Yet I have more access to varied content at a vastly cheaper price than it would be to pay for the games that I love. Game Pass is a blessing, Netflix is a blessing.
-
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.
My Opinion: Game Subscription kills the joy of game developers
- Thread starter Gradly
- Start date
- Status
FULL PRICE IS ART
So now Game Pass fans are searching for a way to tell full price fans that Game Pass is superior.
It is so SAD.
People just enjoy the Fucking Games.
Besides this battle was started by MICROSOFT FANS the day that GIF (the people running to play Halo) was aired.
In reality Game Pass never never NEVER had a single chance to defeat FULL PRICE.
And $70 always be superior to $1.
Game Pass is business.
FULL PRICE IS ART.
It is so SAD.
People just enjoy the Fucking Games.
Besides this battle was started by MICROSOFT FANS the day that GIF (the people running to play Halo) was aired.
In reality Game Pass never never NEVER had a single chance to defeat FULL PRICE.
And $70 always be superior to $1.
Game Pass is business.
FULL PRICE IS ART.
OP
OP
I edited the post but I was talking about AAA games that are popular and have no problem in selling millions like Forza or GoW
Not third party games. Much like Netflix you sign a contract for an allotted time. Doesn't mean you can't sell your movie during that time or afterwards.
Many devs have spoken out about Game Pass and most thought it was good.
Indies in particular (or at least the ones that have spoken publicly) like it and have said it's helped with sales on other platforms.
Indies in particular (or at least the ones that have spoken publicly) like it and have said it's helped with sales on other platforms.
I really don't think the developers not being able to look at sales numbers is really the most concerning thing about subscription models. the biggest example we have is netflix and the problem is the quality isn't great overall. i don't think that's too much of a problem yet with gamepass because games aren't developed exclusively for gamepass so budgets aren't adjusted with that in mind
So long as we're doing "I'm not a developer" takes, I'd assume that most developers want their creation to be played and enjoyed by as many people as possible.
To be honest this has been what game development has been like for the last 5 years for me, personally. If you work at a big AAA studio people care about your game for 2 weeks after it comes out and then most people move onto the next big thing. Some people will dive deep and spend lots of time (depending on what type of game it is), some will play it long after its release, and some games just flop entirely.
You just hope to make great games with people you like and that players will enjoy it. Sometimes you only get 1 or 2 of those 3 things. You then hope to be able to keep making games after your current thing launches.
Ok, so they get to take more chances with it? They get to take more time maybe?
There are all kinds of things that motivate people to create. Counting the number of preorders or sales ain't all of it.
I think this narrative is not super convincing to me because a lot of services that offer great value often do so to capture a market. Eventually, maths has to align - you can't simultaneously offer great deal to consumers while continuing to pay developers and producers good money as well. Eventually, the vice has to tighten one way or another.Read through this article OP
What developers think of Xbox Game Pass
Subscription gaming services such as Xbox Game Pass, EA Access and PlayStation Now have become a good deal for players …www.eurogamer.net
I've worked with many developers. From the biggest 1st party AAAs to 1 person indies. With something like game pass, you have to look at different numbers. Sales have never meant people actually enjoying or even playing the games I've worked on.
If everyone played the games they bought on steam sales for pennies on the dollar, some of the devs I worked with would have lost a ton of money on support costs alone. I know there are hundreds of thousands of copies, maybe millions of copies, of games I've worked on that sit unplayed or barely played in people's digital libraries.
Less than 1/2 of Witcher 3 players saw the ending. Think about that, less than half of the people who played Witcher 3, who plunked their money down on it, stuck through to the end.
If your game connects with someone, they will play it. Maybe a lot, maybe over and over. Some will try to explore every nook and cranny. That's the metric of success on Game pass. Engagement.
If I'm proud of a game, and I want people to be able to play it and love it, I want to remove every barrier of entry. Dropping $70+ to play a game is a barrier to entry. Dropping $5 is a barrier to entry if I'm not sure if I'm going to like it. If microsoft have found a way to remove that barrier of entry, and sustain development costs at the same time, then I am all for it.
If everyone played the games they bought on steam sales for pennies on the dollar, some of the devs I worked with would have lost a ton of money on support costs alone. I know there are hundreds of thousands of copies, maybe millions of copies, of games I've worked on that sit unplayed or barely played in people's digital libraries.
Less than 1/2 of Witcher 3 players saw the ending. Think about that, less than half of the people who played Witcher 3, who plunked their money down on it, stuck through to the end.
If your game connects with someone, they will play it. Maybe a lot, maybe over and over. Some will try to explore every nook and cranny. That's the metric of success on Game pass. Engagement.
If I'm proud of a game, and I want people to be able to play it and love it, I want to remove every barrier of entry. Dropping $70+ to play a game is a barrier to entry. Dropping $5 is a barrier to entry if I'm not sure if I'm going to like it. If microsoft have found a way to remove that barrier of entry, and sustain development costs at the same time, then I am all for it.
