In case you hadn't noticed they did this when they introduced their own sub and MS had been nothing but a GaaS factory for years already.
You're obviously not very informed about this issue at all.
Starfield has been the most heavily marketed game on the service since GamePass started and it's a single-player RPG.
Where do you get this idea from? Subscriptions devalue single player games. Did you miss the leaked emails where MS directly value a game based on average hours spent? Which do you think is worth more to gamepass? a big budget 10 hour game or some low budget 1000 hour GaaS game?
That's great and all but that's not what I said. Spiderman is also a heavily marketed single player game on PS+. Doesn't mean it's proof they don't have a GaaS drive for subs. MS has had a multiplayer focused GaaS/live service drive for decades due to their subscriptions.
Sony doesn't release their games on PS+ from day one. False equivalence.
He is informed. You just don't get how it works based on that statement. The literal backbone is gamepass. That doesn't mean they don't have revenue that isn't dependent on gamepass being the backbone. You sell hardware at a loss to increase gamepass subs. That makes up a chunk of revenue that isn't part of the sub revenue but subs is still what you're trying to drive. You sell microtransactions and DLC to subscribers, that's a huge chunk of revenue that's not part of the sub revenue but you rely heavily on the subs and that engagement to drive it.
What has that got to do with anything really?
Console hardware being sold at a loss has been a reality of the business ever since the console market first started decades ago. It has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to sell subscriptions.
That's correct. From the leaked emails it seems they measure this by average hours played for a game. Now imagine a 10 hour single player game that costs $200M vs a multiplayer GaaS game.
Except you're not getting that selling consoles can still be a requirement to building their business model around GamePass. Does selling consoles at a loss not counting as 15% of the revenue discredit that? It's still part of the business model.
Who really cares if a console maker sub plan are sustainable or not? It comes to value for the gamer. If MS, Sony, NF, Spotify, Disney, Hulu etc... want to scrap sub plans and go back to selling disc and digital copies go ahead. In the meantime, I'll take a deal.
There is no single "real danger" and the assertion is hyperbole. A "real danger" is development costs getting to the point where only the big boys can play. A "real danger" is those costs suppress original ideas and instead pressure studios to only greenlight "sure thing" products. A "real danger" is the outsourcing of development to lower production costs that eventually leads to a situation similiar to the USA manufacturing jobs, they all go to countries with devalued currencies.
Sony's just trying to create variety within their studios, so they're upping their output in other areas. They are still far behind MS in GaaS production with these acquisitions.
What GAAS games does Microsoft have lined-up for the next few years? What GAAS games have they released in the past few years?
They've made several statements about GaaS. And they're still supporting Sea of Thieves.
Sea of Thieves came out in 2018. If that's the only example you could come up with, it makes Micrsoft's GAAS scene pale in comparison to the 10 in active development within PlayStation.
No we know they're pursuing GaaS based on their statements and if they get Activision they'll have a ton.
i'm sorry but, what?
I'm an actual Microsoft shareholder and the answer is Never.
Still not as good as what was envisioned? How do you mean exactly? 30+ million subscribers (and growing) isnt good?
Where have you been the last few days? Phill, behind closed doors has suggested that the future of Xbox is highly dependent on GamePass.
STOP HAVING FUN and focus on the money! Whatchu thankin?
