You need to fear monger about something. If it's not quality, it's micro transactions or they'll all be gaas
-
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.
I wish Sony took PS Now serious like what Microsoft does with Xbox Gamepass.
- Thread starter Derktron
- Start date
I don't imagine a customer who would only ever play that one game over the course of twelve months would subscribe to Game Pass to play it though.
That customer would just buy the game outright surely?
wait so in turn Microsoft is not greedy? Do i need to remind you who introduced online play behind a paywall with Gold? Or that MS's first party games continue to have crappy microtransactions?
MS is just as much after your money as Sony, Nintendo or any other gaming company. Don't be fooled to think otherwise just because they sprinkle the occasional customer friendly feature/service here and there. It doesn't mean they do it out of the goodness of their heart. It's money oriented
Were subscription services to really take off the sales for those kinds of games would plummet to the point they'd start to never get green-lit in the first place.
I know that's probably the way things are headed but I'm in no rush for Sony to speed up that future.
That's impossible with out day 1 releases and quality of games.
If journalist wrote more articles about why PSNow is lacking compared to gamepass maybe they will be motivated to do something.
Fucking hell.
i think the quality of games is there, it is just missing day 1 releases.
This, thank you, I thought I was the only one to figure it out !
Chances are the hard core players already purchased it. But someone new to say.....Phantasy Star Online or Elder Scrolls Online? It gets people in the door.
But developers do, it's not about the smaller titles really, as they seem to well suited for a subscription service.
It just seems like almost a fact that an ongoing online game is much better for a subscription service than a shorter single-player game. Imo this doesn't necessarily mean that the quality will drop, but as there has to be some kind of system in place where the hours played affect the amount of compensation a developer is going to get, it's in the interest of both MS and the developer that a certain game keeps players subscribed as long as possible, and single-player games just aren't as well suited as something like Sea of Thieves.
It's not like there won't be single-player games, but I would guess that they'll gravitate more towards games like Sea of Thieves etc.
Gears Tactics developer says Xbox Game Pass 'frees up' metrics for success, allows teams to take risks
Microsoft's gaming subscription service is allowing the teams at Xbox to be more flexible.
www.windowscentral.com
I don't follow. What kind of games wouldn't be green-lit? The Battle Royale MMO ones?
I think good games will sell whether they're being offered on subscription or not. The market is there.
Nah they are just not interested in losing money right now.
That's completely wrong thought pattern. It's up to MS to have all kinds of games that appeal to everyone, and that includes SP games. Why would hours played effect the compensation of a dev? Isn't Ori a single player game?
You're so right. Microsoft is only funding InXile, Obsidian, Ninja Theory and Playground to all make AAA single player games. Not to mention Gears Tactics totally didnt just release either.
This nonsense about the death of single player games doesnt have a basis in reality.
The big budget, single player kind would not be green lit i'm saying.
In a subscription future sales for those games would not be as strong if everyone is hooked up to subscriptions.
charge less than your competitors for downloads and streaming and get called greedy brehs
Why should they honestly ?
Gamepass is the only way for survival for MS. There games are for the vast majority underwhelming at least, outside US they don't sell. They definitely need GP to stay in the game.
As long as sony sells shitton of games, they have the better strategy, ie making money.
They just need to increase resolution/fremerate for their streaming service.
Gamepass is the only way for survival for MS. There games are for the vast majority underwhelming at least, outside US they don't sell. They definitely need GP to stay in the game.
As long as sony sells shitton of games, they have the better strategy, ie making money.
They just need to increase resolution/fremerate for their streaming service.
It's half the price, allows both streaming and downloads and also has online play enabled workout the need of another sub for the games on the service.
So i would say the service is quite good.
The approach regarding content seems very different, it may change in the future, there's always time to improve the game selection, but it comes at a cost, do i really want to see the success of both services when both are full price and not on offer frequently.
So i would say the service is quite good.
