Trup1aya

Literally a train safety expert
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,648
what do they get paid for downloads? How is the 600k determined? I assume Microsoft pays more if the game is downloaded a lot more than anticipated ? If not that could work out badly for the devs until the deal expires, unless Xbox is open to renegotiating deals. Like 600k is X number of sales that they wouldn't otherwise get maybe, but what if like 5M+ people download it and play it a lot, basically it becomes a hit due to game pass, would Xbox pay more than the initial 600?
Even If a game is downloaded more than anticipated, who's to say that without Gamepass, they would have generated enough interest to justify turning down a $600,000 check?

I doubt very much that these deals are based on assumptions about how many downloads there will be. It probably based more on how much revenue a company expects to make upon release of their product, and revenue from Gamepass deals are rolled in with the rest of their sales. Not to mention being added to Gamepass comes with a bonus marketing benefit.
 

Viale

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,668
That's not much, probably won't be on there for too long. Cost per uit is incredibly low at that up-front amount.

The game isn't exactly well known and has been out for three years. 600k is pretty fair imo. Doubles at getting potential people interested in whatever else they make next.
 

Yeona

Banned
Jan 19, 2021
2,065
You're going to equate Gamepass with gun control now too? Just wait for your inevitable future where microsoft dooms everybody to say "told you all so" instead of dropping in every microsoft related thread to pull the same bullshit, please.

I don't remember you at all, but I'm sorry I left such a negative impression on you. I like games as much as you do. I can see this means as much to you as it does to me, because you're so unwilling to listen to literally any opinion that deviates from what you think.

I'd love it if we could actually exchange ideas instead of whatever this is, but if not that's OK too. You can mute me. No hard feelings.

The game isn't exactly well known and has been out for three years. 600k is pretty fair imo. Doubles at getting potential people interested in whatever else they make next.

It's a good deal. I don't know how well the game sold but a chunk like that at once, potentially covered by further bonuses if it does well, is never bad for an indie dev under any circumstances.
 

RoastBeeph

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,033
That is good money for a 2+ year old game. Do we really think Cooking Simulator was getting many new sales these days? I'd guess the sales had pretty much dried up at this point.

I think it easy to assume that the price of day 1 titles is much higher. I'd think day 1 Silksong must have cost a pretty penny. Maybe they structured Silksong differently, a lump sum plus some amount per download. Are we sure it is always just one lump sum payment?
 

Trup1aya

Literally a train safety expert
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,648
Well it does. There's no way a 15 buck subscription is paying anywhere remotely close to enough to compensate for all of the games the service has, per user. A world where game production costs remain the same as they are today, and where games are only or primarily distributed via services with these payouts and at this small of a cost to the enduser, is not a world that will ever exist.

Some could argue that we could all benefit from game development costs dropping significantly, and I'd kinda agree, but not all present day developers, AAA or otherwise, will live to see that day.

This is a pretty nonsensical way to determine value.

The average user engages with just a fraction of the content available on the service. So why would you deem a games value as a fraction of the sub cost per user?

Also irrelevant is the notion of a games development costs being justified exclusively by the money users spends to subscribe. That scenario has nothing to do with what's a play here, because it only exists in your head.

The reality is, developers spend X amount of money making a games, then they spend Y marketing it. in hopes that the revenue generated, Z, greatly exceeds X+Y.

The $ MS pays to get a game onto the service is part of that games sales revenue, just like the $ customers pay to download it directly. These payouts amount to a massive boost to Z, as seen in OP. These deals also add value via marketing benefits as GP titles get premium placement on the store front and news coverage upon release, thus reducing the cost of Y per dollar earned.

Beyond all that, Gamepass deals aren't a Devs only source of revenue. So what does a reduction in dev costs have to do with anything?

Basically, you've come up with a fantasy scenario that doesn't come close accurately describing the economics here. But you're using it as if it has any relevance to the discussion.
 
Last edited:

riotous

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,454
Seattle
I think this business model works in MS favor for their own flavor of gaming imo. I think Traditional works as well just again shows where all companies have laid their stake and will fit in different ways. I think MS just looking to accelerate that approach With not having to buy content outright. Interesting times ahead.

I don't quite agree that it matters what your "flavor of gaming" is TBH. There are a wide variety of types of games on Gamepass, and MS has a wide variety of types of games in their pipeline.

There's nothing unique about those games, they are creating what the rest of the industry is creating for the most part. A mix of super expensive AAA games and smaller games. That's what Sony are funding too.

