Support NeoGAF

[Chastten]

On the discussion of wether Microsoft had a chance at clawing back some marketshare early in the generation: I think they did. They were obviously never going to win this generation against a massively popular PlayStation and Switch, but had they played their cards right, they could've potentially done somewhat better than the previous gen I think.

They fixed the tiered launch, no kinect, the hardware is fine, the price was ok... But ultimately, they just failed to deliver on the the most important part of a console, which is games. Gamepass is a fine idea, but it's mostly aimed at casuals who just wanna play some random games occasionally. It's never going to move hardware.

We're three years into this new generation, and there's literally not a single reason to own an Xbox over a PlayStation, PC or even a Switch. In Europe, we do not hate Microsoft or Xbox, they simply don't give us a reason to buy their hardware.

 

[Woopah]

Bundle software sales are not included in the France rankings (not sure about the Spain one).

 

[m14]

FIFA and COD are certainly important, but so are exclusives.

In Spain physical sales, three of the top 11 games were PS exclusives last year.

In France total sales, it was three of the top 12.

On a scale of importance Sony exclusives are a very long way behind Fifa. A lot of "casual" gamers in Europe are embedded in the PlayStation ecosystem because that's where their friends are and they can keep playing Fifa / COD / GTA together.

 

[jroc74]

I'm not an Xbox fan, but I hope they recover some because Dominant Sony kind of sucks.

Dominant Sony at the end of PS2/start of PS3 was telling people to get second jobs. Once 360 became a threat though, middle and late PS3 gen was damn awesome. First party software was stellar and early PS+ years were fantastic.

Now we are back to dominant Sony and first party this gen fucking sucks compared to PS3/4. They jack up the price of PS+ by 30% and right after Essential gets shitty games with Metacritic scores in the 60s.

Fumy how arrogant MS gave us the orig XBO policies that they eventually reversed, going all in on Kinect the last few years of the 360, Kinect included with every XBO therefore inflating the price of the console...and yet thats barely mentioned as being arrogant...

Arrogant? Bad business decisions? Whatever the case...MS had its moments too.

You're still not answering my question.

I'm not talking about the specifics of a certain tier. Xbox charges $60 for XBLG/GP Core and doesn't offer the monthly 3 games that Sony does, so in a way, they are also charging more than before because they have eliminated certain benefits that used to come with it.

Once more, let's go back to the original question: Xbox, despite being in third place and in serious competition with PlayStation, increased its subscription price. As a result, Sony also increased the price of their subscription price. How does competition help here? And wasn't Xbox the arrogant one in this case?

Here's the thing....Core and the $60 annual plan:

Buy Xbox Game Pass Core — Xbox Game Pass Core 1 Month | Xbox

Enjoy online console multiplayer with Game Pass Core, plus a select catalog of high-quality games and member deals. With Game Pass Core, you can quickly find people you want to play with – whether it’s friends, family, or the greater Xbox community. After any promotional period, subscription...

www.xbox.com

MS actually got rid of all annual plans from the console and their website. This happened before Core launched, they got rid of all annual plans for Gold from the console and their website. All annual plans were/are only available thru retailers. Why this is I have no idea and it seems so odd.

This also is dismissed as not being arrogant. So the only way to get annual plans it to buy codes. Anyone using their credit/debit card wont get annual plan options.

And like you said, its now worse because of no Games with Gold. They actually took a feature away from those that have Ultimate.

 

[Woopah]

On a scale of importance Sony exclusives are a very long way behind Fifa. A lot of "casual" gamers in Europe are embedded in the PlayStation ecosystem because that's where their friends are and they can keep playing Fifa / COD / GTA together.

Absolutely. I was just pointing out that exclusives are also important, and some of the best selling games in Europe are exclusive.

 

[xiskza]

This is so embarassing for the Xbots on twitter

 

[Warablo]

Better protect that Monopoly

 

[FalsettoVibe]

I really wanted MS to be more competitive this gen (outside of buying publishers) and so far they have not. I bought both a PS5 and a Series X this Gen and so far outside of HiFi Rush, and a couple of Game Pass titles (Hades, Lies of P), it has been a real waste of money. I don't want a completely dominant PlayStation, so I wish Xbox would step up, invest in the many studios they now have and crank out some good, must have games. Stop with the buy to win mentality.

 

[Unknown?]

PS+ Premium tier was a shit deal even before the price hike. The amount of classics they offer is dreadful, and PS3 games can only be streamed.

Also, doesn't Gamepass have some Day 1 releases on the service? Sony Day 1 PS+ offering is Sea of Stars. Wow. Impressive.

To be fair, we Premium members are able to demo the Gollum game for one hour. Awesome perk right there.

