-
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.
Is MS counter to Sony's Timed Exclusives going to be getting games on Game Pass ASAP (Day 1 or close to Day 1)?
- Thread starter jbug617
- Start date
Like, they've already announced several AA exclusive games. Game Pass will certainly be a big part of that strategy, so I imagine they will push both (unless thier strategy is to only have proper exclusives + Game Pass deals.
Boy. I just wrote an essay on another thread about this very thing. But, I don't believe in thread linking, so I'll try to edit it down here ;)
The question as posed is whether Day 1 GP is a "counter" to Timed Exclusives (TE, from here). This implies that we're talking from the perspective of the platform holder: MS. I think conventional wisdom suggests that TE is better for the platform than GP would be. I don't know if I agree with that.
What does TE accomplish for the platform? They get the privilege of spending a ton of money.. in order to spend a bunch of money promoting someone else's game because now it's "one of ours". That's especially true for big AAAs. It may help as the faithful will jump in on those sales and buying it because of the brand association, but that's a nebulous proposition. Other than that, you're doing free marketing for someone else's game! Their sales may help a bit, sure, but you don't even see a dime of it, if it's a physical sale! And remember - sales because of Sony's marketing aren't a benefit of the TE, but rather of the marketing itself that Sony pays for (or at least promotes).
I mean, are timed exclusivity deals supposed to make back their money? Or are they purely cash hole investments into the brand as a whole? And.. is that investment in the brand meaningful long term..? I'm not so convinced. "Sony's real good at taking away games from Xbox!" Or charitably, "they make deals for good games!". K.
A Game Pass deal is also paying for the privilege of spending money to advertise someone else's game - but it's cheaper AND you also get to advertise your subscription service in the same breath. MS gets to use a third party game to elevate Game Pass - and any conversions there is 100% money straight into the hands of MS.
Day 1 GP also makes AAA games "attainable" for millions who, as a rule, don't pay $60 (or full price, in general). That means play time and player counts go up. That elevates the discourse and the excitement around the game in a way that a timed exclusive does not always. I mean.. can you imagine how huge it would be to get the next Ubi AAA or the next FIFA on GP day 1? Shockwaves. Huge free earned marketing. That means lots of people hearing about and thinking twice about a game they may never have considered otherwise. And we've seen that increase sales in many cases. I point to the success of launching Rocket League on PS+. Did that hurt sales? I think not. It may not have reached such great heights, had it just been a timed exclusive.
And, of course, it rewards the faithful who are already subbed for 3 years. For no additional cost to them, it keeps your super fans engaged in the platform and ready to champion its value. It's people mentioning Xbox in casual conversation and in media. It's people making Xbox a part of their everyday routine. THESE PEOPLE do more to elevate the quality and strength of the brand than any timed exclusivity deal ever could.
Timed Exclusivity has its uses for a platform holder. It is a play to strengthen the brand. It may increase sales. It forges relationships with publishers. It is a nod to the fans. But I think Day 1 GP could potentially do it better on every count, especially if a GP day 1 deal is cheaper than TE deal.
Thanks for attending my TED talk.
And.. don't forget that even COD has experimented with F2P now. Game Pass could be a half step in that direction. Maybe, say, for the major sports games every year, now that game prices are apparently not enough and the big bucks come from microtransactions anyway.... NBA 2K20 is on Game Pass. Why not have 2K21 just a little earlier? I think there's room to challenge conventional wisdom on this.
The question as posed is whether Day 1 GP is a "counter" to Timed Exclusives (TE, from here). This implies that we're talking from the perspective of the platform holder: MS. I think conventional wisdom suggests that TE is better for the platform than GP would be. I don't know if I agree with that.
What does TE accomplish for the platform? They get the privilege of spending a ton of money.. in order to spend a bunch of money promoting someone else's game because now it's "one of ours". That's especially true for big AAAs. It may help as the faithful will jump in on those sales and buying it because of the brand association, but that's a nebulous proposition. Other than that, you're doing free marketing for someone else's game! Their sales may help a bit, sure, but you don't even see a dime of it, if it's a physical sale! And remember - sales because of Sony's marketing aren't a benefit of the TE, but rather of the marketing itself that Sony pays for (or at least promotes).
