Quantcast
MCV: New Boss of Microsoft Studios on Xbox's First Party Strategy

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - MCV: New Boss of Microsoft Studios on Xbox's First Party Strategy

I’m surprised he said this, with how touchy this topic is for MS. This doesn’t give me much confidence that the exclusive landscape will change in a direction I’ll like.

MS does have a point, however. Games are expensive, and only a fraction of the $60 (physical copy) cost goes to the publisher. GoW has likely become my favorite game of all time, but with its likely $100mil+ production budget, it took several million copies sold just for GoW to break even. So without a revenue option other than the $60 purchase cost, GoW will be less profitable I think than many would expect. Tho digital purchases have a very positive effect on profitability, so hopefully GoW has a high digital purchase percentage.



Around the Network
pitzy272 said:
I’m surprised he said this, with how touchy this topic is for MS. This doesn’t give me much confidence that the exclusive landscape will change in a direction I’ll like.

MS does have a point, however. Games are expensive, and only a fraction of the $60 (physical copy) cost goes to the publisher. GoW has likely become my favorite game of all time, but with its likely $100mil+ production budget, it took several million copies sold just for GoW to break even. So without a revenue option other than the $60 purchase cost, GoW will be less profitable I think than many would expect. Tho digital purchases have a very positive effect on profitability, so hopefully GoW has a high digital purchase percentage.

Sony will get roughly $45 per $60 game sold at a retailer, so considering it sold 3.1m in it's first 3 days...

~1m Digital - $60m
~2.1m Physical - $94m
Total - $154m

So yeah, they easily made there money back and then some in 3 days, everything here on out is profit.

BOTW was said to need around 2m sales to break even. 

 

I don't know if $100m+ is accurate, it may be. Horizon was said to be "over $52m" as it was the "largest dutch media production"



Predictions (Made July 2019)

LTD: PS4 - 130m, Switch - 110m, XBO - 52m       2019 : PS4 - 15m, Switch - 18.8m, XBO - 4.8m        2020: Switch - 22m (Peak Year)

Nothing we didn't know about MS focus and their 1st party strategy.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Barkley said:
pitzy272 said:
I’m surprised he said this, with how touchy this topic is for MS. This doesn’t give me much confidence that the exclusive landscape will change in a direction I’ll like.

MS does have a point, however. Games are expensive, and only a fraction of the $60 (physical copy) cost goes to the publisher. GoW has likely become my favorite game of all time, but with its likely $100mil+ production budget, it took several million copies sold just for GoW to break even. So without a revenue option other than the $60 purchase cost, GoW will be less profitable I think than many would expect. Tho digital purchases have a very positive effect on profitability, so hopefully GoW has a high digital purchase percentage.

Sony will get roughly $45 per $60 game sold at a retailer, so considering it sold 3.1m in it's first 3 days...

~1m Digital - $60m
~2.1m Physical - $94m
Total - $154m

So yeah, they easily made there money back and then some in 3 days, everything here on out is profit.

BOTW was said to need around 2m sales to break even. 

 

I don't know if $100m+ is accurate, it may be. Horizon was said to be "over $52m" as it was the "largest dutch media production"

Rule of thumbs, 10k per dev per month.

GoW took 5 years with 200 dev team. That is 200*60*10000 = 120M on production. That is without considering VA, capture motion actors, marketing, etc. So even if some of that dev time was used on other things, it is safe to assume GoW costed over 100M to make.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Barkley said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

To be fair the same thing applies to single player games. You can list all the massively hyped and well received ones that sold/will sell 10 million+, but for each of those there’s “tens of games” that don’t reach that success. And it’s not like Microsoft is alone in shifting primary focus to GaaS. Most major publishers are doing/have done the same thing. Just like when it comes to charging for online play, Nintendo and Sony will get there eventually. Sony’s first party output has been very safe this gen imho. The biggest risk they’ve taken so far is Horizon, but its not really a risk if you’re checking all the boxes your typical open world game needs to have. I mean it is basically an Ubisoft game design wise. Days Gone is a zombie game but they’re making it narrative driven, I have no doubts it will be similar to the Uncharted/LoU/GoW/Horizon formula they’re using for all their big games now.

I love Bethesda because they still focus on delivering SP games that appeal to me, but most of them don’t end up selling well, even though they are good games.

Every year shows there’s still a demand for good SP games. People seem to have this idea that Microsoft thinks SP games are dead. When someone posted that God of War had huge sales numbers people started posting Phil Spencer quotes about how SP success is not consistent, as if a SP game having huge sales proves him wrong or something. Questioning the impact of SP games as a whole does not mean zero will ever have big success or that the market is dead. It just means they might shift focus to other areas. It’s where the industry is headed.

Good post, and I mostly agree with what you said. Though I will address the first line. While yes there's many single player games that don't achieve success, I think there's a reason that can allow more Single Player games to achieve large success than multiplayer ones.

Multiplayer games is all about pulling as many users into your grasp as possible, and holding them hostage, keeping them playing your game for as long as possible, instead of going to someone elses. Making them spend as much money on whatever additional content you provide.

Whereas singleplayer games are just fired out into the mix, purchased and played from anywhere to 20-100 hours, then they move on to another title, rather than literally thousands some people spend with multiplayer titles.

The very nature of Multiplayer Games as an ongoing service makes it harder for them to succeed. While Singleplayer games, you really only have to worry about competing titles for the month of their release, multiplayer titles are constantly competing for attention for as long as they exist.

Overwatch is going to be consuming peoples time for years to come, stopping them from spending that time with other games. But GoW for example isn't going to be detracting from other games sales for very long at all.

You agree with needing to sell 10M+ to be a success?

That way no MS game have been successful this gen.

And you agree with Sony playing safe on game development? Because that would put MS in even safer position as not even releasing games.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network

Frankly, I'm glad they are doubling down (or so it sounds) - I have the One but never play it - knowing what they are planning for going forward it makes it an easier decision for me to not feel bad about not buying their next console. For those that like this type of thing - hope you enjoy it.



Owner of PS4 Pro, Xbox One, Switch, PS Vita, and 3DS

I'm pretty sure I've read this news in the past. The 'Booty' last name sounds familiar.



 

KLAMarine said:
I'm pretty sure I've read this news in the past. The 'Booty' last name sounds familiar.

I swear I read "lame name"



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

it could be worse, richard booty



 

Bandorr said:
DirtyP2002 said:

9 out of top 10 games on twitch are multiplayer titles.
Singleplayer games will be more and more niche as time goes by.

Even mobile games have a strong focus on multiplayer these days.

Possibly the worst example imaginable.

That is like going to a candy store and going "who here buys candy?"

Twitch is very much biased toward multiplayer games. it is endless content, no story (so no explanation no talking over it etc), and more importantly it allows the audience to join in with them.

The fact Detroit is even trending despite having any of that easily speaks to the power of single player. And if you want more examples go look into God of war, and Horizon zero dawn.

 

If Twitch is a bad indicator, give me a better alternative for it.

Time spent on these games? Multiplayer games are easily heads and shoulders above single player games.

Sales figures? The best selling games these days have a strong multiplayer focus or are multiplayer only.

 



There once was a great sig here, but it got killed.

A moment of silence would be appreciated.