• 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.

Shuhei Yoshida: "We believe in the premium release of a title" before subscriptions

Is Nintendo wrong as well then? Or just Sony?

Yep it’s super clear that the two market leaders with decades of experience and success in the industry as well as access to multiple economic and financial advisors are too stubborn, blind and not innovative enough to completely revitalise their business model to a subscription service just because people on the internet believe so.

In my opinion? Both are wrong - just my opinion though, but it’s also my opinion that internally they know this, they are just bullshitting while they figure out how to catch up.

And market leaders with decades of success and experience fall all the time - arrogance and stubborn refusal to adapt to a changing marketplace is almost always the reason why.

Strange to me that people fight for a worse deal for themselves, but gaming has always been the strangest of industries.
 
Such an ignorant hot take. What would you say to the great divide in mobile vs. PC and console quality? There is absolutely a correlation between premium priced products and the higher quality experiences you can expect from them.

And if you think that the music and motion picture industries haven’t been negatively impacted by subscription services, you haven’t been paying attention.

couldnt agree more. one thing in life is always the same. you get what you pay for. why are xbox fans expecting that they can get the highest quality for cheap? it doesnt work that way anywhere in life. you want the good shit? you gotta pay good money for it.
 

yurinka

Member
In my opinion? Both are wrong - just my opinion though, but it’s also my opinion that internally they know this, they are just bullshitting while they figure out how to catch up.

And market leaders with decades of success and experience fall all the time - arrogance and stubborn refusal to adapt to a changing marketplace is almost always the reason why.

Strange to me that people fight for a worse deal for themselves, but gaming has always been the strangest of industries.
There isn't any changing gaming marketplace: they continue as market leaders and are in a growing trend. Most of the game revenue comes from game and dlc sales, subscriptions are barely around 10% of the total revenue. And Sony also owns the most successful game sub.

Gaming, PC gaming, (particularly) mobile gaming, console gaming and particularly PlayStation are growing. Revenue for subscriptions, selling games and (particularly) addons and subs are growing. The biggest chunk and fastest selling one is to sell game addons (DLC, IAP, season passes...), specially from F2P. The percentage of digital (vs physical) sales keeps growing. Things have been like that for like 10 years or more. There isn't any substantial change now, everything follows the trend from several years ago.

To want to continue with the same strategy that keeps them as market leaders and being super profitable (also being theirs the most common strategy that everyone excepts one company uses), plus to reject the very unprofitable and financially suicidal strategy that only the one in the last position of both consoles and game subs is using isn't being arrogant: it's applying common sense.

They don't have any reason to change their current strategy that is doing wonders to them, generating more revenue than any console maker in gaming history, and even less to change it for one that would be a suicide for them because it would kill their main revenue source: to sell 1st party and specially 3rd party games (plus addons) for their console.

thats worth the full price alone. problem with subscriptions is, that games are designed around mtx, instead of just being made to be the highest qaulity game possible.
Games designed around microtransactions and periodical new stuff are games as services. When they are very successful by getting a wide majority of its money from paid addons instead of with the fee to buy the game, it's a good idea to reduce the entry barrier by lowering the game price or to put it into a subscription to get more players, which means more people paying for MTX/DLC.

But if you're doing that there's a better option: to reduce this entry point even more making it F2P. No subscription paywall needed.

We know that Gamepass covers ~20% of the development costs. Devs still expect to recover the rest of the 80% of development costs through sales. And even then it only leads them to a break even, not profits.
As far as I know the amount paid by MS to put a game on GP (and what percentage of the development cost means) changes on a per game basis. It isn't the same a small indie than a AAA game, or a title from a very well known dev than another one from some unknown dev. It isn't the same to put the game there on GP on launch day than several years after its commercial release. It isn't the same a popular IP than a new IP from an unknown indie that doesn't apparently have big potential. They also have different possibilities of deciding how much or when do they pay them.

I know the case of a small indie where MS paid them more than their whole budget they had for development and marketing. And other ones where they paid them a small fraction of the dev costs.
 
Last edited:
Such an ignorant hot take. What would you say to the great divide in mobile vs. PC and console quality? There is absolutely a correlation between premium priced products and the higher quality experiences you can expect from them.

And if you think that the music and motion picture industries haven’t been negatively impacted by subscription services, you haven’t been paying attention.
Well said. We have multiple examples already. The contrast between the quality of games on consoles vs. mobile is a great example. Even better, you can see the stark difference between the quality of premium consoles and F2P console games.

