Support NeoGAF

[a multicultural team of v]

Did you read the question you replied to, as well as your own links?

The parity clause didn't keep games from releasing on PlayStation. In fact, it backfired and kept some content off Xbox

It only backfired because the Xbox One was so far behind the Playstation 4 in sales they had absolutely no bargaining position. Meanwhile it didn't backfire with the 360 because the 360 had the higher sales and they could actually make demands - there were plenty of games that were on 360 only for years before eventually getting a PS3 release (Bioshock, Mass Effect).

If Sony instead had a clause that said "you cannot release on Gamepass unless you release on PS Plus" it would look equally silly.

 

[mckmas8808]

Can't believe this has to be said but you do know ps + premium an all that is literally them competing with gamepass right? MS in the right, Sony in the wrong. If it wasn't that case, then google, apple, Ubisoft, EA, etc etc would've agreed with Sony. Hell apple has a bigger stake in gaming than Sony & MS, candy crush and cod mobile are HUGE games for them. Yet only Sony's mad, then they go out there way to say COD wouldn't make us money going exclusive so it'll still be on PS. There literally bitching over marketing right after another company bought out the thing they wanted to market. Idk how anyone with the ability to use common sense would see Sony in the right here.

I think BOTH are saying some stupid stuff here. Both MS and Sony. They are both lying to be honest! They are......maybe not lying completely, but they aren't being fully honest. Neither side is. It's stupid to say that Sony can't make a game that could compete with COD. And it's stupid for MS to act as if Activision/Blizzard doesn't make "must-have" games.

 

[Infamy v1]

If these statements are true, then it pretty much confirms that COD and other major Activision franchises will continue releasing on PlayStation for the foreseeable future...or at least until the money MS is wiling to sacrifice by not releasing on PlayStation is offset by some other area such as substantial GamePass revenue/adoption (which may very well happen if all future COD games became GamePass accessible from Day-1 going forward).

FYI, as been pointed out numerous times in the Era topic linked in this OP, Microsoft had the same verbiage regarding Bethesda in court. Look at Starfield and TESVI now, permanetely exclusive. Funnily enough, they keep using the word "desire" too, lol.

Although, I personally believe CoD stays multiplatform for the rest of this gen; MS is known to play the long game and has repeatedly said as such. PS5 will coast off of PS4s success and Microsoft will coast off of that and use PlayStation to literally fund their games while making Xbox the home of CoD, Game Pass explode in subs/popularity and CoD extras to be including in Game Pass Perks. It's in their best interest to keep it on PlayStation in the short term while pretending it to be a consession they agree with, before the consession is even mandated (if at all, looking unlikely regulators will mandate anything).

Other major franchises? Ehhh, notice how everything surmounts to CoD for both Sony and Microsoft. Existing GaaS, Diablo 4 and OW2 with the other odd title available on PS5, sure, but other then that it gets extremely doubtful.

Also, Microsoft lawyers almost literally obliterated Sony's statements with these facts, lol. Of course these companies are saying things on their best interests but Sony keeps looking worse and worse here. You know it's bad when their own fansites make scathing headlines about them, like PushSquare. Still sure the usual suspects will enter this thread to damage control and shit on Microsoft, though. Or am I too late?

Not if Sony has a marketing deal for years that block COD from appearing on a competitor's subscription service.

Microsoft isn't going to let the biggest franchise stay off of Game Pass for many years because of a marketing agreement. They're being lenient and choosing to honor contractual agreements, when they don't have to and the fine for breaching would be pennies compared to $70B, but:

- This wasn't brought up in their rebuttal whilst it would've been extremely relevant, unless it happens to be the redacted statement. It would've been a perfect retort to Sonys crocodile tears if Microsoft proved Sony had a clause for CoD+Game Pass and used it against them
- the RE8 block is a clause on the contract, not the basis for the marketing agreement
- Sony had many marketing contracts with games that appear on Game Pass (NBA2K, etc)
- Sony has had the marketing for CoD since before Game Pass was a thing. This last part keeps bring mentioned across forums everywhere but people are forgetting this.
- ABK games rarely released on subscription services at all, let alone Game Pass.

I can see MW2 not coming right away, maybe, but that's about it.

 

[Ozriel]

The bolded is the key. It's what MS is doing with Starfield. They are using their big MS bucks from Windows, Azure, etc. to backfill the losses that Starfield "not" being on the PS5 will bring.

