Topher
Identifies as young
Seriously!... who the hell hasn't got GTA5 by now?
New potential GTA 5 gamers are added every day.
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
Seriously!... who the hell hasn't got GTA5 by now?
MS being a trillion dollar is the key for that, so no cut for their budget. They spent enough money to buy Nintendo on activision. They wont lower the budget for their games.I understand the lucrative potential of subscription services, but something has to give when attempting to sell premium (massive budget) content under this model. You either cut the budget/quality for these games, or achieve a subscriber base and retention rate that supports the large budgets. In my opinion, consumers won't go for the former and as of today, there is no evidence to suggest that Microsoft is anywhere close to achieving the latter.
Ubisoft and EA does this on PC day1.I think Zelnick explained it very well. To have the game there day one doesn't make sense for games that costs hundreds of millions of dollars and that sell many millions of copies. For these games, if something it's worth to included them when they no longer sell so the sub acts as a secondary extra revenue support channel.
Or if Microsoft buys take two
Because it would be harder for them to compete against Sony and Nintendo "without" doing it. It was a smart business move for them specifically and no one else. Don't forget that MS is neck-deep in the subscription business with almost every product they sell now. And it's working for them literally in every other business of theirs.
Don't forget that MS is neck-deep in the subscription business with almost every product they sell now. And it's working for them literally in every other business of theirs.
MS being a trillion dollar is the key for that, so no cut for their budget.
If Microsoft or Sony went to Take 2 and said "We want GTA6 on our sub service day 1 for 6 months how much would it cost?" and Take 2 came back and said "we estimate losing 20m sales if we did that, so for us to agree you need to pay us 800m" and the platform holder said "ok we'll pay". Do you honestly think that Take 2 would refuse?I think Zelnick explained it very well. To have the game there day one doesn't make sense for games that costs hundreds of millions of dollars and that sell many millions of copies. For these games, if something it's worth to included them when they no longer sell so the sub acts as a secondary extra revenue support channel.
Depending on the case, for small games maybe it's worth to have it there day one, depending on how much pays them the platform holder for putting it there. The problem with that is that consumers could get used to don't buy small games, so only the few small games chosen to be included there would survive, while now hundreds of small games are released every month.
I think the only way for AAA games to fit there day one would be the ones of a relatively small budget and are GaaS to a point they heavily rely on their DLC, microtransactions and season passes for their monetization. In this case a subscription would give them a bigger userbase, so more microtransactions and dlcs sold, even if not as big as in F2P games.
They generate like $20b a quarter. That is alot of money for them, which they can support gamepass for too long.Market cap has absolutely nothing to do with how much money Microsoft or any other company has. I will admit that the purchase of King/Candy Crush could significantly assist with budgets for 1st party games.
The generate like $20b a quarter. That is alot of money for them, which they can support gamepass for too long.
NO, but it makes sense to re-release your game on 3 generations.
And it looks like Sony took a page from his book and applying it to TLOU
Even 1b-2b for xbox would be enough. That is enough to pay several AAA 3rd party day1 games, or fund 2-4 AAA $500m projects.Sure it's a lot of money but obviously not all of it goes back into Xbox/Gamepass. That's why said cash flow information specifically for Xbox would be great to see.
They are betting that it will be better valueCall of duty would serve as advertisement for gamepass. To them, that is a better value.
Until Microsoft provides cash flow information specifically for Xbox Gaming division, I refuse to 100% agree with this. Could be proven true in the future, but for now there are legitimate questions.
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet forgot about that one. Funny thing is I never played any of those.And Bethesda with Skyrim. If people keep buying the game then why wouldn't you?
I think if they pay enough to make it profitable for Take 2, they would accept. But the thing is MS or Sony wouldn't pay over a Billion to have a game there during some months, because the amount of extra subs that this game would generate wouldn't compensate it.If Microsoft or Sony went to Take 2 and said "We want GTA6 on our sub service day 1 for 6 months how much would it cost?" and Take 2 came back and said "we estimate losing 20m sales if we did that, so for us to agree you need to pay us 800m" and the platform holder said "ok we'll pay". Do you honestly think that Take 2 would refuse?
