Support NeoGAF

[Allandor]

Looking at how low the profits on Sony's games are despite selling 10-20 million copies, there's simply no way Microsoft makes any money on their first party games because they don't sell even 1-2 million copies. Their last big seller was Halo 5 with 5 million copies sold, everything else is a lot lower. This was before gamepass was introduced, today these numbers are a lot lower still.

They make the work for the company who gives them the order. Then there are license costs.
This is not comparable with other first party games. Especially the license costs suck for dev studios.
Owning a IP on would make a huge difference if it is not just contract work.

 

[yurinka]

Looking at how low the profits on Sony's games are despite selling 10-20 million copies, there's simply no way Microsoft makes any money on their first party games because they don't sell even 1-2 million copies. Their last big seller was Halo 5 with 5 million copies sold, everything else is a lot lower. This was before gamepass was introduced, today these numbers are a lot lower still.

?

As I remember we saw the numbers of all recent Insomniac games and PC ports, and all of them were pretty profitable. Sony isn't desperate for profit at all, they are having more profits than ever.

But yes, the AAA MS games can't be profitable putting them day one on GP. And GP can't be profitable. Pretty likely their hardware isn't profitable either. And considering the declining market share of their console, the profits they may have from the 3P game+addon sales for Xbox could compensate all the other loses combined.

As I remember, Phil said in court that their gaming division only had 2 profitable quarters in 20 years.

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

The Fuzz damn you!

Fapping to Microsoft leaving gaming hardly makes one an idiot.

I’m no fan of Microsoft and I think many of their recent actions are damaging to the industry. I think that MS leaving the industry altogether, depriving Sony of a direct competitor, would be considerably worse. Sony’s only saving “grace” is that they lack the means to monopolise the industry in the way that MS could.

 

[StealthGoblin]

And at the rate of 5bn profit/year it will take 14 years for Xbox just to pay daddy MS for it, after that maybe we can say ATK makes Xbox profitable (if Xbox still exists as a platform by then).

Having COD on Gamepass is massively going to eat into that profit.

 

[HeWhoWalks]

I’m no fan of Microsoft and I think many of their recent actions are damaging to the industry. I think that MS leaving the industry altogether, depriving Sony of a direct competitor, would be considerably worse. Sony’s only saving “grace” is that they lack the means to monopolise the industry in the way that MS could.

Too many variables to that. One could fill the shoes of Microsoft down the road. Outside of blunders with the PS3 (which would have cost them dearly even without the 360), Sony has remained relatively tame throughout their time here. Until they do something unimaginable, no point in worrying about what could happen should they lose Microsoft as a competitor. Never mind that Microsoft hasn't ever truly posed a major threat to Sony when they were dominating. The PS2/4/5 show that. If there's a competitor that should "keep Sony in check", it isn't quite them. And, as always, never count Nintendo out.

Ultimately, considering the things Microsoft has tried to pull/done, wishing them out of the industry is understandable. I'm not quite there at this point, but I get it. They wouldn't truly be gone anyway, as the PC will always be around.

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

As I remember, Phil said in court that their gaming division only had 2 profitable quarters in 20 years.

Do you have a source for that?

 

[Dorfdad]

Having COD on Gamepass is massively going to eat into that profit.

or it could massively improve gamepads subscriptions! We just don't know yet how this plays out.

Gamesales or Subscriptions its just different ways of looking at your income and taxes. I assume Microsoft sees value in it regardless of you and my opinions.

 

[StealthGoblin]

or it could massively improve gamepads subscriptions! We just don't know yet how this plays out.

Gamesales or Subscriptions its just different ways of looking at your income and taxes. I assume Microsoft sees value in it regardless of you and my opinions.

Take a look at what has happened to other franchises. Forza has tanked. We've never been told about how many sales Starfield has made. We haven't even been told about the number of subs added.

If it were good news Microsoft would shout about it.

COD was more of a Mobile play from MS. There is little they can do to improve their lot in console sales and subsequently gamepass subs.

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

no point in worrying about what could happen should they lose Microsoft as a competitor.

I disagree. Sony will do whatever they can get away with in the name of profits, just like any other corporation.

Never mind that Microsoft hasn't ever truly posed a major threat to Sony when they were dominating.

Only because Sony has been forced to act as a competitive entity, because of Microsoft’s presence.

And, like I said, considering the things Microsoft has tried to pull, wishing that out of the industry doesn't make someone an idiot.

Boy, I really am pissing off both “sides” today aren’t I?