COD makes a ton of DLC and MTX revenue, so that's a different thing entirely.
They'll sell millions of copies of Starfield across console and PC. What losses?

In all honesty, this is the type of stuff that makes me concerned about MS buying up publishers but not really concerned about Sony buying big names like Bungie. I feel like Sony's anti-competitive behavior is designed to make it's eco-system more attractive by addition, whereas MS just wants to take things away until the audience capitulates and buys in. Reasonable minds can disagree of course.

Did I wake up in an alternate universe where Sony isnt paying big bucks to keep final fantasy and forspoken off xbox for minimum 2 years?

 

[mckmas8808]

Probably listed in the stuff that's redacted as they would get in trouble legally by publicly saying it.

 

[DETACA]

I'm sure Netflix would NEVER keep a popular show off of Hulu. That would be a "BS tactic". They must freely share all their content with other streaming services, because it's the right thing to do.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Finally, MS says that regardless of how unusual Sony's criticisms of content are, the reality is that the strategy of retaining Activision Blizzard games, not distributing them in rival console stores, would simply not be profitable for Microsoft because such a strategy would only be profitable if Activision Blizzard's games were able to attract a sufficiently large number of gamers to the Xbox console ecosystem, and if Microsoft could earn enough revenue from the sale of games to offset the losses arising from non-distribution of such games on rival consoles. [\quote]

 

[Salty Popsicle]

We should stop with this narrative.

PS One release outside of Japan: 9 September 1995
Original Xbox release date: November 15, 2001

There was 6 years and 2 months from the moment Sony conquered the console business and Microsoft entered it.

Where is the "both competitors already had decades to foster a faithful userbase and established gaming franchises" narrative here?

Sony just knew what the market wanted and MS kept screwing up everything with all studios they collaborated with: Bungie, Rare, etc.
Even right now during Phil Spencer's years the older studios they have like 343i (Halo) and The Coalition (Gears of War) somehow managed to turn 2 of the 3 biggest franchises Microsoft had into much more irrelevant IPs than they were just 10 years ago. The exception? Forza. And remember Fable's next sequel? The game they announced like god knows how long that's barely a game in 2022?

Microsoft has the money to buy everything in this industry...but that's it.

Meanwhile in the past half a decade, half of Sony's studios managed to double in size and have 2 teams making 2 different videogames instead of one at the same time, with much less resources.

You can have all the money in the world, but Microsoft managing skills always lacked in this business, even today. It's not about how long they've been in this industry that's the issue. They are a multimillionaire company. One of the biggest in the world. They have been in the business for 20 years and look where they are now.

Having an entire generation head-start, creating beloved gaming mascots like Crash Bandicoot and Spyro, and having the exclusive support of Japanese developers like Square that released gems like FF7 is enough to dominate a market and establish hardcore fans to prop your console for generations to come.

It's hard to know for certain, but I'm willing to bet the Xbox would be in PlayStation's current console market position if they had released their first console in 1995 with Halo as a killer-app, a large group of Western developers making games exclusive to the Xbox, and Sony entering the US market 6 years later.

 

[johnjohn]

I think BOTH are saying some stupid stuff here. Both MS and Sony. They are both lying to be honest! They are......maybe not lying completely, but they aren't being fully honest. Neither side is. It's stupid to say that Sony can't make a game that could compete with COD. And it's stupid for MS to act as if Activision/Blizzard doesn't make "must-have" games.

MS never said that in the context that you're implying they did. The didn't say Activision makes no "must have" games for consumers (What even is a must have game?), they said that Activision doesn't make must have games for Sony to be able to compete with them.

 

[DeepEnigma]

- This wasn't brought up in their rebuttal whilst it would've been extremely relevant, unless it happens to be the redacted statement. It would've been a perfect retort to Sonys crocodile tears if Microsoft proved Sony had a clause for CoD+Game Pass and used it against them
- the RE8 block is a clause on the contract, not the basis for the marketing agreement
- Sony had many marketing contracts with games that appear on Game Pass (2K, etc)
- Sony has had the marketing for CoD since before Game Pass was a thing. This last part keeps bring mentioned across forums everywhere but people are forgetting this.
- ABK games rarely released on subscription services at all, let alone Game Pass.

I can see MW2 not coming right away, maybe, but that's about it.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

NDAs are a thing.

