[The Verge]: Microsoft says it needs games like Hi-Fi Rush the day after killing its studio
- Thread starter Celentano
- Start date
If the floodgates are opening on Xbox titles making their way to PlayStation and Nintendo consoles, I would imagine the lions share of those customer bases would just buy whatever games of interest and not bother with another subscription service.
Plus I can't imagine Game Pass existing on the other consoles as anything but bespoke versions that only have Xbox/MS studio titles. PlayStation isn't going to allow a full blown Gamepass on there as a competing service that shares several of the same third party titles. Nintendo's hardware doesn't have the horsepower for current gen AAA Xbox titles, so at best you'd see the Grounded/Pentiment level games on there which would be another bespoke version of Gamepass. Stranger things have happened, but I doubt the feasibility of that.
Edit: and as someone pointed out above, both Nintendo and PlayStation are trying to preserve the value especially of their current offerings. Gamepass serving you up hundreds of games highlighted by day/date xbox releases for the price of a Starbucks coffee and sandwich is the anti-thesis of that.
Last edited:
Sony and Nintendo don't want gamepass on their systems because it trains consumers not to pay for games.
Not even remotely close to that happening. I understand why people are worked up over tango but too many posts are way beyond reason.
The purchase of Activision basically killed Xbox autonomy from Microsoft. Now instead of being a simple side project, it's treated like the rest of Ms products like office apps and azure. And since Xbox sales are terrible even relative to Xbox one, and game pass is not growing anymore, Xbox team lost all leverage. Now they are told to fix it now hence all of this shit. They completely abandoned the original strategy of getting best talent and making best games. It's all about making a lot of money.
I think people focused on long term consequences instead of immediate ones.
We're pretty much at the "Xbox should end Day 1 Gamepass using CoD's release as an escape valve and re-adjust consumer expectations back to paying $60 on Day 1 while getting the game 'free' after 18-24 months on Gamepass".
Only way to rebuild the business model is to go back to the old one where titles can actually earn their $ worth in the market place from sales.
Yeah a lot of Gamepass users will be pissed and most will cancel their subs, but if they have a lot of titles coming out in 2025-2026 those should be able to better stand on their own and re-create that normal revenue/earnings stream, especially if led by CoD.
There's way too much cannibalization and loss of sales from the current approach; games like Hi-Fi Rush (and most other AA games) can't justify their existence because they cost too much to make relative to their Gamepass engagement metrics and they don't bring in any actual revenue from sales (with no microtransactions on Hi-Fi Rush).
Only way to rebuild the business model is to go back to the old one where titles can actually earn their $ worth in the market place from sales.
Yeah a lot of Gamepass users will be pissed and most will cancel their subs, but if they have a lot of titles coming out in 2025-2026 those should be able to better stand on their own and re-create that normal revenue/earnings stream, especially if led by CoD.
There's way too much cannibalization and loss of sales from the current approach; games like Hi-Fi Rush (and most other AA games) can't justify their existence because they cost too much to make relative to their Gamepass engagement metrics and they don't bring in any actual revenue from sales (with no microtransactions on Hi-Fi Rush).
The guy seems to have cherry picked a bit there, if you read the whole article the actual developers even state:
I'm not defending Matt Booty as I think what MS did the studio is awful and incredibly short-sighted but at the same time this one comment is open to interpretation.
It was supposed to be a small project from Tango. And people probably see it as this weird, sort-of AA title. Or people are like, "Oh, they made a nice indie game." This ain't no indie game. Obviously, I can't say how much it cost, but it was not a cheap game to make.
For the first two years I would say it was a small project. But what John wanted to make was not a very small thing to do. We needed to get more and more people to help. In my mind, small projects would be maybe 20 to 30 people for two years. We ended up developing for about five; I wouldn't call it a small project at all.
I saw all the tasks that went into it, and those tasks were huge. I would never call it a small project. Maybe if you look at things from a budget perspective, or relatively speaking to a higher budget game, you might have a different view. But from my perspective, I worked on it and I've seen the amount of tasks that had to go into creating it.
