Support NeoGAF

[JLB]

So you now expect 250 plus free games and all first party games for free when you buy a console.

we are now seeing the mobile-ization if console gsmers. Lol. This hobby will suck like mobile in ten years if people stop buying full priced retail.

Let me ask you: Movie and Music industries sucks because of Netflix and Spotify? I dont think so.
And mobile gaming is in a much better position now than 10 years ago. Like orders or magnitude.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Let me ask you: Movie and Music industries sucks because of Netflix and Spotify? I dont think so.
And mobile gaming is in a much better position now than 10 years ago. Like orders or magnitude.

Sure, if you want 2 hour games now and the quality that Netflix has to offer.

Blockbuster movies also have other ways to monetize, the box office. Arcades are dead.

 

[Bandi]

Mehr. "physical only" who cares.

 

[JLB]

Sure, if you want 2 hour games now and the quality that Netflix has to offer.

Blockbuster movies also have other ways to monetize, the box office. Arcades are dead.

You mean that for Gears 5 and Forza Horizon 4, right?

 

[joe_zazen]

I don't agree. I think gamepass will allow the resurgence of B-tier games that have littered our fondest memories and tinted our spectacles with Rose for the last few decades.

I have found some of my favourite games this gen on Gamepass. Not ones that will have the budget, marketing or play-base of the AAA games, but those who bring something to gaming that is unique. Slay the Spire, Battlechasers, KCD and For the King are chalming games I would have never tried without gamepass.

If these developers see a swell of support, and the increase in budget that often comes with it, we could see some truly unique games.

If console gaming does become mobile-ised, it will be seen in the AAA MTX/Lootbox whale hunting that we often see in mobile games. Where as the lower-budget titles will only have the luxury of focusing on what matters; Gameplay.

Those games do not owe their existence to gamepass, like at all. They were paid for by people willing to buy the games upfront on steam, ps, and switch. Elimate those revenue streams and the games don't get made. If the majority of gamers become like you who are only willing to play them for ‘free’....well...can you not see where it will end?

I am not saying you shouldnt do what you are doing, hell ill probably do the same. I wont be buying a console without free first party and free 250+ games either in the future. Nonetheless, it is good to see where it is going so you dont end up being a corporate PR tool of Microsoft’s, cheerleading the mobilisation of console gaming.

 

[DeepEnigma]

You mean that for Gears 5 and Forza Horizon 4, right?

Just wait to see if those will be able to sustain, and even then, 1 MS AAA a year is not promising either if you expect this "trend".

Those games do not owe their existence to gamepass, like at all. They were paid for by people willing to buy the games upfront on steam, ps, and switch. Elimate those revenue streams and the games don't get made. If the majority of gamers become like you who are only willing to play them for ‘free’....well...can you not see where it will end?

And this.

 

[JLB]

Just wait to see if those will be able to sustain, and even then, 1 MS AAA a year is not promising either if you expect this "trend".



And this.

Gamepass is 2+ years old, so thats enough time to have a solid opinion about it.
Regarding how it will evolve moving forward, who knows? With that criteria, we couldnt analyze anything.

 

[GHG]

The end game? To have millions of users paying usd15 + taxes per month.
Regarding the rest of things you mentioned...who knows? I cant do futurology.

So yes, fantastic, you have lots of subscribers that bring in a ton of guaranteed and accountable recurrent monthly/annual income. But what when that income doesn't cover the outgoings for producing and procuring content for the service?

You do know these subscription models are all geared towards a future where only one service wins out (essentially creating a monopoly)?

That's why the likes of Netflix are willing to throw themselves into debt to the tune of in excess of $12 billion. That amount of debt is justifiable because:

A) It's a strong deterrent for any would be new entrants to the market

and

B) In a future where you have successfully cornered the market due to other companies no longer being able to sustain that amount of debt, and/or they become starved of content, you are then free to charge your users whatever you wish because they have nowhere else to go.

Microsoft, Google and EA are probably the only companies who can sustain this type of model, and they know it. When streaming is more viable we will probably be looking at those 3 battling it out for market dominance.

This is worth reading if you are interested in understanding the market dynamics involving these types of services:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/13078a02-0465-11e9-99df-6183d3002ee1

How have you been spending the holiday period? Regardless of faith or family, many of us will have lost an afternoon, evening, or possibly even 10 days straight sprawled in front of the television.

If you are one of the 130m people worldwide who subscribe to Netflix, there is a high possibility that this week you will have watched one of the following: The Christmas Chronicles, a family film starring Kurt Russell, which had 20m downloads within three weeks of its release; the Spanish-language film Roma, set in 1970s Mexico, directed by Alfonso Cuarón and already tipped to win an Oscar; Mowgli, a live-action adventure based around the Jungle Book novels; or Bird Box, an apocalyptic thriller starring Sandra Bullock.

Perhaps you haven’t yet seen any of them. In which case you should probably hurry up and do so because you’ll need to have an opinion about one or preferably all by the time you return to your desk. Netflix is one subject that transcends geopolitical boundaries, national interests and generation gaps.

