• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Hi-Fi Rush Was a "Break Out Hit" For Xbox, Says Aaron Greenberg

Punished Miku

Gold Member
Its a multi-team studio who's founder just left, and a project that started before the MS takeover of its parent company and the subsequent cancellation of one of its target SKU's.

If they had high hopes for the project they'd have marketed it properly and not shadow-dropped it as a value-add for a stagnating (in terms of sub count) service.

If it had overperformed I'd expect them to announce DLC or a sequel entering production. Because you'd expect them to want to capitalize on that success.
It's had two DLC costume packs. 1 came out like a week ago.
 

Mr Moose

Member
200.gif

Why would a MS first party game be on other platforms?

I agree with this game though, doesn't need to be on Switch/PS.
 

Cashon

Banned
The truth probably lies somewhere in between.

Whatever the truth is, I think it was dumb to shadow drop it and not release it on Switch and PlayStation.
Why would they do this? If you think they should've because more consoles equals more sales, then by that logic each company would release their first-party games on every console. At that point, why not just partner up on a single console and distribute all first-party games to it instead of having individual console spaces?
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member

Ozriel

M$FT
This forum is so weird. I really wish people had more self-awareness and could recognize that they're letting petty biases and naive corporate loyalty cloud their judgement and misguide their behaviors.

You spent money on Console A, under a misguided loyalty, and you don't want to spend more money on Console B, so you delude yourselves into thinking that the Console B has nothing to offer, so that you don't feel bad about your choice to own Console A. It's a defense mechanism.

You, as a gamer, should want multiple consoles that offer unique experiences, so that competition can be fostered, leading to each company doing more to entice gamers to buy and play their games/consoles. This means cheering good games on any consoles and jeering bad games on any console. If you feel badly because you can't afford to own more than one console... Get over it. You will be able to one day. You don't have to be a part of the zeitgeist to enjoy games.

Nail on the head.

A large chunk of platform warring comes from managing opportunity cost.

If it had overperformed I'd expect them to announce DLC or a sequel entering production. Because you'd expect them to want to capitalize on that success.

That’s not a relevant metric for success. There’s Forspoken DLC on the way, for example. And that didn’t ‘overperform’.

If you guys handwaved away Greenberg’s tweet and the fact that John Johanas and Spencer ‘liked’ it, the internal Tango email celebrating Hi-Fi Rush launch reception and the job postings showing Tango’s expansion, I’m not sure how announcing DLC would have moved the needle.
 

feynoob

Member
So when the expectations are that low, all measurements would be a success. 🤷‍♀️
The expectation was different.
They are using it as gamepass attraction.

They want young get audience to sub to gamepass, which is a success measurement for them.

These type of games usually nets around $50m lifetime. So it's better for them to get 100k-500k gamepass users, who will sub for longer than 3 years.
 

FrankWza

Member
What?Their entire business model now revolves around game pass.Imagine asking about ticket sales from Netflix....🤦‍♂️

They are selling it but no incentive to buy first party game as you can play them anytime in game pass.How about letting one of the richest companies on planet worry about which model to follow....
Again, if the entire business model revolves around gamepass what does that have to do with asking Netflix about ticket sales. Unless xbox stops selling games and makes all of their titles exclusive to gp there's no comparison. They can follow whatever model they want, but they're still selling games. Show the subs or show the sales. Easy.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Releasing the game as a shadow drop should tell you everything.
They didn't care about sales, or else they would have marketed the game a lot.

I don't think the lack of marketing for this one game is an indication of anything considering marketing has been largely non-existent for Xbox across the board.

Either way, folks need to stop this "MS doesn't care about sales" fiction. They are a money-making mega-corporation. Of course they care about sales.
 

ANDS

King of Gaslighting
"Hi-Fi RUSH was a break out hit for us and our players in ALL key measurements and expectations. "

Yes, I'm reading "all key measurements and expectations" as including sales performance and that directly refutes Grubb.

Exactly. If you have to read into something then it isn't directly refuting anything. The correct response, if GRUBB is saying HFR wasn't a sales success, and AG even wants to wade into discussing sales figures is to say "No, in fact it was successful commercially."
 

