OP
OP
I said games like cyberpunk within the post, so people would know what I was talking about if they read the full post
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
A Netflix style game streaming service will never have new 3rd party releases
- Thread starter BlueManifest
- Start date
You said like Cyberpunk as in "a game that's newly released", not a game with enormous budget.
If people didn't read your post, they wouldn't even know it was using Cyberpunk as an example, the thread title only says " new 3rd party release".
OP
OP
You are making life so hard for yourself. Here are a couple alternative thread titles:
''A streaming service without the ability to buy games isn't something we should accept''
''Netflix-style subscription services will never have big budget triple A third party games at launch''
''Subscription services alone aren't enough to warrant a streaming service, you need to be able to buy games too''
''Ownership of games is more important than a subscription service in regards to streaming''
''A streaming service without the option to buy games is destined to fail''
;)
It doesn't matter in the text comprehension. You wasn't talking about the game having a big budget.
If you say "platformers like Mario and Kirby", you're implying the topic is about they being platformers, you can't just say the discussion were actually about Nintendo games and people just didn't understood.
Anyway, this is getting dangerously off-topic and silly. My point that matters is that i don't think there's people actually expecting big budget stuff on these services day one.
Never is a long time. I'd be willing to bet some will be able to find value in it eventually.
Which is the option where I pay $10-$20 per month and just forget about the FOMO of day one 3rd/1st party games that aren't on the service right away.... (until they eventually inevitably are...) because the games on the service are interesting and provide enough of a backlog that I don't mind?
Which is the option where I pay $10-$20 per month and just forget about the FOMO of day one 3rd/1st party games that aren't on the service right away.... (until they eventually inevitably are...) because the games on the service are interesting and provide enough of a backlog that I don't mind?
First party stuff being day 1 has been happening for a while though, MS themselves said every first party game they make is gonna be there day 1.
I meant more like a guess in the future. If Game Pass is really that successful the next 10 years, they probably could stop even selling games altogether in the Xbox ecosystem.
OP
OP
I'm not making it hard on myself, I'm apparently making it harder on others though which is why I added the edit to the OP, atleast I can get an idea of who's fully reading the post and who isn't
I think there's a conversation to be had here, but OP, your framing of all this does a really poor job of that.
I disagree with your basic premise that a sub of this type would need to cost upwards of $70-80 dollars. These numbers were arbitrarily selected. The only way people are going to pay for a such a service is if they can equate such a service with buying nearly 2 AAA games a month to get to the "break-even/make-it-worthwhile" stage, and that's a lot of spending on games; I imagine far more than your average game consumer (Enthusiast forum members may be closer to that sum, but that isn't the sole crowd streaming services are looking for).
Further, your options here aren't adequate. I'd be happy to pay for a service as I wouldn't prefer to buy 3rd party titles, but the cost you list is too high for that.
Apple literally just launched a service with a bunch of 3rd party, at-game-launch titles, from devs we would consider AAA when it comes to the phone space. And they managed to do that without charging a large sum for the sub. So I'm not sure where your insistence comes from.
I disagree with your basic premise that a sub of this type would need to cost upwards of $70-80 dollars. These numbers were arbitrarily selected. The only way people are going to pay for a such a service is if they can equate such a service with buying nearly 2 AAA games a month to get to the "break-even/make-it-worthwhile" stage, and that's a lot of spending on games; I imagine far more than your average game consumer (Enthusiast forum members may be closer to that sum, but that isn't the sole crowd streaming services are looking for).
Further, your options here aren't adequate. I'd be happy to pay for a service as I wouldn't prefer to buy 3rd party titles, but the cost you list is too high for that.
Apple literally just launched a service with a bunch of 3rd party, at-game-launch titles, from devs we would consider AAA when it comes to the phone space. And they managed to do that without charging a large sum for the sub. So I'm not sure where your insistence comes from.
True, but it's not like they've never walked back a statement. Also doesn't necessarily mean that they meant that the next generation of games would be included. If you go back to the original statement they said Xbox One specifically.
OP, I think you are missing the point of how subscription services are financed.
The idea is to get tens of millions of people subscribing, which creates a substantially larger pool of money than any single game release would ever make on its own. This allows the subscription service to spend the funds creating content, and allocating funds however it wants, while attracting new customers with unbeleivably low prices for the amount of content.
It may never make sense for a GTA to release on Game pass day one, but it made a pot of sense for Vermintide II to release there, and perhaps if Microsoft grows the service while priving ut the buisness model, they can keep scooping up bigger and bigger 3rd party day 1 releases.
