
LuckyLuke
Neo Member
S
SneakersSO
Can you tell us anything about the future of Game Pass? Honestly, I don't see how it fits with Xbox's future. It feels like a trap they've set for themselves, and now it's hard to get out of it.
GoodData
Banned
Is this going to cost me? My time in Blimmington where they don't much prefer the Yorkies tells me that you're actually not a native southerner, right? You're southern but a recent transplant, right?
Topher
Identifies as young
Think I misunderstood. Are you talking about southern UK? I'm southern US.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
This is next-gen evil.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
laynelane
Member
When I see the kind of people developing and pushing AI the hardest, it makes me realize just how badly it can be used and abused. As well, MS seems to be just filled with tone-deaf, out of touch higher-ups. Another example is Phil talking about how great Xbox is doing in the email to staff about the lay-offs. Just gross behavior all around at MS.
digoutyoursoul
Member
That TimDog guy has been silent, I thought he would have been getting his ego massaged once again by now.
LordCBH
Member
They are just trying to cash in on the situation
Nydius
Member
This isn't the first time Destin and Jez have acted critical of Xbox over the last year or so.
They always default back to shill mode after a couple of weeks.
They'll get their talking points about how what Xbox just did is "good for the industry, actually" and they'll be right back on the bandwagon.
Fake
Member
Turn 10 essentially done, a few went over and will now support Horizon titles.
What a shitshow. I remember playing Forza for Xbox 360. Good gamr overall.
Nonehxc
Member
They tried massaging another part of him, but after 5 mins they couldn't jumpstart it again and had to write the time.
Last edited:
He stopped being an xbox fanboy a long time ago.
digoutyoursoul
Member
I know mate
Aressa
You can't die before your death
Yeah seriously.
Astray
Member
Timdog is currently hiding from Xbox people after the Helldivers 2 announcement rofl.
(Yes you read that right).
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Can you give insight why the big gaming companies always gun for AAA budget busting games? Ya, sometimes they churn out a budget Pentiment labour of love game, but most are heavy hitters.
Instead of rolling the dice on giant splashy studios and games, why not spread it out with big, mid and indie budget games? If 5 people can make a half decent indie game that might sell millions, why dont the big gaming companies try that strategy too. It likely wont be a big seller, BUT if it fails it wont be a 7 year $100M+ bomb either. I can understand them not making games like Schedule 1 involving drugs or any shady topics, but most indie games dont involve sketchy plots.
Personally, I've had the opinion it's because they are big and they all think it's too low brow and dopey to make small budget games. Is that a real reason? Or more to it than that?
I work in consumer goods. And every one of the big guys make a slew of different brands ranging from premium lines to even a selection of dollar store items. Ok, we dont make ultras gourmet high end stuff, but there's enough confidence to make a wide range of products for people in different classes of quality and price. The big brands get more people and budget. The tiny product lines get tiny teams. So if consumer goods can do this, why dont gaming corporations?
Last edited:
SneakersSO
Member
I wouldn't describe it as being a difficult situation to get out of. Its not a subscription service that has had any significant growth. Last time it got anything even resembling a bump was when CoD launched last year, but GP has an absurdly high churn rate so that eventually just settled out. It doesn't sound like they expect the service to get a similar bump in future releases of CoD, purely cause the novelty factor will have been gone, and the console adoption rate of Xbox is still backsliding, whereas the attach rate for Xbox Game Pass is over 90% console users versus PC GP users.
You're right wrt GP being sort of antiquated in the modern Xbox era. It was a service primarily designed to heavily disrupt a calcified market heading into a market transition (PS5/XSX|S launch) to hopefully yield market growth. Theres a lot that can be discussed regarding how GP as a model basically destroyed the purchasing habits of Xbox console users for the most part, which is something to note here.
GP discussions tends to have me go on tangents so i'll just focus in on what you asked about - whats the future look like. Well, part of the motivator that drove MS to start releasing titles outside of the Xbox eco was to release SW in places where GP wasn't already available, all so they could get a much higher margin on those titles, and it certainly did work. Indiana Jones' PS5 release was a tremendous success for the team and game, for example. Once project latitude was decided upon internally, the drive to try and expand GP onto other platforms, like Steam or PSN or Nintendo, basically evaporated overnight. It hasn't been brought up since then. Now, heres where things get interesting - the future of the Xbox Ecosystem is in the creation of a ramp to convert the people who are within the traditional ecosystem (console users) into being users who are using the Windows Store version of games or the Steam version of games, which begins chipping away at the viability of Xbox SKUs in general. Because Game Pass is primarily a service who services Xbox SKUs of titles, and with them planning on winding down the Xbox SKU in the platform/eco over the next decade, its a problem that essentially phases itself out with time, unless PC Game Pass adoption ticks up.
