That’s great and all for Zelda but that’s a Nintendo title. No other games sell like Nintendo games. Even those two games you listed from Sony saw massive price cuts not long after release. So yeah, the point still stands about revenue coming back in. Sales on three platforms versus one. Without someone paying for an exclusive deal, you’re limiting the return on your investment which of course affects what you invest. Pretty basic stuff.

And cool, I wasn’t aware MS had some era this gen where their games reviewed very well and then they “plummeted”. Oh wait that didnt happen, just more pulled out of the butt to support the argument. 

We can agree to disagree about the ambition of those titles, especially Horizon 😬

Okay we need to address your post.

I am going to start off with guessing you haven't played any of the games you mentioned above correct? If so please correct me with your reply. As someone who has played and finished all 3 of the games you mentioned let me explain.

Crackdown 3 is not a service based game, has no MTX and Lootboxes and wasn't even made by Xbox. CD3 was criticised as it had a messy development. It switched hands, was delayed multiple times and due to the investment MS have put into it, wasn't as easy to cancel as well as the promises. And please don't use Scalebound as a reason why they could of cancel CD3. Scalebound was cancelled for a completely different reason and that was a falling out with MS and Platinum Games. Platinum Games came out and admitted it. Unfortunately that was a business disaster.

https://www.windowscentral.com/platinumgames-says-scalebound-was-cancelled-because-both-sides-failed

State Of Decay 2 is another none service based game with no MTX, Lootboxes in it. It again wasn't made by Xbox and only recently the company who made SoD2 was brought by MS. Also lets add Undead Labs is a small Indy company so we shouldn't be expecting a full fledged AAA game from them in the first place. SoD2 was criticized for its buggy launch. It has nothing to do with it being developed for multiple platforms. Sony's very own Zombie game made by one of there big AAA branches in Bend Studios made Days Gone which only received a 72 on Metacritic.

Sea Of Thieves Is another game that offers no MTX and Lootboxes and yes this game is a service based game. The game launched like majority of service based games which tend to fall over the starting line with its lack of content like Fallout 76, Drive Club, No Man Sky, Street Fighter 5, Destiny, Gran Turismo Sport and Anthem etc. SoTs has evolved and became one of MS's best selling games this generation. There best selling new IP anyway.

https://au.ign.com/articles/2018/03/28/sea-of-thieves-is-microsofts-fastest-selling-new-ip-of-this-generation

Gears 5 Is living proof that Xbox can make amazing games. Its campaign is up there with the best of them however its MP mode offered online issues which happens to a lot of MP games. Gears 5 does offer MTX however its redundant if you play Gears for the campaign mode. Most big MP games offer a store front and this is nothing new. TLOU had Pay to Win elements in its MP mode and yet that game is praised so lets not act like MS are the only brand to do it and act like you cannot have success with the method either. 

Xbox has always been a multiplayer focus brand, since the OG Xbox they have more passion in making a good MP game than there direct competition. Only Nintendo can really compete on the MP front when they want to however Sony just doesn't do it and when they did, they didn't do it well or at least at the same level as Xbox. That's why majority of Sony's 1st party line up don't even offer a MP mode for there biggest games, so Sony is actually dodging bullets here because they cannot cop any criticism for having MP modes where as with Xbox games do. Also Xbox try to have a genre for everything as we have seen with games like Sea of Thieves being there online service game and Halo Wars offering there RTS style game and with Flight Simulator coming out being a full fledge Simulator game. In my personal opinion, Xbox has been more ambition this gen than Sony mainly because they took greater risks. Sony kept it safe by removing MP in most of there big budget titles and stayed with there story telling 3rd person games. Xbox went out and dipped there toes in genres that wouldn't be popular on consoles and they still continue to this day by including MP and SP in there games while bringing in newer services like Backward Compatibility and GamePass etc.

We also need to understand that Xbox has been going through a complete overhaul this generation by closing and buying new studios, creating newer services and polishing up the XB1 brand. Normally companies aren't expected to do well in these events. Next gen will be Xbox's big test because now they have got all the hard stuff out the way this gen, they should have nothing holding them back in Gen 9.

