I agree with you but it's crazy to think those companies will share that with the devs specifically because it helps them decided how best to sell their games to the service.
Eurogamer - What Developers Think of Game Pass
- Thread starter DriftingSpirit
- Start date
I love Eurogamer, but this is not a good article. The article is just some random PR sentence : "with Game Pass they're doing it correctly for the developers" => Which means ?
The big elephant in the room with all of this is about money, and nobody talk about it. Oh sorry, the talked breigfly about it, about a service which don't exist anymore.
The big elephant in the room with all of this is about money, and nobody talk about it. Oh sorry, the talked breigfly about it, about a service which don't exist anymore.
True, you can't blame consumers for seeking better value and Game Pass is not to blame for devaluing titles. Even rock solid titles like Spiderman that are less than a year old can now be had for $20 new through sales. I just think third party is going to continue to be very reluctant to put new titles on Game Pass so it will jusst be up to Microsoft to lead the charge.
Pretty much. I'm not convinced the number of people that buy lots of games across multiple genres, AAA, AA, A, weird experimental stuff etc... is growing at anywhere near the rate that new games with limited appeal are being made. Hence, we are seeing blame being put onto store fronts for not doing enough, or "taxing" the industry too much and even consumers for not understanding or paying enough. People that only buy each year's CoD aren't buying Eastern European strategy RPGs. People that buy Football Manager aren't buying exploration walking simulators, people that only play Fortnite aren't buying anything at all...
I do understand the skeptism of streaming and gamepass style services. If they take off, and they will, you'll see games taking worse and worse offers just for the exposure. Look at the music industry, streaming provides sweet fuck all income for the vast majority of musicians but at least they have the fallback option of performing live. The gaming industry fallback is really only full sales and they will struggle to stack up price wise for the consumer against passes and streaming in the long run.
Just wondering what the connection was that you were trying to make with Sea of Thieves and Game Pass?
Well until recently the idea of a huge, free catalogue classic and current games only really existed to pirates, people who put in the effort to set up an emulator box, or people who hack their console.
Gamespass is the first real attempt at such a thing, but Microsoft does not have the history of 1st and 2nd party titles like Microsoft and Nintendo to pull it off to completion.
The reality is just that there are a lot of games out there to play, and if I don't have time to play them all, why am I buying them at full price (or close to it)?
Well not Apex, but there's plenty of other titles that can be played while multitasking work or other duties(narrative adventure games, majority of turn based games, and rpgs).
If they pay by time played, then we will inevitably see games that last longer (even if that means they're filled to the gills with grindy and useless busywork) to try and extract as much money as possible. I think that's the obvious concern.
A slightly less obvious one is how algorithms and data will determine what games appear on these service. If Microsoft notices an uptick in subscribers when Game Type A is added to Game Pass, but Game Type B barely moves the needle, we all know that they will double down on A. We've seen this happen with Netflix and how they use data to determine what kinds of shows they release based on what users watch and what they re-subscribe for.
It's not farfetched to think that games will include certain kinds of gameplay or certain kinds of hooks if it's going to attract the algorithm or the curator has been told by the algorithm that this kind of gameplay is popular.
To judge the influence of subscription services on game design we need to take a closer look at games that were launched day one with the service.
So i was trying to remember did SoT launch on GP or not
This is not what I've been picking up whatsoever. The general sentiment is that the model is broken. Subscriptions get thrown into a pot and you all get paid based on your plays - i.e. not a fixed fee. This is great if you a millions of plays artist, rubbish if you are not one of these absolute cream.
There is dismay now that things such as DJing software is now looking to hook directly into streaming platforms - Beatport being the main target here. These people are absolutely banking on downloads, they are banking on physical purchases with downloads attached (Bandcamp model). They've seen themselves get shafted in the streaming market with the main clients and now it is encroaching further into their world.
It isn't fans talking about Spotify ripping off the artists, it is the artists themselves. It is down to the business model. Spotify, Soundcloud, they're barely keeping in ok as it is in this model. The customers, fantastic, it is a dirt cheap price. The artists, next to nothing. This will either collapse as everyone scrabbles around for subscriptions, or you'll suddenly notice that your favourite artists start announcing that they are going to have to focus on their day job instead of music.
