Why do you think that subscription-services would make only AA games would be more adventuresome and risky?
-
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
Buzz/talk aside, I probably would have known very little about Outer Wilds had I not been a GP subscriber. I don't even remember the Fig campaign for it.
I think a big part of it is curation, quality over quantity, and getting releases day one. If you put everything on subscription, you'll run into curation/discovery issues where mid/small titles will get buried/overlooked.
GP right now feels perfect in terms of how many titles hit the service and the quality, variety, and newness.
I think a big part of it is curation, quality over quantity, and getting releases day one. If you put everything on subscription, you'll run into curation/discovery issues where mid/small titles will get buried/overlooked.
GP right now feels perfect in terms of how many titles hit the service and the quality, variety, and newness.
can someone explain to me how the games on subscriptions are monetized? (hours played, times downloaded, w/e). I think subscription services giving space to devs to experiment is great, and I hope the space is created by them getting paid a lot as well as from the nature of the service
- A complete reinvention of a formula given five years, a ton of money, and complete creative freedom.
- A cinematic shooter with a totally grounded tone, very little "fun," and a brand new IP to boot (when more Uncharted would have certainly been a safer bet).
- A complete reinvention of a franchise, with nearly a decade in development.
Sorry, these are risks. Throw on new samurai IP, robot dinosaurs, seven years to let Bend turn into a AAA studio, and oh yeah - shitloads of money given to Kojima to make a delivery game where it rains time.
Sony likes adding value to the platform, and is willing to take huge risks to do so. Microsoft is about accessibility and volume, which is fine, too, but I don't think it pushes the medium the same way. "Good enough for Gamepass" is a thing, and that should not excite us.
yeah guys, sorry. I read it as Worlds not Wilds. My 100% mistake, due to dyslexia. should've read it a few times. My bad, and Obviously my opinion is now 100% the opposite of what I said, and I really enjoyed Outer Wilds
The OP's post has to be fake news...I have been told that there is NO WAY these games can be profitable without adding a ton of MTX. Subscription service will CRUSH indies because reasons.
It's almost like devs and publishers are better at counting their own money that randos on the internet that can't even buy food for themselves without parental supervision
Because those services tend to be about volume over quality. Netflix has a decent show every now and again, but the vast majority of their output is uninspiring, bland, and forgettable.
At the service of hitting certain demos.
Hey freak show. You ain't goin nowhere. They've got you for 3 pages. 3 pages of plaaaaytiiime.
Game Pass is an excellent value. Just hope that the likes of Walmart, Amazon, etc stay the fuck out because Sony and Microsoft are the only ones with a payment model not designed to fuck over developers
There's no way Sony sits pat. They see what this is doing for Microsoft. They have the games to leverage and they have relationships in Japan that Microsoft doesn't. They'll absolutely debut a new or improved PSNow sort of deal. Only thing I don't see them doing is releasing on PC or putting their new releases on it day one
There's no way Sony sits pat. They see what this is doing for Microsoft. They have the games to leverage and they have relationships in Japan that Microsoft doesn't. They'll absolutely debut a new or improved PSNow sort of deal. Only thing I don't see them doing is releasing on PC or putting their new releases on it day one
You good. You wouldn't be the first person to mix them up. Even the developers do.
It really just comes down how the sub system works. I don't know his game pass works, but any that pay out to devs based on play time are not going to lead to better experiences.
haven't seen that version before lolIt 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
It's the developers concern, not his prediciton.
Maybe read the article and you would see that the developer isn't sure whether subscription gaming will ultimately be positive or negative for indie developers.
"While there are questions about the long-term implications such services would have for the health of the indie games market, Verneau isn't sure whether disrupting the traditional market will ultimately benefit or hinder creators in his position."
I mean it's true. Only reason I tried it was because it was on Gamepass. I didn't even like it half an hour in and stopped playing. Picked it up again a few weeks later and now it's one of my top 5 of all time.
