Take-Two CEO, Strauss Zelnick, said the price hike “reflects the quality of the experience.” Well if I’m going to be honest, the experience with NBA 2K and other Take-Two titles have been lacking in recent years. I’m not saying they are not successful because from a monetization standpoint, they absolutely have been, but from a gamer satisfaction standpoint, I would argue they have been unsuccessful.
Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter believes the next Xbox console might be already dead due to Microsoft embracing Game Pass at $30.
You know the world is f’d up when Michael Pachter has given up cheerleading Xbox.
The crazy part is that this crazy fool was saying that Sony was doomed (or in his words 'going to be run over by Microsoft') because of GamePass after the Activision Deal. He was the one telling them to embrace GamePass and now that its killed them he is acting like he never said that.
Wouldn't it be the case of Pachter finally agreeing with parts of us rather than we agreeing with him?
I remember vividly that back in the day when GP was introduced and shaped further, many of us were saying that it's a great service on one hand. But were also already skeptical, too, as to how Microsoft would be able to keep the service running financially in the future.
Or/and how it would affect studios and game development in general.
As of March 2026, I think we have the answers some of us anticipated back then, when it was still Pachter who had forecasted «100 million subscribers».
A lot of this is just basic logic and common sense.
How much does it cost to develop a game? How much does it cost to market a game? How much does it cost pay devs/publishers to release on GamePass?
How much do users pay per month/year on GamePass? How many users does Microsoft need to be subscribed at once for them to truly be profitable to where GamePass pays for ITSELF(i.e not including stuff like in app purchases that they would get regardless of GamePass' existence).
You would need a large amount of subscribers or increase it's price to a point where it's no longer a "bargain" for it to be profitable.... if you're asking me. For some reason Pachter didn't see it that way nor did MS' users.
Likely the next Xbox will have a premium price tag so they have some profit margin on the low numbers they sell. We all know that the bulk of revenue will come from 3rd party sales on other devices and perhaps some from game pass.
Not to mention the fact that if it does have steam, nobody is going to buy games off the windows store.
If they dont have free online, this thing is dead to me.
And even Gamepass flopped. The end goal of Gamepass was to be hegemonic, to kill game purcahses with subscriptions. But that never happened. Game sales are still thriving, Gamepass' subscriber count has stalled, it's costly for MS and studios and its price is increasing.
The purchase of Activision allows them to hide Gamepass' failure. Not suprising that gamepass was removed from Nadella yearly bonus, they knew they would never hit the targets.
the tinfoil hat is on!
You think they spend 75 billion to hide that gp isnt doing well? XD
They totally didnt buy activision because they got some of the biggest and most profitable ips on the planet, but instead they bought it so you can't say online that gamepass failed!! that's totally the reasoning fr fr
He never said any of that..
Said that it ALLOWED them to, not that it was THE reason for the purchase...
I am not a Pachter fan , but I have to agree...who would have though. It used to be to sell cheaper hardware that is subsidised by First party game sales in the first few years until you can reach millions owning the console and by that time you can cheapen your hardware because the tech have been revised. With gamepass on everything and developers losing sales that option is now limited. With the onset of more options for games and developers going for Gass gambling FOMO style games and dlc consumers have become rightfully picky. Add that to growing hardware prices and escalating ram and pandering to society... it kills a brand. Most og gamers are gonna find you out and stay away. Put on the pressure of companies demanding higher revenue for sales, the poor developer has no other option to put a new coat of paint on a copy of another successful game. Innovation , what we are looking for doesn't happen a lot because the danger of failing could lead to budget cuts and them letting you go...so you play it safe and make a copy of a copy. Yes we get genres and types but 80% is the same game we have had for ages. So then because you are scared you let them put it on gamepass and you know you know at least what you get.
Hogwarts Legacy 2 will arrive no earlier than 2027, as Warner Bros plans major franchise returns between 2027 and 2028.
Thats ok ! Take Your time and make it gooood.
Playing the first one these days, and got a long way to go before finishing. Awesome game! Gonna 100% it.
I got mine just 5$ for switch 1 version and 5$ for switch 2 upgrade! Very beautiful game.
Man I hope they emphasize the school aspect and minimize the open world Ubisoft-ness of the first game. Open world is fine but it felt like every other game when I left the school.
A few days ago, an interview with Seamus Blackley, designer of the original Xbox, sent shockwaves among the community.
