Oy vey maybe this kind of money grubbery is not good for our society.
No, it's a signal from the market that the product being sold is not wanted by the market.
They've mismanaged all their IP pursuing that yummy subscription revenue. Turns out gamers really don't like to buy subscriptions. As a poster downthread pointed out, the games that are not always-on and subscription-based are doing fine. It's the recent AAA model of subscription that is bleeding money.
Doesn't matter how big the revenue is if the market is not interested at the price you are selling.
I mean, by your logic, if I sell a dollar for 64c, and do $5b revenue, that's an indication that the market does indeed want the product, but not an indication that the market wants the product at the price you need to sell at to stay in business.
* firing people * making services worse * sacrificing their own future
Whether it actually does involve those things is effectively arbitrary, because the consideration of the "bad sign" is also arbitrary. If there is no objective value judgement of their operation there is no objective value judgement in their streamlining either, so all bets are off.
no percentage no good
"complex consideration"
This is all normal and justifiable. Where is the logic that corporations need to preserve dysfunctional parts of their operations?
I'll counter by saying that pruning off failing things is not only good, it's the core of capitalism. Creative destruction, as Schumpeter called it. You get efficiency by hunting down and eliminating inefficiency, redeploying the resources elsewhere.
It's quite serious that you see "being good" as something inferior to "the core of capitalism".
Also, the core of capitalism is making money for private individuals, nothing more, nothing less. Whether that's done with or without "failing things", is really beside the point.
What private individuals choose to do with their capital, chase infinite growth and profit or sit on it, is up to them. This is as opposed to say, state ownership of capital.
People confuse the stock market with capitalism. You don't need a stock market for capitalism to function. Publicly traded companies in the United States are legally bound to maximize profit (Dodge vs. Ford Motor Co.)
Plants do this. What’s it got to do with capitalism?
So errors abound, and have to be subsequently corrected. This correction process is as natural to capitalism as breathing is to you being alive. Without it, things would rapidly grind to a halt. We see this in sclerotic centrally planned economies where errors persist for much longer.
Obviously both statements are gross oversimplifications. But I could not help myself and let that slide just like that.
If you're offering even 25 year 75% LTV mortgages at such a low interest rate it's $1.07 future money you're going bankrupt. And these days people are taking 30 year, 95% LTV or even asking for 40 year 100% LTV which is fully batshit.
This level of greed is also relatively new, and was pretty well managed by previous (30~ years ago?) administrations. There's an obvious direct correlation between the rapid growth in wealth of the top 1%, businesses becoming increasingly anti-consumer, degrading quality of life amongst the average person, etc. It isn't something inherent to capitalism, it's something inherent to unmanaged 'trickle down economics' capitalism and societies built on individualism above all else.
to me, it is really a signal that the cost of production is high - ala, they're inefficient, rather than the market not wanting the product.
Players purchased roughly $6.8 billion worth of the Roblox in-game currency Robux in 2025, a massive 55% year-over-year increase.
Making terrible decisions, such as investing in distractions for your company and consumers, and then letting your workforce pay the tab.. is the thing that is not great for society.
Who is the "we" here? Because the profit margin not being high enough is certainly not a problem for consumers. The only people who should care about that are the company's shareholders and "shareholders" certainly isn't synonymous with "society".
But the point is locking up money in a 3% margin business doesn’t impress investors.
So you either need to improve the margin with lower costs or higher price (or both). Or bail from the market entirely and put your money in something that makes more money.
I think people often forget that in a society we rely on companies making and serving things. They make our food and our medicine and build our homes and make our games. It's a good thing when their finances are healthy. It's a bad thing when they form monopolies and rent-seek.
This is madness and it doesn't make any sense besides the one case where you pursue a monopoly.
All of this has nothing to do with the consumer of the product besides the fact that he'll get a worse and worse product while simultaneously being forced to pay more and more. Enshitification is aresult of this "healthy" business culture.
Many of those developers may not have the job elsewhere, or job paying much less. They now have the experience working in a proper software engineering environment.
https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/...