The idea is to get tens of millions of people subscribing, which creates a substantially larger pool of money than any single game release would ever make on its own. This allows the subscription service to spend the funds creating content, and allocating funds however it wants, while attracting new customers with unbeleivably low prices for the amount of content.
It may never make sense for a GTA to release on Game pass day one, but it made a pot of sense for Vermintide II to release there, and perhaps if Microsoft grows the service while priving ut the buisness model, they can keep scooping up bigger and bigger 3rd party day 1 releases.
OP
OP
You need to read his post again and actually understand it like you keep directing people to do for you. That is not a direct rebuttal to anything he said. It's really hard to tell if you're being intentionally obtuse or just having a really really hard time expressing yourself and understanding others.
OP
OP
I added an edit to the bottom of the OP like 1 hr ago that's pretty easy to understand
If they read that and still don't get it I can't help them
OP
OP
Yea it doesn't make sense for gta to release on a streaming service on day 1 if you can't buy it individually, if you can buy it for full price then there's no reason for it not to release day 1 on a streaming service. that was the point of the thread, I'm saying we need to be able to buy new games like gta and cyberpunk on a streaming platform instead of only having a Netflix model
If you are only limiting it to AAA games by Ubisoft, EA or activist on then not. But smaller pubs would and have put games on day one
AAA third party games could absolutely be on a subscription service day one...assuming the service owner is willing to subsidize them.
Whether anyone is willing to pay what it would take is a good question, but it's not impossible.
Yep. And over time the larger third parties who don't want to run their own streaming / subscription service (like the ones you mention) or try it and fail will capitulate, and everything except platform-holder exclusives (like Netflix originals, Amazon originals etc.) will be available on all the major streaming platforms.
This is just the way markets evolve. It's what happened with every other entertainment medium that's gone digital, and there's no reason to believe it won't happen to games.
OP
OP
That's why I put the 70$ - 80$ in the poll, that's just imo of how much it would cost to have all new 3rd party games (AAA inculded) on 1 streaming platform, actually might be more than that not sure
I'm fine with limited selections ala Gamepass.
I'll just grab a month here and there when there's a game added I want to play and don't want to hassle with buying and selling off when done. After factoring in loss of value of used games (and if there's a price drop before I'm done), Amazon seller fees etc. I'm usually out more than the cost of a month of these services when done beating and reselling a game anyway. A month sub is thus similar value and less hassle.
I'll just grab a month here and there when there's a game added I want to play and don't want to hassle with buying and selling off when done. After factoring in loss of value of used games (and if there's a price drop before I'm done), Amazon seller fees etc. I'm usually out more than the cost of a month of these services when done beating and reselling a game anyway. A month sub is thus similar value and less hassle.
It really just depends on how one makes money through streaming services, doesn't it?
I'm pretty sure they make money based on how long you play a game for. This is why indie developers, i.e. devs who create shorter games, were/are opposed to Stadia because they won't make enough money to cover their budgets by putting their games on the service due to the length of their games.
Something like Cyberpunk, for example, has potentially hundreds of hours of content (if The Witcher is anything to go by) and depending on how much money they're giving the devs per minute/hour, could feasibly make more money doing that rather than selling it on a game-by-game basis.
Purely speculation, of course and it really depends on how much time people are spending on their games.
I'm pretty sure they make money based on how long you play a game for. This is why indie developers, i.e. devs who create shorter games, were/are opposed to Stadia because they won't make enough money to cover their budgets by putting their games on the service due to the length of their games.
Something like Cyberpunk, for example, has potentially hundreds of hours of content (if The Witcher is anything to go by) and depending on how much money they're giving the devs per minute/hour, could feasibly make more money doing that rather than selling it on a game-by-game basis.
Purely speculation, of course and it really depends on how much time people are spending on their games.
OP
OP
Yea some services might do that every once in awhile for a couple games but it wouldn't be a sustainable way to keep it going on forever for all big 3rd party games
the only real way to make it sustainable is to just sell new games for full price on the streaming service, or charge a really large subscription price
Last edited:
Developers earn money on Stadia by selling games. Just as on Xbox or PlayStation.
And a service like Game Pass pays content up front. So it doesn't matter if games are played 1 hour or millions of hours. Developers get the money they were paid upfront.
OP is extremely bias toward Stadia and it's goal, and that is fine, but they are hardly promoting discussion. They are basically telling everyone to shut up and quit talking about it ever happening, which is just silly to assume.
OP
OP
This is not a stadia only thing, I want PSnow and xcloud to do this too
stadia just happens to be the first streaming platform to offer buying new games individually
I read the bottom of the OP, and I'm not sure why The Outer Worlds coming to Game Pass for PC on launch doesn't count.
