By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - MS: 1st party Xbox games will be cross-gen for "next year, two years"

Conina on 08 February 2020
eva01beserk said:

Can that loss be offset by an increased number of subs, so more money coming in but but shared. Could be but it would be an insane amount of subs for that. Of thouse 20 games you played, Im gona just say that the money was distributed equally just to have somethig to work with. thats saying that each game is 20 times less profitable per sub. lets not use you any more and say the average GP user only plays 10 games. thats still means games are 10 times less profitable. So if a game use to sell 5m copies, it would need to now have 50m subs just to brake even. More than the x1 user base in itself. And thats not using you as an example. Using you it would need 100m subs to brake even. So the only way to offset that is to make games that would not cost $60 at launch to begin with. And that sounds to me like the strategy they are going with. 1 big game every year and 4-6 tiny games that combine probably have the budget of that on big game. 

Are you suggesting that an average GP user who plays 10 games per year would BUY ten games per year without the GamePass option?

If that were true, we wouldn't have a tie ratio of 4 - 11 games for a full console cycle of 5 - 7 years but much higher tie ratios.



Around the Network
LudicrousSpeed on 08 February 2020
eva01beserk said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
Then your description was incorrect, you said some console warz list to show MS has more games than Sony and that post is just talking about GamePass. And no, I can’t talk to the quality of those games because I haven’t played any of them because they aren’t out yet 🤷🏻‍♂️

If you want to speak to the amount of money invested, that’s something we’d have to know concrete info on financials that we don’t get for any game. It also bears saying that many of those games were already in development by those studios before MS acquired them. So GamePass having an impact on their design or investment is nonsense.

They’re clearly giving NT a lot of money to play with, they have three games in the works and are making a new engine or whatever Mara is. Playground and Turn10 clearly get big budgets as do Coalition and 343. Personally idc if they have smaller studios who are focused on smaller titles, it’s not as if Sony and Nintendo don’t have the same thing. They don’t invest as much in Sony Japan games as they do ND and there’s nothing wrong with that.

Dude yes thats exactly it. We dont harp on MS for what they are doing. We understand that there will always be big and small games. Gamepass is not a bad deal because it has smaller games, it would be crazzy to say that. But most sane people dont think that for $120 a year we will get 4AAA games a year and a bunch of indys to AA games. And we have a rough idea on how much they spend on teams, just by the shear number of the size of the team. Most of the studios purchased are very small. So we canot expect big things from them. From the bigger studios wich you mention we can definetly expect AAA. 

Those “sane” people should maybe explain their theories with solid logic or facts then 🤷🏻‍♂️

Again, they sell these games at retail. They also want you to subscribe to the service, not just for MS games but for the other stuff. Making inferior software not only ruins the service but ruins retail sales as well. The “sane” people aren’t really making a lot of sense.



eva01beserk on 08 February 2020
Conina said:
eva01beserk said:

Can that loss be offset by an increased number of subs, so more money coming in but but shared. Could be but it would be an insane amount of subs for that. Of thouse 20 games you played, Im gona just say that the money was distributed equally just to have somethig to work with. thats saying that each game is 20 times less profitable per sub. lets not use you any more and say the average GP user only plays 10 games. thats still means games are 10 times less profitable. So if a game use to sell 5m copies, it would need to now have 50m subs just to brake even. More than the x1 user base in itself. And thats not using you as an example. Using you it would need 100m subs to brake even. So the only way to offset that is to make games that would not cost $60 at launch to begin with. And that sounds to me like the strategy they are going with. 1 big game every year and 4-6 tiny games that combine probably have the budget of that on big game. 

Are you suggesting that an average GP user who plays 10 games per year would BUY ten games per year without the GamePass option?

If that were true, we wouldn't have a tie ratio of 4 - 11 games for a full console cycle of 5 - 7 years but much higher tie ratios.

I chose 10 because thats what sonys attach ratio is for the ps4. Is MS much lower? 

