X360: Cover shooters are everywhere these days. We chat to analyst Michael Pachter and Gearbox’s Randy Pitchford to discuss why they are taking over…
Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter believes it's an incorrect gamers' perception that Microsoft has lost to Sony.
"If we change what our goal is, we're not losing" attitude. Kind of like how Microsoft didn't lose to Valve, they just changed their business model. And they didn't lose to Android and iOS, they just changed their business model. They 100%, after spending 3 generations competing heavily in console hardware, aren't losing to Sony, they're just changing their business model.
You can't ever lose if you just 'change your business model'!
Patcher predicted that take two would be brought out by ea he knows very little about the content of games and is so numbers focused
Yet I remember that he predicted perfectly that there was no way the acquisition of ABK would not go through and that the FTC and the CMA would fold when all the media had It's basically over kind of news.
He mentioned that MS would outsource COD streaming rights (or deny COD from appearing on GP) in UK.
What's kinda crazy to me is - if they retreat from consoles they're left with a business model that depends on making great games that people want to buy.
What has been Xbox's biggest issue over the last decade or so?
It's not like they're falling back to a strength...
They didn't retreat and even promised the biggest generational leap! Where did you get retreat from?
And just think of all those game franchises that are trapped with them, especially those they bought instead of creating.
@Gamer Yeah, just like the One X was a leap. Just like Series X was a leap. What did they bring to the table.....a leap in games? No, they brought sweet f all. Guys like you just never learn or are just dumb, falling for MS' talk talk talk over and over again.
Business is all about money not actual sales. If I sell 1 thing for 1 million and you sell 10000 things for 900k Who really won.
The person who sold 10000 things because he has developed a consumer base and consistent revenue stream while simultaneously showing that he has the capacity to obtain market share.
The person who sold 1 thing for a million hasnt proven much outside of the simple fact that he can get an idiot to pay a copious amount of money for a single product. Holla at me when he has proven he can do it consistently overtime.
This is a nuanced subject matter
How about the gamers perspective
Xbox as a console business is last in the gamersphere. Pivot after pivot, swerve after swerve. If it wasn't for pc the xbox console would died a while back. Console owners need to choose what's best for them, their experiences or the console owners profits
Great. Guess who is in third place (just talking the main console market, not even including mobile and PC) both on software sales, hardware sales, and video game revenue?
***Chris you might wanna do ya research ***
You're right! It's only 2nd place on revenue. Good on you.
"Based on these revenues, we can see that: PlayStation made $11.3 billion more than Xbox, and $14.7 billion more than Nintendo. Xbox made $3.4 billion more than Nintendo."
Now, do you want to find me proof that Xbox isn't in third on hardware and software sales? They've literally cannibalized their own sales via subscription services and their hardware is well known to be last place.
But, hey, Microsoft is okay losing in every category here, why would they get rid of a part of their business that they are in turn (and wasn't accounted for in 2023 numbers totally since it was distributed over 5 years, 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, and 2027, the cost of their latest purchase) spending more than 7x their annual revenue on.
@Chris I'm glad you did ya research seen you were wrong but you also forgetting this. Revenue isn't everything my friend, remember business is about money
https://www.essentiallyspor...
Oh my days, this is a terrible analogy...
If it was just about money, Microsoft wouldn't be doing a sub model, would they? They are literally making it cheaper than game purchases to get more uptake from more people. The goal is to have enough recurring subs over time to increase revenue (and eventually profitability), but that doesn't work in your assessment because they literally need to "sell 10000 things".
Good grief...
***Revenue isn't everything my friend***
Yeah, you know what that TweakTown report doesn't include? Any of the cost to buy ABK. That makes it a massive loss. Massive.
@DarXyde
That analogy still works, they need to consistently sell those subs to maintain/gain revenue, if they can't constantly sell those subs.
Switch "things" with "Subs", and it still works, but they need to constantly convince people to keep buying that subscription, other people will drop their subscription and revenue will decline.
FinalFantasyFanatic,
I don't think that quite works:
The argument this guy is making actually sounds supportive of Playstation selling a game over Game Pass subs.
Let's take a practical example, Persona 3 Reload.
If Atlus sells you the game at $70 on Playstation and "gives it away" on Xbox as long as you continue to pay for Game Pass, well... Following their logic, wouldn't it be better if fewer people buy it for a higher price than basing it on engagement via more people on XGP? How many people would you need to play P3R on Game Pass to get the same revenue?
Eventually, the latter *can be better*, but there is the matter of a larger install base on Playstation and XGP subs are a fraction of Xbox gamers.
It's a bit ironic and I think biases are on full display because what Philly boi is saying is, in principle, more supportive of the PlayStation model, but the thing is, PlayStation has both a higher price of access AND a larger pool to pull from.
If we want to talk about the manufacturers themselves and hardware, Xbox can be purchased cheaper than PS5, but it is still getting trounced in number of sales and price of admission.
I don't really see how this argument works.
The console war we've been watching for the last two decades has been what I find interesting. I don't really care how much profit MS can make by buying King and running Candy Crush any more than I care how much money they make bleeding businesses for MS Office licenses. That's boring. The fun thing to watch has been the work these companies have put in to try to win the console market.
Replies(4)
The obvious rebuttal to Pachter's cray cray notion is that you wouldn't have to change your model if you were winning.
Or "those who win get to change their business model."
Fanboyism ends at a brick wall of "big company no care about whether you like or hate them, get a life."
Sony said similar things when their Walkman was beaten by Apple and when Samsung surpassed them in the TV market. I can go on and on but I'm sure you get the picture. Business is business. All companies take a whippen every now and and then. The difference is how you bounce back. Microsoft net worth has grown over the years. Business wise they are very successful and no matter what, sony would love to be where they are financially. Sony isn't the competition microsoft worries about. That been clear for a long time now. Microsoft wants gaming to be a part of their ecosystem. Sony needs it. Big difference there.
There's a lot wrong here.
First, the attempt to turn this argument into one about other failed businesses. Which, surprisingly, you make the argument I'm making but then...
Second, the attempt to confirm that Microsoft isn't competition when Microsoft admitted in court that they are.
Third, the attempt to act like Microsoft, from a business perspective, doesn't need what they spent over $100b to acquire but Sony does? Laughable.
Businesses are about profits. If you stop earning enough profit in a division, it goes away. Simple as that. Xbox is a division competiting against Valve, Epic, Sony, Nintendo, Android, and iOS. Simple as that. Xbox, to remain 'part of the ecosystem' needs to not cost the company more than it brings in. Simple.
They actually won.
The whole point was to force Sony into playing ball so that they could not put “windows” in more jeopardy than it was at the time.
Apple, Google, then Sony innovating while partnered with Linux…
When will people realize it has never been about gaming as to why Microsoft got into gaming?
Trojan horses people.
With the way Linux and Steam Deck are going, Linux might one day catch up to Windows, it's doing pretty well for gaming these days compared to say, 10 years, or even 5 years ago.
I don't understand who u r saying won...
But I agree in that I wouldn't be surprised if Windows was part of the calculus for MS supporting Xbox. The OS was based on Windows at first and Xbox One kinda had two Windows instances if you count the hypervisor.
But, like the console space, I think MS is walking back on OS domination. Apple and Google completely ate their lunch because....surprise surprise they innovated. I'm 100% confident the reason Phil talks (and shows) about the Asus ROG Ally more than Steam Deck is because of Windows. The Steam Deck has to sting for them.
Well, yeah, that's the point. They're too big-a-company for fanboy stuff to be at-all relevant.
Well last I checked a company goal is to make more and more money,
Nintendo could be an example of how they stopped trying to compete with Sony (during the Gamecube day) and decided to focus on a different market and reinvented themselves with the WII.
They reinvented themselves with the Switch by bringing 2 markets together when ppl said that portable consoles were doomed thanks to cellphones and tablets.
Sony's business models also changed when they decided to port games to PC something that was never supposed to happen.
If Xbox exits a market (consoles) to focus on another (games) I guess I don't care anymore. They lost the console market and pretty much the same companies that have been there before making games are still there flying a different flag. If they suck, other companies will eat their lunch by making better games.
How's this guy still around. According to him consoles were dying after ps2, ps3 Era.
Analysts are never wrong, the market just had a swift change for which no one could account.
In his Gametrailers past I’ve found Pachter to be friendly and entertaining. However he’s always blindly predicted Xbox success even up to the start of this generation. Now Pachter has adopted and repeated the new terminology of Microsoft, that it hasn’t lost the console war, it just wants more business. This is illuminating because it suggest he, like Tom Warren at the Verge, is inline with Microsoft’s PR strategy.
He was the only person who completely nailed how the ABK court case would play out. When everyone said the deal was dead, he said no and stood firm and said MS would do exactly what they did.
Did everyone say the deal was dead?
