They do sell stranger things on blu ray/dvds at brick and mortar stores.
-
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.
Business Insider: Video game makers are worried that the industry is adopting the Netflix model
- Thread starter stormfire
- Start date
Movies generate money from cinema tickets.
TV shows from ads.
How Will games make money?
Kinda have to laugh at this. How many games have sales like this, versus a sharp dropoff after the first month?
And bombs happen all the time. How many studios can survive a bomb like that Deus Ex sequel (which I presume bombed, it was like $5 pretty fast)?
I'm cautious of subscription services for games but you can't compare film to music when it comes to streaming.
Netflix, Amazon, Disney+, and HBO Max are spending billions on original content. This has lead to many new opportunities for studios and creatives in the industry.
Spotify doesn't spend any money on original music. They just buy streaming rights to already existing music while doling out pitiful royalties.
My issue is with the nickel-and-dimey "US TOO" nature of the modern subscription movement. Pathetically small, weak catalogs of material that offer virtually no reason for their own existences beyond one show at a time locking off content beneath themselves. Dozens of them, all convinced that their pathetic lineup is worth paying for.
At least when I paid for cable I could change the bloody channel if I wanted to watch something else. There's no reason for CBS All Access to exist and yet it does.
What's wrong with cosmetic microtransactions to support your games?
That has been the thing I wondered about this shift. How does this work for AAA? They need that big upfront revenue to offset the costs.
We see some AAA games disappoint financially even with that upfront revenue. So how does it work with that gone from the start?
We see some AAA games disappoint financially even with that upfront revenue. So how does it work with that gone from the start?
I can't believe I'm actually reading this. Do you think cosmect MTX Will be enough to support stuff like final fantasy vii remake resident evil 2 and 3 remake, god of war and hzd? Please. You can't be serious.
Wait, again, did you read anything from what i posted?
I never said any word about MS doing anything, or that both business model can't cohexist.
I feel like we're in completely different wavelenghts here. Or maybe i'm talking about a specific future scenario while you are talking about a short term one.
I don't think there's any chance of subscription systems being the only business model in the next 15 years, if any, but it would be 50/50 at the very least in the next 5, unless something wrong happens.
My entire tl/dr point is, in a world with only subscription models, real indie games will vanish and big publishers will easily adapt.
I don't think it does unless the subscription platform pays for almost the entirety of development.
But those are exclusives and Era repeatedly chants that EXCLUSIVES ARE GOOD!
The beauty here though is that you can drop in and out of these streaming services whenever you like. I subscribe to CBS All Access to watch Picard and then I will drop it until season 2 comes out. I am sure lots of people did that for The Mandolorian on Disney+. It is actually a great deal to jump in and out of a game service if you only want to play an exclusive here or there. I may do exactly that if Sony puts PS5 games on PlayStation Now.
By the way, you can buy Stranger Things on Bluray and DVD. Star Trek Discovery is for sale on Vudu and iTunes. I do not know about Dr. Who but I would not be surprised if it is accessible elsewhere at some point.
- We have 2 models: Buy the game or rent the game. I prefer rent, because with the same amount I get other games in the package. People will always be allowed to buy the game.
- We have in Gamepass indies and small games that nobody buys.
- I hate those guys who don't want the OPTION to rent. Yes, this is OPTIONAL.
- We have in Gamepass indies and small games that nobody buys.
- I hate those guys who don't want the OPTION to rent. Yes, this is OPTIONAL.
When streaming services are in a position of power, they'll get to decide how much they'll spend on what (which also depends on their income). In an environment dominated by streaming services, the average purchase price for a standalone copy will be significantly lower because games will be cheaper to play, because people will get a vast catalogue of titles for a low monthly price. As a result, studios will become dependent on those streaming services for the majority of their income.
In the current standalone model, studios get income for every unit sold. In a streaming service model, studios will either get paid based on playtime or through a fixed fee. This means they'll either have to try to maximise play time (in the first model) or their return of investment will be limited to whatever the platformholders are willing to pay them (in the second model). A platformholder can decide to fund your project - that will basically turn you in a second-party studio of that platformholder for that project. That way, everyone at the studio will simply get their salary for that development time, but there's no way to grow the earnings of the studio (= actually turn a profit for investment into the studio itself). The other option is licensing an existing (completed or nearly completed) product to a platformholder, hoping they'll bid enough money for that project for the development studio to turn a healthy profit.
