Goalus
Member
Activision deal should be no problem then.The consumer has spoken, this is not worthy competition.
Activision deal should be no problem then.The consumer has spoken, this is not worthy competition.
bro...we are pass that. the deal is doneActivision deal should be no problem then.
And I hope they do the honourable thing and keep releasing games on series consoles instead of pulling the cord this gen to focus on the next generation of consoles (like thats gonna matter) as they did xbone.The people had already decided and choosen the console they and their friends will play the latest 3rd party games, and exclusives. The software share ratio is overwhelmingly in favor of the PS5, and it's not even close (check the sales threads).
The gap is widening. It's called the snow ball effect. People will buy the most popular console to play with their friend and not feel left out.
Its already too late for MS this generation.
The consumer has spoken, this is not worthy competition.
Oh, it's actually quite easy: don't release a major first party title in close to eighteen months, fail to produce anything resembling a major showcase AAA title period, and put obvious failures like Halo Infinite and Redfall front and center for your brand. And here we are. People buy consoles to play games, and Microsoft have failed to actually release any.
Activision deal should be no problem then.
Ya...Even though they do get more revenue and IP and such after ABK closes.. it DID take 68 Billion to get it its not just free extra new revenue lolIt's gonna take like 15 years of that new revenue to make up what they spent, though. Microsoft already covered it, but it's not going to be a black entry in the Xbox ledger for a loooong time.
In 2020 people pretended to understand technology for console war purposes, now they pretend to understand accounting and it’s even sadder imo.
Theres also Armored Core in August ... I assume people will be more willing to check it out since its a FROM game after the huge success of Elden RingDude, they've been tracking at OG Xbox levels for basically the whole year ! That system did ~ 6.2 million in its third year on the market...and there's a very strong chance Xbox Series are performing even less than that.
They won't sell that many more systems because it's exclusive, in part because a good deal of that hype will be snuffed out between Balder's Gate 3, Mortal Kombat, and Spiderman 2. Plus Super Mario RPG Remake, can't forget that one.
I don't think Bethesda's games have more mass appeal than the Souls games do. I think Skyrim benefited a ton from the hype around shows like Game of Thrones during that time period, but there is no equivalent mainstream mega-hit sci-fi show going on right now (or in the near future from the looks of things) to give Starfield a similar boost. I mean, there are good sci-fi shows out currently (I'm enjoying Foundation, for instance), but I wouldn't say any of these have pop culture megahit status the way Game of Thrones did.
We never got a sales update for Fallout 4, FWIW, after the initial launch shipments and sales, at least to my understanding. Saying Starfield will tap out @ 15 million lifetime isn't even really the same as saying only 15 million will play the game. You have to remember, the game will be in Game Pass "Day 1", that will always act as a limiter to total overall sales as a result. You can't ignore this.
And again, skipping the most popular console brand altogether will also hurt lifetime sales, considering Skyrim & Fallout 4 saw huge sales in large part due to PlayStation platforms. That's just a fact.
While I agree Bethesda RPGS have huge appeal... Starfield IS a new IP... its not an established franchise like Fallout or Elder Scrolls. Also I would say the Space/Sci FI setting has less casual appeal than the fantasy setting of say ESOf course, no need to repeat yourself when I agree lol
Point was Bethesda RPGs have huge appeal, that's it.. that was my entire point, their past game's sales was the evidence.. I wasn't saying anything about how many copies Starfield will sell, nor was I suggesting it will sell as much as Elden Ring. I was simply saying a game like ER doing well is evidence that the RPG genre is really healthy right now.
“Xbox isn’t selling enough consoles this is bad for Xbox despite revenue being driven by software.”
Why would I buy an xbox when I can just play better versions of their games on PC? Do they not get my money? Never understood this obsession.
Why post this? What are you so defensive about? It's a news thread and people are discussing the news.They aren't dead yet. And nobody should want them dead. Competition is good.
You're not wrong.The issue for MS is, Sony and Nintendo don't want Game Pass on their platforms at all, in its current form, and I can't blame them. What deal do they get from MS from getting a cut off Game Pass subscriptions through their platforms, versus 30% cuts off B2P game sales of those same titles on their platforms, where the former is better financially for them?
