• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

David Jaffe Addresses the Concern Over Gaming Subscription Services

JerryinSoCal

Member
Apr 11, 2020
1,198
2,085
390
I’m not sure where you got those Halo 5 and MCC numbers but they are wrong, H5 sold 5 million copies by 2016 () and MCC 3.18 million by 2018 (VGChartz source but that’s all I could find). MCC sold an additional 2 million on PC much later. Even with margin of error there’s no way MCC did double H5.
The point is Halo used to sell nearly 10 million copies (some in the series over 10 million) the original Halo on the OG xbox sold more copies than Halo 5 did and the Xbox One sold a lot better than the original xbox. The series isn't anywhere near as popular as it used to be and neither is gears of war. They are still big franchises but they are fading, it doesn't help that the single player portions have gotten really bad since both games changed studios but MP is what keeps those two series going and both Halo 4 and Halo 5 saw their player counts drop quickly.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: wyvern_bloodfist

Men_in_Boxes

Member
May 31, 2020
6,092
12,029
665
The entire model encourages homogenization. Look at the mobile market, it'll be the same thing. This is what games as a service is: there's no point making a good product because you won't see any returns if it actually becomes a hit. Just make a safe product and stuff it full of microtransactions.

Why would it encourage homogenization? That's what I'm not understanding.

GamePass is a giant platter of ice cream samples. If you want to create the most appealing platter, would you just put a bunch of vanilla, and vanilla adjacent flavors on it?

Why would Microsoft want a service that has one type of game?

Classic Vanilla, French Vanilla, Vanilla Bean, Low Fat Vanilla, Sugar Free Vanilla.

Vs.

Classic Vanilla, Chocolate, Cookies and Cream, Mint Chip, Strawberry Swirl

Subscription services (Ice cream platters) wouldn't succeed by homogenizing their offerings.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2, 2018
838
1,818
435
Why would it encourage homogenization? That's what I'm not understanding.

GamePass is a giant platter of ice cream samples. If you want to create the most appealing platter, would you just put a bunch of vanilla, and vanilla adjacent flavors on it?

Why would Microsoft want a service that has one type of game?

Classic Vanilla, French Vanilla, Vanilla Bean, Low Fat Vanilla, Sugar Free Vanilla.

Vs.

Classic Vanilla, Chocolate, Cookies and Cream, Mint Chip, Strawberry Swirl

Subscription services (Ice cream platters) wouldn't succeed by homogenizing their offerings.
A subscription service is like an ice cream parlor that gives you the ice cream for a flat fee but charges you for the toppings. Their incentive is to come up with a bunch of innovative toppings to tempt you to spend your money on. They'll come out with new ice cream flavors too, provided they're cheap to develop and synergize well with the toppings.

The regular console model isn't an ice cream parlor, it's an actual restaurant. There's a ton of stuff on the menu and you can order whatever you want, but you have to pay for it. The incentive here is to create a wide variety of dishes that cater to a variety of different tastes.

Let's imagine that your subscription model ice cream parlor has a flavor that's a runaway success. That's not actually a good thing for them - they're not in the business of selling ice cream, they're in the business of selling toppings. If a bunch of people are coming in, paying the flat fee, and just getting ice cream with no toppings they're not making much money.

Whereas if your restaurant sells an artisanal cheeseburger or Neapolitan pizza or something that's a runaway success that's great for them. They'll probably start putting more stuff similar to that on the menu.
 
Last edited:

Chukhopops

Member
Mar 5, 2020
1,132
2,827
490
The point is Halo used to sell nearly 10 million copies (some in the series over 10 million) the original Halo on the OG xbox sold more copies than Halo 5 did and the Xbox One sold a lot better than the original xbox. The series isn't anywhere near as popular as it used to be and neither is gears of war. They are still big franchises but they are fading, it doesn't help that the single player portions have gotten really bad since both games changed studios but MP is what keeps those two series going and both Halo 4 and Halo 5 saw their player counts drop quickly.
I’m sorry but you keep being wrong about the numbers: OG Halo reached 4.2M sales by 2006, even after five years of sales it was under Halo 5.

