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

[DonFerrari]

sales2099 said:

DonFerrari said:

Having someone doing worse isn't really a defense. Because then we could accept any bad practice from publishers because Nintendo put DLC behind Amibo so for you to get some special power or skin you need to first buy an Amibo and then the DLC, not even EA, Ubi and Acti reached that level. But still accepting profit margins that are obscenely high is against what I believe and have been complaining about Nintendo titles selling for 60USD to 30M while costing much less than most titles that reach 1-5M in sales. So MTX, lootboxes, accelarators (that are done in conjunction with obnoxous grinding), skin, packs and others that have ridiculous profit margin (come on, a full game costing 60 or 70 and you look the content, how can a couple skin or maps be charged over 10% of that) is unnaceptable to me.

I pay 20-25 USD for my PS+ and receive like 1000 worth of content a year, what does that have to do with the discussion? And see you paid to avoid grinding, that is one of the bad aspects of MTX.

I pay full price for very few games (that are also full packages with all that is needed to enjoy the game), most I would pay no more than you pay in skin. And the several times I discussed the price of games I'm not only against 70 but also 60, for me the price of the HW could/should be much higher and the SW much lower considering the HW cost can't really go much lower with production/sales (even though it end up being 50% or more cheaper by the end of the gen) and have losses while SW can scale much better in profit with sales. What I said is that the reasons given to increase price are factual, they do exist, which doesn't mean I do agree with the increases.

On playing more games I'm not sure, I play a lot of games and they are mostly 20-50h per title, and considering you love the MP games you probably play a much lower number of games than me. But that also is pointless because quality trumps quantity. It is better to have a lot of enjoyment for 12h than mild enjoyment for 60h while paying the same. Because as someone that works and have limited time, my time is so much more worth than money, you do know you can trade time for money but can't trade money for time right?

The first paragraph is where we get into the sticky business of explaining how costs (staff, salaries, marketing) have all gone  up but the price of games have stayed the same for about 20 years. It’s all case by base basis because raising the price even further then $70 would scare away day 1 buyers. I’m just saying I prefer the Xbox model: free content/map packs etc. for long term post launch support. And in return you have the option to buy cosmetics or things in general that don’t affect actual gameplay. It’s a great trade off.

GPU includes Gold, but my point was merely the differentiating factor between our brands: day 1 first party games. My upfront costs are nullified, yours are not. That has to be taken into consideration. 

Ive actually on my 33rd game this year, killing my backlog. More then half are from Game Pass. Kingdom Come, Metro Exodus, Doom Eternal, etc. I try to dedicate one day a week to play my Halos and Gears multiplayer. Point being, the thread is making the case that Xbox is gauging its customers, I beg to differ.

I think you guys are gouged with mandatory $70 purchases. Ratchet and Clank, GT7, Returnal, Deathloop, Final Fantasy 16, Horizon FW, GoW Ragnarok....Sony making a killing off you guys next year. Even if you only buy a fraction of what I listed. And the strange thing is, you’ll THANK them as you pay $70 again and again and again and again. And people here make the case that we are being ripped off despite saving more money then you guys? Lol cmon 

You prefering it is totally valid and fine, my problem was you claiming it was superior.