Support NeoGAF

[kingfey]

TEMPORARILY blocked a 120m store from accessing the game, so that users had to buy on another store at full price, or wait, and buy on said 120m store at a later date instead. Can you stop with this crap "it's still on the Xbox store, so they aren't losing any money" - there will have been plenty of GP users who didn't buy, who planned to buy, which Square will have missed out on, and the fee MS paid will have incorporated that reality and compensated them for that.

Do you have any idea how much money will 2k lose from those store?

By the time, these guys get the game, the price of the game would be 40$. That is 20$ lost sale. If you do that in 1m copies. That is $20m lost sale.

For your gamepass argument. Gamepass is still on xbox, and uses xbox store. The same game can be bought by non gamepass users. It isnt exclusive to gamepass only. You dont need gamepass sub to buy the game at all.

Those gamepass users who played the game, have been paid by MS, by the subscription fees they pay. Those who dont have gamepass, will buy the game. Square isnt losing any money on this. They are literally making money either way. From MS deal, and the Xbox users who buy their game.

Like I said in my previous post. Gamepass needs to have more than 30m users, to stop people from buying games. This is not counting the pc players. If we exclude pc players, you have left around with 10m-15m gamepass users. That is not much xbox users.

 

[kingfey]

Content and services are down, which tells us people are in fact not spending more.

How many games have been out this year, compared to last year?

Content and service depends on how many games have been released. It usually high during holiday period.

Last year lockdown, also boosted the gamers numbers, which led to a significant number of spending on games.

Animal Crossing: New Horizons has now sold over 31 million copies.Feb 1, 2021
This is the effect of the lockdown. this is the date the game was released. March 20, 2020. It sold more than Spiderman did in 3-4 years on a 116m devices.

 

[AdjudicatorHead]

EXHIBIT A: By the time, these guys get the game, the price of the game would be 40$. That is 20$ lost sale. If you do that in 1m copies. That is $20m lost sale.

EXHIBIT B: Gamepass needs to have more than 30m users, to stop people from buying games. This is not counting the pc players. If we exclude pc players, you have left around with 10m-15m gamepass users. That is not much xbox users.

Hmm... so 1 million copies with a 20 reduction on each is a huge loss... but ONLY 10-15 million Gamepass subs who now have access to a brand new release at no added cost is not a lot. If just 333,333 of them would have bought the game at $60 and did not because it was included in their sub, that equals your 1 million copies at $20 reduction.

Microsoft will have to pay more to have the game on Gamepass than some timed launcher exclusivity. I'm not going to bother arguing this anymore.

 

[Thirty7ven]

How many games have been out this year, compared to last year?

That’s nice but Gamepass should be at what, 20 million subs? That’s a huge number, compared to PSNow which is a footnote when compared, and Nintendo doesn’t have anything similar. Xbox is also a multiplatform brand now, with huge revenue makers in Minecraft and other releases on Steam also.

So that theory is complete bunk already, but numbers from Sony and Nintendo will allow us better insight into how much Gamepass is helping or not. Don’t forget these numbers are revenue so Gamepass losing money doesn’t really mean anything here.

 

[Riky]

We don't know how many people who would never have purchased Outriders will when it leaves Gamepass because they got to try the game.
Also do we know if the Zenimax games are now counted as first party in the figures and were third party previously? That would start to explain why First Party sales increased and third party decreased, I don't know if that's the case or not.

 

[Negotiator101]

Good to hear they're doing well, but I'd still like to hear some raw numbers about hardware sales and projections moving forward.

I believe MS is going to get Xbox back on track this gen.

It's already back on track.

 

[kingfey]

Hmm... so 1 million copies with a 20 reduction on each is a huge loss... but ONLY 10-15 million Gamepass subs who now have access to a brand new release at no added cost is not a lot. If just 333,333 of them would have bought the game at $60 and did not because it was included in their sub, that equals your 1 million copies at $20 reduction.

Microsoft will have to pay more to have the game on Gamepass than some timed launcher exclusivity. I'm not going to bother arguing this anymore.

They wouldnt. That 333k is the same, as those who wouldnt buy the game.

