Support NeoGAF

[Moogle11]

The best thing that gamepass does is it provides indie games with exposure that they wouldn't have otherwise got. It puts them front an center of a marketing cycle for a certain amount of time and it means their games are played by a lot more people than they would usually get. In addition they will get a fee up front to release their game to the service, so it's an added layer of financial security.

For AA/AAA games, especially new ones that are yet to experience a drop off in sales the value for them is limited unless they are chock full of microtransactions/lootboxes. Most of the companies behind these games can provide their own adequate level of marketing/exposure for their games. These games being on the service are of more value to the subscription service provider over the publisher/developer of those games.

Come for the AAA games, stay for the indies is what a lot of these services will survive on if they want sustained subscription.

Yep. Though it will also be good for AA/AAA games that can come to the service after months or years when they've mostly stopped selling. That’s a way to squeeze some more revenue out of them for publishers and a convenient and cheap way to play some games that I was interested in but hadn’t gotten around to yet (same as PS+). I don’t buy much at/near launch other than some Sony and Nintendo first party games and the occasional third party blockbusters like RDR2 etc.

 

[DanielsM]

The best thing that gamepass does is it provides indie games with exposure that they wouldn't have otherwise got. It puts them front an center of a marketing cycle for a certain amount of time and it means their games are played by a lot more people than they would usually get. In addition they will get a fee up front to release their game to the service, so it's an added layer of financial security.

For AA/AAA games, especially new ones that are yet to experience a drop off in sales the value for them is limited unless they are chock full of microtransactions/lootboxes. Most of the companies behind these games can provide their own adequate level of marketing/exposure for their games. These games being on the service are of more value to the subscription service provider over the publisher/developer of those games.

Come for the AAA games, stay for the indies is what a lot of these services will survive on if they want sustained subscription.

Unless people are paying full price for the service, all of this is premature as far as a business model. Sony found out that people are not willing to pay high prices for game rentals, it really doesn't make sense for the common gamer. Small revenue stream for publishers/developers post initial release, maybe a few million people would sign up for $25-50. Of course, this only really makes sense on closed devices, generally speaking. What you are describing is Humble Bundle, more or less.

Something like $119.88 is going to have to come down drastically. Gamers generally only play a few games a year if that, heck the free to play is actually dominating the landscape.

 

[Mega Man]

Hot Take:
The model will work (business wise) once Xbox Game Pass is rebranded to simply Xbox. Then they stop manufacturing consoles that render graphics natively and put all of their resources into creating the TRUE Netflix of Video Games. Right now, they have devoted the past 2 and probably the next 2 years of Xbox Game Pass into marketing it into the known (and reliable) Netflix of Video Games. Once it is a "must buy" on your platform of choice, everyone will ask themselves, "how didn't we see that coming?"

 

[trufflepigg]

it will all make sense to you peasants soon enough
MS is gaining traction in the GaaS model, when it reaches its target install base, the strategy will shift and it will all make sense
I bet you my left nut in the next year or two max they will announce it's a contract subscription service, ie) you are locked in for 1 year into Game Pass. Then they will be making real money, none of this hey Halo Infinite is out? I'll pay $1 and get gamepass then cancel it in one month. No, that's not a sustainable business model, but subscription contracts are the best revenue model on the planet.

 

[DanielsM]

Hot Take:
The model will work (business wise) once Xbox Game Pass is rebranded to simply Xbox. Then they stop manufacturing consoles that render graphics natively and put all of their resources into creating the TRUE Netflix of Video Games. Right now, they have devoted the past 2 and probably the next 2 years of Xbox Game Pass into marketing it into the known (and reliable) Netflix of Video Games. Once it is a "must buy" on your platform of choice, everyone will ask themselves, "how didn't we see that coming?"

But that doesn't work on closed systems and the large publishers have their own distribution channels and subscriptions on open system (Windows/Linux/Mac). As a way of distributing their own games as a traditional publisher, sure, as a middleman for everyone on top of the other middlemen... very inefficient.

I'm not sure why people keep suggesting this, there is no reason for anyone to use Microsoft as a middleman other than the closed device... which is why the Microsoft Store is avoided. The whole purpose of closed systems is royalties, on the open systems the publishers/developers have no need for Microsoft or Sony or Nintendo or Apple or whoever.

