I dont think the handful of Perfect Dark games in the past were even big sellers. So I find it odd they'd commit to reboot the series as if there's millions of gamers amped up begging for a new game.
What's probably complicating things is what they talk about in their board meetings:
"Ok gang, should we or shouldnt we continue making this game for the 400,000 expected sales."
The original PD did 2.5 million on the N64 which is actually very good not just for games in that era, but on the N64 in particular, considering its much smaller install base compared to PS1.
PD Zero apparently sold around 1 million copies "upon release", but no other numbers from there. So I guess we can say its total sales were between 1 - 1.5 million, probably closer to the former. Not bad for an early 360 exclusive but, MS saw Halo as their FPS moneymaker and prioritized that above doing more with Perfect Dark at the time.
Exactly. They are sitting on a literal GOLD MINE of cherished IP and all they need to do is properly utilize it.
These games used to have the hearts and minds of gamers in the late 90s and early 00s. They have the potential to be even bigger today.
The High on Life dev would've been perfect for a new Conker but unfortunately Roiland is involved in some big controversy and facing charges. I doubt Microsoft do anything with the studio unless Roiland sells them & steps away, or just steps down from involvement with them.
MS would probably be willing to work with the studio if Roiland were not involved and if Roiland cares about the studio more than his own ego (if it turns out he's guilty & convicted), he'll do the right thing and let them move on without him.
There are credible rumors that Microsoft is working on a lower-priced Gamepass tier that would start from $3 per month, have no third-party games, feature in-game advertisements, and have first-party games 6 months after launch.
I think they will use this tier of Gamepass and put it on PlayStation and Nintendo.
After you mentioned the specifics, that's exactly what I was thinking they could try doing. That's the "GP for Sony & Nintendo" tier.
But I still don't know how receptive either would be to it, considering MS are still making Xbox consoles and still selling them as consoles on the traditional business model. If it's only going to get 1P games six months after launch, and a lot of those are still Xbox/PC exclusive at launch, how much does MS have to pay Sony & Nintendo to accept only getting those games months later as part of that version of Game Pass?
That's a reason I think they (Sony & Nintendo) will only consider that model if they get those same games Day 1 on their systems as regular releases. That would make a Game Pass on their platforms a subscription backlog for MS content the way Ubisoft+ is for example, but I think the main reason companies like Sony allow Ubisoft+ (or MS allowing EA Play) is because those publishers aren't locking access to their games exclusively to their own subscription service, and aren't denying the games to release individually on platforms Day 1 where the sub service is available.
That, and they aren't putting their new releases into their services Day 1 in full (or at all in Ubisoft's case). There's no way Sony & Nintendo allow a Game Pass on their system unless Microsoft plays by the same rules as EA, Ubisoft, etc.
The main objection against Gamepass by platform holders would be the existence of third-party games. This tier won't have any. From Xbox's perspective, Gamepass subscribers on Xbox/PC will play the game 6 months before Gamepass subscribers on PlayStation -- which will be in line with
Microsoft's CFO statement of games being the best or first on Xbox.
I strongly believe that we'll see a future in the next few years where this would be happening -- especially if Xbox continues its current slide.
Agreed. MS are going to have to reconsider how the Xbox business functions going forward. It doesn't need to be put on ice, but look at what their main growth areas in gaming are coming from. Buying large publishers & rolling their revenue into Xbox's, then the realization those publishers generate that revenue because of their status as full-on multiplat 3P publishers. MS already signaling they would be interested in buying more publishers, and seeing how a lot of the contention they're facing for ABK is because they're trying to do this as a console platform holder/manufacturer (I genuinely think the ABK deal would be going by a lot easier if they weren't a "console" maker; didn't Take-Two's Zygna acquisition go through relatively quickly? And Zygna was a more expensive purchase than Zenimax).
They want more pubs & devs to leverage Azure for their backend services and networks, to serve the largest audience possible so...why engage in locking down publishers just to make their games exclusive to the smallest amount of console gamers in the Xbox base? There's too many contradictions with Xbox's model right now, so they'll have to eventually make adjustments if their stake in gaming is truly about growing their revenue and being as open with gaming console & services holders as possible.
They'll have to do what they basically have done for MS Office and other MS productivity software tools on Apple, Google etc. products, and do that for gaming. And IMO that means not treating Xbox as a traditional "console" anymore. That's probably going to mean making it more like a gaming-centric PC brand of boxes like what Valve tried with Steam Machines (and are doing much better now with Steam Deck). Will probably mean selling Xbox as a NUC-style PC with full Windows support, but at least that lets them price them higher to have good profit margins on the actual hardware. It'll probably mean them allowing Steam, EGS, GOG etc. to fully function on them but in turn gives MS a chance to fully integrate the Xbox storefront into Windows Store, maybe even rebrand Windows Store as the Xbox Store and have it available on PC and on Xbox devices.
It'll probably mean them shifting their marketing & messaging completely away from, say, Sony, since it would now be something not competing against PlayStation consoles. But it also lets Microsoft iterate on Xbox hardware more frequently (like with their Surface devices; incidentally this also makes All-Access more useful), probably be more experimental with future Xbox designs, manage production volumes better (they wouldn't need to manufacture as many), get some kind of tax exemption (IIRC that's a reason Sony tried classifying PS3 as a computer back in the day, altho they faced a lawsuit once they removed OtherOS), finally have some VR available for Xbox devices (since they can just run Windows full-tilt now), increase gaming revenue by no longer artificially keeping games off of rival consoles (since they wouldn't have rival consoles anymore, with Xbox not operating on that business model anymore) but, funnily enough, still having some "exclusives" (assuming they made a PC-only game that stayed exclusive to Windows for a while like some RTS or Flight Sim-style thing, before then bringing it to game consoles like PlayStation) for people who care about those kind of optics (such as certain Xbox diehard fans)...
...honestly there are just
way too many upsides to them transitioning Xbox away from the traditional console business model into a more PC-style business model. Capitalize off what Valve's doing but in an area they aren't focused in. Microsoft's gaming roots were always with PC anyway, they messed up big time letting Valve carve out so much in that space but there's a growing market for higher low-end and mid-end gaming on PC that's affordable, simple to use, with console-like features and simplicity while still giving the tweaking freedom of a PC. Better for Microsoft to establish that market themselves with Xbox than give Valve an opening to sweep back in with Steam Machines.
Problem is there are too many top-level Xbox executives listening to the wrong people either around them or online who don't see the forest from the trees. When some of us who actually want the brand to do better suggest these kind of ideas, we get labeled as fanboys, when really the people throwing those labels out are stuck in a mind state of wanting Xbox to beat PlayStation & Nintendo, instead of wanting Xbox to do what's best for itself.