It does not matter. Its more of an individual analisis, wich I canot do. if the the average player plays 10 games is better than if it plays 20 for the same price. now if the average player buys 10 games like in sonys case, then gamepass would be a massive loss. For MS unless the average gamer buys 2 or less games a year(or $120 worth of), gamepass is a loss.

if you know the attach rate for xbox please share.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

eva01beserk on 08 February 2020
LudicrousSpeed said:
eva01beserk said:

Dude yes thats exactly it. We dont harp on MS for what they are doing. We understand that there will always be big and small games. Gamepass is not a bad deal because it has smaller games, it would be crazzy to say that. But most sane people dont think that for $120 a year we will get 4AAA games a year and a bunch of indys to AA games. And we have a rough idea on how much they spend on teams, just by the shear number of the size of the team. Most of the studios purchased are very small. So we canot expect big things from them. From the bigger studios wich you mention we can definetly expect AAA. 

Those “sane” people should maybe explain their theories with solid logic or facts then 🤷🏻‍♂️

Again, they sell these games at retail. They also want you to subscribe to the service, not just for MS games but for the other stuff. Making inferior software not only ruins the service but ruins retail sales as well. The “sane” people aren’t really making a lot of sense.

Do you mean my speculation? Im guessing thats what you mean. the word theory gets thrown around so casually theese days. 

Why would anyone buy a game at retail for more $$$ if you can have all of them for much lower at launch? out of the kindness of their hearts?

Anyways I think you quoted the wrong comment. 



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

LudicrousSpeed on 08 February 2020

No I quoted the right one. You were replying to me. You said you’re one of the sane people in this discussion, I’m just wondering why the “sane” people are making the least sense.

Just because GamePass exists doesn’t mean people will use it. Many prefer physical. Many prefer to actually own their content, even if it’s digital. Regardless of how good GP is, there’s still the fact that if you stop subscribing, all those games are gone. Not everyone wants to invest into that type of service.

Which is fine, because MS still sells all the games at retail. You can still buy all the third party games outside of GamePass. Which again begs the question, why would MS lower the quality or investment on their games? Then you’ll have less people subscribing and less people buying at retail. Doesn’t make any sense.



Around the Network
eva01beserk on 08 February 2020
LudicrousSpeed said:
No I quoted the right one. You were replying to me. You said you’re one of the sane people in this discussion, I’m just wondering why the “sane” people are making the least sense.

Just because GamePass exists doesn’t mean people will use it. Many prefer physical. Many prefer to actually own their content, even if it’s digital. Regardless of how good GP is, there’s still the fact that if you stop subscribing, all those games are gone. Not everyone wants to invest into that type of service.

Which is fine, because MS still sells all the games at retail. You can still buy all the third party games outside of GamePass. Which again begs the question, why would MS lower the quality or investment on their games? Then you’ll have less people subscribing and less people buying at retail. Doesn’t make any sense.

Because the sane remark was not in the quote adresed to you. And the sane remark was not calling myself sane, I said but looking into the future is sane. So sorta i did call myself sane.

Also on that conversation with sales2099 I explained why it would lower the quality, but you dint read that part apparently. 



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

sales2099 on 08 February 2020
eva01beserk said:
sales2099 said:

Again...you talking like an industry employee. What do you care where the money goes...as a gamer you just concern yourself with “does the service give me value”. You let MS worry about the business side of things. They seem to be positive about the current state, not that it can’t improve. Your whole rant has nothing to do with us as gamers. 

Like an industry employee? No im talking like an adult who knows how economics works. We have to see the benefits and losses to predict the future and for gamepass to work, smaller games is the only viability. So as I gamer, I know not to expect anything big from gamepass or from most of MS studios base on analysis. 

If you want to close your eyes and ears and just belive everything will be fine, thats on you. But thats how people get manipulated and tricked in the world. 

Until you know the revenue model, you really have nothing of value to add to this discussion. An adult who knows how economics works wouldn’t say an opinion without knowing the inner working of the topic they are discussing. We don’t know if developers pay MS to be on GP for the exposure. Lump sum or monthly payments...we don’t know.