In the five years since it started streaming original content, we’ve become a bunch of binge-watching insatiables, desperate for entertainment and the hit of the “what’s next?”. Other channels exist, of course — Amazon Prime, HBO and the venerable BBC among them, all delivering their own acclaimed series. Bob Iger, Disney’s chief executive, plans to launch a Disney streaming service next year. An AT&T streamer is also planned. But no other brand has come close to claiming Netflix’s reach.

“More shows, more watching; more watching, more subs; more subs, more revenue; more revenue, more content,” Ted Sarandos, Netflix’s chief content officer, told New York Magazine this year, when asked to outline his model for growth. The phrase “Netflix and chill” first entered the lexicon in 2013. These days we’re just Netflixed.

And yet, for all the whoop-de-do, Netflix’s overwhelming dominance has made some wary. Over 2018, at least half a dozen fashion designers told me how they were inspired by the prestige drama The Crown in their own collections. Others have cited the saffron-robed cultists of the Wild Wild Country documentary as their muse. Could such a cultural hegemony be dulling our creative output?

Others, meanwhile, wonder whether the network can sustain its quality offering when it is now making so many programmes. And to what extent are these lauded shows merely window-dressing for a platform on which original content makes up only a fraction of its views? (According to TV analyst Ampere, original programmes constitute only 8 per cent of Netflix content watched when measured in hours.) Are we really watching foreign-language documentaries, or are we actually schlubbing out over old repeats of Friends?

“Have you seen the movie WALL-E?,” asks Christopher Wylie, the Cambridge Analytica whistleblower who takes an especially dystopian view of the future, which he likens to the Pixar drama about the last robot on Earth. “It’s not necessarily 1984, it’s not necessarily Brave New World. It’s actually almost worse than that because it’s so lame,” he says. “We destroy the planet because it becomes completely uninhabitable, and we move it into outer space where the spaceship — which is powered by AI — pacifies and infantilises all humans that live on it. And they float around as fat slobs, watching whatever personalised entertainment system that’s there, and that becomes what it is to be human.”

Few others are so pessimistic, but many are worried that the network is building a monopoly with plans to leave us with nothing to watch but commercial sap. “I’ve heard a lot of people in the industry say that Netflix is the Coca-Cola of the audiovisual industry,” says one television and film producer who prefers to remain anonymous, as is often the case when you’re speaking about the most powerful entertainment company around.

“There’s an argument that they come blundering in saying, ‘Here’s a shiny new model and we’ve got loads of money’, very much like Coke when they go into a country. And they build a shiny new factory, or they will give one particular factory loads and loads of money and put all of the competitors out of work. And then the moment they’ve monopolised the market, they slash all of their wages. There’s a fear that they’ll put the competition out of business, and then charge whatever price they like.”

The danger is that you get a lot of dross to fill up what they imagine the appetite of the public is. And it’s like having too much sugar

“I think that’s a slightly exaggerated view of what they’re doing,” he continues. “But undoubtedly they’ve inflated prices for established talent, so suddenly big-name writers, actors and directors can be paid very large fees to do TV shows. And the tendency has been to draw those people away from terrestrial channels. So there is a bit of a talent drain going on from the UK to America. And everybody feels compelled to compete. What’s interesting over the past year, say, in the UK, is that costs have probably risen between 15 and 20 per cent: and some of that is the Netflix effect. But it’s not just the Netflix effect; it’s also the Amazon effect; and other global players.”

“That’s absolute rubbish,” says Peter Morgan, writer and showrunner of The Crown. Morgan, who first met the Netflix team when it was “operating out of a portacabin in Beverly Hills”, was persuaded to go with them when making The Crown because it married a British drama about what might be thought quite “stuffy” subject matter with a newly disruptive production house that he found “inspiring and releasing”.

The series debuted in November 2016 to coincide with the international push that saw Netflix operating in 190 countries. Immediately, it was a critical and popular smash, and season three of The Crown is now in production.

“They have an uncomplicated mandate to entertain, and I think that that has led to charges of them being like a Walmart because they have so much of everything, and they don’t have a particular line or objective or goal in the way that FX does or HBO,” says Morgan. “But I just don’t understand this talk of talent drains. Talent will go wherever talent is given a home and it’s not about the money. I think we can all agree that whether it’s a little podcast or a blockbuster television show, spending money isn’t the secret to success.” (He insists that reports of The Crown’s £10m-an-episode budget are horribly exaggerated.)

Morgan is adamant that Netflix has been a force for cultural good. “I can understand if you are new into the job as a commissioner at, say, one of the terrestrial broadcasters, that it must be a bit harder to get premium-quality content,” he says. “But from the point of view of the filmmakers, I think it’s a lovely moment. There used to be a time where all you would hear about was the star system. And that’s no f***ing fun if you’re a writer or a filmmaker or a director and basically your entire existence is predicated upon some infant, narcissist deranged creature surrounded by sycophants saying yes or no to a piece that’s suitably flattering to them. I’m far happier being in this universe where writers and producers are starting to get more of an upper hand.”

Morgan believes that far from creating a monopoly, the competition has opened things up. “There’s never been more people in jobs, there’s never been more work being done. I think there’s a lot to be happy about. Netflix has stimulated a huge amount of competition. The BBC is making more drama. Channel 4 is making drama. Sky is making drama. I don’t know a writer that is out of work. You can’t get a soundstage. You can’t get a post-production house. It’s impossible to book actors, they’re all busy. Everybody seems to be in work.”