For every Destiny and Warframe, there are 100 crap F2P games. And all of them are full of MTX. The entire model of their business is how to hook people then extract money by making their games P2W.

Buyers > Money > Devs > Good Games > Buyers. That's a real circle, and there's a reason why it's there.
 

akimbo009

Gold Member
Well said. We have multiple examples already. The contrast between the quality of games on consoles vs. mobile is a great example. Even better, you can see the stark difference between the quality of premium consoles and F2P console games.

For every Destiny and Warframe, there are 100 crap F2P games. And all of them are full of MTX. The entire model of their business is how to hook people then extract money by making their games P2W.

Buyers > Money > Devs > Good Games > Buyers. That's a real circle, and there's a reason why it's there.

And Game pass is full of MTX? Got data for that?
 
In my opinion? Both are wrong - just my opinion though, but it’s also my opinion that internally they know this, they are just bullshitting while they figure out how to catch up.

And market leaders with decades of success and experience fall all the time - arrogance and stubborn refusal to adapt to a changing marketplace is almost always the reason why.

Strange to me that people fight for a worse deal for themselves, but gaming has always been the strangest of industries.
Is the marketplace really changing? We have literally 0 evidence of that right now.

Traditional console gaming is bigger than ever -- the demand for PS5 and Nintendo Switch has broken records. And software sales are also on the up significantly. On the other hand, gaming subscription services (PS+, NSO, and Gamepass) are struggling, even Gamepass that offers day one first-party games.

In fact, Gamepass ranks #3, behind PS+ and Nintendo Switch Online, in terms of # of subscribers. This indicates that the majority of people (marketplace) isn't that interested in this as you may be.
 
And Game pass is full of MTX? Got data for that?
Where did I say that? My comment does not even mention Gamepass. I'm talking about premium products and there's a reason why they demand premium money.

Anyway, if you want to go that route, there are plenty of examples regardless: Halo Infinite is MTX. Forza Horizon is MTX. Sea of Thieves is MTX. Most Xbox first-party that's launched on Gamepass has MTX in some form. Barring smaller AA or indie games, most big AAA third-party games (games that require high development costs) also have MTX in some fort. And SoT even got the MTX via an update, when GP was an established thing. https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/sea-of-thieves-microtransactions.

The business model demands in-game monetization because there is no additional entry cost ($60/$70 upfront price to access the game). That means more multiplayer type games, instead of linear single player games, that rely on MTX and in-game purchases.

Then we have Callisto Protocol devs sharing the same thoughts:

“Microsoft has their own single-player games within the service, and I still think you’re going to see the platform holder studios provide single-player games in them. I’m just saying as a financial model, it’s a difficult one to make work as an independent studio. I think you’re going to see single-player games, but it will probably come from the hardware companies. As an independent, third-party, it’s really hard to make a linear third-person game work within those services. I’m not saying never; it’s hard financially to make that work.”

And Remedy echoing the sentiments:


To clarify, I'm not criticizing. If a dev has an MP game that relies on MTX, subscription services like PS+ and Gamepass offer them a much better chance to succeed and make more money. There's a certain type of games that thrive on subs. Similarly, non-MTX games wouldn't be a good fit, as multiple developers have already stated.
 
Last edited:

akimbo009

Gold Member
Is the marketplace really changing? We have literally 0 evidence of that right now.

Traditional console gaming is bigger than ever -- the demand for PS5 and Nintendo Switch has broken records. And software sales are also on the up significantly. On the other hand, gaming subscription services (PS+, NSO, and Gamepass) are struggling, even Gamepass that offers day one first-party games.

In fact, Gamepass ranks #3, behind PS+ and Nintendo Switch Online, in terms of # of subscribers. This indicates that the majority of people (marketplace) isn't that interested in this as you may be.

Using NSO, it makes $1.7B versus GP $3.7B for context.

This conversation is totally weird, and really seems to be a weird echo chamber to talk down GP when it's a 3.7 biilion dollar business.. I guess it can not be all things for all people, but y'all ain't making sense when it's obviously making a shit ton of money (3.7B in 5 years is crazy growth) and being further funded through significant investment (e.g. Bethesda, Activision).

Does it bring down the business or hobby community? I dunno, but no one does. If anything, this industry is better for change not resisting it. Y'all sound like old people yelling at clouds - just roll with it.
 

akimbo009

Gold Member
Where did I say that? My comment does not even mention Gamepass. I'm talking about premium products and there's a reason why they demand premium money.

