Support NeoGAF

[Moogle11]

The discussion was about how these subscription services affect the industry and the quality of future AAA games. Not if companies can make money with monthly subscription fees.

For me I'm not worried as I'm enjoying movies, music and shows more than ever with all the content from streaming and traditional networks etc. Cheaper options to access more things there has increased my enjoyment of high quality entertainment. I'm also enjoying gaming more than ever, so no current trends there bother me as I don't play genres infested with invasive MTs etc.

If anything, I'm optimistic that if any thing subscription services will lead to more mid-budget, shorter length games which I'd love. I'd like a lot more things like Hellblade and A Plague Tale than huge, super long AAA things like AC Odyssey that aren't nearly compelling enough to me personally for the amount of time they require to complete.

If it doesn't, no skin off my nose. I'm not obsessed with gaming and don't even know that I'd list it as my favorite hobby anymore. If I wasn't enjoying it any more, that's just more time and money for other things I enjoy and life goes on. Few things phase me anymore, especially minor things in life like media consumption hobbies. Why am I here given that? Who knows, been asking myself why I signed up when I haven't bothered with forums in years. Mostly just being down with a stomach bug currently and killing time while it goes away and doing a lot of posting from the toilet!

 

[DanielsM]

Origin Access premier does exactly that. Same as game pass and Uplay plus. My point with Sony was that they too are using a subscription service.

Your calculations like I have said many times also aren't fair with game pass considering we don't have numbers plus it offer additional benefits like 10 percent off purchasing games which you never include.same with EA access. Subscribers get additional money off which is generated by the EA access membership. It's more than just the flat sub fee.

It's been discussed many times why your other points don't make sense but you don't even reply to them so I'm not going to continue to reply to those points.

Oh sure the users might generate more in say DLC or something but they need masses amounts of subscriber which they will never get.

No, it hasn't been discussed that my points don't make sense... you just say it doesn't.

Literally EA needs 50m+ subscribers to get what they are getting now... that's an impossibility, even a fraction of that is an impossibility..... they actually need 100-200m because you're never getting those numbers at $100 each.

That’s still appealing to folks like me that play many games well after launch and may make them more money for us nit buying used copies which we turn around and sell or trade in and then take another potential sale away.

Well, you're not getting people to pay $9.99 a month now, which is why they have the $1 deals.... very hard to talk about a business that really isn't a business at this point. As far Game Pass... if MS wants to do that as a traditional publisher like EA is doing EA Access, I guess they could generate some revenue via old game rental.... but digital sales during the 3-6 months is where the revenue is generated.

First, MS has to release actual good games... there is no way their output is even close to something like EA right now. If they want to release their own games on Game Pass on PC, I mean what is that really worth to someone, not much.... their business is going to have to shrink drastically.

 

[Nikana]

Oh sure the users might generate more in say DLC or something but they need masses amounts of subscriber which they will never get.

No, it hasn't been discussed that my points don't make sense... you just say it doesn't.

Literally EA needs 50m+ subscribers to get what they are getting now... that's an impossibility, even a fraction of that is an impossibility..... they actually need 100-200m because you're never getting those numbers at $100 each.

You are the only one claiming they are trying to replace current revenue with subscriptions. No one else is.

And yeah it has been discussed in this very thread. You just never respond. Why would I make that up?

 

[phil_t98]

But you're not paying for it. I would have to put you on Voost level if you are paying $9.99-14.99 a month. Nobody was paying any of that, which is why they went to the $1 thing. They're trying to buy their way into a market which has very few funds.

I say its cool.... free shit, but anyone buying hardware for that.... well, I have no empathy for you i.e. Stadia Voost.

If I were to guess what is going to happen.... Office 365 Consumer or Entertainment Premium subscription.... or something similar.

- Office 365 Consumer (Word, Publisher, Excel, Outlook, Access, OneDrive, Xbox Live Gold) say for $149.99 a year
- Office 365 Entertainment Premium (Word, Publisher, Excel, Outlook, Access, OneDrive, Xbox Live Gold, Xbox Game Pass, and xCloud) say for $239.99 a year

And this is why Microsoft needs to be broken up, not that they are competing but they are using areas where there is a monopoly and than bundling in services to kill competition, imo. Basically what they are trying to do to Slack and Zoom, imo.