Like I said, I’m no fan of Microsoft and I wouldn’t exactly shed a tear if they left the industry. Yes, I would absolutely prefer a different player in the industry, but right now MS is all we have (with, yes, Nintendo doing their own thing). Still, fine, I retract my “idiot” comment. Replace it with “naive” and recognise that different perspectives can exist, if that makes you feel better.

 

[HeWhoWalks]

I disagree. Sony will do whatever they can get away with in the name of profits, just like any other corporation.



Only because Sony has been forced to act as a competitive entity, because of Microsoft’s presence.



Boy, I really am pissing off both “sides” today aren’t I?

Like I said, I’m no fan of Microsoft and I wouldn’t exactly shed a tear if they left the industry. Yes, I would absolutely prefer a different player in the industry, but right now MS is all we have (with, yes, Nintendo doing their own thing). Still, fine, I retract my “idiot” comment. Replace it with “naive” and recognise that different perspectives can exist, if that makes you feel better.

"Sides"? I have a side now?

Pissed off? Nope.

In the end, I didn't say Sony needs to be without competition. I'm saying it doesn't have to be Microsoft and the Xbox as it has proven to be very little in the way of a threat and, because of that, Microsoft has taken sharp measures (despite what some call just a "ploy for the mobile market") that have ultimately hurt this industry and that is where much of the cheering-for-their-exit comes from.

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

"Sides"? I have a side now?

Pissed off? Nope.

If you’re advocating (as I assume you are) for MS to leave the gaming industry then, yeah, I’d say that constitutes taking a “side”. Glad to hear I haven’t pissed you off though. You seem a decent fellow.

 

[Gavon West]

Take a look at what has happened to other franchises. Forza has tanked. We've never been told about how many sales Starfield has made. We haven't even been told about the number of subs added.

If it were good news Microsoft would shout about it.

COD was more of a Mobile play from MS. There is little they can do to improve their lot in console sales and subsequently gamepass subs.

If the Xbox division was as non profitable as GaF makes it out to be, the division would be shuttered. It's not. In fact, it's growing exponentially.

 

[HeWhoWalks]

If you’re advocating (as I assume you are) for MS to leave the gaming industry then, yeah, I’d say that constitutes taking a “side”. Glad to hear I haven’t pissed you off though. You seem a decent fellow.

Nah, I'm not there at this point. Rather, potentially industry-ending practices, but I get why others feel how they do. No one should be buying whole publishers and making multiplatform IPs (especially anything pre-acquisition) permanent exclusives, for example.

Also, I appreciate the last two sentences, as the feeling is mutual!

 

[StealthGoblin]

If the Xbox division was as non profitable as GaF makes it out to be, the division would be shuttered. It's not. In fact, it's growing exponentially.

There's a lot of creative accountancy and booking happening. There'll be a lot more scrutiny going on now due to the expenditure that's for certain.

You can't tell me their sales declines haven't set alarm bells ringing at Redmond. They've sanctioned billions of dollars for price cuts (on top of over $1.2 billion in a previous year) to stem the hemorrhaging and there are indications that multiplatform development (alongside another Xbox) is their path to sustaining their studios.

The hardware isn't profitable and their software as a result won't reach their initial forecasts. The clearest indication that they've been spooked is a deviation from that hardware strategy leaked from the FTC affair. That roadmap gave an impression of confidence. The recent rumblings indicate unrest.

They'll make a ton of money with their new strategy and it's absolutely the right path for an entity that owns three large publishing arms.

 

[yurinka]

Do you have a source for that?

I don't have the link, and couldn't find it with a quick search.

It was from one of the recent court cases about the ABK acquisitions, I'd bet that the USA one, where there were folks live streaming what was being asked in the court. Can't remember now, maybe wasn't Phil who said it. Maybe it was some other big fish from MS.

 

[SimTourist]

?

As I remember we saw the numbers of all recent Insomniac games and PC ports, and all of them were pretty profitable. Sony isn't desperate for profit at all, they are having more profits than ever.

But yes, the AAA MS games can't be profitable putting them day one on GP. And GP can't be profitable. Pretty likely their hardware isn't profitable either. And considering the declining market share of their console, the profits they may have from the 3P game+addon sales for Xbox could compensate all the other loses combined.

As I remember, Phil said in court that their gaming division only had 2 profitable quarters in 20 years.

I remember an interview with Epic Games where they stated that Gears 1 made more profit than Gears 3 because while the sales increased Gears 3 had a much bigger production budget that offset the sale gains. That was back on 360, since then the budgets for Gears 4 and 5 were probably a good amount larger than Gears 3 but the sales are much lower than even Gears 1.

