Everyone is frothing at the mouth over Gears of War E:Day again, but this time it’s not the culture war.
It’s the sensationalized reporting around it’s budget and retail sales. Headlines claim the game cost an astronomical $500 million to make, while other reports suggest it “only” sold 400,000 retail copies. Predictably, the terminally online commentary machine is in full force, with some rather insanely blaming Xbox fans for this failure.
Xbox fans asked for exclusives, and yet when push comes to shove, “fans didn’t put their money where their mouth was,” making Gears of War: E-Day’s reported failure “their fault.” It’s a neat and tidy narrative for console warriors, but one that’s completely out of touch with modern gaming economics outside of the social media bubble.
First of all, that $500 million figure requires crucial context before anyone uses it as a stick to beat the game with.
As clarified by Derek Reese, former Senior Product Manager of Xbox Game Creator Services, that cost isn’t simply the game’s direct production budget. Much of that figure stems from broad operational overhead, with The Coalition essentially being on the hook for funding Microsoft’s custom internal branch of Unreal Engine and supporting engine integration across the wider Xbox studio network (a tech-debt burden similar to Turn 10 bearing the operational costs for ForzaTech, on Fable and Forza Horizon). Conflating general engine-R&D operational overhead with the direct cost of a single game’s development represents a misleading omission in the wider narrative.
Beyond the budget discourse, expecting Xbox players to subscribe to Game Pass Ultimate at $22.99 a month, and an annual commitment of over $275, AND drop $70 on day one for every first-party title just to prop up traditional sales metrics is both unrealistic and absurd. The suggestion that players need to pay twice to prove they support a studio fundamentally misunderstands why Microsoft built this system in the first place.
Xbox Game Pass Ultimate is not free gaming
For what many are spending on an Xbox Game Pass Ultimate subscription, in standard retail that represents the cost of roughly four full priced $70 AAA games. When a player opts into the Game Pass ecosystem, they are effectively pre-paying for their gaming line-up up front. Expecting that same consumer to buy Gears of War E: Day at retail price to satisfy outdated quarterly sales charts ignores the basic economic contract of a subscription service. The entire value proposition of Game Pass is that you don’t have to shell out $70 every time a major title lands.
Not only that, but framing Game Pass users as passive freeloaders ignores key data we already know. Under oath, during the FTC proceedings, Xbox President at the time Sarah Bond revealed that Game Pass subscribers actually spend 20% more money on average on gaming than those who don’t subscribe.
I too have pleaded with fans to “put their money where their mouth is” for Microsoft’s divested teams like Undead Labs. There’s a clear distinction between asking players to support a core Microsoft internal studio, whose quarterly profits are in the tens of billions, over supporting the newly independent Undead Labs. Players who are financially able, could buy State of Decay 3 to stick it to Microsoft’s bean counters, and show Xbox what they had just given up.
The Coalition is a victim of Microsoft’s structuring. Putting them on the hook for Unreal Engine support across multiple games, collaboration with Epic Games, while also building a multi-faceted multiplayer title squashed under Call of Duty: MW4, World of Warcraft: Forever, Grand Theft Auto 6, and various other heavy hitters this quarter is pure insanity.
In a single two-month span, gamers were asked to choose between massive titles across every sub-genre: Marvel’s Wolverine, Silent Hill: Townfall, Minecraft Dungeons 2, Ace Combat 8 and major remasters like The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt and Dynasty Warriors 3 Complete Edition.
Expecting any single game to generate record-breaking direct $70 sales during one of the most crowded, wallet-draining launch windows in recent gaming history is wishful thinking. In a climate where players are already triaging their spending, a day-one Game Pass entry was an incredibly convenient and lower-cost way to play E-Day.
The $70 SKU is dead on Xbox, and $30 upgrades replaced it.
Regardless, simply citing 400,000 unit sales, or focusing on Steam copies, vastly misrepresents the actual paying audience. Game Pass subscribers actually engaged with the game’s revenue model in a massive way through the $30 Premium Edition Upgrade. That’s much easier to justify purchase-wise when you feel like you’re already getting something of value with your subscription.
