Support NeoGAF

[saintjules]

How in the hell do the “platform holders” just invent ways to make this work? What a dumb ass attitude. I would absolutely "resist the change" because the change isn't going to work for business. Companies generally don't exist to lose money. While Microsoft can do it because the Xbox division is basically subsidized by the divisions that make money, and always have been, Sony and Nintendo cannot afford that because they are not trillion dollar behemoths.

Sony has already said the subscription model doesn’t work for the kinds of games they make. We know MS loses money on Game Pass. But you think now you are owed cheap games? Your attitude is ... “not my problem.” So you want games at a price that’s WAY below what they cost to make, and you’re proud of that fact. Brilliant. Truly a sharp mind you have there.

Let me ask you this. Do you expect people to pay you for your work? I assume yes. I bet there is even a chance you think you are underpaid. But for some reason you think it’s your right, and Microsoft’s/Sony’s obligation, to have a service they subsidize so you don’t have to pay for your hobby. What a selfish and short sighted perspective. I don't see how you and similarly minded people don't see how this doesn't work out.

I happily pay full price for games, because I like supporting the creators. Just as I expect people who want me to work for them to pay me well, because I’ve worked hard to have rare and high end skills. It's called understanding value and respecting other people's labor. But no, you think "just give it all to me for a couple bucks." I mean, WTF.

But at the very least, we are entering the next phase of this, which of course I've been calling for years. And that phase is people being proud of not paying. I said this model is dangerous because it devalues software. I, and many others, were told we were crazy and got the typical "laugh" responses by the small core gang because that "just wouldn't happen" (much like @DarkMage619 did above, because he has no argument to respond with, and no leg to stand on, so he tries to rely on derision as a rhetorical defense. But he knows I'm right. He knows it). And lo and behold, look at the proud language being used by people saying no way do they want to pay anymore. But at the same time people want more, while demanding they pay less. But at least they are being open about it.

I don't know where this goes at this point, but people are at least drawing their line in the sand. Good luck trying to tell a business you don't want to pay for product though, while they need to figure out how to make it profitable. And then when they pack it all in you'll be standing there whining "but muh video games!"

Great response. Please take the gift, kind sir.

 

[Fess]

I don’t understand why people never factor in the cost of maintaining GP. Do people really believe it’s cheap to keep big AAA games in GP?

I’m sure there are more educated people there right now doing the math far better than any of us while actually looking at the real figures and not just some guestimates.
They haven’t closed the service, that’s all that matters to me since I have prepaid until 2024.
And if they do wipe it in a year I’ll still walk away with having played a ton more games than I would with no GP.
People think too much. Just enjoy. The low entry price won’t last forever. Sooner or later the price will increase and if it gets too expensive we can just go back to buying games again, that’ll never go away.

 

[rickybooby87]

None of what was said in that article surprised me. What did surprise me, is that Jeff Grubb wrote it, Is he okay? Someone better go do a wellness check on him.

 

[kingfey]

Sony has many money from the game sales and many money (more than MS) from the subscriptions. In fact they make way more money from the games sold (the double not counting DLC).

This is better than to sacrify most game sales and have only the money from the subscriptions, because it's way more money.

Why they would want to lose the money of the sales? They don't need to give away their games to give attention or to grow their subscriptions, they are already very big (if their game subs make $0.9B/quarter, this almost $4B/year).

They are dealing with a company, who spent $68.7b buying studio.
This like saying arsenal can compete with Manchester city who have tons of money, compared to arsenal who are sustainable club.

 

[Punished Miku]

Every single form of media is moving to subscription models across gaming, music, movies, TV.

They're all doing it because it's completely unsustainable and not profitable I'm sure.

 

[yurinka]

In bold, nothing to do with Sony’s output.

Underlined, old ports.

So 2 games.

MS has bigger output exclusives, which is announced already. Sony on other hand, is cooking something, and we have no idea what it is.

If you add activision to MS, their exclusive output rises alot.

We were talking about "Exclusive game Output wise" (this is what the post I replied said), and these games I listed are console exclusive games that won't be on Xbox at least for a while.

