Jump to content

Update (05/15): Microsoft's multiplatform initiative has an internal codename - "Latitude"


Recommended Posts

At this point, the developers and leadership of Microsoft-owned studios must be confused as hell as to what their success metrics even are.

 

Gamepass MAUs?

Unit sales?

What Matt Booty had for breakfast?

 

Because it just genuinely looks like there is zero consistency in what a success evaluation looks like which is indicative of a lack of leadership vision.

  • True 1
  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

At this point, the developers and leadership of Microsoft-owned studios must be confused as hell as to what their success metrics even are.

 

Gamepass MAUs?

Unit sales?

What Matt Booty had for breakfast?

 

Because it just genuinely looks like there is zero consistency in what a success evaluation looks like which is indicative of a lack of leadership vision.

 

Gamespass MAUs would encourage more games to be bloated time sinks to keep players addicted.

 

Until sales are almost a moot point, since for the majority of first party games, Games Pass is likely sabotaging their sales potential.  Especially on Xbox where their audience is being conditioned not to buy.  They’d probably need to do day and date on Nintendo and Sony to get pleasing metrics, short of a breakout hit on Steam.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Execs have created a snake eating itself system where GamePass subs cannibalize individual sales so everything needs to make money as Free to Play/GAAS model but once people start investing in one franchise they won't leave it so it cuts out competitors... but at this point they are all owned by the same few companies so they are competing against themselves. So they keep investing more and more money to fight themselves for the same $$$. The whole system is dumb af

  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SuperSpreader said:

Execs have created a snake eating itself system where GamePass subs cannibalize individual sales so everything needs to make money as Free to Play/GAAS model but once people start investing in one franchise they won't leave it so it cuts out competitors... but at this point they are all owned by the same few companies so they are competing against themselves. So they keep investing more and more money to fight themselves for the same $$$. The whole system is dumb af

 

If this was totally accurate, there would have been no room for Helldivers 2 and Palworld.

 

Microsoft and Sony both risk killing good will for their subscriptions with heavy handed GaAS models.  But Microsoft's day one Games Pass policy is especially destructive to unit sales.  They'd likely need to be a bit more agressive in order for their model to work, especially to weather slower or non-existent growth.

 

Its surprising to me Microsoft hasn't leaned in harder than they are.  Maybe that's Activisions role.  I'm all ears to how they plan to monetize CoD moving forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

At this point, the developers and leadership of Microsoft-owned studios must be confused as hell as to what their success metrics even are.

 

Gamepass MAUs?

Unit sales?

What Matt Booty had for breakfast?

 

Because it just genuinely looks like there is zero consistency in what a success evaluation looks like which is indicative of a lack of leadership vision.

They had a business strategy that made no sense to anyone on the outside.  And was dramatically different to its competitors.

 

It's now in a place where they have a platform that has a very low install base, a revenue model that hasn't brought in the $$$ to cover development costs, and a bunch of high profile games from ABK that they can't make exclusive to their platform to drive sales.  They are exactly where I thought they would end up, and I have no idea where they should go from here.

 

There must be a rationale to the purchase of ABK, but based on where they are today, I don't understand it.

  • stepee 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

There must be a rationale to the purchase of ABK, but based on where they are today, I don't understand it.

 

They either think COD sales can supplement Xbox/GamePass failure or they intended to use it as a killer app for GamePass subs but ended up negotiating it away.

 

I do wonder how well they stick to their "10 year contracts" on COD.

 

The most likely scenario is they misplay their hand, break contracts and have to buy out everyone out, and at the same time they'll release a COD flop with no sales to make up for the contract buyout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is game development is very complex and you have a bunch of people who haven't adapted their management style to match the complexity of the product. They're either old-school and crunchy thinking they can brute force a game without needing to understand the step process -or- they are young and new school/agile which means they don't plan for anything further than two weeks ahead and end up going in circles/wasting time. The old school people think they're Spielberg, the new school people think they're making a shopping list app for a phone.