In order for MS to pay higher, they have to block the game, not being able to purchase on the store. As long as the game is available on the store to buy it, MS wouldnt spend huge money, to put the game day1 on the service.

This isnt PS+, where keep the game forever, and cant buy the game. You have 1 year for the game. Once its expires, you will have to buy it again. These guys you mention, will have buy the game again next year. So there isnt any lost sale, like timed exclusive.

Store sales+ ms fees + sales after 1 year. That 1 year lost sales on gamepass, will be made, after the 1 year gamepass ends, whch adds to the upfront fees ms gave them.

 

[kingfey]

That’s nice but Gamepass should be at what, 20 million subs? That’s a huge number, compared to PSNow which is a footnote when compared, and Nintendo doesn’t have anything similar. Xbox is also a multiplatform brand now, with huge revenue makers in Minecraft and other releases on Steam also.

So that theory is complete bunk already, but numbers from Sony and Nintendo will allow us better insight into how much Gamepass is helping or not. Don’t forget these numbers are revenue so Gamepass losing money doesn’t really mean anything here.

1 different gamepass has is 1 year time period. games leave after that. The Witcher 3, red dead 2, and now gtav is leaving. You have to buy those games, in order to play the again. All you got was 1 year trial, once its done, you have to pay to play it again.

To devs eyes, This is not a loss business. Their games can be sold after that. And they get to keep MS money, and people who bough their games during that period.

 

[kingfey]

We don't know how many people who would never have purchased Outriders will when it leaves Gamepass because they got to try the game.

This is something people overlook most of the time. Games that are on gamepass dont stay in the service forever. They have expiration date. If you want to play them again, you have to buy them, when they leave the service.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

They wouldnt. That 333k is the same, as those who wouldnt buy the game.

In order for MS to pay higher, they have to block the game, not being able to purchase on the store. As long as the game is available on the store to buy it, MS wouldnt spend huge money, to put the game day1 on the service.

This isnt PS+, where keep the game forever, and cant buy the game. You have 1 year for the game. Once its expires, you will have to buy it again. These guys you mention, will have buy the game again next year. So there isnt any lost sale, like timed exclusive.

Store sales+ ms fees + sales after 1 year. That 1 year lost sales on gamepass, will be made, after the 1 year gamepass ends, whch adds to the upfront fees ms gave them.

They're giving 20+ million people access to the game at no extra cost

Of course they'd have to pay more to do something like make it exclusive, but the cost of giving access to tens of millions of people alone is going to be substantial.

And specifically for Outriders, it's not a GaaS. People are going to finish all it has to offer and won't come back to it, so it doesn't matter if it leaves gamepass next year. People aren't going to buy a game they're finished with.

 

[Thirty7ven]

1 different gamepass has is 1 year time period. games leave after that. The Witcher 3, red dead 2, and now gtav is leaving. You have to buy those games, in order to play the again. All you got was 1 year trial, once its done, you have to pay to play it again.

To devs eyes, This is not a loss business. Their games can be sold after that. And they get to keep MS money, and people who bough their games during that period.

You misunderstood me. Content and services are down, not dev pay, it’s consumers spend that is down. You can say it’s games, but there’s an added twenty million subs as source of revenue when compared to the competition.

For Gamepass to be helping instead of hurting overall revenue, then overall revenue on competing platforms will have to be down much more than it is on Xbox.

 

[Topher]

They wouldnt. That 333k is the same, as those who wouldnt buy the game.

In order for MS to pay higher, they have to block the game, not being able to purchase on the store. As long as the game is available on the store to buy it, MS wouldnt spend huge money, to put the game day1 on the service.

This isnt PS+, where keep the game forever, and cant buy the game. You have 1 year for the game. Once its expires, you will have to buy it again. These guys you mention, will have buy the game again next year. So there isnt any lost sale, like timed exclusive.

Aren't you assuming every game will translate to a sale when it comes off the subscription?

 

[Bear*Walken*the*Sweeper]

but but but….no games



And that nice steady growth on their yearly graph shows that this is a marathon for ms not sprint

That's because Xbox gamers made up their minds they don't need any new games or own their game. It is clearly no longer just a matter of content, it is also a difference in philosophy.

