Last edited:
Phil Spencer talks about how deals for games on Game Pass works
- Thread starter jbug617
- Start date
Thanks for editing the source in, jbug617
Yeah it's interesting that they are basically granting some failure immunity to some smaller devs while, at the same time, game pass can work as free advertising for the game on other platforms if it's well received there. I don't think bigger games work that way though and I suspect those are more about larger sums of money upfront after the publisher considers the game has gone its course already.
Yeah it's interesting that they are basically granting some failure immunity to some smaller devs while, at the same time, game pass can work as free advertising for the game on other platforms if it's well received there. I don't think bigger games work that way though and I suspect those are more about larger sums of money upfront after the publisher considers the game has gone its course already.
Lol why wouldn't it be? Pretty sure the lawyers at MS know what they are doing!
Paying all production costs, and still being able to sell it on Playstation/Steam/Switch sounds like a pretty solid deal, especially for smaller teams/riskier projects.
Is what even legal? Posting on Resetera? You'd think it wouldn't be, but here we are
Translation = MS has the money to make it work. Doesn't sound like there is any sound structure and they will just shell out how much is needed to get the game or developer on board.
So in some way it's kinda simple. Like the next step from a regular publishing agreement where the devs keep the IP, which isn't possible for most of the devs out there unless they are established.
So in some way it's kinda simple. Like the next step from a regular publishing agreement where the devs keep the IP, which isn't possible for most of the devs out there unless they are established.
You just got memed.
On a different note, I think this approach is best. You need to be able to make different types of deals with indie and AAA studios. Obviously your Capcoms are going to want different incentives compared to smaller devs.
Especially that second option is a great one: the developers can develop almost risk-free, with the only catch being that they have to make it available on gamepass - and we know that especially for smaller developers, releasing on Gamepass does not kill your retail/digital full game sales completely, either, so I imagine it's very attractive for your typical beleaguered indie dev.
"Hey Phil break it down for me. How do you manage deals with hundreds of developers? Just a quick blurb?"
I'm glad to have some insight in this, I think it's very interesting to know that in the beginning they did actually only have deals based on engagement metrics. I think a lot of people called out the flaws in that and what that might do to games going forward, and I'm glad they were able to adapt rather than trying to shape production around themselves. This will obviously happen to some extent regardless, especially if GP gets big, but it seems like they know they need diversity to make the service work, and that different games require different strategies.
I'd be interested to know which games they paid the full development costs of. Nice to see how diverse the contract options are, means they should be able to entice a wide variety of content for quite a while.
Thanks for the link
Also lol what that argument nonsensical form multiple perspectives
If I was a guessing man it would be the likes of tell me why , ori
Well both of those games are actually published as MGS games are they not? So they would have been funded with or without Game Pass.
I believe the suggestion here is for smaller independent games that can use the capital to help just finish the game with some security.
So it's basically the EGS model, without all the bullshit exclusivity, and with everything available to consumers at a low-low price.
...those are games produced and published by XGS and they own the IPs. of course they paid the development cost.
this would be about some indie games, not first party titles.
Both of these games are owned by Xbox and were developed as Xbox Game Publishing Projects. I really don't think that's the GamePass' "we pay for the game and you do you" situation right here.
Damn, that's actually pretty great and helps explain why there are so many indie games that launch into the service. It makes sense too, if a game's budget is less than $5mil or something, that's more than feasible for several games a month with 10+million subs paying around $10 a month
This doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know. I want concrete numbers and specific about those deals.
"We paid BitMonkeys eleventy thousand dollars to put Shoot-mc-boomy 2 on Game Pass for 10 months plus reduced their marketplace cut from 30% to 15% for all of their in-game macro-transactions."
"We paid BitMonkeys eleventy thousand dollars to put Shoot-mc-boomy 2 on Game Pass for 10 months plus reduced their marketplace cut from 30% to 15% for all of their in-game macro-transactions."
Make a game and go sign a deal with Xbox lol
They are not going to give numbers and specifics about games since they are pretty much different and not all games or devs want the same thing.
The secret sauce is really that they work with the dev on the model that suits their game. This is awesome!
Probably the most interesting thing to me that seems to be ignored to pound a joke into the ground is the last bit. When it started, Game Pass was based on usage, which I feel was something a lot of people disputed even in the early days. Glad that changed, because that would be terrible, especially for smaller developers and games.
Clearly they aren't going to release that level on granularity on the deals. That wouldn't be fair to either MS or the individual teams and their deals.
The fact that they have, and are continuing to, modify their deals to accommodate different teams and their goals is promising going forward.