It's really just a belief thing... it's not the most proven model in the world in general, let alone for gaming.. but companies like MS/EA/Ubisoft all believe it's a good idea to have a sub service w/ day 1 content.
 

Rodelero

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,954
I don't quite agree that it matters what your "flavor of gaming" is TBH. There are a wide variety of types of games on Gamepass, and MS has a wide variety of types of games in their pipeline.

There's nothing unique about those games, they are creating what the rest of the industry is creating for the most part. A mix of super expensive AAA games and smaller games. That's what Sony are funding too.

It's really just a belief thing... it's not the most proven model in the world in general, let alone for gaming.. but companies like MS/EA/Ubisoft all believe it's a good idea to have a sub service w/ day 1 content.

EA's model is hardly comparable. It's the same price as Game Pass Ultimate for a handful of games a year.
 

Yeona

Banned
Jan 19, 2021
2,065
This is a pretty nonsensical way to determine value.

The average user engages with just a fraction of the content available on the service. So why would you deem a games value as a fraction of the sub cost per user?

Because whether you consume a specific game on that service or not, it still had to be paid for it to appear on the service. Our subscription cost is, in a self-sufficient business, ideally the means through which the company accrues the funds to pay the developers for their product to appear on our services. All of them. Not just the ones you engaged with. Not just the ones they think you personally will like. All products on the service.

I mean no offense here but I had to edit this because this is such a self-evident point that I was caught completely off-guard on how to respond here.

Also irrelevant is the notion of a games development costs being justified exclusively by the money users spends to subscribe. That scenario has nothing to do with what's a play here.

Sure it does. A service like this is unlikely to ever be competing with standard games sales for very long. We've seen this with music streaming, we've seen this with Netflix, we've seen this with literally every other service where renting product for a significantly lower cost was somehow going to coexist with buying that product off of a physical or digital shelf.

Nobody buys movies anymore. Very few people buy albums too.

The $ MS pays to get a game onto the service is part of that games sales revenue, just like the $ customers pay to download it directly. These payouts amount to a massive boost to Z, as seen in OP. These deals also add value via marketing benefits as GP titles get premium placement on the store front and news coverage upon release, thus reducing the cost of Y per dollar earned.

Marketing is important, but that's only bound to diminish as more and more games get rotated in and out. Right now it's all a bit novel so when there's news like this we still talk about it. But do you really think in like two years we'll still be talking about a game of the scope of Cooking Simulator going on Game Pass unless it's extremely outstanding in terms of quality?

I don't even know of any others on the service right now and I have an active subscription that's still going to last me months.

Beyond all that, Gamepass deals aren't a Devs only source of revenue. So what does a reduction in dev costs have to do with anything?

Thankfully, yes. Read above though.
 
Last edited:

Phendrana

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,129
Melbourne, Australia
"But it devalues games" they said
...and they're right.

Game Pass devalues games in the sense that it makes people unwilling to spend money on them. Once services like this becomes the norm, the average person isn't going to be willing to spend $20 (let alone $60) on a game when they can get a massive library for $X per month.

And while it's great that the devs are getting paid well by Microsoft right now, that's not always going to be the case. They're in a growth stage at the moment, and are just throwing money at it. Microsoft can make anything 'sustainable' given their cash reserves, but to use the subject of the thread as an example -- there is no way that Cooking Simulator is adding enough value to GP to justify the 600k pricetag. And that's one game.

So the end result is that you have customers slowly being trained not to pay for games, eventually leading to developers *needing* to be on services like Game Pass. But you can bet your ass the devs of Cooking Simulator 8 aren't getting 600k for its inclusion.
 

Bobsjourney

Member
Jul 19, 2020
572
And while it's great that the devs are getting paid well by Microsoft right now, that's not always going to be the case.

Thats ridiculous. Using netflix as example, which basically only makes money from the subscriptions while xbox has multiple avenues, they pay a ridiculous amount of money to add content and its only gotten higher as theyve grown. You def got it backwards
 

TitanicFall

Member
Nov 12, 2017
8,435
...and they're right.

Game Pass devalues games in the sense that it makes people unwilling to spend money on them. Once services like this becomes the norm, the average person isn't going to be willing to spend $20 (let alone $60) on a game when they can get a massive library for $X per month.