Other producers agree that Netflix has done much to stimulate the market, experimenting with new formats and genres that might once have been deemed too niche. It has broadened our taste in unexpected ways, whether it’s for Finnish crime dramas (Deadwind) or German sci-fi thrillers (Dark). Meanwhile, smaller independent films that may not have had much exposure on general release have been given a second, successful life.

“It’s one of the few elements about being British we can still hold our heads up about,” says Morgan. “You think about the brand of being British, which is so corrupted and devalued right now that you hold your head in shame. And then you realise Britain’s reputation is being held up by its cultural exports.”

Morgan was lucky. He walked into a room with the right idea at the right time. And he has been handsomely remunerated for it. What is more surprising, perhaps, is the extent to which he and his team were given free rein by Netflix to do what they wanted. One imagines a bunch of Silicon Valley techies devising scenes by script-bot. But the truth was quite the opposite.

“Honestly, they did leave us alone,” says the series’ producer Andy Harries. “And I think we have rewarded them with really, really great work. But I have to say,” he adds, “I think we’re a very responsible team. So we were trusted, and delivered for them.”

Harries, co-founder and chief executive of the UK production company Left Bank Pictures, recently signed another deal with Netflix to produce a new bilingual drama White Lines, which is set in Ibiza and is a co-production with the Spanish production company owned by Alex Pina, the showrunner behind the global hit La casa de papel (Money Heist).

“There’s no question that their desire to grow as fast as they have means that they are commissioning tons and tons of stuff,” he says of Netflix’s expansion. And commissioning isn’t cheap: as of September 30 2018, Netflix reported $8.34bn in long-term debt.

Whether it can keep up its current hit rate is more of a challenge. “In a sense they’ve created a different world for people in the way that they look at things, and in the way they watch things,” says another producer who prefers to speak off-record. “So it has revolutionised viewing, and it has created some very good drama and documentary and movies. The problem is that the machine has to be fed and so you can’t keep feeding it with good stuff because — as in everything — there’s only so many good things. And so the danger is that you get a lot of dross to fill up what they imagine the appetite of the public is. And it’s like having too much sugar.”

Most producers suggest that algorithms are playing at least a part in Netflix’s content. “Data is very, very important,” says Harries pragmatically. “They’re a tech company, and tech companies are very, very research- and data-obsessed.” There’s a sense also that commissioners, across all platforms, are becoming more careful. The grip is getting tighter. And no wonder. Netflix can ill-afford another disaster such as Baz Luhrmann’s Bronx-set musical drama The Get Down, which went wildly over budget, premiered this summer to a lukewarm critical response and was then promptly cancelled.

But Netflix itself is quick to push back on the idea that it is becoming more data-driven. “There’s no way an algorithm could have predicted that a show steeped in 1980s nostalgia and starring four unknown kids, like Stranger Things, would have been a huge success,” says Netflix spokesman Jonathan Bennett. “And actually, we have very little data on our subscribers. When you sign up, you give your name and email, payment details, so we don’t even know what country you live in, or your gender. All we know is your viewing tastes.”

It’s these viewing tastes that help inform the “taste clusters” that feed the different recommendations on the Netflix dashboard. Today, for example, my dashboard is encouraging me to make good on a 99 per cent match with the new Netflix film Dumplin’, about a Texas teenager who enters herself into a local pageant, one of whose judges is her former beauty queen mother, played by Jennifer Aniston; and, somewhat mortifyingly, suggesting that I will enjoy the 2006 romantic comedy The Holiday (a 98 per cent match). “We might suggest content you might not normally have watched,” says Bennett. Or, indeed, content I will never, ever watch, and which got clustered via a reading of my daughter’s viewing tastes.

There’s no way an algorithm could have predicted that a show like “Stranger Things” would have been a huge success

“Viewing figures are not the only measure,” adds Bennett. “We also look at social media to see how much buzz a show is getting. And whether a new show is pulling new subscribers in. And yes, we do take risks, and we make mistakes. But I think a measure of our success should be the number of industry accolades our original shows are getting. Success isn’t measured in a time slot.”

Maybe not, but new shows today have less time to make a good impression than they once had. “They know within a month how many people have watched it, and if people are not watching beyond an hour or two, they just cancel the shows, they’re gone,” says one producer. “It’s pretty savage.” Another producer bemoans the issue with promotion. After all, if you’ve only got one portal to go to, and there are more and more shows, how do you stand out?

In the meantime, the numbers keep growing. Many in the industry assume that they’ll one day sell to Amazon or another big competitor such as Apple. For the time being, however, it’s clear that they’re way out front. And there’s no point in trying to stop them.

“I am optimistic,” says Harries. “But I’m conscious that all things change; I’ve been too long in this business not to have seen many ups and downs and challenges. Getting into the originals game is a very, very expensive business. But it’s a ride. I mean, there is no question that the opening-up of the streamers has completely changed the business. It’s been transformative. It blows all the cobwebs off the old sort of terrestrial channels. But it’s ever-changing, and you certainly can’t take it for granted. It’s a crazy business but it’s enormous fun. You’ve got to just strap yourself in and go for it.”

