OP
OP
-
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.
Eurogamer - What Developers Think of Game Pass
- Thread starter DriftingSpirit
- Start date
Well, if you don't believe Microsoft "spin"...
Gotta love era armchair data analysts.
Yea sales. What does that even mean its so fucking broad. They may pull in more revenue and make less profit. Again believe what you want.
You're entitled to your opinion, as much as I am to mine. I know I'm not the one talking in the name of a whole community.
As for this topic, it always dances around the same ideas. The industry will be what it is, until it is not anymore. That's also another opinion, in case it needs to be said.
I believe actual people that know what are they talking about, they are more reliable than "insert random era armchair data analyst".
OP
OP
The market expanding is good. It means folk like Sony and Nintendo wouldn't have to entirely change their more traditional method for game releases. They could do something that appeases this new shift (most likely to be Sony with PS Now), but I don't think subs will greatly alter/kill the traditional model (or at least not until many years from now) and that is great for gamers.
I don't disagree that it's definitely ground developers and publishers need to tread careful at the beginning, because it'll set the standard for what's expected at a time when potentially the majority of the audience gets their content from such services.
I just think Rocket League was a pretty bad example to offer, because it actually did launch day and date on a subscription service, and a subscription service that would likely (almost certainly) offer it less avenues for making money post-deal. Rocket League would have to effectively die entirely the moment it left Gamepass to not then result in a notable amount of actual sales. PS+ could have offered the game millions of players to this day with zero sales beyond what they were paid for the deal.
If it's so "obvious", maybe you should actually back the claim up?
So far, there's basically been one certifiable "bomb" (Crackdown 3) since MS started offering their games at launch via the service. Both Sea of Thieves performed well above expectations on launch, and Forza Horizon 4 despite being included in Gamepass outperformed Forza Horizon 3 that required a purchase to play at launch. And before anyone comes back with "but how long were SoT and SoD2 on the charts", go back and grab data on how long similar MS titles were charting months later without Gamepass.
No one is saying subs is going to kill the traditional model.
The rise of F2P games first didn't kill the traditional model, the digital era didn't kill the traditional model, the mobile expansions didn't kill the traditional model and both subs and streaming are not killing the traditional model. This is another choice to access games, i really don't see the issue here.
OP
OP
It has been mentioned as a possibility/eventuality by others. I'm just going against that notion.
As the subscription model spreads, developers will be open to different partners and better contractual terms. So, the sooner this grows, the better for developers.
Which is exactly what you're doing, believing what you want. Phil Spencer also said he is surprised that Game Pass actually helps sales, not the other way around. I guess since it's coming from him it's just spin too.
Win what? You're being more ridiculous than the apparent spin you are calling them out on. He wants to get games to as many people as possible and bring down some of the barriers. He is said if one company does well that does not mean it has to be at the expense of a competitor. But hey, to you its just spin.
Porblem with subscription stuff is that games will become more and more GaaS or full of DLC. Looks at Bleeding Edge, cool its included with gamepass, but it will be build as a f2p probably, with dlc up the wazoo and season passes etc
That's why Game Pass doesn't offer 1000s of games. It's a curated service that tries to offer 1) something for everyone by filling genres and niches, and 2) offering quality tentpole releases. The idea isn't that any person is going to be interested in, or play, all 200 titles. And those who just use their console as a FIFA/CoD box weren't going to buy any other games anyway, but perhaps the convenience of Game Pass might encourage them to broaden their horizons.
I have a couple of friends IRL who are now addicted to Hollow Knight thanks to GP and they'd never even thought of checking out out before. The reality is that it's probably all they'll play for the next couple of months but then they'll go back to the GP library and seek something else to play, they'll be staying subscribed and who knows, HK will leave GP at some point and then maybe they'll rebuy it again to revisit it, and/or buy the sequel.
You could argue 'why did they not just buy HK if that's all they'll be playing on GP for a while', but that's missing the point: they wouldn't have bought it anyway, nor tried it, or even given it a second look, if it were not for GP - because they literally hadn't before it launched on GP.
The best things about GP are convenience, discovery and value. You won't like or play every game, but the few you do are worthwhile keeping the subscription for, and with new titles added constantly, there's always something fresh to check out.
