Football Manager Boss Disagrees With PlayStation CEO Saying Xbox Game Pass is 'Value Destructive' - News
by William D'Angelo , posted on 01 July 2023 / 3,414 Views
Sony Interactive Entertainment President and CEO Jim Ryan earlier this week during his pre-recorded deposition video as part of the FTC in the US vs. Microsoft hearing stated publishers believe Xbox Game Pass is "value destructive."
Sports Interactive Studio Head Miles Jacobson in an interview with Eurogamer has disagreed with Ryan's statement and had positive things to say about Game Pass.
"Every studio is going to have different opinions on this and different studios will have different data, because different games work well in different situations, "Jacobson. "For us, it's nothing but positive on all three platforms."
Sports Interactive is owned by Sega and is the developer on the Football Manager series. Football Manager 2023 is available on Xbox Game Pass on the Xbox Series X|S, Xbox One, and PC.
"We run quite a tight ship and I like our studio to be profitable - Sega took a big gamble on us all those years ago, and their shareholders - however weird it might sound - should be rewarded for that," said Jacobson. "So we don't tend to do deals that are bad for any parts of the business."
He concluded, "Every studio has to make decisions themselves, but I don't recognize some of the quotes that I see from other studios, and depositions. I don't recognize that in our business. It's all very sunny for us."
A life-long and avid gamer, William D'Angelo was first introduced to VGChartz in 2007. After years of supporting the site, he was brought on in 2010 as a junior analyst, working his way up to lead analyst in 2012 and taking over the hardware estimates in 2017. He has expanded his involvement in the gaming community by producing content on his own YouTube channel and Twitch channel. You can contact the author on Twitter @TrunksWD.
More Articles
The company that released a $70 game full of microtransactions (while keeping it hidden from reviewers) is saying that Game Pass is "destructive".. Yep, it makes sense; I mean, I actually don't blame the guy; I would be saying the same thing if my golden egg chicken is being threatened.
Which game is that? None of the Sony game I own or have played have microtransactions in. The only one I can think you mean is Gran Turismo. While I do not like a MT as much as the next guy, in that it's just in game currency. Essentially just letting you skip some the main gameplay loop yet it also had a update which added 3 new cars this month.
Each company handles things like that differently but MT in a single game does not make Ryan's statement invalid. They are different things and I'd say MT also undervalue games, as it's saying we aren't giving you all of the game you've already paid for, you need to pay more for that. If MT are going to exist then the idea of purchasing just in game currency to skip grind is better than half of the major publishers and their examples of MTs in Activision, Bethesda, Ubisoft, EA, even MS, games.
Laughable sport analyst
Overall it is destructive but I believe it’s OK for indies and AA games.
I think you mean disruptive. No one likes change and there's now a new business model that's bringing in nearly a billion dollars every quarter. Most likely will go well past that when the likes of Starfield releases on top of major publishers like Capcom making GP deals as of late.
I personally prefer to buy my games, but even I recognize that GP is just an alternative way of conducting business in the games industry, and it's working. Don't like GP? Then just buy your games like normal. That option is there for you. Just like how GP is an option.
First define what would be "value destructive".
Cause to me the value of an IP is only derived from 2 main things:
A)Size & growth potential of the fanbase.
Here GamePass can only have a positive impact, Exclusive deals are the thing being value destructive in that regard.
B) Overall revenue of titles
Here MS compensates for the loss of sales with upfront payment and usage revenue.
So how is GamesPass supposed to be value destructive exactly?
I do believe Ryan was more talking about big budget system sellers and the impact and profits those games can make, although do feel it's not as simple as that.
I would think that it's similar to say the tv and film industry, why isn't Disney putting their biggest films on Disney+ straight away? Because they don't make as much money that way, if it was down to just profits, so value destructive as it makes less.
Yet there is also the fact a straight to Disney film is seen as just filler or of a lesser quality than cinema releases. I'm a big fan of Marvel and many of the films on offer but generally do not care about the TV series, so value destructive as I see them as lower or worse quality (even if they are not).
These are just guesses. I cannot outright state what is meant by the term really.
For your points, (A) Agreed that it can be a great benefit but does it in reality doesn't translate to sales as the game is on GP. Prehaps once the deal ends and it goes back to not being on GP and just a paid for game, it might see a bunch of new sales from a new fanbase it wouldn't have seen but it also might have missed out of £60 sales from fans who instead just paid £10. However, I def can see the benefits for more service like games with ongoing content or to promote DLC.
Yet, on (B) It's entirely dependent on MS paying the way, compensating for their potential lose revenue from normal sales. Is this not the same as 3rd party exclusives when companies do them? What if they stop? What if your fanbase become so dependent on your game being on GP, MS knows this and suddenly says "No, you only get 1mil instead of the 10mil we were giving you before." Fans then wonder why they aren't getting the game on GP anymore and blame you for putting it on the service. Similar to say the effect of if FF after all these years wasn't on a PS console.
From all we know Xbox SW sales declined and titles on GP have lower sales than others so yes I can see why it is considered to be value destructive... even the company that is being bought agrees on it =p
I mean, who we are we to say? Xbox brings in over $16 billion in revenue every year, and we know GP makes about a billion per quarter.
Sales don't really matter if you get your game in more hands and generate revenue through subs. You can't create an alternative to selling game and not expect said alternative to impact selling game.
Yes, but the publishers don't get revenue from the subs. Sure for older games or new indies it is opportunity for increased userbase that may help a sequel, but for day and date any denial that it harms sales is non sense.
Yes but xbox then only need to compensate publisher for the loss of sale on Xbox the same Sony would while dealing for exclusive term. Better since those publisher will still get revenue by usage the compensation does not need to be as substancial.
Some devs have complained about it long before this trial. I think there a some developers from smaller studios that take a deal and end probably making less than they could have from straight sales. By the time they are released from Game Pass, their game is old news now.
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/xbox-game-pass-hurts-sales-says-dev-behind-xbox-game-pass-title/1100-6514084/
Nothing in this article contradicts what I've said, The article focuses solely on sales, not overall revenue and not the exposure of the game, and also not on potential marketing cost save.
Nothing point to GamePass being value destructive, lower sale itself is not enough, like I said before, You can't create an alternative to selling games and not expect said alternative to impact selling games.