Anyway, if you want to go that route, there are plenty of examples regardless: Halo Infinite is MTX. Forza Horizon is MTX. Sea of Thieves is MTX. Most Xbox first-party that's launched on Gamepass has MTX in some form. Barring smaller AA or indie games, most big AAA third-party games (games that require high development costs) also have MTX in some fort. And SoT even got the MTX via an update, when GP was an established thing. https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/sea-of-thieves-microtransactions.

The business model demands in-game monetization because there is no additional entry cost ($60/$70 upfront price to access the game). That means more multiplayer type games, instead of linear single player games, that rely on MTX and in-game purchases.

Then we have Callisto Protocol devs sharing the same thoughts:



And Remedy echoing the sentiments:


To clarify, I'm not criticizing. If a dev has an MP game that relies on MTX, subscription services like PS+ and Gamepass offer them a much better chance to succeed and make more money. There's a certain type of games that thrive on subs. Similarly, non-MTX games wouldn't be a good fit, as multiple developers have already stated.

Games are adding ads, and Playstation also uses MTX - all games do, that's part of the industry that isn't going anywhere anytime soon.


I dunno, I think you're angry that things are changing in a ton of ways - and just cause they change $70 it doesn't exclude their selling of DLC or MTX or other upsells. That's been the business since we've had horse armor. It REALLY sucked when that started but here we are.

If I read your comments correctly, then you're basically saying if a product is 70+ or whatever, it become immune to selling MTX or whatever, and that's not true (especially when every 4 years they do a "remake" or whatever to support the studio).
 

peter42O

Member
As of now, Sony's direction works for them and their exclusives sell very well but who knows how it will all play out over the next 5+ years as this generation progresses. Their business model could easily be changed come next generation if Game Pass takes off. This generation has been amazing thus far and watching it all play out over the rest of this generation is going to be awesome.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Y'all sound like old people yelling at clouds - just roll with it.
… and some sound like teens cargo culting on the latest new fad. Sometimes you need to change things up, but asserting that change is good because it is change is just as senseless as refusing to ever change :).

Especially when we can see where a model where people stop buying games would go, where say 80-90% or more of the development costs must be recouped after the user downloads the content and is then put on a dopamine optimised engagement regimen ;).

Some games adding ads and/or using more and more MTX can also happen in the traditional market, but they do not become the only or dominant model as developers have a viable alternative.

It can be abused, but a market where customers do value games and do not expect them to be free or have hyper advanced 50 hours epics for $19 is a market that can support healthy competition.
 
Last edited:
Using NSO, it makes $1.7B versus GP $3.7B for context.

This conversation is totally weird, and really seems to be a weird echo chamber to talk down GP when it's a 3.7 biilion dollar business.. I guess it can not be all things for all people, but y'all ain't making sense when it's obviously making a shit ton of money (3.7B in 5 years is crazy growth) and being further funded through significant investment (e.g. Bethesda, Activision).

Does it bring down the business or hobby community? I dunno, but no one does. If anything, this industry is better for change not resisting it. Y'all sound like old people yelling at clouds - just roll with it.
You were asking me for data, and now you're quoting the incorrect $3.7 billion revenue figure for Gamepass with no source?

Please share the official source/data that Gamepass makes $3.7 billion per year. (spoiler: it doesn't!)
 
Last edited:
You were asking me for data, and now you're quoting the incorrect $3.7 billion revenue figure for Gamepass with no source?

Please share the official source/data that Gamepass makes $3.7 billion per year. (spoiler: it doesn't!)

Still waiting on your official data that GamePass deals with publishers cover 20-25% of the development costs for the games. Not saying you’re wrong or pulled that stat from your ass, I’d just be interested in reading it. You were so sure it wasn’t speculation.
 

akimbo009

Gold Member
You were asking me for data, and now you're quoting the incorrect $3.7 billion revenue figure for Gamepass with no source?

Please share the official source/data that Gamepass makes $3.7 billion per year. (spoiler: it doesn't!)




You're right, I included the entirety of the quarter. They don't break out GP, except that it's part of games and services, and is attributed to it's 4% YoY growth.
 

Haggard

Member
Using NSO, it makes $1.7B versus GP $3.7B for context.
the 3,7B figure is for the whole XBOX branch, including hardware, software and other services...... We still don`t have any explicit GP numbers besides that ~25mio-ish subscribers figure. And please do not try to extrapolate revenue from that with all the offers and subscription conversions around.
"very sustainable" is pretty much all we have in official statements concerning GP profitabilty/revenue, and for a moneybag like MS that can really mean anything...
 
