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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Microsoft Has Put Themselves Back In The Game!

Bandorr said:
drinkandswim said:

https://www.vgchartz.com/article/445582/michael-pachter-microsofts-bethesda-acquisition-will-shift-a-few-million-from-playstation-to-xbox/

I suggest yourself reading that article. Then googling Michael Pachter. You seem to be quite confused.

Yeah if anything, they will be MS published PS5 exclusive now.  XD



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261

Around the Network

Lol i dunno why i thought he worked for Microsoft lol. Smoking too much crack.



Runa216 said:

-------------> * The Point

---> You

Nuance, people. Context. This is why arguing is so frustrating. Just bad logic and shitty fallacies EVERYWHERE. 

I'm sorry we can't all be smart enough to understand your true intellect, Runa. Do they offer a course on Runaology or Runanomics so I can get my degree in it? Only then can I truly grasp the nuanced complexities of these forum posts. 



Runa216 said:
Raven said:

I mean.. this alone should be your first clue, especially as someone who just ranted about how there is a lot of variety within games that fall under the same genres within Sony's stable of IPs. Being a TPS comes with a bunch of different gameplay mechanics and philosophies that FPS games don't have, if you're not aware of those differences I'm not sure if it's worth anyone's effort to explain them to you because you seem indignant at any attempt to explain your ignorance on the subject. Even as someone who has a minimal experience with the Gears series I can tell you the game's "look and feel" is markedly different as well. The enemy design is different, the character design is different, the settings are different. You trying so hard to lump the two together only exposes your immense ignorance to those who actually know what they're talking about. You can't possibly expect anyone to take your arguments seriously when you approach them with as much blatant bad faith and ignorance as you've been doing. 

-------------> * The Point

---> You

Holy shit, dude, that wasn't even remotely the point I was trying to get across. I mean, I am sitting here thinking of ways to elaborate further but nope, my first post really was sufficient enough so I'll just restate the same thing: There's more in common with Halo and Gears than there is with any two Sony franchises/IPs. I'm not saying those games aren't diverse or unique enough to be their own games - they are - and I'm not saying Microsoft has absolutely no variety, I'm saying and have been saying all day that Sony has more diversity in their lineup of 'Third-person, single-player, action-adventure games' than your reductive reasoning would indicate. 

Stop being intentionally obtuse. Not everything is binary, you know. This isn't an argument of 'Sony has diversity and Microsoft doesn't', it's that 'sony has MORE diversity than Microsoft, but the only way to claim otherwise is to comically misrepresent their games by reducing them all to the same wide blanket genre'. 

Nuance, people. Context. This is why arguing is so frustrating. Just bad logic and shitty fallacies EVERYWHERE. 

Well, by now you've made your point, so I guess if people don't get it then we have a breakdown in communication. Things are getting testy on both sides, and things aren't really progressing, so it's probably best to agree to disagree and move on.



Runa216 said:
sales2099 said:

You took it too literally. I gave a general guideline for Sony’s top exclusives. They technically all fall within it. That doesn’t mean you can’t craft different experiences from it. 

By comparison let’s look at 2020 Xbox: Ori (metroidvania), Gears Tactics (turn based strategy), Minecraft Dungeons (dungeon crawler), Bleeding Edge (multiplayer brawler), Battletoads (beat em up), Tell Me Why (interactive story), Grounded (coop survival), Flight SIM (Simulator), Wasteland 3 (turn based RPG), Age of Empires 3 DE (RTS). Now with Bethesda Xbox has FPS and WRPG on lock. THIS is genre diversity. 

Sorry no mental gymnastics here. By comparison PS top exclusives are more then similar when put next to each other. I’m not wrong in saying Sony could do with a little more 1st party multiplayer and genres in general. Like PS3, now that had genre diversity in their exclusives! 

To bring it all home that’s why Xbox has an edge next gen imo. They do vastly different genres which appeal to more diverse gamer groups. Better multiplayer, like on a whole other level. Games like Sea of Thieves being more popular with age only bode well for say Halo Infinte MP, which if done right will be played long after 2021 exclusives from the competition are beaten and never played again. 

Really? You honestly think that MLB: The Show, Killzone, Resistance, or Gran Turismo 'technically' fall under the same banner of 'story-driven, third-person, action-adventure'? Get outta here with this bad logic. 

