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.

Azzanation on 21 November 2020
DonFerrari said:
Azzanation said:

Don, are you comparing the methods of forcing people to pay $10 upfront to optional $10 in game content? Because its always better to have the option than to straight out not have a choice.

Development structure is the one that will change.

And you do know why so many companies changed to f2p right? Because in the end they collect even more money for less cost and people accept much lower quality on f2p game. That is a path I don't intend to travel.

I am no fan of F2P structures either unless its F2P Multiplayer. Companies will always want an asking price for their games regardless if MTX or Lootboxes are loaded in them. The reason MTX and Lootboxes exists is to help cover the costs of very expensive games however that has been taken advantage of with companies like EA and 2K.

I am okay with MTX, they are not a new thing, they have been around for awhile, the issue is how they are being used. Someone brought up Gears 5, let me say this, Gears 5 MTXs are just what they are, optional purchases if you choose you want more. The game is a AAA budgeted title offering a decent campaign with a fully loaded Multiplayer with enough content to last you 100s of hours at $60. I have brought only 1 thing from the Gears 5 store and that was a targeting reticle which for me looked super cool. I didn't need to buy it or was force to buy it. I did it because i wanted to. To me, that's MTXs done right. I understand not all games follow suit and there are some items that are just rip offs, however again its optional, no one is making you pay $10 for a purple weapon skin.

Our biggest issue with practices like these is when companies choose to chop up their games and plan on selling them bit by bit over time. Destiny is a good example. Full price game ($60) only offering a very short campaign (5 Hours from memory) and already had 2 expansions planned which was actually part of the main story plot which was quite obviously pulled from the main game.

Another game was Marvel vs Capcon (Cant reminder which one) had a character on the actual disk locked away as DLC and the game was sold as a full price game. Those are the practices we need to fight against. Optional MTXs to me is nothing more than a little extra if you want it. I will also argue against lootboxes as its a form of gambling and should not be in video games unless their is a warning label on the box and have options to get them without using real money. Over Watch does this quite well.



Around the Network
sales2099 on 21 November 2020
DonFerrari said:
sales2099 said:
DonFerrari said:
sales2099 said:

$10 map packs aren’t a thing anymore. The maps are given for free. This is a better system. I experienced what it was like to not play the map packs I bought due to fracturing. I support doing mtx the right way, they aren’t inherently evil. 

And I can’t stress this enough, MS is putting everything they have into growing GP, which nullifies the upfront cost. And therefore you can’t directly compare their business model to Sony. 

And charging 10USD for a skin isn't it done right anyway, nor is making most games MTX gallore that are to be played for several years but that is besides the point.

Nullifying the upfront cost to milk and dime the users is exactly what Sony fanbase have been complaining and you and some others would say that concern isn't justifiable, so now you have to change that to fit your point?

We’re talking about games that aren’t Xbox Studio titles. Xbox games with MTX aren’t the worst offenders (at least not anymore). I don’t like predatory mtx anymore then you. But like I said the business models are different but that doesn’t stop arguably misguided comparisons from happening anyway. 

Look Don, you asked me why I defend the system. I played Gears 5, a AAA, day 1, for nothing upfront. So long as I play $180 worth of GP every year, anything I play in addition is essentially free. I only spent $10 because I didn’t want to grind for certain stuff and I felt I gave this game enough of my time that I actually felt guilty not supporting a game and developer I like. And you guys complain despite spending $70 upfront because you don’t have a choice? Lol cmon. 

And therefore I 100% believe the system I’m using is objectively better. In the end I play more games then you for less money. Really hard to argue that. I also believe you guys are comparatively getting gouged so sorry if I don’t take any complaints from your side seriously regarding optional cosmetics to pay for free post launch content.

Having someone doing worse isn't really a defense. Because then we could accept any bad practice from publishers because Nintendo put DLC behind Amibo so for you to get some special power or skin you need to first buy an Amibo and then the DLC, not even EA, Ubi and Acti reached that level. But still accepting profit margins that are obscenely high is against what I believe and have been complaining about Nintendo titles selling for 60USD to 30M while costing much less than most titles that reach 1-5M in sales. So MTX, lootboxes, accelarators (that are done in conjunction with obnoxous grinding), skin, packs and others that have ridiculous profit margin (come on, a full game costing 60 or 70 and you look the content, how can a couple skin or maps be charged over 10% of that) is unnaceptable to me.

