Axios: Microsoft misses Xbox Game Pass subscriber target for second year

Sony would pay less for marketing deals. Sony would pay more for subscription deals, because as you said, they have a much larger user base. Look at Ark, Sony paid more for a month of access than MS paid for the game to be on GamePass for over a year.

Also, you can claim Sony doesn’t do it or need to do it all you want, yet they do it.

Comparing gamepass to PS+ is apples to oranges
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
You're not kidding there. Doing something is fine, but then telling a regulatory body that they don't want someone else to do the same is where it becomes funny/worse.


Here's the rub, MS is free to do the same, and they have in the open market.

If they buy up all the largest third party publishers and those hundreds of IPs out there, nobody is. It's not rocket science.
 

feynoob

Member
Nobody is underestimating PC users, actually. It's because they're smart that they'll simply buy the game, not subscribe to GP fot it. Starfield is $60 once. GP is $120 a year, why would anyone interested in this subscribe to it? It's not gonna happen.
So you are saying, they are better of spending $30+, instead of $10 for that month?
You clearly dont understand pc users.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
So you are saying, they are better of spending $30+, instead of $10 for that month?
You clearly dont understand pc users.
Yes. Because I own the game and can play it whenever I want. Not keep the sub alive for let's say a game that gets an entire year or two of playtime, which will cost me far more in the end, specially when a price hike comes as well. Phil's words.
 

Swift_Star

Banned
So you are saying, they are better of spending $30+, instead of $10 for that month?
You clearly dont understand pc users.
Yes, because Starfield is a game where modding matters and as Ass of Can Whooping Ass of Can Whooping said, the version that better supports modding will be the Steam one. Starfield isn't a one and done game. Like Skyrim, its players will play the game for YEARS with modding support. GP will make the players LOSE money overtime. More: PC gamers are extremely loyal to Steam and they don't like to divide their libraries. The vast majority uses Steam and will favor that.
So, it's YOU who don't understand PC gamers.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Yes, because Starfield is a game where modding matters and as Ass of Can Whooping Ass of Can Whooping said, the version that better supports modding will be the Steam one. Starfield isn't a one and done game. Like Skyrim, its players will play the game for YEARS with modding support. GP will make the players LOSE money overtime. More: PC gamers are extremely loyal to Steam and they don't like to divide their libraries. The vast majority uses Steam and will favor that.
So, it's YOU who don't understand PC gamers.
I buy all my MS games on Steam and keep closing the "free offers" from Game Pass every time my Win11 reboots.
 

feynoob

Member
Yes. Because I own the game and can play it whenever I want. Not keep the sub alive for let's say a game that gets an entire year or two of playtime, which will cost me far more in the end, specially when a price hike comes as well. Phil's words.
Yes, because Starfield is a game where modding matters and as Ass of Can Whooping Ass of Can Whooping said, the version that better supports modding will be the Steam one. Starfield isn't a one and done game. Like Skyrim, its players will play the game for YEARS with modding support. GP will make the players LOSE money overtime. More: PC gamers are extremely loyal to Steam and they don't like to divide their libraries. The vast majority uses Steam and will favor that.
So, it's YOU who don't understand PC gamers.
Both of these are singular points. That is if you only want to play that game.

Gamepass isnt just 1 game service. There tons of games, which PC users are interested in. As long as MS can provide those games, they will attract PC users.

PC users value the money they save.
 

Clear

Member
That’s weird, one of the biggest complaints people have about the acquisitions is that Microsoft should have just spent money securing GamePass titles or timed exclusives instead of buying the studios. Not enough people understand that the costs for this will be enormous and there’s less return on that investment than owning the studio and getting all the revenue.

True, but buying publishers puts you in the cross-hairs of market regulators, whereas buying exclusivity periods is just a deal between 2 businesses.


And that’s fine, it’s business. It just makes Sony’s ABK whining all the more hilarious because they actively engage in the tactics they claim MS might maybe potentially engage in if they own CoD.

