• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

David Jaffe Addresses the Concern Over Gaming Subscription Services

Papacheeks

Gold Member
Jan 30, 2013
7,892
4,194
895
Watertown, NY
And proof for your claim is...where?

Without Game Pass, The Coalition probably would not have started to develop small projects, because Microsoft would want them to churn Gears games like they used to. Obsidian is currently making it's biggest game with Avowed. Ninja Theory have 3x more devs on Hellblade 2, than on first game. State of Decay is supposed to have way higher budget then SoD 2. And higher budget will allow inXile to go first-person and not having to develop inexpensive top-down RPG games.

It's funny how every "Game Pass hater" is using same arguments how it will make games worse without single proof. Quite the opposite. Microsoft have 23 first-party studios and without Game Pass they would be stucked with 5. Devs have more freedom (for example The Coalition), more time (Without GP, Microsoft would force Halo Infinite to release alongside Series X/S), and more money (Obsidian an inXile). If they want to create small game because they want to, they can (Obsidian with Grounded). But nothing is forced upon them which is best case scenario. And they can experiment without the fear of going under like Japan Studio.

So again. Where is proof that GP will make games worse?

That's horse shit. The Coalition are currently the most valued next to playground games.

So much they are helping out on Halo infinite.

They actually make games in a effecient maner.

So Microsoft gives them freedom to do what they want because they have proven to be able to work on multiple projects. And help out other studios.
 
Last edited:

Godot25

Member
Apr 7, 2021
488
1,376
355
It is in that they chose a big name in the twilight of their career and threw money at them. It was a safe move. Same as their Adam Sandler Contract and all the super hero garbage they pump out. Subscriptions can easily encourage safe bets.
Yeah. But my point was: You can't say "This movie was bad, because Netflix is a subscription service," right? Because Netflix gave Scorsese proper budget, and every actor he wanted for movie. And complete creative freedom. Which is exactly what we should want. I mean, Fincher would never be able to make Mank without subscription service because no studio would greenlit that project for theatrical release, because it is niche.
 

Godot25

Member
Apr 7, 2021
488
1,376
355
That's horse shit. The Coalition are currently the most valued next to playground games.

So much they are helping out on Halo infinite.

They actually make games in a effecient maner.

So Microsoft gives them freedom to do what they want because they have proven to be able to work on multiple projects. And help out other studios.
Yes. But without GP i'm not sure Microsoft would allow them to "test their creative muscles" on smaller project before moving to Gears 6. It would be "you done with Gears 5? Please make Gears 6!"
 

GuinGuin

Banned
May 18, 2021
1,754
3,509
445
Yeah. But my point was: You can't say "This movie was bad, because Netflix is a subscription service," right? Because Netflix gave Scorsese proper budget, and every actor he wanted for movie. And complete creative freedom. Which is exactly what we should want. I mean, Fincher would never be able to make Mank without subscription service because no studio would greenlit that project for theatrical release, because it is niche.

Niche movies get made every day with traditional distribution.
 

Godot25

Member
Apr 7, 2021
488
1,376
355
Niche movies get made every day with traditional distribution.
Yes. But you would not create 3,5 hours long superhero movie for theatrical release because they would tell you "It's too long." And they would not greenlit niche movie with high budget because it is niche.

Both of those barriers fall when you are making stuff for subscription service.

That's called creative freedom right?
 

GuinGuin

Banned
May 18, 2021
1,754
3,509
445
Yes. But you would not create 3,5 hours long superhero movie for theatrical release because they would tell you "It's too long." And they would not greenlit niche movie with high budget because it is niche.

Both of those barriers fall when you are making stuff for subscription service.

That's called creative freedom right?

One way or another it is expected to make back the money spent on it. He's a huge name so I think he could easily get that money the traditional way.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Shodan09

Papacheeks

Gold Member
Jan 30, 2013
7,892
4,194
895
Watertown, NY
Yes. But without GP i'm not sure Microsoft would allow them to "test their creative muscles" on smaller project before moving to Gears 6. It would be "you done with Gears 5? Please make Gears 6!"

No, they were given freedom to continue work on their new IP before given the opportunity to work on gears. They chose gears, made 2 games, dlc and worked as support for infinite. Gamepass had nothing to do with it.

Their current side project is because they were done with gears 5. So now that they have 2 teams, they have a smaller internal project.

Gamepass or not coalition has proved themselves and actually made games that bring in money through their internal stores.

In terms of investment no one knows if gamepass currently is a factor or if because they are sufficient studios like playground games.
 

