Lots more in the link above.
-
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.
Outer Wilds dev: "Subscription system will help drive more original and weirder things that would otherwise be too risky"
- Thread starter MauroNL
- Start date
Lots more in the link above.
It certainly goes in line with what other Xbox Games Studios teams have been saying for the past months. Initiative's video even being very prominent about doing weird stuff.
Third-party content on XGP has been phenomenal with stuff like Void Bastards and Outer Wilds. Really curious to see their first-party additions with both Bleeding Edge and Grounded coming out in the upcoming six months.
also
Third-party content on XGP has been phenomenal with stuff like Void Bastards and Outer Wilds. Really curious to see their first-party additions with both Bleeding Edge and Grounded coming out in the upcoming six months.
also
Last edited:
Speaking personally a single game here in Canada at release is 79.99 that gives me a whole lot of leeway when it comes to sub services
Hopefully and yeah, but they're owned by Xbox who has a vested interest in that so of course they'd say that. If this came from a dev in a Obsidian situation that was still third party it would have more weight imo
Edit: Read it as Outer Worlds, sorry guys my dyslexia got the best of me there. Good to hear for these devs, and yes it does have a lot of weight now.
Edit: Read it as Outer Worlds, sorry guys my dyslexia got the best of me there. Good to hear for these devs, and yes it does have a lot of weight now.
Last edited:
Outer Wilds, not Worlds. Not a MS Studio. Outer Wilds is on PS4 and Epic as well.
This is, so far, the only long-term benefit I can see with subscription services, IMO. It definitely gives weirder games a wider potential audience.
I played it through game pass myself and honestly wouldn't have bought it otherwise. I'd love to know how much money Microsoft is giving some of these devs though.
I can't tell if this is just a clever joke playing on the whole Outer Wilds/Worlds mix up.
"As long as we manage to break these monopolies and have competition at every level, I think we'll be fine. Whether or not we can get there? Monopolies are very good at making people think they like it, because they have all the money to put on marketing. That's my personal worry. For as long as we have competition between platforms, publishers, and distributors, game developers will [be able to reach our audience ]. "
Anyone want to fill me in on what he's really talking about? Exclusive deals maybe?
Anyone want to fill me in on what he's really talking about? Exclusive deals maybe?
Even I still get messed up sometimes because both games came out close and have similar titles.
What's kind of interesting to me is it's almost like taking a money-hat for exclusivity, but MS isn't demanding exclusivity. You get some guaranteed income but your game isn't removed from other markets because MS can't really afford to pay for exclusivity and they don't really need to.
Throwing your game up "for free" on EGS or XBL Gold or PSN+ is another similar revenue stream out there.
Throwing your game up "for free" on EGS or XBL Gold or PSN+ is another similar revenue stream out there.
So now that you now know that they aren't a MS studio...it holds more weight right?
Yep...this is what "3rd party exclusives" should turn into if anything imo. Better for gaming...I don't like "3rd party exclusives" just cuz.
Yeah, until subscription services change their model from "bleeding money to move userbase" to "make profits".
Yeah maybe throwing a little shade at gamers who cheer on exclusivity "money hats." Not in a talking shit sense, but in a "you are cheering something that isn't actually good for gaming and does nothing for you either" sense.
This works as long as MS (Or other sub services) continue looking for and signing unique games + giving them enough exposure such that people play them.
As these libraries keep growing, discoverability is going to become a bigger and bigger problem (Like it does with any store). If "indie" games are added more frequently, and their quality isn't tightly controlled, you're going to start seeing people completely ignore those small titles in favor of "AAA" titles (It already happens on this very forum).
That likely will end up meaning those "big" titles will command the majority of user attention and advertising for these services, with the hope that users will trickle down into indie titles that otherwise wouldn't get attention. I don't know the economics of the deals these companies make with the service providers so I won't go into that, but it's going to be harder and harder to get noticed on these services as time goes on.
In some ways, Outer Wilds feels like that "gold rush" story you see with a lot of new store fronts. I hope there's a way to keep it up long term.
As these libraries keep growing, discoverability is going to become a bigger and bigger problem (Like it does with any store). If "indie" games are added more frequently, and their quality isn't tightly controlled, you're going to start seeing people completely ignore those small titles in favor of "AAA" titles (It already happens on this very forum).
That likely will end up meaning those "big" titles will command the majority of user attention and advertising for these services, with the hope that users will trickle down into indie titles that otherwise wouldn't get attention. I don't know the economics of the deals these companies make with the service providers so I won't go into that, but it's going to be harder and harder to get noticed on these services as time goes on.
In some ways, Outer Wilds feels like that "gold rush" story you see with a lot of new store fronts. I hope there's a way to keep it up long term.
And it makes big AAA risks far less likely. Fewer God of War, Last of Us, Breath of the Wild titles.
I guess it comes down to whether you want to convince a small handful of people with specific tastes your game is worthy of a large amount of funding or convince a very large number of incredibly variant people your game is worth many small amounts of funding.
Are there any examples of shrinking the pool of people who get to decide what's consumed working out for the better?
Are there any examples of shrinking the pool of people who get to decide what's consumed working out for the better?
Meh, if his recent post history is about ps5, I'm just gonna assume he doesn't know what he's talking about since it's an xbox-centered thread
The amount spent on marketing is insane and I can totally understand the smaller developers struggling. Game Pass to me is awsome because so many games I'd otherwise not even notice I can try and found some real gems (Void Bastards, Slay the Spire).
Are you sure because they are supporting a service now so wouldn't that be kind of counter productive if they are not on other services too like PSNow?
My take is that the issue is that if subscription services become the bulk of gaming revenue, it can hurt independent developers because the subscription holder will hold the keys to that revenue. Basically another form of curation that locks certain developers out. So the key to keeping the indie scene healthy is not allowing a monopoly, whether a platform, service, console, etc, because then you are basically giving the keys to success to one entity/corporation. Which is why the developer isn't sure whether or not subscription gaming will ultimately benefit independent developers.
A third person action game in an estabilished franchise, a third person cinematic shooter and an open world action-adventure game from one of the biggest gaming franchises... not really what I would call risky.
This is definitely what I'm hoping for. Streaming clearly helped a lot more niche TV shows get made which was great — my only reservation on how that would translate to vidya is if the temptation to turn every game into a GaaS that you can play for 1,000 hours would be too strong.
They are risky in a different way (less so for first party titles). AAAA game budgets mean that massive failures mean studio closures. They also swim in red waters, where audience expectation is sky-high.
There are no easy wins in making games.
