Take Two's CEO Strauss Zelnick cannot be more resolute with his opinion.
He believes (me paraphrasing) that subscription services have most appeal with hardcore gamers who are interested in playing multiple library games in a month. But this doesn't replace the traditional games for purchase model - and hasn't seen any evidence to suggest otherwise.
But but but there’s going to be a lot of buts about his comment/ believe and the bottom line is it work for Microsoft for now with their limited amount of first party games but as soon as they’re start to make quality games and start loosing money guess what’s going to happen next 1 price increases 2 quality goes down 3 all of the above 🤷🏿
technically number 2 already happened, the subscription number kept increasing even without frequent first party release so why should they bother? Might as well keep delaying stuff so they have ammunitions for when the number starts going down.
Not really. If they didn't do what they did I would be forced to buy more. Before susbcriptions i would wait even longer for deals before purchasing. I was also playing more open worlds, MMOs and dungeon crawlers in between.
Common sense doesn't exist with gamepads fanboys. I am signed up for almost 3 years and I see it as a service for 1st and 2nd party games and sometimes a timed exclusive
Issue is many Xbox fans think since Ms can do it all games should be on GP. And comments like I will wait for it to go on GP are not good. Take two CEO has said it before too but what the heck does he know
be xbox, promised 1st party titles day 1 on their subs service to lure more subs and then release no 1st party exclusive for 10 months of the year = Profit = everybody got catfished!
I honestly don't think MS can do that they don't have enough xboxes out there on top of that right now MS is making all their money off other devs cause you are more likely to get GP for COD than any MS game that is out right now. If all studios decided not to put their games on GP MS would be in major trouble due to them not having any games out. This is how MS make money off GP right now you pay them to play a game they didnt even make.Phil said it himself last week there are not enough xboxes out there even for GP they need the PC market and mobile market that is why if Sony allowed GP on PS5 they would do it in a heartbeat.
^ I think you misunderstood me a little. MS went with gamepass to remain relevant, but have yet to confirm profit figures. Many assume it's been making a loss for years since launch.
I think they need their newly purchased larger games on PlayStation going forward. Often, xbox gamers don't buy games, because gamepass and neither do PC gamers, because pirating.
PlayStation gamers buy games. It's not financially responsible not to put them on PlayStation. All that money on acquisitions needs to generate income, not add to the xbox losses.
But then, this is xbox and for some odd reason - pride, maybe? - Microsoft have thrown good money after bad for ages and may well continue to do so. Who knows?
I still think that MS is in the middle of a very long play here.
The way I see it is that GP is primarily a play for new gamers, or at least new console gamers. Series S is an example of this. Is is underpowered? Sort of. It runs games pretty well, not perfectly, but it does run them. Mobile is one of the areas MS is hoping to pull subs from. Glitchy gaming is just something you deal with there, so perhaps the expectations aren't so high.
The Series X is there for more hardcore gamers, but as it has been for years, the really hardcore gamers will be on PC anyway, as you can upgrade as you choose to stay truly bleeding edge. A console has never, and probably never will be able to provide this. It is possible someone could come up with some kind for modular system that could be upgraded, but it would be so expensive not to be worth it to most.
I agree with the article as far as Day 1 releases on GP for 3rd party publishers. In most cases it does not make sense, especially with AAA games. But remember, for a new or casual player, many games are "new" to them. As I said MS is still very much in the middle of this play. They have purchased a large number of new studios in the past couple of years. Games take 3-4 or more, years to develop. As time goes, there will be many more MS new releases. These will also be exclusives, so the developers will not have to worry about programing for other consoles.
That is what I think MS's plan is long term. It remains to be seen if it will work or not or not. Ask Zuckerberg how the metaverse is working out?! Another example of a long game. Time will tell I guess.
I agree. There’s no way that game pass has been profitable. Look at how much Xbox spent on studios. Bethesda and Activision cost around 70 billion…I think. Now add operating cost and how much it cost to get games on game pass. There is no way they made the amount of money to recoup the cost much less all the extras. They can afford loss though. MS has deep pockets. The only way song survives and makes really good quality games it to put the games on the market for a year or so. Then move them to subscription services. That’s how they make their money. The one number I’d like to see is how much money the lose every year on GP.
