-
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.
The Game Pass model encourages adequate development time
- Thread starter Vinc
- Start date
Moving to a subscription model is not a clear path to get out though.
This is very much a "in theory but likely not in practice" claim. Highly doubt companies are just given infinite dollars and time to release their games. And I also doubt that it eliminates crunch.
If we're talking the 2 BGS games specifically, having more resources in general encourages adequate development time. If Zenimax was still independent, I don't think Redfall and Starfield get the option of more time simply from the need for the company to be making money on a new product somewhere.
I'd agree with OP that yes, it does encourage adequate development time.
My issue though is... and this applies primarily to first party Xbox releases... it takes so much pressure off that it frequently negatively impacts the quality of the games.
I say this because
1) There aren't really "sales" to worry about when the game initially releases. 1st party Microsoft game has to be on GP day 1, and will be whether it is good or not. So if you want to release an unfinished game (ahem, Halo, Sea of Thieves) you are free to do this. Sure you have to promise to try to eventually make it good or whatever, but the stakes are just lower. Anyone with a GP sub is going to try Halo when it comes out. If it's good at launch, great. If not, well I'll try it later when they fix it. Meanwhile Microsoft gets to sell GP subs on the hype of the new upcoming going-to-be amazing releases-- like Starfield!-- for years.
2) You can delay a game as much as you like-- within reason-- to continue working on it, because there aren't dates that you just have to hit for investors. This is generally a good thing. It discourages crunch, and in theory should lead to better games. But just because a game is delayed doesn't mean that when it is eventually released it is a guaranteed amazing game (Halo again). And as long as it feels like a reasonable delay and doesn't completely turn people off, you get that much more time of people subbing to GP in anticipation. As annoyed as I am about Starfield's delay, I'm not going to quit Gamepass over it. Instead I'll have it at least 6 months longer!
This isn't a GP-specific problem, obviously countless non-GP games have released and been bad. But nonetheless it's important to consider that just because GP encourages more dev time doesn't mean the games released on it at launch are necessarily good. Especially because of my point 1 above, that they don't necessarily need to be good whenever they do release.
So yes, it allows developers to spend more time working on a game, if needed. That's great. But it also allows games to be released unfinished or just, released as not great... with reduced consequences.
For a non-GP game, if it's bad at launch, you're toast. The initial very profitable $60-70 sales don't happen, because the reviews are bad. For a GP game? It's on the service, as promised. Maybe less people sign up for GP to be able to play it, but they were probably on GP already anyway. And if you're a non first party dev, you worked out some deal with Microsoft for a fixed amount, and you're getting it regardless of whether or not the game is a hit.
I'm not saying it's not possible for great 1st party games to be released on GP day one. Forza is a great example of that. Great game by any measure. But if it wasn't good that sneaky 'even if you have GP if you want to play it "early" you have to pay' release it had wouldn't have been effective. They knew they had something great and came up with the early access fee as a way to take advantage of it.
My issue though is... and this applies primarily to first party Xbox releases... it takes so much pressure off that it frequently negatively impacts the quality of the games.
I say this because
1) There aren't really "sales" to worry about when the game initially releases. 1st party Microsoft game has to be on GP day 1, and will be whether it is good or not. So if you want to release an unfinished game (ahem, Halo, Sea of Thieves) you are free to do this. Sure you have to promise to try to eventually make it good or whatever, but the stakes are just lower. Anyone with a GP sub is going to try Halo when it comes out. If it's good at launch, great. If not, well I'll try it later when they fix it. Meanwhile Microsoft gets to sell GP subs on the hype of the new upcoming going-to-be amazing releases-- like Starfield!-- for years.
2) You can delay a game as much as you like-- within reason-- to continue working on it, because there aren't dates that you just have to hit for investors. This is generally a good thing. It discourages crunch, and in theory should lead to better games. But just because a game is delayed doesn't mean that when it is eventually released it is a guaranteed amazing game (Halo again). And as long as it feels like a reasonable delay and doesn't completely turn people off, you get that much more time of people subbing to GP in anticipation. As annoyed as I am about Starfield's delay, I'm not going to quit Gamepass over it. Instead I'll have it at least 6 months longer!
This isn't a GP-specific problem, obviously countless non-GP games have released and been bad. But nonetheless it's important to consider that just because GP encourages more dev time doesn't mean the games released on it at launch are necessarily good. Especially because of my point 1 above, that they don't necessarily need to be good whenever they do release.
So yes, it allows developers to spend more time working on a game, if needed. That's great. But it also allows games to be released unfinished or just, released as not great... with reduced consequences.
For a non-GP game, if it's bad at launch, you're toast. The initial very profitable $60-70 sales don't happen, because the reviews are bad. For a GP game? It's on the service, as promised. Maybe less people sign up for GP to be able to play it, but they were probably on GP already anyway. And if you're a non first party dev, you worked out some deal with Microsoft for a fixed amount, and you're getting it regardless of whether or not the game is a hit.
I'm not saying it's not possible for great 1st party games to be released on GP day one. Forza is a great example of that. Great game by any measure. But if it wasn't good that sneaky 'even if you have GP if you want to play it "early" you have to pay' release it had wouldn't have been effective. They knew they had something great and came up with the early access fee as a way to take advantage of it.