Support NeoGAF

[Shmunter]

John Linneman, “I concur and this isn’t just about Stadia. Engagement as a primary metric for success is a direction that concerns me for the reasons stated here and more. Let’s hope this doesn’t become the norm.”




Since we’re on a core gaming forum, there must be some depth of thoughts to be explored by members…..

I too am concerned as per JD, in particular Gamepass and so many Journalists out there praising it and wishing on Sony to do the same. Good luck reviewing never ending games for a living!….…….discuss…

 

[lh032]

 

[drganon]

I'm not too worried. Nobody gives a shit about Stadia. It'll be killed off just like the rest of Google's failures. As for gamepass, sony seems to be doing just fine without it. Most game journalists are dumbasses anyway.

 

[reksveks]

Don't know if this is a subscription problem or not.

Monetization of attention aka engagement seems to be independent of how you buy into a platform. Live services games are a growing trend, F2P lived before subscription. The Whole Internet.

Also if you look at certain similar media, subscriptions services for movies/tv shows hasn't really lead to more uniformity (this is purely a feeling though).

The one thing that John is ignoring, in other mediums, you have services providers competing for content providers like Phoebe Waller Bridge or Rian Johnson.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Since we’re on a core gaming forum, there must be some depth of thoughts to be explored by members…..

I too am concerned as per JD, in particular Gamepass and so many Journalists out there praising it and wishing on Sony to do the same. Good luck reviewing never ending games for a living!….…….discuss…

OP makes a console war thread and tries to make it look like "pinnacle of intellectual discussion".

Smart.

 

[SlimySnake]

It's definitely concerning. I see Netflix and all i see are trash shows just there to have something for the masses to watch which is pretty much the opposite of what these premium tv channels like HBO and Showtime used to be.

If games follow this trend then every game will be a shallow and grindy experience like Ubisoft games.

 

[Fbh]

Yeah that's one of my worries with stuff like subscription models.
The moment devs start to get paid based on user play time is the moment I'm done with subscription services. I want games to become shorter and less bloated and this would encourage the exact opposite.

 

[elliot5]

I don't think this is as bad as it sounds, because the Stadia Pro revenue sharing is when you add the game to Stadia Pro sub (the optional subscription similar to PS+ where you can claim monthly games).

"Starting this month, Google has pledged 70 percent of Stadia Pro's revenue to game developers that offer their games up as freebies on Stadia Pro. Specifically, pay is "based upon engagement for active claimable Stadia Pro titles" and will only apply to games new to the service. Engagement, in this case, is measured in session days, so developers will seemingly get a larger part of that 70 percent share depending on how many days individual Stadia Pro players log into their games."

This is like Epic paying out devs to use their game as a freebie in the EGS or Sony including it as a PS+ title, but instead of paying a lump sum Google is basing it off on whether your title was popular for Stadia Pro players and whether it basically drove Pro subs. Actually, a lump sum may already exist for being in Pro (like PS+) and this is in addition to. That seems like a win-win to me as you benefit from being a popular game people play. A title like Fall Guys - which launched on PS+ - would have benefitted greatly from a deal like this.

Sub services like Game Pass are already a case-by-case basis. You get your lump sum or you go by engagement metrics, or a mix. It's however the deal is made. I don't think this is some death of gaming as we know it because in the near future everything will only be engagement driven. Single player shorter games will still have their place because if it's a good game it will attract players. That will always be the case, and Phil even mentioned that this week that games aren't going to be mandated to be GaaS for engagement. You can still buy games on Xbox and even Stadia without the Pro sub.

 

[DenchDeckard]

I think there's a chance for some titles to go this way but I refuse to believe every game will. I mean there's no way every person playing games can dedicate their lives to multiple destiny/Warframe type games can they?

I think shit just goes the way its going. None of us can stop it or avoid it. Basically, people will just do what they want to do. Maybe there's a deeper reason why the overall gaming TAM for consoles has never really grown in my lifetime. There only ever seems to be 120 million playstations sold each generation....why is that?

