Jump to content

Microsoft's approach to next gen -your thoughts?


dumpster
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sony's approach has been the same as before. It is simple and clear. 

Playstation X+1. Bigger better machine. Give everyone enough of a reason to upgrade. 

 

They earn 20% on physical sales and 30% on digital.

Sony's bread and butter is getting lots of lots of people who only buy a couple of games a year as they tend to buy them full price on release.

And the games that sell are FIFA and COD, that have you ideally get the version most people are playing if you have both consoles.  

 

The catch is that Microsoft just can't compete in a straight race. Despite some battles won back and forth, that war was won when someone came up with the name Playstation 2. 

 

 

Alternatively, Game Pass is what MS are selling. And they've made it simple and clear.

Game Pass. Loads of games. Good ones too! Tenner a month, less if you're clever about it. 

 

I think in their marketing and approach they're also simplifying the console naming problem. Don't worry too much about what you play it on. Old xbox, new xbox, PC, Cloud ... you'll be able to play it on something. 

 

Alternatively, Sony have PS Now, PS Plus and can also play older games. Sony seem to be ignoring it, and it keeps having to be brought up in debates in here. Should we start a thread on Sony's approach to subscription services? It's the same muddy water as Xbox and all it's letters and numbers. 

 

 

Sony are probably right to do so and focus on new games.  In theory. In a vacuum. Their mistake is ignoring the competition (again). 

The PS4 attach rate of games to console is thought to be 9.6 units. Round it to 10, and probably on average get £10 per game (to pick some simple western currency and value). 112m PS4s in the world, that's £11.2b on just their cut. Give or take. Whatever the value is, it's still much better business than Game Pass right now. 

 

But! 23m Game Pass subscribers since I last looked. 

A lot of them will be cheeky like us scamming the system, so only giving them £3 a month. But a lot will also just be paying the going rate.

At £3 a month they'd still be making £800m a year. £3 billion if everyone paid full whack. 

 

It's still probably not as much as Sony's FIFA/COD cut but it's something they can build on. And they're focusing on the right thing to sell. 

Same with Nintendo over their just selling loads of stuff and being quite happy with their lot. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RubberJohnny said:

I really don't see the strategies as similar as people think, the big shift in the industry over the last decade is that the console bit is now less than half of the industry due to the rise of other device types.

 

Sony's thing is to be a bit like Apple - they are all about making their bit the most lucrative bit of the industry, even if it's not numerically the biggest, iPhone is like 15% of the global market, but it's all middle-class westerners and where the money for developers is. The raised game prices and premium focus are all about that.

 

Microsoft see that big new audience and the hunger for the rapidly increasing production value of those games (many of which are increasingly multiplatform between consoles, PC and phones, like Genshin) and see it as an opportunity for an end-run around the traditional console battle, by putting their games on those platforms through streaming, they can reach an audience many times the size of the whole console industry, not just their bit of it. You're going to make less per person because the audience isn't as wealthy or western-dominant, but you can make it up on sheer numbers.

 

The thing about it all is they're not really competing strategies, both have the potential to do very well as they're reaching different audiences.

 

I think this is a really smart take. Sony go Apple, MS go Android. It makes sense.

 

I initially thought that their strategies would converge, as Jim Ryan has said that there would be, "news to come on their response to Gamepass" so from that I assumed that they would just launch a competing service with more or less the same offering, but the more I read comments in this thread and the more I think about it, I think that's unlikely. They have some very valuable IP and stand to make a fortune selling future installments of those games in the future. Swapping that revenue for a subscription fee which would have to be spread very thinly across not only their own first party investments but the third parties who sign up (to say nothing of the fee they would have to pay to MS for hosting it all) cannot be appealing.

 

I think it's more likely that Sony will roll Plus and Now into a complimentary service, which will host a sizeable amount of legacy content, but will also allow people to stream their entire games library. They will have to be careful in what content they put on there, as if they do dribble PS5 games into the library, then it will draw a stark contrast with MS who will rightly be trumpeting their day and date promise for Gamepass, so I can see it being more of an expansion of Now than a clear Gamepass competitor, but yes, I've changed my view on this and I do think they will take clear individual lanes on how they balance sales vs subs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your Sony figure there is lifetime (10 games per system, 112m PS4 systems), but your MS figure is annual. At £3bn per year, MS just have to do a 4-year cycle. And they've got data that says GP subscribers buy more games on top as well anyway.....and they want to be well north of 23m subscribers.