Not correct. For one not all products and IP's are equally valuable, and buying up publishers implicitly means they are acquiring multiple IP's in one fell swoop.
Above all else though purchasing an entity is a far more impactful action than simply entering into a timed arrangement with that entity as a partner. The latter has a contractually agreed termination date allowing other parties to compete for the same deal at that point in the future, whereas the former has no such limitation. Its irrevocable beyond regulator intervention or the buyer having a change of heart.
 
Last edited:

Swift_Star

Banned
Both of these are singular points. That is if you only want to play that game.

Gamepass isnt just 1 game service. There tons of games, which PC users are interested in. As long as MS can provide those games, they will attract PC users.

PC users value the money they save.
At this point, it's clear you don't have a point here.
PC gamers won't subscribe to GP for Starfield.
The end.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
So you are saying, they are better of spending $30+, instead of $10 for that month?
You clearly dont understand pc users.

Plus a sub is obviously meant for someone that plays more than 1 game a year. When you look at the steam sales charts a lot of indies sell well on PC, the value of the subscription as a whole is worth way more than the $10 asking price. The big first party games just serve to draw attention to the offering, but the smaller games build out the value as well.
 

feynoob

Member
Plus a sub is obviously meant for someone that plays more than 1 game a year. When you look at the steam sales charts a lot of indies sell well on PC, the value of the subscription as a whole is worth way more than the $10 asking price. The big first party games just serve to draw attention to the offering, but the smaller games build out the value as well.
That is the point of subbing to a service like that. Playing all those games, which you cant afford to buy it.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Both of these are singular points. That is if you only want to play that game.
That's the point.

For example. I still play GT7 almost daily since it's launch. I paid full quid for the Anniversary edition, well actually, I paid $50 because I had rewards points from the Sony credit card, but I have been playing the game at least half the days of the month every month since launch. I just hit over 250 hours of playtime (racing time, sitting in the menu doesn't count) into the game last night, and over 190m credits without buying a single one.

If that game was on PS+, I would not sub for that game, because that game would have cost me MORE in the end. Especially when it's a generational game, meaning a type of game that will probably get playtime at least once a month bare minimum for the remainder of this gen and probably into the next one.

Starfield is one of those games with the mods.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Here's the rub, MS is free to do the same, and they have in the open market.

If they buy up all the largest third party publishers and those hundreds of IPs out there, nobody is. It's not rocket science.

It's a sleazy way of manipulating the market by doing something and then forbidding your rival to do the exact same thing by complaining about it to a regulatory body.

Yes. Because I own the game and can play it whenever I want. Not keep the sub alive for let's say a game that gets an entire year or two of playtime, which will cost me far more in the end, specially when a price hike comes as well. Phil's words.

We all trust Phil's words now, good to know for future references :messenger_smiling_with_eyes:


Plus a sub is obviously meant for someone that plays more than 1 game a year. When you look at the steam sales charts a lot of indies sell well on PC, the value of the subscription as a whole is worth way more than the $10 asking price. The big first party games just serve to draw attention to the offering, but the smaller games build out the value as well.

Indeed. No one takes a years long subscription just to play only one game.
 
Last edited:

feynoob

Member
At this point, it's clear you don't have a point here.
PC gamers won't subscribe to GP for Starfield.
The end.
Who is talking about starfield?
We are talking about making PC gamepass more enticing to pc users.
Starfield is a modding game, and is a steam game. Everyone knows that. I even intend to buy it on steam.

Moves like making Riot games available on gamepass is enticing to those users. It gives them those extra content, while getting gamepass games. That is how you attract them.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
It's a sleazy way of manipulating the market by doing something and then forbidding your rival to do the exact same thing by complaining about it to a regulatory body.
Oh the irony.

We all trust Phil's words now, good to know for future references :messenger_smiling_with_eyes:
Did I say I trusted his words? I just signed it as his words, because he said that. Did the man not say that prices will have to increase?