I heard the dev say this during the NoClip Doc and had to think about it for a bit. He's absolutely correct. The way he described Outer Wilds and it's correlation to Game Pass was spot on. Not many people are going to try something weird if they have to buy it, but because they're already paying for something they may as well.
I made it like two years ago and I promised myself that I'd share the gif in as many threads as possible...
It was totally worth the effort though :D
Very much so. You need to pass X sales to get out of the red.
I don't think that's really fair. Microsoft is letting a car studio make a huge budget RPG Fable reboot. They're letting a shooter studio make a tactical XCOM style game. They let Rare make a weird multiplayer pirate thing and whatever Everwild is. All of those are expensive risks. It also sounds like The Initiative is being given a ton of creative freedom for their game. They're tossing a money at a flight simulation game.
Saying they don't take big risks because of Game Pass feels quite reductive.
I honestly think the only risky title on that list is Death Stranding, with maybe Zelda a little bit.
GoW went into a more narrative-driven style that people love nowadays, had Norse mythology in it that's become more popular thanks to Marvel and of course had the GoW name attached to it. I don't think it had any chance of failing.
The Last of Us came out when the Walking Dead was the most popular show on TV, zombies were the hotness and it was made by the Uncharted devs.
Zelda changed its formula, but it's Zelda and open world, which people love. Could've turned out bad for sure though.
Ghost of Tsushima is probably the safest new IP from Sony. It's an open world samurai action game, people have been asking for something like this for years.
Horizon was an open-world action-adventure/RPG-lite, one of the most popular genres ot there.
Days Gone was once again an open world zombie action game, and it didn't even turn out too hot.
I'm not saying they're bad games, but they're nowhere near as risky as a lot of indie/AA games.
Maybe. I'll believe it when these games actually release.
We've had so many promises over this generation, and very little output to indicate Microsoft has truly changed its Halo/Gears/Forza stripes.
I'm not writing them off - but I am saying Sony's model has clearly encouraged and fostered risk and creativity while Microsoft, at the very least, has a huge problem that has yet to be solved.
They are because they have way, way more money, human resources, and time behind them, and a publicly traded company relying on their success.
Also, you're referencing things being popular at the time of release, when these things are in development for half a decade or more.
The year is 2025. Developers are still very happy with Gamepass. Users are still very happy with Gamepass. Concern trolls everywhere still comment "Yes but is this profitable for the Microsoft? Are the devs happy? At some point the service will be lacking."
Agreed, but that person's picks were all first party games.
LOL @ not been solved. You have to be blind to not have seen the diverse lineup of XGS games this year, which is only going to get better as time goes on.
...but i thought gamepass means everything is gonna be an MTX-hell GaaS game?
lol, pretty much this. no matter how many devs say they're happy with their game on a subscription service, some people will still concern troll about the sustainability of the service and whether the devs are happy or not.
Every game pass thread for years has turned into people screaming how they don't want games as a service and hate online multiplayer...it's so frustrating, when this interview is saying exactly what I've been saying the whole time:
Subscriptions services turn games (plural, collectively) into the service, which actually lets you put out many self contained games that DON'T rely on microtransactions and the like. You need tentpole titles to get people in the door and evaluate the service's value properly, and then you also need variety and depth of library to keep people there. You become less concerned with the individual profit margins of a specific title and more with the profit of the service as a whole, which is served by keeping as many people subscribed as possible - thus encouraging variety.
Subscriptions services turn games (plural, collectively) into the service, which actually lets you put out many self contained games that DON'T rely on microtransactions and the like. You need tentpole titles to get people in the door and evaluate the service's value properly, and then you also need variety and depth of library to keep people there. You become less concerned with the individual profit margins of a specific title and more with the profit of the service as a whole, which is served by keeping as many people subscribed as possible - thus encouraging variety.
well thank you for sharing, i've only seen the switch one
Game pass has already got me trying a wider variety of games than I would have played otherwise. I don't end up loving everything on there, but it's one of my favorite parts of the service. If they keep trying new things and putting unique experiences on there, I will stay subscribed and keep trying them out.
I hope so!
