Multi-Platform Sales Numbers/Player Count V6
- Thread starter BDK
- Start date
They can’t as it’s a separate part and it’s a service. I don’t know the details but I’m sure what ever is on other streaming services like Netflix Apple PS+ and Amazon they don’t either
Im sure car makers don’t include what it cost to make a tire or whatever else they source that they don’t make into their cost
Critics and industry analysts argue that this is a misleading calculation because it fails to capture the full economic impact of the Game Pass model.
Opportunity Cost: The biggest missing factor is the lost retail revenue from putting a multi-million-dollar game on the service on day one. If the game was sold for $70, that lost revenue is an opportunity cost that should be factored into the service's true economic picture
Studio Compensation: It also obscures the cost of internally compensating the first-party studios for their work being included in the service. If the Game Pass division isn't "paying" the studio division for the game's inclusion (even if it's just a transfer payment on the balance sheet), it artificially inflates the reported profitability of the service.
Microsoft includes the amortized cost of game development in its overall company financials, but they often exclude it when calculating and publicly touting the profitability of the Xbox Game Pass service as a separate business unit.
Why would include it into development if it isn’t part of the development of a game? And why would devs and publishers keep coming back?
Why wouldn't it be if you're offering the service with said games being developed day 1 on the service and losing millions in revenue is the question. The opportunity cost, etc. all factors missing in the equation.
The second question is a separate topic. There is probably a bunch of factors why with it being a balance of money paid up front, exposure along with whether they were already popular titles or smaller indie studios who could benefit from this. Or maybe it is a new IP.
There has been both bad and good things mentioned by devs across the world. It's good to hear both sides for the holistic perspective.
They are not offering a service though, they are offering money to be on their service. Which is like an exclusivity deal. The service even exists prior to any game even existing.
The IP is no longer new if it comes back or they develop a new game, be it in IP out not. Some devs have put their game there and not removed it ever since.
There have been both good and bad, but notice you put “bad” first tho. Most who say it’s bad have never had their games on it tho.
It’s strange though, some of those same people who said it was bad say exclusives are bad but they did it anyways.
I'm talking about their day 1 Xbox games and the cost of making those. Not the third party deals of putting multiplatform games on the service.
If the service is getting those games day 1 then the cost should be implemented into the accounting of said service especially if these first party games have revenue that are supposed to be sustaining and fueling the service.
Why are you talking about exclusivity deals and third party games.
Even then, there is no deal, nor is it part of the developers development of a game, maybe for some IT guy though.
Why should it be when they’re seperate entities with their own separate divisions/departments?
Why not, it’s a similar practice
Money was spent either way , people were paid , work was done . Costs of said games should be on the balance sheet somewhere within the books to account for that to determine proper profitability. Otherwise you're taking all the perks of what the games offer to boast about player numbers but removing all the red of what it costs to make said products. Especially when both Gamepass and Xbox Game Studios operate under Xbox and MS. When it costs money to make said products and they are used on the service for consumers , products expenses should be accounted for. It's really weird not to.
This also just came out today. The costs are correlated (we all knew this) you don't just zero everything out. I mean you can for PR purposes but that's not how real life works. Also remember during the trial, MS said the merger wouldn't increase Gamepass prices ? How many increases have they had over last 2 years since then gives you a good idea.
Who is MS "losing sales" to exactly? Game Pass? They get that money too. 
Who is MS "losing sales" to exactly? Game Pass? They get that money too.
"According to current and former employees, Microsoft CFO Amy Hood has requested that Xbox explore alternative strategies to boost its profitability."
Idk but if their chief financial person is saying it's not enough then...
They’ve been upfront that to them it will cost them some sales, they even stated that in court.
If it was really wasn’t working or burting them then they’d cancel it and move on. Just like they’ve done before in the past. And that’s something we, here, know.
Those that follow anything touching Xbox here know the culprits are Hood and Nutella, hell the latter had an incentive to make it grow but did nothing to do so even at the cost of own pay bonuses. He failed it and moved on.
Its was always going to be a pretty easy "I told you so". People just couldn't see beyond the idea of getting more games on gamepass.
I didn't really expect the argument that it would be good for competition to implode like it has though.
The article is saying they are losing sales to... themselves. That's absurd. They can't steal their own money.
They would have made far more money selling copies of COD than including it in GP where that monthly fee is the same with or without COD. Some people signing up for a month or two is a lot less than $70
So you have all those numbers? Nobody plays COD more than a month or two? BO7 isn't looking as popular, but BO6 was huge (and had no competition. Nothing off microtransactions?
Yes game pass would definitely be $30 without Activision
Its ok to be wrong sometimes
Its ok to be wrong sometimes
