Game Rant interviews Dune: Awakening composer Knut Avenstroup Haugen about his process for giving the harsh deserts of Arrakis a musical voice.
Former Blizzard CEO says that Xbox should ditch the console strategy and strive to be the world's largest entertainment publisher.
Their console business and GamePass go hand in hand. If they were to stop consoles, they would be, in effect, killing GamePass. The vast majoirty of GP subs are console gamers. If you remove the console, you no longer have 30 million gamers embedded in your ecosystem. The majority will never move to PC gaming and buy a $2000 PC. They will go to Playstation where there is no GamePass.
Could work... if they were publishing anything worth having. Bethesda is just making the same tired stuff over and over. Obsidian is a good studio, but they have been slipping hard. nXile isgreat,bit the last thing they even talked about was wasteland 3. Activision/blizzard is either the devil, or his closest friend.
Even if Xbox only sells 50 million consoles next generation, Microsoft still wins. Why? Because Game Pass is the foundation of their long-term strategy — and it’s working. With 35–40 million subscribers paying monthly, Xbox doesn’t need to dominate hardware to be highly profitable.
Here’s the real model:
Xbox sells a console.
Players sign up for Game Pass.
They buy accessories.
Microsoft sells games on other platforms, which ironically pushes Game Pass even more: “Why pay $80 for this game on PS5 or Switch when you could play it for $20/month on Xbox or PC — and access hundreds more?”
Let’s break that down: $80 for a single new game, or four full months of Game Pass with dozens of AAA titles, day-one launches, and rotating third-party hits. For a lot of people — especially casual gamers, families, and budget-conscious players — the choice is obvious.
Most subscribers aren’t hardcore gamers hunting for deals. They pay full price month to month, often seeing it as a low-friction, all-in-one gaming service. Microsoft is counting on that — and it’s paying off. A large percentage of users also forget to cancel subscriptions, meaning passive revenue continues to roll in until they notice. That’s the psychology behind the success of the subscription model across industries.
And don’t forget Microsoft’s first-party firepower. With all the studios they’ve acquired, they’re in a position to release at least one major exclusive every month. Combine that with partnerships to bring in second-party and third-party titles, and Game Pass becomes a constantly evolving platform — not just a library, but a service with momentum.
Bottom line: Xbox isn’t going the Sega route. They’re not stepping back — they’re going deeper. Game Pass, not hardware, is the centerpiece of their strategy. The console is just the gateway
Dune: Awakening is an excellent survival and crafting game set in the Dune universe, marred by unimpressive combat.
PlayStation boss believes that $80 games are affordable due to the value they provide. Using Mario Kart as an example, he noted that it offers numerous hours of gameplay with just one purchase.
He never said anything about affordability at all. He only commented about the perceived value that a game can have to a player that gets many hours out of it.
Again, as with many other forms of we are disrespected and lied to.
Title says Yoshida said $80 games are amazingly affordable. This is a lie.
Perceived value is subjective, so how do you even argue for it? If one person says $500 was worth it because they played a game for six months, what does that mean to someone who didn’t share that experience or see that value?
This is exactly where corporate thinking falls apart. The value is defined by them, and then they twist the logic to defend it from a purely internal, out-of-touch perspective.
I’ve never based the price of a game on how long I’ve played it. There’s a standard price range that consumers feel is fair. If it were truly based on time or value, Resident Evil 2 Remake would cost $20, and Final Fantasy VII Rebirth would be $1,000.
@Crimson
"Perceived value is subjective, so how do you even argue for it?Perceived value is subjective, so how do you even argue for it?"
I think his point is that it is subjective.
Honestly, expedition 33 is a prime example of quality for the low. Expedition 33 launched at 50$, and that game gave me more fun than most 60-70$ games I’ve purchased within the last decade.
Clearly, they want to increase prices. They need to convince people that it’s not so bad. As long as they can do that, they can do whatever they want. You gave an outstanding example of the direction things could go if creators were focused primarily on The community and quality. If that example or a few others like it didn’t exist, it might be hard to convey to many how it is even possible.
I get the concept.
People buy movies for $20-$30 dollars that offers only a couple of hours of enjoyment.
While games offers 3-10+ times the amount of hours and content.
So in theory yeah I get it.
But I will never accept it and would rather keep the price now or even better PS360 price lol
On the surface ye that makes sense, but when you realize the budgets are very comparable, you realize it's kinda stupid and overpriced especially when it common for it to be released unfinished
Not really, movies that have similar budgets have the box office where if they arent a flop- they typically make all their money back or a profit. Movies have a much wider audience. Games however just have that release and have a smaller market.
Are many people buying movies for $20-$30? Outside of the more dedicated movie goers who have a physical collection, I imagine most rather scoff at that and stick to things like Netflix instead.
You also have to take into consideration that most games are enjoyed by one or two people, while movies can be enjoyed by a group of people who are either friends or family.
Another thing is that the value of an entertainment product cannot be judged based on its length, but how it makes the user feel when it is all done.
An example of this is Ubisoft games. They can last close to or exceed 100 hours, yet many people hate on them for doing things to pad the length of the game, while Uncharted 4 and other Naughty Dog games average about 15 hours in length and are hailed as some of the best games of all time.
The value of an $80 all-you-can-eat buffet is undeniable, making it curious why some people choose a $20 restaurant for a single, standard meal.
In a similar vein, movies, despite their higher production costs for a two-hour experience, outperform video games in revenue while also being priced around $20. Suggesting that video games need 100 hours of diluted gameplay to compete seems like a misdirection. The real solution might lie in re-evaluating how their core offering is valued.
Individual movies yes, the movie industry as a whole? No, the movie industry is dwarfed by the behemoth in terms of revenue that gaming is.
Lol so rich people want to speak for my wallet now? I still haven’t adapted to 70$ yet, and not planing on to. I don’t mind waiting on sales.
