-
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.
Business Insider: Video game makers are worried that the industry is adopting the Netflix model
- Thread starter stormfire
- Start date
Weren't they also worried before about the used market? Seems like these 'insiders' are always worried about something.
How about we just get back to square one, put out decent content while also coming out with new ideas.
How about we just get back to square one, put out decent content while also coming out with new ideas.
Last edited:
You can trust Nintendo to charge 60 dollars for a game on the Switch that cost 50 dollars on the Wii U.
I as a consumer I'm worried about that. Fuck that. Fuck that owning stuff is getting harder. We should never allow corporations to have this much power.
More ways to pay for games means more ways for developers and publishers to make back on investment which means they aren't held to a certain way of doing business like they were 20 years ago.
Instead we see a variety of games big and small at a variety of different price points and some release episodically like Tell Me Why will later this year. The more free devs are to make the experience they want the better.
Alan Wake probably would have had a sequel by now if the original launched later when the episodic system was more established and went that route like they planned to before going back because they needed the $60 disc at GameStop.
Instead we see a variety of games big and small at a variety of different price points and some release episodically like Tell Me Why will later this year. The more free devs are to make the experience they want the better.
Alan Wake probably would have had a sequel by now if the original launched later when the episodic system was more established and went that route like they planned to before going back because they needed the $60 disc at GameStop.
Hehe so true. They'll probably charge $70 for Switch 2 "HD" ports of Switch games.
As I keep saying let's see how this Game Pass and subscription model stuff works out once the honey moon period is over in like 2022. Right now a lot of people just don't what to hear any negativity of concern about it because it's such a great deal currently.
duh
I don't like buying games anymore because they entail redicluous Season Passes and crap
Season Pass model has destroyed the industry
I don't like buying games anymore because they entail redicluous Season Passes and crap
Season Pass model has destroyed the industry
360 was profitable, but not enough to offset the 5-7 billion loss that was the OG xbox
i pay for netflix, & have for years. that so much of their original content the last couple years is absolute shit almost defies the odds. absolutely not a very positive example of gaming's streaming future...
You make a loss, you write it down. Or look at it as sunk cost if you are cash rich. The OG Xbox was the price Microsoft paid to get established in gaming.
Game Pass is a cost being paid to possibly get vastly more users into the ecosystem.
Thank you, a very sensible post. As someone who loves Game Pass I still bought a 3 or 4 games last year, about the same as I would usually buy.
I don't disagree with anything your saying.
The only reason I'm talking about losses is because a poster suggested that gamepass losses would lead to MS shuttering the xbox division. So I explained to him that this hasnt been true for the last 2 decades, and is less likely now that the division is in the black.
Obviously video game makers are worried. On the one hand they've got digital store fronts recruiting them ecosystem where they have to sell their game at a set price point and competing for purchases, and on the other hand they've got the digital subscription model where their game is featured in alongside everyone else's and are competing for downloads. And no one knows which will make them more. Going exclusive on one model? Exclusivity window on the other model? Then factor in money-hatting for storefront exclusivity, or having your studio be bought vs. staying independent.
Look at it from a developer's point of view. They've just made their first game, there's some word of mouth, some hype building, Epic is on line one, Microsoft is on line two. Pick the wrong one and you could literally be leaving millions on the table. Also, no one knows which option is the right one, because we're literally in the middle of a possible paradigm shift.
Look at it from a developer's point of view. They've just made their first game, there's some word of mouth, some hype building, Epic is on line one, Microsoft is on line two. Pick the wrong one and you could literally be leaving millions on the table. Also, no one knows which option is the right one, because we're literally in the middle of a possible paradigm shift.
Moving towards everything being a subscription is very bad for the art in the long term. It makes efforts at preservation of games that have cycled out of being updated and supported impossible. Look at what happened to City of Heroes.
There are no "other industries" backing this up.
Music
CD/record stores died but the music business is actually thriving. Billie Eilish's net worth is about 6 million dollars and this cannot happen if no platform is writing checks.
