After all the carping over MS "killing" XBOX, Windows, and Surface in a "chase for short term profits", now the handwringing is over leaving short term money on the table by putting COD on GAMEPASS as a long tail play?
Not exactly consistent, is it?
It seems there is a desire to cast every Microsoft move as bad, regardless of the logic and rationale.
For example, take COD sales distribution: XBOX is supposed to be a small part of total sales compared to Sony and the Windows store a fraction of Steam. Well, those sales aren't going to be impacted by COD on Game Pass.
Similarly, at the FTC trial it came out that a significant majority of COD players only play COD. So why would those players choose to pay $120-200 a year for game pass instead of buying COD at $70?
So the tradeoff is added Game Pass subscriptions at $10-20 a month for as long as a *small* fraction of XBOX and PC COD players play the game versus whatever fraction of the $70 retail price goes to activision. (Sony gets 30% reportedly and presumably Steam gets a similar cut.) That would be $50 moved from one pocket to the other per subscription. Best guess would be about $300M for 6M "lost" sales. And that is optimistic (25%).
A more realistic guess is a million or two (less than 10% "lost" sales) versus whatever number of new subs they get.
A gamble worth taking.