Topher
Identifies as young
non gaming podcast taking about this.... Phil.... What have you done?!
Holy shit. Leo Laporte?

non gaming podcast taking about this.... Phil.... What have you done?!
If you're not including first party costs then of course it's profitable. 1st party costs I'm sure are partially included. They also sell it on the Xbox store, on Steam, and now on PS5 so they have to include multiple revenue sources outside of GP to cover the full budget of a 1st party game and assess its profitability.
I think this guy got a really incomplete comment if they're saying that absolutely no GP funds are used to cover 1st party. That's obviously not true. Doesn't even really make sense if you think about it for 10 seconds. They're probably doing exactly what the guy replying to Dring said; some kind of formula based on allocating a value to downloads / players and seeing how it fits into the monthly revenue they get. I think the stuff they detailed in court is probably more reliable than a random comment to Dring.
i'm amazed that they could survive this long with this kind of premiseThis is how a child would do accounting; 'I don't like that, so let's not count it'.
Superb.
Back probably 20 years ago one of his shows he would pull things out of an old squeaky fridge and my miniature pinscher would lose his shitHoly shit. Leo Laporte?
![]()
They didn't say their service isn't profitable. They were asked if it was profitable.Random comment? The idea that MS is just randomly telling reporters that their service isn't profitable after saying for years that it is, is next level delusion.
They wanted to destroy competition with a deal too good to be true while they bled money (since they had a lot, they could support it)
And it has failed. They werent able to eat Sony's/Nintendo's launch, and the money to support it became too much even for Microsoft.
It was clearly Microsoft's last hope for Xbox and it has failed.
Back probably 20 years ago one of his shows he would pull things out of an old squeaky fridge and my miniature pinscher would lose his shit
I emailed him and told him this and one of his following shows he said something like one of my viewers told me this drives his dog crazy so he opened and closed it several times
I have looked so many times for that show to keep that but have never found it online anywhere
And Netflix saw massive membership increases year over year. GamePass hit a wall LONG before they expected to.Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't Netflix only profitable after more than 10 freaking years? And this is because Netflix was a hit.
Why would this crap would be?
Because you can only estimate.Anyway, its not the same as not including "real" cost. Its quite strange that first he mentions this and then claims that he was told that development costs are not included. Does not make any sense .How do you know the lost revenue is "fictional"? And I believe what is being talked about here is called "opportunity cost".
The great "pro-consumer" approach was to burn the industry down to the ground betting on being the only monopolist standing. Sigh… at least so far they have not done it competently enough and hopefully they will not buy a clue…Yeah, I guessed this was the method to their fudge-accounting. Way to confirm you're taking a flamethrower to money there.
It cannot be overstated how reptilian Spencer is. He was and still is trying to twist the entire game industry into this shit on openly false pretences going on 8 years.
MS/XB is taking a beating this week.
![]()
A lot of this stuff has been known by most and ignored by others. Layoffs have happened and will continue. What changed? Is it that BS is getting so deep that even supporters are starting to see through it? Business as usual next week?
They normally have a vested interest in saying its profitable. Currently they have a vested interest in saying it is isn't. How they do the accounting allows either to be true depending on the message they want to get across.Random comment? The idea that MS is just randomly telling reporters that their service isn't profitable after saying for years that it is, is next level delusion.
Yeah, so good they planned (they said so as much) to burn the industry to the ground to make themselves the monopolist and then ravage the users in price increases… yeah.:: how generousi love how people get so worked up over this. So a company is giving gamers something great at a good value and its our problem? Let microsoft figure that out....
Never heard of "Hollywood accounting"? It's done constantly by studios, where a movie is made profitable by dubious means. Or alternatively, have a successful movie make a loss to avoid paying the creators. No reason why IT/gaming would be any different.Microsoft, or at least the gaming division, needs to be audited. Cooking the books to this degree has to violate federal laws.