Trusting words, and repeating words are two different things. I know, you've been a fish out of water the past few days, been rough for you. I'll go easy on ya.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
That is the point of subbing to a service like that. Playing all those games, which you cant afford to buy it.

Exactly, the only way you can spin Starfield not being an incredible selling point for the subscription is to feebly try to break it down to that specific game alone, which would never be the mindset of the consumers subbing to a game library service. You sub because you get all this and Starfield too, not to play Starfield alone as an installment buy.

Also, the GDK fully supports mods for games on the Windows Game Store or Xbox Store or whatever it is they are calling it over there. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/gaming/gdk/_content/gc/packaging/packaging-mods
 
Last edited:
Who is talking about starfield?
We are talking about making PC gamepass more enticing to pc users.
Starfield is a modding game, and is a steam game. Everyone knows that. I even intend to buy it on steam.

Moves like making Riot games available on gamepass is enticing to those users. It gives them those extra content, while getting gamepass games. That is how you attract them.

Starfield was the point of discussion

Keep up lol
 

feynoob

Member
As an addition sure, but Starfield isn't going to be the game that pushes PC gamers over the edge to sub to try out the other games.
It needs more than starfield.
Games like wow, ff14, moves riot games are needed. All that depend on how MS is willing to invest.

Also, other pc games are very important. even if its nichie. Getting 100k subs from these games can add up to 5m.
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Oh the irony.

I know right, they have their pipers spreading the bullshittery ..

Did I say I trusted his words? I just signed it as his words, because he said that. Did the man not say that prices will have to increase?

The man has said a lot of things that you've never signed at before. But I guess that is an implicit understanding from here onward :messenger_smiling_with_eyes:

I know, you've been a fish out of water the past few days, been rough for you. I'll go easy on ya.

🫂
 
Last edited:

Pelta88

Member
Sony would pay less for marketing deals. Sony would pay more for subscription deals, because as you said, they have a much larger user base. Look at Ark, Sony paid more for a month of access than MS paid for the game to be on GamePass for over a year.

Also, you can claim Sony doesn’t do it or need to do it all you want, yet they do it.

Firstly at the bolded?



I never said anything along those lines.

Secondly, you need to read Microsoft's legally binding submissions to the CMA instead of parroting Microsoft's PR. For the record, Playstaion has more than double the numbers of monthly subs of XBOX. Which makes the argument you're trying to have invalid.

Thirdly, I stated clearly that it's the publishers who decide where their IP is marketed and the decision boils down to the most lucrative offer. Not according to the whims of Phil Spencer or Jim Ryan's feelings.
 
Last edited:

GHG

Member
I haven’t seen anyone claiming games like RE8 or Activision titles would hit GamePass day one but they could easily hit after six months or a year, but we all know now that Sony blocks this from happening.

Again, the publisher is agreeing to the terms of the deal. It doesn't matter whether its 6 months, a year, forever. They know what the terms of the deal are when they sign it, everything is laid out in black and white.

So in essence what that means is that they are indicating that they wouldn't be interested in a gamepass deal for the time period agreed. If they thought otherwise they wouldn't sign the contract and they would reject the deal Sony are offering for the marketing partnership.

You guys are complaining about something that publishers are choosing to do. Like you said, it's business, so get used to it.

Look at Ark, Sony paid more for a month of access than MS paid for the game to be on GamePass for over a year.

There's a difference between what PS+ game collection offers and what the proposition is for gamepass and you know it.
 
overvalued in what way? Profits/Earnings was pretty good at the time.

Every stock was largely overvalued but don't think ABK is an outlier in particular.

They are similarly overvalued but at scale. Their long-term future certainly never matched the 70b price tag.
 

FBeeEye

Member
Microsoft also hasn't released a big AAA first party title in GamePass all year. I think the two might be related. The Activision games and the rest of MS first party portfolio should help things as well.

There's literally no reason to purchase GamePass right now if you don't already have it. No need to overanalyze this more than it needs to be.
 