Anyway that's my thoughts and personal experience with the games mentioned above. 

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you guys. Went on vacation, and then had "fire week" at my job. Anyway, I'm back. 

Sorry, but I forgot to mention that Witcher 3 GotY edition was being sold for up to 70% off from it's $30 retail price. Or for $11 a pop on Gog a few months back. So that 20+ million number is even less revenue than we thought. 

Nintendo games sell well because Nintendo has made itself synonymous with quality. Even if we account for Nintendo level of sales BotW more than doubled the old sales record of OoT on the N64. 

SoT, Crackdown 3, and SoD2 all plummeted in comparison to games released earlier in the generation. 

The movie industry requires you to pay nearly half the price of a DVD in order to see the movie in theaters. Imagine having to pay $30 just so you can play a game for a single playthrough. There have been exclusive shows on HBO, Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc for a few years now. 

I never mentioned MTX, or Service based stuff having to do with Crackdown 3. MS owns the IP and the fact that they farmed development out to an unproven studio just shows how little they care about a game they intended to throw onto gamepass half baked. 

I know SoD2 was an indie developed game. I was never expecting scores in the mid 80's or higher with that game. But the original SoD had 78 (360 version's score) on metacritic and SoD2 dropped 12 points to 66 (XB1 version's score). I agree that Days Gone should have been better, but you've got to look at Sony's overall track record. 

Edit: Don't reply yet. I'm still working on this post, but have to take care of something. I'll finish this up in the next hour or so. BRB. 

I never mentioned MTX, or Service based stuff having to do with Crackdown 3. MS owns the IP and the fact that they farmed development out to an unproven studio just shows how little they care about a game they intended to throw onto gamepass half baked. Aside from racing games and LBP games which they had large amounts of outside help on, Sumo Digital hasn't really done much. 

Not sure where MTX comes into the argument with SoD2. Oh well. I know SoD2 was an indie developed game. I was never expecting scores in the mid 80's or higher with that game. But the original SoD had 78 (360 version's score) on metacritic and SoD2 dropped 12 points to 66 (XB1 version's score). I agree that Days Gone should have been better, but you've got to look at Sony's overall track record. Even Nintendo has a few less than stellar games like Kirby Star Allies, or Super Mario Party. That's fine so long as it doesn't come to represent a significant portion of their output. Even so, a 71 is miles above a 66. There's no comparing the two scores. And Days Gone has a high user score of 8/10, while SoD2 has one of 5.3 or so. 

As far as SoT goes, you pretty much admit that it launched as a bad game. Thanks. And the fastest selling new IP title isn't that impressive, because they are including Gamepass players as a "sale". 

As far as Gears 5 goes, I'm willing to give it a pass on the MTX, considering that they are opting for that instead of charging people $15 per new map pack. So it isn't quite as bad as I initially thought. TLoU MTX was only added a year and a half after release, to a game mode that most considered to be tacked on, and irrelevant. It was still a shitty thing for them to do though. 

So Sony is lazy for not making Multiplayer in their games, and MS in hard working for putting Multiplayer back in? Dude, Multiplayer has to be one of the easiest things to develop. I know devs that have intentionally made their games multiplayer only, because it's much easier to have players be your AI than to program good AI. Same goes for level design, and challenge. A single level in a multiplayer game can yield hundreds of hours of content. A single level in a single player game might be played three or four times tops. Challenge is done in multiplayer via matchmaking with players that are at your skill level. Most multiplayer games are just shooters of some sort, meaning controls and camera are mostly handled already. 

PS3 backwards compatibility with PS4 was never going to happen. The Cell processor was just too different. Gamepass was a good idea though. 

Nintendo looks and your complete overhaul argument and laughs. They merged their handheld and console divisions, launched a new console mid gen, had their president die, and got two new presidents. Yet Switch is on fire!

A few things wrong with your post.

For one, Nintendo and Sony develop majority of there games inhouse so comparing an Indy game to a AAA studio is differently far fetched. 66 vs a 71 and one game probably costs 6x more to developer is not a good sign for a AAA developer.

