• 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.

US NPD August 2021

Luckily, Microsoft's goal isn't to turn everyone into Game Pass subscriber:

"It's not like I've got a crystal ball and I can tell somebody what GamePass is going to look like in five years. What I can say is that our motivation is not to turn everybody into a subscriber. We think it's an option for people. We're not pulling our games out of retail. In fact, we've expanded. We put them on Steam. We have some games in the [Epic Games Store]. We are out there to give more options to go buy our games. We obviously support free-to-play games, which don't have a big role today in Game Pass."

Source: Phil Spencer: "Our motivation is not to turn everybody into a subscriber" | GamesIndustry.biz

Also, Phil Spencer:

"I don’t need to sell any specific version of the console in order for us to reach our business goals. The business isn’t how many consoles you sell ... I think it’s easy from the outside to judge the health of our business around how many consoles any company sells. In the end, how many subscribers you have to something like Game Pass, how many games people are buying, those are much better metrics on the health of the business."

That's what I meant by half-assing it. Everyone (including MS) often says that MS doesn't care about hardware and only wants you to subscribe to Gamepass -- does not matter where you are. At the same time, they also say "we don't want everybody to turn into a subscriber." What is the primary business goal then?
  • Increase Gamepass subscribers? (then lock everything behind that subscription paywall, just like Netflix)
  • Increase hardware sales? (then don't release games on PC and abandon xCloud and become a walled garden like Apple and Nintendo)
  • Increase software sales? (then abandon hardware, stop being a competitor to Nintendo and PS, become a first-party publisher like EA and Ubisoft, and start putting your software everywhere)
I honestly do not understand what their business strategy is.
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Absolutely agreed. I have been saying this for so long. MS is spending so much time, money, and effort on Gamepass (rightfully so if they want it to succeed) but at the same time half-assing it by putting their games on retail and Steam.

If they truly believe in Gamepass (subscription model) and have the capacity to fund it for a few years while bearing losses, they need to lock everything behind Gamepass exclusively. No retail sales, no Steam sales, nothing. People say Gamepass is the "Netflix of gaming", but Netflix does not release DVDs for their Originals. You want to watch a Netflix original? You subscribed to Netflix. There is no other way.

Let's be clear though. Do I want MS to do this? No. Restricting ways gamers can access and play games is not consumer-friendly. But I'm talking specifically from a strategic and business POV.
Because not everyone wants to do a sub plan. And not everyone is even hooked up to the net to stream/download games.

Why does Sony put first party games on PS Now, allow PS Now on PC, and now release games on PC? Because expanding the ways to get revenue caters to different people.

Why is the A&E show Intervention on Netflix? Why is it on Amazon Prime to buy episodes outright? Sounds counter intuitive to getting people to have A&E channel in their cable plan or getting them to watch it on their own A&E site. But they realized having it in different places leads to more money and viewers.

Disc sales, digital sales, GP sub option all cater to different people. Why lock it down to one service? So Xbox usage goes down walling off gamers to GP?

If you dont want MS to do this, MS isn't doing it right anyway. So why are you hypothesizing an odd strategy of games distribution?
 

MrFunSocks

Banned
Why did people think that Psychonauts would chart? The original absolutely bombed. It pretty much sank the publishing company. Not to mention that it was a PS2/Xbox game released right before the PS3 and 360 released, and hasn't been seen since.

It's the *perfect* game pass game. Anyone expecting it to light the charts up is either delusional or just pretending so they can wage war.
 

YukiOnna

Member
Also, Phil Spencer:



That's what I meant by half-assing it. Everyone (including MS) often says that MS doesn't care about hardware and only wants you to subscribe to Gamepass -- does not matter where you are. At the same time, they also say "we don't want everybody to turn into a subscriber." What is the primary business goal then?
  • Increase Gamepass subscribers? (then lock everything behind that subscription paywall, just like Netflix)
  • Increase hardware sales? (then don't release games on PC and abandon xCloud and become a walled garden like Apple and Nintendo)
  • Increase software sales? (then abandon hardware, stop being a competitor to Nintendo and PS, become a first-party publisher like EA and Ubisoft, and start putting your software everywhere)
I honestly do not understand what their business strategy is.
From my understanding, it's about options. If they actually didn't care, they would have never gone for an acquisition like Zenimax. Aaron Greenburg said that it's more about giving back to the consumer, so it's similar to Netflix and other Digital Streaming service approach to subscriptions: value in the long term.

