• 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.

Jez Corden: Don't Expect Xbox to follow Playstation's Exclusive Style Next-Gen

Tulipanzo

Member
The problem with XBox turning into an ecosystem is that the console is still the main point of entry and revenue source.
If people don't buy your system because the games look bad, then they will buy games elsewhere and your "ecosystem" is screwed.
 

MrMiyagi

Banned
I'm just dumbfounded by the fact that people want Xbox to be PlayStation, what in the hell is the point in that?
Nobody wants that. But who wouldn't want new AAA exclusives of the caliber Sony's been getting?

Fanboys always feel the need to downplay Sony's output by saying they're all just limited, cinematic games. But lets be honest here, if MS announced a couple of those limited cinematic games of the same kind of quality we're seeing from Sony, Xbox fans would be dancing in the streets. Seriously now, who would prefer half finished GAAS games - that'll get half way decent years after release - over AAA blockbusters?
 
Oh, no. I never insinuated that making the next Fortnite would be easy. I'm saying that's the direction the industry is headed. But making automobiles are relatively difficult compared to raising a horse.

Difficulty doesn't have much relevance here. Fortune favors the bold.

You're really making me scratch my head with your poor analogies. Let me try to parse it, though... you think free to play, microtransaction heavy games are the vehicle of the future and 60 dollar games are of the past, not unlike how cars trumped horses... the problem with this is cars trumping horses was universal, whereas there are tons of free to play, microtransaction heavy games that don't compete at all with AA or AAA games that sell for 60 dollars. The car replaced the horse, it wasn't simply a better-selling alternative.
 

Hobbygaming

has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
And horses are beautiful animals that can pull a shit ton of weight and run 45 mph.

But the automobile is being iterated upon and it's leaving horses behind.

Note: Sony's single player games do have one advantage. They're incredibly safe to make. There's not much risk as their market is constantly thirsting for new games. Multiplayer sandbox games can and do fail at much higher rates. But great risk bring great reward.
Phil thinks SP games are riskier and less consistent success wise
 

Hobbygaming

has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
Nobody wants that. But who wouldn't want new AAA exclusives of the caliber Sony's been getting?

Fanboys always feel the need to downplay Sony's output by saying they're all just limited, cinematic games. But lets be honest here, if MS announced a couple of those limited cinematic games of the same kind of quality we're seeing from Sony, Xbox fans would be dancing in the streets. Seriously now, who would prefer half finished GAAS games - that'll get half way decent years after release - over AAA blockbusters?
This. Example: Hellblade 2
 

oldergamer

Member
Let's not count PC games as xbox games now. :lollipop_tears_of_joy:



Who the fuck buys games on xbox live if it's not for a handful of games? Ever heard of Steam, Epic Games, EA, Uplay, etc? By the way, I don't play games on it, but probably the next Forza Horizon if it pulls my attention enough. Was anticipating Halo but it's a flop, just like Star Citizen. I deleted all the xbox apps on my Windows 10, too much spam.
To be frank nobody really cares what you think about xbox games. you don't have any impartiality. Halo a flop? based on what, a pre- alpha demo? I don't play games on PC. I have a killer PC but I prefer playing on a screen bigger than 30 inches.
 

diffusionx

Gold Member
Nobody wants that. But who wouldn't want new AAA exclusives of the caliber Sony's been getting?

Fanboys always feel the need to downplay Sony's output by saying they're all just limited, cinematic games. But lets be honest here, if MS announced a couple of those limited cinematic games of the same kind of quality we're seeing from Sony, Xbox fans would be dancing in the streets. Seriously now, who would prefer half finished GAAS games - that'll get half way decent years after release - over AAA blockbusters?

Well, some of us don't have the energy for yet another third person action adventure with open world elements and a skill tree. Nevertheless... if you want games like Sony is doing, there is a place to get them, it's on the PlayStation. Microsoft has been absolutely crystal clear on what their goals and approach is for this next gen. It is titles like Flight Simulator, Grounded, and Gears 5 that have longevity and will keep people around, preferably subbed to GamePass. And look, these aren't bad games, Flight Sim is one of the year's best reviewed titles. They're just not these 9 figure budget titles like what Sony is doing.

it's just weird that Xbox fans saw MS buy all these studios and were like, "yay they're going to be like Sony" instead of, you know, just getting a PlayStation and playing Sony games.