Back when I thought that xbox would actually treat their studios with respect and give them appropriate Security and funding, I would have loved to see them go for Sega. The original Xbox always felt like the closest thing to a new Sega console. But now, I don't want xbox near any developer I appreciate. Make great deals for game pass or exclusivity for select titles, sure. But no more acquisitions
They made a purchase of $70 billion.
Genuinely, are of all Xboxs sales from inception to today close to $70 billion? Software and hardware profits all together. I feel like that number is utterly insane.
Yeah, exactly!
And as I mentioned somewhere before, TV and Film have significantly smaller production times than a video game. A television series may have a much longer shoot, since it's multiple, maybe hour long episodes in a season, but you can still knock out pre-production, shooting, reshoots, and post production in 1-2 years, and get a high quality piece of content to release over the course of a few weeks (about 2-2.5 months if you're a 10 episode season), which at least may keep your audience subscribed for that window.
And with budgets being a bit more manageable depending on the production (ie, a prestige drama won't have the same budget as a genre series/film), the ROI on such a production can be achieved a lot faster, and with, like you said, the sheer number of subscribers to the service, so streaming services can do two things that the gaming industry isn't built for: rapid content creation, and cost effective content creation.
Even the best smaller scale games take a while to release. If the team is small (meaning less development costs), that often means that it might take longer to produce. You could add more staff to get your A scale game made quicker, but that increases development costs.
And as we've seen, a lot of modern gaming audiences aren't as receptive to smaller scale games in the same way they are to the Spider-Man's, Fallouts, Elder Scrolls, The Last of Us's, etc, etc.
"Prestige" gaming is just too expensive on all fronts (time, resources, budget), to fill out the demands of a Netflix for gaming type service, even if you have a bunch of studios cranking away on a bunch of different projects.
And yeah, like you said, the smaller teams are going to feel the brunt of these "cost saving" measures, regardless of how talented the studio is. And again, like you said, in order for Microsoft to achieve what it wants with GP, they'd need more than just 30 million subscribers. They would very much need subscribers in the hundreds of millions, and that's just not going to happen when your platform has only reached 30+ million players (on the dedicated hardware front; series X/S), and who knows how many on PC (where most PC users prefer Steam, and with the constant insane discounts and Humble Bundles you see on PC, many PC gamers don't mind just buying a game outright, instead of subscribing to a service).
Ultimately, I have a feeling that in hindsight, we're going to look back at GP in a very different light in terms of the impact it has had on Microsoft.
With that said, I think the real issue is that acquisition of Activision-Blizzard. $70 billion is just too much to recoup
Last edited:
I think this is the big thing with Microsoft. Before, the heads of MS were more than willing to give them all the room they needed to run the xbox division without interference. Now they've spent upwards of $70 billion dollars and the heads of Microsoft are going to want to start seeing a return on that investment. You could see it in the January layoffs, any part of Activision-Blizzard that wasn't performing well got restructured or straight up cut. The OW team, the Diablo team, the CoD team, and the survival team were all struggling to a degree and as a result they got restructured or cut entirely. The Warcraft team, the one team that has been performing well, went basically ignored in all this.
You could also see it in the games they chose to put on other consoles: largely live-service titles that perform at their best when as many people as possible have access to them. Basically punching up the performance of those titles so their earnings potential is optimized and maxed out.
The heads of MS are cutting out whatever they view as either dead weight or just not working, regardless of anything else. It looks like the whole xbox division is going to get trimmed down until what's left is what is "working" and making them money. After that, once they figure out what is working and why, they might start expanding again.
The whole thing is very cold blooded and corporate. They basically said that they're going to make their money back and ensure their purchases are "worth it."
Jesus Christ these people running Xbox are just so fucking stupid.
It's ridiculous at this point. There are just neon signs pointing at all of these people saying 'I am horrible at my job' and somehow they stay employed.