 

But who is the corporate side going to trust to run development? Some grumpy artist, designer, engineer who won't tell them what they want or the dude who went to Wharton and has an army of SCRUM certifications and loves gaming and beer pong.

 

People promote people like themselves.

  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

 

I'm not sure that reviews have as much baring on that.  Yes, generally unloved stuff like Skull & Bones will fizzle and fade out quickly.  But just being a basic good game can be more than okay if the concept resonates enough.  Meanwhile SquareEnix pumps GoTY-level effort into FF7 Rebirth and sees less than expected results.

 

But more to the thread topic, all that gets muddled if Games Pass and player engagement metrics are supposed to dictate what a game is worth to the publisher.

 

I wasn't considering reviews... purely sales. Devs & Publishers need to generate sales enough to keep the lights on. If they take a big swing on an expensive to produce game, and miss even a little, then they either don't sell or fizzle quickly... even on game pass. It's all and purely about $$.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Dexterryu said:

 

I wasn't considering reviews... purely sales. Devs & Publishers need to generate sales enough to keep the lights on. If they take a big swing on an expensive to produce game, and miss even a little, then they either don't sell or fizzle quickly... even on game pass. It's all and purely about $$.

 

You can't use strict sales when a game is put on a popular subscription service Day One.  What if said game doesn't fizzle at all, but doesn't push subs higher in a meaningful way?  Your existing audience has moved from one property onto another within the service.  So if those sun numbers aren’t enough already, you better hope MTX gets them to open their wallets more than they already are.

 

The remaining sales, cannibalized on some level by the subscription, are likely to underwhelm.  It amplifies the perils of development that games without this pressure are already dealing with. 

 

If the budget of a game like Spider-Man 2 isn't sustainable, imagine just how much more pressure Machine Games feels with Indiana Jones not launching day and date on all platforms.  Realistically speaking, where is the money coming in from?  Would Steam be expected to do all the leg work?  A later PS5/Switch 2 port?

 

I think Phil is speaking in earnest about needing to expand their addressable Xbox audience.  Because they're in a pickle with this business model + limited sub growth + slowing console sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

GM_e4KXWAAAfO_F?format=jpg&name=large

 

Anything, every word that people at these levels say is calculated PR. Even in "organic interviews" everything is trained with talking points, just like a politician. You cannot trust a single word anyone at this level says. They are selling a concept. Good, bad, it's all marketing and public relations. There is extensive PR training for anyone taking to any sort of press and your number one objective: protect the company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

I know of one company that's more than pleased with this news development: Sony.

 

Thanks to Microsoft, the heat been completely taken off of them for last weekend's Helldivers 2 debacle :lol:

 

xo69a8y7e7zc1.jpg

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that there's anything "accidental" about Microsoft's attitude towards Japan as a development source, but this is a really good article:

 

WWW.VG247.COM

No matter what Xbox leadership says in its livestreams or in statements, one thing remains true: it's relationship with Japan never came first.

 

Quote

 

More than anything, though, it’s a gut punch because it sends a message. The wrong message, really. Xbox had one major studio in Japan - no more. Xbox is making deals with third parties and independent creators, yes - it’s got something in the pipes with Hideo Kojima, for instance - but like I said, the first party is your north star. It’s your best foot forward. The message becomes this: Japanese games are not a priority for us.

 

No amount of Spencer pow-wowing on the Final Fantasy fanfest stage with the Square Enix CEO changes that. No amount of co-marketing money thrown at Persona or Yakuza to get Xbox versions and Xbox logos on the trailers can undo that message. Publishing a Kojima game might help a bit - but not as much as having a beloved Japanese studio in your actual stable. In the end, Kojima is just a gun for hire - whatever he makes for Xbox will be compared to Death Stranding and his big new spy franchise at Sony.

