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.

Cerebralbore101 said:
shikamaru317 said:

That is $2.8m per year to pay for the development of that all free multiplayer DLC in that hypothetical scenario. But for Halo it would be alot more. 343 Industries has nearly 600 devs, I would assume there will be at least 150 people on Halo Infinite's post-release multiplayer support team, and MS has already said that they want to support Infinite the entire generation with both singleplayer and multiplayer DLC. While the singleplayer expansions will presumably cost money, all of the maps, modes, and weapons that will be released for Halo Infinite's multiplayer will be free. So 150 people making an average of probably $80,000 per year (343 Industries is in a high cost of living area so I assume their average pay is higher than most other AAA game studios), with probably 6 years of support. That is $12m per year x 6 years = $72m. You can't just expect MS to be willing to spend $72m on 6 years of free DLC support for Halo Infinite's multiplayer, it's unreasonable, even if the game will make over $1b in profit from sales of the game. They already have a rumored budget of $200m+ for the past 5 years they've spent working on the game with 500+ people.

This is the real world we live in, gaming is a business for AAA game publishers like Microsoft; they're not in the business to earn the goodwill of gamers, they are in the business to earn as much money as possible so that Satya Nadella and the other MS executives can be filthy rich, live in mansions, bathe in champagne, and fly in private jets, the American dream baby xD

The good news is, Halo Infinite microtransactions are confirmed to be cosmetic only, non randomized, and earnable in-game. I can't really complain about that, I would only complain if they were randomized, it sucks to want a certain cosmetic and have to rely on gambling to get that cosmetic. 

What? I can't expect a company to spend 7.2% of it's total sales profits on free DLC and updates? 72 million is 7.2% of a billion. That's like a company making $10 in profits from a sale of an item, and then giving their customer a 72 cent plastic gift.

Sorry, I meant to say Infinite will probably earn $1b+ in revenue, not profit. After you factor in the development budget (which is already huge due to 343's large size and the fact that the game has 5 years of development already) and the marketing budget (which is sure to be huge, probably over $100m), the profit will be much lower. Sure MS could technically afford to support Infinite with all free multiplayer DLC, but spending $72m on DLC development over 6 years with no return on investment for that spend looks bad to the shareholders.



Around the Network
shikamaru317 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
shikamaru317 said:

That is $2.8m per year to pay for the development of that all free multiplayer DLC in that hypothetical scenario. But for Halo it would be alot more. 343 Industries has nearly 600 devs, I would assume there will be at least 150 people on Halo Infinite's post-release multiplayer support team, and MS has already said that they want to support Infinite the entire generation with both singleplayer and multiplayer DLC. While the singleplayer expansions will presumably cost money, all of the maps, modes, and weapons that will be released for Halo Infinite's multiplayer will be free. So 150 people making an average of probably $80,000 per year (343 Industries is in a high cost of living area so I assume their average pay is higher than most other AAA game studios), with probably 6 years of support. That is $12m per year x 6 years = $72m. You can't just expect MS to be willing to spend $72m on 6 years of free DLC support for Halo Infinite's multiplayer, it's unreasonable, even if the game will make over $1b in profit from sales of the game. They already have a rumored budget of $200m+ for the past 5 years they've spent working on the game with 500+ people.

This is the real world we live in, gaming is a business for AAA game publishers like Microsoft; they're not in the business to earn the goodwill of gamers, they are in the business to earn as much money as possible so that Satya Nadella and the other MS executives can be filthy rich, live in mansions, bathe in champagne, and fly in private jets, the American dream baby xD

The good news is, Halo Infinite microtransactions are confirmed to be cosmetic only, non randomized, and earnable in-game. I can't really complain about that, I would only complain if they were randomized, it sucks to want a certain cosmetic and have to rely on gambling to get that cosmetic. 

What? I can't expect a company to spend 7.2% of it's total sales profits on free DLC and updates? 72 million is 7.2% of a billion. That's like a company making $10 in profits from a sale of an item, and then giving their customer a 72 cent plastic gift.