Xbox actually give faith to outside dev teams, that's a very good thing, it shows they are willing to take the risk for award method, something Sony tends to play it safe with. Killer Instinct is considered one of the best fighting games this generation and that was based on that exact method. 

Was Sea of Thieves bad? Have you played it to cast that judgement? The game is incredibly popular just like SoD2 which only got criticized due to its buggy launch. SoTs lacked content at launch which was rightfully criticized for. Today if the game got reviewed again, the results would be different but you wouldn't know that because you most likely have not played it. GTS lacked content at launch so did SF5 and majority of other games this gen with a MP focus. 

Sea of Thieves sales included Game Pass members? What? Fastest selling and most played are two differently things.

Don't need to make excuses for TLOU MTX, doesn't matter about when it comes out, its the thought behind it that matters more and they thought pay to win was the way to go to make the easy dollar. So if you hate MTX's in games than expect to put TLOU on that list because it has MTX in its MP mode, just like majority of MP modes.

Multiplayer is easy to make? If thats the case than Sony would add it in.. but they don't because majority of games that include MP modes get critized due to it so there goes your point of MP is easy to make. Its a lot easier removing MP from games as it is including it. Sorry but that logic made me chuckle.

Good on Nintendo, they are the Disney of the gaming industry and they know how to get there sales and profits. Not sure how that point affects this debate. I love my Switch and its definitely worth its price.

????

Switch has the best 3rd party support of any Nintendo home console in the last 13 years. GBA, DS, and 3DS all had phenomenal 3rd party support, yet Nintendo games still sold well. 

Again though, even accounting for Nintendo's abnormally high sales BotW is a sales monster. It doubled the old sales record set by OoT, before it ever even went on sale. 

I'm not comparing Microsoft/Sony sales to Nintendo in this argument. I'm comparing Nintendo sales to Witcher 3. 

Sony's titles get price cuts, because Sony would rather make less money directly on sales and more money from pumping up their YTD platform totals and raking in more publishing fees from 3rd parties as a result. They discount their games to entice people to buy a PS4, and then when those people get four or five 3rd party games Sony makes more than its money back from publishing fees and/or console royalties. 

It’s not as if publishers don’t factor in price drops and sales into their revenue projections. You aren’t losing revenue by selling to more people, you’re making more money, which allows you to invest more money into the product.

Witcher 3's heavily discounted 20+ Million is way way way less money than BotW's full priced 15 million. BotW has to have made at least double the amount of money as Witcher 3, if not triple or quadruple. 

Again, what would have changed with Witcher 3 had it been designed to “sell consoles”? What does that even mean? Still waiting on any actual substance behind this theory.

I'd basically have to have a crystal ball to know. Any specifics would be speculation on my part so I'll pass. 

Also those MS titles “plummeted” compared to what?

Compared to the previous games in the series for SoD2, and Crackdown 3. Compared to what MS's 1st party output was like in the 360 era.

For one, Nintendo and Sony develop majority of there games in house so comparing an Indy game to a AAA studio is differently far fetched. 66 vs a 71 and one game probably costs 6x more to developer is not a good sign for a AAA developer.

There are tons of Indies that crush AAA games in reviews. For an Indie with a small budget to get better reception than a AAA is not uncommon at all. Look at Stardew Valley, Celeste, Hollow Knight, etc. Days Gone was a new IP. SoD2 was not. The gap between 66 and 71 is wider than the grand canyon. Most reviewers prefer not to rate a game below 7/10, because that is usually the point at which consumers stop buying the product. 

Yes, KI was good. No argument there. 

Was Sea of Thieves bad? Have you played it to cast that judgement? The game is incredibly popular just like SoD2 which only got criticized due to its buggy launch. SoTs lacked content at launch which was rightfully criticized for. Today if the game got reviewed again, the results would be different but you wouldn't know that because you most likely have not played it. GTS lacked content at launch so did SF5 and majority of other games this gen with a MP focus. 

