Current Events > A Microsoft shareholder grilled them about their lack of Xbox exclusives

(+) Yeah! (+)

Darmik posted...

The thing is that backlash clearly did lose them a whole bunch of sales. If that happened to a subscription service? That would be disastrous. The backlash would be instant for them to see. You gave them $10 last month and now you stopped. They don't know how many BF2 sales they lost.

You do not have that option for retail games. Specific games selling for $60 and an entire subscription service is a vastly different ball game. It's gotta be compared to similar models like Netflix and Spotify. It's new territory for video games. Those are also companies who try and get every possible dollar from consumers. They are no different.

But the point is actual sales figures are secondary to the revenue they make from monetization. Their philosophy is more like the car wash industry than any other media. The initial purchase is essentially irrelevant compared to their attempts to upsell buyers for extra charges. even losing an entire third of your customer base doesn't mean much when you've reached the point where most of your consumers are paying three times the entry price (whether it's a 10 dollar a month subscription or a 60 dollar purchase) to access content that's essentially in the game to begin with.
---

But I'm saying there is no longer an 'initial purchase'

It's a constant subscription. A guaranteed $10 a month that could potentially last for years. I really doubt the people who'd pay $30 a month would overtake the people who would pay $10 a month. $30 a month doesn't sound like a bargain. The people who'd pay that much on games would probably just buy games for full price anyway. There'd be no point.

Individual games could still have microtransactions and DLC yes. But the goal for Microsoft here would be to keep you subscribed for $10 a month. The whole reason Microsoft has lasted this long is because of the people who pay for Xbox Live Gold. Microsoft love subscriptions and I doubt they'd mess with a good thing.

When EA announced EA Access people were predicting all sorts of doomsday scenarios and nothing has happened. Subscription services are good, predictable money. It's everything the $60 retail game isn't. You're not talking about sales figures. You're talking about subscribers and Monthly Active Users. Which coincidentally is exactly what Microsoft talks about in their financial meetings now.
---

Darmik posted...

But I'm saying there is no longer an 'initial purchase'

It's a constant subscription. A guaranteed $10 a month that could potentially last for years. I really doubt the people who'd pay $30 a month would overtake the people who would pay $10 a month. $30 a month doesn't sound like a bargain. The people who'd pay that much on games would probably just buy games for full price anyway. There'd be no point.

Individual games could still have microtransactions and DLC yes. But the goal for Microsoft here would be to keep you subscribed for $10 a month. The whole reason Microsoft has lasted this long is because of the people who pay for Xbox Live Gold. Microsoft love subscriptions and I doubt they'd mess with a good thing.

When EA announced EA Access people were predicting all sorts of doomsday scenarios and nothing has happened. Subscription services are good, predictable money. It's everything the $60 retail game isn't. You're not talking about sales figures. You're talking about subscribers and Monthly Active Users. Which coincidentally is exactly what Microsoft talks about in their financial meetings now.

And once a significant portion of the consumer base have been converted to the subscription service, the potential impacts of turning away users with diminishes, and the potential to exponentially increase revenue from additional montetization grows. You may not think a significant portion of the audience would buy into that, but they would. At some point, i wouldn't have thought a significant portion of players would shell out $100+ on release day just to access all of a games' content, but they do. I wouldn't have thought players would be spending two, three, four even five figure sums on microtransactions, but they do. Consumer dissatisfaction means little when you're essentially using your customers to print money by charging players for basic features and content that was once included in the price of entry. It means even less when every game in town is pulling the same tricks. Subscription services make up a meager portion of the market now, but there's no reason to believe publishers won't leverage it to their maximum ability the exact instant they can get away with it. They have done so with literally every monetization method that's existed so far.
---

I really HATE people who throw in "sort of" and "kind of" multiple times in single sentences as a verbal tick.
---

flussence posted...

these people don't sound even remotely human

Best post, they honestly sound like robots pretending to be Human
---

People have already been subscribing to video game console services for over a decade now and they haven't really changed much outside of the odd price increase. They've actually added value to them thanks to PS+ games and Games with Gold. These subscriptions are valuable, valuable stuff.

I just don't really get the doomsday scenarios. It's like worrying Netflix will suddenly turn into a cable service and add commercial breaks and channels because that's what cable did to customers. One shoe doesn't fit all. They're completely different products in completely different environments. They're not sharing profits with retailers. They're not worried about trade-ins. They're not stressing about a game flopping and being sent back. It's all about adding value to their subscription and growing their userbase. We have constant examples of this. EA and Ubisoft give away games on Origin and uPlay because they want you to use the store and to open an account. A service is simply different than an individual game.

Besides there are always going to people who want to own their games. That's not going away.
---

Darmik posted...

I doubt it. I think Microsoft will be pumping out more exclusives in the next few years because of Game Pass.

Exclusives won't die out, but their importance is becoming less and less as time goes on.

There's a reason that third party game sales on just Xbox One alone outshine most if not all PlayStation exclusives.

Youngster_Joey_ posted...

Darmik posted...

I doubt it. I think Microsoft will be pumping out more exclusives in the next few years because of Game Pass.

Exclusives won't die out, but their importance is becoming less and less as time goes on.

There's a reason that third party game sales on just Xbox One alone outshine most if not all PlayStation exclusives.

Is that right? Care to share some examples of this?
---

Darmik posted...

People have already been subscribing to video game console services for over a decade now and they haven't really changed much outside of the odd price increase. They've actually added value to them thanks to PS+ games and Games with Gold. These subscriptions are valuable, valuable stuff.