For small, unproven studios/brands, this is killing. The options to grow a brand, to grow the studio, and to invest into the own brand inside the video games market (= through the core product, excluding merchandising and licensing into other industries) will be very limited.
Seeing as several companies have already profited from all sorts of MTX, I'm absolutely serious. You find out what people are willing to pay and they will buy it. We can keep going back and forth on this, but since your argument is based on speculation alone, how about we just revisit this in 4 years when it will be a decade of having 3rd party subscription services in games and another article can come out to foster concern for another 4 years after that.
My assumption is the numbers don't work out for smaller AAA games (2-5 million sellers). GamePass models works on the premise that the average gamer spends less than $120 a year on videogames. So basically your average casual who spends $60 per year on Call of Duty or GTAV or FIFA would now be spending $120 and playing more games, which is great for the industry's overall numbers.
Problem is, smaller AAA games like Resident Evil or Devil May Cry, are likely purchased by people who spend maybe $200 or $300 a year on videogames. If they're only spending $120 a year now, how is this amount of money supposed to cover for the $250-300 they might have spent in a given year? (CoD, FIFA, RE ,DMC, Dark Souls, etc)
The way I see it, Activision/Electronic Arts/Ubisoft/Take Two aren't going to accept anything less than the $$$$ they currently make every year selling their games for $60 per copy, so basically smaller publishers are going to get boned in terms of how much they get from the licensing of their games to MS/Sony's game passes.
Oh and if they choose to not put their games on gamepass, good luck selling them for $40-60 when games have been devalued to "all you can eat" entertainment. Most people don't even feel like spending $12 to go see a movie nowadays because of Netflix, imagine trying to sell them a game for $60 when they own a GamePass that features the majority of the big AAAA releases.
Problem is, smaller AAA games like Resident Evil or Devil May Cry, are likely purchased by people who spend maybe $200 or $300 a year on videogames. If they're only spending $120 a year now, how is this amount of money supposed to cover for the $250-300 they might have spent in a given year? (CoD, FIFA, RE ,DMC, Dark Souls, etc)
The way I see it, Activision/Electronic Arts/Ubisoft/Take Two aren't going to accept anything less than the $$$$ they currently make every year selling their games for $60 per copy, so basically smaller publishers are going to get boned in terms of how much they get from the licensing of their games to MS/Sony's game passes.
Oh and if they choose to not put their games on gamepass, good luck selling them for $40-60 when games have been devalued to "all you can eat" entertainment. Most people don't even feel like spending $12 to go see a movie nowadays because of Netflix, imagine trying to sell them a game for $60 when they own a GamePass that features the majority of the big AAAA releases.
How exactly is Netflix nickle and diming you? You know the whole entertainment industry isn't one giant organization out to get you to spend money in different places right?
If Netflix has only 1 show you want to watch, pay the 10 bucks and watch it. If that show is not worth 10 bucks to you then don't. No one is out to get you.
I'm not interested in having to spend a bunch of my time constantly shuffling which subscription services I have access to and CHECKING to see what content is available where. It's stupid. Doctor Who constantly bouncing around from service to service so I can't even keep track of it is maddening.
Until a dominant position in the market is secured, after which they will try to turn their power into a profit, at the cost of licensors. That's the business model of companies like Uber, Spotify, and Takeaway: keep borrowing until you out-borrow - and therefore eliminate - the competition, and then exploit that majority market share against everyone involved.
Has anyone read the article? Interesting perspective that doesn't fit where this thread is taking the topic.
"The more crowded field has driven higher demand for content against a more limited supply of production and talent, resulting in cost inflation (particularly for marquee programs and show runners)," analysts at UBS wrote in a report distributed Tuesday."
In this scenario, Indies and creatives in the industry win. It cuts into the profits of major publishers. Hence why the "major publishers are concerned". It's going to disrupt their cash cows. Boo fucking who. Honestly fits my anticipated market impact perfectly. Just a different perspective whether it's good or bad. Personally all for disruption that drives up the value of creatives.
We are seeing that cost inflation now as there is a battle to buy content and recruit experienced creatives. At some point, the cost inflation and growth potential will hit an equilibrium, a lot of businesses who jumped in will realize they aren't going anywhere and will bail, and the water will settle. It will settle above where it's at now. In the meantime its creating more opportunities for new players, studios and ideas.
In other words, this doesn't devalue content. It devalues old distribution methods that offer less value. That impacts the big dogs.