So.... let me get this right.... Microsoft gets permission to basically have a competing store on iOS, PS, and Nintendo devices for third party software? What's the purpose of that? You basically have another middleman that isn't needed, let alone that is how the device manufactures make money.

You guys certainly dream big.

it will all make sense to you peasants soon enough
MS is gaining traction in the GaaS model, when it reaches its target install base, the strategy will shift and it will all make sense
I bet you my left nut in the next year or two max they will announce it's a contract subscription service, ie) you are locked in for 1 year into Game Pass. Then they will be making real money, none of this hey Halo Infinite is out? I'll pay $1 and get gamepass then cancel it in one month. No, that's not a sustainable business model, but subscription contracts are the best revenue model on the planet.

If they were gaining traction their content/service revenue would be going up double digits instead of a falling. On the business side of the house in services they were gaing in double or triple digits for basically 10 years for instance.

My guess is they try to wrap in Office 365, the problem is, there is no reason for this to be useful outside the closed device.

No, that's not a sustainable business model, but subscription contracts are the best revenue model on the planet.

Only if they work. LOL

 

[PropellerEar]

Do have nightmares about Gamepass or something ? I created the thread and you seem to care way more than me. Even more weird since you obviously hate Xbox. Why would you even care so much

Don't tell me you're worried for the industry BS because we all know why you're so active in here.

Just my opinion but.. You as a thread starter should have more to say than just this drive-by garbage.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

The best thing that gamepass does is it provides indie games with exposure that they wouldn't have otherwise got. It puts them front an center of a marketing cycle for a certain amount of time and it means their games are played by a lot more people than they would usually get. In addition they will get a fee up front to release their game to the service, so it's an added layer of financial security.

For AA/AAA games, especially new ones that are yet to experience a drop off in sales the value for them is limited unless they are chock full of microtransactions/lootboxes. Most of the companies behind these games can provide their own adequate level of marketing/exposure for their games. These games being on the service are of more value to the subscription service provider over the publisher/developer of those games.

Come for the AAA games, stay for the indies is what a lot of these services will survive on if they want sustained subscription.

Nailed it. The best games I have played on the service are games I would have never bought and would have in most cases not even knew they exist. It’s very similar to Hulu or Netflix where I’ll watch stuff I otherwise would have not. Because of those games I’ll also be very interested in what Dead Mage, MegaCrit, and Blue Manchu do next.

But yeah they do need that AAA blockbuster a few times a year to keep interest going, just like Netflix has their huge shows.

 

[Mega Man]

But that doesn't work on closed systems and the large publishers have their own distribution channels and subscriptions on open system (Windows/Linux/Mac). As a way of distributing their own games as a traditional publisher, sure, as a middleman for everyone on top of the other middlemen... very inefficient.

I'm not sure why people keep suggesting this, there is no reason for anyone to use Microsoft as a middleman other than the closed device... which is why the Microsoft Store is avoided. The whole purpose of closed systems is royalties, on the open systems the publishers/developers have no need for Microsoft or Sony or Nintendo or Apple or whoever.

So.... let me get this right.... Microsoft gets permission to basically have a competing store on iOS, PS, and Nintendo devices for third party software? What's the purpose of that? You basically have another middleman that isn't needed, let alone that is how the device manufactures make money.

You guys certainly dream big.

I believe you are looking at this through a current gen lense. There will certainly be a dedicated device to steaming the content to your T.V. until the software is built into Smart T.V. UI's. You'll notice with the Video streaming wars, there are still service exclusives. There are also exclusions (i.e. Prime Video on Roku). All of this will be present in the game streaming future.

People also argue how difficult it will be to stream games on current data options. It wasn't too long ago that Netflix REQUIRED you to be on WiFi in order to stream a movie using their app. This is where we are. Soon enough, speeds will increase based on consumer demand (and corporate NEED).

While you and I may still use a dedicated GPU to get the ABSOLUTE BEST visuals and gameplay. We are basically the 4k Bluray purchasers. We will be the minority. The majority of consumers will sacrifice quality for convenience, and there is a TON of money to be made when readily available.

In terms of 3rd party releases. Think of physical and digital storefront releases as a theatrical release for a movie. It will still happen and people will still partake when the release is that big. Others will wait for it to come to Gamepass (aka Xbox service) like many wait for Starwars or whatever big blockbuster film to come to Netflix.