He's not wrong. Those games rarely become system sellers. I still want some though, as i haven't been playing multiplayer much.

One of the biggest single player games of all time, GTA, has become one of the biggest multiplayer games of all times.

Right. For perspective, Animal Crossing came out in March and has already outsold every Sony exclusive title this gen by a huge margin. Of course Nintendo is kind of their own thing, they operate on a different wavelength, but the point is, Sony's way isn't automatically the best way.

Why the 12 tf then?

They want the system to play these games, and third party games, well.
 
Last edited:
Yeah... Xbox focus will probably be more and more on gaas... And he is right, there's nothing wrong with that. Companies can and should do different things, if someone wants casual family oriented games they have Nintendo to go for, if they want story driven games, Sony has a lot in store.

Microsoft is pushing gaas, trying to find their thing, I think people should praise them for their initiative and be hyped about the fact that we have 3 rich companies betting more and more on video games!

Also, each one having a different direction, doesn't mean that they can't eventually have similar types of games being developed.
O theyr is ALOT wrong with GaaS, give it time you will see it and than you will hate it...
 
Last edited:
To be frank nobody really cares what you think about xbox games. you don't have any impartiality. Halo a flop? based on what, a pre- alpha demo? I don't play games on PC. I have a killer PC but I prefer playing on a screen bigger than 30 inches.

It's too early to call the game a flop but I'm sure he's referring to public opinion, the internet was pretty negative towards it which isn't good for your flagship title. It doesn't feel dissimilar from people telling us at E3 2013 we were calling the generation too early, these first impressions matter to the public at large even if hardcore gamers like those on forums should be able to get past bad first impressions and try things for ourselves.
 

Hobbygaming

has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
He's not wrong. Those games rarely become system sellers. I still want some though, as i haven't been playing multiplayer much.

One of the biggest single player games of all time, GTA, has become one of the biggest multiplayer games of all times.
I was replying to Men in Boxes comment that SP games aren't risky. We know they are :)
 

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
You're really making me scratch my head with your poor analogies. Let me try to parse it, though... you think free to play, microtransaction heavy games are the vehicle of the future and 60 dollar games are of the past, not unlike how cars trumped horses... the problem with this is cars trumping horses was universal, whereas there are tons of free to play, microtransaction heavy games that don't compete at all with AA or AAA games that sell for 60 dollars. The car replaced the horse, it wasn't simply a better-selling alternative.

No, you misunderstand.

First, there were many early automobiles that were inferior to horses. It was not universal like you suggest. Many automobiles struggled with price, reliability, safety, speed etc. Some were much better than others.

Two, it's not a payment model that I'm arguing for. It's the social, sandbox game design direction that's gamings future.

Third, horses haven't gone away. They still serve a purpose and still make money. It's just that the automobile has taken over transportation in large part.
 

JonnyMP3

Member
I was replying to Men in Boxes comment that SP games aren't risky. We know they are :)
But so are multiplayer games that don't have enough of an audience. What's happened to Realm Royale? Law breakers? Titanfall?
There's no guarantee that multiplayer games will be successful as well.
 

Leyasu

Banned
I'm not saying they will be small (which so much people seems to have trouble understanding whan it's plainly written ... weird).Just that you can't use games that we basically know and have seen nothing about to prove the ambition.

Is it so hard to understand for some of you that a CGI, no gameplay and barely any information can't constitute a proof ?

So I'm trolling now for saying we don't know enough about these games to be considered big/ small or anything.

Are you that obtuse or really not wanting to understand basic logic?

Maybe take a step back and ask yourself what is the difference between a disagrement of opinion and trolling.
I would've been trolling if I had said something like they will only release indies-like games akin to minesweeper ...See the diference?
I just said that their vision of more frequent publications can only lead to either smaller dev time or smaller budget which is logical whith their gamepass strategy.
And honestly considering where they are heading in the gaming business it's probably the most coherent and smart decision they've made in recent years.
But as a vision we still need to wait and see if it pays off.

And the ambition of a game is not defined by the times played I spent probably 200 hours on Binding of Isaac yet it is still a very small indie game.
And I finished Gow 3 in something like 10 hours yet it is a very AAA game.
Maybe you misunderstood simply becuse you have a distorted perception of what I meant by "smaller games" I did not refer to time spent but more about ambition something that if MS want to release games every 3/4 months will need to be reduced.
Was that so hard to understand ?
You are right and I owe you an apology.