One of the variables they are keen to keep track of is just how many of their console users both adopt the next HW platform, and begin using the WindowsOS version, or Windows Store GP, to access those first party releases. And because so many teams and projects are getting cut, and will continue to be as time moves on, the value prospect of Game Pass will weaken. I doubt we'll see a year of output that'll be like 2025/2026 once we hit 2027 onwards, and even with the higher output its getting, its really not resolving their adoption or retention/churn issues.
The needle I am very interested in seeing them thread is that, they basically combined Game Pass subs with Xbox Live subs, in an effort to boost GP subs on paper, but also to drive up the cost of the subs for those console users. With the release of the new WindowsOS powered Xbox Console, if you're letting users access their Steam or EGS libraries, its going to be almost impossible to ask those users to pay a GP fee to access online multiplayer. They haven't made the decision yet on how they're gonna handle this, but I have to imagine that, if they kill the GP sub requirement for online MP for their next HW, thats basically one massive nail in the future of GP (as well as adding quite a bit to the price tag of the device). At that point, as a service, with the Xbox SKU of games basically living on borrowed time, GP is gonna have to convert a lot of console users into Windows Store users, which is a conversion they have basically failed at for a long time now.
Oh man. This is such a massive topic with so many different angles to it. I already am writing novels in this thread instead of coding up my current project so I might have to get back to this over the weekend, but i'll try to give a bit of a shallow answer to this: its greed. But greed presents itself in ways that just aren't insidious at face value, but its greed nonetheless.
I really don't think that making small games is looked down upon by anyone within the industry. In fact, if you ask developers, we feel the lack of smaller games just as much as consumers do. Smaller games are often the bedrock for future iteration of design or ideas. There is another aspect to this, in that in the West primarily, we truly haven't tried to restructure how we make games, and this lack of refactoring, or rather maintaining the ways in which we learned how to build games 20 years ago, has caused this practice to continue to get more and more expensive.
There is hope though. I've said it in other threads but i'll reiterate it here: Expedition 33 is my GotG, not just because of how incredible the game is, but because the entire way they structured its development is basically the blueprint for a viable, sustainable modern games development in the west. Its break even point was < 1m units, but its a game that feels AAA in both look and scope. I'm not alone in analyzing how they made that title with a fine toothed comb, to try and emulate those practices myself.
clappedcheeks
Member
Hey
S
SneakersSO
a lot of the things you're saying are very worrying from an end user point of view. It seems MS give zero fucks about the future of the brand and are just trying to squeeze every last penny from the faithful, with little care for whatever wreckage they leave behind; both for the consumer and the developers they have gobbled up. Just wanted to say thanks for your contributions as it's not often we get an inside track that doesn't pull any punches.
memoryman3
Member
Hold on, you're claiming that Game Pass has a very high rate of people subscribing for one month and leaving the service, but then turn around and claim that Xbox users don't buy games even outside the service because of the sub? How does that even make sense? If the sub itself is $20+ and some of the games in the service take multiple months to complete? Doesn't that mean most people in general prefer the subscription model over the regular buy to play model?
LuckyLuke
Neo Member
I agree.
Honestly, it feels like Game Pass is slowly being phased out or at least completely rethought. Microsoft is clearly shifting focus toward multiplatform releases, chasing higher margins, and moving away from Xbox-specific SKUs. That leaves Game Pass in a weird spot. Most likely, the service will shrink and become more of a side thing rather than the cornerstone of Xbox's strategy. And if the Xbox SKU keeps losing importance, there's a real chance Game Pass just gets phased out entirely—especially if it stops driving meaningful user engagement.
The whole "Netflix of games" pitch made a lot of sense back when the Series X|S launched and Xbox needed a strong selling point. But with more games launching on Steam, PS5, and elsewhere, it's obvious Microsoft is quietly backing away from that approach. Long term, Game Pass either has to evolve into something totally different or just fade away as Xbox moves toward a more open, platform-agnostic future.
Barakov
Member
Oh yeah. I don't know who said it but Xbox is a black hole that sucks in studios and then spits out bones. A pretty apt way to describe MS as a whole.
memoryman3
Member
It's worth noting that Xbox Chief Financial Officer Tim Stuart put Game Pass and subscription services on the same high margin category as the multiplatform releases. Unless you think he's lying to investors?