 

[DanielsM]

I believe you are looking at this through a current gen lense. There will certainly be a dedicate device to steaming the content to your T.V. until the software is built into Smart T.V. UI's. You'll notice with the Video streaming wars, there are still service exclusives. There are also exclusions (i.e. Prime Video on Roku). All of this will be present in the game streaming future.

Well, you are talking streaming not Game Pass. As far as what you suggest, it has already existed for a long time.

People also argue how difficult it will be to stream game on current data options.

Not sure about that, I would say people don't cloud game because it generally doesn't make sense.

Lots of wishful thinking.

 

[Mega Man]

Well, you are talking streaming not Game Pass. As far as what you suggest, it has already existed for a long time.







Not sure about that, I would say people don't cloud game because it generally doesn't make sense.

Lots of wishful thinking.

Netflix did not become a household name until they began releasing their streaming service on multiple devices and giving it away for free. The examples you provided are not readily available. In addition, it's functionality was met with poor PR. As of now, Gamepass is looked at fondly and xCloud is still in "Beta." Playstation Now was lacking content for a long period of time and had significant latency. I could be wrong, but I don't know how cheap it is to obtain either. You need users first, then make it a "must have." Once it is, then you can charge REAL subscription fees.

Remember we paid for DVDs at first and got a "Free" streaming service included in our Netflix subscription? Then suddenly, they flipped it and gave us the streaming service on the subscription and forced us to pay extra for the DVD service. Then they raised the cost to $9.99 when we all needed it. Then $12.99 Now $14.99. Have the majority of people cancelled their Subs? Nope.

Gamepass is the DVD service many people had in the beginning stages, xCoud is the streaming service. It's easy to see where it goes from here...

 

[DanielsM]

Netflix did not become a household name until they began releasing their streaming service on multiple devices and giving it away for free. The examples you provided are not readily available.

PS Now was available on all kinds of devices they eventually started discontinuing the support as they had no customers, they had no customers because there is no real demand for cloud gaming. Cloud gaming makes very little sense especially to the whales i.e. hard core gamers.... which really the crowd they are trying to cater too.

Cloud gaming makes very little sense which is why countless companies abandon it or stopped supporting it. Nothing wrong with game rentals, but most people don't need access to 1000s of games for rental, they only play 1 or 2 a year... maybe. This is the problem Sony ran into, the service doesn't make sense in this industry.

Most of your post is comparing different media and than saying well, that did well... so this will. They're nothing alike. So... let me get this right... you think someone is going to pay $120 a year, plus Xbox Live Gold or ultimate and than a streaming service on top of that to play on their freaking TV? Well, dream big as they say.

Literally Sony is down to $59.99 for deals, and they are exchanging PS+ money for it.... cloud gaming is loser business.

 

[Mega Man]

PS Now was available on all kinds of devices they eventually started discontinuing the support as they had no customers, they had no customers because there is no real demand for cloud gaming. Cloud gaming makes very little sense especially to the whales i.e. hard core gamers.... which really the crowd they are trying to cater too.

I agree it does not make sense for the Whales.

It does make sense for the kids, who will eventually become teenagers, and then adults however. They are looking for the life long consumer not the old school geezers like us. Corporations know they already have You and I with the current model. They innovate to manipulate and grab NEW consumers. Keep in mind, Fortnite did not catch fire and become the biggest thing in gaming because of the whales...

Kids determine the next trend, and kids like cheap and convenient.

 

[SuperLupeRap]

Just my opinion but.. You as a thread starter should have more to say than just this drive-by garbage.

Said what I had to say and it's pretty clear. 10 pages and the armchair devs I was talking about still seem to be clueless.

I'll let the Sony guys like you and DanielsM fight evil MS for pages and pages if that's what rocks your boat. Hopefully the actual devs and publishers see your posts and decide to drop Gamepass before it's too late

 

[DanielsM]

I agree it does not make sense for the Whales.

It does make sense for the kids, who will eventually become teenagers, and then adults however. They are looking for the life long consumer not the old school geezers like us. Corporations know they already have You and I with the current model. They innovate to manipulate and grab NEW consumers. Keep in mind, Fortnite did not catch fire and become the biggest thing in gaming because of the whales...

