• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Microsoft gaming revenue increased three percent year-on-year to hit $1.6bn for FY17

Elandyll

Banned
So it's a good thing the guy you quoted mentioned nothing about expanding 1st party, he said they are investing in more games, which is clear they are.
In Matt's defense, when people think "investing in more software", I doubt most would mean "invest money in getting an exclusivity window in a title that would otherwise be multiplat", or "pour money in having dlc temp exclusive", or "man I wish they'd give more money for that sweet exclusive marketing" instead of developping new 1st party IPs.

I may be wrong though.
 

Ehker

Member
Or down for that matter. Nobody knows anything except those in the know. So what is everyone talking about? Speculation is fine but don't make it come off as fact. Which you sometimes do.

It was a response to someone saying it's safe to assume MS is investing more in software.
 

Matt

Member
So it's a good thing the guy you quoted mentioned nothing about expanding 1st party, he said they are investing in more games, which is clear they are.
No, he said "currently investing more in software," which they aren't. Their investments in software are about equal to what they have been.
 

jesu

Member
It was a response to someone saying it's safe to assume MS is investing more in software.

Then he expanded on his position

MS is not meaningfully increasing their investments in or focus on first party. That could change, I would love for that to change, but it hasn't.

He says that as though it's a fact, when it's only his speculation.
 

Shiggy

Member
So it's a good thing the guy you quoted mentioned nothing about expanding 1st party, he said they are investing in more games, which is clear they are.

Where's that clear? Or are you just referring to them investing more into marketing deals to have launch exclusive indie games?
 

Hawk269

Member
I assume those numbers take into account all the R&D that they spent on Xbox One X? Since they are reporting revenue and an increase, they, like any company have to subtract expenses first, then the net is profit/loss. Or is the R&D for Xbox One X taken out at another time?
 

Shiggy

Member
I assume those numbers take into account all the R&D that they spent on Xbox One X? Since they are reporting revenue and an increase, they, like any company have to subtract expenses first, then the net is profit/loss. Or is the R&D for Xbox One X taken out at another time?

I'm not seeing any profit/loss or R&D numbers, what do you mean? Revenues don't take into account any expenses.
 
PUBG is going to be big on consoles. Really big. Whether it actually sells boxes or sells to existing users is unknown, but it's going to sell millions more on console. Tons of people don't have capable PCs to be able to play it, so a whole new section is opened up to the game once it becomes available.
Nah. PUBG recently passed 5 million copies sold.

Are you saying over 5 million people on Xbox are going to buy it when Halo 5, the premier shooter exclusive, could only do 5 million shipped?
 

Shin

Banned
There is a mistake in the title, Microsoft gaming revenue for FY17 (July 16-June 17) was in fact 9 billion dollars (1,6 billion is for Q4). Don't ask comparison with previous year, we don't have it !

However, 9 billion dollars is pretty big, in fact it's above EA, Activision Blizzard or Nintendo during the same period. Only one video game company had bigger sales for the last fiscal year, you can guess who (Sony Interactive Entertainment with 14,7 billion dollars).

Gaming revenue for Microsoft includes revenue dollars from Xbox consoles, Xbox Live service, first party games and third party games royalties.

That's a lot of freaking money these companies are making on gaming and it's only going up and up.
 

gaming_noob

Member
No, he said "currently investing more in software," which they aren't. Their investments in software are about equal to what they have been.

They spent a lot on Quantum Break and Scalebound. Is there any indication that their resources are put into higher quality games this time around?
 

Jrs3000

Member
I'm not speculating.


So would you say it's the same then as previous years?



OT: You sat down and played stay of decay yet?
 

Hawk269

Member
I'm not speculating.

So you work for MS? I don't see how someone that works for someone "other" than MS would know where they are putting all their money in software. To make a claim of "not speculating" you would have access to financial records that show where money is being invested to say what you are saying. A 3rd party employee would not know where all of MS's Software budget is going to and to what projects to make claims of "not speculating" which in-turn means that you "know".
 

LordRaptor

Member
A 3rd party employee would not know where all of MS's Software budget is going to and to what projects to make claims of "not speculating" which in-turn means that you "know".

Third parties talk to representatives of platform owners all of the time, and at certain seniority levels those representatives do indeed have exact figures as to expenditure within a division.

eg when Tomb Raider was exclusive, I guarantee you that people at Eidos were in regular contact with people in Richmond.
 

MisterR

Member
I don't get why at this point Xbox fans just don't get that MS has no interest in meaningfully expanding their party output. There is no evidence whatsoever that they have any interest in doing this.
 