As for the rest of your list, keep in mind we're talking about exclusives that are actually good and well liked. Half of those entries you gave are either multiplatform (no, not just on PC), or got shit reviews. Plus, you know, the fact that I actually had to look these games up just to know what the hell Tell Me Why was at all shows that those games aren't really all that popular. 

And if you look at all of these games, there's still very little variety, if you wanna go the 'my console has variety and yours doesn't' logic bend, because all of those games on your list are super western. Even the RPGs are western. I don't think western RPGs are bad (Again, Skyrim is one of my all-time favourite games), but the more you examine Xbox's games, almost all of them are exclusively for a western (Read: US) audience. A Flight Simulator and a beat-em-up might very well be vastly different games and attract very different crowds, but I don't see many japanese gamers giving a shit about them. 

The point is, you can't just stupidly say 'All of Sony's exclusives' are the same because they're third person action-adventure games, it's just a VERY bad point and utilizes terrible logic. If you think Xbox's output is adequately diverse, that's fine. Good for you. The reality is that Sony's lineup is far, FAR more diverse, and that's why it wins worldwide. You can't come from the console who exclusively caters to western audiences then turn around and claim SONY lacks diversity in their exclusives. 

If you somehow don't like their very wide variety of games, that's fine. Some people only like 3-4 genres. but again, don't act like they lack diversity when defending Microsoft. It's not even a fight. IT's not even a competition. It's a point that really shouldn't even be up for debate. Unfortunately I know you'll argue anyway, but know you're unequivocally wrong and it's rather silly to fight. 

You not even paying attention. I clearly said elsewhere that they moved on from experimenting with FPS games and multiplayer like Killzone and Resistance and moved their teams into the single player 3rd person adventure games. Gran Turismo is one game per gen and MLB isn’t exactly at the top of people’s list when they make “best of”. You are listing exceptions to the rule. It’s not stretch to say PS4 exclusives have a similar roadmap/pattern compared to Ps3. This is not debatable (PS3 vs PS4 genres covered). 

I don’t care what you deem is popular. The list I gave was 2020 1st party Xbox and it is clear they each had a distinct genre difference. 

Sony’s exclusives are all unique gameplay experiences. Doesn’t change they double down on single player with no multiplayer. How single player story driven 3rd person adventures is a common trait, as vague as that may seem. I say be proud of it. Own it. Sony knows exactly what their fans want and distilled the formula down to a science. Don’t debate me on it...be proud of it.

Personally, I like FPS, WRPG, Turn based strategy and multiplayer (depends on the game). Therefore Xbox has an edge on those next gen. Because I’m not alone in liking what I like, Xbox simply does certain things better. Sony is more specialized by comparison. And there’s nothing wrong with that, nothing to be defensive about (if that’s what you want from them). 

Last edited by sales2099 - on 01 October 2020

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

 

Around the Network
smroadkill15 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

How is it a long term win if millions less buy the games, MS doesn't grow their console userbase by huge amounts, (causing them to miss out on 3rd party royalties), millions of copies sold have to pay a 3rd party royalty cut to Steam, and millions more users just underpay by playing the games via gamepass?

I mean, Gamepass is $9.99 a month. If somebody plays 10 games a year, then MS is losing money. That's $600 for 10 games vs $120 a year from gamepass revenue. MS could sell those 10 games at $20 a pop, and still make way more money than Gamepass.

I'd kill to see a PnL sheet from Microsoft's gaming division, that was separated from the rest of their business.

People will still always buy games because they don't want to pay a sub which is fine. They will still get sales from Steam, and get more revenue this way than if they only released on the windows store. Game sales for MCC, Flight Sim, Grounded, etc. show this. Right now, Xbox is making all the right moves to increase brand awareness and increase the userbase than where the xbox one is at. 

Right now, 15 million people sub to gamepass. Some play 10 games a year, some play 15 games, or some play only 2-3. Sub numbers will continue to grow and likely hit 30-45 million subs in the next several years. This is a consistent stream of revenue so it really doesn't matter how many games someone plays. 

Talking about raising brand awareness, and raising the userbase beyond just Xbox customers is just vague business-speak. It's as convincing as Enron's Mark to Market accounting was.