I just don't really get the doomsday scenarios. It's like worrying Netflix will suddenly turn into a cable service and add commercial breaks and channels because that's what cable did to customers. One shoe doesn't fit all. They're completely different products in completely different environments. They're not sharing profits with retailers. They're not worried about trade-ins. They're not stressing about a game flopping and being sent back. It's all about adding value to their subscription and growing their userbase. We have constant examples of this. EA and Ubisoft give away games on Origin and uPlay because they want you to use the store and to open an account. A service is simply different than an individual game.

Besides there are always going to people who want to own their games. That's not going away.

They aren't worried about providing value to consumers, they're worried about providing, the perception of value. They instroduced games with gold and ps+...while at the same time removing access to free features like online play or apps like the web browser or netflix. Just like publishers have been doing with games themselves, they've been taking formerly free features and charging for them while pretending they're empowering the consumer. A subscription model for the games themselves will only help further their control over game sales and restrict consumers' ability or interest to just refuse to take part in anti-consumer practices. There is literally not a single instance of the games industry not taking full advantage of potential monetization stream to push severely anti-consumer methods. Not a single one. It's not a "doomsday scenario", it's become the reality of the gaming industry for any player who isn't solely restricting themselves to independent titles.
---

Frolex posted...

They instroduced games with gold and ps+...while at the same time removing access to free features like online play or apps like the web browser or netflix.

No they didn't. Microsoft always charged for online. When they introduced Games with Gold they removed the Netflix and browser restrictions.

PS+ started with games. They started to lock online behind a paywall with the PS4. You can still play online for free on PS3 and Vita.

Frolex posted...

A subscription model for the games themselves will only help further their control over game sales and restrict consumers' ability or interest to just refuse to take part in anti-consumer practices.

Of course you're not going to be able to control sales under a subscription. That's the point. If you want the game you have to buy it separately.

What else is there left for them to do? You pay $10 to access hundreds of games. You don't own any of them. If you don't like a games business model you play another one. If there's nothing else to play there's no reason to subscribe. If you want to own the game you buy it as normal.

Frolex posted...

There is literally not a single instance of the games industry not taking full advantage of potential monetization stream to push severely anti-consumer methods. Not a single one. It's not a "doomsday scenario", it's become the reality of the gaming industry for any player who isn't solely restricting themselves to independent titles.

The game industry isn't some unique thing that's more hungry for money than other industries. They're all the same. Do you have the same concerns over Netflix, Amazon Prime or Spotify?

Of course they're going to take advantage of the biggest revenue stream. The biggest potential revenue stream for Microsoft right now is getting millions of people to subscribe to Game Pass. That's their goal. It's not an easy goal either. They need to entice as many people as possible and get people to buy Xbox consoles or gaming PC's. Saying they're randomly going to add additional subscriptions to play Dragon Age is nonsense. The fear mongering has to at least have some sort of sense. Otherwise you may as well claim that the game industry will randomly charge $120 for games with microtransactions tomorrow.
---

untrustful posted...

flussence posted...

these people don't sound even remotely human

This. Also, both questions were essentially side-stepped in favor of some mindless drivel that makes Microsoft look good. Do big investors really put up with this kind of evasion?

lmfao if sony had done a game pass type thing coffeebeanz would be saying the exact opposite of what he's saying about it now

Darmik posted...

No they didn't. Microsoft always charged for online. When they introduced Games with Gold they removed the Netflix and browser restrictions.

PS+ started with games. They started to lock online behind a paywall with the PS4. You can still play online for free on PS3 and Vita.

The point is, xbox live has added one new service for paid subscribers over it's entire 15 run with games for gold. Other than that, both services have at best either done nothing but charge more for the same service or lock free features behind a paywall. You're not getting a whole lot more out of paying PS+ now than you were when it launched. They are not services that are constantly evolving and adding value for consumers.

Darmik posted...

Of course you're not going to be able to control sales under a subscription. That's the point. If you want the game you have to buy it separately.

What else is there left for them to do? You pay $10 to access hundreds of games. You don't own any of them. If you don't like a games business model you play another one. If there's nothing else to play there's no reason to subscribe. If you want to own the game you buy it as normal.

Like I said, I don't really have much a problem with the access pass model itself, as long as it's not locking away access to any games or content. But the concept of games as services, when individual games are going to be charging their own perpetual fees on top of subscription access on top of all the monetization that exists nowDarmik posted...

The game industry isn't some unique thing that's more hungry for money than other industries. They're all the same. Do you have the same concerns over Netflix, Amazon Prime or Spotify?

Of course they're going to take advantage of the biggest revenue stream. The biggest potential revenue stream for Microsoft right now is getting millions of people to subscribe to Game Pass. That's their goal. It's not an easy goal either. They need to entice as many people as possible and get people to buy Xbox consoles or gaming PC's. Saying they're randomly going to add additional subscriptions to play Dragon Age is nonsense. The fear mongering has to at least have some sort of sense. Otherwise you may as well claim that the game industry will randomly charge $120 for games with microtransactions tomorrow.

Other entertainment products have not been nearly as blatant about extracting excess revenue from customers as the games industry has been. Movies don't lock content away behind paywalls after their initial purchase price, they don't hide footage behind video slot machines. And yes, services like netflix and hulu have slowly started to represent less value to consumers as distribution companies have consolidated who they license content to, and it's only going to get worse the more distributors start launching their proprietary streaming services. The difference is, individual game publishers are going to have a monopoly over their subscription from the jump. And yes, charging $120 for games with microstransactions is already a thing. Of course, they like always try to create the perception of value or player choice by throwing in some bonus items or missions that were just removed from the main game to upsell customers for some extra cash for a "deluxe edition" but like i said, it's not fear mongering when it's something that's already happening
---