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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - MS CFO Tim Stuart defends throwing MTX into $70 games.

Runa216 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

1. A complete experience is to experience something in it's entirety including every part.

2. Changing your multiplayer skin is a part of Gears 5.

3. Therefore in order to get the complete Gears 5 experience you need to have access to all the multiplayer skins.

It's a straightforward deductive argument.

How about you work on trying to refute my last argument having to do with your ridiculous Ellie Edition comparison? I suspect you brought up this new angle of attack, because you know that you can't win that one. ;)

Yeeeaaaah, it's pretty dumb. Sure, skins don't change the gameplay or give you bonuses, but it's still part of the experience. If I started up Dark Souls and found that the character creator's options were hidden behind paywalls or...ugh...randomized in boxes...I'd put that garbage game down instantly. 

I've made a habit of not playing games that require microtransactions. I play a few that have them, but I can avoid them (Red Dead Redemption 2 is a good example)

We have Yakuza 7 that had New Game Plus and something else as paid DLC.



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."

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Runa216 said:

Yeeeaaaah, it's pretty dumb. Sure, skins don't change the gameplay or give you bonuses, but it's still part of the experience. If I started up Dark Souls and found that the character creator's options were hidden behind paywalls or...ugh...randomized in boxes...I'd put that garbage game down instantly. 

I've made a habit of not playing games that require microtransactions. I play a few that have them, but I can avoid them (Red Dead Redemption 2 is a good example)

We have Yakuza 7 that had New Game Plus and something else as paid DLC.

Yeah, I'm waiting on Yakuza 7 to get a bundle, which includes that stuff in it.



Runa216 said:
DonFerrari said:

I would say his problem with you isn't you being optimistic, is you determining certainty and bragging.

It is completely different being confident that with the new studios MS will be able to push a lot more great games (be them exclusive or not), another thing is to be certain that they will outperform Sony with the number, quality and sales of said games. Similar to the discussions I have to the specs of Xbox and PS5, anyone saying they were confident MS would have the most powerful because it was important to the company and they would invest a lot in it I would be fine accepting, the ones that said it was certain thing (as if MS could control what Sony do or had spies to know what Sony would do and them come above) were the ones I had issues with.

Pretty much this. That with one small addition that he's saying all this in spite of the data trending in the opposite way. that'd be like me brashly and confidently bragging about how much better myspace is doing than facebook...because they recently made some acquisitions and I liked their layout better. Like sure, maybe they'll come back and I'm allowed to like myspace for sure, but to speak such outlandish nonsense without any real proof aside from hope is just...it's bad conversation. It's not conducive to any sort of common area or middle ground. 

He's acting like his chosen brand has already won a war where it's vastly outnumbered and hasn't won a battle in years. It's foolish and frustrating. Everyone's allowed opinions, but there seems to be a distinct unwillingness to accept objective facts and history in lieu of his hopes and dreams for the company. Optimism is fine, but don't bring opinions to a fact fight, or something, you know? 

Xbox right now is in a pretty good spot despite losing to Sony last gen. And again I said we all ready seeing the seeds of it...10 games in 2020 with only one going below 70 on metacritic. 2 games 90 or above. Sure they aren’t all AAA bangers but it’s certainly promising. If you so sure of yourself, then don’t be such a Debbie Downer if you the winner. 

And @Don, if my optimism due to the massive studio acquisitions is mistaken as certainty then so be it. I’m simply excited and can’t wait to show it. By contrast my problem with him is the rude smug superiority complex who almost comically can’t compute how Xbox fans even exist. It’s guys like him that make me who I am here. 



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

 

sales2099 said:

Xbox right now is in a pretty good spot despite losing to Sony last gen. And again I said we all ready seeing the seeds of it...10 games in 2020 with only one going below 70 on metacritic. 2 games 90 or above. Sure they aren’t all AAA bangers but it’s certainly promising. If you so sure of yourself, then don’t be such a Debbie Downer if you the winner. 

And @Don, if my optimism due to the massive studio acquisitions is mistaken as certainty then so be it. I’m simply excited and can’t wait to show it. By contrast my problem with him is the rude smug superiority complex who almost comically can’t compute how Xbox fans even exist. It’s guys like him that make me who I am here. 

