I just wish people that don't want to pay for games would just play F2P stuff and stop begging for games that already have an audience willing to pay to cater for them. Xbox and Gamepass just attract the worst kind of people these days.
What if: Microsoft bought Capcom...how would you react?
- Thread starter Bryank75
- Start date
It would be a disaster. The more MS buys these IP’s the more is taken away from others. And plus have a chance of getting fucked up.
Plus it just gives MS a free Pass to stay in the industry forever. Which is kinda guarenteed now with Minecraft, Bethesda and Activision IP.
Capcom, Sega, Konami, Koei Tecmo and some of the smaller ones Nihon Falcon/Xseed would all be disasters in my eyes. Nintendo has stakes in Namco so thats not happening. No sure why Sony doesnt buy 40-50% of these companies to guarantee this stuff won’t happen. Kinda dumb of them.
But heck Im never buying a MS product again No matter what. Last 13 years without Windows has been a bliss
Plus it just gives MS a free Pass to stay in the industry forever. Which is kinda guarenteed now with Minecraft, Bethesda and Activision IP.
Capcom, Sega, Konami, Koei Tecmo and some of the smaller ones Nihon Falcon/Xseed would all be disasters in my eyes. Nintendo has stakes in Namco so thats not happening. No sure why Sony doesnt buy 40-50% of these companies to guarantee this stuff won’t happen. Kinda dumb of them.
But heck Im never buying a MS product again No matter what. Last 13 years without Windows has been a bliss
Capcom won’t sell to MS or anyone really. Capcom want to keep it in the family.
Sega, Tecmo Koei, Konami on the other hand is what people should be worried about...
Capcom and Namco are kinda safe
I honestly think Microsoft would pursue someone like sega, who for whatever reason has a pretty close relationship with Microsoft all things considered. I also think capcom is in that price range that would trigger a bidding war with other larger entities, namely the Saudi prince who already has a
Small stock purchase invested in capcom. Also Bethesda and activision are unique in that both have rapid fanboys at the top with close links to Microsoft and few of the publishers that perform relatively well on Xbox. Remember Todd Howard was at Bethesda and he’s a huge Microsoft fan o and they had secret agent Ybarra at Activision destroying from within. I think some sales leak showed capcom got like single digits revenue from Xbox, that’s quite the gamble on capcoms part.
This deal wouldn’t work if Sony just flat out said they’d pull all capcom games from PlayStation and ban all future games, even if Nintendo were low key backing Microsoft because outside of monster hunter, none of that audience is on Nintendo or Xbox. Sony refusing to go along with it would literally kill the company. Especially when console sales splits will be as bad as they are whenever a theoretical deal like this would be announced.
I think it’s more likely capcom would be bought be the saudis or Apple or something. Either way Sony needs to accept reality that it’s a time of consolidation. Microsoft’s next acquisition if they go the publisher route will most be sega. I remember some wal street journal article that said “falsely” said Microsoft was the owner of sonic the hedgehog and they had to retract it. I mean with all the blue and red controllers and making yakuza like a dragon a timed exclusive for the series consoles despite like no previous yakuza games showing up, and the persona deal on gamepass. Yeah I think it would most likely be sega. I don’t think anyone would make a counter bid or offer on sega but someone like capcom certainly would.
Small stock purchase invested in capcom. Also Bethesda and activision are unique in that both have rapid fanboys at the top with close links to Microsoft and few of the publishers that perform relatively well on Xbox. Remember Todd Howard was at Bethesda and he’s a huge Microsoft fan o and they had secret agent Ybarra at Activision destroying from within. I think some sales leak showed capcom got like single digits revenue from Xbox, that’s quite the gamble on capcoms part.
This deal wouldn’t work if Sony just flat out said they’d pull all capcom games from PlayStation and ban all future games, even if Nintendo were low key backing Microsoft because outside of monster hunter, none of that audience is on Nintendo or Xbox. Sony refusing to go along with it would literally kill the company. Especially when console sales splits will be as bad as they are whenever a theoretical deal like this would be announced.