FritzJ92

Member
Jul 19, 2020
462
712
305
>You listed a bunch of stuff that was behind a subscription service. Also I’d like to add that the NEWEST media you referenced is from like 2004.
Your just holding on to nostalgia, you didn’t really make a point.

is anyone else getting just a tad tired of the false comparisons of HBO to streaming services? Hbos subscription price was a premium fee to a concentrated output of content considered best in class. Same way you pay more for better internet. Streaming services are about quantity first and foremost.

I overall agree that streaming has brought some quality content, but you are talking about, what? 10 services out now at this point? Of course there will be decent content. But for every show you list there’s hundreds of garbage ones. And we are talking about services that are taking in hundreds of millions a quarter. Gamepass, without even factoring in 23 developers, is still running at a net loss. And it’s getting a bit played out watching people play out imaginary situations where a multi trillion dollar company gets to make even more money. Let gamepass show results with its actual output first
It’s a similar mindset. You pay for access to their content. The output quantity was lower that doesn’t make it premium. Every show that was behind a subscription to HBO wasn’t a big budget show and they weren’t all good either.
The situation you made isn’t any different from how it currently is. Let’s take streaming/sub services out, for every great $60 game there were hundreds of crappy $60 games. This applies to selling CDs, Movies, Games, anything. This is kind of what people are saying. Subscription services doesn’t affect quality, you just have access to more quantity.
Regarding income. I don’t care if GamePass makes a profit or not as long as the service stays consistent and good. I’ll let Microsoft make the math work for them. No one was complaining about how long Netflix, Spotify, and others were losing money as long as the content is there.
 
Last edited:

trikster40

Member
Dec 12, 2008
2,515
3,176
1,355
here’s the fear that a lot of people might have: now, especially with tv/movies, there are a lot of shows that you can’t watch without a subscription service. Wanna watch Stranger Things? Netflix. Then there’s another show exclusive on Amazon. Then one on Hulu. Then one on AppleTV. Before you know it, you have 6 different subs.

What happens when gaming subscription services start doing the same thing? MS decides that if you want this new game. Well it’s only for GO subscribers - not available to vbuy anywhere. Sony does it with PSNow - then Google with Stadia, Ubi with theirs, EA withh theirs.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see it happen in the next 3-5 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arvfab and GuinGuin

Godot25

Member
Apr 7, 2021
488
1,376
355
No, they were given freedom to continue work on their new IP before given the opportunity to work on gears. They chose gears, made 2 games, dlc and worked as support for infinite. Gamepass had nothing to do with it.

Their current side project is because they were done with gears 5. So now that they have 2 teams, they have a smaller internal project.

Gamepass or not coalition has proved themselves and actually made games that bring in money through their internal stores.

In terms of investment no one knows if gamepass currently is a factor or if because they are sufficient studios like playground games.
So we can at least agree, that "being day one on Game Pass" didn't have any negative influence on first-party studios as some of the people here are claiming, right?
 

Chukhopops

Member
Mar 5, 2020
1,356
3,391
500
Luxembourg
here’s the fear that a lot of people might have: now, especially with tv/movies, there are a lot of shows that you can’t watch without a subscription service. Wanna watch Stranger Things? Netflix. Then there’s another show exclusive on Amazon. Then one on Hulu. Then one on AppleTV. Before you know it, you have 6 different subs.

What happens when gaming subscription services start doing the same thing? MS decides that if you want this new game. Well it’s only for GO subscribers - not available to vbuy anywhere. Sony does it with PSNow - then Google with Stadia, Ubi with theirs, EA withh theirs.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see it happen in the next 3-5 years.
You can still buy most Netflix originals as blu rays:

https://www.whats-on-netflix.com/news/list-of-netflix-originals-available-on-dvds-blu-rays/

You will still be able to buy GP games as standalone in the future. Worst case scenario there will be a temporary exclusivity but that seems like a stretch already.
 
Oct 16, 2017
1,834
3,025
445
So we can at least agree, that "being day one on Game Pass" didn't have any negative influence on first-party studios as some of the people here are claiming, right?
Not by itself. But assuming the fantasy scenario where Gamepass is "the future", then it would have its influence.

Basically for Gamepass to still host traditional console games, Gamepass need to fail. Because if Gamepass becomes the main way games are played, then the games would be designed around how Gamepass is monetized. Right now it is still niche, and it would take time. But at some point you would have to decide if you still want console games, or do you want Gamepass to replace console game distribution and thus change how games are designe, made and played.
 
