Starfield Has Been Played By More Than 14 Million players

[Remij 4,823]

1 hour ago, Goukosan said:

 

That's alot of "let's say this and let's say that" to spin around the fact that 1 sub isn't equal to 1 purchase 

 

Nobody said it was equal, Ghostz said it was better.. and he's right, assuming that person stays subscribed over multiple months.

 

If all those 14M players were GamePass subs, and they've been subbed over the past 9 months.. that's 14M x $10 = $140M x 9 = $1.26B

 

You know reliable recurring revenue is better for business like Microsoft than unpredictable 1 and done purchases.

[Cell 514]

1 hour ago, Remij said:

Or you know, just a few months subscribed...

 

Let's say half the people who played the game bought it, and the other half subbed for it.

 

$7M x $70 = $490M

7M subs for one month @ $10 = $70M and lets say people really into the game spend at least a few months playing it.  $70M x 3 months = $210M

$490M+210M = $700M

 

Again, you guys forget that GamePass, with ~30-35M subscribers is bringing in ~$300-$350M each month...  EACH MONTH.  $300M x 12 = 3.6B each year.  I don't give a fuck what any of you clowns think... MS is NOT SPENDING $3.6B each year on 3rd party GamePass content.  We already know that for a fact.  They are absolutely making money at this point.  The MAJORITY of games which are selling the service to people are owned by Xbox.

 

So, if Starfield's continued updates and story expansions continue to keep subs engaged over months and months... then it will EASILY EASILY generate more money long term than it would have being a one and done sale.  

Uh huh. 
 

Let's take your example. If I own GamePass for 6 months, I pay $60 dollars. How many games do I buy in 6 months? Two or three? On GP it's irrelevant how many titles I play, and hence, financial return does not scale as it does with selling physical or digital copies. Multiple studios and talking about making less money, but again, here you are spinning and shilling and selling a narrative which goes against the grain which I bet you come back in here and call everyone retarded for not agreeing with. 
 

Edited June 17 by Cell

[Remij 4,823]

1 minute ago, Cell said:

Uh huh. 
 

Let's take your example. If I own GamePass for 6 months, I pay $60 dollars. How many games do I buy in 6 months? Two or three? On GP it's irrelevant how many titles I play, and hence, financial return does not scale as it does with selling physical or digital copies. Multiple studios and talking about making less money, but again, here you are spinning and shilling and selling a narrative which does against the grain which I bet you come back in here and call everyone retarded for not agreeing with. 
 

And maybe MS doesn't see ANY of that money from those two games you bought... or maybe they at most see 30% of it.  

 

[Cell 514]

31 minutes ago, Remij said:

And maybe MS doesn't see ANY of that money from those two games you bought... or maybe they at most see 30% of it.  

 

So more money goes to the actual developers, got it. 
 

Edited June 17 by Cell

[Playstation Tablet 1,770]

If gamepass was such a good business model then Tango Games wouldnt be shut down. 

[Goukosan 2,333]

2 hours ago, Remij said:

Nobody said it was equal, Ghostz said it was better.. and he's right, assuming that person stays subscribed over multiple months.

 

If all those 14M players were GamePass subs, and they've been subbed over the past 9 months.. that's 14M x $10 = $140M x 9 = $1.26B

 

You know reliable recurring revenue is better for business like Microsoft than unpredictable 1 and done purchases.

 

No it's not better 1vs 1 income wise, that's why MS has to now go full 3rd party because gamepass was not bringing in the $$ to justify the cost of the games. 

 

There's not a single sub model where one sub is greater than 1 purchase. 

[Goukosan 2,333]

2 hours ago, Remij said:

And maybe MS doesn't see ANY of that money from those two games you bought... or maybe they at most see 30% of it.  

 

 

And Microsoft sees even less in the sub model because they have to pay millions just to get the 3rd party games on the service. 

 

Whereas in the purchase model they're making 30% on all 3rd party games. Games they had to pay 0% to have on its system. 

[Remij 4,823]

27 minutes ago, Goukosan said:

 

No it's not better 1vs 1 income wise, that's why MS has to now go full 3rd party because gamepass was not bringing in the $$ to justify the cost of the games. 

 

There's not a single sub model where one sub is greater than 1 purchase. 

Yes, it is... when that sub is recurring... and now you're just spewing BS.  GamePass is bringing in $$$.  Microsoft's failure to sell consoles has nothing to do with GamePass' model.. it has to do with their game development management.  And let's be clear... MS are making more money than ever before from Xbox.  Where they are "failing" is selling consoles.. and that's due to a systemic issue with game development and management.

 

Nobody ever said 1 single sub for 1 month is greater than 1 purchase.

Edited June 17 by Remij

[Remij 4,823]

21 minutes ago, Goukosan said:

 

And Microsoft sees even less in the sub model because they have to pay millions just to get the 3rd party games on the service. 

 

Whereas in the purchase model they're making 30% on all 3rd party games. Games they had to pay 0% to have on its system. 

You don't know how much they're paying.  Again, you can easily estimate how much money they are bringing in per year on GamePass, and we know from their leaked and court ordered documents from the Epic case and Activision acquisition that they are NOT spending that much per year on GamePass. Period.