I think it’s more likely capcom would be bought be the saudis or Apple or something. Either way Sony needs to accept reality that it’s a time of consolidation. Microsoft’s next acquisition if they go the publisher route will most be sega. I remember some wal street journal article that said “falsely” said Microsoft was the owner of sonic the hedgehog and they had to retract it. I mean with all the blue and red controllers and making yakuza like a dragon a timed exclusive for the series consoles despite like no previous yakuza games showing up, and the persona deal on gamepass. Yeah I think it would most likely be sega. I don’t think anyone would make a counter bid or offer on sega but someone like capcom certainly would.
Last edited:
P
peter42O
Guest
I don't understand why you believe that Game Pass would devalue gaming as a whole and individual titles? First, every game devalues once released. Doesn't matter what game it is. Second, having a subscription based business model is going to bring in more revenue and in turn, higher profits which in turn, means that the industry itself will be worth more. Third, gaming is bigger now than ever before and will continue to grow. Game Pass allows to get more people into gaming which again, will bring in more revenue as a whole because there are many people who are not going to spend the money that perhaps me or you would spend.
Major AAA titles rarely go on Game Pass day one from third parties because they don't need to. Game Pass is great for Indies/AA titles which let's be honest, get mostly ignored, overlooked and overshadowed. Game Pass puts a spotlight on these games which is actually a good thing.
Also, im not as young as others here. I'm 44. I won't be gaming forever and I don't care about any company's bottom line, good or bad. That's for all of them to figure out. Back to devaluing gaming, the money I save from not having to purchase Microsoft's first party games for the most part have gone to other games that I wouldn't buy but since it's saved money that would have been spent regardless if Game Pass didn't exist, im not actually losing anything and the industry is still getting my money.
The way you sound is how I sounded in 2018 when Microsoft first put their games on Game Pass day one with Sea of Thieves and State of Decay 2. My mentality was the same and I even bought the ultimate edition for SOD 2 which was $50. Yeah, I wasted basically $40 because I could have played it on Game Pass and realized this game isn't that good and I dropped it after about 15 hours. After a while, I realized, why am I spending money buying games day one if I have a cheaper alternative that's also far easier for me to access? So since Mutant Year Zero in late 2018, any game that I have wanted to buy but was on Game Pass day one, I played and completed them via Game Pass.
I'm also not a collector and I don't care about ownership which perhaps you do. I just want to play the game(s) that I want to play, complete them and move on to my next game. If I have to buy them like I did with Dead Space, Hogwarts Legacy or REmake4, I will but if the purchase is physical, they get traded in once completed. For games that will be on Game Pass day one, obviously I play them that way.
As for being short-sighted or selfish, let me guess, you believe that these companies respect you and care about you? LMAO. They don't. None of them do and I don't care if it's Microsoft, Sony, Ubisoft, whoever. They only care about your money. Problem is that I care about my money and if I can give a trillion or billion dollar company less money and I still get what I want, why wouldn't I? It's not my job or responsibility to ensure the success of the gaming industry or any company in gaming. That's all on them.
Just like your mind and opinion is set, so is mine so I will say is to each their own. Do what you feel what is best.
What end game? You guys believing that the industry will die or some such shit because of Game Pass is fear mongering. Nothing more. You guys believing that Game Pass will somehow kill off a trillion dollar industry and billion dollar companies is hilarious to me. So im sorry, I just don't see it. If anything, Game Pass is going to make gaming bigger because of the ease of how to access the games and content on it.
To me and I get it because I was exactly the same years ago, that majority here just prefer the Sony traditional business model and believe that's the only way it should be but the problem is that business model wasn't working for Microsoft. Go back to Xbox 360. Microsoft only hit 10m+ copies sold with two games and that's it. Even at their peak and best with Xbox 360, their games simply didn't sell. Sony has far more market share, name/brand power and much more worldwide. Xbox One proved going head to head with the same business model didn't work.
Even now, let's say that Game Pass didn't exist. How many games do you believe would sell 10m+ for Microsoft? And only for Xbox Series consoles. Gears Tactics, Flight Simulator, Psychonauts 2, Deathloop, Ghostwire Tokyo, Hi Fi Rush, Redfall and probably even Halo Infinite wouldn't sell 10m+. The only game that would probably sell 10m+ might be Forza Horizon 5 but then again, a lot of players are on PC via Steam so there's no guarantee with that. The only games I see 100% with or without Game Pass going past 10m+ is Starfield and The Elder Scrolls VI.
