-
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.
Phil Spencer: Putting AAA games in Game Pass leads to a significant increase in sales
- Thread starter Rychu
- Start date
- Status
I think some games might benefit and others not so much. Highle acclaimed games and well known franchises might not benefit from it. But other games, especially those where people are 50/50 if they are going to buy them would probably benefit. Also games where you can play with your friends and so on.
I could see a game like Anthem or The Division 2 benefit a lot from something like gamepass.
Yeah, but they werent supposed to be anywhere on the NPD chart because Gamepass, they were and smashed internal projections, so us lacking numbers doesn't mean it didnt performing well. If MS say it's a hit for them, then it is, as they back further funding for future development of the franchise
Previous Xbone exclusives that were bad received like SoD2 bombed very hard. And SoD2 managed to top the charts.
Yeah, I completely agree with this. I think it heavily depends on the type of game.
Where is the data that says these games would have not sold as well if they weren't on Game pass day 1?
In any event I hope it's true. I wouldn't mind paying a monthly subscription to get games on day 1, especially with the prices we are paying for games in Canada.
My only fear is we end up having every publisher having their own subscription service in the future so you are kind if forced to subscribe to multiple different services. Seems like the subscription wars are just getting started lol
In any event I hope it's true. I wouldn't mind paying a monthly subscription to get games on day 1, especially with the prices we are paying for games in Canada.
My only fear is we end up having every publisher having their own subscription service in the future so you are kind if forced to subscribe to multiple different services. Seems like the subscription wars are just getting started lol
the upside if that does become a reality is that each publisher would have to 1) make enough games to keep people subbing and 2) spread out there games to keep people subbed all year instead of having every game come out at the end of year
Soooo.. He implies that players try the games with Gamepass and then for some reason decide to buy them although they could continue playing them with their sub?
So what a demo should be doing?
Though to be fair Gamepass puts you in a real game environment and lets you see what the online portion feels like I guess.
Still, kindof weird, but I also imagine that over time as players get used to the sub working they might be less tempted to outright buy the games and adopt more of a rental format (unless coming out of gamepass lineup), as for now it seems to me it relates to an old school impulse to "own" the game.
So what a demo should be doing?
Though to be fair Gamepass puts you in a real game environment and lets you see what the online portion feels like I guess.
Still, kindof weird, but I also imagine that over time as players get used to the sub working they might be less tempted to outright buy the games and adopt more of a rental format (unless coming out of gamepass lineup), as for now it seems to me it relates to an old school impulse to "own" the game.
Microsoft has gold on its hand with Game Pass.
They're going to have consistent revenue from subscriptions to fund the development of titles. The model pushes subscribers to try titles they otherwise would not have, because why the hell not? This will increase revenue with DLC, because of the potentially larger install base on top of people who are more open to purchasing DLC due to not having to spend lump sums to buy a game up front. Microsoft can be a bit looser with the types of games they develop, because they don't necessarily have to focus on developing titles with mass appeal. It's clear that they especially believe this given the developers they've purchased thus far. And on top of this, they'll still get organic traditional sales through physical or digital retail. Even if it's front loaded, it's just a cherry on top given all of the other perks of the model.
They're going to have consistent revenue from subscriptions to fund the development of titles. The model pushes subscribers to try titles they otherwise would not have, because why the hell not? This will increase revenue with DLC, because of the potentially larger install base on top of people who are more open to purchasing DLC due to not having to spend lump sums to buy a game up front. Microsoft can be a bit looser with the types of games they develop, because they don't necessarily have to focus on developing titles with mass appeal. It's clear that they especially believe this given the developers they've purchased thus far. And on top of this, they'll still get organic traditional sales through physical or digital retail. Even if it's front loaded, it's just a cherry on top given all of the other perks of the model.
This is what I am saying.
Look: the claim is that GamePass leads to "significant" increase in sales for AAA games.
So, lets say Sony had a GamePass service and they put God of War there day 1.
We know God of War sold 5 million in its first month. So the inference here is that they would sell EVEN MORE than 5 million BECAUSE it was on PlayStation GamePass and got more exposed?