 

As MS has acquired publishers like Bethesda and Activision notice how their deals for AAA GamePass games have dramatically slowed.  They no longer need to spend that money on big 3rd party games.

[Cell 514]

Remij are you smoking crack?

[Goukosan 2,333]

7 minutes ago, Remij said:

You don't know how much they're paying.  Again, you can easily estimate how much money they are bringing in per year on GamePass, and we know from their leaked and court ordered documents from the Epic case and Activision acquisition that they are NOT spending that much per year on GamePass. Period.

 

As MS has acquired publishers like Bethesda and Activision notice how their deals for AAA GamePass games have dramatically slowed.  They no longer need to spend that money on big 3rd party games.

 

The 3rd party games are not coming to GP for free genius.  You were comparing it to the 30% they get from a regular sale of a 3rd party game. That 30% cut comes at zero investment.  That's 100% profit. 

 

Whereas on GP they have to pay to even get the game on the service and then try to recoup it through subs before they can start turning a profit. 

 

GP is still the loss leader in profits. 

[Remij 4,823]

17 minutes ago, Goukosan said:

 

The 3rd party games are not coming to GP for free genius.  You were comparing it to the 30% they get from a regular sale of a 3rd party game. That 30% cut comes at zero investment.  That's 100% profit. 

 

Whereas on GP they have to pay to even get the game on the service and then try to recoup it through subs before they can start turning a profit. 

 

GP is still the loss leader in profits. 

Never said they were.  But they're also not costing MS 3 billion $$$s per year genius.  They're not FUNDING these 3rd party games wholesale... they're paying for them to be on GP.   Most games also aren't being played by 14M people, let alone 30M+

 

GP has 30M+ subs per month.  Again, that's ~3.6B per year.  Phil said this about how much they're spending to bring content to GP:

 

Quote

"We have a service that is financially viable, meaning it makes money, in Game Pass," said Spencer. "We've put a lot of money into the market, over a billion dollars a year supporting third-party games coming into Game Pass.

 

So based off what we know... they've spent over $1B bringing content to GP per year... but we also know those are one time payments and that's it.  So on a service that is generating 3.6B per year... they're spending 1-1.5B on it.  They're making huuuuuuge amounts of money dude lmao.  And you already know now with Activision/Blizzard games hitting the service that they will be less reliant on making those 3rd party deals, which means more money for them per GP sub.  That's the entire goal they're going for.  To eventually have enough studios/pubs that they own making content for their service that they don't rely on massive 3rd party deals.

Edited June 17 by Remij

[Remij 4,823]

12 minutes ago, Cell said:

Remij are you smoking crack?

 

[Cell 514]

4 minutes ago, Remij said:

 

Not drugs, just retarded. Okey dokey. Well, you do you man. 
 

 

[Cell 514]

I talked to all the publishers, and they unanimously do not like Game Pass because it is value destructive

 

Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick is one video game executive who remains unconvinced by Game Pass. Speaking during a financial call in November, Zelnick said of releasing big games day-and-date on a Microsoft's subscription service: "I still don't think it makes sense. And I believe that it's now becoming obvious that it doesn't make sense. It's just a lost opportunity for the publisher. So, I wouldn't want to speak for my friend, Phil [Spencer], but our views remain unchanged."

Fuck what this guy thinks though, Remij got the inside scoop.

 

Edited June 17 by Cell

[FIREPOWER 825]

That's pretty low considering all it took to play it was a $1 trial subscription.

 

 

Not a flop but still not impressive especially for a mega hyped Bethesda title. I can't imagine it generated a lot of revenue though since most people like myself cancelled our subscriptions after realizing the game was a turd.

[Remij 4,823]

4 minutes ago, Cell said:

I talked to all the publishers, and they unanimously do not like Game Pass because it is value destructive

 

Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick is one video game executive who remains unconvinced by Game Pass. Speaking during a financial call in November, Zelnick said of releasing big games day-and-date on a Microsoft's subscription service: "I still don't think it makes sense. And I believe that it's now becoming obvious that it doesn't make sense. It's just a lost opportunity for the publisher. So, I wouldn't want to speak for my friend, Phil [Spencer], but our views remain unchanged."

Fuck what this guy thinks though, Remij got the inside scoop.

 

 

The title of the article that's from:

 

Xbox Game Pass Not 'Value Destructive' Like PlayStation Claims, Football Manager Boss Says

"It's nothing but positive."

 

DumboCell   

[Cell 514]

6 minutes ago, Remij said:

 

The title of the article that's from:

 

Xbox Game Pass Not 'Value Destructive' Like PlayStation Claims, Football Manager Boss Says

"It's nothing but positive."

 

DumboCell   

Actually Remedial, the title of the article is exactly what I copy and pasted, hence why it was in a big font and in a different colour. 
 

Edited June 17 by Cell

[Remij 4,823]

3 minutes ago, Cell said:

Actually Remedial, the title of the article is exactly what I copy and pasted, hence why it was in a big font and in a different colour. 
 

link the article  

[Cell 514]

1 minute ago, Remij said:

link the article  

Here you go:

 

https://www.ign.com/articles/sony-boss-jim-ryan-many-publishers-believe-xbox-game-pass-is-value-destructive