The approach regarding content seems very different, it may change in the future, there's always time to improve the game selection, but it comes at a cost, do i really want to see the success of both services when both are full price and not on offer frequently.
Why? If I stay subbed for 100 hours to play Witcher 3 or stay subbed 100 hours to play Sea of Thieves or stay subbed 100 hours to play 10 indie games, what's the difference? In all cases I pay for the time subscribed.
Subscription services are usually the ultimate in greed. It's just that the price increases and content reductions come later once the audience has become dependent on them.
This has nothing to do with loving a company. People naturally get suspicious when they are being offered something below the cost to make that thing. If you see the value in the games that Sony makes then there is nothing wrong with wanting them to be adequately compensated for producing them. This encourages them to invest more in big first party games.
And what if the game is only 15-20 hours long and costs 5x as much as a cheap multiplayer game which keeps players playing longer, buying microtransactions and offering new content.
If subscription gaming truly takes off AAA single player games will be affected, it's that simple.
But... That subscription cost has to cover every game on the service. You spend £500 over a generation on subs instead of £5000 over s generation on fully bought games.
Well it might be wrong, but the way they are licensing games, how else can you assess the actual value of a certain game if part of the monetary value of the licensing deal isn't decided by the actual performance of the title? Isn't this also in the interest of the developer? To my understanding Netflix and others also have this kind of model for some content.
I didn't say that there wouldn't be any single-player games. I just said that subscription model kind of favours games with legs.
I've made some licensing deals through my work so I have some experience, and yeah I might be totally wrong as of course I don't know the specifics, but when we're talking about totally new games, imo it's unlikely that there would only be some kind of down payment and no bonuses or nothing after that, regardless of how popular a certain game becomes. Like a game could become a sleeper hit. Wouldn't someone feel robbed?
It's like when Sapkowski gave the rights of Witcher to CD Projekt for a one-time-payment and didn't want any ongoing royalties etc, but later demanded more. Doesn't seem like a fair deal to me in this day and age without any performance indicators.
Your math is bad, the average attach rate of consoles (like 8-12) means that a subscription over the lifetime of the system would actually generate more revenue than buying individual games. Most people buy less than $100 of games per year.
That doesn't make any sense. Now multiplayer games are "cheap"? Based on what? Servers and updates and live service are all cheaper than a fire and forget SP game?
But just in general your line of approach doesn't make sense either. Microsoft gets some amount of money from subs. They then pay devs money up front to be on the service. They want the maximum number of people joining the service, which means they will pay for SP content. This isn't every game justifying its own personal base of subscribers, which has to cover the costs of just that game - it's exactly the opposite. The subscription has to have a wide enough range of games to attract all players.
lol you think MS isn't doing game pass for the money?
I mean it's up to the Dev and MS to come up with a deal. If the dev doesn't like it he doesn't allow it on GP. The balls in the Dev's court - He's the person with the product. Reading what Netflix does seems like every deal is different. Upfront deal is decided on and after how many months-years it's either renewed or not. I haven't heard of anyone getting screwed over by Netflix? I mean we all read about bidding wars going on for movies after festivals and what not. Seems to me it benefits the creator more then ever. Subs need content.
If they actually got PS3 games to run on a PS5, PS Now's value would go up significantly.
Other than that, it kind of is what it is. It's half the price of Game Pass per year.
Other than that, it kind of is what it is. It's half the price of Game Pass per year.
PSNow's problems are extensive, especially the business model problem. What they need is a sharper vision of the product and based on the constant changes they make; it seems they are in reactionary mode because of Game Pass.
I feel like Sony will be focusing on PS NOW in a major way in this coming generation. A reshuffling occurred last year was made, to allow John Kodera free to take PlayStation Online services to the next level. PS NOW quite frankly is the future of PlayStation, a lot of people just don't see it.
Last edited:
Your solution would be to buy the games. In regards to the quality fear, this hasn't been a problem on Game Pass up to now.