***This whole conspiracy theory (because that’s what this is) is basically entirely based on the idea that everyone involved is lying to us. ***
C'mon now. It's an opinion. Just like your opinion here. And it's from an industry professional who does have more knowledge than we do on how these things work and access to people inside the industry.
I'm not saying he's right, but you spend all this time arguing his stance and why his words are illogical, but then you go and make this sort of statement? Hypocritical.
It's from someone who has not worked at Microsoft or anywhere close to Microsoft or even in the gaming industry for over 20 years, and has worked at Microsoft for less than 4 years in total. He doesn't know a single one of the people involed and his experience of the topic is so diluted that he has no more authority than any rando on Reddit.
And almost none of the articles citing this silliness do the bare minimum due diligence to mention that essential context.
When you present a ludicrous hot take from someone who is nowhere near a position to know a thing about what Microsoft is doing today, if you think that readers aren't entitled to be made aware of that, we'll have to agree to disagree.
The truth is that a lot of the media outlets in this industry have chucked the bare minimum of professional reporting ethics into the recycle bin in the name of making a quick buck, and this is a pretty obvious example. This has been going on for years, it sucks, and it's only getting worse.
Misleading information for clicks may not offend you, and that's fine, but as someone who has dedicated the past 25 years of his life to informing people, it certainly offends me, and I see no reason not to express that position. Firmly.
***Misleading information for clicks may not offend you, and that's fine***
You really need to stop with the logical fallacies. There's nothing there that says my opinion on the original matter other than calling out your hypocrisy of doing the same thing you complain they're doing. Not even a part of the conversation.
Also, he didn't do it for clicks, journalists turned it into clicks.
@Christopher: his opinion is not the problem, besides the fact that it's nonsensical and based on nothing.
The problem is that it has been presented as a take from someone with authority by professionally bankrupt media that fills up the fact that they have nothing relevant to say with fluff for clicks, regardless of the fact that such a presentation ends up misinforming people.
Regardless of everyone’s opinion, one thing that’s never good is to be in the comments arguing with people on their opinion, about your opinion, especially in a place where you have no monetization.
@simulation
The way I see it you’re flipping the crumpet and assuming that because he hasn’t been a part of Microsoft for so long he don’t have contacts inside or he is exaggerating what we all can see in Xbox history of lies, deception and half truths since the 360 era.
Its very disingenuous of you to come and complain about his opinion when the patterns has been clear for way over a decade.
Microsoft is a corporation here if they don’t dominate they terminate the product you sound old enough to to remember Zune and windows phones you if not ask bing what happened to them.
'Xbox Is Being Sunsetted' — Seamus Blackley, One of the Creators of Xbox, Thinks Recent Shakeup Spells the End for Microsoft's Gaming Business
It clearly says that Blackley THINKS...has an, OPINION, on the matter.
I think his opinion hurt you enough that you had to create an N4G article to try and discredit his OPNION. The fact that someone that hasn't been in the industry for years, carries more weight than someone that only has one comment on his video, yours. And, has less than 2 thousand subscribers. What makes your opinion better than his? He's someone that actually worked at Microsoft. What's your background besides MS Flight Simulator and FFXIV videos?
Here's the deal, Microsoft spent upwards of 100 Billion or more to try to beat Sony. They tried to buy industry pillars like Nintendo and Sega who said no. They pretty much created a service to devalue games to try and control the market and failed. They never won a generation. Most powerful system in the world or not. They couldn't do it by undercutting Sony with their Achilles heal of Series S. Nothing the 3 Trillion company could do but end up releasing their games on Nintendo and Sony's platforms. Their competitor's systems. The amount of coping in your defense of the current Microsoft heads is just hilarious. It is true that not having a gaming background means nothing if you can turn a business around. But there's nothing to turn. Outside hardened Xbox fans, there's no reason that any gamer needs an Xbox when the games are releasing on competitor's platforms. Nadella isn't stupid to try and go back to exclusives that Xbox fans don't buy enough of to keep the developers they bought afloat. Heads have to roll. Just like the Sega days of heading into a new direction.
Read the writing on the wall. Xbox as you know it is dying and dead. No game sales numbers. No console sales numbers. Nothing. Nothing will change their transition to third party other than an outright ban of Japanese game consoles. But the backlash would be so severe, that any new Xbox would be boycotted everywhere. If any new system is released, it would be in name only or the fans that are left. A PC with Microsoft's name on it like the Ally and the Quest headset. but nothing more than that. A platform that has never been profitable. A game service that has never been profitable. That was once almost canned by Nadella before.
