Machiavellian said:
The problem with this view point is that it only accounts for today. Yes, its more profitable to see a 70 dollar game then have a large player base depending on how much they spend within the game. The thing is MS isn't concerned about today and they are not trying to protect sales over GP subs. If you only limit yourself to thinking like this you do not see the big picture. The big picture has been to create a service that supports billions of users with a constant stream of money coming in. This is why Sony does not feel the need to try to really compete with GP right now but at some point in time once the Google, Apple, Netflix, Amazon you name it flip the eco system, its the subscription eco system with the most games that will garner the prize. |
Hey man, don't get me wrong, and I don't disagree with you.
My point wasn't that you can't make money with f2p or that 20M userbase won't generate good profit. My point was first that the money used to purchase the studios and publishers didn't come from Xbox but from MS pocket (Xbox haven't made 85B+ of profits in its history, but certainly have made that in revenue).
The other point was that there is no question that in the end what matter is profit, so selling 20M and having 20M f2p players isn't nearly the same as well, and also there is no denying that with the barrier of entry of paying 70 bucks versus trying for free there is no denial that 20M sales is more impressive. Sure if you show your game after 5 years still have a MAU of 20M that is fairly impressive.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."