For the record, I don't think this will happen in gaming.... I expect gaming revenue to continue to go down for MS generally but there could gain during the Fall and Xbone Sexy (probably yoy from the low levels this last year for a few quarters after that).... I have no idea why someone would buy Xbox as a Hardware at this point, but there will be some hold outs so expecting a yoy gain in the fall.... service revenue will never be able to pickup enough to even come close to filling in the gap... gaming at Microsoft will have to shrink once Satya figures it out drastically.

Microsoft is trying to crush small rivals like Slack and Zoom, but it probably won’t face antitrust scrutiny

Microsoft is trying to crush Slack and Zoom by essentially giving away Teams for free.

www.vox.com

Phil has probably got say 2-4 years to find some real growth in subscription services or it will all get the axe, axeman cometh. Brave souls buying Xbox hardware, if you're not buying hardware or purchasing off the MS Store than no worries. They don't need people to find a dollar under the sofa cushions, they need 10s of millions of people paying real money per month or annually.

The axeman strikes again: Microsoft has real commitment issues

Yet another product cull raises questions about Microsoft's commitment to... anything, really

www.theregister.co.uk

you keep pushing the $1 thing when its a limited time offer, yes some people took advantage of a loop hole but you have no idea how many people are paying $1 or full price but keep pushing the $1 as if its all on the service. fanboyisim at its best

 

[DanielsM]

you keep pushing the $1 thing when its a limited time offer, yes some people took advantage of a loop hole but you have no idea how many people are paying $1 or full price but keep pushing the $1 as if its all on the service. fanboyisim at its best

Well, its just me that I was thinking people that the $1 thing keeps coming up, that they would be smart enough... but maybe I give them too much credit.

Microsoft gaming services although combined with content, continues to go down. Since Microsoft hides the numbers as always, no we don't have have an exact number... but nobody sells something for $1 that they could sell for $9.99 a month. Obviously people were not signing up. Maybe Microsoft will tell you, I wouldn't hold my breathe. Microsoft never gave Games for Windows Live numbers or Microsoft Store numbers either.

Service revenue should be noticeable higher if they believe "services" is the new path, it has gone up drastically on the business side over the last 10 year... you can see it right in the financials.

For MS to change from hardware to services... you need to see literally 50-200% growth per quarter, for the foreseeable future.... like they did on the business side.... but that never happened.

My guess, you could get:
30-50% of consoles players to pay for online (Xbox Live Gold/PS+)... Sony numbers are around 30-40%
Maybe a few million or a few percent would pay for game rental services... PS Now is at 700k.... small revenue stream, probably a money loser

At the end of the day, nobody needs access to play 1 million video games, its just cheaper to do it other ways, generally speaking.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

You are the only one claiming they are trying to replace current revenue with subscriptions. No one else is.

And yeah it has been discussed in this very thread. You just never respond. Why would I make that up?

You don't think they are?

 

[Nikana]

You don't think they are?

Who's they? Posters or companies?

 

[phil_t98]

Well, its just me that I was thinking people that the $1 thing keeps coming up, that they would be smart enough... but maybe I give them too much credit.

Microsoft gaming services although combined with content, continues to go down. Since Microsoft hides the numbers as always, no we don't have have an exact number... but nobody sells something for $1 that they could sell for $9.99 a month. Obviously people were not signing up. Maybe Microsoft will tell you, I wouldn't hold my breathe.

Microsoft never gave Games for Windows Live numbers or Microsoft Store numbers either.

Yeah the $1 comes up for new subscribers not existing. Have you never seen deals for new customers befor?

 

[DanielsM]

Yeah the $1 comes up for new subscribers not existing. Have you never seen deals for new customers befor?

This has already been answered above. Sure, services have deals MS basically gave it away for years though with these deals. I mean I don't care, its not my money.... enjoy... not sure what the issue is. MS gave you some free shit.

If they plan on replacing the hardware with services, there should be huge gains in services, but the financials really don't show that. Unless they find huge revenue growth in gaming services, gaming within MS will probably have to shrink.....drastically.

I'm not sure what the issue is with my comments, they are giving away free shit... my feelings aren't hurt... maybe they will send me a new car.

 

[phil_t98]

This has already been answered above. Sure, services have deals MS basically gave it away for years though with these deals. I mean I don't care, its not my money.... enjoy... not sure what the issue is. MS gave you some free shit.

If they plan on replacing the hardware with services, there should be huge gains in services, but the financials really don't show that. Unless they find huge revenue growth in gaming services, gaming within MS will probably have to shrink.....drastically.

