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

[DonFerrari]

sales2099 said:

DonFerrari said:

sales2099 said:

Gears 5 has added considerable number of maps since launch, all free. Instead of paying $10 for map packs (an outdated practice due to fracturing the player base), the MTX make up for it. 

It’s all about doing it right. Content is free, optional cosmetics are payable, but in many cases grindable. 

It’s completely subjective in regards to a game you play for 80 hours via MP vs a campaign only game. I get that. But the core argument here is that you believe developers who keep games alive for years after launch don’t deserve compensation. You can argue what they put out on a case by case basis, but work it still is. 

Plus you must include the Game Pass model in what MS does. It’s night and day with Sony, who is still doing old traditions. More and more Xbox games are being played, but not necessarily bought. So you therefore can’t hold Xbox to the same standard. 

No need to push a lie.

He said the content that is put on the MTX doesn't cost nearly as much as how they charge for, that when they charge 10 for a skin they are having like 4000% profit margin, and you seem to defend it. He isn't saying a company can't be profitable or keep supporting.

$10 map packs aren’t a thing anymore. The maps are given for free. This is a better system. I experienced what it was like to not play the map packs I bought due to fracturing. I support doing mtx the right way, they aren’t inherently evil. 

And I can’t stress this enough, MS is putting everything they have into growing GP, which nullifies the upfront cost. And therefore you can’t directly compare their business model to Sony. 

And charging 10USD for a skin isn't it done right anyway, nor is making most games MTX gallore that are to be played for several years but that is besides the point.

Nullifying the upfront cost to milk and dime the users is exactly what Sony fanbase have been complaining and you and some others would say that concern isn't justifiable, so now you have to change that to fit your point?