Support NeoGAF

[Heisenberg007]

Phil Spencer on exclusivity, monetisation and game development

We spoke at length with Head of Xbox Phil Spencer about first-party software, monetisation, and what The Initiative is actually doing.

www.gamereactor.eu

First of all, I would like to say that we haven't acquired ZeniMax. We have announced our intention to acquire ZeniMax. It is going through regulatory approval and we don't see any issues there. We expect early in 2021 the deal will close. But I say that because I want people to know, I'm not sitting down with Todd Howard and Robert Altman and planning their future. Because I'm currently not allowed to do that, that would be illegal. Your question is completely inbound, but I get a lot of questions right now: "is this game exclusive? Is this game exclusive?" And right now, that is not my job in regards to ZeniMax. My job is not to sit down and go through their portfolio and dictate what happens.

It is illegal to dictate before you have acquired a company. But really it's not illegal to say that we're buying Bethesda, and like all first-party studios (which Bethesda will be a part of) will produce content exclusively for the Xbox ecosystem.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I understand your point and I appreciate the appeal to reason, but I really do think we’re over complicating this.

There is not a snowball’s chance in hell that MS have spent nearly 8 billion on a company, only to allow the premier IPs of that company appear on a PS5, where they might well run better.

It’s not happening. It’s never happening.

Of course, there might be some minor games - free to play BRs or small projects, where it makes sense to offer them as multi platform, perhaps even from a PR point of view, to be seen as good guys.

But Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Starfield etc. will, without doubt, only be available on an Xbox or PC.

Again, you are dealing in absolutes. I'm not. I have the same stance as Microsoft's.

Microsoft is a business, and a business wants to make money. It is not emotional about making games exclusives just to "show the other guys". The primary goal is to make money. And most Bethesda games, I believe, will be evaluated case-by-case before release.

If it would make more money to keep it exclusive, MS will do that. If it would make more money to keep it multiplatform, MS will do that.

 

[MonarchJT]

Again, you are dealing in absolutes. I'm not. I have the same stance as Microsoft's.

Microsoft is a business, and a business wants to make money. It is not emotional about making games exclusives just to "show the other guys". The primary goal is to make money. And most Bethesda games, I believe, will be evaluated case-by-case before release.

If it would make more money to keep it exclusive, MS will do that. If it would make more money to keep it multiplatform, MS will do that.

yes but honestly there's no game that going multiplaform would sell less than to be exclusive to a platform. So is not really like that.....i mean there are other factors

 

[geary]

The primary goal is to make money

Depends how you want to make these money? Do you want to make them organically through growing your business (Gamepass) and you have a long term plan? Or you want to have an immediate return on investment by selling as much as you can on whichever platform you can?

I think MS is leaning more towards the first philosophy.

The second one is more applicable to publishers without platforms/ecosystems.

 

[Ogbert]

Again, you are dealing in absolutes. I'm not. I have the same stance as Microsoft's.

Microsoft is a business, and a business wants to make money. It is not emotional about making games exclusives just to "show the other guys". The primary goal is to make money. And most Bethesda games, I believe, will be evaluated case-by-case before release.

If it would make more money to keep it exclusive, MS will do that. If it would make more money to keep it multiplatform, MS will do that.

Agreed. But where I disagree (and using my own experience working in a huge Silicon Valley giant) is in what they’re after.

MS getting a 60% cut on selling a game on the PS store is not what they after. There’s no growth there. It’s a financial cul de sac that can only really be improved by how many copies of the game sell, i.e how good the product is.

MS don’t want consumers money (as the primary goal). Azure is netting them tens of billions a quarter. They’re as rich as Croesus. What they want, what they *need*, is to grow their market share. They need people invested in their platform. Where people *have* to spend money with them rather than *choose* to, because they’re so invested.

Once they have you within their ‘ecosystem’ they can then take your data and sell you everything else they have planned for the next twenty, thirty.....hundred years. Banking, shopping, television, education, health, gaming...

And this is where the fundamental distinction comes in. They’re not actually strictly in competition with Sony. They view Google, Amazon, Visa as their competitors.

 

[CeeJay]

Again, you are dealing in absolutes. I'm not. I have the same stance as Microsoft's.

Microsoft is a business, and a business wants to make money. It is not emotional about making games exclusives just to "show the other guys". The primary goal is to make money. And most Bethesda games, I believe, will be evaluated case-by-case before release.

If it would make more money to keep it exclusive, MS will do that. If it would make more money to keep it multiplatform, MS will do that.

Its not about making exclusives to "show the other guys", its about making exclusives to grow the eco-system and in turn the revenue will grow too. The best way to grow an eco-system is to provide must have content that is not available anywhere else. Yes it is going to be case by case but in most cases its going to make sense to keep it within Xbox (console, PC, mobile).