I'm not sure what the issue is with my comments, they are giving away free shit... my feelings aren't hurt... maybe they will send me a new car.

They haven’t gave me anything for free lol I have paid for it. How do you get that it’s for free when even you saying there is a fee for it

 

[DanielsM]

They haven’t gave me anything for free lol I have paid for it. How do you get that it’s for free when even you saying there is a fee for it

Its relatively speaking i.e. context, free as in the value is worth than what they are charging. Free shit anyway you want to look at it. They are trying to buy their way into a market that has very little revenue i.e. game rentals.

I don't really agree with the opinion there is something bad about it, at this stage its just a rental service. My take Microsoft will probably lose lots of money on it, which is the history of gaming over there... but its not my money. The more losses the better for the bigger tech companies... I don't think Satya is going to lose too much sleep either way... he's got lots of money to burn.

I could see Microsoft as a traditional publisher, obviously that is not what they want... I expect them to generally continue to fail at trying to be a middleman in gaming. The business side, there are some hits and misses but they have real business requirement on that side, imo.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Who's they? Posters or companies?

You don't think this isn't MS goal lol?

 

[Nikana]

You don't think this isn't MS goal lol?

Microsoft's goal is to get money. Plain and simple. If subscribers make them money they will continue it. If selling $60 games does it they will do it. If it's $100 games they will do it.

They are a business.

 

[phil_t98]

Its relatively speaking i.e. context, free as in the value is worth than what they are charging. Free shit anyway you want to look at it. They are trying to buy their way into a market that has very little revenue i.e. game rentals.

I don't really agree with the opinion there is something bad about it, at this stage its just a rental service. My take Microsoft will probably lose lots of money on it, which is the history of gaming over there... but its not my money. The more losses the better for the bigger tech companies... I don't think Satya is going to lose too much sleep either way... he's got lots of money to burn.

I could see Microsoft as a traditional publisher, obviously that is not what they want... I expect them to generally continue to fail at trying to be a middleman in gaming. The business side, there are some hits and misses but they have real business requirement on that side, imo.

Do you have actual figures on Microsoft loosing money on this or a wild guess?

 

[TheHTIC]

My take is this, if the 2nd hand market didn't kill AAA games(a practice in which developers saw 0 income) then gamepass will not either.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

The discussion was about how these subscription services affect the industry and the quality of future AAA games. Not if companies can make money with monthly subscription fees.

Cool, can you let yourself know? You’re one of the ones who was talking about the $1 deal as if it was anything out of the ordinary for these services.

 

[DanielsM]

Do you have actual figures on Microsoft loosing money on this or a wild guess?

Well, as a whole from what we do know about the background of MS gaming in the last 20 years, its basically huge money loser in gaming. As far as Game Pass, right now its a huge money loser as they aren't charging anything.... duh. I don't really have an opinion on whether it will generate gains, but the revenue will be small... so any margin... will be limited funds i.e. game rentals.

As far as being a primary business, its just very hard to see how you generate even a tiny fraction of revenue from this than what they were doing in the Xbox 360 days. As far as middleman going forward, I have a hard time figuring out what they have.... other than being a traditional publisher I just don't see an opportunity here.

I don't know about losing money... its just very small revenue stream either way. Also, the duration is limited, as to me they are setting fire to Xbox as a Hardware.... so to me the business is based on that as publishers don't need them on non-Xbox hardware.

The only real future they have is as a publisher like they were in the 90s, imo, but I doubt Satya will be satisfied by that... they have to contend with satya.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

My take is this, if the 2nd hand market didn't kill AAA games(a practice in which developers saw 0 income) then gamepass will not either.

This. The used game market is worse for the industry than GamePass could ever hope to be.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Well, as a whole from what we do know about the background of MS gaming in the last 20 years, its basically huge money loser in gaming. As far as Game Pass, right now its a huge money loser as they aren't charging anything.... duh. I don't really have an opinion on whether it will generate gains, but the revenue will be small... so any margin... will be limited funds.

As far as middleman going forward, I have a hard time figuring out what they have.... other than being a traditional publisher.

tl;dr - he’s just pulling stuff out of his butt

 

[DanielsM]

tl;dr - he’s just pulling stuff out of his butt

I'm just going to go ahead and put you on ignore as its pretty obvious you're butthurt and are not really offer anything of discussion value. Eventually you'll make it through all 5 steps of grief.

