If you’re snooping here, you gotta calm yourself down.
Microsoft stopped releasing console sales numbers over a decade ago. Tough to say how they’re performing in hardware. But it’s also safe to say that they wouldn’t hide the number if it was good. But they don’t care about hardware anymore. It’s all about the subscription now.
I’m curious how that subscription value is gonna look in a few years now that Microsoft has cancelled basically everything and fired a ton of talent. How do you sell a subscription when you have no exclusive content for said subscription?
How do you convince third party AAA studios to put their game on a subscription service where they know they’ll make less money? Aside from buying the studio, that is.
Why would someone want to pay monthly, indefinitely, for access to some games? You’re not gonna have time to play everything. And if you pick one game and play it endlessly, it’s a better value to just own the game outright. I only see the subscription model working for casual gamers, which are the exact kind of people who have no issues dropping a recurring expense if they aren’t getting their money’s worth. Sign up for a month here or there, play the new release, drop the subscription, rinse and repeat.
On the flip side, you’ve also effectively devalued your games to the people who would have paid full price. Why pay $70 for Doom or Indiana jones when I know I can pay like $15 for a month and beat them both, and unsubscribe till the next game comes out. I’ll either temporarily subscribe or wait for a steep discount.
Microsoft is bad for gaming as a whole.
Because a good lawyer looks for any sort of far reaching authority they can legally get away with, and will continues to push boundaries as legally far as they can until they get challenged. All in the name of protecting their clients from liability.
I don’t like it, but I get it. And these things can fall apart when challenged in court or public opinion.
Makes me think of the guy who died from an allergy at Disney land and Disney tried to say he couldn’t sue because of his Disney plus agreement.
Lawyers put in all kinds of legal clauses specifically to try and avoid any and all liability on anything imaginable or unimaginable. Most times it’s beyond what anyone would call reasonable. But we aren’t dealing with reasonable people.
Say I broke a game disk that they told me I had to destroy and I cut myself on it, deep enough to need medical attention. I wonder if I could sue them for the costs, since they specifically told me I had to break my game.
Check out Flower by ThatGameCompany
I really hope the subscription model for games falls flat.