Kids determine the next trend, and kids like cheap and convenient.

A casual isn't spending $150-200 a year to stream games on their TV, in fact, I don't think you'll find many customers at $20 a year. This is what Sony found out a long time ago.

And that also doesn't even consider that the large publishers/devs have no need for MS in this arena i.e. non-Xbox as a Hardware.

I mean its one thing to copy Valve Steam, its a money making business, why in the fuck would anyone copy this loser business called cloud gaming?

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

PS Now failed to light the world on fire thus far because it was expensive and had huge performance issues. After GamePass launched they added a download ability to a lot of the PS Now content and they’ve now lowered the price but for many people the ship has sailed. They also marketed it horribly.

 

[Mega Man]

A casual isn't spending $150-200 a year to stream games on their TV, in fact, I don't think you'll find many customers at $20 a year.

And that sir, is where we disagree completely. I believe in 2-4 years EVERYONE (remotely interested in games) will pay $15 a month to stream games on multiple devices with cloud saves. We will rationalize that it costs the same as 3 $60 games a year, but instead you get to play hundreds.

 

[DanielsM]

And that sir, is where we disagree completely. I believe in 2-4 years EVERYONE (remotely interested in games) will pay $15 a month to stream games on multiple devices with cloud saves. We will rationalize that it costs the same as 3 $60 games a year, but instead you get to play hundreds.

Good luck.

Yes, we know that casuals are going to spend hundreds of dollars a year to game, that's the problem... casuals don't spend much money. Literally this option costs much more than if you just go buy your own shit.

pay $15 a month to stream games on multiple devices with cloud saves

You literally could do that on PS and PS Now yet nobody paid even a fraction of that.... no customers.

99.999% of gamers don't play hundreds of games a year... most are lucky to finish 1 or 2... a casual probably isn't going to finish a game a year.

You are comparing two different things and saying they will have the same result.

 

[Mega Man]

Good luck.

Yes, we know that casuals are going to spend hundreds of dollars a year to game, that's the problem... casuals don't spend much money. Literally this option costs much more than if you just go buy your own shit.



You literally could do that on PS and PS Now yet nobody paid even a fraction of that.... no customers.

It's more daunting for many to spend $60 a pop then $15 on a sub and just have it taken out monthly. The Wii had some success with casuals. Convenience is everything now days. People didn't think they needed a video streaming service either, until they did...

 

[DanielsM]

It's more daunting for many to spend $60 a pop then $15 on a sub and just have it taken out monthly. The Wii had some success with casuals. Convenience is everything now days. People didn't think they needed a video streaming service either, until they did...

If that were the case, PS Now would have been selling millions of subscriptions per year.... literally all this is... is PS Now.... been there done that. I've tested about all the game streaming services, that's the problem is once you test it out.... you don't subscribe.

 

[Mega Man]

Good luck.

Yes, we know that casuals are going to spend hundreds of dollars a year to game, that's the problem... casuals don't spend much money. Literally this option costs much more than if you just go buy your own shit.



You literally could do that on PS and PS Now yet nobody paid even a fraction of that.... no customers.

99.999% of gamers don't play hundreds of games a year... most are lucky to finish 1 or 2... a casual probably isn't going to finish a game a year.

You are comparing two different things and saying they will have the same result.

You're right, but we already established why PS Now was not successful in a preceding comment. Lack of content, performance issues, and they charged a lot off the bat. As is, the user base isn't there (YET). You need to show off the service in an affordable way where there is no barrier to entry. Once people bite, that's when you charge.. Sony went the opposite way and charged for a BRAND NEW service with known issues. Same with Stadia...

 

[Mega Man]

If that were the case, PS Now would have been selling millions of subscriptions per year.... literally all this is... is PS Now.... been there done that. I've tested about all the game streaming services, that's the problem is once you test it out.... you don't subscribe.

Patience young Padawan... the time will come.

Remember how scared people were to put a microphone in their house that listens to them with the Kinect in 2013?
How are smart speakers doing? A little ahead of its time, and lacking content/functionality. Don't get me wrong, the Kinect is not the reason for the failures of the XB1. But everyone was scared of that tech when it came out as well...