100% they are sending Hellblade 2 out to die so they can kill Ninja Theory.
"Unfortunately because we didn't market it and forced them to give the game away free on Game Pass day 1, shockingly no one chose to pay $50 for it, and it didn't meet our sales expectations. So we are shutting down the studio effective immediately." — some idiot at Xbox, two months from now
It's ridiculous at this point. There are just neon signs pointing at all of these people saying 'I am horrible at my job' and somehow they stay employed.
100% they are sending Hellblade 2 out to die so they can kill Ninja Theory.
"Unfortunately because we didn't market it and forced them to give the game away free on Game Pass day 1, shockingly no one chose to pay $50 for it, and it didn't meet our sales expectations. So we are shutting down the studio effective immediately." — some idiot at Xbox, two months from now
It sounds unrealistic but I think Xbox would be best served if somebody there could put together a bold 2 year vision of undoing Gamepass Day 1 (using CoD and upcoming major releases as an excuse for the change) and just return to focusing again on banking as many sales of AA and AAA titles in the first 12 to 18 months before those titles reach Gamepass.
Would Gamepass shed 50% of its customers quickly? Yes, but ultimately, it'd probably be able to build a more sustainable business after the initial hit of losing those customers (so timing it around the next CoD makes the most sense given that will have huge immediate sales numbers), and their AA and AAA titles would have a chance to bring in real revenue as opposed to just the subscription revenue that's being accounted for by their usage rates.
As it is, I don't see how the smaller studios at Xbox have much hope of survival. None of them can be justified under the current financial math of Gamepass unless they become viral Helldiver 2/Palworld-like hits and that's incredibly rare: a business plan based on a remote hope isn't really a viable business plan at all.
This whole "If they don't put COD on Game Pass Day 1 a bunch of people are going to unsubscribe to Game Pass" thing is kind of nonsense.
So they unsubscribe to Game Pass. What are they probably going to end up doing? Dropping $70 on COD and buying a GP Core sub to play online anyway.
So they unsubscribe to Game Pass. What are they probably going to end up doing? Dropping $70 on COD and buying a GP Core sub to play online anyway.
People won't unsubscribe but new customers won't subscribe and Microsoft needs Game Pass to grow. Yeah, if they don't put COD on Game Pass, then they'll just get $70 from everyone like series does every year. But the problem is that Microsoft has all those other games they making which depend on Game Pass subs or a significant amount of people also buying them individual for $70 each.
MS is going to do whatever brings in more money. That's where they are at this point. They just spent $70 billion and are looking for a return. If putting it on GamePass is what's best they'll do that, if selling for $70 a pop is they'll do that. The Xbox division is about to get leaner and more profitable, that's their goal in all this.
They'll jump to PlayStation and cause MS to loose even more ground.
MS would still get paid their $70 (minus 30%). Have to remember they're a massive third party publisher now. People buying their games on PlayStation isn't a loss at all.
They used up too much of the warchest to buy Bethesda and Activision. Now the people in charge of the warchest are wondering what they're doing.
Nah, that's wishful thinking from Sony dudes. Their goal is the maximize profits right now. I'd pay close attention to whatever console revision they push next. That should give us a hint as to where they're going.
well see, but if im right you'll owe me $3 so i can get a dunkin donuts coffee
I'll give you a month of era clear, valued at $4, if you're right.
Honestly though, I expect them to ditch the loss-leader strategy they've been using until now and go with something like Nintendo has been doing and focus on turning a profit with every transaction.
Yeah, basically we are seeing how the real MS treats an underperforming division.
MS would lose out on GP Core subs, the 30% cut from other games and mtx, accessory sales, which is worth significnatly more together than the 70% of $70.
Yeah, that $70 billion ATVI acquisition is the real albatross around the neck of MS going forward.