Regarding MS output, even including the acquired companies, what console exclusives are going to have this H1? MS has a bigger exclusives output this H1 than Sony? Which year did MS have more exclusives than PS? Or in which year is going to have in the future more exclusives? Because for the next years all we have are TBA games, some in preproduction and in many cases we barely have a cg / logo teaser, of games that in some cases we know are (or were some months ago) in preproduction.

How many Activision Xbox exclusive games did they announce? Because I saw the president of MS saying they'll keep CoD and the other big ABK IPs on PS, Spencer said they want to keep CoD on PS and in the SEC filling they said they want to keep the Minecraft example.

They are dealing with a company, who spent $68.7b buying studio.
This like saying arsenal can compete with Manchester city who have tons of money, compared to arsenal who are sustainable club.

They spent over $80B on acquisitions to see if in that way they can compete against the other ones, who make more morey, sell more consoles, sell more games, sell more subscriptions, have more exclusives and win more GOTYs than them. Even after the acquisitions.

 

[FrankWza]

Jim Ryan: "It does not make any financial sense to put our games into subscription day one"
GAFers: Yeah, he is telling truth
Spencer: "Game Pass is already sustainable"
GAFers: HE IS LYING!

It's funny, because you can't verify both of those statements. But GAF somehow believe that Ryan is telling truth, but Spencer is not...
Wonder why...

Nobody doubts that gamepass is sustainable for Microsoft. Sustainability is not profitability. Sony needs to PlayStation to be profitable. Microsoft does not need xbox to be.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

I don’t understand why people never factor in the cost of maintaining GP. Do people really believe it’s cheap to keep big AAA games in GP?

The cost is factored in. It's still sustainable.

 

[SSfox]

Agree overall, tho Sony are heavily lacking in the Japanese games department. Nintendo are better, and even MS don't need to do much to beat Sony in that area.

 

[kingfey]

We were talking about "Exclusive game Output wise" (this is the post I replied), and these games I listed are console exclusive games that won't be on Xbox at least for a while.

Regarding MS output, even including the acquired companies, what console exclusives are going to have this H1? MS has a bigger output? Which year did MS have more exclusives than PS? Or in which year is going to have in the future more exclusives? Because for the next years all we have are TBA games, some in preproduction and in many cases we barely have a cg / logo teaser.

How many Activision Xbox exclusive games did they announce? Because I saw the president of MS sayin they'll keep CoD and the other big ABK IPs on PS, Spencer said they want to keep CoD on PS and in the SEC filling they said they want to keep the Minecraft example.

Upcoming exclusives output. Past is Sony.

 

[yurinka]

Agree overall, tho Sony are heavily lacking in the Japanese games department. Nintendo are better, and even MS don't need to do much to beat Sony in that area.

Not true. This generation PlayStation had more Japanese games than Xbox and WiiU+Switch. In fact they had more Japanese exclusives than Nintendo and Microsoft combined. Almost every known Japanese 3rd party company has at least a PS4 exclusive.

 

[yurinka]

I think it's important to understand that the quality of PlayStation Studios game is because they rely on retail sales and don't give away their games on a subscription service. Who knows if they'll be able to maintain the same quality that we're all praising (and what you think is the reason PlayStation is a must-have console) if they start putting their games day one on a $10 subscription service?

I can bet that the quality will suffer.:

• PS Studios will get lower budget for development
• More games will be half-baked and less ambitious and less detailed
• Even important features will roll out over a period of months and get more money per subscriber per game (to keep subscribers, ala Halo Infinite Forge and Co-Op launch)
• Games will be more buggy which will be patched over months
• Games will be more of live-service type
• Fewer single-player games
• Most importantly, the focus will shift on quantity instead of quality because they would want to keep the content pipeline full. Sony could delay Horizon Forbidden West because it wasn't ready in Fall 2021 and then release it 2 weeks before Gran Turismo. A subscription service model doesn't allow that.

What I'm saying is that yes, a subscription service might sound amazing and more cost-effective at least in the short-term, but it's near-sightedness to imagine that it comes without any cost or baggage. It does. The only thing remains is whether you're okay with that cost or not.