  • Like
Reactions: megreotsugua

Papacheeks

Gold Member
Jan 30, 2013
7,892
4,194
895
Watertown, NY
So we can at least agree, that "being day one on Game Pass" didn't have any negative influence on first-party studios as some of the people here are claiming, right?

Not yet. Right now is growth time. So until we see games from the 2018 investment we can't make that conclusion.
 

Godot25

Member
Apr 7, 2021
488
1,376
355
Not by itself. But assuming the fantasy scenario where Gamepass is "the future", then it would have its influence.

Basically for Gamepass to still host traditional console games, Gamepass need to fail. Because if Gamepass becomes the main way games are played, then the games would be designed around how Gamepass is monetized. Right now it is still niche, and it would take time. But at some point you would have to decide if you still want console games, or do you want Gamepass to replace console game distribution and thus change how games are designe, made and played.
So...you are assuming, right?

Games right now are monetized up to their ass without Game Pass. Many games are short without Game Pass. Many games are average without Game Pass. We also had episodic content without Game Pass.
You are basically saying, that when GP will be main way to consume games, developers somehow will somehow stop trying to make best game possible just because they will not fight in retail. And game will be monetized through microtransactions (which they are now).
 

Kenpachii

Member
Mar 23, 2018
9,454
11,750
815
Not by itself. But assuming the fantasy scenario where Gamepass is "the future", then it would have its influence.

Basically for Gamepass to still host traditional console games, Gamepass need to fail. Because if Gamepass becomes the main way games are played, then the games would be designed around how Gamepass is monetized. Right now it is still niche, and it would take time. But at some point you would have to decide if you still want console games, or do you want Gamepass to replace console game distribution and thus change how games are designe, made and played.

This already happened ages ago on PC without gamepass. Its called free to play model.

The only reason AAA games still exist in single player industry is because its heavy subsidized by microsoft or sony, without them that market would be dead. So that whole model isn't sustainable already.
 

supernova8

Member
Jun 2, 2020
2,453
3,496
430
So you are saying, that somehow every GP game will have microtransactions? Again without proof?
Gears and Halo games had microtransactions without Game Pass. Uncharted 4 have them and Sony don't have a Game Pass style service.

Also, if it will change "how games are designed" please provide an example. Because to me, "live service" games are not suitable for GP. Because when you are playing a "live service" game like Destiny 2 what is a point of paying a sub, when you can buy a game and not pay it at all? Game Pass is more suitable for "I played it once and I'm moving on" style of gaming. Which is exactly what Microsoft is currently lacking and what studios like inXile, Obsidian, Ninja Theory, The Initiative, id Soft, Tango, Arkane etc. will provide...

Or do you expect Arkane to stop making immersive sims and start making Battle Royale games?
Live services (that are exclusive to GP) are actually perfect because the game never ends. You have other games to play on the side (also within GP) but look at it from MS's perspective, the more people they can preoccupy with a handful of games (that are never-ending "live services"), the fewer new games they need add to keep those people subscribed. I'm not saying it's good or bad and I'm also not saying every single subscriber likes live service games, but literally the only reason to keep putting games on GP is to keep people subscribed. Anything they can do to keep those same people subscribed without actually having to add new games, of course they will be looking into it.

I'm not a game designer or remotely "in the industry" but it seems highly likely that supporting an existing game with new content (and having a bunch of servers running) is cheaper (for them) than making an entirely new game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Three and elliot5

Godot25

Member
Apr 7, 2021
488
1,376
355
Live services (that are exclusive to GP) are actually perfect because the game never ends. You have other games to play on the side (also within GP) but look at it from MS's perspective, the more people they can preoccupy with a handful of games (that are never-ending "live services"), the fewer new games they need add to keep those people subscribed. I'm not saying it's good or bad and I'm also not saying every single subscriber likes live service games, but literally the only reason to keep putting games on GP is to keep people subscribed. Anything they can do to keep those same people subscribed without actually having to add new games, of course they will be looking into it.

I'm not a game designer or remotely "in the industry" but it seems highly likely that supporting an existing game with new content (and having a bunch of servers running) is cheaper (for them) than making an entirely new game.
I disagree. What is more logical when I play one live service game? To pay 15$ per month of playing or to pay 60$ once and play it forever? If I was a fan of Sea of Thieves and I was playing that game non-stop I would not sub to GP. I would purchase it and be done with it.