So... $10 PlayStation GamePass with God of War day 1 vs $60 God of War = Leads to more $60 God of War copies sold?
How does that make remotely any sense to anyone here?
And yeah, I also get the argument. More exposure, more people talking about it, eventually they buy the game themselves. I got that. But I don't think it is really as simple as people are trying to make it ou to be. If it was that easy, why the hell wouldnt Sony and Nintendo be all over the idea already?
I think this is an interesting phenomenon. Likewise, Rocket League probably wouldn't have become the massive success it became without it being free initially (or permanently?) on PS4. I bought it for Xbox when it got released (I didn't have a PS4 at the time) and probably would have never heard of it without the hype.
My own example is I played FH4 on gamepass and really liked the game. Ended up buying the game in the end as that's the only thing I was playing and didn't see the need to keep the game pass. There is a loss of subscription but I have picked it up which I wouldn't have before.
No, that's not what he said at all.
The millions of players on Game Pass cause sales to happen via word of mouth etc.
Without numbers this is nothing but marketing speak adressed to consumers and partners.
Phil has to sell gamepass to 3rd parties so that they might release their games on there.
Of course, he can't say "game sales go down, but we're still making a ton of money."
Does EA put their games day one on Access?
Phil has to sell gamepass to 3rd parties so that they might release their games on there.
Of course, he can't say "game sales go down, but we're still making a ton of money."
Does EA put their games day one on Access?
No, he's saying that the game has an unintended marketing effect. People see their friends playing a game. People see these games being played on Twitch / Mixer. People see these games being played on Youtube. And for those people without a subscription, if they like what they see - they go and purchase those titles. The games get more attention than they otherwise would have, because the price of entry is so unbelievably low.
On top of that, there's always going to be those people who like to go above and beyond supporting developers. People who prefer physical SKUs over a digital library.
Because it's not in their plans? Companies make decisions other companies don't make all the time. It's weird for your argument to be that it isn't as simple as people make it out to be and then pose that overly simplified question at the end.
For ten hours and they hope that leads to a sale... hence the discount.
Lol I love how Era is in denial about Game Pass.
It's a success, get over it?
Do you see yourself doing the same thing for an single player only game?
I don't think this model works for Sony or Nintendo. Sony and Nintendo have massive install bases, an already fleshed out first party development machine, and first party games that sell EXTREMELY well. Microsoft's install base is nowhere near it was with the Xbox 360, they're just now fleshing out their first party development capabilities, and their first party titles are hit or miss when it comes to selling gangbusters.
Furthermore, Nintendo and Sony are focused on their console / handheld platforms. It's obvious that Microsoft is going to be focused on the physical Xbox, PC AND every device they can feasibly stream too. With all of that in mind, it's easy to see why a consistent revenue stream from a subscription model is uniquely intriguing to Microsoft.
If SuperData can be trusted Gamepass is in third place when it it comes to revenue generated through gaming subscriptions in the US.
https://www.superdataresearch.com/gaming-subscription/
So what's your point here?
I still don't get why this great word of mouth isn't selling game pass subs, but it does sell physical copies of the game. And why didn't word of mouth work this well before?
Rocket League is a tremendous example for this.
A great game is not guaranteed to get great sales
A game on Game Pass is not guaranteed to be played
Putting a game onto Game Pass does not guarantee that it'll increase sales of the game, especially if the game isn't very good.
But if you put a game on Game Pass, it makes it much more likely for people to play the game, and if that game happens to be great, then its word of mouth will be even better, which increases the chances of that game's sales going up because you suddenly have far more people talking about how great it is.
Who's to say that great word of mouth isn't also selling Game Pass subscriptions? It's about giving people options to play the game and pay for it however suits them best. Some people might want to own it permanently despite it being on Game Pass, others just want to pay $10/month to play it for however long it's available on the subscription.
Pretty cool, but I don't get it.
If you are subbing to game pass to play games, why would you want to buy them unless your sub lapses soon and you like it so you want to play more or the game leaves game pass and you want to play it more? You also only get 10% off (?) so you could just wait for a better sale in the future.