"The more crowded field has driven higher demand for content against a more limited supply of production and talent, resulting in cost inflation (particularly for marquee programs and show runners)," analysts at UBS wrote in a report distributed Tuesday."
In this scenario, Indies and creatives in the industry win. It cuts into the profits of major publishers. Hence why the "major publishers are concerned". It's going to disrupt their cash cows. Boo fucking who. Honestly fits my anticipated market impact perfectly. Just a different perspective whether it's good or bad. Personally all for disruption that drives up the value of creatives.
We are seeing that cost inflation now as there is a battle to buy content and recruit experienced creatives. At some point, the cost inflation and growth potential will hit an equilibrium, a lot of businesses who jumped in will realize they aren't going anywhere and will bail, and the water will settle. It will settle above where it's at now. In the meantime its creating more opportunities for new players, studios and ideas.
In other words, this doesn't devalue content. It devalues old distribution methods that offer less value. That impacts the big dogs.
It is, glad I game primarily on Console actually. low investment games... = low effort and more drivel. Always. Like comparing Black Summer on Netflix to the Walking Dead on AMC type budget.
Gamepass is just an extension of MS' store. In fact, the biggest draw in MS eyes arent gamepass subs... it's the prospect of attracting players which will lead to more transactions in the store .
MS is one of just a handful of major platforms... the number of players that can compete with them on this front hasnt changed with the inception of gamepass.
It's funny because if the industry does go further and further into the sub model then it will be Nintendo (who will not go that way) and Sony (who is unlikely to go that way) that will mop up as people who aren't into renting / subscriptions will flock to them.
Nintendo and Sony really don't need to worry about Gamepass, I don't understand anyone that says they need to copy it, it makes no sense for them to do that when they have a huge market quite happy to buy their games normally.
Nintendo and Sony really don't need to worry about Gamepass, I don't understand anyone that says they need to copy it, it makes no sense for them to do that when they have a huge market quite happy to buy their games normally.
This was a very early phenomenon at the outset of Game Pass when subscriber numbers were low, but still high enough to drive increased visibility to titles that were on Game Pass. The data we've had in the last 12 months, specifically on Microsoft titles and how they've performed on NPD, shows the more logical result that dedicated sales are decreasing for titles launching on Game Pass. Consumers aren't stupid, they eventually learn the most efficient way to spend their money.
The thing about Game Pass is it's obviously a great proposition for consumers as the articles points out. But at the end of the day it's another step on the path of a fundamental devaluing of video games which began a decade a go with mobile, crazy Steam sales (which have been scaled back pretty dramatically now), humble bundles, etc, etc.
I don't even own an Xbox and it still subtly impacts my buying habits. I'm a Switch only person (due to my stage in life, the idea of having lots of time to sit in front of a TV to play video games is ludicrous) and I buy quite a lot of indie games on the eShop. Generally I'll wait for sales but if I'm really interested I'll buy it full price. I'm really interested in Two Point Hospital. Then I see it's launched on Game Pass immediately. There is literally zero chance I'm going to spend $60AU on that game when other platforms are getting it included in a subscription, even though I don't own the other platform and it's not even an option for me. So there's lot of ways these subscription services can impact consumer behaviour.
But I get why indie devs are doing it, because it's a hugely competitive marketplace and if someone comes along and offers you guaranteed revenue which keeps your studio afloat you'd be a dummy not to take (see also: EGS). It's this dichotomy where individual developers are doing the best things for themselves, but when enough of them do it together it becomes a bad thing for all of them.
My apologies. Reading and responding to a bunch of threads at once. Might of mixed up your messaging. I should take a break.
I was never a fan of the "When is game xy that came out last month coming to gamepass?" comments (that you can often see here on era). All of the subscription services felt to good to be true and I expect things to get worse one day.
You realize that music is incredibly unprofitable now, movies make virtually all of their money off of ticket sales and are thus INCREDIBLY volatile, and TV is splintered across so many subscription services it's basically impossible to keep up with?
None of those businesses are actually in good places right now.
Right, it is essentially hoping that everyone and their mama subscribes over time and the revenue becomes an incredibly massive pool.
Which isn't impossible, of course, but once you consider some of the flaws associated with that plan...yeah.
You can't play last of us without a PlayStation , it's an extension of the same forced exclusivity people don't have issues with
I wasn't arguing how games will be handled by streaming. I was arguing over your assumption that Spotify and Netflix are both negatives for their respective industries.
