• 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.

Shuhei Yoshida: "We believe in the premium release of a title" before subscriptions

Hobbygaming

has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
The main problem with GP is probably more that it’s trying to make gaming disposable and so gamers burn money every month and come out with nothing. I’ve made comparisons with Netflix before, but that media is not anywhere comparable to whole games that go 10-100+ hours. It ends up being a feeding trough where gamers pay up and want everything to come to it. Microsoft kinda gave that false impression and it’s on them. But if you evaluate deeper, they’re just doing the same strategy they did with Azure by rug pulling everyone once people are invested in the ecosystem. So enjoy 😉

PS Plus actually does a better job by not intersecting much with games that people would buy. So it ends up being a complementary service. Only some things have been devalued like my yakuza purchases.
That's a great evaluation and I agree 100% that's why I only had GP for less than 2 weeks. I canceled my sup when I still had a few months of use left and I never used it again once I thought about the end goal
 
Deja vu, the thread.

Love it or loathe it, Gamepass should be recognised as a massive part of gaming today. It’s certainly changed my habits, and I’ve been a gamer all my life, owning pretty much every console (okay, I skipped the Wii U) and rarely skipping a big release.

I’ve never played more games, for as much time, as since Gamepass. This weekend I’ll be playing Deathloop, Tinykin, that space salvage game I can’t remember the name of and my wife (very much a non-gamer) will inevitably be playing Dreamlight Valley. All games neither of us would have ever thought to buy at full price.

As for Sony’s stance, I’m never buying a full price game again, so whatever they believe they’ve not convinced me. I’ll wait for inclusion on PS+ or a below $20 sale for all of their games in future. Because I don’t believe in $70.

Once/if MS gets their AAA machine rolling, Sony has a big problem on its hands if it remains stuck in the past.
Question: what do you think the impact of this consumer behavior will be on the gaming industry? We know that Gamepass covers ~20% of the development costs. Devs still expect to recover the rest of the 80% of development costs through sales. And even then it only leads them to a break even, not profits.

With this consumer behavior, do you think we'll be getting more, better, and riskier games? Or do you think devs will make safer, small-budgeted games that are full of MTX and P2W mechanics?

Please do share your opinion.
 

Hobbygaming

has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
Lognor was my brother

Sad Cry GIF by SpongeBob SquarePants


Sike

 
Question: what do you think the impact of this consumer behavior will be on the gaming industry? We know that Gamepass covers ~20% of the development costs. Devs still expect to recover the rest of the 80% of development costs through sales. And even then it only leads them to a break even, not profits.

With this consumer behavior, do you think we'll be getting more, better, and riskier games? Or do you think devs will make safer, small-budgeted games that are full of MTX and P2W mechanics?

Please do share your opinion.
My opinion is your post is speculation.

I don’t expect to see smaller games full of MTX though, that’s for sure - and nothing about Gamepass (or PS+) to date suggests we have anything to fear like that.
 

Hobbygaming

has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
My opinion is your post is speculation.

I don’t expect to see smaller games full of MTX though, that’s for sure - and nothing about Gamepass (or PS+) to date suggests we have anything to fear like that.
I'd like to know what reason/s do you believe that more studios aren't inking deals for their games to be day one on GP?

Especially if selling premium games is "doing it wrong " like you said
 
Last edited:

fallingdove

Member
There are lots of membership models which apply barriers to buyers. Whether music streaming, or Costco, or various loyalty programs in a range of products. They are all viable business models, and gaming isn't overly unique here.

I continue to be baffled by the mantra of "it's just not sustainable" cause "reasons". As a consumer, I don't give a shit about Sony or MS's bottomlines or how they rationalize their strategies as long as I can get value out of what they are offering. I think you'd be hard pressed to say GP isn't the best value in gaming - it may not cover all your gaming interests - and that's a reasonable opinion - but advocating for more expensive gaming experiences which $70+ dollar games are doing seems a weird advocacy as a consumer.

Never have I asked for a company to charge me more with the hopes that it increases quality - cause it usually just ends up as increased margins and profits for the business not actual improved products.
Such an ignorant hot take. What would you say to the great divide in mobile vs. PC and console quality? There is absolutely a correlation between premium priced products and the higher quality experiences you can expect from them.