You're not sitting down and doing an objective look at the math. Show me a mathematical formula that proves that the revenue from Gamepass + PC Sales + Xbox Sales > PC Sales + PS4 Sales + Switch Sales + Xbox sales.


Runa216 said:
sales2099 said:

Okay, anyone genuinely trying to say that "Sony focuses on 3rd person single-player action-adventure" as a negative is NOT a voice deserving to be heard. "Action-Adventure" is the most wide definition of ALL the genres in gaming by a wide, WIDE margin, third person is a perspective, not a gameplay style, and while 'singleplayer' means it's very story-focused, that's really not restrictive at all. Third-person Single-player action-adventure games encompass something like 75% of all mainstream games. That is the opposite of 'racing' or 'shooter' as niches. 

Ratchet & Clank is NOTHING like The Last of Us.

Bloodborne is NOTHING like inFamous or Spider-Man.

The only thing linking Ghost of Tsushima with Horizon: Zero Dawn is the open world.

Halo is closer to Gears of War than any of Sony's 'third-person action-adventure single-player' games are to each other. Gritty, Futuristic sci fi shooters with grizzled men as their protagonist fighting aliens is a very specific genre. Really, the only thing that separates them is their first vs third person perspective and story details. Hell, the two closest in Sony's lineup are Uncharted and The Last of us because they're both by the same developer and both are sci-fi and remarkably high quality. One's an adventure in he vein of Tomb Raider or Indiana Jones and the other more a stealth horror, they're just considered so alike because the writing and presentation quality are both among the best in the genre. 

The mental gymnastics on this post. Jesus. 

Damn Runa, all you were trying to do is debunk the fallacy of "ALL SONY"S GAMES R TEH SAME!!!", and half the forum dumps on you. I swear these forums have got to have a sizable chunk of gamers that stick almost entirely to a single console or platform.

sales2099 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

How is it a long term win if millions less buy the games, MS doesn't grow their console userbase by huge amounts, (causing them to miss out on 3rd party royalties), millions of copies sold have to pay a 3rd party royalty cut to Steam, and millions more users just underpay by playing the games via gamepass?

I mean, Gamepass is $9.99 a month. If somebody plays 10 games a year, then MS is losing money. That's $600 for 10 games vs $120 a year from gamepass revenue. MS could sell those 10 games at $20 a pop, and still make way more money than Gamepass.

I'd kill to see a PnL sheet from Microsoft's gaming division, that was separated from the rest of their business.

Ultimately if the game makes a profit, it matters little if they missed out on extra profit so long as millions joined Game Pass. For Steam, the way I see it these are people that have no desire to buy a Xbox so giving 30% is better then getting nothing at all. PC isn’t in competition with Xbox unlike PS. 

Otherwise I’m not gonna speculate their revenue model for GP. I just know the bigger it gets the more lucrative it gets. Whatever helps to bring them to 50 million subs, which would bring in insane revenue per month. And you can’t do that if PS5 gamers know they can “wait it out” to get their version. 

Thanks for admitting that they would make more profit if they just kept Bethesda's games 3rd party.

The revenue from 50 million gamepass subs is far less than the revenue from selling games directly. Gamepass is a moneypit, pure and simple. Nobody can sit down and do the objective math to prove that it makes more money than selling games directly. It obviously doesn't. It doesn't even come close. 

Let's just admit that MS is back to the OG Xbox days of burning massive amounts of money to hopefully make even more money 10-15 years from now. They want Gamepass and Streaming to be the way that 90% of consumers experience their games. They want to be able to charge $30 a month for Gamepass. They want to make Sony consoles obsolete. That is their overall strategy.

Now, I don't think they are committed enough to make Bethesda games be Xbox exclusive. Because that would burn even more money than MS is comfortable to spend. Not only that, but it goes against their current ethos of "exclusives are evil", and "we want everyone to be one of our customers". This is why they release their games on PC and Switch. And even PS4 in the case of Cuphead. They'll continue that trend by releasing their games on PS5.



Cerebralbore101 said:
Runa216 said:

Okay, anyone genuinely trying to say that "Sony focuses on 3rd person single-player action-adventure" as a negative is NOT a voice deserving to be heard. "Action-Adventure" is the most wide definition of ALL the genres in gaming by a wide, WIDE margin, third person is a perspective, not a gameplay style, and while 'singleplayer' means it's very story-focused, that's really not restrictive at all. Third-person Single-player action-adventure games encompass something like 75% of all mainstream games. That is the opposite of 'racing' or 'shooter' as niches. 