If Microsoft stayed with the old business model and their games were flopping, all you guys would do is say "lol, their games suck, no one buys them, blah blah blah". With Game Pass, it's fodder, it's crap, blah blah blah. Either way, it seems like the majority here just shit on Microsoft and Xbox regardless of what they do, what their direction is or anything for that matter related to Xbox.
The argument I see from majority here is for Microsoft to create new IP's and stop buying stuff. Well, how do any of you think Microsoft would accomplish that with only 5 studios pre-E3 2018? Like, how? Mojang is all Minecraft. Turn 10 is all Forza Motorsport. 343 is all Halo. Rare is Sea of Thieves and Coalition is pretty much Gears. So who, how?
They're buying stuff because with a subscription based business model, you need games and content and instead of paying to get games in the service, it's far better to acquire studios and publishers in order to obtain and own the IP's that comes with the acquisition(s).
To me, it seems like all of you just love and prefer Sony's business model and their games without realizing that Microsoft just isn't for you like Nintendo isn't for me but I don't bash them or anything because why would I? It isn't changing anything for me so what's the point?
Instead of bashing them repeatedly, maybe people here should just give them the generation and see how it all plays out because who knows, it may actually go the opposite of what you all believe.
Probably gonna get a bunch of nos from me since I am not really interested in Capcom's lineup...
edit: FWIW, I think the breaks are firmly pressed down on all acquisitions that weren't already deeply underway currently, due to economics in the games industry.
edit: FWIW, I think the breaks are firmly pressed down on all acquisitions that weren't already deeply underway currently, due to economics in the games industry.
I realized a few weeks ago that most of the games I play recently are from Capcom (and square enix) and I adore monster hunter games, so, yeah, I would unfortunately have to buy a f*cking Xbox but I really hope this never happens. I don’t care about western games and Japanese games are my bread and butter so as long as those remain on ps consoles, I’m fine.
What if George Clooney swallowed Liam Neeson whole? How would you react?
What if Snoop Dogg switched to crack?
What if Ford switched to making lingerie?
What if Snoop Dogg switched to crack?
What if Ford switched to making lingerie?
The devaluation scenario you're proferring is not the one I'm talking about (nor is it true - see Nintendo titles which maintain their value over time because the customer base isn't conditioned to wait for sales). I'm not concerned with tracking the price of a game over time, but of the perceived value of games, from a marginal $70 to a marginal $0 - 'free on Game Pass because I already pay for the $15 sub' or negligibly small number ($15 times however many months I'll play this game divided over however many hundred titles are offered).
The offering of substitutes to full price titles for next to nothing drags down the demand for different full price titles - you see this phenomenon happening to Xbox in the UK already where the sales split ranges from 5:1 to 9:1 between PS5 and Xbox for titles that aren't on GP. The install base is quite similar there, and while there are some audience taste differences to account for, the gap should not be quite so pronounced. While this is somewhat tolerable while the GP release slate remains low quality or time bound, it's less tolerable when the top selling AAA titles start getting released on the service, the force of this effect will be magnified, where titles that aren't available on the sub get fewer and fewer sales.
TL;DR #1: My fav games are so cheap! That other game is too expensive. Less revenue for the other game's devs.