I'll go through a couple of your points.

It has been discussed to death that their new studios were either finishing up existing projects or just starting new ones. It was obvious that they wont have anything until at least 22 excpet for Halo and possibly Forza next year. It also makes it clear why they said that everything will be cross gen for two yrs... Because they don't have anything. We are on an enthusiast forum. "Concern" about CGI trailers knowing what we know is trolling in my book.

As I said, with a decent amount of studios, that are well coordinated, they can release big games per year. Again, we are on an enthusiast forum, this is not hard to work out. Of course some smaller games are to expected, they have said so themselves. They also said that buying studios that were capable of working on smaller and larger projects at the same time was one of their main criteria. If you don't count Mojang or Worlds edge, they have 12 studios plus XGS publishing. Some smaller games will have to be made in order to have a new game every 3/4months, but that doesn't mean that every game has to be reduced to fit. It is all about coordinating the studios and teams within.
 
No, you misunderstand.

First, there were many early automobiles that were inferior to horses. It was not universal like you suggest. Many automobiles struggled with price, reliability, safety, speed etc. Some were much better than others.

Two, it's not a payment model that I'm arguing for. It's the social, sandbox game design direction that's gamings future.

Third, horses haven't gone away. They still serve a purpose and still make money. It's just that the automobile has taken over transportation in large part.

Consider me Amish.
 
Way to scrub the context.

cHKrrzg.png
OP must be Lamar Jackson

tenor.gif
 

Aion002

Member
O theyr is ALOT wrong with GaaS, give it time you will see it and than you will hate it...
I love gaas. I am a gacha and moba player, I have 1000 hours in Smite, 700 hours on MHW and 600 hours on Warframe... Also, only God knows how many hours in Epic Seven and FGO. :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_anxious:
 
Last edited:

DarkLite

Banned
The problem with XBox turning into an ecosystem is that the console is still the main point of entry and revenue source.
If people don't buy your system because the games look bad, then they will buy games elsewhere and your "ecosystem" is screwed.

what? console main point of revenue source? You do know that the Sony and MS mostly sell the consoles at a loss at the beginning of each gen, right? It's the software, subscription, services and licenses that they make money from, not selling the console itself.
 

Tulipanzo

Member
what? console main point of revenue source? You do know that the Sony and MS mostly sell the consoles at a loss at the beginning of each gen, right? It's the software, subscription, services and licenses that they make money from, not selling the console itself.
They make 30% off of every game sold on the system. Ultimately, if your console doesn't pull me into your "ecosystem" then nothing else will.
 

JonnyMP3

Member
You believe everything Spencer says?

If multiplayer gaming is less risky, and more profitable, why are there so many more single player projects being made?

You have to decipher nuance in the conversation.
So a straightforward interview isn't correct, and that Spencer is speaking so much crap that you have to force yourself to look between the lines, and try to see the hidden meaning to what he's trying to say, because there's 'Nuance' in what he's saying... But at the same time you're telling us that we're not to believe what he's actually saying...

Have you found the 2nd GPU in the power brick of the Xb1 yet?
 
You believe everything Spencer says?

If multiplayer gaming is less risky, and more profitable, why are there so many more single player projects being made?

You have to decipher nuance in the conversation.

You continue to make little to no sense

In your own words, single-player games are less risky, more profitable, and will always be in demand

But you compare them to horses vs cars
 
Last edited:

Iced Arcade

Member
I can understand not focusing on standalone SP games, It's a 1 and done situation.

I absolutely loved tlou2, horizon, god of war, Spiderman etc but I play those games hardcore for a week or 2 and then they are generally done.

Also don't want a full multiplayer game or a BS 5 hour Halo campaign tacked on either. Need a good solid happy medium.
 

azertydu91

Hard to Kill
You are right and I owe you an apology.

I'll go through a couple of your points.

It has been discussed to death that their new studios were either finishing up existing projects or just starting new ones. It was obvious that they wont have anything until at least 22 excpet for Halo and possibly Forza next year. It also makes it clear why they said that everything will be cross gen for two yrs... Because they don't have anything. We are on an enthusiast forum. "Concern" about CGI trailers knowing what we know is trolling in my book.

