According to Thuway, who has been pretty accurate with his prediction of Battlefield 4 resolution on Xbox One/PS4 along with Call of Duty: Ghosts resolution on Xbox One/PS4; Activision wanted to utilize extra 10% of GPU power that is allocated for Kinect use but Microsoft denied it saying "No it would result in the environment being too unstable."
By putting Black Ops 6 on Game Pass, Microsoft plans to gauge its growth, pricing, and monetization changes, at the cost of less game sales.
If they have follow up games that are bangers, then this strategy will work. But if it’s Call of Duty followed another dead period then it won’t last.
From MS financial perspective I think it may be the opposite.
A year of GamePass on PC is less than the price of two full price games. For all the people that would have bought COD for $70 but instead started subbing for GP, MS will get an extra $50/year which is good.
However, for each banger that MS puts out, that's lost potential revenue because the GP sub won't need to buy it.
So it only makes sense where the new GP customers would have otherwise not spent more money with MS... Which is the case if MS puts out low quality shovelware.
If you’re looking at the short term you are correct. But if Xbox can have multiple bangers then subscriptions should increase. Which is what they want, recurring revenue.
I think this is more about microtransactions. MS wants to see if the upfront losses will be offset by more people login into the “free” game and buying more microtransactions to justify not selling as much COD games.
I honestly not sure. I feel like everyone who likes COD is already playing/buying it so I’m not sure how much more engagement they can get by putting it on gamepass. On the other hand, I also feel a lot of COD players are casual gamers, and they are the type to click on anything that is “free” ex: mobile gaming style
I don't see it working if Call of Duty makes less money and profits over time from gamepass 🤔
I dont understand why have it on it when we all know it sells with the name alone. Seems stupid to lose so much sales and $ just to have it on game pass. They basically shooting themselves in the foot with a already injured foot from all the other times they shoot themselves in the foot.
@blackblades, that's my exact point, even on xbox where most software sells poorly CoD still sells millions, but the thing is, if you don't put it on GP you kinda shatter the whole idea they've build GP up to be, they've dug this hole themselves.
I think it might tick up subscribers a bit, but warzone is already free and gets millions of players regardless of GP. But where will those extra subs come from? Xbox sales are dropping like a rock, PC gamers are very firmly rooted in Steam and will just buy it there.
@black
If they don't include it on Game Pass, they lose the claim of First-Party Day-One on Game Pass, and thus would begin the slippery slope of what's-ok-to-not-include and the devaluing of the service, and further sinking Microsoft/Xbox's already tarnished reputation.
Stuck between a rock and a hard place and this move buys them time to work out more future-math.
I still expect a price increase in GP to compensate but who knows. With all the factors in play like COD points there are too many variables for someone on the outside to predict what will happen. I assume they have a forecast model where this all looks peachy.
When the game does not hit 1 Billion in revenue in under two weeks they will wonder why and the next thing you know; Season Updates will no longer be free.
Yeah I expect paid DLC and season pass in your face, now you are buying for a game you are renting
subscribers go up, execs celebrate win, get bonus, price goes up, subscribers go down,
execs dont care, got their bonus,
If it works CEOs and shareholders get a payday and if it doesn't even more studios get closed by MS so CEOs and shareholders get a payday.
It will sell on PC & PS but as long as COD is for rent on Gamepass it will not sell well on the XB platform. Most folks such as myself that like COD just for the campaign would rather rent it for that month instead of paying $70 plus tax for the game.
Your smart.
its 70 for base plus 10 to 20 for a season pass plus another 30 for there better season pass,
...now you are finally getting how to use GP. No commitments, just play what is offered. if you like it so much and want to keep a copy for yourself... you can buy it when you want to. I used to buy games based on if they looked appealing and have been burned many times on things. With this, I can try before I buy. And I have actually bought several games after having rented them in the service. It literally is like the old days of renting only you get the whole store instead of pay per rental.
I've been knowing how to use Gamepass. I sub the service yearly & I play games on the service that I don't have to pay the full price for such as Persona 3:Reload. I mostly play & pay for games on my PS5 but if a game lands on GP that I'm interested in playing & I don't have to buy a copy for the PS5 I'll definitely play it on Gamepass.
The Xbox brand has done a lot of good over the years, but their various blunders are pretty wild to look back on in their magnitude.
Ironically number 9 can save them at this point (releasing games on multiple platforms)
By “save them” you mean make more profit for Microsoft. Xbox will still be a dying hardware platform.
You could add the naming scheme for the consoles, it just confuses customers. I know they wanted to avoid traditional numbering bc it would always be lower than their competitor, but this whole 360 then One then Series thing is confusing af. Imagine a Soccer Mom trying to figure this stuff out. I still mistakenly call the Series X the One from time to time on accident.
Don't forget about the Xbox One, Xbox One X and Xbox Series X! Good luck to Soccer moms around the world.
They did that on purpose to confuse and direct attention away from the generational numbering.
MS doesn’t like reminding people that they joined the industry after others had already been involved in gaming.
For instance, they called the xbox “360” to combat PlayStation “3” because they wanted to seem like “more” than “3”, so instead of xbox 2, they opted for xbox 360. Also this had the additional benefit of selling consoles to uninformed parents who might purchase a “360” instead of a “3” by mistake, or because they thought 360 was more than 3. Kind of a disingenuous move.