"Xbox has painted itself into a corner through sheer desperation to remain relevant."
What's "desperate" about coming out with a service where everyone can play? In competition you have to figure out ways to be competitive, attractive. Gamepass is that model for MS.
We all wanted Xbox to step up. They make you pay for online. Then they make you use Kinect. Then they want you to go all digital. Then they say we good cuz look at this back compat! Decent but the quality of gold dropped drastically. Then they say wait and wait and wait. Close and close studios. But wait look at this monster one x..only to kick it off the ledge a couple of years later with the new consoles. Still no games. Then they say halo is back but don't care about it since they're too busy buying up popular IP.
Everyone wanted them to succeed and step up. The only progress they make is toward anti competitive, subscriptions and live service crap.
But they'll still spout nonsense about them being for the gamer and the good guys and offering best value in gaming....all of which is delusional and mostly subjective..also objectively based on deceptive marketing.
Exactly. Microsoft isn’t concerned about really doing anything “Different” that’s good for the players, and that’ll benefit them too -and I’m not referring to their good online system etc haha.
The Kinect was a joke, and we see how they abandoned that idea entirely. It was never meant to be anything really fun for the player, it was just a cheap attempt at saying “Sony has the Kinect, we’ve got to make something to. Our players will buy it, just design something” the rest is SAD HISTORY!
When they showcased the Xbox One X I remember hearing (as we always do from Microsoft) The POWER -much like the POWER OF THE CLOUD🤦🏼♂️and nothing special, groundbreaking etc came from either.
As you said Halo, the next BIG Halo - which I remember hearing rumors that Infinite (not sure if they’d released the name at the time tho) was said to be bringing groundbreaking technology to this unrevealed Halo game, and the industry was going to be shocked by it. I wish I remembered where I read that, honestly. I’ll have to ask some of my friends, because they read it too. We all know how disappointing and 💩 that looked when showcased, and it also releasing on Xbox One, which upset many.
Time and time again Microsoft continues to make themselves look foolish - Even when buying up all of these studios for $billions of dollars. It might seem smart from a business standpoint, okay. But when they continue to not deliver on the games, which is the market they’re in, have been in for generations now, and continue to refuse to actually make an improvement in that area, what more hope is there for them?
I’ve wanted to see Microsoft succeed, but for the right reasons, them actually changing things up, by listening, learning from their mistakes and throwing away their crappy practices that only benefit and line their pockets etc. The gamers on Xbox who do genuinely enjoy and have fun with the offerings of the Xbox console, I want to see them receive AAA first party games that rival Xbox’s past greats, while also competing with Sony’s current best on the market AAA high quality games. Than us IRL, on here etc discussing how awesome these games were to us - arguing, respectfully hahaha, about what’ll win GOTY and than just being happy that regardless of what wins, both sides actually had some pretty awesome games to wage war against each other and we had fun seeing it happen. Maybe I’m living in a fantasy world with that hope, knowing Microsoft, sadly.
This live service crap isn’t the route to go, but what else is new with Microsoft. I know Sony is doing it too. But that’s another discussion lol.
Ok, sure. They bought all those studios and Bethesda and you complained hard.
"The only progress they make is toward anti competitive, subscriptions and live service crap."
It's anti competitive because Some can't do it. That's why it's anti competitive. If Sony could do it, it's not anti comparative. You mean the same Live Service Sony is now pursuing. 10 of them to be exact.
Nobody like the tomb raider exclusivity. Nobody likes temporary exclusivity either. This has happened many times and gamers across the board have been upset with console platforms pay to have 3rd party game exclusive content. Don't play dumb and act like this isn't the case.
Buying up IP that was multiplatform is not stepping up. That's like paying someone to take the test for you instead of stepping up and working hard to pass the test on your own.
And yes the same live service crap that it appears Sony is pursuing ...yes that's what I mean...take off your fanboy hat. Some live service is good ..Warframe and path of exile come to mind. Most is crap.