Maybe if we get some absolute shite engagement games they might sell 300 million? Fuck knows.

 

[M1chl]

For what is worth GamePass have a shit ton of these short Indie titles and almost none of those live service shovelware games. I know that Destiny is there...which well, that game should be F2P anyway. I think engagement on GamePass is fine metric, not in hours, but in downloaded/played games. Time based engagement is what sucks. This could very easily comes with xcloud sadly...

The bigger problem is those MP titles/Gaas titles, available in stores.

 

[Holammer]

Multiplayer games do get a lot of engagement naturally and it's easy for YT/Twitch personalities to build a brand on one of them, resulting in a positive feedback loop that propels the game into the fucking stratosphere.
That said, I prefer single player games myself and I would love to see efforts to increase their visibility. One way to start could be Steam's stats page offering a separate list of top 10 of mainly single player games.

 

[Papacheeks]

John Linneman, “I concur and this isn’t just about Stadia. Engagement as a primary metric for success is a direction that concerns me for the reasons stated here and more. Let’s hope this doesn’t become the norm.”




Since we’re on a core gaming forum, there must be some depth of thoughts to be explored by members…..

I too am concerned as per JD, in particular Gamepass and so many Journalists out there praising it and wishing on Sony to do the same. Good luck reviewing never ending games for a living!….…….discuss…

And this is what I've been saying for years. This is why a lot of us are not so gung ho on games as a service or a game service that a company is putting all its eggs in.

 

[GreenAlien]

I mean.. shorter games should be faster to produce. And you are also going to be more likely to finish them even if they are just mediocre.

On the other hand, a huge game that isn't great probably won't keep me playing until the end. So a lot of dev time might end up wasted.

This is why I am not convinced that shorter creative experiences will be in a worse position. If anything, I think gamepass might be good for them...

Because when I spent money for a single game, how long that individual game is does matter far more than it does in a subscription.

 

[Saint Boot]

I need more information. What exactly is gamepass and why is it a bad thing? I don't have Xbox, but I hear about it alot.

 

[Magnific0giganticus]

If the gaming industry becomes the domain of subscription services, everything that we love of gaming as we know it will all go to hell.

 

[reksveks]

Yeah that's one of my worries with stuff like subscription models.
The moment devs start to get paid based on user play time is the moment I'm done with subscription services. I want games to become shorter and less bloated and this would encourage the exact opposite.

What if some devs get paid on play time and some devs get paid an upfront fee?

 

[skit_data]

I agree, I mostly play singleplayer games and love them. Time spent in a game is not indicative of quality time, rather the opposite.

If they based my preferences on time played my 2500 hours of DOTA 2 would be at the top and I would easily swap those hundreds of hours for another installment of my favourite singleplayer franchises if possible.

 

[FunkMiller]

Awful. The amount of time someone engages with a piece of media is a horrible way to define success or otherwise.

 

[Bryank75]

Wasn't that how they said Gamepass works too? That the developers get paid based on how much their game is played? Or am I mistaken?

Either way, this leads to grindy, waste of time games..... games that have little value but to whittle away your days. It's already a massive concern in the industry without this type of accelerant.

 

[Saber]

This in conjuction with games as service, microtransactions and lootboxes worries me alot as they hurt the quality of content and induce devs to take this route as its easier to farm money or just go with the trend instead of creativity. Imo those should cease to exist.

 

[Shmunter]

OP makes a console war thread and tries to make it look like "pinnacle of intellectual discussion".

Smart.

Or maybe you’re projecting harder than what I get looking at naked pics of your mum!?!

 

[elliot5]

Awful. The amount of time someone engages with a piece of media is a horrible way to define success or otherwise.

why is that? If your average subscriber for Netflix finishes an entire season of a new show vs a new show only getting the first episode watched and a majority dropping off it, wouldn't that imply the show with the entire season viewed was more successful?

Wasn't that how they said Gamepass works too? That the developers get paid based on how much their game is played? Or am I mistaken?