 

[Heisenberg007]

Its not about making exclusives to "show the other guys", its about making exclusives to grow the eco-system and in turn the revenue will grow too. The best way to grow an eco-system is to provide must have content that is not available anywhere else. Yes it is going to be case by case but in most cases its going to make sense to keep it within Xbox (console, PC, mobile).

What you said has always been the case. But Gamepass has changed that formula, I believe.

Imagine ES6 releases on PlayStation 6 months later at $70. And it releases on Gamepass day one at no additional cost. That's a massive statement and a move that would likely maximize profits for Xbox.

A lot of people (with access to hardware) will subscribe to Gamepass to play the game. Those who won't budget at all (have 0 intention of subscribing to GP) will shell out $70 that would also go to MS.

Again, just pure speculation.

 

[Bernkastel]

Imagine ES6 releases on PlayStation 6 months later at $70. And it releases on Gamepass day one at no additional cost. That's a massive statement and a move that would likely maximize profits for Xbox.

Imagine having to buy an Xbox for ES6. That would maximize profits even more.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Agreed. But where I disagree (and using my own experience working in a huge Silicon Valley giant) is in what they’re after.

MS getting a 60% cut on selling a game on the PS store is not what they after. There’s no growth there. It’s a financial cul de sac that can only really be improved by how many copies of the game sell, i.e how good the product is.

MS don’t want consumers money (as the primary goal). Azure is netting them tens of billions a quarter. They’re as rich as Croesus. What they want, what they *need*, is to grow their market share. They need people invested in their platform. Where people *have* to spend money with them rather than *choose* to, because they’re so invested.

Once they have you within their ‘ecosystem’ they can then take your data and sell you everything else they have planned for the next twenty, thirty.....hundred years. Banking, shopping, television, education, health, gaming...

And this is where the fundamental distinction comes in. They’re not actually strictly in competition with Sony. They view Google, Amazon, Visa as their competitors.

I understand your point. But isn't this the general consensus that MS isn't interested in selling hardware anymore? And software (games, in this case) is their primary product?

My point is that it is possible that Xbox releases games in future on Gamepass day one at no additional cost. After 6 months or year, to maximize profits releases the same games on PlayStation and Nintendo at $70 a piece.

A lot of gamers will see the value of Gamepass, and MS will increase that subscriber base. There will be a small segment of the PS userbase that just won't budge and subscribe to Gamepass. MS won't be getting any money from them. However, if they release the game months or year later, they could potentially eek money out of those customers as well.

IDK man, this scenario just makes sense to me -- not just for Bethesda games but also for other studio games. MS's CFO (I guess he was a CFO) also implied a similar strategy a few months ago by saying that Bethesda games will be "best / first" on Xbox platforms. Let's see what happens.

 

[Bernkastel]

 

[Heisenberg007]

Imagine having to buy an Xbox for ES6. That would maximize profits even more.

Yeah, as soon as Xbox drops 4-5 high-quality games, I am also buying an Xbox Series X + Gamepass -- even if those games are releasing on PlayStation. Why would I pay $500 on buying 7 games when I could buy a new console and subscribe to Gamepass and gain access to 100s of games at the same price.

My example shows that Xbox will grow Gamepass subscribers even if they release some games on PlayStation -- because the price difference per game will be too big with GamePass.

 

[Batiman]

So damn hyped for this. I’m expecting third person and it probably will be. But thinking of a first person Indy game with whip and pistol sounds pretty awesome too.

 

[kuncol02]

I understand your point. But isn't this the general consensus that MS isn't interested in selling hardware anymore? And software (games, in this case) is their primary product?

My point is that it is possible that Xbox releases games in future on Gamepass day one at no additional cost. After 6 months or year, to maximize profits releases the same games on PlayStation and Nintendo at $70 a piece.

A lot of gamers will see the value of Gamepass, and MS will increase that subscriber base. There will be a small segment of the PS userbase that just won't budge and subscribe to Gamepass. MS won't be getting any money from them. However, if they release the game months or year later, they could potentially eek money out of those customers as well.

IDK man, this scenario just makes sense to me -- not just for Bethesda games but also for other studio games. MS's CFO (I guess he was a CFO) also implied a similar strategy a few months ago by saying that Bethesda games will be "best / first" on Xbox platforms. Let's see what happens.

No. You don't understand. They primary product is service (game pass, but also XBox Store). Making game available on PS gives people reason to stay on PlayStation and not move to XBox/PC. Every person which stays on PS is lost money from services and store fee. It's way more than what they would get from games released on Playstation. How many times that needs to be explained?

 

[Ogbert]

I understand your point. But isn't this the general consensus that MS isn't interested in selling hardware anymore? And software (games, in this case) is their primary product?

My point is that it is possible that Xbox releases games in future on Gamepass day one at no additional cost. After 6 months or year, to maximize profits releases the same games on PlayStation and Nintendo at $70 a piece.

A lot of gamers will see the value of Gamepass, and MS will increase that subscriber base. There will be a small segment of the PS userbase that just won't budge and subscribe to Gamepass. MS won't be getting any money from them. However, if they release the game months or year later, they could potentially eek money out of those customers as well.