As I said, with a decent amount of studios, that are well coordinated, they can release big games per year. Again, we are on an enthusiast forum, this is not hard to work out. Of course some smaller games are to expected, they have said so themselves. They also said that buying studios that were capable of working on smaller and larger projects at the same time was one of their main criteria. If you don't count Mojang or Worlds edge, they have 12 studios plus XGS publishing. Some smaller games will have to be made in order to have a new game every 3/4months, but that doesn't mean that every game has to be reduced to fit. It is all about coordinating the studios and teams within.
Well first thank you I may have been a bit too harsh on you but it is the second time I had to explain the difference between small/smaller it got a bit tiring but it is not your fault.

Then I did not said they wouldn't have big games just that the previous quoted those games as big when I just pointed out that they may be just as they may not be since we don't know anything about them.

I do agree with you that they can make big games, but I also know how troublesome it can be to develop a game and I think this system doesn't leave much place to delays which are basically inevitable when publishing lots of games.

I think the best way to do it for them is to alternate between GAAS and more "traditionnal" games where a small team would take care of updating the GAAS while the rest of the studio can work on a bigger game.That would help people wait between games and allow more flexibility on release dates.

A great example about this I think is Halo Infinite I don't think it is unfixable but I do think it will take time but sadly I don't think MS can afford to launch their new series without it.So it will probably come out kinda unfinished (the ray tracing patch is a good demonstration of it).So in a 3/4 month rotation it will be nearly impossible to turn things around if a game had a troublesome development.
That's why I think a reduction in ambition would allow more flexibility on release dates or greatly increase the number of dev for each studios and crunch hard.
And I'd rather have smaller games than more crunch and I think it suits better the gamepass vision of MS.
 

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
So a straightforward interview isn't correct, and that Spencer is speaking so much crap that you have to force yourself to look between the lines, and try to see the hidden meaning to what he's trying to say, because there's 'Nuance' in what he's saying... But at the same time you're telling us that we're not to believe what he's actually saying...

Have you found the 2nd GPU in the power brick of the Xb1 yet?

You have to understand that humans communicate in complex ways. The text from an interview can miss out on a lot of nuance and context. This should be pretty common knowledge.

We know that if multiplayer games were less risky, and had a higher potential for profit, the entire industry would be pumping them out. But we don't see that do we? We're inundated with single player games.

The market doesn't lie.
 

JonnyMP3

Member
You continue to make little to no sense

In your own words, single-player games are less risky, more profitable, and will always be in demand

But you compare them to horses vs cars
I think it's how dumb people think clever people really act like.
Trying to tell people that they don't understand stuff because it's so clever and nuanced that it will boggle the general mind of the average user...

That's some grade A Republican style gaslighting that Xbox are employing!
 

JonnyMP3

Member
You have to understand that humans communicate in complex ways. The text from an interview can miss out on a lot of nuance and context. This should be pretty common knowledge.

We know that if multiplayer games were less risky, and had a higher potential for profit, the entire industry would be pumping them out. But we don't see that do we? We're inundated with single player games.

The market doesn't lie.
If your fucking president can't give a straightforward answer to the paying public without the public having to do mental gymnastics, like you have to... He's a shitty president!

Exhibit A: 1 Donald Trump.
 

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
You continue to make little to no sense

In your own words, single-player games are less risky, more profitable, and will always be in demand

But you compare them to horses vs cars

Single player (cinematic) games are less risky, but have a much smaller profit ceiling.

Multiplayer sandbox has growth and revenue potential that dwarfs those kind of games. But they are riskier.

I think my horse to car analogy pretty much nails it.
 

mejin

Member
You believe everything Spencer says?

If multiplayer gaming is less risky, and more profitable, why are there so many more single player projects being made?

You have to decipher nuance in the conversation.

For xbox? Coming from Phil? Almost none. It's a clear focus on GaaS titles. Games to be fixed with time depending on community adoption.

Phil lies a lot, but in this case he's being sincere lol
 
Single player (cinematic) games are less risky, but have a much smaller profit ceiling.

Multiplayer sandbox has growth and revenue potential that dwarfs those kind of games. But they are riskier.

I think my horse to car analogy pretty much nails it.

Have you only just been introduced to the concept of multiplayer games? You understand they've been around for decades?