They obviously do care, but it's more about giving the consumer different ways to buy things. "Installment plan," traditional box, PC, etc. They refer to it as the Windows Ecosystem for a while now. The PR is weird though.
 

bender

Candy Corn Aficionado
It's the *perfect* game pass game. Anyone expecting it to light the charts up is either delusional or just pretending so they can wage war.



More obvious is that people are just hoping that Double Fine's best effort to date is rewarded with sales.
 
Last edited:
Also, Phil Spencer:



That's what I meant by half-assing it. Everyone (including MS) often says that MS doesn't care about hardware and only wants you to subscribe to Gamepass -- does not matter where you are. At the same time, they also say "we don't want everybody to turn into a subscriber." What is the primary business goal then?
  • Increase Gamepass subscribers? (then lock everything behind that subscription paywall, just like Netflix)
  • Increase hardware sales? (then don't release games on PC and abandon xCloud and become a walled garden like Apple and Nintendo)
  • Increase software sales? (then abandon hardware, stop being a competitor to Nintendo and PS, become a first-party publisher like EA and Ubisoft, and start putting your software everywhere)
I honestly do not understand what their business strategy is.

Those are bad solutions for reasonable conundrums. Like:

Increase Gamepass subscribers? They could add more content into gamepass and make it more desirable.
Increase hardware sales? Easier access to games and better experience.
Increase software sales? Make better games like Nintendo?
 
Why did people think that Psychonauts would chart? The original absolutely bombed. It pretty much sank the publishing company. Not to mention that it was a PS2/Xbox game released right before the PS3 and 360 released, and hasn't been seen since.

It's the *perfect* game pass game. Anyone expecting it to light the charts up is either delusional or just pretending so they can wage war.
It's charting on #7 on PSN for this month so far.
 
From my understanding, it's about options. If they actually didn't care, they would have never gone for an acquisition like Zenimax. Aaron Greenburg said that it's more about giving back to the consumer, so it's similar to Netflix and other Digital Streaming service approach to subscriptions: value in the long term.

They obviously do care, but it's more about giving the consumer different ways to buy things. "Installment plan," traditional box, PC, etc. They refer to it as the Windows Ecosystem for a while now. The PR is weird though.
They absolutely do care, I agree. I just don't agree with/understand their business strategy. I feel it's convoluted. They are trying to do multiple things that are often mutually exclusive.
 

DenchDeckard

Gold Member
They absolutely do care, I agree. I just don't agree with/understand their business strategy. I feel it's convoluted. They are trying to do multiple things that are often mutually exclusive.
They are doing typical Microsoft and pushing for record breaking profits. How the rest lines up to deliver that profit and quarterly earnings doesn’t matter as long as the arrow keeps moving up…which it currently is.
 

DarkMage619

Member
They why bother putting all their current and future games on Steam?
Wouldn't two potential ways to sell their software on PC be better than only one? They want subs but some people can't get the Windows Store to work which is an issue. MS is trying to get their games to people anyway they can.
 
Those are bad solutions for reasonable conundrums. Like:

Increase Gamepass subscribers? They could add more content into gamepass and make it more desirable.
Increase hardware sales? Easier access to games and better experience.
Increase software sales? Make better games like Nintendo?
The solutions that you and I shared are not mutually exclusive.
  • Gamepass. Add more content. Add better content. And make Gamepass subscription the only way to play those games. Literally like Netflix that they want to be but for gaming.
  • Hardware sales. Their hardware offers the same experience as their competitor and costs the same ($100 more if you compare it with PS5 Digital), so no chances there.
  • Software sales. Make better games, yes, but also on more platforms. It's literally the same reason why they started putting games on Steam on day one because they wanted to increase the market and increase software sales.
 
They are doing typical Microsoft and pushing for record breaking profits. How the rest lines up to deliver that profit and quarterly earnings doesn’t matter as long as the arrow keeps moving up…which it currently is.
For Microsoft? Yes. For Xbox? No.

I was of course talking only about Xbox.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
They absolutely do care, I agree. I just don't agree with/understand their business strategy. I feel it's convoluted. They are trying to do multiple things that are often mutually exclusive.
Why is it hard to understand.