I know that their gamble was that the ATVI purchase would provide them access to their library of games, the billion dollar CoD IP, and perhaps be enticing enough to drive sales of Xbox Series hardware and GP subscriptions, but they started this generation at a major disadvantage due to the Xbox ONE not performing as strong as the Xbox 360, with many of those 360 gamers (over 80 million units sold), not converting over to the Xbox ONE, thus exiting the MS ecosystem and probably buying a PS4 instead (Xbox ONE sold 57 million units, the PS4 sold 117 million units, so it looks to me that the PS4 gained an audience, while the Xbox ONE lost an audience moving from PS3 to PS4, and Xbox 360 to Xbox ONE respectively), or moving to PC gaming, as PC's capable of playing modern games well have become more affordable to many gamers/gaming families.
spoilering for length:
The point is, MS didn't see the growth they were expecting, in a time frame that is acceptable to those at the top, and now they're cutting costs in the only way they know how; by laying off people and closing studios, since those are the largest contributors to cost. It's cold blooded and corporate, but it's also the most pragmatic thing to do. It's just fucking heartless and bullshit, and people's lives are being impacted by this shit. It's frustrating, and disgusting.
Like you said, they're now going to really start focusing on the "stronger" bets that have a better chance of making money.
Unfortunately, this very much means that smaller studios, and studios not making games that have the potential to be mega hits, should be on high alert.
The thing that's so absolutely short sighted about this is that you never fucking know what the next big thing is going to be.
We literally now live in a reality where Helldivers of all things, has become a major IP for Sony now. 6 months ago, not a single damned one of us would have had "Helldivers 2 is going to be a viral, critical, and commercial success" on our Bingo cards.
Success is the hardest thing to predict in this industry, so, instead, you just let talented developers do their thing and support them in the ways you can to guide them into producing their best work. Then you put it out there, market it, get it into player's hands, and let the game do the work.
Hi Fi Rush could have possibly done much better had it not been a GP game Day 1, and instead, maybe something like PlayStation does with Game Trials, where you get 2 or so hours to play the game, and then you can choose to buy it.
I got Alan Wake 2 for free when I purchased my gaming laptop. Since I'm mostly using that laptop for a project I'm working on, and not to game, I ended up instead downloading the AW2 PS+ trial, and finally gave it a shot this weekend. I will now purchase that game thanks to that game trial as soon as I'm able to.
I was sold on Prince of Persia: The Two Crowns, because of its demo.
But back to Hi Fi Rush, I think a game trial would have done better for Tango than having the whole game be offered up on GP Day 1. It was already getting the critical acclaim. A trial would have been enough to give gamers a taste of it, and many of those 4 million players they said played the game on GP, probably would have bought it after.
Like you said, they're now going to really start focusing on the "stronger" bets that have a better chance of making money.
Unfortunately, this very much means that smaller studios, and studios not making games that have the potential to be mega hits, should be on high alert.
The thing that's so absolutely short sighted about this is that you never fucking know what the next big thing is going to be.
We literally now live in a reality where Helldivers of all things, has become a major IP for Sony now. 6 months ago, not a single damned one of us would have had "Helldivers 2 is going to be a viral, critical, and commercial success" on our Bingo cards.
Success is the hardest thing to predict in this industry, so, instead, you just let talented developers do their thing and support them in the ways you can to guide them into producing their best work. Then you put it out there, market it, get it into player's hands, and let the game do the work.
Hi Fi Rush could have possibly done much better had it not been a GP game Day 1, and instead, maybe something like PlayStation does with Game Trials, where you get 2 or so hours to play the game, and then you can choose to buy it.
I got Alan Wake 2 for free when I purchased my gaming laptop. Since I'm mostly using that laptop for a project I'm working on, and not to game, I ended up instead downloading the AW2 PS+ trial, and finally gave it a shot this weekend. I will now purchase that game thanks to that game trial as soon as I'm able to.
I was sold on Prince of Persia: The Two Crowns, because of its demo.
