this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2024
145 points (87.2% liked)
Gaming
20021 readers
125 users here now
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
- 1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
- 2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
- 3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Critical thinking: $200M game budgets are not "per year". They're 5+ year development timelines. Microsoft's output was only a few games. Starfield had a $200M budget over the course of 5 years. Forza wouldn't surprise me if it had about that for its own budget, even though it reuses a lot of legacy code and assets to get there for cheaper than building it from scratch. But that's not $200M per year for those games. How much do you think Hi-Fi Rush cost? We're talking 8 figures for that one, not 9, and that's over the course of 4 years.
They could omit all kinds of things that they didn't do from their financial reports, sure. Why didn't they say that they spent $10B? Perhaps because they didn't spend $10B...
Your link, which I have seen before, refers to how much games are estimated to cost to come to Game Pass, some of which happened and some of which they turned down because they were too expensive. They famously low-balled the impact BG3 would have on the industry and how much it would take to secure that game for Game Pass...if they were interested in doing so.
Why are you talking about game budgets? Microsoft is paying completely finished games 100-300 million dollars to be on games pass. If they are doing that, do you seriously think that they aren’t spending more than 2.7 billion putting games in the service…? It’s obviously far far more than 1 billion dude….
Game pass isn’t profitable, or Microsoft would tell you the full financials to prove how good it is. So why haven’t they…?
In the link that you provided, which I have seen before, you can see that they turned down games for hundreds of millions of dollars but estimated that that's what they would cost to get on Game Pass when they launch. Have you noticed that games often leave Game Pass as well? That's because they have to keep paying those people for those games, and they don't see any value in continuing to do so. If they were spending 10x on licensing what they reported to investors, that would have come out in these leaks, especially since the licensees would be able to do some back of the napkin math when they can see what was spent to license their competitors. But that didn't happen. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but there's no conspiracy here. Microsoft just has a profitable service.
Then please link that instead of their estimates, because if they were lying, publishers calling out bad math is exactly what I'd expect to happen. What I see on this list though are a bunch of costs that can be spread out over several years, not paid out all at the same time. Jedi Survivor, Suicide Squad, and Mortal Kombat account for $800M of this list, and none of them came to Game Pass, meaning Microsoft did not opt to spend that money.
You are misplacing cause and effect. It's more expensive for Microsoft to get someone else's game on Game Pass right at launch than it is after launch, because if it's a game people are already excited for, it will eat sales, as opposed to something like Descenders where most people never even heard of it, so it would serve as a form of marketing. In that case, Microsoft and the other company are essentially making a bet with regards to how much the game would make if it's not on Game Pass, and Microsoft pays them a guaranteed sum up front, which reduces risk but also reduces reward. When a game leaves Game Pass, it's not because they saw their sales tanking and wanted to "take back control". It's that Microsoft isn't offering them enough to make up for the sales they'd expect to otherwise make for the next leasing period. Microsoft doesn't offer them as much for the next period, because they don't expect that keeping that game on the service keeps more people subscribed.
If you can produce that link that demonstrates what you're claiming, I'll read it, but otherwise, this sure looks like you'd rather believe in some boogeyman conspiracy theory than a simple truth.
Or… no amount of money was enough to make those games cannablize their sales, why do you think it’s only Microsoft making decisions…?
What truth? That Spencer says it profitable, but won’t provide the information to prove it…? Yet all the leaks and information point the opposite direction…? You want the truth, don’t listen to Spencer and read between the lines lmfao. The last person you should be listening to on this, is the one at the top of it.
Provide anything other than Spencer claiming it, I bet while you attempt to find that you’ll find the mountain that’s behind you.