 

[FoxMcChief]

OP why you dragging Microsoft into this mess?

Some can’t get Microsoft out of their heads.

 

[Geometric-Crusher]

I’m no fan of Microsoft and I think many of their recent actions are damaging to the industry. I think that MS leaving the industry altogether, depriving Sony of a direct competitor, would be considerably worse.

I disagree, MS no longer competes with Sony, it's as if they weren't there anyway.

It's time to make it official by withdrawing from the console industry and focusing on developing games for PC, Playstation, Nintendo and mobile.

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

I disagree, MS no longer competes with Sony, it's as if they weren't there anyway.

If you think that this is how Sony would act without competition, then I’m not surprised you want MS gone. So, sure, disagree away. I hope we never find out just how predatory Sony could be in this space.

 

[Gavon West]

True.

On this forum, there are also people who would orgasm at the thought of Microsoft monopolising the gaming industry. People, as a whole, are fucking idiots. Again, this is not evidence of a conspiracy.

Can any of you show proof that people want Microsoft to monopolies the industry? First I heard of it.

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

Can any of you show proof that people want Microsoft to monopolies the industry? First I heard of it.

I’m surprised you took your hands out of your pants long enough to type this.

 

[Gavon West]

I’m surprised you took your hands out of your pants long enough to type this.

You don't know the half of it my boy. Quit talking out your arse. Big man on a keyboard. Lol

 

[adamsapple]

Some can’t get Microsoft out of their heads.

 

[Taur007]

Looking at how low the profits on Sony's games are despite selling 10-20 million copies, there's simply no way Microsoft makes any money on their first party games because they don't sell even 1-2 million copies. Their last big seller was Halo 5 with 5 million copies sold, everything else is a lot lower. This was before gamepass was introduced, today these numbers are a lot lower still.

Halo 5 sold 5 mill 3 months in!!! Where did you get that it only sold 5 mill to date?

Halo 5 Sold 5 Million Copies Within 3 Months After Its Release

Halo 5: Guardians for the Xbox One sold around 5 million copies within the first 3 months after its release.

www.google.com

 

[DenchDeckard]

Because you said "Even microsofts games like gears and halo have never come close to the Hollywood blockbuster look that Sony games have". That is simply not true. "That was 16 years ago". Then you proceed to bring up Uncharted 2 — a game from 14 years ago.

At one time, the top Xbox lookers at least competed. Gears 2 and 3 were worthy visual competitors despite not quite matching the prowess of stuff like God of War III or Uncharted 3. It at least showed what the right team(s)/talent could do. Hellblade II will be the first game in a long time to give Sony's studios a run for their money on the exclusive (Xbox/PC) end.

I mentioned uncharted 2 to try and add some context on when you could start seeing sonys push for this stuff.

The reality really started kicking in from last of us onwards.

Of course there was a tipping point to when Sony started leaning on this stuff, but I feel you already knew that.

And you made my points. Gears 2 and 3 etc are examples, like all other industry of games that push for as close to that benchmark as their budgets allow.

You literally agree with me from your points but seem to be trying to not agree with me....

 

[Starbuck2907]

Their own published games and gamepass has yet to make a profit. It's being upheld by microsoft money

Check it: https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/26/23425029/microsoft-xbox-game-pass-profitable-revenues

 

[Team Andromeda]

I understand completely that we cannot say Xbox has been profitable or not since Xbox One based on the financial reports. Exactly what I have been saying. You are the one struggling here while making up "results" that don't exist.

No idea if Xbox really has overtaken PlayStation in revenue or not. Has nothing to do with profits since Xbox One, but now you are clearly trying to deflect.

I'm not at all and you can't seem to back up the argument of XBox posting losses each year.
And if it is true that XBox has now overtaken Plauystaiion for revenue, SONY game studios must be making losses then? to follow your argument or like for XBox they're making more money than they spend on games.

Whatever the case I'll stand by the XBox One being Xbox most profitable console

 

[rofif]

Of course not. Xbox is not earning any money. They are using infinite Microsoft money to get there but it’s not happening

 

[GymWolf]

I doubt that many M projects have the same budget as most sony games.

 

[Team Andromeda]

So you're saying that they made losses in the successful 360 generation but magically turned profitable in their worst generation that was Xbox One?

If yes, can you show a financial report of the Xbox division being profitable after the Xbox One era to back up your claim?

