Support NeoGAF

[Yoboman]

I think the more accurate thing to say is that Microsofty studios because they didn't have a 7 year head start. If they were going to compete they needed to grow and fast. Given that prior to 2001 they were really only on PC, they had to get content to start off with the OG Xbox. From there they needed to fill out their portfolio. It's more about the need for content on their console in the early stages of OG Xbox to 360.

You can't really fault them for that. Sony already had games like Tekken, Metal Gear Solid, Wipeout, Gran Turismo, Killzone. Resistance, etc. It would have taken Xbox too long to develop teams in house to be able to realistically compete with Sony at that time.

Xbox One was where things just fell apart as we all know. Phil came in, they needed to rebuild. They developed a few studios in house, but I'd imagine finding the right folks to start up a studio in the Xbox One era would have been really risky after that debacle. They also were woefully underfunded at the time. So there wasn't a whole lot they could do. Phil was the Xbox Studios head, where Matt Booty is now. However, once he became head of Xbox and got Satya's blessing to actually have a real budget...they needed to go ahead and spend money. I don't think anybody expect the amount that they have been, but the principle is the same.

But they did that. They really leveraged the PC market to bring a ton of Devs who were PC only to console. They established a competitive uniqueness and we're publishing games not found elsewhere

Imagine Microsoft today if they had made the offer you can't refuse to devs they were publishing for like Bioware, Epic Games, Mistwalker, Bizarre creations before they were bought up or did their own thing. Hadn't let go of Bungie and closed Lionhead. Had courted Xbox exclusive devs like Team Ninja and Starbreeze.

They lost all their competitive advantage of their own volition instead of building on it

Luckily they eventually did bring back Xbox 1 exclusive devs like Bethesda and Double Fine

 

[Heisenberg007]

Show on their financials where it shows Xbox losing billions

They don't show Xbox financials

But we do get tidbits. And I've also included that in my last thread. We now have undeniable information.

Phil Spencer also calls the Xbox business "Polaroid" (as in obsolete). He also said our core business is not what people wants. And he suggested shutting down Xbox.

You don't suggest shutting down a business that is bringing in millions and billions in profits.

 

[Fabieter]

But they did that. They really leveraged the PC market to bring a ton of Devs who were PC only to console. They established a competitive uniqueness and we're publishing games not found elsewhere

Imagine Microsoft today if they had made the offer you can't refuse to devs they were publishing for like Bioware, Epic Games, Mistwalker, Bizarre creations before they were bought up or did their own thing. Hadn't let go of Bungie and closed Lionhead. Had courted Xbox exclusive devs like Team Ninja and Starbreeze.

They lost all their competitive advantage of their own volition instead of building on it

Luckily they eventually did bring back Xbox 1 exclusive devs like Bethesda and Double Fine

What was the exclusive double fine making for xbox?

 

[Yoboman]

What was the exclusive double fine making for xbox?

Psychonauts was originally to be published by Microsoft, they pulled out before it released and it went multiplat

 

[Fabieter]

Psychonauts was originally to be published by Microsoft, they pulled out before it released and it went multiplat

Oh didn't know that. So l psychonauts was something like LA noire and remember me from sony.

 

[THE DUCK]

If cod gets exclusive, on gamepass and some studios freed from cod like fans wish than the profit this company has will go rapidly down.

But actually I meant gamepass with the loss leading strat.

I don't think MS sees gamepass as a loss leader, in fact they have gone on record to say it already breaks even. A loss leader would be selling gamepass for $1 a month continuously, this is not what they are doing.
If COD were to go exclusive, your assuming the extra console sales, additional game sales, and add on sales with no share given to Sony, and extra gamepass subs would not make up for the loss. While this might not happen overnight, it could happen over time.
Besides, if you want to talk about loss leaders, every console has a loss leader in the console itself.

 

[Fabieter]

I don't think MS sees gamepass as a loss leader, in fact they have gone on record to say it already breaks even. A loss leader would be selling gamepass for $1 a month continuously, this is not what they are doing.
If COD were to go exclusive, your assuming the extra console sales, additional game sales, and add on sales with no share given to Sony, and extra gamepass subs would not make up for the loss. While this might not happen overnight, it could happen over time.
Besides, if you want to talk about loss leaders, every console has a loss leader in the console itself.

No it wouldn't make up for it. Cod sells easily 10 to 15m on xbox every year. That's about to drop in addition to no playstation sales. This might be offset by smaller budgets which to be honest I expect for most games on a sub in a few years.