If you are subbing to game pass to play games, why would you want to buy them unless your sub lapses soon and you like it so you want to play more or the game leaves game pass and you want to play it more? You also only get 10% off (?) so you could just wait for a better sale in the future.
Exactly, MS pushes GP way more than anything else right now. They want consumers to think "Gamepass" and not "game x".
That's their vision for the future and I have a hard time believing that people are dumb enough to overlook gamepass when it comes to word of mouth.
Also does anyone remember how this industry fought used games and rental services? Why doesn't this logic work here?
One copy of a game going through the hands of several owners should increase word of mouth too, right?
This is the hill I choose to die on: if tomorrow every game was on a game sub, this industry would be dead in 3 month.
It's more of a clod that you kicked up and declared a hill.
Mu guess is that it requires significant infructure investment and a robust account system, MS is far ahead the other 2, especially Nintendo here. Thier games are crossplay, play anywhere under the umbrella of a $8 payment plan, that's quite a lot of heavy lifting needed to put that in place, not to mention MS put thier money where mouth is by releasing their games day 1 on GP. It does require out of the box thinking because it does sound absurd at first.
GP games rotate out too, at some point so if you've discovered you new favourite game, you're not going to feel the pinch when you buy it discounted. It makes alot of sense.
Ah this is what I was looking for. What a funny thing for him to so casually drop in as the first place you'd check. A for effort.
What constitutes proof for you? Obviously not the head of Xbox saying it and giving analysis as to why. So what else?
Not really tbh? I am kind of bored of games and only buy them because of family. I only spent 3 hours max on the new God of War and Witcher when they came out so I'm the wrong person to ask but No. I wouldn't.
I guess MS games tend to be very multiplayer oriented so it works out for them?
It's a ridiculously great service that is only going to get better as more AAA first party titles hit it.
I guess it's like talking movie studios in embracing Netflix. Most will probably laugh in your face but there are few better ways to boost visibility.
The biggest games probably don't need it but for mid-tier it's probably a godsend. In a day and age where you have betas, demos, F2P, monthly games with online service subs and rentals it's actually encouraging to see there is still room for a new service.
This will be a boon for GAAS games in particular.
The biggest games probably don't need it but for mid-tier it's probably a godsend. In a day and age where you have betas, demos, F2P, monthly games with online service subs and rentals it's actually encouraging to see there is still room for a new service.
This will be a boon for GAAS games in particular.
And this is exactly why I continue to argue that Sony should do the same thing with PS Now. The Last of Us 2 isn't suddenly going to not be a sales juggernaut just because it's available on PS Now day 1. But you know what will happen? PS Now instantly gets a lot more buzz and subs. Sony shouldn't sit on this for too long.
Don't forget Nintendo. Their catalog of titles across all generations alone would make for one of the best services in gaming.
Microsoft should primarily focus on making on the best quality games possible like their competitors. Halo 5 was their only real blockbuster hit of this gen. Forza and Gears did very well, too, but I'm struggling to find other examples.
I don't see any legs on State of Decay 2 or Sea of Thieves, so I don't think they are selling well over a long period compared to those from other publishers.
I don't see any legs on State of Decay 2 or Sea of Thieves, so I don't think they are selling well over a long period compared to those from other publishers.
Not entirely the same thing, but my daily Rocket League addiction would not of even happened had I not gotten the game as part of my PSN subscription.
Sony spend massively on advertising already and the gaming media love them so they get constant positive coverage. I'm not sure it would have the same effect with them.
Not sure if it was him, but MS turned SO 2 down according to Patrick Klepek.
Can't what he's describing be simply accomplished by having a beta or a multi-day trial of the game, all of which leads to more people playing/streaming/talking about the game.
Seems more financially sound than putting your game on a subscription service.
Although all of this only applies to gaas/multiplayer focused games.
Seems more financially sound than putting your game on a subscription service.
Although all of this only applies to gaas/multiplayer focused games.
- Status