would any devs really want to upset microsoft? potential contractual reasons they can't talk about it publically too
-
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.
So have we figured out if Gamepass is great for devs or completely unsustainable?
- Thread starter sn00zer
- Start date
would any devs really want to upset microsoft? potential contractual reasons they can't talk about it publically too
Easy.
Has the hobby become cheaper for you because of Game Pass?
Well then devs has vey likely lost or will lose money on Game Pass.
I know that Game Pass works as ads to some degree, since not everyone has GP but lots of people suddenly starts talking about the games, and the front page gives the new entrys some extra spotlight. But, yeah, it's easy to see that GP wouldn't work if everyone started subbing.
Has the hobby become cheaper for you because of Game Pass?
Well then devs has vey likely lost or will lose money on Game Pass.
I know that Game Pass works as ads to some degree, since not everyone has GP but lots of people suddenly starts talking about the games, and the front page gives the new entrys some extra spotlight. But, yeah, it's easy to see that GP wouldn't work if everyone started subbing.
And consequently if that consumer has a Nintendo or Sony console, they'll most likely take the money they saved from GP and spend it on those platforms.
What even is he talking about? Does he know that Microsoft owns the developers? It seems like he also doesn't know that all first party titles go directly to Game Pass.
How many more? The way I see it is that for every person that thinks GP has insane value someone will lose money. Either MS or the devs. Otherwise they wouldn't think it had insane value.
He mentions in one of his later tweets in that conversation that he forgot Obsidian is part of Microsoft now.
That's pure guessing. That certainly hasn't happened for me. If anything I buy less games on Sony and Nintendo consoles now because Game Pass has caused me to think everything not available through GP is expensive.
Outer Worlds is not 1st party title. It is published by private Division not MS.
So you're spending less money all around. So Gamepass is good for you, but not necessarily for devs.
Okay, that's good. I was a bit confused because nothing he mentioned in the other tweets would relate to any first party title or first party developer.
I see people bragging on Twitter how they can play Outer Worlds for free it honestly makes me sick, I could pay a dollar for Gamepass personally but I bought it for 60 on PS4.
Hate it for devs. If you wanna play a game, BUY it.
Negativity? Most people here just go on and on about how insane value it is. I love GP, makes the hobby cheaper. But I just doubt that it's good for devs in the long run.
Microsoft paid for the content on the service. MS is eating the cost for you.
The developer and publisher are already paid though in this case.
It's likely going to be good for Indies, A and AA developers. AAA developers, particularly AAA SP developers will be a concern in the long term. The economics doesn't make sense to support Sony's type of SP Games.
But right now MS is eating the losses since they are playing the long game and are financially strong enough to subsidize it. Sony is another question entirely.
I don't see why indies and A devs would benefit from it besides the extra exposure during the month they appear on the service. They would probably make more money if they went on and off the service frequently as I see it.
I don't know how the economics work though. Is Igarashi earning some money everytime I pop in to play Bloodstained for half an hour? Or have MS already payed him the amount of money he would've earned if he had sold it to a million gamers?
if the average person stays subbed to gamepass all year, they could be spending more on games per year than they normally would.
Exactly. 20 million people spending $10/month for five years represents way more total spending than 20 million people buying an average of 9 games per console they own or whatever the attach rate is. That's the math MS is shooting for.
Developers get paid a flat fee up front. It's the Netflix model, not the Spotify model. Luckily.
This. If Game Pass wasn't lucrative for developers, they wouldn't put out their games on it. The question answers itself really.
Microsoft is spending more on first party development now than they ever had.
They doubled their first party studios. They are spending 500 million dollars on Halo Infinite alone.
And we have people out here asking if it's good for the industry, as if Microsoft is in the business of charity.
They doubled their first party studios. They are spending 500 million dollars on Halo Infinite alone.
And we have people out here asking if it's good for the industry, as if Microsoft is in the business of charity.
It's not sustainable in this current state but I'm assuming the primary focus is to build the audience right now.
No one ate my cost except me, I gladly played for it on PS. Okay, everyone is paid, THIS IS OK
As someone who doesn't devalue video games I feel like yelling at a cloud but fuck Gamepass.
They are playing the long game.
Step 1. Gather as many users as possible while wading through the storm of not profiting.
Step 2. As more and more people get invested in your service and revenue stabilizes, crank up the price and watch people follow out of fear of being locked out from all their games.
Step 3: Profit!
Games are definitely being heavily devalued through this service so you're right. I think it'll be bad for the industry long term if sales slump and people just start waiting for their favorite game to hit subscription services.
Those subscription services are propped up by people who purchase games outright and run on the notion they're reaching people who normally wouldn't have bought the game anyway. That's not going to be the case forever, the people with big wallets will eventually switch to subscriptions too. These subscription models aren't profitable, indie studios will have to compete with competitors who aren't turning a profit or become part of their subscription model. This could cause serious harm to the industry and push us even further into microtransaction hell
There are large numbers of people out there (confirmed by multiple people like Piscatella) that were never going to buy these games new, and they still get to play it on Game Pass (a service that they will use).
What you're advocating for is a reduction in consumer options, because of some made-up idea you have about "if you don't pay $60 for this product, then you make me sick."
I'll go ahead and raise my hand as one of those people. Under no circumstances would I have bought any game on Game Pass in a way that supported the devs. I have a rule that's been going ten years strong (more or less) that I will never buy a game at launch; I'll never buy a game for what it's listed as either. That way, I control my spending habits and my backlog. What that meant before was I was entirely gaming on used copies, a year after launch at least. Devs weren't seeing a single cent of my money.
Now they get paid by MS/EA/etc... for putting their stuff in Games with Gold, Game Pass, EA Access, Origin giveaways, etc... They're getting something out of me that they weren't before. And again, the analysts have been clear; the Game Pass downloaders are mostly new customers. That is, they weren't previously going to drop $60 on the game and decided to Game Pass it instead. They simply weren't going to buy it at all.
I'm a gamepass subscriber. It's a amazing value, but I and everyone should know that this gravy train isn't going to last forever. We have plenty of examples of this in the gaming industry alone that proves this.
Subscriptions being propped up by whales and unprofitable is a laughable take.
Many of the biggest technology products in the world right now are subscriptions. To say subscription models are not profitable is plain false.
Or keep their expenses fairly static and continue gain more users, which will result in profitability and a consistent revenue stream. Basically each new consistent subscriber they pick up is very valuable because it doesn't significantly grow their costs.
I mean, I'm sure the price of will eventually increase, but I don't think there is some nefarious plan or anything. Inflation happens.
I'd say both are important. Story-driven games are there to attract customers, and multiplayer games will be there to keep them. Think of it like Netflix: a lot of people subscribe to watch an exclusive series, but they stay because of the library of options while they wait for the next original stuff.
I mean there are multiple developers who've come out and said "game pass is great because it's free advertising and gets friends of gamepass owners buying our game". Gamepass isn't fully funding third party games, it's additional income.
Gamepass works because people still buy games, and it gets more people buying games through word of mouth. Subscriptions as the main way people access games has yet to be tested, they're just additional income at this point.
Not hiking prices on your service over time is leaving money on the table.
Amazon and Netflix have both increased their subscription prices much faster than inflation. I am quite confident that if Microsoft is successful they will do the same.
Itll be good for the exceptions, the "couldn't have made this game otherwise!" And those will drive the narrative.
For the majority? I think its going to suck. Further teaches consumers to devalue their entertainment and puts another intermediary between developer and player. I really dislike it.
For the majority? I think its going to suck. Further teaches consumers to devalue their entertainment and puts another intermediary between developer and player. I really dislike it.
I'm expecting more and more episodic games if gamepass (or similar) is becoming the new way to consume gaming. I don't suppose we'll see a lot of games like Outer Worlds directly to Gamepass from release day unless the distributor is giving money away (like EGS seems to do so far). It may takes a few years before getting profitable, if it ever will. It needs a company with a lot of money to do that kind of "consumer test".
That's all valid but it all it leads to in logic is crash of video games.
I think it'll be good for smaller (indie) titles, games long past their time in the spotlight, or service games. But it won't be good for anything else. MS will either change the way they make games to adapt to gamepass. Or they'll inflate price to make giving away AAA exclusives day 1 sustainable. I don't see how they can do both long into the future unless they're simply happy to feed the coalition and 343 AAA budgets for people to spend a dollar to play them? Maybe their pockets really are that deep? But I doubt it.
We won't really know for a while either way.
We won't really know for a while either way.
There are games I would have never even looked at, let alone spend money on if they weren't on Game Pass. Is it better for a dev if I try their game and they get some bit of compensation and increased visibility on my friends list - maybe even a purchase from me or would they prefer I continue to have no idea their game even exists?