 

[mckmas8808]

First off, paying to keep a game off competing sub services isn't the same thing as 'paying to have it on their subscription service'.

And No, my post was clear. I'm not equating these two things. You seem to imply that actions like these are fine since "it's how business works" to spend money to ensure their ecosystem is better than the competition.

Do we know for sure, that's how it went down? MS want to offer any evidence of this? MS consently shows 90 games per show that'll be on Gamepass. So which games weren't on GP due to Sony? Does MS really want us to believe that Sony is spending millions of dollars just to keep a game off GP, but NOT put it on PS Now or PS+?

 

[Salty Popsicle]

You think Sony paying money to have games on its own game subscription service (meaning that they will add language to keep it off of competing sub-services for a specific amount of time) is the same as buying Bethesda, Activision, and Blizzard?

The end goal is the same, whish is to strengthen the first-party lineup and offer the best value-proposition to consumers for why they should choose their console or game subscription service over the competition's.

Both are trying to impress the pretty girl, Sony does it by renting a Ferrari for the day while Microsoft does it by purchasing the Ferrari outright.

 

[Black_Stride]

I think BOTH are saying some stupid stuff here. Both MS and Sony. They are both lying to be honest! They are......maybe not lying completely, but they aren't being fully honest. Neither side is. It's stupid to say that Sony can't make a game that could compete with COD. And it's stupid for MS to act as if Activision/Blizzard doesn't make "must-have" games.

Sony are the ones who are complaining.
Had they let sleeping dogs lie we wouldnt be privy to their bitching.

Sony is saying COD is a genre in and of itself and MS having it on Gamepass would be locking a genre away from consumers.
At the same time their upper echelon relatively recently have been saying they believe gamers should have the option to buy games out right or subscribe.
MS counterpoints with "well you will still be able to buy COD outright.....or subscribe to Gamepass", so no one is locked out.
MS also points out that Sony isnt actually worried about Gamepass, they are worried that their dominance in the digital distribution arena is being challenged.


What exactly is Sony bitching about?

Do we know for sure, that's how it went down? MS want to offer any evidence of this? MS consently shows 90 games per show that'll be on Gamepass. So which games weren't on GP due to Sony? Does MS really want us to believe that Sony is spending millions of dollars just to keep a game off GP, but NOT put it on PS Now or PS+?

They have the receipts.
The courts have them right now.
Those records were just redacted....not by MS by the courts.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I just find it very amusing, that these 2 big corporations are using "console warz" rhetorics.

Is just like Jet Fuel for the "toxicity".


but we all are into this game of (thrones) PR/Marketing.

 

[mckmas8808]

Shitty practice is shitty practice. Being common doesn't make it not shitty and only fool's are fine "because that's how it's done".

Only fools ignore context and believe only the headlines like some in this thread are doing.

 

[SLB1904]

If by "destroy the market" you mean move to a model where I can play games for $15 instead of $70 then sign me up for destruction. Game pass and PS+ Extra are exactly how I want to pay for and consume video games.

Keep dreaming you going to get AAA games on a $10 subscription service. Keep dreaming

 

[Infamy v1]

Having an entire generation head-start, creating beloved gaming mascots like Crash Bandicoot and Spyro, and having the exclusive support of Japanese developers like Square that released gems like FF7 is enough to dominate a market and establish hardcore fans to prop your console for generations to come.

It's hard to know for certain, but I'm willing to bet the Xbox would be in PlayStation's current console market position if they had released their first console in 1995 with Halo as a killer-app, a large group of Western developers making games exclusive to the Xbox, and Sony entering the US market 6 years later.

Agreed, people downplay Sony's headstart in the industry because it benefits their fanboy narratives.

But FYI, Sony didn't create Crash or Spyro, they were created FOR them by third parties. Crash was literally created as a way for Jason Rubin and Naughty Dog to make a game that will be a guaranteed hit, by looking at what Sony didn't have: their own Mario or Sonic. Jason was using big brain logic and Sony ate it up (although Sony Japan almost canned the entire thing because Crash was too edgy and dudebro, and they had to change his artwork and marketing solely for Japan, haha).