That's why I think that argument "it will make every game to live service model" is just plain wrong. Game Pass is best when you are playing many games per month, trying new games every week and not sticking to one game for extended period of time. When I can switch between The Outer Worlds, Doom Eternal, Gears 5, Ori, State of Decay and Forza Horizon 5 without paying 60 bucks for every game - that where Game pass is unbeatable in terms of value.
 

GuinGuin

Banned
May 18, 2021
1,754
3,509
445
This already happened ages ago on PC without gamepass. Its called free to play model.

The only reason AAA games still exist in single player industry is because its heavy subsidized by microsoft or sony, without them that market would be dead. So that whole model isn't sustainable already.

Uhh, Playstation is hugely profitable so its in no way a subsidy.
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: PropellerEar

Roman Empire

Member
May 8, 2020
586
530
310
Idk about you but I'm getting fed up with all the subscription models on a daily basis. I don't need to go that far, I've been looking for upgrading my outlook/office subscription, and I always liked the offline version but they force the 365 version down our throats. I don't blame them since it's the most profitable way in the long term for customer retention. My only fear is that we might have a big crash of sorts with every economic model aiming towards subscription-based services. I still like one-time buy things for the sake of ownership, but times are changing and forcing us to adapt even against our own will. I can't even count all the services I have, just the work-related ones, on both hands, then I have all my media/entertainment-related ones.

I love and hate the digital media world.
 
Jan 29, 2019
6,885
7,684
520
Netflix has lost money since they started producing their own content


Netflix has made money since 2003. But the content has only been lately since 2017.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Bo_Hazem

PropellerEar

Member
Dec 8, 2018
1,639
4,570
445
When I can switch between The Outer Worlds, Doom Eternal, Gears 5, Ori, State of Decay and Forza Horizon 5 without paying 60 bucks for every game - that where Game pass is unbeatable in terms of value.
So your list of essential games spans from 2018(state of decay2) to 2021 more likely 2022 (Horizon 5).
That's subscription worth of 4 to 5 years, way more than 6 x 60$.
You're one in the huge masses paying full price for your sub... right? :lollipop_anxious_sweat:
Physical games don't have any second hand value... right?:lollipop_fearful:
 
May 28, 2013
1,298
2,278
715
I have subscribed to gamepass recently with that 1 dollar deal. But i had gamepass subscription before with the same 1 dollar month deal then i cancel the subscription before the month was over and now i am subscribed again with the recent one dollar deal with the same account.

So it is not for new users only. It is also for returning customers
I wonder how much is Jaffe paying for Game Pass...he loves it so much he must be paying full price, right?
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: DarkMage619

Godot25

Member
Apr 7, 2021
488
1,376
355
So your list of essential games spans from 2018(state of decay2) to 2021 more likely 2022 (Horizon 5).
That's subscription worth of 4 to 5 years, way more than 6 x 60$.
You're one in the huge masses paying full price for your sub... right? :lollipop_anxious_sweat:
Physical games don't have any second hand value... right?:lollipop_fearful:
Lol. Nope. That was just an example of games that subscriber has access to. Essential stuff in GP would be easily 100+ games.

In reality I played much more games that were in a GP in last year alone. And more importantly, I played many games that I otherwise would not buy and enjoyed them (MLB, Wasteland 3, Outriders, Dirt , The Medium, Minecraft Dungeons, NieR Automata - those are not essential of course)

So yeah. I'm paying full price for GPU because I'm stupid and I didn't know about conversion and I still find it extremely worth it. And funny thing is, that Microsoft first party stuff isn't even here...
 
Last edited:
May 28, 2013
1,298
2,278
715
Lol. Nope. That was just an example of games that subscriber has access to. Essential stuff in GP would be easily 100+ games.

In reality I played much more games that were in a GP in last year alone. And more importantly, I played many games that I otherwise would not buy and enjoyed them (MLB, Wasteland 3, Outriders, Dirt , The Medium, Minecraft Dungeons, NieR Automata).

So yeah. I'm paying full price for GPU because I'm stupid and I didn't know about conversion and I still find it extremely worth it. And funny thing is, that Microsoft first party stuff isn't even here...
Your definition of "essential" is very loose.
 
May 28, 2013
1,298
2,278
715
And how do you know which games do I consider essential?

Mr. "very loose definition?"
It's a matter of opinion, but calling HALF of the library "essential" is an overstatement. Might as well say if you don't subscribe to GP you"re missing every single must-play game. 100 essential games on GP...I doubt there's a 100 essential games in all of gaming combined (from 2013).
 