Again, literally every one of your arguments boils down to 'there's potential there, so I'm going to go ahead and say they're going to live up to that potential and therefore do very well'. Like I said, Kena has potential, FFXVI has potential, and many other PS5 exclusives or franchises have potential, but until we actually see gameplay and know what we're getting into more with depth and length and details, it's WAY too early to call it and you're eagerly proclaiming quality and improvement with literally nothing more than hope and faith guiding you. Like Don said, your arguments boil down to preemptively determining quality and bragging about it. 



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:
LudicrousSpeed said:

Please, take the day. Hell, take a week. It will take you that long to be able to come up with something that explains how optional multiplayer skins are required for the "complete experience" in Gears 5. We'll all be here waiting. You can work on your Last of Us 2 $249 thread in the meantime, friend.

1. A complete experience is to experience something in it's entirety including every part.

2. Changing your multiplayer skin is a part of Gears 5.

3. Therefore in order to get the complete Gears 5 experience you need to have access to all the multiplayer skins.

It's a straightforward deductive argument.

How about you work on trying to refute my last argument having to do with your ridiculous Ellie Edition comparison? I suspect you brought up this new angle of attack, because you know that you can't win that one. ;)

No, accessing every single skin isn’t required for the complete experience. What a nonsensical position to take. You get tons of cosmetics included in Gears 5 and unlock even more. There are extras if you want to unlock them. They aren’t required for the complete experience. If there were characters or abilities or levels locked behind a paywall, ok, you might be missing out on the “complete experience”, but this is nothing but optional extra skins they make. You should have taken a little longer to come up with something better.

Regarding the Ellie Edition argument, I don’t need to refute anything because you’re doing it for me. I understand it’s a weak argument to make, I know that because it’s the same argument you’re making for any game with cosmetic unlocks. So you’re just arguing against your own nonsense :)



Around the Network
LudicrousSpeed said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

1. A complete experience is to experience something in it's entirety including every part.

2. Changing your multiplayer skin is a part of Gears 5.

3. Therefore in order to get the complete Gears 5 experience you need to have access to all the multiplayer skins.

It's a straightforward deductive argument.

How about you work on trying to refute my last argument having to do with your ridiculous Ellie Edition comparison? I suspect you brought up this new angle of attack, because you know that you can't win that one. ;)

No, accessing every single skin isn’t required for the complete experience. What a nonsensical position to take. You get tons of cosmetics included in Gears 5 and unlock even more. There are extras if you want to unlock them. They aren’t required for the complete experience. If there were characters or abilities or levels locked behind a paywall, ok, you might be missing out on the “complete experience”, but this is nothing but optional extra skins they make. You should have taken a little longer to come up with something better.

Regarding the Ellie Edition argument, I don’t need to refute anything because you’re doing it for me. I understand it’s a weak argument to make, I know that because it’s the same argument you’re making for any game with cosmetic unlocks. So you’re just arguing against your own nonsense :)

Yeah, it's as I thought. You don't actually understand logic. Your options are to either refute premise 1, or premise 2. Instead, you just wind up restating your weak claims, and try to back them up with Inductive arguments. Deductive arguments beat Inductive arguments everytime, so you lose the debate.


If you think my Ellie edition arguments are contradictory, then please point out the contradictions. But I suppose you don't actually understand what a logical contradiction is either. So you have some required reading... https://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/mayesgr/phl4/handouts/phl4contradiction.htm

But I know I'm wasting my time with you. You're not interested in having a logical discussion, and don't know even the basics of logic. Instead you attempt to use your own subjective intuition as a rule of what's logical and what's not logical. And since you refuse to accept objective logical standards, preferring your own subjective standards, you always win in your own head. This is why, instead of attempting to actually argue, you simply trumpet your imaginary victory, while restating your already refuted claims.



Cerebralbore101 said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

Please, take the day. Hell, take a week. It will take you that long to be able to come up with something that explains how optional multiplayer skins are required for the "complete experience" in Gears 5. We'll all be here waiting. You can work on your Last of Us 2 $249 thread in the meantime, friend.