In the meantime, the rest of us will no doubt stay glued to our sofas.

Stream on — the Netflix story
Founded in 1997 by chief executive Reed Hastings and tech entrepreneur Marc Randolph, Netflix first began streaming in 2007 — but it wasn’t until 2013, with the premiere of its first original drama House of Cards, that it emerged as a content creator in its own right.

Today it has around 130m paying subscribers, 73m of whom live outside the US (9m in the UK), and a subscription growth that some analysts predict will hit 300m by 2028. It accounts for 15 per cent of all internet bandwidth worldwide and the company recently surpassed Disney to become, at $153.8bn, the most valued media company in the world.

And the output is growing and growing and growing. Next year, Netflix is expected to spend up to $13bn on content, of which the majority will be spent on original programming. It’s also making a more strategic effort to build its global profile. In 2018, Netflix had 141 projects in Europe, 40 of which were based in the UK, and the channel is planning to launch 100 foreign-language originals within the next two years. Many will be developed at the massive new production site that the company is building in Madrid.

 

[joe_zazen]

Let me ask you: Movie and Music industries sucks because of Netflix and Spotify? I dont think so.
And mobile gaming is in a much better position now than 10 years ago. Like orders or magnitude.

Music compared to say 1995? Yes, definitely worse now, at least for the artists. But the barrier of entry into music creation is so low now it doesn't really matter.

Film is different because they have box office.

The best tv comes from the comapanies that charge their consumers directly, like hbo, and therefore have to provide them with product they are willng to pay for. The worst is the stuff that is free. It is not a 1:1 thing, but the principle of having to provide,something of value when asking for money applies. If the only outlets for tv were netflix and free to air, we would lose most of the best tv.

 

[zwiggelbig]

Gears 5 didn't choose a bad week to launch, a normal thinking person won't pay full price for this game when they can play it in Game Pass (for a dollar) and buy a copy in 2-3 months when it's discounted.

Imo Microsoft is playing a long game with Game Pass (and trying to generate a huge userbase) or they're desperate. I've already made up my mind not to buy any retail XB1 games because the 1$ Game Pass offers are popping up constantly.

I still dont get the game pass for a dollar. If their only intention is to trick people in taking the cheap deal and then forgetting to unsub that seems like a really bad long term tactic lol

 

[mckmas8808]

This is a reasoble concern. Yet, traditional retail stores like gamestop were doomed way before gp. They are going full speed through blockbuster route.

What about stores like Walmart, Target, BestBuy, etc?

 

[JLB]

So yes, fantastic, you have lots of subscribers that bring in a ton of guaranteed and accountable recurrent monthly/annual income. But what when that income doesn't cover the outgoings for producing and procuring content for the service?

You do know these subscription models are all geared towards a future where only one service wins out (essentially creating a monopoly)?

That's why the likes of Netflix are willing to throw themselves into debt to the tune of in excess of $12 billion. That amount of debt is justifiable because:

A) It's a strong deterrent for any would be new entrants to the market

and

B) In a future where you have successfully cornered the market due to other companies no longer being able to sustain that amount of debt, and/or they become starved of content, you are then free to charge your users whatever you wish because they have nowhere else to go.

Microsoft, Google and EA are probably the only companies who can sustain this type of model, and they know it. When streaming is more viable we will probably be looking at those 3 battling it out for market dominance.

This is worth reading if you are interested in understanding the market dynamics involving these types of services:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/13078a02-0465-11e9-99df-6183d3002ee1

I understand the dynamics.
Now, if your major concern is a potential creation of a monopolized market, you should not buy playstations (de facto monopoly on console market), Nintendos (de facto monopoly on console mobile market), or subd to Steam (de facto monopoly on PC digital market). For the sake of consistency.
Of course, there is an open, reasonable and needed debate -at least for the last 60/70 years at a much higher level on society- regarding what to do with private monopolies (reference: L.V. Mises vs F. Hayek). But thats a much complex and out of scope discussion for this thread.

 

[joe_zazen]

What about stores like Walmart, Target, BestBuy, etc?

You will buy everything from cia Bezos and you will like it!

 

[joe_zazen]

I still dont get the game pass for a dollar. If their only intention is to trick people in taking the cheap deal and then forgetting to unsub that seems like a really bad long term tactic lol

Naw, they want the audience to be trained to expect everything for ‘free’ and make Nintendo and Sony’s businesses non-viable. If this means big losses for 5 years, well they can handle that...probably with Minecraft money alone, lol.

 

[GHG]

I understand the dynamics.
Now, if your major concern is a potential creation of a monopolized market, you should not buy playstations (de facto monopoly on console market), Nintendos (de facto monopoly on console mobile market), or subd to Steam (de facto monopoly on PC digital market). For the sake of consistency.
Of course, there is an open, reasonable and needed debate -at least for the last 60/70 years at a much higher level on society- regarding what to do with private monopolies (reference: L.V. Mises vs F. Hayek). But thats a much complex and out of scope discussion for this thread.

What on earth...