Matt

Member
So would you say it's the same then as previous years?



OT: You sat down and played stay of decay yet?
Not yet, though maybe I will this weekend. Thanks for reminding me.
So you work for MS? I don't see how someone that works for someone "other" than MS would know where they are putting all their money in software. To make a claim of "not speculating" you would have access to financial records that show where money is being invested to say what you are saying. A 3rd party employee would not know where all of MS's Software budget is going to and to what projects to make claims of "not speculating" which in-turn means that you "know".
This shows some lack of creativity on your part if you think that's the only way someone could know things.
 
It's a good thing some of you don't run a business. Being beaten by the market leader doesn't mean Microsoft makes no money. As long as there is money it it, Xbox isn't going anywhere.
 

jaybe00

Neo Member
Next quarter, July to September, is going to be atrocious for YoY on hardware with having to lap the Xbox One S launch.
 

Matt

Member
It's a good thing some of you don't run a business. Being beaten by the market leader doesn't mean Microsoft makes no money. As long as there is money it it, Xbox isn't going anywhere.
Your first point is true, but your second isn't. Companies leaving industries they make money in isn't at all unheard of (not saying that applies to MS right now, just a general point).
 

oti

Banned
I love it when fans of a brand try to discredit Matt because he tells them the truth they don't want to hear.
 

Hawk269

Member
Not yet, though maybe I will this weekend. Thanks for reminding me.

This shows some lack of creativity on your part if you think that's the only way someone could know things.

Perhaps. I just find it hard to believe that you know where every penny MS is investing for software is going. But I may be wrong and you do...which is great. So what are they investing in???? :::)))) <wink> <wink>.
 

Kayant

Member
Seems like software has been carrying hardware for a while now when was the last time they reported any increase in hardware revenue?

Matt with the juices. Well it's not surprising they are not increasing software investment more than usual especially given they would probably start to be thinking about future platforms for any heavy investments especially if you look at the past.
 

Matt

Member
Perhaps. I just find it hard to believe that you know where every penny MS is investing for software is going. But I may be wrong and you do...which is great. So what are they investing in???? :::)))) <wink> <wink>.
Never said I know every penny. I said no meaningful change in investments. There could be things I don't know about, or I'm wrong about something, I never claimed to be infallible. But I know enough to have a pretty good view of the situation, hence the not speculation part.

Or, I work for MS.

Nah.
 

Trago

Member
Microsoft not making big new moves in first party is disappointing. I guess they feel they don't need to establish new studios right this second.
 

Hawk269

Member
Never said I know every penny. I said no meaningful change in investments. There could be things I don't know about, or I'm wrong about something, I never claimed to be infallible. But I know enough to have a pretty good view of the situation, hence the not speculation part.

Or, I work for MS.

Nah.

lol. At the end of the day Matt, we do appreciate your insight! Nothing wrong with challenging things you say to gain clarity every now and then. I wish some of the folks in the "Matt Defense Force" would back off of a bit. As you said, you are not infallible and nothing wrong with questioning things you say and if you back it up then more power to you. It just gets sad that when someone rightfully or wrongfully question something you say, it comes across to some people as MS fanboys getting their panties in a wad or trying to "discredit Matt".

I know you don't ask for these sad few that have to turn anything into a console war BS, but I as a poster on this forum appreciate the in-sight, even though I question it from time to time. :)
 
Matt's insights has been more on-point than not.

It's not always something you would want to hear, but it's important to not take it with malice or read it literally in a hyperbolic sense. What he means is clear.

At the same time, one must understand that he's not someone who can suddenly open the account books on MS's investment portfolio. There are many ways Matt could come to his conclusion without needing to be deep within MS.
 

WaterAstro

Member
Software sales are up... but, what software?

I don't mean to be coy, but I literally can't think of big sellers other than Gears 4 (I think that's this FY?) and Forza Horizon 3?

I guess maybe it's Minecraft sales?
 
No, he said "currently investing more in software," which they aren't. Their investments in software are about equal to what they have been.

And that's something you have absolutely no way of knowing if that investment is done with external developers.

And it's not like the size of the investments is a problem in the first place. It's clear that games like Quantum Break, Scalebound, Forza Horizon 3, and even Fable Legends had hefty budgets available to them.

In Matt's defense, when people think "investing in more software", I doubt most would mean "invest money in getting an exclusivity window in a title that would otherwise be multiplat", or "pour money in having dlc temp exclusive", or "man I wish they'd give more money for that sweet exclusive marketing" instead of developping new 1st party IPs.

I may be wrong though.