I mean, are timed exclusivity deals supposed to make back their money? Or are they purely cash hole investments into the brand as a whole? And.. is that investment in the brand meaningful long term..? I'm not so convinced. "Sony's real good at taking away games from Xbox!" Or charitably, "they make deals for good games!". K.
A Game Pass deal is also paying for the privilege of spending money to advertise someone else's game - but it's cheaper AND you also get to advertise your subscription service in the same breath. MS gets to use a third party game to elevate Game Pass - and any conversions there is 100% money straight into the hands of MS.
Day 1 GP also makes AAA games "attainable" for millions who, as a rule, don't pay $60 (or full price, in general). That means play time and player counts go up. That elevates the discourse and the excitement around the game in a way that a timed exclusive does not always. I mean.. can you imagine how huge it would be to get the next Ubi AAA or the next FIFA on GP day 1? Shockwaves. Huge free earned marketing. That means lots of people hearing about and thinking twice about a game they may never have considered otherwise. And we've seen that increase sales in many cases. I point to the success of launching Rocket League on PS+. Did that hurt sales? I think not. It may not have reached such great heights, had it just been a timed exclusive.
And, of course, it rewards the faithful who are already subbed for 3 years. For no additional cost to them, it keeps your super fans engaged in the platform and ready to champion its value. It's people mentioning Xbox in casual conversation and in media. It's people making Xbox a part of their everyday routine. THESE PEOPLE do more to elevate the quality and strength of the brand than any timed exclusivity deal ever could.
Timed Exclusivity has its uses for a platform holder. It is a play to strengthen the brand. It may increase sales. It forges relationships with publishers. It is a nod to the fans. But I think Day 1 GP could potentially do it better on every count, especially if a GP day 1 deal is cheaper than TE deal.
Thanks for attending my TED talk.
Sure, but COD isn't getting timed exclusivity either. It makes too much money. Now could you put DLC on Game Pass Day 1, instead of timed exclusivity? Why. The. Hell. Not. They haven't done it yet.. but.. why the hell not?
And.. don't forget that even COD has experimented with F2P now. Game Pass could be a half step in that direction. Maybe, say, for the major sports games every year, now that game prices are apparently not enough and the big bucks come from microtransactions anyway.... NBA 2K20 is on Game Pass. Why not have 2K21 just a little earlier? I think there's room to challenge conventional wisdom on this.
Eee. No. Fighting fire with fire is just red meat for the console warrior base. No thanks. Show us the better way, not your depraved glee in rolling around in the mud for a bit longer.
And imagine if that killed time exclusivity as a practice in the industry? My God, what a beautiful day that would be. This is an answer to what Sony is ALREADY doing with timed exclusivity. And given that Phil Spencer has expressed reluctance to do timed exclusivity deals (I'd note that for most of the indies only launching on Xbox - that's probably more of a resource and attention thing than an actual moneyhat deal), this is a way that he could honor his commitment to the fans while doing right by the industry WHILE doing right by his shareholders.
We'd love it if Sony followed suit. Don't lock out players. Create value, not barriers.
This is actually genius:
Of course the above analysis is over-simplified. The leader probably pays less than 40 lost copies of revenue, because owners of both platforms who might otherwise have purchased on the other platform may instead buy on the leader's platform, so you don't have to compensate for the full theoretical loss. Similarly, if you're giving away a game on one console then owners of both will surely choose to get the game for free even if they would have otherwise purchased on the leader's console. So you have to over-compensate compared to the theoretical 40 lost sales.
That said, I think the pricing is probably a lot closer than most assume. Consider how many people purchased SoT for $40 on Steam recently, when they could have instead signed up for a month of gamepass and played it "for free."
Also, some might think you have to pay a lot more for the give-away, because now more people will play the game. Like, maybe only 40 people would have bought it, but since it's free 100 people will play it. But that's not really true. There's no incremental cost associated with allowing the platform holder to issue additional licenses. So since you only projected to sell 40 games there, that's all you're theoretically losing out on. And arguably, maybe because now that you have a larger install base you sell more MTX? Or because so many people are playing on the one console, it creates a buzz and more people buy on the other console?
