Mister Wolf
Gold Member
I posted the links. Look at them. I also posted a wiki link saying otherwise. Is Jeff Gardiner lying on his resume?
Right he was executive producer
So basically same thing. They've just renamed their positions
bruh. dont be disingenuousNo. Just be man enough to admit your wrong it shows character.
No. Just be man enough to admit your wrong it shows character.
I understand the argument that they should be exclusive because then people have to buy an Xbox to play them. But any comparison between Halo / Forza / Gears / Spiderman / other Sony games, and the AAA games MS just bought, miss an elephant in the room. Every AAA games requires investment including the new ones, but the new ones also have an acquisition cost that is very high. MS can afford it sure, but they spent it intending to make money from it. It might actually be in the best interests of every GP subscriber's wallet to not make them exclusive if you think about it, because one way or another MS wants a return on that investment.This confuses me because a game like Spiderman would sell well on both Xbox and Switch yet Sony does not release it anywhere but PlayStation, but MS should put their big titles everywhere because why? Wouldn't making the big titles exclusive get more people to your services rather than putting your titles everywhere so people can easily avoid Gamepass the thing you want to expand? Which grows Gamepass faster making the games available everywhere or exclusive to the Xbox platform?
Can't they get a return on investment by getting more subscribers? If you can get the games and avoid Gamepass altogether you would be delaying that return over accelerating it. Plus games on other consoles costs more money both in terms of development costs and the cut those platform owners receive.I understand the argument that they should be exclusive because then people have to buy an Xbox to play them. But any comparison between Halo / Forza / Gears / Spiderman / other Sony games, and the AAA games MS just bought, miss an elephant in the room. Every AAA games requires investment including the new ones, but the new ones also have an acquisition cost that is very high. MS can afford it sure, but they spent it intending to make money from it. It might actually be in the best interests of every GP subscriber's wallet to not make them exclusive if you think about it, because one way or another MS wants a return on that investment.
The games you mentioned made a name for themselves on the PC. PC will still get those titles. So those games will remain multiplat.Spider-Man was a single game developed for PS4. DOOM, Fallout, Skyrim, etc. are all games that have existed for years, some over a decade, across platforms. Them being sold multiplat is part of what made them so big in the first place.
Wow. The anger. Half of this makes no sense. If Sony is doing something now they didn’t do for 15 years then can we assume that Microsoft wasn’t capable of doing it for 15 years? Because they were allowed to and didn’t.
They don't have a sport studio. I don't even know how you come to these conclusions, but no one at Xbox were panicking over not having a baseball game for the last 15 years. Being able to make a baseball game is not the first concern of a platform holder.If Sony is doing something now they didn’t do for 15 years then can we assume that Microsoft wasn’t capable of doing it for 15 years? Because they were allowed to and didn’t.
Says the guy who has been arguing with digital avatars for 19 pages. You are now trying to hide your own confusion by projecting yourself on others.Wow. The anger. Half of this makes no sense.
Spider-Man was a single game developed for PS4. DOOM, Fallout, Skyrim, etc. are all games that have existed for years, some over a decade, across platforms. Them being sold multiplat is part of what made them so big in the first place.
Maybe they can. But there are a lot of unknowns and little reason to believe their existing console market share is rapidly changing from what I can tell. And I'd still think it makes more sense from a consumer standpoint to let someone else pay for those returns, but that's just me.Can't they get a return on investment by getting more subscribers? If you can get the games and avoid Gamepass altogether you would be delaying that return over accelerating it. Plus games on other consoles costs more money both in terms of development costs and the cut those platform owners receive.
The games you mentioned made a name for themselves on the PC. PC will still get those titles. So those games will remain multiplat.
WiiU sold less than Xbox One and still had so many great exclusives.Difference being..... Xbox doesn't sell as many consoles like the Switch or the PlayStation.
Yup getting more games on Game Pass for $15 a month totally sucks.Even as an Xbox owner this kind of sucks, Bethesda were a profitable company who were able to make the games they wanted without Microsoft investment.
There are many smaller and struggling indy companies to whom that money would have been mutually beneficial and really made a difference. But instead it's lining people's pockets in what is basically a permanent exclusively deal for games that would have been made anyway.
It's a good business move by Microsoft, but it's buying themselves out of a problem and isn't really good for the consumer.