So yes, spending $204 on a service if it offers a significant number of Day 1 releases seems to me a better deal than $160 for PS+ Premium.

But it hasn't released many day 1 games and the ones they have released aren't great anyway.

 

[xiskza]

 

[Kumomeme]

every generation, every year, same promise, same shit except it get worse

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

every generation, every year, same promise, same shit except it get worse

This is what happens when a department doesn't have a need to actually deliver results. When you are not punished for failure, you no longer care about failing. This is the end result of an infinite war chest; you get people getting paid to sit at their desks all day.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Better protect that Monopoly

I think that's your fault to be honest DarkMage619 who doesn't talk anymore.

 

[SSfox]

I'm surprise it's not 100%, 0%

 

[GHG]

I think that's your fault to be honest DarkMage619 who doesn't talk anymore.

He's literally just here cheerleading the stupidest of takes until the person inevitably gets banned. Sad state of affairs.

 

[miklonus]

 

[MasterCornholio]

He's literally just here cheerleading the stupidest of takes until the person inevitably gets banned. Sad state of affairs.

Maybe thats his purpose. Instead of helping he probably gets a kick out of people getting banned.

 

[Thirty7ven]

You do realize that Sony increased the PS+ Premium price to $160 per year AFTER Xbox increased its Game Pass Ultimate price to $204 per year, right?

How did competition help in that case? And how wasn't Xbox the arrogant one in that case?

It’s wild and if you only play on console player I fail to see how PS+ isn’t the better offer with the better games.

 

[kruis]

I'm not an Xbox fan, but I hope they recover some because Dominant Sony kind of sucks.

Dominant Sony at the end of PS2/start of PS3 was telling people to get second jobs. Once 360 became a threat though, middle and late PS3 gen was damn awesome. First party software was stellar and early PS+ years were fantastic.

Now we are back to dominant Sony and first party this gen fucking sucks compared to PS3/4. They jack up the price of PS+ by 30% and right after Essential gets shitty games with Metacritic scores in the 60s.

Sony wasn't arrogant when they launched the phat PS3. they were incompetent. They were overconfident in their technical prowess, but failed to achieve what they wanted at an affordable price. The Cell CPU wasn't good enough to power graphics too so they needed to add a Nvidia GPU to their design. The only way to achieve PS2 compatibility was to add the actual PS2 CPU/GPU chips to the PS3 mainboard,

And then there was their decision to make Blu-ray the dominant HD video format by way of the PS3. Blu-ray wasn't really ready for prime time, but the Blu-ray consortium had to put it out in order to combat the competing HD-DVD standard. Blu-Ray tech was so new that the PS3 was one of the first hw-devices with a Blu-Ray player and certainly the most affordable player. The Blu-Ray spec would go through multiple revisions before the specs were finalized with Blu-Ray 2.0.

All those decisions drove up the price of the PS3. It was very expensive at the time and even then Sony sold the US/JAP phat PS3 at a serious loss: $3.3 billion dollars.

It forced Sony to release the PS3 four months late in Europe - and we got a Phat PS3 with only partial hw-compatibility instead of full. Just imagine launching a console and then releasing a substantial different version a few months later in order to cut costs.

The early PS3 was an overengineered product that was still beta tested (Blu-Ray, UI, OS feature set) but had to pushed out the door no matter the financial costs to the company, because otherwise Sony would lose two battlegrounds: the console war with MS and the video format war with HD-DVD. That wasn't arrogant Sony, it was desperate, incompetent Sony.

But at the same time the PS3 had a tremendous feature set compared to Xbox 360:

- free online vs Xbox Gold subscription
- Blu-Ray vs DVD
- PS3 controller with builtin battery vs Xbox controller with separate Play & Charge kit
- builtin WiFi vs separate proprietary wifi adapter
- upgradable HD vs separate proprietary hard disk add-on
- USB support vs separate proprietary memory unit
- HDMI output vs analog video outputs

It was expensive but you got the complete feature set compared to the Xbox 360.

 

[Stare-Bear]

But at the same time the PS3 had a tremendous feature set compared to Xbox 360:

- free online vs Xbox Gold subscription
- Blu-Ray vs DVD
- PS3 controller with builtin battery vs Xbox controller with separate Play & Charge kit
- builtin WiFi vs separate proprietary wifi adapter
- upgradble HD vs separate proprietaryhard disk addon
- USB support vs separate proprietarymemory unit
- HDMI output vs analog video outputs

It was expensive but you got the complete feature set compared to the Xbox 360.

This. The first Xbox 360 was wildly incomplete. Never mind their bet on HD-DVD which went nowhere, you didn't even have HDMI outputs...

