Support NeoGAF

[Hobbygaming]

Not subscription gaming by itself, AAA gaming would decline

 

[PeteBull]

For me its not even matter of if its profitable or not, its a matter of how it affects first party studio games who are all pushed towards making GaaS games filled with mtx, so genre i got 0 interest towars, thats the biggest turn off.
U can add on top some other factors, like for example if playstation exclusive gets pushed back- its ok, u will pay for it if/when it launches and u like it, if xbox exclusive gets pushed back, then u have to pay additional weeks/months(and sometimes years) for possibility of playing it as a part of gamepass deal.

So for example if i bought Gamepass say in july for 6 months, just to play starfield in november, and now it got delayed(we dont even know to when, might be january, might be november 2023) thats significant cost increase of playing it(and no, i dont give a damn about indies or 2ndrate AAA games who are released on it months after actual launch.

 

[feynoob]

A game with that kind of expensive license probably needs to be a monster hit to be successful enough to be worthwhile. The cost of doing that kind of business is high. If that's the kind of thing that we might see disappear, meh, but those games are going nowhere.

Personally speaking, I think they (expensive movie licenses, etc) are the kinds of games that don't need our support. If you care about games, support the ones that bring their own ideas and aren't constrained by brand managers who will be dictating what you can and can't do with their license. Marvel will be fine either way.

The GOTG team might well have made a better game with their own characters and scenario. It would have probably been more interesting to meet new characters than find a new way to package the Cinematic Universe at least (IMO).

If a popular series can generate that much sales, doubt a new game with unknown characters would generate that much sales.

Which brings to key point. Unless your IP is popular, you would have a hard time selling your games.

Arkane games would have died, had Microsoft not purchased zenimax. Simply because their games weren't bringing enough money.

Current model favors big games, with big marketing.

 

[SaucyJack]

Yes, with a BUT.

BUT be careful what you wish for, it may come at a cost of changing the gaming landscape in ways that you don’t want.

 

[Black_Stride]

Subscription as the only way - No
Subscription as an add on - Yes

 

[Elios83]

It depends on the contents.
It makes sense for smaller/niche titles that can gain a visibility that otherwise they would never obtain.
It makes sense for 6-12 months old games that have already exhausted their retail sales potential.
It makes sense for GaaS titles and games filled with mtx and paid extra contents but in this case you could argue that the F2P model is even better.
It will never make sense for AAA high quality single player mega productions, you're only losing money there if you want to go day one on such services.
Subscriptions have their place in their industry but it's difficult they will become the only business model, games are not music or movies.

 

[nkarafo]

Yes but they will have to make streaming the standard first and completely kill local files to remove control and ownership from consumers.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

If a popular series can generate that much sales, doubt a new game with unknown characters would generate that much sales.

Which brings to key point. Unless your IP is popular, you would have a hard time selling your games.

Current model favors big games, with big marketing.

I think I'm looking at it from the other angle to you. In my opinion, games are becoming less interesting because of an over reliance on existing characters and the costs involved in licensing them. Cards on the table, I thought GOTG was a solid 7/10, but I personally wouldn't care if we never saw a movie license game again. I'm sure there'll be a great one along at some point, but the license doesn't make the game generally speaking, the game and the ideas contained within does.

Because those license costs are so high, the games that are made have to appeal to as many people as possible. Designers can take comparatively few chances and risks, because there's too much riding on it, AND someone from Marvel will be saying "no, you can't do that because that doesn't align with the brand's values" etc.

So, basically, while I think that GOTG was an ok game - without the license it might have been a great game with more interesting ideas. Without the license, production would be cheaper, it wouldn't have had to sell as many copies to be a success.

So, I think in a discussion about whether game subscriptions will choke out originality and interesting ideas, a Marvel franchise game might not be the one to cite when looking for things to worry about.

I think if you're worried about that, it's better to support smaller games that don't depend on having already famous characters on the artwork.

There will not be a shortage of Marvel games, but if there is, then there will still be games as good as Guardians of the Galaxy, IMO. Maybe even better. Take chances on playing things that haven't been introduced by the cinema or on Disney Plus - they will be fine.

And ironically, highlighting lesser known games is something Gamepass does very well, I've played lots of things I wouldn't have played otherwise. I played Metal Hellsinger last night - which I recommend btw, and so perhaps Gamepass can be seen as a force for good by supporting some smaller games (though GOTG was on GP!).

So, yes, well known IP it's easier to sell but it's arguably not much of a positive for design and innovation, which personally I'm looking for now.

