• 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.

Striking Distance CEO claims gamepass model is tough to sell single player games in



The Callisto Protocol developer, Striking Distance Studios, considered adding its upcoming horror game to Xbox Game Pass, but "as a single-player linear game, it's really hard to be successful in those types of services."​


"As an independent, third-party, it's really hard to make a linear third-person game work within those services. I'm not saying never; it's hard financially to make that work," James concludes.
 

winjer

Gold Member
I would have liked a more in depth explanation of why that is.
Other third party games are coming to gamepass, that don't seem to have this problem.

Maybe they expect huge sales figures for their game...
 
Doesn't really say much. GP gets games like Wo Long, so it can be done. They apparently asked for a price higher than MS was willing to pay I guess? He doesn't really explain.

I don't typically expect a ton of third party AAA games on GP. It's usually going to be first party, AA, indies, and a couple notable third party games per year (Scarlet Nexus, Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, Wo Long, etc). The bulk of the service isn't third party games like Callisto Protocol. I wasn't expecting it on GP at all.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
There are dozens of counter-examples though. I guess he just wasn't satisfied with Microsoft's offer.


MS's offer wasn't probably even a thing in this case. They announced PS exclusive content a while ago, i-e it has a marketing agreement with Sony. No doubt this has first right of refusal to Sony ala the leaked Village contract for sub services as well.

Meanwhile another studio like I/O is happy to praise and talk about the revenue, performance bonuses and minimum guarantees they got from game pass in their earnings call for Hitman, another single player franchise.
 
Last edited:

MiguelItUp

Member
Honestly, I think that model does more for single player experiences, than multiplayer ones. I just feel like there are "other reasons" at play here. Much like the mentioned exclusive PS content. Feels more like an excuse than anything. But, who knows, maybe it is his opinion, lol.
 

AmuroChan

Member
For 3rd party games to release on a sub service day 1, it comes down to what the internal projections are for sales vs what the offer is from the sub provider. Let's say Callisto Protocol is projected to make $250m revenue in the first 6 months of release. If MS or Sony wants the game on their service day 1, they have to offer an amount satisfactory to the developer to offset the losses from selling less copies.

There are two ways you can look at the CEO's comments:
1. Striking Distance does not want to put CP on Gamepass day 1 period.
2. Striking Distance is open to putting CP on Gamepass day 1, and the CEO is saying this in order to increase the asking price.
 
MS's offer wasn't probably even a thing in this case. They announced PS exclusive content a while ago, i-e it has a marketing agreement with Sony. No doubt this has first right of refusal to Sony ala the leaked Village contract for sub services as well.
I imagine he went fishing for marketing deals at both Sony and MS, and Gamepass might've even been on the table. Who knows.
Meanwhile another studio like I/O is happy to praise and talk about the revenue, performance bonuses and minimum guarantees they got from game pass in their earnings call for Hitman, another single player franchise.
Many such cases!
 

timmyp53

Member
MS's offer wasn't probably even a thing in this case. They announced PS exclusive content a while ago, i-e it has a marketing agreement with Sony. No doubt this has first right of refusal to Sony ala the leaked Village contract for sub services as well.

Meanwhile another studio like I/O is happy to praise and talk about the revenue, performance bonuses and minimum guarantees they got from game pass in their earnings call for Hitman, another single player franchise.
Interesting but Hitman is essentially a running service game so maybe a real real bad example.
 
Last edited:

Mr Moose

Member
MS's offer wasn't probably even a thing in this case. They announced PS exclusive content a while ago, i-e it has a marketing agreement with Sony. No doubt this has first right of refusal to Sony ala the leaked Village contract for sub services as well.

Meanwhile another studio like I/O is happy to praise and talk about the revenue, performance bonuses and minimum guarantees they got from game pass in their earnings call for Hitman, another single player franchise.
Wait, did Hitman launch day one on Game Pass? The only thing I found after a quick search was Hitman 3 (trilogy) a year after launch.
https://www.polygon.com/22881790/hitman-3-trilogy-xbox-pc-game-pass-steam-vr-release-date
 

MiguelItUp

Member
MS's offer wasn't probably even a thing in this case. They announced PS exclusive content a while ago, i-e it has a marketing agreement with Sony. No doubt this has first right of refusal to Sony ala the leaked Village contract for sub services as well.

Meanwhile another studio like I/O is happy to praise and talk about the revenue, performance bonuses and minimum guarantees they got from game pass in their earnings call for Hitman, another single player franchise.
I know the Guardians of the Galaxy devs were applauding it as well. Because the game didn't sell/do well, but on Game Pass it got a lot more exposure and attention.
 

fart town usa

Gold Member
I see no issue with this.