 

[Small John McCarthy]

The bag fumble post-360 era never ceases to amaze me.

 

[HeWhoWalks]

I don’t have to tell anybody shit. And I played every one of those consoles when they were brand new. Nobody cares about 30 years ago. As far as access to games even if MS didn’t manufacture a single console ever again their Azure and entire server system never have to be turned off because MS is a highly successful business. They make their money in the PC/Windows business. Xbox could easily fail and never be made again, while maintaining servers.

But none of this has anything to do with the constant sales/numbers/percentage garbage being littered all over this board. Bottom line is I’m a gamer. I own em all play em all. I could care less how many units any company is selling.

Then the simple solution would be to put the thread on ignore. That's what I would do.

 

[tommib]

To be fair, I have to think Xbox saw this coming. By promoting gamepass as the de facto way to play with their consoles, they had to see the retail absence materialize. Even their first party games are missing physical releases (Ghostwire Tokyo).

 

[Daneel Elijah]

5 million was a much bigger deal back then, especially on a console without much software or hardware units, and especially as an original IP and a new hardware entry. It's difficult to think long term when your boat is taking on water. They've tried to have long term strategy and have obviously maintained GamePass longer than I think any other company would have. So it's not just that they've had short-term plans it's that their long term plans have been short-sighted without accurately assessing/shaping the state of the industry.

Deals with any company for exclusivity are pretty bad for your long-term business, deals with Microsoft will set you back a decade at this point. Had Alan Wake 1 released on PS3, maybe it would have found more of an audience. It's the same problem for their 1P games as I mentioned before.

Not only does Microsoft have to put out absolute bangers, but they also have to effectively kill off GamePass and Day 1 PC but here is the kicker, they have to do that without alienating their fanbase who loves GamePass and only own Xbox for GamePass and by eschewing Day 1 PC, they're going to immediately lose out on substantial revenue.

I admit that AAA got harder to make and needs more unit sold that that. Going back from Gamepass and day one PC releases will be hard. I can't see it happen while they are still last on the market. I have one small remark about making deals for exclusivity. I don't think that making deals for games like Sifu and Kena was hard to do. Or stuff like Fall guys. Once the game concept is ready and production well underway, yes I admit that Microsoft will find it hard to convince studios and publishers. But being there day one, help new studios making their first game should not be that hard, and better to be on Xbox than not having a game made at all. But I am not really knowlegable about this part of the gaming business. The rest is pretty well said.

 

[Montauk]

Most of those countries has lower gdp than Microsoft's market cap so...

Yeah, you’re right, Microsoft really doesn’t need all that money. Better to just let Sony have it.

(Of course in reality you’re talking about market cap and its REVENUE that Microsoft need)

 

[Montauk]

every generation, every year, same promise, same shit except it get worse

The exclusives are coming. 2024 is the Year of the Xbox.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I admit that AAA got harder to make and needs more unit sold that that. Going back from Gamepass and day one PC releases will be hard. I can't see it happen while they are still last on the market. I have one small remark about making deals for exclusivity. I don't think that making deals for games like Sifu and Kena was hard to do. Or stuff like Fall guys. Once the game concept is ready and production well underway, yes I admit that Microsoft will find it hard to convince studios and publishers. But being there day one, help new studios making their first game should not be that hard, and better to be on Xbox than not having a game made at all. But I am not really knowlegable about this part of the gaming business. The rest is pretty well said.

• Microsoft has to make drastic decisions to turn the ship around. If they maintain Day 1 PC and Day 1 GamePass, they'll never recover. It's as simple as that. They could come out with the next Halo or the next Pokemon and Xbox as a console would barely register it.
  • It's beyond difficult to make a system seller in today's market. There is no genre that is so popular that any game can really distance itself from other games in the genre. The closest we get are things like Baldur's Gate 3 and Elden Ring, and neither is really a system seller, even if they were exclusive. The lack of exclusivity makes it impossible for Microsoft to create a system seller.
• Sifu and Kena actually benefited from exclusivity, but that's because they had a massive marketing push by Sony who can basically make any game sell at least a bit as well as being priced appropriately (Returnal came out at 70 dollars, blunting its sales potential)
  • But both games were small from small developers. The risk to large studios is too much to bet on XBS.
    • Microsoft has to more than compensate for development costs at this point, they have to compensate for lost revenue and future lost revenue.
    • If I'm Ubi-Soft and I don't put Assassin's Creed 19 on PS5 and all the PS5 consumers decide to buy Ghost of Tsushima 2 instead. When I put Assassin's Creed 20 on the PS5 and those fans don't return to the franchise what then? This is what happened with Tomb Raider and to a degree with Resident Evil. The problem is Microsoft isn't paying for Assassin's Creed 20, 21, and 22.
• If you look at most major Xbox exclusives, being on Xbox either stunted its growth or stalled the franchise entirely