 

[TheGecko]

It is but you have to remember this,

Subscription game services will have one or two top tier games in a generation, the rest of the generation will be filler trash. This is how sub services work.

 

[ergem]

Not subscription gaming by itself, AAA gaming would decline

If sub service becomes the prevalent way to consume games then I agree with you.

It will only enrich MS and Sony since every dollar goes to them while they simply cut deals with devs and publisher of their choosing.

We need the market to be open as it is now where gamers decide which games are worth it or not.

The good thing is that most gamers are choosing not to sub and just buy the games they want.

 

[Punished Miku]

The bi-weekly anti gamepass thread.

Bi-weekly?

 

[Damigos]

When we go full digital as the ONLY to buy games there may be a tier in PS plus or GP (maybe $300 / year) where you have to access to everything, like Netflix

 

[Winter John]

I've been crunching the numbers and I'm supremely confident that if Phil Spector keeps up with this commie nonsense MS will go bust by next March.

 

[rofif]

It is because casuals eat this shit up.
Digital has already taken over and it was the 1st step...

 

[Havoc2049]

It depends on the contents.
It makes sense for smaller/niche titles that can gain a visibility that otherwise they would never obtain.
It makes sense for 6-12 months old games that have already exhausted their retail sales potential.
It makes sense for GaaS titles and games filled with mtx and paid extra contents but in this case you could argue that the F2P model is even better.
It will never make sense for AAA high quality single player mega productions, you're only losing money there if you want to go day one on such services.
Subscriptions have their place in their industry but it's difficult they will become the only business model, games are not music or movies.

Your concern is for one and done AAA single player only games, a game type that Microsoft barely makes and the industry as a whole barely makes. Even the vast majority of AAA single player action/adventure games and RPGs have digital deluxe editions, DLC and micro transactions. Gamepass only includes the base game. Get people engaged and hooked on the base game at $10-$15 per month and sell them upgrades to the digital deluxe version, DLC, costume packs, car sets, ship sets, plane sets, weapon sets/skins, map packs, season passes, etc.

 

[Lasha]

For me its not even matter of if its profitable or not, its a matter of how it affects first party studio games who are all pushed towards making GaaS games filled with mtx, so genre i got 0 interest towars, thats the biggest turn off.
U can add on top some other factors, like for example if playstation exclusive gets pushed back- its ok, u will pay for it if/when it launches and u like it, if xbox exclusive gets pushed back, then u have to pay additional weeks/months(and sometimes years) for possibility of playing it as a part of gamepass deal.

So for example if i bought Gamepass say in july for 6 months, just to play starfield in november, and now it got delayed(we dont even know to when, might be january, might be november 2023) thats significant cost increase of playing it(and no, i dont give a damn about indies or 2ndrate AAA games who are released on it months after actual launch.

Why would you subscribe to gamepass in July to play a game that is supposed to come out in November?

 

[GreatnessRD]

Unfortunately, yes. Even if the game is shit tier, psychopaths still buy skins while singing "They're gonna make the game better in 3 months, don't worry guys".

 

[mansoor1980]

only if optional , even phil spencer admitted that recently

 

[sainraja]

It certainly can be....taking gaming subs out of the equation for a min (to avoid any fanboy backlash ), a sub's value is based entirely on the content it offers. If it can continue doing that, then yeah...it is. From a business perspective, I don't have much to add. I know it costs money to provide content but that isn't really our problem.

Personally, I have never been a fan of sub services but you really can't avoid them now. Netflix did a lot to soften up subs for the masses IMO — getting people use to it.

Now going back to Game Pass and PlayStation subs for a min, the content they offer is still very much curated; we don't really have much of a choice there, if we like what is being offered we pay, if we don't like what is being offered, we don't pay. MS is working on getting first-party output but there is no guarantee it will be something people want (so no wonder the acquisitions they are making, with established IP).

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Subscription will basically die once the GAAS F2P era reaches its zenith.

 

[Chukhopops]

The bi-weekly anti gamepass thread.

 

[Heisenberg007]

1. For AAA games, no. That's what most of us have been saying for long.
2. A subscription model may work for multiplayer games, MTX games, and smaller indie-type titles, but not for big blockbuster AAA games.

 

[MScarpa]

I guess it's that time of the month to create a
"are subscriptions sustainable" post. Ughhh

 

[CatLady]

Yes, as Game Pass has passed sustainable and moved on to profitable contrary to what many people here insisted was not the case.

Just an FYI, OP, Game Pass is also an "added feature" and one of several choices Xbox gamers have in where and how we play our games. That is not another Sony exclusive.