I'm not. I want Sony to continue making these $200 million blockbuster games that no one else does.

Sony is making >$200M games, in fact they are buying studios and growing the ones they already have to make more games. Every generation AAA games become more expensive, and now seems that almost a third or a quarter of them will be GaaS, which is more expensive than an GaaS.

So what they need is more revenue sources instead of killing their main revenue source. It would be a retarded and financial suicide idea to give away their AAA games day one on a subscription service. They don't need to do this desperate move to get attention at all, specially when their main blockbusters sell >15/20M copies and when they have around 50M game subscribers.

Maybe from time to time one of their own very small projects or (as they already do) some indie could be included there day one, but wouldn't make sense to do it with AAA games.

 

[Swift_Star]

I’m sure there are more educated people there right now doing the math far better than any of us while actually looking at the real figures and not just some guestimates.
They haven’t closed the service, that’s all that matters to me since I have prepaid until 2024.
And if they do wipe it in a year I’ll still walk away with having played a ton more games than I would with no GP.
People think too much. Just enjoy. The low entry price won’t last forever. Sooner or later the price will increase and if it gets too expensive we can just go back to buying games again, that’ll never go away.

That doesn’t invalidate what I said though and MS burning money is nothing new. GP is way more expensive to maintain than everyone makes out it to be.

 

[Swift_Star]

The cost is factored in. It's still sustainable.

Sure, when you use azure, office and windows revenue it probably is. By itself? Nah.

 

[SSfox]

Not true. This generation PlayStation had more Japanese games than Xbox and WiiU+Switch. In fact they had more Japanese exclusives than Nintendo and Microsoft combined. Almost every known Japanese 3rd party company has at least a PS4 exclusive.

It did, but those are 3rd party, the only reason those don't go to switch is because of its jurassic hardware, but Nintendo has way more 1st party japanese games that Sony has.

 

[Swift_Star]

They are dealing with a company, who spent $68.7b buying studio.
This like saying arsenal can compete with Manchester city who have tons of money, compared to arsenal who are sustainable club.

That never stopped them from besting MS before and it surely isn’t stopping now.

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

MS doesn't lose money on Gamepass. The CEO of Microsoft gaming said that Gamepass is "already sustainable".

Substainable is not making profit, and it was not the CEO of MS made that remarke, it was Phil Spencer, and he is NOT the CEO of MS, thats the usual vague PR talk from Spencer...without the money of MS GP ...you get my drift

 

[Punished Miku]

Substainable is not making profit, and it was not the CEO of MS made that remarke, it was Phil Spencer, and he is NOT the CEO of MS, thats the usual vague PR talk from Spencer...without the money of MS GP ...you get my drift

"No. Game Pass is very, very sustainable right now." Xbox boss Phil Spencer has said Xbox Game Pass is not burning cash and is a sustainable business for Microsoft. Speaking to Axios, Spencer said plainly, "Game Pass is doing very well from a business perspective and a creative and engagement perspective." - Nov 17, 2021

Phil Spencer Says Game Pass Is Sustainable, Not Burning Cash

"No. Game Pass is very, very sustainable right now."

www.gamespot.com

If you read really closely between the lines though, it really means that it is burning cash and is not at all sustainable, and not doing well from a business perspective. The trick is you listen to what he says and then pretend he said the exact opposite based on zero evidence or company statements.

 

[Godot25]

Nobody doubts that gamepass is sustainable for Microsoft. Sustainability is not profitability. Sony needs to PlayStation to be profitable. Microsoft does not need xbox to be.

And who cares if they are profitable right now? Did anybody care when Amazon was pumping all profits into company to drive growth?
I mean yes, people questioned Bezos and he is now one of the richest man on Earth.

Since Xbox division is in growth phase they would be literally retarded to not funnel every dollar back into ecosystem to drive future growth.