 

[Daneel Elijah]

• Microsoft has to make drastic decisions to turn the ship around. If they maintain Day 1 PC and Day 1 GamePass, they'll never recover. It's as simple as that. They could come out with the next Halo or the next Pokemon and Xbox as a console would barely register it.
  • It's beyond difficult to make a system seller in today's market. There is no genre that is so popular that any game can really distance itself from other games in the genre. The closest we get are things like Baldur's Gate 3 and Elden Ring, and neither is really a system seller, even if they were exclusive. The lack of exclusivity makes it impossible for Microsoft to create a system seller.
• Sifu and Kena actually benefited from exclusivity, but that's because they had a massive marketing push by Sony who can basically make any game sell at least a bit as well as being priced appropriately (Returnal came out at 70 dollars, blunting its sales potential)
  • But both games were small from small developers. The risk to large studios is too much to bet on XBS.
    • Microsoft has to more than compensate for development costs at this point, they have to compensate for lost revenue and future lost revenue.
    • If I'm Ubi-Soft and I don't put Assassin's Creed 19 on PS5 and all the PS5 consumers decide to buy Ghost of Tsushima 2 instead. When I put Assassin's Creed 20 on the PS5 and those fans don't return to the franchise what then? This is what happened with Tomb Raider and to a degree with Resident Evil. The problem is Microsoft isn't paying for Assassin's Creed 20, 21, and 22.
• If you look at most major Xbox exclusives, being on Xbox either stunted its growth or stalled the franchise entirely

Lot of good points again. Sorry if I am nicpicking but talking about your last point, high on life is proof that a game can find it worth it to work with Xbox.

Going back to your first point, it seems obvious, and the leaked mails made it even more obvious that Xbox wanted for Gamepass to explode in popularity and it didn't happen. So they will have to do something about it, and all options will make life difficult for them. I think that Day 1 PC is not that much of a problem, outside of the added work for the studios of course. Some games like Fifa do that and are still considered console games first. Platformers are for me the same type of games that have a natural presence on consoles. Multiplayer games are the same. There is a loss of course but for a lot of games not that much. Gamepass is another story. It is the core of their strategy, and would need to wait until next gen to stop it at the minimum, and would need IMHO a lot of work. Stopping one but not the other would be stupid a half mesure at best and sabotage at worst. I think that doing that would kill them faster than continuing as they are, but at this point the difference would be academic.

Making a system seller is hard, yes. But Games like Spiderman are system sellers for me. So it can still be done. Would Spiderman, if done by Insomniac for the Xbox One, and as good or better than what we got for the PS4, be considered a system seller? I hope that the answer would be yes. I think that by system seller you are talking about a revolution in gaming like Minecraft or Fortnite did. Those are basically not reproductible without a lot of luck. But if you at least try to make good games, some will get great eventually. Demon's souls was at one point a Oblivion clone commisionned by Sony, and we got a lot of amazing games from that. If I was in control of Xbox, I would try to make games from studios in need of money, like Scalebound for example.

You have a good point about Sifu and Kena. Sony marketing really helped them. But this is IMHO more of a brand issue than Xbox being incapable of doing the same. I admit that for large studios, it is really too risky to bet on Xbox, unless they overpay, and even then it is still problematic, as your Ubisoft example show. But this is for established IPs. I think that Ubisoft was ready to make games for the Wii U launch even if they knew that it would not sell well. There is ways to make it worth it outside of just sales. So no Assasin's Creed exclusivity, but a small game from one of their studios could be commisionned by Xbox, for a price and a short exclusivity window.

Xbxo exclusivity being harmful to the games is really weird to me. I agree with you, Tomb Raider for example got hurt from it. But games Flight Simulator did not. It depends on the game. Once again, more of a brand issue to me. Maybe I am naive, but I saw so many hits in the PS4 era, games like Rocket league, Fall guys, the rise of Among Us... that I can't think that Xbox can do that too. Just find good games ideas, and back them up with money and technical help. When I see Sony working in Malaysia, South Korea, China... Xbox should do the same. There is talent and will to make games. Growing that kind of initiatives is hard, I know, but better now than latter, as AAA will continue to be harder and harder to make in the future.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Lot of good points again. Sorry if I am nicpicking but talking about your last point, high on life is proof that a game can find it worth it to work with Xbox.