You're suggesting we don't buy games/consoles from those platforms and then what should we do? None of those companies are using their financial power or positions (debt financing would be an option for them) to manipulate the market in the pursuit of a future where only one company wins out.

Those so called "monopolies" don't exist. The fact that you're willing to state Steam and monopoly in the same sentence tells me everything I need to know, it's uninformed at best and ignorant at worst.

Out of all of the companies we've spoken about only one has actually had an economic monopoly at any point in their history, and its not any of the companies you listed.

And for the record, my primary concern is actually what all of this will mean in terms of the gaming content that we will have available to us and at what cost, it's simply a discussion. I subscribe to Netflix and I'll subscribe to gamepass when there are enough games I wish to try out on the service that I don't already own through other means.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

Those games do not owe their existence to gamepass, like at all. They were paid for by people willing to buy the games upfront on steam, ps, and switch. Elimate those revenue streams and the games don't get made. If the majority of gamers become like you who are only willing to play them for ‘free’....well...can you not see where it will end?

It will end with Microsoft ramping up the price, dropping the quality of the games on gamepass, crashing out of the console arena or they will start a renaissance in gaming.

Imo, I think the console industry and console gaming has hit a brick wall. At this point, I can't see any path thst doesn't lead to a stale future, we've seen the start of it this gen.

Regardless, I truly believe that VR will be the 'console' answer to today's 'arcade' gaming.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Imo, I think the console industry and console gaming has hit a brick wall. At this point, I can't see any path thst doesn't lead to a stale future, we've seen the start of it this gen.

 

[xrnzaaas]

You're exactly right; it is all about price and performance. If a customer can buy an Xbox, which is roughly the same performance of the PS5, for less money, with a launch line-up of 250+ games, all for free, that puts the Xbox at an immediate advantage.

It depends on what type of a customer you are. If you're a more casual gamer then sure, you always have tons of different games to pick from. If you're more aware about what interests you - I'm not so sure. I see this with my PS+ friends. Despite some good games being given away the vast majority of people from my friend list ignore them and play what they want, not what they're given on a monthly basis.

So like I said, Sony folks will probably stick with Sony hardware, Xbox folks will stick with Xbox. Microsoft might win some of the undecided or people switching from PC to consoles for the first time.

 

[thelastword]

But but but Phil said (tm) games pass INCREASES sales.

Well Phil said many things, we all know how that turned out......Phil also said 4k native, no compromises, best framerates.....Phil also said games were coming since ht beginning of this gen...….Phil is like the father who told his 2 year old son he was going for milk at the store next door, it's now 50 years later.....

It's not about encouraging to buy the games , it's about more people being subscribed than would have bought the game, paying the nominal every month until the end of time

Who would pay $60 for Gears 5 when you can pay $1 for GamePass and play it there. That definitely impacted the sales.

Who didn't believe you Monster? People where always going to go with Gamepass over physical when most of the younger generation already don't appreciate physical or actually owning anything they purchase already.

All this shows me is how massive Gamepass is actually becoming. We'll get Gears 5 numbers very soon and we'll see close enough Gamepass subscriptions numbers via that, we already know its in the millions.

How massive is gamepass? Quantify it? MS saying 2 billion bullets were shot in the campaign does not say how successful the game is......

so how many ways can you guys spin it some more that gamepass is a bad thing?
very rare to actually go into a physical game store these days ..there is a reason gamestop and many bricks and mortar sellers are moving onto other things as physical media is dying...and very fast

Physical media is dying, but it's stronger than Gamepass by far....Digital is growing, but Digital is an even more sustainable platform for Sony and MS because they sell their games on their stores at $60 and have no middleman and countless expenses like pressing discs, shipping, higher advertising costs etc...It make sense for Sony and even MS to move from Physical to Digital..…..Gamepass is not ready for primetime, not even close.....MS cant sell games at 60, so they offer it for $1, nobody in their right minds would refuse if they're getting handouts, but in no way sis this sustainable for MS, their games and their studios....

Physical sales are so irrelevant for Microsoft.

I understood that reference...…..Those 90% digital sales on Halo 5 was surely something......I'm thinking Gears 5 is 99% Digital, definitely broke some barriers it would seem....

but physical media in itself is a dying medium and has been for some time
people trying to compare sales figure of something that is

1) not the preferred content delivery method
2) People can get for $1 as long as they join the MS ecosystem

its a pretty stupid comparison to have...like it or not subscription based services are going to be the common place going forward and this will be good for all games and gamers gears5 is actually a pretty solid game and getting it for free instead of paying $60 on something which lasts 10 hours is a great thing

Getting it for free does not pay the bills and keep Coalition developing and pumping games.....How are they going to be sustained? Some of you guys are so hooked on the freebies, that you don't see that the freebies may end very soon.....How long can MS continue to do this before their studios shutter
before they no longer have the money to keep coalition guys motivated, you mean to tell me 2-3 years of my life goes into devving a game and it goes on gamepass Day1 ? MS is already targeting 3 months for churning new gamepass content from some of their studios, Gears 5 has already declined from prior games in terms of ATD and physics, it's going to get worse as time goes by, because MS won't have the money to continue to fund AAA games on a service they have to beg people to subscribe to......Gamepass quality will dwindle, it already is with so many shortcuts in Gears 5….MS will now decrease on the development cycle and funding and gamepass gutterware will storm the palace in quick order....This is where this is heading.....

