Gamepass Numbers

[src]

Ryuu96 said:

src said:

Not really.

The Irishman is not produced or directed by Netflix 1st party studios. Its produced and made by a different company, Netflix is simply the distributor.

It would be like Sony contracting FROM to make an exclusive. Its still using third party.

But the bigger point is the biggest IPs in gaming will never be Gamepass exclusive. Look at Squid Game, becoming a global record breaking sensation while being a third party exclusive.

Gamepass won't have that, because the biggest third party gaming IPs are multiplatform and on far bigger platforms (PSN, Steam).

Netflix owns The Irishman, they purchased the film rights and paid for its $100m budget, it's the equivalent of a game being published by Xbox or Sony and them owning the IP, which both Microsoft and Sony consider to be 1st party.

Squid Game would be that too, Netflix funded the project in its entirety and own the rights to it.

AC Valhalla isn't comparable to The Irishman nor Squid Game, something like AC Valhalla in the Netflix world would be a project that Netflix has nothing to do with creatively and financially.

Your comparisons are bad.

Xbox will have those big budget day one releases from either their own 23 studios or through Xbox Publishing (Xbox Publishing with IP ownership would be a better comparison to The Irishman/Squid Game).

The IP is first party but the studio behind the IP is not. Its a third party studio. The squid game producers could easily make Rabbit game for Amazon Prime and Netflix would have effectively wasted money advertising Amazon Prime.

Your business analysis is bad. There's only two distinctions in talent driven industries. Do you own the talent or do you not?

Its why the TV/movie industry has been in consolidation mode for years, as companies can no longer trust that their third party studio will continue working with them. They need first party studios.

In Xbox's case the biggest gaming IPs will simply never be owned by them and so will not care for their business model. The biggest IPs not caring means Gamepass as a whole is treated as a sidepiece by the industry and players. In the rare case they buy out these IPs, such as Skyrim/Fallout, their IP strength is massively cut as Playstation dominates the console business.

Machiavellian said:

Tspeddy said:

Gamepass was not created to make Xbox beat Nintendo or Playstation. The service was created to find Microsoft a way to continue to stay in the race when they were fading so fast last generation it looked like it was probably time to pull the plug on the gaming division for a Trillion Dollar company that sees little to no return from that division. Gamepass gave Xbox a niche that the other companies did not provide and allows them the opportunity to make gains in other ways instead of selling consoles or games. 

The thing that no discusses when talking about the Gamepass model is just how much money Gamepass would have to make to be successful. Netflix was losing money every year with 120 million full paying subs and I still think they are losing money yearly and have never turned a profit. If Gamepass was a service where they purchased rights to games to put in the service then all they would have to do is secure more money in sub payments than they pay out to developers for the games. It would be an easy model to predict if it was successful. 

Snip

Totally disagree.  Gamepass was started because MS realized very simply that games are more important than hardware.  Better yet, a game service that can supply games to those billion of devices out in the wild is a much better investment than just a single game console.  The fact that you believe that GP is some way thought out as a way to keep the Xbox competitive with Sony and Nintendo really shows like most gamers how very narrow focus you are on these petty console wars.  There is something you have to understand about short term and long term investment.  Its the very reason why MS is taking their time building out their infrastructure for Xcloud. 

Some investment are not done to turn a profit out the gates but to build marketshare.   It does not matter how much money GP needs to generate to be successful if the whole company is behind making it successful.  Its the unique position that MS is in because as they continue to build out their service which still makes them money.  If you are someone who is concerned about losing money when you have a 5 to 10 year plan then you probably would never run a company.  Let me ask you a simple question, how did Netflix change from a company that just streamed movies and TV shows to producing their own content.  It actually now to the point where Netflix own content is actually worth the monthly service than it is the TV shows and movies they stream.  The main point is that you do not understand the model.  The model is not the same as the traditional game model that has existed for decades.  Also the fact that the whole company is behind the effort suggest that MS understands that in order to get to Netflix level, you have either go whole hog or go home.  This is why there is no real traction with PSNow.  Sony could do exactly what MS is doing and continue to build out PSNow as a service that can be on billion of devices but they are treating PSnow as more of a afterthought.  Sony is not willing to put full commitment in PSNow which limits the scope and reach of the service.

Not at all, as gaming itself requires real time computation on increasingly higher end hardware. It fundamentally means gaming is nothing like movies or music for streaming, as it is tied to hardware specs. If not, then you would need to stream from a server, in which case latency is a physical issue.

If you want to seriously talk about investment, then you would directly compare Xbox to Playstation, its number 1 competitor that is dominating it. Ignoring competitors is horrible advice. Even MS knows this, as the leaked court docs show them contracting Goldman Sachs and/or internal analysts to model Playstation's business.

Again the Netflix comparison makes little sense.

1. movies/tv shows are easy to stream on any device. Gaming is not, requires hardware or very low latency.
2. movies/tv shows had very little on demand options. Gaming does not. Gaming is on demand by default and already has $20B+ platforms for that. Xbox is last place here.
3. The biggest and most lucrative games are already F2P on every platform under the sun. Gamepass is doing nothing here as an offering.
4. The console business is hugely reliant on hardware. Xbox is not a PC platform, Steam dominates that. Xbox's software sold, in game user spend, accessories sold, sub numbers all depend on how well their console sells. Netflix did not have this problem, rather like Spotify, transitioning is less of an issue.
5. Gamers prefer ownership of games rather than renting.
6. Netflix had 60-100%+ revenue growths and still has 20-30%+ revenue growths. Xbox does not and Gamepass is having little revenue effect, or if it is its being cancelled out by other losses.