Recently Skewed and Reviewed spoke with Composers Kaveh Cohen and Michael Nielsen about their work on Forza Motorsport and their careers.
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'!
Pachter is full of crap. Always assume the opposite of what he says.
This clown is still around? I cannot remember he ever got one prediction right
He's paid by MS
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?
@Gamer if you don't see it yet, there's nothing i can say to convince you.
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
***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.
ou can do math... well done.... you win
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.
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.