Either way, this leads to grindy, waste of time games..... games that have little value but to whittle away your days. It's already a massive concern in the industry without this type of accelerant.

No. Game Pass works however they manage the deal with Microsoft. Could be upfront cost for the time on the service, or it could be driven by engagement. It's not a blanket policy.

 

[reksveks]

Wasn't that how they said Gamepass works too? That the developers get paid based on how much their game is played? Or am I mistaken?

Either way, this leads to grindy, waste of time games..... games that have little value but to whittle away your days. It's already a massive concern in the industry without this type of accelerant.

Nope, actually we had an example of the dev ex-CEO kinda complaining that this wasn't the case (Paradox)

Xbox seems to be a bit random and it depends on the dev.

Post in thread 'Sony Is Not in an 'Arms Race’ With Microsoft, Says PlayStation Boss' https://www.neogaf.com/threads/sony...-says-playstation-boss.1611873/post-264120911

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

Realistically, monetization-driven design has always existed. Y’all heard of arcade machines right?

Not saying I like this, just saying, we’ve been there.

 

[PropellerEar]

Once I agree with John who is agreeing with another dude.

 

[Saber]

Realistically, monetization-driven design has always existed. Y’all heard of arcade machines right?

Not saying I like this, just saying, we’ve been there.

But thats not to say about quality. Arcade games were mostly top quality, I believe whats is happen is monetarization while impacting the level of gaming development.

 

[kingfey]

I too am concerned as per JD, in particular Gamepass and so many Journalists out there praising it and wishing on Sony to do the same. Good luck reviewing never ending games for a living!….…….discuss…

This is a funny , considering you guys praise early metacritic, and refuse to accept games that become by the time.

Also, users engagement is better. It allows the devs to make changes, and improve their game quality. For example, No man sky would have been a trash, if the devs hadnt worked with their community.

In the business world, engaging with your customers, is the key to your company success, instead of focusing only on praises you get from the brain dead's, who will praise anything you make. This will make your product fail in the long run, because you were unable to fix the small issues you had at early, which now will come and bite you. For example, Bethesda creation engine, Which is based from the Gamebryo engine. That is where most their bugs is coming from.

 

[Jigsaah]

Everybody in their respective corners now? Cool.

It would be bad if this was the ONLY way devs get paid. Subscription based service do not prevent consumers from buying the actual game.

The concern in this thread is goin to be at epic levels. For no damn reason.

 

[PontiusFeeb]

Haven't had a good Game Pass "concern" thread in a while. Well done.

 

[Bryank75]

Nope, actually we had an example of the dev ex-CEO kinda complaining that this wasn't the case (Paradox)

Xbox seems to be a bit random and it depends on the dev.

Post in thread 'Sony Is Not in an 'Arms Race’ With Microsoft, Says PlayStation Boss' https://www.neogaf.com/threads/sony-is-not-in-an-arms-race’-with-microsoft-says-playstation-boss.1611873/post-264120911

Oh, well I'm mistaken then....could have sworn I heard that they have a system like that.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Sends shivers down the spine just reading about it.

 

[Heisenberg007]

I concur with John.

It's okay for multiplayer games. In fact, engagement levels would make sense for MP games, assuming there is a high correlation between higher user activity and MTX income. However, for single-player games, it is absolutely awful.

That's what happens with Ubisoft and Assassin's Creed games (although they still haven't fully embraced it yet). But look how bloated those games have become. They are pretty much a meme at this point -- how you have to do the same thing for 200 hours. Fetch quests after fetch quests, just to keep players "engaged".

I hope, at least for single-player games, that's not the future. It will be a dark day in the gaming industry if every major publisher fully embraces this trend.

 

[reksveks]

Oh, well I'm mistaken then....could have sworn I heard that they have a system like that.

No worries, I think for some devs it might be the case.