And the vast majority still buy games outright, whether it’s physical or digital. So as a gamer, I easily counter argue that budgets and resources will not change so long as gamers keep buying games outright. Did you know that game sales increase from GP games? Turns out GP gamers recommend games to their friends who don’t have GP. Crazy right?!?! ;)

Like I said, if you can’t badmouth GP from a gamers perspective...attack it from a perspective that doesn’t matter to gamers and without actual insider knowledge of how it works and MSs overall vision. Because MS made this with every intention to lose money. Got it. 

Last edited by sales2099 - on 08 February 2020

Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

LudicrousSpeed on 08 February 2020
eva01beserk said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
No I quoted the right one. You were replying to me. You said you’re one of the sane people in this discussion, I’m just wondering why the “sane” people are making the least sense.

Just because GamePass exists doesn’t mean people will use it. Many prefer physical. Many prefer to actually own their content, even if it’s digital. Regardless of how good GP is, there’s still the fact that if you stop subscribing, all those games are gone. Not everyone wants to invest into that type of service.

Which is fine, because MS still sells all the games at retail. You can still buy all the third party games outside of GamePass. Which again begs the question, why would MS lower the quality or investment on their games? Then you’ll have less people subscribing and less people buying at retail. Doesn’t make any sense.

Because the sane remark was not in the quote adresed to you. And the sane remark was not calling myself sane, I said but looking into the future is sane. So sorta i did call myself sane.

Also on that conversation with sales2099 I explained why it would lower the quality, but you dint read that part apparently. 

Yes it was in reply to me. You said something about sane people not expecting four AAA games a year. So I’m just wondering why the supposedly insane people are the only ones using logic in the discussion.

I read your theory on why MS would spend less on games. It just doesn’t make any actual sense. 



Conina on 09 February 2020
eva01beserk said:
Conina said:

Are you suggesting that an average GP user who plays 10 games per year would BUY ten games per year without the GamePass option?

If that were true, we wouldn't have a tie ratio of 4 - 11 games for a full console cycle of 5 - 7 years but much higher tie ratios.

I chose 10 because thats what sonys attach ratio is for the ps4. Is MS much lower? 

It does not matter. Its more of an individual analisis, wich I canot do. if the the average player plays 10 games is better than if it plays 20 for the same price. now if the average player buys 10 games like in sonys case, then gamepass would be a massive loss. For MS unless the average gamer buys 2 or less games a year(or $120 worth of), gamepass is a loss.

if you know the attach rate for xbox please share.

Let's stay at the PS4. The attachment rate of 10 games doesn't mean that they have sold 10 PS4 games on average per year to PS4 owners but in the total console cycle (so far over 6 years).

Sony announced that (according to SIE research) they sold 1150 million PS4 games (retail + physical) from November 15, 2013 to Dezember 31, 2019 and 106 million PS4 consoles: https://www.sie.com/en/corporate/release/2020/200107.html

It is a time frame of 6.1 years, so 1150m games / 104m consoles / 6.1 years = 1.78 games per year and PS4 console. Of course the hardware base of 104m wasn't there from the beginning but has constantly grown from zero since November 15, 2013. With a linear growth in hardware base you can double that number, so PS4 owners bought annually 3.56 games on average, not 10 games.

Let's check that number out:

Sony also announced that they sold 274m PS4 games (retail + physical) during 2019: https://www.polygon.com/ps4/2020/1/31/21116942/ps4-sales-games-software-titles-all-time-million-billion-sony-playstation

The PS4 hardware base has grown from 92m to 106m in the same period, so let's take the average of 99 million PS4 consoles for 2019.

274m games / 99m consoles = 2.77 games in 2019 on average, and that includes digital games. It is normal that the 2019 number (2.77) is lower than the average of the total console cycle (3.56) since more and more casual gamers get a console after hardware price drops... and they don't buy as many games as the early adopters.

You can see that in this chart, I used the yearly VGC estimates for that: http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/2020/Global/

The early adopters bought 2.18 retail games (on average) in the launch window of the PS4 and 6.09 retail games in the first full year.