What is funny is its not like I am even coming up with any of this.... its Microsoft's strategy thru their whole company, it was easy to spot, which is why I told everyone that the hardware would be scarified... rinse and repeat with Satya. Literally you need two brain cells to figure this out.... services or bust.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

what am I grieving exactly lol

 

[StreetsofBeige]

PS Now
- Has old and recent gen games, but focuses more on old gen games
- Has first party games
- Can be played on PC

Gamepass
- Has old and recent gen games, but focuses more on recent games
- Has first party games on launch day
- Can be played on PC
- Has $1 Gamepass Ultimate upgrades since E3 2019 (I think it's still going on?)

By the looks of it, both subs have a similar starting base of features, but beyond that GP offers more with first party games at launch and a cheaper price. If Sony is too cheap to pay for sub deals, that's on them. The PS division makes lots of profits and I think their most profitable division, but if they want to hoard it and not really give PS Now deals or offer first party games at launch or more recent gen games that's their choice. Sony prefers to focus on promoting its huge catalog which is two-thirds PS1-PS3 games, where PS3 games can't even be downloaded, but streamed.

MS can subsidize any deals no problem. The company makes about $40 billion per year profit across 8 billion shares. So they want to be agressive and give Xbox gamers a good deal, too bad.

Put it this way, with the profit they make, for every $100 million in deals they subsidize for aggressive GP deals paid out of their own pocket, it dings their EPS (earnings per share) about 1.25 cents.

They currently earn $5.74 per share.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Well, as a whole from what we do know about the background of MS gaming in the last 20 years, its basically huge money loser in gaming. As far as Game Pass, right now its a huge money loser as they aren't charging anything.... duh. I don't really have an opinion on whether it will generate gains, but the revenue will be small... so any margin... will be limited funds i.e. game rentals.

As far as being a primary business, its just very hard to see how you generate even a tiny fraction of revenue from this than what they were doing in the Xbox 360 days. As far as middleman going forward, I have a hard time figuring out what they have.... other than being a traditional publisher I just don't see an opportunity here.

I don't know about losing money... its just very small revenue stream either way. Also, the duration is limited, as to me they are setting fire to Xbox as a Hardware.... so to me the business is based on that as publishers don't need them on non-Xbox hardware.

The only real future they have is as a publisher like they were in the 90s, imo, but I doubt Satya will be satisfied by that... they have to contend with satya.

When they started to hide the console sales and put exclusives on other platforms numbers they conceded winning the console war.

Gamepass is a way to keep there hands in the console business but it doesn't work because it's a casual gamer service and the XB console market isn't full of casuals ie more core gamers buy XB.

For GP to be successful... it will have to have better games and be on more popular/casual friendly devices like the PlayStations.

 

[DanielsM]

You don't think this isn't MS goal lol?

Possibly, if they start bundling games with office I'm sure the calls for anti-trust will come pretty quickly.

They're already picking up steam with Slack/Zoom, but I think its too early for that.... we'll see. To me I see MS continuing to lose revenue, although there will be a few Windows Phone equivalent hold outs when the Sexy time comes out. I don't see how any of these services help them, I would think they would accelerate the fall down.

When they started to hide the console sales and put exclusives on other platforms numbers they conceded winning the console war.

Gamepass is a way to keep there hands in the console business but it doesn't work because it's a casual gamer service and the XB console market isn't full of casuals ie more core gamers buy XB.

For GP to be successful... it will have to have better games and be on more popular/casual friendly devices like the PlayStations.

Nice post, pretty much agree... although I don't see how the subscriptions survives a non-Xbox as a hardware environment as it doesn't make sense to have yet another middleman involved. Most of these things don't translate to PC or Android, or iOS, or insert hardware. If they want to be a traditional publisher, they could do that... but Satya isn't into that stuff.

They'll see the real money maker take a dive in the next couple of years - Xbox Live Gold subscriptions. Nobody needs XBLG on PC, even though they thought they could sell it back in the GFWL days.

My guess - hardware continues its dive... uptick in fall and few quarters than back down, service revenue will probably slowly start to go down like it has....

 

[VertigoOA]

I expect the bogus fangirl outrage about Gamespass will hit a fever pitch when Series X comes out. A 10$ sub is all you need with your brand new console.

 

[DanielsM]

I expect the outrage about Gamespass will hit a fever pitch when Series X comes out. A 10$ sub is all you need with your brand new console.

They've already destroyed the Xbox as a Hardware.

They're moving onto Google and Amazon and thinking they can avoid the real gaming companies, good luck.