Now it’s true that the peak was in the 360 era, but back then it was THE casual shooter and one of the only games to have proper online multiplayer with servers and lobbies and all (if we talk about Halo 3). Once Modern Warfare 4 came out many switched to the faster gameplay style of CoD and stayed there. So it’s less popular than “absolutely gigantic” I guess.

I’m not sure either where you got those H5 player counts but I played it for years and it was always active, as for Gears 5 you can play it today and fill a lobby in 10-15 seconds. Considering the consistency of the other numbers you brought, I’m not sure I can trust those.
 

Northeastmonk

Gold Member
Mar 18, 2013
14,082
3,265
970
Omaha, NE - USA
Sub services are only a kick in the balls if you’ve already purchased the stuff you want for full price and they turn around say, “here are those exact same pieces of entertainment again for X amount of dollars”. Me personally, I don’t know if that will ever work for me, but maybe my kids? Give them a console and a sub. I do that anyway with Kindle’s kids stuff. I think that is the part that sucks. Finding someone with some empathy or feels the same way. I think a lot of people are defining/discussing it because it’s the future of video games. I guess it’s just having too much of a personal opinion to be right about this. All the magic works behind the scenes. I never purchased movies and music like I do games too.
 
Last edited:

DarkMage619

Member
Jun 19, 2004
3,289
6,112
1,635
A subscription service is like an ice cream parlor that gives you the ice cream for a flat fee but charges you for the toppings. Their incentive is to come up with a bunch of innovative toppings to tempt you to spend your money on. They'll come out with new ice cream flavors too, provided they're cheap to develop and synergize well with the toppings.

The regular console model isn't an ice cream parlor, it's an actual restaurant. There's a ton of stuff on the menu and you can order whatever you want, but you have to pay for it. The incentive here is to create a wide variety of dishes that cater to a variety of different tastes.

Let's imagine that your subscription model ice cream parlor has a flavor that's a runaway success. That's not actually a good thing for them - they're not in the business of selling ice cream, they're in the business of selling toppings. If a bunch of people are coming in, paying the flat fee, and just getting ice cream with no toppings they're not making much money.

Whereas if your restaurant sells an artisanal cheeseburger or Neapolitan pizza or something that's a runaway success that's great for them. They'll probably start putting more stuff similar to that on the menu.
Wouldn't Game pass be like a buffet? All sorts of food for a flat fee. The whole point is to keep people coming in and appealing to the widest audience possible. If your buffet only serves one type of food as you suggest you are actually limiting your audience and will be shrinking your pool of potential customers.

In addition looking at Game pass right now is there any evidence that the offerings are getting more samey or being pumped full of microtransactions? I'm seeing sports, rpgs, racing games, indies, platformers, and shooters. At the end of the day if Game pass stops being a good value or falls into an abyss of games all being the same and being full of microtransactions, basically the opposite of today, it will fail and that will be the end of Game pass. MS has to keep up the value and variety, if not it won't survive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CatLady
Dec 2, 2018
838
1,818
435
Wouldn't Game pass be like a buffet? All sorts of food for a flat fee. The whole point is to keep people coming in and appealing to the widest audience possible. If your buffet only serves one type of food as you suggest you are actually limiting your audience and will be shrinking your pool of potential customers.

In addition looking at Game pass right now is there any evidence that the offerings are getting more samey or being pumped full of microtransactions? I'm seeing sports, rpgs, racing games, indies, platformers, and shooters. At the end of the day if Game pass stops being a good value or falls into an abyss of games all being the same and being full of microtransactions, basically the opposite of today, it will fail and that will be the end of Game pass. MS has to keep up the value and variety, if not it won't survive.
Sure, buffet works too. I think we can agree that food at buffets is notoriously bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Magnific0giganticus

Salz01

Member
Jan 21, 2010
2,747
505
1,010
I treat gamepass like a demo store. I download games that interest me, but if the game doesn’t keep my engagement, I delete and move on. If I buy a game, regardless if it doesn’t hold my interest or not in short period, I’ll likely revisit it later and continue playing It at some point. Because I invested my money on it I want to engage with it more. Same with streaming services and movies. I’d like to see a graph or comparison of that, because I’m sure there are more people like me. I‘d wager that people engage in something longer when they outright buy the product and own it vs try everything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dcmk7

martino

Member
Apr 25, 2013
6,815
4,780
810
France
Gamepass is literally non-existent. No-one in real like knows or cares about it.