Maybe I'm misreading, but Fred Wester seemed to be implying that's not the model MS is using for GP.
Exactly this we see people buying God of War and CoD on day 1 I'm not really sure if that's what the major consumer wants, heck we got people filled with backlogs lol
Can't agree with that at all.
edit : Quote keeps messing up. I meant Playground saying they should get paid more because their games are played longer.
edit : Quote keeps messing up. I meant Playground saying they should get paid more because their games are played longer.
Microsoft is using the Netflix model of negotiating a set price for a certain time period.
Yip, SoT was the first Xbox game to launch into Game Pass and since then we've had Crackdown 3, Forza Horizon 4, State of Decay 2 and for the next twelve months well have Gears 5, Battletoads, Ori and Halo Infinite. All different types of games in all different kind of genres, some GaaS and some are not.
The key to Game Pass' success is to offer a wide breadth of different kind of games which is exactly what all fifteen studios (20+ teams) are going to be focusing on.
Something for everyone. It's not going to be all GaaS GaaS GaaS.
The sheer amount of subscription services and streaming services, that were announced/further touted just this year, should tell you where this industry is heading and the inevitability of it. Microsoft will speak of offering both subscription and traditional methods of selling games, but I feel this is only being said to appease the customer and developers who have concerns at the start of the transition. Those who are afraid of change.
Developers need to be prepared for this inevitability and weigh up their options to get the most value from their work. It's obviously going to be a hard time for them at first because so much is unpredictable. The thing with these subscription models being so new, we haven't really got any idea of market leaders outside of the initial "hype". So who do the developers pick? "X company is offering me a larger percentage, but are there more people going to be playing on this other platform offered by a different company?". The uncertainty is absolutely a concern for them.
So what for the customer? A subscription service will certainly offer better value for them and open up a whole library of other games for them to try and discover. How often do we see great games that don't get the sales they deserve? I've personally seen many games that I'd love to try, that have been lovingly talked up on this forum, that I'm hesitant to drop ÂŁ20-50 on because, "I might like it, I might not, but that other game that I REALLY want to play is being released in a couple of weeks. I need to save my money for that". I'm not sure how popular this line of thought is, but I bet it's not rare. With a subscription model, I don't have that concern, I'll just load up whatever platform I use.
But how does this translate to value for the developer? How many people need to play their game on a subscription service for it to equal one physical/Digital sale? How much does this impact the way developers make games and what games they make? Is it more beneficial for them to make games based on time played, or instances played? Does their payment model change on the type of developer they are and the games they make, or is the platform offering a universal model? Would a Universal model encourage a lack of variety, benefiting a certain genre more than others? THAT impacts the customer. You wake up one day to find out everything is... I don't know, Point & Click adventure games. Why? Because they make more money than every other genre because of the universal model used by the subscription company.
I'm personally all for a subscription future, but it's only right that both customers and developers have concerns and vocalise them to make sure that we get the best version for everyone.
Developers need to be prepared for this inevitability and weigh up their options to get the most value from their work. It's obviously going to be a hard time for them at first because so much is unpredictable. The thing with these subscription models being so new, we haven't really got any idea of market leaders outside of the initial "hype". So who do the developers pick? "X company is offering me a larger percentage, but are there more people going to be playing on this other platform offered by a different company?". The uncertainty is absolutely a concern for them.
So what for the customer? A subscription service will certainly offer better value for them and open up a whole library of other games for them to try and discover. How often do we see great games that don't get the sales they deserve? I've personally seen many games that I'd love to try, that have been lovingly talked up on this forum, that I'm hesitant to drop ÂŁ20-50 on because, "I might like it, I might not, but that other game that I REALLY want to play is being released in a couple of weeks. I need to save my money for that". I'm not sure how popular this line of thought is, but I bet it's not rare. With a subscription model, I don't have that concern, I'll just load up whatever platform I use.
But how does this translate to value for the developer? How many people need to play their game on a subscription service for it to equal one physical/Digital sale? How much does this impact the way developers make games and what games they make? Is it more beneficial for them to make games based on time played, or instances played? Does their payment model change on the type of developer they are and the games they make, or is the platform offering a universal model? Would a Universal model encourage a lack of variety, benefiting a certain genre more than others? THAT impacts the customer. You wake up one day to find out everything is... I don't know, Point & Click adventure games. Why? Because they make more money than every other genre because of the universal model used by the subscription company.