And if you think that the music and motion picture industries haven’t been negatively impacted by subscription services, you haven’t been paying attention.
 
My opinion is your post is speculation.

I don’t expect to see smaller games full of MTX though, that’s for sure - and nothing about Gamepass (or PS+) to date suggests we have anything to fear like that.
My post isn't speculative at all. We have multiple official records that Gamepass signs deals by covering 20-25% of the development costs. That leaves 80% cost for devs to recover by other means.

Those are facts. Nothing speculative or debatable about that.

And why don't you see smaller games full of MTX? If people don't intend to buy games (like you said you won't buy most games), how else will the devs recover their money? If they don't recover their money, what do you think will happen?
  1. Those studios will be shut down?
  2. Their next games will have smaller budget, giving them a better chance to make more recovery or to minimize the loss at least?
  3. Their games will be full of in-app purchases to increase monetization possibilities?
  4. Or they will make even bigger and better-quality games and increase their development costs, even though they continue netting a loss? If yes, where will the money come from?
Which scenario seems more likely to you?
 
Last edited:

Klayzer

Member
My post isn't speculative at all. We have multiple official records that Gamepass signs deals by covering 20-25% of the development costs. That leaves 80% cost for devs to recover by other means.

Those are facts. Nothing speculative or debatable about that.

And why don't you see smaller games full of MTX? If people don't intend to buy games (like you said you won't buy most games), how else will the devs recover their money? If they don't recover their money, what do you think will happen?
  1. Those studios will be shut down?
  2. Their next games will have smaller budget, giving them a better chance to make more recovery or to minimize the loss at least?
  3. Their games will be full of in-app purchases to increase monetization possibilities?
  4. Or they will make even bigger and better-quality games and increase their development costs, even though they continue netting a loss? If yes, where will the money come from?
Which scenario seems more likely to you?
Those are legitimate concerns. I hate how anyone dares to have an oposing view on GP is somehow considered "concern trolling." Subs and sales will definitely affect the money for a given project. I don't see how that's a controversial statement.
 
Last edited:

MistBreeze

Member
I prefer Sony’s model but in the end of the day I think gamepass is a bet by Microsoft either they will strike gold or loose

If Microsoft got cod exclusive is it more profitable to sell it 70$ / copy or gamepass day one?

player base will not increase regardless hardcore gamers are all buying cod and making cod day one on gamepass will not increase player base by any tangible margin and they can not develop cod with the same investment costs as now going forward

Lastly mobile game crowd will not buy consoles they are content with their games and ecosystem and no one will sub on mobile to play console games via cloud

it is no longer money or player base problem it is time problem

I think console and pc gaming is isolated gaming utopia most mobile gamers simply not interested in

Maybe Im right maybe Im wrong time will tell
 
Last edited:

THE DUCK

voted poster of the decade by bots
While obvously i prefer day and date i find I'm enjoying the strategy so far, as long as they don't wait forever for the AAA titles to hit the streaming service. Time will tell.
For instance should I buy gt7 right now while it's on sale or will it be on ps plus soon.........
The more they give me these kinds of games in a timely manner, the longer I will be a subscriber. It helps that I'm behind on my games though.
 
Last edited:

azertydu91

Hard to Kill
He did get plenty of chances and some even tried to help him out here. I guess he really didn't accept that his behavior wasn't correct.
Yep I told him that he'd eventually get banned if he continued that way...So this is really not surprising and mods gave him plenty of chances to correct its behaviour but he as impermeable to reason.
 
Yep I told him that he'd eventually get banned if he continued that way...So this is really not surprising and mods gave him plenty of chances to correct its behaviour but he as impermeable to reason.

What's sad is that the ones he supported didn't even bother to help him out for the most part.
 

bender

What time is it?
For instance should I buy gt7 right now while it's on sale or will it be on ps plus soon.........

I think it will be at least a year and probably longer. The new service launched June 13th. I believe the newest first party game on the service is Returnal which April 30th, 2021. The release date for Ratchet and Clank will be a good test as it launched June 11th, 2021 and still isn't on the service.
 