Hell, even I don't even know or care about it.

It's not a gamepass. It's just a hard pass.
From new zealand.

this context is needed for this post to make sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CatLady

Men_in_Boxes

Member
May 31, 2020
6,092
12,029
665
A subscription service is like an ice cream parlor that gives you the ice cream for a flat fee but charges you for the toppings. Their incentive is to come up with a bunch of innovative toppings to tempt you to spend your money on. They'll come out with new ice cream flavors too, provided they're cheap to develop and synergize well with the toppings.

The regular console model isn't an ice cream parlor, it's an actual restaurant. There's a ton of stuff on the menu and you can order whatever you want, but you have to pay for it. The incentive here is to create a wide variety of dishes that cater to a variety of different tastes.

Let's imagine that your subscription model ice cream parlor has a flavor that's a runaway success. That's not actually a good thing for them - they're not in the business of selling ice cream, they're in the business of selling toppings. If a bunch of people are coming in, paying the flat fee, and just getting ice cream with no toppings they're not making much money.

Whereas if your restaurant sells an artisanal cheeseburger or Neapolitan pizza or something that's a runaway success that's great for them. They'll probably start putting more stuff similar to that on the menu.

An ice cream parlor that works to create and offer new, exciting, delicious flavors in order to earn my business?



And let's not ignore the fact that the traditional business model isn't exactly like a restaurant. You pay after your meal at a restaurant. The traditional model makes you pay for your meal before, while the restaurant owner counts his cash laughing at the fact that more than half of his patrons don't even finish their food. (Overly long, bloated games with repetitive gameplay make consumers drop games prematurely, which is what the traditional model encourages)

I'd also challenge your assumption that runaway successes aren't good for subscription services. I'm betting Phil Spencer wouldn't mind it if Halo Infinite is the biggest runaway success in XBoxs history. Call me crazy.

Let me ask you though, does this all boil down to one fact no one's bringing up? We agree that GamePass encourages MTX. I prefer MTX, you don't. To each his own. But we both believe that MTX heavy games benefit multiplayer more than single player. Is the hate GamePass recieves from single player gamers who are weary the industry might be shifting away from solo experiences? Is that what this comes down to?
 
Last edited:

DarkMage619

Member
Jun 19, 2004
3,289
6,112
1,635
I treat gamepass like a demo store. I download games that interest me, but if the game doesn’t keep my engagement, I delete and move on. If I buy a game, regardless if it doesn’t hold my interest or not in short period, I’ll likely revisit it later and continue playing It at some point. Because I invested my money on it I want to engage with it more. Same with streaming services and movies. I’d like to see a graph or comparison of that, because I’m sure there are more people like me. I‘d wager that people engage in something longer when they outright buy the product and own it vs try everything.
Is that a good thing? If you purchase a game and it doesn't hold your interest your out of the money regardless. If you play something on Game pass if it doesn't hold your interest you can move on to another title. If all the games are horrible you can end your sub. Most likely you can get out of Game pass if you are unsatisfied before you spend $70. People should also not forget that Game pass is an option. Traditional game purchases are and will continue to be available.
 
  • Empathy
Reactions: dcmk7
Dec 2, 2018
838
1,818
435
An ice cream parlor that works to create and offer new, exciting, delicious flavors in order to earn my business?
The main goal is to get you to buy toppings, not flavors.
And let's not ignore the fact that the traditional business model isn't exactly like a restaurant. You pay after your meal at a restaurant. The traditional model makes you pay for your meal before, while the restaurant owner counts his cash laughing at the fact that more than half of his patrons don't even finish their food. (Overly long, bloated games with repetitive gameplay make consumers drop games prematurely, which is what the traditional model encourages)
There's nothing about the traditional model that insists on bloated, overlong games. In fact prior to the last generation it was pretty common for single-player games to take about 10-12 hours to beat. The prevalence of ultralong games these days actually stems more so from microtransactions - the longer people play, the more microtransaction opportunities they'll be exposed to. Asscreed is the poster child for this phenomenon - the classic Asscreeds were 15-20 hour games, now they're 50+ hour games.