Sorry, I meant to say Infinite will probably earn $1b+ in revenue, not profit. After you factor in the development budget (which is already huge due to 343's large size and the fact that the game has 5 years of development already) and the marketing budget (which is sure to be huge, probably over $100m), the profit will be much lower. Sure MS could technically afford to support Infinite with all free multiplayer DLC, but spending $72m on DLC development over 6 years with no return on investment for that spend looks bad to the shareholders.

With a 150 man dev team their multiplayer mode would have to be insanely massive with a new map every week, new weapons (made from completely new 3D models), a new game mode every month, two or three new vehicles every month, massive 120 man war maps, etc. I'm not expecting that though. I'm expecting a new map every month, and five new skins a week. 

If they really are spending that kind of money and manpower, just for the bolded, then they are massively mismanaged. Multiplayer content simply does not require that sort of money or manpower. 

Also, let's remember that something like Halo Infinite is supposed to be a loss leader. It is supposed to be the one game that gets everybody to buy their console, which gets everybody to buy 3rd party games on their console, which gains them royalty revenue off those 3rd party games. So yeah, they could conceivably drop 72 million with no return on investment and justify it to shareholders. 

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 18 November 2020

Cerebralbore101 said:
shikamaru317 said:

Sorry, I meant to say Infinite will probably earn $1b+ in revenue, not profit. After you factor in the development budget (which is already huge due to 343's large size and the fact that the game has 5 years of development already) and the marketing budget (which is sure to be huge, probably over $100m), the profit will be much lower. Sure MS could technically afford to support Infinite with all free multiplayer DLC, but spending $72m on DLC development over 6 years with no return on investment for that spend looks bad to the shareholders.

With a 150 man dev team their multiplayer mode would have to be insanely massive with a new map every week, new weapons (made from completely new 3D models), a new game mode every month, two or three new vehicles every month, massive 120 man war maps, etc. I'm not expecting that though. I'm expecting a new map every month, and five new skins a week. 

If they really are spending that kind of money and manpower, just for the bolded, then they are massively mismanaged. Multiplayer content simply does not require that sort of money or manpower. 

Also, let's remember that something like Halo Infinite is supposed to be a loss leader. It is supposed to be the one game that gets everybody to buy their console, which gets everybody to buy 3rd party games on their console, which gains them royalty revenue off those 3rd party games. So yeah, they could conceivably drop 72 million with no return on investment and justify it to shareholders. 

150 people on the post-release multiplayer team is a guestimate on my part, no idea what the actual team size will be. 343 has nearly 600 devs now, an after Infinite releases they will presumably be split between ongoing Halo MCC support, Infinite multiplayer support, Infinite singleplayer support (MS said they want to support Infinite with singleplayer and multiplayer content all generation), and a team working on a Halo spinoff game or new IP maybe. What the ratio of devs per team will be, I have no idea. I would guess the Infinite singpleplayer team will be the largest, since they will presumably be developing paid singleplayer expansions for Infinite's campaign. Who knows, maybe they will release the singleplayer updates for free as well, and fund both the free multiplayer maps, modes, weapons, and vehicles, and free singleplayer expansions, with the microtransactions for the multiplayer. 



Cerebralbore101 said:
shikamaru317 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
shikamaru317 said:

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the issue with cosmetic microtransactions in a multiplayer game, as long as they're not randomized (aka lootboxes). Multiplayer games require ongoing support from the developers for at least a year after release usually, sometimes years plural. The devs/publishers have to pay for that post-release content development somehow, you can't just expect a publisher who cares about their bottom line to support a multiplayer game with all free DLC for years after release, that is years of paying a probably 40+ person DLC development team $70k+ per year per person to develop that DLC. Multiplayer games used to have paid map packs and such, but the industry has moved away from those to free maps because they realized that paid map packs split the playerbase too much and made it harder for those who owned the maps to find matches on those new paid maps. Instead, multiplayer developers now support the development of free maps and modes with paid cosmetics, which are almost always also available through in-game means. That is fine with me and most multiplayer gamers.

So yeah, I just don't see the issue with Microsoft putting cosmetic microtransactions into Halo Infinite, a game which they are planning to support with free maps and modes for the entire 9th generation (we're talking probably 6 years of DLC support). 343 even already confirmed that all cosmetics will also be available to earn in-game.

