-
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.
Phil Spencer talks about Gamepass and the opportunities. Especially for SP games
- Thread starter Theorry
- Start date
Whoever made the one thread recently should be relieved to hear this. I never thought XGP would be a threat to single-player stuff.
"But... but... Microsoft is only interested in lootboxes and service games!"
This is good to hear from the man himself btw, it was pretty obvious but it's nice to hear it again.
This is good to hear from the man himself btw, it was pretty obvious but it's nice to hear it again.
Phil talks a lot of game. We'll have to see how much of this actually turns out as a positive thing for consumers.
He knows that Xbox has been receiving flak for their games output throughout 2017 so i'm not surprised by them pitching this as a savior for SP experiences. I'm remaining skeptical.
Edit: I'm actually surprised at the people taking this stuff at face value.
He knows that Xbox has been receiving flak for their games output throughout 2017 so i'm not surprised by them pitching this as a savior for SP experiences. I'm remaining skeptical.
Edit: I'm actually surprised at the people taking this stuff at face value.
But you see I'm concerned because remember when Microsoft made kinect and stopped making games??
Really interested to see what the "Netflix show" version of a singleplayer game would look like, taking specific advantage of this new delivery and presentation format.
Oh that's right. Well I guess if Microsoft focused on Kinect for a time, they should be held to account for that FOREVER.
Yep, Microsoft never made another game because it made the Kinect, which btw broke records back on the 360. Okay?
GP I feel like essentially gives devs a safety net, allowing them to be more inclined to do risky things. Whether that be an online only indie title or a SP only AA that doesn't have the name recognition or exposure that a name like Halo or God of War brings.
Spencers says a lot of thing I'll belive when I see it. The facts are under him MS games where mostly Multiplayer based with GAS model.
Phil Spencer said a lot of things. Some posters should realize that. :)
I think we could see a lot of smaller games, and the "big budget games" of the service aside from the Microsoft games would some something like what Hellblade is.
A joke right? Game Pass is a great initiative, but I don't see MS getting back on top in the near future.
Want to see how this whole thing shakes out. But I can't help but be cynical every time I see this man post something. He talks a whole lot but hasn't delivered much. These things take time tough so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on what he says.
It's not all "concern" to be fair. Honestly, how does that tweet detail, in even the most trivial manner, exactly how XGP "could open up opportunities for creativity ... Especially for SP games."? What specifically about the Netlix model applies to this scenario in being an opportunity to bring about single player games and "unique and new experiences"?
It's not uncommon to see Spencer tweet exactly what fans want to hear in these replies without including anything of substance, without any meat on the bones it's yet another throw-away line. Yeah, it's twitter, and it promotes that to a large extent, but there's nothing he said there to explain how it will or might occur.
The only way I can read into this is that they plan to conveyor belt a procession of small, indie-size single player experiences that otherwise wouldn't have received funding, in the hope that one or two might catch the imagination and expand into larger franchises. But that's just my own reasoning, Spencer offers nothing on how it will happen. But then why would these supposed titles be impossible to produce as cheap digital-only download games? It's all down to the exposure?
Nope. They are in my book. Talking about a disc-free console, this upcoming exclusive line-up etc. they are rocking it right now.
And if gamepads becomes something that I don't have to EVER "buy" a game again, that would be fucking great. I want a subscription based gaming platform.
Throw in Ryse 2 and I will be eternally grateful. Loved the hell out of the first one, has to be the best console launch game ever for me. And I was there for the laugh of the first two playstation consoles.