TV
We all know platforms are still writing check. You won't believe the budget of The Morning Show and I bet most of you don't even know what The Morning Show is.
There's shelf life for every kind of entertainment content. Platforms will have to write checks or they will become obsolete.
no one except pop stars are getting paid. an industry is not thriving if only the people at the top are making money
Dude, The Morning Show was one of the most talked-about debuts last fall. Come on now.
"you probably haven't heard of it…it's pretty underground"
Also, it's terrible to use as any sort of representative example. It's very clearly an outlier: the flagship series for a trillion-dollar company's grand entrance into the media world.
And I think a lot of musicians would disagree that their business is thriving thanks to Spotify.
Rest assured, Nintendo won't go that route, when they have 10s of franchises selling 10M+ every time
I'm pretty much a physical-only person (and, except for Halo, I'm a single-player- or local play-only person). The last new-release digital games I spent money on were Perfect Dark HD and Mega Man 10 back in 2010. Since then, aside from a couple of Virtual Console titles, the only games I downloaded are ones I got for free as part of some promotion.
I like physical because I like owning things. Physical copies are legally your property to do with as you wish (except for making and distributing new copies, obviously) as they are protected by the first-sale doctrine. You can lend, sell, gift, or trade the copy at your own discretion. The first-sale doctrine makes the used games market possible. Since second-hand copies usually remain on the used market indefinitely, you can, in principle, find and buy a copy of an out-of-print title, even if you had a copy and lost it or never owned a copy in the first place. There's plenty of games that have been long out-of-print and never been re-released for whatever reason, yet are still available for purchase decades later. And if you take good care of your physical copies, they'll last you a lifetime.
I don't like digital because you don't own the copy. The copyright holder does. They're merely leasing it to you indefinitely. Under U.S. copyright law, the first-sale doctrine does not apply to digital copies, thus you cannot lend, sell, gift, or trade the copy unless the copyright holder gives you permission to do so. They can even rescind your license to use "your" copy (quotes intentional) for any reason or no reason at all, something that has happened in the past to at least a few people. If a title has been de-listed from digital storefronts or the digital store closes and you lose your copy for any reason, you may not be able to re-download it (this actually happened to me before nearly a decade ago, and is what made my anti-digital stance more ossified). If a title is only available digitally and you didn't get it while the getting was good, you ain't getting it all, maybe not ever (at least not legally).
Streaming is even worse than digital downloads, though. It takes the worst aspects of digital and combines it with the most annoying aspects of always-online services. Not only do you still own nothing, but your experience is completely dependent on both A) a constant internet connection, and B) the service being up and running. Even if you only play single-player games, if your internet connection goes down or the service is experiencing any sort of interruption, you don't get to play anything. Even if you have a connection, your experience can be affected the quality of the connection (lag in a single-player game... *shudder*). If a title is removed from the service for any reason, you don't get to play at all, perhaps not ever again (at least not legally). If the service ever gets shut down, well, you're just shit outta luck. Better hope there's an alternative. At least with digital downloads you have a local copy to show for your money, at least in principle. With streaming you can't even say that much. I'm fine with streaming for watching TV (it's basically just video-on-demand anyway), but for gaming I won't have anything to do with it.
If gaming ever goes all-digital (and especially if it moves to all-streaming), then I'm done supporting the industry. I'll still have several decades of classic offline games with physical copies to play.
I like physical because I like owning things. Physical copies are legally your property to do with as you wish (except for making and distributing new copies, obviously) as they are protected by the first-sale doctrine. You can lend, sell, gift, or trade the copy at your own discretion. The first-sale doctrine makes the used games market possible. Since second-hand copies usually remain on the used market indefinitely, you can, in principle, find and buy a copy of an out-of-print title, even if you had a copy and lost it or never owned a copy in the first place. There's plenty of games that have been long out-of-print and never been re-released for whatever reason, yet are still available for purchase decades later. And if you take good care of your physical copies, they'll last you a lifetime.