But back to Hi Fi Rush, I think a game trial would have done better for Tango than having the whole game be offered up on GP Day 1. It was already getting the critical acclaim. A trial would have been enough to give gamers a taste of it, and many of those 4 million players they said played the game on GP, probably would have bought it after.
I agree that MS needs to change course with Game Pass.
Like I mentioned in the above reply, I think doing something like Game Trials for Game Pass subscribers for some of the AA-AAA titles would be a good way to give GP subscribers a chance to "try before you buy," and give studios a chance to make some money without that fear/pressure of meeting some kind of internal metric MS uses to determine how much of a cut of GP the studio receives.
They can still do business as usual for some of the smaller scale titles, or indie titles that land on the service, but for anything with a larger budget and dev time, they should consider not doing Day 1 GP.
spoilering for length:
I swear I read somewhere that Sony regretted releasing Horizon: Forbidden West on PS+ so quickly compared to their usual cadence of putting those types of games on the service after they've reached their audience.
I don't know why MS didn't think a broader initiative to do that would work out well in the end.
The other thing MS needs to do is release more games multi-platform. In particular the larger AA-AAA games. I just think it provides a better chance for their studios to make enough money to support themselves and generate profit for MS. Maybe do exclusivity windows for their first party games on other platforms.
It hits Xbox Series consoles/PC first. 6 months later, it releases on PS5/Nintendo Platforms, but also gets a 2-2.5 hour trial on Game Pass at the same time, then, 6 months after that, maybe it hits Game Pass fully, but even have this be something that is case by case.
Perhaps one of the games hits Xbox Series/PC, does very well, half a year later, hits PS5/Nintendo, but because it already did super well during those first 6 months, maybe it now hits GP sooner, no game trial needed.
Or perhaps it's the opposite scenario; the game hits Xbox Series/PC, and doesn't do so hot, the PS5/Nintendo ports come 6 months later and do pretty well, but the GP 2-2.5 hour trial that hit at the same time as the ports manages to convert to a bunch of Series X sales, or GP subscriptions/subscription renewals.
I'm no businessman, so I'm mostly speaking from a perspective of extreme ignorance when it comes to business tactics, but what I do know is that $70 billion is a lot of fucking money, and unless what your selling has insane mass market appeal and penetration, it's going to take a long time to recoup that money, if you even can.
I personally think it was a foolish decision, and an unnecessary one for MS to make, especially being at such a disadvantage with market and mindshare with the Series consoles, and GP subscriptions not growing fast enough.
I'd love to be proven wrong, and somehow it turns out to have been a brilliant play by MS. But, considering that we just lost 4 studios, and hundreds of people are now out of a job, and their lives made unnecessarily difficult, I'd rather have had them not make the fucking acquisition at all, and just used that money to support their existing studios, and establish new studios (there are tons of studios out there with talented devs that would love to have the financial backing a multi-trillion dollar company) that could work on various types of content to bolster the Xbox division and perhaps spur GP growth.
This whole situation just makes me incredibly sad, and furious.
I don't know why MS didn't think a broader initiative to do that would work out well in the end.
The other thing MS needs to do is release more games multi-platform. In particular the larger AA-AAA games. I just think it provides a better chance for their studios to make enough money to support themselves and generate profit for MS. Maybe do exclusivity windows for their first party games on other platforms.
It hits Xbox Series consoles/PC first. 6 months later, it releases on PS5/Nintendo Platforms, but also gets a 2-2.5 hour trial on Game Pass at the same time, then, 6 months after that, maybe it hits Game Pass fully, but even have this be something that is case by case.
Perhaps one of the games hits Xbox Series/PC, does very well, half a year later, hits PS5/Nintendo, but because it already did super well during those first 6 months, maybe it now hits GP sooner, no game trial needed.
Or perhaps it's the opposite scenario; the game hits Xbox Series/PC, and doesn't do so hot, the PS5/Nintendo ports come 6 months later and do pretty well, but the GP 2-2.5 hour trial that hit at the same time as the ports manages to convert to a bunch of Series X sales, or GP subscriptions/subscription renewals.