Sony can afford it because they have market share and most sales on their console for the majority of games. This argument that they can't afford anything is ridiculous. Yes they can...business deals are more than just the money up front. They are the biggest brand in gaming.
But to your fanboy point..no it is not okay. Don't make it seem I'm saying things I didn't say. Sony hasn't purchased any studio that they haven't already been heavily using for 1st party content...except for Bungie....which was weird and nobody in the PlayStation community cared for at all.
"Nobody like the tomb raider exclusivity. Nobody likes temporary exclusivity either. This has happened many times and gamers across the board have been upset with console platforms pay to have 3rd party game exclusive content. Don't play dumb and act like this isn't the case."
Never said that didn't happen but ok. You didn't want MS to compete in that fashion by Buying studios you wanted them to build from the The ground up. Only 1 or 2 studios are built from the ground up the rest are bought. Talk to Sony about building 1st party theyll tell you the same thing. PS1 they did just that.
I guess you're upset Sony bought Bungie then? How bout Insomniac? They've made games for PS for years and supported Sony. Just like how Bethesda supported MS.
"...yes that's what I mean...take off your fanboy hat. Some live service is good ..Warframe and path of exile come to mind. Most is crap."
Lol fanboy that's funny. Nice back track. Is Destiny crap also?
"Sony can afford it because they have market share and most sales on their console for the majority of games. This argument that they can't afford anything is ridiculous. Yes they can...business deals are more than just the money up front. They are the biggest brand in gaming."
Ok so how come Ragnarok isn't on Premium? Gran Turismo? Horizon? What's funny is sony said it themselves it isn't viable to put their games on the service day and date. It's common knowledge. You say they are the biggest gaming brand in which they are but Sony refuses to put its 1st party on the service. There's some miscommunication going on here.
Fanboy lol you're a funny kid you know that. The biggest cheer leader of them all is gonna try and call somebody a fanboy. You should do stand up lol. Calling you out on off information isn't fanboying just FYI it just means you're sensitive.
You said only because Sony can't do the same are we claiming it's anti competitive. They can do the same and nobody has liked it when they have done similar things. So yes you did insinuate that somehow bc it is Sony we would give them a pass.. evidence showed the contrary. PlayStation fans complain...Xbox fans are complacent. Facts.
Your comprehension of the situation is tremendously lacking. When has Sony bought a studio that's made and owned enormous 3rd party multiplatform games? PS1 days? Really? What incredible 3rd party titles did their studios make that had the renown of doom, elder scrolls, cod, diablo? Good luck trying to come up with anything.
No. You child. Insomniac purchase is nothing like Bethesda. Insomniac made games almost exclusively for PlayStation. Sony bought insomniac to continue making those games for them. Natural progression. Microsoft purchased Bethesda studios to continue making 3rd party IP that is just as if not more popular on a competing platform. Sony doesn't care about any games insomniac made for Xbox. Microsoft cares deeply for all the IP they've purchased that would normally release on PlayStation as well...and sell better there too.
Destiny is decent sure. Lots of people still play it...like I said most live service are crap. Bungie made halo...is halo crap? Their gunplay is tremendous.
Why would Sony put their games that actually sell on a service for less than what they would make? That makes no sense...no miscommunication just common sense. If Microsoft actually made much money in their IP they would keep if off gamepads as well ...but before all these IP purchases they had halo, gears, and Forza.....not many IP to sell...they figured it would be fine to place their puny 1st party on a service...not much to lose.
I've given plenty of crap to PlayStation in my comment history so again...take those fanboy glasses and hat off .
Your comments are all over the freakin place I don't even know what you're even talking about.
"You said only because Sony can't do the same are we claiming it's anti competitive. They can do the same and nobody has liked it when they have done similar things."
They've done something similar with PS Now. Streaming at the time isn't as mature as it is now. You claim Sony can do a gamepass type of service and put day and date in premium they haven't because according to Sony that's not im there plans. Unless something change.