 

MS are not doing this as they think it's a route to less money than the old-fashioned way - they are doing it becuase it opens up the ecosystem to more users and, therefore, more money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sony figure also doesn't take into account PS+ subscribers of whom there are nearly 50 million. Nor does it take into account the money Sony makes from microtransactions on their store. Those two figures alone will be huge, and likely much more important than whatever cut they get from third party game sales. Same is true of Microsoft with Gold and MTX of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, rgraves said:

Your Sony figure there is lifetime (10 games per system, 112m PS4 systems), but your MS figure is annual. At £3bn per year, MS just have to do a 4-year cycle. And they've got data that says GP subscribers buy more games on top as well anyway.....and they want to be well north of 23m subscribers.

 

The numbers are too woolly for lifetime, it was pushing it for annual :) 

At the lower value it'll be more than 10 years. Also, it's not all "free" money like the licence cut is. They are speculating a lot by paying full dev costs to indie studios and various other deals. And also-also, how much do they lose putting their own games on Game Pass on day one? A Sony made exclusive will earn them extra money. 

 

But if they can double them subscriptions, they won't care about any of that. They'll just roll about in money!

 

40 minutes ago, Majora said:

The Sony figure also doesn't take into account PS+ subscribers of whom there are nearly 50 million. Nor does it take into account the money Sony makes from microtransactions on their store. Those two figures alone will be huge, and likely much more important than whatever cut they get from third party game sales. Same is true of Microsoft with Gold and MTX of course.

I was just aiming for focus on the areas that MS and Sony are focusing on as the core of their strategy.

There is a whole bunch of stuff to take into account. As you say, they're mostly like for like. And they're dependent on that lynchpin strategy because... 

 

49 minutes ago, rgraves said:

it opens up the ecosystem to more users and, therefore, more money.

Yeah, at the end of the day it's all about getting people locked in to play on your system. 

 

But in the past I think they've both been burned by loss leading strategies to do this. And that was in the good times with support. Now...it's the only profitable bit of Sony, and even when going quite well not profitable enough for Microsoft. 

The approach they have to take will have to pay for itself. 

 

Anyway, I think my point was that it's currently nice to be Sony and you can't blame them for not wanting to jeopardise that. That is the right approach. For now.

And Microsoft have to do something completely different, and if things get messy with console names and lower spec machines to get a game pass in your house, it's the right approach. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Microsoft have found a way to potentially cut out a huge ball ache for their gaming business. Building, shipping, and pricing their console. Sure, cloud gaming is hardly free. But instead of the cost of manufacturing consoles Microsoft can run server farms. While Sony build PS5 consoles Microsoft have come up with a way to offer current gen console gaming whilst only needing to build controllers, and TV sticks where people's boxes can not run the upcoming Microsoft app.

 

In a year's time we will all have access to PS5 and Series X consoles from Amazon, Game, Argos, etc. But, come the next gen, Microsoft will feasibly just have to switch on their new servers for anyone happy to play via the cloud whilst Sony need to negotiate stock levels with retailers.

 

It may not work. Nintendo have been written off time and again but keep coming back with bigger console sales (Wii U era aside). And Sony may continue to dominate the videogame market if consumers decide that they still want hardware. £400+ is a fair chunk of cash, but affordable for many for several years of entertainment. The question is whether Microsoft's cloud game offering fundamentally changes how the market accesses gaming; such disruption is not usually welcomed by the market leader.

 

Cloud gaming means that Microsoft can launch their games at any time or anywhere, in whatever numbers they choose (limitations of internet access and local laws aside). They can do this whilst offering a significant advantage to the consumer (mainly lower costs, but also other smaller benefits like portability, and an end to the nightmare of patch downloads).

 

I know there is criticism that MS are doing 'business as usual' this gen, whilst Sony have launched a console with an exciting new controller. I think that underestimates the potential impact of the cloud gaming offer. The Switch allows the TV console to also be a handheld, and this was revolutionary. Xbox cloud gaming means that your TV is your living console, your laptop is your bedroom console, and your phone is your handheld. All synced, all potentially available without any hardware costs, and nobody ever having to see a 20GB patch needed before playing. If it works, of course. That is really exciting to me, and could change the industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, El Spatula said:

I don't think Netflix aimed to fill Netflix with loads of average content to the detriment of quality titles either to be fair.


