Jedi Survivor, Suicide Squad, and Mortal Kombat account for $800M of this list, and none of them came to Game Pass, meaning Microsoft did not opt to spend that money.

Or… no amount of money was enough to make those games cannablize their sales, why do you think it’s only Microsoft making decisions…?

What truth? That Spencer says it profitable, but won’t provide the information to prove it…? Yet all the leaks and information point the opposite direction…? You want the truth, don’t listen to Spencer and read between the lines lmfao. The last person you should be listening to on this, is the one at the top of it.

Provide anything other than Spencer claiming it, I bet while you attempt to find that you’ll find the mountain that’s behind you.

Games leave gamepass since when it comes to renewal they don’t want to since streaming cannablizes sales and leads to lower revenue (already said this) so it’s not Microsoft deciding it’s not profitable, it’s the game wanting control back.

Investors don’t care, Microsoft itself is profitable, the gaming division can bleed money and they won’t care, since the parent company will just give them the difference another way.

Some games cost that much….

Not actually pricing, estimates, but if they were estimating that much, they were liking willing to pay close to it, even half these numbers and it doesn’t look good. Just this collection of games that a drop in the bucket of total games, would cost 1.5 billion dollars. That’s over half their revenue, without even accounting for any operating costs or anything, or the rest of the library.

So, no it is not profitable and it’s hilarious that you’re defending Microsoft for claiming this, why isn’t anyone else other than Microsoft saying the same thing? In fact lots are claiming the opposite since this leak came out and they started looking at the numbers and taking directly to devs involved. Devs hate it

Why are you talking about game budgets? Microsoft is paying completely finished games 100-300 million dollars to be on games pass. If they are doing that, do you seriously think that they aren’t spending more than 2.7 billion putting games in the service…? It’s obviously far far more than 1 billion dude….

Game pass isn’t profitable, or Microsoft would tell you the full financials to prove how good it is. So why haven’t they…?

Dude… they spend over 1 billion, but they also have 6 games that cost 1.2billion (200 million a piece). Their costs are far more than 1 billion and probably exceeds the 2.7…. Use some critical thinking here.

You have Phil Spencer saying they are profitable by telling your their sales, but only they spend more than 1 billion, they could also spend more than 10 billion, but they omit that specific information. Why? Because it would show the lie….

Please read

It’s not profitable. They say they spend over 1billion dollars a year, but you read some of the deals and they are $200 million for one game… they also say they make $230 million a month. So if they only make 2.7 billion and spend more than a billion a year with some games costing $200 million….

How is it profitable? It’s being supported by Microsoft itself so they can bleed money to crush competition. They are being intentionally vague and not releasing intimation as it would show they are doing very illegal things.

Lots of this stuff came to light during the merger and is available online to view now.

That’s also partly because Microsoft is buying customers with gamepass, it’s unprofitable in the long run, but they just need to do it long enough to kill off competitors. Exactly what Netflix did basically.

Youve been able to start to see the ripples forming a few years ago. Devs aren’t making as much from the deal of being on it vs private sales as well.

Amazon was using people to train the model, so at the starts it would be 100%, but eventually the goal would be to get near zero, maybe the average was 70% but when the ended it was near 40%?

I believe that’s the problem, AAA studios can put out shit games, the game content should dictate that.

My eyes are getting sore from all these studios popping up claiming they are making AAA games, maybe put something out first mate.

Difference is, the mouse can’t die, a person can. But the mouse can be continued by anyone…

How many times do you need the wool pulled over your eyes before you see this company for what it really is? Lol

Those are all binary outputs, neurolink allows analog.

Totally different goals, so no nothing else exists currently.

Got a link to share? Nothing else can do analog inputs like neurolink can, so would love to see this tech that isn’t even been talked about yet that you’re spouting all over this thread.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Than why doesn’t the tech exist yet…?

On/off isn’t the same as being able to control the input incrementally.

EEG and neurolink are two different techs accomplishing quite different goals in the end,

EEG can’t input analog inputs, neurololink is accomplishing an entirely different tech, so that’s quite literally impossible. Sorry.

EEG can’t accomplish the same thing, it doesn’t have analog control, mario cart has analog steering and in the video you can see it working.

It’s an entirely different tech meant to do something else, so no an eeg chop cannot ever accomplish the same thing.

You’re spreading misinformation all over this thread.

EEG is an extremely limited tech, they are looking for a way to advance past those limitations.

We can’t just not advance ever since someone might get hurt, that’s just asinine.