You are not wrong, but that's not what I'm talking about either. Quantum Break, Scalebound, Sunset Overdrive, Ryse, others and at a time even Age of Empires and Gears of War were not investments in expanding their 1st party studios, but still weren't just a timed exclusivity window in games that would otherwise be multiplat.

Mind you, that a combination of both funding new external games and securing some multiplat timed exclusives was precisely the early 360 strategy that so many ask for Ms to return to.

And if you ask me, having a big number of 1st party studios is overrated, and something that even Sony realized as they cut some of the fat from their studios, not because they closed some, but also how they shake their studios that got stuck into making games in mediocre franchises (quality and sales wise) just because the studio had to work on something. Another example would be Days Gone. Game looks extremely mediocre in every way (and that's being generous) and screams that the only reason it's being made at all is to give the studio a shot at the formula that has worked well for other Sony studios.

Where's that clear? Or are you just referring to them investing more into marketing deals to have launch exclusive indie games?

It's clear because of the budgets of the games themselves. Last gen all we heard was Ms touting about how even their big games had tight schedules and budgets. Even their big series like Gears or Halo had tighter budgets than Sony's, despite selling a lot less. Lair cost more than double Gears of War 1 to make for a jarring example.

Now he have Ms "throwing away" 70 million dollars into a failed project, and the tech/scope behind their games also shows tons of investments.

For example, what game looks like Gears of War 4 and run at 1080p60 on multiplayer? And that's on a xbone. Gow 4 itself screams high budget throughout the campaign, with the sheer graphical prowess but also employing new tech such as the storms.

Or crackdown, a open world, filled with physical simulations, with 4 player coop. That's not something easy to do. And let's not even get started on the cloud, they are literally doing something no one has ever attempted before, and that too requires investments, on the tech, on the infrastructure and on the game itself which has to be made with that kind of tech in mind (or you think modelling the interiors of the buildings, the walls, the inside of the walls, down to the metal structure and gas pipes has no toll on the game's budget?

Another cancelled game, that is clear that had a big investment behind is Scalebound. There's a reason no one has ever even attempted to make a action RPG game with again 4 player coop, in a seamless world that even has flying islands. And the reason is that it's a nightmare to come up with a way to get all that working. Even if the framerate wasn't very good. A single look at any footage also shows how the game was sooooooooooooo much ahead of anything Platinum has ever done graphical wise which again, means a big budget.

I could go on, but you get the point. It's clear these games had big investments behind.
 
Matt's insights are solid, I just wish he went more indepth with them. The way his insights are tailored leaves a huge margin for error which is OK I guess.
 

bombshell

Member
What about the information seems particularly "bleak" to you? If it's about hardware sales, we don't have the numbers to say whether lower sales or discounted pricing played a bigger role.

Using this and that post.

XB1
Apr-Jun '16: 486,602
Apr-Jun '17: 372,469

In the US, the market where Xbox is the most competitive.
 

Shin-Ra

Junior Member
What about the information seems particularly "bleak" to you? If it's about hardware sales, we don't have the numbers to say whether lower sales or discounted pricing played a bigger role.
Lower sales with discounted pricing is a bleak situation unless you're at the tail end of the console generation.
 

Matt

Member
lol. At the end of the day Matt, we do appreciate your insight! Nothing wrong with challenging things you say to gain clarity every now and then. I wish some of the folks in the "Matt Defense Force" would back off of a bit. As you said, you are not infallible and nothing wrong with questioning things you say and if you back it up then more power to you. It just gets sad that when someone rightfully or wrongfully question something you say, it comes across to some people as MS fanboys getting their panties in a wad or trying to "discredit Matt".

I know you don't ask for these sad few that have to turn anything into a console war BS, but I as a poster on this forum appreciate the in-sight, even though I question it from time to time. :)
There is nothing wrong with questioning things, but there is a contingent that likes to follow me around and attack my credibility based on...nothing. I actually have a pretty fantastic record in this area.
Software sales are up... but, what software?

I don't mean to be coy, but I literally can't think of big sellers other than Gears 4 (I think that's this FY?) and Forza Horizon 3?

I guess maybe it's Minecraft sales?
MS gets money from all software sales on Xbox, not just their own.
And that's something you have absolutely no way of knowing if that investment is done with external developers.

And it's not like the size of the investments is a problem in the first place. It's clear that games like Quantum Break, Scalebound, Forza Horizon 3, and even Fable Legends had hefty budgets available to them.



You are not wrong, but that's not what I'm talking about either. Quantum Break, Scalebound, Sunset Overdrive, Ryse, others and at a time even Age of Empires and Gears of War were not investments in expanding their 1st party studios, but still weren't just a timed exclusivity window in games that would otherwise be multiplat.