Your 40 man dev team would cost 2.8 million. If the game sells 5 million copies and just 6% of the playerbase (300,000 people) spend just $10 per year then they've recouped their losses + a $200,000 profit. If 12% of the playerbase spends $10 a year they've more than doubled their investment. Most businesses are golden if they make $1.10 in revenue for every $1 they spend. A profit margin of 200% or more is obscene, and evidence that somebody is being taken for a ride.

That is $2.8m per year to pay for the development of that all free multiplayer DLC in that hypothetical scenario. But for Halo it would be alot more. 343 Industries has nearly 600 devs, I would assume there will be at least 150 people on Halo Infinite's post-release multiplayer support team, and MS has already said that they want to support Infinite the entire generation with both singleplayer and multiplayer DLC. While the singleplayer expansions will presumably cost money, all of the maps, modes, and weapons that will be released for Halo Infinite's multiplayer will be free. So 150 people making an average of probably $80,000 per year (343 Industries is in a high cost of living area so I assume their average pay is higher than most other AAA game studios), with probably 6 years of support. That is $12m per year x 6 years = $72m. You can't just expect MS to be willing to spend $72m on 6 years of free DLC support for Halo Infinite's multiplayer, it's unreasonable, even if the game will make over $1b in profit from sales of the game. They already have a rumored budget of $200m+ for the past 5 years they've spent working on the game with 500+ people.

This is the real world we live in, gaming is a business for AAA game publishers like Microsoft; they're not in the business to earn the goodwill of gamers, they are in the business to earn as much money as possible so that Satya Nadella and the other MS executives can be filthy rich, live in mansions, bathe in champagne, and fly in private jets, the American dream baby xD

The good news is, Halo Infinite microtransactions are confirmed to be cosmetic only, non randomized, and earnable in-game. I can't really complain about that, I would only complain if they were randomized, it sucks to want a certain cosmetic and have to rely on gambling to get that cosmetic. 

What? I can't expect a company to spend 7.2% of it's total sales profits on free DLC and updates? 72 million is 7.2% of a billion. That's like a company making $10 in profits from a sale of an item, and then giving their customer a 72 cent plastic gift.

Nope. It is unnaceptable that once you made the sale of a 70USD game you won't keep nicking and dime to profit more. We have to pretend that Sony games have 0 post launch support and cost, while a Multiplayer cost 10M dollar a year on development effort.

On your comment about 343 being mismanaged... well if they have 500+ employees and after 5 years of development they presented that version of Halo you can bet they are mismanaged.



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."

Cerebralbore101 said:
zero129 said:

@Cerebralbore101 

The only part of your post id like you to answer.

"All signs indicate that Halo Infinite is going full on GaaS mode though, that is where the idea that MS wants MTX in all of their games."

Where has MS said the full Halo Experience and all their games going forward are going to be GaaS games full with "needed" micro-transactions?.

A better way to put it for you. If say Horizon 2 launched and it was coming with 2 modes separate btw from each other You get the full single player experience. But then you can also download a free2play online mode that clearly is going to have cosmetic items for sale to keep up the costs for this free2play portion that people can play for nothing and in no way effects the single player portion that people who like single player games can buy. How does that effect you?.

Can you not see the difference here or is your bias clouding your judgment?.

You're assuming a free2play multiplayer mode that was built off the assets of the single player game would cost a significant amount of money to make. It doesn't. Your theoretical HZD2 multiplayer mode could be sold for $15 as a stand alone purchase, no MTX involved, and still make a ton of money.

Thats side tracking the question i asked.

And your also assuming that the Online part costs nothing to make or keep on supporting. It is free2play you know...

The single player part your talking about thats what your paying for and that has no mtx in it..



Around the Network
Cerebralbore101 said:
sales2099 said:

Games you beat once and never touch again and games with a competitive multiplayer with persistent free content drops are not comparable. Thread OP doesn’t understand this. 

