Microsoft reveals how much money (revenue) Game Pass actually make

[Bryank75]

Yup, revenues do not equal profits..... especially not in gaming, where expenses are very high.

BRAP will be doing a livestream in a few minutes about it actually.... 5 minutes from now.

I also heard that users went down from 25 million down to 18 million (or sub 20 M at least)

So that is in line with the user numbers here.

What @Faulkie87 was questioning on Twitter was if expenses are attributed correctly..... I know marketing and promotion is not attributed to different parts of the company but just has a company-wide marketing budget, which hinders transparency...... then Faulkie mentioned using the cloud services.....

So for PlayStation.... if they wanted to use music from their music division, they would pay the music division for the rights and it would show up as revenue for SME. However it is unclear whether Xbox is paying anything to their cloud division at all. There seems to be a lot of obfuscation going on to hide how Xbox is actually doing in terms of profits.

Starting now:

 

[Hezekiah]

This is actually a REALLY valid point. I was about to reply to @thicc_girls_are_teh_best and accept that we were wrong until I read your comment.

This is an accounting practice that can (legally) "fudge" these numbers. The $116 ARPU seems way too much. That implies that almost nobody is using the $1 upgrade path, which we know isn't true.

But if they count a GP sub as, say, $120 then that figure becomes a part of the overall revenue. All the "discounts" are then deducted as discount expenses while calculating operating income, for which MS didn't share the figure. If Hezekiah is right, then that ARPU will come crashing down at that point.

IIRC, MS does follow this accounting practice. Someone like @Bryank75 or @Darth Vader will have better information on this I think.

Discounts are deducted from gross sales.

"Net sales is the sum of a company's gross sales minus its returns, allowances, and discounts."

 

[BigMclargeHuge]

as usual its funny too see the usual xbox zealots try to paint revenue as profit

You should check out the gaf thread if you really want to laugh.

 

[Bryank75]

You should check out the gaf thread if you really want to laugh.

Feel free to post the funniest ones here, we can all laugh together!

 

[BigMclargeHuge]

Feel free to post the funniest ones here, we can all laugh together!

There's too many, just alot of zealots patting themselves on the back for how "great" gamepass is doing and getting pissy with posters who dare to point out revenue doesn't actually equal profit.

 

[Darth Vader]

One thing to consider from Microsoft's financials and their acquisition of Activision while running at a loss is the discouragement this causes
other companies from joining the software or hardware market (though the latter is already very hard to enter). The problem is as follows:

Monopolistic Competition: Definition, How it Works, Pros and Cons

Monopolistic competition exists when many companies offer competitive products or services that are similar, but not exact, substitutes.

www.investopedia.com

Companies aim to produce a quantity where marginal revenue equals marginal cost to maximize profit or minimize losses. When existing firms are making a profit, new firms will enter the market. The demand curve and the marginal revenue curve shift and new firms stop entering when all firms are making zero profit in the long run. If existing firms are incurring a loss, some firms will exit the market. The firms stop exiting the market until all firms start making zero profit. The market is at equilibrium in the long run only when there is no further exit or entry in the market or when all firms make zero profit in the long run.

Suffice to say, the more a single company controls (or a couple of them) the harder it becomes to enter the market. Lowering the price point for games, for example, discourages developers from entering the market and compete in the same segments because leaders can run at a loss. New developers would require too much investment to make sure their game can become profitable. So goodbye AA and AAA games.

Then you have your indies being enticed by having their games day one on these services because the user perceives the service to be of great value. Since the consumer is not willing to pay, say, 20 quid for an indie game, the developer has two choices - Sell it for a lower price, which could be at a loss, or sell it to a subscription service, which guarantees a one time (small) fee but not enough to invest in bigger scope games.

This is a snowball effect that's being created by us, gamers, because people have a tough time thinking 3 months ahead.

This is also why I'm still firmly against publisher acquisitions, no matter where they come from - It gives one or a couple of companies too much control over the market. An oligopoly is not much better than a monopoly, because you still have the worries of price fixing and backroom deals. And gaming is dangerously close to becoming an oligopoly.

Oligopoly: Meaning and Characteristics in a Market

An oligopoly is a market structure with a small number of firms, none of which can keep the others from having significant influence.

www.investopedia.com

This comes down to each individual person and what their preferences are. I don't own a single physical game from any generation. I stopped collecting games during the Xbox 360 era because I realized that when I had a collection, I would never play anything. It was fucking weird. Going one game at a time though is great because I can fully concentrate and focus on the game im playing and once completed, trade it in and move on to my next new game.