Pretty sure ps5 and switch wasn't really sold at a loss.

 

[Jigsaah]

But they did that. They really leveraged the PC market to bring a ton of Devs who were PC only to console. They established a competitive uniqueness and we're publishing games not found elsewhere

Imagine Microsoft today if they had made the offer you can't refuse to devs they were publishing for like Bioware, Epic Games, Mistwalker, Bizarre creations before they were bought up or did their own thing. Hadn't let go of Bungie and closed Lionhead. Had courted Xbox exclusive devs like Team Ninja and Starbreeze.

They lost all their competitive advantage of their own volition instead of building on it

Luckily they eventually did bring back Xbox 1 exclusive devs like Bethesda and Double Fine

WEll I'll admit Microsoft buying Bioware before EA got their grubby hands on it woulda been a dub...maybe. Microsoft's management was questionable even then. Not so much for the quality of games, but they were closing studios left and right. I also wouldn't call it an advantage as much as it was leveling the playing field with Nintendo and Sony. It could have been different, I agree.

 

[THE DUCK]

The bolded is my problem and most people here.

But is that a personal problem, or a professional one, or an ethical one?

No it wouldn't make up for it. Cod sells easily 10 to 15m on xbox every year. That's about to drop in addition to no playstation sales. This might be offset by smaller budgets which to be honest I expect for most games on a sub in a few years.

Pretty sure ps5 and switch wasn't really sold at a loss.

Might not make up for it all but still may be profitable.

Ps5 sold 10 million units before they stopped losing money on them......

Sony’s $499 PS5 is no longer selling at a loss

The PS5 won’t be costly like the PS3.

www.theverge.com

Switch isn't, but that's why they choose a cheap chipset. If they had any sort of competition in the mobile space this would not be the case as they would be forced to use more modern chipsets.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

Man I miss the FTC hearings.

 

[nikolino840]

 

[Fabieter]

But is that a personal problem, or a professional one, or an ethical one?


Might not make up for it all but still may be profitable.

Ps5 sold 10 million units before they stopped losing money on them......

Sony’s $499 PS5 is no longer selling at a loss

The PS5 won’t be costly like the PS3.

www.theverge.com

Switch isn't, but that's why they choose a cheap chipset. If they had any sort of competition in the mobile space this would not be the case as they would be forced to use more modern chipsets.

Alright the first 10m was basically the first six month okay. We had reports in December 2022 which confirmed ms is still loosing 100 to 200 $ for every console on top of giving every 1p game for 10 bucks a month.

Let's see if nintendo gives a shit about steamdeck and the asus handheld.

 

[THE DUCK]

Alright the first 10m was basically the first six month okay. We had reports in December 2022 which confirmed ms is still loosing 100 to 200 $ for every console on top of giving every 1p game for 10 bucks a month.

Let's see if nintendo gives a shit about steamdeck and the asus handheld.

Nintendo won't care about steamdeck as it doesn't have any exclusive games and it's only sold direct, plus it's not truly plug and play. They won't care about Asus Ally as it's too expensive.
It would take MS or Sony to release a $299-$399 portable, and day and date games.

 

[Fabieter]

Nintendo won't care about steamdeck as it doesn't have any exclusive games and it's only sold direct, plus it's not truly plug and play. They won't care about Asus Ally as it's too expensive.
It would take MS or Sony to release a $299-$399 portable, and day and date games.

I mean depending on how strong the deck 2 and the Switch 2 is it will be easy to emulate those on the deck if the Switch 2 isn't as powerful.

 

[b6a6es]

 

[MasterCornholio]

So basically it's nothing.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Don't think you read my whole post.

I'm well aware of the realities of their market share. What I said is that Sony using their market share to get deals that Microsoft can't afford to is also anti-competitive. It's a barrier to competition. Just as much as Microsoft (parent) swopping in and making a purchase that Sony can't compete with.

It's pretty complicated actually.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-8#:~:text=Exclusive dealing describes an arrangement,of its requirements from it.&text=Exclusive dealing is common and can take many forms.

They do not use their market share to get deals Xbox can’t. For them to do that they would have to for example, tell a dev they can only release the game on PlayStation if it’s timed exclusive, or if it has added content or features. That would be leveraging access to their userbase.

What you speak of is a false idea that was brewed in social media circles, aka narrative, to make Sony look anti competitive.