I really think this idea is a lot more realistic that people might think. In fact, let me go ahead and call my shot right now: Cyberpunk 2077 is coming to Gamepass Day 1, and it will launch alongside the XSX. (Preinstalled?)
- Economics of Console Exclusivity: You ever wonder why Xbox had all the cool third-party exclusives last-gen, and Playstation has them this gen? It's not because Xbox used to be cool and then became lame. It's because they were the market leader, and it's always cheaper for the market leader to buy exclusivity. It works like this: Let's say you're a publisher and you expect your game to sell 100 copies. If you expect to sell 60 of those copies on the market leader's platform, and 40 copies on the market laggard's platform, you're going to charge the market laggard 50% more for exclusivity than the market leader. That's because the market laggard is going to have to compensate you for losing out on 50% more sales than the market leader would have to. (I.e., the market compensates you for missing out on the 40 copies you were going to sell on the other platform, while the market laggard has to compensate you for 60 copies.)
- Economics of Free-on-Gamepass: Here the economics are switched. Now, if the market leader has to pay you more, because by giving your game away on his platform you have to compensate the publisher for his loss of 60 sales (since now people will presumably opt to get the game for free instead of buying it), whereas the market laggard only needs to compensate you for 40 lost sales.
Of course the above analysis is over-simplified. The leader probably pays less than 40 lost copies of revenue, because owners of both platforms who might otherwise have purchased on the other platform may instead buy on the leader's platform, so you don't have to compensate for the full theoretical loss. Similarly, if you're giving away a game on one console then owners of both will surely choose to get the game for free even if they would have otherwise purchased on the leader's console. So you have to over-compensate compared to the theoretical 40 lost sales.
That said, I think the pricing is probably a lot closer than most assume. Consider how many people purchased SoT for $40 on Steam recently, when they could have instead signed up for a month of gamepass and played it "for free."
Also, some might think you have to pay a lot more for the give-away, because now more people will play the game. Like, maybe only 40 people would have bought it, but since it's free 100 people will play it. But that's not really true. There's no incremental cost associated with allowing the platform holder to issue additional licenses. So since you only projected to sell 40 games there, that's all you're theoretically losing out on. And arguably, maybe because now that you have a larger install base you sell more MTX? Or because so many people are playing on the one console, it creates a buzz and more people buy on the other console?
I really think this idea is a lot more realistic that people might think. In fact, let me go ahead and call my shot right now: Cyberpunk 2077 is coming to Gamepass Day 1, and it will launch alongside the XSX. (Preinstalled?)
I genuinely like your optimism but I don't think it will work. Gamers have become so accustomed to moneyhats, some even actively cheer for them, that only taking things to ridiculous extremes has any chance of making them realize they should be against it.
Oh, I agree. People champion exclusivity like there's no tomorrow for some odd reason. But I think you're being even more optimistic than I am haha, if you think that jumping in to do EVEN MORE exclusivity is the way to kill it. That's like going "Our strategy for getting everyone on cross play is to do business as usual and then vaguely guilt YOU into seeing the error of OUR ways!!" Like.. no.
Right now, people champion exclusivity because they can't imagine a better way. Xbox Play Anywhere? Day 1 XGS on GP? Literally unimaginable just a few short years back. Now it's business as usual, and people don't give it a second thought. Once people see the better way happen? That's the only way it clicks.
Cross buy is whatever until you have it "It's not like a double dip anyway" "Oh wait, it's nice to be able to continue my save somewhere else". Cross play is whatever until you have it "My friends are on Xbox anyway" "Oh wait, it's nice that I don't have to ask what platform you play on". Day 1 3rd party AAA games on GP is a pipe dream, until it starts happening.
I don't feel like I need to explain how the voluntary option to be paid upfront by Microsoft to launch on GamePass, while still launching simultaneously on all other platforms, would be good for devs.
Is it a good counter to timed exclusivity? Not sure what the question means exactly, but:
It's a great marketing move to help promote Game Pass, that doesn't involve withholding a game from other consoles. It may or may not work well for Microsoft but it totally works for every one of us. So for every console owner, it's a great idea.
Edit:
I think a more apt comparison would be paying for the marketing rights.
It's a great marketing move to help promote Game Pass, that doesn't involve withholding a game from other consoles. It may or may not work well for Microsoft but it totally works for every one of us. So for every console owner, it's a great idea.