You conveniently ignored half of my argument.

IMO I don't see having more and more freemium games with lower budgets as being valuable to me as a consumer.

If you think this is somehow more valuable for the customer (you), I have a bridge to sell you. The business model MS and Sony are deploying is the same one Netflix did - They offer something of great value at low cost, capture the market, then lower the quality and increase the cost. The less players in the market (as a result of consolidation) the lower they can set the bar for quality in relation to price. This is easier to pull off in markets where there's inelastic demand, but if you can afford to price out the competition, you become the only alternative (I use only very loosely here).

Winner-Takes-All Market: Definition, Examples, Economic Impact

A winner-takes-all market is when the best performers capture a very large share of the rewards, and the remaining competitors are left with little.

www.investopedia.com

Discounts are deducted from gross sales.

"Net sales is the sum of a company's gross sales minus its returns, allowances, and discounts."

It should be, but who's to say a company selling below set price is selling at a discount. It could be a subsidised price, which would mean it's not a discount, for example. Again, people are too gullible on the nature of business. You should read about Uber's financials and how they can creatively ensure they report profits when they keep digging a bigger and bigger hole, just to see how far creative accounting can take you.

 

[DonFerrari]

I'd argue that it doesn't create any value for gamers

That’s cool, everyone is wrong sometimes.

GamePass has been around for years and people are still clinging to this idea that MS will have to force their studios to crap out cheap and heavily monetized trash and then they’ll also jack up the price and “trap” customers. It’s cute.

Also GamePass differs from the services you’re referencing because for MS, GamePass is just an option. All of these games they’re making and signing to the service are all still sold outside of the service.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

This is actually a REALLY valid point. I was about to reply to @thicc_girls_are_teh_best and accept that we were wrong until I read your comment.

This is an accounting practice that can (legally) "fudge" these numbers. The $116 ARPU seems way too much. That implies that almost nobody is using the $1 upgrade path, which we know isn't true.

But if they count a GP sub as, say, $120 then that figure becomes a part of the overall revenue. All the "discounts" are then deducted as discount expenses while calculating operating income, for which MS didn't share the figure. If Hezekiah is right, then that ARPU will come crashing down at that point.

IIRC, MS does follow this accounting practice. Someone like @Bryank75 or @Darth Vader will have better information on this I think.

I'm just reading the ResetERA thread and they changed the title to "Microsoft subscription services" instead of just GamePass, implying the $2.9 billion also includes XBL Gold. Which would probably make more sense.

Because again, if GamePass were generating so much ARPU, why do the free sub giveaways with Verizon? Why offer the $1 conversions (tho since you need like 2-3 years XBL Gold to "convert" I guess those count as full GP subs, tho you can get XBL Gold for cheaper than $60/year)? Why have extended free trails? Why not reveal the revenue yourself and to your shareholders, instead of letting it spill out from a court document filed with Brazilian judiciaries?

If my for-the-future game subscription service were generating almost $3 billion a year off the subs alone I'd definitely boast about it to shareholders and use it as a point to prove to rivals and doubters that the model works. So something about that $2.9 billion being tied "just" to GamePass always felt off to me, though I was willing to accept it as well.

You and I might've been wrong about our own GamePass revenue figures speculation, but that's just the thing: might. And if so, maybe not by that much. $750 million/year or so might be on the low side in terms of revenue, but anything between that and $1.25 billion/year or $1.3 billion/year might be realistic. I'm thinking the number of XBL Gold subs is still somewhat higher than for GamePass because why would MS have tried doubling XBL Gold pricing last year to make GamePass more appealing to them?

Also the discounts you can get on XBL Gold annual subs are nowhere near what you can get on an annual GamePass or GamePass Ultimate sub, and more people are cool with spending $60/year on a service (or close to it) than $120/year or $180/year. It's the same reason why when Sony reveals updated PS+ figures, you're going to see way more on regular PS+ than PS+ Extra, and more on Extra than Deluxe/Premium. That's just basic economics.

I'm sorry but I'm not aware of Microsoft's accounting practices, however what you described is done aplenty in the business world. Say you're in the business of hardware and software sales. You report on your hardware and software sales at full price to boost your revenue, then include the discounted amount as a business expenses, a lot of times under "other expenses" so as not to clearly report on it. They may also include those "other expenses" on "server" or "manufacturing" costs, for example.