Single-player games that don't rely on microtransactions haven't had their lengths balloon nearly as much overall. God of War went from 10-12 hours to 20 hours, Uncharted went from 8-10 hours to 15 hours, DMC stayed strong at 11 hours. There are exceptions, of course (TLoU went from 15 hours to 24 hours, Red Dead went from 18 to 48 hours), but then again new games like Spider-Man (17 hours) or RE2 remake (8 hours) released at a reasonable length.

Game length is a business model decision for games that rely on microtransactions under the traditional model. The Gamepass model might mitigate against by compressing game lengths overall, but that'll be a function of the fact that it'll compress budgets overall so there'll be cuts across the board. All else being equal, games as a service still encourages longer game length because it leads to more microtransactions.

Game length in games without microtransaction is not a business model decision so much as it is a game design fad. As soon as publishers realize that critics and consumers have stopped prioritizing game length when deciding what to purchase, they'll stop insisting that devs pad their single-player games. Nothing about the traditional model insists on long games.
I'd also challenge your assumption that runaway successes aren't good for subscription services. I'm betting Phil Spencer wouldn't mind it if Halo Infinite is the biggest runaway success in XBoxs history. Call me crazy.
If Halo Infinite is the biggest runaway success in Xbox's history imagine how much money Phil will have left on the table if everyone is playing it for $15 on Gamepass.
Let me ask you though, does this all boil down to one fact no one's bringing up? We agree that GamePass encourages MTX. I prefer MTX, you don't. To each his own. But we both believe that MTX heavy games benefit multiplayer more than single player. Is the hate GamePass recieves from single player gamers who are weary the industry might be shifting away from solo experiences? Is that what this comes down to?
The overwhelming majority of the best games of all time have been and will continue to be single-player games. Insofar as Gamepass favors microtransactions that's a bad thing because microtransactions encourage shitty game design, and insofar as an emphasis on microtransactions favors multiplayer games that's also a bad thing because the best games are single-player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dcmk7

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
4,027
5,395
540
A subscription service is like an ice cream parlor that gives you the ice cream for a flat fee but charges you for the toppings. Their incentive is to come up with a bunch of innovative toppings to tempt you to spend your money on. They'll come out with new ice cream flavors too, provided they're cheap to develop and synergize well with the toppings.

The regular console model isn't an ice cream parlor, it's an actual restaurant. There's a ton of stuff on the menu and you can order whatever you want, but you have to pay for it. The incentive here is to create a wide variety of dishes that cater to a variety of different tastes.

Let's imagine that your subscription model ice cream parlor has a flavor that's a runaway success. That's not actually a good thing for them - they're not in the business of selling ice cream, they're in the business of selling toppings. If a bunch of people are coming in, paying the flat fee, and just getting ice cream with no toppings they're not making much money.

Whereas if your restaurant sells an artisanal cheeseburger or Neapolitan pizza or something that's a runaway success that's great for them. They'll probably start putting more stuff similar to that on the menu.

I wish the actual console gaming space worked anything like you envision it. :messenger_tears_of_joy:

The reality is that big publishers are getting safer and safer and more and more risk-averse as time goes on and that's with the traditional sales model. Just take a look at the breadth of titles released by any of the big publishers during the OG Xbox/PS2 era and compare that to the output for X1/PS4.