IDK man, this scenario just makes sense to me -- not just for Bethesda games but also for other studio games. MS's CFO (I guess he was a CFO) also implied a similar strategy a few months ago by saying that Bethesda games will be "best / first" on Xbox platforms. Let's see what happens.

I would expect that MS realise they are not going to ‘win over’ most PS owners, as in they fully switch. I just don’t think that’s a thing. We’re all so invested in the games we have, where our friends play, that we’ll stay where we are.

What they want is for PS players to pick up Gamepass in addition to their PlayStation. A bit like the Switch. Which is where the Series S comes on, or, of course, a PC.

If PS players know that eventually these games will make it to the PS Store, they’ll just wait. Even if it’s 12/18 months. And that *completely* torpedoes what MS are looking to do.

As a PS5 owner, I reckon I’ll end up picking up an Xbox in two/three years time; when Gamepass becomes compelling.

 

[quest]

I understand your point. But isn't this the general consensus that MS isn't interested in selling hardware anymore? And software (games, in this case) is their primary product?

My point is that it is possible that Xbox releases games in future on Gamepass day one at no additional cost. After 6 months or year, to maximize profits releases the same games on PlayStation and Nintendo at $70 a piece.

A lot of gamers will see the value of Gamepass, and MS will increase that subscriber base. There will be a small segment of the PS userbase that just won't budge and subscribe to Gamepass. MS won't be getting any money from them. However, if they release the game months or year later, they could potentially eek money out of those customers as well.

IDK man, this scenario just makes sense to me -- not just for Bethesda games but also for other studio games. MS's CFO (I guess he was a CFO) also implied a similar strategy a few months ago by saying that Bethesda games will be "best / first" on Xbox platforms. Let's see what happens.

The only people who said hardware did not matter to Microsoft was trolls and warriors rubbing in the cross generation games before Sony admitted to doing the same. Hardware absolutely matters to Microsoft hardware pushes gamepass sales. PC and streaming can't carry gamepass sales lol. Gamespass is not coming to playstation with the Sony 30% cut. The way to push hardware sales is to make those zenimax games exclusive to xbox and PC. If a playstation owner can get them a year later they will just wait until they are on playstation and discounted since they would be old games. Almost no timed exclusive sells on the second platform since it is a old game by the time it comes out. Also making they exclusives cuts development time.

 

[phil_t98]

its kinda funny that when Microsoft announced they buying Bethesda a lot on here were like they weren't bothered and saying there is no decent games and stuff, funny how its turned

 

[The Grey Wolf]

I think a big part of determining the games success will be getting the "feel" of the whip just right and introducing alot of fun and unique ways in which to use it.
I love using bows in Destiny 2 because they nailed the shooting mechanics with it and it just feels so damn good to fire off arrows rapidly.

 

[DaGwaphics]

Honestly, MS could go either way with exclusivity. From the couch, the best long-term option appears to be the software being exclusive to the Xbox ecosystem with the possibility of GamePass exclusivity down the road. But, I can see the possibility of releasing the software on PS or Nintendo at a later date, maybe that makes more sense in the early going.

But as @ Ogbert pointed out, if the end goal is to sell GP to PS users (either on PC or giving them a reason to own an Xbox as a second console), than exclusivity is the only thing that makes sense. Even if it stings the bottom line a bit at first.

 

[NullZ3r0]

Just to add; new Indiana Jones movie is coming in 2022

Harrison Ford to star in fifth ‘Indiana Jones’ movie, Disney confirms | CNN

Harrison Ford will be grabbing his whip and ramming on his hat for a fifth “Indiana Jones” movie, Disney has confirmed – a mere 41 years after the first installment, “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” was released.

edition.cnn.com

It's appropriate that the game comes out alongside it to ride the wave. So it's probably well in development.

 

[CeeJay]

What you said has always been the case. But Gamepass has changed that formula, I believe.

Imagine ES6 releases on PlayStation 6 months later at $70. And it releases on Gamepass day one at no additional cost. That's a massive statement and a move that would likely maximize profits for Xbox.

A lot of people (with access to hardware) will subscribe to Gamepass to play the game. Those who won't budget at all (have 0 intention of subscribing to GP) will shell out $70 that would also go to MS.

Again, just pure speculation.

Doing that though sets the message that all these games will come eventually though and a lot of people would just wait. You wouldn't expect Forza, Gears or Halo on Playstation because they are tentpole titles that keep people within the Xbox eco-system. I would expect the same to apply for the premier Zenimax IPs. To build an eco-system it has to be a clear message that if you want to play these games then you have to be in the Xbox eco-system. As Ogbert has highlighted, this is about more than just the revenue from the game sales themselves it's about longer term and wider engagement. MS don't want that one-off $70 sale from you, that $70 doesn't move their platform forward. Enticing you into the eco-system does, maybe it starts off with a sub to Gamepass because a game you want to play is on there but that then leads to other things which give Microsoft something way more valuable than a one-off sale, it gives them information about your lifestyle that they can track and monetise. Being a third party publisher in someone else's eco-system brings in revenue but being the owner of that eco-system brings in revenue as well as lots of really useful data and opportunities to monetise you further.