From an accounting standpoint the operating income should be the same, so you're not "fudging" numbers, but it helps to sell a narrative to your investors.

Assuming the numbers they provided are reported with the methods above, they would have to have averaged 24M gamepass subscriptions at $120 per subscription during 2021, which goes against the number reported here.

I think @thicc_girls_are_teh_best hit the nail in the head when they said the gamepass revenue part could includes DLC and MTX revenue as well.

As for the hardware side of things, I'd love to see a breakdown of consoles vs hardware and peripherals. If we assume an average of $350 per console sold and for that revenue to be console exclusive, they'd have sold 10.5M consoles in 2021. My guesstimate would be at least $500M for revenue related to peripherals, which would put console sales at a maximum of 9M at the same average.

Sony reported on FY22 around $1.3B in "others" for their Playstation sales, which report on peripherals, PS VR and software on other platforms (PC), for example.

Yeah, it's either:

A The figure pertains to multiple Xbox gaming services and not just GamePass (I'm only going by the thread title update on ResetERA so that may not be the best of sources), or

B The figure is specifically in reference to GamePass, but accounts for MTX/DLC purchases through the service. The ARPU is too high otherwise to line up with the strategies MS have taken to market and discount GamePass for virtually anyone who wants it cheap enough (MS Reward points, $1 conversions (though I think these would just be siphoning the equivalent XBL Gold ARPU of the person towards GamePass instead so not sure it counts as a "cheap" method for getting GP), free trails (apparently the same person can do multiple free trails as long as they use different email addresses and I'm presuming credit or debit cards, and some banks let you create a ton of virtual cards for online transactions).

And a breakdown on consoles vs peripherals would be neat, I'm sure at least some investors would like that, too. Because again, MS just report that lump sum of division revenue with no breakdowns. I just think it's a bit funny how they have the optics of transparency on the consumer-facing side (except if something's gone off-rails), but those same optics simply don't exist and that transparency completely gone for shareholders & investors, at least when it comes to the Xbox division's revenue splits (let alone profit).

No need to be a pro, you only need to read the image from CADE to see they are talking about the game subs revenue made by MS (which also includes non-GP Gold subs) and not only about GP. Same goes with Sony, it's clear that they are counting there both PS Now and PS+.

Which means your OP and the linked article are wrong.

Yep looks like you were right; they updated the title on the ERA thread too. Had a feeling something was off with the reporting and this helps calibrate things into better perspective.

So we still don't know what GamePass's annual revenue looks like but it's easier to speculate. Assuming XBL Gold ARPU is the same as with PS+, but having maybe half the number of subs, gives anywhere between $1.2499 billion - $1.51 billion in XBL Gold annual revenue. So at most, GamePass would be generating $1.65 billion/year which...well that's a lot more than I would've thought on the low end, but it's still an ARPU of $66/year per subscriber (@ 25 million subs), much lower ARPU than either XBL Gold, PS+, or NSO.

So an extreme worst-case, GamePass only generates $750 million/year (@Heisenberg007 we might gotta bite the bullet on that earlier figure from months back ), but I'm kinda gonna disregard this now given the new numbers & info, it's too improbable. Realistic low-end is probably ~ $1.25 billion/year, realistic high-end ~ $1.5 billion/year. Which isn't too bad, though it's not great either considering the ARPU.

But again, that's just revenue, and that's before factoring in the costs for having all the 3P legacy games there (those costs might be contract-based set at an earlier date however), the costs for new 3P indie and AA releases Day 1 into the service, the costs for getting semi-new 3P AAA games in there like six months later, etc. Sony has to factor in these costs too when it comes to PS+, but they are likely paying notably lower amounts for all of those things considering their market position and how they can leverage that, their brand, etc. Also they don't do anywhere near the amount of Day 1 3P games for PS+ that MS does for GP.

 

[Papacheeks]

I completely agree with you but before Microsoft gets to that level of excellence, they need to be good and great first. I do believe that they're currently good and getting closer to being great but like everything, it takes time. Sony didn't give you the excellence of PS4 during the PS/PS2 generations outside of God of War. It took them generations to get where they are. I know that Xbox has existed for 21 years but let's be honest, compared to 2018 to present day, Microsoft were never all in like they are now.