Going back to your first point, it seems obvious, and the leaked mails made it even more obvious that Xbox wanted for Gamepass to explode in popularity and it didn't happen. So they will have to do something about it, and all options will make life difficult for them. I think that Day 1 PC is not that much of a problem, outside of the added work for the studios of course. Some games like Fifa do that and are still considered console games first. Platformers are for me the same type of games that have a natural presence on consoles. Multiplayer games are the same. There is a loss of course but for a lot of games not that much. Gamepass is another story. It is the core of their strategy, and would need to wait until next gen to stop it at the minimum, and would need IMHO a lot of work. Stopping one but not the other would be stupid a half mesure at best and sabotage at worst. I think that doing that would kill them faster than continuing as they are, but at this point the difference would be academic.

Making a system seller is hard, yes. But Games like Spiderman are system sellers for me. So it can still be done. Would Spiderman, if done by Insomniac for the Xbox One, and as good or better than what we got for the PS4, be considered a system seller? I hope that the answer would be yes. I think that by system seller you are talking about a revolution in gaming like Minecraft or Fortnite did. Those are basically not reproductible without a lot of luck. But if you at least try to make good games, some will get great eventually. Demon's souls was at one point a Oblivion clone commisionned by Sony, and we got a lot of amazing games from that. If I was in control of Xbox, I would try to make games from studios in need of money, like Scalebound for example.

You have a good point about Sifu and Kena. Sony marketing really helped them. But this is IMHO more of a brand issue than Xbox being incapable of doing the same. I admit that for large studios, it is really too risky to bet on Xbox, unless they overpay, and even then it is still problematic, as your Ubisoft example show. But this is for established IPs. I think that Ubisoft was ready to make games for the Wii U launch even if they knew that it would not sell well. There is ways to make it worth it outside of just sales. So no Assasin's Creed exclusivity, but a small game from one of their studios could be commisionned by Xbox, for a price and a short exclusivity window.

Xbxo exclusivity being harmful to the games is really weird to me. I agree with you, Tomb Raider for example got hurt from it. But games Flight Simulator did not. It depends on the game. Once again, more of a brand issue to me. Maybe I am naive, but I saw so many hits in the PS4 era, games like Rocket league, Fall guys, the rise of Among Us... that I can't think that Xbox can do that too. Just find good games ideas, and back them up with money and technical help. When I see Sony working in Malaysia, South Korea, China... Xbox should do the same. There is talent and will to make games. Growing that kind of initiatives is hard, I know, but better now than latter, as AAA will continue to be harder and harder to make in the future.

They put the cart before the horse. The idea here was that Day 1 PC and Day 1 GamePass, and GamePass PC would result in an explosion of revenue and the interest in GamePass would sell Xbox consoles. So subsidize it early, and bring in the userbase. The problem is that it didn't grow like they thought it would and now that it has plateaued you're left with the negative aspects of it that you thought you could power through via growth.

A game like FIFA wasn't exclusive from the start. That's why 3rd party publishers have grown so much quicker than PlayStation and Xbox, because their games aren't dependent on the growth of any individual platforms.

Microsoft won't be able to recover from another 4 years of GamePass. They need to incentive as many new consumers to buy an Xbox in this generation as they can anything that actively disincentivizes them will be a detriment to their next console if one is ever released.

If Microsoft had released Spider-Man exactly as it was in 2018 on Xbox One but also released it on GamePass and PC day 1, it would have sold very few Xbox Ones as a result on top of that, while it sold well, it would have sold significantly fewer units on Xbox One with a much smaller userbase. Games like Fortnite and Minecraft aren't system sellers. They're popular because they're available everywhere, you can play them on a toaster.

Demon's Souls sold like crap. It took Dark Souls being multiplatform for it to become a hit. Even Bloodborne that reviewed well didn't sell well exclusively. Probably would have been similar for Elden Ring.

Microsoft can market the crap out of a small game, but it doesn't mean it'll sell. Look at Pentiment. The game reviewed VERY well. It certainly wasn't a system seller. Same for Hi-Fi Rush.

I'm not sure that Flight simulator sold well on XBS.

 

[semiconscious]

'eet ees ovair!'...

 

[HeWhoWalks]

Sony actually said Bloodborne was a success…

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/bloodborne-sales-surprised-sony/1100-6427389/

So, it did in fact sell well as an exclusive.

 

[Daneel Elijah]

They put the cart before the horse. The idea here was that Day 1 PC and Day 1 GamePass, and GamePass PC would result in an explosion of revenue and the interest in GamePass would sell Xbox consoles. So subsidize it early, and bring in the userbase. The problem is that it didn't grow like they thought it would and now that it has plateaued you're left with the negative aspects of it that you thought you could power through via growth.