I'm no businessman, so I'm mostly speaking from a perspective of extreme ignorance when it comes to business tactics, but what I do know is that $70 billion is a lot of fucking money, and unless what your selling has insane mass market appeal and penetration, it's going to take a long time to recoup that money, if you even can.
I personally think it was a foolish decision, and an unnecessary one for MS to make, especially being at such a disadvantage with market and mindshare with the Series consoles, and GP subscriptions not growing fast enough.
I'd love to be proven wrong, and somehow it turns out to have been a brilliant play by MS. But, considering that we just lost 4 studios, and hundreds of people are now out of a job, and their lives made unnecessarily difficult, I'd rather have had them not make the fucking acquisition at all, and just used that money to support their existing studios, and establish new studios (there are tons of studios out there with talented devs that would love to have the financial backing a multi-trillion dollar company) that could work on various types of content to bolster the Xbox division and perhaps spur GP growth.
This whole situation just makes me incredibly sad, and furious.
They fumbled the ball on THE generation that saw player libraries get entrenched and migrated towards digital. Don't think it could have come at a worse time.
They keep using that excuse, but its just nonsense really. People will buy new tech if it looks good, just look at the Switch. Their issue is that the only difference between them and Sony is that Sony's 1st party is better.
Yeah, you summed up my thoughts way more succinctly than I did, but that's exactly what I was getting at.
The primary reason why I didn't immediately buy an Xbox Series X compared to the PS5 (I got my PS5 at launch), was because my PS4 library is fricking huge, and most of those games I either got through PS+, PS+ Sales, physical copies, and just in general buying more PS4 games digitally than I did during the PS3 generation, when the vast majority of my gaming library was physical.
Being able to play that PS4 library on my PS5, with many of the games running better than they ever did on the PS4, it made grabbing a PS5 a much easier decision.
I bought a Series X last year mainly for Starfield, and a few Xbox, Xbox 360, and Xbox ONE titles (like Sunset Overdrive) I wanted to revisit, or play for the first time, as I didn't own an Xbox ONE last generation (it's weird, it was the first Xbox console I skipped on, as I owned an OG Xbox, and a 360 prior, but my 360 library wasn't particularly big, and mostly on disc, with a few digital purchases).
It was definitely the worst time for MS to fumble the ball, especially after how strongly the 360 performed, and really captured market share, making it a much more competitive platform and contender in the console gaming space. Not for console war bullshit, but just as an additional platform for gamers to enjoy cool games on that maybe weren't available on equally affordable hardware.
Yeah, I agree that a structure built around Gamepass giving trials during the release process (perhaps when titles hit PS5/Switch 2 makes the most sense) seems much wiser than being able to complete the game on day 1 "free".
Personally, I think for Xbox, the strategy should be different at the start of a generation versus mid/late generation. At the start of a generation, they can keep everything exclusive for 12-18 months with a big push for console sales, but after that, they really need to be focused on making sure their games are reaching the broadest audiences and bringing in the biggest sales/revenues.
The ultimate problem with the Gamepass Day 1 strategy is that it ties everybody forcibly to physical Xbox sales and the whole flywheel of "Xbox sale -> Gamepass subscriber" and as we've seen that means none of their developers can succeed because the ecosystem is too small by mid-generation if the hardware isn't succeeding (they pretty much have to be at 50-60 million consoles sold by year 3-4 for the current strategy to work).
So we're at a place where the hardware sales problem is creating a reverse doom loop by tanking the potential earnings of the exclusive games.
The biggest questionmark is whether anybody at Microsoft can see a way out of this mess? They need to develop a more sustainable business or they're just going to be forced to cut down every smaller studio and eventually just become a CoD/Minecraft/WoW/Diablo/Candy Crush publisher...
Last edited:
Honestly just came across one of the few explanations that doesn't make my head implode.
