Developers don't care because the money rolls in. If it's a typical company, you know if it takes a 500 million loss, it's likely to shut down. When Microsoft gets that hit, it will be just fine. That safety net mentality is probably what is going on in all of the Xbox Game Studios. "It's fine, it'll live" so the extra mile isn't being taken.
When someone goes to the supermarket, a person who has millions are likely to pick up whatever they want. If they are on a rough budget, they will take in consideration and assess whether they need it, or is there a cheaper alternative.
You create competition by launching an Unique Selling Product. This garners attention from the consumers and then the company pitches why we should get on board with them. The company works hard for our money, incentive to create a great product and consumers get a great product. When other companies join in, they compete by creating better products for those consumers.
Xbox simply fails at creating compelling products to get on board with to get an ROI. Gamepass is their "money maker" (it's loss leading) but still can't generate ROI to what they have spent on it. It is a service that relies on 99% of 3rd party content (in which they are trying to buyout and remove from the competition, market and consumers.) Microsoft are out to attack consumers and Playstation spending 80 billion on publishers instead of growing in house.
So you have mentality of "it'll do" staff and a company who refuses to action better USPs and instead attack the market and its consumers. They are spending the equivalent to paying for each of those 10,000 fired employees for 200 years. For Gamepass.
Gamepass is not a bad thing - it is an option, a platform for consumers to choose. Key word - choice. Microsoft couldn't compete through USPs so they are utilising their bank account to loss lead Gamepass, creating unrivaled deals for the consumer - the $1 deal. Which isn't anti consumer or anti competitive. People had choice to get a game full price on Playstation or in a cheap sub amongst loads of others... until Microsoft ensured people cannot choose anymore.
Buying out publishers and removing the option to get them on the competition.
@reznik00: They wish to control the key industry IPs to force consumers into their ecosystem. And are doing this not by making blockbusters and organic growth or business risks with new instalments, but buying already proven IPs and their followings. So.ply because they've failed to generate their own.
The end goal of Microsoft is to create a locked ecosystem where they can gouge their audience, everytime they've tried, it's failed because they've not had a bargaining chip to keep people there. GFWL, UWP, W8, E3 2013, Xbox One, 24 hour logins, no sharing discs, no preowned, doubling Gold. It was attempt after attempt of price gouging and creating anti consumer ultimatums. The thing is people moved to their competitors.
So Xbox are now buying up the key industry IPs to create that ultimatum again. Leave and lose your favourite games you've been playing for 20 years.
Not to mention this is also Xbox's flagship IP. It's like bringing Usain Bolt to the Olympics and not allowing him to train and build him up better than before, and fail to provide the right equipment to make him excel. To everybody's shock, he fails to compete effectively.
This is the sole reason Xbox's new business strategy is to take unrivaled masses of funds from Microsoft to buy up anything that is already a proven success within the industry to fill the creative void they have solely generated.
@LPDisturbedHU: This is different. This is a release content that people are paying for from a retailer, separate to DLC, which is later. You're paying for the Campaign and Online, yet being locked out for 30 days. Unless, PS Players get MW Remastered 30 days early
@LPDisturbedHU: I like to play my games as soon as it's in my hands. As much of this is a dick move, it would hurt to see being locked out of content you paid for lol
@zmanbarzel: It's blatantly obvious, you're being pedantic lol. So you think that EA execs are worried that people in their late teens or mid 20s don't know about WW1. If anyone in that age group (or pretty much any) don't know about the World Wars, then I'm not sure they have enough brain cells to even hold a peripheral to play BF1.
GTAJJ's comments