Case for No:
Forza Horizon 2
Halo: The Master Chief Collection
Killer Instinct: Combo Breaker Pack
Kinect Sports Rivals
Sunset Overdrive
D4: Dark Dreams Don't Die
Dance Central Spotlight
Magic: The Gathering – Duels of the Planeswalkers 2015*
Minecraft: Xbox One Edition
Super Time Force
Kalimba
Forza Motorsport 6
Gears of War Ultimate Edition*
Halo 5: Guardians
Rare Replay
Rise of the Tomb Raider
Screamride
State of Decay: Year-One Survival Edition
Among the Sleep
Ori and the Blind Forest & Definitive Edition
Dead Rising 4 (Co-published with Capcom)
Forza Horizon 3
Gears of War 4
Quantum Break
ReCore
Cobalt (Co-published with Mojang)
Forza Motorsport 7
Halo Wars 2
ReCore: Definitive Edition
Zoo Tycoon: Ultimate Animal Collection
Rush: A Disney Pixar Adventure
Disneyland Adventures
Super Lucky's Tale
Voodoo Vince: Remastered
Phantom Dust
Fable Fortune
State of Decay 2
Crackdown 3
Ori and the Will of the Wisps
Case for Yes:
Project Spark
Happy Wars
PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds
Sea of Thieves
Yeah, that checks out
Um.
Okay so I'm not like entirely saying you're wrong, but, but bolded are most definitely moving into GAAS model, defined as, intended to encourage perpetual engagement, with persistent monetization.
If we take out indie titles and remakes/remasters, neither of which are usually GAAS anyway, your list shrinks considerably.
*cringe*
I will say they're making big improvements over the fiasco of the start of this gen. Be interested to see if they'll be ready for the next gen with worthwhile exclusives.
That attitude is puzzling. Spencer has been pretty on point with his promises and delivering on them, when it comes to the grand vision at the very least.
But the second part is especially strange, do you even play games on Xbox? Their games haven't changed all that much since the last generation, it's still a mix of single player only experiences, and single player + multiplayer releases. If I'm not mistaken, Fable Legends was supposed to be their first multiplayer-only game this gen, and that will now be Sea of Thieves (which can still be soloed, even if I wouldn't recommend it).
Killer Instinct: Combo Breaker Pack
Forza Motorsport 6
Halo 5: Guardians
Gears of War 4
Forza Motorsport 7
Halo Wars 2
Every single one of these has a complete, full-featured single-player mode (KI's came a little later, but it's there now). You buy them, you play them, you're done (if that's what you want). They also have MP, which you can choose to buy addons for. They are not ongoing services like we see with Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, etc. There is no "Season 2" to buy of Halo 5, but you can choose to buy MTs if you want. The statement was that MS has been "mostly Multiplayer based with GAS model" under Phil, and that's bullshit.
*cringe* Videogamers are the worst.
The thing is, I liked the original vision for the Xbox One. It was fucking awesome.
And Minecraft PlayStation edition is exclusive to PlayStation.
EDIT :
btw. ROTR and DR4, Among The Sleep are on PS4 too.
EDIT :
ReCore
ReCore: Definitive Edition
Really? Yeah, 2 different games
EDIT :
Project Spark is DEAD
Last edited:
The idea is that Microsoft is transitioning into a GAS model, and these do not combat that notion at all.
Halo 5 does not have a season 2, it has continually added content, similar to Overwatch, a GAS game. The multiplayer in Halo 5 is specifically intended to encourage player retention and monetization models. That's what GAS is.
Nobody thinks that Halo is going to one day not have a single player. That's not what they mean when they say Microsoft is transitioning into GAS. Like, do you seriously think people are saying Gears games are going to stop having a singleplayer campaign? No. No one is saying that.
It's also very worth noting that Gears and Halo 5 both made sure to include co-op even in their "singleplayer" modes, especially Halo 5's very noticeable multiplayer encouraging persistant AI teammates.
FM7 is most certainly GAS flat out, including it's "Singleplayer." Why are you acting as if GAS and singleplayer are mutually exclusive? GAS is not exclusively a multiplayer thing. It is Games, As a service. Meaning, again, persistant player retention and monetization. A singleplayer series of AI races does not preclude that.
Yeah I'm playing all those games except Halo Wars 2 and I don't ever play multiplayer. The concerned don't know what they're talking about, it's like saying that Uncharted 4 is a MP focused game because it has a MP mode. XGP has a ton of SP games, I'm very surprised to hear some of the talk here, and what Phil says should put those concerns to rest and make the service even better for someone like them (and me).