"Your comprehension of the situation is tremendously lacking. When has Sony bought a studio that's made and owned enormous 3rd party multiplatform games? PS1 days? Really? What incredible 3rd party titles did their studios make that had the renown of doom, elder scrolls, cod, diablo? Good luck trying to come up with anything."
Let me get this straight. You're comparing mid 90's to early 2000's games and content compared to now? Which costs 5x more. Where are you during the PS1 and PS2. Sega Dreamcast couldn't compete against PS2 because of all the exclusive games and being more powerful on top. 3rd part deals and buying 3rd party is something Sony has done from the start. You can't compare 20+ year old games from a smaller market compared to now which is a much bigger market.
"No. You child. Insomniac purchase is nothing like Bethesda. Insomniac made games almost exclusively for PlayStation. Sony bought insomniac to continue making those games for them. "
Aaaaand you just made my point for me. Insomniac is close to PS as Bethesda is close to MS. I already mentioned this.
"Microsoft purchased Bethesda studios to continue making 3rd party IP that is just as if not more popular on a competing platform."
How many times do I and others have to say to this? You're historically wrong. Bethesda games have sold better on the Xbox. Morrowind Xbox and PC, Oblivion sold better thanks to times exclusive. Marketing rights and DLC helped the Xbox version like how COD is helping PS right now and how cod used to help 360. Learn from this I don't want to see you spread lies on this again.
"Why would Sony put their games that actually sell on a service for less than what they would make? That makes no sense...no miscommunication just common sense."
Why would they do it? Because you said they could do it remember. Number one in gaming they can afford it but Sony decided they don't want to you're right they don't need to yeah you're right about that.
"I've given plenty of crap to PlayStation in my comment history so again...take those fanboy glasses and hat off. "
More lies I've never seen you call Sony out on anything. However look through my comment and find where I was calling out MS and it's first party management and how I blasted the Korean IGN for using fake rumors to justify is low score.
Careful who you call fanboy on here kiddo. Someone challenging your comment doesn't make a person a fanboy. Hopefully you've learned something (but I doubt it)
@lightning Your comments are completely misdirected.
"They've done something similar with PS Now. Streaming at the time isn't as mature as it is now......haven't because according to Sony that's not im there plans. Unless something change." Just as I said...what are you talking about? I didnt claim anything. But..they already are offering a gamepass type service...they were doing it with PSnow which wasnt just streaming. You could download games for the ps4 and some other older titles. They will not offer day 1 exclusives because thats dumb. Their games sell...as I've said.
"Let me get this straight. You're comparing mid 90's to early 2000's games .........You can't compare 20+ year old games from a smaller market compared to now which is a much bigger market." You are the one comparing what sony did in those times to now. But now all of a sudden you cant compare it...because it doesnt fit your agenda. Yes we can compare. There were popular IP back in those days. Doom was very popular and so was Diablo. Mario super popular. Mortal Kombat. etc. They didnt go and buy any popular IP. My comment still stands.
"Aaaaand you just made my point for me. Insomniac is close to PS as Bethesda is close to MS. I already mentioned this." No I didnt. Insomniac made games almost exclusively for playstation for many many years. The ones that were 3rd party didnt meet success and sony has no interest in those games. Therefore, use critical thinking here, Sony did not purchase Insomniac because of any title outside of the ones that they paid them for. No 3rd party IP. ON the other hand...pay attention now...Microsoft purchased Bethesda studios BECAUSE of 3rd party successful IP that WERE on other platforms...and so taking away accessibility that would otherwise be there...IE Anti competitive move.
"How many times do I and others have to say to this? ....... spread lies on this again." Nope not wrong. Morrowind I dont believe released on playstation. Oblivion was broken on ps3. Skyrim was the first Bethesda elder scrolls game that worked on the console. Fallout 3 sold about the same on both...more on xbox I believe. Fallout 4 just like with Skyrim sold significantly more on playstation. Many millions more. Not even counting digital in any of this. Even Fallout 76 sold more on playstation...nothing to be proud of really. And thats just the bethesda games from the zenimax studios..dont make me talk about the other studios' games please. Dont let me see you spreading lies. *wags finger*
"Why would they do it? ......... yeah you're right about that." Remember how i said you have reading comprehension issues. Never said this. I said they can afford to buy studios. Since you were making the ridiculous statement that if PlayStation could afford to buy COD they would have...making it seem playstation is this bankrupt company. PlayStation is many times more profitable than xbox. They can afford lots.
