Lol I don't usually care for OT titles but chuckled at the idea of seeing this each time the OT bubbles up.
-
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.
Phil Spencer talks about how deals for games on Game Pass works
- Thread starter jbug617
- Start date
Lol I don't usually care for OT titles but chuckled at the idea of seeing this each time the OT bubbles up.
I'm not saying they SHOULD or that it would be a good idea. I'm just saying I want to know. All of this nebulous talk about what the deals are like are basically pointless without that data.
While they don't mention games, 'we paid all the production costs on some titles' is pretty dang specific.
Subsidizing development in order to get it on GamePass while keeping the game available on other platforms is so much better than paying to keep the game off another store or platform. They're adding value to their service instead of taking away from others.
I think people disputed it because we only heard about devs being payed up front.
There's no nebolous talk, these are deals made by Xbox and the devs, why do you want to know the details?
Do you also want to know how much money is EPIC GAMES throwing at devs for exclusivity?
Or how much money Sony is paying for timed titles?
They have no obligations to share with the public the details of private contracts.
You have about as much chance as finding out what Sony paid for FF16 exclusivity or Epic buying game exclusivity etc. They will never share exact contract details. If for no other reason than putting themselves at a disadvantage when negotiating deals with other devs.
Which clearly wasn't always the case, so just goes to show how little information we actually had/have about how MS operates Game Pass. Glad it changed, like I said, though I admit I fear they may eventually return to that model once GP reaches a certain level. Hopefully not, though
That was pretty interesting to hear, that's got to be fantastic for said developers.
I mean, this is not that surprising is it? In a system like this, obviously how much money you make depends on the product you make and how you sell it, MS was never going to send out blank cheques to all developers and ask them to name their price.
Another topic that I find a bit concerning is further down in the interview, Phil says:
Phil Spencer said:
This is referring to the fact that playtime is their most useful metric, and that they would like to move in the direction of a model that is tied to that. I hope they're not going to sacrifice diversity and risk for engagement metrics!
So, in some cases MS pays for the development of a game without restricting it from other platforms.
In the past, revenue would be from sales and exclusivity, now the revenue is from the subscription. Which frees up the dev to pursue sales elsewhere.
In other words, as Era would say, very "pro consumer".
In the past, revenue would be from sales and exclusivity, now the revenue is from the subscription. Which frees up the dev to pursue sales elsewhere.
In other words, as Era would say, very "pro consumer".
The fact that Xbox have so much money behind them means they can experiment with loads of funding approaches. Perhaps over time it'll become more standardised, and there could be issues of devs getting better deals than others if they negotiate right, but being able to get that floor of financial security is a hell of a pull and an everybody wins situation.
I imagine this is standard for indie developers and (obviously) first party studios. But I doubt they're doing this for major 3rd party releases.
Yes. thats what I meant by negotiating.
From the thread title I was hoping to read about some solid metrics like x amt of dollars per install with y % completion rate or z hours played etc.
This isn't the first time we have heard how it works. We've heard from devs. This is just the most open they've been about it.
Which of these massive companies disclosure deals in such a detailed way?
I mean, it'd be helpful for sure, but I don't think we should expect it.
There is always going to be variation. You as an indie dev are not necessarily going to get the same type of deal or terms as say Capcom or CDPR for example. The terms could also be different depending on if your game is launching with less buzz/hype direct to GP vs if it was already wildly popular on other platforms and there his higher demand for it before a port to Xbox etc. Those kinds of things definitely play into negotiations for any type of distribution (music/ movies etc).
Now that might not be an issue for you depending on the size of your team, how much revenue you need to make ends meet & profit vs how much of an ROI you were projecting etc etc etc.
I'd imagine it works that way. A game that they pay the development costs for and allow to be sold on other platforms most likely has a long time period of inclusion. These statements just reflect that when payment is made (and what payment is for) is flexible. Also, just a disclaimer, I have zero knowledge of how these deals work and am just speculating as a fan.
Sounds like how Netflix got relatively good licensing deals early on. If they're mostly paying flat fees to devs, it will depend on how much the devs think GP will cannibalize other platform sales. The more GP subscribers there are, the more cannibalization will happen and devs will demand higher fees. Hopefully Xbox first party gets well established before that happens.