I think it’s worth mentioning that what people think of as “average” Netflix content is often super popular. Everything on there is somebody’s favourite thing, and if you look at the top 10 in the UK, a lot of it is stuff that I wouldn’t watch, but people are watching it and enjoying it. I think it it like the old studio model, Adam Sandler movies are helping fund the weirder stuff that I want to watch, and the worthy review bait stuff.

 

I have two friends who signed up for Netflix when friends was added to it. They previously just had channels on their TV all day that played Friends alongside other sitcoms, which is content I think of as garbage. But for them the attraction was apparently being able to just have friends on a continuous loop forever. It’s not how I would use the service but it’s their money and their choice. Netflix are serving a lot of very diverse audiences. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will always be new consoles. People underestimate the need to placate our inner Patrick Batemans with pointless consumer goods, streaming or not, so when a new system comes out, we’ll be all over it (£449, look at its subtle off white colouring, the tasteful thickness of it, oh my god! It even has haptic feedback).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, mikeyl said:

the tasteful thickness of it

steady on :D

 

Quote

All synced

It's telling that this is the thing that Microsoft do best on their consoles/PC environment, which you'd think would be easy table-stakes, but in practice is a large amount of storage allocated to each user indefinitely (which the supplier has to pay for, which is also presumably why Sony don't provide it as part of the base PSN features but only to PS Plus users). But it's fundamental in allowing Microsoft's chosen model to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Broker said:


I think it’s worth mentioning that what people think of as “average” Netflix content is often super popular. Everything on there is somebody’s favourite thing, and if you look at the top 10 in the UK, a lot of it is stuff that I wouldn’t watch, but people are watching it and enjoying it. I think it it like the old studio model, Adam Sandler movies are helping fund the weirder stuff that I want to watch, and the worthy review bait stuff.

 

I have two friends who signed up for Netflix when friends was added to it. They previously just had channels on their TV all day that played Friends alongside other sitcoms, which is content I think of as garbage. But for them the attraction was apparently being able to just have friends on a continuous loop forever. It’s not how I would use the service but it’s their money and their choice. Netflix are serving a lot of very diverse audiences. 


This reminds me of a 99 percent invisible episode a few months back: the multiplex boom created this massive demand for movies to fill them, any movies, cheap movies, weird movies, and it gave us the 1990s golden age where studios would finance and distribute everything they could get. The demand for streaming content may be doing the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Alex W. said:


This reminds me of a 99 percent invisible episode a few months back: the multiplex boom created this massive demand for movies to fill them, any movies, cheap movies, weird movies, and it gave us the 1990s golden age where studios would finance and distribute everything they could get. The demand for streaming content may be doing the same thing.

Which, if translated to games, sounds excellent. Get a few AAA games on there on a regular(ish) basis, then fill in the blanks with loads of weird and wonderful stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JPL said:

Which, if translated to games, sounds excellent. Get a few AAA games on there on a regular(ish) basis, then fill in the blanks with loads of weird and wonderful stuff.

 

It's definitely my hope that Gamepass becomes a AA wonderland. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AK Bell said:

Sony's approach has been the same as before. It is simple and clear. 

Playstation X+1. Bigger better machine. Give everyone enough of a reason to upgrade. 

 

They earn 20% on physical sales and 30% on digital.

Sony's bread and butter is getting lots of lots of people who only buy a couple of games a year as they tend to buy them full price on release.

And the games that sell are FIFA and COD, that have you ideally get the version most people are playing if you have both consoles.  

 

The catch is that Microsoft just can't compete in a straight race. Despite some battles won back and forth, that war was won when someone came up with the name Playstation 2. 

 

 

Alternatively, Game Pass is what MS are selling. And they've made it simple and clear.

Game Pass. Loads of games. Good ones too! Tenner a month, less if you're clever about it. 

 

I think in their marketing and approach they're also simplifying the console naming problem. Don't worry too much about what you play it on. Old xbox, new xbox, PC, Cloud ... you'll be able to play it on something. 

