Phil Spencer Wants More Single-Player Games From Xbox Studios

That's what I've been wanting to hear from Phil for years now!

Well it would certainly give PlayStation users like myself a greater incentive to completely switch to Xbox next generation. Microsoft has already convinced me to invest in Game Pass, all I need now are these single-player games that I loved to play on PS.

This is what I have been wanting from Xbox for a long, long time. Over the years Xbox has become my multiplayer console, while I play all the great single player narrative driven games on my PlayStation. It's about time Xbox puts out some of those types of games.

@LX_FENIX Amen to that!!!

@LtSarge switch?

more like getting both and restore those 360-ps3 days of competition.

Go kill the narrative ms cannot make sp games, Phil.

Yeah Sony do sp games very well and I would have thought Phil has looked over and been a bit envious at some points. Looks like that’ll change moving forward though.

This is great news. IMO single player games are where Xbox has been lacking. It’ll be funny to see what the fanboys who say that Sony’s one & done games have to say about this. The usuals who spit the same crap that Sony make boring single player games. Will they say the same once Xbox starts releasing there own? Regardless, excellent news.

Spot on Spencer. And with the studio acquisitions they've made they should be able to pump out some quality SP titles as well.
I just wish Rare would go back to single player games again... Everwild looks less my cup of tea the more I hear of it.

In Phil we trust. 👍🏻

Great to hear. It’s a real strong point of the PlayStation brand and one I feel MS is behind in. I love me some single player games so this is music to my ears.

@Revengercm Unless Sony adds all their first-party PS5 games to PS Now, I have no reason to buy a PS5 and its first-party games at €80 a piece anytime soon. I can imagine getting one at the end of the generation when the PS5 is on its way out and most games are €20. But it's definitely not going to be like the 360/PS3 days. Microsoft has the clear advantage right now with Game Pass in terms of most bang for your buck.

Single Player FTW

@LtSarge They do add them. Not just day 1, because it does not make sense money wise.

That still does not give any reason for people to switch. Just add a second console.Nothing has changed except gaming development cost has gone up and now everybody will charge 10 percent more . Even Aaron Greenberg could not give a straight answer on RDX if they will increase the price.

You can always wait for a sale. I do not see majority of gamers playing 200 gamepass games. They barely play 10 per gen.

@Revengercm Yeah they add them and then they remove them after a couple of months. Can I play God of War (2018) on PS Now? Nope, it was only available a couple of months and now it's gone. First-party titles on Game Pass stay on the service permanently. If you haven't realised this already, PS Now is awful and Game Pass is absolutely a reason for people to switch to Xbox if they don't want to pay €80 for every first-party game on PlayStation.

@LtSarge I do not get it. People have paid full price for games since dawn of time. Why would it bother people now? It did not during ps3-360 price increase.

Just because ms have not yet made those games that sell that much at that price, does not mean third party, sony or Nintendo will not be able to sell. Especially Nintendo. You see the 3 cd roms ports of Mario to switch, and they still bought them. They do not care. They never drop in price, and people still pay for them and are top in the charts.

Hell, even bleeding edge being free on gamepass, was not enough.

I'm definitely bigger on single player games, play them at your own pace and just enjoy. I like some multiplayer as well when the itch hits. Variety is the spice of life and gamepass sure gives you a great variety of games...now just to get time to play the all.

@Revengercm Because we did not have the option for services like Game Pass back in the day.

If Sony could've made a service like Game Pass during PS1 where you'd pay €10 a month and could play games like Crash Bandicoot, Spyro, Resident Evil, Metal Gear Solid etc. then people would've easily just opted for that instead of buying each game separately. The option simply didn't exist back then. But now it does and times are changing. Services like Spotify, Netflix etc. are taking over and now it's video games' turn.

At the end of the day, consumers will opt for what's the cheapest and most accessible option for them. And that's services like Game Pass. Now all that's left is for Microsoft to keep adding more exclusives to its service and people will start to flock to it. That's why they bought Bethesda and that's why they'll keep on buying more studios.