 

[Bear*Walken*the*Sweeper]

It's disappointing that Microsoft still doesn't reveal the number of consoles or games sold.

I'm sure its just a matter of time before they do so again.

 

[kingfey]

Aren't you assuming every game will translate to a sale when it comes off the subscription?

It will. The only thing that doesnt is Ps+, and free giveaway games like epic does. Gamepass and psnow will translate to sales, when it leaves the service.

Its why those games dont really hurt sales. Especially gamepass, which allows you to buy the games.

When people say it hurts sales, they dont think the games will leave the service some day, or have any sales after all.

The upfront cost protects devs from loss money from sales. Every game has a risk. balan wonderworld is a bad game. But what if a similar game, which is good, suffers from sales? That is what these upfront money saves the devs from. Its the other side of game business, we dont hear about. Arkane games suffered from that.

As For those who wait for the game to come to gamepass, wont buy the game anyway. They are the usual people who wait for sales. I wait for sales, since I am not gonna spend 60$-70$ on games.

 

[kingfey]

That's because Xbox gamers made up their minds they don't need any new games or own their game. It is clearly no longer just a matter of content, it is also a difference in philosophy.

What kind of bull crap is that? Are you saying xbox users are beggars? And are satisfied with useless games? What kind logic are you using?

 

[MrA]

What kind of bull crap is that? Are you saying xbox users are beggars? And are satisfied with useless games? What kind logic are you using?

i think it's a hurr durr gamepass is bad post, though I can tell you I keep gamepass for as long as I can pay about 1/5 of its list cost, and I don't buy any new games on xbox (though that has more to do with microsofts drm stuff) so I think the intent is game pass is bad but 1 you don't own anything digital, it's a license and 2, why buy games I"m not sold on when I can just mess around with stuff on gamepass
so not really wrong, but presenting a positive thing and trying to spin it negative

 

[Bear*Walken*the*Sweeper]

It will. The only thing that doesnt is Ps+, and free giveaway games like epic does. Gamepass and psnow will translate to sales, when it leaves the service.

Its why those games dont really hurt sales. Especially gamepass, which allows you to buy the games.

When people say it hurts sales, they dont think the games will leave the service some day, or have any sales after all.

The upfront cost protects devs from loss money from sales. Every game has a risk. balan wonderworld is a bad game. But what if a similar game, which is good, suffers from sales? That is what these upfront money saves the devs from. Its the other side of game business, we dont hear about. Arkane games suffered from that.

As For those who wait for the game to come to gamepass, wont buy the game anyway. They are the usual people who wait for sales. I wait for sales, since I am not gonna spend 60$-70$ on games.

Well here is the thing with psnow in particular. When a game enters that service the potential for continued strong retail numbers are already diminished or nonexistent. Let's keep it a buck, there just isn't as much buzz for games are1,2,3 years old as it is when it first comes out. Also, I'm trying to see the correlation between buying a game on GamePass. What's the savings 10% if you're going to buy the game anyway why have the service? People can bargain hunt on just about any digital store, there are always sales lasting months on end.

 

[Bear*Walken*the*Sweeper]

What kind of bull crap is that? Are you saying xbox users are beggars? And are satisfied with useless games? What kind logic are you using?

Well damn, someone's got their panties in a twist this morning. The point is whatever drawbacks or negatives one can say about GamePass, its userbase clearly doesn't care and supporting the service anyway. That's the point.

 

[AdjudicatorHead]

They're giving 20+ million people access to the game at no extra cost

Of course they'd have to pay more to do something like make it exclusive, but the cost of giving access to tens of millions of people alone is going to be substantial.

And specifically for Outriders, it's not a GaaS. People are going to finish all it has to offer and won't come back to it, so it doesn't matter if it leaves gamepass next year. People aren't going to buy a game they're finished with.

To make it fully exclusive, I'd agree. But PC launcher timed exclusivity.. I strongly believe that's cheaper or at most equal with Gamepass fees, especially if covering Gamepass PC and Console.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

To make it fully exclusive, I'd agree. But PC launcher timed exclusivity.. I strongly believe that's cheaper or at most equal with Gamepass fees, especially if covering Gamepass PC and Console.