Last edited:
Is the marketplace really changing? We have literally 0 evidence of that right now.

Traditional console gaming is bigger than ever -- the demand for PS5 and Nintendo Switch has broken records. And software sales are also on the up significantly. On the other hand, gaming subscription services (PS+, NSO, and Gamepass) are struggling, even Gamepass that offers day one first-party games.

In fact, Gamepass ranks #3, behind PS+ and Nintendo Switch Online, in terms of # of subscribers. This indicates that the majority of people (marketplace) isn't that interested in this as you may be.
The marketplace is definitely changing - subscription options didn't even exist before in gaming (Ouya doesn't count lol)?

There's also been a massive shift towards digital from physical distribution which makes these subscription products viable (instant gratification, zero wait time). Internet speeds are getting faster, other markets have already established success in the subscription model, and you have one of the richest and most successful companies in the world placing pretty much an all-in bet on it (not just in gaming either). Companies of that size can move markets on their own.

I'd argue there's never been a time when the marketplace was changing more or faster since the days of Atari and Intellivision tbh.

Not sure on what basis you are claiming that gaming subscription services are struggling? Fledgling, yes. Struggling? I just don't see it tbh. Going to be fascinating to see who's right over the next few years...
 

SLB1904

Member
Lognor was my brother

Sad Cry GIF by SpongeBob SquarePants


Sike

 

Hobbygaming

has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
… and some sound like teens cargo culting on the latest new fad. Sometimes you need to change things up, but asserting that change is good because it is change is just as senseless as refusing to ever change :).

Especially when we can see where a model where people stop buying games would go, where say 80-90% or more of the development costs must be recouped after the user downloads the content and is then put on a dopamine optimised engagement regimen ;).

Some games adding ads and/or using more and more MTX can also happen in the traditional market, but they do not become the only or dominant model as developers have a viable alternative.

It can be abused, but a market where customers do value games and do not expect them to be free or have hyper advanced 50 hours epics for $19 is a market that can support healthy competition.
I love the logic and critical thinking y'all bring to these discussions 💪
 
Still waiting on your official data that GamePass deals with publishers cover 20-25% of the development costs for the games. Not saying you’re wrong or pulled that stat from your ass, I’d just be interested in reading it. You were so sure it wasn’t speculation.
I'm just lazy, but here you go. https://www.vice.com/en/article/4aw...-show-how-game-pass-is-already-changing-games
"For context, one-third (~33%) of Furi’s budget, according to Leprince, was paid for by a PlayStation Plus partnership with Sony, while one-fourth (~25%) of Haven’s budget was paid for by a Game Pass deal with Microsoft."

(from the above article)
 



You're right, I included the entirety of the quarter. They don't break out GP, except that it's part of games and services, and is attributed to it's 4% YoY growth.
Yeah, it's more like $3 billion (81% of $3.74B) for the entire quarter for all the software (physical/digital) and gaming services (GP/XBLG).

I hope you now see my point that these sub services aren't leading the charge as some may have thought. PS+, despite being the service with the most subscribers, has also been stagnant and hasn't been able to cross the 50 million mark yet. We aren't just old people yelling at the clouds :)
 
Last edited:

Hobbygaming

has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
Yeah, I hope these discussions are encouraged more without anybody getting personal, triggered, emotional, etc. That's the point of the forum.

Also, big kudos to mods for allowing these constructive and logical discussions of opposing views.
Most definitely! I think there's some things that you and a few others have said in this thread, that should enlighten some folks on why we should take a deeper look at the end goal of a subscription focus 👍👍
 

Ok but that’s one game. You spoke as if it’s an official thing that GamePass deals cover 20-25% of a games budget. This game got a deal that covered 25% of its budget. Another game could have gotten a deal that covered 10%. Another could have one that covered 70%. There are different deals and different budgets. So your post actually was just speculation based off a very small sample. Thanks for clearing that up.
 

anothertech

Member
Market leaders are wrong. Believe the 3rd place dude that won't release sales numbers and couldn't produce a first party game in a year. *Rolleyes*
 
Ok but that’s one game. You spoke as if it’s an official thing that GamePass deals cover 20-25% of a games budget. This game got a deal that covered 25% of its budget. Another game could have gotten a deal that covered 10%. Another could have one that covered 70%. There are different deals and different budgets. So your post actually was just speculation based off a very small sample. Thanks for clearing that up.
I told you there are multiple games out there, and multiple businesses have confirmed that Gamepass deals covers 20-25% of the development cost. I've shared my data and used one of those posts as an example, which proves my point. Do you want me to hunt down every single contract that's out there?