 

Alternatively, Sony have PS Now, PS Plus and can also play older games. Sony seem to be ignoring it, and it keeps having to be brought up in debates in here. Should we start a thread on Sony's approach to subscription services? It's the same muddy water as Xbox and all it's letters and numbers. 

 

 

Sony are probably right to do so and focus on new games.  In theory. In a vacuum. Their mistake is ignoring the competition (again). 

The PS4 attach rate of games to console is thought to be 9.6 units. Round it to 10, and probably on average get £10 per game (to pick some simple western currency and value). 112m PS4s in the world, that's £11.2b on just their cut. Give or take. Whatever the value is, it's still much better business than Game Pass right now. 

 

But! 23m Game Pass subscribers since I last looked. 

A lot of them will be cheeky like us scamming the system, so only giving them £3 a month. But a lot will also just be paying the going rate.

At £3 a month they'd still be making £800m a year. £3 billion if everyone paid full whack. 

 

It's still probably not as much as Sony's FIFA/COD cut but it's something they can build on. And they're focusing on the right thing to sell. 

Same with Nintendo over their just selling loads of stuff and being quite happy with their lot. 

 

 

 

 

The maths here don’t add up

 

should be more like :

 

£10 profit per game on sony

 

vs

 

Xbox sub revenue - costs to provide service on Xbox side eg money paid to devs for game

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, mikeyl said:

I don’t understand the mindset of that graphic design beginner dude who took the effort to make a fake Gamepass advert on behalf of a zillion dollar company as if Microsoft don’t have their own marketing budget so he thought he would help out. Top tier.

 

Meanwhile....

 

https://metro.co.uk/2021/06/20/game-pass-is-huge-because-people-care-more-about-quantity-than-quality-14800206/

 

Quote

A reader agrees that Microsoft won E3 2021 but that the games it showed are irrelevant compared to the value offered by Xbox Game Pass.

 

Quote

I watched the Microsoft E3 showcase last weekend and once again came away with the impression that they are going to win this generation. I’d go further and suggest they will go on to dominate the entire video games industry, likely putting Sony out of business sooner or later. I don’t say this as an Xbox fanboy but as someone that has no interest in anything they showed and has no intention of buying an Xbox console any time soon. My personal preferences though, I realise, have nothing to do with it, not now that Microsoft has found the secret to success in gaming: value for money.

 

I have seen many people categorise Microsoft as having an ‘unfair’ advantage because they are such a rich company, but although that’s a silly word to use there’s no doubt it’s a huge advantage that Sony does not and never will have. Since all is fair in love and console wars Microsoft are simply using that advantage in the most sensible way possible and I really don’t see any way round it.

 

What worries me more is just how predictable and unimaginative all their games are so far. Halo and Forza Horizon are very well-known entities and everything else seems to be primarily first person Western role-players and multiplayer games. I don’t know what Microsoft meant by this being their most ‘diverse’ first party line-up ever but in terms of genres and country of origin it could hardly be less diverse.

 

Fool that I am, I imagined that E3 might be when they finally announced a Japanese first party studio but no, nothing. (I realise they have one since they bought Bethesda but that’s essentially by accident.) There’s still been no attempt to engage with Japan and no attempt to have a studio from Europe, South America or anywhere else. I don’t think Microsoft even think of this as a problem and if they’ve not addressed it yet I don’t see any reason to think they ever will.

So we have a pretty clear pair of alternatives: Microsoft’s much less interesting first party game and Game Pass versus Sony and their critically acclaimed exclusives that cost £70. The problem here is that the only sense choice, for someone that isn’t some kind of video obsessive, is Microsoft. As good as most (but not all) Sony first party games are, as soon as you buy three or four you begin to realise how much better value Game Pass is.

 

I hate this though. It reduces gaming to a question of quantity versus quality, and most people are always going to choose quantity. There’s not a single argument for Xbox over Sony that doesn’t involve it being better value. The number of people choosing an Xbox Series X over PlayStation 5 because of the quality of the exclusives is infinitesimally small and with good reason.

 

Apart from anything, there are no Xbox Series X exclusives yet, so at the very best you’re preferring it on the hope that Halo Infinite isn’t as bad as it looks or that Starfield is what you imagine it to be – even though that could be radically different to what it is, because Bethesda hasn’t shown anything yet.