No, I haven't played it. I also haven't used a telescope to personally verify the orbit of Jupiter. Guess I can't believe astronomers since I didn't personally verify it myself right? Do you agree that it had little content at launch? If so, then what's the issue? As far as playing it now goes, you have a good argument, when it comes to those early launch reviews not being a good barometer of the game as it is now. The game could have gotten better over time. Or it could have gotten worse. I should play it, and plan on playing it eventually. 2019 is a crazy year for games though, so it might take me until the middle of next year to get around to it. But again, at launch the reviews were accurate and trustworthy. At launch it was a bad game. And that was what I was arguing for. 

Sea of Thieves sales included Game Pass members? What? Fastest selling and most played are two differently things.

"A week after release, the game has hit 2 million players - although it's not clear how much of a proportion of that player base is accessing the game through the Xbox Game Pass, which offers Sea of Thieves as part of a monthly subscription. IGN has contacted Xbox for comment on that." - IGN 

I slightly misread the above, and should have gone to the source article on  Xbox.com. Anyway, fastest selling new IP isn't very impressive because wtf did SoT have to compete with? 

Don't need to make excuses for TLOU MTX, doesn't matter about when it comes out, its the thought behind it that matters more and they thought pay to win was the way to go to make the easy dollar. So if you hate MTX's in games than expect to put TLOU on that list because it has MTX in its MP mode, just like majority of MP modes.

I currently look at TLoU as a game that has had its multiplayer servers shut down. Just like how you can't play Uncharted 2 multiplayer anymore. But does that make Uncharted 2 a game not worth enjoying? No, because Uncharted 2 is still a great single player experience. Same goes for TLoU. Do I hate that they added them in a year and a half after launch? Yes. Am I going to throw away my copy, even though I flat out don't care about multiplayer? No. 

Multiplayer is easy to make? If thats the case than Sony would add it in.. but they don't because majority of games that include MP modes get critized due to it so there goes your point of MP is easy to make. Its a lot easier removing MP from games as it is including it. Sorry but that logic made me chuckle.

No, Sony would not add it in due to it being easy to make. Tacking on Multiplayer to games intended largely as single player experiences is a waste of development time, and a trend that thankfully ended in the PS3/360 era. Look at Metroid Prime 2's multiplayer. Did that add anything of worth to MP2? Nope. The majority of games that include MP get criticized due to it? Care to elaborate? I'm not going to address that point without you explaining what you meant by it in detail. 

Uh no, because if you remove the MP element from a game you have to make the single player even better in order to account for it. So, no taking MP out of a game is not easier than adding it in. 

Good on Nintendo, they are the Disney of the gaming industry and they know how to get there sales and profits. Not sure how that point affects this debate. 

Because you were trying to use MS's gaming division overhaul as an excuse for their lack of good 1st party games. But Nintendo proved that that isn't a valid excuse. 

Media Molecule helped an undisclosed amount on LBP3. It wasn't a solely Sumo Digital Effort. Unless they are making a racing game Sumo Digital can't make a good game on their own. 

There are always reviews like that on MC. I bet I could find a bunch for Days Gone too. 

There are tons of Indies that crush AAA games in reviews. For an Indie with a small budget to get better reception than a AAA is not uncommon at all. Look at Stardew Valley, Celeste, Hollow Knight, etc. Days Gone was a new IP. SoD2 was not. The gap between 66 and 71 is wider than the grand canyon. Most reviewers prefer not to rate a game below 7/10, because that is usually the point at which consumers stop buying the product. For one, Nintendo and Sony develop majority of there games in house so comparing an Indy game to a AAA studio is differently far fetched. 66 vs a 71 and one game probably costs 6x more to developer is not a good sign for a AAA developer.

Yes, KI was good. No argument there. 

Was Sea of Thieves bad? Have you played it to cast that judgement? The game is incredibly popular just like SoD2 which only got criticized due to its buggy launch. SoTs lacked content at launch which was rightfully criticized for. Today if the game got reviewed again, the results would be different but you wouldn't know that because you most likely have not played it. GTS lacked content at launch so did SF5 and majority of other games this gen with a MP focus. 