Chukhopops

Member

I agree with this game though, doesn't need to be on Switch/PS.
Microsoft is just keeping their 2014 promise to the players:
There’s no reason for the development, sales, and support of the PC/Mac, Xbox 360, Xbox One, PS3, PS4, Vita, iOS, and Android versions of Minecraft to stop. Of course, Microsoft can’t make decisions for other companies or predict the choices that they might make in the future.”

Microsoft has confirmed this, saying that the company “plans to continue to make Minecraft available across all the platforms on which it is available today: PC, iOS, Android, Xbox and PlayStation.”
Can’t believe people still doubt them after such a show of trust over 8 years…
 

Ozriel

M$FT
The boss thought so at one time... at one time... at... one... time...

That interview was talking about cross-gen games and not locking games at launch to the new consoles to force people to upgrade.

Pretty sure you already knew this.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Exactly. If you have to read into something then it isn't directly refuting anything. The correct response, if GRUBB is saying HFR wasn't a sales success, and AG even wants to wade into discussing sales figures is to say "No, in fact it was successful commercially."

I think it does. Guess we disagree.

Awkward John Krasinski GIF by Saturday Night Live
 
200.gif

Why would a MS first party game be on other platforms?
They’ll be doing it with COD and Blizzard. It’s clear they are moving to a service model.
They can have their games on Gamepass to entice people to the service and still make cash from Switch and PlayStation versions.

Of the big three, Xbox seems less focused on the actual box.
 

feynoob

Member
I don't think the lack of marketing for this one game is an indication of anything considering marketing has been largely non-existent for Xbox across the board.

Either way, folks need to stop this "MS doesn't care about sales" fiction. They are a money-making mega-corporation. Of course they care about sales.
MS is going after office route, which is why they are sacrificing current sales in order to get that done.

40M copies of 60$ price tag games, with day 1 sales cost around $2.4b, around gamepass 1 year revenue.

IF MS can get gamepass around 40m sub, cancels the 1$ promotion(they stopped as of now), cancels the stack 3 year one(they will in the future), increase the price to 18$ for console, and 12$ for pc, they will be able to generate 7.2b.
$3.5b is the cost of operating gamepass at that stage, that will leave us with $3.7b for their first party pool. To get that revenue, MS will need to sell 61.6m copies at 60$(no drop in price). Plus their game sales on top of that revenue.

That is what MS is after. These NPD/UK chart dont see this passive income, because it doesnt involve sales. Its pure sub cost, which MS can generate yearly, by maintaining 40m sub on average of $15 price tag (($18 console+12$ pc)/2 for average).
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
That interview was talking about cross-gen games and not locking games at launch to the new consoles to force people to upgrade.

Pretty sure you already knew this.

He can get right on it and lead by example. But, he is doing oppo with buying up storied 3rd party pubs and IPs.
“Maybe you happen in your household to buy an Xbox and I buy a PlayStation and our kids want to play together and they can’t because we bought the wrong piece of plastic to plug into our television,” Spencer said.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
MS is going after office route, which is why they are sacrificing current sales in order to get that done.

40M copies of 60$ price tag games, with day 1 sales cost around $2.4b, around gamepass 1 year revenue.

IF MS can get gamepass around 40m sub, cancels the 1$ promotion(they stopped as of now), cancels the stack 3 year one(they will in the future), increase the price to 18$ for console, and 12$ for pc, they will be able to generate 7.2b.
$3.5b is the cost of operating gamepass at that stage, that will leave us with $3.7b for their first party pool. To get that revenue, MS will need to sell 61.6m copies at 60$(no drop in price). Plus their game sales on top of that revenue.

That is what MS is after. These NPD/UK chart dont see this passive income, because it doesnt involve sales. Its pure sub cost, which MS can generate yearly, by mainting 40m sub on average of $15 price tag (($18 console+12$ pc)/2 for average).

