If that change was really for any serious financial reasons, they wouldn't have changed direction so quickly. It was a poorly thought out move to try and push consumers to Gamepass ultimate, nothing more.
tldrGood Lord, this gave me a good laughPlease, don't ever become involved in running a business.
Firstly, you clearly have no concept of the scope of Microsoft's wealth. They paid $8.6 billion for Skype, and wrote off a $6 billion loss two years later. $7.5 billion is a smaller purchase at this tier; it's not enough to challenge the very concept of what an exclusive platform holder is or does. You're laughable wrong if you think $7.5 billion is somehow too much money for Microsoft.
Secondly, you clearly have no concept of Microsoft's MO. Anyone who thinks fucking Microsoft is going to share needs to cut back on their daily intake cope-ium. Microsoft 101: walk into an industry you want to dominate and write a blank cheque. Back when they wanted to enter the video game industry, they didn't fuck around: they walked up to Nintendo and offered to buy it. For cash. They were laughed out of the room, so, they went with plan B instead: build the Xbox platform from scratch, knowing they'd lose billions until the brand was established. So, Microsoft 102: In the industry you want to dominate, stop other people from getting the milk. A couple of hundred million for Rare, a couple of hundred million for Bungie - which pissed Steve Jobs off - and a couple hundred million here and there for some exclusive deals, and boom: Xbox brand is now a thing. Easy. With Bethesda, they could've had marketing deals for pennies in comparison, like with Cyberpunk. Heck, they could've had Gamepass day one access for the next ten years for every Bethesda title for a billion and change. They didn't want either of those things; they bought the cow, because Microsoft doesn't like to share the milk.
Now, at this point you'll cling to "but.. but.. Minecraft" and magically ignore every other purchase in the history of Microsoft including all of their other video game development purchases they've made since Minecraft. So, ok, Minecraft. That decision was made outside of the Xbox division, and according the Nadella, it was about cultural relevance, at a time when Microsoft was on the way out in the consumer space. So, Microsoft paid $2.5 billion dollars to make sure the Microsoft and Xbox logos were associated with the biggest game in the world, and it's paid for itself many, many times over. There's a reason Coca Cola likes to get its vending machines into schools, after all.
Thirdly, you clearly have no concept of platform adoption techniques. So, pick your strategy; here, it looks like Microsoft's is some variation of the little big horn: surround you with their stuff until you crack and buy in because you just can't not do it. They just bought up so many established brands that people who weren't looking at their platforms now can't not look at their platform. Gamers will cave and buy in because Microsoft just so happens to have a cheap console, and a cheap subscription service, where you can get access to whichever franchise you love. Oh, you're on PC? No problem, their platform is on PC. Oh, you're on mobile? No problem, their platform is on mobile. Oh, not sure if it's for you? Try the first month for $1. This approach drives platform adoption because who the heck won't pickup Gamepass to play Starfield or Elder Scrolls VI? Microsoft are banking that once you're in, you'll realise everything else that's there and stick around. That all drives platform revenue; DLC, Microtransactions, subscriptions, game sales, and so forth. $7.5 billion is a small price to pay for the millions upon millions of new platform adopters it'll create. They're at 18 million on Gamepass as of today and they haven't even dropped big exclusives yet. Easy to say: their strategy is working and they're just getting started.
And lastly, as an extension of the above, you clearly have no concept of how platform exclusives play into adoption. Sony made close to a $1 billion last quarter off of their PS Store platform alone, mostly off of third party title purchases, because Sony have aggressively driven adoption of their platform. The sales of any one title are largely useless when we're talking that kind of money at a platform level. Your terrible opinion is basically "Xbox is too small to have such big exclusives". So, how do you propose they grow their platform without such big exclusives? So, let's look at PlayStation with your broken logic. Obviously, Sony must be porting Spider-man to all Microsoft platforms because it would simply lose too much money not to on such a massive property. Marvel is the biggest franchise in the world right now, there is no way Sony's shareholders would allow them to cut out the entire PC and Xbox platforms for some fanboy pissing contest. Right? Lol - of course it's bloody exclusive, and rightfully so: people buy PlayStations to play Spider-man, and all the other exclusives, which is why they've sold 120+ million PS4s. Those sales mean 120 million people spending money on the PlayStation platform. That's how they made $1 billion on third party purchases in three months. Sony would probably sell another 5 or so million copies of Spider-man if they released it on Xbox; but they'd lose hundreds and hundreds of millions on platform-level revenue from people who didn't buy a PlayStation to play it. That's how PlayStation makes its money.