For me personally, im not expecting Microsoft to be at Sony's level this generation for their exclusives. I see this generation for Xbox as closer to what Sony had with the end of PS3 and the PS4 generation. Building the excellence for future generations. While majority here would obviously disagree with me, Halo Infinite (campaign only) was my 2021 game of the year so they've already surpassed the Xbox One generation for me personally as they didn't give me a single game of the year. The last one I had was 2009 with Gears of War 2. If you want to just go based on exclusives, then it would be 2010 with Splinter Cell Conviction.

Point being is that at least for me personally, they're already starting off better than I expected or anticipated and we're only two years into the generation. I'm expecting at least one more game of the year from Microsoft this generation to where as long as I get at least two minimum, it would match what I had with Xbox 360 and anything else would be a bonus. I do believe that there will be games that could be my game of the year getting released in the same year (like potentially Hellblade 2 and Fable in 2024 as an example) to where one gets knocked off by simple process of elimination.

We'll see how this generation continues to play out but as an Xbox fan, I haven't been this excited or confident with Microsoft and Xbox since 2010/2011.

As for the creativity and whatnot, this is much more known and seen with Indies and whatnot than AAA games because the monetary risks are just too high. I do believe that Microsoft will have more creativity and whatnot due to Game Pass because they're no longer bound to being required to sell a set amount of copies to break even and turn a profit. I look at a game like Pentiment and that's absolutely creative. Granted, not the type of game that's for me but I can say looking that game over, I don't recall seeing anything quite like it especially in the artistic choice and style.

It's simply going to take time for Microsoft to get where they want to be. It's not going to happen overnight.



This comes down to each individual person and what their preferences are. I don't own a single physical game from any generation. I stopped collecting games during the Xbox 360 era because I realized that when I had a collection, I would never play anything. It was fucking weird. Going one game at a time though is great because I can fully concentrate and focus on the game im playing and once completed, trade it in and move on to my next new game.

While I won't be playing A Plague Tale Requiem until January, being able to just play and complete it for a $10 monthly rental via Game Pass is simply worth much more than me owning the game that im most likely only going to play once anyway and all seeing it on my shelf would do is piss me off due to the fact that it would literally decrease in value with every passing day.

So while I fully understand what you're saying and your point of view, it simply doesn't apply to every individual gamer.

Nah, to me they are going the opposite way because it was the only direction that the company would invest in. There were talks to spinning off the division entirely. Instead of looking at what made early years of Xbox and Xbox 360 so special and people behind it, and passion. They look at what Sony makes and have admitted they dont think they could ever make something like Last of Us. To me admitting that, you have failed as a entertainer/creative.

That kind of comment to me nails whats been wrong with that Division. And to me no grand service can make up that. I think just like Netflix Gamepass is going to have large growth and have big months, and big years.

But people like they still are now are going to talk about Sony's and Nintendo's games with higher fever, and more excitment. The excitement from Xbox's camp will be subscribers who look forward to playing a game that looks big for nothing. Regardless if it doesn't meet the expectations of the industry.

Microsoft put the cart before the horse, similar to what Netflix did. Netflix was first to the streaming foray so they hit the ground running amassed a huge install base. But realized you need content. So went on a buying spree, and tried to create as much new IP as they could. Issue is its not like NETFLIX has a studio history of 30-45 Years.

WHich is why a lot of content is hit or miss. Or they buy something already established and milk the shit out of it....cough Cobra Kai. Their movies are fucking terrible barring dumb fun films like Extraction.

Dahmer series is great. But thats literally one series in a sea of tons of higher quality stuff on better platforms. HBO max shits on netflix in terms of quality of content and consistency.
Xbox needs quality not quantity, and it feels like them buying all these studios and not earlier on correcting their mistakes internally of how they view entertainment and the division has made xbox to me a souless entity that has a must have money saving feature.

Not the place to play games that you can't get experience wise anywhere else.
Them filling gamepass with content they had no hand in funding/creating or collaborating on shows who really runs the division. It aint entertainers, and people who know how to manage games.

They will continue to have these issues. And its going to take gens not years to either course correct those projects/studios and see the actual fruit of those changes.

To me, someone from oldschool days should have came in and replaced phil. Phil sucks.

 

[ethomaz]

That’s cool, everyone is wrong sometimes.