Again, the publisher is agreeing to the terms of the deal. It doesn't matter whether its 6 months, a year, forever. They know what the terms of the deal are when they sign it, everything is laid out in black and white.

So in essence what that means is that they are indicating that they wouldn't be interested in a gamepass deal for the time period agreed. If they thought otherwise they wouldn't sign the contract and they would reject the deal Sony are offering for the marketing partnership.

You guys are complaining about something that publishers are choosing to do. Like you said, it's business, so get used to it.

Of course it’s an agreement the two sides agree to. It’s silly for you to even argue that, as if anyone has suggested otherwise. The acquisition of ABK is also an agreement between two sides.

Also, publishers signing these deals that block GamePass releases doesn’t mean anything in regard to GamePass itself. It’s Sony using their market power to dictate things. Again, it’s fine, it’s business, but it reeks of double standards and hypocrisy when they do that and then go on to whine about maybe eventually potentially probably MS might do it with CoD 😆

Idc about your thoughts on GamePass vs PS+, I was just pointing out that Sony pays a lot more for a lot less when it comes to those deals, the opposite of their marketing deals.
 

reksveks

Member
They are similarly overvalued but at scale. Their long-term future certainly never matched the 70b price tag.
hmm, hard to say in a world where you have a mobile cod that's in-house, you got diablo immortal and for MS/ABK, you have at least 3 mobile properties that you can use to push a mobile store. I am looking for a comparison or valuation to see where you are coming from.
 
Last edited:

DaGwaphics

Member
Microsoft also hasn't released a big AAA first party title in GamePass all year. I think the two might be related. The Activision games and the rest of MS first party portfolio should help things as well.

There's literally no reason to purchase GamePass right now if you don't already have it. No need to overanalyze this more than it needs to be.

They had big games releasing in the period this is referring to (it includes holiday 2021), but I'm sure the coming drought (which was easy to see from the turn of the year) decreased interest for the last 6 months included here. No question that the ideal goal would need to be releasing hype worthy games in every quarter to keep momentum going throughout the year. MS has said as much themselves.
 
hmm, hard to say in a world where you have a mobile cod that's in-house, you got diablo immortal and for MS/ABK, you have at least 3 mobile properties that you can use to push a mobile store. I am looking for a comparison or valuation to see where you are coming from.
What mobile store are you talking about here?

Pre-pandemic, Activision was selling for as low as 42 dollars per share. Was as low as 57 a share in December of last year on its way down.
 
That's the big push behind Activision Blizzard. They need content NOW, like yesterday. Combined with Bethesda, it might be enough to limp along until their smaller studios can put out content.

Microsoft knows its over paying for Activision, but it doesn't care. They're in a bind and they know that Sony is quickly figuring out their supply issues, at some point when you see consoles on shelves, you're going to see what demand really looks like and if they are quickly outpaced now there will be no catching up.

If I were them I would have bought T2 instead.

Edit: But the problem with T2 is that GTA doesn't come out every year.

Thing is they have been buying publishers before the Bethesda deal even happened. Where are the games from all those studios?

Starfield and Redfall were the most anticipated games for Xbox this year. So your telling me if they didn't buy Bethesda they would literally have nothing and those games got delayed anyway.

Why didn't they at least do one off deals just to hold their audience over until the bigger deals got completed? The decisions they make are very questionable and then they complain about a lack of growth lol
 

reksveks

Member
Pre-pandemic, Activision was selling for as low as 42 dollars per share. Was as low as 57 a share in December of last year on its way down.
it was a 45% premium at the time microsoft announced the deal, zynga was higher closer to 64%.

need to find my post comparing the market caps at the time with the revenue and profits.

What mobile store are you talking about here?
Talking about why MS would pay an additional premium for ABK. its a long term deal and it is betting on the OAMA/DMA (risky imo)
 
Last edited:
Thing is they have been buying publishers before the Bethesda deal even happened. Where are the games from all those studios?

Starfield and Redfall were the most anticipated games for Xbox this year. So your telling me if they didn't buy Bethesda they would literally have nothing and those games got delayed anyway.