 

[DanielsM]

You're right, but we already established why PS Now was not successful in a preceding comment. Lack of content, performance issues, and they charged a lot off the bat. As is, the user base isn't there (YET). You need to show off the service in an affordable way where there is no barrier to entry. Once people bite, that's when you charge..

Sony went the opposite way and charged for a BRAND NEW service with known issues.

Same with Stadia...

The service works just like all the service, heck I was a OnLive beta tester and a PS Now beta tester.... of course performance is a problem... that's cloud gaming i.e. latency.

Sony went the opposite way and charged for a BRAND NEW service with known issues.

I was a beta tester, it worked just like any of the services I had tested. Its called latency, they all will have latency.

Same with Stadia...

Yeah, network latency.

Patience young Padawan... the time will come.

Remember how scared people were to put a microphone in their house that listens to them with the Kinect in 2013?
How are smart speakers doing? A little ahead of its time, and lacking content/functionality. Don't get me wrong, the Kinect is not the reason for the failures of the XB1. But everyone was scared of that tech when it came out as well...

what are you talking about... some of us have used this technology over 10 years ago. Welcome to 2009 and OnLive. I've been streaming my own music from my own equipment since the mid-90s, and videos since the mid-2000s. There is nothing new about any of this, its very strange when people come by in drive by posting and act like this is new... it was obvious you have no idea this tech was already in TVs.

Now you are setting up a strawman to act like people are scared, no.... we've just have used the tech and its a big nothing burger and doesn't really make sense in gaming, generally speaking.

Literally you can do this from your own PS4 for 7 years now, its not scary, its not magic, heck you could even do it with a PS3 in 2006.

Look at this new scary tech.

 

[Mega Man]

The service works just like all the service, heck I was a OnLive beta tester and a PS Now beta tester.... of course performance is a problem... that's cloud gaming i.e. latency.



I was a beta tester, it worked just like any of the services I had tested. Its called latency, they all will have latency.



Yeah, network latency.



what are you talking about... some of us have used this technology over 10 years ago.

I've been streaming my own music from my own equipment since the mid-90s, and videos since the mid-2000s.

There is nothing new about any of this, its very strange when people come by in drive by posting and act like this is new... it was obvious you have no idea this tech was already in TVs.

There are different levels of latency. It'll take time to get the infrastructure in place, which is why I give it 2-4 years.

 

[DanielsM]

There are different levels of latency. It'll take time to get the infrastructure in place, which is why I give it 2-4 years.

It has nothing to do with infrastructure, its called number of hops, and speed of light. Latency has basically not improved on the interwebs, bandwidth has..... not latency.

Now you are no longer talking about your opinion, but facts...

 

[phil_t98]

Of course they do, they're the whales.

So a company exec says that it is working better and people who have it but more but you don’t believe them?

 

[DanielsM]

So a company exec says that it is working better and people who have it but more but you don’t believe them?

I have no idea what this means.

I have never said it helps or hurts, I said all of this is simply a rental program... which will mean small revenue streams. At the end of the day, they're just moving some small coins from one pocket to another, some might improve... some might go the other way.

The only real way of funding game development on a large scale is sales, digital sales are generally going to be the best ROI. Sales generally work best for everyone as gaming is cheap... the only reason why anyone would move models is to try and generate more money, not less from a publishers/developers pov.

What Phil is trying to do is find a way around Steam(other digital distributors) and closed-system providers (iOS, PS, Switch,etc.) as they couldn't compete, its just hard to imagine how that's possible - which is why we have the hail mary cloud gaming thing. But even with cloud gaming there is no real incentive for the large publishers to be involved.

Sooo.... lots of IFs and at the end of the road its still Ms being a traditional publisher, imo.

But none of guys want to hear that I guess - you want to hear that Microsoft has to be used as a middleman.

 

[jaysius]

There is a "direct to Gamepass" tier of game now, the same as there was "Direct to Stream" when Netflix was in it's infancy. Games full of bugs, games poorly slapped together, games like Outer Worlds, Gears 5. A few games that are meant to be bumped by being empty husks filled with DLC like Forza Horzion 4 a racing game where winning races isn't important and the AI is awful.

Gears 5 wasn't anything near the quality of the rest of the series. Bad bosses that were pretty much required co-op, sequences that were required co-op or you suffered the bad AI buddy, bugs, poorly optimized segments where textures didn't load in. The story was awful, everything about it. It was a "straight to gamepass" game.