GamePass has been around for years and people are still clinging to this idea that MS will have to force their studios to crap out cheap and heavily monetized trash and then they’ll also jack up the price and “trap” customers. It’s cute.

Also GamePass differs from the services you’re referencing because for MS, GamePass is just an option. All of these games they’re making and signing to the service are all still sold outside of the service.

If you don't see how the MS first-party release are tailored to Gamepass I can't help you.
Last release... Halo Infinite was a clearly example of what Gamepass can do with games.
Of course Halo Infinite has another disaster issue... it was made for Gamepass but the developer could not put enough MTX and DLCs frequently to support the model.

 

[peter42O]

You conveniently ignored half of my argument.

There's nothing to ignore. Not everyone is going to care about ownership and if you're someone who's subscribed to Game Pass or a Netflix or whatever, ownership is simply irrelevant because if these people cared about ownership, they wouldn't subscribe to Game Pass, Netflix or whatever to begin with. They would just buy what they want instead.

 

[DonFerrari]

If you don't see how the MS first-party release are tailored to Gamepass I can't help you.
Last release... Halo Infinite was a clearly example of what Gamepass can do to the quality of the games.

Halo is an easy game to make an example out of. Game was in development hell and even after release it has been a shit show. But they’ve put out plenty of good/great/amazing games on the service, far out numbering Halo. And even Halo only has issues in MP, the campaign was very good to many people.

If Halo is the best example you got, you’re just proving my point.

 

[Dick Jones]

Discounts are deducted from gross sales.

"Net sales is the sum of a company's gross sales minus its returns, allowances, and discounts."

That is discounts received. Discounts you got on purchases you made.

Cost of sales is:
Opening stock
+ Purchases
- Purchases Returned
+ Carriage Inwards (cost to you to get the good delivered)
Less Closing Stock

Revenue less cost of sales = gross profits

Discount Received is then added to the Gross Profit figure.

Discounts allowed is an expense.

Discounts allowed (by the business) is an expense and found in expenses part of the p&l account

 

[Heisenberg007]

I'm just reading the ResetERA thread and they changed the title to "Microsoft subscription services" instead of just GamePass, implying the $2.9 billion also includes XBL Gold. Which would probably make more sense.

Because again, if GamePass were generating so much ARPU, why do the free sub giveaways with Verizon? Why offer the $1 conversions (tho since you need like 2-3 years XBL Gold to "convert" I guess those count as full GP subs, tho you can get XBL Gold for cheaper than $60/year)? Why have extended free trails? Why not reveal the revenue yourself and to your shareholders, instead of letting it spill out from a court document filed with Brazilian judiciaries?

If my for-the-future game subscription service were generating almost $3 billion a year off the subs alone I'd definitely boast about it to shareholders and use it as a point to prove to rivals and doubters that the model works. So something about that $2.9 billion being tied "just" to GamePass always felt off to me, though I was willing to accept it as well.

You and I might've been wrong about our own GamePass revenue figures speculation, but that's just the thing: might. And if so, maybe not by that much. $750 million/year or so might be on the low side in terms of revenue, but anything between that and $1.25 billion/year or $1.3 billion/year might be realistic. I'm thinking the number of XBL Gold subs is still somewhat higher than for GamePass because why would MS have tried doubling XBL Gold pricing last year to make GamePass more appealing to them?

Also the discounts you can get on XBL Gold annual subs are nowhere near what you can get on an annual GamePass or GamePass Ultimate sub, and more people are cool with spending $60/year on a service (or close to it) than $120/year or $180/year. It's the same reason why when Sony reveals updated PS+ figures, you're going to see way more on regular PS+ than PS+ Extra, and more on Extra than Deluxe/Premium. That's just basic economics.

Yeah, I think some time ago MS also shared their quarterly revenue, which was around $3 billion and included hardware sales. I did a rough "napkin" calculation based on expected console sales, and the subscription service revenue was coming to around $1.3 billion.

I'm not sure if this includes XBLG because (1) I don't think XBLG generates much now as a large majority would have converted to GP by now, and (2) this slide explicitly said Gamepass (which was weird, to be frank). But if it's not official than, yes, this would include XBLG + GP.

 

[DonFerrari]

There's nothing to ignore. Not everyone is going to care about ownership and if you're someone who's subscribed to Game Pass or a Netflix or whatever, ownership is simply irrelevant because if these people cared about ownership, they wouldn't subscribe to Game Pass, Netflix or whatever to begin with. They would just buy what they want instead.