But doesn't that make situation even worse? They likely would be 100B+ market cap/total asset value if spun off into independent company, but not able to generate even 1B in annual profit? Activision Blizzard managed 1.5B income/20% margin by themselves before being bought by Xbox -- and somehow whole of Xbox now earns less?
3% is pretty close to 0% which is very close to -1%. Think of it as a 3% margin for error.
- Investors bail - You run out of cash
However the owners are still going to be mad because their cash is down and they will demand changes to fix that.
Not to mention a company with thin margins is going to have a hell of a time raising money through debt.
So for example, if I can make twice as much money as a software developer as I can as a musician, that is strong evidence that my doing the former kind of work will benefit society about twice as much as my doing the latter kind of work.
We should expect more from our elite professors. Nir Eyal should've known better than to make a career out of studying how deliberately to addict users. But we should also expect our professors, politicians and policymakers to understand the basics of our economic system and to understand when a proposed change to our society sounds good or feels good, but has severe adverse effects on economic efficiency that outweigh the societal benefits. Those aren't the only proposed changes we should avoid, but they form an important class of them.
That was true historically but is no longer the case. Even last gen manufacturing costs didn't go down as much as they used to. This current gen they actually increased multiple times.
Consoles losing physical media and not allowing 3rd party app stores, or gasp, the ability to run user programs is going to kill the consoles. Expensive and marginal future utility.
They actually tried this a few months back when Game Pass Ultimate went from $20/m to $30/m. I cancelled my sub and went to essential. Then Asha backtracks and reduces it to $22/m and people are like wow, she will save Xbox. No, it just shows me they probably saw so much churn, especially from long-time subs, that they backtracked.
> 150M at 5B revenue is not great
- A company which has undertaken a concerted, long-term effort to consolidate the industry under its umbrella (something they themselves call out as a problem in this post), reducing consumer choice
- A company which has captured a significant chunk of the console market. They're one of the big three (alongside Sony and Nintendo), and have been since the early 2000s, arguably, for crying out loud.
At a certain size (typically as measured by market capture) the expectation for growth needs to be reality checked. This is still $150M of pure gravy every single year. Sure, this is going to a corporation, but that's more money than most people could possibly dream of earning in ten lifetimes.
Every year. For a company that's already putting money towards opex in the form of developing new games and new content for existing ones, for a ridiculously broad portfolio.
To be clear: it is Microsoft's and Xbox's prerogative to pursue more profit, but I reserve the right to call this out as absurd under the circumstances.
If you want to make the argument that Xbox has suffered from a lack of focus in the past decade (... or even longer), or that there's been mismanagement (I would say since around the time 343 got created), then those are fair arguments, though I don't think those are justifications, on their own, for cutting thousands in headcount.
Allowing this org to balloon to fourteen levels of management on any vertical is a joke. Allowing the absorption of so much of the game dev industry and still being unhappy with $150M in annual profit after being such an active participant in the oligolpolization of console gaming is just a bit unserious.
That actually seems... tiny? Xbox is nearly 17,000 employees. That's like $8k in profit per employee. That's worse than big box retailers and like 1/100th of what is common in big tech and (to the letter's point) far worse than their biggest competitor.
Like sure at least you can say they aren't losing money, but Nadella can't be looking at that after just spending 75 billion on Activision Blizzard and be happy with it as the status quo.
EDIT: BTW these numbers you quoted from OP are quarterly, not annual
The issue is rate of return. They are evidently spending $4.85bn on Xbox per year. The US federal interest rate is 3.5% so if you just put that money in US bonds you would get about $175M per year of much purer simpler gravy.
Richard: "Okay. Well, that's a gain of $200 million over 20 years. Um, 16.66 repeating. That's less than 1% return. Inflation is, like, 1.7. I think CDs are 2%. So that's less than a CD."
If I had 1.2 billion dollars I wouldn't care what investment strategy I had. I've got enough to spend $30k a day for 100 years. At any age, that'll do.
It sounds like a nice problem to have, but it appears to be very stressful from what I can tell. (I'd still like to have it, and like most I think that I personally wouldn't get that far over my head)
Two things, stand out to me though.