For Microsoft, if they lose $200 million in revenue on Starfield because it cut out PlayStation - but - Starfield drives new platform adopters whose spending eclipses $300 million across the entire Xbox platform, be it on PC, Mobile, or console, that's a big win for Microsoft, even if it looks like a loss on Starfield in isolation. Add up all the other exclusives, and the $7.5 billion they just paid is poultry; that purchase can pay for itself in a relatively short period of time, and now Microsoft has tens of millions of new platform adopters that'll stick around. That's how they're going to grow their platform.
But, please, feel free to cling to whatever you think Microsoft's CFO may or may not have possibly meant by a hint they may or may not have possibly dropped about a deal that is in-complete and thus illegal to comment on. I'm sure he threw a wink to all the PlayStation fans, just to let them know Microsoft, a company sued by the American government for anti-trust practices, who spent billions upon billions of dollars to dominate their industries, who spent a couple of years to set up a deal to buy a privately owned video game publisher for $7.5 billion dollars... plans to do absolutely nothing with it. Makes perfect sense :'D
metacritic: 72
The Medium
Become a medium living in two different worlds: the real one and the spirit one. Haunted by the vision of a child's murder, you travel to an abandoned hotel resort, which many years ago became the stage of an unthinkable tragedy. There you begin your search for difficult answers. As a medium...www.metacritic.com
opencritic: 73
The Medium Reviews
The Medium is rated 'Strong' after being reviewed by 195 critics, with an overall average score of 75. It's ranked in the top 37% of games and recommended by 64% of critics.opencritic.com
Well, it's in the medium. All good.
They were talking about the quality of the game not sales.
I have always found those complaints bizarre. PS exclusives have always had fantastic combat going all the way back to gow1 on PS1. I loved the combat in uncharted and preferred it over Gears even though I used to love gears back then. Drake felt so agile and the melee added this fantastic dimension to the combat which they took to the next level in TLOU games.
You know they only criticize PS exclusives because they want to play it.
yep. even their single player games like Gears and Halo are held back by having to design every level for 4 player coop.
It's free and multi player. I'm in. Can't keep playing warzone for my mutiolayer needs anymore
Both of those games would be significantly worse off if they had no multiplayer. MS excels at putting out games that have online features and most have multiplayer. Sony excels at putting out single player, 3rd person, story driven titles. I've noticed that it appears that MS is pushing to make games of every genre especially since buying Bethesda. Sony is comfortable sticking with the same formula. Different strokes for different folks. We'll see how things shake out as the years go on.
i hope people use game chat in the destruction of allstars. I've been bored recently and have been playing some black ops cold war and nobody talks.
So, they’re pushing for the already existing company they purchased that owns developers to continue to develop games they’ve been making for decades? That’s how you shake up the industry through innovation and risk taking! Bravo!
Looks far better than it did in the showcase.
Watched that, and cried...
I just paid 1390 OMR ($3,614) for a7s III today, only body. Can't even use it until I buy the 160GB memory ($400) and the first lens (Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Art Lens) ($960).
If I manage to buy an 8K@60-120fps camera, I'll rarely make photos and mostly make videos. 8K stills are 33.2MP!!!
And also watched this video, and continued crying...
Watched that, and cried...
I just paid 1390 OMR ($3,614) for a7s III today, only body. Can't even use it until I buy the 160GB memory ($400) and the first lens (Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN Art Lens) ($960).
If I manage to buy an 8K@60-120fps camera, I'll rarely make photos and mostly make videos. 8K stills are 33.2MP!!!
And also watched this video, and continued crying...