 

[NullZ3r0]

Gaffers here are claiming with certainty that Bethesda games will be exclusive to Xbox or Bethesda games will be multiplatform. That's when even Phil Spencer and MS aren't sure what they will do.

It's simple. Phil said the right thing: it will be on a case by case basis. It's the truth. And that's the most logical way forward.

Not all Bethesda games will be multiplatform, and not all games will be necessarily exclusives. It depends on many factors:

• The popularity of a game/franchise
• Gamepass users at the time of said game launch
• Gmaepass users the game expects to bring in
• Series X and PS user base at the time of the game launch (market share)
• Development cost of the game

Etc.

It really will be on a case by case basis.

What Phil or Bethesda says before the deal is finalized doesn't matter. They are separate companies and there are serious repercussions if the wrong thing is said. After the deal is final, whatever Satya or Phil says goes.

I do know that when they were at the negotiation table MS saw everything in the pipeline and that factored into the asking price. Microsoft's main goal is to sell GamePass subscriptions. Releasing big games on Playstation does not sell GamePass subscriptions. Satya Nadella gets paid based on the number of subscribers to GamePass, not how many copies of Halo or Indiana Jones they sell. "We can sell more by releasing on Playstation" doesn't matter in Microsoft land.

To Microsoft, Annual Recurring Revenue is king. 5 million GP subscriptions > 10 million copies on PS5. The quicker people realize this, the faster they'll come to terms with reality. Unless for whatever reason Disney says, "Release it on as many platforms as possible" this will be Xbox exclusive.

 

[Maxwell Jacob Friedman]

Gears of War 4 would have cost Epic $100m - Sweeney

Back in January 2014, Microsoft announced that it purchased the Gears of War property from Epic Games. Later this fall,…

www.gamesindustry.biz

not sure why your linking something to Gears of War when we are talking about Machine games and if they can compete with Naughty Dog especially when it comes to budget......and gears of war is already an established gaming franchise where as nobody has tested the waters for Indiana Jones.....

 

[Bernkastel]

not sure why your linking something to Gears of War when we are talking about Machine games and if they can compete with Naughty Dog especially when it comes to budget......and gears of war is already an established gaming franchise where as nobody has tested the waters for Indiana Jones.....

Same publisher. Indiana Jones is a more established franchise and will definitely sell more than Gears of War 4/5. I would assume that Fable has a bigger budget than Gears of War just for building that new studio. Too Human published by Microsoft had almost 100M budget.
Its not Naughty Dog or MachineGames providing the budget but their publishers(and they don't listen to the insecurities of a forum poster).

 

[Stooky]

Disney’s net income in 2019 was 11.05 billion, revenue was 69.57 billion. If you gonna provide numbers, at least provide accurate ones.

i used the wrong word profit instead of revenue my bad.

 

[Stooky]

another silly ignorant post where someone on a forum think that ms need sony users to keep gamepass alive after the Bethesda acquisition? let me say this about what u wrote ... 1 no make sense ..2 is wrong ... 3 is not how big companies look when they do big spending.
stop spreading this FUD
if the annual interests of the money spent that would remain in bank is equated with the earnings it's okay. if the earnings exceed what would have been the interests .. in ms they will uncork the champagne.
Spencer in person said they dosnt need any sony user to make it feasible

"I don't have to go ship those games on any other platform other than the platforms that we support in order to kind of make the deal work for us."

phill says alot of things, we'll see what happens. at this point its all speculation.

 

[davidjaffe]

Got to say he is clueless.
3:42 He says MachineGames does not have the same budget as Naughty Dog.
3:51 He says MachineGames does not have a proprietary engine like Naughty Dog but uses Unreal Engine. But they have their own engine based of id Tech.

Gotta say you're a dick.

#1- If I misspoke about the engine Machine uses, I apologize. It was not intentional. As I say in the video, I'm a fan of MachineGames but I don't think their visuals have ever come close to those of the top tier Sony 1st party games. I assumed that was partially budget/time and partially because AAA Sony 1st party games use a proprietary engine designed specifically to take advantage of only one console.

#2- I know the Naughty Dog budgets. I am semi-aware of budgets of other 3rd party games. I assure you, MachineGames didn't spend 175-200million on their last game like ND did.

Oh, did I say you were a dick?

I did? Got it. Sorry, it's just so fun to let you know that I guess- on some level- I wanted to do it again.

And now I have- goodbye!