I just don't see where it happens, unless Microsoft makes significant changes to how they structure Game Pass on those platforms. And at that point, Sony & Nintendo would probably want Microsoft to implement those same changes for Game Pass on Xbox platforms, too. Because why have a loophole exist where Xbox consoles get the games Day 1 on Game Pass, but Sony & Nintendo don't want Day 1 for those games on their services or Game Pass custom to their platforms due to cutting into B2P sales revenue?
Elden Ring had the benefit of being on PS4 & PS5 platforms which contributed heavily to overall sales. Starfield does not have that benefit. Previous Bethesda games like Fallout 4 and Skyrim got to the numbers they did in large part due to PlayStation (and in Skyrim's case, also Nintendo) platforms.
Without a PlayStation release, Starfield isn't getting beyond 15 million lifetime sales. That's lifetime, as in 4-5 years, so it'll sell slower than Elden Ring did. They need PlayStation & Nintendo if they hope to get beyond 14-15 million lifetime sales for Starfield.
The results aren't improving for their console sales, maybe focus on maintaining a digital service for every possible platform to entice people on using as their gaming driver. I think When everyone plays we all win Spencer would agree to this.
Phil will just make the next Xbox run Windows, bringing Sony's games to millions more gamers. Sony will be a 3rd party publisher sooner than Xbox.
They put gamepass front and centre for their brand and said they don't need big releases for their console due to it. People were just too oblivious and gushing over GP and its smaller releases.Oh, it's actually quite easy: don't release a major first party title in close to eighteen months, fail to produce anything resembling a major showcase AAA title period, and put obvious failures like Halo Infinite and Redfall front and center for your brand. And here we are. People buy consoles to play games, and Microsoft have failed to actually release any.
You joke but that's what he's wishing for. MS don't rely on consoles. They don't care about competing on consoles, even though they would love to sell more than Sony they have always claimed it doesn't matter that they don't sell consoles. Phil's words repeated over the years have shown that they don't care to compete there but he's coy about it because at the same time he doesn't want to upset or alienate the xbox faithful by admitting it.No need to worry, because Phil has already assured us that there's these billions of gamers ready to hop on the cloud to play Xbox games! Billions upon billions of gamers on the cloud to play games on Xbox's subscription plan are just going to overwhelm Sony so much that Jimbo will resign in shame and PlayStation will just melt away as a brand in the face of the power of the cloud!
now Nintendo doesn't countThey aren't dead yet. And nobody should want them dead. Competition is good.
Can't tell if you're joking or not, but I genuinely think that's the best path forward for Xbox hardware: just literally make them PCs.
NUC-style mini-PCs tuned for affordable gaming, running Windows, with a console UI by default that can switch to Windows 10/11 desktop.
They'd never have to worry about unfavorable comparisons to Sony & Nintendo ever again. It would literally just all go away. They'd have no reason to withhold games from Sony & Nintendo platforms, either. Immediate increases in revenue and profits. Can finally sell Xboxes for profit instead of losing $200 per unit. Secures Windows as the gaming OS on PC while Valve is trying to shift people over to Linux with Steam Deck (and follow-ups).
But Microsoft are too egotistical and prideful to do this, because to them it would be "admitting defeat" to PlayStation.
Actually, I take that back: Microsoft are probably more than okay with that. Phil Spencer isn't.
this ain't chief.Omg doom and gloom while
Revenue was $56.2 billion and increased 8% (up 10% in constant currency)
Operating income was $24.3 billion and increased 18% (up 21% in constant currency)
Net income was $20.1 billion and increased 20% (up 23% in constant currency)
For Microsoft as a whole but we aren't Excel and Azure enthusiasts here. We're talking about how xbox/gaming performed last quarter.Omg doom and gloom while
Revenue was $56.2 billion and increased 8% (up 10% in constant currency)
Operating income was $24.3 billion and increased 18% (up 21% in constant currency)
Net income was $20.1 billion and increased 20% (up 23% in constant currency)
They put gamepass front and centre for their brand and said they don't need big releases for their console due to it. People were just too oblivious and gushing over GP and its smaller releases.