Valve is like... look another Microsoft digital store (MS Store) bites the dust. Games for Window Live

I have no idea what good Game Pass would be on PC or any other device in its current form, the large publishers already have distribution channels, and their own subscriptions. Its like EA saying, hey Microsoft, come put your games on EA Access catalog and we'll pay you some pennies.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I expect the outrage about Gamespass will hit a fever pitch when Series X comes out. A 10$ sub is all you need with your brand new console.

Love it.

Next gen systems will bring next gen games.

Not only does GP have more recent third party games as part of their library, but all the MS first party games come with it.

All that by upgrading my Xbox Gold for $1 till 2022. lol

 

[StreetsofBeige]

They've already destroyed the Xbox as a Hardware.

We're talking GP in this thread DanielsM, no need to turn this thread into a fanboy war about hardware sales.

 

[phil_t98]

Well, as a whole from what we do know about the background of MS gaming in the last 20 years, its basically huge money loser in gaming. As far as Game Pass, right now its a huge money loser as they aren't charging anything.... duh. I don't really have an opinion on whether it will generate gains, but the revenue will be small... so any margin... will be limited funds i.e. game rentals.

As far as being a primary business, its just very hard to see how you generate even a tiny fraction of revenue from this than what they were doing in the Xbox 360 days. As far as middleman going forward, I have a hard time figuring out what they have.... other than being a traditional publisher I just don't see an opportunity here.

I don't know about losing money... its just very small revenue stream either way. Also, the duration is limited, as to me they are setting fire to Xbox as a Hardware.... so to me the business is based on that as publishers don't need them on non-Xbox hardware.

The only real future they have is as a publisher like they were in the 90s, imo, but I doubt Satya will be satisfied by that... they have to contend with satya.

So where is the facts of it being a small revenue stream or loosing money?
Again your saying they aren’t charging anything but they are and the offer you are on about is an introductory offer. It’s just your wild speculation all what you are saying about it. If you have hard facts about it loosing or being a small revenue I am happy to stand corrected

 

[VertigoOA]

What’s the problem with the hardware? All information points to it being more powerful than the PS5. That would indicate to me that Sony is the one that fucked up.

A more powerful console with its flagship launch titles only requiring a 10$ subscription. Sounds like a winner to me.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

So where is the facts of it being a small revenue stream or loosing money?
Again your saying they aren’t charging anything but they are and the offer you are on about is an introductory offer. It’s just your wild speculation all what you are saying about it. If you have hard facts about it loosing or being a small revenue I am happy to stand corrected

He knows what he's doing. Just shit stirring because he doesn't like GP's excellent value vs PS Now.

He could also say the same thing about PS+ where devs big and small willingly offer their games as downloads. Yet you'll never see him badmouth PS+ monthly downloads as a killer of corporate coffers or a rip off for devs.

 

[wolffy71]

Actually, Sony isn't doing it. They don't put their games on the service day one. As far as I know, EA give early access and to the vault, I don't think day one... but even if they did, the numbers would make less sense.

EA revenue is around $5b annually, people are not signing up for EA Access in mass with only about 3m at $30-50 a year. So, say they lower it $10 a year or $15 a year to get more subscribers... they would need 300-500m annual subscribers to reach that revenue number, generally speaking to cover new game development. Revenues would crash, they're simply is no 300-500m users for them to get. Lets say they get 25m users to for games day one at $50 a year, that is only $1.25b. (its a loser business model) Even if you can some how get some stupid idiot to spend $100 a year at 25m subscribers that is only $2.5b.

Most people are not going to pay a subscription for games that get rapidly cheaper after 3-6 months.

Upfront sales is where the money is generated especially with repeat users and whales... rental services are fine for small revenue streams for older catalog.... I think EA Access is generating around $100m in revenue, barely enough to cover marketing for one big game.

- Games are generally cheap, they are definitely cheap after initial release... boardline worthless after a year
- Gamers really only play a few games a year
- Gamers really don't need access to 100s of games for rental... as they can't play them
- where gamers would pay for subscription on say day one rentals.... the publishers would be losing money vs. sales
- digital sales is easily the best business model, although game rentals can make sense for older titles

As far as Microsoft, I see no reason for them to be the middleman other than the closed system called Xbox as a Hardware, which is why the major publishers stay away from Microsoft in anything other than Xbox as a Hardware, generally speaking..... additional middlemen seems very inefficient.