You call me a liar without checking my comments...look towards the price increase buddy. Look towards the bugnie acquisition...not sure if I have the comment in this site but I assure you...as I've expressed above. Live service and bungie acquisition focus is no good in my opinion. Not a huge fan of naughtydog anymore either. But all this is irrelevant. I didnt like micrsoft when they purchased exclusivity from 3rd party and I didnt like it when sony did it either. You have a preference though it seems. A fanboyish preference.
Definitely havent learned anything from you. Not sure you can learn anything though so I wont hold my breath. Been fun! Dont waste replying anymore I wont. You can PM me though if you want.
"You are the one comparing what sony did in those times to now."
Yes MS is doing what Sony did back then. That's my point. Formalities and how it's done or who MS should buy is invalid. You don't make the rules of how they grow their first. That's what I'm trying to say. To make that topic crystal clear. I'm making a point not an agenda.
"No 3rd party IP. ON the other hand...pay attention now...Microsoft purchased Bethesda studios BECAUSE of 3rd party successful IP that WERE on other platforms...and so taking away accessibility that would otherwise be there...IE Anti competitive move."
Ok cool call it what you will as I said none of us make the rules on how to do this if you want to be bitter about that then go right ahead.
Naw you're not getting away but like that. So you listed All the E'S Fall out games. I've even mentioned the remasters on PS4 and even 76. But you said those games have always sold better on PS when that's nit factually true. Don't talk about me spreading lies when I had to correct you twice now kiddo.
"You have a preference though it seems. A fanboyish preference."
Whatever you say kiddo joke I said look through my comments and you'll see where I blasted MS and it's first party out put and and blasted the Korean IGN writer over GoW. Plus show me where I talk crap about PlayStation. Because that's what a fanboy does. Exaaaactly, now we're done here..
People want to be hard on Sony for going down the GAAS path. Yet MS basically did the same thing did they not turn their biggest 1st party game into a GAAS (HALO)? So they are making most of their money from companies putting their games on GP, cause they are not putting out enough games to justify GP. I hope people realize when MS starts to produce games from these studios they bought if you don't think they are not going to raise the price of GP you are crazy. Cause they should have a boat load of games coming real soon.
You have no idea how subscriptions work. The entire scenario you're giving Is just wishful thinking on your part, because you want gamepass to fail. Subscriptions make their money primarily off the number of subscribers. Raising prices too much will cause people to drop the service, which means MS wouldn't actually earn any money from a move like that. They might even lose some.
Also, they have to pay millions of dollars for the third party games that release on gamepass, and those are only temporary additions. First party games also have a cost, but they are permanent additions to the service which makes them a better investment for MS in the long run. What we'll see once first party titles start coming is that fewer and fewer third parties will release on gamepass. They'll be able to sustain the service with their first party releases alone so they'll have less need for temporary deals, . That will already improve profit margins.
We will most likely see price increases at some point going forward -- inflation alone guarantees that -- but nowhere near the $5-10 increases some people on this site are predicting. That would be suicide for the service.
As a customer, I'll let MS and anyone else who does day and date for their sub service worry about it.
If a game publisher is offering their game first day playable on a service I pay for then I'm definitely excited for it and won't complain or worry about that game selling the first week.
If a game publisher agreed to put their game on game pass day one, they most likely have negotiated a fair price that accounts for projected lost sales. In other words, if it would have sold well on it's own, MS will have to pay good money for it. If MS can afford it, it all works out in the end
GEE A million dollar selling title ile GTA6 that is already paid by pre order shouldn't be put day 1 on a subscription service because it would lose sales. What a revelation
Should I expect Disney to put the next Avenger on Disney PLus day 1? But what about game like Acent, Immortality, 12 minutes, PLague tale? game that are NOT sure to sell day 1 at full price?