 

And furthermore, if you were a Japanese publisher or developer approached for acquisition, how would you rate the odds of survival for your business based on the evidence before you? Would government regulators trust that Microsoft would be a safe pair of hands for Japanese brands, big or small? In 2019, the year before the Bethesda deal, Xbox mulled over a purchase of Square Enix, not for the first time in its history. How much of Square Enix would remain now had the company pursued that takeover?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

I know of one company that's more than pleased with this news development: Sony.

 

Thanks to Microsoft, the heat been completely taken off of them for last weekend's Helldivers 2 debacle :lol:

 

Or maybe they're just getting out their negative news before Sony has bad news of their own

 

:roll-safe:

  • True 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dexterryu said:

 

I wasn't considering reviews... purely sales. Devs & Publishers need to generate sales enough to keep the lights on. If they take a big swing on an expensive to produce game, and miss even a little, then they either don't sell or fizzle quickly... even on game pass. It's all and purely about $$.

 

Hi-Fi Rush wasn't a AAA game and reached 3 million players between purchases and GamePass months ago. As they are not responsible for MS's strategy of GP subs mattering over console sales, they did everything they were supposed to do. They didn't miss; they hit, and they still are being closed.

 

No dev under MS should feel safe even if they're hitting their targets.

  • True 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Hi-Fi Rush wasn't a AAA game and reached 3 million players between purchases and GamePass months ago. As they are not responsible for MS's strategy of GP subs mattering over console sales, they did everything they were supposed to do. They didn't miss; they hit, and they still are being closed.

 

No dev under MS should feel safe even if they're hitting their targets.

 

The problem is that they might not have any idea what the hell those targets even are at this point.

  • True 2
  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, SuperSpreader said:

Phil is still in the "Elon Musk is Tony Stark" phase I see, unfortunate. The sooner people open their eyes the faster we can recover.

yes phil is a likeable guy more so than most corporate suits but he should ABSOLUTLEY be viewed as a villain by now along with others as well but hes the main "face" 

  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

The problem is that they might not have any idea what the hell those targets even are at this point.

 

Whatever those targets are, MS said Hi-Fi Rush surpassed them.

 

So whatever MS thinks the targets are, I would feel no job security if I'm a dev under MS.

 

Been tooting this horn for years: Spencer SUCKS. MS in the 2010s and the dearth of a first party apparatus were partly on him. Their publishing pipeline is bad; buying shit up doesn't fix the core problem that MS is not a good publisher, and keeping the same leadership wasn't going to change it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GP subs are fundamentally tied to console sales.  At some point in the future, they may not be.

 

MS hasn't come up with a compelling reason for any significant volume of people without an Xbox to get a GP subscription.

 

Their "previous plan" that set targets for Hi-Fi Rush wasn't working.  Who knows what their new plan is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

I'm not sure that there's anything "accidental" about Microsoft's attitude towards Japan as a development source, but this is a really good article:

 

WWW.VG247.COM

No matter what Xbox leadership says in its livestreams or in statements, one thing remains true: it's relationship with Japan never came first.

 

 

 

This part:

 

Quote

"I've talked for a long time about our desire to have more of a first-party presence in Japan," Phil Spencer said in a retrospectively toe-curling official interview to celebrate the Bethesda deal closing. "[Acquiring Tango] is a great step there. Thinking about the map of where these teams are, and talking about all the games they're working on… I can't wait to speak to the Tango team and get to know them."

 

really sticks out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

The problem is that they might not have any idea what the hell those targets even are at this point.


I think they said it themselves, high impact games that drive growth.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SuperSpreader said:

-or- they are young and new school/agile which means they don't plan for anything further than two weeks ahead and end up going in circles/wasting time.

 

If someone thinks agile means don't have a plan, they're not really doing agile. They're just fucking around :p 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Based on that incredibly nebulous definition, then I'd say RIP in Peace, Hellblade II and Ninja Theory.

you mean the vanity project that was announced with the One X reveal 5 years ago wont be a big seller? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...