Even if you believe in services and if you believe in efficiency.... I'm unsure why you guys would want Microsoft involved. I'm so confused.

Theres so much wrong in this post that its almost funny.

Well, its just me that I was thinking people that the $1 thing keeps coming up, that they would be smart enough... but maybe I give them too much credit.

Microsoft gaming services although combined with content, continues to go down. Since Microsoft hides the numbers as always, no we don't have have an exact number... but nobody sells something for $1 that they could sell for $9.99 a month. Obviously people were not signing up. Maybe Microsoft will tell you, I wouldn't hold my breathe. Microsoft never gave Games for Windows Live numbers or Microsoft Store numbers either.

Service revenue should be noticeable higher if they believe "services" is the new path, it has gone up drastically on the business side over the last 10 year... you can see it right in the financials.

For MS to change from hardware to services... you need to see literally 50-200% growth per quarter, for the foreseeable future.... like they did on the business side.... but that never happened.

My guess, you could get:
30-50% of consoles players to pay for online (Xbox Live Gold/PS+)... Sony numbers are around 30-40%
Maybe a few million or a few percent would pay for game rental services... PS Now is at 700k.... small revenue stream, probably a money loser

At the end of the day, nobody needs access to play 1 million video games, its just cheaper to do it other ways, generally speaking.

200% lol and theyve already said they have no plans of leaving hardware. If you can show me quote where they claim to ill be all ears. Is there any proof that console gets 30 to 40% of users to pay for gold?

 

[DanielsM]

So where is the facts of it being a small revenue stream or loosing money?
Again your saying they aren’t charging anything but they are and the offer you are on about is an introductory offer. It’s just your wild speculation all what you are saying about it. If you have hard facts about it loosing or being a small revenue I am happy to stand corrected

Technically we don't know if the sun will come up tomorrow, but do you really want to discuss whether it will tomorrow... that's not a discussion I wish to get involved with.

If they are charging basically nothing, someone is losing money.... it really is that simple. Now whether they will continue to lose money, I don't know... as it would first have to involve people actually paying money for. I seriously doubt you're going to get huge amounts of people paying $9.99 a month for it plus xbox live or a bundle.

Either way game rentals are low revenue item, whether they loss or make some is mostly irrelevant. Does it matter if EA Access is losing or making money... not really as its just a very insignificant part of the business.

 

[Vawn]

Microsoft's goal is to get money. Plain and simple. If subscribers make them money they will continue it. If selling $60 games does it they will do it. If it's $100 games they will do it.

They are a business.

The problem is the quality of game it requires to sell for $60 is much higher than the quality of a game to keep someone from unsubscribing to something they're already signed up for.

Basically expect the chasm between the quality of PS5 and Switch games with Xbox games to grow even more in the future.

 

[DanielsM]

Theres so much wrong in this post that its almost funny.
200% lol and theyve already said they have no plans of leaving hardware. If you can show me quote where they claim to ill be all ears. Is there any proof that console gets 30 to 40% of users to pay for gold?

Well, technically they never said they were leaving mobile hardware market, they just put out a notice saying support for WM10 would end in 2019/2020 - at least from what I remember. As far as them caring.... Satya could give two shits about your fucking console.

They're moving on just like they did with mobile i.e. services. I actually never implied they wouldn't make hardware, it just doesn't matter... they were still making all kinds of devices... they were all basically killed by MS in the background.

You buy MS hardware, I have about as much empathy for you as I do Stadia Voost at this point, none.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Technically we don't know if the sun will come up tomorrow, but do you really want to discuss whether it will tomorrow... that's not a discussion I wish to get involved with.

If they are charging basically nothing, someone is losing money.... it really is that simple. Now whether they will continue to lose money, I don't know... as it would first have to involve people actually paying money for. I seriously doubt you're going to get huge amounts of people paying $9.99 a month for it plus xbox live or a bundle.

Either way game rentals are low revenue item, whether they loss or make some is mostly irrelevant. Does it matter if EA Access is losing or making money... not really as its just a very insignificant part of the business.

Nobody exactly knows the financials are.

But even if GP loses MS money, why do you care? Guess what? Most businesses out there will have some product lines that lose money (my company included), but there are reasons for keeping it.

Same can be said for Sony. PS3 and TVs were big money losers for YEARS but they stuck with it. Same can go for GP.

 

[Nikana]

The problem is the quality of game it requires to sell for $60 is much higher than the quality of a game to keep someone from unsubscribing to something they're already signed up for.