Nope. I understand that perfectly. Games you beat once, and never touch again have unique level design, enemies, puzzles, quests, gameplay, story content, dialogue, etc. They offer up quality over quantity. They offer unique experiences that are memorable. Multiplayer games are often just hundreds of hours of the same old same old. And to make matters worse many of them are just shooters, a genre which has gotten horribly stale over the last ten years. You simply can't compare a game like BotW, GoW, Spider-Man, Super Mario Odyssey, etc. to another shoot-game, with a multiplayer mode. If I play Odyssey, I'm taking over a T-Rex, or becoming a gliding lizard, or something else crazy and new, and interesting and fun. If I play one of a bazillion shoot-games, I'm just doing the same old boring gameplay I've done in a bazillion other shoot-games.

And like I said before, multiplayer games don't take very much effort to make. Let's take Halo or Halo 2 for example. Two games I know we've both played. How many assets do you think are in the main campaign of Halo? Now how many of those assets made it into multiplayer? How about for Halo 2? An asset can be a sound, 3D model, animation, or texture. Now let's ask ourselves how much level design was put into Halo's single player campaign. Same for Halo 2. How many square feet does the entirety of Halo's single player campaign consist of? How about Halo 2? Now, how about coding? Is there AI in Halo's multiplayer modes, not including co-op? How about Halo 2? Are there carefully coded scenarios in Halo or Halo 2's multiplayer mode, designed to challenge the player? Anybody without bias is going to answer that the campaign modes of both games have vastly more assets, programming, and level design than the multiplayer modes.

Now remember that Halo 1, and 2 both have 11 hour long single player campaigns. That remains pretty true for Halo 3, 4, 5, and Reach as well. Now keep in mind that single player games like GoW, or Spider-Man, or GoT are easily twice that length. If you're a completionist those games can balloon to well over 50 hours of single player content. Now keep in mind that we've already established that single player content often takes way more assets than multiplayer content. The level of effort that's put into a multiplayer shoot-game like CoD, Halo, or Gears, is insignificant compared to the level of effort that goes into many single player games. 

So like you said. There's no comparison. You just had it backwards.

Just sounds like you are conditioned to lean towards single player only games...largely because I believe that’s all you are used to. 

You really underestimate what it takes to make a good multiplayer that stands the test of time. Maps, map design, weapon drops, balancing, preventing cheap tactics from being abused and promoting a sense of a fair yet challenging experience. Anything goes wrong and the community collapses. The idea is that it creates a successful continuous gameplay loop that can exist long after the campaign is done. You got to give props to games that are still being played today compared to other games that are now collecting dust and whose sole purpose is to be bragged about online. 

I think Gears 5 is a fantastic campaign. So much detail, coop, and all the bells and whistles of a AAA game. And it has a full scale multiplayer suite. With many updates over the last year. All free. You can downplay the effort it takes to make everything but point stands that it’s extra effort that should entitle them to compensation. Again it’s optional, cosmetic, and not pay to win. It’s done right. 

Last edited by sales2099 - on 18 November 2020

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

 

sales2099 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
sales2099 said:

Games you beat once and never touch again and games with a competitive multiplayer with persistent free content drops are not comparable. Thread OP doesn’t understand this. 

Nope. I understand that perfectly. Games you beat once, and never touch again have unique level design, enemies, puzzles, quests, gameplay, story content, dialogue, etc. They offer up quality over quantity. They offer unique experiences that are memorable. Multiplayer games are often just hundreds of hours of the same old same old. And to make matters worse many of them are just shooters, a genre which has gotten horribly stale over the last ten years. You simply can't compare a game like BotW, GoW, Spider-Man, Super Mario Odyssey, etc. to another shoot-game, with a multiplayer mode. If I play Odyssey, I'm taking over a T-Rex, or becoming a gliding lizard, or something else crazy and new, and interesting and fun. If I play one of a bazillion shoot-games, I'm just doing the same old boring gameplay I've done in a bazillion other shoot-games.

And like I said before, multiplayer games don't take very much effort to make. Let's take Halo or Halo 2 for example. Two games I know we've both played. How many assets do you think are in the main campaign of Halo? Now how many of those assets made it into multiplayer? How about for Halo 2? An asset can be a sound, 3D model, animation, or texture. Now let's ask ourselves how much level design was put into Halo's single player campaign. Same for Halo 2. How many square feet does the entirety of Halo's single player campaign consist of? How about Halo 2? Now, how about coding? Is there AI in Halo's multiplayer modes, not including co-op? How about Halo 2? Are there carefully coded scenarios in Halo or Halo 2's multiplayer mode, designed to challenge the player? Anybody without bias is going to answer that the campaign modes of both games have vastly more assets, programming, and level design than the multiplayer modes.