If your analogy was correct, we would see a decline in Sony's style of games. We have not. Just like GaaS have seen growth, so have Sony's games
 

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
For xbox? Coming from Phil? Almost none. It's a clear focus on GaaS titles. Games to be fixed with time depending on community adoption.

Phil lies a lot, but in this case he's being sincere lol

I meant in terms of the wider market.

Phil Spencer is a visionary. He understands where the market is headed better than most.
 
I had a long convo with my little brother last week about MS with Game Pass vs Sony with AAA. He is a huge Xbox only fan, while I prefer Sony, but still love my Xbox One. He kept coming back to the value of Game Pass and how its such a great service, but I kept coming back to quality. Yes, $15 per month with hundreds to play is great and I wish it was around when I was a kid, but what is Xbox actually putting up? Old Halo and Gears games? Forza? Fable?

Since 2009, Xbox exclusives keep going down in quality, while Sony has gone up. He kept coming back to how consoles will be extinct and cloud is the future, which it very well be. I countered with if Sony had a game pass too, then what would MS counter with? Because the quality on Sony's first party side is much higher. Either way, Sony would still win because their primary focus is on quality software first and features second. Whereas MS focuses on features first and games second. Consumers want quality and will always flock to the best games, even if your features are better.

While Sony has reached GOAT levels this gen (God of War, Ghosts, Last of Us 2, Bloodborne, Horizon, FF7R) and looks like the quality is continuing on PS5, MS has farmed its franchises to devs that don't have the talent or the passion to put out amazing entries (Halo 4, MCC, Halo 5, Gears 4, Gears 5 were all broken or panned by majority of fans). And with the Series X announcements (Halo Infinite, Forza, Fable), it looks like MS is rebooting every franchise and none of it looks inspired, real, or impressive.

The sad trend on Xbox looks like every franchise is moving towards soulless games as service titles to bolster game pass subscriptions. He had no counter argument. I finally got him when I asked if he was ACTUALLY excited for anything Xbox has announced and he said no. He hasn't felt actual hype since the early 360 days. I told him I continue to feel hype for gaming (so excited for PS5) and it doesn't need to be a distant memory. I doubt he will get a console anywhere near launch, but he was at least open to PS5 over Series X because there is 0 incentive to upgrade the Xbox.

Its not meant to be a fanboy post, but I was really disappointed by the Series X showing and seriously considered getting Series X over PS5 this year if Halo looked amazing and Hellblade 2 launched. Now I have no plans for Series X, especially if I can play on my Xbox One. The only games I care about now are Hellblade 2 and Gears 6.
 

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
Have you only just been introduced to the concept of multiplayer games? You understand they've been around for decades?

If your analogy was correct, we would see a decline in Sony's style of games. We have not. Just like GaaS have seen growth, so have Sony's games

The market isn't static. It's also not binary.

Markets shift all the time. Just because Goldeneye sold 15 million copies on the N64 doesn't mean Fortnite/PUBG/Minecraft etc have to adhere to that profit ratio.

The growth of GAAS is near limitless. The growth of cinematic single player games has basically reached it's ceiling. Fortnite wasn't an anomaly. It's a sign of things to come.
 

JonnyMP3

Member
The sad trend on Xbox looks like every franchise is moving towards soulless games as service titles to bolster game pass subscriptions. He had no counter argument. I finally got him when I asked if he was ACTUALLY excited for anything Xbox has announced and he said no. He hasn't felt actual hype since the early 360 days. I told him I continue to feel hype for gaming (so excited for PS5) and it doesn't need to be a distant memory. I doubt he will get a console anywhere near launch, but he was at least open to PS5 over Series X because there is 0 incentive to upgrade the Xbox.
This is the whole entire cruxt of this current war.
Are Xbox gamers REALLY excited for Gamepass or are they just blindly loyal for loyalties sake?
 

MagnesG

Banned
Sony could win. MS could win. Nintendo could win. (Profits)

Both 3 had their business strategy defined quite well already with different approach, which is for people to spend time and resources on their platforms.
 
The market isn't static. It's also not binary.

Markets shift all the time. Just because Goldeneye sold 15 million copies on the N64 doesn't mean Fortnite/PUBG/Minecraft etc have to adhere to that profit ratio.