Microsoft is going to win because of the volume of content it can provide for a reasonable price and I think it’s naïve to think that Sony can compete simply on the quality of its games. God Of War and war co. is good, but it’s not THAT good.

 

This saddens me and yet I can see no way out except Sony creating their own Game Pass, which I’m sure they can’t afford to do. I just don’t see a long-term future for them. Nintendo do their own thing and always have but Sony’s product is very similar to Microsoft’s and I think they’re doomed because of it.

So Microsoft might not have had a particularly exciting E3 but I don’t think that will matter. In fact, I don’t think anything will ever matter for them other than keeping Game Pass good value, so that it ensures you have to spend considerably less to get more games than on PlayStation.

 

By reader Cerberus

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine being a grown adult, writing a boring massive letter about computer games wars to his local newspaper, includes the sentence “Microsoft are going to win”, then signing it off with his made up edgecore magic name “Cerberus”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Microsoft are probably the best set company of the big three at the moment to Apple-ify/transform gaming hardware and services. Their back end infrastructure and software are miles ahead of what Sony and Nintendo could ever dream of or hope to meet. I'm just not sure they quite have the clout and likability to pull it off in a fun or exciting way that really engages people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, freezycold said:

Microsoft are probably the best set company of the big three at the moment to Apple-ify/transform gaming hardware and services. Their back end infrastructure and software are miles ahead of what Sony and Nintendo could ever dream of or hope to meet. I'm just not sure they quite have the clout and likability to pull it off in a fun or exciting way that really engages people.

 

With Phil in charge anything is possible. 

 

Seriously, that guy could have never picked up a controller in his life but he's so fucking good at public speaking I'd believe it if he said he completed FIFA day 1. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Cyhwuhx said:

Like with PS Plus, you'll see a lot of games creep into Game Pass which are essentially going to either have DLC, MTX, additional subscriptions, or a combination of all those baked in. You'll get the games for "free" but essentially you can still pay for whatever in-game.

I don't see this happening for a couple of reasons.  Firstly,  the vast majority of gamepass titles are third party and on other platforms.  If the game is riddled with microtransactions then it won't sell in a non- gamepass setting. If the game is made as a gamepass version,  that is to say that the game doesn't have microtransactions on another platform (or even Xbox itself) but does on gamepass,  then it devalues gamepass.  If the game model is to sell lots of dlc, that game will want to reach as many players as possible- better to be FTP and available on all platforms,  not paywalled.

 

The other potential is that Microsoft's first party content is full of dlc, which I also don't see beyond the cosmetics model they have been using for the past 5 years. If DLC is more intrusive, excludes people or hampers enjoyment,  it devalues their brand. Gamepass works best for Microsoft with more subscribers. Making their own games shells that need to be fleshed out with additional purchases doesn't make sense, through that lens - they'd get crucified in the press and it would put people off.  

 

It's in Microsoft's interest to make gamepass good, not to try and squeeze extra money out of people and put them off. They'd just go elsewhere,  or even stay on xbox but just buy the games they want,  like they used to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jonny5 said:

How is it baked in? It’s a website. 

Well, it's an app, the website is a workaround. Unless the app streaming is a web wrapper :lol:, who knows.

 

I didn't notice them mention xCloud today, but they did mention Game Pass is in the Xbox Windows 11 app, so I'm reasonably assuming said app will stream xCloud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/06/2021 at 23:46, freezycold said:

I'm just not sure they quite have the clout and likability to pull it off in a fun or exciting way that really engages people.

Always been the problem with MS's image really. They still feel very "corporate". Of course all the big three are just corporate conglomerates vying for your hard earned. 

 

Think it's mainly to do with the businesses they operate in. Sonys main focus as a business is on entertainment and electronics to support thet. Nintendo just make games and hardware. MS is always seen as work software suppliers.... :) Phil Spencer and team are changing that a bit though with the Xbox brand.

 

LIke the idea of having an xCloud app baked into Win11 makes sense really.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/06/2021 at 15:36, BossSaru said:

Microsoft have found a way to potentially cut out a huge ball ache for their gaming business. Building, shipping, and pricing their console. Sure, cloud gaming is hardly free. But instead of the cost of manufacturing consoles Microsoft can run server farms. While Sony build PS5 consoles Microsoft have come up with a way to offer current gen console gaming whilst only needing to build controllers, and TV sticks where people's boxes can not run the upcoming Microsoft app.