 

[Magic Carpet]

Timed exclusive

Bethesda > Starfield

These are examples of paying to have something ON your system. The exclusive rights. I'll give you money if you give me the exclusive rights to your game.
I'm looking for an example where your playing dirty. Paying to keep a game off your competitors system.
I develop this great tasting potato and Mcdonalds comes to me and says hey we want your potato for our french fries, but here is some money to not sell your potato to Burger King.

Microsoft demands content, release date parity for 360 games - General Discussion - Giant Bomb

In an interview with Eurogamer, European Xbox boss Chris Lewis revealed that per their third-party release guidelines all titles must have content and

www.giantbomb.com

Here's why Microsoft should abolish its ID@Xbox parity clause for Xbox One

The latest News,/news,,news, breaking news, comment, reviews and features from the experts at Windows Central

www.windowscentral.com

Gang Beasts dev: Parity clause means we can't commit to Xbox One release

Microsoft's oft-criticised parity clause is still coming under fire from independent developers. Gang Beasts creator Bo…

www.gamesindustry.biz

Are these examples where microsoft paid to keep something off Playstation? Or is this a policy requirement to put something on Xbox?

 

[Riky]

Keep dreaming you going to get AAA games on a $10 subscription service. Keep dreaming

*Plays Forza Horizon 5

 

[adamsapple]

Do we know for sure, that's how it went down? MS want to offer any evidence of this? MS consently shows 90 games per show that'll be on Gamepass. So which games weren't on GP due to Sony? Does MS really want us to believe that Sony is spending millions of dollars just to keep a game off GP, but NOT put it on PS Now or PS+?

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse ..

In fact, MS says that Microsoft's ability to continue expanding Game Pass has been hampered by Sony's desire to inhibit such growth. Sony pays for "blocking rights" to prevent developers from adding content to Game Pass and other competing subscription services (then there is a bunch of redacted content).

It's redacted for public but the courts have the full list.

Companies probably don't want the terms of their contracts to leak out to public.

Keep dreaming you going to get AAA games on a $10 subscription service. Keep dreaming

But there's already plenty of them on it ... what are you on about ?

 

[ManaByte]

Are these examples where microsoft paid to keep something off Playstation? Or is this a policy requirement to put something on Xbox?

It was a policy to put games ON Xbox, which ended up keeping some games from being released on Xbox.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

*Plays Forza Horizon 5

 

[Salty Popsicle]

Keep dreaming you going to get AAA games on a $10 subscription service. Keep dreaming

Hey, that's not nice. I happen to think Sony's efforts with MLB The Show merit it being called AAA.

 

[OverHeat]

This is gonna bite Sony in the ass in the long run…

 

[DeepEnigma]

It was a policy to put games ON Xbox, which ended up keeping some games from being released on Xbox.

Context and nuance.

It only backfired because the Xbox One was so far behind the Playstation 4 in sales they had absolutely no bargaining position. Meanwhile it didn't backfire with the 360 because the 360 had the higher sales and they could actually make demands - there were plenty of games that were on 360 only for years before eventually getting a PS3 release (Bioshock, Mass Effect).

If Sony instead had a clause that said "you cannot release on Gamepass unless you release on PS Plus" it would look equally silly.

 

[Infamy v1]

Keep dreaming you going to get AAA games on a $10 subscription service. Keep dreaming

I must've been dreaming these past 5 years, and the pipeline for the next 5 years must be my dreams*

*According to one angry guy on GAF

 

[ToadMan]

"destroy the market" lmao. Just compete bro, it's not hard.

It's not hard? Then why is MS using revenue generated from non-gaming sources to buy major chunks of the gaming market?

Evidently they want to gain through straight cash what they couldn't achieve through the production of original content, investment and commercial success.

 

[Chronicle]

So there's not a ton of information there. Are sone of you jumping to the conclusion that COD is not day one because of Sony?

 

[Bernd Lauert]

It's not hard? Then why is MS using revenue generated from non-gaming sources to buy major chunks of the gaming market?

Because they made an almost fatal mistake with the Xbone and Playstation is/was so far ahead that it was impossible to compete. So they found a different edge (Gamepass) and now Sony is mad and doesn't want that to happen.

 

[Infamy v1]

It's not hard? Then why is MS using revenue generated from non-gaming sources to buy major chunks of the gaming market?

Evidently they want to gain through straight cash what they couldn't achieve through the production of original content, investment and commercial success.

But Sony did this same thing with their non-gaming sources. It's how PlayStation began. And the gaming market wasn't even this big back then, too, meaning they had an easier time more of an impact right away.