 

[Stooky]

And? Microsoft wants Gamepass to have 100+M users. The service won't get there without exclusive content.
Microsoft is the second most profitable company on Earth just behind apple. This year Microsoft will make 50-60 billions in net income.
If you think $MSFT investors care about a $7.5B long term investment then you're mistaken.
Netflix is still cash flow negative and investors don't care. They want subs growth.

As of now quick google search shows Netflix has 195 mill subscribers , Gamepass 15mill subscribers. We'll see what happens and how long it will take to get there.

 

[Knitted Knight]

What's the first person view buzz about? Hopefully it's not that. It would be beyond dumb imo.

 

[Bernkastel]

#2- I know the Naughty Dog budgets. I am semi-aware of budgets of other 3rd party games. I assure you, MachineGames didn't spend 175-200million on their last game like ND did.

I wasn't talking about the budget of their last game. You really think MS can't give an Indiana Jones game a high budget?

Gotta say you're a dick.

Oh, did I say you were a dick?

I did? Got it. Sorry, it's just so fun to let you know that I guess- on some level- I wanted to do it again.

Oh, did I say you were clueless?

 

[driqe]

Gotta say you're a dick.

#1- If I misspoke about the engine Machine uses, I apologize. It was not intentional. As I say in the video, I'm a fan of MachineGames but I don't think their visuals have ever come close to those of the top tier Sony 1st party games. I assumed that was partially budget/time and partially because AAA Sony 1st party games use a proprietary engine designed specifically to take advantage of only one console.

#2- I know the Naughty Dog budgets. I am semi-aware of budgets of other 3rd party games. I assure you, MachineGames didn't spend 175-200million on their last game like ND did.

Oh, did I say you were a dick?

I did? Got it. Sorry, it's just so fun to let you know that I guess- on some level- I wanted to do it again.

And now I have- goodbye!

I mean, do you think Microsoft can't give them a 175-200m budget or even more?

 

[MonarchJT]

phill says alot of things, we'll see what happens. at this point its all speculation.

"I don't have to go ship those games on any other platform other than the platforms that we support in order to kind of make the deal work for us."

this Phil's words so are free talkings?

you mean phil Spencer the man behind the playground inxile obsidian acquisitions ..the man who convinced ms ceo satya nadella to open the legendary ms warchest and drop 7.5 billions to make the biggest acquisition in gaming of zenimax/Bethesda ..the man behind gamepass.. the series x and the games on pc...he just .."say a lots of things " .meanwhile we should wait and see coz some anonymous forum user don't trust his words and want the games ported on the main ms rival console ?
Seem logic....ok

 

[Knitted Knight]

I mean, do you think Microsoft can't give them a 175-200m budget or even more?

In isolation yes. When you have 23 studios... that 7 bill "sunk cost" on top of all that recurring cost to keep those studios operating starts to take a real dent on the real money makers in gaming from Microsoft: Xbox Live Gold, Third Party Royalties and Minecraft. I'm sure Philly boy found a way to sweet talk Nadella and a found a "bro moment" to convince him of his plans but in the end, when the reviews come up, and the money can't be hidden (to Nadella) unlike investors looking at their books.... the talks will be a bit different. What will be the operating expenses of keeping Bethesda churning AAA content from all of their studios? Capital B in plural. Lol at anyone thinking that Gamepass will overnight grow from whatever their juiced number is now to something like even 50 million (like PS Plus), at full membership price each and every month just to justify the expenses. Bethesda sold because they had money problems and MS gave them bank and change - not for any other reason. One of the many reasons why Sony got exclusives like Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo.

 

[MonarchJT]

In isolation yes. When you have 23 studios... that 7 bill on top of all that recurring cost to keep those studios operating starts to take a real dent on the real money makers in gaming from Microsoft: Xbox Live Gold, Third Party Royalties and Minecraft. I'm sure Philly boy found a way to sweet talk Nadella and a found a "bro moment" to convince him of his plans but in the end, when the reviews come up, and the money can't be hidden (to Nadella) unlike investors looking at their books.... the talks will be a bit different.

this if gamepass will not see grow....but luckily for phil it is already growing

 

[Knitted Knight]

this if gamepass will not see grow....but luckily for phil it is already growing

Well, yes. But 1: Gamepass is not Xbox, 2: we don't know the internal numbers to compare the whole enterprise (unfortunately done on purpose unlike say Netflix disclosures). I do believe there will be some type of benefit to MS platforms like all observers have pointed out, from industry folk to your normal layman, but you don't muddy the exclusivity talk like Phil does when you can be clear cut in your terms unless you want to keep your options open and or intend to do something that one of your known audiences may construe negatively, like: new Bethesda games releasing on PlayStation platforms as well. The day a new Bethesda game under MS, after the acquisition is official, lands on a PlayStation console will be judgement day for post histories on this forum from diehard Xbox fanboys - and people will make sure they're remembered of that. Some folk, in their clouded fanboysm and thirst for a win vs. the other side have being completely absolute in their terms of "no Bethesda games for the enemy".... interpreting the words of a known bullshitter and snake oil salesman to their ends. We'll see how it all plays out within a year or two.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

Big news!