And while it's great that the devs are getting paid well by Microsoft right now, that's not always going to be the case. They're in a growth stage at the moment, and are just throwing money at it. Microsoft can make anything 'sustainable' given their cash reserves, but to use the subject of the thread as an example -- there is no way that Cooking Simulator is adding enough value to GP to justify the 600k pricetag. And that's one game.

So the end result is that you have customers slowly being trained not to pay for games, eventually leading to developers *needing* to be on services like Game Pass. But you can bet your ass the devs of Cooking Simulator 8 aren't getting 600k for its inclusion.

I think in the case of games that have been out for awhile like Cooking Simulator, the devs are getting that money for free basically, unless they have data to show the games are still selling well 2+ years later. If a dev agrees to these deals from day one, well it's kind of like they are devaluing their own games and it's not really the consumer's fault for not buying them.
 

MoogleMaestro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,188
In the world of corporate purchases, 600k doesn't seem like a lot of money.

Having said that, it really depends on how much sales on steam have dried up and whether or not they feel like they could make the money better by engaging in a sale, for example.
 

Antrax

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,485
no way a 15 buck subscription

My issue with this argument is that it segments the puts and takes too finely.

Game Pass is not now nor will it ever be just "a 15 buck subscription." It's about overall engagement and spend in the ecosystem. If an average GP user's engagement or spend on the platform are higher than without GP, then that's revenue attributable to GP. These services (and yes, this is not just GP but all subscription offerings) can not be reduced to their sub price unless that's the only monetization available.

Netflix for example does need to make more subscription revenue than their productions cost (DVD sales are miniscule, I assume). I guess merchandising might be big for them but I don't know.
 

riotous

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,454
Seattle
Well it does. There's no way a 15 buck subscription is paying anywhere remotely close to enough to compensate for all of the games the service has, per user.
What amount of users are you talking about?

That's the crux of sub services.

The same amount of content has to be there for 1 million users as there has to be for 100 million users.

The amount of money brought in of course is exponentially higher. So if you are going to make a blanket statement like that w/o specifying how many users you are talking about...

Early statements about Gamepass are just that.. early statements.. now that subs are 25 million+ ask Phil again whether it's profitable.

Not to mention that none of the games on this service are exclusive to it.. none of the games aren't in retail or digital stores.. and most have MTX. Most have DLC too, which do have their own budget.. but whose sales are likely increased by games being on Gamepass.

So the funding doesn't have to be made up for by Gamepass subs.

People really need to explain where the $2+ billion MS is likely getting in revenue for GP is going if they think it isn't profitable.
 

Trup1aya

Literally a train safety expert
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,648
Because whether you consume a specific game on that service or not, it still had to be paid for it to appear on the service. Our subscription cost is, in a self-sufficient business, ideally the means through which the company accrues the funds to pay the developers for their product to appear on our services. All of them. Not just the ones you engaged with. Not just the ones they think you personally will like. All products on the service.
I mean no offense here but I had to edit this because this is such a self-evident point that I was caught completely off-guard on how to respond here.

You believe your point to be self-evident. But it's 100% wrong. Lol

Yes, the game's developer is paid in order for the game to appear on the service. No the value of the the game is not directly related to the number of users on the service, because no one at the negotiating table expects every user on the service to be a user of a game. Beyond that revenue per user, is probably not a very useful metric unless your talking about GaaS. Most games, like cooking simulator, aren't going to see costs grow with the user base, so total revenue vs cost is the proper way to asertain how much value the developers have extracted from the product.

Your grasp of the economics hear are so laughably ridiculous that I'm honestly stunned at how confidently wrong you are.

Secondly, no the subscription cost isn't "ideally" the means by which these developers are paid to appear on the service. These are metrics made up by you that have no actual relationship to the real world. this scenario only exists in your mind. Gamepass doesn't exist in isolation. The subscription revenue is just one of several revenue streams that make the business model "self-sufficient". That said, gamepass subs generate likely generate well over $125 million a month- which should more than cover their content acquisition costs.


Sure it does. A service like this is unlikely to ever be competing with standard games sales for very long. We've seen this with music streaming, we've seen this with Netflix, we've seen this with literally every other service where renting product for a significantly lower cost was somehow going to coexist with buying that product off of a physical or digital shelf.
Nobody buys movies anymore. Very few people buy albums too.

You're comparing apples to oranges. The economics of makings, distributing and consuming games is very different from that of passive entertainment. Before you could stream music and movies, people had already stopped purchasing those things. For those mediums, subscription services bottled the lack of appetite there was for ownership. There's no comparison to the video game industry where demand for ownership shows no signs of dissipating, despite the emergence of services that allow players to rent.