Most analytics said it would go through, but be delayed, which actually was the case.
Thing is, if fanboys understood business, they wouldn't be wasting their time commenting on gaming websites.
And you are here to lecture the rest of us because you understand business and MS is doing great?
Technically Microsoft is doing great, it's just not in gaming, OS and software (e.g. Microsoft Office) is where they're doing great business. I can't think of many other ventures they've had that has worked out for them, despite resorting to some of the same tactics that made them the dominate OS for computers.
Microsoft own things like Microsoft Office and Windows, games are secondary to them. If Xbox shut down the computer company will be ok
They only way that plan works is if people still want to play in their ecosystem.
Eventually, they’re ecosystem needs more games.
Helldivers 2 could swing Xbots to ps6 if it isn’t countered by the end of the gen.
Supposedly some well known Halo modders will be making a mode similar to Helldivers.
https://gamerant.com/halo-i...
Without procedurally generated levels, they’ll face the same problem as Destiny: fighting the same enemies in the exact same arenas does get repetitive eventually.
Helldivers succeeds as a GaaS because of its unusually well implemented use of procedural level creation. That, paired with its fun enemies to kill, makes it a GaaS with a long lifespan.
There is a pretty good chance that those with XB also have PS, but not the other way around.
What kind of Jedi mind tricks do you have to come up with to get through your day?
What is the point of always having to lie or make shit up just to win? It's like cheating to win how can you feel like you accomplished something?
I haven't bought an Xbox since the 360 days, just stuck with PC and PS, sometimes Nintendo.
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell has been out of action for a decade, so it's time to look back at 2013's Splinter Cell: Blacklist.
Sam Fisher is evidently the most skilled stealth operative because no-one has seen him in his own game for years
why make an inspired game that takes effort when you can half ass it with multiplayer gaas games and filler filled assassins creed games?
That question up there is the reason you don't see splinter cell games
The entire mark and execute system belonged in another game.
It’s cool, but the polar opposite to how Sam Fisher initially handled.
The original trilogy made shooting very, very difficult, yet a viable option, which ultimately motivates stealth.
The mark/execute system makes shooting stupid easy, to the point of why would you even bother trying stealth as an alternative?
Because Ghost is the method fans of the series actually prefer? IMark and execute is never forced upon the player you liiterally never have to bother using it even once throughout Blacklist.
The sad part is that I actually really enjoyed the last game, Blacklist. It may have lacked the iconic voice but the gameplay was excellent, and blended stealth, action and a mix really great compared to most games, where none of the three options felt like the wrong way to play. I really hope they either produce a remake of the original game or a proper sequel.
If EA and Motive Studio plan on remaking all the main Dead Space entries, they have to change a lot of what made Dead Space 3 so divisive.
Simple, do not bother with a Dead Space 3 remake. Rather have a new entry for Dead Space.
Yeah I agree. Make a dead space 3, but have an original story/setting. They’ve proven they can do the game justice, and I think they could evolve 2 in a good direction, keeping a similar tone. I’d love s Dead Space 2 and 3 though. The remake was fantastic. Top tier remake, up there with RE2.
Remaking 3 would need to be a reworked and somewhat changed remake as 3 was flawed in most peoples eyes and the worst entry.
What does Schachter think, though? I wanna see Pachter Vs. Schachter.
Taking cover from fire is a natural thing to do and an obvious implementation in games as they become technically better with time.
We do it in real life. We see it in movies. And we saw it in many other games.
For example, Syphon Filter:DR made good use of a modern cover system almost a year before Gears 1.
Other older games like Time Crisis, WinBack, Kill.Switch, Full Spectrum Warrior, etc, have also used the cover concept.
A "certain game this gen" didn't magically invent the cover system. But did it popularize it for a new generation? Sure.
Learn up, young ones
http://www.giantbomb.com/co... (20 pages)
Pachter is an absolute dimwit.
Every time he opens his mouth, he blows me away with the stupid things he says. And he can play the "I'm wrong most of the time because I can't see the future" card all he wants....but he rarely takes precedent, information, or common sense into account. Even I can predict better than him.
He must give out false info to the industry on purpose. And give good info to the people he works for. That's the only way I can understand him still being employed.
*Smacks Pachter down the back with a steel chair*
Cover isnt a trend, its a natural progression.
Even before games had a cover system, I would play them as if they did, ducking behind objects to shield myself. Its a normal instinct. If you were on the street and something exploded, the first thing you would do is get down.