 

In a year's time we will all have access to PS5 and Series X consoles from Amazon, Game, Argos, etc. But, come the next gen, Microsoft will feasibly just have to switch on their new servers for anyone happy to play via the cloud whilst Sony need to negotiate stock levels with retailers.

 

It may not work. Nintendo have been written off time and again but keep coming back with bigger console sales (Wii U era aside). And Sony may continue to dominate the videogame market if consumers decide that they still want hardware. £400+ is a fair chunk of cash, but affordable for many for several years of entertainment. The question is whether Microsoft's cloud game offering fundamentally changes how the market accesses gaming; such disruption is not usually welcomed by the market leader.

 

Cloud gaming means that Microsoft can launch their games at any time or anywhere, in whatever numbers they choose (limitations of internet access and local laws aside). They can do this whilst offering a significant advantage to the consumer (mainly lower costs, but also other smaller benefits like portability, and an end to the nightmare of patch downloads).

 

I know there is criticism that MS are doing 'business as usual' this gen, whilst Sony have launched a console with an exciting new controller. I think that underestimates the potential impact of the cloud gaming offer. The Switch allows the TV console to also be a handheld, and this was revolutionary. Xbox cloud gaming means that your TV is your living console, your laptop is your bedroom console, and your phone is your handheld. All synced, all potentially available without any hardware costs, and nobody ever having to see a 20GB patch needed before playing. If it works, of course. That is really exciting to me, and could change the industry.

Agree 100%. xCloud will be game changing for the industry. And MS are the ones that will keep pushing to make it happen. They have the deep pockets and expertise in the area. They also have persistence. Look at how long they have essentially supported the Xbox brand. This ain't no Google project that will be canned when they loose interest. They are here for the long haul.

 

Personally really impressed with what they have achieved so far. I can really see me not upgrading my hardware that much at all. Like the instant accessibility of cloud gaming - zero download / install / patching is really appealing. As is having no box under the TV and just well using the TV itself to play.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TehStu said:

Well, it's an app, the website is a workaround. Unless the app streaming is a web wrapper :lol:, who knows.

 

I didn't notice them mention xCloud today, but they did mention Game Pass is in the Xbox Windows 11 app, so I'm reasonably assuming said app will stream xCloud.

 

It's probably Chromium/Edge/flavour-of-the-day based, but the general consensus is that Windows 11 is doing everything Google wanted to do with Chrome OS. Regardless, it seems Microsoft is finally ready to embrace Xbox as being their game component within Windows, instead of being that weird appendix on the side. That's a good thing.

 

Both GP and xCloud were mentioned in the presentation btw. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I’ve noticed since having a series S and upgrading to fibre is that the whole less loading, no install times, no patches advantage that streaming has has been pretty much removed for me. There’s no loading I notice, no patching I notice and the longest take install I’ve had was about half an hour. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Game streaming is fine if you have fibre, a good router or wired network, and no-one else is using your internet. I have 200M fibre and a decent mesh kit at home, and stadia and xbox streaming both shit the bed if the missus and kids start watching youtube or netflix etc. I dont think it will ever replace having a physical console to play on, and i dont think i want it to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Cyhwuhx said:

Both GP and xCloud were mentioned in the presentation btw. :)

I totally spaced out at this point, thinking "I know all this! I just watched E3". Oops, should have paid attention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/06/2021 at 09:20, footle said:

Subscription leads to MTX is one future.

 

Subscription means there’s less need for MTX is another: if you’ve enough subscribers, and the success of your subscription service depends on retention, lots of MTX on top is perhaps not a great thing. Depends on the retention impact.

 

Lowering the barrier to entry so more people can spend potentially unlimited money on your MTX, why needlessly cap consumer spending afterall? The only reason you can't go full F2P like mobile phones is because of the massive costs to produce the base content so they still want to de-risk that aspect of initial development.

 

Microsoft's biggest successes from the previous generation all offer ways to raise ARPU, so even the company who can easily afford to set an example chose to go MTX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.