During Take-Two's latest earnings call yesterday, chairman and chief executive officer Strauss Zelnick was asked about how the company feels about subscription models from a business perspective.
'If the big companies dictate what games can be created, I don't think that will advance the industry.' -Shihei Yoshida
🙄 same guy who said 80$ is a steal lol and according to him M$ shouldnt put good on a services🤣 wtf
Subscription services have f***ed the movie industry and it's work force, caused massive studio buyups by companies like Disney consolidating huge parts of the industry under one roof and have creatively sterilised the IP's they've gobbled up. The same thing is happening to gaming, MS being the main greedy piggy.
I get what he's saying, but I don’t think we need subscription services to see a lot of the problems he's pointing out. All we really have to do is look at the gaming industry over the last two console generations. Even without subscriptions, the big AAA publishers have already been moving in a direction where almost every game feels like it's built from the same template. It’s all about streamlined, safe design choices that are meant to appeal to the widest possible audience. At this point, you could probably ask an AI to make a AAA game from a certain publisher and it would spit out something pretty close to what they’re actually making.
Now, about the whole “walled garden” thing... that’s not some future problem, it’s already here. Consoles have always worked like that. Their entire business model is based on controlling what gets released on their platforms. Sure, maybe they’re not as locked down as the extreme examples people bring up, but the end result is similar. If you’re not making the kind of game the platform holder wants, you’re probably not getting through the door. We’ve seen it with Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, even Valve does this in its own way with Steam. So yeah, the issue isn’t new or exclusive to subscription services.
Would a subscription-only future make that problem worse? Sure, it definitely could. But I don’t think we’re heading in that direction anytime soon. Unless physical hardware truly becomes a thing of the past and everyone switches to streaming games, I just don’t see subscriptions becoming the dominant model. They’ll stick around as an option, but I doubt they’ll take over completely.
Now, what will take over completely is digital media, and that’s a whole different issue that’s going to hit us a lot sooner. PC and mobile are already basically 100% digital, and that makes up around 70% of the gaming market. The remaining 30% is consoles, and even there we’re seeing the shift. Sony’s removing the disc drive from boxed consoles, Nintendo is releasing just one super expensive 64GB cartridge for their new system, which means almost all third-party publishers will end up going digital and Microsoft is mostly digital already. You either get a digital-only or a physical box with disc that only acts as a activation key. So yeah, that future’s already knocking on the door and the damage will be enormous.
Right, because then you can’t sell individual games at $80, which is an incredible value for the consumer!
Xbox's handheld ambitions continue unabated, but the focus is shifting towards improving Windows 11 for third-party handhelds — for now. The Xbox Series X 'Melrose' successor is safe, with development continuing at full pace.
Funny to see the alt already damage controlling and having a meltdown with multiple accounts in the comments already.
Sad for MS if true, a dedicated handheld would go down a lot better than a rog ally 2 with an Xbox sticker on it I think.
Capcom has removed GFWL from PC versions of Lost Planet 1 and 2 as well as other titles on Steam alongside support for online features.
Of course you’d say that considering GTA5 sold 150 million copies and RDR2 sold 38 million copies. Not every game has that luxury though.
Luckily Microsoft have 23 studios that can put their games on Game Pass and make deals on top of that for some big 3rd party games such as Back 4 Blood day one.
That all makes sense to me. I think getting AAA games for day 1 release from 3rd party publishers will continue to be a tough sell unless MS ponies up a lot of cash up front, which they are certainly able to do if they choose to. 1st party titles make much more sense, thus MS buying up a bunch of developers to increase their 1st party selection. I think MS already understands this, as it seems to reflect their model, which seems to be successful, at least to this point. Most of the 3rd party titles that are available are from indies, AA titles, or older "catalogue" titles from AAA pubs, trying to squeeze the last bit of revenue out of a game.
As far as I can see, that model is working for MS at this point, time will tell if it is successful in the long run. I think it is totally possible, and maybe even beneficial to all if their are a variety of gaming models available, rather than 3 companies trying to beat each other up seeing who can do the same thing the best.
Take Two doesn't have to worry about the console business, Sony also. That's why they're so negative about the Game Pass (less profit). Microsoft is trying to save the Xbox as a brand and they have to make such decisions, mainly because the last generation was so bad.
I think this makes perfect sense and aligns with how I see it. Indies that think they might get overshadowed by other titles might make more and do better on gamepass. It’s a gamble for them or anyone to get on gamepass, but Dave’s garage band 2 might place its bets on gamepass instead of count on individual sales. If Dave’s garage band turns into a mega hit they’d be kicking themselves in the butt because they could have made a lot more with individual sales. Grand theft auto has no reason to gamble. They will give your subscription a few months after it’s been out years.
Even games not as big as grand theft, like Ori would be better off sold individually, but I’m sure Microsoft made it lucrative.
To court these big companies with AAA titles Microsoft has to lay down some big cash and who knows how many guarantees. Yes Microsoft as a whole has money, but in business everything is divisions. They all are responsible for the contribution ($) to the whole. You guys that seem to think “aww Microsoft has money, it’s fine” are sorely mistaken. Even your grocery store has a Produce department for example. It’s sales go to the whole, but if it’s struggling with profitability it lowers total store profitability. That extra $1,000 the Deli made from its sale doesn’t go to the bottom line, it makes up produces deficit. If produce was profitable then delis money would have been money in the bank.
Microsoft as a company, sure it’s fine. All this money spending by Microsoft game division with elusive returns all seems like one hell of a gamble to me.
It’s either going to pay off somehow down the road, or some cuts and positions will be posted.
As a PS5 owner I have to say gamepass makes Xbox appealing now that Microsoft actually has console exclusives coming. But other than Halo this year and Starfield next year, I won't be tempted to pick one up before holiday 2022 at the earliest.