"The thing about Microsoft shutting down Tango Gameworks and Arkane Austin is that it isn't really a case of finance bros not understanding how game development works. Sure, saying "we need smaller games that will win us awards" while shuttering studios which have a record of producing smaller, award-winning games looks dumb on paper, but you need to know how to parse corporate doublespeak.
In brief, they want the prestige of producing smaller, award-winning games, but not the risk. The way you get the former without the latter is by constantly buying up independent studios which already have successful titles in their portfolios, keeping them around long enough to provide post-launch support, crank out paid DLC for their already-proven properties, and finish development of whatever is currently in the pipeline, then dismantle them and shut them down before they get any funny ideas about risking your money on new, unproven projects.
If you're thinking "hey, that sounds a lot like a predatory business model", well, exactly."
www.tumblr.com
"The thing about Microsoft shutting down Tango Gameworks and Arkane Austin is that it isn't really a case of finance bros not understanding how game development works. Sure, saying "we need smaller games that will win us awards" while shuttering studios which have a record of producing smaller, award-winning games looks dumb on paper, but you need to know how to parse corporate doublespeak.
In brief, they want the prestige of producing smaller, award-winning games, but not the risk. The way you get the former without the latter is by constantly buying up independent studios which already have successful titles in their portfolios, keeping them around long enough to provide post-launch support, crank out paid DLC for their already-proven properties, and finish development of whatever is currently in the pipeline, then dismantle them and shut them down before they get any funny ideas about risking your money on new, unproven projects.
If you're thinking "hey, that sounds a lot like a predatory business model", well, exactly."
David J Prokopetz
The thing about Microsoft shutting down Tango Gameworks and Arkane Austin is that it isn't really a case of finance bros not understanding how game development works. Sure, saying "we need smaller ga…
www.tumblr.com
Honestly just came across one of the few explanations that doesn't make my head implode.
"The thing about Microsoft shutting down Tango Gameworks and Arkane Austin is that it isn't really a case of finance bros not understanding how game development works. Sure, saying "we need smaller games that will win us awards" while shuttering studios which have a record of producing smaller, award-winning games looks dumb on paper, but you need to know how to parse corporate doublespeak.
In brief, they want the prestige of producing smaller, award-winning games, but not the risk. The way you get the former without the latter is by constantly buying up independent studios which already have successful titles in their portfolios, keeping them around long enough to provide post-launch support, crank out paid DLC for their already-proven properties, and finish development of whatever is currently in the pipeline, then dismantle them and shut them down before they get any funny ideas about risking your money on new, unproven projects.
If you're thinking "hey, that sounds a lot like a predatory business model", well, exactly."
David J Prokopetz
The thing about Microsoft shutting down Tango Gameworks and Arkane Austin is that it isn't really a case of finance bros not understanding how game development works. Sure, saying "we need smaller ga…
Yep. This is how Microsoft has operated for over 40 years. Find good ideas other people have, buy them out, brag about it, then fire everybody. Then repeat.
This is not new, this is the core business model Microsoft has operated under in basically every industry since the 80s.
Yeah, I agree that they need to have a piece of hardware that is in a better place install base wise in order to have their GP strategy as is "work," at least work as well as it's going to.
Their desire for growth is very much tied to how many people are actually buying Xbox hardware so that would ideal drive GP subs, but, like the gaming industry has shown since pretty much its inception, you need appealing software, and that software has to not really be available anywhere else. That includes PC. Microsoft has almost always had a hand in both markets, with titles hitting Xbox platforms, and PC simultaneously. The key difference was that, in the past, for a lot of gamers/gaming families, PC gaming was pretty cost prohibitive, so having a console like the OG Xbox, or the Xbox 360, was a great way to play some beloved PC games like a Quake, or Bioshock, or Oblivion, so having games available on PC and console back then wasn't running the risk of deterring purchases of your console.
edit: spoilering for length!