User warned: Platform warring
How's that working for Xbox ?
Putting Bottom of barrel games like Bleeding Edge huh.
Thanks but no thanks, I'd rather keep spending 60 bucks on big production games without seeing them losing their quality over time over fear of subscription bullshit.
Just give gamepass a few years and let's see how it goes.
The Truth is quite simple : Nintendo and Sony can afford no to do a service a la gamepass while Microsoft is desperate and probably losing money on this.
Putting Bottom of barrel games like Bleeding Edge huh.
Thanks but no thanks, I'd rather keep spending 60 bucks on big production games without seeing them losing their quality over time over fear of subscription bullshit.
Just give gamepass a few years and let's see how it goes.
The Truth is quite simple : Nintendo and Sony can afford no to do a service a la gamepass while Microsoft is desperate and probably losing money on this.
Yep, of course you're right. Games are still quite different to movie licensing, some kind of performance indicators also encourage the devs to update the game after launch if there's any problems in the code, bugs or just make content updates etc. How is it in the interest of the developer to do anything after release if they only get a one-time-payment? Movie is what it is once it's released, but usually it definitely isn't the same thing with games.
I'm not saying that you hear people getting screwed over by Netflix as we don't even know how the deals exactly work. Could be upfront, could be something else. I'm saying that to me, simple down payment doesn't sounds likely in services like Game Pass, but this is just pure speculation. You might be right as well.
Their goals aren't different nor are the services. The only difference is that Sony is afraid of cannibalizing their first party sales and doesn't feel like they need the recurring revenue as much as they need the sales of the games.
At their beginning absolutely, but as xCloud gets rolled into GamePass later this year they'll be pretty damned similar.
I can't believe what I'm reading here.
1.) The unannounced games that Xbox is releasing have been in production 4+ years.
2.) Xbox has just recently purchased all their studios -- it's much too early to definitively judge whether Gamepass is sustainable for quality day-one first-party games or not.
3.) Regardless, the subscription model has allowed companies like Netflix and Hulu to thrive. They continue to make quality movies and TV Shows every year, without charging individually for each item. Why can't the same logic be applied to video games?
1.) The unannounced games that Xbox is releasing have been in production 4+ years.
2.) Xbox has just recently purchased all their studios -- it's much too early to definitively judge whether Gamepass is sustainable for quality day-one first-party games or not.
3.) Regardless, the subscription model has allowed companies like Netflix and Hulu to thrive. They continue to make quality movies and TV Shows every year, without charging individually for each item. Why can't the same logic be applied to video games?
If Ms games sold as well as Sony's or Nintendo games, they would not be on Gamepass. That is the reality.
Microsoft isn't actually gifting you games, you know. It's a strategy that works for them vs. what would be years of carrying on with something that doesn't. In some cases, games you're seeing on Game Pass wouldn't be there without the model being there to support it. That is one of the reasons it exists. Meanwhile, Sony's strategy (that is good and has worked for years, mind) is to maximise profits on games that they produce with… their own money, and then once they have done that, they add value to their subscription with games that they no longer need to use to sell their hardware.
They are about to put out their biggest title on gamepass.
I was curious. It's obvious now you were just talking just to talk.
Netflix rarely has any original movies on par with Hollywood blockbusters in terms of budget. Not sure about their show budgets. Some look like high quality productions while others obvious done on the cheap.
I think a look at how Microsoft is changing / has changed its entire business model as a whole over the last five years or so would disprove that.
It's not just in games where they're moving to selling services first, it's the entire company.
They've made themselves a crapton of money doing so as well. I'm still not 100% convinced it will work for games, but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it did.
The reality is that they are betting Game Pass subscriptions will make them more money than selling the games on their own long term and Sony is not at this point.
Doesn't come close to selling as well Sony's biggest games and not in the same galaxy as Nintendo games. The last one didn't any way. Regardless that's their call. Doesn't mean Sony or Nintendo need to go the same thing.