Can't even see myself buying a used ones, even though It's a wonderful tool to have with your camera.
ohhh that's a lot of $$$..No need to feel sorry, it's a fucking $2500 pro phone for real pros
Anyone going to post an essay like this will get a like from me solely based on effort.Good Lord, this gave me a good laugh
Firstly, you clearly have no concept of the scope of Microsoft's wealth. They paid $8.6 billion for Skype, and wrote off a $6 billion loss two years later. $7.5 billion is a smaller purchase at this tier; it's not enough to challenge the very concept of what an exclusive platform holder is or does. You're laughable wrong if you think $7.5 billion is somehow too much money for Microsoft.
Secondly, you clearly have no concept of Microsoft's MO. Anyone who thinks fucking Microsoft is going to share needs to cut back on their daily intake cope-ium. Microsoft 101: walk into an industry you want to dominate and write a blank cheque. Back when they wanted to enter the video game industry, they didn't fuck around: they walked up to Nintendo and offered to buy it. For cash. They were laughed out of the room, so, they went with plan B instead: build the Xbox platform from scratch, knowing they'd lose billions until the brand was established. So, Microsoft 102: In the industry you want to dominate, stop other people from getting the milk. A couple of hundred million for Rare, a couple of hundred million for Bungie - which pissed Steve Jobs off - and a couple hundred million here and there for some exclusive deals, and boom: Xbox brand is now a thing. Easy. With Bethesda, they could've had marketing deals for pennies in comparison, like with Cyberpunk. Heck, they could've had Gamepass day one access for the next ten years for every Bethesda title for a billion and change. They didn't want either of those things; they bought the cow, because Microsoft doesn't like to share the milk.
Now, at this point you'll cling to "but.. but.. Minecraft" and magically ignore every other purchase in the history of Microsoft including all of their other video game development purchases they've made since Minecraft. So, ok, Minecraft. That decision was made outside of the Xbox division, and according the Nadella, it was about cultural relevance, at a time when Microsoft was on the way out in the consumer space. So, Microsoft paid $2.5 billion dollars to make sure the Microsoft and Xbox logos were associated with the biggest game in the world, and it's paid for itself many, many times over. There's a reason Coca Cola likes to get its vending machines into schools, after all.
Thirdly, you clearly have no concept of platform adoption techniques. So, pick your strategy; here, it looks like Microsoft's is some variation of the little big horn: surround you with their stuff until you crack and buy in because you just can't not do it. They just bought up so many established brands that people who weren't looking at their platforms now can't not look at their platform. Gamers will cave and buy in because Microsoft just so happens to have a cheap console, and a cheap subscription service, where you can get access to whichever franchise you love. Oh, you're on PC? No problem, their platform is on PC. Oh, you're on mobile? No problem, their platform is on mobile. Oh, not sure if it's for you? Try the first month for $1. This approach drives platform adoption because who the heck won't pickup Gamepass to play Starfield or Elder Scrolls VI? Microsoft are banking that once you're in, you'll realise everything else that's there and stick around. That all drives platform revenue; DLC, Microtransactions, subscriptions, game sales, and so forth. $7.5 billion is a small price to pay for the millions upon millions of new platform adopters it'll create. They're at 18 million on Gamepass as of today and they haven't even dropped big exclusives yet. Easy to say: their strategy is working and they're just getting started.
And lastly, as an extension of the above, you clearly have no concept of how platform exclusives play into adoption. Sony made close to a $1 billion last quarter off of their PS Store platform alone, mostly off of third party title purchases, because Sony have aggressively driven adoption of their platform. The sales of any one title are largely useless when we're talking that kind of money at a platform level. Your terrible opinion is basically "Xbox is too small to have such big exclusives". So, how do you propose they grow their platform without such big exclusives? So, let's look at PlayStation with your broken logic. Obviously, Sony must be porting Spider-man to all Microsoft platforms because it would simply lose too much money not to on such a massive property. Marvel is the biggest franchise in the world right now, there is no way Sony's shareholders would allow them to cut out the entire PC and Xbox platforms for some fanboy pissing contest. Right? Lol - of course it's bloody exclusive, and rightfully so: people buy PlayStations to play Spider-man, and all the other exclusives, which is why they've sold 120+ million PS4s. Those sales mean 120 million people spending money on the PlayStation platform. That's how they made $1 billion on third party purchases in three months. Sony would probably sell another 5 or so million copies of Spider-man if they released it on Xbox; but they'd lose hundreds and hundreds of millions on platform-level revenue from people who didn't buy a PlayStation to play it. That's how PlayStation makes its money.
For Microsoft, if they lose $200 million in revenue on Starfield because it cut out PlayStation - but - Starfield drives new platform adopters whose spending eclipses $300 million across the entire Xbox platform, be it on PC, Mobile, or console, that's a big win for Microsoft, even if it looks like a loss on Starfield in isolation. Add up all the other exclusives, and the $7.5 billion they just paid is poultry; that purchase can pay for itself in a relatively short period of time, and now Microsoft has tens of millions of new platform adopters that'll stick around. That's how they're going to grow their platform.
But, please, feel free to cling to whatever you think Microsoft's CFO may or may not have possibly meant by a hint they may or may not have possibly dropped about a deal that is in-complete and thus illegal to comment on. I'm sure he threw a wink to all the PlayStation fans, just to let them know Microsoft, a company sued by the American government for anti-trust practices, who spent billions upon billions of dollars to dominate their industries, who spent a couple of years to set up a deal to buy a privately owned video game publisher for $7.5 billion dollars... plans to do absolutely nothing with it. Makes perfect sense :'D
Buy the new Sony Alpha 1 then. It's not much more than that phone.No need to feel sorry, it's a fucking $2500 pro phone for real pros
The indications are what the managers like Spencer and Xbox CFO themselves said. I don't know what you want as a better indication, they could have said "Future Bethesda games will be Gamepass exclusives" but they didn't say that at all, quite the opposite :
Microsoft wants future Bethesda games to be ‘first or best’ on Xbox, says CFO
Microsoft wants future Bethesda games to be ‘first or best’ on Xbox, says CFO | VGC
Plus exec says it’s not planning to pull all Bethesda content from rival platforms…www.videogameschronicle.com
First or best = not fully exclusive, that's pretty clear. You don't say "first on" if it isn't available elsewhere later.
If they were okay with bleeding tons of money for years with Gamepass and Bethesda, they wouldn't have tried to double the Xbox Live Gold price overnight recently. This move shows they don't want to go too far in the red (although obviously, they technically could with MS money. It just feels they don't have the greenlight for that from the higher ups, as it should, considering the multiple failures recorded by Xbox brand over the years), so it's a confirmation of what the CFO said.
There were other ways to push people to Gamepass, like making it basically free for years for everybody. That's not the choice they made, probably because Xbox installed base is low which means success is uncertain, so they prefer keeping a less costly exit door in case it doesn't work.
SDXC V90 (minimum bitrate) is compatible with 120p/XAVC HS 4K at 500 Mbps
No you have to amortize the intangible assets different term same concept...
Compared to playing it safe and sticking with another 3rd person, single player, story driven title. Like I said to each his own some like variety some perfer to stick to the same thing. Neither is wrong.
I'm looking forward to the next wave of big Playstation exclusive 3rd Person SP, story driven titles:
Good Lord, this gave me a good laugh
Firstly, you clearly have no concept of the scope of Microsoft's wealth. They paid $8.6 billion for Skype, and wrote off a $6 billion loss two years later. $7.5 billion is a smaller purchase at this tier; it's not enough to challenge the very concept of what an exclusive platform holder is or does. You're laughable wrong if you think $7.5 billion is somehow too much money for Microsoft.
Secondly, you clearly have no concept of Microsoft's MO. Anyone who thinks fucking Microsoft is going to share needs to cut back on their daily intake cope-ium. Microsoft 101: walk into an industry you want to dominate and write a blank cheque. Back when they wanted to enter the video game industry, they didn't fuck around: they walked up to Nintendo and offered to buy it. For cash. They were laughed out of the room, so, they went with plan B instead: build the Xbox platform from scratch, knowing they'd lose billions until the brand was established. So, Microsoft 102: In the industry you want to dominate, stop other people from getting the milk. A couple of hundred million for Rare, a couple of hundred million for Bungie - which pissed Steve Jobs off - and a couple hundred million here and there for some exclusive deals, and boom: Xbox brand is now a thing. Easy. With Bethesda, they could've had marketing deals for pennies in comparison, like with Cyberpunk. Heck, they could've had Gamepass day one access for the next ten years for every Bethesda title for a billion and change. They didn't want either of those things; they bought the cow, because Microsoft doesn't like to share the milk.
Now, at this point you'll cling to "but.. but.. Minecraft" and magically ignore every other purchase in the history of Microsoft including all of their other video game development purchases they've made since Minecraft. So, ok, Minecraft. That decision was made outside of the Xbox division, and according the Nadella, it was about cultural relevance, at a time when Microsoft was on the way out in the consumer space. So, Microsoft paid $2.5 billion dollars to make sure the Microsoft and Xbox logos were associated with the biggest game in the world, and it's paid for itself many, many times over. There's a reason Coca Cola likes to get its vending machines into schools, after all.
Thirdly, you clearly have no concept of platform adoption techniques. So, pick your strategy; here, it looks like Microsoft's is some variation of the little big horn: surround you with their stuff until you crack and buy in because you just can't not do it. They just bought up so many established brands that people who weren't looking at their platforms now can't not look at their platform. Gamers will cave and buy in because Microsoft just so happens to have a cheap console, and a cheap subscription service, where you can get access to whichever franchise you love. Oh, you're on PC? No problem, their platform is on PC. Oh, you're on mobile? No problem, their platform is on mobile. Oh, not sure if it's for you? Try the first month for $1. This approach drives platform adoption because who the heck won't pickup Gamepass to play Starfield or Elder Scrolls VI? Microsoft are banking that once you're in, you'll realise everything else that's there and stick around. That all drives platform revenue; DLC, Microtransactions, subscriptions, game sales, and so forth. $7.5 billion is a small price to pay for the millions upon millions of new platform adopters it'll create. They're at 18 million on Gamepass as of today and they haven't even dropped big exclusives yet. Easy to say: their strategy is working and they're just getting started.
And lastly, as an extension of the above, you clearly have no concept of how platform exclusives play into adoption. Sony made close to a $1 billion last quarter off of their PS Store platform alone, mostly off of third party title purchases, because Sony have aggressively driven adoption of their platform. The sales of any one title are largely useless when we're talking that kind of money at a platform level. Your terrible opinion is basically "Xbox is too small to have such big exclusives". So, how do you propose they grow their platform without such big exclusives? So, let's look at PlayStation with your broken logic. Obviously, Sony must be porting Spider-man to all Microsoft platforms because it would simply lose too much money not to on such a massive property. Marvel is the biggest franchise in the world right now, there is no way Sony's shareholders would allow them to cut out the entire PC and Xbox platforms for some fanboy pissing contest. Right? Lol - of course it's bloody exclusive, and rightfully so: people buy PlayStations to play Spider-man, and all the other exclusives, which is why they've sold 120+ million PS4s. Those sales mean 120 million people spending money on the PlayStation platform. That's how they made $1 billion on third party purchases in three months. Sony would probably sell another 5 or so million copies of Spider-man if they released it on Xbox; but they'd lose hundreds and hundreds of millions on platform-level revenue from people who didn't buy a PlayStation to play it. That's how PlayStation makes its money.
For Microsoft, if they lose $200 million in revenue on Starfield because it cut out PlayStation - but - Starfield drives new platform adopters whose spending eclipses $300 million across the entire Xbox platform, be it on PC, Mobile, or console, that's a big win for Microsoft, even if it looks like a loss on Starfield in isolation. Add up all the other exclusives, and the $7.5 billion they just paid is poultry; that purchase can pay for itself in a relatively short period of time, and now Microsoft has tens of millions of new platform adopters that'll stick around. That's how they're going to grow their platform.
But, please, feel free to cling to whatever you think Microsoft's CFO may or may not have possibly meant by a hint they may or may not have possibly dropped about a deal that is in-complete and thus illegal to comment on. I'm sure he threw a wink to all the PlayStation fans, just to let them know Microsoft, a company sued by the American government for anti-trust practices, who spent billions upon billions of dollars to dominate their industries, who spent a couple of years to set up a deal to buy a privately owned video game publisher for $7.5 billion dollars... plans to do absolutely nothing with it. Makes perfect sense :'D
