i think that was /sThe people that make your games (developers) are often not filthy rich so I don't know where you get that from.
i think that was /sThe people that make your games (developers) are often not filthy rich so I don't know where you get that from.
I never expect things to be perfect just workable. I am not trying to insinuate that subscriptions are a magic bullet but rather a response to the market. MS, SONY, Nintendo, & Steam have a job to sell us things we want.I'm personally not interested in being nickeled and dimed and it actively turns me off from most games that are designed this way. In either case, I feel we'll truly get an idea for how it'll play out this upcoming gen. I'm not going to sit here and act as if I have the definitive solution (or that it's going to get figured out in this topic) and your points aren't wrong, but I don't personally see this direction as a long-term benefit for games and based on the posts in the OP, it's possible that everything won't be crimson and clovers going forward.
Yep, it rarely gets better.
You mean Gears 5? We have multiple examples of the opposite being true. Most recently Outer Worlds. What metric are you using?Companies still sell there games on PS4, PC and Switch, Xbox games sales are already down because of Games Pass, I think in a near future we will reach a point where the only viable to sell a game on Xbox will be to accept money from MS and put it on Games Pass. If Sony does the same will it be good for 3rd parties? I'm not so sure.
You mean Gears 5? We have multiple examples of the opposite being true. Most recently Outer Worlds. What metric are you using?
So you are basing it off one example that is contrary to all others examples?Gears 5 is a good example. What kind of numbers do we have for Outer Worlds? Do we know the platform split?
I don't think most of the people agreeing with this care about the actual business side of this. It just supports the narrative they enjoy the best. Never have I seen something this good for the consumer concern trolled to death. Steam sales have been going on for years? No concern. Games 30 bucks sometimes as soon as a month after launch? No concern. Free games with online subscription? No concern. Gamepass successful?"Subscriptions are devaluing games". The truth is they are, but subscriptions are just one of many factors devaluing games. All this is before you even get to a publisher/creator relationship.This is what always happens in America with capitalism run amok. You finally get consumer value from mega-corporations with services such as Netflix, Game Pass and Spotify, and others in the industry come out and tell you how everyone is getting screwed.
I have done entertainment law. These companies screw creators on a daily basis. Always have and always will. And now you want me to believe that the reason they can't pay them for their work is subscriptions? This is corporate messaging pure and simple, and if you believe it, you are getting played!! Analysts are paid to make money for investors. They don't give a shit about consumers.
If Sony Entertainment, MGM Movie Studios, Disney or Polygram records are so concerned that their IP will be devalued to the point that the creators won't get paid, then how about they all institute revenue sharing on everything and let artists retain their rights when they create IP?
And don't even get me started talking about Hollywood and the music industry-- those guys are dirtier than the mafia.
@#$% em all! As a consumer, I want to pay 10 bucks and get unlimited content. The market says that's what it's worth. They need to take the money for the creators out of their end for a change. One less corporate junket or reductions in thier executive bonuses should more than cover it. Please don't listen to this nonsense.
This is excellent. Thank you.I don't think most of the people agreeing with this care about the actual business side of this. It just supports the narrative they enjoy the best. Never have I seen something this good for the consumer concern trolled to death. Steam sales have been going on for years? No concern. Games 30 bucks sometimes as soon as a month after launch? No concern. Free games with online subscription? No concern. Gamepass successful?"Subscriptions are devaluing games". The truth is they are, but subscriptions are just one of many factors devaluing games. All this is before you even get to a publisher/creator relationship.
I remember when people argued games being $70 would be great because they'd still get them cheaper with Best Buy gamers clubSome people really believe that extra cheap GP with lots of constant deals and 3rd party games will exist forever
That is a silly comparison those games you got for $10 are after what over a year or 2 years on the market? Games going on sale after a month has been happening for as long i can remember, nothing new and nothing to do with sony, that's just how the market has been working for decades. It doesn't devalue anything games prices at launch are always high so the publishers can make the most from the initial hype.But I thought we were doomed??
This whole discussion is thinly veiled warz. Guarantee noone in this thread rages at Sony for their policy of putting all new games on sale within a month of launch. And I've never paid more than $20 for a Sony exclusive this gen and got most either free on PS+ (Detroit, Bloodborne, Infamous) or paid $10-15 (Horizon, Last Guardian, Lost Legacy). But I guess that doesn't "devalue games" because...?
That 64 millions are not subscribers those are MAUs.It's interesting to think about the numbers behind this.
Currently, there are 64 million xbox live subscribers.
If MS can convert 30% of them to game pass, that's 19.2 million subscribers.
$10 a month would mean they have an operational budget of $192,000,000 a year.
So, if MS 1st party games all start to fall under the game pass umbrella, and MS has about 13 studios now (can't remember the exact #) , then the average budget on a 1st party title would be around $14 million.
