- Mar 9, 2014
And I thought this thread was supposed to be mainly about Gears 5?Damn can we keep it on the game pass topic?
Investment now to hopefully earn profits down the road. It's speculative. Think about it, whenever any company invests money in anything they very rarely get an instant return and often takes years to pay for itself, GP is no different.Anyways I don’t care what you say about how much money ms has, that doesn’t mean jack about the business model of gsmepass being successful when there’s not a big enough install base to support it making a profit!
It must be possible, they are doing it.How is it possible to take a game that cost say $50mil and give it away for $1-2 and brag about 3 million players are playing game X?
Unless a dev self publishes then they would never see direct profit anyway, it goes to the publisher first. The publisher has a deal with the developer about how much of the revenue they get (both upfront during development and from sales). It's even further abstracted when you are a first party developer and becomes more about how much value you as a developer add to the entire product, it's not something that us armchair analysts can ever fully quantify. Things such as the internal support that they offer to other 1st and 3rd party developers or even how much they contribute to the hardware design that are simply unknown. you cannot judge the total value of a first party developer simply by the number of sales they generate. Traditionally that may have been the best metric and generally correct but the approach that MS are taking is so radically different to anything that anyone in the games industry has done before it becomes increasingly difficult to analyse.Where does the profit come from at this point for the devs? It’s like they’re making these games and Xbox just lays them the $50mil and tells them don’t worry about sales!
While other studios who sell their games at full price hit a sold 3 mil mark or lower get shuttered?
All I think most are saying is how is this a sustainable service when they’re not selling games and the number of games on the service have to get theirs too right? But at $2 a month?
I dunno I’m cool I’ll just keep reading
I think we all know the reason why a lot in this thread are taking the sustainability discussion and putting a negative spin on it, it supports a wider narrative that they want to perpetuate.
Why the fuck should we as consumers be worried about how sustainable GP is? I could understand it if they had shares in the company and were putting an investor hat on with their arguments but that isn't the case, it's all concern trolling. If I was an investor in MS I would be pretty happy with how my investment was going to be honest!
Even if the worst happens and GP gets canned we lose absolutely nothing. We still have our game saves and can go out and buy any of the games on there if we want to. As long as the service is running and remains the incredible value it is now then I will happily carry on subscribing and playing the great collection of games that are on there. As a consumer it's very difficult to find any negativity with GP which is why we are seeing the kind of discussions we are in this thread. NeoGAF members should be happy as they are effectively the ones getting the biggest wins with GamePass. GamePass is there to engage consumers more and gain a consistant and steady revenue stream from more of the userbase. Currently there are a top few percent who buy all the big games at full price day one, a middle who buy 1 or 2 big first party games each year and then a large majority of casuals who by having a rolling subscription will be spending more money, playing more games and engaging more with the eco-system than they otherwise would have done.