Now remember that Halo 1, and 2 both have 11 hour long single player campaigns. That remains pretty true for Halo 3, 4, 5, and Reach as well. Now keep in mind that single player games like GoW, or Spider-Man, or GoT are easily twice that length. If you're a completionist those games can balloon to well over 50 hours of single player content. Now keep in mind that we've already established that single player content often takes way more assets than multiplayer content. The level of effort that's put into a multiplayer shoot-game like CoD, Halo, or Gears, is insignificant compared to the level of effort that goes into many single player games. 

So like you said. There's no comparison. You just had it backwards.

Just sounds like you are conditioned to lean towards single player only games...largely because I believe that’s all you are used to. 

You really underestimate what it takes to make a good multiplayer that stands the test of time. Maps, map design, weapon drops, balancing, preventing cheap tactics from being abused and promoting a sense of a fair yet challenging experience. Anything goes wrong and the community collapses. The idea is that it creates a successful continuous gameplay loop that can exist long after the campaign is done. You got to give props to games that are still being played today compared to other games that are now collecting dust and whose sole purpose is to be bragged about online. 

I think Gears 5 is a fantastic campaign. So much detail, coop, and all the bells and whistles of a AAA game. And it has a full scale multiplayer suite. With many updates over the last year. All free. You can downplay the effort it takes to make everything but point stands that it’s extra effort that should entitle them to compensation. Again it’s optional, cosmetic, and not pay to win. It’s done right. 

Sure sales, because since Sony is not making MP games (let's pretend here, because we know that isn't true) then only MS is doing them? He couldn't be playing MP games from 3rd parties if he liked those right?



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."

So like you said. There's no comparison. You just had it backwards.

Just sounds like you are conditioned to lean towards single player only games...largely because I believe that’s all you are used to. 

You really underestimate what it takes to make a good multiplayer that stands the test of time. Maps, map design, weapon drops, balancing, preventing cheap tactics from being abused and promoting a sense of a fair yet challenging experience. Anything goes wrong and the community collapses. The idea is that it creates a successful continuous gameplay loop that can exist long after the campaign is done. You got to give props to games that are still being played today compared to other games that are now collecting dust and whose sole purpose is to be bragged about online. 

I think Gears 5 is a fantastic campaign. So much detail, coop, and all the bells and whistles of a AAA game. And it has a full scale multiplayer suite. With many updates over the last year. All free. You can downplay the effort it takes to make everything but point stands that it’s extra effort that should entitle them to compensation. Again it’s optional, cosmetic, and not pay to win. It’s done right. 

Sure sales, because since Sony is not making MP games (let's pretend here, because we know that isn't true) then only MS is doing them? He couldn't be playing MP games from 3rd parties if he liked those right?

Do I mean all their games? Of course not. Just going by the best of the best list warz I tend to see. Bloodborne, Infamous SS, uncharted 4, God of War, Horizon ZD, Spiderman, LOU 2 (which its announcement that the MP would be delayed was met with a collective “meh”), and GoT which has some kind of coop MP that didn’t make the launch. Let’s drop the act and actually acknowledge the actual difference between Xbox and PS first party games regarding MP. 

Point being, you simply can’t compare a single player only game with a single player/MP game, especially one with persistent content updates. OP argues it takes less manpower to make updates, and while true, the amount of work the team does post launch entitles compensation. 

The idea is to do it right. Gears 5, Sea of Thieves... all cosmetic, optional, non pay to win. NM Game Pass largely nullifies the upfront costs day 1. 



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

 

sales2099 said:

So like you said. There's no comparison. You just had it backwards.

Just sounds like you are conditioned to lean towards single player only games...largely because I believe that’s all you are used to. 