They have been continuing with their confusing naming patterns for pretty much the same reasons. Frankly, it fits with who and what they are as a brand.
I can understand their reasoning, but whoever came up with that naming scheme should be fired, bad naming schemes have killed consoles (I'm pretty sure it was the major reason for the downfall of the WiiU). They should have had unqiue names like Nintendo and Sega have had for their consoles, far less confusing for the consumer.
@FinalFantasyFanatic "They should have had unqiue names like Nintendo..."
lol, you mean:
NES, SNES
GameBoy, GameBoy Advanced, GameBoy Colour, GameBoy SP
DS, DSi, DSXL
3DS, 3DS XL, New 3DS, New 3DS XL
Wii, Wii U
Switch, Switch OLED
Phil Spencer is the worst that has happened to Xbox.
They built a respectable brand up to Xbox one. Then this guy took over and things became a joke
I didn't like either person, both people damaged their respective brands and produced worse outcomes, but Phil did save the Xbox brand from being retired by Microsoft. Although in hindsight, he should have just let it die, rather than languish in limbo like it is now.
Phil Spencer was also on the team back when 360 was around, alongside Shane Kim, Peter Moore etc. I think the damage that did the most harm was the Don Mattrick "Always Online" console (ahead of its time basically). They handed Sony and Nintendo a free-pass when that was revealed. It went downhill from there. Then the corporate machine went into full swing to try and recover. They have to a degree as a games company for the masses, and less so for the core gamer. Outside USA, the Xbox brand does not sell as well as Japanese based consoles (citation needed).
Want a decision maker. The always online and TV plans was a disaster yes, but they caught up by announcing 1st party games that gamers actually kept the hype going.. until this moron took over and introduced the PC day one release.. e all know where that ended..
I dont think they were ever a respectable brand, not since the beginning, when their goal was never to be involved and share in the gaming space. I think the OG xbox was an exception because MS as a brand was still getting its foot in and so the people behind that were people of the gaming industry.
The 360 was the brand in its prime though, everything went downhill towards the end of that generation. Its staple games like Halo, Forza and Gears are what kept the console relevant and afloat for so long.
Really good video.
I remember the days with RRoD was big news on here, N4G.
Microsoft had it turbulence number of years.
Looking at the success of Sea of Thieves despite being 6 years old, time to release Halo, Forza horizon 4 & 5 on PS5. It'll help their revenue
2 of the 4 games they did already sold really well. So it's definitely going down. Idk about halo or forza but I feel those studios they've bought in the last 5 years, their coming
I found this video painful to watch. Can someone list them out?
Top 10 for me from are:
1. 2013 reveal presentation
2. Bundling Kinect 2 with Xbox One
3. RRoD or why rushing to market with hardware is always a bad idea.
4. Buying studios only to close them.
5. Ads on the Home Screen
6. Letting Halo die.
7. Letting Geard of War die.
8. Every console name
9. Charging for Xbox Live on Xbox 360 when Sony let PS3 players play online for free.
10. Cancelling release of OG Xbox games after the Xbox 360 launched.
Microsoft recently revealed its plans to incorporate Copilot directly into video games, with Minecraft being the first showcased example.
F*** AI
"Hey Copilot, what's a good meme to prove I dislike AI".... https://giphy.com/clips/sou...
Two trillion dollar company that just can't wait to put as many people possible out of work as fast as possible.
It feels like every single thing they do is making gaming worse and destroying the industry.
....you know it takes people to program the AI.... right? It isnt like it is sentient. We haven't reach skynet level of situation or anywhere close to the matrix just yet.
That's next Thursday.
It takes a people to program the AI then that AI is used for who knows how many games eliminating countless jobs which only grows as AI is used for more and more game creation functions.
What you're saying is so ridiculously short sighted and truly larking any kind of understanding and foresight.
Why all the hate? Im actually excited about this! Always wanted this kind of immersion, and an AI companion with me all the time helping me out knowing the status of my skills/inventory/progress and giving me tips on the best approach or how to craft something specific is game changing for the industry.
Hate all you want about AI, but this is just the start and I can see the potential already. You wont be complaining in the next 5-10 years about this, but rather complain if a game hasn’t implemented it.
Yes we can't wait for the work of others to be used without the need to pay them so that MS can profit even more from the people they fire.
There is no chance I'd ever use something like this, especially if it's not part of the core game design, but a layer on top of it. It's way too much handholding. Many games already feel like busy work, because they don't let the player figure things out on their own. Having a real-time interactive guide defeats the purpose of playing the game in the first place in my opinion.
If this were to become the standard like you predict, we'll see more and more video games get away with bad design, because people will just be used to ask for help from the AI companion anyway.
Well Nintendo don't need this with some of their games these days, with invincible characters, items, easy bosses etc.. they do the hand holding built in
Interesting if true..... have to wonder what "unstable" would imply.
That title is asking for greenpowerz or elitegamer saying it's the dual gpu they wanted to use without them reading the article. Bit of a worry though if it was to make it unstable something isnt right there
Likely true. Why wouldn't Activision ask about utilising some extra power if they're struggling to hit their 1080p target?
We already know MS are going to work to free up that 10% resource over time, which implies they can't free up that resource now without shutting off the system-level features that use it.
Who the hell is Thuway?