When MS entered the industry with Xbox, it was full of exclusives. 360 was the same. The idea that MS can’t get exclusives like PlayStation is a bunch of bs.

 

[Astray]

Microsoft's board can easily approve a couple of extra billions to "temporarily balance the scales" so Xbox can regain marketshare with better timed exclusives and stabilize the pricing later on when proof is attained that Xbox can bring similar sales to Playstation.

The problem is that this requires the company to actually start being good at delivering to markets outside the US, it needs to be better at product design, better at distribution, better at publishing, better at managing their studios etc. These are the fundamentals of being a strong console pusher (See Nintendo and Sony).

Microsoft upper management has clearly decided that they have no hope at actually competing for the consumers, so their only logical recourse is to coerce both consumer and developer into a Netflix-like business model via gobbling up treasured IP and destroying sales revenue via Gamepass.

That business model is severely value-destructive and in my opinion, cannot be allowed to succeed for the good of the industry.

 

[Heisenberg007]

 

[Ogbert]

Microsoft's board can easily approve a couple of extra billions to "temporarily balance the scales" so Xbox can regain marketshare with better timed exclusives and stabilize the pricing later on when proof is attained that Xbox can bring similar sales to Playstation.

The problem is that this requires the company to actually start being good at delivering to markets outside the US, it needs to be better at product design, better at distribution, better at publishing, better at managing their studios etc. These are the fundamentals of being a strong console pusher (See Nintendo and Sony).

Microsoft upper management has clearly decided that they have no hope at actually competing for the consumers, so their only logical recourse is to coerce both consumer and developer into a Netflix-like business model via gobbling up treasured IP and destroying sales revenue via Gamepass.

That business model is severely value-destructive and in my opinion, cannot be allowed to succeed for the good of the industry.

I do not believe that Gamepass is inherently value destructive.

I do believe it operates on an economy of scale that needs huge market share to find its feet. Trying to look at this objectively, I think MS have broadly given up on console sales (or rather accept the reality of the situation). But they do want you to subscribe to Gamepass, via PC, X or Cloud.

Rather like everyone owns their main console *and* a Switch, they want people to own a PS5 and subscribe to Gamepass.

I actually think they’re trying to find their own niche.

 

[KingT731]

Yes, everything that is exclusive. The "obvious reasons" narrative is what I am talking about, people simple accepted that narrative, which then gets applied to larger franchises such as FF and SFV and everyone acts like it isn't a huge problem and instead act like it is acceptable for "obvious reasons".

No, there are legitimately games with 0 money from Sony/Nintendo that just skip Xbox. Literally tons of Japanese games and why do you think that is? Devs have literally said they haven't seen any interest for their games on the platform (this is is where the "obvious reason" kicks in). Even if we go back to the 360 era when MS were paying for exclusivity, timed or otherwise, those games saw very little success, and now they're back to doing that with the additional lure of GP. The result of this method is once MS stops subsidizing those releases _________ (fill in the blank)

 

[Heisenberg007]

I do not believe that Gamepass is inherently value destructive.

I do believe it operates on an economy of scale that needs huge market share to find its feet. Trying to look at this objectively, I think MS have broadly given up on console sales (or rather accept the reality of the situation). But they do want you to subscribe to Gamepass, via PC, X or Cloud.

Rather like everyone owns their main console *and* a Switch, they want people to own a PS5 and subscribe to Gamepass.

I actually think they’re trying to find their own niche.

That is a fair point. And although I've talked about this before in other threads, Xbox's wounds are mostly self-inflicted as they can't decide what they want to do.

• If they want to sell consoles, stop day one releases on PC and Game Pass and focus on selling your consoles.
• If they think consoles are not worth it and money should be made through software and subscription, then abandon your consoles truly, become a third-party publisher, and put all your games on PlayStation and Nintendo. And also make a first-party-only Game Pass tier (like EA Play) and put that on PlayStation and Nintendo.

They can't seem to make up their minds about what it is they should be doing.

 

[FrankWza]

It's a tricky proposition, any company can say and even mean they will stay multiplatform and actually change thier minds latr for business reasons, legitimate or otherwise.

I mean look at Mojang, all these years later and it's still multiplatform, what if ms is being truthful this time? Would it be ok then?
How would we know......

Or conversely, ms could buy Activision with intent to go exclusive but suddenly reverse course and not launch a console next gen.
Maybe just a pc box similar to the ally.
And just basically be a full on software company.