There is also the gamepass business model to worry about, all these Bethesda games are going to have a lot more DLC or software as a service stuff bolted on now, single player AAA titles cannot afford to be on gamepass without them.
I think Xbox would rather get Ark 2 as exclusive rather than TES6, just my take tho.
Ark 2 would sell more Xbox consoles than TES6 or Starfield, Microsoft are the good guys so they don't care about exclusives, I can also bet that Halo is a 6 month timed exclusive tooYea that's likely true.
That is why Xbox/MS bought the Ark2 Dev and publisher and that is also why XGS did not buy Zenimax/Bethesda because they absolutely wanted the Ark 2 as an exclusive over the Elder Scrolls 6...
Ark 2 would sell more Xbox consoles than TES6 or Starfield, Microsoft are the good guys so they don't care about exclusives, I can also bet that Halo is a 6 month timed exclusive too
Ark 2 has also been confirmed as exclusive already
Have we seen any gameplay footage or had confirmation? Heard very little about what the game is about.Starfield will release this year you can count on that.
Pretty sure they stopped doing it before Nadella took over.In 2013 under a different CEO
They have since simplified the top level reporting into cloud, business and personal computing. They still give revenue numbers for personal computing and the device lines under that category
To link that to gamepass being a massive loss leader with any reasonable sources is a stretch but okay.
Sarcasm my man, sarcasm.Where do you think Halo Infinite will land 6 months after the XSX launch?
Do you really believe it's some big money-spinner? Sounds like head-in-the-clouds stuff to me. GamePass will be getting price increase sooner than later because it's a money sink.
Playstation 4/5.Where do you think Halo Infinite will land 6 months after the XSX launch?
Oh boy.Playstation 4/5.
It's clear Xbox is going 3rd party. They acquire a 3rd party publisher only to continue making 3rd party games.
Halo cost more to develop than any Bethesda game, if they can't recoup the cost on Bethesda games being exclusive, that surely means that Halo and all other Xbox Studios titles will be on ps4/5.
Are you sure.Sarcasm my man, sarcasm.
Playstation 4/5.
It's clear Xbox is going 3rd party. They acquire a 3rd party publisher only to continue making 3rd party games.
Halo cost more to develop than any Bethesda game, if they can't recoup the cost on Bethesda games being exclusive, that surely means that Halo and all other Xbox Studios titles will be on ps4/5.
I hope so.Are you sure.
I think he believes it...
Have we seen any gameplay footage or had confirmation? Heard very little about what the game is about.
This isn't how it works... Like at all.Are these two scenarios (Bethesda Games vs. PlayStation Studios games) even comparable?
Sony makes God of War to sell to PlayStation users. All cost-related and design-related decisions are made in accordance with the available user base.
With Bethesda, it is different. MS does not only have to bear the development cost of the game, but they also need to amortize the $7.5B they paid for the acquisition on top of that. Additionally, PS userbase is 3x higher than Xbox userbase. In other words, keeping games off of PS is roughly 300% more expensive for Xbox than it is for PS to keep games off of Xbox. That's why we see so many high-quality timed exclusives on PS. And that's why recovering that $7.5B acquisition money is an issue for MS -- which is why they said "some new future games will be exclusive."
In other words, Sony recovers the development cost of the game. MS needs to recover the development cost + the $7.5B acquisition cost from Bethesda games to make the investment worthwhile.
Blessings to you, it must be hard to read some of the cringe on here.Reminder to keep it civil- these threads are becoming a chore to read.
I hope you're counting all Sony's consoles, going back to the PS1.PS5 games will join PSNow sooner or later and PSNow is also on PC so PC + Steam 120 millions (more ports coming) + all their consoles and they basically have the same "reach" (or more since they have like 4 times consoles sold). They might even add PSNow on mobile...
Pretty sure they stopped doing it before Nadella took over.
In terms of GamePass you've got Greenberg publicly admitting 'it doesn't make them much money'. No financials released, lots of gamers paying pennies for it thanks to long-term deals. Then you have the development and marketing costs of all their internal studios. And the money paid to third-parties to host their games, and for every individual download. And then the costs marketing the service itself.
Do you really believe it's some big money-spinner? Sounds like head-in-the-clouds stuff to me. GamePass will be getting price increase sooner than later because it's a money sink.
Holy shit you’re still going on? Every time I pop into this thread you’re putting in work. Keep fighting the good fight.Pretty sure they stopped doing it before Nadella took over.
