FrankWza
Member
It’s every post. He could be writing down directions to a bag of cash and I’d never know because I scroll right over.Don’t make me read all that
It’s every post. He could be writing down directions to a bag of cash and I’d never know because I scroll right over.Don’t make me read all that
And on the topic of grandfathering, how do we know that wasn't intended to be temporary just to minimize the backlash?
I do not share your speculation that they viewed it as a dying product. There is no data that I know of to suggest it was not easy money for them, nor to suggest it was hindering console sales. I am still with you on the theory they wanted to drive people into gold, but I think that unless proven otherwise, we should stick to the simple and obvious reasoning as to why they would do that. And to me the simple and obvious reason was to increase revenue coming in from GP. Either for straight up profit or reduced losses (on paper), and/or to make the balance sheets look better on what GP offers to shareholders.Companies can certainly change their mind on policies. But at the time of this change, they specifically stated that you could continue to auto-renew at whatever term/rate you were currently subscribed to.
As far as why kill Gold, I assume that MS looks at Gold as a dying product with GP being the better long-term play. This is a reasonable expectation in the current climate. When MS launched Live they were offering a streamlined service that offered features not found anywhere else (free online on PC was not nearly as feature rich or centrally localized) thus making it easy to charge a fee. This was still true during most of the 360 gen, but moving towards X1 and now the series line, what features are they offering (besides the free software) that are not being offered for free on PC by Valve, Epic, and even MS themselves? Whereas GP has a much stronger value proposition to it, making it a safer long-term play. They don't want to kill gold and just lose those subscribers though, they'd prefer to "kill" Gold by folding those users into GPU. Technically, Gold still exists in that scenario, but buyers would really be looking to GP when looking at the value of what would be returned - with Gold just being there for the ride. Plus the extra $5/mo., no business will turn that down.
Truth is they haven't. However, Microsoft already have a means of providing Gamepass on PlayStation (and Nintendo Switch) that pretty much circumvents needing a native app; they are already working on a browser workaround for iOS devices, and since that will be browser-based, theoretically any internet-connected device with a built-in browser should also be able to access Gamepass via this method.
I assume that MS looks at Gold as a dying product
This explains it perfectly.I do not share your speculation that they viewed it as a dying product. There is no data that I know of to suggest it was not easy money for them, nor to suggest it was hindering console sales. I am still with you on the theory they wanted to drive people into gold, but I think that unless proven otherwise, we should stick to the simple and obvious reasoning as to why they would do that. And to me the simple and obvious reason was to increase revenue coming in from GP. Either for straight up profit or reduced losses (on paper), and/or to make the balance sheets look better on what GP offers to shareholders.
and people jumping ship from 360 to PS4.Gold subscribers fell a lot moving from 360 to X1, so there is definitely data points there for that. Though the fall really wasn't from lack of interest, but just the changes brought about by "home Gold" and the X1
and people jumping ship from 360 to PS4.
They are never going to close that gap, they aren't popular enough globally.And to think they could have used these titles to try and close the sales gap with their competitors, why bother when you can just surrender up front.
I hear you. The profitability of gold makes bundling it a no brainer to offset any losses they might take on GP. That’s why imo the doubling of gold could just as easily have been about paying for the zeni purchase as it is to pushing people to gpu. The timing is really telling to me. There’s also the possibility that gpu would have increased as well but we’ll never know that now. That’s why I bring up gold and the fact that Msoft has never once announced numbers or attach rate.Certainly also true.
I should add that when I say dying product, I'm referring to a product with not much room for growth. I don't really think they had any intention of literally killing Live Gold, they just wanted to make the value of GPU look so good ($15 vs. $11 of Gold alone) that users would just automatically choose GPU going forward.
From the looks of it yes, they are creating two studios one is for Bethesda and the other is for their own. That's what people are claiming.Microsoft creating 2 game studios in-house. To create internal competition, and weed out the chaff?
Where’s this info?From the looks of it yes, they are creating two studios one is for Bethesda and the other is for their own. That's what people are claiming.
