From the article: "The question that this raises in our minds is could this be an experiment that might define the future of gaming? It's clear to see that EA is throwing two completely different business models at us. Is the fact that they're using the same game franchise a coincidence? Or is Battlefield the control in a business experiment?
This is scary stuff, when you consider that your actions could have a direct impact on the business model of future EA games (and no doubt other publishers would follow suit). So, which side do you pick? A full-price game with extras that will, even if they don't unbalance the game, enhance your experience by the pound? Or advertising-funded free games with optional extras that the developer is only expecting 5% of people to pay for?
I don't think I'm being melodramatic when I say that the future of gaming is in your hands. With great power comes great responsibility, which direction will you point EA in?"
Microsoft just posted the third quarter of its 2024 fiscal financial results. The software maker made $61.9 billion in revenue and a net income of $21.9 billion during Q3. Revenue is up 17 percent, and net income has increased by 20 percent.
Xbox content + services up 62% while hardware down 31%... seems about right with the way they tout you don't need the hardware to play. People can play on their phones or smart tv or other means. I don't hardly play on my consoles directly since getting devices like the logitech g-cloud and ps portal. Which is to also say I have been playing more digital than physical because of these devices.
you should apply in MS PR team buddy, I think you will do a great job in my humble opinion :)
I can tell people like you are an absolute minority..
If service is up means their fans and fanboys accepted this model and subscribed to it. The near future you will see a big decline because the service is saturated.
But that's been ms for years. When things aren't going their way they try to change the way things are said. For instance console sales are down, they stop telling how many sold instead telling us how many hours spent in halo or headshots. So it makes sense console sales down just say people are playing on more devices then previous. What they won't say is how many xbox players jumped ship to ps5.
Too expensive hardware when others offer the same or more for less? Good work, Green Team.
"Despite some early successes for Xbox games on rival platforms, Xbox hardware is down by a massive 31 percent this quarter."
"Without Activision Blizzard, Microsoft’s overall gaming revenue would have actually declined this quarter."
"Xbox content and services would have only been up a single percent without Activision Blizzard..."
"It looks like next quarter is going to be a similar story for gaming at Microsoft, too."
That is crazy... so A/B/K is carrying the whole Xbox gaming.
Oh and Microsoft will be fine. Windows, Office and Cloud are growing with each pc purchase.
Activision: "we gonna need a bigger rucksack/backpack please"
Microsoft: "why's that"
Activision: "to carry yo' weak ass'
Top brass have also wanted to start seeing returns on the 100 billion they have put into various Xbox related moves so seeing more multiplatform games is highly likely especially from abk
It's basically saying that PlayStation is the reason Xbox is afloat right now thinks to Ps5 versions of COD
As of right now, there are no monopolies in the games industry, and for the sake of the medium as a whole, they never should either.
And yet the biggest tech companies in America are essentially that. They buy up all the small comps only to kill them off and steal what they have, and if they can't buy em they bleed them to death.
Eventually they’ll realize the value is with the employee not the company. Buying an IP means nothing if the people who contributed are let go. They’ll get it one day.
tech is different because they buy threats and then kill them. Twitter bought Vine and did nothing with it. Despite people seemingly liking it. Could've had tiktok a decade before bytedance. go figure.
They buy IPs not talent. That's why these buyouts never work and the IPs die. Right now it's too expensive to develop games - but I expect that to shift maybe as AI tools can make it easier. The best games have been indie games for awhile as big developers fuck their ips to death with "games as a service" -
INDIE Live Expo, Japan’s premiere online digital showcase series , will debut never-before-seen games & content updates across more than 100 titles on May 25th.
If they want to do this, this game should be $40 US/CDN.
You're probably right - if they were releasing just one game.
But they're releasing two games at entirely different ends of the spectrum within the same franchise. Battlefield = guinea pig.
this may become the norm,its a bit sad they want to hold extra content back before the release of a game as well as charging for extra weapons,no will wait for bargain bin or pre owned,no buy some think else feel better already
It's not the only game that has this crap happening. Spore I hear is set to charge for additional creature parts. What happened to the days of user generated content... so what if they don't make money on it. It's set that they'll make less money because they're squeezing for more.
@Tempist - True, this isn't the only game where the consumer is expected to pay more and more cash.
I think it's important that we, as the target audience, make our decision clear on which of the Battlefield franchises we'll be supporting. (Heroes, for anyone who's wondering :P )