Things are different now. While PC's are still costly if you really want to have a beast of a machine, you can still get a pretty great PC that is able to run most modern games well enough, so when your platform has titles available on PC, PS, and your box day 1, there's not much incentive to buy your box over the others. Especially if the other boxes have games that you can't get on your box, which PS still has their exclusives (which they will release on PC after they've run their sales gamut on PlayStation, and the PC sales are a nice extra boost of sales for that game).
The point is, releasing those big titles day 1 on GP isn't a wise move in the long term.
I think Sony's strategy is a sound one for now. On PS exclusively for a year or two, then release on PS+ to perhaps get some subscriptions from folks that didn't grab it day 1, and release it on PC for the audience that 1) Don't own PlayStations, but hear so many good things about these PS Studios titles, and 2) Double dippers that also own gaming PCs and want to experience these first party games in the best possible way on their hardware.
My best friend falls into that latter category. He has a PS5, but he also has a monster of a PC. So he'll play the PS exclusives that he really wants to play day 1 (like FFVII Rebirth; which he bought on PS5), but he's also eagerly awaiting the PC release and will double dip. He did the same with Horizon: Forbidden West. Got it on launch on PS5, played a bit of it, then held off completing it until the PC release.
It's a solid strategy for Sony. Doesn't stop the games from costing hundreds of millions to make, but it still gives them a chance to recoup that investment with direct sales for a year, and then bolster that with PS+ and PC releases.
I don't think Microsoft has to completely gut GP, I just think they need to rethink their First Party Day 1 strategy, because it's clearly putting their very talented studios at risk long term.
The message being sent is that you can have an award winning, critically acclaimed game, and it still won't be good enough to keep your studio alive. It's a very scary situation to be in for their studios. The amount of pressure they're under has got to be immense.
Hellblade 2 comes out next week, and even though I have a Series X and Game Pass, I might just buy it day 1 instead. I've been a fan of Ninja Theory since Heavenly Sword (I might be one of the few folks that unironically loves that game), and I own Hellblade 1 on PS4, but i want to support Ninja Theory, and if they release it on PS5, I'll double dip and buy it on that too.
I don't want to lose talented studios, but I also don't want to reward MS for their foolishness.
The point is, releasing those big titles day 1 on GP isn't a wise move in the long term.
I think Sony's strategy is a sound one for now. On PS exclusively for a year or two, then release on PS+ to perhaps get some subscriptions from folks that didn't grab it day 1, and release it on PC for the audience that 1) Don't own PlayStations, but hear so many good things about these PS Studios titles, and 2) Double dippers that also own gaming PCs and want to experience these first party games in the best possible way on their hardware.
My best friend falls into that latter category. He has a PS5, but he also has a monster of a PC. So he'll play the PS exclusives that he really wants to play day 1 (like FFVII Rebirth; which he bought on PS5), but he's also eagerly awaiting the PC release and will double dip. He did the same with Horizon: Forbidden West. Got it on launch on PS5, played a bit of it, then held off completing it until the PC release.
It's a solid strategy for Sony. Doesn't stop the games from costing hundreds of millions to make, but it still gives them a chance to recoup that investment with direct sales for a year, and then bolster that with PS+ and PC releases.
I don't think Microsoft has to completely gut GP, I just think they need to rethink their First Party Day 1 strategy, because it's clearly putting their very talented studios at risk long term.
The message being sent is that you can have an award winning, critically acclaimed game, and it still won't be good enough to keep your studio alive. It's a very scary situation to be in for their studios. The amount of pressure they're under has got to be immense.
Hellblade 2 comes out next week, and even though I have a Series X and Game Pass, I might just buy it day 1 instead. I've been a fan of Ninja Theory since Heavenly Sword (I might be one of the few folks that unironically loves that game), and I own Hellblade 1 on PS4, but i want to support Ninja Theory, and if they release it on PS5, I'll double dip and buy it on that too.
I don't want to lose talented studios, but I also don't want to reward MS for their foolishness.
Last edited: