Polygon spoke with Spencer during the annual Game Developers Conference, and though the conversation ranged from the possibility of a handheld console to the trouble with closed platforms, one theme was inescapable: What the hell is going on with the games industry? And how will video game makers and publishers — Xbox included — get out of it?
Former Blizzard CEO says that Xbox should ditch the console strategy and strive to be the world's largest entertainment publisher.
Their console business and GamePass go hand in hand. If they were to stop consoles, they would be, in effect, killing GamePass. The vast majoirty of GP subs are console gamers. If you remove the console, you no longer have 30 million gamers embedded in your ecosystem. The majority will never move to PC gaming and buy a $2000 PC. They will go to Playstation where there is no GamePass.
Could work... if they were publishing anything worth having. Bethesda is just making the same tired stuff over and over. Obsidian is a good studio, but they have been slipping hard. nXile isgreat,bit the last thing they even talked about was wasteland 3. Activision/blizzard is either the devil, or his closest friend.
Even if Xbox only sells 50 million consoles next generation, Microsoft still wins. Why? Because Game Pass is the foundation of their long-term strategy — and it’s working. With 35–40 million subscribers paying monthly, Xbox doesn’t need to dominate hardware to be highly profitable.
Here’s the real model:
Xbox sells a console.
Players sign up for Game Pass.
They buy accessories.
Microsoft sells games on other platforms, which ironically pushes Game Pass even more: “Why pay $80 for this game on PS5 or Switch when you could play it for $20/month on Xbox or PC — and access hundreds more?”
Let’s break that down: $80 for a single new game, or four full months of Game Pass with dozens of AAA titles, day-one launches, and rotating third-party hits. For a lot of people — especially casual gamers, families, and budget-conscious players — the choice is obvious.
Most subscribers aren’t hardcore gamers hunting for deals. They pay full price month to month, often seeing it as a low-friction, all-in-one gaming service. Microsoft is counting on that — and it’s paying off. A large percentage of users also forget to cancel subscriptions, meaning passive revenue continues to roll in until they notice. That’s the psychology behind the success of the subscription model across industries.
And don’t forget Microsoft’s first-party firepower. With all the studios they’ve acquired, they’re in a position to release at least one major exclusive every month. Combine that with partnerships to bring in second-party and third-party titles, and Game Pass becomes a constantly evolving platform — not just a library, but a service with momentum.
Bottom line: Xbox isn’t going the Sega route. They’re not stepping back — they’re going deeper. Game Pass, not hardware, is the centerpiece of their strategy. The console is just the gateway
PlayStation boss believes that $80 games are affordable due to the value they provide. Using Mario Kart as an example, he noted that it offers numerous hours of gameplay with just one purchase.
He never said anything about affordability at all. He only commented about the perceived value that a game can have to a player that gets many hours out of it.
Again, as with many other forms of we are disrespected and lied to.
Title says Yoshida said $80 games are amazingly affordable. This is a lie.
Perceived value is subjective, so how do you even argue for it? If one person says $500 was worth it because they played a game for six months, what does that mean to someone who didn’t share that experience or see that value?
This is exactly where corporate thinking falls apart. The value is defined by them, and then they twist the logic to defend it from a purely internal, out-of-touch perspective.
I’ve never based the price of a game on how long I’ve played it. There’s a standard price range that consumers feel is fair. If it were truly based on time or value, Resident Evil 2 Remake would cost $20, and Final Fantasy VII Rebirth would be $1,000.
@Crimson
"Perceived value is subjective, so how do you even argue for it?Perceived value is subjective, so how do you even argue for it?"
I think his point is that it is subjective.
Honestly, expedition 33 is a prime example of quality for the low. Expedition 33 launched at 50$, and that game gave me more fun than most 60-70$ games I’ve purchased within the last decade.
Clearly, they want to increase prices. They need to convince people that it’s not so bad. As long as they can do that, they can do whatever they want. You gave an outstanding example of the direction things could go if creators were focused primarily on The community and quality. If that example or a few others like it didn’t exist, it might be hard to convey to many how it is even possible.
I get the concept.
People buy movies for $20-$30 dollars that offers only a couple of hours of enjoyment.
While games offers 3-10+ times the amount of hours and content.
So in theory yeah I get it.