 

[SLB1904]

Nope. And with no increasing from both Microsoft and Sony.

What can I say. I love to see this business model fail and I think I deserve it

 

[Ghost of Caelid]

Yes, and they are better for smaller developers as a whole. A devolver digital game is better off getting a lump sum of money and sales as opposed to just hoping for a hit. Allows them to remain creative without having to do "one for them one for us" that we so often see. Look at obsidian...they can do a game like pentiment, avowed and grounded without doing licensed games to keep the lights on.

 

[Ozriel]

All this conversation around GP is rooted in this idea (that MS and Influencers have sold to the public ) that GP is going to replace everything, that GP is going to become the only way to engage with the industry as a Dev and as a consumer.

Phil Spencer last week: “we think Gamepass will end up generating around 15% of our revenue”

ChorizoPicozo: “MS told us that GP is going to replace everything and become the only way to play games”

Christ.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

2. A subscription model may work for multiplayer games, MTX games, and smaller indie-type titles, but not for big blockbuster AAA games.

We've heard a number of developers come out on record (and off record) praising GamePass. It's always from small indie developers who worry about not being noticed.

That should kind of tell you who it benefits and who it doesn't.

 

[kapshin]

Yes, developers get money from MS to be on game pass, there is content there that I would have never bought but play so they get revenue they wouldn't have gotten at all.

 

[poppabk]

MTX and other add-ons are already the big money driver, there were over a million people playing Forza Horizon 5 early after paying for the premium version, EA is bringing in billions in live service revenue.
When you are getting games for 'free' it makes people more likely to pay more on top, plus it expands the reach of these games. It basically makes all games on the service appear free to play, and people will approach their spending on them in that mindset.

 

[Fredrik]

Nah, I’m afraid that long terms, the sort of games I personally enjoy will become rarer and/or non viable, and either not be made at all, or become infected with grind and micro transactions to make them viable in a world where the only viable point of game distribution for a business is subscription.

Yeah I can understand that. I think within 10 years the widespread norm will be:
Digital, subscription libraries, episodic, GAAS, less AAA and more AA because of the increased dev time and need to feed subscribers, with more DLC to recoup some dev cost.

 

[Ozriel]

If you give the option of pay 70USD to play the next GOTY or just 15USD....guess what option is going to be more popular?

Most people keep their subs running. You’re not going to release $70 GOTY games every month. People will sub for multiple months.

 

[Heisenberg007]

We've heard a number of developers come out on record (and off record) praising GamePass. It's always from small indie developers who worry about not being noticed.

That should kind of tell you who it benefits and who it doesn't.

Yeah, it's pretty logical and simple if you think about it.

1. MP games that rely on MTX and higher player count would like to launch on subscription services.
2. SP non-mtx games that are not confident about the sales of their games would launch on subs and recover at least 25-30% of the dev cost.
3. SP non-mtx games that are confident about their game and its quality will NOT launch on subs because they expect people to buy their games at full price.

 

[NickFire]

I have no doubt that they are sustainable. But if we are talking about day 1 AAA games, then I highly doubt the current pricing structure is sustainable once they start showing up regularly. Time will tell.

 

[Fbh]

Yes but I don't think it works well with the type of games that I like: AAA single player games without added monetization. At least not with them launching on it.
For AA stuff, indies and multiplayer/microtransaction based AAA, absolutely.

 

[EverydayBeast]

I could see subscriptions working for movies not gaming.

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

The bi-weekly anti gamepas

So....Gamepas is bi-sexual ore for Woke people?

 

[synchronicity]

Most everything we do as humans is not sustainable - including this imho.

Either way, I much prefer to own my games and play at my own leisure. Additionally, the idea behind sub services is inevitably a force for increased consolidation, which I don't think is healthy for the industry or the players.

Just like the end-game of capitalism, we'll eventually end up with a very small entity / percentage owning most everything and everyone will be subject to however they want to do things.

 

[Lupin25]

It’s sustainable for some, but not all.

That’s why these subscription models have varied from one publisher to the next.

The “Gamepass” model works for MS.
The “PS Plus” model works for Sony.
The “EA Play” model works for EA and so on.

 

[PeteBull]

Why would you subscribe to gamepass in July to play a game that is supposed to come out in November?

Just an example , sometimes deals happen and u gotta bite or u lose it

 

[chromhound]

Companies are not ready for this the way they release rushed garbage

 

[Beechos]

Yes! Its all about mindshare/marketshare/engaement. How many of these big tech companies havent even sniffed a profit since their existence yet they are worth billions of dollars being the market leader in what they do.

