Zeroing
Banned
Lol, gaming is not niche! It make more money then music and the filming industry! Why Amazon and Google are tying to enter gaming?
Take a break
Last edited:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Outriders retails at 17% in UK on Xbox (due to being free to all XGPU subscribers), PlayStation 4/5 has 83% of retail sales
- Thread starter Mr.NiceGuy
- Start date
Take a break
What a thread, what a ride. From the most ludicrous premise that shows absolutely nothing at all to the usual mentalists that are terrified of a plastic box having something theirs doesn't embarrassing themselves as usual. I'm sure some of you fuckwits wake up at night sweating chanting "gamepass will destroy gaming" in your piss stained god of war bedding.
DaGwaphics
Member
Lol, gaming is not niche! It make more money then music and the filming industry! Why Amazon and Google are tying to enter gaming?
Take a break
In number of users I mean. In a world of 7b+ there are only around 300m or so consoles each gen at best, compare that to the number of Rokus etc. Still very niche in comparison to watching TV in general.
The fact that gaming is more profitable than TV/Film/Music just bolds the point I was making to begin with. That's what makes it easier to make a gaming sub profitable in comparison to TV/Film/Music - the comparative costs are much lower since users don't expect as much content.
Last edited:
Shmunter
Member
What sickening bile. Does your mum know you have access to the internet?
Interfectum
Member
Sony fans so desperate for a win they'll cling to anything at this point. We already circling back to Game Pass not being sustainable. Someone ask SE how happy they are with Outriders on Xbox right now.
Jim Ryan doing you guys dirty.
Jim Ryan doing you guys dirty.
Last edited:
SoraNoKuni
Member
It's apparent each day that this will not be good in the long term. I like Gamepass but it's not going to be good for us in the long term.
Gamepass as in older titles can work for the industry, AAA and exclusives day one on a subscription model is going to destroy these games sooner or later and if you can't understand why, you are part of the problem.
Gamepass as in older titles can work for the industry, AAA and exclusives day one on a subscription model is going to destroy these games sooner or later and if you can't understand why, you are part of the problem.
MiguelItUp
Member
Why do people act like developers and publishers unwillingly partake in having their title on Game Pass? Christ they're not held at gunpoint, it's something they agree to do. Multiple developers and publishers have already talked it up so much.
Why are y'all so worried about it when the teams working hard on these games aren't concerned and if anything, seemingly excited?
E V E R Y T H I N G is fine.
Game Pass is NOT ruining the industry, it's not ruining the work of developers, etc.
Y'all are being absolutely ridiculous, lmao.
Why are y'all so worried about it when the teams working hard on these games aren't concerned and if anything, seemingly excited?
E V E R Y T H I N G is fine.
Game Pass is NOT ruining the industry, it's not ruining the work of developers, etc.
Y'all are being absolutely ridiculous, lmao.
ethomaz
Banned
Expected... same happened with others titles like The Outer Worlds.
Each game deal is a different case.
Last edited:
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
Interfectum
Member
Phases of the Sony fan brain:
1. Game Pass isn't sustainable.
2. Game Pass only works cause it's a cheap rental service, I'd rather own my games!
3. Game Pass is ruining the industry. <-------------------- WE ARE HERE
4. I've subscribed to Game Pass.
Last edited:
MiguelItUp
Member
Xbox chief reveals more about how developers earn money through Game Pass
Phil Spencer says Microsoft's deals with developers are 'all over the place.'
www.pcgamer.com
"[In] certain cases, we’ll pay for the full production cost of the game. Then they get all the retail opportunity on top of Game Pass. They can go sell it on PlayStation, on Steam, and on Xbox, and on Switch. [...] Sometimes the developer’s more done with the game and it’s more just a transaction of, 'Hey, we’ll put it in Game Pass if you’ll pay us this amount of money.'"
"Others want [agreements] more based on usage and monetization in whether it’s a store monetization that gets created through transactions, or usage. We’re open [to] experimenting with many different partners, because we don’t think we have it figured out. When we started, we had a model that was all based on usage. Most of the partners said, 'Yeah, yeah, we understand that, but we don’t believe it, so just give us the money upfront.'"
Last edited:
Roufianos
Member
How could anyone see this as a win for PlayStation fans?
More of them had to go out and pay full-price on this game versus Xbox players who got it in their subscription.
Last edited:
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
We had games like once every 5 years last gen from big studios like naughty dog. I'd prefer more frequent games with maybe a smaller budget than waiting so long between games.
Interfectum
Member
Anecdotal but I have a large friends list on both platforms and over the weekend one person was playing Outriders on PS5, on Xbox there were more than 30.
The Alien
Banned
Even weirder take considering Sony players had only one option...to buy the game.
Guess this also doesn't take PC into account where the game was #1 on Steam.
Who cares....XBox has been killing it the past 2 months: closing Bethesda deal, GamePass (Outriders, The Show).
DrAspirino
Banned
Of course it leads to increased sales.... microtransactions and DLC sales.