I don't see the costs being anywhere close to gamepass tbh, especially given the fact that it's just making a game a exclusive to a storefront, not hardware platform.

The only thing standing in the way of those 120 million steams users is an exe file

 

[Bear*Walken*the*Sweeper]

i think it's a hurr durr gamepass is bad post, though I can tell you I keep gamepass for as long as I can pay about 1/5 of its list cost, and I don't buy any new games on xbox (though that has more to do with microsofts drm stuff) so I think the intent is game pass is bad but 1 you don't own anything digital, it's a license and 2, why buy games I"m not sold on when I can just mess around with stuff on gamepass
so not really wrong, but presenting a positive thing and trying to spin it negative

First people really don't buy games they are not sold on. For decades now we have had magazines and websites to go to see if a game is worth a purchase or not. Sometimes you don't need to play a game to know its not for you. Secondly, again it's a difference of philosophy, not an attack. Some people still view gaming as a collector's hobby, some just want to consume the media. IMO, either way is fine, but these days there is this weird need for some to bend over backwards to prove game services like GamePass are better. It's not better, it's just different.

 

[kingfey]

Well damn, someone's got their panties in a twist this morning. The point is whatever drawbacks or negatives one can say about GamePass, its userbase clearly doesn't care and supporting the service anyway. That's the point.

You havent stated anything, and went for the attack mode.

No one is defending gamepass or lack of xbox 1st party games.

The gamepass topic here is just discussion. Gamepass still need more time. All the thing that has been said here, is easily proven wrong.

As for xbox lack of games, that is on them. There is still 3rd party games.

If xbox players cared as you said, gamepass would have had 30+m users by now, excluding pc players. Gamepass doesnt have that, and it shows even their users arent on board with gamepass.

 

[kingfey]

Well here is the thing with psnow in particular. When a game enters that service the potential for continued strong retail numbers are already diminished or nonexistent. Let's keep it a buck, there just isn't as much buzz for games are1,2,3 years old as it is when it first comes out. Also, I'm trying to see the correlation between buying a game on GamePass. What's the savings 10% if you're going to buy the game anyway why have the service? People can bargain hunt on just about any digital store, there are always sales lasting months on end.

It is a trial service. People buy it, if they like the game. Those who dont, wont buy the game. With 475+, there is more stuff to eat. So people will buy games hat they couldn't finish.

There is a risk for buying games, which is whether the game is good or not. People dont buy games, unless they are confident. Sometimes, hype makes the game turn out shit. You wasted your money.

Another side is, the cost. Not everyone is able to buy all he games that are psnow or gamepass. You have to be rich o buy them. 2nd point is mouth to mouth. Most games are unknown. You only know what you hear. If you dont follow games, you wont find enough good games.

There are games, which I have no idea about. Shin megami tensei is one of them. I have no idea what this game is. Same for persona. I only got to know both them lately, when i got switch, and my ps5 collection games.

 

[Bear*Walken*the*Sweeper]

You havent stated anything, and went for the attack mode.

No one is defending gamepass or lack of xbox 1st party games.

The gamepass topic here is just discussion. Gamepass still need more time. All the thing that has been said here, is easily proven wrong.

As for xbox lack of games, that is on them. There is still 3rd party games.

If xbox players cared as you said, gamepass would have had 30+m users by now, excluding pc players. Gamepass doesnt have that, and it shows even their users arent on board with gamepass.

I was stating the usual attacks that are levied against the Xbox brand, not making them myself. If you can't tell the difference that's your own damn fault. March on console warrior.

 

[Topher]

It will. The only thing that doesnt is Ps+, and free giveaway games like epic does. Gamepass and psnow will translate to sales, when it leaves the service.

That's just not true in all cases. Not every game on Game Pass translates to a sale when the game leaves the service. You've got single player games where people play once and are done with it. You've got others where the gamer simply tires of playing the game and wants to move on to something else. There are plenty of examples where a game will be played while it is available in the service and no more.

 

[kingfey]

I was stating the usual attacks that are levied against the Xbox brand, not making them myself. If you can't tell the difference that's your own damn fault. March on console warrior.

You baiting SOB. You got me there. Now I need to learn how detect these things.