@LtSarge
Companies want your money. If gamepass does not make as much as selling the game normally, trust me. Gamepass is bye bye. As soon as Phil sees elder scrolls 6 sales he will cut that thing out of gamepass lol and get some of that 70 dollar per game money.

Again. I showed you many examples people prefer quality over being cheap. Ask anyone. If they can afford to go to a restaurant everyday, they will never go back to a fast-food.

How many studios does Microsoft need? 100? 23 studios and none of them will make as much money combined as a an animal crossing for 60 bucks that never drops.

Competitive MP and single player aren't the only two modes.

One of the reasons I've favoured xbox is because of the MP focused designs, and because more often than not, the game supports co-op. Halo, Gears, Crackdown, Perfect Dark, were fun games because I played through the campaigns with a friend (or three). Me and my fiancée literally sat side by side and played through Oblivion and Fallout 3 at the same time because there was no co-op option.

I'm all for having great story campaigns and solo experiences, but I think co-op should always be an option. If me and my son could have swung around New York as Peter and Miles in Spiderman, that would have made playing that game all the more fun for us. Probably would have played more and completed it by now.

We've already saw huge decline in split screen, I'd hate for co-op to follow.

Music to my ears! I remember the first 360 times, when we get Mass Effect, Gears of War, Alan Wake exclusives...hope to come back soon to that glorious times.

@Revengercm We've had this discussion so many times with other users before but in a nutshell, it literally doesn't matter right now if the games aren't earning as much they would've through regular means because the end goal of Game Pass is to increase subscriber count. Microsoft is looking for long-term sales, once they start gaining revenue from 100+ million subscribers each month, do you honestly think they would be worried about the budget for a game like Elder Scrolls VI? At least 1 billion dollars of revenue every month, which means 12 billion dollars every year compared to what, 40-50 million dollars that it costs for one 5-6 year project? Not to mention that during those 5-6 years they will have earned 60-70 billion dollars in pure revenue. 40-50 million dollars is literally pocket change for them at that point.

I know that the majority of consumers like to discuss business-related topics but the problem when discussing Microsoft and Game Pass is that most people are not seeing the bigger picture. Do you honestly believe that Microsoft decided to invest in a service like Game Pass because they knew it was going to fail and they would continuously lose money each year? Like come on man, it's not hard to figure out what their strategy is here. They're going to lose money at first, but then they're going to be crossing the break-even point and start gaining more and more revenue. That's why services like Netflix can exist because they have such a major subscriber base. If Netflix can survive, why wouldn't Game Pass? Movies/TV shows cost either around the same or even more to make compared to video games (50 to 200 million dollars) and Netflix is making a lot of its own media.

That's what I want as well. I think online multiplayer just isn't that appealing to me and I never really get into online games these days, in fact online multiplayer-only is the sort of thing that turns me off from even getting into a game in the first place. A focus on a great single player experience is what will win me over.

@LtSarge

So gamepass is good for otherwise unsuccessful games is what you are saying.

100m subs? Not even sony or Nintendo could do that if they had the infrastructure. Mobile gamers do not care about triple A or console games.

40-50m? Games cost over 100m today. Now it will increase. Where have you been? They have 23 studios that all need 50m- 200m next gen budgets and the rest of the third party studios they need to pay that have their game on gamepass.

No. I think Microsoft is going in another route because they cannot compete the old fashion way. They are in third place atm.

Netflix does not earn that much more money. It has 50m over ps4 consoles sold.

Ok. So, strangers things s3 cost 64m, but that is one of their popular tv shows.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2020/05/01/netflix-one-question-is-it-losing-money-or-making-money/#4ce5398a29a6

tv shows have a bigger mass appeal. There is still a stigma about video games. There are not even 300m real gamers out there. That 3billion gamers is bs. Excuse my french.

@Revengercm Lol I love how you needed to point out the difference in 40-50m and 100m. You clearly didn't realise the point of my post, which was to give you a picture of how large the difference in revenues and costs is going to be for Game Pass. 60-70 billion in revenues for 5-6 years is still a lot more than a 5-6 year project that costs 100 million mate.

