Microsoft acquires ZeniMax Media (Bethesda, id Software, Arkane + 5 more) [2020-09-21, 2021-03-09]

[Deleted member 11852]

Better mod support and Gamepass ought to be marketed for Xbox whilst doing a simultaneous release (if it comes down to it).

I hope Sony have addressed the issues that impacted mod support in games like Fallout 4, which was lack of licensed codecs for - I believe - MP3 and some other common formats used by modders. I think there was also a size limits on mods - again, hopefully addressed.

Generally it was real easy to make a mod work on Xbox One because but Sony's support for their own codecs means any mods that used assets with an unsupported codec, needed specific work done and many modders just didn't bother. What happened in practice was other modders just ported the most popular mods to PS4 but it still wasn't great.

 

[VitaminB6]

Wondering if a lot of PS5 owners that don't have a gaming PC will pick up a Series S at some point. Even if Bethesda games are released simultaneously on PS5 they may come with a $70 price tag. That's a high price to pay when you know the game you want is available on Game Pass for free. Especially when you can opt for a Series S at $24.99 a month with Game Pass included.

 

[cheapchips]

Wondering if a lot of PS5 owners that don't have a gaming PC will pick up a Series S at some point. Even if Bethesda games are released simultaneously on PS5 they may come with a $70 price tag. That's a high price to pay when you know the game you want is available on Game Pass for free. Especially when you can opt for a Series S at $24.99 a month with Game Pass included.

At that price, they might as well. And now they're an Xbox customer. Doesn't matter to MS if they're monogamous or still fooling around with the other guys.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

At that price, they might as well. And now they're an Xbox customer. Doesn't matter to MS if they're monogamous or still fooling around with the other guys.

As long as you're not selling hardware at a loss. In which case it's all about the ROI, which is too complex to get into and even if we did, nobody would have the actual figures to make it worthwhile! I.e. some folks who bought PS2 as a DVD player and PS3 as a Blu-ray player, both platforms initially sold at a loss, and buy no or few games, cost Sony money.

 

[BoardBonobo]

Wondering if a lot of PS5 owners that don't have a gaming PC will pick up a Series S at some point. Even if Bethesda games are released simultaneously on PS5 they may come with a $70 price tag. That's a high price to pay when you know the game you want is available on Game Pass for free. Especially when you can opt for a Series S at $24.99 a month with Game Pass included.

It's not worth it if you only want one or two games though. You'd basically want to have at least $300 worth of games you'd want to play. And if you want to keep playing them you're stuck paying that forever. I'd rather pay the $70 up front and actually own the game rather than just rent it endlessly.

 

[VitaminB6]

It's not worth it if you only want one or two games though. You'd basically want to have at least $300 worth of games you'd want to play. And if you want to keep playing them you're stuck paying that forever. I'd rather pay the $70 up front and actually own the game rather than just rent it endlessly.

Game Pass is not for everyone but that doesn't mean it's not appealing to people other than yourself.

 

[eastmen]

It's not worth it if you only want one or two games though. You'd basically want to have at least $300 worth of games you'd want to play. And if you want to keep playing them you're stuck paying that forever. I'd rather pay the $70 up front and actually own the game rather than just rent it endlessly.

If you spend the $70 up front you own it forever true. But you also only get to play that 1 game. You may get on game pass and think you just want that one game but then since your on the service you can try out hundreds of other games and find more that you enjoy can keep playing. If you really like a game you can always buy it with a discount

 

[Unknown Soldier]

It's not worth it if you only want one or two games though. You'd basically want to have at least $300 worth of games you'd want to play. And if you want to keep playing them you're stuck paying that forever. I'd rather pay the $70 up front and actually own the game rather than just rent it endlessly.

You can also then sell the game if you want or buy it when it's much cheaper on a discount. With the physical disc, you can get super cheap sales discounts a few months after release if you know where to look.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Meh. GamePass is coming like a freight train. MS has 35+ dev teams! I'm coming around to the idea that they may as well put everything day one on PS5 for $70 and "free" on GP. May as well soak Sony fans for everything they can while rewarding their loyal GP subscribers.

 

[eastmen]

Meh. GamePass is coming like a freight train. MS has 35+ dev teams! I'm coming around to the idea that they may as well put everything day one on PS5 for $70 and "free" on GP. May as well soak Sony fans for everything they can while rewarding their loyal GP subscribers.

Remember when I said MS's plans were to have a AAA title every other month or every few months and the internet at large called me a liar. Just wait till the middle of this gen and watch how close they get. They are just another semi large acquisition or two away

 

[Deleted member 11852]

If you spend the $70 up front you own it forever true. But you also only get to play that 1 game. You may get on game pass and think you just want that one game but then since your on the service you can try out hundreds of other games and find more that you enjoy can keep playing. If you really like a game you can always buy it with a discount

There are other barriers that slow services with oodles of content and prevent them from becoming more popular. Many studies have been done with Netflix and decision paralysis. I.e. when you don't know exactly what you want to watch and you spend an inordinate amount of time trying to browse what's available and in many cases end up going to do something else instead. There is also the total value proposition, whereas these all-you-can-consume buffet services looks like great value but you subconsciously prejudice them because you know you can't consume all of the content, making you question that value. Most people are little bit nuts and subconsciously overthink, logic rarely prevails.

Meh. GamePass is coming like a freight train. MS has 35+ dev teams! I'm coming around to the idea that they may as well put everything day one on PS5 for $70 and "free" on GP. May as well soak Sony fans for everything they can while rewarding their loyal GP subscribers.