It's good now. Hopefully there's enough of these sub services around that they have to keep competing with each other by throwing money around at indie devs because if they start to significantly control access to audiences it could get really messy for smaller devs
That changes nothing. Staff can still turn over if a game doesn't sell enough. Look, we get it, you don't like Game Pass, but your entire principle line of thinking for this thread is completely wrong based on every dev that's spoken on Game Pass.
"full price fans" is the funniest piece of text i've read in a long time
Getting into a game subscription for the dev itself seems really great based on their own feedback so far. It probably sucks for the devs that cannot.
What can be worrying imo, is if the players abandon the traditional model of purchasing games to get 100% on subscriptions like Game Pass. That would mean tinier devs would never get a penny unless they are chosen by the big players (Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo/Google/whatever company it is), which would mean the end of true indie devs. But that's a really extreme scenario, and would be bad for the ones that aren't allowed in the ecosystems, not for the ones into it.
This of course disregard AAA devs because they're pretty much into atleast one of these.
If you want to talk about AAA games in subscription models, let's just think about really expensive blockbuster series being made for Disney+. Or even Avengers movies getting eventually into it after releasing flicks whose budget is a lot bigger than pretty much any game ever.
If the business model works and the devs are getting properly paid, who cares if the game is sold at $60 (Hell, $70 now) or is part of Game Pass? Their job conditions won't be better because the game is sold in a traditional way either and we all know that.
What can be worrying imo, is if the players abandon the traditional model of purchasing games to get 100% on subscriptions like Game Pass. That would mean tinier devs would never get a penny unless they are chosen by the big players (Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo/Google/whatever company it is), which would mean the end of true indie devs. But that's a really extreme scenario, and would be bad for the ones that aren't allowed in the ecosystems, not for the ones into it.
This of course disregard AAA devs because they're pretty much into atleast one of these.
If you want to talk about AAA games in subscription models, let's just think about really expensive blockbuster series being made for Disney+. Or even Avengers movies getting eventually into it after releasing flicks whose budget is a lot bigger than pretty much any game ever.
If the business model works and the devs are getting properly paid, who cares if the game is sold at $60 (Hell, $70 now) or is part of Game Pass? Their job conditions won't be better because the game is sold in a traditional way either and we all know that.
Sony does not have it, I hope they do one day so it will switch to comparing them
yes, it's like when you criticize a song when you are not a musician or when you criticize a movie wihtout being a professional in that business
And the lack of fair compensation. And other forms of exploitation and manipulation to supress workers asking to be treated with some humanity. And publishers making requests to quell progressive ideas or representation for fear of pissing off right wing assholes.
But no, Gamepass is what's stripping the love from gamedev...
Seriously disagree.
Rocket League was a huge hit because it was first free on PS Plus and sold to other systems and did huge numbers. The same can probably be said about Fall Guys.
Indy developers who are doing poorly on Steam are finding an audience on the flooded Nintendo Switch by putting out their games dirt cheap.
Game Pass gives me the chance to check out games I'd otherwise pass on and if I like them, I might follow the developer's other work. It's win-win.
Rocket League was a huge hit because it was first free on PS Plus and sold to other systems and did huge numbers. The same can probably be said about Fall Guys.
Indy developers who are doing poorly on Steam are finding an audience on the flooded Nintendo Switch by putting out their games dirt cheap.
Game Pass gives me the chance to check out games I'd otherwise pass on and if I like them, I might follow the developer's other work. It's win-win.
I've had the most brutal past few days and thought it was my melted brain that did not understand the post lol
I'll give the benefit of the doubt because this sure seems like sarcasm but you can't never tell in the internet :p
Right now I think we don't have any proof of that happening (also I think it is early to tell) but that is honestly one of my fears.
I've been more apt to discover and try different and new games I never would have tried as a result of Gamepass, I can't see anyone being unhappy with that.
Yep. Observation, a game I absolutely would not give a second look outside of Gamepass, surprised the ever living hell out of me. Amazing experience.
Hell, most of Devolver Digitals catalogue on Gamepass has surprised me. Amazing publisher.
Not only that, but being part of Gamepass all you have to do is elicit curiosity in order to get people to try your game.
When you go it alone on Steam or one of the console marketplaces, you have not not only elicit curiosity but you also have to justify a purchase decision. It can't be "hey that game looks interesting" but instead "that game looks so interesting I'm going to spend $20 on it."
Just an overall much lower barrier to entry to get exposure.
Do I need to catch up on my copypasta or did this person just actually type out "full price fans"?
I don't think it is a real fear, I don't think we'll get to that point.
I loved PC gamepass over the past...whatever amount of months it has been. But now that the price rise has happened, I am no longer subscribing.
Will I be back? Sure, but it'll just be a once a year type of thing when enough interesting games build up. Basically pay $10 to play all the good games that got released and then cancel again. This is 100% not the model they are going for and makes the whole thing unviable, but what am I supposed to do?
I assume I'm not alone with this change, which means the whole thing is going to get less sustainable now, which means fewer games, which means fewer people subscribing. There just are not enough games created fast enough to sustain it and too many options elsewhere in the gaming world.
Fun while it lastest, but in my opinion the party is over.
- Status