Xbox
- Disc games
- Digital games
- GP on Xbox and PC, including all first party games day one
- Seems pretty easy to understand

If anything, you should be questioning PS
- Disc games
- Digital games
- PS Now on PS and PC, even though they say PS is the focus
- PS Now on PC is stream only
- PC games release now (DG, Horizon, UC4, LL) and more coming with unknown titles and release dates
- PS is the focus, yet buys Nixxes for PC ports and has a PS Mobile publishing division
- Seems like they are all over the place shotgunning whatever might or might not work
 
Last edited:
Why is it hard to understand.

Xbox
- Disc games
- Digital games
- GP on Xbox and PC, including all first party games day one
- Seems pretty easy to understand

If anything, you should be questioning PS
- Disc games
- Digital games
- PS Now on PS and PC, even though they say PS is the focus
- PS Now on PC is stream only
- PC games release now (DG, Horizon, UC4, LL) and more coming with unknown titles and release dates
- PS is the focus, yet buys Nixxes for PC ports and has a PS Mobile publishing division
- Seems like they are all over the place shotgunning whatever might or might not work
The convoluted strategy obviously refers to their day one releases on GP and PC.
  • If a company releases games exclusively on retail and single hardware, it means the company wants to sell more hardware (vs. subscriptions). Examples: Nintendo and PS.
  • If a company releases games exclusively on a subscription service on day one (like GP), it means the company wants to sell more subscriptions (vs. hardware). Examples: Xbox & Netflix (media content).
  • If a game releases on multiple platforms on day one, it means that software sales are the priority, not hardware. Examples: Activision, Take-Two, Ubisoft)
Sony and Nintendo (platform owners) do #1.
Ubisoft, Activision, Take-Two, (software publisher) do #3.
Xbox does #1, #2, and #3 simultaneously -- which is my point.

We don't know what is the most important thing for Xbox? Is it:
  • Console hardware? Then why do they devalue it by releasing their games on PC day one and making them available on xCloud (even mobile devices and refrigerators)
  • Gamepass subscription? Then why do devalue their service and release games on retail?
  • Software sales? Then why do they put games on GP and not release them on all platforms?
No one knows. I don't think Xbox does either.
 

YukiOnna

Member
They absolutely do care, I agree. I just don't agree with/understand their business strategy. I feel it's convoluted. They are trying to do multiple things that are often mutually exclusive.
It seems that way, yeah. I feel like once their Zenimax titles are off the ground and going in the next couple years with releases is when we'll see what they shift to. Whether Day 1 Id, Bethesda, Tango, Arkane, etc titles on GamePass do have an effect or not. Of course they may very well acquire other studios along the way, I don't know, but for now I don't see GamePass growing exponentially past what they have currently.
 
Xbox just posted their most successful year in history didnt they? I could be wrong though.
In total revenue (absolute value), yes, which makes sense because after all the acquisitions, all the revenue earned from those once independent studios would now be attributed to Xbox. For instance, that amount now included Bethesda's revenue as well.

They didn't reveal hardware console numbers, profits, or Gamepass subscriber count.
 
Also, Phil Spencer:



That's what I meant by half-assing it. Everyone (including MS) often says that MS doesn't care about hardware and only wants you to subscribe to Gamepass -- does not matter where you are. At the same time, they also say "we don't want everybody to turn into a subscriber." What is the primary business goal then?
  • Increase Gamepass subscribers? (then lock everything behind that subscription paywall, just like Netflix)
  • Increase hardware sales? (then don't release games on PC and abandon xCloud and become a walled garden like Apple and Nintendo)
  • Increase software sales? (then abandon hardware, stop being a competitor to Nintendo and PS, become a first-party publisher like EA and Ubisoft, and start putting your software everywhere)
I honestly do not understand what their business strategy is.
The goal is to make money. The strategy is not written in stone. For the better part of console gaming history, the best stratetgy was to sell as many consoles as possible so you get people onto your platform, and then make them buy as many games as possible because that was the only way to make actual money. Now, times have changed. You're ultimately not forced to sell consoles to get people onto your platform. Selling games has become a small part of the business. Playstation software sales are only 23% of the entire Playstation revenue, with Xbox the percentage is probably even smaller. To me it seems the #1 money maker right now is get people onto your platform and then make them play a GaaS game forever.
 

DenchDeckard

Gold Member
In total revenue (absolute value), yes, which makes sense because after all the acquisitions, all the revenue earned from those once independent studios would now be attributed to Xbox. For instance, that amount now included Bethesda's revenue as well.

They didn't reveal hardware console numbers, profits, or Gamepass subscriber count.

what, so they are making revenue from the studios they own? like every other company?
 