I wonder what they'll make if an adaptation or an original story.

 

[Stooky]

you mean phil Spencer the man behind the playground inxile obsidian acquisitions ..the man who convinced ms ceo satya nadella to open the legendary ms warchest and drop 7.5 billions to make the biggest acquisition in gaming of zenimax/Bethesda ..the man behind gamepass.. the series x and the games on pc...he just .."say a lots of things " .meanwhile we should wait and see coz some anonymous forum user don't trust his words and want the games ported on the main ms rival console ?
Seem logic....ok

It’s not a console war for me. I don’t care if theses games are on ther platforms or not. The only game I’m somewhat interested in is Doom, again I don’t care. I don’t believe that all these games will be exclusive to Microsoft. It doesent make since financially . Especially for a 7bill purchase vs the current amount of subscribers Xbox and pc gamers, there’s to much overlap. Gamepas and pc does not generate enough profit to support developement of all these games. These games will be on gamepass for a great subscription price, other platforms whether it be Sony steam epic store , you will pay full price for each title. Everything form phill right now is pr talk to get fanboys excited, obviously it’s working. In short if all these games were exclusive then phill would have said it. That would be huge news. But he didn’t he’s mildly vague about all this. Bookmarking this for later.

 

[Bernkastel]

In isolation yes. When you have 23 studios... that 7 bill "sunk cost" on top of all that recurring cost to keep those studios operating starts to take a real dent on the real money makers in gaming from Microsoft: Xbox Live Gold, Third Party Royalties and Minecraft.

You forgot Xbox Store which makes most of the money. Fable probably has all that budget "in isolation". Not

Microsoft is Offering Unlimited Budget to Newly Acquired Studios for Xbox Exclusives

Microsoft is a giant corporation with unlimited resources. Still, the company lost the battle to Sony in the game market. It was mainly due to a lack of

segmentnext.com

I'm sure Philly boy found a way to sweet talk Nadella and a found a "bro moment" to convince him of his plans but in the end, when the reviews come up, and the money can't be hidden (to Nadella) unlike investors looking at their books.... the talks will be a bit different. What will be the operating expenses of keeping Bethesda churning AAA content from all of their studios? Lol at anyone thinking that Gamepass will overnight grow from whatever their juiced number is now to something like even 50 million like PS Plus, at full membership price each and every month just to justify it.

Gotta love arm chair businessmen on GAF. Hypothetically, if we consider five big games launching every year, then they will need to spend 500 million every year and they make more than that in a month.

The day a Bethesda game under MS, after the acquisition is official lands on a PS console will be judgement day for post histories on this forum. People, in their clouded fanboysm, have being completely absolute in their terms of "no Bethesda games for the enemy".... interpreting the words of a known bullshitter and snake oil salesman to their ends.

Still better listening to a know bullshitter in the forum who thinks his posts have a prophetic meaning.

 

[MasterCornholio]

It's Machine Games, so it has chance of being good. Well if we forget about Wolf: Youngblood.

No idea what made them do that.

 

[driqe]

No idea what made them do that.

what movie/show is that gif from?

 

[Stooky]

Still better listening to a know bullshitter in the forum who thinks his posts have a prophetic meaning.

And Who are you? We’re all guessing on this.

 

[Warablo]

The only way Microsoft games get on Playstation is if Sony allows Game Pass on it.

Microsoft didn't buy Zenimax to just keeping doing business as usual.

 

[MasterCornholio]

what movie/show is that gif from?

Honestly I have no idea. I was trying to find a girl power Young blood gif and couldn't find one. For some reason this gif popped up and it seemed appropriate.

I really love Wolfenstein but young blood was a weird experience for me.

 

[Bernkastel]

And Who are you? We’re all guessing on this.

It’s not a console war for me. I don’t care if theses games are on ther platforms or not.

Someone who does not preach about things he has no interest in.

 

[Knitted Knight]

You forgot Xbox Store which makes most of the money. Fable probably has all that budget "in isolation". Not

Microsoft is Offering Unlimited Budget to Newly Acquired Studios for Xbox Exclusives

Microsoft is a giant corporation with unlimited resources. Still, the company lost the battle to Sony in the game market. It was mainly due to a lack of

segmentnext.com

Gotta love arm chair businessmen on GAF. Hypothetically, if we consider five big games launching every year, then they will need to spend 500 million every year and they make more than that in a month.

Still better listening to a know bullshitter in the forum who thinks his posts have a prophetic meaning.

I didn't forget anything. The article you provided said nothing other than some ex MS suit flaunting and trying to impress a gamer during a convo on MS opening the "unlimited" warchest when it came to budgets. Which goes contrary to another, current MS suit, Matt Booty who spilled the beans (accidentally) on AA games with AAA shine for gamepass - you know, like Perfect Dark with the Initiative. So unless you want to misconstrue my argument and build some strawman, get to the point.