Also, Xbox's full price game releases on PS5 have shifted from $70 maximum to $80, alongside Nintendo releases. PS5 premium sales are also down 12% vs PS4. What does this say about the state of premium gaming?
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Do people prefer the Sub service over regular buy to play model?
YES...
But you are missing the forest for the trees:
MS is not equating a sub as a game being sold. (Some consumers think this way tho)
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
Nah, the whole idea behind Game Pass was to lock people into the broader Microsoft ecosystem and have recurring monthly revenue. They expect that people will spend on other items outside of the subscription. It's not quite a loss leader, but it's a similar idea.
If they diminish the value of Game Pass, what do they genuinely have left? They didn't spend all those billions on studios just to acquire their revenue stream + have to deal with the insane amount of overhead involved.
SlicedBread3
Member
Would you say it's feasible that it was successful enough for them to consider green lighting a sequel?
The FTC put up a good fight saying that it wouldn't be good for the workforce but there was little they could do with that judge. She was just buying up everything the MS lawyers were saying about unions and no job loses even though nothing was legally binding to prevent this. They investigated monopsony but it's very difficult to prove harm to labour markets in cases like this. MS would not have agreed to no cuts either if they could fight it so easily.
Topher
Identifies as young
I'm still a bit shocked that the FTC didn't try to fight for a different judge considering her son worked for Microsoft.
SneakersSO
Member
Okay so, even in a scenario where users are paying full price for games, the majority of most folks who play games will not complete them, or even make it halfway through the game. I haven't looked at the data in recent times, but I remember when I first looked into it, there was a plurality of AAA games that didn't even have a 50% completion rate by the total userbase that played it. Bioware did a famous talk about this decades ago going into ME2 or 3, I forget which.
On Xbox, the completion rate of games has increasingly dropped since the introduction of Game Pass. This is something publishers and devs have noted, and theres a variety of theories as to why, but the base model is simple to understand: there are so many games in the service that consumers can bounce between them at any given moment. Feel some frustration or lose to a boss? No sweat - just install some other major experience. No need for refunds, no need to continue with the experience because paid money or invested into it in order to play it. There are entire achievements that involve reaching some milestone 10% of the way into the thing and its just not getting hit, despite the fact that the amount of players who play these titles tends to be really high because of the sheer volume of game pass users on console.
Tim Stuart isn't lying, but hes also not explaining the full truth of where that value is perceived to be coming in from, which is a tactic Microsoft has routinely employed to obfuscate the true performance of certain initiatives. It isn't lying, but as an example, if Game Pass titles say boost usage metrics for another core MS product, like say Azure services or Azure Compute, then that is considered value derived. They also do things like hide certain costs out of specific reporting categories. For example, R&D costs of titles aren't applied to GamePass costs, even though the plurality of Xbox 1st party users are playing the titles via Game Pass.
Keep in mind: I don't have anything necessarily against Game Pass. In fact, I think if there were a Game Pass style service for older or indie titles, that this would be something that would benefit those devs. Sony themselves make a ton of money on the added tiers of PS+, the only difference there being that they aren't putting day 1 titles into the service, and have absolutely no plans in doing so in the future.
This industry is one of copying successful business models. If the GamePass business model were truly the outstanding business initiative that Microsoft used to claim it was, then you'd have seen every publisher, Sony and Nintendo offer similar services at similar price points. Except, this never happened. If it were such a value-strong service for MS, you would see them try to expand where the service is being offered, like say putting it on Steam, or putting it on PSN or Nintendo, and yet you're not gonna see this happen. Microsoft would rather have users on Steam, PSN, and Nintendo purchase the titles outright and lose a 30% cut on the Point of sale then collect a subscription revenue from those users and offer up a usage % fee to the platform holder.
The state of premium gaming is an interesting thing to bring up here for Playstation, because you're using a broad metric, while also ignoring in their own reporting that overall software sales on PSN were up 5% YoY in the last quarter, and so much of their revenue is coming in primarily from software sales. Sony has noted the reason they have had a backslide in software sales in certain sectors is due to a lack of releases on their end, which is a whole separate issue entirely, and one that they will be increasingly addressing as the years go by.
SneakersSO
Member
I think its too early to say on green lighting. I think if this were another publisher, then that'd be a no-brainer, but also - the level of success it got, even with the boost on PS5, might not be enough to offset the licensing fees that gotta be paid out to Disney in order to make it. And Microsoft is right now just axing projects and teams pretty indiscriminately. I have to imagine that that particular conversation isn't gonna come up until we reach the end of its planned DLC lifecycle, and even then - Disney licensing alone might be enough to doom the whole thing.
Similar threads
- Locked