Kjtc1979

Member
Every console is sold at a loss at launch. Even Nintendo consoles. At the end of the day, dollar revenue is pretty much how everything else is measured. Box Office is not about ticket sales or profits but how many dollars they movie makes that weekend. Sports teams are not valued at how many tickets they sell, but their overall revenue. You can always compare the profits at their fiscal year results which are public. Nintendo made more profit than Sony last year but also made $8 billion fewer dollars. So who wins? Clearly Nintendo if profits are everything, but Sony has more revenue streams which wallstreet values way more since Nintendo's stock is at $60 and Sony is almost double that at $111.
Nintendo rarely sells their consoles at a loss. The only two exceptions were Wii U and post-emergency price drop 3DS.

Switch has been sold at a profit since day one.

Every Nintendo Switch will be sold at a profit
 

Amin_Parker

Member
Anyone want to take a guess at how many NPD's the Switch will win in a row considering it's a record breaking 33 right now?

Will it lose a month or two in 2022 or truck on to 2023.

This should be very compelling.



I agree with you Marty now let's just sit back and enjoy the show
 

FR1908

Neo Member
The videogame industry is in a transition where both online stores and physical copies are questionable in the future, as subscriptions take over in all forms of the entertainment industry. Now that Google and Amazon are also getting involved and are already operating in the waters of Microsoft's other branches, they must be prepared to continue to participate in any form of transition and to remain relevant with their ecosystem. They already lost so much over the years; smartphones, browsers, search engines to name a few.

As stated somewhere before, Sony is not the big competitor in this. In the long run, I don't think Sony's business plan can last to remain market leader. At the moment they still enjoy great success thanks to their fantastic past, but they still need to take big steps to be able to participate in the future. Microsoft has already proven that they can provide a smooth transition from one device to another without the hassle. Through streaming, subscription, physical- and online copies on different systems. Just like Netflix is doing with movies. In this regard Sony is lagging behind in responding to the current market in which everything has to run quickly and smoothly for the consumer.
 
Last edited:
what, so they are making revenue from the studios they own? like every other company?
Seriously?

You asked didn't Xbox record their most successful year in history? I corrected you that they recorded their highest-ever revenue year, but that is inflated because of (1) this is a console launch year so revenue will obviously be high, and (2) revenue will also be inflated because Zenimax revenue will also be a part of this figure.

While I don't think so, it is possible that Xbox's YoY revenue actually decreased, but the absolute revenue figure increased because of the above two scenarios.

That's why it'd be wrong to say this was Xbox's most successful year. Because we don't know the operating expense they had to incur to generate this revenue. We know for sure that for each sold console they are losing money (up to at least $50 per unit). So we can't say "most successful" because we only have one part of the equation.

Besides, had Xbox made profits, they'd shared profit numbers, not just the revenue numbers.
 

Pedro Motta

Gold Member
The goal is to make money. The strategy is not written in stone. For the better part of console gaming history, the best stratetgy was to sell as many consoles as possible so you get people onto your platform, and then make them buy as many games as possible because that was the only way to make actual money. Now, times have changed. You're ultimately not forced to sell consoles to get people onto your platform. Selling games has become a small part of the business. Playstation software sales are only 23% of the entire Playstation revenue, with Xbox the percentage is probably even smaller. To me it seems the #1 money maker right now is get people onto your platform and then make them play a GaaS game forever.
Gamepass is the Mobile gaming business model for PC and Console.
 

DenchDeckard

Gold Member
Seriously?

You asked didn't Xbox record their most successful year in history? I corrected you that they recorded their highest-ever revenue year, but that is inflated because of (1) this is a console launch year so revenue will obviously be high, and (2) revenue will also be inflated because Zenimax revenue will also be a part of this figure.

While I don't think so, it is possible that Xbox's YoY revenue actually decreased, but the absolute revenue figure increased because of the above two scenarios.

That's why it'd be wrong to say this was Xbox's most successful year. Because we don't know the operating expense they had to incur to generate this revenue. We know for sure that for each sold console they are losing money (up to at least $50 per unit). So we can't say "most successful" because we only have one part of the equation.

Besides, had Xbox made profits, they'd shared profit numbers, not just the revenue numbers.

I do not have the knowledge to discuss this with you tbh. It seems a bit strange that you can just buy a company for 7.5 billion dollars then instantly add all their revenue to your business portfolio and have that negate the 7.5 billion dollars and create record breaking revenue and success. Seems like every company in the world should just buy companies to fudge their numbers on growth and success.

