this post was submitted on 10 May 2024
226 points (98.7% liked)

PC Gaming

8568 readers
502 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world 77 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Last I read, Microsoft had $80 billion in cash on hand. I'm pretty sure they have the resources to run whatever the fuck they want.

[–] alessandro@lemmy.ca 30 points 6 months ago (3 children)

I think the "Microsoft dilemma" is between Making Some Money vs. Take All The Money.

If they publish a bunch of successful games on Steam or on Playstation, they will make Some Money, compared to games published exclusive to Xbox, where they can make All The Money.

By acquiring studios they are making sure that good franchises "don't make all the money... yet" (on competing platform like Steam, Playstation or Switch, but also Android/iOS)

They could make good games exclusive for Xbox, but given how relatively unsuccessful is the Xbox platform, compared to Switch and Playstation, it would mean that very expensive (to make) games will bleed money

[–] DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca 23 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So it's almost like the smart business decision would be to make some multiplatform games, huh

[–] OwlPaste@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

Get out of here! Microsoft doesn't need this! They needs the mooney? Please won't somebody think of Microsoft?!

[–] Statlerwaldorf@midwest.social 11 points 6 months ago

I think the "Microsoft dilemma" is just called capitalism. If you're not making all the money, you're losing the game.

[–] lilja@lemmy.ml 54 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I wonder if regulators will bring this up the next time Microsoft wants to buy another publisher. They fought tooth-and-nail to buy Activision Blizzard and like a child that got a new toy they're throwing out the old ones.

[–] Hypx@fedia.io 13 points 6 months ago (2 children)

It's secretly benefiting the smaller game studios because Microsoft is basically giving up marketshare. The real question is whether MS wants to buy any more studios.

[–] lilja@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago

With all the money they'll save from shutting down all the smaller studios they can just go out and buy more.

[–] sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz 5 points 6 months ago

Benefits how? I feel like gaming is going to become like the startup sector where companies create something to specifically get acquired by a big company.

Like it's becoming so prevalent for these big gaming publishers to vacuum up IP and sit on it, it's just the Disney-fication of gaming.

[–] joshhsoj1902@lemmy.ca 37 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Well of course not. These game studios were selling games at 60-80$ each. Microsoft bought them, then started providing the all the games for a flat fee of 15$ per month.

I assumed their strategy was to lose money in the medium term while they worked on getting people used to playing games on subscription. Where they make their money back is when they stop outright selling games at full price and make them only available on subscription, and then they slowly start increasing that monthly subscription cost.

In order for that to work they need a large library and like 5-10 years.

[–] BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca 20 points 6 months ago

Turns out corporations can manage long term planning when the plan reduces quality of life for customers. Crazy!

[–] Zehzin@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

No joke, their plan was to have 100m subscribers so the economics start making sense

[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 5 points 6 months ago

It's $9 for the standard Game Pass, and was $1 a month until they stopped that last year sometime.

[–] Justas@sh.itjust.works 36 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Well then, maybe they shouldn't have bought them to begin them?

[–] DosDude@retrolemmy.com 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I agree. But these days having an IP prints money. Especially an IP as popular as minecraft, fallout, elder scrolls, call of duty, warcraft, Diablo and doom.

[–] Justas@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yes, but it is also possible to buy the IP without buying the company.

[–] DosDude@retrolemmy.com 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

But then you miss out on the residuals from the already released stuff

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Cheaper though a bigger issue would be releasing competing games

Like Halo vs Destiny. Had they just folded Bungie they wouldn’t have to deal with it

[–] DosDude@retrolemmy.com 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I wouldn't call Halo and Destiny competing. They are vastly different. The only thing they have in common is that they're both FPSes.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

But you could argue halo players would go to play/try it due to brand recognition

I’m sure there are no bungie fans left but when it came out people would be curious

Also advertising wise my first reaction seeing it on the telly was “this looks like halo, this looks like halo” and so on for every scene in the advert

[–] kindenough@kbin.social 22 points 6 months ago

Yeah, they needed a shitload of money to pay Bobby Kotick apparently.

[–] ladicius@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago

And the studios didn't run themselves before the purchases?

Is Microsofts PR AI that bad at dumb excuses?

[–] scops@reddthat.com 16 points 6 months ago (2 children)

As a gamer who has owned every Xbox from the OG to a Xbox One S, I just don't understand Microsoft's strategy for this generation. Vanishingly few console exclusives, and most of those shipped on PC, too. As someone with a decent PC and enough income to buy 2-3 consoles per gen, they just haven't given me a reason to buy an Xbox Series console.

I know they hoped to sell Game Pass to PC only players, but without the lock-in of a console, there's just no incentive to buy it over a PS Plus subscription and individually buying the exclusives I want on PC.

Now they're burning bridges with players by closing down beloved developers, even if their last title was successful. I wonder what Ninja Theory devs are thinking with Hellblade 2 a couple weeks out.

[–] DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I bet they're currently shitting bricks

[–] tabris@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Why? There's been so much marketing for Hellblade 2, Xbox have basically guaranteed their success! /s

[–] ag_roberston_author@beehaw.org 4 points 6 months ago

Game Pass and X Cloud is their strategy.

But it turns out that there's not a whole lot of reason to get Game Pass if the games suck, and if you want to play a game long term, you're better off buying it once on Steam instead of paying a subscription.

And X Cloud still sucks ass.

They have no decent exclusives, and their purchase of Bethesda didn't pay off because Redfall and Starfield sucked ass.

They wasted billions on Activision Blizzard, which it seems like was entirely for the WoW and CoD IPs, and now they're shutting other studios they scooped up with Bethesda which was purchased for the Fallout and Elder Scrolls IP.

They're trying to score exclusive IPs for the next gen to get people stuck in their ecosystem.

[–] DoctorButts@kbin.melroy.org 9 points 6 months ago

Xbox President Matt Booty

Matt Booty

Booty

Lol

[–] alessandro@lemmy.ca 7 points 6 months ago