Ratchet & Clank is NOTHING like The Last of Us.

Bloodborne is NOTHING like inFamous or Spider-Man.

The only thing linking Ghost of Tsushima with Horizon: Zero Dawn is the open world.

Halo is closer to Gears of War than any of Sony's 'third-person action-adventure single-player' games are to each other. Gritty, Futuristic sci fi shooters with grizzled men as their protagonist fighting aliens is a very specific genre. Really, the only thing that separates them is their first vs third person perspective and story details. Hell, the two closest in Sony's lineup are Uncharted and The Last of us because they're both by the same developer and both are sci-fi and remarkably high quality. One's an adventure in he vein of Tomb Raider or Indiana Jones and the other more a stealth horror, they're just considered so alike because the writing and presentation quality are both among the best in the genre. 

The mental gymnastics on this post. Jesus. 

Damn Runa, all you were trying to do is debunk the fallacy of "ALL SONY"S GAMES R TEH SAME!!!", and half the forum dumps on you. I swear these forums have got to have a sizable chunk of gamers that stick almost entirely to a single console or platform.

Eeh, I'm used to it. I get a lot of it over in the politics section, too. It is frustrating how much work people put into being obtuse about stuff to suit their narrative, though. 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Cerebralbore101 said:
smroadkill15 said:

People will still always buy games because they don't want to pay a sub which is fine. They will still get sales from Steam, and get more revenue this way than if they only released on the windows store. Game sales for MCC, Flight Sim, Grounded, etc. show this. Right now, Xbox is making all the right moves to increase brand awareness and increase the userbase than where the xbox one is at. 

Right now, 15 million people sub to gamepass. Some play 10 games a year, some play 15 games, or some play only 2-3. Sub numbers will continue to grow and likely hit 30-45 million subs in the next several years. This is a consistent stream of revenue so it really doesn't matter how many games someone plays. 

Talking about raising brand awareness, and raising the userbase beyond just Xbox customers is just vague business-speak. It's as convincing as Enron's Mark to Market accounting was.

You're not sitting down and doing an objective look at the math. Show me a mathematical formula that proves that the revenue from Gamepass + PC Sales + Xbox Sales > PC Sales + PS4 Sales + Switch Sales + Xbox sales.


Runa216 said:

Okay, anyone genuinely trying to say that "Sony focuses on 3rd person single-player action-adventure" as a negative is NOT a voice deserving to be heard. "Action-Adventure" is the most wide definition of ALL the genres in gaming by a wide, WIDE margin, third person is a perspective, not a gameplay style, and while 'singleplayer' means it's very story-focused, that's really not restrictive at all. Third-person Single-player action-adventure games encompass something like 75% of all mainstream games. That is the opposite of 'racing' or 'shooter' as niches. 

Ratchet & Clank is NOTHING like The Last of Us.

Bloodborne is NOTHING like inFamous or Spider-Man.

The only thing linking Ghost of Tsushima with Horizon: Zero Dawn is the open world.

Halo is closer to Gears of War than any of Sony's 'third-person action-adventure single-player' games are to each other. Gritty, Futuristic sci fi shooters with grizzled men as their protagonist fighting aliens is a very specific genre. Really, the only thing that separates them is their first vs third person perspective and story details. Hell, the two closest in Sony's lineup are Uncharted and The Last of us because they're both by the same developer and both are sci-fi and remarkably high quality. One's an adventure in he vein of Tomb Raider or Indiana Jones and the other more a stealth horror, they're just considered so alike because the writing and presentation quality are both among the best in the genre. 

The mental gymnastics on this post. Jesus. 

Damn Runa, all you were trying to do is debunk the fallacy of "ALL SONY"S GAMES R TEH SAME!!!", and half the forum dumps on you. I swear these forums have got to have a sizable chunk of gamers that stick almost entirely to a single console or platform.

sales2099 said:

Ultimately if the game makes a profit, it matters little if they missed out on extra profit so long as millions joined Game Pass. For Steam, the way I see it these are people that have no desire to buy a Xbox so giving 30% is better then getting nothing at all. PC isn’t in competition with Xbox unlike PS. 

