MS CFO Tim Stuart defends throwing MTX into $70 games.

[Cerebralbore101]

sales2099 said:

Cerebralbore101 said:

sales2099 said:

With Gears 5 or Sea of Thieves, you get the complete multiplayer experience. Same maps, same gameplay, all the modes. You are not required to buy anything to enhance gameplay. Me having a pink chrome shotgun in Gears 5 or a shiny gold sniper rifle skin in Sea of Thieves is NOT essential to my gameplay experience. It’s optional compensation for post launch support. You can dispute the effort it takes all you want, fact is people spend time on them, and the content is more sizeable then you think OP. It’s more then skins, it’s maps and modes, new areas, all of which require design, balancing and tweaks.

And I’ll say again we have Game Pass, which makes it increasingly smart to use instead of spending $70 upfront, unlike Sony. Game Pass is an essential part of this debate. 15 million users is no small number, which is likely to grow to 20 by years end, and a service that provides day 1 access to 1st party. 

As someone who plays Gears 5 and SoT, you know how much I actually spent on those games? About $10-15 for each game. On mtx that appealed to me that I felt why not since I gave these games so much of my time for practically nothing (given that I play more then enough GP to justify it)

The implications of this thread is clear, and to that end, until Sony can provide a enticing way to nullify the upfront $70 cost like Game Pass can, Xbox far and away wins on value. Not to mention so much unlockables can be done without spending anything, merely through just playing. 

That pink chrome shotgun or shiny gold sniper rifle is part of the game. In the case of those two weapons, they are literally 5 minute texture and material editor changes. And they are trying to charge you how much for them? Having multiple costumes in Spider-Man is also NOT essential to my gameplay experience. Neither is having multiple armors in GoW. You don't see those being taken out of the game and then charged a premium though do you?

Yes, people spend time on them. But you are seriously underestimating the time or money needed. $10 for a skin does not reflect the time or money needed to make said skin. They could charge $0.50 for a skin and still make a fantastic profit.

Yes, you spent $10-$15 on those games, but that's just your own anecdotal evidence. Most people spend far more than that over the course of a year. My co-worker for example has dumped $700 into the sims, over 7 years. I've spent over $200 on LoL crap in 3-4 years, before quitting the game for good. Tell me. Is the Sims worth $700? Is LoL worth $200?

I get your argument though. You are saying that Gamepass makes MS games virtually free to play. The problem is that to get the full experience you need to spend far more than the simple $70 that Sony is asking for. How much would it cost to get every skin, in Gears 5? I bet it's well over $100, just for all the character skins. And in the vast majority of Sony games all the skins are included free. So if you include the full package a Sony game is $70 and that's it. A MS game is $10 a month + over $100 and growing. Or worse, if you feel like actually owning the game it's $70 + $100 and growing. When including the full game, Sony games are far and away a better value. Not to mention that Sony games frequently go on sale for $40, and then $20.

Where we fundamentally disagree is how much time people can spend making post launch content. If skins was all there was to it, you may have a point. But in SoT and Gears 5 it’s is actual content. But in general you silly can’t compare single player games and single player games with multiplayer. You just can’t. 

If you have problems with the Sims or LoL, take it up with the devs. They aren’t Xbox devs. 

Your mistake is assuming people would want everything for sale. Most people just get the MTX that appeal to them and stop. I don’t need every skin and color to get the “full experience”. I have all the maps and content just like everybody else. That’s the full experience, in the gameplay. 

Overall I played these games, long after you finished your one-and-done games, and paid a fraction of what you paid. Sorry but until Sony does the day 1 policy of Game Pass, they simply don’t have the value. 

SOT? Yes, I agree with that. SOT is multiplayer, but it's more like an MMO, so it makes sense for Rare to have spend a bunch of time making new content for it. The extra stuff in SOT is basically just single player content with the added ability to be able to play with friends. Gears 5? No. Making maps and skins, and game modes is trivial compared to making single player content.

Right. I assumed that somebody would only want all the multiplayer skins that currently appear in Gears 5. There's more buyable stuff than that in Gears 5 though. And they keep adding more skins and MTX all the time. I actually don't know how much it would cost to get all the stuff in Gears 5. That $100+ dollars was a lowball estimate. Even if most people were to only buy three skins a year it would still be a ripoff.

The one and done rhetoric is laughable. That's youtube level console warz rhetoric. Single player games offer unique experiences, and value your time. These games that you say you've played forever, are games you've played forever, because they are designed to waste the player's time. They incorporate Artificial Game Lengtheners. They are intentionally designed to get you compelled to play, whether you are having a good time or not.

Anybody can spend forever playing Monopoly with friends. That doesn't mean that a 10 hour single player board game isn't as valuable. To be honest something like that would be far more valuable than Monopoly. I have absolutely no wish to play monopoly. But if there was a 10 hour long board game that was single player, and was like a DnD campaign where you were both the dungeonmaster, and the player? I'd be all like "SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY" meme with that.

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 20 November 2020