That number has been constantly falling down to 1.90 retail games in 2018 per PS4 owner and probably a bit more in 2019.

From the 2.77 PS4 games in 2019, probably ~1.77 games wre retail and 1 game was digital.

 

Of course the hard fanbase of a console buys a lot more than 3 games each year (which pushes the rest of the PS4 users even below the average). So the majority of PS4 users won't spend more than $100 - $150 for games anyways.

Last edited by Conina - on 09 February 2020

goopy20 on 09 February 2020
Mr Puggsly said:
goopy20 said:

I don't see Gamepass and the Series X separate at all, and that's the problem for me. What MS is telling us is that their main goal is to reach as many players as possible and the Series X is just a platform to win over more GP subscribers. You say that once MS stops supporting the X1 in 2021, having their 1st party exclusives on as many platforms as possible may end there. But if building gamepass subscibers is more important to MS than selling Series X boxes, why would they stop supporting the X1 and main stream pc gamers?  

And no, generally speaking you can't play multiplatform games on a pc with much lower specs than the base console. The minimum requirements for most modern games on pc is a GTX750 or higher, which is the exact equivalent of what's in the ps4/X1. Next gen these requirements should go up big time to match what's in these new consoles, so likely a RTX2070, SSD and a Zen2 Cpu. This might suck for pc gamers who are currently gaming at 4k on a $150 GTX1060, but the cool thing is that we should see a huge leap in visuals and game experiences that were not possible before. However, that's not going to happen with MS's exclusives, if they are so hellbent on getting their games on as many platforms as possible. Unless, of course, Xcloud really becomes a thing and works perfectly. But then there would be little point in releasing the Series X in the first place.

I don't understand what your argument is. As long as Series X is getting notable content and Game Pass is just an option, there isn't anything to really complain about. You're just whining about options it seems. In fact, MS still pushes actual software sales pretty hard.

Game Pass and xCloud are seemingly designed to work together. Whether it's on Xbox One, PC, mobile device, etc. Again, that could be how MS tries to get many people using these services.

You are speculating that MS will support Xbox One and low end PC specs in perpetuity. There doesn't seem to be any truth in that. Again, xCloud can fill the gap for people wanting to play new games on low end specs.

The example I gave is you can play something like Gears 5 with less GPU power than a X1. This is absolutely true. You're talking about other specs.

My point is you won't need a Series X equivalent GPU in a PC to play the same games. This will be absolutely true thank to adjustable graphics settings.

I think a GTX1060 will be good enough to play AAA 9th gen games fairly well, if you have a 6GB card. Right now 2GB is about the minimum you want to play modern AAA games.

In the end you suggest if xCloud works "perfectly" then we don't need the Series X. It just sounds like you're angry MS is giving too many options.

X1 support is only confirmed a year longer than you seemingly want. You suggest MS will purposely lower the quality of games so they work on more specs. Then you argue xCloud working "perfectly" kills the need for Series X.

All you do is assume the worst and speculate about bad decisions MS could make. Is this entertaining for you, is that all your 400 posts are? My stance is MS is making good decisions at the moment and I look forward to seeing what they do.

We've already went over this a million times. But okay, the problem with options and trying to have a game run on as many platforms as possible, is that developers won't be able to push the higher specs of the Series X. If you say a GTX1060 will be good enough to play AAA 9th gen games, then imo this is gonna be one boring ass next gen and there would hardly be any need to upgrade from the X1X or ps4 pro. I don't want to play to same games in 1080p/30fps on X1X and just have a 4k/60fps version on next gen. What I want and expect from these next gen consoles are experiences that aren't possible on current gen and mid-range pc's. 

Now with Sony, I know they will deliver as they'll probably launch with ps5 exclusives like Spiderman 2, Horizon Zero Dawn 2 etc. that will be designed from the ground up to fully take advantage of things like the more powerful CPU, SSD, Ray tracing and whatnot. With MS's exclusives we just don't know at this point but it sounds like their goal isn't to push the Series X's capabilities, but instead prefer to reach as many players as possible on a whole slew of devices.