Doubtful, as you don't actually invest in the game itself - you invest in Fig Publishing and they pay dividends based on revenue of the games. You have no right to anything regarding the development.
Phoenix Point on Xbox Will Launch Alongside the PC Version. No Exclusivity Deal but No PS4 Port ATM
- Thread starter Dancrane212
- Start date
But any port of the game is still a version of that game so unless they sold the rights of the port to MS to do they should share any income from that version with their investors. Hell even if they sold they rights they would have to share the revenue from the sale of the rights.
Well fair enough then, but that's even better. No way Fig Publishing, which will have its own attorneys, will not ensure it gets properly paid.
You'd think, but there are people on here supposedly in their late 20's/early 30's that still act like that. Brand loyalty is a weird thing.
And this is actually a good thing because Fig Publishing has a stake in this also--it shares in the dividend revenue--and has more leverage with the developers as the investor relations company than individual investors would. I would hope they were clued in to the MS deal before it was announced, and were given adequate data on the terms to get comfort that it's a net positive for overall profitability of the game.
I've never seen or heard anything about the specifics of how devs are compensated. Searching for it, I can only find speculation or comparison to Netflix from the consumer perspective.
I certainly see the positive aspect of it but there is also quite a shadow in a sense that people play your game for 10 instead of 30/40/50 or 60. Especially if you have a smaller singleplayer game that gets completed relatively fast. Having 4 weeks to complete a singleplayer game seems feasible depending on how much you game in the week or over the weekend. Therefore you could play 60 games for 10, a huge saving but also a huge loss in revenue.
Obviously exposure and especially multiplayer titles with microtransactions profit from this system as it lowers the barrier of entry without having to go "free to play", which often can attract a lot of bad behavior depending on the game.
I simply wonder, the 10 per month means they probably have to track which user played which game and according to the data the money gets split. But when would they reach a point where no money is being made? If I pay 10 and play 10 games then each game would get 1 but I am sure Microsoft takes a bigger cut and bigger publishers make more as well, so a smaller game got played for a few cents in comparison to somebody buying the game for 10/20/30 or even more depending on what game we are talking about. Just difficult to see how developers make money on this system. =/
If 30,000 people were going to buy your game at $40 or whatever, but 3 million will try it at $10 for the month then yeah it makes sense, especially if you add in a conversion rate of people switching to buying it - at a discount - to keep playing or have for offline or whatever.
I get that concern here, but these companies probably have years of data that show most people are slower than that. And for short single player games, if it's not God of War, then it's got a real shot at bombing hard since word of mouth on SP games isn't as infectious as MP games.
Do they get the full 10? Because Microsoft hosts the service, other games probably get played. Therefore I imagine that the actually money you make is pretty small in the end.
I can see it being viable if the attraction and userbase is big enough, especially for smaller games that include some microtransaction.
Keeping or continue playing it mostly works for multiplayer though. If it is for multiplayer then it looks weirdly like MMO subscriptions, you pay each month to play the game. There would obviously still be the option to actually buy the game and cut out the monthly fees.
For sure they have extensive data, from the outside looking it simply looks strange how people are supposed to make money off this system. Gaming prices and inclusion of microtransaction increased the amount of money being made over the years to counter rising budgets and yet somehow it goes back to 10 a month. =/
Smaller, shorter single player games might get something positive out of it, especially if you look at marketing budgets that are needed to reach a sizable audience and actually translate them to sales.
Certainly Gamepass makes sense for older games that nobody would buy at full price anyway. They are good to fill up the catalog because some people might still want to play them or play them again.
MS is definitely operating Game Pass at a financial loss. The goal is to strengthen and grow the playerbase. They get it up and running now and gain the good positive reception on it leading into the new gen and they'll be in a strong position to do extremely well out of the gate.
OP
OP
No loss. You just pulled that out of your ***.
GP brings in quite a bit for the games that are on GP, people just play more and are more inclined to play a wide variety of available games. It really is win/win for gamers/game makers. Just like Netflix, maybe the era of buy and play games is coming to an end.
Why do you think Vermintide 2 launches on GP?
$10 per month spread across every single first party game and several third party games doesn't get split at a profit. The devs get paid by MS and that money doesn't get recouped by MS through the subscription. Not yet at least. People playing more games does not magically generate income. Netflix (for example) spends several billions in investment in a year and makes hundreds of millions in quarterly profit. The plan is to operate at a loss in the short term for long term profit. But for that long term profit you need to constantly grow subscribers, which for MS, means growing the install base first and foremost. It's long term, loss now/profit later.
except that gaming (unlike netflix) can profit on the side by selling DLC/game subscriptions (like ESO)/MTs
which is a model EA already said it worked for them with the games they add to the vault
Which has to do with dev profit and still doesn't change the fact that MS goal is expanding the base over time for profit later.
microsoft gets a share on every dlc - MT sold on its platform afaik
The only strange thing is Xbox getting this but not Gears Tactics, c'mon Ms!
Lately? Since the early in the gen, whenever a game skips Ps4 it's like this.
Yes. But again... we're talking about having to make enough money to recoup cost (first party would be cost of development, third party cost of 'acquisition' for lack of a better term) before they would technically profit. It's still a long term profit strategy that requires consistently expanding the base.
Ms receives the subscription, and a share for all games, content, and other subscriptions sold on their platform.
They are not asking Sony for paid to pay them to port their game. They said Ms gave them the support (devkits), and paid them to put their game on gamepass.
Yeah, I would say it started on the PS3 days when Xbox got Devil May Cry and Final Fantasy. Somehow many PlayStation owners believe that certain third party companies should develop games for them only. But you know, we are on Reset Era so I did not want to be overly critical of Sony.