I pay 20-25 USD for my PS+ and receive like 1000 worth of content a year, what does that have to do with the discussion? And see you paid to avoid grinding, that is one of the bad aspects of MTX.

I pay full price for very few games (that are also full packages with all that is needed to enjoy the game), most I would pay no more than you pay in skin. And the several times I discussed the price of games I'm not only against 70 but also 60, for me the price of the HW could/should be much higher and the SW much lower considering the HW cost can't really go much lower with production/sales (even though it end up being 50% or more cheaper by the end of the gen) and have losses while SW can scale much better in profit with sales. What I said is that the reasons given to increase price are factual, they do exist, which doesn't mean I do agree with the increases.

On playing more games I'm not sure, I play a lot of games and they are mostly 20-50h per title, and considering you love the MP games you probably play a much lower number of games than me. But that also is pointless because quality trumps quantity. It is better to have a lot of enjoyment for 12h than mild enjoyment for 60h while paying the same. Because as someone that works and have limited time, my time is so much more worth than money, you do know you can trade time for money but can't trade money for time right?

The first paragraph is where we get into the sticky business of explaining how costs (staff, salaries, marketing) have all gone  up but the price of games have stayed the same for about 20 years. It’s all case by base basis because raising the price even further then $70 would scare away day 1 buyers. I’m just saying I prefer the Xbox model: free content/map packs etc. for long term post launch support. And in return you have the option to buy cosmetics or things in general that don’t affect actual gameplay. It’s a great trade off.

GPU includes Gold, but my point was merely the differentiating factor between our brands: day 1 first party games. My upfront costs are nullified, yours are not. That has to be taken into consideration. 

Ive actually on my 33rd game this year, killing my backlog. More then half are from Game Pass. Kingdom Come, Metro Exodus, Doom Eternal, etc. I try to dedicate one day a week to play my Halos and Gears multiplayer. Point being, the thread is making the case that Xbox is gauging its customers, I beg to differ.

I think you guys are gouged with mandatory $70 purchases. Ratchet and Clank, GT7, Returnal, Deathloop, Final Fantasy 16, Horizon FW, GoW Ragnarok....Sony making a killing off you guys next year. Even if you only buy a fraction of what I listed. And the strange thing is, you’ll THANK them as you pay $70 again and again and again and again. And people here make the case that we are being ripped off despite saving more money then you guys? Lol cmon 

Last edited by sales2099 - on 21 November 2020

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

 

Cerebralbore101 on 21 November 2020
LudicrousSpeed said:
DonFerrari said:
Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

And charging 10USD for a skin isn't it done right anyway, nor is making most games MTX gallore that are to be played for several years but that is besides the point.

Nullifying the upfront cost to milk and dime the users is exactly what Sony fanbase have been complaining and you and some others would say that concern isn't justifiable, so now you have to change that to fit your point?

Don, are you comparing the methods of forcing people to pay $10 upfront to optional $10 in game content? Because its always better to have the option than to straight out not have a choice.

Development structure is the one that will change.

And you do know why so many companies changed to f2p right? Because in the end they collect even more money for less cost and people accept much lower quality on f2p game. That is a path I don't intend to travel.

You don't intend to travel the path where your perceived value of any particular product isn't influenced by cost? I would bet you already travel that path and have for years, as have all of us. There's nothing wrong with accepting lower quality on a free to play title, because it doesn't cost you anything. In a similar fashion, I'm perfectly ok with my car not performing like a Ferrari, because I didn't have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for my car. If I buy a $20-30 game, I am less critical of it than I would be a $60 title. That's just how logic works. Of course the same logic applies to a f2p title.

But again all this worry and fear mongering over something that simply is not an issue, because we as gamers can police games ourselves, and have done so for generations. The f2p titles that come out and suck or are super scummy with their pricing, don't tend to last very long. The single player games that come out with monetization and excessive DLC, typically pay the price for it. Look at how spectacularly Avengers just flopped. Glorious. That's virtually everything this thread is bitching about and look what happened.