I can’t imagine caring about owning a physical disc in 2022. The last physical game I bought was Ass Creed two years ago when the Series X launched. The last physical movie I bought was Dredd in 4K on some super deep sale.

A vast majority of people don’t give a shit.

 

[PropellerEar]

Feels like number pulled out the ass of the thicc'est bean counter.
All other revenue numbers are on 3rd decimal ($1M), but GP 2.900 is tracked on level of $100M?

Maybe someone should suggest CMA to ask details behind these numbers.

Edit: Did some calculations where the mean price would land and I don't trust these numbers at all, landed on a way too convenient number.

 

[Darth Vader]

That’s cool, everyone is wrong sometimes.

GamePass has been around for years and people are still clinging to this idea that MS will have to force their studios to crap out cheap and heavily monetized trash and then they’ll also jack up the price and “trap” customers. It’s cute.

Also GamePass differs from the services you’re referencing because for MS, GamePass is just an option. All of these games they’re making and signing to the service are all still sold outside of the service.

How can you say I'm wrong on an opinion?

You really have nothing to add to this discussion, which is unsurprising considering your post history.

As for your "option"

Xbox Game Pass exclusives - every game that’s only on Game Pass

We take a look at the games which Xbox fans can only get through Game Pass.

www.theloadout.com

If you can’t track down a physical copy, or just don’t like using discs, these games cannot be bought digitally through the Xbox store and can only be accessed through Game Pass.

EA Sports FIFA 20 (Game Pass Ultimate)
NHL 20 (Game Pass Ultimate)
EA Sports Rory McIlroy PGA Tour (Game Pass Ultimate)
Titanfall (Game Pass Ultimate)
UFC 3 (Game Pass Ultimate)

Some of these versions of popular games are available on disc, but the only way to digitally access them is with a Game Pass subscription:

ARK: Survival Evolved Explorer’s Edition: this version of ARK: Survival Evolved includes three of the game’s main expansions. It has been superseded by ARK: Ultimate Survivor Edition. Though the Explorer’s Edition is available on disc, it is not easy to find anymore.
Dragon Age Inquisition: if you want to try the base game alone (or not in a bundle), without any of the DLC, you can only get it via Game Pass. Also available on disc.
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas – Definitive Edition: If the only part of Grand Theft Auto: The Trilogy – Definitive Edition that you want is San Andreas, this is the only way to get it solo.
Halo Wars 2: if you want to try the base game alone, without any of the add-ons, you can only get it via Game Pass. Also available on disc.
Madden NFL 20: if you want to try the base game alone, without any of the add-ons, you can only get it via Game Pass. Also available on disc.
Mass Effect Andromeda: if you want to try the base game alone, without any of the DLC, you can only get it via Game Pass. This can help to make the game more challenging by removing the additional Turian Soldier characters. Also available on disc.

So, the above proves that gamepass is already limiting user choice within the Xbox platform. But let me guess, next you're gonna tell me that if someone wants to play ARK: Survival Evolved Explorer’s Edition, they can just buy it on playstation, Ignoring that people will usually not buy into a whole new platform just because they want one game, either due to cost or convenience. And I say usually, doesn't mean some don't.

I can’t imagine caring about owning a physical disc in 2022. The last physical game I bought was Ass Creed two years ago when the Series X launched. The last physical movie I bought was Dredd in 4K on some super deep sale.

A vast majority of people don’t give a shit.

You don't need to imagine, around 30% of console gamers care.

Edit - Forgot to add, nobody here is against digital versions of games, even though you tried to strawman that in. People have been vocal about the effects of subscription services for games (Gamepass, PSPlus Extra, etc) downgrading the quality of games. Digital sales provide even more revenue if the platform holder is selling them on their store (cut the middle man).

 

[peter42O]

Nah, to me they are going the opposite way because it was the only direction that the company would invest in. There were talks to spinning off the division entirely. Instead of looking at what made early years of Xbox and Xbox 360 so special and people behind it, and passion. They look at what Sony makes and have admitted they dont think they could ever make something like Last of Us. To me admitting that, you have failed as a entertainer/creative.

That kind of comment to me nails whats been wrong with that Division. And to me no grand service can make up that. I think just like Netflix Gamepass is going to have large growth and have big months, and big years.