They are uniquely positioned on the market because they were first company that combined first party games and third party games into one subscription. And they would be stupid to slow down

 

[Swift_Star]

"No. Game Pass is very, very sustainable right now." Xbox boss Phil Spencer has said Xbox Game Pass is not burning cash and is a sustainable business for Microsoft. Speaking to Axios, Spencer said plainly, "Game Pass is doing very well from a business perspective and a creative and engagement perspective." - Nov 17, 2021

Phil Spencer Says Game Pass Is Sustainable, Not Burning Cash

"No. Game Pass is very, very sustainable right now."

www.gamespot.com

If you read really closely between the lines though, it really means that it is burning cash and is not at all sustainable, and not doing well from a business perspective. The trick is you listen to what he says and then pretend he said the exact opposite based on zero evidence or company statements.

So in here he’s being clear, but when he’s talking about A/B games being multiplat he’s being careful and letting things open for interpretation, trying to fool the FTC?
Weird double standard there, don’t you think Ass of Can Whooping ?

 

[Punished Miku]

So in here he’s being clear, but when he’s talking about A/B games being multiplat he’s being careful and letting things open for interpretation, trying to fool the FTC?
Weird double standard there, don’t you think Ass of Can Whooping ?

I have no idea where you've moved this goal post to, but I'll let you carry on by yourself then lol. Have fun.

Spoiler

 

[FrankWza]

And who cares if they are profitable right now? Did anybody care when Amazon was pumping all profits into company to drive growth?
I mean yes, people questioned Bezos and he is now one of the richest man on Earth.

Since Xbox division is in growth phase they would be literally retarded to not funnel every dollar back into ecosystem to drive future growth.

They are uniquely positioned on the market because they were first company that combined first party games and third party games into one subscription. And they would be stupid to slow down

they’re uniquely positioned because they have microsoft funding the gaming division. Which is another reason that most comparisons aren’t valid. Netflix became Netflix and Amazon became Amazon. xbox is a division of microsoft, a company with few peers

 

[Godot25]

they’re uniquely positioned because they have microsoft funding the gaming division. Which is another reason that most comparisons aren’t valid. Netflix became Netflix and Amazon became Amazon. xbox is a division of microsoft, a company with few peers

There is no doubt that without Microsoft's big pocket Bethesda and Acti would not happened. And Xbox division would probably not been here.

But the question is if GamePass is sustainable. And Phil gave you answer. I think that they are funneling all potential profits back to the service so it can grow more

 

[Swift_Star]

I have no idea where you've moved this goal post to, but I'll let you carry on by yourself then lol. Have fun.

Spoiler

Just pointing out a clear double standard when it comes to what Phil says and the narrative Xbox fans are trying to push.

 

[adamsapple]

Nobody doubts that gamepass is sustainable for Microsoft. Sustainability is not profitability. Sony needs to PlayStation to be profitable. Microsoft does not need xbox to be.

Did ... did I just agree with something you just said Frank ?

I need to splash cold water on my face ..

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

If so, where is their Halo killer

Halo is not what it used to be, 343 is slowly kiling Halo

 

[lastmessiah]

Every single form of media is moving to subscription models across gaming, music, movies, TV.

They're all doing it because it's completely unsustainable and not profitable I'm sure.

They need to stop what they're doing and consult NeoGAF financial experts ASAP!

 

[Punished Miku]

Just pointing a clear double standard when it comes to what Phil says and the narrative Xbox fans are trying to push.

Clear?

1. First of all, what is the narrative Xbox fans are supposedly pushing? Because I don't know what that is. Are you saying that Xbox fans are arguing that Phil is lying about A/B but not lying about Gamepass? I literally have no idea what you're talking about or why the two things are at all related.
2. Which fans? Who are you even talking about?
3. Why bring this up at all when we're discussing Gamepass and its sustainability? I posted a very plain, and straightforward answer on that and it wasn't even directed at you in the first place.

What you're really doing is posting trash takes.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

So in here he’s being clear, but when he’s talking about A/B games being multiplat he’s being careful and letting things open for interpretation, trying to fool the FTC?
Weird double standard there, don’t you think Ass of Can Whooping ?

FTC are just a bunch of suckas. Phil will be honest with us though. He promised me

Tbf I believe Phil is being truthful here. I can't imagine gamepass costing much with how shit the lineup is right now.

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

Halo is not what it used to be, 343 is slowly kiling Halo

Someone cant handle the truth....