No, I haven't played it. I also haven't used a telescope to personally verify the orbit of Jupiter. Guess I can't believe astronomers since I didn't personally verify it myself right? Do you agree that it had little content at launch? If so, then what's the issue? As far as playing it now goes, you have a good argument, when it comes to those early launch reviews not being a good barometer of the game as it is now. The game could have gotten better over time. Or it could have gotten worse. I should play it, and plan on playing it eventually. 2019 is a crazy year for games though, so it might take me until the middle of next year to get around to it. But again, at launch the reviews were accurate and trustworthy. At launch it was a bad game. And that was what I was arguing for. 

Sea of Thieves sales included Game Pass members? What? Fastest selling and most played are two differently things.

"A week after release, the game has hit 2 million players - although it's not clear how much of a proportion of that player base is accessing the game through the Xbox Game Pass, which offers Sea of Thieves as part of a monthly subscription. IGN has contacted Xbox for comment on that." - IGN 

I slightly misread the above, and should have gone to the source article on  Xbox.com. Anyway, fastest selling new IP isn't very impressive because wtf did SoT have to compete with? 

Don't need to make excuses for TLOU MTX, doesn't matter about when it comes out, its the thought behind it that matters more and they thought pay to win was the way to go to make the easy dollar. So if you hate MTX's in games than expect to put TLOU on that list because it has MTX in its MP mode, just like majority of MP modes.

I currently look at TLoU as a game that has had its multiplayer servers shut down. Just like how you can't play Uncharted 2 multiplayer anymore. But does that make Uncharted 2 a game not worth enjoying? No, because Uncharted 2 is still a great single player experience. Same goes for TLoU. Do I hate that they added them in a year and a half after launch? Yes. Am I going to throw away my copy, even though I flat out don't care about multiplayer? No. 

Multiplayer is easy to make? If thats the case than Sony would add it in.. but they don't because majority of games that include MP modes get critized due to it so there goes your point of MP is easy to make. Its a lot easier removing MP from games as it is including it. Sorry but that logic made me chuckle.

No, Sony would not add it in due to it being easy to make. Tacking on Multiplayer to games intended largely as single player experiences is a waste of development time, and a trend that thankfully ended in the PS3/360 era. Look at Metroid Prime 2's multiplayer. Did that add anything of worth to MP2? Nope. The majority of games that include MP get criticized due to it? Care to elaborate? I'm not going to address that point without you explaining what you meant by it in detail. 

Uh no, because if you remove the MP element from a game you have to make the single player even better in order to account for it. So, no taking MP out of a game is not easier than adding it in. 

Good on Nintendo, they are the Disney of the gaming industry and they know how to get there sales and profits. Not sure how that point affects this debate. 

Because you were trying to use MS's gaming division overhaul as an excuse for their lack of good 1st party games. But Nintendo proved that that isn't a valid excuse. 

????

Switch has the best 3rd party support of any Nintendo home console in the last 13 years. GBA, DS, and 3DS all had phenomenal 3rd party support, yet Nintendo games still sold well. 

Again though, even accounting for Nintendo's abnormally high sales BotW is a sales monster. It doubled the old sales record set by OoT, before it ever even went on sale. 

I'm not comparing Microsoft/Sony sales to Nintendo in this argument. I'm comparing Nintendo sales to Witcher 3. 

Sony's titles get price cuts, because Sony would rather make less money directly on sales and more money from pumping up their YTD platform totals and raking in more publishing fees from 3rd parties as a result. They discount their games to entice people to buy a PS4, and then when those people get four or five 3rd party games Sony makes more than its money back from publishing fees and/or console royalties. 

Witcher 3's heavily discounted 20+ Million is way way way less money than BotW's full priced 15 million. BotW has to have made at least double the amount of money as Witcher 3, if not triple or quadruple. 

I'd basically have to have a crystal ball to know. Any specifics would be speculation on my part so I'll pass. 

Compared to the previous games in the series for SoD2, and Crackdown 3. Compared to what MS's 1st party output was like in the 360 era.

Media Molecule helped an undisclosed amount on LBP3. It wasn't a solely Sumo Digital Effort. Unless they are making a racing game Sumo Digital can't make a good game on their own. 

There are always reviews like that on MC. I bet I could find a bunch for Days Gone too.