Last edited:
It's really obvious when someone dismisses both direct and independent confirmations on a subject because they don't like a conclusion. They "know" it's only 3.6 Roentgen.
I'm fairly sure Rahni Tucker has already said that Bleeding Edge won't be f2p.
But the game was in development years before the Microsoft acquisition, so it makes zero sense blaming gamepass for what the game is today.
I understood this reference.
The problem with gamespass is that right now it's clearly subsidized, all the people in love with gamepass are in love with the inflated, unsustainable value proposition. The value will no doubt go down (and price go up) once MS starts needing to make money off it. Similar to what Sony did with PSPlus last gen and the great selection they had then - if this model was actually more profitable, you'd see Sony having a more competitive offering.
Ya'll need to stop making stuff up.
Sea of Thieves is literally a GaaS game, and guess what? The post-release content has been free. Crackdown 3 is a critical and commercial failure, and the developers are still releasing a bunch of content and updates for free.
F2p and GAAS already exists where companies can and have gone that route...subscriptions won't change anything as they were already there without it.
I get your point, but if they would start offering less and asking for more, then people would just unsubscribe, yes? What would be the point of that?
+ A lot of people have subscribed for 36 months or something for only a 100ā¬+ with the 1ā¬ deal.
It's like Netflix would suddenly up their price and remove a shitton of content, where would that lead them? Nowhere
It's just silly to assume this stuff, when you just have a "hunch" because....you know...Microsoft is bad and shit.
I don't see why the model is that far away from being sustainable.
I think it's a sustainable model. Maybe not at $10/month, but at $15-20? I don't see why not. $10/month is the equivalent of 2 full priced games a year. $15/month is the equivalent of 3 full priced games a year. And $20/month is the equivalent of 4 full priced games a year. With any consumer group, there are power users and those that aren't. With that logic in mind, there are people who spent well over the price of 2-4 full priced games a year, and there are those who spend less. Depending on the price point, while you're losing potential revenue from your more engaged gamers, you're making more than you otherwise would have from those who are less engaged - so it balances out in a way in the end.
I'm pulling these numbers out of my ass, but lets be conservative (I have no idea if I'm being conservative) and say that at its peak - Microsoft has 20,000,000 active subscribers to Gamepass. That would be $2.4 billion to $4.8 billion in revenue annually, depending on the $10-20/month subscription cost. Every additional 5 million subscribers would be $600 million to $1.2 billion in additional revenue annually. Now that's revenue exclusively from the subscription. That doesn't include consumers who are still purchasing games or the purchase of downloadable content - given that Gamepass only gives you the base game and not season passes / expansion packs. That seems like a fairly significant amount of money to me?
I think this model is beneficial to Microsoft in a way the AMC's A-List subscription is beneficial to AMC. I'm a subscriber to AMC A-List for $20/month, and while I easily make out like a bandit in terms of how many movies I'm watching a month - I ultimately find myself watching movies I otherwise wouldn't have. Yes, had I had to pay for the 8 movies I saw this month in theaters - AMC would stand to make more money. But I probably would not have watched 6 of those movies. Furthermore, since I find myself in the theater more often, I'm probably not saving as much as I feel like I am given concession purchases. The same is true for Microsoft. Simply because consumers are playing all of these games on Gamepass, does not mean that Microsoft is losing money - because someone consuming something on a subscription model does not mean they would purchase that item through traditional means had they not been able to play it through the subscription service. And since they're going to have consumers trying games they otherwise would not have, Microsoft stands to have situations where consumers enjoy games they otherwise would not have - and then purchase DLC / season passes for games they otherwise would not have.
I very much like the conclusion. My 1X and PC is set for 3 years thanks.
Neither did the movie industry about netflix, same applies to music and spotify.
It's new.
(Also, don't want to be a dick, but its not a streaming service)
Sure, and a lot of production companies still don't want to put their movies/music on Netflix/Spotify.
I swear this sounds like a Microsoft employee is typing this!