 

[Big Baller]

Halo is not what it used to be, 343 is slowly kiling Halo

Infinite is killing it.

 

[kingfey]

Sony has many money from the game sales and many money (more than MS) from the subscriptions. In fact they make way more money from the games sold (the double not counting DLC).

This is better than to sacrify most game sales and have only the money from the subscriptions, because it's way more money.

Why they would want to lose the money of the sales? They don't need to give away their games to give attention or to grow their subscriptions, they are already very big (if their game subs make $0.9B/quarter, this almost $4B/year).

Because that is not a guarantee money.
Subscription money is guaranteed. That is the difference. Not only that, the more subscribers users you have, the more money you generate.

If Sony can get 50m users paying $15, they are guaranteed to get $750m from subscriptions fee only. Or $9b a year. That is tons of money on the table. We aren't even counting 3rd party game sales, mtx sales, dlc sales. All these would add to the $9b at the end of the yearly revenue.

 

[FrankWza]

There is no doubt that without Microsoft's big pocket Bethesda and Acti would not happened. And Xbox division would probably not been here.

But the question is if GamePass is sustainable. And Phil gave you answer. I think that they are funneling all potential profits back to the service so it can grow more

If they are taking profits and reinvesting them, I would consider that profitable. If that was the case, he would say profitable. The only question as far as I’m concerned is, whether or not it’s sustainable without microsoft backing them. I would say no since they would not have the buying power to make these acquisitions that make their service potentially appealing. As far as anyone caring, he was either asked or felt compelled to address it. It’s an industry altering strategy and he should have to answer. They are a public company and he is an employee and the face and mouthpiece of that division

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

MS has bigger output exclusives, which is announced already. Sony on other hand, is cooking something, and we have no idea what it is.

If you add activision to MS, their exclusive output rises alot.

What are you talking about Activision? You realise the sale will not be completed until later in 2023 right? It's also not a given it'll pass.

MS do not currently own them.

 

[kingfey]

How in the hell do the “platform holders” just invent ways to make this work? What a dumb ass attitude. I would absolutely "resist the change" because the change isn't going to work for business. Companies generally don't exist to lose money. While Microsoft can do it because the Xbox division is basically subsidized by the divisions that make money, and always have been, Sony and Nintendo cannot afford that because they are not trillion dollar behemoths

????
Because you invest in the future. How hard is this for you to understand it?

Sony didn't get in this gaming business, without their other division. Every business is either made from investment, or from other division profit.

Disney wouldn't have given Sony their characters, if Sony didn't have Spiderman rights for the movie.

Sony has already said the subscription model doesn’t work for the kinds of games they make. We know MS loses money on Game Pass. But you think now you are owed cheap games? Your attitude is ... “not my problem.” So you want games at a price that’s WAY below what they cost to make, and you’re proud of that fact. Brilliant. Truly a sharp mind you have there

Blockbuster said the same thing about Netflix. Guess what happened?
Blockbuster is dead, and Netflix is king now.
Games have all kind of risks. If you don't like the game you won't buy it. Tons of games die every year. That is lost money.
Not to mention, games have limited sales. Most games don't hit 15m mark.
You can hit 45m with lower price, compared to full price.

Let me ask you this. Do you expect people to pay you for your work? I assume yes. I bet there is even a chance you think you are underpaid. But for some reason you think it’s your right, and Microsoft’s/Sony’s obligation, to have a service they subsidize so you don’t have to pay for your hobby. What a selfish and short sighted perspective. I don't see how you and similarly minded people don't see how this doesn't work out.

What kind of dumb analogy is this? The fuck?
What do you think about investment then? Are those charity money too? What about crowd source funding? Are those free shit money?

I happily pay full price for games, because I like supporting the creators. Just as I expect people who want me to work for them to pay me well, because I’ve worked hard to have rare and high end skills. It's called understanding value and respecting other people's labor. But no, you think "just give it all to me for a couple bucks." I mean, WTF.

You happily pay that money, because you are conditioned to pay it. Those prices become cheaper through sales. After 3 years, those games cost $20, or $10 on sales. That is how much your shit full games cost.

