For HD titles, the Group will aggressively pursue a multiplatform strategy that includes Nintendo platforms, PlayStation, Xbox, and PCs. Especially, in regards to major franchises and AAA titles including catalog titles, it will build an environment where more customers can enjoy our titles.

====

Exclusivity was a bad thing? I'm shocked.

I applaud them pursuing multiplat. The "quantity to quality" part irks me a little. Does that mean the end to small titles like Octopath or Bravely Default? Because I like these in difference to their "AAA"-offerings.

We have confirmation from the FTC trial already that Microsoft.

A. Is starting to demand that Xbox Gaming reaches the same profit margins as other Microsoft divisions.
B. Is unwilling to subsidize the business any further.

Just because Satya didn't pop up in emails much, doesn't mean he does absolutely nothing, he's the frigging CEO of Microsoft but Satya also has people to relay his commands for him, Amy Hood the CFO of Microsoft, Tim Stuart the CFO of MS Gaming will report to her and Phil. Either Satya will enforce his decisions down himself or Amy will do it for him.

I mean Phil shares blame too but equally, Satya shares a lot of blame too, I'm not sure why you would try to absolve the CEO of Microsoft of any responsibility but also get call out those who are apparently doing the same with Phil and again, Phil does share the blame, but Satya will be the one to demand cuts, Phil will then decide on what is cut.

Satya has long had a reputation of being cut-throat, massive layoffs aren't something he has been shy about, shortly after taking over as MS CEO he ripped through Microsoft with layoffs, shutdown an entire division (later said he regretted it, Lol). He is known as being a ruthless businessman, far more than Steve Ballmer and maybe even Bill Gates, of course investors love him for that though.

Technically, Amy Hood would be Phil's boss too and Phil has mentioned multiple times about having strategy conversations with Amy and Satya. Phil even spoke about Amy Hood being a pretty tough boss during the FTC trial. Just cause they aren't permanently on email like Phil and Matt, it doesn't mean much at all, Sarah barely spoke in emails too, doesn't mean she does nothing.

And Satya's emails are probably the ones that MS lawyer wanted to protect the most.

Also "adults" gleefully speculating who Xbox will shutdown next, making jokes directly to studios about them being shutdown next, gleefully whipping out the "I told you so" card as a form of bragging about how they were right about evil Microsoft are disgusting pieces of shit and need to go touch some grass and get the fuck out of this hobby because they help give all gamers a bad name as pathetic basement dwelling trolls.

(Saw it mentioned on ResetEra Xbox OT that Obsidian was having their timeline spammed as the next closure).

Nothing you stated changes the fact that Phil made these decisions.  If anything, because there is no more leeway for Phil to continue to spend money and not be accountable for it that he needed to make these decisions.  Also, lawyers cannot just keep emails away from courts or protect them.  If Satya had any say so in the direction, purchase, Acquistion or input in MS gaming, all those correspondences are game.  

Satya has a reputation just like all CEOs and that include Phil as well.  The only difference is that Phil goes out and make these public feel-good statements while Satya does whatever CEO usually does and keep to himself.  There is a lot of pressure running a company the size of MS and the same is said for Phil when he got promoted.  Yeah, before that promotion he could be mister feel good.  Now he has to account for way more than just those feel-good statements and if he wants to make sure Xbox continue, he has to make some tough sometimes painful decisions.

Ryuu, there is no technicality here.  Phil only reports to Satya and no one else.  Amy may have some input, but she does not direct Phil.  Until we hear otherwise, I suggest you all stop giving Phil a bypass here and believe that he made these decisions not because he was forced but because his job demanded he make them or MS will find someone else who probably would be way more cutthroat.

Nothing you stated changes the fact that Phil made these decisions.  If anything, because there is no more leeway for Phil to continue to spend money and not be accountable for it that he needed to make these decisions.  Also, lawyers cannot just keep emails away from courts or protect them.  If Satya had any say so in the direction, purchase, Acquistion or input in MS gaming, all those correspondences are game.  

Satya has a reputation just like all CEOs and that include Phil as well.  The only difference is that Phil goes out and make these public feel-good statements while Satya does whatever CEO usually does and keep to himself.  There is a lot of pressure running a company the size of MS and the same is said for Phil when he got promoted.  Yeah, before that promotion he could be mister feel good.  Now he has to account for way more than just those feel-good statements and if he wants to make sure Xbox continue, he has to make some tough sometimes painful decisions.

Ryuu, there is no technicality here.  Phil only reports to Satya and no one else.  Amy may have some input, but she does not direct Phil.  Until we hear otherwise, I suggest you all stop giving Phil a bypass here and believe that he made these decisions not because he was forced but because his job demanded he make them or MS will find someone else who probably would be way more cutthroat.

Those games are hugely expensive to make, and take forever to make too.
Whats to stop people from subscribeing for 1 game (like a big title) and then dropping the subscription afterwards (like for just 1 month).
A person like that (which there will probably be many), would be a huge loss in terms of revenue vs a actual sale.

Then theres the people that are subbed always,.... while you might go, a big title like that is why they stay subbed.
Its not really won revenue, as they are likely just perma subscribbed. Its hard to attribute it to each game, or big ones. 
Which again, will have to be split to go to multiple devs/studios.  

People look at renvue for gamepass and think "wow thats a big number".
But realistically that big number, is money thats needed to pay off studios, for their losses compaired to normal game sales.

Call of Duty is a game like that. A big title, as you wanted.
We need to see how that does, if its day and date on gamepass.
Does its revenue (call of duty's) drop off? does gamepass revenue spike upwards? How long does the subscription spike last ect.


*edit:
People have started doing the sub for a month, binge watch a tv series, unsub thingy more and more (as prices of subs have gone up).
Supposedly its playing havok on some of these subscription services.  If it grows bad enough, it might imact how much they want to spend on each project. Ei. Some tv shows, might be too expensive to make, in a subscription model (if they cant depend on people sticking around).

The same issue, is without a doubt, also a problem for something like gamepass.
Its one of the reasons, MS wants all its game multplayer online GaaS type games.
Gamepass might be affecting the types of games, xbox is willing to make, and how "big" titles (budgets) are.