And you should probably stop referencing cerebral's guesses on the costs of game development and skins and developer salaries, etc. It's all pulled right from his anus. He's literally admitted his frame of reference are custom game modes in various titles. I am sure you have fiddled with Gran Turismo's track editor. Do you feel this makes you qualified to speak on how much DLC for Dirt 5 should cost? I highly doubt it.

Regarding changing money for time, so long as sales buying something in a competitive MP title doesn't give him an inherent advantage, why should any of us care? You go on to admit you play less MP titles, if I want to spend $100 a year buying skins in a MP title that I play and I put more time in than you put into all of your single player titles that cost multiple times my $100, what's wrong here?

I went to school for this stuff. No, I don't have a job in the field (can't be bothered to work 65-85 hours a week for 40K, in a city where cost of living is 50K a year). So no, I'm not pulling this stuff out of my anus.

Do you seriously think that a simple character model is so expensive to make that they need to charge $10 for it, to make a profit? By that logic a full game, which has 50 to 100 character models needs to be priced at $500 to $1000 retail in order to make a profit.

sales2099 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
sales2099 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

sales2099 said:

With Gears 5 or Sea of Thieves, you get the complete multiplayer experience. Same maps, same gameplay, all the modes. You are not required to buy anything to enhance gameplay. Me having a pink chrome shotgun in Gears 5 or a shiny gold sniper rifle skin in Sea of Thieves is NOT essential to my gameplay experience. It’s optional compensation for post launch support. You can dispute the effort it takes all you want, fact is people spend time on them, and the content is more sizeable then you think OP. It’s more then skins, it’s maps and modes, new areas, all of which require design, balancing and tweaks.

And I’ll say again we have Game Pass, which makes it increasingly smart to use instead of spending $70 upfront, unlike Sony. Game Pass is an essential part of this debate. 15 million users is no small number, which is likely to grow to 20 by years end, and a service that provides day 1 access to 1st party. 

As someone who plays Gears 5 and SoT, you know how much I actually spent on those games? About $10-15 for each game. On mtx that appealed to me that I felt why not since I gave these games so much of my time for practically nothing (given that I play more then enough GP to justify it)

The implications of this thread is clear, and to that end, until Sony can provide a enticing way to nullify the upfront $70 cost like Game Pass can, Xbox far and away wins on value. Not to mention so much unlockables can be done without spending anything, merely through just playing. 

That pink chrome shotgun or shiny gold sniper rifle is part of the game. In the case of those two weapons, they are literally 5 minute texture and material editor changes. And they are trying to charge you how much for them? Having multiple costumes in Spider-Man is also NOT essential to my gameplay experience. Neither is having multiple armors in GoW. You don't see those being taken out of the game and then charged a premium though do you?

Yes, people spend time on them. But you are seriously underestimating the time or money needed. $10 for a skin does not reflect the time or money needed to make said skin. They could charge $0.50 for a skin and still make a fantastic profit.

Yes, you spent $10-$15 on those games, but that's just your own anecdotal evidence. Most people spend far more than that over the course of a year. My co-worker for example has dumped $700 into the sims, over 7 years. I've spent over $200 on LoL crap in 3-4 years, before quitting the game for good. Tell me. Is the Sims worth $700? Is LoL worth $200?

I get your argument though. You are saying that Gamepass makes MS games virtually free to play. The problem is that to get the full experience you need to spend far more than the simple $70 that Sony is asking for. How much would it cost to get every skin, in Gears 5? I bet it's well over $100, just for all the character skins. And in the vast majority of Sony games all the skins are included free. So if you include the full package a Sony game is $70 and that's it. A MS game is $10 a month + over $100 and growing. Or worse, if you feel like actually owning the game it's $70 + $100 and growing. When including the full game, Sony games are far and away a better value. Not to mention that Sony games frequently go on sale for $40, and then $20.


Where we fundamentally disagree is how much time people can spend making post launch content. If skins was all there was to it, you may have a point. But in SoT and Gears 5 it’s is actual content. But in general you silly can’t compare single player games and single player games with multiplayer. You just can’t. 

If you have problems with the Sims or LoL, take it up with the devs. They aren’t Xbox devs. 

Your mistake is assuming people would want everything for sale. Most people just get the MTX that appeal to them and stop. I don’t need every skin and color to get the “full experience”. I have all the maps and content just like everybody else. That’s the full experience, in the gameplay. 

Overall I played these games, long after you finished your one-and-done games, and paid a fraction of what you paid. Sorry but until Sony does the day 1 policy of Game Pass, they simply don’t have the value. 

SOT? Yes, I agree with that. SOT is multiplayer, but it's more like an MMO, so it makes sense for Rare to have spend a bunch of time making new content for it. The extra stuff in SOT is basically just single player content with the added ability to be able to play with friends. Gears 5? No. Making maps and skins, and game modes is trivial compared to making single player content.

Right. I assumed that somebody would only want all the multiplayer skins that currently appear in Gears 5. There's more buyable stuff than that in Gears 5 though. And they keep adding more skins and MTX all the time. I actually don't know how much it would cost to get all the stuff in Gears 5. That $100+ dollars was a lowball estimate. Even if most people were to only buy three skins a year it would still be a ripoff.

The one and done rhetoric is laughable. That's youtube level console warz rhetoric. Single player games offer unique experiences, and value your time. These games that you say you've played forever, are games you've played forever, because they are designed to waste the player's time. They incorporate Artificial Game Lengtheners. They are intentionally designed to get you compelled to play, whether you are having a good time or not.

Anybody can spend forever playing Monopoly with friends. That doesn't mean that a 10 hour single player board game isn't as valuable. To be honest something like that would be far more valuable than Monopoly. I have absolutely no wish to play monopoly. But if there was a 10 hour long board game that was single player, and was like a DnD campaign where you were both the dungeonmaster, and the player? I'd be all like "SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY" meme with that.

Gears 5 has added considerable number of maps since launch, all free. Instead of paying $10 for map packs (an outdated practice due to fracturing the player base), the MTX make up for it. 

It’s all about doing it right. Content is free, optional cosmetics are payable, but in many cases grindable. 

It’s completely subjective in regards to a game you play for 80 hours via MP vs a campaign only game. I get that. But the core argument here is that you believe developers who keep games alive for years after launch don’t deserve compensation. You can argue what they put out on a case by case basis, but work it still is. 

Plus you must include the Game Pass model in what MS does. It’s night and day with Sony, who is still doing old traditions. More and more Xbox games are being played, but not necessarily bought. So you therefore can’t hold Xbox to the same standard. 

Map packs should be free. They would get compensation by selling extra copies of the game, or hitting such a large pool of Gamepass subs that they can fund all their games easily. Imagine Gamepass hitting 100,000,000 subs at $15 a month. Sure, Gamepass isn't profitable right now. It's probably not going to be profitable for 5-10 years. But once they finally do (if they ever) get 100,000,000 subs, the amount of money rolling in is going to dwarf individual game development costs. Think of it this way. If I make a movie with a budget of $100,000,000, then I need to sell 7 million box office tickets at $15 a pop to make my money back. But what if I have 100,000,000 people subbed to my streaming channel? Well then I just need to let a single month of that $10 to $15 a month subscription service roll in and I've made my money back x10-15. A single month of subs would fund my hypothetical movie, and ten to fifteen movies like it.

This is the power of spreading out your costs among a ton of customers.

I will hold Xbox to the same standard, because they are still putting their games for sale at retail. The moment they pull all their games from Steam/XBoxStore/Epic/WindowsStore, I'll change the standard I hold them to.

To get a full and complete 1st party Xbox game you need to spend well over $100 in MTX. On top of that the gameplay is mediocre at best, because they've put a whole bunch of grinding into the game just to entice you to spend money on MTX. Sure, they're offering their 1st party games for free on Gamepass, but over the long term most people are going to spend far more on MTX, than they would have spent on a single purchase.


Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 22 November 2020

LudicrousSpeed on 21 November 2020

Weird to see you singling MS out when Sony has been the most criminal of the big three with Last of Us Remastered. But which of these first party Xbox games are you implying that you need $100+ in micro transactions to get a full experience? Seeing you say something like that makes me think you have very very little experience with first party Xbox titles. On my Series X right now I have Horizon 4, Gears 5, Ori, Gears Tactics, Wasteland 3, and Outer Worlds. How are these not complete experiences? Outer Worlds took me over 50 hours to fully complete. Wasteland will take more than that. Horizon 4 is incredibly packed with content, the best racer ever imho. Gears 5 has a full campaign, deep MP, and is getting free updates constantly including new SP content.

Per usual, I don’t think you know what you are talking about. I hope you didn’t go to school for this, too.



sales2099 on 21 November 2020

.

sales2099 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

MO, so it makes sense for Rare to have spend a bunch of time making new content for it. The extra stuff in SOT is basically just single player content with the added ability to be able to play with friends. Gears 5? No. Making maps and skins, and game modes is trivial compared to making single player content.

Right. I assumed that somebody would only want all the multiplayer skins that currently appear in Gears 5. There's more buyable stuff than that in Gears 5 though. And they keep adding more skins and MTX all the time. I actually don't know how much it would cost to get all the stuff in Gears 5. That $100+ dollars was a lowball estimate. Even if most people were to only buy three skins a year it would still be a ripoff.

The one and done rhetoric is laughable. That's youtube level console warz rhetoric. Single player games offer unique experiences, and value your time. These games that you say you've played forever, are games you've played forever, because they are designed to waste the player's time. They incorporate Artificial Game Lengtheners. They are intentionally designed to get you compelled to play, whether you are having a good time or not.

Anybody can spend forever playing Monopoly with friends. That doesn't mean that a 10 hour single player board game isn't as valuable. To be honest something like that would be far more valuable than Monopoly. I have absolutely no wish to play monopoly. But if there was a 10 hour long board game that was single player, and was like a DnD campaign where you were both the dungeonmaster, and the player? I'd be all like "SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY" meme with that.

Gears 5 has added considerable number of maps since launch, all free. Instead of paying $10 for map packs (an outdated practice due to fracturing the player base), the MTX make up for it. 

It’s all about doing it right. Content is free, optional cosmetics are payable, but in many cases grindable. 

It’s completely subjective in regards to a game you play for 80 hours via MP vs a campaign only game. I get that. But the core argument here is that you believe developers who keep games alive for years after launch don’t deserve compensation. You can argue what they put out on a case by case basis, but work it still is. 

Plus you must include the Game Pass model in what MS does. It’s night and day with Sony, who is still doing old traditions. More and more Xbox games are being played, but not necessarily bought. So you therefore can’t hold Xbox to the same standard. 

Map packs should be free. They would get compensation by selling extra copies of the game, or hitting such a large pool of Gamepass subs that they can fund all their games easily. Imagine Gamepass hitting 100,000 subs at $15 a month. Sure, Gamepass isn't profitable right now. It's probably not going to be profitable for 5-10 years. But once they finally do (if they ever) get 100,000,000 subs, the amount of money rolling in is going to dwarf individual game development costs. Think of it this way. If I make a movie with a budget of $100,000,000, then I need to sell 7 million box office tickets at $15 a pop to make my money back. But what if I have 100,000,000 people subbed to my streaming channel? Well then I just need to let a single month of that $10 to $15 a month subscription service roll in and I've made my money back x10-15. A single month of subs would fund my hypothetical movie, and ten to fifteen movies like it.

This is the power of spreading out your costs among a ton of customers.

I will hold Xbox to the same standard, because they are still putting their games for sale at retail. The moment they pull all their games from Steam/XBoxStore/Epic/WindowsStore, I'll change the standard I hold them to.

To get a full and complete 1st party Xbox game you need to spend well over $100 in MTX. On top of that the gameplay is mediocre at best, because they've put a whole bunch of grinding into the game just to entice you to spend money on MTX. Sure, they're offering their 1st party games for free on Gamepass, but over the long term most people are going to spend far more on MTX, than they would have spent on a single purchase.


You admitted GP needs to be much higher in subs to crank out a solid profit. Yet you give us your armchair economics lesson when they have to find revenue because they nullify the upfront costs. You don’t need a degree in business to know there has to be a give and take. 

Holding Xbox to the same standard as Sony, which does not nullify the upfront cost, is a fatal part of your argument. You have to take that into account or else your just talking emotions over facts of the matter. GP subs are a significant part of Xbox first party engagement. 

And again, to assume someone would want or need all the mtx in Gears or Sea of Thieves is ridiculous. And you assuming the gameplay is mediocre at best? Lol who are you to say that. I better see this same energy when GT7 has post launch DLC and LOU2 multiplayer hits (I heard the first was particularly bad with mtx). 

If we gotta get real here, like really real, is that you think MS is gouging us. Yet we save more money then you and play more. Go figure. 



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

 

Around the Network
ice on 21 November 2020

As a primary Xbox user, this is probably my biggest gripe with MS. I don’t think I could ever agree MTX should be in full retail games. But they haven’t been too bad with it, it’s usually cosmetic crap, sometimes overpriced and it only seems to be in a few of their games rn. Not going to lie I was pretty gutted when Halo Infinite is already showing signs of MTX, but then again it is F2P (the only games where I should expect MTX).

Sea of Thieves, a game that I put over 1,000 hours in, has MTX. But in the case of SoT, they have large updates and never charge for DLC, if that’s MS’s strategy to make DLC free, I’m here for it. MS also has a crazy pro-consumer rewards program... I’ve never actually used any of my own money on MTX. On top of that I’ve bought so many games.... for free using the rewards program.

So to me, the insane Value of Gamepass and the pro-consumer Rewards program vastly outweigh any MTX given MS keeps it cosmetic based even if I disagree with the practice.



DonFerrari on 22 November 2020
Azzanation said:
DonFerrari said:

Development structure is the one that will change.

And you do know why so many companies changed to f2p right? Because in the end they collect even more money for less cost and people accept much lower quality on f2p game. That is a path I don't intend to travel.

I am no fan of F2P structures either unless its F2P Multiplayer. Companies will always want an asking price for their games regardless if MTX or Lootboxes are loaded in them. The reason MTX and Lootboxes exists is to help cover the costs of very expensive games however that has been taken advantage of with companies like EA and 2K.

I am okay with MTX, they are not a new thing, they have been around for awhile, the issue is how they are being used. Someone brought up Gears 5, let me say this, Gears 5 MTXs are just what they are, optional purchases if you choose you want more. The game is a AAA budgeted title offering a decent campaign with a fully loaded Multiplayer with enough content to last you 100s of hours at $60. I have brought only 1 thing from the Gears 5 store and that was a targeting reticle which for me looked super cool. I didn't need to buy it or was force to buy it. I did it because i wanted to. To me, that's MTXs done right. I understand not all games follow suit and there are some items that are just rip offs, however again its optional, no one is making you pay $10 for a purple weapon skin.

Our biggest issue with practices like these is when companies choose to chop up their games and plan on selling them bit by bit over time. Destiny is a good example. Full price game ($60) only offering a very short campaign (5 Hours from memory) and already had 2 expansions planned which was actually part of the main story plot which was quite obviously pulled from the main game.

Another game was Marvel vs Capcon (Cant reminder which one) had a character on the actual disk locked away as DLC and the game was sold as a full price game. Those are the practices we need to fight against. Optional MTXs to me is nothing more than a little extra if you want it. I will also argue against lootboxes as its a form of gambling and should not be in video games unless their is a warning label on the box and have options to get them without using real money. Over Watch does this quite well.

Agree with you, and if you look at one of my first replies in the thread I don't bother with MTX for cosmetics as they don't get in the way of my enjoyment, but sure that can be abused (like make the game to barebone). But also can't disagree that they are overpriced considering the price of the game versus couple skins.



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 on 22 November 2020
sales2099 said:
DonFerrari said:

Having someone doing worse isn't really a defense. Because then we could accept any bad practice from publishers because Nintendo put DLC behind Amibo so for you to get some special power or skin you need to first buy an Amibo and then the DLC, not even EA, Ubi and Acti reached that level. But still accepting profit margins that are obscenely high is against what I believe and have been complaining about Nintendo titles selling for 60USD to 30M while costing much less than most titles that reach 1-5M in sales. So MTX, lootboxes, accelarators (that are done in conjunction with obnoxous grinding), skin, packs and others that have ridiculous profit margin (come on, a full game costing 60 or 70 and you look the content, how can a couple skin or maps be charged over 10% of that) is unnaceptable to me.

I pay 20-25 USD for my PS+ and receive like 1000 worth of content a year, what does that have to do with the discussion? And see you paid to avoid grinding, that is one of the bad aspects of MTX.

I pay full price for very few games (that are also full packages with all that is needed to enjoy the game), most I would pay no more than you pay in skin. And the several times I discussed the price of games I'm not only against 70 but also 60, for me the price of the HW could/should be much higher and the SW much lower considering the HW cost can't really go much lower with production/sales (even though it end up being 50% or more cheaper by the end of the gen) and have losses while SW can scale much better in profit with sales. What I said is that the reasons given to increase price are factual, they do exist, which doesn't mean I do agree with the increases.

On playing more games I'm not sure, I play a lot of games and they are mostly 20-50h per title, and considering you love the MP games you probably play a much lower number of games than me. But that also is pointless because quality trumps quantity. It is better to have a lot of enjoyment for 12h than mild enjoyment for 60h while paying the same. Because as someone that works and have limited time, my time is so much more worth than money, you do know you can trade time for money but can't trade money for time right?

The first paragraph is where we get into the sticky business of explaining how costs (staff, salaries, marketing) have all gone  up but the price of games have stayed the same for about 20 years. It’s all case by base basis because raising the price even further then $70 would scare away day 1 buyers. I’m just saying I prefer the Xbox model: free content/map packs etc. for long term post launch support. And in return you have the option to buy cosmetics or things in general that don’t affect actual gameplay. It’s a great trade off.

GPU includes Gold, but my point was merely the differentiating factor between our brands: day 1 first party games. My upfront costs are nullified, yours are not. That has to be taken into consideration. 

Ive actually on my 33rd game this year, killing my backlog. More then half are from Game Pass. Kingdom Come, Metro Exodus, Doom Eternal, etc. I try to dedicate one day a week to play my Halos and Gears multiplayer. Point being, the thread is making the case that Xbox is gauging its customers, I beg to differ.

I think you guys are gouged with mandatory $70 purchases. Ratchet and Clank, GT7, Returnal, Deathloop, Final Fantasy 16, Horizon FW, GoW Ragnarok....Sony making a killing off you guys next year. Even if you only buy a fraction of what I listed. And the strange thing is, you’ll THANK them as you pay $70 again and again and again and again. And people here make the case that we are being ripped off despite saving more money then you guys? Lol cmon 

You prefering it is totally valid and fine, my problem was you claiming it was superior.



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."

Runa216 on 22 November 2020
DonFerrari said:

You prefering it is totally valid and fine, my problem was you claiming it was superior.

I wouldn't bother getting into it with him. He seems like good people but I've only ever once seen someone so blatantly biased towards an entertainment-based media company before and that was in the summer of 2006. 

This one dude, in the midst of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest being only the third movie in history to cross 1 billion dollars at the worldwide box office after a record-smashing 135 million dollar opening weekend (besting Spider-Man's 114 million opening), was trying to say that Superman Returns - a notoriously well-known disappointment of a movie - was more profitable. 

Despite the budget being higher and the international box office grosses being far, FAR lower. 

Despite one being a record breaking megahit and the other a colossal disappointment.

Sometimes, you just can't get through to people. We all have our biases, but some people put those biases ahead of logic and reason. I've noticed in this conversation that it's you and a select few others saying reasonable things, being willing to concede from time to time, and actually trying to engage in conversation while Sales2099 is just over there going 'everything Microsoft does is great and perfect and is better and everything Sony does is bad and you're sheep for buying into their nonsense lol'. He's allowed to have his opinion, we all agree on that, but holy hell you shouldn't be enabling him by validating his nonsense. He's one of the most blatant and unreasonable of Xbox fans on the site, and through my conversations with him as well as watching others like you converse with him, it's clear he'd spin anything to be pro-Microsoft and/or anti-sony. 

Despite Sony having more and better games. 

Despite Playstation outselling the Xbox more than 2:1.

So yeah, you might be best to just not engage him. He writes as much as I do but has nothing to say, really. He's probably paid by the Xbox division to talk them up or something. It's the most logical explanation for his irrational love for the brand. 

User Was Banned for this Post - cycycychris

Last edited by cycycychris - on 23 November 2020

My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

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

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

Cerebralbore101 on 22 November 2020
LudicrousSpeed said:

Weird to see you singling MS out when Sony has been the most criminal of the big three with Last of Us Remastered. But which of these first party Xbox games are you implying that you need $100+ in micro transactions to get a full experience? Seeing you say something like that makes me think you have very very little experience with first party Xbox titles. On my Series X right now I have Horizon 4, Gears 5, Ori, Gears Tactics, Wasteland 3, and Outer Worlds. How are these not complete experiences? Outer Worlds took me over 50 hours to fully complete. Wasteland will take more than that. Horizon 4 is incredibly packed with content, the best racer ever imho. Gears 5 has a full campaign, deep MP, and is getting free updates constantly including new SP content.

Per usual, I don’t think you know what you are talking about. I hope you didn’t go to school for this, too.

I mentioned TLoU Remastered in a post close to the start of this thread. TLoU2 has zero MTX. If TLoU Multiplayer has MTX, you can bet I'll make a thread on it. 

What games do you need to spend $100+ to get the full experience? Gears 5. Soon to be Halo Infinite. That's their two flagship IPs.

As for the rest, of course I'm not saying that Horizon 4, Outer Worlds, Gears Tactics, Wasteland 3, or many of the other Xbox 1st title games have MTX. If I wanted to rag on those games for having MTX, I would have mentioned them in the OP. But I know they don't have MTX, so I left them alone. But I think you knew that, and were just looking for a strawman opportunity. 

The new single player content in Gears 5 is 3 hours long. That's nothing. 


sales2099 said:

.

Map packs should be free. They would get compensation by selling extra copies of the game, or hitting such a large pool of Gamepass subs that they can fund all their games easily. Imagine Gamepass hitting 100,000 subs at $15 a month. Sure, Gamepass isn't profitable right now. It's probably not going to be profitable for 5-10 years. But once they finally do (if they ever) get 100,000,000 subs, the amount of money rolling in is going to dwarf individual game development costs. Think of it this way. If I make a movie with a budget of $100,000,000, then I need to sell 7 million box office tickets at $15 a pop to make my money back. But what if I have 100,000,000 people subbed to my streaming channel? Well then I just need to let a single month of that $10 to $15 a month subscription service roll in and I've made my money back x10-15. A single month of subs would fund my hypothetical movie, and ten to fifteen movies like it.

This is the power of spreading out your costs among a ton of customers.

I will hold Xbox to the same standard, because they are still putting their games for sale at retail. The moment they pull all their games from Steam/XBoxStore/Epic/WindowsStore, I'll change the standard I hold them to.

To get a full and complete 1st party Xbox game you need to spend well over $100 in MTX. On top of that the gameplay is mediocre at best, because they've put a whole bunch of grinding into the game just to entice you to spend money on MTX. Sure, they're offering their 1st party games for free on Gamepass, but over the long term most people are going to spend far more on MTX, than they would have spent on a single purchase.


You admitted GP needs to be much higher in subs to crank out a solid profit. Yet you give us your armchair economics lesson when they have to find revenue because they nullify the upfront costs. You don’t need a degree in business to know there has to be a give and take. 

Holding Xbox to the same standard as Sony, which does not nullify the upfront cost, is a fatal part of your argument. You have to take that into account or else your just talking emotions over facts of the matter. GP subs are a significant part of Xbox first party engagement. 

And again, to assume someone would want or need all the mtx in Gears or Sea of Thieves is ridiculous. And you assuming the gameplay is mediocre at best? Lol who are you to say that. I better see this same energy when GT7 has post launch DLC and LOU2 multiplayer hits (I heard the first was particularly bad with mtx). 

If we gotta get real here, like really real, is that you think MS is gouging us. Yet we save more money then you and play more. Go figure. 

If the MTX were more reasonable, like $2 for a skin, I'd agree. I know they have to find money to fund their games somewhere. It's not necessarily the MTX I disagree with, but rather the insane prices they charge for things that are trivial to make. 

I don't have to assume that someone is going to be buying all the MTX for Gears or SoT. The prices are so insanely high that just buying 2-3 skins in Gears 5, for example, will give them even more money for the game than they would have raked in from someone buying a retail, or Steam copy, that's on sale. 

Xbox's library is pretty anemic compared to Playstation and PC. So I guess you save money, with Gamepass, but you definitely don't get to play more games than us. I can already hear the bad rebuttal though. You're going to list a ton of mediocre to bad games, ignore their quality and make some sort of argument that no PS or PC user could possibly be able to afford all the games on Gamepass. 

P.S. I'm perfectly fine with what SoT is doing. I'm pretty sure they've added something like 30+ hours of free MMO style content since launch. Like I said before, MMO style content is basically single player, but the ability to play with friends.