Unfortunately, those 3rd party analyst numbers seem too good to be true. If Xbox had actually shipped 7m consoles in 2020, 10m+ in 2021, and 10m+ in 2022, for 27m+ total, we could use VGC XB1 sales data for those 3 year to extrapolate a XB1/XS split of 3.1m or so XB1 and 24m+ Xbox Series shipped between 2020 and 2022. If Xbox had actually shipped 24m+ before the end of 2022, all 24m+ would have been sold through to consumers by now plus some 2023 shipped units sold through as well, and yet VGC and most other 3rd party analysts are only tracking around 22-23m Xbox Series units sold as of now. 

Ryan, speaking in pre-recorded video testimony, also claimed other publishers "unanimously do not like Game Pass" for that reason. When pressed by Microsoft's lawyer, he added: "I talk to publishers all the time, and this is a very commonly-held view over many years by the publishers."

Talking to Eurogamer yesterday, Miles Jacobson, studio head of Sports Interactive, the Sega-owned developer of the ever-popular Football Manager series, disagreed with that quite directly.

"Every studio is going to have different opinions on this," Jacobson explained, "and different studios will have different data, because different games work well in different situations. For us, it's nothing but positive on all three platforms.

"We run quite a tight ship," he continued, "and I like our studio to be profitable - Sega took a big gamble on us all those years ago, and their shareholders - however weird it might sound - should be rewarded for that. So we don't tend to do deals that are bad for any parts of the business."

"The simple fact is Game Pass and Apple Arcade have brought new people to the franchise that never played it before," Jacobson told Eurogamer. "I'm confident enough in our games to believe we will now have those consumers for a long time, whatever platforms we're on. Fiscally, it makes sense. Creatively, it makes sense.

As Jacobson explained, subscriptions services like Game Pass have, if anything, been closer to a unanimously positive experience for the studio. "Every studio has to make decisions themselves, but I don't recognise some of the quotes that I see from other studios, and depositions. I don't recognise that in our business. It's all very sunny for us," he concluded.

Football Manager boss disputes PlayStation's "value destructive" Xbox Game Pass claim | Eurogamer.net

Been funny to see since Jim Ryan's "other publishers unanimously do not like Game Pass" we've had nothing but positive praise towards Game Pass from publishers and developers so it's sort of backfired into positive PR for Game Pass, Lol.

Wired Productions, Bohemia Interactive, No More Robots all coming out to publicly praise it. 11 Bit Studios signing a Game Pass contract with Microsoft and talking it up. Sega's employee praising Game Pass, although we already know that Sega likes Game Pass, contrary to what Jim Ryan would want us to believe.

Can't say Ubisoft and EA dislike it either since they have their own subscription services and EA is heavily connected to Game Pass.

Who are these people that Jim Ryan spoke to? Himself in the mirror? In fairness we know Activision and Take-Two don't like the day one release model but to say "I talked to all publishers, and they unanimously do not like Game Pass because it’s value destructive.” is plain old bullshit.

CMA Filed An Application To Delay The Hearing That Was Denied By CAT

We consider that the CMA has not paid sufficient heed to the true public interest in this case – which is the swift resolution of Microsoft's Notice. The CMA has chosen to re-visit a matter already decided (namely, an end July/early August hearing and not an October hearing) when there has been no material change of circumstance. Furthermore, the CMA has made this application indefensiblya late, with no explanation. Finally, there has been no attempt by the CMA to explore – either with Microsoft or with the Tribunal – ways in which the burden might be eased. In speedy processes like this, the Tribunal stands ready to assist – where it can – to ensure that inappropriate burdens are lifted. It is disappointing that such dialogue has not taken place in this case.

24. Notwithstanding the foregoing concerns about this application, and the fact that many of the CMA's problems appear to be self-induced, we ask ourselves this: Is there a material risk, given the Tribunal's appreciation that this an expedited process with burdens on all, that the CMA's team is unable properly to represent the CMA at the substantive hearing such that a fair hearing is not realistically possible? We remind ourselves that this team – instructed by the UK's national competition authority, hugely experienced and the drafter of this Decision – comprises a counsel team of Sir James Eadie, KC, Hanif Mussa, KC and no less than two experienced junior counsel. Further, there remains a month from the date of the application (28 June) to the proposed start date for the hearing (28 July). The matter is significant and there is a large amount of material for any new counsel to digest, but we anticipate that a month allows ample time for that to happen – provided the CMA selects counsel with appropriate availability to prepare, especially given the support available from within the CMA and from Its existing counsel team. The question answers itself: this is a team that should have sufficient time to ensure that the CMA's defence to the application is appropriately conducted.

25. The application is refused. This ruling is unanimous.

1590/4/12/23 Microsoft Corporation v Competition and Markets Authority - Ruling (Adjournment) | 29 Jun 2023 (catribunal.org.uk)

CMA: We need a delay.

CAT:

Pretty strongly worded response to CMA's attempted delay, court seems a bit annoyed with how poorly the CMA asked for a delay, I hope the CMA continues to annoy the CAT.

Activision and Take-Two, I would say most of their established franchises have pretty much topped out their exposure to gamers. There are probably very few people that are asking themselves what is GTA or CoD. Meaning that you lose one of the core values the game pass is supposed to bring which is expanding your fanbase. If those kinds of game land day and date on GamePass they are more likely to be adding to game pass value disproportionately compare to what game pass will add back to those franchises. In this scenario, Xbox would have to compensate heavily and so might not be worth it in all cases. 

With that said there's nothing different with signing a day-and-date deal with GamePass than signing a timed exclusive/full exclusive deal. In both scenarios, console manufacturers have to compensate for lost revenue from sales.

So you have GamePass:

• High possibility of a growing fanbase
• Compensation from lost sales mainly where Game Pass is available
• Does not impede any ability to release on other platforms

Vs

Timed/full exclusivity deals:

• Assurance of shrinking fanbase reach and growth potential 
• Compensation from lost sales for foreclosed platforms

Now which practice should be seen as 'value destructive'