GP is additive for XGS not a replacement for retail, but for a moment if you make a hypothetical and say that a service is running true Netflix style and all revenue is coming from the subscription itself, there is no way that doesn't allow the creation of games that are a bit more experimental. Certainly, you want those safe bets too, but the resistance just isn't there for other types of content. With the traditional model you spend $100m and make a game, if it doesn't click and you can't recoup via sales, that's a loss. On the subscription service the same $100m is already recouped to start with (simply part of your content creation budget), so when it doesn't click with subscribers, that's still a problem, sure. Likely no sequel, but not a crippling financial loss. The subscription can't have all bombs, of course, because they need to keep customers satisfied, but they don't live and die with each piece of content individually.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2, 2018
838
1,818
435
GP is additive for XGS not a replacement for retail, but for a moment if you make a hypothetical and say that a service is running true Netflix style and all revenue is coming from the subscription itself, there is no way that doesn't allow the creation of games that are a bit more experimental. Certainly, you want those safe bets too, but the resistance just isn't there for other types of content. With the traditional model you spend $100m and make a game, if it doesn't click and you can't recoup via sales, that's a loss. On the subscription service the same $100m is already recouped to start with (simply part of your content creation budget), so when it doesn't click with subscribers, that's still a problem, sure. Likely no sequel, but not a crippling financial loss. The subscription can't have all bombs, of course, because they need to keep customers satisfied, but they don't live and die with each piece of content individually.
There is no way the $100m is the same for a game developed for a subscription model vs the traditional model. The traditional model is riskier: you might not recoup your investment, but you might recoup it several times over if your game overperforms expectations. The subscription model is safer, but there's no incentive whatsoever for budgets to be as high because there's no way to maximize the return on that investment.

Maybe it'll be conducive to indie and AA titles that are perceived by their publishers to not have much upside potential (which will tend to be bad games, frankly), but inventive games with the potential to sell a lot of copies will be leaving a lot of money on the table if they go Gamepass. And let's be frank about who tends to fund those games today: Sony and Nintendo, because they strengthen the health of their ecosystems. Will Microsoft be as energetic in financing the development of those types of games for Gamepass when the return on investment is so much less than under the traditional console model?
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Dec 29, 2019
4,027
5,395
540
There is no way the $100m is the same for a game developed for a subscription model vs the traditional model. The traditional model is riskier: you might not recoup your investment, but you might recoup it several times over if your game overperforms expectations. The subscription model is safer, but there's no incentive whatsoever for budgets to be as high because there's no way to maximize the return on that investment.

Mmmhhhh, nah, I'm not sold. The subscription service needs content that is perceived to be high quality in order to maintain subscribers and generate interest. Netflix is a perfect example, do they fund a lot of lower cost content, absolutely. Do they also spend more than traditional TV networks and even Motion picture studios at times, absolutely. When Netflix throws money at Martin Scorsese, Alfonso Cuarón, or Sofia Coppola they are chasing those accolades and they do a good job at getting them. The same will happen with a gaming subscription, and if the director isn't completely overrated, they will try to do the best they can with the budget they are given to work with. With the added benefit of a lot less pressure on financial returns (probably more pressure in regards to how the final product is perceived by critics than anything else).

There's a reason Netflix spends $17b on content out of the $25b they take in, they need to in order to secure the $25b. Could they make/purchase only the cheapest of content and save 9 or 10 billion, sure, but the $25b figure would sink like a stone as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DarkMage619
Dec 2, 2018
838
1,818
435
Mmmhhhh, nah, I'm not sold. The subscription service needs content that is perceived to be high quality in order to maintain subscribers and generate interest. Netflix is a perfect example, do they fund a lot of lower cost content, absolutely. Do they also spend more than traditional TV networks and even Motion picture studios at times, absolutely. When Netflix throws money at Martin Scorsese, Alfonso Cuarón, or Sofia Coppola they are chasing those accolades and they do a good job at getting them. The same will happen with a gaming subscription, and if the director isn't completely overrated, they will try to do the best they can with the budget they are given to work with. With the added benefit of a lot less pressure on financial returns (probably more pressure in regards to how the final product is perceived by critics than anything else).
Platform holders already do this under the current model, though. Sony threw a ton of money at Kojima for Death Stranding, for instance. The difference is that Sony makes a lot more money from PlayStation (from sales of first-party published games and from royalties on third-party games) than Microsoft does from Gamepass, so can be expected to be more willing to generously finance halo products.
 