Why didn't they at least do one off deals just to hold their audience over until the bigger deals got completed? The decisions they make are very questionable and then they complain about a lack of growth lol

It can take years for these games to come out and games currently in cycle may already have contracts attached.

I think you can argue they should have tried to get some AAA exclusivity deals going, but also there just haven't been that many AAA games since the start of the gen.
 
it was a 45% premium at the time microsoft announced the deal, zynga was higher closer to 64%.

need to find my post comparing the market caps at the time with the revenue and profits.

It's not just about the market caps at the time, it's where the company was ultiamtely going before being purchased. I bet Activision would be worth like 30 dollars a share today had it not been for the acqusition.

That's worth like 23 billion... even with premium you're looking at 37 billion at most for this company...
 

adamosmaki

Member
Well maybe they would've met their target if they supported more countries like sony does and not treating us like second class citizens
 

reksveks

Member
That's worth like 23 billion... even with premium you're looking at 37 billion at most for this company...

ABK: 23 billion valuation with a 7.6 billion revenue in the last 12 months (OI: 2.3bn, NI: 1.9bn) ?? Atter a bad COD release
If EA now has 7,207 billion revenue in the last 12 month (OI: 1.25bn, NI: 0.9bn); what do you value them at?

Just for note, 6 months ago
ABK has 8.8bn revenue (TTM), 3.2bn OI and 2.7bn NI

I assume you believe ABK revenue and profits will decline when they next report it?
 
Last edited:

feynoob

Member
Why is ps+ is being brought here?
Aside of comparing the ceiling of both services, it shouldn't be talked in this post.
Stay on topic guys.
Music Video Police GIF by Andrew W. K.
 
What's the context?

Netflix and game pass are not the same thing. In fact, I think game pass provides more value because of the cost of those day 1 games outside of game pass.
It can take years for these games to come out and games currently in cycle may already have contracts attached.

I think you can argue they should have tried to get some AAA exclusivity deals going, but also there just haven't been that many AAA games since the start of the gen.
I don't think so, they knew they were going to release these new consoles and they should have had a plan to release more games. Its been 2 years and we are still talking about the same issues.

Maybe they should try to get more AAA games out, same with 3rd party deals.
Last couple of months were kinda bad imo
Exactly^

But what I think happened is Sony probably beat them to the punch with a lot of the one off deals that were available, which is why they probably think its best to just focus on getting the bigger deals.
 
Last edited:

GHG

Member
Of course it’s an agreement the two sides agree to. It’s silly for you to even argue that, as if anyone has suggested otherwise. The acquisition of ABK is also an agreement between two sides.

Are you seriously attempting to create equivalence between marketing deals and buyouts?

Also, publishers signing these deals that block GamePass releases doesn’t mean anything in regard to GamePass itself. It’s Sony using their market power to dictate things. Again, it’s fine, it’s business, but it reeks of double standards and hypocrisy when they do that and then go on to whine about maybe eventually potentially probably MS might do it with CoD 😆

This makes zero sense. The phrase "market power" suggests they are strong arming publishers into doing things they wouldn't otherwise want to do. They are at the negotiating table, the other party are free to go elsewhere if they feel like they are getting a bum deal. This is why some publishers opt to go with Xbox instead for their 3rd party marketing deals. If what you are saying is true with regards to "market power" the Xbox would get no 3rd party marketing deals and Sony would be out there making agreements for every major 3rd party title.

You should try reading the contracts. It might help with the persecution complex you've seemed to have developed with regard to how Sony conduct their business.

Idc about your thoughts on GamePass vs PS+, I was just pointing out that Sony pays a lot more for a lot less when it comes to those deals, the opposite of their marketing deals.

The games that get added to players ps+ libraries are theirs to keep forever once redeemed. With gamepass every single 3rd party agreement has an expiration date. I'll leave that one with you to work out which deal gives the 3rd party publisher more opportunity to make money in the future.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom