The Game Pass model encourages adequate development time

[Pai Pai Master]

Really don't think it's about GP, but first party publishers being able to pay. Or Nintendo wouldn't start Prime 4 from scratch after years, or Sony have Dreams in dev for almost a decade.

Click to shrink...

Exactly. I don't really see the connection between GamePass and delays and Nintendo being willing to delay BOTW2 to 2023. These big publishers can afford to occasionally have these big holes in their release windows, MS especially.

GamePass still having plenty of content otherwise softens the blow for Xbox players which in turn helps out the publisher/developer, but I don't think it's a driving factor in whether major titles that aren't ready for release get delayed.

37 Words

 

[Pancracio17]

People who bought 1 year of GPU to play Starfield will be forced to buy another year so yeah, gamepass encourages delays.

Click to shrink...

This reads like a joke, but its the entire point of OP, and also correct lol.

 

[Dyle]

I don't know if you read the OP, but I think I make it clear that it's not the point I'm arguing at all. I'm not saying delays wouldn't happen without Game Pass, I'm saying Game Pass makes them much easier to justify from a financial standpoint.

Click to shrink...

You're not taking into account that Gamepass means they're not selling anywhere near as many copies on day 1, whenever that day 1 is. A delay supported by recurring revenue helps at the front end somewhat but means you can't get the reward of a major release at the end. It's not going to be a significant factor either way, it's just largely trading one business model for another, each with their own respective advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Helix]

the only benefit I personally see is for the consumer, I don't see how GP affects development per se.

 

[Vinc]

They don't have to buy another year. They can buy it once the desired game release is imminent. And delays are good when needed, all Bethesda games during their release would've benefited from delays. Your reason doesn't link to your conclusion.

Click to shrink...

That's not how people consume subscription services, or at least I can say that's not how I do it- and that's the point. I'm certain plenty of people got Game Pass to play Halo and in anticipation of Starfield, for example. Now that Starfield is delayed, not every single one of them will immediately cancel (and that's assuming they didn't prepay for multiple months or years, like I did). If Starfield didn't come to Game Pass, that anticipation isn't monetizable for Microsoft. It's something that actually costs them marketing dollars to maintain, whereas right now some people are already paying for the idea of playing Starfield whenever it comes out, and won't bother cancelling because there's other things to play in the meantime. Some will, absolutely, but it's not a zero sum game like it is for retail releases.

 

[Vinc]

You're not taking into account that Gamepass means they're not selling anywhere near as many copies on day 1, whenever that day 1 is. A delay supported by recurring revenue helps at the front end somewhat but means you can't get the reward of a major release at the end. It's not going to be a significant factor either way, it's just largely trading one business model for another, each with their own respective advantages and disadvantages.

Click to shrink...

If you read the OP, I talk about exactly this- so yes I am taking it into account.

 

[Deleted member 93062]

I keep wanting to see more of this!! The big win of GP to me is that there's nothing stopping arcane from doing another 10 hour dishonored spin off or rare to spin a couple of banjo kazooie levels or another hivebusters, or yeah basically having the big studios throwing a bunch of AA ideas at the wall between their big releases. I hope xbox builds up to this because AAA games from scratch are only gonna take longer and longer to make and will have to have more and more content to justify their price, but GP makes both of these points less important

Click to shrink...

Exactly. If anything, Xbox is incentivized to encourage their developers to do stuff like this instead of making the next big thing that they need to try to sell for $70. Give me a ton of 5-10 hours games from AAA studios instead of a few 25+ hour games.

 

[Apathy]

These threads are getting weirder and weirder. What next? Gamepass model encourages more bugs - let's companies fix games for longer

 

[SilverX]

So what you are actually saying is, from my understanding, is that BotW2 is likely to come to Game Pass now. The writing was on the wall the whole time

 

[Drek]

Am I mistaken in this? I'd love to have this discussion with people more knowledgeable than me on the topic.

Click to shrink...

Wildly mistaken, yes.

It doesn't change the core fundamentals. Sony and Nintendo are both very committed to their individual product releases and both have delayed major titles just in the last few years as needed. So there is no basis in reality that GamePass is the thing letting MS delay their games when no one else could.

Meanwhile with GamePass existing Microsoft pushed out Sea of Thieves when it clearly needed more time in the oven that it has since gotten, to much success. Grounded as well, which is much improved from its "early access" addition to the service but was pretty jank upon initial release. Forza Horizon 5 which released with some real technical/back end issues that took quite a while to fix, and Halo Infinite with a pretty dogshit roadmap on where they were going for continued content support. So every cardinal sin of releasing a game too early committed by Microsoft while coming day and date to GP.

Also the only reason Microsoft can "have escape routes in seeking out other partnerships to palliate the missing games." is because they're funding Xbox off other segments of the company that make billions of dollars per month. If Nintendo ran a similar service and responded to delaying the new Mario game out of the calendar year by handing an eight-figure check plus additional fees over to a third party studio they'd blow a gigantic hole in their annual profits.

Beyond that, tell me the game Microsoft is going to seek out that makes up for Starfield not making it out in 2022? Gotham Knights? A game that about 1/10th as many people care about? MS is massively subsidizing GamePass for people who buy larger blocks of time, that will do more to stem subscriber loss than any third party game that is available for this year as a "placeholder".

You're rationalizing bad news for Microsoft as "good news, ackshwuallee!" assuming the trillion dollar company will continue to splash the pot regardless of profit/loss in the VG sector and that them doing so instead of actually making their own games in a timely fashion is a good thing.

 

[the-pi-guy]

I think I understand where you're going with it, but I don't think the difference is anywhere near what you're thinking it is.

Most of these large publishers are releasing other games frequently and they're still going to be selling older games, so it's not like they're going from expected revenue to no revenue. The only difference is they're subscribing instead of buying games. Whether that number is more or less is harder to say, but it's not necessarily easier for companies to delay because Gamepass is a thing.

As for other companies, it would depend on when they get paid and how they get paid.

 

[Deleted member 81119]

It's the opposite. Tentpole games like this draw subscribers in, then the wealth of content keeps people subscribed. They need these titles for growth. With a Gamepass strategy, a AAA game is potentially worth a lot more to MS than $60.

 

[Vinc]

That's not how any of that works. They still hurt with delays they are still not hitting the books yet people don't sub to game pass and money just goes to that game that's delayed.

Click to shrink...

Delays absolutely do hurt with or without the Game Pass model. I'm just saying that the model makes them hurt less. If you have a counterargument, I really do want to hear it.

 

[Era of not Yakuza]

This reads like a joke, but its the entire point of OP, and also correct lol.

Click to shrink...

I was being sarcastic here but I do think it's annoying to people who bought a specific amount of time of GPU and it lost some value because it will have less exclusives this year

When they want to play something immediately, sure. But who buys a sub a year in advance of a release? Doesn't that burn your months for no reason? You need to clarify but I doubt your being sincere.

Click to shrink...

I have 2 years and 8 months of GPU left and this delay announcement made me realize that my "first-year" lost value
not the end of the world because I bought something knowing how this industry works BUT it is definitely true

 

[RavenK92]

Disagree. The GP model is essentially the Netflix model. It requires constant new titles to keep people from unsubscribing and a tent pole exclusive every few months. If anything, the constant need for content encourages faster and cheaper development cycles. You may be able to push one or two tentpoles backwards on the calendar in isolation, but only assuming you have enough other content coming out at regular intervals to keep people satiated. If you don't have big, quality, sought after titles coming frequently, well, we've all seen Netflix's recent woes

 

[Deluxera]

"Gamepass encourages adequate development time"

"Gamepass makes devs happier and brings them more money"

"Gamepass cures cancer and helps with erectile dysfunction"

 

[BabyDontHurtMe]

Delays absolutely do hurt with or without the Game Pass model. I'm just saying that the model makes them hurt less. If you have a counterargument, I really do want to hear it.

Click to shrink...

You can make this same argument for other subscription services like PS Plus or NSO. Hell, you could say revenue from digital content like MTX encourages game delays because the cost of the delay hurts less. These companies will still make money regardless of whether the game launches on time or later. Game Pass is just another form of a revenue stream.

 

[platocplx]

Delays absolutely do hurt with or without the Game Pass model. I'm just saying that the model makes them hurt less. If you have a counterargument, I really do want to hear it.

Click to shrink...

It doesn't make them hurt less. The games budget, revenue etc is tied to when they launch. A delay is a delay.

 

[IDontBeatGames]

People who bought 1 year of GPU to play Starfield will be forced to buy another year so yeah, gamepass encourages delays.

Click to shrink...

This is a ridiculous take, lol.

Firstly, the people who buy Gamepass and stick to only playing one game is probably such a ridiculously incredibly low number. The whole point of Gamepass is to have the luxury of options and to be able to play whatever the hell you want. It's there so you can quite literally pick up, drop and install a new game in minutes. It's not there for you to be like "well, I bought it just for X Game, this is pointless to me now" -- that's simply ridiculous, come on now lol. Gamepass is about the luxury of it's gigantic library of games. Honestly, if you're someone that's using Gamepass for one game, I'd argue that you're using Gamepass wrong but do you I guess lol. I'd rather check out a bunch of games throughout the year that I normally wouldn't buy than be like "man Starfield got delayed and I bought Gamepass JUST for that game, I guess Gamepass is pointless to me now and I'll have to buy it again next year for when I actually plan on using it"

Secondly, the whole idea of "well they'll have to pay it again" is also incredibly ridiculous considering there is almost always Gamepass deals and you can bet that Microsoft will absolutely have a deal for Gamepass right before the launch of Starfield to get as many people playing it as possible. Whether it's a $1 for one month for returning customers deal or a discount in general, there is no way that Xbox will not have a deal prepared for Starfield's launch.

 

[MrTired]

I've edited the OP to clarify. But the point I'm trying to make is that without game pass, delaying a game is devastating because you go from expected revenue to none, all while increasing development costs. Game Pass subs sell the anticipation of games as much as the games themselves, so the monetary impact isn't nearly the same as a traditional retail delay.

Click to shrink...

All I'm hearing is the customer is the ones getting finessed.

 

[Vinc]

To be 100% clear- I'm not arguing that Starfield wouldn't have been delayed without Game Pass, I'm arguing that the Game Pass model itself, once established and mature, will facilitate giving appropriate development time to individual projects. Starfield was only mentioned because it made me think of this topic, not to argue that the current situation is "only possible thanks to Game Pass" or whatever some of you seem to think.

I can understand that but wouldn't that ignore the people who sub to Game Pass *when* big games launch? Wouldn't this delay also impact future Game Pass subs for the holiday quarter?

Click to shrink...

Absolutely, and that's the other side of this. Delays impair the growth of the service and are especially devastating NOW, but once the company has fully transitioned to the Game Pass model and the service is mature, I think it'll become much less of an issue.

 

[Helix]

"Gamepass cures cancer and helps with erectile dysfunction"

Click to shrink...

woah, when did they revise the plan? I was only aware of a family plan later in the year?

I was looking for a good replacement for my medical insurance.

 

[Flame Lord]

Disagree. The GP model is essentially the Netflix model. It requires constant new titles to keep people from unsubscribing and a tent pole exclusive every few months. If anything, the constant need for content encourages faster and cheaper development cycles. You may be able to push one or two tentpoles backwards on the calendar in isolation, but only assuming you have enough other content coming out at regular intervals to keep people satiated. If you don't have big, quality, sought after titles coming frequently, well, we've all seen Netflix's recent woes

Click to shrink...

You'd be right if GP was just MS games, but there will surely be other third-party games to take its place; hell, it's pretty much gotten where it is mostly with third party games.

 

[Ashhong]

Delays absolutely do hurt with or without the Game Pass model. I'm just saying that the model makes them hurt less. If you have a counterargument, I really do want to hear it.

Click to shrink...

Hurt less for who, Microsoft? Sure but they can afford it. Let's pretend Capcom has a game that is going to come out on GP. You think they will be as eager to delay? The situation is the same for a third party such as them. Their game needs to release in order for them to make money. They don't have GP subscription money.

 

[crab__rangoons]

I definitely feel like the recurring, steady revenue generated from Gamepass allows Microsoft to be a bit more flexible when it comes to giving games more time in development. It might also be that the industry as a whole had a rude awakening with Cyberpunk and that Microsoft also wants to portray that they're treating their new acquisitions well, but I think that's all enabled by the fact the Xbox division's revenue is going to be predominantly a semi-fixed stream of Gamepass subs.

 

[Afrikan]

Disagree. The GP model is essentially the Netflix model. It requires constant new titles to keep people from unsubscribing and a tent pole exclusive every few months. If anything, the constant need for content encourages faster and cheaper development cycles. You may be able to push one or two tentpoles backwards on the calendar in isolation, but only assuming you have enough other content coming out at regular intervals to keep people satiated. If you don't have big, quality, sought after titles coming frequently, well, we've all seen Netflix's recent woes

Click to shrink...

Man they are good... Microsoft have most locked in for 3 years right? Ain't no body going no where.

I know for some that 3 year deal might be coming to an end in the next year or so, but we'll see if other deals/work arounds happen.

 

[arrado]

Don't really see the connections here.

I mean if anything I'd argue that GP encourages publishers to bank on marketing and anticipation prior to release (because that's what sells subs), instead of the actually quality of the game and trying to hit deadlines.

I'm sure lots of people bought GP in recent months just to play Starfield later this year. Microsoft sold the hype, not the actual game

 

[Jiggy]

I don't really see the connection here

 

[Vinc]

Hurt less for who, Microsoft? Sure but they can afford it. Let's pretend Capcom has a game that is going to come out on GP. You think they will be as eager to delay? The situation is the same for a third party such as them. Their game needs to release in order for them to make money. They don't have GP subscription money.

Click to shrink...

Yes, I'm arguing that it's easier for Microsoft to delay their games here. Of course, a third party having a deal with Game Pass doesn't change anything for them. My argument is that if your business model is the subscription service primarily, it's easier to delay a game you're funding for it than it would be if you're making a traditional, retail "fire-and-forget" title.

 

[Apathy]

I definitely feel like the recurring, steady revenue generated from Gamepass allows Microsoft to be a bit more flexible when it comes to giving games more time in development. It might also be that the industry as a whole had a rude awakening with Cyberpunk and that Microsoft also wants to portray that they're treating their new acquisitions well, but I think that's all enabled by the fact the Xbox division's revenue is going to be predominantly a semi-fixed stream of Gamepass subs.

Click to shrink...

But this isn't a gamepass only thing. Every revenue stream is playing a part in subsidizing a delay.

 

[Vinc]

Don't really see the connections here.

I mean if anything I'd argue that GP encourages publishers to bank on marketing and anticipation prior to release (because that's what sells subs), instead of the actually quality of the game and trying to hit deadlines.

I'm sure lots of people bought GP in recent months just to play Starfield later this year. Microsoft sold the hype, not the actual game

Click to shrink...

I feel like you accidentally landed on the exact point I'm making. Microsoft is monetizing the hype, which makes actually releasing the game a tad bit less important than it would be if there was no way to monetize it. It takes some pressure out of the kettle.

 

[Vinc]

All I'm hearing is the customer is the ones getting finessed.

Click to shrink...

KIND of. The customer still gets value, and getting them into the ecosystem and retaining them through multiple games makes it much less important to hit your dates on your big titles. But yes, Microsoft is making it easier for their customers to continue to pay them and not leave the ecosystem despite delays. If Bethesda was still independent, Starfield's delay would hurt them a lot more than, say, it would under Microsoft after it starts easing off of Game Pass' growth stage.

 

[crab__rangoons]

But this isn't a gamepass only thing. Every revenue stream is playing a part in subsidizing a delay.

Click to shrink...

Let's compare to Sony or Nintendo. When Sony/Nintendo have a big new game coming up they have to wait until that game hits shelves to really capitalize on any of that potential revenue. So if they decide to delay a game, they have to consider that they're now going to have to push out that big payout.

GamePass money is always coming in, so as long as your delays aren't happening so frequently that it's causing subscription cancellations, you're still having money coming in.

 

[Jump_Button]

Dont always work out look at Crackdown 3 some time a game just :/

 

[vivftp]

The Veganism of video games.

 

[Pancracio17]

I feel like you accidentally landed on the exact point I'm making. Microsoft is monetizing the hype, which makes actually releasing the game a tad bit less important than it would be if there was no way to monetize it. It takes some pressure out of the kettle.

Click to shrink...

It also encourages early reveals though. Its probably why MS has so many announced games that we have only seen in CG concept trailers, or maybe a short gameplay demo but with still no date in sight.

 

[Vinc]

Let's compare to Sony or Nintendo. When Sony/Nintendo have a big new game coming up they have to wait until that game hits shelves to really capitalize on any of that potential revenue. So if they decide to delay a game, they have to consider that they're now going to have to push out that big payout.

GamePass money is always coming in, so as long as your delays aren't happening so frequently that it's causing subscription cancellations, you're still having money coming in.

Click to shrink...

Bingo. And yes, currently one could argue that big delays hurt a TON because, as someone correctly pointed out, a new subscriber lured by Starfield is potentially worth a lot more than 60 to Microsoft in this growth phase. But once Game Pass matures into a profit center for them with a stable, slower-growing userbase, delays will be easier to justify than they've ever been for this exact reason. It's one of the things that make me think the model, if proven, could be really beneficial in keeping the games industry sustainable and healthy.

It also encourages early reveals though. Its probably why MS has so many announced games that we have only seen in CG concept trailers, or maybe a short gameplay demo but with still no date in sight.

Click to shrink...

I agree for now, but I'd argue the opposite will be true later. Now that they're in a growth phase and trying to acquire customers, AND that their pipeline is not quite firing on all cylinders, it makes sense to announce things early and sell people on potential at a low cost of entry. Later on, when games are coming out at a steady clip and their userbase is mature and very large (if all goes according to plan), I could see them moving to a Netflix-like model of announcing imminent things only and saving the long-tail announcements for the REALLY big stuff. If your customers always think something cool might be coming next month, they're probably less likely to unsub than if they think all the good stuff is years away.

 

[Jiggy]

Let's compare to Sony or Nintendo. When Sony/Nintendo have a big new game coming up they have to wait until that game hits shelves to really capitalize on any of that potential revenue. So if they decide to delay a game, they have to consider that they're now going to have to push out that big payout.

GamePass money is always coming in, so as long as your delays aren't happening so frequently that it's causing subscription cancellations, you're still having money coming in.

Click to shrink...

But Nintendo and Sony also have other revenue streams? Including large subscription services (PS+ and NSO)? Sony had no problem delaying Horizon out of 2021 or Nintendo with BOTW2.

 

[crab__rangoons]

But Nintendo and Sony also have other revenue streams? Including large subscription services (PS+ and NSO)? Sony had no problem delaying Horizon out of 2021 or Nintendo with BOTW2.

Click to shrink...

Microsoft's entire revenue model is now centered around Gamepass. You definitely can't say the same for Nintendo and Sony. Sure, they have subscription services but it's not the same.

I'm not arguing that Nintendo and Sony won't still delay games. I'm just saying that GamePass probably is a factor that makes it easier for Microsoft to do so and that it probably "hurts more" for Sony/Nintendo to delay stuff.

 

[L Thammy]

Do they get revenue on a game that they've delayed releasing on the platform before it's released?

 

[BabyDontHurtMe]

Microsoft's entire revenue model is now centered around Gamepass. You definitely can't say the same for Nintendo and Sony. Sure, they have subscription services but it's not the same.

Click to shrink...

How is that not the same? The cost of the delays are still covered by their services and the revenue from their digital storefronts.

 

[Apathy]

Microsoft's entire revenue model is now centered around Gamepass. You definitely can't say the same for Nintendo and Sony. Sure, they have subscription services but it's not the same.

I'm not arguing that Nintendo and Sony won't still delay games. I'm just saying that GamePass probably is a factor that makes it easier for Microsoft to do so and that it probably "hurts more" for Sony/Nintendo to delay stuff.

Click to shrink...

But the monthly subs coming in literally subsidize the delays just like gamepass

 

[Vinc]

Do they get revenue on a game that they've delayed releasing on the platform before it's released?

Click to shrink...

Under the subscription model, yes. I'm sure lots of people subscribed to Game Pass in anticipation for Starfield (I'm one of them, although it wasn't the only reason- and I'm not unsubbing due to this delay). But under the traditional pay-per-game model, no. All they get is increased development costs and marketing costs, meaning the game also has to sell more than initially projected once it finally releases.

 

[gothmog]

Let's compare to Sony or Nintendo. When Sony/Nintendo have a big new game coming up they have to wait until that game hits shelves to really capitalize on any of that potential revenue. So if they decide to delay a game, they have to consider that they're now going to have to push out that big payout.

GamePass money is always coming in, so as long as your delays aren't happening so frequently that it's causing subscription cancellations, you're still having money coming in.

Click to shrink...

Why wait then? Just release whatever halfassed version of your game now and fix it as you go. People aren't really here for a specific game as much as the potential of the GamePass library, right?

You can slice and dice hot takes all day here. In the end we hope that quality is what drives adequate development time. If quality is not your goal then you can and will compromise in other areas no matter what model you choose to release under.

 

[crab__rangoons]

But the monthly subs coming in literally subsidize the delays just like gamepass

Click to shrink...

Of course, but is it on the same scale? I mean, I don't know for sure but if I were to bet I'd say Gamepass brings in much more monthly and makes up a larger portion of Microsoft's monthly income than services do for Nintendo and Sony.

There's a reason why these companies are all moving towards a services model. A steady stream of dependable income is much better than having to go from project to project. Especially as the cost of AAA development grows. It becomes very tenuous. A AAA game missing can be really disastrous.

Why wait then? Just release whatever halfassed version of your game now and fix it as you go. People aren't really here for a specific game as much as the potential of the GamePass library, right?

You can slice and dice hot takes all day here. In the end we hope that quality is what drives adequate development time. If quality is not your goal then you can and will compromise in other areas no matter what model you choose to release under.

Click to shrink...

Well, that degrades the brand which would probably hurt subs down the line.

 

[Era of not Yakuza]

These threads are getting weirder and weirder. What next? Gamepass model encourages more bugs - let's companies fix games for longer

Click to shrink...

There is a 007 movie where the villain is a big media owner, one of the "evil plans" was to release an operating system full of bugs, forcing customers to keep getting updates for years. I can totally see capitalism coming up with some way to sell the idea of "keep subscribing and see what updates your favorite game gets" lol

 

[L Thammy]

Under the subscription model, yes. I'm sure lots of people subscribed to Game Pass in anticipation for Starfield (I'm one of them, although it wasn't the only reason- and I'm not unsubbing due to this delay). But under the traditional pay-per-game model, no. All they get is increased development costs and marketing costs, meaning the game also has to sell more than initially projected once it finally releases.

Click to shrink...

So to clarify, if I'm a third party developer and I agree to release a game on the service by a specific date, then I decide that I can't release it to the desired level of quality at that date and push it back to another date, then I still get the same revenue as if I didn't do that? I'm genuinely not sure how this agreement works.

 

[Vinc]

Really don't think it's about GP, but first party publishers being able to pay. Or Nintendo wouldn't start Prime 4 from scratch after years, or Sony have Dreams in dev for almost a decade.

Click to shrink...

Well, yes. One could argue the console and related subscriptions = Game Pass for those manufacturers, so yes those things also help justify delays. But for Bethesda, for example, it's much easier to delay their game under Microsoft than it would've been on their own.

 

[cw_sasuke]

Microsoft's entire revenue model is now centered around Gamepass. You definitely can't say the same for Nintendo and Sony. Sure, they have subscription services but it's not the same.

I'm not arguing that Nintendo and Sony won't still delay games. I'm just saying that GamePass probably is a factor that makes it easier for Microsoft to do so and that it probably "hurts more" for Sony/Nintendo to delay stuff.

Click to shrink...

You might wanna take a look at how much software Nintendo sells every year. Mario Kart 8D alone still sells like 10m a year. Nintendo is the most profitable plattform holder, they can and will delay games if needed. Same way they would still earn millions without releasing a single new game this year.

MS being able to delay games doesn't have much to do with GamePass, they have so many other resources they can tap into outside of GamePass money. It's nice but it's not a make or break thing especially at the price they are charging for it and what it's offering.

Sony doesnt have to release a single game and is gonna make millions just based on MTX in Genshin Impact, Fifa and co. - all plattform holder have a couple of secure revenue streams,on a monetary level the GamePass situation isn't really that different from what's going on with other plattforms. You might pay them for the sub to play games instead of buying the games directly but that's it.

 

[NinjaScooter]

for Bethesda, for example, it's much easier to delay their game under Microsoft than it would've been on their own.

Click to shrink...

Bethesda is and was (when they were independent) a hugely successful publisher. I'm not sure this is the case.