In terms of GamePass you've got Greenberg publicly admitting 'it doesn't make them much money'. No financials released, lots of gamers paying pennies for it thanks to long-term deals. Then you have the development and marketing costs of all their internal studios. And the money paid to third-parties to host their games, and for every individual download. And then the costs marketing the service itself.
Do you really believe it's some big money-spinner? Sounds like head-in-the-clouds stuff to me. GamePass will be getting price increase sooner than later because it's a money sink.
Okay, as you clearly aren't living in the real word, and have no understanding of how contracts and commitments work, I'll back away from commenting further here on the detailAttack? Microsoft has trillions blah blah blah...7.5 billion chump change blah blah...
Let’s see it! These exclusives that nobody is excited about are 2 more exclusives than are on their consoles. Does that mean the evil within 3 should come to PS? They never sell particularly well.
Working 9 to 5, what a way to make a living...Holy shit you’re still going on? Every time I pop into this thread you’re putting in work. Keep fighting the good fight.
Do you even know who executive producer is?Right he was executive producer
So basically same thing. They've just renamed their positions
I was just using his dumb logic of counting every Steam user as a Xbox user because MS games are on Steam (Sony games are also on Steam but whatever). That you're fine with but you had to jump and break your heels as soon as I mentioned a random number about PS Now compatible devices?I hope you're counting all Sony's consoles, going back to the PS1.
Because even basic math, and logical estimates show that it's unlikely the PS4 outsold the Xbox One by anything more than 2 to 1. If that.
Why even bother forming an argument if you plan on ruining any chance of being credible right off the bat?
Do you even know who executive producer is?
Pro tip: Mute this thread
It is not really difficult to understand a simple concept. If Sony released Spiderman, or every other big NEW game, on Steam it would instantly access that users (currently more than 120 million users) The game would have sold more than double (given the large increase in user reach), certainly bringing perhaps less revenue to Sony than its store on its console but still huge revenues. Well that's exactly what ms is doing. Nobody cares if you want to call these users, Xbox users, steam users, PC users, users and that's it. Ms (just like Sony) is mainly interested in selling software, we know well for example that ps5 (especially Digital) sells in great loss and you know why? Precisely to increase rapidly the user base because without that every console would be thin hot air. Do you think a game like Sea of Thieves without having that huge user base (steam + console). would have had a chance to survive if it were confined to Xbox One and its 50 million users? Sony will certainly do better than Xbox, albeit not as in the last gen, as far as sales of consoles are concerned, but after the unification of the platforms owned by Ms, if does not decide to release every new game on PC, Sony will have a lot less smaller user reach than Microsoft. This is simpleI was just using his dumb logic of counting every Steam user as a Xbox user because MS games are on Steam (Sony games are also on Steam but whatever). That you're fine with but you had to jump and break your heels as soon as I mentioned a random number about PS Now compatible devices?
The numbers he pulled from his ass are so accurate I have to be careful.
Lol go hide
i think we saw it ..more than half come from mtx,dlc,servicesYou need to know the following key information, how much money does console make from:
- mtx transaction
- services like ps+, gold, now, gamepass
- game sales
I wonder what the breakdown is like for both companies.
I don't really care what MS does with their games tbh. I do find it ironic that for years PS gamers said 'lol Xbox has no games' and now they are port begging (when many claimed they had a gaming PC prior)"MS doesn't need to recover the acquisition costs"
"MS does not need PlayStation sales"
"MS is playing the long game"
Yet the same people can't explain why MS said that only "some new future games" will be Xbox/PC exclusives and why they haven't said that all Bethesda games will be 100% exclusives to Xbox/PC, now that there is no more legal binding post acquisition. lol
"MS doesn't need to recover the acquisition costs"
"MS does not need PlayStation sales"
"MS is playing the long game"
Yet the same people can't explain why MS said that only "some new future games" will be Xbox/PC exclusives and why they haven't said that all Bethesda games will be 100% exclusives to Xbox/PC, now that there is no more legal binding post acquisition. lol
You know that literally SOME new ps5 games will be exclusive to the console right ?"MS doesn't need to recover the acquisition costs"
"MS does not need PlayStation sales"
"MS is playing the long game"
Yet the same people can't explain why MS said that only "some new future games" will be Xbox/PC exclusives and why they haven't said that all Bethesda games will be 100% exclusives to Xbox/PC, now that there is no more legal binding post acquisition. lol