The growth of GAAS is near limitless. The growth of cinematic single player games has basically reached it's ceiling. Fortnite wasn't an anomaly. It's a sign of things to come.

You need to explain your argument more clearly. Are you trying to say that the future of the industry is everyone will just make multiplayer games? The market will be saturated by Fortnite successes?

If your argument is just that GaaS has greater profit potential, then you're just stating the obvious.
 
Last edited:

GHG

Gold Member
This is the whole entire cruxt of this current war.
Are Xbox gamers REALLY excited for Gamepass or are they just blindly loyal for loyalties sake?

Honestly I think it comes down to what you want/look for in gaming. Some people will play anything just because it's cheap or free. Look at how many people go gaga over the free games on the EGS, many of which are not even worth the time to install and boot up.

I can imagine a service like this is a wet dream for achievement hunters or for kids who don't have much money to spend on games. If I had gamepass as a kid I would have loved it.

I take the view that I can only play 1 game at a time and I have over 1000 games that I own across various PC storefronts (probably close to 1500 if I also include games I own on consoles). I also value ownership and want to play/return to things in my own time. I prefer to only play things that I am 100% hooked on at the time, not just for the sake of playing it or because it's in a subscription library.

I've seen some people say they wont buy a single game next gen and will 100% rely on gamepass. That's just lunacy to me because come the end of the end of life for that console they will own a piece of hardware that they don't own a single game for.

I guess that's is how film/TV enthusiasts must view people like me who wont watch something if it's not on Netflix or Prime.
 

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
You need to explain your argument more clearly. Are you trying to say that the future of the industry is everyone will just make multiplayer games? The market will be saturated by Fortnite successes?

If your argument is just that GaaS has greater profit potential, then you're just stating the obvious.

I guess my argument stems from Jez Cordens quote.

If Sony keeps focusing on cinematic single player games at the expense of GAAS, they'll be left behind.

I think Microsoft's focus is the correct one. Player choice, social gaming, shared world's etc...

Now I also don't necessarily think Sony will fail to react to market trends. Their leadership shakeup from a couple of years back suggests to me that Sony knows they can't do what they've always done. Hopefully we see some evidence of that at their next big PS5 showcase. SOCOM, Factions II, Forbidden West multiplayer will alay some concern I have.
 

Bo_Hazem

Banned
To be frank nobody really cares what you think about xbox games. you don't have any impartiality. Halo a flop? based on what, a pre- alpha demo? I don't play games on PC. I have a killer PC but I prefer playing on a screen bigger than 30 inches.

You seem to care a lot about what I think according to the many quotes of my replies, I wasn't talking to you in that reply for a starter. PC is great for productivity, and I use it on a 4K TV from a couch, doesn't necessarily need to be on a desk or through a monitor.

Halo sounds, looks, plays like shit. I would rather play Destiny or even Anthem with much higher quality gameplay and graphics.
 

Iced Arcade

Member
You seem to care a lot about what I think according to the many quotes of my replies, I wasn't talking to you in that reply for a starter. PC is great for productivity, and I use it on a 4K TV from a couch, doesn't necessarily need to be on a desk or through a monitor.

Halo sounds, looks, plays like shit. I would rather play Destiny or even Anthem with much higher quality gameplay and graphics.
No he's right.
 

JonnyMP3

Member
Honestly I think it comes down to what you want/look for in gaming. Some people will play anything just because it's cheap or free. Look at how many people go gaga over the free games on the EGS, many of which are not even worth the time to install and boot up.

I can imagine a service like this is a wet dream for achievement hunters or for kids who don't have much money to spend on games. If I had gamepass as a kid I would have loved it.

I take the view that I can only play 1 game at a time and I have over 1000 games that I own across various PC storefronts (probably close to 1500 if I also include games I own on consoles). I also value ownership and want to play/return to things in my own time. I prefer to only play things that I am 100% hooked on at the time, not just for the sake of playing it or because it's in a subscription library.

I've seen some people say they wont buy a single game next gen and will 100% rely on gamepass. That's just lunacy to me because come the end of the end of life for that console they will own a piece of hardware that they don't own a single game for.