Now if the point is that 500m (number randomly picked out your behind) is all it's gonna take to run Bethesda and all the other studios combined yearly (23 is the number I believe), churning out AAA content at Sony/ND level given like-budgets like that disclosed by Jaffe then you're an even bigger moron than I thought you were: being so hardcore for a platform that hasn't delivered for 7 years and counting and doesn't give a shit about its hardcore following already setting off all kinds of red flags - it's not even a debatable fact. Which is why I never bothered with you - damage control artist that behaves as if on the take digging up Linked profiles for some exclusive rumor that never materialize into something great - good hobby there bud. But to stay on point, you just gotta look at Halo Infinite and the reported budgets on that game to look at how ludicrous that claim is.

You can continue to listen to your eco-chamber of "good vibes" only and not to bullshitters on Gaf: Colt, Dealer, Timdog and the Xbox Discord are that way --->.

 

[MonarchJT]

Well, yes. But 1: Gamepass is not Xbox, 2: we don't know the internal numbers to compare the whole enterprise (unfortunately done on purpose unlike say Netflix disclosures). I do believe there will be some type of benefit to MS platforms like all observers have pointed out, from industry folk to your normal layman, but you don't muddy the exclusivity talk like Phil does when you can be clear cut in your terms unless you want to keep your options open and or intend to do something that one of your known audiences may construe negatively, like: new Bethesda games releasing on PlayStation platforms as well. The day a new Bethesda game under MS, after the acquisition is official, lands on a PlayStation console will be judgement day for post histories on this forum from diehard Xbox fanboys - and people will make sure they're remembered of that. Some folk, in their clouded fanboysm and thirst for a win vs. the other side have being completely absolute in their terms of "no Bethesda games for the enemy".... interpreting the words of a known bullshitter and snake oil salesman to their ends. We'll see how it all plays out within a year or two.

gamepass with xcloud it is clearly the platform that Microsoft is preparing for future hardware agnostic and like every platform it needs exclusives (from sky tv to HBO from netflix to amazon prima...from apple arcade to consoles whatever uses it to attract and retain users).
The physical console is now simply an (official) part of the Xbox platform that sooner or later like all other consoles will vanish in history leaving room for what will come next. Phil as you say it is certainly leaving some doors open for possible program changes but it is more than clear (and it is logical so!) what a great majority of cases the games will be exclusive. Thinking exclusively about the instantaneous revenue generated by the titles is stupid as much as thinking that demon soul remake must have been cross gen because there aren't enough ps5 to generate large numbers of sales. exclusives are exclusive because they make the platform special there are no exclusives that generate more money because they are confined to a single ecosystem. any successful exclusive would sell x2 or more if released as a multi-platform. So to think that a company with Ms capital cares so much about the money they spent to the point to release games that would push it's platform on the first rival console it is at least naive especially if you think that Sony is economically 10 or more times smaller than ms and would never release its first party on Xbox despite not having the advantage that ms has at the moment ... release the game also on pc and xcloud ...platforms that if added to the sales of consoles would make their user reach the largest between Sony Ms and Ninty platforms.
The great MMOs will remain cross-platform the rest will be Xbox (PC + console + Cloud) you can count on it

 

[Arachnid]

Wolfenstein devs?

Meh

 

[MonarchJT]

It’s not a console war for me. I don’t care if theses games are on ther platforms or not. The only game I’m somewhat interested in is Doom, again I don’t care. I don’t believe that all these games will be exclusive to Microsoft. It doesent make since financially . Especially for a 7bill purchase vs the current amount of subscribers Xbox and pc gamers, there’s to much overlap. Gamepas and pc does not generate enough profit to support developement of all these games. These games will be on gamepass for a great subscription price, other platforms whether it be Sony steam epic store , you will pay full price for each title. Everything form phill right now is pr talk to get fanboys excited, obviously it’s working. In short if all these games were exclusive then phill would have said it. That would be huge news. But he didn’t he’s mildly vague about all this. Bookmarking this for later.

again Phil said it generate enough money and that no one should worry about how much ms earns ... u saying it doesn't ...okay.

“There’s no plan for us to do anything like that; we like the value that Game Pass is today, and from a business model it’s completely sustainable the way it is,” Spencer added.

Phil Spencer: Xbox Game Pass Pricing Is 'Completely Sustainable As It Is'

If you're worried about Xbox Game Pass becoming more expensive, Xbox's Phil Spencer has explained why that won't be the case.

www.kotaku.com.au

 

[Bernkastel]

I didn't forget anything. The article you provided said nothing other than some ex MS suit flaunting and trying to impress a gamer during a convo on MS opening the "unlimited" warchest when it came to budgets.

"Nah I will listen to an armchair warriors story about 'business' that somehow perfectly fits his own narrative".