I think that's part of the point people are makingIt's 3rd party. Let it stay 3rd party. There's no point in the acquisitions towards consolidation unless you are going to take them away strategically. They can make up anything and pivot when they see fit. Even under oath, they can just change leadership and not be bound. If they truly intend to stay 3rd party they can guarantee that somehow. They won't.
Even if they decide not to make another console, they benefit by making those games exclusive to PC or Gamepass or both.

 

[Pelta88]

I do not believe that Gamepass is inherently value destructive.

Then, respectfully, you're living in an alternate reality.

Microsoft, Jim Ryan, Bobby Kotic, and other publishers / industry sentiment is that Game is value destructive. As submitted via legally binding documents and testimony to regulators. And also under oath in court. For you to then turn around and say "I don't believe GP is value destructive" speaks volumes about you, specifically.

 

[Astray]

I do not believe that Gamepass is inherently value destructive.

I do believe it operates on an economy of scale that needs huge market share to find its feet. Trying to look at this objectively, I think MS have broadly given up on console sales (or rather accept the reality of the situation). But they do want you to subscribe to Gamepass, via PC, X or Cloud.

Rather like everyone owns their main console *and* a Switch, they want people to own a PS5 and subscribe to Gamepass.

I actually think they’re trying to find their own niche.

The other 2 entertainment industries that have gone into a sub-focused models are now both plagued with strikes and reduced income for content creators (writers/directors actors etc for films/TV, and singers/producers/songwriters for Music) on one end, and reduced (or non-existent) profits for content distributors (think Spotify/Netflix etc). Not to mention increasing prices for consumers as well.

The sub-focused model has largely proven to be an economic failure for other media industries, all signs are proving that it's not an economic success so far here either (Microsoft not releasing any actual observable stats on Gamepass is a big, BIG red flag imo).. So why does anyone want it to become prevalent in gaming as well?

 

[adamsapple]

Is that the son of the approving judge ?

 

[ZehDon]

That is a fair point. And although I've talked about this before in other threads, Xbox's wounds are mostly self-inflicted as they can't decide what they want to do.

• If they want to sell consoles, stop day one releases on PC and Game Pass and focus on selling your consoles.
• If they think consoles are not worth it and money should be made through software and subscription, then abandon your consoles truly, become a third-party publisher, and put all your games on PlayStation and Nintendo. And also make a first-party-only Game Pass tier (like EA Play) and put that on PlayStation and Nintendo.

They can't seem to make up their minds about what it is they should be doing.

I think Microsoft is finding the balance. Xbox consoles aren't "the platform" in the same way as PS5 is "the platform". Microsoft divorced the Xbox eco-sytem from the console to avoid the Xbone scenario: you don't sell enough hardware to have a platform, then the entire business teeters. They're basically using Xbox consoles as gaming PCs for casuals and trying to find a way to make it work. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but this is their big innovation and it looks like they're fully prepared to die on this hill. Their only other choice was Round 4 against Sony in a one-v-one, and we all know how they'd play out without needing to see the footage.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Is that the son of the approving judge ?

This is Aaron Greenberg's childhood footage.

 

[Topher]

This is Aaron Greenberg's childhood footage.

Aaron was a good kid, until he met some little punk named Phil.....

 

[Ar¢tos]

No, there are legitimately games with 0 money from Sony/Nintendo that just skip Xbox. Literally tons of Japanese games and why do you think that is? Devs have literally said they haven't seen any interest for their games on the platform (this is is where the "obvious reason" kicks in). Even if we go back to the 360 era when MS were paying for exclusivity, timed or otherwise, those games saw very little success, and now they're back to doing that with the additional lure of GP. The result of this method is once MS stops subsidizing those releases _________ (fill in the blank)

There are actually 3 reasons for devs to skip Xbox that are unrelated to Sony:

- The one you mentioned, why make games for a console that most of its player base don't care about
- The money/time/resources to make 2 Xbox versions of the game is not offset or barely offset by the profit of Xbox sales (could be different if devs could make a XSX version only)
- The Square-Enix approach, make MS pay upfront for the porting + some profit or they get nothing.

 

[adamsapple]

Aaron was a good kid, until he met some little punk named Phil.....

 

[SirTerry-T]

What's the current situation? Has anything actually happened yet or have we just been bickering for the last 20-30 pages?

As far as I'm aware, the latest developments involve a large part of this forum thinking they are taking part in uncovering The Watergate Scandal or something...