Selling the big games on PS5 would bring in a lot more money a lot sooner, they aren't going to get a ton of people buying XSX consoles and doing long term GP subs if they already own a PS5. They would be missing out on possibly 5-10 million sales, they'll never make that back in the small number of PS5 owners who buy X series consoles and do short term GP subs.All MS care about is selling GamePass subs. And having Zenimax titles on there day#1 will help that aim.
Don't forget they measure success in MAU, not units shifted.
Spider-Man would not have sold three times as many copies on those platforms it probably would have added about 1/3 to it's sales, xbox is nowhere near as popular globally as PlayStation and that's not going to change so they may as well help finance GP by taking money from other platforms for certain games. Keep Halo, Gears and Fable exclusive those are actual Xbox brand games but Bethesda tittles aren't tied to xbox, they are historically multi-platform and spending that kind of money on a publisher and turning around and cutting off what will likely be 60% or more of the money they could have brought in would be insane. They aren't making money on GP as it is, that service is going to see changes once MS starts releasing more games, they will likely need to raise the price or make people sign up for longer than month to month if they want 1st party single player games.Sorry frankwza
no it absolutely doesn't ...for the same reason why, even if economically not convenient, game as spiderman that would probably have sold x3 times if released on pc and Xbox, remain exclusive. People should understand that the advantages those esclusive has for leverage the platform compensate in the long run, the economic ones. especially in a platform so much more open and with a very high user reach that has the one that is trying to build Ms respect the competition releasing games on Windows, consoles, xcloud
Playstation today is what it is because you can play just on it ..certain games
Selling the big games on PS5 would bring in a lot more money a lot sooner, they aren't going to get a ton of people buying XSX consoles and doing long term GP subs if they already own a PS5. They would be missing out on possibly 5-10 million sales, they'll never make that back in the small number of PS5 owners who buy X series consoles and do short term GP subs.
Just wanted to point out that this will never work on PS or Switch, those browsers don't have adequate access to controller input, with some inputs being permanently tied to the browsers own functionality. The iOS platform is safe from this because even if Apple blocked bluetooth access to controllers from Safari (which they might, LOL), they'd have a hard time blocking edge from the iOS store and it can maintain that functionality. Luna is even safer, it is really the option that could be played via the browser on PS because the controller connects to the cloud and not the internet device.
That's interesting, wasn't aware of this. Thanks for letting me know; guess it would mean the only actual path for GamePass on Sony or Nintendo platforms is a native app after all which, yeah, I strongly doubt Sony and Nintendo are going to want to do.
If they do, it would be limited to MS's content only, and they'd probably expect MS to downscale any push for Xbox consoles going forward. And that would have a negative effect on fanbase goodwill, which could cause declines in software and services support from members of the Xbox fanbase who have stuck by the platforms the past decade, and overall create a net loss for Microsoft in some possible instances, at least early on.
Microsoft would need to be extremely careful with how they handle such a thing, if it even happens (which I doubt will).
There's that notion that Sony and Nintendo are popular globally for shits and giggles. They are popular because of the content they put forward that is only available on those platforms. MS's popularity will grow if they can improve their reputation in regards to first-party content available. Certainly they may never close the gap completely, but even a 10% improvement is worth more than Zeni revenue per year in its entirety. MS earns about 7-8b a year on third-party sales on Xbox after all.They are never going to close that gap, they aren't popular enough globally.
They almost did during the 360 gen. That was when they were incredibly aggressive with exclusives. Odd right?They are never going to close that gap, they aren't popular enough globally.
No. Vault will cease to exist once the merger is complete. Microsoft merges Zenimax into Vault and dissolves Vault after the takever is complete.Microsoft creating 2 game studios in-house. To create internal competition, and weed out the chaff?
Look on Twitter, I’m not going to waste time.Where’s this info?
Oh it’s a Twitter rumor. I thought there was a legit source. I didn’t know you were bean shootingLook on Twitter, I’m not going to waste time.