Same thing with 100m subs. Stop picking out details in my post, the point is that they are going to have a large subscriber base.

And I can apply what I said above to the rest of your post as well. The point is, large subscriber base => more revenues => the gap between revenues and costs becomes larger, which means that it will matter less in the future how much a video game costs to make compared to how much Microsoft is earning. It's all long-term thinking.

@graysoncharles

Blockbuster is a renting service too, lol. Redbox also had to do with it.

Theaters still exist. That is sony and nintendo.
MS wants to be netflix.Althought that can easily change and I expect it with the new studios.

But, which one makes more money?

Besides, games are not movies. People keep playing the same games years after. Playstation and Nintendo are not going out of business lol. They are both strong as ever.

@LtSarge Where is this 60-70 billion coming from, lol?

Microsoft just spent 7.5b on Bethesda and that was half their earnings of the whole x1 gen.

The point is there is still no 100m subs. They do not even have 100m xbox live subs or can sell 100m consoles. Not even sony could sell 200m consoles and that is your best bet.

This imagination of future is making you blind. If there were 3 billion gamers, why don't they have consoles if they can afford smartphones? They do not care. They probably go back to playing clash of clans. Nobody is getting 100m gaming related subs to one service. None of the 3 companies.

Gaming is bigger than movies and music because of the spending, not because of how many gamers are there. Literally, everyone has gone to the theaters to watch a movie or has watch a tv show. Cannot say everyone has played a video game for a good amount.
We are not there yet. There is still a stigma cause by older generations. They will have to die first.
Look at how much consoles have been sold from ps1-ps4. Still at 100m sales. Gamers have not been popping that much more. Hold your horses.

@Revengercm Once again, you're picking out details and not focusing on what I'm trying to say. The point of the matter is that it's a fact that Game Pass subscriber base is heavily increasing and that's what Microsoft is aiming at.

https://www.purexbox.com/news/2020/09/xbox_game_pass_now_has_over_15_million_subscribers

What's your counterargument to that? Speculation? The future is making me blind huh? You know what we in economics call the aforementioned article? A positive trend. That means the Game Pass subscriber base is going to keep increasing while you're sitting there and telling me that people aren't going to subscribe to it. 5 million new subscribers in 5 months. 10 million new subscribers in 10 months, roughly a year. In 5 years where are we at? 50+ million subscribers. In another 5 years? At 100+ million subscribers. That's where my numbers that you oh so love to point out are coming from. Keep up with the facts mate.

@LtSarge Consoles sales increase and games keep selling too. Your point?
There is a gamer count cap. For anything.

My counterargument is the same. There are not that many gamers and Microsoft will surprise themselves when they find out there are not 3 true billion gamers. Apple has that market Microsoft thinks it can steal. Apple and Google could easily block gamepass and the dream is dead. They both have 2 services that compete with it tho.

Those 5 million more per 5 months will decrease as they are not that many gamers that are that invested into gaming like that.

@Revengercm That's not a counterargument because you are not basing it on anything substantial. That's your opinion. Game Pass has seen a 5 million subscriber increase. That's a fact, not my opinion. Do you get the difference?

You "think" that the trend is going to decrease. You "believe" that not many gamers will subscribe to Game Pass. Everything you're saying is opinionated and that's a fact.

I'm being serious now because you've dragged out this discussion for far too long. Unless you can provide me with a useful fact, this discussion is pointless because everything you're saying is unsubstantiated, not to mention that you're literally repeating the same things you've been saying for numerous posts now. Either bring me something concrete or this discussion is over.

@graysoncharles
To be fair, Puerto Rico economy is garbage so that also promotes the closing down. Even K-mart, Toys R Us, Radioshack etc.. man I can keep going and going how many brands of stores have closed.

What happens here, it is because of different reasons lol.

Thought Redbox games were taken out so the services are more attractive. Plus it is a bad business in my eyes because games take longer to beat and it is not ideal to rent games anyways.

I agree. Gamestop is closing soon after next gen consoles. Other stores can sell the systems. But digital vs physical is not the same realm of digital vs netflix of gaming. Yet 50 percent still buy their games physical.