Basically expect the chasm between the quality of PS5 and Switch games with Xbox games to grow even more in the future.

Thats debatable. The $60 price tag doesn't even mean much anymore when it comes to knowing what you are getting. $60 can get you 12 hours, other times it can get you 300.

You could flip and say the same thing. To keep someone subscribed you need to constantly engage them with quality or they will quit. Basically the WoW model.

 

[wolffy71]

Well, technically they never said they were leaving mobile hardware market, they just put out a notice saying support for WM10 would end in 2019/2020 - at least from what I remember. As far as them caring.... Satya could give two shits about your fucking console.

They're moving on just like they did with mobile i.e. services. I actually never implied they wouldn't make hardware, it just doesn't matter... they were still making all kinds of devices... they were all basically killed by MS in the background.

You buy MS hardware, I have about as much empathy for you as I do Stadia Voost at this point, none.

Ok as long as you can admit ur just making stuff up that s fine.

 

[Vawn]

Thats debatable. The $60 price tag doesn't even mean much anymore when it comes to knowing what you are getting. $60 can get you 12 hours, other times it can get you 300.

I am talking game quality and a game's budget, not game length. HUGE difference.

A 10 hour game can cost 100 million dollars to make, while a 100 hour game could have a budget of 50k.

 

[DanielsM]

But even if GP loses MS money, why do you care? Guess what? Most businesses out there will have some product lines that lose money (my company included), but there are reasons for keeping it.

oh for discussion its fun, but yeah lose away... more losses the better for the big tech,not that this will have any bearing... they have alot of money.

 

[Nikana]

I am talking game quality and a game's budget, not game length. HUGE difference.

A 10 hour game can cost 100 million dollars to make, while a 100 hour game could have a budget of 50k.

Fair enough. But my point still stands. Quality content is what will keep people subscribed. You need to give them a reason to stay subscribed and just flooding the service with content isn't going to do it.

 

[DanielsM]

Ok as long as you can admit ur just making stuff up that s fine.

I thought I had you on ignore (I'm fixing the glitch), you had an opportunity to point it out... you're projecting real bad.

Have a good day in ignoreland and do whatever it is you do. To be honest, I don't know why you guys are so angry about... at least when I said Xbox as a Hardware was toast a year ago... I could understand why your feelings would be hurt. I have no idea now why you're upset.... I'm so confused.

Me: Microsoft doesn't really care about Xbox as a Hardware
MS fan:
Me: Microsoft wants service revenue and hardware is basically meaningless
MS fan:
MS: We don't really care about hardware, we care about services and the cloud.... google and amazon is the fight not hardware makers
MS fan: Yeah, we have services!!!
Me: Those services really don't mean much on non-Xbox hardware
MS fan:
Me: Publishers already have their own services
MS fan: I don't like you and don't know why
Me: Do you have any questions?
MS fan: You make stuff up.
Me: Which part?
MS fan: (crickets)
MS fan: We just want Microsoft.
Me: I get that but unless they are more akin to a traditional publisher... where is the business?
MS fan: I don't know but you're an idiot... and I hate you

 

[wolffy71]

I thought I had you on ignore (I'm fixing the glitch), you had an opportunity to point it out... you're projecting real bad.

Have a good day in ignoreland and do whatever it is you do. To be honest, I don't know why you guys are so angry about... at least when I said Xbox as a Hardware was toast a year ago... I could understand why your feelings would be hurt. I have no idea now why you're upset.... I'm so confused.

Me: Microsoft doesn't really care about Xbox as a Hardware
MS fan:
Me: Microsoft wants service revenue and hardware is basically meaningless
MS fan:
MS: We don't really care about hardware, we care about services and the cloud.... google and amazon is the fight not hardware makers
MS fan: Yeah, we have services!!!
Me: Those services really don't mean much on non-Xbox hardware
MS fan:
Me: Publishers already have their own services
MS fan: I don't like you and don't know why
Me: Do you have any questions?
MS fan: You make stuff up.
Me: Which part?
MS fan: (crickets)

Bye

 

[phil_t98]

Well, technically they never said they were leaving mobile hardware market, they just put out a notice saying support for WM10 would end in 2019/2020 - at least from what I remember. As far as them caring.... Satya could give two shits about your fucking console.

They're moving on just like they did with mobile i.e. services. I actually never implied they wouldn't make hardware, it just doesn't matter... they were still making all kinds of devices... they were all basically killed by MS in the background.