As for the bolded. many people are happy to buy a great 10 hour action game for $60, if the quality is there they will buy, guaranteed......Perhaps MS should have focused on why persons are not willing to do that with their games instead of breaking sticks in their ears and boasting about content like Super Lucky, SOD2, SOT, Recore and the like......

I love how some people are acting like physical isn't dead and that a Netflix like model for gaming isn't what everyone is chasing. Microsoft has a win here with Gears and Gamepass. I haven't bought a game in months, and have more than I would ever need to play. With Outer World's just around the corner, GP has some serious momentum going into the Holiday.

I love how people are acting like this means gamepass is doing well.....At $60 a month maybe, at $15, goodluck, at $2 for two months (Get the Eff Outta here)…...The gamepass model is not the Netflix model, not even close....MS wish it had the number of subs Netflix had and even then Netflix might be in some trouble for profitability, they might increase prices, put ADs on etc...That coolaid of "everything is ok" from MS is being drunk with too much ease, I guess it's all the sugar......All those free games huh!, I would pay $60 for Gears..... MS gives it to me for a dollar -$59, I'm grinning, what about the Coalition then? The guys who make the games.....You think MS has an infinite warchest to keep on doing this?

It's just like if your son keeps giving you gold chains and diamonds every month, you're grinning and never ask where he's getting it from, till the police knocks on your door and puts him in the slammer...Shuttered..…..MS is giving all these games for $1, people never ask how MS is going to sustain this,,,,,,and they're supposed to be MS's biggest fans....

All according to plan.

Why buy a game when I can get games for £1 a month from gamepass?

Why buy a PlayStation 5 and games, when I can buy an Xbox scarlett and carry on my game pass + BC.

I can see gamepass keeping people in the Microsoft ecosystem long enough to push more people in to buying an Xbox next gen.

Which is the point Gash, nobody will.....The problem is, how do you keep your devs sustained and keep giving out your triple AAA games for free when you're no longer pulling that revenue from retail...….Forget about retail though, digital is even more profitable for MS and Sony, yet if you can get Gears on Gamepass for $1, beat the campaign multiple times get tired of it, play some MP, top the leaderboards, there's no way you're paying $60 for this, but the point is "not paying $60" means that MS losing all that revenue and it also means that they won't be able to sustain this or the devs or the quality of the games coming to gamepass in the future...…Right now, people are so used to all of MS's AAA games going to gamepass, that they will not buy anything from MS at $60 from now on. MS has just devalued their content even more to chase a sub-fanbase that does not exist and will not exist.......I guess, all I can say to you is, enjoy it whilst it lasts, but there's no way this will be sustainable long-term......

 

[Kagey K]

So based on the math done earlier in this thread, UK physical buyers made up a whopping 0.52% of the player base for Gears.

Also Borderlands sales down by 50% even though there are likely significantly more people playing.

Maybe it's time to stop paying attention to these numbers until they can paint a better picture.

 

[CrustyBritches]

They just ran the Game Pass Ultimate conversion deal on top of the other deals. Why would anybody buy a boxed copy? We have multiple Ultimate subs and can play on X1S or PC. I can see buying Switch physical, but otherwise I've moved on long ago. I have a box of "sacred" physical 360 games. It's not some keepsake I'm happy to have like old carts, just a box of plastic junk.

All of our digital games migrated from 360 to X1, and now we'll be bring over all our Xbox, 360, and X1 digital library to Scarlett, PC, and XCloud. Hopefully they'll roll it into an all-in-one package under the Ultimate sub. This is what Xbox has evolved into, take it or leave it.

P.S.- Ubi ran the UPlay+ trial this month, so I haven't even played Gears 5 yet.

 

[mejin]

So based on the math done earlier in this thread, UK physical buyers made up a whopping 0.52% of the player base for Gears.

Also Borderlands sales down by 50% even though there are likely significantly more people playing.

Maybe it's time to stop paying attention to these numbers until they can paint a better picture.

If only 10% of those 3M bought the game, I doubt MS is happy.

 

[VectorVictor]

Really, it took until page three before we reference the thread where Gears 5 had three million unique players in its first weekend, which was a record that broke Halo 4's record from 2012.

But hey, you Sony fanbois keep spinning yourselves up about how doomed Microsoft games are and how this game must have sucked because it sold a quarter of the box copies that Gears 4 did. It's obvious there's a metric s***ton of "somebodys" playing the game.

Naw, they want the audience to be trained to expect everything for ‘free’ and make Nintendo and Sony’s businesses non-viable. If this means big losses for 5 years, well they can handle that...probably with Minecraft money alone, lol.

Nintendo has more than enough cash on hand to weather that storm.

Sony, on the other hand, ran out of companies and subsidiaries to hawk in the runup to launching the PS4. Maybe if Sony sells their movie studio (or at a minimum the Spidey rights) to Disney...then maybe they could outlast Microsoft (if this is indeed their strategy).