You really underestimate what it takes to make a good multiplayer that stands the test of time. Maps, map design, weapon drops, balancing, preventing cheap tactics from being abused and promoting a sense of a fair yet challenging experience. Anything goes wrong and the community collapses. The idea is that it creates a successful continuous gameplay loop that can exist long after the campaign is done. You got to give props to games that are still being played today compared to other games that are now collecting dust and whose sole purpose is to be bragged about online. 

I think Gears 5 is a fantastic campaign. So much detail, coop, and all the bells and whistles of a AAA game. And it has a full scale multiplayer suite. With many updates over the last year. All free. You can downplay the effort it takes to make everything but point stands that it’s extra effort that should entitle them to compensation. Again it’s optional, cosmetic, and not pay to win. It’s done right. 

Sure sales, because since Sony is not making MP games (let's pretend here, because we know that isn't true) then only MS is doing them? He couldn't be playing MP games from 3rd parties if he liked those right?

Do I mean all their games? Of course not. Just going by the best of the best list warz I tend to see. Bloodborne, Infamous SS, uncharted 4, God of War, Horizon ZD, Spiderman, LOU 2 (which its announcement that the MP would be delayed was met with a collective “meh”), and GoT which has some kind of coop MP that didn’t make the launch. Let’s drop the act and actually acknowledge the actual difference between Xbox and PS first party games regarding MP. 

Point being, you simply can’t compare a single player only game with a single player/MP game, especially one with persistent content updates. OP argues it takes less manpower to make updates, and while true, the amount of work the team does post launch entitles compensation. 

The idea is to do it right. Gears 5, Sea of Thieves... all cosmetic, optional, non pay to win. NM Game Pass largely nullifies the upfront costs day 1. 

If we make the cut to include every Sony game that sold better than the average Xbox exclusive then well it would accept all those "minor" titles, right?



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."

DonFerrari said:
sales2099 said:

So like you said. There's no comparison. You just had it backwards.

Just sounds like you are conditioned to lean towards single player only games...largely because I believe that’s all you are used to. 

You really underestimate what it takes to make a good multiplayer that stands the test of time. Maps, map design, weapon drops, balancing, preventing cheap tactics from being abused and promoting a sense of a fair yet challenging experience. Anything goes wrong and the community collapses. The idea is that it creates a successful continuous gameplay loop that can exist long after the campaign is done. You got to give props to games that are still being played today compared to other games that are now collecting dust and whose sole purpose is to be bragged about online. 

I think Gears 5 is a fantastic campaign. So much detail, coop, and all the bells and whistles of a AAA game. And it has a full scale multiplayer suite. With many updates over the last year. All free. You can downplay the effort it takes to make everything but point stands that it’s extra effort that should entitle them to compensation. Again it’s optional, cosmetic, and not pay to win. It’s done right. 

Sure sales, because since Sony is not making MP games (let's pretend here, because we know that isn't true) then only MS is doing them? He couldn't be playing MP games from 3rd parties if he liked those right?

Do I mean all their games? Of course not. Just going by the best of the best list warz I tend to see. Bloodborne, Infamous SS, uncharted 4, God of War, Horizon ZD, Spiderman, LOU 2 (which its announcement that the MP would be delayed was met with a collective “meh”), and GoT which has some kind of coop MP that didn’t make the launch. Let’s drop the act and actually acknowledge the actual difference between Xbox and PS first party games regarding MP. 

Point being, you simply can’t compare a single player only game with a single player/MP game, especially one with persistent content updates. OP argues it takes less manpower to make updates, and while true, the amount of work the team does post launch entitles compensation. 

The idea is to do it right. Gears 5, Sea of Thieves... all cosmetic, optional, non pay to win. NM Game Pass largely nullifies the upfront costs day 1. 

If we make the cut to include every Sony game that sold better than the average Xbox exclusive then well it would accept all those "minor" titles, right?

Your suggestion has to take into account the vast marketshare disparity, which ultimately has odds stacked against Xbox considerably. Also that Xbox measures “players” and not sold due to Game Pass. Too many variables to do what you offer.

Do what you like, I’m just listing near universal top tier games. Best of the best, and a clear pattern emerges. Can’t argue that. Doesn’t really address my core message though. 



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