I guess that's is how film/TV enthusiasts must view people like me who wont watch something if it's not on Netflix or Prime.
People just get excited for free stuff just because it's free. But doesn't mean that because it's free, it'll be popular... Fortnite is free and it's the most played game in the world, currently. It's the mainstream attraction that it has that makes it so popular.
But as for the Netflix analogy, I've been there before. If Xbox want to be the Netflix of gaming... That's fine.
But Sony and Nintendo still want to be the Box Office. And theater sales keep hitting the hundreds of millions or billions in ticket sales if the right movies come along.
Disney grossed Billions with 2 franchises of MCU and Star Wars.
And now they have Disney+ to put all their stuff on, which effectively locks out Netflix from Disney content.
Now if a 3rd party publisher decides to not license out their game for Gamepass ala Disney... What can Microsoft actually do about it?
Nothing apart from remove the game from the library.
 

Bo_Hazem

Banned
Honestly I think it comes down to what you want/look for in gaming. Some people will play anything just because it's cheap or free. Look at how many people go gaga over the free games on the EGS, many of which are not even worth the time to install and boot up.

I can imagine a service like this is a wet dream for achievement hunters or for kids who don't have much money to spend on games. If I had gamepass as a kid I would have loved it.

I take the view that I can only play 1 game at a time and I have over 1000 games that I own across various PC storefronts (probably close to 1500 if I also include games I own on consoles). I also value ownership and want to play/return to things in my own time. I prefer to only play things that I am 100% hooked on at the time, not just for the sake of playing it or because it's in a subscription library.

I've seen some people say they wont buy a single game next gen and will 100% rely on gamepass. That's just lunacy to me because come the end of the end of life for that console they will own a piece of hardware that they don't own a single game for.

I guess that's is how film/TV enthusiasts must view people like me who wont watch something if it's not on Netflix or Prime.

According to your avatar, I can't wait to play TLOU3. :lollipop_tears_of_joy:
 
  • LOL
Reactions: GHG
I guess my argument stems from Jez Cordens quote.

If Sony keeps focusing on cinematic single player games at the expense of GAAS, they'll be left behind.

I think Microsoft's focus is the correct one. Player choice, social gaming, shared world's etc...

Now I also don't necessarily think Sony will fail to react to market trends. Their leadership shakeup from a couple of years back suggests to me that Sony knows they can't do what they've always done. Hopefully we see some evidence of that at their next big PS5 showcase. SOCOM, Factions II, Forbidden West multiplayer will alay some concern I have.

They're not making single-player games at the expense of GaaS. They invest in both, which again, is what they're doing. If you think the correct move is to invest in GaaS at the expense of their single-player games, then I don't know what to tell you. The reason GaaS has so much growth potential is because from a players PoV, they're investments, but that also makes them double-edged swords. We saw this with Ubisoft when they released too many games that required too much investment. That's why GaaS will not replace single-player games. They will co-exist, just as busses, cars, trains etc. all co exist as popular means of transport. Single player games being one an done experiences are an advantage, not disadvantage.
 
Last edited:

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
You shouldn’t take these things at face value. It can mean anything. For example it can mean that once the project is green lit that MS will back the project until it’s ready to come out. It can mean that when it comes to AA games that they will let more off beat ideals come through. Etc

Oh I don't trust it outright; every post on the subject I've suggested they could be lying/being misleading.

At the very least they've sent mixed messages; especially when asked about how Gamepass effects their decisions. They've clearly gone for variety, and chose their purchases based on that.. so it's "make what you want, but we bought you because you seem to like making X" kind of deals it seems. And they've clearly gone after studios that make a lot of AA style games.

But they've also claim to have "AAAA" games in development, and said that if any of their studios are interested in a big project, they can have that opportunity. But I imagine those are still pitches to Microsoft.. pitches where they could be denied.

It's not like they've adopted the Valve strategy lol (at Valve you literally have no management, and nobody tells you what to do or make)
 

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
They're not making single-player games at the expense of GaaS. They invest in both, which again, is what they're doing. If you think the correct move is to invest in GaaS at the expense of their single-player games, then I don't know what to tell you. The reason GaaS has so much growth potential is because from a players PoV, they're investments, but that also makes them double-edged swords. We saw this with Ubisoft when they released too many games that required too much investment. The fact that single-player games are short one and done experiences is an advantage, not a disadvantage.

It's not "an advantage".

It has advantage (as well as disadvantage).

There's a difference.
 
Top Bottom