| Imaginedvl said: Using a tweet from someone as a reference does not make it real or more credible. This "ex" Microsoft/EA PR (so not having any idea about numbers behind the curtain) guy comes up with a theory (and other people are going to jump on that wagon, too, probably), and it will become a narrative that some people want to use when talking about why Microsoft did that. |
That was one of several industry veterans voicing similar sentiments. He may not be a numbers guy, but he certainly knows and talks to people who are more familiar with this than we are. But I provided it mainly to illustrate that these ideas are not just emotionally driven by fans. And also because his hypothesis is close to my thought process.
| Imaginedvl said: Also, acting like those studios closures are something really bad and that Microsoft (or Xbox) is doing something terrible when this is happening all over the industry is kind of double standard. Just because Xbox (or Microsoft) is big, it does not mean that they have different rules to follow. |
The reactions are seemingly primarily driven by the Tango closure in particular, for reasons that have been reiterated quite a few times in this thread and elsewhere. SkillUp's latest video posted a few hours ago goes over it in detail for example.
| Imaginedvl said: Xbox is an LOB and they have their own numbers/targets/revenues... etc... And a lot of people right now are coming up with all sort of shit about why Microsoft did that (one funny guy even said that it was for short term profit which is very unlikely); or that Xbox are terrible (or Ph. Spencer) for doing that when in reality, this is pretty much expected at some point with so many studios. You may argue that; without the acquisition this would not had happen, I would argue that it would probably had happen anyway. Two of those studios are clearly not successful (and we can see that even without knowing the detailed numbers based on their sales); and one of them (Tango) worked on 2 games, one was not successful at all and the other one while being a bit successful (or at least, surprising) probably did not generate a lot of money... Including on "other" platform... What do you expect at the end? Microsoft to just keep throwing money instead of focusing a bit more? |
Xbox have their own numbers, but Microsoft purchased AKB for Xbox. That $68 Billion was Microsoft's money.
Keep in mind, I'm focusing on the Tango closure only, and I don't group it together with the rest, because while those are also terrible, you could at least make some sense out of those. A lot of people, in this thread included, have struggled to make sense out of the Tango closure in particular over the past few days.
If Tango's future was relying on Hi-Fi Rush generating money, why shadowdrop it with 0 promotion leading up to launch, + give it away for free with Gamepass? And you don't decide to close down a studio in a day. So how many days of sales, if any, did they monitor on "other" platforms before pulling the trigger? Did it even matter?
Due to Xbox's plan with Gamepass, you'd think Tango should have been in a safer position with a game like Hi-Fi Rush than they would have been under just Bethesda. Because Xbox wanted more creative non-AAA titles to expand the variety of the service. The goal of those is not to generate a lot of money on their own. And this was a multi award winning game at that, which created more positive buzz for Xbox than many games have in a long time. One of their best reviewed releases in two console generations.
There is a lot of value in that as well, and not just the immediate monetary return on investment.
You called it "a bit successful" but Greenberg described it as "a breakout hit in all key measurements" and they couldn't be more happy with it. And that is the opposite of "good PR" if there was a concievable chance of shutting down the studio within a year.
Xbox are aware of games and studios that started off not selling much, that went on to blow up in success. Larian and Fromsoft. Nier, Persona and Yakuza, etc.
Xbox knew they had a great game on their hands with HFR, and one that cost notably less to make than bigger titles (Hi-Fi Rush only had 2 people working on it for the first year, and only brought in a lot of people during the last stretch).
Xbox even stated yesterday that they need smaller titles to win awards for them. At least the lead director of Hi-Fi Rush thought the description fit his project, and made that sarcastic quote tweet above.
| Imaginedvl said: And that GamePass theory, cause it is just a theory from people who "want" to believe it, about how having the game on GamePass is not considered at all when setting up sales targets, do you really believe that? |
By "Having the game on Gamepass is not considered at all", do you mean Xbox not considering the game's effect on the subscription?
Of course I think they do.
And it sounds like they were more than happy with what Hi-Fi Rush brought to the service. Everyone who played it were saying how great it was.
| Imaginedvl said: It seems to me that a lof of people (gamers, etc.) that have no really idea of how businesses are run are coming up with that sort and stuff and really believe it at the end. I'm not saying that those big corporations are perfect and are not doing any sneaky shit, but at some point people need to stop thinking that they are dumb as fuck to do not be able to do simple math... Or even better math than those people who have no ideas what are the internal numbers to start with. |
I can't say I've seen this argument that they're unable to do do simple math.
In my recent post in the other thread I even argued that this was likely purly a numbers decision.
The state of the Industry and Capitalism (vgchartz.com)
There are different numbers though. And there's long term and short term.
Investors prioritizing more revenue now instead of later, as they tend to do, does not mean they are doing "wrong math". They have different priorities, and may not even be investors in this company some years from now, etc.