I’m lucky enough to have a Series X and PS5 and let me tell you it’s jarring hitting the buy button on a £70 game on PS5 when I see what I’m getting on Game Pass for £15 a month lol. Enjoying TLOU so it was worth it personally but I can understand why some would vomit at the thought of a single player only game which isn’t that long and is a remake costing that amount. I’m lucky I have a lot if disposable income to do it.

I waited for Returnal on the PS Game Pass thing and waited for a £52 sale on Ratchet and GT7. The latter is absolutely dreadful imo and a huge let down in this day and age “can’t race this car, can’t use these tires, upgrade your car for this race, oooops you went too far now it’s too powerful” JFC man it’s so annoying let me play the fucking game. The gameplay is good but wtf at the outside camera???? Awful.
 

Punished Miku

Gold Member
I haven't been following this thread and tried reading back a bit. So literally all you guys were fighting about is that Lognor claimed that most people stay subbed to a subscription even if they don't use it every month frequently?

That's the big argument?
 

THE DUCK

voted poster of the decade by bots
I think it will be at least a year and probably longer. The new service launched June 13th. I believe the newest first party game on the service is Returnal which April 30th, 2021. The release date for Ratchet and Clank will be a good test as it launched June 11th, 2021 and still isn't on the service.

Time will tell, but you are probably right. I could maybe live with a year, but only if it is like clockwork. If it ends up being 2 or 3 years for even half the aaa stuff I will bow out.
 
Last edited:

bender

What time is it?
Time will tell, but you are probably right. I could maybe live with a year, but only if it is like clockwork. If it ends up being 2 or 3 years for even half the aaa stuff I will bow out.

Launching the service with R&C would have been pretty darned close to one year on the dot. I do wonder if DeSo, Spider-Man and Returnal were more of a carrot than the norm.
 
Last edited:

THE DUCK

voted poster of the decade by bots
I haven't been following this thread and tried reading back a bit. So literally all you guys were fighting about is that Lognor claimed that most people stay subbed to a subscription even if they don't use it every month frequently?

That's the big argument?

I didn't read all of it either, bit isn't that true?
Creatures of habit and laziness, likely a very good chunk of consumers stay subbed to any subscription they are part of, that's why the sub services are so valuable, the cash flow is so consistent. Of course over time and depending on competition will matter, but if things are at least "ok" people will keep things turned on.
 

Punished Miku

Gold Member
I didn't read all of it either, bit isn't that true?
Creatures of habit and laziness, likely a very good chunk of consumers stay subbed to any subscription they are part of, that's why the sub services are so valuable, the cash flow is so consistent. Of course over time and depending on competition will matter, but if things are at least "ok" people will keep things turned on.
Yeah, that's how every single sub service works. I can't believe people are so petty that they couldn't even admit this.
 

THE DUCK

voted poster of the decade by bots
Question: what do you think the impact of this consumer behavior will be on the gaming industry? We know that Gamepass covers ~20% of the development costs. Devs still expect to recover the rest of the 80% of development costs through sales. And even then it only leads them to a break even, not profits.

With this consumer behavior, do you think we'll be getting more, better, and riskier games? Or do you think devs will make safer, small-budgeted games that are full of MTX and P2W mechanics?

Please do share your opinion.

Why would you say gamepass of covers 20% of dev costs? Clearly ms studio games are 100% (and there are a ton of them and represent a lot of aaa content) , and by all other accounts we have heard ever gamepass deal is individual, some cover more, some less. Some up front, some after they have been out for months or years.
 
Last edited:
I didn't read all of it either, bit isn't that true?
Creatures of habit and laziness, likely a very good chunk of consumers stay subbed to any subscription they are part of, that's why the sub services are so valuable, the cash flow is so consistent. Of course over time and depending on competition will matter, but if things are at least "ok" people will keep things turned on.

With how many sub services there are now and the prices I doubt this is as true as it used to be
 

THE DUCK

voted poster of the decade by bots
With how many sub services there are now and the prices I doubt this is as true as it used to be

I do have to admit that it probably makes it a bit less true. But even myself, who used to think cable was too "expensive" find myself paying for Disney plus, netflix, Amazon, paramount, and gamepass and ps plus.......and its still cheaper than $80 a month for cable......
 