 

[AgentP]

The thing about Gamepass, without it, I wouldn't have touched Gears 5. I would have bought Borderlands 3 either way (I may have waited for a sale).

Same. I played a few hours (got to the snow). It feels like Gears 4. I have no idea what is going on, the story seems like a mess. I just shoot crap.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

f people don't like talking about physical sales so why tha hell post? Wait for a digital metric to show up and everyone will be happy.

good point, but either way.

I wonder how game pass downloads count against purchases?

Also, to those who think game pass, or any service of its kind is somehow 'new', I worked at a company that did the same on PC back in 2001 - 2003 (I left at this point, but I'm sure they are long gone).

 

[Dr. Kitty Muffins]

Just let the series rest for awhile.

 

[kevin_trinh]

Dumb question: what is the benefit for the developer if they put their game on gamepass? If putting your game on gamepass = less sale, why should 3rd dev even do it? If 3rd dev does not put their game on gamepass, how the fk It would have more than 10 game at Xbox 2 launch?

 

[Kagey K]

Just let the series rest for awhile.

Why? It’s as strong as it’s ever been. The multiplayer is finally friendly to noobs while courting the hardcore and the story seems to be going somewhere.

Everyone says Gears and Halo are exhausted, but nobody can show me how.

 

[Kagey K]

Dumb question: what is the benefit for the developer if they put their game on gamepass? If putting your game on gamepass = less sale, why should 3rd dev even do it? If 3rd dev does not put their game on gamepass, how the fk It would have more than 10 game at Xbox 2 launch?

Microsoft pays you a guaranteed result, depending on the contract they sign. For a small indie dev MS might pay 2 or 3 times more then if they took those sales themselves, but if they have a breakout hit, it could cost them.

It’s a gamble, a,ways for those devs.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

The thing is, we do not live in a gamepass world....We live in a "sell many copies of this new game at $60.00 on day 1 at retail and through digital stores"......This is how you recoup the high development costs today...….

Gears 5, did worse than 4 and there is no evidence that gamepass encourages people to buy more games....If they eventually buy the game, it's definitely not at $60.....

Really? Who knew every F2P game was a big money loser.

Don't worry about MS's pocketbooks. Pretty sure MS making about $30 billion in profits every year can take a hit or two. Your love Sony has lost so much money the past 10+ years, they had to gut divisions and sell their headquarters and move to cheaper building to raise cash.

 

[Kagey K]

Really? Who knew every F2P game was a big money loser.

Don't worry about MS's pocketbooks. Pretty sure MS making about $30 billion in profits every year can take a hit or two. Your love Sony has lost so much money the past 10+ years, they had to gut divisions and sell their headquarters and move to cheaper building to raise cash.

Oof Fortnight must be hurting, since it has never sold one copy, same as Path of Exile and League of Legends.

It must suck to be a game designer that can’t sell one copy of a single game.

Somebody better call Kotaku.

 

[kevin_trinh]

Microsoft pays you a guaranteed result, depending on the contract they sign. For a small indie dev MS might pay 2 or 3 times more then if they took those sales themselves, but if they have a breakout hit, it could cost them.

It’s a gamble, a,ways for those devs.

For small dev its ok, how about big dev like EA, Ubi, SE, Capcom ect....?

 

[Kagey K]

For small dev its ok, how about big dev like EA, Ubi, SE, Capcom ect....?

Ask them?

There’s a reason games like Devil May Cry and Resident Evil are on there.

 

[Swipeyowifelike]

Ask them?

There’s a reason games like Devil May Cry and Resident Evil are on there.

The real question is will the next installments be.

 

[kevin_trinh]

Ask them?

There’s a reason games like Devil May Cry and Resident Evil are on there.

I see, so the plan is release the game on other platform 1st. Then throw em to gamepass after a few month. Dev get both money from sale and from MS

 

[Kagey K]

The real question is will the next installments be.

Again ask them, not me.

If I was in charge of the gaming industry every game would be there, but I’m not.

You choose to keep kicking the can down the road, while I have shown 3rd party AA titles are showing up.

It’s time for you to show some receipts from your perspective.

 

[Kagey K]

I see, so the plan is release the game on other platform 1st. Then throw em to gamepass after a few month. Dev get both money from sale and from MS

If it works why not?

Tell me where you see the fatal flaw in this plan?

 

[kevin_trinh]

If it works why not?

Tell me where you see the fatal flaw in this plan?

Nope, just asking. For dev there is no flaw, for player its depend on when do you want ro play that game

 

[Kagey K]

Nope, just asking. For dev there is no flaw, for player its depend on when do you want ro play that game

Thank fuck somebody gets it. It’s all about player choice.

When I can play almost any game I want on any system I want that is when I can be most free.

 

[ruvikx]

Mehr. "physical only" who cares.

I wonder what the percentage of physical versus digital sales is for a "physical data only, so who cares" response to apply? i.e. Borderlands 3 sold just "less than half" of Borderlands 2's sales in 2012 (according to the article), whilst Gears 5 sold 25% of Gears 4's 2016 physical sales (at a time when digital sales had already become a real thing). So do Borderlands fans have more of an attachment to physical boxed copies than Gears fans? Because that's what the numbers say.

