True and agreed to an extent. I do want Microsoft to acquire more because it's better for me but at the same time, if a game or games need more time and should be delayed, then so be it. To simplify it, I would rather see Starfield and Redfall get delayed to 2024 as opposed to either be released when they're not ready.
How is it better for you that they acquire more, when the more they acquire, the more they struggle to keep all of those acquired things organized and going smoothly? Time and attention and finite; the more MS acquires the less of both they can dedicate to their growing list of assets.
Meaning you end up with more situations like RedFall.
I understand your argument and agree with the sentiment but my issue is that this is an easy solution - just delay the game until it's ready. Sure, Xbox fans will be pissed, Microsoft and Xbox will get bashed from all sides but let's be honest, how's that any different than any other day? I just want great games and yes, starting with Gears 5, I decided to never buy a Microsoft first party title ever again because why should I give them $60 or now, $70? Fuck that.
MS can't keep affording to delay games because they have to hit certain revenue targets for fiscal quarters, even for the Xbox division, else shareholders will become angry. They've already delayed RedFall once, they're barely making the H1 2023 timetable mentioned back in their last Showcase. Delays don't come free, there's a financial cost associated with them.
Delaying the game again, MS probably feels it's not worth it for what the expected returns on the game are. It's not like RedFall is going to magically become their Super Mario 64. It won't catapult Xbox to new heights no matter how many times it's delayed, and it won't make a lot in revenue to make multiple delays worth the cost.
I was already one step ahead years ago but I do like Game Pass and I do like the business model of it as it's better for me as a consumer which is what I am. You have to realize, unlike other Xbox fans or PlayStation fans or Ubisoft fans, I don't see any of this as an investment. I see it all as a purchased product and it comes down to, am I happy with my purchase (meaning Series X) and thus far, actually I am for various reasons. This is the first time that im actually pissed off because game delay wise, they rarely bother me and sometimes, despite already being delayed, I will play a game and say that it still needed more time.
Well like I said, there's a financial cost associated with each delay, and RedFall just isn't the type of game that's worth justifying those costs due to the limited potential it has in offsetting that through revenue. This is not the type of game that'll massively bolster Game Pass subscription numbers or sell tons of millions of copies. It'll be lucky to break a million lifetime.
I don't understand why you don't see your purchase as an investment, because in reality it IS an investment. You're just as important to the company's success as a typical shareholder, and they certainly see their money as an investment. I think there are maybe too many Xbox owners who devalue themselves in the ecosystem and maybe don't see their purchases as investments, which could explain why Microsoft feels like they can skirt by with the bare minimum to satisfy them.
It's very telling for example that the only two actual Xbox exclusives (as in, no PC Day 1) were Crossfire X and Space Jam. Both of which reviewed terribly.
Microsoft just needs to take the "hits" and delay the game(s) if they're not ready for release.
They've been taking hits for 2+ years now this gen and are probably getting tired of taking these hits. RedFall simply isn't a priority for them. If the game doesn't do well, they'll try making up for it with the June Showcase. Then of course comes Starfield in September, which is the
actual game Microsoft are placing their bets on.
Back to your issues with Microsoft acquiring stuff, nah, I do understand it. My issue isn't stuff like with Redfall. My issue is stuff like this with Redfall being an easy fix and solution and still won't do it for whatever reason.
But it's only "easy" if the costs of delay can be justified through the game guaranteed to make enough money. Every delay means they have to pay the devs more money for the extra time to fix up the game. Planned marketing may have to be delayed or cancelled, that's more money to account for. Shipments for physical copies may become outdated and Day 1 patches may have to be made or updated to account for the delay, so that's logistical complications added on top of everything else.
It's just not as simple as delaying the game and there being nothing else to it.
Spider-Man and Sf are two different games. Spider-Man is a 10-15 hour game and SF is supposed to be 100+. Most people will be done with Spider-Man in two weeks.
And most people will not spend more than 10-15 hours in Starfield. Most people don't invest 100s of hours in these open-world games, that's just a small segment of the dedicated fanbase who do such. Starfield having no multiplayer component also limits the total number of people who will pour 100s of hours into it.