We're you even gaming, or alive, in the PS1 generation?

 

[Kuranghi]

I don't like that everyone has the same avatars now, please fix this so I don't have to look at words.

 

[SLB1904]

But there's already plenty of them on it ... what are you on about ?

If you are clueless enough to understand none of the games available to date were made with subscription model in mind don't know what to say to you.
Secondly MS is in investment mode, meaning losing money money now to entice people to subscribe to their service.
Once this business models estabilised lets talk. And pray for them to have enough subscribers to keep this business afloat.

This is business period. They don't give a shit about you or your warrior crusade through neogaf. If that shit doesn't make money it will get shut down. And that goes for every company worst even for Sony or Microsoft that aren't solely video game company like Nintendo.

 

[clampzyn]

*Plays Forza Horizon 5

Plays Gears 4/5

 

[adamsapple]

If you are clueless enough to understand none of the games available to date were made with subscription model in mind don't know what to say to you.

What the fuck are you talking about lol.

No upcoming game on the console is being made with "SUBSCRIPTION MODEL ONLY" in mind either. They will all be available for sale on retail as well.

 

[Salty Popsicle]

It's not hard? Then why is MS using revenue generated from non-gaming sources to buy major chunks of the gaming market?

Evidently they want to gain through straight cash what they couldn't achieve through the production of original content, investment and commercial success.

LMAO this is funny. You're mad that Microsoft is too successful at its other business ventures and can allocate resources across its different divisions in whatever manner they choose, including giving the Xbox division billions of dollars on a whim. You're right, a smart business move would be to simply give up and let the Xbox brand flounder like Sony did with their VAIO computer brand

 

[Black_Stride]

Keep dreaming you going to get AAA games on a $10 subscription service. Keep dreaming

Wait you think out of over 500 games on Gamepass right now none of them are AAA?
Thats not even counting the ones that have left the service

So there's not a ton of information there. Are sone of you jumping to the conclusion that COD is not day one because of Sony?

No Activision/Blizzard game has been on Gamepass.
The list of games that Sony has bankrolled to keep off Gamepass is redacted.
The marketing deal between Sony and Activision is likely or atleast in part to cause.
Its alittle too convenient that all the market rights, early access, betas etc etc have some Sony exclusivity, its not a stretch to imagine Sony also doesnt want COD games on Gamepass.
Even PC Gamepass doesnt get games that logically should be on the service....coincidentally said games have marketing deals with Sony?
Im not saying Activision/Blizzard have such a deal with Sony, but Sony does have such deals in place, we just dont know with who......yet.

 

[clampzyn]

Keep dreaming you going to get AAA games on a $10 subscription service. Keep dreaming

If you talkin about gamepass, sure MS will do so as their target is not only console users but they are already rolling it out on the Cloud/PC. Imagine targetting the mobile users, and this users see that you can play triple A games for only 10$ a month, you just need a decent internet and a supported region. That's a huge market to fund a triple A game mate.

 

[Hendrick's]

These are examples of paying to have something ON your system. The exclusive rights. I'll give you money if you give me the exclusive rights to your game.
I'm looking for an example where your playing dirty.

Final Fantasy comes to mind, but there are others.

 

[mckmas8808]

The end goal is the same, whish is to strengthen the first-party lineup and offer the best value-proposition to consumers for why they should choose their console or game subscription service over the competition's.

Both are trying to impress the pretty girl, Sony does it by renting a Ferrari for the day while Microsoft does it by purchasing the Ferrari outright.

Exactly! It's clear that one is worse than the other for consumers though.

They have the receipts.
The courts have them right now.
Those records were just redacted....not by MS by the courts.

It's extremely hard to believe that Sony is spending millions of dollars to keep say "Elden Ring" off GamePass, without spending that same money on getting that same game exclusive on their system or exclusive on their sub-service at the minimum.

No way I believe they are just getting devs free cash to stay off GP only!

 

[The_Mike]

Do you have any evidence of MS doing this?

Microsoft did a timed exclusive with Tomb Raider once.

Technically, Microsoft have done it with Bethesda and Activision by outright buying the developer lol.

I mean, that's also kinda paying for not having it on the other platform.

