| Ryuu96 said: You do, because CoD only releases once a year. These studios were acquired precisely because of Game Pass, it keeps people engaged all year round. The issue is typical American capitalism bullshit, they need the line to go up faster, only bigger games can do that, without Game Pass they never would have acquired these studios in the first place and they'd probably have shut down everything already aside from the mega hits. But it's clear now that Game Pass original purpose can no longer save these studios/games because it "only" reached ~40m (so far) instead of some ridiculous number like 100m-200m but even if it reached that we'd eventually come to a point where Microsoft would say "Hmm. We have 100m subs now. Bringing in massive amount of money...Buuuuuut....THE LINE ISN'T INCREASING FAST ENOUGH. WE NEED MORE" and we'd be back to square one with mass layoffs and cancellations. Why? American Capitalism, Lol. |
Just to look at that number. If we assume 100$ per year per subscription (should be about right on average or maybe higher), that are 4B$ per year. If we assume an AAA game costs about 500M, they can finance the release of 5 AAA games *each year* for 2.5B and still have 1.5B for like 10 AA games. This is completely ignoring that the games also have sales outside the Gamepass. So yeah, 40M subscribers is actually an absolutely sustainable number for such a service. As long as your core interest is games development. But as you say, cloud and stuff makes MS more money, so why should they care for the peanuts here.