But I will never accept it and would rather keep the price now or even better PS360 price lol
On the surface ye that makes sense, but when you realize the budgets are very comparable, you realize it's kinda stupid and overpriced especially when it common for it to be released unfinished
Not really, movies that have similar budgets have the box office where if they arent a flop- they typically make all their money back or a profit. Movies have a much wider audience. Games however just have that release and have a smaller market.
Are many people buying movies for $20-$30? Outside of the more dedicated movie goers who have a physical collection, I imagine most rather scoff at that and stick to things like Netflix instead.
You also have to take into consideration that most games are enjoyed by one or two people, while movies can be enjoyed by a group of people who are either friends or family.
Another thing is that the value of an entertainment product cannot be judged based on its length, but how it makes the user feel when it is all done.
An example of this is Ubisoft games. They can last close to or exceed 100 hours, yet many people hate on them for doing things to pad the length of the game, while Uncharted 4 and other Naughty Dog games average about 15 hours in length and are hailed as some of the best games of all time.
The value of an $80 all-you-can-eat buffet is undeniable, making it curious why some people choose a $20 restaurant for a single, standard meal.
In a similar vein, movies, despite their higher production costs for a two-hour experience, outperform video games in revenue while also being priced around $20. Suggesting that video games need 100 hours of diluted gameplay to compete seems like a misdirection. The real solution might lie in re-evaluating how their core offering is valued.
Individual movies yes, the movie industry as a whole? No, the movie industry is dwarfed by the behemoth in terms of revenue that gaming is.
Lol so rich people want to speak for my wallet now? I still haven’t adapted to 70$ yet, and not planing on to. I don’t mind waiting on sales.
Square Enix president Takashi Kiryu discusses the dropping player count of Final Fantasy XIV and the numerous projects of YoshiP.
Also who wants to keep paying a monthly fee every month, there are other options like Guild Wars 2 😁with no monthly fee and while not that many people overall compared to FF XIV, it did increase to about 21 mil now.
I prefer to pay since i do not like guild wars and it keep kids away, but FF14 decreased on quality since they started to make it "more accessible", tried throne and liberty and while it was okay it has so many issues, same for dune awakening... Its time to start making a new FF MMO
Looks like Square Enix is self-aware but still stuck in place, they see the player drop and apologize for the bugs, but nothing really changes. Shame, FFXIV used to be the gold standard
My entire free company has stopped playing. The writing has consistently gotten worse and the content is sparse and lacking; unless you are a hardcore player there's very little for you to do. They are over-catering to the people who will grind three+ times a week on a single fight for multiple months when the playerbase by large doesn't want that sort of content. Square needs to dedicate more resources to the game instead of wasting them on mobile and other live service slop.
The biggest factor for me is the way they butchered job design over the years , the casualization and over simplification really hurt a good chunk of enjoyment I used to have . Jobs lost any form of complexity and just became " press glowing button" DDR style for fighting where the gameplay loop is a about the 2 minute burst window . They removed most DoTS, timer mechanics , cast times, pets, RNG ect and all around homogenized everything . When you try and can cater to everyone ... you cater to no one .
“You can’t succeed unless you draw in customers from other publishers and other platforms. And because you’re not finding new customers with the games that you’re building, everybody’s kind of fighting over the same-size pie.”
People are going to twist this into him saying that Sony is bad for exclusives but what he is really saying... what he is trying to shout from the hills to the Xbox faithful, is that Xbox can not remain exclusive if you want them to ever take risks or make big games again. The back and forth game the PR team plays with the fanatics has to stop. Spencer doesn't know what Sony or Nintendo is going to do , but he is taking the Xbox games and putting them everywhere and thats how its gonna be. Going multiplat is the only way to GROW. Full stop that is what he is saying.
I don't think Phil Spencer is the one you want to ask this question. Are you sure he wasn't the one who asked it?
I won't bash Phil as much as I think he and his leadership team deserve, however, the data is showing the XBOX WW sales are nearly life support levels. Redfall failed - Star Field decent. What about those issues?!
Nothing is really wrong with the industry. More like: what the hell are video game makers doing? I’ve very rarely have I seen the disconnect between what gamers want to play, and what makers are trying to sell this wide.
What's the point on invest $500 on a ecosystem, that you will have on another console plus the other console exclusives. Why this made sense for Phil, get new customer but losing the old ones.