From my other post in the acquisition thread

Those two maybe be designed around engagement but I think some games will still be designed to be critical successes as in review well for a singular experience. I see it like Roma, Jeremy Clarkson, Phoebe Waller Bridge where certain movies/tv shows were bought/made to drive word of mouth to drive subscribers.

I don't know if the percent of live service games will change a massive amount with or without gamepass. Obviously we would need to define massive.

Games will be paid by platform/service providers for different reasons and in different ways. Kojima's game if true will be paid for an upfront fee and measured by new subscribers.

 

[MikeM]

Warzone has my engagement as my sole MP game with my friends. Doesn't mean they have received a dollar from me. I'd much rather pay for a game instead of free to play and it be full of loot box nonsense, but I'm likely the exception.

It would also make the ban hammer for those with digital purchases that cheat far stronger.

 

[Coolwhhip]

My engagement score with Wow must have been over 9000.

 

[Trogdor1123]

I'm kind of torn on this. If a game is good and gas loads of content that is well designed and you want to keep playing, isnt that a good thing? On the other hand it would be naive to think it will be anything less than grind grind grind with psychologist reviewing every step to ensure it stays addictive over good...

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Figured this was the obvious. It's the best way keep players subbed month to month

Xbox thankfully is taking the more expensive route with the goal of releasing content on regular basis to keep players subbed, so there's more hope for those short experiences

Just have to wait and see whether they'll stick with the expensive route in the long run though.

 

[Punished Miku]

Reminds me of the MMO boom and bust.

It's kind of silly to try and base your entire monetization model as dependent on people's time, because time is very finite. Everyone tried to make an MMO, and then the reality hit and companies realized that a dedicated player can really only even play 1 MMO at a time - or often only 1-2 in their entire lives because they are so draining on your time. That makes it a small market. People are only going to play 1-2 "Fortnite" games that take up all their time every day. The other 99% of studios will need to try something else.

I don't think we've even really seen engagement dominate subscription services like Netflix. Most shows are shorter than ever actually, and only 10 episodes or less.

Live service multiplayer games already exist. I think lots of studios will rush into this and most will fail. Then it'll shrink back down again like MMOs. Time is finite.

 

[Black_Stride]

Stadia pro will pay devs based on engagement?
Damn thats harsh for every dev that makes smaller/shorter singleplayer experiences.
Arent Stadia devs then just going to "sell out" and effectively make mobile-esc experiences that are time sinks.

No other publisher/platform holder does this.

 

[reksveks]

Stadia pro will pay devs based on engagement?
Damn thats harsh for every dev that makes smaller/shorter singleplayer experiences.
Arent Stadia devs then just going to "sell out" and effectively make mobile-esc experiences that are time sinks.

No other publisher/platform holder does this.

For devs whom add their games on the pro service. You can still release a game on the service that users buy.

 

[Papacheeks]

Stadia pro will pay devs based on engagement?
Damn thats harsh for every dev that makes smaller/shorter singleplayer experiences.
Arent Stadia devs then just going to "sell out" and effectively make mobile-esc experiences that are time sinks.

No other publisher/platform holder does this.

How do you think budgets will be determined for projects on Microsoft's watch? They already talked about what they look for in engagement? If you dont think they have analytics for their service that get shared throughout the company and their shareholders you are delusional.

I can tell you for a fact they look at hours played, hours people stay online for, how long their console is up for ect. All that is factored into what they look for stats wise. How many people buy games that are on the service, how many purchases people make while being subbed, what kind of games they play the most hours wise.


How do you think Netflix looks at their stats. Microsoft is similar now even for office 365. In terms of signing bonuses for developers to put their game on gamepass 100% know there are deals being made about engagement and at what percentage the developer would see residuals.

 

[cireza]

The metric is stupid by definition, no wonder it is becoming a standard.

Let's compare someone who buys a 60$ game and plays 200 hours to someone who buys a 60$ and plays 20 hours.
-> they both payed 60$

They think that people who only spend 20 hours are less satisfied, which is stupid.

 

[GymWolf]

I need more information. What exactly is gamepass and why is it a bad thing? I don't have Xbox, but I hear about it alot.

 

[TonyK]

In my opinion, games are incredible long these days. And I'm talking about single player games. No one single player game in earth should last more than 100 hours, and only a few, a real few, should last more than 50. Almost all games today show a game loop than is boring after 10/20 hours but they fill it with tedious content only to artificially extend play time.

 

[Great Hair]

Nope, actually we had an example of the dev ex-CEO kinda complaining that this wasn't the case (Paradox)

Xbox seems to be a bit random and it depends on the dev.

Post in thread 'Sony Is Not in an 'Arms Race’ With Microsoft, Says PlayStation Boss' https://www.neogaf.com/threads/sony-is-not-in-an-arms-race’-with-microsoft-says-playstation-boss.1611873/post-264120911

For instance, there’s Fred Wester, ex-CEO of Paradox Interactive, who feels that though the Game Pass business model is a “decent” one, at the end of the day, it also results in certain developers not getting paid enough proportionate to how much consumers play their games through the service.

“Spotify, they pay you depending on how many times your song has been played,” said Wester. “On Netflix, they pay you a fixed fee depending on what they think your [product] is worth. Those are two fundamentally different things, and that’s what you see here as well ..

source

Right after, they got acquired. According to the former CEO, they pay based on downloads, play time, retention ... essentially like every other service out there?

Onlive was a better model for them cause they were getting paid on playtime, he then implied the GamePass is a different model.

That makes no sense to me.

OnLive never had more than like 1mln? subs .. it´s mathematically impossible for them to state that. If that was the case, why did they join gamepass? in the first place, if the service was detrimental to their business.

 

[reksveks]

Right after, they got acquired. According to the former CEO, they pay based on downloads, play time, retention ... essentially like every other service out there?

Onlive was a better model for them cause they were getting paid on playtime, he then implied the GamePass is a different model.

OnLive, for example – they said you can have your game on our service and we’re going to attract a lot of customers, and we’re going to deliver you money based on how many hours people play the game. Now at Paradox, we loved that business model, because people play our games for three or four thousand hours. While the Game Pass model to us is still a decent model, we think we’re not getting paid enough, because people play our games more than they play very single-player driven narratives.

 

[Schmick]

Re: Gamepass; Phil Spencer once said there are a whole array of financial arrangements with developers. So we can assume that those arrnagement made are there to suit the developers and MS not just MS.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Onlive was a better model for them cause they were getting paid on playtime, he then implied the GamePass is a different model.

Phil has said their model at first was entirely based on engagement.

I'd assume paradox is getting revenue based on engagement, but they don't believe they're getting what they're worth

 

[hlm666]

Here's the actual article so we might be able to talk about what is really going on instead of this irrelevant gamepass is bad stealth thread.

news

news

www.gamasutra.com

"Starting this month, Google has pledged 70 percent of Stadia Pro's revenue to game developers that offer their games up as freebies on Stadia Pro. Specifically, pay is "based upon engagement for active claimable Stadia Pro titles" and will only apply to games new to the service. Engagement, in this case, is measured in session days, so developers will seemingly get a larger part of that 70 percent share depending on how many days individual Stadia Pro players log into their games."

 

[reksveks]

Phil has said their model at first was entirely based on engagement.

I'd assume paradox is getting revenue based on engagement, but they don't believe they're getting what they're worth

Source?

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/p...rs-get-paid-from-xbox-game-pass/1100-6484858/

"Our deals are, I'll say, all over the place. That sounds unmanaged, but it's really based on the developer's need," Spencer explained. "One of the things that's been cool to see is a developer, usually a smaller to mid-sized developer, might be starting a game and say, 'Hey, we're willing to put this in Game Pass on our launch day if you guys will give us X dollars now.' What we can go do is, we'll create a floor for them in terms of the success of their game. They know they're going to get this return."

In some other cases, Microsoft will completely fund the production cost of a game. In this situation, the developer can make money from retail sales,