Unlike with Netflix, Gamepass recognizes a relationship between engagement and additional spend. The subscription represents the first transaction, not the only relationship.

Also the sub isn't in competition with standard game sales. Standard sales are an integral part of the Gamepass business model. That's why subscribers are given discounts. That's why titles are rotated in/out. That's why dlc is a seperate purchase. That's why franchise feature their older games right before sequels launch outside of Gamepass etc.


Marketing is important, but that's only bound to diminish as more and more games get rotated in and out. Right now it's all a bit novel so when there's news like this we still talk about it. But do you really think in like two years we'll still be talking about a game of the scope of Cooking Simulator going on Game Pass unless it's extremely outstanding in terms of quality?

I'm not sure what this comment is supposed to mean. Since the service's inception, there have been titles from across the spectrum in terms of both scope and quality. There's no sign of this changing within the next two years.

I don't even know of any others on the service right now and I have an active subscription that's still going to last me months.

Any other what? Simulators?

Power washing simulator, farming simulator, goat simulator? flight simulator? Lawn mower simulator? SnowRunner? Train Sim World 2? Space Warlord Organ trading simulator? Surgeon Simulator? Two Point Hospital? The Sims 4.

What are you looking for? How is the addition of Cooking Sim "novel" in any way? People are talking about it because it's rare that we learn how much a Gamepass licensing deal is worth.

Thankfully, yes. Read above though.

Not just thankfully, it's by design. Literally, an intrinsic part of the desired business model.
 
Last edited:

Trup1aya

Literally a train safety expert
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,648
...and they're right.

Game Pass devalues games in the sense that it makes people unwilling to spend money on them. Once services like this becomes the norm, the average person isn't going to be willing to spend $20 (let alone $60) on a game when they can get a massive library for $X per month.

And while it's great that the devs are getting paid well by Microsoft right now, that's not always going to be the case. They're in a growth stage at the moment, and are just throwing money at it. Microsoft can make anything 'sustainable' given their cash reserves, but to use the subject of the thread as an example -- there is no way that Cooking Simulator is adding enough value to GP to justify the 600k pricetag. And that's one game.

So the end result is that you have customers slowly being trained not to pay for games, eventually leading to developers *needing* to be on services like Game Pass. But you can bet your ass the devs of Cooking Simulator 8 aren't getting 600k for its inclusion.

This is just slippery slope fallacy nonsense to honest.

People will still buy games that don't appear on the service.
People will still want to play games that are removed from the service
People will still want to play MP games when they first launch rather than hope they appear on a service
People will still want to play SP games before they get spoiled rather than hope they appear on a service
People will still buy MTs and DLCs

And even those games that people won't buy, the platform holder still pays the dev.

Anyone making assumptions about whether cooking simulator is adding enough value to justify the price tag is just talking out of their ass. There's no telling what downstream impacts come into play when MS makes an offer. It's not just about GP retention numbers.
 
Last edited:

pswii60

Member
Oct 27, 2017
26,897
The Milky Way
...and they're right.

Game Pass devalues games in the sense that it makes people unwilling to spend money on them. Once services like this becomes the norm, the average person isn't going to be willing to spend $20 (let alone $60) on a game when they can get a massive library for $X per month.

And while it's great that the devs are getting paid well by Microsoft right now, that's not always going to be the case. They're in a growth stage at the moment, and are just throwing money at it. Microsoft can make anything 'sustainable' given their cash reserves, but to use the subject of the thread as an example -- there is no way that Cooking Simulator is adding enough value to GP to justify the 600k pricetag. And that's one game.

So the end result is that you have customers slowly being trained not to pay for games, eventually leading to developers *needing* to be on services like Game Pass. But you can bet your ass the devs of Cooking Simulator 8 aren't getting 600k for its inclusion.
People still spend money seeing the latest movies at the cinema. They still spend money to rent the latest blockbusters on the Apple Store etc, they can't find on subscription services. And TV/movie subscription services have existed for decades, in the form of the likes of HBO, Sky Movies etc, through to DVD rental subscriptions to where we are today with Netflix etc.
 

Deleted member 98695

User requested account closure
Banned
Jun 15, 2021
513
What amount of users are you talking about?

That's the crux of sub services.