 

[kingfey]

That's just not true in all cases. Not every game on Game Pass translates to a sale when the game leaves the service. You've got single player games where people play once and are done with it. You've got others where the gamer simply tires of playing the game and wants to move on to something else. There are plenty of examples where a game will be played while it is available in the service and no more.

Assuming those people who played the game will hate it. People will buy the game, to support the devs. These are the targets for games being on gamepass. Find individuals, who will love the game, and buy it.

Once the game leaves the service, people will buy it for nostalgia. Same people who are happily buy remastered games.

If people can buy remastered games, Then believe gamepass users will buy the game, when it leaves the service.

 

[Bryank75]

that’s just the thing I have both systems and I play on both I don’t have a bias if Sony’s messing up I call them out if Microsoft’s messing up I call them out as we all should just blindly picking a side of a corporation is just not a wise move in my opinion and to just derail ever discussion with fanboy fudder is very disingenuous.

Oh, you have not seen my PS rants about what they are doing wrong......

I think their PR are a disaster, Jim Ryan shouldn't be the CEO and seems to have no clue and their strategy is all wrong. I just like the machine and the games. Cerny and Shu are my guys!

 

[Bear*Walken*the*Sweeper]

It is a trial service. People buy it, if they like the game. Those who dont, wont buy the game. With 475+, there is more stuff to eat. So people will buy games hat they couldn't finish.

There is a risk for buying games, which is whether the game is good or not. People dont buy games, unless they are confident. Sometimes, hype makes the game turn out shit. You wasted your money.

Another side is, the cost. Not everyone is able to buy all he games that are psnow or gamepass. You have to be rich o buy them. 2nd point is mouth to mouth. Most games are unknown. You only know what you hear. If you dont follow games, you wont find enough good games.

There are games, which I have no idea about. Shin megami tensei is one of them. I have no idea what this game is. Same for persona. I only got to know both them lately, when i got switch, and my ps5 collection games.

A trial service wouldn't offer whole games to play. You don't see Netflix offering 30 minutes of a movie. But I think you make a key point. These game services are for the undecided. Frankly, the can be 475 games to try, if someone isn't interested in 450 of them or already played 100 of them already, it's just not very appealing.

Also, there is risk in buying games that's why this industry has grown to where it is. Billions of games were bought by millions of people for decades who were willing to take that risk. There is a risk even in not buying the games. If the game is bad you still risked your time on a bad game.

Thirdly not everyone why buy's games are rich. I don't know anyone that that bought the what 1500 plus games in the PS4's line-up. Some collectors go back and buy games over the years, but again that's because they are collectors. They want to own their games and have their reasons for picking the games they own. Sometimes they pay full price sometimes they bargain hunt, but they want to own them.

Look I don't mean to be confrontational with this, just making points on the differences of those who say yeah these services are cool but I just don't have a need for them and I'm not the only one. Those who are taking advantage of them, great, but I'm just not sold on the services.

 

[Topher]

Assuming those people who played the game will hate it. People will buy the game, to support the devs. These are the targets for games being on gamepass. Find individuals, who will love the game, and buy it.

Once the game leaves the service, people will buy it for nostalgia. Same people who are happily buy remastered games.

If people can buy remastered games, The believe gamepass users will buy the game, when it leaves the service.

I disagree. Yeah.....there are some games that some gamers are going to want to keep. But every game? No, that simply isn't true. People have buying, selling, and trading physical copies of games when they were done with it for decades now. Suddenly with Game Pass, gamers no longer move on from a game, they feel compelled to buy it? No....that's just not what happens.

 

[kingfey]

Oh, you have not seen my PS rants about what they are doing wrong......

I think their PR are a disaster, Jim Ryan shouldn't be the CEO and seems to have no clue and their strategy is all wrong. I just like the machine and the games. Cerny and Shu are my guys!

Jim is a business man. His entire job is to put the company, in a direction, where they can support themselves for a long time.

Just look at what happened to xbox. The guy in charge run it, for a different audience. A business that was all about games, suddenly become a tv cable business. Don ignored what the main xbox goal was.