 

[gladdys]

Yes. Microsoft has already stated gamespass is profitable. Subscriptions are not unique to the gaming industry either. It’s a model followed in all different types of services and I cannot currently see what the subscription model can move on to.

 

[Ozriel]

1. For AAA games, no. That's what most of us have been saying for long.
2. A subscription model may work for multiplayer games, MTX games, and smaller indie-type titles, but not for big blockbuster AAA games.

Well, In the universe we live in, MS is putting big blockbuster AAA games on the GP service.

 

[Gambit2483]

Thanks guys! As my first thread/poll on GAF I just wanted to pose a question that wasn't necessarily biased either way, and that genuinely made everyone think about this industry and its future (whatever that may be)!

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Well, In the universe we live in, MS is putting big blockbuster AAA games on the GP service.

You don’t understand, eventually maybe probably they’ll decide to probably maybe potentially stop putting big AAA games on the service and will likely maybe probably just stop making AAA SP games altogether probably. Just like we all know EA Access lead to every publisher having their own streaming service and every game being locked to one of those services.

It’s all doomsday nonsense. The person you quoted is one of the loudest tooters of the “GamePass isn’t profitable!!” horns around. He literally needs GamePass to fail.

 

[PeteBull]

Yes. Microsoft has already stated gamespass is profitable. Subscriptions are not unique to the gaming industry either. It’s a model followed in all different types of services and I cannot currently see what the subscription model can move on to.

Its all true ofc, but 3 caviots.
1. Before MS statements gotta assume gamepass wasnt profitable or they would announce it sooner

2. Being profitable can mean making big profit or barely any, so far from quality of games given in gamepass(delayed first party, indies, 2ndrate or not launch AAA games) we can only assume they cant pay top quality AAA games to show up in there at launch, at least now and for forezeeable future- who knows in few years.

3. Definitely cant compare it to movies/tv series, only succesful platform is netflix there, and even they noticed recently huge dropoff.

Beside the point but if gamepass was so amazing we would have by now all/most 3rd parties gravitate towards it, and again, with all due respect- i dont mean indies or 2nd rate games, but big AAA games/pubs, for call of duty to be on gamepass MS needed to buy whole activision, before there was no chance for it, even now when deal is in the works and very likely will go trought- still CoD isnt on gamepass- if it would be good for CoD w/o MS actually forcing it by buying activition- they already would be there.

 

[gladdys]

Its all true ofc, but 3 caviots.
1. Before MS statements gotta assume gamepass wasnt profitable or they would announce it sooner

2. Being profitable can mean making big profit or barely any, so far from quality of games given in gamepass(delayed first party, indies, 2ndrate or not launch AAA games) we can only assume they cant pay top quality AAA games to show up in there at launch, at least now and for forezeeable future- who knows in few years.

3. Definitely cant compare it to movies/tv series, only succesful platform is netflix there, and even they noticed recently huge dropoff.

Beside the point but if gamepass was so amazing we would have by now all/most 3rd parties gravitate towards it, and again, with all due respect- i dont mean indies or 2nd rate games, but big AAA games/pubs, for call of duty to be on gamepass MS needed to buy whole activision, before there was no chance for it, even now when deal is in the works and very likely will go trought- still CoD isnt on gamepass- if it would be good for CoD w/o MS actually forcing it by buying activition- they already would be there.

I take your point. With a device like gamespass, Apple Arcade and the like. It will take heavy investment before you start to see profits come in.

The big games will become a more regular feature and depends on your perception of AAA. Halo, gears, forza, guardians of the galaxy, dragon quest, etc. I would consider those to be AAA games on the service.

I believe you can compare. Who buys software anymore? Azure, aws, office 365, kindle unlimited, etc. subscription services are currently a huge staple regarding how continuous revenue is acquired.

One thing I would add is gamespass and Apple Arcade have given me the opportunity to play games I never would of tried before. Yakuza 9 was my first foray into that series through gamespass and I will defo try some others whether through that service or purchased.

 

[reksveks]

1. For AAA games, no. That's what most of us have been saying for long.
2. A subscription model may work for multiplayer games, MTX games, and smaller indie-type titles, but not for big blockbuster AAA games.

Again the arbitrage that Microsoft is doing doesn't have to care about the type of game that they as a publisher offer in the service.

It's a thing that only the platform holders can really pull off.

 

[ACESHIGH]

What the heck is "yes, but only as an added feature (Playstation Model) last I checked Gamepass was optional.