The same amount of content has to be there for 1 million users as there has to be for 100 million users.

The amount of money brought in of course is exponentially higher. So if you are going to make a blanket statement like that w/o specifying how many users you are talking about...

Early statements about Gamepass are just that.. early statements.. now that subs are 25 million+ ask Phil again whether it's profitable.

Not to mention that none of the games on this service are exclusive to it.. none of the games aren't in retail or digital stores.. and most have MTX. Most have DLC too, which do have their own budget.. but whose sales are likely increased by games being on Gamepass.

So the funding doesn't have to be made up for by Gamepass subs.

People really need to explain where the $2+ billion MS is likely getting in revenue for GP is going if they think it isn't profitable.
People love to say that Gamepass is hemorrhaging money and that it cannot make a profit without 50-100 million subscribers, but I have never seen a reasonable argument as to how the cost of the content put into GP could possibly be higher than the incoming subscription revenue. I guess people are assuming that everyone is just constantly using tricks to get GP for $1 a month or something, but that is just wishful thinking from people who want GP to fail. Even people who stack their subscription by upgrading XBL Gold still paid $5 per month for the Gold subscription, and I doubt 25 million people are bothering to do that.

GP has over 25 million subscribers and continues to grow. The only way they could be losing money is buy fully funding a AAA game every month and putting it on GP, which they obviously are not doing. They only reportedly only paid $8-10 million for a recent AAA game like Guardians of the Galaxy, and they only add recent 3rd party games a few times a year at most. They typically pay Indie devs the cost of development, but those games are often times made by only a hand full of people so that would at best be like a few million. It is pretty hard to see how the costs of the 15-20 games they add to GP in a month could possibly cost more than the $200 million or so a month they take in from subscriptions fees alone.
 

Trup1aya

Literally a train safety expert
Member
Oct 25, 2017
21,648
People love to say that Gamepass is hemorrhaging money and that it cannot make a profit without 50-100 million subscribers, but I have never seen a reasonable argument as to how the cost of the content put into GP could possibly be higher than the incoming subscription revenue. I guess people are assuming that everyone is just constantly using tricks to get GP for $1 a month or something, but that is just wishful thinking from people who want GP to fail. Even people who stack their subscription by upgrading XBL Gold still paid $5 per month for the Gold subscription, and I doubt 25 million people are bothering to do that.

GP has over 25 million subscribers and continues to grow. The only way they could be losing money is buy fully funding a AAA game every month and putting it on GP, which they obviously are not doing. They only reportedly only paid $8-10 million for a recent AAA game like Guardians of the Galaxy, and they only add recent 3rd party games a few times a year at most. They typically pay Indie devs the cost of development, but those games are often times made by only a hand full of people so that would at best be like a few million. It is pretty hard to see how the costs of the 15-20 games they add to GP in a month could possibly cost more than the $200 million or so a month they take in from subscriptions fees alone.

People just have terrible arguments based on erroneous comparisons it to services like Netflix- which has a larger 3rd party library to maintain and delivers nearly all of their content via streaming rather than download. On top of that, all of their first party content is delivered exclusively via the subscription service, so there's no other way to generate revenue.

Even if we conservatively assume the average revenue per GP sub is just $5- that's $125 million a month.... before you consider any additional transactions GP users make. You can imagine almost ALL of the overhead costs are easily absorbed by the general Xbox Live operation. GP is probably working with $100 million every month to acquire content and if Cooking Sim is any indication, they aren't spending anywhere near that amount during typical months.
 

Deleted member 98695

User requested account closure
Banned
Jun 15, 2021
513
People just have terrible arguments based on erroneous comparisons it to services like Netflix- which has a larger 3rd party library to maintain and delivers nearly all of their content via streaming rather than download. On top of that, all of their first party content is delivered exclusively via the subscription service, so there's no other way to generate revenue.

Even if we conservatively assume the average revenue per GP sub is just $5- that's $125 million a month.... before you consider any additional transactions GP users make. You can imagine almost ALL of the overhead costs are easily absorbed by the general Xbox Live operation. GP is probably working with $100 million every month to acquire content and if Cooking Sim is any indication, they aren't spending anywhere near that amount during typical months.
I think it is pretty telling that all of the people who keep saying GP is losing tons of money never try to break down how they think the costs actually add up like you did here. They will spend hours a week reading about console wars and posting FUD but will not spend 5 minutes to do some quick mental math to see that GP is in no way losing tons of money.