But at the very least, we are entering the next phase of this, which of course I've been calling for years. And that phase is people being proud of not paying. I said this model is dangerous because it devalues software. I, and many others, were told we were crazy and got the typical "laugh" responses by the small core gang because that "just wouldn't happen" (much like [IMG alt="DarkMage619"]https://www.neogaf.com/data/avatars/s/2/2048.jpg?1515394896[/IMG] DarkMage619 did above, because he has no argument to respond with, and no leg to stand on, so he tries to rely on derision as a rhetorical defense. But he knows I'm right. He knows it). And lo and behold, look at the proud language being used by people saying no way do they want to pay anymore. But at the same time people want more, while demanding they pay less. But at least they are being open about it.

You pay for online games. The games you literally paid for. Not to mention, you pay mtx on those $60 games, you have to buy extra content, which was already part of the full game, but devs cut it to make more money.

If you are serious, then demand full games, not these shits, that are on those full priced games.

As for software, it's all dependent on the owner. After a while, those software becomes worthless. You are just bragging about paying for early access for these softwares.

I don't know where this goes at this point, but people are at least drawing their line in the sand. Good luck trying to tell a business you don't want to pay for product though, while they need to figure out how to make it profitable. And then when they pack it all in you'll be standing there whining "but muh video games!"

Its already profitable. You just have no clue, and want to be proud of owning your games, like people used to do for movies and songs.

In short, you want to be smart about business, but fail so hard.

Business is all about how you make more money. The value of the product is not the artificial price. But what the product does. Businesses want their products to reach as many people as they can. Making it expensive, would make it hard for you to reach those audience.

Learn business first, before you type your feelings.

 

[CosmicComet]

They can do it all except pay multiple billions for a single IP studio and manage to keep them exclusive with the deal.

Seriously the Bungie purchase was embarrassing. Overpriced. Underdelivering.

MS payed 7 billion for an entire publisher in Zenimax and got multiple devs and like a dozen good to great IPs and future iterations won't be on playstation.

Sony on the other hand paid 4 billion for a single studio who will remain multiplatform indefinitely.

Sony are the worst of the three at cutting deals and acquisitions.

 

[kingfey]

What are you talking about Activision? You realise the sale will not be completed until later in 2023 right? It's also not a given it'll pass.

MS do not currently own them.

I said if you add. Meaning it's not fully owned yet.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

So in here he’s being clear, but when he’s talking about A/B games being multiplat he’s being careful and letting things open for interpretation, trying to fool the FTC?
Weird double standard there, don’t you think Ass of Can Whooping ?

When you realize that this "gotcha" literally works the other way round too.

 

[Captain Toad]

Is that not Nintendo's title?
Legitimate question, not trolling. Maybe I'm not viewing a diverse enough range of software sales charts?

Nintendo is so hit and miss. How they go from a console that sells 22 million to a 100 million, back to under 20 then well over 100 again makes no sense.

PlayStation is consistent - at least, with their home consoles. The low point for them was over 87 million. Each other home console broke the 100 million number and PS5 looks like it won't break that trend.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Playstation's are "Must buy" consoles, Nintendo consoles have their "family" moments, everyone gets xbox games on PC

Business Laptops Made for the Day-to-Day

VAIO business laptops are proudly made in Japan with innovative design and practical features to empower your goals. Discover our selection of cutting-edge laptops that stand the test of time.

us.vaio.com

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/sony-store/sony-cell-phones/pcmcat302400050019.c?id=pcmcat302400050019

https://www.sony.com/tz/electronics/tv/t/televisions

Professional Headphones - Sony Pro

Discover Sony Professional Headphones. The optimum combination of aural clarity & wearer comfort. Find out more.

pro.sony

It's like a SONY festival

 

[KingGhidorah]

"No. Game Pass is very, very sustainable right now." Xbox boss Phil Spencer has said Xbox Game Pass is not burning cash and is a sustainable business for Microsoft. Speaking to Axios, Spencer said plainly, "Game Pass is doing very well from a business perspective and a creative and engagement perspective." - Nov 17, 2021

Phil Spencer Says Game Pass Is Sustainable, Not Burning Cash

"No. Game Pass is very, very sustainable right now."

www.gamespot.com

If you read really closely between the lines though, it really means that it is burning cash and is not at all sustainable, and not doing well from a business perspective. The trick is you listen to what he says and then pretend he said the exact opposite based on zero evidence or company statements.

but 'sustainable for Microsoft' doesn't mean profitability in Xbox division

Rich daddy MS to his son: As long as you make xx amount of money, which is yy percent of your expense, I could cover the rest

 

[MikeM]

Xbox has gamepass. Sony will have episodic series’ of their IP.

