Lol
Lol
That's a different model though, similar to PSNow which could work.MS first party as equivalent to Netflix originals to drive interest, plus specific indie game deals for newer distribution
1 year old catalogue bigger games as 'rental window' Incremental revenue post retail launch
As long as I get to play great games for cheap and devs are getting paid/treated fairly, I don't see any issue. Why should I worry about a trillion dollar company/industry's finances?
I go back to what Phil Spencer said: Let MS worry about the economics of Gamepass.
It's like moviepass; was it sustainable? No. But what do you care? Fill your boots.
Pretty much.
I love everyone here parroting Phil Spencer's line to dissuade even discussing the viability/implications of such a service. Feel free to enjoy it, but that doesn't mean it's off the table for discussion.
I think Game Pass will be fine and continue to grow. I really don't see any other gaming subscription services competing with Game Pass.The question is who will survive these subsidies? Corner the market and then raise prices is a timeless strategy and has usually resulted in a suboptimal situation for consumers. People will be short-sighted about it and there's nothing we can do though, I suppose.
What if Moviepass was run by one of the worlds biggest companies with the ability to lose billions. They then completely change the landscape of the medium until hardly any major players survive and then jack up prices? I know its a little doomsday but still.
But the question here is whether a subscription with AAA day 1 3rd party games could work and the answer is no based on economics.
This. This might destroy the quality and scope of games as you know them today if the economics need to adjust to make such a game subscription tenable going forward in terms of costs consumers are willing to pay long term.The question is who will survive these subsidies? Corner the market and then raise prices is a timeless strategy and has usually resulted in a suboptimal situation for consumers. People will be short-sighted about it and there's nothing we can do though, I suppose.
You think subsidizing Gamepass as a tremendous loss leader long enough to dry out Sony and Nintendo is realistic, let alone possible? Come on, this is nuts.
In response to...many: We don't need to have a financial stake in a company to care, this will affect the medium broadly in every way.
Yes the article is making up a scenario that doesn't exist in relation to Gamepass and posters here are happily running with it.But why is the question limited to AAA 3rd party games if we're comparing it to the Netflix model? That's what doesn't make sense to me about this section of the article.
+1Every streaming service is being subsidized right now because everyone is after market share and trying to out last the competitors . Once a chunk of market share has been established the prices will jump, if i'm paying $1 a month for gamepass today am i willing to pay $20 or $30 a month in the future, i don't know about that
PS NowOrigin Access Premier
Origin Access Basic
EA Access
Uplay+
Humble Monthly
Twitch Prime
XBOX Game Pass
Has there been even the slightest hint that these services won't stick around?
I just converted a $65 24 month Xbox live to Ultimate. I'm not sure how they're really making any money, but I gotta say I'm really enjoying the service right now.
I think it's tenable that given Microsoft's assets, openness to working with other platform owners, and foothold in both the PC and console space that they could become to gaming as Amazon publishing/Kindle is to books. And very few people are happy with Amazon's dominance in that arena.
But I agree, Sony and Nintendo are around for the long haul.
That's a different model though, similar to PSNow which could work.
But the question here is whether a subscription with AAA day 1 3rd party games could work and the answer is no based on economics.
MS day 1 gamepass you mentioned could work financially as they would be sacrificing margins on 1st party games to enhance platform USP. But they won't release analytical reports on current Gamepass so we don't know anything really.
This is why Sony's model is far better than Gamepass and more profitable. Sell it at full price, get all money whilst still running a subscription service where you'll eventually add the game a few years after release. It's a win win.
i signed up to gamepass for full price the day i got my (used) xbox one s, and have never not paid full price... every single month
i represent the majority
We have had devs/pubs say this is how it worked. That they get paid X amount to be on GP for Period of time.TBH nobody really knows.... maybe they pay per minutes played? Or per download? Kinda amazing the GP deal has not leaked.
I usually just watch and have no position in this type of thread because I am quite ignorant about the economics of games and these stuff(is the way that I have for avoid talking bullshit about things I don't know).In response to...many: We don't need to have a financial stake in a company to care, this will affect the medium broadly in every way.
This article feels like it was written before Game Pass existed
Ok, from my stand point there are a lot of drivebys because these concerns have been brought up before. At first it was MS will never put their 1st party AAA games on GP. Then it was they won't put them in day 1, then it was they will be timed.Fucking this!