 

[phil_t98]

I have no idea what this means.

I have never said it helps or hurts, I said all of this is simply a rental program... which will mean small revenue streams. At the end of the day, they're just moving some small coins from one pocket to another, some might improve... some might go the other way.

The only real way of funding game development on a large scale is sales, digital sales are generally going to be the best ROI. Sales generally work best for everyone as gaming is cheap... the only reason why anyone would move models is to try and generate more money, not less from a publishers/developers pov.

What Phil is trying to do is find a way around Steam(other digital distributors) and closed-system providers (iOS, PS, Switch,etc.) as they couldn't compete, its just hard to imagine how that's possible - which is why we have the hail mary cloud gaming thing. But even with cloud gaming there is no real incentive for the large publishers to be involved.

Sooo.... lots of IFs and at the end of the road its still Ms being a traditional publisher, imo.

But none of guys want to hear that I guess - you want to hear that Microsoft has to be used as a middleman.

Basicly Phil has said that people who have game pass buy more games so it’s helping revenue. So they are getting gamepass revenue and sales revenue so it’s not hurting there business is it?

 

[Bandi]

Hot Take:
The model will work (business wise) once Xbox Game Pass is rebranded to simply Xbox. Then they stop manufacturing consoles that render graphics natively and put all of their resources into creating the TRUE Netflix of Video Games. Right now, they have devoted the past 2 and probably the next 2 years of Xbox Game Pass into marketing it into the known (and reliable) Netflix of Video Games. Once it is a "must buy" on your platform of choice, everyone will ask themselves, "how didn't we see that coming?"

not this shit again... we get this EVERY MONTHS for like YEARS. seriously... and if THIS happens, then sony is already DEAD by then!

 

[diffusionx]

Basicly Phil has said that people who have game pass buy more games so it’s helping revenue. So they are getting gamepass revenue and sales revenue so it’s not hurting there business is it?

Obviously Spencer has the data but I'm not sure how that is even close to true. Especially if people get into games like FH4 or Gears which are GAAS.

I've had GP since October and I can list a dozen games I was absolutely ready to pay for until GP alleviated the need. Latest was Children of Morta. If most people only buy a handful of games a year then I could see GP dropping that number to zero.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

There is a "direct to Gamepass" tier of game now, the same as there was "Direct to Stream" when Netflix was in it's infancy. Games full of bugs, games poorly slapped together, games like Outer Worlds, Gears 5. A few games that are meant to be bumped by being empty husks filled with DLC like Forza Horzion 4 a racing game where winning races isn't important and the AI is awful.

Gears 5 wasn't anything near the quality of the rest of the series. Bad bosses that were pretty much required co-op, sequences that were required co-op or you suffered the bad AI buddy, bugs, poorly optimized segments where textures didn't load in. The story was awful, everything about it. It was a "straight to gamepass" game.

Somehow the worst take in this entire thread.

 

[DanielsM]

Basicly Phil has said that people who have game pass buy more games so it’s helping revenue. So they are getting gamepass revenue and sales revenue so it’s not hurting there business is it?

Phil says a bunch of dumb fucking shit so I really have no idea on that.

I would say content and services are both going down in their financials... I have no idea if its hurting or helping developers... most probably neither... nothing burger.... its simply small game rental revenue. If this helps something or someone in a large way, logic would dictate that there has to be loser on the other side. I personally don't think any of this means anything.... small revenue stream.

Its like saying does Blockbuster hurt developers, its not that it could or couldn't.... its just there isn't any meaningful money one way or another.

The point is pretty much moot at this point.

 

[SuperLupeRap]

Somehow the worst take in this entire thread.

This guy is talking absolute rubbish it's unbelievable.

 

[Moogle11]

it will all make sense to you peasants soon enough
MS is gaining traction in the GaaS model, when it reaches its target install base, the strategy will shift and it will all make sense
I bet you my left nut in the next year or two max they will announce it's a contract subscription service, ie) you are locked in for 1 year into Game Pass. Then they will be making real money, none of this hey Halo Infinite is out? I'll pay $1 and get gamepass then cancel it in one month. No, that's not a sustainable business model, but subscription contracts are the best revenue model on the planet.