To compensate for the loss of one full priced title sale in terms of total revenue to the gaming industry, you would need 4.66 subscribers at current prices - $15 (or one subscriber to subscribe for 5 months). The dynamic changes based on whether the subscription revenue goes directly to the developer/publisher of, and platform holder for, that title. What actually happens is you have hundreds of titles whose presence on the service needs to be financially compensated for. Your $15 sub goes directly to Microsoft, who then figures out how to make the P&L work by paying some of that to game companies in a roundabout way. Microsoft makes payments to companies to get those titles on the service for a period of time, and with good modelling this payment would be less than what companies would earn by selling it full price to a smaller userbase for that period of time - that's fine for companies because it's guaranteed revenue upfront vs the uncertainty of selling to the market. But this alone represents less revenue for game makers - they may make it up on DLC but they might not. However, this is then compounded by the devaluation effect, where games are perceived to be worth less, so fewer customers are willing to pay full price, or they have to drop in price sooner. The former is great for Microsoft, whose payments I'm sure in part factor in potential full price sales volumes. Fewer sales = lower prices to put something on GP. Both are bad for game makers because they will either eventually earn less revenue per sale while sales volumes remain the same or less compensatory revenue if GP is allowed to grow through consolidation. If it's a fixed fee they're paid, and not engagement-based, the revenue is capped - breakout hits can't maximise their earning potential.
All of that aside, we're faced with the simple fact that while a game's production costs, especially first party, might be able to be subsidised by a subscription model, the economics of needing to replace 1 full price customer with 4-5 paying subscribers PER TITLE leads to significantly less revenue for the industry when looking at one month in isolation. Per title is a key distinction here, because a customer paying for 3 full price titles will spend $210 at today's prices, most of which goes to devs, who will reinvest it in game development. A customer who can play those same three titles for the price of a subscription will pay 15-45, which can be an order of magnitude less. This compounds over hundreds of titles. And who retains the upside from subscription fees? Microsoft. This is unsustainable or at the very least not beneficial for developers in the long run. Developers who, unlike Microsoft, do not have a PC OS monopoly or aggressively and anticompetitively bundled cloud computing business units with which to mint money. They don't care if gaming as a whole earns less revenue if they get the biggest portion of it.
TL;DR #2: Devs have less earning potential on GP. Revenue for devs, if not for the industry, will decline.
Microsoft is not expanding the player base for games - they are 'selling' the exact same games at a lower price, thereby increasing the number of players per game. The sole upside of a broader player base in this scenario is the ability to sell them on microtransactions. This model already exists as freemium, free to play, or GAAS, so is likewise not something new Microsoft is bringing to the table. What they are doing is accelerating game development in this direction and away from single player or unfettered MP experiences, decreasing diversity in gaming.
The only way the dev would see anywhere close to revenue they would've achieved by selling at retail is if Microsoft subsides their service. And the only way subscription scams for entertainment media work when they're not subsidised is by finding the suckers who don't cancel when they're not getting enough value out of the subscription each month and/or by jacking up the prices.
P
peter42O
Guest
Okay, now I understand what you mean. First, is digital sales included in the range of sales for those games being 9 to 1 in favor of PlayStation? Xbox does have a higher digital percentage than Sony has for whatever reason when it comes multi-platform games. Second, the concern you have while understandable is invalid because you're mainly looking at major AAA titles which aren't going to be on Game Pass day one anyway because the publisher doesn't need to accept that payday when they can get a lot of sales and go to Microsoft when sales die out and still get a Game Pass deal two years after release. If you're argument is that people will wait for the game to go on Game Pass instead of buying it, that's also invalid because if it's a big game especially if it's good or great, it's going to sell regardless. Dead Space did well, Hogwarts Legacy has dominated, REmake4 has done great and many more are to come. One aspect that you're missing is that there's hundreds of games released every year that barely sell because either A) no one knows they even exist, B) they're not any good or C) they get released around a big major title which is going to drown out the smaller game.
Let's look at Forspoken. Game flopped period. It's an above average game and since it's PlayStation 5 exclusive for a minimum of two years, Game Pass doesn't apply. Even if you wanted to include PlayStation Plus, is any PlayStation fan truly expecting it to go on Plus any time soon? Probably not. It didn't sell but why? First, it's an above average game at best for various reasons. Second, when compared to say Dead Space or Hogwarts Legacy, the $70 price tag along with it being above average simply isn't enticing. Third, it's release date was horrible. Four days after Monster Hunter Rise hit PS4/PS5 (and Xbox One/Series) which while a Switch port has a huge fan base, three days before Dead Space which was highly anticipated and two weeks before Hogwarts Legacy which is an open world game like Forspoken and has their combat system revolving around "magic attacks". Plus of course, it's a massive licensed property.
Point being is that a subscription service isn't going to affect games that are actually worth the $70 price tag that people want to play. I'm a Game Pass guy but guess what, I still bought Dead Space for $70 day one physically, bought the $80 deluxe edition of Hogwarts Legacy digitally and just recently bought Resident Evil 4 physically for $60 plus an extra $4 on the treasure map micro-transaction. But guess which game I didn't buy and have no interest in doing so? That's right, Forspoken because it's not worth my $70 and more importantly, not worth my time.
So again, while I understand your concern, as of right now, it simply doesn't exist. The great games will sell period. With or without Game Pass existing. What won't sell are above average mediocre games with a full $70 price tag that the vast majority of people are going to pass on especially if it's release close to all these other superior bigger titles. What Game Pass is truly for outside of Microsoft's first party games are the Indies and AA titles that let's be honest, outside of one here and there, they usually end up being forgotten.
Then there's the live service/co-op games like Outriders, Back 4 Blood, etc. These games aren't based on sales at all. They're based on player counts and having them be on a subscription service allowed them to do far better than they would have if they weren't on Game Pass day one. These types of games aren't going to replace Destiny, COD, Fortnite and others but they can still be successful in their own right if they can get a big enough player base and being available on Game Pass which had around 20m or so subscribers when they launched gave those games a far greater chance at success than the only option being that of which to buy the game for $60 outright.
Okay.....first, when a game sells for $60, they don't get the entire $60. You have to eliminate the cost for manufacturing the disc, case, insert, shipping, distribution and retailers cuts. This is before the game hits the actual shelf and when it is sold, 30% of the $60 which is $18 per copy sold goes to the hardware manufacturer. Second, if the developer is owned by a publisher like for example Motive Studio which is owned by EA, the money that they get from the game sale after all the fees goes to the publisher, NOT the developer. The development studios all work on salaries with some perhaps having bonuses tied to MC scores which makes no sense at all because good or bad, they still did the work and it's the publisher who's literally funding the game, the shipping, the marketing, advertising, etc. The only time a development studio actually gets any money from sales is if it's like Techland with Dying Light 2 where they self published their game but they still had to pay all those expenses and fees.
When a game goes on Game Pass day one, the publisher (NOT the developer unless it's a Techland situation) will get an upfront payment of varying amounts based on what game it is. They use several metrics and analytics. One that is known to be used is pre-order numbers. This usually tells you if a game is going to be big, medium, small or dead on arrival. If it's a game that has low pre-orders and yes, they know the amount of pre-orders from retailers due to the publisher they're negotiating with giving them that info, a Game Pass day one deal will more than likely save that game from completely flopping and even if the publisher doesn't make a profit, if they can at least break even in total, that's still far better than losing money. Besides the upfront payment, publishers can also get extra money based on downloads, hours played, user counts, etc. Depends on the contract that is signed by the publisher but they all get an upfront payment.
With all that said, your analysis of needing one subscriber at $15 per month to stay subscribed for 5 months or even 4 months is simply invalid because for whatever reason you think that when a game sells they get the entire $60/$70. They don't. And again, you also believe that developers are getting all the money from sales which unless they're independent and self publish like Techland, they don't. The publisher gets the revenue from game sales.
If you're talking about Indies/AA titles, the budgets are much smaller and chances are, a day one Game Pass deal will pretty much cover the cost of that game that they're getting ready to release. Now, if you're talking digital only and cutting out the physical portion, a $60 game is technically only selling for $42 on each sale due to the 30% cut by Microsoft. Of course, vast majority of these games aren't overly expensive and they can easily turn a profit if they know what they're doing. As for AAA titles, Game Pass simply isn't going to affect anything because the big games are going to sell regardless and those like me who want to play them aren't going to wait to see if/when those games go on Game Pass.
I completely disagree in regards to decreasing diversity in gaming. Game Pass has already proven to increase diversity including from Microsoft's own first party studios. You think another publisher who's reliant and dependent on game sales would actually green light, fund and release games like Grounded, Pentiment and Hi Fi Rush? No freaking way. Microtransactions sell regardless of if a game is in Game Pass or not.
You believing that Microsoft due to Game Pass is accelerating game development in a certain direction for publishers and developers they don't own is simply non-existent. The vast majority of games that go into Game Pass day one like A Plague Tale Requiem, Atomic Heart, Monster Hunter Rise, Outriders, etc. are already set in stone. Game Pass isn't changing the development of games that are designed and developed long before the publisher even thinks about a Game Pass day one deal.
Please clarify what you mean by developers. Because not every situation is the same. If it's a development studio that's owned by a publisher, it's the publisher that makes the decisions, not the development studio. If you're talking Indies/AA studios that aren't owned by a publisher, again, chances are, their games won't sell enough anyway because they're either not up to par, release at a shitty time or are completely overshadowed by other bigger major titles. And if anything, a day one Game Pass deal is going to completely fund that small budgeted Indie/AA title before it even releases.
No, they're not factored in, and yes Xbox has a higher digital ratio (due to Series S), but no, it's not plausible that it's enough to tilt the scales closer to what you'd expect from the install bases.
The idea that publishers don't need to accept the payday is true while GP titles are of poor quality or available for a limited time, like I said. That's what GP will be until MS buys high value publishers, which is the premise of this thread. The point is to get massive franchises (Diablo, CoD, The Elder Scrolls) onto GP and effectively give them away. After that, the latest Battlefield that's only being sold for $70 doesn't look as appealing.
My argument is also that people will wait until a title is on GP because they've been conditioned to wait for MS to open its wallet, and that's playing out right now in Xboxland. The evidence is reflected in the PS:XB sales ratios.
When a title is on GP, then the sales ratio is so lopsided as to be irrelevant.
One good feature of subscription services is that they can throw a lifeline to poorly performing or low quality games, and not to be contrarian but I think that makes Forspoken a good candidate for PS+ and I do expect it on there in the future. However, it's worth noting that it sold and continues to sell better than one of the games you've used as a contributor to its failure, MonHun Rise:
Yes, why buy mediocrity when you can have all the mediocrity you can eat on GP? As addressed earlier, quality games on GP would change this dynamic, but remember that this would eventually depress sales for the title off-subscription services as more people gravitate to the free price point.
You didn't buy forspoken because you have enough mediocrity on GP and good games elsewhere, but what happens when you have enough good games on GP because Microsoft has bought enough of the pubs? The others starve or get in line for a handout.
I understand this, but the topic is as much about allocation of funds as it is about how much revenue is being generated. You need to massively increase the gaming pop to make up for the loss of B2P revenue. For the purposes of allocation, a gaming publisher/developer will invest funds back into game development. Microsoft getting all of the money from customers does not lead to this outcome.
Preorders are a perfect example, because when players are conditioned to wait for GP or value games less because of it, it becomes easier for MS to negotiate a smaller upfront fee.
It's valid for the purposes of total revenue generated. 70/15 = 4.66. In a month, for the industry to generate as much revenue as it does now from one game sale, it would need 4.66 subscribers paying $15.
Turning a profit is not the same as maximising profit.
Sony. EA with its EA Originals line.
Your entire post is what I mean when I say short-sighted. The precursors to all of what I've described are here now, but you can't see past games being given away for pennies on the dollar.
developer
/dɪˈvɛləpə/
noun
a person or thing that develops something.
This alone proves that Capcom would be never this desperate to sell themselves to the likes of Microsoft. Capcom is making to much money on PlayStation and Nintendo Systems.
Xbox and PC are only a small piece of their revenue.
Xbox and PC are only a small piece of their revenue.
I'd continue playing the Capcom games on my PlayStation (or Switch in the case of Switch exclusives). In case they would go console exclusive, I'd play them on PC.
Other than that, I'd continue playing on PS as my main platform.
Other than that, I'd continue playing on PS as my main platform.
P
peter42O
Guest
Game Pass titles are actually high quality with an average of 86 via Meta Critic. I don't know why so many people downplay Game Pass just because they're against it or don't like the games which neither have anything to do with the quality of the subscription service.