A game like FIFA wasn't exclusive from the start. That's why 3rd party publishers have grown so much quicker than PlayStation and Xbox, because their games aren't dependent on the growth of any individual platforms.

Microsoft won't be able to recover from another 4 years of GamePass. They need to incentive as many new consumers to buy an Xbox in this generation as they can anything that actively disincentivizes them will be a detriment to their next console if one is ever released.

If Microsoft had released Spider-Man exactly as it was in 2018 on Xbox One but also released it on GamePass and PC day 1, it would have sold very few Xbox Ones as a result on top of that, while it sold well, it would have sold significantly fewer units on Xbox One with a much smaller userbase. Games like Fortnite and Minecraft aren't system sellers. They're popular because they're available everywhere, you can play them on a toaster.

Demon's Souls sold like crap. It took Dark Souls being multiplatform for it to become a hit. Even Bloodborne that reviewed well didn't sell well exclusively. Probably would have been similar for Elden Ring.

Microsoft can market the crap out of a small game, but it doesn't mean it'll sell. Look at Pentiment. The game reviewed VERY well. It certainly wasn't a system seller. Same for Hi-Fi Rush.

I'm not sure that Flight simulator sold well on XBS.

How much Gamepass must grow for it to be profitable? For me it was more a question of when than how, as Gamepass is a poison for the rest of the industry after it get to a certain size. But yes in the meantime they are stuck with all those negatives aspects and fear to loose even more money before hopefully getting the benefits of a monopoly. I hope that they fail in that regard.
The FIFA example was more about games being considered a console game even if it is on PC too now.
4 more years of Gamepass would mean 4 years of making even more games "free". I am uncertain of what would that mean to Xbox, and the market. But yes they need to sell as many consoles as they can as they will be needed for next gen. I can see them going like Nintendo, loosing market share each generation like NES,SNES,N64,Gamecube did. For the rest I have to reluctantly agree. But Bloodborne was what made me buy a PS4, so my opinion on that is quite different, even if I can see your point. As for Spiderman, I think that I would not have taken a Xbox One for it, but that I would have seen it as more competitive with the PS4, and made the Series S/X more worth it because of it. But this won't happen so no need to continue talking about it.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

How much Gamepass must grow for it to be profitable? For me it was more a question of when than how, as Gamepass is a poison for the rest of the industry after it get to a certain size. But yes in the meantime they are stuck with all those negatives aspects and fear to loose even more money before hopefully getting the benefits of a monopoly. I hope that they fail in that regard.
The FIFA example was more about games being considered a console game even if it is on PC too now.
4 more years of Gamepass would mean 4 years of making even more games "free". I am uncertain of what would that mean to Xbox, and the market. But yes they need to sell as many consoles as they can as they will be needed for next gen. I can see them going like Nintendo, loosing market share each generation like NES,SNES,N64,Gamecube did. For the rest I have to reluctantly agree. But Bloodborne was what made me buy a PS4, so my opinion on that is quite different, even if I can see your point. As for Spiderman, I think that I would not have taken a Xbox One for it, but that I would have seen it as more competitive with the PS4, and made the Series S/X more worth it because of it. But this won't happen so no need to continue talking about it.

You look at what Microsoft hoped to achieve with GamePass growth the last two years. In 2021 they had 37% growth and the growth goal was 49%. In 2022 their goal was 73% but they only hit 28%.

There are a lot of ramifications involved with not hitting these growth goals. It means hitting future roadmap growth goals become impossible.

Let's draw a picture.

Let's say I have a subscription business that I launched this year. By 2030, I want to have 50 million subscribers. My model shows that is where things will peak. I also know that things slow down towards their peak.

That means I can't just do 8.33 million per year every year. I know year 1 and year 2 will be slow and year 5 and year 6 will probably be slow.

So maybe we're looking at 10 million within the first 2 years and 10 million in the last 2 years. If that is the case I have to hit 30 million in years 3 and 4. That's 15 million per year.

So if I do 6 million in year 1 and 2 million in year 2, and 1 million in year 3, not only am I woefully behind my trajectory, but at only 9 million subscribers, my new trajectory is going to be sufficiently below the goal of 50.

And why was 50 million important? Because I've based my operating costs (first party and 3rd party games) and my revenue projections around 50 million subscribers. You can cancel games, but you've already made deals with 3rd party publishers for games probably over the next couple of years.

Do you spend more to get to try to get to 50 million? What happens when that growth is still stunted? Now you're seriously in the negative.

They wanted 110 million subscribers by the start of FY 2030. They wanted a TV App by the start of FY23 that we have yet to see. That alone they expected to deliver 5 million subscribers in short order and 25 million in the long run.

