He’s not, he has smoke for everyone. But when you don’t agree with the Xbots, calling you a Sony Stan is a standard tactic.Im pretty sure Win isnt a sony stan
Remedy Games calls out Series S as being a major development hinderance
- Thread starter Gizmo_Duck
- Start date
Dorian Breh
Veteran
Ngl, I thought it was hilarious how Phil gaslit Xbots by saying parity between series X and S was never a thing when he dropped the requirement for BG3. Told them they imagined it 
Good times
Good times
Family Lives Matter
#FLM
Microsoft has been a cancer on gaming the past 8 years
On Series S, the CPU is pretty much the same as on Series X. There's not a massive difference, but the GPU is an issue,Sony stan’s: “Dev calls series S a major development hinderance” “dev says series S i holding games back” “ dev says the series s is a problem across the board” “dev said they had to go out of their way since may to get series s working” “dev says the series s needs special attention and it’s not worth it”
Me:”He didn’t say any of that”
Sony stan’s:”Lying ass meach won’t even believe the developer.
It’s like talking to MAGA. Truth don’t matter long as you can own the xbots
RIGHT THERE. RIGHT fukkING THERE
What?
Activision CEO wouldn't put Call of Duty, other titles on Xbox Game Pass
"I have a general aversion to the idea of multi-game subscription services."www.windowscentral.com
EA only allows old sold through games to come to Game Pass when they hit EA Access
Take-Two CEO Comments on Xbox Game Pass, Subscription Services
Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick once again defends his stance on subscription models by reiterating some core truths about this growing industry segment.gamerant.com
Ubisoft requires you spend $18 to them per-month to get their games
I guess by your argument all these major publishers making business decisions are Sony stans because clearly the data shows they should put all their games on Game Pass and reap the rewards of people spending more yet none of them do day 1 major releases on Game Pass.
I'm sorry buy you're presenting me with internally created Microsoft slides hand crafted to selectively look at the data and say exactly what they want them to say. The truth however is Game Pass is Microsoft's walled garden favorable for them but to external companies in the business of selling expensive to make games not so favorable.
Here's a news flash you can go to any company's investor relations page and get power point slides that sell you on the business model. Even companies that ultimately go bankrupt and go out of business had those slides.
Netflix boast about households that watch their content and you go on their page and a household is counted as having watched a program is they saw just 2 minutes of a program. If I watched 2 minutes of an 40-60 minute program did I really watch? The data you post is even more vague. It doesn't tell me what the conditions of that 50% more spend is on. What limitations they put on the data and what variables they used to reach that number.
Companies employ people to craft and manipulate data to saw whatever they want.
There isn't a 3rd party publisher kicking that could adopt the sub service on the level of any of the big 3.
You are comparing apples to oranges. What they gonna do release their 150 million dollar plus triple A games on a sub service every 10 months to a year and keep people coming back with a limited collection of games? Sure they'll get a small amount of retention, but for the most part they are shooting themselves in the foot.
They gonna license out other 3rd party publishers game to put on their platform?
For Xbox, PlayStation and Nintendo it's profitable to have people paying monthly for your service in so many different potential avenues.
They all are tackling in a way that is best suited for them. PlayStation is even now trying to branch the gaming crowd of PS+ out into their movies, and you got a thread full of Sony stans rubbing their hands together.
It's as simple as whatever you playing on you buying on, and long term the more you are playing the more you are buying.
Also gamepass catches a huge demographic of older players that just buy what is popular and what they see commercials about.
They spend 17 month and play, test and even buy games they wouldn't have otherwise simply because gamepass gets major 1st and 3rd party releases "free". So now when a game that friends are playing that isn't on gamepass is popping they
and drop 70 and play along with them.
Is it surprising the a company with arguably the most successful subscription model in the world is able to leverage that experience?
M365 does exist.
When adobe went to a sub model people was confused too, "adobe is dead" meanwhile in real life I know to women who have adobe subscriptions that don't use it at all, and they never owned a copy of adobe when you had to drop the full price and could only install it from physical media.Is it surprising the a company with arguably the most successful subscription model in the world is able to leverage that experience?
M365 does exist.
I can dig it, I just find it hard to believe “more people are going to stores” because of gamepass.Is it surprising the a company with arguably the most successful subscription model in the world is able to leverage that experience?
M365 does exist.
I’d assume M$ digital game store purchases have gone up. So that data might be based on that.
I’m not sure I understand the argument for doubting the data.
The gaming division list going to lie to C suite and the board with data they all have access to.
Y'all still entertaining Meach
If a business says something about how it operates always question the data. They don't have to lie to you either. Data can be manipulated to say what they want.
They can say on our platform we have 100 million monthly active users. Well what qualifies as a monthly active user? If the guy that turned his device on once in an entire month for 15 minutes counts as they were "active" in those 15 minutes then how valuable is that monthly active user vs the gamer that plays for 100 hours a month and spends $200 a month on average? Not a lie but also the data is padded with bullshyt to make the numbers look better.
The reality is while Xbox says the Game Pass gamer spends 20% more or whatever almost no major third party company is looking to come to game pass day 1 with their biggest games and cash in on that. Their inaction on that front says more than any Microsoft crafted slide does. It says that the 20% number is crafted under conditions that are almost meaningless to major third parties.
This is the same company in the Xbox 360 days that was eager to give data on how many consoles they sold to anyone who would listen. Even now they still know that data but they don't publicize it. Funny though when they wanted to buy Activision they ran to the government and admitted they sold less than half of what Sony did last generation because suddenly that unflattering data they didn't want to give in public served them again. Just like how when COVID hit hard and competition was supply constrained Microsoft was more than eager to have representatives tweet out how the NPD said they were outselling other companies.
Was that a lie? No. But did they tell you that came about because their rivals couldn't get chips and Microsoft could? Not a mention of that. Just a presentation of limited context data to say what they wanted. Today not a peep on that front anymore.
Was that a lie? No. But did they tell you that came about because their rivals couldn't get chips and Microsoft could? Not a mention of that. Just a presentation of limited context data to say what they wanted. Today not a peep on that front anymore.
The data is accurate.
I’m not going to waste time arguing with someone who provided no data in the face of data I know to be good
Iwhen cac tweets are given more credit than company analytics presented to shareholders, why wouldn’t folks entertain Meach?Y'all still entertaining Meach
It ain’t like Sony has dropped any games this year