RedWhiteBlue

Banned
Jul 5, 2019
244
502
305
I don't mind a subscription service for access to last gen and older games.

Same as Netflix really. I am looking for good solid classics mostly because their "originals" and other new content is just garbage that seems to be there purely to pad out their library and give people "something to watch".

It was always that way with cable and satellite TV where you could sit down and flick through all the channels mindlessly. Maybe replaced by scrolling social media.

I think the ideal for many publishers would be to strike gold with something like Fortnite where the game just becomes a platform to sell stuff.

For the best quality in gaming I still think you'd be looking at stand alone premium purchases.

I actually think Netflix and GamePass will go down this road once they are fully established. It'll be your monthly subscription BUT they will have special big event releases that will cost more for day one access. Wait and see.
 

JerryinSoCal

Member
Apr 11, 2020
1,198
2,085
390
I’m sorry but you keep being wrong about the numbers: OG Halo reached 4.2M sales by 2006, even after five years of sales it was under Halo 5.

Now it’s true that the peak was in the 360 era, but back then it was THE casual shooter and one of the only games to have proper online multiplayer with servers and lobbies and all (if we talk about Halo 3). Once Modern Warfare 4 came out many switched to the faster gameplay style of CoD and stayed there. So it’s less popular than “absolutely gigantic” I guess.

I’m not sure either where you got those H5 player counts but I played it for years and it was always active, as for Gears 5 you can play it today and fill a lobby in 10-15 seconds. Considering the consistency of the other numbers you brought, I’m not sure I can trust those.
You are using VGchartz so I'm not sure you should be talking confidently about numbers lol. Remember when Halo 5 launched? MS never gave sales numbers they gave us a dollar amount and that included things like Halo 5 bundles where the price of the console was included as well as any halo themed controllers or other peripherals as well as the game. The series is in decline, Halo 5's MP held up a little better than Halo 4 (most people say it was better) but it's still not anywhere near what it used to be and that's likely to continue.
 

Men_in_Boxes

Member
May 31, 2020
6,092
12,029
665
The main goal is to get you to buy toppings, not flavors.

There's nothing about the traditional model that insists on bloated, overlong games. In fact prior to the last generation it was pretty common for single-player games to take about 10-12 hours to beat. The prevalence of ultralong games these days actually stems more so from microtransactions - the longer people play, the more microtransaction opportunities they'll be exposed to. Asscreed is the poster child for this phenomenon - the classic Asscreeds were 15-20 hour games, now they're 50+ hour games.

Single-player games that don't rely on microtransactions haven't had their lengths balloon nearly as much overall. God of War went from 10-12 hours to 20 hours, Uncharted went from 8-10 hours to 15 hours, DMC stayed strong at 11 hours. There are exceptions, of course (TLoU went from 15 hours to 24 hours, Red Dead went from 18 to 48 hours), but then again new games like Spider-Man (17 hours) or RE2 remake (8 hours) released at a reasonable length.

Game length is a business model decision for games that rely on microtransactions under the traditional model. The Gamepass model might mitigate against by compressing game lengths overall, but that'll be a function of the fact that it'll compress budgets overall so there'll be cuts across the board. All else being equal, games as a service still encourages longer game length because it leads to more microtransactions.

Game length in games without microtransaction is not a business model decision so much as it is a game design fad. As soon as publishers realize that critics and consumers have stopped prioritizing game length when deciding what to purchase, they'll stop insisting that devs pad their single-player games. Nothing about the traditional model insists on long games.

If Halo Infinite is the biggest runaway success in Xbox's history imagine how much money Phil will have left on the table if everyone is playing it for $15 on Gamepass.

The overwhelming majority of the best games of all time have been and will continue to be single-player games. Insofar as Gamepass favors microtransactions that's a bad thing because microtransactions encourage shitty game design, and insofar as an emphasis on microtransactions favors multiplayer games that's also a bad thing because the best games are single-player.