Why don't you search for a game contract/confirmation that the GP deal covered more than 20-25% of the development cost to prove my point wrong? My post is not speculative at all (it has first-hand data). But your comment is 100% speculative because it assumes that other contracts may have different rates, with no evidence or data to back it up.
 
I told you there are multiple games out there, and multiple businesses have confirmed that Gamepass deals covers 20-25% of the development cost. I've shared my data and used one of those posts as an example, which proves my point. Do you want me to hunt down every single contract that's out there?

Why don't you search for a game contract/confirmation that the GP deal covered more than 20-25% of the development cost to prove my point wrong? My post is not speculative at all (it has first-hand data). But your comment is 100% speculative because it assumes that other contracts may have different rates, with no evidence or data to back it up.

I don’t need to search for anything because my take on it is common sense. So you found one article from one game saying the deal covered 25% of their costs and you’re extrapolating that out and assuming that’s how it works for all games. In other words you’re speculating. Which is fine, but then don’t act offended like you did before when someone else said your post was speculation.

So do you also assume all PS+ deals cover 33% of dev costs since that was also in your article?

https://www.pcgamer.com/xbox-chief-reveals-more-about-how-developers-earn-money-through-game-pass/

Here is Papa Phil himself confirming there are lots of different deal structures. In some cases they pay 100% of the costs to make the game. In other cases they pay a lump sum upfront. In others it’s based on usage. Which is all I and the other posters were trying to tell you, your theory on GamePass payment is speculation (and wrong).
 
I don’t need to search for anything because my take on it is common sense. So you found one article from one game saying the deal covered 25% of their costs and you’re extrapolating that out and assuming that’s how it works for all games. In other words you’re speculating. Which is fine, but then don’t act offended like you did before when someone else said your post was speculation.

So do you also assume all PS+ deals cover 33% of dev costs since that was also in your article?

https://www.pcgamer.com/xbox-chief-reveals-more-about-how-developers-earn-money-through-game-pass/

Here is Papa Phil himself confirming there are lots of different deal structures. In some cases they pay 100% of the costs to make the game. In other cases they pay a lump sum upfront. In others it’s based on usage. Which is all I and the other posters were trying to tell you, your theory on GamePass payment is speculation (and wrong).
.
 
Last edited:
I don’t need to search for anything because my take on it is common sense. So you found one article from one game saying the deal covered 25% of their costs and you’re extrapolating that out and assuming that’s how it works for all games. In other words you’re speculating. Which is fine, but then don’t act offended like you did before when someone else said your post was speculation.

So do you also assume all PS+ deals cover 33% of dev costs since that was also in your article?

https://www.pcgamer.com/xbox-chief-reveals-more-about-how-developers-earn-money-through-game-pass/

Here is Papa Phil himself confirming there are lots of different deal structures. In some cases they pay 100% of the costs to make the game. In other cases they pay a lump sum upfront. In others it’s based on usage. Which is all I and the other posters were trying to tell you, your theory on GamePass payment is speculation (and wrong).
That's a nicely relevant article to prove the point (unless you discount anything Phil Spencer says as lies lol). Nice find. This quote in particular.

"Phil Spencer has been doing the rounds during the launch of Xbox Series S/X, and speaking to the Verge he addressed the question of how developers get paid. "Our deals are, I’ll say, all over the place. That sounds unmanaged, but it’s really based on the developer’s need. One of the things that’s been cool to see is a developer, usually a smaller to mid-sized developer, might be starting a game and say, 'Hey, we’re willing to put this in Game Pass on our launch day if you guys will give us X dollars now'," he said.

"[In] certain cases, we’ll pay for the full production cost of the game. Then they get all the retail opportunity on top of Game Pass. They can go sell it on PlayStation, on Steam, and on Xbox, and on Switch. [...] Sometimes the developer’s more done with the game and it’s more just a transaction of, 'Hey, we’ll put it in Game Pass if you’ll pay us this amount of money.'"
 
Last edited:
That's a nicely relevant article to prove the point (unless you discount anything Phil Spencer says as lies lol). Nice find. This quote in particular.

"Phil Spencer has been doing the rounds during the launch of Xbox Series S/X, and speaking to the Verge he addressed the question of how developers get paid. "Our deals are, I’ll say, all over the place. That sounds unmanaged, but it’s really based on the developer’s need. One of the things that’s been cool to see is a developer, usually a smaller to mid-sized developer, might be starting a game and say, 'Hey, we’re willing to put this in Game Pass on our launch day if you guys will give us X dollars now'," he said.