 

[Kilau]

As far as I'm aware, the latest developments involve a large part of this forum thinking they are taking part in uncovering The Watergate Scandal or something...

What did Phil say and when did he say it?

 

[SirTerry-T]

What did Phil say and when did he say it?

I'm not at liberty to divulge that information.

Your honour.

 

[Rubim]

They do not use their market share to get deals Xbox can’t. For them to do that they would have to for example, tell a dev they can only release the game on PlayStation if it’s timed exclusive, or if it has added content or features. That would be leveraging access to their userbase.

What you speak of is a false idea that was brewed in social media circles, aka narrative, to make Sony look anti competitive.

When MS entered the industry with Xbox, it was full of exclusives. 360 was the same. The idea that MS can’t get exclusives like PlayStation is a bunch of bs.

I mean, they do have to pay more than Sony.
They were forced to a better split on COD.

The issue here is, they are all anti competitive. Microsoft and Sony, there's no lesser evil. there's only evil.

Now if you wanna play game to find out what's the most anti competitive of those two, good luck.

 

[Kilau]

I'm not at liberty to divulge that information.

Your honour.

There is a mysterious 18” gap on Phil’s shelf.

 

[Bernoulli]

Can someone explain in 30iq gamer terms

 

[Danwan224]

I mean, they do have to pay more than Sony.
They were forced to a better split on COD.

The issue here is, they are all anti competitive. Microsoft and Sony, there's no lesser evil. there's only evil.

Now if you wanna play game to find out what's the most anti competitive of those two, good luck.

Wasn't because of Sony though was it

 

[FrankWza]

That is a fair point. And although I've talked about this before in other threads, Xbox's wounds are mostly self-inflicted as they can't decide what they want to do.

• If they want to sell consoles, stop day one releases on PC and Game Pass and focus on selling your consoles.
• If they think consoles are not worth it and money should be made through software and subscription, then abandon your consoles truly, become a third-party publisher, and put all your games on PlayStation and Nintendo. And also make a first-party-only Game Pass tier (like EA Play) and put that on PlayStation and Nintendo.

They can't seem to make up their minds about what it is they should be doing.

Doesn't matter when they buy enough IPs and publishers. This is their only shot to erase what's been happening each generation. When you give people a choice they have never chosen xbox. Gen after gen. Bungled xb1 gen and launched series with a lower powered console along a standard and no first party games. Trying to set precedent as a follower instead of maneuvering to come out on top. That division and their leadership can now, possibly control enough of an industry that they do irreparable damage consumers can't choose to avoid.

Then, respectfully, you're living in an alternate reality.

Microsoft, Jim Ryan, Bobby Kotic, and other publishers / industry sentiment is that Game is value destructive. As submitted via legally binding documents and testimony to regulators. And also under oath in court. For you to then turn around and say "I don't believe GP is value destructive" speaks volumes about you, specifically.

That's what happens when you can't say Sony Too..

 

[FrankWza]

Can someone explain in 30iq gamer terms

Psygnosis

 

[Calverz]

I do not believe that Gamepass is inherently value destructive.

I do believe it operates on an economy of scale that needs huge market share to find its feet. Trying to look at this objectively, I think MS have broadly given up on console sales (or rather accept the reality of the situation). But they do want you to subscribe to Gamepass, via PC, X or Cloud.

Rather like everyone owns their main console *and* a Switch, they want people to own a PS5 and subscribe to Gamepass.

I actually think they’re trying to find their own niche.

100%. The console sales focus ended years ago. I mean Phil said as much in that post redfall interview. So they are trying to carve out their own path. They want gamepss available on everything. PS5 included.

 

[gothmog]

I do not believe that Gamepass is inherently value destructive.

I do believe it operates on an economy of scale that needs huge market share to find its feet. Trying to look at this objectively, I think MS have broadly given up on console sales (or rather accept the reality of the situation). But they do want you to subscribe to Gamepass, via PC, X or Cloud.

Rather like everyone owns their main console *and* a Switch, they want people to own a PS5 and subscribe to Gamepass.

I actually think they’re trying to find their own niche.

The problem is that your take, while it makes sense, isn't reality. They are using unearned money from the larger business to prop up their fantasy. That will end eventually and probably not with the numbers they needed. At that point the industry is changed with nobody there to finance it anymore. Small devs would probably go out of business or lose funding.

 

[Topher]

100%. The console sales focus ended years ago. I mean Phil said as much in that post redfall interview. So they are trying to carve out their own path. They want gamepss available on everything. PS5 included.