Now if the point is that 500m (number randomly picked out your behind) is all it's gonna take to run Bethesda and all the other studios combined yearly, churning out AAA content at Sony/ND level given like-budgets like that disclosed by Jaffe then you're an even bigger moron than I thought you were:

Nah it was just overstatement simply assuming that Xbox will release five AAA games a year of a budget 100 million a year(they probably need less). Although it seems like numerical comprehension is too much to expect from you.

being so hardcore for a platform that hasn't delivered for 7 years and counting and doesn't give a shit about its hardcore following already setting all kinds of wrong flags - it's not even a debatable fact.

"Yeah, how could someone even care about a platform I don't like. I thought I will post my insecurities as "business takes" and everyone will happily agree with me". All your takes are debatable.

Which is why I never bothered with you - damage control artist that behaves as if on the take digging up Linked profiles for some exclusive rumor that never materialize into something great - good hobby there bud. But to stay on point, you just gotta look at Halo Infinite and the reported budgets on that game to look at how ludicrous that claim is.

I wonder what you are making up now.

You can continue to listen to your eco-chamber of "good vibes" only and not to bullshitters on Gaf: Colt, Dealer, Timdog and the Xbox Discord are that way --->.

Oh I see. When nothing works you rely on some good old conspiracies. Rest assured I don't follow anyone of your favorite conspiracy circle jerk. Unlike you I don't need validation from some twitter gang.

 

[CamHostage]

Microsoft is a business, and a business wants to make money. It is not emotional about making games exclusives just to "show the other guys". The primary goal is to make money. And most Bethesda games, I believe, will be evaluated case-by-case before release.

If it would make more money to keep it exclusive, MS will do that. If it would make more money to keep it multiplatform, MS will do that.

And I mentioned this in another thread, but it's advantageous for Microsoft to take a wait-and-see approach rather than making a hardline decision right now. They have purchased a company with footholds in every competitor's ecosystems. So they have options and they have insight, and in a market that is already seeing a lot of shifting with games-as-services and cross-platform play and streaming and subscriber services, options are good to have open and insight is good to keep bringing in.

Xbox is already the winner with the Bethesda purchase, because if you can't live without Indy and Elder Scrolls, Xbox (and PC) is your game system. For the gamers who are still on the fence over these brands or committed to another platform, MS can wait until it needs to decide how best to lure you into their audience...

 

[Knitted Knight]

"Nah I will listen to an armchair warriors story about 'business' that somehow perfectly fits his own narrative".

Nah it was just overstatement simply assuming that Xbox will release five AAA games a year of a budget 100 million a year(they probably need less). Although it seems like numerical comprehension is too much to expect from you.

"Yeah, how could someone even care about a platform I don't like. I thought I will post my insecurities as "business takes" and everyone will happily agree with me". All your takes are debatable.

I wonder what you are making up now.

Oh I see. When nothing works you rely on some good old conspiracies. Rest assured I don't follow anyone of your favorite conspiracy circle jerk. Unlike you I don't need validation from some twitter gang.

You made a statement about me forgetting something and didn't back it up. You brought an article that cites an ex MS suit having a convo with a youtuber (the accuracy of said convo can't be verified), seemingly suggesting or implying unlimited warchest budgets (Xbox fanboy's wet dreams - always) and I simply countered with Matt Booty's famous stream, a current MS exec, and it lines up with the Initiative project looking at their staff levels. Just connecting the dots for a reasonable take on the situation. You can add any adjectives you want but that's just you being upset at an opinion.

As for the 500m number, it's what it needs to be as long it makes your line of thinking work - lets not pretend it can be anything else that doesn't. We can talk endlessly about irony or hypocrisy there. The fact is AAA budgets have increased massively, and the context within which the arguments were taking place paint a much higher number than that illusive and efficient $100 million. Which btw I'm not discounting a game here or there (depending on the genre and studio - location being important) can be considered AAA and ship for that price.... but we also know that many AAA games today go higher too, much higher and beyond that number - specially for American devs (like Bethesda - location, location, location) - and Naughty Dog's budget isn't an exception to the rule, which is why I brought up 343i and Halo Infinite and its reported budgets (and overuns by now). It's about trying to be reasonable. Now if you cut on scope or amount of content aka AA's with AAA shine, the budgets become more malleable - games as a service types that ship with little content, episodic-like, yet still looking like a Sony blockbuster on a superficial level - perfect for the gamepass business model and profit generation.

You can like Xbox, and as I often say I got nothing wrong with people gaming on the Xbox platform. A subset of hardcore fanboys within the Xbox hardcore however do take their fanboyism to deep depths, damage controlling the failures of MS and its leadership to the point of exhaustion.... not just one poor decision here or there, each and every one - trying to herd speech, even within their own flock. I've my opinions on that type of psyche and I'll let those opinions be known. It's what it's.

Also for someone who loves to dwell on rumors of what could be, trying to label someone else as a conspiracy theorist is big time lol. A few more laugh emoji's at my posts will make you less triggered by them - I'm sure of it.