Love the sarcasm.Oh it’s a Twitter rumor. I thought there was a legit source. I didn’t know you were bean shooting
I genuinely can't tell if this is parody lol.Other than Wolfenstein and Prey, what else is there at Bethesda? Fallout? Doom? Elder Scrolls? Those are AAA games? Really?
Of course they will be missed from PS and Nintendo platforms, but they aren't unmissable like Bioshock or Mass Effect.
Bethesda games will be exclusive to Xbox and PC the way Rise of the Tomb Raider was exclusive to Xbox and PC, and for the same reason.
If MS paid $7 billion for timed exclusives, I have some Blockbuster stock for sale.
Microsoft paid $7.5 billion dollars for Bethesda. If they can't afford exclusivity for Rise of the Tomb Raider, there is absolutely no way they can afford exclusivity for Bethesda's games. If it's not comparable, that's only because MS has even more incentive to make Bethesda's games timed exclusives than it did for RotTR.How is that situation even comparable here? The platforms pay so much for those 1yr exclusives on proven franchises like TR, sometimes more than the total cost of development.
I don't see MS paying itself big money for that limited time exclusivity.
Who says permanent exclusivity was ever on the table for TR?Microsoft paid $7.5 billion dollars for Bethesda. If they can't afford exclusivity for Rise of the Tomb Raider, there is absolutely no way they can afford exclusivity for Bethesda's games. If it's not comparable, that's only because MS has even more incentive to make Bethesda's games timed exclusives than it did for RotTR.
While I think timed exclusives are more likely, it is not crazy to think PlayStation wouldn't get a simultaneous release. That's because it costs money in extra marketing needed to have a split launch. They'd also have to sweeten the pot by offering to include DLC and/or other content to justify a $70 price when the game will have already been discounted well below that on Xbox/PC. That's lost money for content that could have been earned if the game was released at the same time.Many here don't even think timed exclusives, they are rolling with MS spent $7b for day and date on GP with a simultaneous release on PS. I feel like MS could have just bought that individually for a lot less, even at 200m per title that $7b would stretch pretty far.
Why would that matter? It wasn't ever considered permanently exclusive because the economics don't support it, just like they don't support keeping Bethesda's games exclusive. You can't get around the cold hard economic fact that MS can't spend $7.5 billion dollars for a company and then cut a third of its potential revenue.Who says permanent exclusivity was ever on the table for TR?
While I think timed exclusives are more likely, it is not crazy to think PlayStation wouldn't get a simultaneous release. That's because it costs money in extra marketing needed to have a split launch. They'd also have to sweeten the pot by offering to include DLC and/or other content to justify a $70 price when the game will have already been discounted well below that on Xbox/PC. That's lost money for content that could have been earned if the game was released at the same time.
Hmm... Now that I typed that out, I'm starting to lean towards a simultaneous launch, at least for some of the titles. Why wouldn't Microsoft just buy game exclusivity piecemeal like you suggest? Because without owning Bethesda, Microsoft would not...
- Get the publicity of buying the company needed to counteract the narrative that Xbox doesn't have games
- Have any assurance Bethesda would want to enter into a exclusive deal for a game they wanted. After all it didn't work out so well for Square Enix and RotTR
- Have any assurance that Sony couldn't get exclusive deals for a timed release or content
Why would that matter? It wasn't ever considered permanently exclusive because the economics don't support it, just like they don't support keeping Bethesda's games exclusive. You can't get around the cold hard economic fact that MS can't spend $7.5 billion dollars for a company and then cut a third of its potential revenue.
So $7b for a short-term PR stunt (because obviously MS was getting these games anyway and if Sony still is there is no real value there).
What you've outlined with day and date release parity doesn't even include an exclusivity deal, so no exclusivity whatsoever.
All that money to stop a timed exclusive?
Give me a break.
I wish, but sadly I am not. Simply because you believe that Bethesda is a great game developer, it doesn't mean that it's true. There are tons of games much better than those made by them, by a long shot. Fallout? A scam. Doom? FPS with no soul. Elder Scrolls? The most unispired fantasy ever played.I genuinely can't tell if this is parody lol.