But I get it, i.e. Gamepass is skewing the numbers & I say it's impossible to tell just how popular (or not) Gears 5 is. On my Xbox dashboard they're shilling a 2 month gamepass subscription for 2 euros, i.e. a pass which would allow me to play Gears 5 as well. That's pretty much Microsoft almost giving this game away for free.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

I spend like zero time in free to play games because they're nearly without exception predatory games that give incentives to spend money or else it's a big grind. It's bad enough this stuff is in full priced games. The defense "Fortnite does well as free to play" turns my stomach, not sure I want every game to be a live service that separates people into haves and have nots, because that is how such games prosper.

 

[Kagey K]

I wonder what the percentage of physical versus digital sales is for a "physical data only, so who cares" response to apply? i.e. Borderlands 3 sold just "less than half" of Borderlands 2's sales in 2012 (according to the article), whilst Gears 5 sold 25% of Gears 4's 2016 physical sales (at a time when digital sales had already become a real thing). So do Borderlands fans have more of an attachment to physical boxed copies than Gears fans? Because that's what the numbers say.

But I get it, i.e. Gamepass is skewing the numbers & I say it's impossible to tell just how popular (or not) Gears 5 is. On my Xbox dashboard they're shilling a 2 month gamepass subscription for 2 euros, i.e. a pass which would allow me to play Gears 5 as well. That's pretty much Microsoft almost giving this game away for free.

Even without Gamepass and MS “schilling” Gears. digital is at the point where it is or has already surpassed physical, by all points of reference.

EA and UBI have already shown a 50-55% of their sales being digital. While brick and mortar have to clean up the rest.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Even without Gamepass and MS “schilling” Gears. digital is at the point where it is or has already surpassed physical, by all points of reference.

EA and UBI have already shown a 50-55% of their sales being digital. While brick and mortar have to clean up the rest.

This is a fair point but don't XBOX exclusives have digital sales included in NPD? My knowledge was the exceptions when it comes to including digital in sales revenue were Nintendo and a few specific franchises.

 

[Kagey K]

This is a fair point but don't XBOX exclusives have digital sales included in NPD? My knowledge was the exceptions when it comes to including digital in sales revenue were Nintendo and a few specific franchises.

Yes they do, but they don’t include Gamepass numbers. Sony agreed to the same tracking.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Yes they do, but they don’t include Gamepass numbers. Sony agreed to the same tracking.

Well yeah, how would you attribute Gamepass numbers anyways? Would you divide up the 2 bucks someone spent between all the games they played that month?

 

[ruvikx]

Even without Gamepass and MS “schilling” Gears. digital is at the point where it is or has already surpassed physical, by all points of reference.

EA and UBI have already shown a 50-55% of their sales being digital. While brick and mortar have to clean up the rest.

I'm not denying this. I'm only saying for xyz reasons Borderlands 3 has a higher physical sales percentage than Gears 5, likewise gamepass is probably the first time I've ever seen exclusive, massive blockbuster titles (the sort which used to land at 69.99 euros/dollars) practically given away for a couple of bucks (in my case, I could be playing Gears 5 for 2 euros).

 

[Kagey K]

I'm not denying this. I'm only saying for xyz reasons Borderlands 3 has a higher physical sales percentage than Gears 5, likewise gamepass is probably the first time I've ever seen exclusive, massive blockbuster titles (the sort which used to land at 69.99 euros/dollars) practically given away for a couple of bucks (in my case, I could be playing Gears 5 for 2 euros).

Prove it.

They both took big hits physically, even though both have more players then previously.

It seems like the 50% drop for Borderlands and the 75% drop for Gears are Almost correlated.

But I’d be very interested in seeing a different point.

 

[ruvikx]

Prove it.

Err, you just did yourself by confirming the 50% physical sales drop for Borderlands & 75% drop for Gears 5. It's in the article. I said "percentage", i.e. a 50% or thereabouts physical drop for Borderlands 3 is less than a 75% drop for Gears 5. It's maths. Of course there's an industry-wide correlation which has seen digital become the norm, but not all games are affected equally & it's very obvious "why" Gears 5 was impacted more than Borderlands 3: gamepass. That's all.

 

[Kagey K]

Err, you just did yourself by confirming the 50% physical sales drop for Borderlands & 75% drop for Gears 5. It's in the article. I said "percentage", i.e. a 50% or thereabouts physical drop for Borderlands 3 is less than a 75% drop for Gears 5. It's maths. Of course there's an industry-wide correlation which has seen digital become the norm, but not all games are affected equally & it's very obvious "why" Gears 5 was impacted more than Borderlands 3: gamepass. That's all.

How do you account for the digital sales? And how do you decipher what is actual sales and what is Gamepass players?

 

[ruvikx]

How do you account for the digital sales? And how do you decipher what is actual sales and what is Gamepass players?

Is English your first language? I'm serious as well. Gears falling 75% in the UK combined with the "we've had 3 million players first weekend" boast by Microsoft (from the other thread) means the data is pretty much obvious to read (hint: gamepass). Meanwhile Borderlands 3 in the same market with the same digital sales trend didn't see as big a drop off in physical sales. In the UK at least. Why? It's not on gamepass.