Good time to be in gaming. Pick your poison.

 

[lastmessiah]

but 'sustainable for Microsoft' doesn't mean profitability in Xbox division

Rich daddy MS to his son: As long as you make xx amount of money, which is yy percent of your expense, I could cover the rest

Xbox is Microsoft and Microsoft is Xbox. They are under the same CEO and are one and the same.

 

[Danjin44]

“It can do all” and yet we never getting any first party Japanese or JRPG from them.

 

[KingGhidorah]

Xbox is Microsoft and Microsoft is Xbox. They are under the same CEO and are one and the same.

LOL, love that spin, that 190 billions annual MS revenue is surely not from Xbox....Xbox is a tiny, less than 10 percent of Microsoft

 

[Dr Bass]

MS doesn't lose money on Gamepass. The CEO of Microsoft gaming said that Gamepass is "already sustainable".

Holy hell some of you are in denial.

Sustainable does not in any way shape or form mean profitable. It means you can keep it alive.

If Game Pass was profitable Microsoft would be screaming it from the rooftops. Screaming. But you have chowderheads like Aaron Greenberg who flat out say it's not, and MS reporters like Tom Warren also stating it's not. If Greenberg isn't even willing to bend the truth about it and he says its not a profit play ... you can believe that.

But you, Bernd Lauert, know that it is because Spencer, a guy who never shuts up, said the phrase "its very sustainable." What that means is that MS is willing to subsidize it no problem. The key word in business is profitable. They will say that when they can.

But let me ask you this ... do you know what it costs to support these studios? These purchases the MS crowd are so enthusiastic about have running costs and they are extremely expensive. Game Pass is going to become a GaaS/MTX platform at the current rate. And that's fine honestly. But you aren't going to get the kinds of games that Nintendo and Sony deliver on a regular basis because the need to cover your costs with less money means a different model will be necessary. I mean come on, they are about to spend nearly 70 billion dollars, cash, on a company that pulls in around 5 billion revenue a year, where it's biggest series is on the decline. A company that had such little vision for itself, it shopped itself around to find a buyer and MS was the only willing participant! Somehow these massive new studio costs, and removing the need to buy these games on the Xbox platform, combined with MS' noted ability to manage studios and Activision's internal issues is going to result in some new force in the industry? Again, think and use your brains. I will be happy to be wrong, but we've seen stuff like this before. Repeatedly.

We are at 25 million GP users thus far, correct? Look at the complaints for this months games, and people saying they are going to quit the service potentially if output doesn't improve on this very board. I spent one dollar for three years. People are constantly telling others on here how to get multiple years for the price of one month if you've already done that deal. How many people in that number are from a trial over the holidays? Point is they are obviously not raking in cash monthly with this, and it's not this utopia service everyone is thrilled with and will keep forever. Yes of course some people are paying monthly but I bet the numbers in that sense are a lot lower than people think. Which is why it's ... "sustainable!" So again, why does Sony need to scramble on this? I just spent 45 bucks on Sifu and 80 on HFW. I am almost surely going to get GT7 even though I'm not that into racers, but it looks cool to me so I'll get it. That's in the span of less than four weeks that I've spent 200 dollars on PS software. I'm going to buy a bunch of Switch games this year too. How is that not execution excellence on their part? I would have bought Starfield on XSX this year had I not gotten access to it, and absolutely everything else they make, for a buck. What other games does MS even have on that scale for the rest of 2022? Which company sounds the "least smart" in this described scenario? You're saying Sony and Nintendo need to find a way to combat that?