- There's actually two main goals with GamePass. Get more subscribers (+$15 per month) and sell more toppings (MTX). So you're ignoring the fact that homogenization actively works against the strategy of drawing new subscribers. Why release more Halo and Halo like games (vanilla) if you already got the Halo fans subscribing to your service? Once you get the people who love vanilla on board, it's time to offer chocolate. Once vanilla and chocolate lovers are subscribing, it's time to create a cinnamon ice cream, and so on and so forth....This encourages innovation + creativity and less vanilla.

The industry is definitely dealing with bloat under the old model. Games are too long today and the completion rates are, imo, abysmal. Consider this...

The Last of Us II, chopped into 6 parts, each part sells for $10 dollars (MTX). The people that loved The Last of Us II will gladly spend the $60 dollars. But there's a huge chunk of people that grew too bored to finish it, and then there's another chunk of people who only finished it because "Damn it, I payed good money on this I better see it through.". That model is anti consumer. The MTX model would allow all gamers to pay what they think the game is worth.

GamePass only encourages added game length to the games worthy of longer game length. Plant 10 seeds, two of them are showing potential/organic growth, then you water those two sprouts.

The old model says "Drive full resources to all projects and who cares if 8/10 don't warant the resources?

Game length (under the traditional model) isn't driven by engagement. See the paltry completion rates for most single player games. The unhealthy question developers+publishers have to ask themselves is "How do we remove $60 (now $70) from consumers before they engage with our game"? The answer is typically a cocktail of bad ideas. Spend a crazy amount of resources on high fidelity visuals, a big FOMO marketing blitz, a tacked on multiplayer mode, and bloated overly long game design.

I do feel our conversation is chipping away at the truth. You're comment about single player games being better than multiplayer games is driving your stance here, not necessarily logic.

MTX + GamePass benefit multiplayer more than single player. Obviously single player gamers are going to fear what MS is doing with GamePass.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DarkMage619

MacReady13

Member
Jun 22, 2018
1,173
1,360
455
The cinema experience and the quality of a movie are two different things. During Covid I have enjoyed watching new releases on HBO Max in the comfy seating in my home theater. The cinema experience wouldn't have made the new Mortal Kombat a good movie. In fact I would have hated to waste $25 on a ticket, popcorn and obscenely oversized soda to see it.
This is how it’s been for ages. Who cares if anyone wastes money on a film at the cinema? It’s the thrill of seeing a film on the big screen with other like minded people. Stop making excuses as to why NOT see a film at the cinema. If you don’t want to go that’s fine, but losing the cinema experience is a sad state of affairs. I’d rather watch 2001 A Space Odyssey at the cinema over a home setup any day of the week.
 

Shelookdlvl18

Banned
Nov 8, 2020
558
1,064
360
You are using VGchartz so I'm not sure you should be talking confidently about numbers lol. Remember when Halo 5 launched? MS never gave sales numbers they gave us a dollar amount and that included things like Halo 5 bundles where the price of the console was included as well as any halo themed controllers or other peripherals as well as the game. The series is in decline, Halo 5's MP held up a little better than Halo 4 (most people say it was better) but it's still not anywhere near what it used to be and that's likely to continue.
It's obvious you're trying every which way possible to suggest that Halo as a franchise is in decline.

The lack of competition back in the earlier Halo days compared to now is likely the biggest contributor to your opinion.

As to this specific post of yours. Your entire premise is based on the assumption that Halo 5 didn't sell well because MS didn't release sales numbers. As if that's an indication that it sold poorly, when MS has consistently omitted sales numbers for pretty much everything.

There is some relevant sales data on H5. That info puts Halo 5 likely somewhere between 8.5- 10 million copies sold.

• Frankie Oconnor mentioned right here on GAF that Halo 5 sold 5 million in 3 months.
• Steamgauge had at least 8.3 million installs of Halo 5 back in May 2017.
• Halo 5's price remained significantly higher than other games that did in fact sell poorly. It's by no means a certainty, but it is an indicator.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: DarkMage619

Kenpachii

Member
Mar 23, 2018
8,988
11,222
815
You are using VGchartz so I'm not sure you should be talking confidently about numbers lol. Remember when Halo 5 launched? MS never gave sales numbers they gave us a dollar amount and that included things like Halo 5 bundles where the price of the console was included as well as any halo themed controllers or other peripherals as well as the game. The series is in decline, Halo 5's MP held up a little better than Halo 4 (most people say it was better) but it's still not anywhere near what it used to be and that's likely to continue.