But people like they still are now are going to talk about Sony's and Nintendo's games with higher fever, and more excitment. The excitement from Xbox's camp will be subscribers who look forward to playing a game that looks big for nothing. Regardless if it doesn't meet the expectations of the industry.

Microsoft put the cart before the horse, similar to what Netflix did. Netflix was first to the streaming foray so they hit the ground running amassed a huge install base. But realized you need content. So went on a buying spree, and tried to create as much new IP as they could. Issue is its not like NETFLIX has a studio history of 30-45 Years.

WHich is why a lot of content is hit or miss. Or they buy something already established and milk the shit out of it....cough Cobra Kai. Their movies are fucking terrible barring dumb fun films like Extraction.

Dahmer series is great. But thats literally one series in a sea of tons of higher quality stuff on better platforms. HBO max shits on netflix in terms of quality of content and consistency.
Xbox needs quality not quantity, and it feels like them buying all these studios and not earlier on correcting their mistakes internally of how they view entertainment and the division has made xbox to me a souless entity that has a must have money saving feature.

Not the place to play games that you can't get experience wise anywhere else.
Them filling gamepass with content they had no hand in funding/creating or collaborating on shows who really runs the division. It aint entertainers, and people who know how to manage games.

They will continue to have these issues. And its going to take gens not years to either course correct those projects/studios and see the actual fruit of those changes.

To me, someone from oldschool days should have came in and replaced phil. Phil sucks.

Personally, I don't think that Microsoft is going to make the games Sony makes and why would they? That's not their direction. Never has been. Outside of Halo and Gears, Microsoft has never been a company that focuses on visuals like Sony does or truly goes in the single player only direction where even now, Sony is pivoting because they know they can't just stay with their old formula.

People talk more about Sony's and Nintendo's exclusives because first, they have some this year, second, they have a longer history especially Nintendo but here's the main difference, one the novelty of a God of War Ragnarok wares off, people move on so while it's talked about a lot, once people move on, it will be forgotten. How many people still talk about the PS4 exclusives? Very few. The game I see mentioned and talked about the most is Bloodborne because people want a PS5 patch for it. I haven't seen even Horizon Forbidden West talked about since it launched. It will get a boost when they reveal and announce the expansion for it but after that, it will be dead silent.

Microsoft's games may not be talked about like Sony or Nintendo but they don't need to be. If you have 20m+ players playing a Sea of Thieves for example years after it released, guess what? That game is much more talked about in the long term than any Sony or Nintendo game because it's still active where as the one and done games are well, done and people moved on already.

Even God of War Ragnarok, once everyone completes it and talks about for a few weeks, people will move on to their next game because how many times can someone talk about the same game when it's exactly the same conversation as it was months/years earlier? I play Division 2 and it's 3 1/2 years old. I still talk about the game. I haven't talked about HFW for example since it launched outside of the debates I had with Thicc because after you talk about it, there's nothing left to discuss until the next new game in the series which is usually multiple years away.

Obviously, I disagree with the end. I prefer Spencer. I don't want an old school guy coming in who's out of touch with reality and trying to cling on to a business model that's simply becoming more obsolete by the day. Besides, outside of a few Halo games, none of Microsoft's games ever sold 10m+ copies so why would they have stayed with an old school approach when it never really worked for hem since the beginning to begin with? Answer is you wouldn't. You would change and adapt because the old model wasn't working for them so why stay with something isn't working?

Just because something may work great for Sony or Nintendo doesn't mean it will work out great for Microsoft. Just like Game Pass is a perfect fit for Microsoft and their direction as a company, that may not be the same for Sony or Nintendo. Companies need to focus on what their strengths are in regards to their brand and direction. Old school model wasn't working for Microsoft and Xbox so bringing in someone old school simply wouldn't work at all and if anything, would set them even further back because they would simply be out of touch with reality in how things are progressing.

You don't need to imagine, around 30% of console gamers care.

Compared to the 70% that doesn't care. Which do you believe will win out? I can guarantee you that it's not the 30%.

 

[DonFerrari]

Snip

From your own link:

There aren’t currently any games that can only be accessed through Game Pass alone

Your list basically boils down to old sports games EA doesn’t sell digitally anymore, and games that have been updated and replaced with different versions or bundles. I only skimmed the list but they all seem to be available on disc outside of the service… which is what I said.

I applaud the effort in reaching, though. Got a good chuckle out of me.

 

[ethomaz]

WOW the goal is moving