I don't get the MS only crowd on this board, and it's like 5 or 6 people that send everything off the rails, without fail. Go buy some other platforms. Learn that it's ok to think these companies aren't perfect. I can think of plenty of things I think Sony or Nintendo could be doing better, because I'm not into these companies that way. But those two fan bases don't seem to have a cabal of users that jump into every thread to defend every move those companies make no matter which direction those moves are in! I see plenty Sony focused people on this board constantly criticizing what the company is doing. I have no idea what Nintendo focused people are doing, even though I'm one of them. Maybe we've just been so burned by that company we learned to get over all of this long ago.

I just want to talk about what games we are playing and what is fun, and why. Horizon unlocks in less than 12 hours. That's going to be awesome. Sifu is surprisingly good. Mario Kart 8 is going to start getting some new tracks starting next month, and I'm really excited for that. Xenoblade 3 will likely be incredible in September, not to mention all the other great stuff announced for Switch. Halo should be getting patches soon, so hopefully we can do classic co-op with friends again. Starfield in November of course. These are the kinds of things we should be discussing. Not lying about our favorite company because it hurts us to think they might not have brilliant people at the helm, or that they are, *gasp*, losing money . I really don't envy the mods. It's all so exhausting.

Now back to work and that horizon countdown.

 

[lastmessiah]

LOL, love that spin, that 190 billions revenue is surely not from Xbox....Xbox is a tiny less than 10 percent of Microsoft

What you are saying is irrelevant though. Xbox is not a separate company from Microsoft, so it benefits from Microsoft’s success. Sorry that makes you mad (actually not sorry lol).

 

[Pedro Motta]

How in the hell do the “platform holders” just invent ways to make this work? What a dumb ass attitude. I would absolutely "resist the change" because the change isn't going to work for business. Companies generally don't exist to lose money. While Microsoft can do it because the Xbox division is basically subsidized by the divisions that make money, and always have been, Sony and Nintendo cannot afford that because they are not trillion dollar behemoths.

Sony has already said the subscription model doesn’t work for the kinds of games they make. We know MS loses money on Game Pass. But you think now you are owed cheap games? Your attitude is ... “not my problem.” So you want games at a price that’s WAY below what they cost to make, and you’re proud of that fact. Brilliant. Truly a sharp mind you have there.

Let me ask you this. Do you expect people to pay you for your work? I assume yes. I bet there is even a chance you think you are underpaid. But for some reason you think it’s your right, and Microsoft’s/Sony’s obligation, to have a service they subsidize so you don’t have to pay for your hobby. What a selfish and short sighted perspective. I don't see how you and similarly minded people don't see how this doesn't work out.

I happily pay full price for games, because I like supporting the creators. Just as I expect people who want me to work for them to pay me well, because I’ve worked hard to have rare and high end skills. It's called understanding value and respecting other people's labor. But no, you think "just give it all to me for a couple bucks." I mean, WTF.

But at the very least, we are entering the next phase of this, which of course I've been calling for years. And that phase is people being proud of not paying. I said this model is dangerous because it devalues software. I, and many others, were told we were crazy and got the typical "laugh" responses by the small core gang because that "just wouldn't happen" (much like @DarkMage619 did above, because he has no argument to respond with, and no leg to stand on, so he tries to rely on derision as a rhetorical defense. But he knows I'm right. He knows it). And lo and behold, look at the proud language being used by people saying no way do they want to pay anymore. But at the same time people want more, while demanding they pay less. But at least they are being open about it.

I don't know where this goes at this point, but people are at least drawing their line in the sand. Good luck trying to tell a business you don't want to pay for product though, while they need to figure out how to make it profitable. And then when they pack it all in you'll be standing there whining "but muh video games!"

 

[KingGhidorah]

What you are saying is irrelevant though. Xbox is not a separate company from Microsoft, so it benefits from Microsoft’s success. Sorry that makes you mad (actually not sorry lol).

why u assume I was mad, tho? I'm just saying it like it is, sustainable for MS doesn't mean profitability for Xbox division, that's all

 

[Dr Bass]

Great response. Please take the gift, kind sir.

I really, really appreciate it. The fact that someone feels a post I make is worth donating 5 bucks to our little community here is very kind.