I doubt they'll to to official contracts. Just offering yearly subs that are cheaper than paying monthly or buying four three-month subs etc. Younger generations/cord cutters in general are wary of agreeing to contracts, but you can kind of "sucker" them into paying for years with no terms that generally don't offer prorated refunds if it comes out cheaper than the shorter-term offers. ESPN+, as one example, did/does that. It was $5 a month or $50 a year when I signed up last spring. It's still a pseudo contract, but not the same as say my cable/internet that has an early termination penalty if I didn't keep it for 2 years. I don't think that kind of thing would fly with streaming gaming/video services. People are used to starting and stopping them as content they want comes to various services and cut the cord to get away from paying for things they aren't using.

I do agree the crazy deals will go away. Or at least actually be limited to new accounts. I did a month free on PC to play Gears 5 last fall, and went to grab three months a couple weeks back as there are several things I want to play and Q1 is pretty much void of new releases I care to play. I was pretty shocked to see that I had an offer in the app on on the same account I was able to get three months for $1. I was totally ready to pay whatever the regular rate is for 3 months of Game Pass on PC, so they lost some potential money there and need to stop doing that going forward.

 

[phil_t98]

Phil says a bunch of dumb fucking shit so I really have no idea on that.

I would say content and services are both going down in their financials... I have no idea if its hurting or helping developers... most probably neither... nothing burger.... its simply small game rental revenue. If this helps something or someone in a large way, logic would dictate that there has to be loser on the other side. I personally don't think any of this means anything.... small revenue stream.

Its like saying does Blockbuster hurt developers, its not that it could or couldn't.... its just there isn't any meaningful money one way or another.

The point is pretty much moot at this point.

Again your pushing your own agenda against facts of an Exec Phil Spencer who see's the figures and knows what he is talking about. if you can produce anything of evidence of anything you say in terms of Gamepass is not making money or that it is driving sales down or it is a small revenue stream I will stand corrected. I just want to see the facts as you are seeing them

 

[DanielsM]

This guy is talking absolute rubbish it's unbelievable.

You're projecting instead of discussing. This is a discussion board, you made the topic but that doesn't mean you have to stay.

 

[DanielsM]

Again your pushing your own agenda against facts of an Exec Phil Spencer who see's the figures and knows what he is talking about. if you can produce anything of evidence of anything you say in terms of Gamepass is not making money or that it is driving sales down or it is a small revenue stream I will stand corrected. I just want to see the facts as you are seeing them

Well, if you are charging $1, logic is its a money losing operation... the goal might be to make money... one day... that day isn't today. For the record, Microsoft basically hides and has been hiding real game data for about 20 years. Ask Lil Phil to disclose how many people are signing up at $119.99 a year, my guess very few. Heck, even PS Now has deals down to $59.99 and have only around 700,000 users. These could be small revenue streams for older catalogs, nothing burger in the big scheme of things.

I'm still perplexed as to what you guys are mad about.

 

[phil_t98]

Well, if you are charging a $1, I would logic is its a money losing operation... the goal might be to make money... one day... that day isn't today.

For the record, Microsoft basically hides and has been hiding real game data for about 20 years.

again you revert to that INTRODUCTARY offer, once you have had that offer it expires and you don't get it again. now come on put your money were your mouth is and show facts rather than your opinion

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

How many of the customers who signed up for $1 will continue when their sub skyrockets by a factor of 15?

As has been pointed out over and over by multiple people in this thread, the current Game Pass offerings will change over time as Microsoft halts their loss leader tactics and switches over to maintaining their pool of subscribers. Every notable digital subscription service from the past 10 years followed this same trajectory.

 

[DanielsM]

again you revert to that INTRODUCTARY offer, once you have had that offer it expires and you don't get it again. now come on put your money were your mouth is and show facts rather than your opinion

Yeah but those offers were stretch out to up to 3 years with Xbox Live Gold renewal, come back in 2-3 years and have Phil disclose numbers than. Hint, Microsoft will never give up this data and has never provided details on Xbox losses.

To developers this will just be a small revenue stream, old games are not worth much, not sure what the anger is about.... Lil Phil has 2-4 years to find some real service revenue.

Still baffled by the anger.