For me it's like they were like « it's profitable » and no question asked for years, and now Dring is like « do you mean subscription revenues minus third party deals and first party dev costs ? » and they're like « no no excluding first party dev costs obviously »That's the other thing I'm noticing.
Years of caginess and they just give it out?
Because you can only estimate.Anyway, its not the same as not including "real" cost. Its quite strange that first he mentions this and then claims that he was told that development costs are not included. Does not make any sense .
They wanted to destroy competition with a deal too good to be true while they bled money (since they had a lot, they could support it)
And it has failed. They werent able to eat Sony's/Nintendo's launch, and the money to support it became too much even for Microsoft.
It was clearly Microsoft's last hope for Xbox and it has failed.
They dont give any details in there actual financials. Don't think they have stated it is profitable in their financial data because they don't have to because gaming is a miniscule part of their business.
Likewise how much does Netflix release about its gaming business? Not a whole lot - they are rumored to have spent at least a billion dollars. Is it profitable? Doubtful but how would you tell? Is Amazon's gaming initiative profitable? Again doubtful, but again how would you tell?
That's where you draw the line when it comes to the whole Xbox debacle ?Doesn't even really make sense if you think about it for 10 seconds.
If you're not including first party costs then of course it's profitable. 1st party costs I'm sure are partially included. They also sell it on the Xbox store, on Steam, and now on PS5 so they have to include multiple revenue sources outside of GP to cover the full budget of a 1st party game and assess its profitability.
I think this guy got a really incomplete comment if they're saying that absolutely no GP funds are used to cover 1st party. That's obviously not true. Doesn't even really make sense if you think about it for 10 seconds. They're probably doing exactly what the guy replying to Dring said; some kind of formula based on allocating a value to downloads / players and seeing how it fits into the monthly revenue they get. I think the stuff they detailed in court is probably more reliable than a random comment to Dring.
Countries too. But this is nothing new.The biggest companies in the world are ran by absolute clowns.
"I love Gamepass"
"Best deal in gaming"
"Such value"
These people killed Xbox, well done *slow clap*
Phil Spencer's Electric Monk located.Sounds like total BS to me, but go ahead and enjoy your early Christmas bash.
the system needed to change. spending 70 bucks for a game that ends up sucking with no way to return is a stupid business model. Gamepass or death
I think this guy got a really incomplete comment if they're saying that absolutely no GP funds are used to cover 1st party. That's obviously not true. Doesn't even really make sense if you think about it for 10 seconds. They're probably doing exactly what the guy replying to Dring said; some kind of formula based on allocating a value to downloads / players and seeing how it fits into the monthly revenue they get. I think the stuff they detailed in court is probably more reliable than a random comment to Dring.
They normally have a vested interest in saying its profitable. Currently they have a vested interest in saying it is isn't. How they do the accounting allows either to be true depending on the message they want to get across.
FCF is not profit, Netflix profitable since at least 2009Yep, it took Netflix until 2022 to go cash flow positive:
Poor bastards. They've been eating shit for like 15 years straight and they're still waiting for Phil to save them, they thought they were getting exclusive CoD and Diablo, now they need to delude themselves Xbox isn't over, that Gamepass will last forever... this is beyond desperate.It's sad but not unexpected that on other forums and subreddits, people are defending Microsoft and attacking Dring. He is just reporting what we all knew was logical already.
im so profitable when i ignore my huge cc debtThis is how a child would do accounting; 'I don't like that, so let's not count it'.
Superb.
FCF is not profit, Netflix profitable since at least 2009
They just invested more money than they earned (investment is not a loss, it's profit neutral at basis), so they had negative FCF.
I see Microsoft Gaming division is of the "spend $2B to make $1B" school of economics.....
![]()
How can they NOT include First Party game cost when factoring in if GamePass is profitable or not?
Because they just fired 1000's of developers and cancelled projects. They want to look like they need to make cuts.So then why did MS tell him that exactly?!
So it can look good for shareholders, otherwise it would be canned