1. how you frame it might help with how you spend it. Which is to say that when shopping for a mansion "I've got 1.2 billion" likely leads to a different outcome than "I have 30k per day. I'll have to save up for it."
2. once chasing money is not a major thing in your life, what do you do for meaning?
sounds like there is a win-win in there somewhere. I wonder what that would look like.
for real though, what are we talking about here? 30k a day is not enough because ... habits? plus, it's incredibly hard to spend that much. that's exactly why, after a certain point, it's basically impossible to get rid of wealth.
I'm not arguing your idea that there is a point where you no longer can find anything to spend money on. However that point is different for different wealthy people and I don't know and you don't likely don't know either where your limit is or my limit would be. It would not surprise me if I personally had the money and decided to buy a yacht and then later sold it when I realized that while it sounds good I wasn't actually using it. But I don't know. Maybe if I had the money to afford a nice yacht I would use it all the time. Similar for those mansions. Would I live in a mansion or would I buy one first test symbol and then realize I didn't actually care and downgrade? I know someone who has made a lot of money remodeling the mansions of rich people who have decided downsize. For them downsize includes a master bedroom that is bigger than my entire house. And there were other bedrooms in that mansion, but it is still a down size.
I can't argue the point as well as educated economists can. I'd like to point you to Gabriel Zucman, for instance. What really got me in the end is this: he proposes a 2% wealth tax. It's not a number out of thin air, he actually reasons very well how he got there. You know how much the average billionaire wealth increased over the last years, annually? It's 6%. So it's not even suggesting "you need to have less". It's suggesting "you should accumulate more a little slower than before".
Also, sorry, I really can't emphasise with people who got so used to having a yacht that they cannot imagine life without one anymore. It's peak consumerism, individualism, capitalism. My take is that we need to rethink _some_ things.
And if Russ is blowing $100M a year on lifestyle and still has those numbers then he’s winning at life.
What a take. Of a character that is, albeit incredibly entertaining to watch, not displayed in a good light at all.
Alternatively, he's everything that's wrong with the system. He's certainly not generating any value to society.
But yeah, in a purely individualistic take, he's certainly winning at life. While making everyone else's a bit worse.
Value that is created but not captured (e.g. the value of consumers enjoying games and consoles above and beyond the price that those consumers paid) is typically not considered when making business decisions.
You're neglecting to consider that any time they acquire a studio or have a flop or two -- poof goes that $150M and probably more. It's not a risk-free venture. Entertainment is all about hits, and misses hurt.
Would you put up $5K to win $150 on a hypothetical roulette wheel that hits 90% of the time? The math's not perfect obviously but Xbox is a somewhat similar situation. Microsoft is putting up nearly $5B a year to make $150M. They'd be better off stuffing the $5B into bonds or something. There is a point where the returns aren't high enough to justify the expenses when risk is taken into consideration.
As said elsewhere in the thread:
> You’re saying that they should take the money people pay to buy Xboxes and put it in T-bills instead of delivering Xboxes?
So they could do that and invest the income they still get into bonds, and then that would be where the returns come from.
They don't want to do that obviously, hence why Xbox needs reform.
Wherever it comes from now! They're spending about $4.85B to bring in $5B.
Older forms of media understand this. WB loses money and its still really valuable because people see the potential of Batman, Harry Potter etc.
IP studios are really valuable because they can drive attention to your platforms. Try starting a premium streaming service or a console without IP. But you can't manage it like tech. It's not going to grow all the time and returns are uncertain.
MSFT could be in the XBox as a platform business. They could have a few in house studios to prime the platform pump. Once it started being a content business they got lost.
There are studios that routinely put out games that people love. For example, my wife and I will happily pre-order the next co-op game from Hazelight Studios. FromSoftware, Ghost Ship Games, and others fall into the same boat for many people.
The difference, in my opinion, is that games from these studios don't focus on creating an "always on" service, microtransactions, day-1 DLC, MRR, etc. Those things that blight games made by corporate studios are evidence of corporate executives putting their thumb on the scale.