They're not giving the games away. Majority of people stay subscribed. I'm one of the few people that doesn't. When you have 25m+ subscribers, it's anything but giving games away for free. Of course, the point is to get massive IP's. That's how you make a subscription service successful. As for other games like Battlefield, if the game is great, people will still buy them.
The sales ratio has nothing to do with Game Pass. Look at last generation before Game Pass existed, same result or very close to it. Software sales will always be higher on PlayStation due to it being a far bigger more popular brand. This is why Game Pass exists. It's to change shit. It is meant to disrupt stuff. That's the point. When you do the same as what your competitors do and it doesn't work for the entirety of your existence, you meed to change it up in order to be more successful.
People only wait for the mid-tier games or games that are broken at launch which is a high amount nowadays but great games, people aren't waiting because they want to play the game and second, there's no guarantee that the game ever goes on Game Pass to begin with.
When a game goes on Game Pass day one, yes it decreases sales for Xbox but it doesn't matter because as you pointed out, the sales ratio are low for games when they're not on Game Pass day one. The benefit for publishers is that they get guaranteed money upfront which will offset the cost of the game itself. It will still sell on PlayStation where the majority of sales will be with or without Game Pass which will give them more money and whatever other guaranteed money is in the Game Pass contract will give them more money.
Game Pass to me is the better option for Indies/AA titles because they get upfront guaranteed money to offset the costs, the exposure via Game Pass will also lead to more people playing the game and even if they don't like the game, doesn't matter because you know of the company/developer/publisher and maybe you become interested in a future game from that company. There's been plenty of games that I don't like but then later on, these same companies finally released games that I was interested in, bought and completed. It's not all about just sales/money. It's also about exposure for the game itself.
For AAA titles, they rarely go day one on Game Pass and if they do eventually go on the service, it's after the game's peak sales have hit or for games like Guardians of the Galaxy which under performed.
I understand your point but you're assuming that every game from Microsoft will hit and that's not going to happen regardless of who they acquire to where it would affect others. Not only that but even if publishers see that they're in trouble, forget about Game Pass, publishers like an Embracer Group for example will just start their own subscription service that they put on Xbox/PlayStation/PC and use that as the revenue/profit source. I don't see Game Pass as mediocre when the average rating is 86 via Meta Critic. Seriously, it's not mediocre. People who say this simply are against it as opposed to actually looking through the game list and realizing oh shit, this is actually pretty damn good. Same applies to the higher tiers of PlayStation Plus. They're around 80 or so due to having double of the amount of games which brings down the average but their subscription service isn't mediocre. I mean come on. Even I know this.
But like I said, this is all a wait and see. I do see Game Pass as the future because it's simply better for consumers because you're getting more games and content for a far cheaper price. It's all about exposure and ease of access. People want quality games but at the same time, the biggest games in gaming are the games that majority won't see as being quality. Microsoft's quality this generation has already blown away Xbox One and that's with Game Pass.
Like I said in debates with Thicc, this generation is a reset for Microsoft in regards to Xbox and it's all about setting everything up for next generation and beyond. That includes consoles, subscriptions, PC, mobile and cloud. It's all interconnected which is why im just waiting to see how it all plays out. One thing is for sure, the different business models for all three hardware manufacturers is great because it increases the competition due to all three offering something different than the other two and that's what makes the industry truly exciting at least for me anyway. But to each their own.
This almost happened at some point believe it or not. Xbox does not have the audience for JP publisher so they'd die.
That's fine. You do you. My arguments were for the audience anyway.
Microsoft acquiring Capcom would just further degrade Sony's strength as a platform holder by having one less independent 3P publisher to work with. One who, btw, has built the MAJORITY of their modern brand name and value on PlayStation, and to whom PlayStation owes a decent bit of its nostalgic strength to.
You remember how Sony were able to help cofund SFV and be a main sponsor for Capcom Cup? Kiss ALL of that goodbye if MS were to buy Capcom. Why would Microsoft EVER allow Sony to try getting a development partnership on a Capcom game and get perks for PlayStation on top? Microsoft would have zero need for Sony to pitch in on funding for any Capcom game ever again. Sure, Microsoft could still make those games multiplat but guess what else they'd do? Put them all on Game Pass Day 1.
