They are just proving they don't understand what makes games sell at all then. Anybody who had experienced the early access (they had like 3 years to do so) knew this was a special game. Anybody who tried the DOS series also knew and are probably here because of those anyway. The success of this game was obvious way before it came out. This is just another proof that the people running the business have no idea of what they are doing. They just cannot judge of stuff before they have numbers and it's why we should get rid of these leeches. So again, the only surprised people are the idiots that don't understand shit about modern games.
They're not thinking about these things as games, generally, but specifically how they'll be perceived by the Xbox audience. It looks to me like they discounted BG3, at least in part, because it couldn't split-screen on series S. They're thinking about games you play on the couch, in a group, maybe during a party - not games you play solo for hours or days on end.
That may end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. BG3 isn't out on Xbox (officially) yet. We don't know what their advertising will look like, and it well turn out that everyone who wants to play it will already have gone the PC route.
They’re not thinking about these things as games, generally, but specifically how they’ll be perceived by the Xbox audience. It looks to me like they discounted BG3, at least in part, because it couldn’t split-screen on series S. They’re thinking about games you play on the couch, in a group, maybe during a party - not games you play solo for hours or days on end.
And that's what I mean. They are wrong on all counts because they don't understand what makes a game successful. They only consider the monetary success of their own. They also think "xbox" audience is somehow different and want something else than other platform users. Sure couch is cool but let's not pretend that this is really how people are gaming nowadays. People like all games when they are well made, complete from the start and just fucking work. Throw a bit of good writing in there and you have a GOTY contender. BG3 is just far above that only and that's why I'm saying if anyone an MS looked into BG3 and Larian and chose not to sign, they are incompetent idiots.
I know, but DOS existed. Larian was already well known for their sprawling rpgs. BG3 isn't an outlier here. Point is, it was foreseeable if you actually looked and knew what to look for.
“This is really a disaster situation for us given all we’ve invested in content across studios at our GP [Game Pass] content fund,” ... “We set a very high bar in 2021 on quality and pacing of content which was awesome to see,” he continued. “But to come off of that year with no big exclusives launching in 2022 is a portfolio planning miss that we can’t afford. If we need to delay launches (understanding there is a financial impact of that) to create more regular beats for us we need to do that. We have to all understand that the situation we are in now is a failure of our planning and production execution.”
My corporate speak is a little rusty, but if I understand the gravity of this statement correctly, is Spencer implying that GamePass is a house of cards that is only supported by the regular timing of new exclusive releases? It seems like that's a very risky business model then, and the consequences of GamePass folding would be consumers lose access to a truly massive number of games. This statement would basically make me lose a ton of confidence in the service, and I'd be looking to take my library (and money) elsewhere.
The way I would perceive it is that mega-hjts in games are very profitable. A hit sells like 200k-300k at launch. But from time to time, a game hits the cultural zeitgeist and can 3x that. Those are you're BOTWs and such.
Platforms bank on having those because they are the big bang for their buck. In Microsoft case, an exclusive like that would move a lot of gp subs. I think that is the idea behind making starfield elusive, and then getting rid of the reduced price trial.
So when people are busy playing BG3, and then ign gives starfield a 7, and people decide its not worth dropping everything to go and play, it can really mess up a company's tire venue projections. Poor babies.
It’s no secret that they are “hemorrhaging” money into gamepass just to be competitive. Would have a tough time finding the article, but there was something about them doing it JUST to keep some games out of the hands of other companies.
This article and a lot of people reading it seem to have interpreted second run as second rate. This is estimating they'll need to offer $5m to get Baldurs Gate 3 on game pass after it leaves PC/Stadia exclusivity.
As much as I hate to say if, trying to low ball Larian is probably a good business decision. They are studio with niche appeal (out at least they were, before bg3 released) and I have no trouble believing MS would have the upper hand in negotiations.
Making an agreement to release a game on game pass basically means betting against the developers on their own success. The game might be huge. It might be a flop. Whatever happens, the money from MS it’s going in the back.
I don’t think they were lowballing; I think they genuinely complete underestimated Baldur’s Gate 3. Their internal documents comparing games coming out classified it as a “second-run Stasis PC RPG.”
I can’t really parse the “second run”. Was it supposed to be Stadia exclusive for a while and is the list never updated? Do they mean the early access release?
Either way, Microsoft never really “got” gaming in any meaningful sense. That’s why buying Nintendo and/or valve would have made sense, those two really understand their respective markets.