They could easily be the Netflix of gaming, but gamers still cap at something million. Ps4 made more than ps1-ps3 combined. Switch games are selling A LOT. I bet Microsoft would have never thought of gamepass if they had switch games sales numbers.

They do not need to buy big publishers. Just keep making second party studios their best and then buy them.

@LtSarge How is it an opinion?

ps1 - 100m
ps2 - 150m
wii - 110m
ps4- 120m
That is a fact and something concrete. I do not know what else to say to you but either accept reality brother.

The market leader has not increased in max sales by that much. Those are the real spenders in console gaming.

Gamepass will increase, until it does not. Just like consoles sales and games sales. What part of there are not that many gamers you do not understand? I wish they were. Hurray for gaming, but they do not exist that many.

"The last thing I want in Game Pass is that there's one game that everybody is playing forever, that's not a gaming content subscription, that's a one-game subscription.."

Then proceeds to have Destiny 2 and all dlc, black desert online, and R6S on gamepass🤪

Just kidding, loving gamepass.

@PhhhCough yeah admittingly there is a good collection of that too. One think I like is how good the lineup is for having a little something for everyone. That’s not really a small feat considering we all have different tastes.

Out of left field, today: as of sept 2020, gamepass has 15 mil subscribers. If you use the cheapest method of obtaining a year of gamepass($75) they still get $1.13 billion dollars a year, at least. You'd have to sell 16+million games, at $70 a pop, to reach those numbers. To sell that many first party titles in a year is kinda hard. Unless you have multiple hits a year, which is in itself, a hard thing to do.

@Revengercm I think you raised a few good points in your comments but Gamepass could be totally sustainable. It is all about recurring revenue for MS. Everything for them is moving to as a service models as it is cheap enough for people to adopt and brings in a pretty penny. Once they acquire enough studios to add regular games on an annual basis people won't stop paying for it and the money will pile up.

I've bought both XSX and PS5. I originally only had preordered the PS5 but after delving into what MS was offering it was hard to resist buying an xbox too.

Gamepass could flop but it could also thrive and change the face of the industry. I personally hope it thrives as it is a lot more accessible for those who cannot afford to buy lots of games and the industry will continue to grow.

@Alpha_Pulse We just have to wait for the first 3 or 4 big hitters and see if my perspective moves to one side, the other or in the middle.

15m customers paying ~$15 a month, that's $225m a month and likely to increase. A game costs around $40-50m to make so that's 4-5 games a month paid for but games take 3-4 years and studio's are salaried so that $40-50m is spread over 'years' of investment.

That's without considering Gold only Subscribers and Software sales - not just Digitally through their store but ALL games purchased - Digital probably provides the biggest income per game but just on Subscriptions, that's a LOT of money coming in per month that is 'growing' and practically a 'guaranteed' income where as sales no doubt can fluctuate depending on releases that month.

In any case, you can see how Game Pass is sustainable and why MS can put their first party releases on it day 1. Unless they are releasing 5 or more AAA games every month, Game Pass is able to cover the costs of game development.

The more Studio's they add, the more costs rise but also the more appealing Game Pass is and more growth potential too. I know its not as Black and white as that but its relatively easy to see why MS say they don't need to release games on other platforms.

There is going to be a limit to how much they can grow. They may well see at least 5m a year growth for a few years but that will inevitably slow down because its not sustainable - there isn't the number of gamers to see that growth continue indefinitely. It may well have years of big growth and tail off but its almost a guaranteed income. It would take some 'disaster' to see everyone cancel, or at least a lot more cancel than they they get subscribers...

Yes yes yes yes! More single player games please!

@BAMozzy
Very good point at the end. Others in here should learn a thing or two about you.

Wow, Phill really gets it. I mean he really really gets it. He's the best thing to happen to Microsoft games since age of empires.....

Good! I'd love to see some longer campaigns instead of focusing on MP with a quick campaign bolted on.

Wouldn't it be better if Phil told the studios what to do which is what Xbox needs instead of hoping for more friendly/casual and single-player games?