Of course they wouldn't. Zelnick explained everything except the fact that having GTA6 on any service would end up costing more than Take 2 spent on developing it.
It would be like asking the platform holder that wanted it to pay for the development of your game, yet they don't get it exclusively. It ain't happening. Nothing to do with the size of the game or the development costs. The bigger the I.P, the higher the cost. With multi-million sellers commanding fees that go into nearly/full or even more of the dev cost territory.
20 years, just from cash reserves.I mean, not even Battlefield 2042 is on EA Play yet. Microsoft can lose a ton of money with Gamepass and Cloud, but for how long?
20 years, just from cash reserves.
Even 1b-2b for xbox would be enough. That is enough to pay several AAA 3rd party day1 games, or fund 2-4 AAA $500m projects.
That is why MS can afford it. They have unfair advantages from their software subscriptions, which generates insane amount of money.
They had $130b cash on hands. Spent $67b on activision. They were left with $63b, then gained another close to $20b this last fiscal year.
They have unlimited amount of money cheat code.
For example, Sony managed to make 23b-25b from PS (not profit). That is their most profitable division.
It's why MS is all in on this service.
Nah, that would destroy xbox completely.I don't know about that. More studios more games day one, more money burned. They must have a strategy. Forza Horizon 5 for example offered a paid version to play early.
Another thing would be to cut the budget for smaller games or even go to the island of microtransactions, or even put ads in service games (there's some rumors about this btw).
The industry found their gold machine from mtx. This subscription so far, is just baby.I don't know friend it's tough to speculate how exactly their accounting shakes out for all of this. Coming from finance space this is all fascinating to me so I'm excited to see how it works out for them and the industry as a whole.
Yep and It could be bad for consumers too once they get enough subscribersDay one releases are good for consumers but a moronic business move.
Can you stop with this bulshit?Yep and It could be bad for consumers too once they get enough subscribers
I think a lot of these subscription's investments/content diminishes in quality after a while and they count on people keeping the sub and just getting used to it
People are dumbAnd Bethesda with Skyrim. If people keep buying the game then why wouldn't you?
Works out cheaper to buy studios and I.PsI think if they pay enough to make it profitable for Take 2, they would accept. But the thing is MS or Sony wouldn't pay over a Billion to have a game there during some months, because the amount of extra subs that this game would generate wouldn't compensate it.
YesWorks out cheaper to buy studios and I.Ps
Who knows.I mean, not even Battlefield 2042 is on EA Play yet. Microsoft can lose a ton of money with Gamepass and Cloud, but for how long?
I'm a customer and I care about getting the best value. It's on companies to make the business work. I am not interested in making sure companies get more of my money.Day one releases are good for consumers but a moronic business move.
Ok. This why several "arguments" against Services like game pass are so dumb.I'm a customer and I care about getting the best value. It's on companies to make the business work. I am not interested in making sure companies get more of my money.
If they expect that a game has potential to generate $1B, it will have a budget. If instead they think it has a potential to generate $100M or less, then the budget will be way smaller.Can you stop with this bulshit?
Do you think devs get less money, and magically those new games lose quality?
These are dumb logic to scare people like you.
Come on. You are smarter than this.
I'm a customer and I want Ferrari to give away their cars for $10/month. It's on companies to make the business work.I'm a customer and I care about getting the best value. It's on companies to make the business work. I am not interested in making sure companies get more of my money.
I mean, not even Battlefield 2042 is on EA Play yet. Microsoft can lose a ton of money with Gamepass and Cloud, but for how long?
Except he's actually correct.Can you stop with this bulshit?
Do you think devs get less money, and magically those new games lose quality?
These are dumb logic to scare people like you.
Come on. You are smarter than this.
You continue to work under the delusion that all of Microsoft exists to support their Xbox division, which is just not how any of this works.They generate like $20b a quarter. That is alot of money for them, which they can support gamepass for too long.