Yeah, XBox bled money on the OG XBox and the 360 was racking up huge losses for the 1st couple of years, being sold at a massive loss to the Corp due to the high tech of the unit. All were reported and shown in the data.
Just when you thought MS had turned to corner with Halo 3 it had the billion-plus bill for Three Rings Of Death.

The XBox One was hardly world-leading tech for a console at its launch I doubt it was sold at a huge loss to MS and you had no Three Rings Of Death to spend money on. Add in the clever move that was 1st started with Shadowrun on the 360 where the console and PC division worked as one and you take that the full hog with merging Xbox all into one entity along with Gameplass and it's brought in the cash to help have Xbox enjoy the most revenue in its lifespan

The trouble is so many here on just simply focused on sales or being number 1. Kinect is the best selling add-on of all time, that means jack shit when so few were buying dictated Kinect games for the unit.
No way will XBox beat SONY but sell 60 million consoles also have a part of the PC sector and you have a stable and decent money stream for XBox that is better for XBox profits than in the OG Xbox or 360 days IMO

 

[Topher]

I'm not at all and you can't seem to back up the argument of XBox posting losses each year.

Again, I've never made any such argument so no need for me to back up anything. You are the only one between the two of us making an assertion as to Xbox profitability.

And if it is true that XBox has now overtaken Plauystaiion for revenue, SONY game studios must be making losses then? to follow your argument or like for XBox they're making more money than they spend on games.

I have no idea. Just more speculation. Either way, that's not my argument. I never said Xbox is posting losses. Not once. My argument is that there is no data to say either way.

Whatever the case I'll stand by the XBox One being Xbox most profitable console

That's fine. But it is based on conjecture and speculation. There are no "results" or data for you to base it on.

 

[HeWhoWalks]

I mentioned uncharted 2 to try and add some context on when you could start seeing sonys push for this stuff.

The reality really started kicking in from last of us onwards.

Of course there was a tipping point to when Sony started leaning on this stuff, but I feel you already knew that.

And you made my points. Gears 2 and 3 etc are examples, like all other industry of games that push for as close to that benchmark as their budgets allow.

You literally agree with me from your points but seem to be trying to not agree with me....

I don’t agree with several of your views on it, no.

Your main point centered on budgets, where I disagree that is the main culprit. I’d argue it is a 50/50 split with $ and talent.

Plus, saying Microsoft “have never come close” was false and I provided just a few examples. There were others. Early 360 stuff like Bioshock and Mass Effect, in addition to launch One games like Ryse (folks often forget this one), easily competed with PlayStation’s best lookers of those respective times. Yes, it got better and Sony eventually took off and stayed ahead, but there was still a time where is was a real competition.

 

[Thirty7ven]

I mentioned uncharted 2 to try and add some context on when you could start seeing sonys push for this stuff.

The reality really started kicking in from last of us onwards.

Of course there was a tipping point to when Sony started leaning on this stuff, but I feel you already knew that.

And you made my points. Gears 2 and 3 etc are examples, like all other industry of games that push for as close to that benchmark as their budgets allow.

You literally agree with me from your points but seem to be trying to not agree with me....

Don’t really understand your pov here, it seems you are conflating style with budget.

There’s not much room for interpretation here, we have the data. Aside from where a studio is located, headcount is where the majority of the production budget is allocated.

From what I’ve gathered around 100 people were working on Starfield before 2019, then >400 + external support like ID software until the game shipped. In the end the headcount won’t be much different.

343i was also >500 people.

Big budget Hollywood movies normally look or are expensive because you either have very expensive talent working on them, with some actors alone taking 20-30 million paydays, or because you are shooting in expensive places to shoot, blowing expensive shit, shooting for a long time, or very expensive number of CGI shots.

In games blowing up a building isn’t expensive. Having the game set in space or in Tokyo doesn’t make it more expensive than one another.

 

[DenchDeckard]

I don’t agree with several of your views on it, no.

Your main point centered on budgets, where I disagree that is the main culprit. I’d argue it is a 50/50 split with $ and talent.

Plus, saying Microsoft “have never come close” was false and I provided just a few examples. There were others. Early 360 stuff like Bioshock and Mass Effect, in addition to launch One games like Ryse (folks often forget this one), easily competed with PlayStation’s best lookers of those respective times. Yes, it got better and Sony eventually took off and stayed ahead, but there was still a time where is was a real competition.

I think you are drastically miss understanding my original post and comments if you are honestly trying to use 360 / ps3 generations as your main point of argument. That's 3 generations ago.

