Starfield is coming to PlayStation (XboxEra); Phil Spencer Responds

[Cladyclad]

And another thing who would thought that if u spend 20s of millions of $ on game development. only to put that game on a service that u could get dirt cheap or free would not make money. That’s a shocking development


make 1 cent of a game when u could made $30 on the same game on your own platform

 

[Gizmo_Duck]

And another thing who would thought that if u spend 20s of millions of $ on game development. only to put that game on a service that u could get dirt cheap or free would not make money. That’s a shocking development


make 1 cent of a game when u could made $30 on the same game on your own platform

It never made sense to anyone but bots

 

[winb83]

If this is true

This would be the death blow for gaming subscription services. I mean I'm not going to cancel the service I prepaid for but I'm not going to subscribe to a service that doesn't give me new games and basically just tries to serve me a bunch of old ones I either didn't want or passed on buying and could get dirt cheap if I actually wanted.

It never made sense to anyone but bots

A guy that runs a $3 trillion company signed off on that.

 

[Gizmo_Duck]

This would be the death blow for gaming subscription services. I mean I'm not going to cancel the service I prepaid for but I'm not going to subscribe to a service that doesn't give me new games and basically just tries to serve me a bunch of old ones I either didn't want or passed on buying and could get dirt cheap if I actually wanted.

A guy that runs a $3 trillion company signed off on that.

And then backtracked on it.

You act as if Microsoft don’t have a graveyard of failed business decisions to reference

 

[ColdSlither]

This would be the death blow for gaming subscription services. I mean I'm not going to cancel the service I prepaid for but I'm not going to subscribe to a service that doesn't give me new games and basically just tries to serve me a bunch of old ones I either didn't want or passed on buying and could get dirt cheap if I actually wanted.

A guy that runs a $3 trillion company signed off on that.

No it would not. People need to get through their heads that their $15/month or $180/year isn’t going to cover the cost of new releases that cost $100 million to $200 million. A game like Palworld before it blows up sure. Subscription services work, but they’re not a one size fits all situation. Microsoft should have never gotten it’s customers accustomed to getting stuff free all the time.

 

[winb83]

No it would not. People need to get through their heads that their $15/month or $180/year isn’t going to cover the cost of new releases that cost $100 million to $200 million. A game like Palworld before it blows up sure. Subscription services work, but they’re not a one size fits all situation. Microsoft should have never gotten it’s customers accustomed to getting stuff free all the time.

Again it doesn't have to be several $100 million dollar expensive AAA games but it needs new desirable titles. As a gamer if I have to buy the games I want to play outright then why would I wait potentially years for them to come to a subscription service? By that time if I wanted it I bought it already.

Microsoft was pretty much the only compnay pushing a subscription service as a main line of business. Everybody else either didn't have the content release cadence to support it like EA and Ubisoft who then also make it priced too high for the content they release or used the Sony approach and basically dumped a bunch of sold through games on it after they've squeezed all they really will get from them in stores.

Don't need a gaming sub service that has their top end content a bunch of old as hell bargain bin titles that could be had for $20 or less. People were talking about Resident Evil 2 Remake coming to them. I bought that game years ago on Steam. I got that in like a 2 pack with 3 on Xbox for like $20 on a sale. Steam sales and those end of year Black Friday deals make those caliber of games worthless on a subscription service.

 

[Captain Crunch]

How would the compete?

Either give developers freedom Or sell xbox division to Amazon/Steam.

You’re right, MS seemingly leaving the console space is bad for console gamers.

 

[5n0man]

At launch they were.

When they first came to Xbox they came out as a trilogy. And know one was saying Sony was done.

Gta 3 released before the xbox did, vice city dropped the same year as the xbox and both games were ported to the system within 6 months of the console launching. San Andreas released on xbox 6 months after the ps2 version.


All three of those games had standalone ports on xbox before trilogy released.

 

[Ezekiel 25:17]

You’re right, MS seemingly leaving the console space is bad for console gamers.

Let's say Microsoft because just a publisher and do software sales,

What would games would they sell? The whole reason they're in this situation is because they have no games.


I thought about them selling Xbox to Valve/Apple/Samsung.


But then....Microsoft spent so much money. How do you come back from this?

 

[Hip-Hop-Bulls]

Sony stan’s

Put this post in TheColi Museum. Soon, we'll never see it again

 

[Cladyclad]

No it would not. People need to get through their heads that their $15/month or $180/year isn’t going to cover the cost of new releases that cost $100 million to $200 million. A game like Palworld before it blows up sure. Subscription services work, but they’re not a one size fits all situation. Microsoft should have never gotten it’s customers accustomed to getting stuff free all the time.

I’ll just wait for gamepass head ass

 

[Why-Fi]

If this is true

if that’s true it suggests eventual abandonment. in which case they really are competing with google

 

[ColdSlither]

Again it doesn't have to be several $100 million dollar expensive AAA games but it needs new desirable titles. As a gamer if I have to buy the games I want to play outright then why would I wait potentially years for them to come to a subscription service? By that time if I wanted it I bought it already.

Microsoft was pretty much the only compnay pushing a subscription service as a main line of business. Everybody else either didn't have the content release cadence to support it like EA and Ubisoft who then also make it priced too high for the content they release or used the Sony approach and basically dumped a bunch of sold through games on it after they've squeezed all they really will get from them in stores.

Don't need a gaming sub service that has their top end content a bunch of old as hell bargain bin titles that could be had for $20 or less. People were talking about Resident Evil 2 Remake coming to them. I bought that game years ago on Steam. I got that in like a 2 pack with 3 on Xbox for like $20 on a sale. Steam sales and those end of year Black Friday deals make those caliber of games worthless on a subscription service.

I hear you. But what made you think that what you want is sustainable financially?

 

[CoolinInTheCut]

If this is true

This already started happening with MW3 and Diablo 4 not going to Game Pass...

MW3 launched after the acquisition settled and never went to GP, and they never retroactively put D4 into GP like they did with Bethesda titles after that acquisition settled.

 

[daze23]

This already started happening with MW3 and Diablo 4 not going to Game Pass...

MW3 launched after the acquisition settled and never went to GP, and they never retroactively put D4 into GP like they did with Bethesda titles after that acquisition settled.

it was known that those games weren't coming to Gamepass anytime soon, because of existing contracts. but they still haven't shared any of their plans for putting older Acti/Bliz games on Gamepass. I expect them to say something about that next week