You buy MS hardware, I have about as much empathy for you as I do Stadia Voost at this point, none.

So what is your thoughts on PS+? Same as game pass? A money looser?

 

[DanielsM]

So what is your thoughts on PS+? Same as game pass? A money looser?

You mean PS Now, probably a huge money loser to build out the streaming services, just Gaikai was a $300m+ buy. Either way a small revenue stream potential renting and streaming games. Sony was using the tech for PS Remote Play and Vue (that closed) as well, so it might have been okay deal in the bigger scheme of things.

PS+ and Xbox Live Gold are really the only ones that make money, generally speaking, services in video games really don't make much sense.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

The problem is the quality of game it requires to sell for $60 is much higher than the quality of a game to keep someone from unsubscribing to something they're already signed up for.

Basically expect the chasm between the quality of PS5 and Switch games with Xbox games to grow even more in the future.

Microsoft also sells these games for $60. Is your mind blown now?

 

[wolffy71]

I thought I had you on ignore (I'm fixing the glitch), you had an opportunity to point it out... you're projecting real bad.

Have a good day in ignoreland and do whatever it is you do. To be honest, I don't know why you guys are so angry about... at least when I said Xbox as a Hardware was toast a year ago... I could understand why your feelings would be hurt. I have no idea now why you're upset.... I'm so confused.

Me: Microsoft doesn't really care about Xbox as a Hardware
MS fan:
Me: Microsoft wants service revenue and hardware is basically meaningless
MS fan:
MS: We don't really care about hardware, we care about services and the cloud.... google and amazon is the fight not hardware makers
MS fan: Yeah, we have services!!!
Me: Those services really don't mean much on non-Xbox hardware
MS fan:
Me: Publishers already have their own services
MS fan: I don't like you and don't know why
Me: Do you have any questions?
MS fan: You make stuff up.
Me: Which part?
MS fan: (crickets)
MS fan: We just want Microsoft.
Me: I get that but unless they are more akin to a traditional publisher... where is the business?
MS fan: I don't know but you're an idiot... and I hate you

The problem with this guys line of thinking is he assumes MS is done with hardware despite them saying otherwise. He has literally no info on it being but goes on because its central to his concept. He says things like MS gaming revenues continue to go down. But is saying they "continue" to go down really accurate? His entire argument is built on bad assumptions, mis info, or just twisting the facts.

 

[Mexen]

Friday OP strikes again

 

[TBiddy]

I thought I had you on ignore (I'm fixing the glitch), you had an opportunity to point it out... you're projecting real bad.

Have a good day in ignoreland and do whatever it is you do. To be honest, I don't know why you guys are so angry about... at least when I said Xbox as a Hardware was toast a year ago... I could understand why your feelings would be hurt. I have no idea now why you're upset.... I'm so confused.

Me: Microsoft doesn't really care about Xbox as a Hardware
MS fan:
Me: Microsoft wants service revenue and hardware is basically meaningless
MS fan:
MS: We don't really care about hardware, we care about services and the cloud.... google and amazon is the fight not hardware makers
MS fan: Yeah, we have services!!!
Me: Those services really don't mean much on non-Xbox hardware
MS fan:
Me: Publishers already have their own services
MS fan: I don't like you and don't know why
Me: Do you have any questions?
MS fan: You make stuff up.
Me: Which part?
MS fan: (crickets)
MS fan: We just want Microsoft.
Me: I get that but unless they are more akin to a traditional publisher... where is the business?
MS fan: I don't know but you're an idiot... and I hate you

I think we have a strong contender for worst post of 2020. Making up a conversation like that, in order to make a point of some sort.

Crazy shit.

 

[Pallas]

I know a few people who just won't buy new games anymore, because they eventually might get on game pass for 1 dollar per month.


If developers are getting paid enough by MS, fuck yeah! Keep going!

If not, how long this will start affecting games sales? Or how long MS can keep paying games studios?


I think most people are just curious about the impacts of GP and if it is sustainable for a whole generation and stuff... Also, is MS getting profit on that? How? People are just curious.

To be fair, games were already getting devalued by third party suppliers like GameStop who made a killing on used games so this wasn’t something started with Gamepass with people not buying new copies because the value of those games(especially those that hadn’t perform well, which lets face it was a lot of games) plummet within days or weeks.

But I agree, I don’t know why developers are scared if Microsoft is paying them to host their games but it’s also something posted by Jason Schreier.