Otherwise I’m not gonna speculate their revenue model for GP. I just know the bigger it gets the more lucrative it gets. Whatever helps to bring them to 50 million subs, which would bring in insane revenue per month. And you can’t do that if PS5 gamers know they can “wait it out” to get their version. 

Thanks for admitting that they would make more profit if they just kept Bethesda's games 3rd party.

The revenue from 50 million gamepass subs is far less than the revenue from selling games directly. Gamepass is a moneypit, pure and simple. Nobody can sit down and do the objective math to prove that it makes more money than selling games directly. It obviously doesn't. It doesn't even come close. 

Let's just admit that MS is back to the OG Xbox days of burning massive amounts of money to hopefully make even more money 10-15 years from now. They want Gamepass and Streaming to be the way that 90% of consumers experience their games. They want to be able to charge $30 a month for Gamepass. They want to make Sony consoles obsolete. That is their overall strategy.

Now, I don't think they are committed enough to make Bethesda games be Xbox exclusive. Because that would burn even more money than MS is comfortable to spend. Not only that, but it goes against their current ethos of "exclusives are evil", and "we want everyone to be one of our customers". This is why they release their games on PC and Switch. And even PS4 in the case of Cuphead. They'll continue that trend by releasing their games on PS5.

Guess we’ll see. In the end games like Elder Scrolls can profit in the Xbox ecosystem alone. Will it make more profit also on PS5? Sure, but hey profit is profit and if they get a few million people going over to Xbox consoles and subbing Game Pass, that’s exactly what they really want. Long term engagement. I just think getting a cut from PS game sales is too short term, too small in the grand scheme. 

Bold: I just think they referring to their ecosystem most of the time. Because technically it’s multi platforms, just not including PS. 

Last edited by sales2099 - on 01 October 2020

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

 

Cerebralbore101 said:
smroadkill15 said:

People will still always buy games because they don't want to pay a sub which is fine. They will still get sales from Steam, and get more revenue this way than if they only released on the windows store. Game sales for MCC, Flight Sim, Grounded, etc. show this. Right now, Xbox is making all the right moves to increase brand awareness and increase the userbase than where the xbox one is at. 

Right now, 15 million people sub to gamepass. Some play 10 games a year, some play 15 games, or some play only 2-3. Sub numbers will continue to grow and likely hit 30-45 million subs in the next several years. This is a consistent stream of revenue so it really doesn't matter how many games someone plays. 

Talking about raising brand awareness, and raising the userbase beyond just Xbox customers is just vague business-speak. It's as convincing as Enron's Mark to Market accounting was.

You're not sitting down and doing an objective look at the math. Show me a mathematical formula that proves that the revenue from Gamepass + PC Sales + Xbox Sales > PC Sales + PS4 Sales + Switch Sales + Xbox sales.


I have never stated Bethesda games would sell better being only on the Xbox ecosystem. I never have made this claim, and I won't make this claim. But the point of MS buying Bethesda isn't to sell as many copies as possibly, it's to make the ecosystem more attractive for gamers. 

Sony could release Spider-man and God of War on PC, Xbox, etc and it would sell way more than making it only ps4, but that's not why they do it. Sony want to make Playstation the best place to play, just like MS want's Xbox to be to best place to play.

50 million Gamepass subs would bring in roughly 6 billion in revenue annual, and that's not accounting Ultimate subs. Then include in revenue from game sales, 30% cut on 3rd party games, Xbox live gold, steam sales, etc. The 50 million subs is a continues amount of revenue. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion game sales would bring in more revenue. Even Sony's best selling year of ps4 exclusives total doesn't come close to this. 



Cerebralbore101 said:
smroadkill15 said:

People will still always buy games because they don't want to pay a sub which is fine. They will still get sales from Steam, and get more revenue this way than if they only released on the windows store. Game sales for MCC, Flight Sim, Grounded, etc. show this. Right now, Xbox is making all the right moves to increase brand awareness and increase the userbase than where the xbox one is at. 

Right now, 15 million people sub to gamepass. Some play 10 games a year, some play 15 games, or some play only 2-3. Sub numbers will continue to grow and likely hit 30-45 million subs in the next several years. This is a consistent stream of revenue so it really doesn't matter how many games someone plays. 

Talking about raising brand awareness, and raising the userbase beyond just Xbox customers is just vague business-speak. It's as convincing as Enron's Mark to Market accounting was.

You're not sitting down and doing an objective look at the math. Show me a mathematical formula that proves that the revenue from Gamepass + PC Sales + Xbox Sales > PC Sales + PS4 Sales + Switch Sales + Xbox sales.


Runa216 said:

Okay, anyone genuinely trying to say that "Sony focuses on 3rd person single-player action-adventure" as a negative is NOT a voice deserving to be heard. "Action-Adventure" is the most wide definition of ALL the genres in gaming by a wide, WIDE margin, third person is a perspective, not a gameplay style, and while 'singleplayer' means it's very story-focused, that's really not restrictive at all. Third-person Single-player action-adventure games encompass something like 75% of all mainstream games. That is the opposite of 'racing' or 'shooter' as niches. 

Ratchet & Clank is NOTHING like The Last of Us.

Bloodborne is NOTHING like inFamous or Spider-Man.

The only thing linking Ghost of Tsushima with Horizon: Zero Dawn is the open world.

Halo is closer to Gears of War than any of Sony's 'third-person action-adventure single-player' games are to each other. Gritty, Futuristic sci fi shooters with grizzled men as their protagonist fighting aliens is a very specific genre. Really, the only thing that separates them is their first vs third person perspective and story details. Hell, the two closest in Sony's lineup are Uncharted and The Last of us because they're both by the same developer and both are sci-fi and remarkably high quality. One's an adventure in he vein of Tomb Raider or Indiana Jones and the other more a stealth horror, they're just considered so alike because the writing and presentation quality are both among the best in the genre. 

The mental gymnastics on this post. Jesus. 

Damn Runa, all you were trying to do is debunk the fallacy of "ALL SONY"S GAMES R TEH SAME!!!", and half the forum dumps on you. I swear these forums have got to have a sizable chunk of gamers that stick almost entirely to a single console or platform.

sales2099 said:

Ultimately if the game makes a profit, it matters little if they missed out on extra profit so long as millions joined Game Pass. For Steam, the way I see it these are people that have no desire to buy a Xbox so giving 30% is better then getting nothing at all. PC isn’t in competition with Xbox unlike PS. 

Otherwise I’m not gonna speculate their revenue model for GP. I just know the bigger it gets the more lucrative it gets. Whatever helps to bring them to 50 million subs, which would bring in insane revenue per month. And you can’t do that if PS5 gamers know they can “wait it out” to get their version. 

Thanks for admitting that they would make more profit if they just kept Bethesda's games 3rd party.

The revenue from 50 million gamepass subs is far less than the revenue from selling games directly. Gamepass is a moneypit, pure and simple. Nobody can sit down and do the objective math to prove that it makes more money than selling games directly. It obviously doesn't. It doesn't even come close. 

Let's just admit that MS is back to the OG Xbox days of burning massive amounts of money to hopefully make even more money 10-15 years from now. They want Gamepass and Streaming to be the way that 90% of consumers experience their games. They want to be able to charge $30 a month for Gamepass. They want to make Sony consoles obsolete. That is their overall strategy.

Now, I don't think they are committed enough to make Bethesda games be Xbox exclusive. Because that would burn even more money than MS is comfortable to spend. Not only that, but it goes against their current ethos of "exclusives are evil", and "we want everyone to be one of our customers". This is why they release their games on PC and Switch. And even PS4 in the case of Cuphead. They'll continue that trend by releasing their games on PS5.

MS's board of Directors Meeting:

Nadella: "Hey guys, we need to think about the future, what should we do?"

Xbox Executive: "I got it! What if.. hear me out.. we become a 3rd party publisher!?"

Nadella: "Wow, how come we didn't think of that before!? Here, take this $7.5B, let's make this happen!"

Executive # 2: "But Sr.. why do we keep paying for timed-exclusivity deals and hiring 3rd party studios to make exclusive games for us?"

Nadella: "To entice people to buy an Xbox, duh"

Executive # 2: "But Sr.. wouldn't make more sense to make the games from our own studios exclusives"

Nadella: "Oh, shut up!"