I don't like digital because you don't own the copy. The copyright holder does. They're merely leasing it to you indefinitely. Under U.S. copyright law, the first-sale doctrine does not apply to digital copies, thus you cannot lend, sell, gift, or trade the copy unless the copyright holder gives you permission to do so. They can even rescind your license to use "your" copy (quotes intentional) for any reason or no reason at all, something that has happened in the past to at least a few people. If a title has been de-listed from digital storefronts or the digital store closes and you lose your copy for any reason, you may not be able to re-download it (this actually happened to me before nearly a decade ago, and is what made my anti-digital stance more ossified). If a title is only available digitally and you didn't get it while the getting was good, you ain't getting it all, maybe not ever (at least not legally).
Streaming is even worse than digital downloads, though. It takes the worst aspects of digital and combines it with the most annoying aspects of always-online services. Not only do you still own nothing, but your experience is completely dependent on both A) a constant internet connection, and B) the service being up and running. Even if you only play single-player games, if your internet connection goes down or the service is experiencing any sort of interruption, you don't get to play anything. Even if you have a connection, your experience can be affected the quality of the connection (lag in a single-player game... *shudder*). If a title is removed from the service for any reason, you don't get to play at all, perhaps not ever again (at least not legally). If the service ever gets shut down, well, you're just shit outta luck. Better hope there's an alternative. At least with digital downloads you have a local copy to show for your money, at least in principle. With streaming you can't even say that much. I'm fine with streaming for watching TV (it's basically just video-on-demand anyway), but for gaming I won't have anything to do with it.
If gaming ever goes all-digital (and especially if it moves to all-streaming), then I'm done supporting the industry. I'll still have several decades of classic offline games with physical copies to play.
But if they stop writing the checks then the content creators would just stop making games for the service. This isn't like tv streaming which relies heavily upon their catalogue and their own titles. If 3rd parties decide to take their metaphorical ball and go home, or even create their own service, they can. Plus there's always going to be competition between the big player. I really can't see videogames falling into the "trap" being presented here.
Not saying they are - I'm just highlighting how the GamePass model isn't 1:1 applicable across the whole industry.
I agree. This streaming bullshit within gaming will backfire in the long run.
Hopefully, that's the case, then.
Last edited:
Same. If it went a pure subscription model I'd quit gaming in a heartbeat, but I don't think that'll be the case. Beside the original content on Netflix and Prime etc that is only available on that platform, I can still buy films and TV series on 4K Blu-ray. Hopefully that'll continue for a long time and also continue in the game industry. Choice is key.
At the moment it's great that there is that choice. I could have signed up for GP to get Halo the MC collection, but instead I bought it outright. I honestly can't keep on paying for subs, so GP or PS Now isn't for me and I'm glad I have the option to buy the games I want without having to sign up.
However, MS or Sony might try to further go down the subscription model by making some games GP or PSN exclusive, very much like how Netflix have exclusive content, to increase their subscriber numbers in the future.
While I 100% agree with this assessment, 10s of franchises sounds a bit high. There's like... Pokemon, Animal Crossing, Mario Kart, Mario, Zelda sometimes, Smash... What else regularly clears 10 million?
If only there was a way to stop it. No, let's sell our games to the highest bidder.
This industry has been bent on self-destructing for a good number of years, and it's only been getting worse. I have largely stopped giving a hoot. If they want to pursue unsustainable revenue patterns, have at it. Exploitative engagement-boosting mechanics that are tuned just so through player analytics? Sure, why not. Utterly broken games? Looking forward to the comeback story.
This industry has been bent on self-destructing for a good number of years, and it's only been getting worse. I have largely stopped giving a hoot. If they want to pursue unsustainable revenue patterns, have at it. Exploitative engagement-boosting mechanics that are tuned just so through player analytics? Sure, why not. Utterly broken games? Looking forward to the comeback story.
Last edited:
Even for the games that don't clear 10 million the margin must be pretty good. For example Luigi's Mansion over 5 million sold and I don't feel like it's production/marketing was high compared to AAA that sell for the same.