I'm personally all for a subscription future, but it's only right that both customers and developers have concerns and vocalise them to make sure that we get the best version for everyone.
I'd argue that many consumers want quality over quantity. Gamepass may offer a lot of games but it certainly doesn't offer the best.
The industry is changing, and I like the direction. Games for me are a very disposable medium, I really never replay games, and don't see the value in keeping a game collection. And in all honesty, games to me just aren't worth the 70€ price tag, I don't see the value.
I was skeptical when the music industry went this route, the same with movies. But to be honest, I haven't missed owning those at all.
Gamepass to me is the best thing ever in my + 20 years in gaming, and it gave me Sea Of Thieves, my favourite game ever released. If there is nothing to play on the service, I just play that. It's like comfort food.
I was skeptical when the music industry went this route, the same with movies. But to be honest, I haven't missed owning those at all.
Gamepass to me is the best thing ever in my + 20 years in gaming, and it gave me Sea Of Thieves, my favourite game ever released. If there is nothing to play on the service, I just play that. It's like comfort food.
Yeah it did, I think it was the first one to be there day one. Now ALL Microsoft 1st party will be there day one on release, and stay there.
So, if we count stuff that were released already (not stuff that will release) - every game is gaas. Interesting
Thanks for the answer
I think gamepass is way better for indies than it is for big devs. The deathbed for most indie games is having your game get buried under everything else, but with GP youre almost guaranteed to have an audience.
Well of course they will and it's not because of things like Game Pass, it's just consumers ahve changed too. Does Konami really make many actula games anymore? They went wehere the money is. Even companies like Blizzard are trying Mobile. The pendulum will swing to where people are, that's the nature of the beast.
The thing is too Game Pass does not have thousands of titles, they rotate games and have just over 100.
I just wholeheartedly disagree. All media is moving in this direction, it's not only Microsoft, we have EA Access and a Ubisoft service coming up also.
Yes it might hurt companies like Sony and Nintendo at the moment, but you cant deny that the industry isn't in a change with Stadia and service based gaming lifting their heads. Everybody has to adjust to this change.
I remember vividly, that Sony or Nintendo would NEVER charge for online gaming.....Look where we are now with that :)
Edit. And we already have PS now, and I can pretty much guarantee that upon the launch of next-gen consoles that service will also get a facelift. We might not get Sony 1st party there day one, but the service will be bigger than it has been this gen. Babysteps
It's certainly got the best game I've played this year on it. Outer Wilds launched day one on Game Pass.
I'm hoping Death Stranding will be my GOTY but if it misses then I don't see anything else this year beating out Outer Wilds for me.
Does anyone know exactly how payment is dealt with Gamepass. I think Paradox comment is interesting as I find the payment model for these stream services interesting. Through my library science studies we learned of different E book payment models that have been used. Where Paradox example would be the same in the book world if ebooks rates are based on reading time and not per finished title.
The reality is that these models will have flaws and favour some companies (games) more than others. Netflix model kinda sucks if it is based on perceived worth and spotify is useless for smaller bands. In the end streaming can contribute with better exposure. Personally I think Gamepass is superior due to the fact that you can buy the games opposed to Netflix (I know Spotify offers that too).
I just hope the negotiations and type of rates they apply can work for both bigger and smaller developers. Not favour one than the other, but that can be impossible to balance in a fair way.
The reality is that these models will have flaws and favour some companies (games) more than others. Netflix model kinda sucks if it is based on perceived worth and spotify is useless for smaller bands. In the end streaming can contribute with better exposure. Personally I think Gamepass is superior due to the fact that you can buy the games opposed to Netflix (I know Spotify offers that too).
I just hope the negotiations and type of rates they apply can work for both bigger and smaller developers. Not favour one than the other, but that can be impossible to balance in a fair way.
I can still buy CDs and DVDs. Hell, I can still buy albums on vinyl. It makes sense to retain the 'old' model while offering a 'new' one, and I don't see a future where the only way to access videogames is via a subscription. As an option, it just doesn't make sense for some people, so you'd be losing those customers for nothing.