Unlike him, Jim understands what games can bring. He made ff7r a timed exclusive. And locked future FF games for timed exclusive. By doing that, he enticed people to PlayStation platform.

His recent action for pc was same. By putting HZD, he ensured enough customers for HFW. Pc gamers who like the game, will buy ps5, to play HFW.

This is what business man can do. Translate games in to a business, and making your platform desirable, by crippling other platforms.

 

[kingfey]

A trial service wouldn't offer whole games to play. You don't see Netflix offering 30 minutes of a movie. But I think you make a key point. These game services are for the undecided. Frankly, the can be 475 games to try, if someone isn't interested in 450 of them or already played 100 of them already, it's just not very appealing.

Also, there is risk in buying games that's why this industry has grown to where it is. Billions of games were bought by millions of people for decades who were willing to take that risk. There is a risk even in not buying the games. If the game is bad you still risked your time on a bad game.

Thirdly not everyone why buy's games are rich. I don't know anyone that that bought the what 1500 plus games in the PS4's line-up. Some collectors go back and buy games over the years, but again that's because they are collectors. They want to own their games and have their reasons for picking the games they own. Sometimes they pay full price sometimes they bargain hunt, but they want to own them.

Look I don't mean to be confrontational with this, just making points on the differences of those who say yeah these services are cool but I just don't have a need for them and I'm not the only one. Those who are taking advantage of them, great, but I'm just not sold on the services.

You still dont see value on it. It will take time for it to be valuable to you. This isnt a bad thing. Its the same thing for me.

I am not interested in what they have. I am only interested, in how I can play these games. PC/Xbox hybrid is what i am interested in.

My games start in 2022 with the service. Everything else is am appetizing for me.

 

[kingfey]

I disagree. Yeah.....there are some games that some gamers are going to want to keep. But every game? No, that simply isn't true. People have buying, selling, and trading physical copies of games when they were done with it for decades now. Suddenly with Game Pass, gamers no longer move on from a game, they feel compelled to buy it? No....that's just not what happens.

Human nature is hard to understand.

Gamepass is phycological designed service. Games that werent in your mind before, are now your favorite games. The 475+ games becomes a value to you, when in reality you can only play handful of them, due to time constrain. So the only option you have, is to spend money. Buy those games, which you cant play on time. Buy the games you liked.

It uses the sames tactic as f2p games. People spent thousands on those games, when it really doesnt have value to it. But to these guys, they enjoy it.

Fortnite is dumb free BR game, Yet it makes tons of money for epic.

To you, it wouldnt make a sense at all. But to others it does. Why do you think collectors hoard those games? Even though, they know they play these games once and wont touch it again.

 

[Topher]

Buy those games, which you cant play on time. Buy the games you liked.

Which isn't "every" game. Good we agree....

 

[JTCx]

Assuming those people who played the game will hate it. People will buy the game, to support the devs. These are the targets for games being on gamepass. Find individuals, who will love the game, and buy it.

Once the game leaves the service, people will buy it for nostalgia. Same people who are happily buy remastered games.

If people can buy remastered games, Then believe gamepass users will buy the game, when it leaves the service.

Cool bullshit false equivalency.

 

[kingfey]

Which isn't "every" game. Good we agree....

Finally I can use my gru. Glad we got something. Now enjoy my boy here flexing his dances.

 

[kingfey]

Cool bullshit false equivalency.

What points in my post is bullshit?

Are you saying people wont buy what they like? Wouldnt that be true for gamepass? Wouldnt people buy games they played, as remastered version again? Even though, they own the game?

 

[Bryank75]

Jim is a business man. His entire job is to put the company, in a direction, where they can support themselves for a long time.

Just look at what happened to xbox. The guy in charge run it, for a different audience. A business that was all about games, suddenly become a tv cable business. Don ignored what the main xbox goal was.

Unlike him, Jim understands what games can bring. He made ff7r a timed exclusive. And locked future FF games for timed exclusive. By doing that, he enticed people to PlayStation platform.

His recent action for pc was same. By putting HZD, he ensured enough customers for HFW. Pc gamers who like the game, will buy ps5, to play HFW.

This is what business man can do. Translate games in to a business, and making your platform desirable, by crippling other platforms.

Nah, he is a fool.