The only thing that has been talked about being on PS is xCloud, but that talk is bogus as MS knows it will never happen.

 

[Heisenberg007]

100%. The console sales focus ended years ago. I mean Phil said as much in that post redfall interview. So they are trying to carve out their own path. They want gamepss available on everything. PS5 included.

So why were they carrying these boards across Europe?

 

[Pelta88]

Show on their financials where it shows Xbox losing billions

It's in the documents submitted to regulators under market share. If you're thinking about asking me to find the specific sentence, first think about what thread you're in and what we've been discussing for 1300 pages.

Also fun fact, XBOX stopped reporting profit and losses in 2013.

 

[sainraja]

I think the more accurate thing to say is that Microsofty studios because they didn't have a 7 year head start. If they were going to compete they needed to grow and fast. Given that prior to 2001 they were really only on PC, they had to get content to start off with the OG Xbox. From there they needed to fill out their portfolio. It's more about the need for content on their console in the early stages of OG Xbox to 360.

Sony also didn't have a head start over Nintendo and Sega. Not sure if that should matter, if at all.

You can't really fault them for that. Sony already had games like Tekken, Metal Gear Solid, Wipeout, Gran Turismo, Killzone. Resistance, etc. It would have taken Xbox too long to develop teams in house to be able to realistically compete with Sony at that time.

Three of the games you listed are games Sony invested money into via second-party/first-party. What the poster you are responding to is arguing MS should have done as well.

Xbox One was where things just fell apart as we all know. Phil came in, they needed to rebuild. They developed a few studios in house, but I'd imagine finding the right folks to start up a studio in the Xbox One era would have been really risky after that debacle. They also were woefully underfunded at the time. So there wasn't a whole lot they could do. Phil was the Xbox Studios head, where Matt Booty is now. However, once he became head of Xbox and got Satya's blessing to actually have a real budget...they needed to go ahead and spend money. I don't think anybody expect the amount that they have been, but the principle is the same.

It is too early to say which strategy would have suited them better, but they could have easily invested this money into supporting Xbox with content via first-party/second-party studios over going after huge publishers with multiple teams and IPs. We know which path they chose, but I don't see how your post really addresses the point being made; given Sony did what you seem to be excusing MS for. Sure, there is a risk, but there is risk in their current strategy too.

MS should have taken the risk or tried to balance how much they invested internally and externally. They already acquired Zenimax/Bethesda, all they needed to focus on next was creating fresh new IPs instead of going after A&B to try to speed up their push of Game Pass.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Sony also didn't have a head start over Nintendo and Sega. Not sure if that should matter, if at all.


Three of the games you listed are games Sony invested money into via second-party/first-party. What the poster you are responding to is arguing MS should have done as well.


It is too early to say which strategy would have suited them better, but they could have easily invested this money into supporting Xbox with content via first-party/second-party studios over going after huge publishers with multiple teams and IPs. We know which path they chose, but I don't see how your post really addresses the point being made; given Sony did what you seem to be excusing MS for. Sure, there is a risk, but there is risk in their current strategy too.

MS should have taken the risk or tried to balance how much they invested internally and externally. They already acquired Zenimax/Bethesda, all they needed to focus on next was creating fresh new IPs instead of going after A&B to try to speed up their push of Game Pass.

Even Wipeout is Sony-owned IP.

 

[Pelta88]

That's what happens when you can't say Sony Too..

Factual.

 

[Ogbert]

Then, respectfully, you're living in an alternate reality.

Microsoft, Jim Ryan, Bobby Kotic, and other publishers / industry sentiment is that Game is value destructive. As submitted via legally binding documents and testimony to regulators. And also under oath in court. For you to then turn around and say "I don't believe GP is value destructive" speaks volumes about you, specifically.

I said ‘inherently’ value destructive.

At the moment, it is. It has the potential, with sufficient scale, to break through. It all depends how much money MS are willing to waste getting there. Looks like they’re happy to spend a great deal.

 

[Ogbert]

The problem is that your take, while it makes sense, isn't reality. They are using unearned money from the larger business to prop up their fantasy. That will end eventually and probably not with the numbers they needed. At that point the industry is changed with nobody there to finance it anymore. Small devs would probably go out of business or lose funding.

Yes, true.

During the hearing, Spencer did state that Xbox is wholly independent within MS. And if I remember correctly, he said that it had its own PnL.