They wanted 90 million by the end of this generation. They need to sell at least 40 million XBS and have 1:1 subscribers on GamePass, that's easier with adding in Xbox Live Gold.

This slide tells you everything you need to know about Xbox.

 

[Daneel Elijah]

You look at what Microsoft hoped to achieve with GamePass growth the last two years. In 2021 they had 37% growth and the growth goal was 49%. In 2022 their goal was 73% but they only hit 28%.

There are a lot of ramifications involved with not hitting these growth goals. It means hitting future roadmap growth goals become impossible.

Let's draw a picture.

Let's say I have a subscription business that I launched this year. By 2030, I want to have 50 million subscribers. My model shows that is where things will peak. I also know that things slow down towards their peak.

That means I can't just do 8.33 million per year every year. I know year 1 and year 2 will be slow and year 5 and year 6 will probably be slow.

So maybe we're looking at 10 million within the first 2 years and 10 million in the last 2 years. If that is the case I have to hit 30 million in years 3 and 4. That's 15 million per year.

So if I do 6 million in year 1 and 2 million in year 2, and 1 million in year 3, not only am I woefully behind my trajectory, but at only 9 million subscribers, my new trajectory is going to be sufficiently below the goal of 50.

And why was 50 million important? Because I've based my operating costs (first party and 3rd party games) and my revenue projections around 50 million subscribers. You can cancel games, but you've already made deals with 3rd party publishers for games probably over the next couple of years.

Do you spend more to get to try to get to 50 million? What happens when that growth is still stunted? Now you're seriously in the negative.

They wanted 110 million subscribers by the start of FY 2030. They wanted a TV App by the start of FY23 that we have yet to see. That alone they expected to deliver 5 million subscribers in short order and 25 million in the long run.

They wanted 90 million by the end of this generation. They need to sell at least 40 million XBS and have 1:1 subscribers on GamePass, that's easier with adding in Xbox Live Gold.

This slide tells you everything you need to know about Xbox.

I can understand the slippery slope and the implications. And the numbers planned by Xbox are quite optimistic to say the least. But I believed that Microsoft wanted mostly having a monopoly and all of the benefits coming with it over doing it the way Xbox would have done it if they were independent. So I considered that more of a feel good slide presented to Microsoft than a real plan. The fact that the console part would not really grow even when they planned for 60+ millions consoles sold by the end of this gen is telling. The way I see it Gamepass put Xbox between the gamer and the studios/publishers making the games. The profits of the games are more or less taken by each participant depending of their position. The stronger Xbox position is, the better they are able to profit from each game put on Gamepass. How to get there would be the problem of course. But in that regard the objective would be to kill Sony, not really making money. But I suppose that Xbox promised both, and failed to do as promised.

 

[Brucey]

You look at what Microsoft hoped to achieve with GamePass growth the last two years. In 2021 they had 37% growth and the growth goal was 49%. In 2022 their goal was 73% but they only hit 28%.

There are a lot of ramifications involved with not hitting these growth goals. It means hitting future roadmap growth goals become impossible.

Let's draw a picture.

Let's say I have a subscription business that I launched this year. By 2030, I want to have 50 million subscribers. My model shows that is where things will peak. I also know that things slow down towards their peak.

That means I can't just do 8.33 million per year every year. I know year 1 and year 2 will be slow and year 5 and year 6 will probably be slow.

So maybe we're looking at 10 million within the first 2 years and 10 million in the last 2 years. If that is the case I have to hit 30 million in years 3 and 4. That's 15 million per year.

So if I do 6 million in year 1 and 2 million in year 2, and 1 million in year 3, not only am I woefully behind my trajectory, but at only 9 million subscribers, my new trajectory is going to be sufficiently below the goal of 50.

And why was 50 million important? Because I've based my operating costs (first party and 3rd party games) and my revenue projections around 50 million subscribers. You can cancel games, but you've already made deals with 3rd party publishers for games probably over the next couple of years.

Do you spend more to get to try to get to 50 million? What happens when that growth is still stunted? Now you're seriously in the negative.

They wanted 110 million subscribers by the start of FY 2030. They wanted a TV App by the start of FY23 that we have yet to see. That alone they expected to deliver 5 million subscribers in short order and 25 million in the long run.

They wanted 90 million by the end of this generation. They need to sell at least 40 million XBS and have 1:1 subscribers on GamePass, that's easier with adding in Xbox Live Gold.

This slide tells you everything you need to know about Xbox.

I believe they did release a Gamepass app for some recent Samsung tvs, that might be what they are referring to there.