Like I said, I don't know enough to be able to comment on this so maybe someone else can chime in, just seems iffy to me. What revenue did Zenimax bring within the year?

The actual FACT is that it is Xbox's most successful year, we have literally seen the numbers.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Wouldn't two potential ways to sell their software on PC be better than only one? They want subs but some people can't get the Windows Store to work which is an issue. MS is trying to get their games to people anyway they can.

Absolutely. So no need to speculate that MS would rather have Game Pass revenue over actual game sales. We don't know that at all.
 
Bernd Lauert Bernd Lauert you LOL, but you know it true :)

Seasons, Chapters, Free to play then add ons. You already have it with Flight Sim, Forza Horizon and lots of others, Halo Inifnite is coming sliced up let's see how the MTX and add ons will work on that. It's clear as day the purpose of all this.
I LOL because it's nonsense. Gamepass is a monthly subscription, basically the opposite of mobile gaming. I LOL a second time because what you're describing is exactly how Playstation is making most of its money.
 

reksveks

Member
Seriously?

Besides, had Xbox made profits, they'd shared profit numbers, not just the revenue numbers.

IMO Microsoft don't share profits for smaller divisions like surface or xbox not cause its not profitable but cause its not great profit in terms of margin or absolute numbers.

Especially in comparison to the rest of their business


We are both assuming motives for their reasoning.
 
Last edited:
I do not have the knowledge to discuss this with you tbh. It seems a bit strange that you can just buy a company for 7.5 billion dollars then instantly add all their revenue to your business portfolio and have that negate the 7.5 billion dollars and create record breaking revenue and success. Seems like every company in the world should just buy companies to fudge their numbers on growth and success.

Like I said, I don't know enough to be able to comment on this so maybe someone else can chime in, just seems iffy to me. What revenue did Zenimax bring within the year?

The actual FACT is that it is Xbox's most successful year, we have literally seen the numbers.
Again, no. You're measuring "success" by revenue. Success is never measured by revenue. It is measured by operating and net profit.

Xbox earned $13 billion in revenue. But what if their operating expenditures that year were $20 billion? Would you call that a successful year if they lost $7 billion?
 

mejin

Member
Also, Phil Spencer:



That's what I meant by half-assing it. Everyone (including MS) often says that MS doesn't care about hardware and only wants you to subscribe to Gamepass -- does not matter where you are. At the same time, they also say "we don't want everybody to turn into a subscriber." What is the primary business goal then?
  • Increase Gamepass subscribers? (then lock everything behind that subscription paywall, just like Netflix)
  • Increase hardware sales? (then don't release games on PC and abandon xCloud and become a walled garden like Apple and Nintendo)
  • Increase software sales? (then abandon hardware, stop being a competitor to Nintendo and PS, become a first-party publisher like EA and Ubisoft, and start putting your software everywhere)
I honestly do not understand what their business strategy is.

Their strategy is to destroy the status quo a.k.a. traditional gaming. Don't believe a thing Phil or any MS employee say, they are not transparent, they just want you to think they are.

Gamepass is a variable that will cannibalize softwares sales in the majority of the cases. I mean Gamepass success is inversely proportional to softwares sales success.

That's one reason why uncle Phil is "expanding" their sales to Steam and some to Epic stores.

Eventually some GP game may fall into fashion and non-subscribers may want to buy.

But as the percentage of the subscriber base increases, the less chance of this happening.

By now, Microsoft should already know what gamepass subscribers like and what it is possible for them to offer through the gamepass.

They're already working with this notion that sales will be affected, but they're not worried about it yet.

In the end, I think games will have to change to fit the reality of a service, meaning we will be able to see single player games by "episodes", for example.
 
Luckily, Microsoft's goal isn't to turn everyone into Game Pass subscriber:


Source:
Phil Spencer: "Our motivation is not to turn everybody into a subscriber" | GamesIndustry.biz

On topic: I was surprised not to see Psychonauts 2 in charts, when it's of such a quality game. To be fair, it's a game that I probably wouldn't have bought/tried based on screenshots alone. Didn't look like my kind of game, but I'm glad I tried it (GP, of course), since it's quite addictive once you start playing it.