"[In] certain cases, we’ll pay for the full production cost of the game. Then they get all the retail opportunity on top of Game Pass. They can go sell it on PlayStation, on Steam, and on Xbox, and on Switch. [...] Sometimes the developer’s more done with the game and it’s more just a transaction of, 'Hey, we’ll put it in Game Pass if you’ll pay us this amount of money.'"

Yeah I knew his theory was complete speculation because we’ve had numerous articles explaining that the deals are different. Plus it just makes sense. The budget for Furi or You Suck at Parking would be way different than the budget for MLB 23 or Outriders or Sniper Elite.

He has a tendency to extrapolate like that when it suits him. Hell also state factually that devs don’t think big games can launch on GamePass and will point to one dev saying it about Callisto and ignore all the other big games in the service.
 

Kataploom

Member
Of couse Yoshi-san, I'd too believe in that if that was the most profitable wat to profit a game for me and no money for riskier strategies
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
couldnt agree more. one thing in life is always the same. you get what you pay for. why are xbox fans expecting that they can get the highest quality for cheap? it doesnt work that way anywhere in life. you want the good shit? you gotta pay good money for it.
Not necessarily.

The Casio F-91W wrist watch is so accurate that it is the timepiece of choice for Al Qaeda, with the Wikipedia page having a section for terrorism;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casio_F-91W

According to secret documents issued to interrogators at Guantanamo Bay, obtained[10]and released by The Guardian, "the Casio F-91W digital watch was declared to be 'the sign of al-Qaeda' and a contributing factor to continued detention of prisoners by the analysts stationed at Guantanamo Bay. Briefing documents used to train staff in assessing the threat level of new detainees advise that possession of the F-91W and the A159W – available online for as little as £4 – suggests the wearer has been trained in bomb making by al-Qaeda in Afghanistan."[11] United States military intelligence officials have identified the F-91W as a watch that terrorists use in constructing time bombs.[12][13][14][15]

This association was highlighted in the Denbeaux study, and may have been used in some cases at Guantanamo Bay.[16] An article published in The Washington Post in 1996 reported that Abdul Hakim Murad, Wali Khan Amin Shah, and Ramzi Ahmed Yousef had developed techniques to use commonly available Casio digital watches to detonate time bombs.[17] Casio watches were mentioned almost 150 times in prisoner assessments from Guantanamo.[18]

On July 12, 2006, the magazine Mother Jonesprovided excerpts from the transcripts of a selection of the Guantanamo detainees.[14] The article informed readers:

More than a dozen detainees were cited for owning cheap digital watches, particularly "the infamous Casio watch of the type used by Al Qaeda members for bomb detonators."
The article quoted Abdullah Kamel Abdullah Kamel Al Kandari:

When they told me that Casios were used by Al Qaeda and the watch was for explosives, I was shocked... If I had known that, I would have thrown it away. I'm not stupid. We have four chaplains [at Guantanamo]; all of them wear this watch.

So yeah. You don’t hear of many Apple Watches or Rolex watches being used in bombs.
 
In my opinion? Both are wrong - just my opinion though, but it’s also my opinion that internally they know this, they are just bullshitting while they figure out how to catch up.

And market leaders with decades of success and experience fall all the time - arrogance and stubborn refusal to adapt to a changing marketplace is almost always the reason why.

Strange to me that people fight for a worse deal for themselves, but gaming has always been the strangest of industries.
What exactly does Nintendo and Sony need to do to catch up? Tank the value of their first party games?

This notion that the only viable business model that in the console space is to fit everything in a 15$ subscription service is absurd and it's made even more absurd by the success Sony and Nintendo are having with both their games and their services.
 
Last edited:

akimbo009

Gold Member
Interesting that the change in your graph happened in less than 2 years when Gamepass is over 5 years old already with a new generation of consoles being released already and no signs of disrupting the market leaders at all. You'll need to face reality sooner or later.

They have a narrative they want to tell - and it's obvious that Nokia is applicable to understanding the success and/or failure of Gamepass.
 

TheGecko

Banned
You should make games and then give them away for free if you believe that.
I'm sure you sell yourself quite cheap.
How's it for free when you have to pay 1 of 3 tiers on plus. Why allow wanker company's to get away with exploiting its users.

Having said that It's up to the gamers, If they wanna be milked let them get milked.
 
Top Bottom