You joke but that's what he's wishing for. MS don't rely on consoles. They don't care about competing on consoles, even though they would love to sell more than Sony they have always claimed it doesn't matter that they don't sell consoles. Phil's words repeated over the years have shown that they don't care to compete there but he's coy about it because at the same time he doesn't want to upset or alienate the xbox faithful by admitting it.
He is shifting the industry to subscriptions over consoles competing for a cut, i would say not even shifting to cloud either, that would just be a stepping stone while the high end market is still kind of relevant but shrinking. The console market is shrinking according to MS's own words. No higher spec midgen machine from them, the cheap low spec Series S being their main(stream) machine this gen, Phil saying xbox is 'untenable' without mobile. MS and Phil are trying to steer to the casual side for subscription growth without consoles
while Sony is going the other direction with enthusiast hardware (PS5/Pro specs or VR) . I think in the next 5 years you will even see xbox one like games running native on a mobile SoC and the console will become less and less relevant to MS's gaming ambitions overall. Phil's title wasn't changed from "CEO of Xbox" to "CEO of Microsoft Gaming" for no reason. The strategic shift is there and the only pushback are the people not adopting it as well as they'd hoped. Now they're trying to get peoples favourite IPs so they can change "consumer behaviour".
Omg doom and gloom while
Revenue was $56.2 billion and increased 8% (up 10% in constant currency)
Operating income was $24.3 billion and increased 18% (up 21% in constant currency)
Net income was $20.1 billion and increased 20% (up 23% in constant currency)
I guess more than anything else, I'm just perplexed how Microsoft truly plans on achieving their vision for gaming while claiming to not care about directly competing for console marketshare yet at the same time trying to lock out Sony out of as many of their own 1st party titles along with not even having GamePass on Steam. But hey, maybe they think they can actually change consumer behavior to favor renting games via subscriptions over Buy-to-Play + Free-to-Play games in the medium to long term, I personally don't think it's going to happen but as with everything in life only time will tell.
Apple and Google have launched Apple Arcade and Google Play Pass to some success I believe so paying a sub isn't entirely new to current mobile users. I do think they may struggle to compete with f2p games but they are trying to get some popular franchises which they can lock to their sub or store like Candy Crush, Diablo, CoD etc. I think in five years you will see a massive influx of xbox one quality console games that run native across all devices including mobile and chasing high end/enthusiast only releases will become more and more rare.I mean, sure Microsoft can try pivoting away from consoles to go to mobile to sell subscriptions to the billions of mobile gamers out there, but I noticed a pattern of the most popular mobile games: They're generally free-to-play, meaning mobile gamers aren't subscribing to access their favorite mobile games on their phones. So is Microsoft's strategic objective with mobile to convince mobile gamers to start paying for subscriptions when that's not how they've usually accessed the top mobile games previously? Because it's either that or it's cloud gaming, which also still requires a subscription to access their xCloud technology (outside of Fortnite which is F2P anyways) as well as needing a constant connection to cloud servers.
Also, it wasn't like Microsoft started putting their games on Steam out of the goodness of their hearts and to make gaming more accessible, but rather they knew their own PC storefront was never going to pose much of a threat to Steam and pragmatically decided to start making their games available on Steam only several years after they started porting their games to PC around 2016 for boosting revenue, even though Steam still doesn't have GamePass as of present, despite Gabe previously stating that he'd be open to having GamePass on Steam.
I guess more than anything else, I'm just perplexed how Microsoft truly plans on achieving their vision for gaming while claiming to not care about directly competing for console marketshare yet at the same time trying to lock out Sony out of as many of their own 1st party titles along with not even having GamePass on Steam. But hey, maybe they think they can actually change consumer behavior to favor renting games via subscriptions over Buy-to-Play + Free-to-Play games in the medium to long term, I personally don't think it's going to happen but as with everything in life only time will tell.