 

[Pelta88]

Just heard Jez and Rand’s response to these numbers. According to them… Counting the sales is unfair and shows bias against XB.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Just heard Jez and Rand’s response to these numbers. According to them… Counting the sales is unfair and shows bias against XB.

They keep up this victimhood, pretty soon MS/Xbox will be a new ethnicity, gender, or race.

 

[Dick Jones]

Just heard Jez and Rand’s response to these numbers. According to them… Counting the sales is unfair and shows bias against XB.

Employing the Dunkey defence

 

[Warablo]

I think that's your fault to be honest DarkMage619 who doesn't talk anymore.

You're dumb if you think that's me.

 

[MasterCornholio]

You're dumb if you think that's me.

No I'm just saying your partly to blame for thr current market situation. I'm not saying your DarkMage619 only that he supports you.

 

[Ansphn]

Im just glad i sold my Series X early and was able to make some money back.Its probably difficult to sell it for even $150 right now.

 

[Audiophile]

This gen is 3yrs in and I haven't seen an XSX or XSS in person (UK).

 

[Horseganador]

Every year we had the "winner" of Black Friday in a matter of hours...but this year the data is taking a while to arrive...

 

[Warablo]

No I'm just saying your partly to blame for thr current market situation. I'm not saying your DarkMage619 only that he supports you.

I mean I have a Series X and PS4 Pro

but this is talking about France, so it has no relevance since I am not in France.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I mean I have a Series X and PS4 Pro

but this is talking about France, so it has no relevance since I am not in France.

Then why even comment on consumers not buying Xboxs then if you don't care?

 

[Roronoa Zoro]

PS+ Premium tier was a shit deal even before the price hike. The amount of classics they offer is dreadful, and PS3 games can only be streamed.

Also, doesn't Gamepass have some Day 1 releases on the service? Sony Day 1 PS+ offering is Sea of Stars. Wow. Impressive.

To be fair, we Premium members are able to demo the Gollum game for one hour. Awesome perk right there.

So yes, spending $204 on a service if it offers a significant number of Day 1 releases seems to me a better deal than $160 for PS+ Premium.

More games for less money. All depends how much you value day 1 and the classics catalogue grows each month so the value will only get better

 

[StealthGoblin]

More games for less money. All depends how much you value day 1 and the classics catalogue grows each month so the value will only get better

That's my view. Over the course of the year, I actually think the difference between extra and premium was worth it for the games, streaming and trials. It'll be even more value now as they'll be adding more classics.

Lots to do, but a person who buys premium now has far more than we got at the start.

 

[Baki]

You look at what Microsoft hoped to achieve with GamePass growth the last two years. In 2021 they had 37% growth and the growth goal was 49%. In 2022 their goal was 73% but they only hit 28%.

There are a lot of ramifications involved with not hitting these growth goals. It means hitting future roadmap growth goals become impossible.

Let's draw a picture.

Let's say I have a subscription business that I launched this year. By 2030, I want to have 50 million subscribers. My model shows that is where things will peak. I also know that things slow down towards their peak.

That means I can't just do 8.33 million per year every year. I know year 1 and year 2 will be slow and year 5 and year 6 will probably be slow.

So maybe we're looking at 10 million within the first 2 years and 10 million in the last 2 years. If that is the case I have to hit 30 million in years 3 and 4. That's 15 million per year.

So if I do 6 million in year 1 and 2 million in year 2, and 1 million in year 3, not only am I woefully behind my trajectory, but at only 9 million subscribers, my new trajectory is going to be sufficiently below the goal of 50.

And why was 50 million important? Because I've based my operating costs (first party and 3rd party games) and my revenue projections around 50 million subscribers. You can cancel games, but you've already made deals with 3rd party publishers for games probably over the next couple of years.

Do you spend more to get to try to get to 50 million? What happens when that growth is still stunted? Now you're seriously in the negative.

They wanted 110 million subscribers by the start of FY 2030. They wanted a TV App by the start of FY23 that we have yet to see. That alone they expected to deliver 5 million subscribers in short order and 25 million in the long run.

They wanted 90 million by the end of this generation. They need to sell at least 40 million XBS and have 1:1 subscribers on GamePass, that's easier with adding in Xbox Live Gold.

This slide tells you everything you need to know about Xbox.

Looking at streaming sticks marketshare. I think $200/year is a lot to ask of someone not willing to buy a $299 or $499 console. I do think streaming sticks could be a good growth vector for gaming but it only works if you have a desirable brand. That's why they bought ABK, they need all those recognizable names on GP, because GP as it is, is not attractive enough.

 

[Disco Dave]

The Gamepass effect.

 

[Putyouinmyoven]

Francophobia incoming in 3, 2, 1... Oh, it's already there.

Just relax with un baguette my friend!