How many would have spent ANYTHING on the game without it being on Game Pass? How do we really predict that behaviour? There’s no “alternative reality generator” to see how the game would’ve shored up in a universe without Game Pass, GTA 6, or the rest of it.
The $70 premium SKU is, for all practical purposes, functionally dead for first-party titles on Xbox console. But that isn’t because Xbox players refuse to spend money; it’s because Microsoft has trained them to spend money on early-access add-ons rather than $70 on a standalone license.
The same people attacking Xbox Game Pass are likely the same kind of people happy to wait for Steam sales, which too have contributed to a rejection of the $70 retail model. This is before we even talk about free-to-play titles like Fortnite, Roblox, mobile games, and others which actually dominate the spend.
For many of these people, it represents a glaring double standard to mock players for using the exact monetization model Xbox has designed for them.
Exclusivity is a marathon, not a sprint.
The second major flaw in the current discourse is the demand for seemingly instant gratification. Asha Sharma positioned Gears of War: E-Day and Clockwork Revolution as console exclusives at this years Xbox Games Showcase as something of an olive branch to the community. A signal that platform exclusivity was still a core priority for Xbox. But one game was never going to turn around hardware sales overnight. The reality of today’s market comes down to demographics and household finances.
Just a short story from my own experience showing a colleague E-Day running on a Xbox ROG Ally X during a train ride for work. He was blown away by the visuals and fondly recalled buying an Xbox console specifically for the original Gears of War. But today, as he told me, he has a PS5, a mortgage, and a family. Knowing E-Day isn’t on PlayStation was a bummer for him as he was genuinely interested in the game, but dropping significant cash on a secondary console for a single game simply isn’t a justifiable household expense anymore for him.
Decisions like that aren’t made on impulse anymore for the age and demographic of console users Xbox is targeting. Hardware momentum won’t be rebuilt with a single flagship release; it needs to be a slow and steady rebuild over years of consistent, uninterrupted hits. As a family, we have discussed buying a Nintendo Switch 2, driven in part by Ocarina of Time’s launch, but that alone isn’t a driving factor; we’ll get access to Pokopia, Mario Kart, Donkey Kong Bonanza, etc. – all exclusives that make it a more justifiable expense and one the whole family can benefit from.
Expecting E-Day alone to magically reverse years of shifting multiplatform strategy and hardware decline in a single month is incredibly short-sighted. One game will not persuade someone to switch ecosystems, but four or five over a two-year span might. Rebuilding brand confidence requires patience, something the internet commentary cycle lacks, and something Microsoft has notoriously lacked itself in the past.
The danger of short sighted pivots
If Microsoft interprets the initial retail sales of E-Day as a failure of exclusivity rather than a predictable outcome of their own subscription strategy and timing, they risk making another premature course correction, so for their own sake I hope they are ignoring the current discourse.
Niche or brand-new IPs like Clockwork Revolution won’t single-handedly move the needle either. What’s really needed, if they have the appetite for it, is exclusivity around massive, platform-defining pillars; the moments where a game like The Elder Scrolls 6 is kept strictly within the Xbox and PC ecosystem are what actually might be the thing that makes casual gamers re-evaluate where they play.
I don’t even think something like Elder Scrolls 6 alone would do it, but if it is preceded by a bunch of other exclusives, it might.
Game Pass was designed to change how players consume games. Blaming the player base for using the service exactly as advertised is a bizarre double standard. Plenty of players paid out of pocket for E-Day premium upgrade on top of their subscriptions. If Xbox wants to prove that exclusivity still matters, it needs to give the strategy room to breathe.
And virtue-signalling pundits should stop expecting subscription-first, “wait-for-a-sale,” players to buy into a $70 retail model have been repeatedly and explicitly told they don’t need to.
Join us on Reddit at r/WindowsCentral to share your insights and discuss our latest news, reviews, and more.