He is spending all his energy on streaming and mobile, things that do not serve console gamers. He is also putting PS exclusives on PC....giving away PlayStations strongest USP for pennies.
He is like Jack trading the cow for magic beans.....

He got a bit of pocket change and tied down FF7R for 2 years....big whoop.
He should have bought Square Enix completely and Sega. PS made enough last year to buy Sega completely. Sony made enough to buy both.

It's time to make meaningful moves.

My moves would be...... buy Square Enix, increase investment in Kadokawa to 51% and insert directors on board and buy MiHoYo or Sega completely.

Pulling most games to be fully exclusive...... only things like FFXIV, Outriders and niche games like Life is Strange would go to PC.

That would be aggressive.

Right now the company has no focus and is not aware that the key to everything is IP's and control of the content. Not the delivery.
However I believe console is the best delivery system.

He's also allowed PR to run rampant, they control PlayStation now and are strangling any communication with fans, everything is so stilted and unnatural now.....it really sucks.

 

[Shubh_C63]

Damn.
Xbox doing good.
Sony doing good.
Switch doing good.

Imagine if no covid.

 

[JTCx]

What points in my post is bullshit?

Are you saying people wont buy what they like? Wouldnt that be true for gamepass? Wouldnt people buy games they played, as remastered version again? Even though, they own the game?

Everything.

 

[Bladed Thesis]

Anybody thinking MS paid 100m for Outriders on Gamepass needs to stop commenting on the business side of things.

It was likely a tenth of that, maybe slightly more (10-14m range).

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Lol. Who is doing mental gymnastics?

I just sided with thicc_girls_are_teh_best because for me it is surprising too, that revenue for Xbox division is that high compared to their competitors while they ended worst generation of their existence. And that it implies that Xbox is getting bigger chunk of money from every user then Sony.

I mean, Nintendo is selling Switch like gangbuster, they refusing to drop prices of their games, while selling 20+ million in many cases and their first-party output is best in terms of quality and quantity and they still had "only" 16 billion in revenues. Meanwhile Xbox is doomed according to many users around here because they didn't have new first party game months after new consoles released and they still managed to get to 15,4 billion.

Some people like to talk a big game but they're scared to crunch real numbers, because once you do some narratives just literally fall apart. Actually reading this post it's my first time seeing Nintendo's annual revenue figure (I don't really follow Nintendo stuff like that) and, yeah, one way to look at that is "..that's it?".

Considering they're at 80+ million Switches and their 1P games are evergeen price-wise and sales-wise, I guess some folks would think their revenue would be bigger. But then you remember that a ton of the big 3P games skip Switch due to technical limitations, though there is silver lining in Nintendo's revenue figure: their 1P probably constitutes a decent size of it, more than Sony's (which IIRC accounted for around 18% of their platform ecosystem revenue).

A lot of people IMO just focus way too much on hardware sales as the only metric, which is weird considering that, traditionally speaking, hardware doesn't sell for a lot of profit and for the first few years sells for a loss. Nintendo's gotten around that in their own way but it's obviously not a way everyone is going to be onboard with. Again, when I bring up the Xbox annual revenue compared to PlayStation's it's not a ding at PlayStation; they do have ~ $7 billion more in revenue.

I'm just saying that the relationship of hardware sales they've needed to get that extra revenue isn't linear and, arguably, might not be optimal compared to other business models. 150% more hardware for 46% more ecosystem revenue doesn't look particularly great to me but I don't know what the typical percentages platform holders use in this industry to determine what are good ratios on average for them, so that part is just me. And then when you look at both division's actual net profits, the ratios between them are even smaller, I think it's "only" a few hundred million separating them both in terms of net profit to Sony's advantage.

I hope the takeaway from this is, the industry is big enough where multiple business models can be successful in their own way. Sony's model is different from Microsoft's in a lot of ways, yet they both look more than healthy. Same for Nintendo.

Who cares? Sony gaming division makes more money and Sony sells double the amount of consoles of Microsoft. End of story. No mental gymnastics required to make Microsoft look good.

They generate 46% - 55% more revenue on 150% more hardware sales. All that was being point out, to show the relationship of revenue to hardware sales is not linear.