Edit:
I think a more apt comparison would be paying for the marketing rights.
I hope you're right. The difference I see between something like cross-platform multiplayer and moneyhats is that a big part of the industry is satisfied with and actively pursues moneyhats. Publishers and developers want cross-platform multi-player, which is why they managed to put pressure on platform holders until it became a reality. Publishers and developers don't want moneyhats to stop. It's easy money for them. This is why I believe that widespread customer backlash is the only way the practice can fall out of favor.
What a weird false equivalence. It's like patience vs. value for money. Completely incomparable situations, and it's just as dumb as arguing that Sony is in a bad spot selling their first-party exclusives for $60 rather than putting them on a service for a fraction of the cost.
I feel that the world that is more likely to happen is that AAA publishers stand up their own subscription services so, yeah, you'll get the games to download ready day one as part of your subscription, but you're also pushed into subscribing to 4 or 5 subscription services in order to get the benefit of it.
Timed Exclusive VS Game Pass = Cinema VS Netflix
All the spoilers that now can come out day one or online games having more players day one just make this a "War" about being with what is popular when it is New VS having it for The lowest possible price
It also a "War" about "expensive" physical day one edition VS later cheaper digital edition
So hardcore gamers may like timed exclusive better, while casual gamers may like game pass better
Last thing: Collecters VS Passing by-ers
All the spoilers that now can come out day one or online games having more players day one just make this a "War" about being with what is popular when it is New VS having it for The lowest possible price
It also a "War" about "expensive" physical day one edition VS later cheaper digital edition
So hardcore gamers may like timed exclusive better, while casual gamers may like game pass better
Last thing: Collecters VS Passing by-ers
Welp it's worth mentioning we don't know what Sony's plans are for PS Now going into next gen as of yet. We may also see some larger titles hit the service sooner after their launch, and maybe even some indie/bigger titles hit day and date. The biggest newer title to hit the service off the top of my head was Control which was added 7 months after release.
I'm gonna guess we'll get more insight into their plans sometime between now and the rumored August State of Play.
I'm gonna guess we'll get more insight into their plans sometime between now and the rumored August State of Play.
I also want to remind that Gamepass is fully optional! All the games that will appear on Gamepass can be bought separately as well.
sometimes it feels like people think Gamepass is something that is being showed down people's throats and that everybody must have it..
No, if you want to buy your games as you always have you will still be able to do this..
sometimes it feels like people think Gamepass is something that is being showed down people's throats and that everybody must have it..
No, if you want to buy your games as you always have you will still be able to do this..
Potentially but PS PLUS is nowhere near GP at the moment. Temporarily putting 3 yr old 1st party games does not make it a good service. But at least they got downloads eventually,though stability isn't as strong. With MS/Azure help they might get there but that just helps make money for MS too. Win win from MS point of view and hopefully Sony realise they'll have to improve their offer and go multi device, available day 1, like MS X cloud, to really compete in that specific space.
i jumped... spent 60 notes only this whole year and have played 20-30 games
the ps felt like a money pit in comparison
worth mentioning also that i'm not someone who has to play the latest thing on the very first day. so gamepass's almost later approach to providing games suites me fine
one last thing to add, until you have gamepass you honestly have no idea just how many big games get put on there, and regularly
Sounds like it would be great for Xbox GP users, though I don't see this coming to us PC GP users.
I've been thinking for awhile that. A great reveal for MS would be adding a big publisher to Game Pass like Sega or Capcom
I m using gamepass and found it really good. But in the end , Sony way is better to get consummer getting their console. I didn't buy the PS4 so i couldn't play ff7 remake. I m going to play it on ps5 because i don't want to wait any longer and for part 2 , i want it day one. If they get others quality game like this. Even if game pass is so good. In the end , we buy console for the games.
Better that than timed exclusivity. I can still play something like MCC through GP, but I prefer not relying on a sub and having it integrated in Steam, so I buy it there. Options are nice. They still get my money. Win-win. I have also done the thing of trying something out on GP as a demo of sorts and then purchasing it later.
Who look at it by the business side, which I thought was the question.