Mind you, that a combination of both funding new external games and securing some multiplat timed exclusives was precisely the early 360 strategy that so many ask for Ms to return to.

And if you ask me, having a big number of 1st party studios is overrated, and something that even Sony realized as they cut some of the fat from their studios, not because they closed some, but also how they shake their studios that got stuck into making games in mediocre franchises (quality and sales wise) just because the studio had to work on something. Another example would be Days Gone. Game looks extremely mediocre in every way (and that's being generous) and screams that the only reason it's being made at all is to give the studio a shot at the formula that has worked well for other Sony studios.



It's clear because of the budgets of the games themselves. Last gen all we heard was Ms touting about how even their big games had tight schedules and budgets. Even their big series like Gears or Halo had tighter budgets than Sony's, despite selling a lot less. Lair cost more than double Gears of War 1 to make for a jarring example.

Now he have Ms "throwing away" 70 million dollars into a failed project, and the tech/scope behind their games also shows tons of investments.

For example, what game looks like Gears of War 4 and run at 1080p60 on multiplayer? And that's on a xbone. Gow 4 itself screams high budget throughout the campaign, with the sheer graphical prowess but also employing new tech such as the storms.

Or crackdown, a open world, filled with physical simulations, with 4 player coop. That's not something easy to do. And let's not even get started on the cloud, they are literally doing something no one has ever attempted before, and that too requires investments, on the tech, on the infrastructure and on the game itself which has to be made with that kind of tech in mind (or you think modelling the interiors of the buildings, the walls, the inside of the walls, down to the metal structure and gas pipes has no toll on the game's budget?

Another cancelled game, that is clear that had a big investment behind is Scalebound. There's a reason no one has ever even attempted to make a action RPG game with again 4 player coop, in a seamless world that even has flying islands. And the reason is that it's a nightmare to come up with a way to get all that working. Even if the framerate wasn't very good. A single look at any footage also shows how the game was sooooooooooooo much ahead of anything Platinum has ever done graphical wise which again, means a big budget.

I could go on, but you get the point. It's clear these games had big investments behind.
I'm including first party publishing in my comments. And you really have no way of knowing what I know or how I would know, save for my record.

Matt's insights are solid, I just wish he went more indepth with them. The way his insights are tailored leaves a huge margin for error which is OK I guess.
I don't generally go into details (because that's how you get into trouble), but I don't think my meaning is ever really hard to determine.
 
I could go on, but you get the point. It's clear these games had big investments behind.

There's a big difference between "MS has a lot of games with big investments behind them as per their traditional portfolio cycle" and "MS is increasing their investments to expand the scope and size of their portfolio beyond historical trends."

Nobody doubts the next Halo/Gears/Forza will be big investment games. Nobody doubts MS has several big external development projects to supplement their internal studio output.

But you know what? The above is what MS has been doing for the past few years.

The question posed to MS first-party isn't a matter of their ability to invest in big games, internal and external.

The question posed is whether or not they will do MORE than what they've been doing, and that is not an easy thing to gauge.
 
You just have to look at MS' output since mid last gen to see that MS hasn't ramped up investment in any meaningful way, despite what Phil keeps promising.

But yes, keep going at Matt. He only has history continuing to repeat itself on his side.
 
Using this and that post.

XB1
Apr-Jun '16: 486,602
Apr-Jun '17: 372,469

In the US, the market where Xbox is the most competitive.

Considering they don't have, Horizon, Zelda, Nier, Crash, some other I might be forgetting, which is basically all of the games that did well outside of the big multiplats that was kinda expected to have xbone sales declining whereas Ps4 rose to the best yet (I think?)

They are a bit better positioned in the second half. Dunno if it will make a difference hardware sales wise, but should be enough to keep the profitability up.
 
There's a big difference between "MS has a lot of games with big investments behind them as per their traditional portfolio cycle" and "MS is increasing their investments to expand the scope and size of their portfolio beyond historical trends."

Nobody doubts the next Halo/Gears/Forza will be big investment games. Nobody doubts MS has several big external development projects to supplement their internal studio output.

But you know what? The above is what MS has been doing for the past few years.

The question posed to MS first-party isn't a matter of their ability to invest in big games, internal and external.

The question posed is whether or not they will do MORE than what they've been doing, and that is not an easy thing to gauge.

Yeah, but all these years people weren't complaining. It started when they cancelled games and stopped announcing new ones.

I don't think you would find any article or opinion prior to perhaps last year that Ms is focusing solely on their big games, because prior to that it just wasn't true.
 
Top Bottom