Land that MS Flight Simulator plane and leave the clouds. It's over for them. She's there only to help their transition. No system they sell will bring them back when they never were leaders to begin with in the industry. I came out of N4G retirement just to say this. Your opinion carries no weight and is unsupported by the facts of where Microsoft's position is currently.
@SimulationDaily
He may not be in the xbox loop anymore. But he'd surely have a better idea than any of us random people commenting would.
And how to WE know he doesn't know any single person involved? It's not like we can see the man's contact list or know his life personally. And all he did was give his opinion. He never said it was fact. An opinion is not misleading info. If he tried to pass off his opinion as FACT, then you'd have something. But that didn't happen.
We can't be mad about someone coming to the man for an interview answering a question he was asked
He's not in *any* loop, and he has not been for 2 decades.
How do we know? His responses tell us that. Unless you're unable to read between the lines, you can easily see that he's spitballing without any direct knowledge. The fact that he completely ignores the presence of Matt Booty tells us that he didn't even really read the news, let alone have any real knowledge about it.
Who in the world told you that an opinion can't be misleading information? Of course it can be, when it's wrongly presented as the view of someone with authority on a topic, without being contextualized, which is exactly what happened here.
If you don't know a thing about a situation and someone asks to interview you on it, you can say no.
His response doesn't tell us who he does/ doesn't know regardless of how long he was away from Microsoft. Again, we don't know this man's personal life or professional contacts to speak on such.
And who in the world told me an opinion can't be misleading info, living my life all these years tells me that. If you're presenting an opinion that should tell you it's not fact. No rational thinking person will sit here and misconstrue the two.
And again, he was asked a question. He never presented himself as an authority, he openly admits he hasn't been there in forever. What more context does he need when he already told us he hasn't been there in so long? Nor has he acted like is opinion is fact.
Now can he say "no" or "no comment" when asked a question? Sure he can, but he doesn't HAVE to. He can offer up his opinion the same way we all do here.
And how can you say he's doing this for clicks? He's the interviewee, not the interviewer or site owner. You have to realize with the video you made you can be accused of the same thing you wrongly pointed the finger at him for.
And for the record, since I know how this site is, I'll say this now. No, this isn't an attack on you. I actually like having convos like this that aren't troll based.
His response is incredibly vague and drifts into the factually incorrect, for example, when he says "It would have been shocking if they had somebody in there in a meaningful role who was passionate about games, passionate about the creator-driven business of games."
Matt Booty is the second-in-command, which is definitely a "meaningful role," and he's very obviously passionate about games and the creator-driver business of games. As a matter of fact, much more (and with much more relevance) than Blackley himself, who dropped the industry and went to do something else 25 years ago.
No one said HE did it for clicks, although all these "former X" usually do this kind of stuff to appear somewhat relevant when they have not been relevant for a long, long time.
The site that interviewed him and the sites/influencers who presented his opinion with no context as authoritative did it for clicks, because they had no access to any the people even remotely involved, and scraped the bottom of the barrel for something to fill the quota and generate some clicks, and they absolutely misled a ton of people into believing that what he says has some merit.
The "massive problem" isn't that he has an opinion. Opinions like his are a dime a dozen. Is that today's gaming press will fill the air with white noise with zero merit, disingenuously painting it as relevant, regardless of whether their readers are misled into believing something that does not exist.
First of all I did not watch the video but as far as conspiracy theory goes. Here is my take.
The whole idea for everyone to lie to us is about not owning and be happy. But here is the thing why is it so important for everyone to not own and be happy. What does the elite gain whether we own or not. I understand we not owning cars rather rent is what they want.
But why mess around with video games? I tell you why.
Because they don't want to sell "GPU"
GPU is the main problem. GPU is everything! From 3d printing your house to Mining Bitcoin. Not to mention it's the future that can cripple future government.
Blackley is the father of Xbox if anyone wants to see it's success it's Blackley
Yet he doesn't think it's long for this world simple as that
I'm more inclined to believe we've been lied to because Xbox has a history of lies and half truths
@SimulationDaily its not a good look for the author of an article to go to the comment section to argue commentors.
Look, I understand the indignation about how the media is talking about this interview. I completely agree on that front. That said, personally, I don’t think Blackley is wrong. Not because he’s a former Xbox executive, but because what he described is something we see time and time again in the corporate world.