There's only so much you can do, as a developer, to polish a turd.
I wish devs would stop trying to make every game an uber-game. They need all the monetization because they've already blown the budget before work even started.
Nintendo figured this out. When will the other big players?
I'm curious what you mean by this. It seems like gamers have never been more vocal and there have never been more avenues (social media, short form video platforms, etc.) for them to voice their opinions than we have now.
How exactly do you know that developers have never been more disconnected from their audience? And how would that be relevant to declining AAA game quality when it's the responsibility of management and leadership to ensure the quality of the final product?
This is a trope that's more than a few years out of date. Silicon Valley is run by Mark Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen, Elon Musk, and many other executives who are completely devoted to the current administration; even Tim Cook bent the knee and donated $1 million to Trump's inauguration.
And what does "far left" mean in this context? Is it the abolition of private property and the creation of a communist utopia? Or are we talking about basic equal rights and a slightly more progressive tax system?
Without a bit more clarity, comments like yours come off as being uninformed at best, ignorant at worst.
I’d be curious what you think the changes in dev culture are. I have worked for or with a lot of these studios and to me they have different cultures. But I could be missing the forest for the trees. MSFT has one culture that imo lacks a creative vision.
There is absolutely no reason to be in sync with Sony on their console release date. They could have effectively released consoles bit more frequently. But they choose not to do so. Their acquisition has been questionable - Activision/Blizzard.
At the end of the day, the employee pay the price for bad management decision which they keep on making.
It’s possible stadium sized esports wasn’t directly profitable or was break-even, but seems like it could have had the potential to catapult the idea into the mainstream when there are 7 figure prize pots, and the games are accurate to anyone with equipment.
There’s definitely some Blizzard DNA in the characters and lore. I like to think it’s as close to what StarCraft Ghost could have even been.
sure Rivals is strong competition but remember time where Marvel Rivals didn't exist, OW is already dying by then
If you played enough overwatch, you'd know that it was messed up from when Jeff started doing his silent fireplace streaming.
This was a silent protest by Jeff.
Nintendo get a pass because Switch is a very different console, closer to Game Boy.
That's exactly when the prototype development kits come out of small scale testing (maybe tens of units, all incredibly expensive bespoke units, probably hand soldered and assembled), production ramped up a little and the evaluation kits are produced and distributed to first party studios and large third party studios, with thousands of consoles produced with the expectation that their lifespan is likely only going to be 3-6 months. These are then extensively tested by developers, both to see what needs to be done to get their launch titles actually working on the machine, but often very serious hardware bugs are found in this period that may require fixes to the chips themselves or software workarounds that affect performance. For some of the recent console launches there have been 2 or 3 rounds of evaluation kits in a year, and the previous evaluation kits are effectively bricked.
After the evaluation kits seem to have converged on a final product, the development kits are produced to ideally match the final version of the evaluation kits, but again these are tested before production is ramped up because some things do change (most trivially the case, even if the board is fine). At this point tens of thousands of dev kits are produced, each different enough to retail kits (more memory, maybe extra ports, etc), usually at least 6 months to a year before console launch so studios can make a final push on the launch day or first quarter titles, and in the background the same evaluation process for retail kits (usually just stripped down from the development kits, but usually different cases etc) starts, and eventually a final design for the retail product is produced that's good enough for manufacture.
This time is definitely not just when the console manufacturers kick back and rake in their profits, this is when they're already spending big on the final push to get to the point where they even have a new console to start a new cycle with.
Separate to the console manufacturing side, the years before release are when big money is spent getting studios on board to produce launch titles, because without those, the console will be dead on arrival.
TLDR: revenues at the end of the console cycle aren't funding the next generation, because it's probably already been in development since the launch of the current console, rather those end-of-cycle revenues are hopefully paying off the gamble they took funding development for the current generation.
and yet everybody - including Microsoft - is in a big rush to sell us AI services, which could look an awful lot like a historical utility business. 3% will be a dream return in that scenario!
Also, I doubt anyone was referring to electricity as a commodity in the early days before the industry developed standards.