Again, Phil Spencer has flatly said that they do not expect Game Pass to grow beyond 15% of their game revenue. So however Game Pass grows, the other revenue streams such as actual games sales will be the dominant revenue producer. Sales still matter. That's just a fact.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Again, Phil Spencer has flatly said that they do not expect Game Pass to grow beyond 15% of their game revenue. So however Game Pass grows, the other revenue streams such as actual games sales will be the dominant revenue producer. Sales still matter. That's just a fact.
Sales will always matter to companies that makes products. I don't get what kind of mental gymnastic knots one has to tie themselves into to argue otherwise.
 
Last edited:

j.k.2021

Banned
Clowns here might not know this but to this day, Sea of thieves and Halo MCC are top selling games on steam released by console publishers.Xbox don't care about sales as their model is game pass.That's why you don't see them boasting about it.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Search his post history. He was every bit as critical to Sony starting off this gen and about 2 years into it.

My man my man, have *you* seen his post history? Especially all the recent one visible from his profile?


If it had overperformed I'd expect them to announce DLC or a sequel entering production. Because you'd expect them to want to capitalize on that success.

They put out DLC for the game last week.

How many games do you know where they announced a sequel weeks after releasing the first one? Legitimately curious how focused your over critical lens goes here :messenger_grinning_sweat:
 

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
That’s not a relevant metric for success. There’s Forspoken DLC on the way, for example. And that didn’t ‘overperform’.

That's not a great example as its entirely possible for additional content production to be baked into the production pipeline in advance.

Generally speaking the timing of release/announcement for such product is the key.

If its all close to release window (e.g. RE4R) then chances are it was pre-planned as an adjunct to the primary offer; if its announced soon after but the additional content takes months to actually become publicly available (e.g. REVIII) then it says that performance likely exceeded expectation because its evident that their ability to capitalize was delayed due to production limitations.

If however neither is announced, then its evidence that post-release a decision was made to apportion production resources elsewhere.
 

feynoob

Member
Again, Phil Spencer has flatly said that they do not expect Game Pass to grow beyond 15% of their game revenue. So however Game Pass grows, the other revenue streams such as actual games sales will be the dominant revenue producer. Sales still matter. That's just a fact.
It will grow. Gamepass isnt going to stay at 25m forever.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
My man my man, have *you* seen his post history? Especially all the recent one visible from his profile?
My man my man, yes we have. He used to start threads criticizing as well as posting criticism for the entire first 2+ years of going into this gen about Sony. He has not started to criticize MS in the same way until the past year or so.

His writing style has been consistent, I will give him that.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
My man my man, yes we have. He used to start threads criticizing as well as posting criticism for the entire first 2+ years of going into this gen about Sony. He has not started to criticize MS in the same way until the past year or so.

It's either an outside influence or the check being cleared cause his last year or thereabout post history is pretty blatant. :messenger_grinning_sweat:
 
It will grow. Gamepass isnt going to stay at 25m forever.

It depends on the price of the subscription...

I wouldn't pay 3x the annual price I pay right now for GamePass...

I would go back to buying single games that I care about
 
Last edited:

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
They’ll be doing it with COD and Blizzard. It’s clear they are moving to a service model.
They can have their games on Gamepass to entice people to the service and still make cash from Switch and PlayStation versions.

Of the big three, Xbox seems less focused on the actual box.

Who says there will be PlayStation versions? They need to get out of third place.
 
Who says there will be PlayStation versions? They need to get out of third place.
I didn’t say there would be. But this game wouldn’t move the needle for GamePass or the charts on its current platforms. Best to take in as much cash as possible and get praise on all platforms.

Microsoft won’t dig themself out of third place. That ship has sailed.

Their moves into becoming a service through cloud and other means seems the wisest thing for them, it plays into their strength.

They are having to spend over $70b on assets just to be competing with PlayStation on revenue. Playing Sony at their game hasn’t worked for them. That’s why we are seeing the drastic moves. It’s far less drastic to release the smaller games from their purchased publishers on lots of platforms and make more money.
 
Last edited:

feynoob

Member
While the ratio will remain the same according to Phil Spencer and sales will continue to be a huge part of Microsoft's gaming revenue.
I think you mean 3rd party sales, which MS gets a cut. That sale in included in overall revenue.
First party revenue is tied to how much console they sell.

PS4 game ratio sale was less than 1/5th of the lifetime console.
 
Top Bottom