If you’ve ever worked in this kind of environment, the sequence of a head leaving, obvious substitute leaving, and then a much younger, completely unrelated executive stepping in feels like déjà vu. Every time we see this pattern, it’s usually because the company is looking for a “shake-up” in a business unit, which often just means restructuring. And restructuring usually means layoffs and shutting things down.
That said, I don’t think Xbox as a brand is going to vanish. What I think is more likely is that the division will be significantly reduced and absorbed into another part of the company.
Glad you understand my view on the press. It's good that at least someone here does.
That being said, placing Matt Booty as Sharma's vice conflicts with that view. Hiring a young CEO with a background of success and supporting them with a veteran vice president is a completely different scenario then one you describe.
The sole idea that Microsoft would be willing to throw away circa 8% of its revenue because of AI is pretty ridiculous.
And if you listen to the reports, you'll know that Sarah Bond was far from the obvious substitute for Phil Spencer.
It’s actually the opposite. If they weren’t planning to completely bulldoze the place, then Sharma would be completely alone with an entirely new leadership team, at their mission would be to turn that ship into something else, but keeping the unit itself. The fact that she got Booty as a second hand, instead of a completely new second hand, tells me that they need someone with "experience" to smooth things over while she bulldozes everything.
And honestly, people would be surprised by how often companies choose to “lose” revenue when they realize they can save the same amount or more by simply exiting or reshaping a business line. And that is before AI, that just promise to do anything and it's currently Microsoft focus.
But time will tell. Let’s revisit this in a couple of years and we will see what actually happened. Unfortunately, and I truly mean that, because I don’t want to be right about this, I’ve seen this pattern play out too many times not to believe I’ll end up being right in the end.
Absolutely, let's reconvene in a couple of years. I have absolutely zero doubt about being right. Xbox will still be there, likely bigger than it is now.
"Bulldozing" doesn't fit today's Microsoft's MO at all, nor that of 99% of companies. Companies may choose to lose revenue, but that happens on dead weight businesses, which gaming is not.
And even when they do, they don't park a very successful young executive with a spotless career like Asha Sharma on a business they want to drop. Not only is it massively counterproductive for the company, but she'd likely quit, because she has the resume to get a job anywhere that would give her a business she can lead to success, as she has done with literally everything she has touched in the past decade.
Would I rather see a gamer at the top? Sure, but there's zero doubt that Asha Sharma is an extremely capable exec. Her resume proves it, and you don't waste extremely capable executives doing the palliative care doctor thing.
i mean, the leadership was changed out rather swiftly, with someone who has no odea of the business the former had atleast some know-how.
i think they are slowly trying to find something else they can make money off of, and xbox might just be the thing thats costing them more than they think its worth.
that's business. unfortunately
Leadership was changed to someone who has plenty of ideas (and plenty of success under her belt) about *business*, supported by someone who has one of the most extensive careers in the gaming industry.
You don't waste a very successful young executive (who Asha Sharma is; her career is spotless) to babysit a business you want to spin down. This is how business works.
Question - it's obvious the way the Xbox division hasn't performed well for Microsoft for a long time. The hardware sales has been abysmal compared to their only 2 competitors Sony PlayStation and Nintendo Switch.
I agree with you. You don't put someone like her into a position to babysit a business you want to spin down.
But is sunsetting Xbox hardware really spinning down the business? What if she transforms Microsoft Gaming into the number one game developers/publisher's? Bigger than EA and Ubisoft. Microsoft gaming make plenty games each year for every available console, PC, Handheld PC as well as mobile users via cloud.
Yeah, not worried about it! Microsoft said it's going with PC Architecture next gen! Hopefully Steam ready! Also, hopping it is upgradable, like Sega and Nintendo were 3 decades ago.
No need for a Pro version. Upgrade memory, exchange/add a board. Buying a mid Gen console upgrade last Gen, you could instantly tell the difference. The majority of current gen games optimized for PRO are great, but they certainly don't make me want to Rush out and buy one. I am happy with my PS5.
It brings me to ask, why so many 5 Pro/Vs Switch 2 comparisons? Seems kinda strange.
Kobe64 was the last basketball game I played or will play. Doesn’t really matter if NBA games have improved or not since the companies that make them are nothing more than scavengers that shouldn’t be supported.
2K has had one of the worst downfalls I can remember. Nothing will beat 2k8!
Also maybe if they didn’t put everything behind a paywall, like tattoos, then you guys would be ok