Gravemind
Member
They pretend like sales figures and profits mean the world only when it allows them to use that data as a means to console war.
If Sony's profits really meant that much to them, we wouldn't see 6 different threads calling for Jim Ryan's head on the main page right now.
AJUMP23
Member
I think the reduced access cost will cause the player base to be larger on Xbox, and that will in the end be the primary focus.
SoraNoKuni
Member
I can accept that, at least you understand what that means for the game industry and you actually prefer it, most people just deny outright that this model will have any impact on how games are made.
I am on the other side though, I prefer big productions that make me feel like enjoying something really unique.
I usually play indies to get my more classic gaming experience.
Interfectum
Member
The big productions will still happen... those are made to lure people on to Game Pass and keep them there. Netflix, Disney+ and the rest still do big productions.
The big thing that changes here is we will get more consistent AA experiences in between the AAA.
Gavon West
Spread's Cheeks for Intrusive Ads
Sorry. This post is stupid. If I can play a game on a service where I can then purchase that same game at a discount on same said service, I'm going to go that route 10 times out of 10. Not to mention there is ample time to purchase the game if/when it leaves rotation so I can still utilize my DLC if that's what I want to do.
They way some people try to minimize and villainize GP to defend Sony's old school business practices is a f@!$ing joke! I don't care how much money you make, if you can get the same product and access to that product at mere $15 a month, why the hell wouldn't you. Again, your post isn't well thought out or rational.
Schmick
Member
So if a deal is different there is no way any of us can speculate with any form of accuracy how much a developer could gain or lose going to Gamepass.
Schmick
Member
So developers have a say.Xbox chief reveals more about how developers earn money through Game Pass
Phil Spencer says Microsoft's deals with developers are 'all over the place.'
"[In] certain cases, we’ll pay for the full production cost of the game. Then they get all the retail opportunity on top of Game Pass. They can go sell it on PlayStation, on Steam, and on Xbox, and on Switch. [...] Sometimes the developer’s more done with the game and it’s more just a transaction of, 'Hey, we’ll put it in Game Pass if you’ll pay us this amount of money.'"
"Others want [agreements] more based on usage and monetization in whether it’s a store monetization that gets created through transactions, or usage. We’re open [to] experimenting with many different partners, because we don’t think we have it figured out. When we started, we had a model that was all based on usage. Most of the partners said, 'Yeah, yeah, we understand that, but we don’t believe it, so just give us the money upfront.'"
Duchess
Member
Going to be repeating stuff many of already know, but just for the purpose of debate:
Ultimately, we're all going to have to wait and see how this plays out in the longer run. Consider it an experiment, the results of which won't be known for several months.
If you're a game studio, what you're going to be asking yourself is whether you could've made more money from selling individual copies vs putting it on Game Pass. I imagine what Square-Enix have worked out is how much they would've made at the outset and charge MS that much (plus extra) to have it on the service.
How long is this game going to be on Game Pass for, anyway? Is it on-going, 3 months, 6 months..? If it's a limited time, SE might simply be exploiting Game Pass to build up a player base, then pull the game, and sell the player DLC, etc.
Ultimately, we're all going to have to wait and see how this plays out in the longer run. Consider it an experiment, the results of which won't be known for several months.
If you're a game studio, what you're going to be asking yourself is whether you could've made more money from selling individual copies vs putting it on Game Pass. I imagine what Square-Enix have worked out is how much they would've made at the outset and charge MS that much (plus extra) to have it on the service.
How long is this game going to be on Game Pass for, anyway? Is it on-going, 3 months, 6 months..? If it's a limited time, SE might simply be exploiting Game Pass to build up a player base, then pull the game, and sell the player DLC, etc.
Zeroing
Banned
Actually it makes it harder for a gaming service to exist! Lesser users, less money made to fill the expenses used for the exclusive/deals.
So in the future of the service we will see less and less big AAA games, that is not a bad thing but who knows how gamers will react.
Applying a tv model to gaming might not be the biggest idea! All those tv services were created while no exclusives were made, the service grown naturally then Netflix made exclusive content, making the other way around does not work. Example HBO max going free with adds is a example that exclusive deals to boost users on the service don’t work.
Disney does it because they are huge!
ethomaz
Banned
Exactly.
But you need to remember something maybe MS accept a deal in not their favor to create userbase right now but that can't continue in a long term.
So the deal in any form should be proportional to the amount of sales MS expect this game to sell in their console.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
I suspect like what happened with mobile gaming and then with digital distribution (“cheaper because the savings from removing the middleman and physical distribution will be passed to consumers”
) in a few years some people will ignore this and pretend they knew and wanted it…
Interfectum
Member
Once those 23 studios start pumping out monthly games there's no doubt MS will be more choosy over what they get from third parties. They'll still open their wallets for the heavy hitters though.
MS is in the same position Netflix was years ago... highly dependent on third party content. This will change over the next 2-3 years.