Just because Gamepass exists, it doesn't mean that every game has to be on there. Too much self-entitlement. Get the game if you want it, or don't. No sense getting worked up if something isn't offered at an exorbitant discount.
 
Thats not really a ‘gotcha’ thats usually what happens when a game hit sales saturation. He’s talking about releasing a game day 1 on the service as a 3rd party AAA developer
Eh, if all Microsoft first party games release on GamePass day one while 50%-75% of larger 3rd party games come to the service 6+ months after launch, that is still significant value.
 

Leyasu

Banned
Thats not really a ‘gotcha’ thats usually what happens when a game hit sales saturation. He’s talking about releasing a game day 1 on the service as a 3rd party AAA developer
Yes, and then he could have set his own figures like….

“We can put our game on gamepass day one for 6 months. If we do that though, we estimate losing 3 million full price sales”. “So for this to happen, you need to pay us 120m dollars”

Which A, probably cost more than the game cost to make.

B, Microsoft are not the publisher

C, are not getting it exclusively.

So why would they? And are you really trying to say that that amount of money would not be enough ? Considering that it is still for sale on Xbox, PlayStation and pc!

It’s nothing to do with single player games not being viable, and everything to do with getting the offer that they want.
 
Last edited:

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
You don't need to be a fucking genius.

Game Pass is designed to kill Pure Single Player experiences.
Correction: Pure single player experiences are past their expiration date. That model gets ****ed no matter where you release on.


Nah it will do numbers on Playstation and PC.
Not if they don't solve the issue of what killed Dead Space.
 

Warnen

Don't pass gaas, it is your Destiny!
Jimmy giving him a handy under the table as he was respond to this question.


Most of the games I play on gamepass are single player…
 
Last edited:
Makes you think. When making a game don’t you want as many people to play as possible? I get they are trying to make money as well. What’s the priority?
For a smaller up-and-coming studio like Striking Distance, the goal of the first game in their portfolio should probably be to recoup enough money to continue existing as a feasible company. I'm almost certain Calisto Protocol will make it to GamePass before the end of 2023 anyway.
 

The_Mike

I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
No one is forcing to put their games on game pass.

Cooking Simulator got 600.000 usd for day one. Sounds like he is bitter over he didn't get that offer.

I don't know what his crying over.

I'm sure it's tough.


[/URL]



Very tough with the weight of the marketing deals.

Ah, blue money does the talking.

Pretty pathetic to cry about a service when you at the same time gets a delicious dinner from the opposing platform.
 
Up front money and more eyes on your game? Did well for Psychonauts 2, hades, Outerworlds etc. don’t think this comment has much merit. This applies to PS + as well. I’m sure stray did much better than it would have otherwise.
 

Foilz

Banned
I would say 80% of the games on game pass are single player. I get that the devs or pubs want that $70 per sale and they need the #'s but most games don't sell that well. Outside of the major franchises how many games really sell over a million.
 

Hydroxy

Member
Well I will certainly be waiting for it to come to GP considering they increased the price from $15 to $40 in my country. No regional pricing, no buy.
 

Sosokrates

Report me if I continue to console war
I doubt even Phil would pay that much.

Guardians is between 5~ 10 rumored.

Didn't Sony buy insomniac for like 250 million.

I should of said that would be for a day1 release, the deal has to be at least equal to projected sales of the game.

It seems high, but thats what these kind of deals would cost.

Sony got a great deal for insomniac, insomniac could of got way more, at least double.
 

NickFire

Member
Up front money and more eyes on your game? Did well for Psychonauts 2, hades, Outerworlds etc. don’t think this comment has much merit. This applies to PS + as well. I’m sure stray did much better than it would have otherwise.
Whether a 3rd party single player game makes financial sense for day 1 subscription will vary game by game. If the game is highly desired and looking like it will review well, it makes much less sense unless a subscription service is willing to offset projected losses from not selling day 1. If either of those things are not true, it probably makes more sense to take money upfront (plus potential word of mouth of course) in lieu of day 1 sales. That word of mouth can be a big revenue driver, but think about a game like Elden Ring. Great word of mouth, but would it really have sold as many 60 copies if it had been part of a sub for a major service? And would a major service have even considered paying an amount equal to 70% of the revenue lost by every person who played it day 1 on a sub? Both seem unlikely to me.
 

timmyp53

Member
It's a very intriguing time. For reference MS paid 100 million for rise of the tomb raider timed exclusivity and that game would go on to retail at full price.

We might not understand the effects of subscription service models on games industry for awhile especially because MS in particular doesnt have to release financial breakdowns
 
Top Bottom