Why is "all new 3rd party games (AAA included)" a fair bar to set for 'Netflix-style service'? Netflix has nowhere near that selection. They don't have all major movies or tv show and never have and never could. You are presenting everything in the most biased way possible.
I don't even understand the Poll, I could get Gamespass, EA Access Premier, and Uplay + for less then 70bucks a month (15 + 15 + 10 = 40 bucks a month) and have access to some of the biggest AAA games at launch....
Since it's a subscription service, instead of costing 80$/month, it could cost 10$ but with 8 times more subscribers.
Technically, if there's 100 million consistent subscribers every month for 10$/month, paying enough money for an AAA game day one would be easily feasible.
I wouldn't bet on that tbh, but it's possible.
OP
OP
That's owned by Microsoft now, and even if it wasn't that's only 1 out of many
OP
OP
Yes but your leaving out other big 3rd parties that don't have their own subs
Well, strictly speaking, Apple Arcade is already a Netflix-style Model, of largely exclusive (as in, only via this sub) content at a affordable subscription.
I agree that we probably won't see big budget third-party console or PC games in such an exclusive setup soon, but at some point it is likely bound to happen.
I agree that we probably won't see big budget third-party console or PC games in such an exclusive setup soon, but at some point it is likely bound to happen.
So you are saying you want a subscription that has every single publisher's games at launch on it? That seems pretty pie in the sky...That isn't even Netflix like, because Netflix only provides 3rd party content after it has released elsewhere.
So.. what's your point?
''A Netflix style game streaming service will never have new 3rd party releases''
It will. Just not as much as you want. That's why you can still buy games. Or subscribe to a different service. And this will probably be possible on xCloud. So it's already one step ahead of Stadia, since that one doesn't offer a Netflix style subscription.
''A Netflix style game streaming service will never have new 3rd party releases''
It will. Just not as much as you want. That's why you can still buy games. Or subscribe to a different service. And this will probably be possible on xCloud. So it's already one step ahead of Stadia, since that one doesn't offer a Netflix style subscription.
OP
OP
No I'm saying I don't want that, I want to be able to buy streaming games individually read OP again
Then.. why isn't that your thread title? Because your first one was blatantly false.
Stadia supports Uplay+, is looking to have its own expanded subs and other 3rd parties.
We still know nothing about MS's offering other then it appearing to only support mobile devices at launch and be based on Xbox One S hardware. We don't know if all GamePass will be on it and if it is we don't know what price we'd pay on top of GamePass fee, so I don't know why people are so quick to claim it's superior to Stadia.
I'll be able to play a Stadia on my laptop at launch, that right there makes it superior to xCloud's launch for me.
Haven't read the whole thread so it probably was already mentioned. But does it count if service owner will pay the publisher a front cost to make a game available day one on their service with a timed exclusivity for example? I can see such thing happening easily.
I think it could happen.
So where now you see Microsoft and Sony paying for marketing deals and DLC exclusivity (as well as straight up moneyhats), in the future you'll see them securing 3rd party launch release exclusives to their subscription platforms.
So maybe in the next 5 to 10 years you see Microsoft and Sony biddingg to get an Assassin's Creed title to launch into their sub before the other, or to launch into it day one.
So where now you see Microsoft and Sony paying for marketing deals and DLC exclusivity (as well as straight up moneyhats), in the future you'll see them securing 3rd party launch release exclusives to their subscription platforms.
So maybe in the next 5 to 10 years you see Microsoft and Sony biddingg to get an Assassin's Creed title to launch into their sub before the other, or to launch into it day one.
I wasn't arguing xCloud is superior to Stadia. It isn't.
Was making the assumption (because of some hints given by Spencer) that you'll be able to play Xbox games both by buying them or by subscribing to Game Pass. And that'll give you the extra convenience of being able to play those games on PC or Xbox. Stadia offers two things: uPlay+ and the ability to buy games (which you won't be able to play offline).
Stadia can be played on more devices than xCloud, has better quality and is more scalable. On the tech side, I'd say Stadia is vastly superior to xCloud (or PS Now for that matter).
OP
OP
Because other people on multiple threads say they only want a Netflix model for streaming, without even thinking that they would never get new 3rd party AAA games that way
so I make this thread in attempt point that out
Alright. It would be silly to only want subscription services for streaming. Something can be said for it being preferrable to a buy only system. But that really depends on the users needs. Choice is king.
If Stadia offered a subscription service instead of a store, I'd probably bite earlier.
XGP has had several indies debut on it day and date. However Netflix doesn't have any third party shows release on it day and date. No such service does as far as I know.
.
.