It's not like saying Uncharted 4 is a MP focused game because it has a MP mode. I could flip that around and say that just because Uncharted has a singleplayer doesn't meant it's singleplayer focused. Like. Yeah. Duh. It does not matter. What matters is...the focus.
Halo has been hugely multiplayer focused for some time, increasingly so with shorter campaigns and a much bigger emphasis on the multiplayer. CoD is also hugely multiplayer focused. Just because these games have singleplayer doesn't mean they somehow stand as a testament that Microsoft is not transitioning into games as a service. The method by which Microsoft is monetizing the multiplayer, and the major changes to FM7, including its singleplayer, demonstrate Microsoft is moving in that direction.
Yeah, I really don't understand the complaints. I'm a single player only kind of guy, I play online multiplayer extremely rarely. I've played the majority of Microsoft's games, and each of them gave me at least a dozen hours of enjoyable single player content, many a lot more than that. Never once have I felt compelled to spend my real money on microtransactions or thought that the game was pushing me toward them. There had been some mistakes made, like FM7's VIP Pass, but every time they've rectified them promptly.
So here I am, reading these posts in disbelief and thinking to myself, are we playing the same games?
You're not truthful at all here, I'm playing all games mentioned and hasn't payed a single cent extra for extra content, if these are Games As Service games then they're clearly failing hard and shouldn't be used as a worrying example for how awful a Games As Service future might be.
Uh...are you being serious?
I am not making a judgement on the quality of such a future. I am just stating that these games indicate a strong direction towards GAS.
"I'm not paying any money so these aren't GAS."
No...that's...not how this works at all. At. All. If that was true, the only GAS games would be subscription based, but they aren't. Overwatch is generally considered a GAS game, and I have never spent a cent on it at all.
Again, GAS are defined by their goals of persistent monetization and perpetual player engagement. That does not necessitate not having singleplayer. That does not necessitate monetization from every single player. If a game wants to have loot boxes that various people will support to varying levels, then if that is 0 for some people, it can still be successful. That is still a monetization model. It does not need you to spend money. What it does need is as many people to play as possible so that those who might be convinced to pay will do so. That is why that second point is important.
Both Overwatch and Halo 5 have the same goals and general methods of attaining those goals. Halo 5 has been the most profitable Halo game so for apparently, precisely due to its GAS model. Just because there is a singleplayer there doesn't mean the GAS aspect is suddenly gone. Is Overwatch not a GAS game because it has a shooting range?
? This isn't List Warz, it isn't a list of exclusive games. It's a list of games published by MS Game Studios, which is what we're talking about here. Specifically, whether or not most of their games are moving to a multiplayer-focused GaaS model.
I see. But Among The Sleep isn't published by MS Studios
Last edited:
Then update the Wikipedia page? Or, mentally remove it from the list and do the math again. It'll come out the same.
I see. Phil spencer "says a lot of things" and can't be trusted regarding the future of gamepass (which he started) but random era users saying Microsoft will kill SP games and that dude with 200 followers on Twitter know what's up
So what's the problem then? You've been able to buy extra junk in tons of games for two generations now. As long as you don't see the point in doing it yourself then what's the problem if the junk is there for sale? And Microsoft isn't doing this any more than anyone else, you're making a bird out of a feather here. Stop worry about it. Be more worried when big AAA games force you to be online, luckily the outrage usually fix it as with Street Fighter V and Gran Turismo Sport, I'd be pissed too if they force me to pay for multiplayer just to play new games since I have Zero interest in that but XGP is moving away from that going by the current library, Sea of Thieves gets me slightly worried but considering how many other games are single player focused I just see it as a bad apple. Devs don't need to shoehorn a MP mode to their games going forward, even a short SP experience will get played because the game is already there in the list so you just go "sure, why not?" and download it.
I checked Among The Sleep wiki page. And also i googled "MS publishing Among The Sleep", nothing, not a single link. It says it is published by Krillbrite studios. Individual for ROTR and DR4 on wiki stands it is co-published with MS.