Because they made the dog shit decision to push it on xbox and exclude it from PC, with that e-sports was also out of the question when e-sports started to jump forwards.

Microsoft only cared for halo because it sold them consoles, that was there only reason for ever investing into the IP to start with.

This is also microsoft biggest enemy, nobody trusts them even remotely on the PC space and won't invest into anything they make unless its practically cheap. They have a absolute dog shit reputation on that platform and they did it all to themselves.
 

Thirty7ven

Sony make cringe trainers.
Apr 13, 2020
4,322
16,647
660
The idea that big budget movies improved because of streaming is just a completely and utter lie, and Netflix is filled to the brim with trash TV shows. HBO is a lot better with quality control.

That said movie/tv shows have a defined production pipeline with completely different scheduling expectations. Trying to look at movies or tv shows and say “what’s the difference” shows a complete lack of knowledge.
 

Zeroing

Member
Sep 19, 2019
1,341
1,825
385
A guy with a Twitter account, trying to defend a service… then more people joining in defending the service.
Meanwhile I wonder! With so much time spent arguing on the internet does people have time to use it?

if the service is good and harmless then it doesn’t need people defending.


yet, here we go again, non stop talking about gamepass, how it’s amazing and how it will make the gaming industry better..

we skipped a few phases… first the service needs to be popular to even have any effects on the gaming industry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dcmk7

DarkMage619

Member
Jun 19, 2004
3,289
6,112
1,635
A guy with a Twitter account, trying to defend a service… then more people joining in defending the service.
Meanwhile I wonder! With so much time spent arguing on the internet does people have time to use it?

if the service is good and harmless then it doesn’t need people defending.


yet, here we go again, non stop talking about gamepass, how it’s amazing and how it will make the gaming industry better..

we skipped a few phases… first the service needs to be popular to even have any effects on the gaming industry.
This is pretty funny. People defend what they care about. Look at overzealous PlayStation fans. They fight, name call, and troll anyone who isn't on the Sony hype train. PlayStation is the biggest gaming brand in the world next to Nintendo yet those guys seem pretty durn unhappy which is shocking. Why aren't they spending more time playing the bestest gaming system ever? PlayStation needs no defense yet those guys are in the trenches every day. Sometimes people need to look in the mirror.

Game pass offers fantastic value for people who aren't opposed to it for some sort of philosophical reason. If it turns into a MTX laden, samey genre having, over priced service that kicks your dog in the morning it will die out. Most of the criticisms of the platform are 'what ifs' or 'how much money does MS make on it though'. Seems to me it should be judged by what it is today and if that changes the evaluation should be reassessed.
 

Zeroing

Member
Sep 19, 2019
1,341
1,825
385
This is pretty funny. People defend what they care about. Look at overzealous PlayStation fans. They fight, name call, and troll anyone who isn't on the Sony hype train. PlayStation is the biggest gaming brand in the world next to Nintendo yet those guys seem pretty durn unhappy which is shocking. Why aren't they spending more time playing the bestest gaming system ever? PlayStation needs no defense yet those guys are in the trenches every day. Sometimes people need to look in the mirror.

Game pass offers fantastic value for people who aren't opposed to it for some sort of philosophical reason. If it turns into a MTX laden, samey genre having, over priced service that kicks your dog in the morning it will die out. Most of the criticisms of the platform are 'what ifs' or 'how much money does MS make on it though'. Seems to me it should be judged by what it is today and if that changes the evaluation should be reassessed.
I try to see from all sides…. I have it on pc. And after that “hype” that happened where some months ago, I used it and I left disappointed on the service!
At least I tried and made my opinion by myself. While there’s also tons of people who dislike it just because it’s xbox, there’s also a ton of people defending the service for console wars points… the “look into the mirror” works for every “team”
 
  • Like
Reactions: dcmk7