Last edited:
Dec 2, 2018
908
1,944
465
Streaming video services replaced even worse business models for creativity - advertising-supported subscription cable and going to the movie theater. Streaming game services are replacing a different model entirely.
 

davidjaffe

The Fucking MAN.
Mar 8, 2005
948
3,021
1,980
Streaming video services replaced even worse business models for creativity - advertising-supported subscription cable and going to the movie theater. Streaming game services are replacing a different model entirely.
A business model that forces games to be much longer than most of them need to be? And in doing so prevents the medium from advancing? Yes, that business model will be replaced by sub services, thank God. In 10-15 years will will look back and laugh at how padded these 60 dollar + games have had to be to justify price. It's the equivalent of watching STAR WARS and just having 10 min scenes where Luke and Han are just WALKING around the Death Star, looking for the Princess Lia.
 
May 28, 2013
1,298
2,278
715
A business model that forces games to be much longer than most of them need to be? And in doing so prevents the medium from advancing? Yes, that business model will be replaced by sub services, thank God. In 10-15 years will will look back and laugh at how padded these 60 dollar + games have had to be to justify price. It's the equivalent of watching STAR WARS and just having 10 min scenes where Luke and Han are just WALKING around the Death Star, looking for the Princess Lia.
What's forcing games to be "longer"? And for what? To justify pricing, you mean? There's room for all kinds of games of different lengths in the current dominant model. And how about the current model forcing games to be better? To strive to up the quality, to surprise and provide an awesome experience. In 10 years your Blockbuster would be "Among Us" for your beloved service to be profitable. Sorry if that's what you want, I sincerely hope that won't be the future.
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
Jun 10, 2004
42,633
75,265
2,525
California
manabyte.com
A business model that forces games to be much longer than most of them need to be? And in doing so prevents the medium from advancing? Yes, that business model will be replaced by sub services, thank God. In 10-15 years will will look back and laugh at how padded these 60 dollar + games have had to be to justify price. It's the equivalent of watching STAR WARS and just having 10 min scenes where Luke and Han are just WALKING around the Death Star, looking for the Princess Lia.

Ah I see you've finished TLOU2 as well.
 
Dec 2, 2018
908
1,944
465
A business model that forces games to be much longer than most of them need to be? And in doing so prevents the medium from advancing? Yes, that business model will be replaced by sub services, thank God. In 10-15 years will will look back and laugh at how padded these 60 dollar + games have had to be to justify price. It's the equivalent of watching STAR WARS and just having 10 min scenes where Luke and Han are just WALKING around the Death Star, looking for the Princess Lia.
The main issue with games under the current model isn't length, it's homogenization. Games aren't too long, they're too samey and risk-averse. Length, when it's a problem, is just a reflection of that underlying dynamic.

I fail to see how subscription services are going to make games any less samey and risk-averse. What we'll see is a collapse to the lowest common denominator free to play + microtransactions business model that already dominates mobile.
 

davidjaffe

The Fucking MAN.
Mar 8, 2005
948
3,021
1,980
The main issue with games under the current model isn't length, it's homogenization. Games aren't too long, they're too samey and risk-averse. Length, when it's a problem, is just a reflection of that underlying dynamic.

I fail to see how subscription services are going to make games any less samey and risk-averse. What we'll see is a collapse to the lowest common denominator free to play + microtransactions business model that already dominates mobile.
Then IF that happens, core gamers will ignore it and something else will rise up to serve them.

This doom and gloom of 'what might happen to a trillion (literally) dollar company' would be fascinating if it weren't so cloaked in fan boy insecurity (which is a bizarre thing to begin with).

Did you sit in AVENGERS:ENDGAME worried that the final shot with all the heroes coming thru the portals might have cost too much and thus it will take longer for Marvel to break even on the movie?

Did you spend the last concert you went to half listening to the singer/band and have worried they may have overspent on stage theatrics and what it would mean for future tours of the same band?

My guess is you did not.

If service based games go the way you are suggesting then guess what: lots of people will love that but core gamers will not and they will still be served.

If something like Gamepass isn't indeed sustainable then guess what, it will have been a fun but unprofitable ride for 2-5 years and then it will go away. So what?

That's why all of this just feels like a justification to slam another console (wha?!, why?! Are you 11?!?) that you don't like as much and hide the childish nature of that act behind behind a mask of a seemingly grown up concern/interest in business models.
 