Makes sense. Ubi doesn't need a lump sum up front for the division and it makes sense for them to negotiate something around users and playtime as well as an X month contract, where as a new indie game could use a lump sum up front to be profitable
Ah sorry, missed the rhetorical thing you were doing with that statement haha. But I agree, I would love to get the data and it's sad that we're probably never going to know. Would be very interesting to know what metrics they are tracking and how they value them differently. Phil mentions "hours played" in this interview but I'm sure they're cranking stats like how often, how long per session, what completion, as you mention. I also wonder what kind of qualitative analysis they're doing. I know last year I was looking for jobs I can get with my anthropology degree and MS was hiring for Xbox specifically.
I'd hope that they're looking pushing a number of different forms of engagement. I love my Forza Horizon that I can pop into for a short session every day, and that's probably my most played game, but you can't have every single game like that.
That's not specific, since production costs for games ranges wildly depending on the game and developer.
I mean, yes? I would love to know the answers to those questions. I think everyone on this board would. We have threads upon threads (including this one) talking of such deals with basically no information. I think people would be very interested in finding out those details.
What's sarcastic about wanting to have numbers to talk about?
It is a fixed amount. Granted we don't know what that amount is, but it is specific. :P
It reads like you want them to tell us the exact amount of money that changed hands. Like they are beholden to give the public a spreadsheet of where the money went and a copy of the contract. Not sure that's what you are angling for but level of detail is well beyond what they owe the general public .
Edit: for the sake of curiosity it's interesting but due to the broad range of deals doesn't say anything of all of the deals they made.
Last edited:
Reading this I don't get the impression that that is possible. It feels each deal is different depending on the developer. So just because say one dev gets $30 per install for say 30% completion another may get $10 per install at 10% completion rate. So just because it's the same kind of deal doesn't mean it is the same deal.
Makes sense that indies and traditional publishers want very different things. A new indie can't risk taking pay off of usage, since there's a decent risk that'd come in pretty low. And the one-time payment they need is small enough for MS to pay it out of GamePass revenues. A bigger game is looking more to experiment for ways to make money on older titles whose sales have slowed to a trickle, so it's worth seeing if making it freely available for a little bit of subscription money brings in more dollars than selling it standalone for discount prices.
Well the options are an upfront payment, a usage-based commission, and probably some hybrid of the two. With the upfront payment, Spencer says that in some cases it covers the entire development cost of the game leaving retail sales/DLC to generate all the profit for the developer.
So the question is whether GP covers the development cost of a small, medium, or big budget type of game. I'm guessing it can vary depending on the type of game (replayability) and the term of the contract. Whether it's coming to GP at launch versus a year later. There's a lot of variables.
An indie game might cost $1 million to make while a mid-budget game is probably $20 million or so. I'm guessing that they are anticipating GP to cover the development cost of all their in-house games though and a lot of them are definitely big budget.
not to mention most contracts simply have non-disclosure clauses
But why would they owe you that info? That's between them and bitmonkeys.
Like, do you wanna know RDJs contract stops for Iron Man?
Just that the point of a service is to make money. Aside from the third party payouts, they still have to finance first party titles that will no longer make the same money they used to because of GP.
Because the detailed specifics of a contract between Microsoft and the development company is an unattainable pipe dream. So long as it remains unattainable it means spacer can never be satisfied...which means 'Gamepass continues to be unsustainable BS'
My guess would be that its nearing profitability or recently passed it.
The only reason I say this is because I don't believe MS would twice announce numbers for a service that wasn't profitable, because if it wasn't profitable, or sustainable, announcing numbers would be egg on their face in front of shareholders if they ended up closing the service in 2 years time because they couldn't continue to fund it.
All bases covered.
Phil also mentioned how EA play games are now suddenly exposed to GP audience. What does that mean? EA have a higher probability in growing their base due to new gamers coming on board. And they are free to manage that relationship if the players choose to pursue it.
Phil also mentioned how EA play games are now suddenly exposed to GP audience. What does that mean? EA have a higher probability in growing their base due to new gamers coming on board. And they are free to manage that relationship if the players choose to pursue it.
If anything, I'm buying/considering buying games or DLCs for games that I only tried because they're on GPU. If the F2P model works for some, I'm not sure why GP wouldn't be a good fit for some developers too.