This doesn't account for operational cost of the game pass division and the funds MS uses to license games onto the service, but it's just a fun exercise to think about.
I've had that probly with acumalation of games from xbox live gold + ps+When I had a Xbox and game pass it did devalue games in a different sense for me because I'd just keep dipping in and out of games,never finishing any. If I'd paid full price for a game I'd invest my time to getting a lot out of it
I don't think most of the people agreeing with this care about the actual business side of this. It just supports the narrative they enjoy the best. Never have I seen something this good for the consumer concern trolled to death. Steam sales have been going on for years? No concern. Games 30 bucks sometimes as soon as a month after launch? No concern. Free games with online subscription? No concern. Gamepass successful?"Subscriptions are devaluing games". The truth is they are, but subscriptions are just one of many factors devaluing games. All this is before you even get to a publisher/creator relationship.
Don't see younger people having issues shelling out 60 bucks for Switch games or the big PS4 exclusives. These games are doing huge numbers.This was inevitable even without Game Pass. Younger generations like Millennials and Gen Z don't like paying $60 for one game. Hence why we see Netflix, Office 365, Spotify etc gaining in popularity. Of course, this model will extend to all other areas of capitalism. The Average consumer gives no shit about the devaluation of games, they just care about playing a large of games at a cheap price.
But let us face it Traditional gamers that care about ownership and prefer to pay $60 lost, they are a declining audience.
I Wonder if physical games will become cheaper or more expensive because of subrcription?
This post must be from the future...This was inevitable even without Game Pass. Younger generations like Millennials and Gen Z don't like paying $60 for one game. Hence why we see Netflix, Office 365, Spotify etc gaining in popularity. Of course, this model will extend to all other areas of capitalism. The Average consumer gives no shit about the devaluation of games, they just care about playing a large of games at a cheap price.
But let us face it Traditional gamers that care about ownership and prefer to pay $60 lost, they are a declining audience.
No they're not declining at all. That's just your personal interpretation without any data to back it up.This was inevitable even without Game Pass. Younger generations like Millennials and Gen Z don't like paying $60 for one game. Hence why we see Netflix, Office 365, Spotify etc gaining in popularity. Of course, this model will extend to all other areas of capitalism. The Average consumer gives no shit about the devaluation of games, they just care about playing a large of games at a cheap price.
But let us face it Traditional gamers that care about ownership and prefer to pay $60 lost, they are a declining audience.
That's not true. Even in the first reply here you see people don't agree with that.
This was inevitable even without Game Pass. Younger generations like Millennials and Gen Z don't like paying $60 for one game. Hence why we see Netflix, Office 365, Spotify etc gaining in popularity. Of course, this model will extend to all other areas of capitalism. The Average consumer gives no shit about the devaluation of games, they just care about playing a large of games at a cheap price.
But let us face it Traditional gamers that care about ownership and prefer to pay $60 lost, they are a declining audience.
It isn't that thin tbh.
That's not really true. There are/were certainly new shows created for this fall while Netflix (along with Apple/Prime/etc) are also creating new content.Yes, just look at tv. They just aren't making new tv shows anymore since Netflix devalued them.
People said the same about Xbl gold, ps+, humble bundles, steam sales, so now subscriptions are finally going to devalue games ?
That's not really true. There are/were certainly new shows created for this fall while Netflix (along with Apple/Prime/etc) are also creating new content.
the other thig devaluing games is simple supply demand, look at how manny games are comming out. even if you elimanated all the bad ones, there is way way more than people can be expected to buy.I don't think most of the people agreeing with this care about the actual business side of this. It just supports the narrative they enjoy the best. Never have I seen something this good for the consumer concern trolled to death. Steam sales have been going on for years? No concern. Games 30 bucks sometimes as soon as a month after launch? No concern. Free games with online subscription? No concern. Gamepass successful?"Subscriptions are devaluing games". The truth is they are, but subscriptions are just one of many factors devaluing games. All this is before you even get to a publisher/creator relationship.
I'm pulling these numbers out of my ass, but lets be conservative (I have no idea if I'm being conservative) and say that at its peak - Microsoft has 20,000,000 active subscribers to Gamepass.
You believe that Game Pass has 20 million active subscribers?
And you believe that guess is ... conservative?
I know Microsoft has never released subscriber numbers for Game Pass, but your estimate seems unrealistically high.
Agree with Mat here. The race to the bottom is a very real risk.
these are the exact numbers the project was pitched to nadella with.feels good to see that there are still leakers here on era.You believe that Game Pass has 20 million active subscribers?
And you believe that guess is ... conservative?
This doesn't account for operational cost of the game pass division and the funds MS uses to license games onto the service, but it's just a fun exercise to think about.