For sure. And I think people easily forget that a 5 million seller (or even one or two) can be very profitable and successful for a lot of games.
I'm not overly concerned. When GP is as good as it is it sets a good standard already to follow. And these concerns being posted here about GP leading to worse games are super weak IMO. Ori and the Will of the Wisps is a game developed for a long time knowing that it'll release on GP day 1 and whilst I haven't seen much of it due to wanting to avoid spoilers, I'm like 99.9% sure it'll be great and it has no micro transactions and a single player and isn't online only or rushed or broken or any other lame concern.
I'm already refusing to buy games from the following publishers due to their heavy presence on Game Pass:
- Devolver Digital
- Focus Home Interactive
- 505 Games
Uhm, that's how every business works. Make profits and invest them into the company. I said excluding merchandise and such; in other words, I'm only including the core business, which is game development. A model where only one party (or two) decide how much money everyone makes is bad for an industry, because that platformholder will reap the fruits of success in the market, not the developers/musicians/moviemakers themselves. Unless a royalty based on something is added in, but what kind of measure can they use? Time? I don't think you should want that.
Mario kart, Smash, Pokemon main series, Pokemon remakes, Animal crossing, Mario 2D, Mario 3D, Mario Party, Zelda 3D, Splatoon comes to mind.
I post this chart since it's what you are talking about:
Eventually MS put a lot more business under their Entertainment division therefore the user on GAF that was updating the chart stopped updating the figures.
You new to the industry?
In game product placement has been a thing since the 80s.
I used to buy cds and dvds. I have whole collections. I stopped buying them and only stream now because it's cheaper and more convenient.
I buy games because i like to play portable on switch. I don't buy games on Xbox because subscription is cheaper and more convenient.
I buy games because i like to play portable on switch. I don't buy games on Xbox because subscription is cheaper and more convenient.
Im not sure why people are suggesting a scenario where the subscription model overtakes traditional sales.
For example, Microsoft makes a shit ton of money when a player buys a game from the store. they make far more on the dollar when a player makes a purchases vs when a player only subscribes to gamepass.
The subscription service exists to pull more people into the ecosystem now... in the hopes that they'll buy stuff later. Aside from Google's, streaming-only business, No company is hoping eliminate direct sales.
I post this chart since it's what you are talking about:
Eventually MS put a lot more business under their Entertainment division therefore the user on GAF that was updating the chart stopped updating the figures.
Thanks for this! Should really put things in perspective.
Swift_Gamer what were you saying? Your theory that the xbox divisions viability is contingent on gamepass revenues is nonsense.
The gaming division has been in the red for a long time, and finally crawled out of it during this generation, thanks in large part to digital sales and services. gamepass subscriptions lead to more digital sales and more xbox live subscriptions - which more than offset the cost of operating gamepass.
Last edited:
People still buy DVDs and will continue to for at least a decade more. We got a long way to go before we worry about this. Maybe when fiber is the norm and you can easily test a game the same way you can watch a random movie
Exactly. Everyone knows they'll get fucked by the endgame but still jump in with both eyes open anyway because (surprise, surprise!) unsustainable short-term profit is all that matters in the modern era.
I was saying that any division that keeps bleeding money gets shut down, which is true. I never stated what you just said.
There fear-mongering takes have no basis in reality.
What unsustainable revenue patterns are being pursued? There's no indication that direct sales are being supplanted by subscription services nor is there any reason to believe that a platform holders in general would see value in eliminating the ability to sell games directly.
There's also literally no indication that subscription services are leading to more exploitive engagement boosting mechanics or broken games... the exact same games people play outside of gamepass are the ones they play in it.
People have these doom's-day theories about what "a game designed for Gamepass" looks like. But the answer is, there is no answer. games arent designed for the service. Games are designed to appeal to their target audience - on whatever platform(s) this audience exists, regardless of how the games are distributed. The subscription service provider then pays to bring the game onto the service. The games that a service provider would pay to have on their service arent designed any differently .