Yea i know. Its what happens when others are stubborn to the truth
Literally many other have said the exact thing i have in a nicer way but no one counters them haha
GP has been amazing to me. I think i paid less than $5 the past 7 month i had a 1X. And i got to experience so many great games
This. Unlike Stadia MS has always posited this as an option not the standard.
I am planning to give Game Pass till next April and other subscription services as required. Instead of buying day one games apart from a few exceptions. But only playing the games I would of bought unless I nothing to play and See what's the best value for me in the long term.
At the moment I am struggling to find stuff I haven't played on Game Pass
At the moment I am struggling to find stuff I haven't played on Game Pass
Yup, and I doubt that every developer and publisher will do same here, but times change and the industries involved change with them. Nobody is forcing anything with this stuff, I see this as a positive shift and others don't.
And this definetly is going to cause some upset and worry since gamepass is pretty much treading on unproven ground. But so far, things are going pretty sweet, and from a consumer standpoint I could not be happier.
Is there a single false statement there? C'moon now, the library is pretty damn diverse, you cant deny that.
Developers must get their act together on this because they don't want to get screwed like musicians did during the shift to streaming. There needs to be some sort of collective group determining the standards for streaming payouts and the standard has to be flexible enough to represent various types of game experiences.
EA hosted an "EA Originals" event during E3 last month, and one thing that its panel of indie game makers unanimously agreed upon, which I didn't see in this article, was really intriguing. (And nobody in attendance seemed to write about it. The event's basic info is here.)
What they all said was, if you hitch your game's wagon to a subscription service, the "bang for the buck" design imperative is GONE. You can make a game at whatever length you want without critics assigning it a value based on how long or deep it is. A two- or three-hour game can get lost in the marketplace when it demands a retail cost, but as something to try out in a hodgepodge of subscription options, it becomes a totally different proposition of time and surprise for a potential player.
(Coincidentally, Sea of Solitude is out today, a freebie as part of EA Origin, and I'm gonna go start playing it right meow.)
What they all said was, if you hitch your game's wagon to a subscription service, the "bang for the buck" design imperative is GONE. You can make a game at whatever length you want without critics assigning it a value based on how long or deep it is. A two- or three-hour game can get lost in the marketplace when it demands a retail cost, but as something to try out in a hodgepodge of subscription options, it becomes a totally different proposition of time and surprise for a potential player.
(Coincidentally, Sea of Solitude is out today, a freebie as part of EA Origin, and I'm gonna go start playing it right meow.)
Sales just means sales. And when a sale is done, Microsoft makes money be it the game, DLC or MTX. And those tweets tie in with what Microsoft has stated that the service has been a driver for sales.
Was actually starting to look for these tweets. I only could not remember whether it was Zhuge or Matt, but I think that Zhuge might have voiced something similar too. Kudos for finding them.
You're quoting someone who said he thinks it's the first time he considers a service like it (gamepass) fair for developers.
Anecdotally this is how it works really well for me as a player. But then I often bought such games, so maybe that is bad for the dev... But I think I am in a minority across all gamers. The advent of indie success on the Switch is telling in how it gave new access to types of games that have been around for aaaaaages. This is similar, sort of, and I warrant better in terms of giving the games exposure.
Pretty sure people, who's professions are to read and react accordingly, who actually have a degree and or job in this profession, will know a whole lot more than your arm chairing stuff.
Wow that's great! Seems like someone not even interested in Xbox managed to buy their online/Gamepass subscription and plans to use it for the next three years.
Seems that MSFTs plan to incorporate more users into their ecosystem works and you're pretty much a case study on the application.
Enjoy your great games!
This has nothing to do with the fact if i believe Michael Patcher, or not, but this is about your inability to properly comprehend that people, who actually have a degree in this field, know more then you do, and pretty sure aren't ''spinning'' things as you would like to call it.
It's funny that you are dismissing both direct and independent confirmations about this topic, not just the developers who spoke to EuroGamer about what XGP does, and means for them, or the people who are being paid to understand these things.
Of course that there is a venue for more investment from customers. Sell DLCs. Those are not included with the subscription.
How does the non-ownership of games in services like Gamepass affect DLC purchases?
I can imagine the fleeting nature of the games on Gamepass would actually deter some from buying DLC.