At which point, Sony either suffers from sales bleed, or if they put those same Capcom games in PS+ Day 1, revenue bleed. And in both cases, they become a dependent to Microsoft (another platform holder) and have to realize 70% of all Capcom sales on their platform go right to Microsoft, or realize that AND pay them some license fee for those games into PS+.
it's a bad situation either way for Sony and could impact the perception of their sovereign strength as a platform holder with other Japanese publishers. This could lead them to perceive Sony as weak, and unable to hold on to critical gaming partners. It could therefore make other Japanese publishers less likely to see Sony as a platform holder strong enough to retain long-term prosperity of the brand through leveraging their brand strength with 3P partners, when those 3P partners are being acquired by another platform holder.
This stuff matters, and its why Sony need to secure their future in gaming. PS5 is doing gangbusters but if enough critical 3P publishers become unavailable due to M&As, that leaves little for Sony to leverage for the PS6. That makes the PS6 a dead console at least compared to other PlayStations. Imagine a world where Sony can no longer work with independent 3P to make experiences like Demons Souls, Bloodborne, Final Fantasy XVI, Rise of the Ronin, Kena. That could end up happening if Sony don't secure their future, which has to be through a mix of key acquisitions (Capcom, Square-Enix for example) and big investments & stock purchases (Kadokawa, From Software, Take Two, Ubisoft, CDPR, etc.).
I'll keep saying it: if Sony doesn't make these moves in the next year or 1.5, and they somehow let Microsoft or another Big Tech get Capcom, or Square-Enix, or Bandai-Namco (or especially all 3), that's the majority of Sony's partnership power with the Japanese 3P who have major Western presence, just GONE. The repercussions of letting that happen cannot be understated.
You remember how Sony were able to help cofund SFV and be a main sponsor for Capcom Cup? Kiss ALL of that goodbye if MS were to buy Capcom. Why would Microsoft EVER allow Sony to try getting a development partnership on a Capcom game and get perks for PlayStation on top? Microsoft would have zero need for Sony to pitch in on funding for any Capcom game ever again. Sure, Microsoft could still make those games multiplat but guess what else they'd do? Put them all on Game Pass Day 1.
At which point, Sony either suffers from sales bleed, or if they put those same Capcom games in PS+ Day 1, revenue bleed. And in both cases, they become a dependent to Microsoft (another platform holder) and have to realize 70% of all Capcom sales on their platform go right to Microsoft, or realize that AND pay them some license fee for those games into PS+.
it's a bad situation either way for Sony and could impact the perception of their sovereign strength as a platform holder with other Japanese publishers. This could lead them to perceive Sony as weak, and unable to hold on to critical gaming partners. It could therefore make other Japanese publishers less likely to see Sony as a platform holder strong enough to retain long-term prosperity of the brand through leveraging their brand strength with 3P partners, when those 3P partners are being acquired by another platform holder.
This stuff matters, and its why Sony need to secure their future in gaming. PS5 is doing gangbusters but if enough critical 3P publishers become unavailable due to M&As, that leaves little for Sony to leverage for the PS6. That makes the PS6 a dead console at least compared to other PlayStations. Imagine a world where Sony can no longer work with independent 3P to make experiences like Demons Souls, Bloodborne, Final Fantasy XVI, Rise of the Ronin, Kena. That could end up happening if Sony don't secure their future, which has to be through a mix of key acquisitions (Capcom, Square-Enix for example) and big investments & stock purchases (Kadokawa, From Software, Take Two, Ubisoft, CDPR, etc.).
I'll keep saying it: if Sony doesn't make these moves in the next year or 1.5, and they somehow let Microsoft or another Big Tech get Capcom, or Square-Enix, or Bandai-Namco (or especially all 3), that's the majority of Sony's partnership power with the Japanese 3P who have major Western presence, just GONE. The repercussions of letting that happen cannot be understated.
Sony doesnt even need to invest alot in said company, 5-10 percent. If a rival platfrom holder (MS) tried to pull anything sony could scream hostile take over of japanese business.
This shows how much SE is undervalued due to their terrible leadership and moronic decisions.