Though I understand, it game pretty late to market regarding August charts (25th), so it didn't have much time for sales. I guess the crowdsourcing sales aren't counted, either.
Phil Spencer


You
 

Jaybe

Gold Member
.We don't know what is the most important thing for Xbox? Is it:
  • Console hardware? Then why do they devalue it by releasing their games on PC day one and making them available on xCloud (even mobile devices and refrigerators)
  • Gamepass subscription? Then why do devalue their service and release games on retail?
  • Software sales? Then why do they put games on GP and not release them on all platforms?
No one knows. I don't think Xbox does either.

Great post. I honestly think MS will make their games exclusive to Gamepass, and not allow individual purchases of them. Maybe in 5 years. Maybe with Starfield. I find it interesting we have a release date but no preorder capability. Perhaps something they are still deciding and leaving open for now. For better or worse, they want to be the Netflix of gaming and drive reoccurring subscription revenue (like the rest of MS).
 

Papacheeks

Gold Member
Why is it hard to understand.

Xbox
- Disc games
- Digital games
- GP on Xbox and PC, including all first party games day one
- Seems pretty easy to understand

If anything, you should be questioning PS
- Disc games
- Digital games
- PS Now on PS and PC, even though they say PS is the focus
- PS Now on PC is stream only
- PC games release now (DG, Horizon, UC4, LL) and more coming with unknown titles and release dates
- PS is the focus, yet buys Nixxes for PC ports and has a PS Mobile publishing division
- Seems like they are all over the place shotgunning whatever might or might not work

How so? PS5 is their focus? If it wasn't PC releases for their games would be day to date. Also note majority of titles are cross-gen. And I bet for games like Demons souls, Forbidden west if you want the same expierence fast/instant loading they will mandate you have a really fast SSD with Direct storage update required to play or use those features?

Unless the versions you are getting are beefed up PS4 versions without PS5 customizations? Makes sense. I have a PS5 and PC, and probably will play alot of these when they are on sale, but am buying them day one on console because I like couch playing with instant loading. I also dont have the newest hardware.

I mean the port begging from PC communities on PlayStation games has been going on for ages. Now both parties can be satisfied?

Would you rather they be like Nintendo and be 100% a walled off garden? To me this helps their relationship with people who want to buy their console and also maybe play their games on their PC. Also helps for any future titles that have cross play.
 
Great post. I honestly think MS will make their games exclusive to Gamepass, and not allow individual purchases of them. Maybe in 5 years. Maybe with Starfield. I find it interesting we have a release date but no preorder capability. Perhaps something they are still deciding and leaving open for now. For better or worse, they want to be the Netflix of gaming and drive reoccurring subscription revenue (like the rest of MS).
For Starfield, pre-orders will open only months before the release date. That's the normal practice.

But I agree with the other points. Eventually, Xbox needs to make a statement and lock some marquee titles exclusively for Gamepass subscribers. Until that happens, Gamepass will only be a 'convenience', not a 'necessity. Imagine if they release Elder Scrolls 6 only for Gamepass users (and you can't buy it or get it anywhere else). The only option would to play that game would be to subscribe to Gamepass. It's a risky and bold move, but that's how they will be able to drive GP numbers are at the pace they want it to.
 
Their strategy is to destroy the status quo a.k.a. traditional gaming. Don't believe a thing Phil or any MS employee say, they are not transparent, they just want you to think they are.
Traditional gaming is already dead, only Nintendo is still a "traditional" console business. Sony and MS already make most of their money via subscriptions and MTX.
 

Three

Member
They absolutely do care, I agree. I just don't agree with/understand their business strategy. I feel it's convoluted. They are trying to do multiple things that are often mutually exclusive.
Their strategy is one where game sales tank for subscriptions. They know that game sales will tank but they are making some nonsense up about how this is actually good for sales. It's not. What it does do is reduce the barrier for entry though to fight against vendor lockin. You are more likely to buy an xbox having never owned one if you have an instant library. It's to grab users from the same market not to expand the market through more games and more sales. Their expand the market strategy is a somewhat half assed xCloud initiative where they don't offer it a la carte to those who don't have a console.
 
Last edited:

Papacheeks

Gold Member
Traditional gaming is already dead, only Nintendo is still a "traditional" console business. Sony and MS already make most of their money via subscriptions and MTX.

Though true, software sales still are a pretty good chunk, and if they did not matter as much I highly doubt you would see Sony studios with 2 teams work on different projects.
 
Traditional gaming is already dead, only Nintendo is still a "traditional" console business. Sony and MS already make most of their money via subscriptions and MTX.
That MTX and subscription share directly depends on market share, which is directly dependent on the quality and quantity of exclusive software.
 
Top Bottom