Anybody thinking MS paid 100m for Outriders on Gamepass needs to stop commenting on the business side of things.

It was likely a tenth of that, maybe slightly more (10-14m range).

Yeah, Outriders was a smaller/unproven AA game and not the type Square-Enix are known for on top of that. IIRC didn't some of the leaked documents from the Epic vs. Apple case show either Sony or Nintendo paying about $20 million for timed exclusivity? Think it was with something Monster Hunter-related.

There's 0% chance Microsoft paid anywhere near $100 million for Outriders on GamePass.

 

[Bladed Thesis]

Some people like to talk a big game but they're scared to crunch real numbers, because once you do some narratives just literally fall apart. Actually reading this post it's my first time seeing Nintendo's annual revenue figure (I don't really follow Nintendo stuff like that) and, yeah, one way to look at that is "..that's it?".

Considering they're at 80+ million Switches and their 1P games are evergeen price-wise and sales-wise, I guess some folks would think their revenue would be bigger. But then you remember that a ton of the big 3P games skip Switch due to technical limitations, though there is silver lining in Nintendo's revenue figure: their 1P probably constitutes a decent size of it, more than Sony's (which IIRC accounted for around 18% of their platform ecosystem revenue).

A lot of people IMO just focus way too much on hardware sales as the only metric, which is weird considering that, traditionally speaking, hardware doesn't sell for a lot of profit and for the first few years sells for a loss. Nintendo's gotten around that in their own way but it's obviously not a way everyone is going to be onboard with. Again, when I bring up the Xbox annual revenue compared to PlayStation's it's not a ding at PlayStation; they do have ~ $7 billion more in revenue.

I'm just saying that the relationship of hardware sales they've needed to get that extra revenue isn't linear and, arguably, might not be optimal compared to other business models. 150% more hardware for 46% more ecosystem revenue doesn't look particularly great to me but I don't know what the typical percentages platform holders use in this industry to determine what are good ratios on average for them, so that part is just me. And then when you look at both division's actual net profits, the ratios between them are even smaller, I think it's "only" a few hundred million separating them both in terms of net profit to Sony's advantage.

I hope the takeaway from this is, the industry is big enough where multiple business models can be successful in their own way. Sony's model is different from Microsoft's in a lot of ways, yet they both look more than healthy. Same for Nintendo.


They generate 46% - 55% more revenue on 150% more hardware sales. All that was being point out, to show the relationship of revenue to hardware sales is not linear.



Yeah, Outriders was a smaller/unproven AA game and not the type Square-Enix are known for on top of that. IIRC didn't some of the leaked documents from the Epic vs. Apple case show either Sony or Nintendo paying about $20 million for timed exclusivity? Think it was with something Monster Hunter-related.

There's 0% chance Microsoft paid anywhere near $100 million for Outriders on GamePass.

How did she get so thicc at Sony Santa Monica is my question?

I never knew she had them cakes.

 

[prinz_valium]

Anybody thinking MS paid 100m for Outriders on Gamepass needs to stop commenting on the business side of things.

It was likely a tenth of that, maybe slightly more (10-14m range).

Didn't Gears of War IP cost just that?
Lol

 

[NickFire]

Hey Timmy, did you win the game?

Well, I can definitely say that I ran to first 14% faster than I ran to first last week. And my slightly down fielding percentage was dramatically offset by increased contact rates on all bunt attempts. My cleats really shined too.

 

[Bladed Thesis]

Didn't Gears of War IP cost just that?
Lol

Huh?

 

[prinz_valium]

Huh?

Microsoft bought the Gears of War IP from Epic.

If you can get an established IP for that money a new game on your service is a fraction of that cost. So of couse MS didn't pay 100m for Outriders on Game Pass

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

How did she get so thicc at Sony Santa Monica is my question?

I never knew she had them cakes.

I don't know, I'm just glad she did

 

[Bo_Hazem]

Don't worry guys, Nadella is totally going to shut down a division making $15 billion and the Series X will be the final Xbox console.

How much spent though? If they made 15B, what's the net profit = shows how much spent. This report is pretty useless to say it's good or bad, it's totally vague because of missing critical data.