Netflix is a net positive, Spotify is a negative.
Your assumption that subscription services are bad for every industry is wrong.
What worries me about subscription services is when all the big publishers decide to just release they games exclusively in they streaming or subscription services. Then instead of 3 consoles you need to be subscribed to a dozen services if you wanna play all the games available.
So as long as physical media exist, thats where my money goes, fuck everething else, especially streaming services they can all crash and burn and follow Stadia to the bottom of the ocean.
So as long as physical media exist, thats where my money goes, fuck everething else, especially streaming services they can all crash and burn and follow Stadia to the bottom of the ocean.
We agree! It is good if your game makes it on Game Pass. I'm saying if your game isn't on Game Pass, it makes it harder to compete with titles that are on Game Pass. And since only a small number of select titles get in, it is probably bad for most developers.
Sub fees won't be enough to sustain the AAA model and game sales will lower dramatically, just like movies and CD sales. It's not sustainable.
It's funny that people here use Netflix as an example why physical games will disappear when Netflix actually releases a lot of their original content on physical media.
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=315550
And yet actual musicians are seeing very, very, very little of that, being forced to stay on tour for exorbitant amounts of time because the labels suck up all the money and keep it for themselves.
Hey! Enjoy your $60 game! I'll enjoy 100s for $10! And if and when publishers go to exclusive services (how long have people been saying this is going to happen now?) and have a game I want to play and I don't have their service, I might think about just purchasing the physical copy!
Hmm. Options. Incredible.
Well... I've got bad news for you if Netflix is your best example...
They have a debt that goes over 10 billion dollars...
Netflix offers $2 billion more in debt to fund its content spending | TechCrunch
Netflix is raising another $2 billion in debt to fund its content spending and other expenses, the company announced this morning. The news comes ahead oftechcrunch.com
Netflix doesn't have a revenue stream other than subscriptions though.
MS will never need gamepass alone to turn a profit, because Gamepass exists to grow the audience, who will then buy controllers, xbox live subscriptions, DLC. They'll also buy games that arent on Gamepass. they'll also buy games that leave gamepass.theyll also buy games that are still in gamepass. Theyll convince their friends who wont get gamepass to buy they game they've been playing. Some will get xcloud, etc.
This is where the Netflix/Uber comparisons fall short. MS has a bunch of revenue streams that GP feeds. MS doesnt want or need to squeeze traditional purchases out of existence. They absolutely love when you buy a game outright on there store... they get a 30% cut of that transaction. The margins are higher there than what they'll ever be with gamepass.
They don't want players to subscribe to gamepass instead of buying games outright. They want players to subscribe to gamepass AND buy games outright. They hope that the existence of gamepass creates more users who eventually buy things.
Last edited:
You mean music executives are screwing over artists? This is not a new thing that was brought on by streaming, it's a story as old as music itself. The industry as a whole is making a lot of money in part because of streaming, the fact that artists aren't getting enough of that money is a different argument.
I've already shown you the math on how it certainly would be enough. Your response was to show that Netflix is borrowing money, which means nothing about the health of that company. If the creatives are getting paid then that's what's important.
I gladly pay more to own a game i like and support the developers, than less to rent a bunch of them where most do not interest me. Not to mention i can always lend or sell the game if i want to.
This is bad, not good. It means revenue in 2018, is just reaching what it was in 2008.
Paying for Game Pass supports the developers who are on that service who are getting paid for their games to be on there.
Industry growth is good, it took a while to figure out the new paradigm but it's working. It's almost back to it's highest peak ever.
Nop. Microsoft supports them. They dont gain more or less depending of subscribers or downloads. At least that what the article mentions. They get a 1 time fat check and thats it. Thats why they worry in 5 years that fat check dosent look so good anymore.
That's not how I read the chart, revenue is back to 2008 levels, but barely half what it was in 2000.
Maybe your chart is US only? The article I linked said revenues were almost 20 billion.
This "option" is junk though and always has been. Sure, rarely, you get a Mojang story. The vast majority of the time, that doesn't happen though. Anyone basing a business plan on such lofty goals is destined for failure, in either distribution model.
Music is more valuable than ever, film is pulling more money than ever, and so is TV. Your argument on profit is incorrect.
As for quality, we've had some of the best new artists discovered via streaming. Movies and TV made for streaming platforms that's higher quality than any of the gunk we got on cable.
So it's the same as it's always been on this front?