 

[phil_t98]

Yeah but those offers were stretch out to up to 3 years with Xbox Live Gold renewal, come back in 2-3 years and have Phil disclose numbers than.

To developers this will just be a small revenue stream, old games are not worth much.

the offer had a loop hole and cannot be done now. so still waiting for facts, I mean I am currently getting offers a trial of PS NOW for free on my ps4 so the developers must be getting no money

 

[DanielsM]

the offer had a loop hole and cannot be done now. so still waiting for facts, I mean I am currently getting offers a trial of PS NOW for free on my ps4 so the developers must be getting now money

I never said developers weren't getting money, not sure where you getting that from.... maybe slow down and read, and maybe get the anger out of your head.

Its a small revenue stream at best for publisher/developers, a big nothing burger either.

EA Access has been out over 5 years, its on PC, Xbox, PS and it only represents .02 of EA's revenue. Small revenue stream.

 

[phil_t98]

I never said developers weren't getting money, not sure where you getting that from.... maybe slow down and read, and maybe get the anger out of your head.

no anger at all here. you saying small revenue stream from a $1 Trial so with Sony offering a Trial for free they must not any money by how you see it

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Yeah but those offers were stretch out to up to 3 years with Xbox Live Gold renewal, come back in 2-3 years and have Phil disclose numbers than. Hint, Microsoft will never give up this data and has never provided details on Xbox losses.

To developers this will just be a small revenue stream, old games are not worth much, not sure what the anger is about.... Lil Phil has 2-4 years to find some real service revenue.

Still baffled by the anger.

Hmmmm....

PSN used to be free. Come back later when PSN is now $50/yr for the same online gaming as free PS3, and there’s even fewer free Plus games now than before.

oh wait, like 40 million people signed up and pay.

give it a rest Daniels. We all know you rag on MS every chance.

 

[SuperLupeRap]

You're projecting instead of discussing. This is a discussion board, you made the topic but that doesn't mean you have to stay.

Don't take it personally because I don't know you outside of this forum but there's a saying that goes "never argue with a fool".

You've hit that level for me long ago.

 

[DanielsM]

no anger at all here. you saying small revenue stream from a $1 Trial so with Sony offering a Trial for free they must not any money by how you see it

Oh Sony isn't making any money either... small revenue stream. They said they had 700,000 in May, if we say at an average price of $79.99..... what is that like $50-60m in annual revenue. SpiderMan made that in like 2 minutes.

The best model is basically sales (digital sales are generally going to be better for the pubs/devs) but physical would be next. Game rentals on old games can bring in small revenue... nothing big though... old games are basically worthless.

PS Now has 700,000 users, still leads online game streaming

New download feature sparks PlayStation Now adoption growth.

www.tweaktown.com

Don't take it personally because I don't know you but there's a saying that goes "never argue with a fool".

You've hit that level for me long ago.

Obviously you are mad about something, but I don't know what that something is... its a discussion board, if you disagree explain yourself... its not that hard.

 

[demigod]

Basicly Phil has said that people who have game pass buy more games so it’s helping revenue. So they are getting gamepass revenue and sales revenue so it’s not hurting there business is it?

You guys sure are naive to believe everything phil says. Sales data says otherwise. Gears 5 sales did worse than Gears 4 and that's simply due to gamepass.

 

[phil_t98]

Oh Sony isn't making any money either... small revenue stream. They said they had 700,000 in May, if we say at an average price of $79.99..... what is that like $50-60m in annual revenue. SpiderMan made that in like 2 minutes.

The best model is basically sales (digital sales are generally going to be better for the pubs/devs) but physical would be next. Game rentals on old games can bring in small revenue... nothing big though... old games are basically worthless.



Obviously you are mad about something, but I don't know what that something is... its a discussion board, if you disagree explain yourself... its not that hard.

the funny thing is Sony don't get all the revenue from the game, retailers get a big portion that revenue . so they not getting as much as you think.

its really funny that you are against a consumer friendly product that the Lead Xbox guy Phil Spencer says is helping sell more games and DLC for the Developers.

 

[phil_t98]

You guys sure are naive to believe everything phil says. Sales data says otherwise. Gears 5 sales did worse than Gears 4 and that's simply due to gamepass.

But anything that comes from Sony is believed?

 

[demigod]

But anything that comes from Sony is believed?

Don't move the goalpost.