Last edited:
Interfectum
Member
Mobile gaming doesn't need tentpole titles to generate subs and hype... everyone already has a mobile phone. To maintain subscribers and to get more there will always be big productions in the pipeline. To say otherwise as of right now is pure fear mongering.I suspect like what happened with mobile gaming and then with digital distribution (“cheaper because the savings from removing the middleman and physical distribution will be passed to consumers”
GHG
Member
So... What part of my post exactly are you arguing with?
Did you even read what you quoted before responding?
I treat it like a demo service. For me that has a ton if value in a day and age where demos are few and far between. Usually all it takes is an hour to decide if I like something enough to buy it.
Based on how discussions have gone since the introduction of the service I'm not expecting to be the majority but then at the same time people shouldn't be surprised when the service ultimately results in a reduction in game sales.
Last edited:
Duchess
Member
See, this is the thing: everything used to be on Netflix. Then the content creators (Disney, Warner, Paramount, etc) all realised that there was money to be made from having their own services. The result was that content was yanked from Netflix, and now we have to subscribe to multiple services.
I can honestly see the same thing happening with things like Game Pass, where you need to purchase an extra "layer" to get access to the games. EA Play is available through Game Pass right now, but who knows if EA will change their mind in a year's time and demand an outside subscription once more. All down to the shareholders, I suppose.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
I genuinely feel like it will go the way of netflix. There will always be the big blockbuster cinema type experience games but there will also be the possibility of great smaller "series" type games where you will have great smaller budget projects more frequently.
That's what I hope for anyway.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
Subscriptions benefit from continuously released new content and not bing bang releases or game’s you download and enjoy. Microtransactions post download would also be on the rise to get the desired revenue sales would not offer. The bigger the game the hungrier whales it may need.
Mobile was not highlighted as saying “no more tentpole releases”, but more about rise in subscriptions, microtransactions, and gambling like mechanics/deep player behavioural tracking. A shift from enjoyement to engagement.
TrebleShot
Member
The solution is simple if you are a die hard PS5 fan suck up your pride and get an Xbox Series S or X if you fancy it.
Sony will see how popular it is and respond in kind.
Everyone is a winner.
Sony will see how popular it is and respond in kind.
Everyone is a winner.
Zeroing
Banned
If if needed EA will murder your cousin for money joking! But EA will do anything for money, not joking about this.
lol most people here would not buy/touch a Sony console if it was the other way around!
We are talking about scary high levels of brand loyalty! In both sides!
Last edited:
Interfectum
Member
From third parties? Sure. But the platform holder will maintain the Big Bang releases that don't need micro transactions as well. You mention mobile gaming but choose not to mention how Apple is handling Apple Arcade.
As a platform holder there is less of a desire to nickel and time the user and more of one to get them to play a variety of content they offer. If they subscribe for a single game or two they are addicted to they could lose that user over time, especially if that is a third party game offered elsewhere.
DaGwaphics
Member
The number of subscribers you need is directly related the costs associated with the content you are procuring for the service. Take Bethesda for example, they can turn a steady profit on 500m a year in revenue, so their production costs are less than that number per year. MS would need to run 34 Zenimaxes to equal that 17b a year Netflix is putting in for original content.
MS can do a lot with 35 - 40m subs, which is certainly attainable (probably room to go beyond that). Plus they still have traditional sales and MTX outside of GP revenue. Many of you are just bad at the maths.
Zeroing
Banned
So you have the inside data of gamepass numbers, profit, deals
The number of subscribers you need is directly related the costs associated with the content you are procuring for the service. Take Bethesda for example, they can turn a steady profit on 500m a year in revenue, so their production costs are less than that number per year. MS would need to run 34 Zenimaxes to equal that 17b a year Netflix is putting in for original content.
MS can do a lot with 35 - 40m subs, which is certainly attainable (probably room to go beyond that). Plus they still have traditional sales and MTX outside of GP revenue. Many of you are just bad at the maths.
Because Microsoft didn’t released anything of it. So you are just talking in theory...
ok cool, I guess.
EverydayBeast
thinks Halo Infinite is a new graphical benchmark
You can’t tell me Game Psss isn’t blockbuster all over again.
You're in a thread where the core concept is "Physical sales of a game in a country where its almost impossible to go out and buy physical games proves Game Pass kills purchases".
"Every subscriber is an extra tenner a month and there's a tipping point where that is profitable" doesn't seem like a bad presumption to make, all considering.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
OP you're claiming a victory for PlayStation because PS5 owners had to buy it, whilst Xbox owners got it for free....?!
That's really what you're doing?
1. Xbox gamers didn't get it for free.
2. You're assuming the OP claiming "victory"
3. Not sure why you are so sure that game "rentals" for something like Gamepass is all around better for the overall health of the industry, than solid sales numbers.
Schmick
Member
The
Idk, EA Play is already establishing itself within Gamepass. Not to mention EA still have the premium subscription service outside of GP. Not to mention rumours surfacing of Ubisoft adding their service to GP. It's seems to me that publishers see GP as a money making model and as GP grows, with EA and maybe Ubisoft, so does their profits.