 

[Chronicle]

Wait you think out of over 500 games on Gamepass right now none of them are AAA?
Thats not even counting the ones that have left the service


No Activision/Blizzard game has been on Gamepass.
The list of games that Sony has bankrolled to keep off Gamepass is redacted.
The marketing deal between Sony and Activision is likely or atleast in part to cause.
Its alittle too convenient that all the market rights, early access, betas etc etc have some Sony exclusivity, its not a stretch to imagine Sony also doesnt want COD games on Gamepass.
Even PC Gamepass doesnt get games that logically should be on the service....coincidentally said games have marketing deals with Sony?
Im not saying Activision/Blizzard have such a deal with Sony, but Sony does have such deals in place, we just dont know with who......yet.

Thanks but I highly highly doubt COD would be on gamepass day one anyways. I mean it's a system seller for both consoles. Not sure why Microsoft would shell out all that change to just drop on gamepass. People buy it by the millions. Would be a huge waste of money.

 

[SLB1904]

What the fuck are you talking about lol.

No upcoming game on the console is being made with "SUBSCRIPTION MODEL ONLY" in mind either. They will all be available for sale on retail as well.

Lmfao. Yeah sure Jim. " netflix movies aren't just for streaming only, they will be in select theaters "derpface"

Xbox focus is gamepass. Don't act dumb my guy.

Anyway let's see how this pans out.

My bet is you will start to see unfinished games, increase of season passes, and chapters games in every single streaming platform possible.
Just like the hot new thing in every tv stream service are series now.

 

[mckmas8808]

These are examples of paying to have something ON your system. The exclusive rights. I'll give you money if you give me the exclusive rights to your game.
I'm looking for an example where your playing dirty. Paying to keep a game off your competitors system.
I develop this great tasting potato and Mcdonalds comes to me and says hey we want your potato for our french fries, but here is some money to not sell your potato to Burger King.


Are these examples where microsoft paid to keep something off Playstation? Or is this a policy requirement to put something on Xbox?

We don't have any evidence that Sony has done this either if you doing it that way.

 

[NickFire]

But Sony did this same thing with their non-gaming sources. It's how PlayStation began. And the gaming market wasn't even this big back then, too, meaning they had an easier time more of an impact right away.

We're you even gaming, or alive, in the PS1 generation?

It's true that Sony used non-gaming resources to break into the industry. But MS isn't being faulted for using outside resources to break into the industry in this discussion. They are being criticized for using them 20 years later to destroy that which they struggle to compete with (at the level they want, since they clearly compete just fine by normal guy metrics). Totally different scenarios.

As an aside, Sony did not have an easier time breaking in because of the industry size back then. They benefitted from 3 specific things: 1) Sega falling on its face; 2) Nintendo games costing a fortune due to cartridges; and 3) content.

 

[Salty Popsicle]

Exactly! It's clear that one is worse than the other for consumers though.

Consumers who don't own a platform where said games can be accessed. Xbox and PC consumers have been very happy with Microsoft's initiatives.

 

[Infamy v1]

Keep dreaming you going to get AAA games on a $10 subscription service. Keep dreaming

Someone get these 100+ AAA games off of Game Pass and tell Sony to get MLB The Show '22 off of it, too. STAT!

 

[Salty Popsicle]

Lmfao. Yeah sure Jim. " netflix movies aren't just for streaming only, they will be in select theaters "derpface"

Xbox focus is gamepass. Don't act dumb my guy.

Anyway let's see how this pans out.

My bet is you will start to see unfinished games, increase of season passes, and chapters games in every single streaming platform possible.
Just like the hot new thing in every tv stream service are series now.

GT7 is the most microtransaction heavy GT game to date and TLoU2 released with no multiplayer content, probably so it can be sold for another $70 at a later date or F2P with more microtransactions. So, what is Sony's excuse for these misgivings?

 

[Topher]

Corporate lawyer's are arguing with competing corporate lawyers?

 

[SLB1904]

Wait you think out of over 500 games on Gamepass right now none of them are AAA?
Thats not even counting the ones that have left the service

99% of these games are old game. And none of them was made from the ground up for the streaming service. None a single one. All of them were made with business model of paying full price upfront. Gamepass still young. How old is gamepass anyway. 3? 4 years?
Let's see what happens when companies sit down and actually release games with the upfront fee in mind.

Do you think 3rd parties will spend 300 mil on a game to get 50mil for MS and Sony?

Lmfao