By the pure business choice, timed exclusives are by far better than what a big gamepass game launch could be. See FFVIIR, which not only sold an absurd amount of copies, but also moved an absurd amount of Ps4 hardware.
And having all sorts of Japanese games timed exclusives this gen made wonders for them. Yakuza, Nier, Persona. Next gen we know the first IP of Luminous Production from Square is a timed exclusive aswell as Deathloop from Bethesda. Imagine if they're getting a theoretical FFXVI as a timed exclusive..
Again, this is solely for the business side.
It's a different argument if we talk about it from a consumer perspective, but I don't think that a thread asking if MS gamepass move can match PS timed exclusives is a question posed by a consumer perspective.
There's a big difference by helping a small studio like Kena devs and Scorn devs to release one game by marketing and supporting the development.
It's garbage practice if multi-billion companies agree to get paid for exclusive titles, but small devs? Sorry, but i can't call a <20 studio garbage for accepting money and releasing their game exclusively on one platform.
Are you really putting Final Fantasy 7 Remake moneyhat and Scorn in the same tier?
Scorn remained in development hell for years and the studio had only 13 devs at that time, if MS is coming at you and asking to support you financially and you have to release your game on Xbox and PC you don't say no.
Then good?
Not sure why some people in this thread are so hostile - surely getting AAA games day 1 on Gamepass and PSNow is better than Sony moneyhatting AAA timed exclusives?
Do know what kind of crazy money Sony spent on FF7R and others? No doubt those things had non-zero effects, but I have to wonder whether it's always worth it.
We don't know, but if i have to guess it's going to be several millions of dollars on top of marketing spending.
They had to cover Xbox One and PC projected sales in the first year for sure.
For example we know EGS paid close to $10 million for Control exclusivity over Steam, FF7R price for comparison is most likely 4 or 5 times higher.
If you look at other timed exclusive titles, like Athia, Deathloop, GhostWire, Kena etc..., are all launching on PC day and date and Sony only had to pay for missed Xbox One estimate sales for the first months or so.
It's for sure worth it, or else they won't continue doing it, but here we are, a new IP from a new studio from Square is front and center in Ps5 marketing.
Allowing more people to play a game and on day one or soon after seems like a much better use of money than paying to keep a game away from other players, but that might just be me. Also 10m subscribers and counting would suggest otherwise
Last edited:
I mean that would be great but they don't even put their own games on it.
Well, can't blame them considering the amount of sales generated by their exclusives.
outer worlds was Day 1 on pc. And Crusader Kings 3 will be Day one on pc Gamepass.
I can't see this happening. Microsoft will have its own timed exclusives like Yakuza: Like a Dragon etc. A lot of Indie games seem to pop up Day 1 on Game Pass so I believe they'll continue with this strategy.
But 'because they keep doing it' doesn't necessarily mean it's unambiguously a better or more cost efficient approach than day-1 access on GP.
Sony would never, you have people proud to.spend full price over subscription.
Plus Sony needs to actually get people to talk about PSnow. Gamepass has been the talk for years now in a positive light. PSNOW has to still shake off the negative stigma. A name change is best in August.
Thank you.
A counter? I guess in a way. I see it more as a way to get more subs for ppl already on Xbox but not already subscribed. And keeping current subscribers.
Even if we look at it as
Buy console for timed exclusive vs buy console for 3rd party games on GP day one but they still come to other platform.
To me it's just another game to the GP to the library. If it's also a timed exclusive, that's a different story. I hope they do to see if it is an actual counter.
Yeah, this is one reason why I don't really see it as a counter. But I will say I've seen some valid points about it being a counter.
Not at all. All Sony would need to do is start releasing more bigger titles (which they have started) and people will forget the slow start the service had. It's not like the brand is toxic or whatever like the Xbox One reveal was like.
Ofc not.
Also, Sony can spend money to have 3p timed exclusives/console exclusives and after release throw them to Now so they will have games which competition haven't while MS will have 3p games which competition have.
It all depends what they planning.
Also, Sony can spend money to have 3p timed exclusives/console exclusives and after release throw them to Now so they will have games which competition haven't while MS will have 3p games which competition have.
It all depends what they planning.
People spend full price because they like to own things. Correct me if I'm wrong but you don't actually own anything with subscription services do you?