I see all the drive by posts, the shitty one takes and the dumb gifs and it's just sad the level of discourse we are seeing lately.
The way games are made and what kind of games are made will change drastically if the "Netflix" model takes off in the gaming business.
A crude exemple:
If they remunerate content creators with a one time fee every time someone download their game, most devs will make shorter games to maximize returns. GAAS will suffer since their whole business is keeping users engaged for a long time. And while many of then have issues with monetization, there are some pretty good GAAS out there.
On the other hand if the compensation is done by engagement, then everything will be GAAS and shorter games and even single player games will suffer.
I think Gamepass pays a one time fee AND remunerates engagement as well, but I'm not sure. I doubt that game pass is a profitable service for MS, they are making an investment to attract users.
Personally I would love if someone cracked this, I mean who doesn't want to pay 15 bucks a month to play anything? I just don't know how it will work out and what are going to be the repercussions if the industry leans heavily that way.
That whole Phil Spencer "let MS worry about the money" is bullshit, we all know what happens when people delegate to big corporations decisions that affect their buying habits. Everyone should be more transparent on this.
First party is irrelevant to the calculation because if you own the license you don't incur the cost and subscription is a more reliable revenue stream. Gamepass incentivises more spend on first party over time, it's precisely why Netflix is moving to more and more netflix produced content, they increase their gross margin that way.
Day and date AAA games on gamepass is very unlikely outside of a few token examples. It is too much risk for publishers.
We don't know the precise numbers but we can guess the economics of these services because of the experience of both music and video subscription services across the world.
Fundamentally, this is where I think the economics will take the business model within the gaming sphere; i.e. a landscape of publisher islands with their respective Netflix-like services driven predominantly by their own first party produced content, all charging their own subscription. Gamers will pick and choose which service they subscribe to based on the original produced content libraries they prefer and then just buy all the other individual games they want a la carte.
I don't think the idea of a single dominant Netflix-like gaming service is even remotely realistic.
The concern trolling over gaming subscription services never will end. Publishers and developers repeatedly tell us via words and financials that it is successful but people will always doubt it
yup only recently some devs were commenting on their success on gamepass
All I know is that I think I am getting a good deal.
I go back to what Phil Spencer said: Let MS worry about the economics of Gamepass.
Who cares how this works? Just enjoy the amazing deal they've given us.
This is why Sony's model is far better than Gamepass and more profitable. Sell it at full price, get all money whilst still running a subscription service where you'll eventually add the game a few years after release. It's a win win.
To be fair, the context of the thread is discussing the commercial viability of the platform.
That's the part I don't get, all the 'this CAN'T be profitable for Microsoft' handwringing and concern trolling is ridiculous. Who cares if they make money off it, or if they are just committed to using it as a loss leader to get people on their system and into their ecosystem?Who cares how this works? Just enjoy the amazing deal they've given us.
To be fair, the context of the thread is discussing the commercial viability of the platform.
Fucking this!
I see all the drive by posts, the shitty one takes and the dumb gifs and it's just sad the level of discourse we are seeing lately.
The way games are made and what kind of games are made will change drastically if the "Netflix" model takes off in the gaming business.
A crude exemple:
If they remunerate content creators with a one time fee every time someone download their game, most devs will make shorter games to maximize returns. GAAS will suffer since their whole business is keeping users engaged for a long time. And while many of then have issues with monetization, there are some pretty good GAAS out there.
On the other hand if the compensation is done by engagement, then everything will be GAAS and shorter games and even single player games will suffer.
I think Gamepass pays a one time fee AND remunerates engagement as well, but I'm not sure. I doubt that game pass is a profitable service for MS, they are making an investment to attract users.
Personally I would love if someone cracked this, I mean who doesn't want to pay 15 bucks a month to play anything? I just don't know how it will work out and what are going to be the repercussions if the industry leans heavily that way.
That whole Phil Spencer "let MS worry about the money" is bullshit, we all know what happens when people delegate to big corporations decisions that affect their buying habits. Everyone should be more transparent on this.
But if Xbox is saying their model is viable, devs are saying its viable and it's still being supported by new releases and third party AAA games then who should we believe? Concerned speculations? It disingenuousTo be fair, the context of the thread is discussing the commercial viability of the platform.
And when it does... then we can show concern? Like concern speculation now just seeems a little service platform warry to me tbhIn response to...many: We don't need to have a financial stake in a company to care, this will affect the medium broadly in every way.