That's the point not all games are the same in just the same way that not all movies are the same. Some movies are nothing more than fodder for subscriptions. Same with some games. There is no one size fits all here
"GEE A million dollar selling title ile GTA6 that is already paid by pre order shouldn't be put day 1 on a subscription service because it would lose sales. What a revelation"
This is what people say about Sony first parties being on Plus day one, yet they are called anti-consumer for it, so it's not as obvious of a revelation to some.
pro Publishers do not equal pro-consumers. The article is pretty clear " Xbox Game Pass' day-and-date releases are a 'big missed opportunity for publishers,"
That's easy for Take-Two to say, they are a gigantic pub with major franchises under their belt that will sell off of name alone.
And let us not pretend that they are some kind of white knight company, go look what people say about MTX in NBA2k games, it's the worst in the business, then look how they let GTA Trilogy be handled. They have sold/repackaged GTA5 with minor improvements for over 10 years now. GTA Online is all they care about, they already dropped RD2. Borderlands has run its course, its the same game but not as charming anymore, Bioshock is nowhere to be seen, and they did a 1/2 ass job on the remaster. They pub 4 games that sell boatloads and neglect everything else, they are not the same as a smaller company/pub that would make a deal with MS, of course, they would be no benefit to them to drop on GP day 1, that is the same with EA, Capcom, SE, pre-acquisition A/B.
It's not the first time he says that. Subcribers services just make profit with hundreds os millions of subcribers. There no spin here. And never giving it away with very cheap prices!
Good games make profit in first week, some in hours... There no comparison. blockbuster games can't be day one.
It's not cost effective in a way if starfield came out its a long play time game and you can only play if you sub its better for publishers to sell thier games and stick it on sub 6 mo this later or a year.
Saying it as it is. Why would a publisher who has a history of making sales place a game on a subscription service? To this day, for whatever reasons GTAV still sells and it was released in 2013.
Depends on the game. What he's saying is true for huge games like GTAV and RDR2 that sell 170m+ and 40m+, but the reality is, pretty much every other game doesn't fall into that category.
If one company says another companies technology is "too disruptive" usually that means the disruptor is on to something that needs disrupting or else there'd be no threat or discussion. Make us proud Phil. Ya gots work ta do.
You can tell who’s actually subscribed to the service and who’s not .. People act like just because those games are on the service you can’t buy them when in fact you can , sometimes at a slight or big discount. The games that I played on the service that I liked I purchased , the ones I didn’t like at lease I got to try it before wasting money.
It’s simple. Want to make money on that older title that isn’t moving? Put it on a subscription service. Even big games sales will slow down in a few months, then throw it on a sub for more money. It’s exactly what Sony is saying and doing. If you’re a Dev and you didn’t have the money for hardcore advertising or maybe you honestly don’t believe in your games appeal or ability to reach sales goals, day one subs may be the route for you. Microsoft will BLEED money if they put out day one gamespass Elderscrolls, starfield, and so on. It will NEVER make the money it would have made of it were sold. I think the goal is to drive people away from physical media, which in turn gives Microsoft a savings on creating the physical media at all AND they get to keep the cut retailers would have gotten. Even still, is that savings that great? Aaaanyway, to the point, it’s unfeasible for major companies.
Common sense can still prevail. Let your game sell and then if needed use a subscription.
be xbox, promised 1st party titles day 1 on their subs service to lure more subs and then release no 1st party exclusive for 10 months of the year = Profit = everybody got catfished!
As a customer, I'll let MS and anyone else who does day and date for their sub service worry about it.
If a game publisher is offering their game first day playable on a service I pay for then I'm definitely excited for it and won't complain or worry about that game selling the first week.
GEE A million dollar selling title ile GTA6 that is already paid by pre order shouldn't be put day 1 on a subscription service because it would lose sales. What a revelation
Should I expect Disney to put the next Avenger on Disney PLus day 1?
But what about game like Acent, Immortality, 12 minutes, PLague tale?
game that are NOT sure to sell day 1 at full price?