The only reason I mentioned uncharted 2 is because you mentioned a game from that generation and I highlighted when Sony realised they had a trick with the cinematic Hollywood style blockbuster video game and really started pushing budgets amd motion capture etc to what we have today.

Please try and understand that I was saying hardly any publisher can afford to spend the budget that Sony can with a game like spider man 2.

If someone posted on here that spider man 2 cost 315 million dollars before marketing before this leak I guarantee they would have been publicly humiliated, ripped apart with comments "no way did it cost more than 150 million" etc.

I'm talking that current games cost an insane amount of money and that's to achieve something like spiderman 2. Which while a great game, I doubt many would think it justified that kind of budget.

 

[Hudo]

I hear that the Age of Empires releases were all profitable. Except for maybe the definitive edition for the first one, which did not take off in Vietnam as they probably had hoped.

 

[FlyyGOD]

Why is gaf so negative on Xbox brand. I have seen many threads about Xbox and Microsoft where people are trolling left and right lol.

Trolling without repercussions.

 

[cormack12]

Given the latest presentation leaks from Sony and their projected direction, I guess retention and sustainability will be the measurement of success gping forward.

What's not clear is to illustrate how certain games/releases translate to keeping customers in the ecosystem

 

[FlyyGOD]

MS is the only console manufacturer not reporting profits or losses, without that info, assumptions are usually made.

There was the assumption that Sony 1st games didn’t made any profit, even respectable insiders/analysts said this. But with simple math and now with the Insomniac leak, it’s clear 1st party Sony games make profits and some more.

Again, without data from MS, only engagement numbers, plus the affirmation from Spencer that they are losing between $100-200 per Xbox console, assumptions are made.

Until they start being clear like the other two, we’ll never know if they make profit from Xbox division or not.

Why is there even a concern if a trillion dollar company is making a profit? Why do gamers care?

 

[Daneel Elijah]

If you think that this is how Sony would act without competition, then I’m not surprised you want MS gone. So, sure, disagree away. I hope we never find out just how predatory Sony could be in this space.

We have Nintendo to have some idea of how hardcore it can get, with the NES. But on principle yes Sony without Xbox would probably make something worse than the PS3. At least that would be ambitious instead of MS no more reselling games in 2013(!) and dumb shit like publicly talking about countries in tiers.
For me, having one main console maker could mean going back to the PS2 era, or if Xbox is on top the 360 era, with lots of game thanks to the huge market, and some gems in it. But honestly PC and Steam with early access does that somewhat better so it is just nostalgia speaking. With AAA getting harder to make, and gamers not ready for 100$ games, some ugly choices will have to happen. And being the only console manufacturer may seems to some be a way to slow down the inevitable. Outside of that, no good reason to want one of the two to die. Curious of how many here think like me?

 

[HeWhoWalks]

I think you are drastically miss understanding my original post and comments if you are honestly trying to use 360 / ps3 generations as your main point of argument. That's 3 generations ago.

The only reason I mentioned uncharted 2 is because you mentioned a game from that generation and I highlighted when Sony realised they had a trick with the cinematic Hollywood style blockbuster video game and really started pushing budgets amd motion capture etc to what we have today.

Please try and understand that I was saying hardly any publisher can afford to spend the budget that Sony can with a game like spider man 2.

If someone posted on here that spider man 2 cost 315 million dollars before marketing before this leak I guarantee they would have been publicly humiliated, ripped apart with comments "no way did it cost more than 150 million" etc.

I'm talking that current games cost an insane amount of money and that's to achieve something like spiderman 2. Which while a great game, I doubt many would think it justified that kind of budget.

I got all of your points made, I just, again, don't agree. Besides, my point has been pretty simple. I didn't bring up the past as a sticking point of contention, I'm saying it voids the narrative that Sony games have always been heaps better in this department. The budgets argument (the main argument) is what I'm contesting. You say "hardly any publisher can afford what Sony does" but then use Microsoft as a point of reference. They could easily spend what Sony does, but if the talent isn't there, it will matter much less. It takes something, in addition to, a sizeable budget to compete with Sony on graphics and fidelity.

It's why people go after Sony's dev acquisitions much less. Sony buys the teams for the talent they provide and the relationship they have with them. Insomniac, for example, has always made quality products for PlayStation. Sure, a bigger budget allows for their talent to go further, no argument there, but if they weren't Insomniac, that budget would carry far less weight.