Sure, but is there is a tangible benefit to being a "loyal" GamePass subscriber? If I subscribe today I have access to exactly the same games as somebody subscribed since day one. I'm sure Microsoft are looking at whether there is some value they can add that a) rewards people who are long-time subscribers but importantly, b) doesn't deter new subscribers because because there is a perceived imbalance of value - see para above, people be crazy yo.

But I think it absolutely makes sense for Microsoft to release some games on PS5 day one. Amortise R&D across a larger user base - that may be the only way to make GamePass decently profitable, by having PS4/PS5 owners contribute by way of game purchases for Microsoft first-party studios.

 

[Deleted member 7537]

Also at current prices GP is 180$ a year. MS is not giving away the service for free, although sometimes it looks like it . And I think the price will go up in the future to cover for operation costs.

 

[Jay]

There are other barriers that slow services with oodles of content and prevent them from becoming more popular. Many studies have been done with Netflix and decision paralysis. I.e. when you don't know exactly what you want to watch and you spend an inordinate amount of time trying to browse what's available and in many cases end up going to do something else instead. There is also the total value proposition, whereas these all-you-can-consume buffet services looks like great value but you subconsciously prejudice them because you know you can't consume all of the content, making you question that value. Most people are little bit nuts and subconsciously overthink, logic rarely prevails.

Only first party really go in and stay in as a base of content available.

Sure, but is there is a tangible benefit to being a "loyal" GamePass subscriber? If I subscribe today I have access to exactly the same games as somebody subscribed since day one. I'm sure Microsoft are looking at whether there is some value they can add that a) rewards people who are long-time subscribers but importantly, b) doesn't deter new subscribers because because there is a perceived imbalance of value - see para above, people be crazy yo.

I've not seen anyone complaining that they feel like they should be rewarded for being long term subscribers? This is the first I've even heard that raised.

But I think it absolutely makes sense for Microsoft to release some g
ames on PS5 day one. Amortise R&D across a larger user base - that may be the only way to make GamePass decently profitable, by having PS4/PS5 owners contribute by way of game purchases for Microsoft first-party studios.

if it was such a money sink they would've put first party games in GP after few months of release.
And even if it's not making money in the short or even medium term that doesn't seem to be a concern for them.
They could've just paid for games to go into GP with a partnership deal even without spending that kind of money.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I've not seen anyone complaining that they feel like they should be rewarded for being long term subscribers? This is the first I've even heard that raised.

I've also not seen anybody talk this angle then KAPOW! Holy rewarding loyalty, Batman!

if it was such a money sink they would've put first party games in GP after few months of release. And even if it's not making money in the short or even medium term that doesn't seem to be a concern for them.
They could've just paid for games to go into GP with a partnership deal even without spending that kind of money.

Microsoft could done lot of things but let's focus on what they did. I feel like this gets repeated a lot but Microsoft stated that GamePass is not "a big profit play". After they statement they dropped $7.5Bn for Zenimax. These acquisitions are definitely long-term investments but even so they will have ROI projections. When Phil Spencer took this acquisition to the Board for approval, he will have had to outline the plan for how that money will be recouped and how long it was projected to take.

There could well be multiple strategies here. Phil Spencer may have planned to support PS5 this generation, or cut it off. The Board will want a $7.5Bn cost recouped quickly, so it may have bene decided to support PS5 like their first party platforms for this upcoming generation to help recoup the outlay then cut off (or reduce) support for Sony platforms down the line. There's a lot of things that might be happening. But it's pointless trying to debate what might be because nobody here is in a position to know what has happened and what Microsoft's strategy is.

 

[Jay]

I've also not seen anybody talk this angle then KAPOW! Holy rewarding loyalty, Batman

so let me get this straight.
People keep going on how it's great value, how can they be making money, and now also (in your view) want even more for loyalty because getting a good value service isn't rewarding or good enough.

Microsoft could done lot of things but let's focus on what they did. I feel like this gets repeated a lot but Microsoft stated that GamePass is not "a big profit play".

And the purchase of ZeniMax falls right into that, as when they talk about it, GP is usually mentioned in the same breath.

The ROI is the hope that it will drive GP sales.
They have said it will be on a game by game basis as to if games go to other platforms, but they've also said they don't like the narative that anytime people discuss their games the question comes up, as it is about supporting their ecosystem.

 

[BRiT]

Also at current prices GP is 180$ a year. MS is not giving away the service for free, although sometimes it looks like it . And I think the price will go up in the future to cover for operation costs.

To be pedantic, Xbox Gold is $60 a year, GP for Console is $120 a year, GP for PC is $120 a year, and GP Ultimate is $180.

 

[Ike Turner]

To be pedantic, Xbox Gold is $60 a year, GP for Console is $120 a year, GP for PC is $120 a year, and GP Ultimate is $180.

Or totally free with Bing rewards (which are frankly relatively easy to stack up)

 

[Deleted member 11852]

so let me get this straight.
People keep going on how it's great value, how can they be making money, and now also (in your view) want even more for loyalty because getting a good value service isn't rewarding or good enough.

No, that is not what I said. Nor did I raise the issue of rewarding loyalty, Johnny Awesome did in this post.

The ROI is the hope that it will drive GP sales.

I'm certain Phil Spencer went to the Board with plan than "hope".

 

[Jay]

certain Phil Spencer went to the Board with plan than "hope".

I'm sure they do have a plan, and I personally think it has a good chance of being successful.
More successful than the plan they had for the current generation.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I'm sure they do have a plan, and I personally think it has a good chance of being successful. More successful than the plan they had for the current generation.

Out of curiosity, without knowing what Microsoft's plan, how have you come to the conclusion that it has a good chance of being successful?