Last edited:

SenkiDala

Member
Again a thread like this ? Come on we all know (well at least I thought so) that, if MS decides to put all the 1st party games on GP on day one, it is because their 1st party games are... average, since the end of the 360... And nobody buy them.
- Gears has lost its momentum since Gears 3 (I loved 4 and 5 but people didn't care those games)
- Recore (lol)
- Sunset Overdrive (ahah)
- Dead Rising 3 (cool but didn't sell)
Even Halo 5 didn't sell, the Forza games sold "a bit" but not as much as. they expected, so after 7/8 years not selling their 1st party games they decided to include them in their new subscriptions system...

Wether it will reduce games quality of games or not, we dunno yet.

But at least I think that yes, Yoshida is right, to be sure to keep making high quality AAA games, you need to sell the games at a full price on day one, those games costs a lot to make and the GP doesn't bring enough money to MS so they'll need to rise the prices (as it happened on Disney +, Netflix, etc), the appeal of GP now is that it's cheap (I'm not talking about some ways to get 3 years of GP at 60$ or so, most of people dunno how to do this and it probably won't be possible next years)... If it becomes 20$ a month, I dunno how people will react.

My worries that MS will spend less and less money in their "exclusives" from the studios they purchased and will end up making AA games, which is cool why not, but it's a big change.

So again yes, a subscription service is mandatory those days, people like to enjoy some games "on the fly", going throw catalogues of many titles and PS+Extra/Premium has more games, and mathematically more good games, that the GP has, but not including AAA 1st party games is the good way to go, it assures a big enough revenue to fund next AAA high quality games. I mean, compare Horizon FW, God of War Ragnarok, Returnal, Demon's Souls, Ratchet & Clank, to... Halo Infinite, that's embarrassing.
 

Pelta88

Member
I didn't read all of it either, bit isn't that true?
Creatures of habit and laziness, likely a very good chunk of consumers stay subbed to any subscription they are part of, that's why the sub services are so valuable, the cash flow is so consistent. Of course over time and depending on competition will matter, but if things are at least "ok" people will keep things turned on.

Making claims / statements and presenting them as facts without providing a source to back up your argument is problematic.

Personally, I tune out whenever I come across someone pushing false numbers and stats. Only to then act dumb, deaf, or aggressive when you ask for receipts. I mean, it's hilarious to watch. But I can't engage with them beyond the initial ask for a source. And they make it clear that they're being disingenuous.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
I haven't been following this thread and tried reading back a bit. So literally all you guys were fighting about is that Lognor claimed that most people stay subbed to a subscription even if they don't use it every month frequently?

That's the big argument?

The argument was he was claiming to have posted all this data that he never did.

He was obviously on thin ice with the mods as it was, but the guy was constantly console warring. I'm guessing that's why he was banned. Not sure. I know I didn't report him.
 
Last edited:
The argument was he was claiming to have posted all this data that he never did.

He was obviously on thin ice with the mods as it was, but the guy was constantly console warring. I'm guessing that's why he was banned. Not sure. I know I didn't report him.

Yes just making shit up can be considered console warring. I don't have any issues with people posting data as long as they state their source or that they crunched those numbers. Without that its impossible to have a meaningful debate.

Do I believe people subscribe to gamepass for more than a month?

Yes

Do I believe that 95% of first time subscribers continue with the service (for example)?

Not without any proof.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Yes just making shit up can be considered console warring. I don't have any issues with people posting data as long as they state their source or that they crunched those numbers. Without that its impossible to have a meaningful debate.

Do I believe people subscribe to gamepass for more than a month?

Yes

Do I believe that 95% of first time subscribers continue with the service (for example)?

Not without any proof.

I told him I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with him on his point, but I wanted to see his data. Repeatedly he said go find it myself or stop posting. Being a bit of a dick about it, frankly. That's when I knew he was lying.
 
Last edited:
I told him I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with him on his point, but I wanted to see his data. Repeatedly he said go find it myself or stop posting. Being a bit of a dick about it, frankly. That's when I knew he was lying.

Don't get me wrong I love it when people give us data. It's just when they don't provide a source that really iritates me. If someone doesn't explain the source they are most likely making it up like you said.
 

Chukhopops

Member
Sad to see Lognor go, his mistake was to get tangled in all those dumb arguments I suppose.

Making claims / statements and presenting them as facts without providing a source to back up your argument is problematic.

Personally, I tune out whenever I come across someone pushing false numbers and stats. Only to then act dumb, deaf, or aggressive when you ask for receipts. I mean, it's hilarious to watch. But I can't engage with them beyond the initial ask for a source. And they make it clear that they're being disingenuous.
Lmao the irony on display here, aren’t you the one who keeps saying it’s not clear whether GP subscriber numbers are cumulative or current? When the question was solved years ago in MS SEC reports?
The problem I have with GP figures is that I'm not sure where the PR and actual data stops. Microsoft refuses even when asked in previous earnings calls to clarify the following.

1. Does the announced numbers include concurrent or anyone who has used the service since it's introduction
2. Does the numbers include all promo and £1/$1 and confectionary/food giveaways

Without clarification, GP's actual numbers could be a significant reason why Halo hasn't been able to recoup, even with "20 million" players.
Yes you are. Talk about problematic statements.
 
Why would you say gamepass of covers 20% of dev costs? Clearly ms studio games are 100% (and there are a ton of them and represent a lot of aaa content) , and by all other accounts we have heard ever gamepass deal is individual, some cover more, some less. Some up front, some after they have been out for months or years.

It’s especially weird because he goes on in the next post to double down on the idea that his post isn’t speculation. Did I miss these “multiple” and “official records” of GamePass covering 20-25% of development costs for games? Seems like nothing more than speculation stacked on top of speculation. What we have seen is that different games get different deals, not just payout amount but payout structure as well. And we all know games have different budgets.

I’m not saying he is wrong, but he should post the receipts, since he isn’t speculating at all.
 
My post isn't speculative at all. We have multiple official records that Gamepass signs deals by covering 20-25% of the development costs. That leaves 80% cost for devs to recover by other means.

Those are facts. Nothing speculative or debatable about that.

And why don't you see smaller games full of MTX? If people don't intend to buy games (like you said you won't buy most games), how else will the devs recover their money? If they don't recover their money, what do you think will happen?
  1. Those studios will be shut down?
  2. Their next games will have smaller budget, giving them a better chance to make more recovery or to minimize the loss at least?
  3. Their games will be full of in-app purchases to increase monetization possibilities?
  4. Or they will make even bigger and better-quality games and increase their development costs, even though they continue netting a loss? If yes, where will the money come from?
Which scenario seems more likely to you?
But your entire premise is based on speculation. This 80/20 thing you are stating as hard fact… It’s clearly not as contracts are confidential and there’s no way Gamepass deals are negotiated on a standardised contract anyway so you can’t equate one to all, plus the cornerstone of Gamepass will be first party going forward anyway.

Your 1-4 list is also 100% speculative.

It depends what you class as MTX too - I’ll happily buy DLC for a Gamepass game as long as it’s new content (as in the Forza DLC pack for example), but I don’t consider that MTX.

Not looking to argue with you on a Sunday though. I just feel that it’s inevitable that many more people will choose value to them today over ‘long term health of the industry’, even if your point holds, so my personal opinion is Sony will be proved to have been on the wrong side of this down the line and will have no choice but to adapt to survive. It’s not going to be a choice to stubbornly do things the old way.
 
I think it will be at least a year and probably longer. The new service launched June 13th. I believe the newest first party game on the service is Returnal which April 30th, 2021. The release date for Ratchet and Clank will be a good test as it launched June 11th, 2021 and still isn't on the service.
It'll be on a case by case basis. Sackboy, which released on Nov. 11, 2020, alongside Miles Morales and Demon's Souls, still isn't on the service.
 

NeroDaGod

Member
But your entire premise is based on speculation. This 80/20 thing you are stating as hard fact… It’s clearly not as contracts are confidential and there’s no way Gamepass deals are negotiated on a standardised contract anyway so you can’t equate one to all, plus the cornerstone of Gamepass will be first party going forward anyway.

Your 1-4 list is also 100% speculative.

It depends what you class as MTX too - I’ll happily buy DLC for a Gamepass game as long as it’s new content (as in the Forza DLC pack for example), but I don’t consider that MTX.

Not looking to argue with you on a Sunday though. I just feel that it’s inevitable that many more people will choose value to them today over ‘long term health of the industry’, even if your point holds, so my personal opinion is Sony will be proved to have been on the wrong side of this down the line and will have no choice but to adapt to survive. It’s not going to be a choice to stubbornly do things the old way.
Is Nintendo wrong as well then? Or just Sony?

Yep it’s super clear that the two market leaders with decades of experience and success in the industry as well as access to multiple economic and financial advisors are too stubborn, blind and not innovative enough to completely revitalise their business model to a subscription service just because people on the internet believe so.

I also find it funny that people bring up other streaming services as some proof of concept, but forget that Sony also does successful business in the music and film industry. I think they know how subscription services in multiple different media work and how profitable they can or can’t be.
 
Last edited:

ReBurn

Gold Member
Again a thread like this ? Come on we all know (well at least I thought so) that, if MS decides to put all the 1st party games on GP on day one, it is because their 1st party games are... average, since the end of the 360... And nobody buy them.
- Gears has lost its momentum since Gears 3 (I loved 4 and 5 but people didn't care those games)
- Recore (lol)
- Sunset Overdrive (ahah)
- Dead Rising 3 (cool but didn't sell)
Even Halo 5 didn't sell, the Forza games sold "a bit" but not as much as. they expected, so after 7/8 years not selling their 1st party games they decided to include them in their new subscriptions system...

Wether it will reduce games quality of games or not, we dunno yet.

But at least I think that yes, Yoshida is right, to be sure to keep making high quality AAA games, you need to sell the games at a full price on day one, those games costs a lot to make and the GP doesn't bring enough money to MS so they'll need to rise the prices (as it happened on Disney +, Netflix, etc), the appeal of GP now is that it's cheap (I'm not talking about some ways to get 3 years of GP at 60$ or so, most of people dunno how to do this and it probably won't be possible next years)... If it becomes 20$ a month, I dunno how people will react.

My worries that MS will spend less and less money in their "exclusives" from the studios they purchased and will end up making AA games, which is cool why not, but it's a big change.

So again yes, a subscription service is mandatory those days, people like to enjoy some games "on the fly", going throw catalogues of many titles and PS+Extra/Premium has more games, and mathematically more good games, that the GP has, but not including AAA 1st party games is the good way to go, it assures a big enough revenue to fund next AAA high quality games. I mean, compare Horizon FW, God of War Ragnarok, Returnal, Demon's Souls, Ratchet & Clank, to... Halo Infinite, that's embarrassing.
This is just console warring bait.

Microsoft hasn't been as successful as Sony in getting enough people to buy consoles to build the economy of scale required to make direct sales at premium prices work for them. So they are doing what they do best and pushing revenue via models that do work for them. The profit from recurring revenue at scale from services like Office 365 and Azure is what's giving Microsoft the cash to try to grow Gamepass into a similarly successful service.

There's no reason to believe that Gamepass is going to result in lower quality first party output. Beyond contrived lists based on confirmation bias there's no evidence that this has happened. Microsoft can't let that happen if they're going to convince people to keep paying for it. If they could actually get 35 million people to sign up and pay $15 per month every month that's half a billion dollars per month in revenue, which is plenty to fund their vision of a AAA first party release every quarter. There's also no reason to believe that they won't gain subscribers if they can actually deliver the games and make it happen.

The actions that Sony are actually taking are betraying what Yoshida is saying here. They're testing the waters of subscription and PC releases because they know at some point they're going to struggle with their current model. They are holding new PS5 sales hostage by forcing people to buy a copy of Horizon Forbidden West to be able to buy a console so they can guarantee software revenue per console. They know that if games like Call of Duty stop selling consoles for them (and they lose the 30% of the software revenue those games generate) that they are going to struggle to build the economies of scale that make their current premium model possible. There's no doubt that third party revenue subsidizes their first part machine.

The whole "premium experience" conversation is just marketing speak to scare people into thinking that unless they keep paying $70 or more for games and that all the big games must come to Sony's platform that everything is going to burn down. Sony just doesn't want to have to compete in the new way gaming is going to work so they're hyping the current way. Fewer people want to own media these days. Gaming is not special or different from other kinds of media no matter how much people want it to be.
 
Top Bottom