For Microsoft, they also bought talent and obviously have the funds to compete. They just need to use those two things in tandem to truly be able to compete with the best of the best from Sony. Ninja Theory's Hellblade II looks phenomenal. Why? Because that team not only has the budget — they specialize in that sort of production. Not every team would pull that off, regardless of the budget.

 

[DenchDeckard]

I got all of your points made, I just, again, don't agree. Besides, my point has been pretty simple. I didn't bring up the past as a sticking point of contention, I'm saying it voids the narrative that Sony games have always been heaps better in this department. The budgets argument (the main argument) is what I'm contesting. You say "hardly any publisher can afford what Sony does" but then use Microsoft as a point of reference. They could easily spend what Sony does, but if the talent isn't there, it will matter much less. It takes something, in addition to, a sizeable budget to compete with Sony on graphics and fidelity.

It's why people go after Sony's dev acquisitions much less. Sony buys the teams for the talent they provide and the relationship they have with them. Insomniac, for example, has always made quality products for PlayStation. Sure, a bigger budget allows for their talent to go further, no argument there, but if they weren't Insomniac, that budget would carry far less weight.

For Microsoft, they also bought talent and obviously have the funds to compete. They just need to use those two things in tandem to truly be able to compete with the best of the best from Sony. Ninja Theory's Hellblade II looks phenomenal. Why? Because that team not only has the budget — they specialize in that sort of production. Not every team would pull that off, regardless of the budget.

Why would any publisher sign off a game that needs to sell 8 million units to break even? Especially xbox with half the install base of playstation. It's a crazy amount of units..TO BREAK EVEN.

Anyway, I'm done with the convo.

Of course, it's down to talent as well as budget but give naughty dog 50 million budget and they would make a game to that budget...it wouldn't be the last of us 2 quality and length.

 

[Archaic101]

As first topics go, this one was extremely successful at, well...introducing you to NeoGAF.

 

[yamaci17]

quite the opposite

halo infinite mtx probably makes more money than spiderman or god of war, SADLY

 

[HeWhoWalks]

Why would any publisher sign off a game that needs to sell 8 million units to break even? Especially xbox with half the install base of playstation. It's a crazy amount of units..TO BREAK EVEN.

Anyway, I'm done with the convo.

Of course, it's down to talent as well as budget but give naughty dog 50 million budget and they would make a game to that budget...it wouldn't be the last of us 2 quality and length.

Why would they? Because they have a team that could pull it off, which is what happened.

Anyway, at least we agree it's down to both, but we also have no clue what Naughty Dog would pull off with $50 million. Their track record tells me not to bet against them, especially when budget doesn't create talent, it allows those strengths to be taken further.


yamaci17

Without any evidence, there's no way to know that. But, if it does, I wouldn't call it sad. People like what they like.

 

[Beechos]

Since game pass subsidizes everything who knows. I feel like the better route to go to maximize profit would be sell day 1 and release on gamepass anywhere from 3-12 months later. Kinda like movies in theaters before they go to on demand/disc. You're always going to have people who will be fiening to play. Look at all the people who spend the extra cash for deluxe editions to play early, then later on once the game hits gamepass it'll give it a second wind.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Microsoft has a lot of GaaS games. Post ABK money is not a concern anymore.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Since game pass subsidizes everything who knows. I feel like the better route to go to maximize profit would be sell day 1 and release on gamepass anywhere from 3-12 months later. Kinda like movies in theaters before they go to on demand/disc. You're always going to have people who will be fiening to play. Look at all the people who spend the extra cash for deluxe editions to play early, then later on once the game hits gamepass it'll give it a second wind.

Gamepass ain’t subsidizing shit. MS is subsidizing gamepass.

 

[EverydayBeast]

What changed in Microsoft’s system is people signed up for Xbox live, gears, Forza, and halo and now those are gone.

 

[iHaunter]

- xbox main profit target is subscription not sales.
- Sony doesn't own spiderman so they also have to fork over a large chunk of sales to Disney/Marvel.
- imagine if only 10 million sales games were profitable lol.
- terrible first topic.

Their subscriptions are half of PS+. So that wouldn't work either.

 

[StealthGoblin]

Their subscriptions are half of PS+. So that wouldn't work either.

Well that's changed now that they've converted all the gold members to Gamepass core.

On paper there are a lot more gamepass members now, even if the average price per subscriber hasn't gone up.

So whatever they had as gold members + gamepass members is what they'll state in their next PR, even though it's a bit disingenuous. Gamepass core is essentially an aping of what was the PS+ collection.

What's odd is that bog standard gamepass doesn't include online multiplayer but core and ultimate do.