Microsoft's approach to Gamepass being an option is really smart. There's a lot less reason to be upset about having a subscription when it comes alongside a traditional model. Same with xCloud, streaming has too many things keeping it from making sense for being ones only method of playing games, but having it as an option alongside locally playing them fixes that.
I don't want a future where publisher who have numerous track records of questionable business models having full ownership of the games I own just for convenience
Sure, but Netflix doesn't always release a physical version of their own exclusive products. How long before "Exclusively on GamePass"? Do you not genuinely see that happening with a first party game in the not so distant future?
I would think Paradox would be a bit warmer on it, their business model seems to revolve around selling a fuck ton of DLC. With gamepass you can get the game for free and purchase DLC at a discount. Giving the player a bigger incentive to buy the DLC.
Oh I didnt know that. That kinda sucks for lesser known underrated developers.
No way. I think it's great for both. I'm playing through a AAA game now - Prey. This game was quickly forgotten and I would have never played it had it not been for Game Pass. Game Pass is great for all!
Lesser known devs most likely weren't going to be making much money out the gate unless they were lucky and made a good game that people would buy. So while they will get the short end of the stick the first time around for negotiations...if their game performs well, they can do better negotiating the next time. They'll also have fans (hopefully) that will still buy their game at a discount because it leaves or buy the DLC for it at a discount as well...you also can then have your next game not in XGP because you'll have a fanbase...
I think he's saying they should get paid per download rather than just some nebulous lump sum upfront. The problem is that upfront money could end up being way below what it should've been if the game ends up becoming really popular. Imagine if Game Pass were around a few years ago, Psyonix had put Rocket League on it right as it launched, and every Xbox One owner just signed up for GP to play it instead of buying it. Psyonix would've missed out on a ton of money both from lost sales AND having unknowingly undervalued the game.
Yeah, I am not looking forward to all the exclusive to different sub shit making games more expensive than ever.
Haha, sure, if that's your take on it then charge on. Crackdown 3 and SoD2 are as GaaS as Uncharted or Spiderman. Your narrative you were trying to paint has been fulfilled.
Maybe when MS changes leadership, but with the current ideology I doubt it would ever happen tbh. They would see it as leaving money on the table, especially since you know, they have their own storefront and all.
Actually, I don't. It would make no sense for Microsoft to not let you still buy the software outright. Sure, they'll make incentives for you to use XGP. I mean, they do the same thing with Office 365 and Office 2019.
Exactly.
I was a total skeptic on Xbox Game Pass until I purchased the Fallout 76 bundle for super cheap a few months ago. It came included with a one month trial and I figured I'd give it a go.
It was so cool to be able to play the majority of Microsoft's exclusive library out of the jump on setup. I believe the service is incredible at roping new users in and being more experimental with purchasing. For example, I would not have ever purchased Quantum Break based on most reviews, but I had found myself binge playing that game over three days with Game Pass which led to my purchase of the physical game.
In fact, this has actually happened to me with a ton of games on Game Pass: ReCore, Halo MCC, Gears 4, etc. A lot of those are games I thought I had mild to no interest in that I eventually decided to scoop up due to getting a 'full-game trial,' so to speak.
It was so cool to be able to play the majority of Microsoft's exclusive library out of the jump on setup. I believe the service is incredible at roping new users in and being more experimental with purchasing. For example, I would not have ever purchased Quantum Break based on most reviews, but I had found myself binge playing that game over three days with Game Pass which led to my purchase of the physical game.
In fact, this has actually happened to me with a ton of games on Game Pass: ReCore, Halo MCC, Gears 4, etc. A lot of those are games I thought I had mild to no interest in that I eventually decided to scoop up due to getting a 'full-game trial,' so to speak.
Well yeah. All those games you named are gaas. Uncharted has a mp mode and SM got a dlc pack.
You seem overprotective about stuff I didnt even imply. Is everything okay?
I was thinking the same thing - you get a large buy-in of players and if they get hooked, they will be providing additional revenue for years.
Yeah, but I think there's a difference between a month-long promotion and having your game on a service like Game Pass indefinitely.