Things can definitely change, and very quickly. It is just extremely pretentious and obnoxious for the writer to say 'MS clearly wants to do this' even after MS's denial. It's almost funny! lolYou forgot to bold the "at this time" part at the end there. Honestly, this is MS we are talking about, they could make a definitive statement at breakfast and being moving in the opposite direction by the time your head hits the pillow at night.
What did you expect from Tom Warrior?
You are forgetting multiplatform owners. Having the most performant version on Xbox will encourage those users to pick up the game on Xbox which is more money for developers.
That was just a proposal. They would evaluate its pros and cons and take everyone's opinion on board, prepare feasibility reports, etc. Unless Phil comes out and says "I want to do this" [and we're trying our best to make it possible], this really does not fall into that category. Tom Warren does not know what the company wants to do.
Tom Warren has the cause and effect wrong imo. They want the library and that library has to be hardware platform free. That means that they are willing to drop the 30 rev split.
Having the platform that gives you the most bang for your buck and ux is going to drive 'new' users to your 'platform'.
This.
Except this has nothing to do with the end price of games unless publisher pass down the reduced cost.
They didn’t say it was anything to do with the end price? If they lower the cut, the publisher makes the same amount of money with less sales, hence offsetting the potential reduction in sales that Gamepass might cause in their lower user base. That’s the point they were making.
They made the article before Microsoft answered them, and even so, due to the nature of the documents and stuff, they could still deny that they were doing any changes.
Hmm, not sure if a 20% increase is revenue from the existing buyers is going to make up for those 'cheap' customers but maybe should have taken the comment in good faith.
As I said in the post, I’m not saying I agree with what was said by the other poster, but it was nothing to do with the end price, like you said. The idea was to appease developers for a potential loss in sales with Gamepass giving people too much to play. I don’t think it will make enough of a difference, honestly.
No sir,
I don't think NieR Replicant UK physical copy share split is making Satya and Phil quake in their boots. This is all about enticing development for their platform from third parties, getting streaming rights from said third parties, and ultimately driving Game Pass subscriptions.
It seems like MS strategy at face value is the be set up for next generation, that is the ps6 generation before all these plans come to fruition but in the mean time slash rates here, dollar deals there, and remove the cash cow that is Xbox gold. I don’t see the point of bleeding billions for the next 5-10 years hoping streaming will take off when it’s crashed and burned every time it’s been tried.
Don't hold your breath, Phil Spencer (who is driving all this amazing business decisions) is a pioneer and a visionary. PS and Nintendo are living in the past and are happy doing the same old thing. Great news for developers working on Xbox games.
I understand it wouldn't be out of charity. I've commented my thoughts on it in this thread. I don't see how it would cost developers in other areas with competition, when as far as we know it related to cloud rights. I still would have liked to see a lower cut because more money back to developers is better. Microsoft would just be betting they make up for it with game pass ultimate.
Some of the same stuff was said at the end of last gen as well.
Not even once.
The Switch and PSVR would like a word with you.
So, why is that model working for Netflix, who is having more and more oscar nominated films each year, then? If its own produced movies are getting better and better, why should Microsoft games lower their quality?That is the point many of us have beenamijg about Game Pass. It leads down a road of games being devalued, MS needing to subsidize content, and bigger games being impossible to really make for competitors who can’t afford the same behavior. We’ve seen it with Amazon. We’ve seen what Apple has done to the perception of software. None of this is good except for the first wave of GP consumers saving a couple bucks.
The whole thing seems to fall on mostly deaf ears.
Yeah, let's pretend the obvious argument here, which is giving publishers more reasons to publish games on xbox, does not exist.
I fail to see such a black future as you see. Streaming movies hasn't really devaluated movie quality. Netflix has had a record year taking into account Oscar nominations.Indeed….
What are they doing to drive the industry forward?
Your words:
I don’t get this argument. You need some form of technology (such as a console/capable PC or capable tablet/phone) to play their games, so you are forced to buy something - and something not particularly cheap either. If you want to play Sony or Nintendo games, you just buy a PS5, or a Switch. Literally no difference at all. And my idea of driving the industry forward is by releasing award winning games and introducing exciting new peripherals, such as the dual sense and PSVR. People are buying the Switch in droves because of the ability to play games on a handheld and because there are a plethora of great games. Other than MS releasing a subscription service, which is nothing new, I’m not sure how they are driving the industry forward at all. All MS’s best work happened years ago when they released exciting games on OG Xbox/360, along with achievements and solid console online play.