Oct 30, 2011
7,017
7,934
1,175
I don’t think many are “bashing” GP due to console wars. I don’t think anyone is even arguing it’s value to the consumer.

It’s just a recognition that it’s enabled from a massive corporate subsidy, which in the interim is good for consumers and devs that accept large deals.

But it’s completely hyperbolic to make countless YouTube videos bashing Jim Ryan by making doomsday proclamations that Sony is toast if they don’t jump on the bandwagon. That’s simply not a reality. GP isn’t going to completely envelope the business model.
 
May 28, 2013
1,298
2,278
715
Then IF that happens, core gamers will ignore it and something else will rise up to serve them.
what makes you so sure it would? You in particular in your previous post make a prediction for the next 10-15 years of this new sub model taking over. It's all IFs now, and you talk in terms of a model replacing the other because you know both can't coexist, so allow me to be very skeptical of "something else" rising up to serve "core gamers' in a world where everything is pre-selected for you in a service.
This doom and gloom of 'what might happen to a trillion (literally) dollar company' would be fascinating if it weren't so cloaked in fan boy insecurity (which is a bizarre thing to begin with).

Did you sit in AVENGERS:ENDGAME worried that the final shot with all the heroes coming thru the portals might have cost too much and thus it will take longer for Marvel to break even on the movie?

Did you spend the last concert you went to half listening to the singer/band and have worried they may have overspent on stage theatrics and what it would mean for future tours of the same band?

My guess is you did not.

If service based games go the way you are suggesting then guess what: lots of people will love that but core gamers will not and they will still be served.

If something like Gamepass isn't indeed sustainable then guess what, it will have been a fun but unprofitable ride for 2-5 years and then it will go away. So what?

That's why all of this just feels like a justification to slam another console (wha?!, why?! Are you 11?!?) that you don't like as much and hide the childish nature of that act behind behind a mask of a seemingly grown up concern/interest in business models.
And you're the role.model of maturity here aren't you? When YOU talk about business models is because YOU have real "grown-up concern/interest" in them right? Gimme a break. Go fetch your funny coffee cup and have a good drink.
 
Last edited:

Leyasu

Member
Apr 25, 2014
6,331
3,620
720
Laugh all you want but I don’t see anyone really saying the service is bad or anything.

questioning the viability for all types of games as a standardized one size fits all business model isn’t bashing
How much do you think the wage bill and running costs of Microsofts studios is per month?
 
Oct 30, 2011
7,017
7,934
1,175
100Mil per month? More? Less?

I could only speculate since those sorts of numbers aren’t known

But Zenimax has over 2,300 employees alone. At $10k all in cost per month per employee, that’s $23M in operating cost just for Zenimax alone per month.

That $10K figure is also probably lower than reality.
 

Leyasu

Member
Apr 25, 2014
6,331
3,620
720
I could only speculate since those sorts of numbers aren’t known

But Zenimax has over 2,300 employees alone. At $10k all in cost per month per employee, that’s $23M in operating cost just for Zenimax alone per month.

That $10K figure is also probably lower than reality.
If we said $15k per employee all in per month which would bring that figure up to around 36M per month, then 3M full paying subs would cover them.
 
Oct 30, 2011
7,017
7,934
1,175
If we said $15k per employee all in per month which would bring that figure up to around 36M per month, then 3M full paying subs would cover them.

yeah but investors expect a profit, too. And GP also has to pay for third party deals which are quite expensive especially day 1 deals

also, collectively you will get diminishing returns and overlap with a sub service

the Zenimax fans and the Gears fans may not all be mutually exclusive
 

elliot5

Member
Apr 22, 2021
3,453
7,845
450
yeah but investors expect a profit, too. And GP also has to pay for third party deals which are quite expensive especially day 1 deals

also, collectively you will get diminishing returns and overlap with a sub service

the Zenimax fans and the Gears fans may not all be mutually exclusive

Hey, just wanted to send this your way. I know a guy and can put in a good word for you.
 

Leyasu

Member
Apr 25, 2014
6,331
3,620
720
yeah but investors expect a profit, too. And GP also has to pay for third party deals which are quite expensive especially day 1 deals

also, collectively you will get diminishing returns and overlap with a sub service

the Zenimax fans and the Gears fans may not all be mutually exclusive
Indeed. It would be interesting to know exactly how many full paying subs they have. I would be willing to bet that it is a lot higher than 3M.

It is obvious that Microsft are still subsidizing GP at the minute, but not to the extent or cost that a lot of people are thinking that they.