1. A complete experience is to experience something in it's entirety including every part.

2. Changing your multiplayer skin is a part of Gears 5.

3. Therefore in order to get the complete Gears 5 experience you need to have access to all the multiplayer skins.

It's a straightforward deductive argument.

How about you work on trying to refute my last argument having to do with your ridiculous Ellie Edition comparison? I suspect you brought up this new angle of attack, because you know that you can't win that one. ;)

If I may, usually a complete experience is simply full access to the game. To many that’s the campaign, multiplayer and all content in between. Just like the good old days :) Optional cosmetics that appeal to different tastes...that’s not essential to enjoying what the game offers. Changing skins is part of Gears 5 but quite arguably not essential. 

I still think you are underestimating the key differences in how each brand gets their revenue. GP increasingly taking away the upfront cost but more importantly the difference between a single player game and one with a heavily free content supported multiplayer. I think you undervalue the manpower it takes to keep these games alive. 



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

 

Runa216 said:
sales2099 said:

Xbox right now is in a pretty good spot despite losing to Sony last gen. And again I said we all ready seeing the seeds of it...10 games in 2020 with only one going below 70 on metacritic. 2 games 90 or above. Sure they aren’t all AAA bangers but it’s certainly promising. If you so sure of yourself, then don’t be such a Debbie Downer if you the winner. 

And @Don, if my optimism due to the massive studio acquisitions is mistaken as certainty then so be it. I’m simply excited and can’t wait to show it. By contrast my problem with him is the rude smug superiority complex who almost comically can’t compute how Xbox fans even exist. It’s guys like him that make me who I am here. 

Again, literally every one of your arguments boils down to 'there's potential there, so I'm going to go ahead and say they're going to live up to that potential and therefore do very well'. Like I said, Kena has potential, FFXVI has potential, and many other PS5 exclusives or franchises have potential, but until we actually see gameplay and know what we're getting into more with depth and length and details, it's WAY too early to call it and you're eagerly proclaiming quality and improvement with literally nothing more than hope and faith guiding you. Like Don said, your arguments boil down to preemptively determining quality and bragging about it. 

Like PS fans never said “just wait” before. Then let me state for the record I’m simply excited and can’t wait for what the future holds. If that bothers you then I say you got problems of your own. In the meantime I’m enjoying their BC program, unique genres like Gears Tactics, and saving money via GP (I would assume you can at least empathize with that one). 



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

 

I feel so robbed playing gears 5 all these hours and not buying useless skins I was robbed of a complete experience :(



sales2099 said:
Runa216 said:

Pretty much this. That with one small addition that he's saying all this in spite of the data trending in the opposite way. that'd be like me brashly and confidently bragging about how much better myspace is doing than facebook...because they recently made some acquisitions and I liked their layout better. Like sure, maybe they'll come back and I'm allowed to like myspace for sure, but to speak such outlandish nonsense without any real proof aside from hope is just...it's bad conversation. It's not conducive to any sort of common area or middle ground. 

He's acting like his chosen brand has already won a war where it's vastly outnumbered and hasn't won a battle in years. It's foolish and frustrating. Everyone's allowed opinions, but there seems to be a distinct unwillingness to accept objective facts and history in lieu of his hopes and dreams for the company. Optimism is fine, but don't bring opinions to a fact fight, or something, you know? 

Xbox right now is in a pretty good spot despite losing to Sony last gen. And again I said we all ready seeing the seeds of it...10 games in 2020 with only one going below 70 on metacritic. 2 games 90 or above. Sure they aren’t all AAA bangers but it’s certainly promising. If you so sure of yourself, then don’t be such a Debbie Downer if you the winner. 

And @Don, if my optimism due to the massive studio acquisitions is mistaken as certainty then so be it. I’m simply excited and can’t wait to show it. By contrast my problem with him is the rude smug superiority complex who almost comically can’t compute how Xbox fans even exist. It’s guys like him that make me who I am here. 

I may be wrong but weren't most of these 10 titles almost finished by the time MS bought the studios, even to the point those games are multiplatform? Also some of the "beta" status like Grounded and Flight Simulators aren't even internal devs, and Battle Toads the same... since you made the claim list those 10 titles, with platform, date of release and date of studio acquisition.



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."