But none of them are out yet. We'll see. I'm optimistic, and Microsoft is in a much better position, but I simply don't believe they have solved their problem until they're releasing risky, AAA bangers that are in the GOTY conversation. This is the level Sony and Nintendo have achieved, and Microsoft has no excuse for not being in it.
I worry Gamepass will encourage small-scale experimentation, interesting but unessential AAA games, and service at the expense of pushing the medium forward.
Example: Netflix does lots of Bojack Horsemans, but very few Watchmen(s).
Ummm the "weird multiplayer pirate thing" released almost 2 years ago. It's Sea of Thieves
A side benefit of subscription, in particular Gamepass, is that because it includes new release first party games it allows 3rd parties to have the full price game market to themselves. Yes, you can buy the games in service, but I'm more likely to take that $60 and spend it on a 3rd party title that's not in the subscription. Nintendo and Sony 1st party games are probably selling 10-20 million games a year a full price. That's revenue that could be going to 3rd parties instead of the platform holders who already take 30%.
See now you've come to the specifics of what you're REALLY looking for which is different from what you were saying in general. In that context then I can see where you are coming from in regards to AAA games beyond Halo, Gears, and Forza. All I can say is those games take time and we'll just have to wait and see.
I'm guessing that's you using your opinion of a game to throw shade at the service. Interesting take
Maybe not try to catch people or play the gotcha game and read my post and know that I'm referring to the doom and gloom types here. YES there are questions about anything in the long term that is new. No one is saying they are Nostradamus, all my comments referring to what is happening now, and that this dev is happy with their reception now.
OMG no one knows 100% what the future holds...such a disingenuous statement when the majority of the article says things like this:
While discussing Outer Wilds and industry trends at the Montreal International Gaming Summit in November, Mobius Digital co-creative lead Loan Verneau tells GamesIndustry.biz the studio is happy with the results.
"We're on Game Pass for Xbox, and it's been really awesome because I think it's brought a lot of players to the game who would not have known about it otherwise"
It's so weird how the "all subscriptions are bad" crowd literally tries to downplay anything positive about these services.
"SURE IT WAS SUCCESSFUL IN 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025....but 2026 though...YOU NEVER KNOW"
But it was a AAA risk? Not having a high meta critic score doesn't make something not a risk, and your complaint was that Game Pass discourages AAA risks, that has nothing to do with being a game that critics love.
That's literally exactly it.
I don't want more Sea of Thieves, and I worry that the "Good enough for Gamepass" reaction will encourage more good-enough games, and that would mean (ostensibly) less risky moves.
Lots of singles and doubles. Few home runs.
Aye man, ur good. People make mistakes. I appreciate you admitting your mistake than anything. I still gotta finish Outer Wilds...soo many games too little time.
a reboot of a huge franchise, a new third person shooter from one of the most succesful teams in the industry and a new open world (the must popular formula in games these days) Zelda game are not commercial risks
what sony and nintendo do that microsoft didn't is give their teams time and creative freedom to reboot or do these different stuff, but it was obvious from the get go that they would be huge commercial successes (maybe if they sucked, which was also clear that they wouldn't)
Dreams is a far more risky project.
and to be clear: i don't think Microsoft did risky stuff either.
Sea of Thieves had issues on launch but it's one of the best MP games in the market today.
Then I'm extremely happy that you have no say in what they are developing. Interesting that you started with XBox only makes so and so kind of games, and move quickly to "they should only make the games I like". Not sure that we have the same definition of risks are.
Isn't it rumored that Halo Infinite is the most expensive game MS has ever made?
I'm not saying that's going to be a home run for you; but it's budget sort of flies in the face of what you are saying.
You're projecting your preference/bias as objective reality. Who cares if you don't want more Sea of Thieves.? I'm not interested in Sea of Thieves but apparently millions of others do.
Did you play Outer Worlds through Game Pass? Those are the type of games yous eem to be yearning so it would really odd if tyou didn't play it through Game Pass.
Seems to me you're trying to read too hard into what he said and question his own response of how awesome it is to be on Game Pass.