Yes, MS as a whole is doing crazy good. Thus, revenue, profit and loss from Gaming is a blip on their radar really. It's a giant $2.5 TRILLION corpo, so not sure what point you are trying to make. Because their gaming division is not doing well at all and these two things (MS doing well and MS Gaming doing poorly) can happen at same time.Omg doom and gloom while
Revenue was $56.2 billion and increased 8% (up 10% in constant currency)
Operating income was $24.3 billion and increased 18% (up 21% in constant currency)
Net income was $20.1 billion and increased 20% (up 23% in constant currency)
The consumer has spoken, this is not worthy competition.
And ps5 out sells competitors combine i combine is usually 52% ps5 40% switch 8h$%7days xboxsame way that the NPDs usually are something like ”PS5 and Switch are up while other platforms are down YOY”
That's certainly possible for technology to move forward quick enough for mobile phones to be able to handle native PS4/Xbox One games by the end of the 2020s decade, but I do wonder if mobile gamers would even want to play those type of games on their phones at all rather than just sticking with their more simplified mobile games they have now? Like, I know it's not a great example, but remote play off of Xbox and PlayStation consoles don't seem to have garnered much mainstream attraction despite being around for at least several years now as an option to play those type of games on the phone, and Sony's newest attempt at appealing to the remote play market with their Project Q device seems to have fallen flat, and for good reason.Apple and Google have launched Apple Arcade and Google Play Pass to some success I believe so paying a sub isn't entirely new to current mobile users. I do think they may struggle to compete with f2p games but they are trying to get some popular franchises which they can lock to their sub or store like Candy Crush, Diablo, CoD etc. I think in five years you will see a massive influx of xbox one quality console games that run native across all devices including mobile and chasing high end/enthusiast only releases will become more and more rare.
Gamepass everwhere and PC centric gaming should be the future for them.Just aligns with my thoughts that the writing on the wall is that Game Pass is the future of Microsoft gaming and that the Xbox isn't long for this world.
Azure/Cloud and AI will carry MS into the futureFor Microsoft as a whole but we aren't Excel and Azure enthusiasts here. We're talking about how xbox/gaming performed last quarter.
They will continue to be able to buy it on PS. In Xbox they'll also be able to rent it for almost $200/year with more games, but in PC too.Putting the next COD entry on GamePass Day One would make many people consider Xbox over PlayStation during Holiday season.
I assume most of the ones interested on Starfield already have the console or will play it on PC. Same goes with GP. I think that GP will have a small bump from people who still doesn't have GP and may be interested on it but that won't almost move consoles.Where are the people lining up to buy xboxs in anticipation for Starfield? Console still continuing the 3rd place meme in the monthly NPD list so close to lauch of Starfield.
Its ALREADY crazy to me that Phil or somehow Xbox Division convinced MS to dump almost 80 BILLION into the division... mind blowing really. Their future projected revenue and plans must be massive to not just invest that into more cloud or ai tech. Their cloud revenue just this year can be upwards of over 100 billionYes, MS as a whole is doing crazy good. Thus, revenue, profit and loss from Gaming is a blip on their radar really. It's a giant $2.5 TRILLION corpo, so not sure what point you are trying to make. Because their gaming division is not doing well at all and these two things (MS doing well and MS Gaming doing poorly) can happen at same time.
At some point, MS and its investors may get tired of blowing profits from rest of the company on non-consequential/ not-important division and either jettison the whole thing/sell it off or go full on 3rd Party and Cloud Gaming.
There's a lengthy list of products killed by Microsoft throughout its history, as seen here. Among some notables there are Mixer, the Kinect, Games for Windows Live, and the Windows Phone, all gone and taken to the woodshed by the board of directors at Microsoft.Do we consider Google Pixel phones dead when all other Android sales trounce that hardware and compete with Apple?
How about Surface devices? Same goes.
Never change Doom&GloomGAF.
How do you think will they recoup activision cost by the end of this
That might be the case if they had purchased a hamburger but instead they bought an asset that is probably worth more than they paid.It's gonna take like 15 years of that new revenue to make up what they spent, though. Microsoft already covered it, but it's not going to be a black entry in the Xbox ledger for a loooong time.