• 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.

Striking Distance CEO claims gamepass model is tough to sell single player games in

KingT731

Member
Doesn't really say much. GP gets games like Wo Long, so it can be done. They apparently asked for a price higher than MS was willing to pay I guess? He doesn't really explain.

I don't typically expect a ton of third party AAA games on GP. It's usually going to be first party, AA, indies, and a couple notable third party games per year (Scarlet Nexus, Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, Wo Long, etc). The bulk of the service isn't third party games like Callisto Protocol. I wasn't expecting it on GP at all.
I'm sure they do the math on what they expect to sell in that ecosystem and it's likely not too extravagant based on the splits we've seen with Japanese games like Scarlet Nexus, Tales of Arise, Soul Hackers 2, FF Series etc.
 
I mean depending on reviews the game will sell. (I hope a lot for the better, it seems to be a game I will enjoy playing). Placing it in gamepass can either kill it or make it a success (depending on how much $$$ Microsoft is willing to pay).
 
If you think you have what it takes to beat MS's offer in sales then turn it down, the cream of the Dead Space crop might just be right. MS aren't imbeciles like like the government just paying the insane demands of their contractors, they aim to make money on every deal they make, or grow the ecosystem that will bring the profit in years from now. I expect everyone in the game to make the decisions they believe will make them the greatest returns.

No hate for these devs, I'll sure as hell buy Callisto Protocol if the people I trust say it's the reincarnation of Dead Space.
 

timmyp53

Member
Dead space remake going to xbox game pass would make alot of sense cuz I do not see that making a huge splash and ea having more ability to take the hit or pivot if what ever the royalties are dont pay off with word of mouth.
 
Does anyone have a legitimate rebuttal for this? Because pure and simple this is blue-money talking (exclusive DLC and marketing), and anything Striking Distance Studios says is pure hogwash.
Blue money obviously just was the better offer than green money. MS probably did offer something, and they had to refuse because they did not have MTX and some other shit ready to close the gap they saw in their calculations. I am happy that not every studio is plagueing their game with lootboxes, cosmetic trash and seeling the endgame as a GaaS package in a trillion downloads.
All this says is just that GP, and probably PS+ either, is not compatible with the rather traditional monetizing scheme they had in mind throughout the design and development of their game, and so they went with the deal that looked best to them. Which is not a revolutionary idea or scandal or whatever some make it to be. GP might suffice for many Indies, and it might be "sustainable" very long for MS deep pockets, but it isn't for each and every game, when those require more than pennies per player, a rather substantial sum upfront even MS is not willing to pay.
So they got some money from Sony, will try the market for people that actually want to buy their game and then like many other games it will end up on Gold, GP, PS+ Essential or Premium, EGS giveaway.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius

Big, fun, not MTX filled games not built on “engagement” and whose main transaction happens before people start playing (this being able to just have fun after) are not compatible with a Netflix or GamePass only like model for games.
You also have a single Gatekeeper their main interest is keeping you subbed.

Iwata had it right when he warned about what happens if Games’s perceived monetary value eroded in console and PC gaming like it has done on mobile, we have seen where it leads to.

The problem is that a lot gamers may just look at god the short term picture may seem land by the time game publishers have all adapted and gaming changed even more well… we will see what happens, IMHO look at your Android and iOS devices for gaming as that is the landscape we are preparing ourselves for.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
That’s his point though. It needs to make its money in the launch window. It’s exactly what Sony, Take 2 etc have been saying. It’s effective for catalogue games and indies that can have their costs covered by the GP money.
Yup, but he knows…he knows ;). It is more green vs blue at this point.
 

Kagey K

Banned
Imagine being disparaged to publicly shame a service that could make you extra money later.

Talk about being short sighted.
 
Last edited:
Imagine being disparaged to publicly shame a service that could make you extra money later.

Talk about being short sighted.

Or maybe they’re just telling the truth?

Its crazy how people ahve only accepted devs talking about the perks of being gamepass that as soon as someone says something that could perceived as slightly negative its back to dismissing said person or calling them short sighted.

I bet there a lot of other devs that feel the same way but are afraid to talk up for the exact reason you mentioned. Gamepass isn’t going to work for every game and devs have a right to voice concern over the model, there could very well be a day where it does become the dominate distribution method and there are games like this that won’t make the cut or smaller indie games that will get ignored without a deal
 
Last edited:

Kagey K

Banned
Or maybe they’re just telling the truth?

Its crazy how people ahve only accepted devs talking about the perks of being gamepass that as soon as someone says something that could perceived as slightly negative its back to dismissing said person or calling them short sighted.

I bet there a lot of other devs that feel the same way but are afraid to talk up for the exact reason you mentioned.
It's a two way street, for as many upset with gamepass (has there ever been one who spoke against it that didn't have a marketing deal?)

Plenty of others have said they relished in the gamepass money and exposure.
.

The only real criticism I've seen has came from Lorne Lanning (Oddworld) talking about how Sony and PS+ fucked him.

No other publisher or developer has said these services are bad.
 
Last edited:
Strike CEOs statement isn't applicable as a blanket statement I think. It all depends on game to game, deal to deal, single player or otherwise. For a new company, launching a new game in a new IP is always a risky affair. They would have a projection to move X amount of units, but that's enveloped in a lot of risks. What if the reception isn't as expected? What if players find loads of bugs not addressed by QA? What if word of mouth turns bad? What if the game is well made, but it just gets overlooked Vs competing products? Companies have to weigh that risk Vs the guaranteed payment offered by services like GP. Sure, the game might miss out on some earnings potential, but on the other hand the risk of failure is lower. You get more eyeballs, you get more exposure, the IP gets more exposure.
 

CeeJay

Member
RE Village was a game that was highly anticipated, by a pedigree studio and publisher that know their way around this industry, for decades at that. While striking Distance has some AAA Pedigree and many of them have experience shipping a product.
The studio itself and Krafton, are unproven. I think they would make more in the long run, if they put it on Game Pass, later on.
Unless you have a copy of another recent contract that doesn't have this clause then the evidence would suggest it's something that has been standard in Sony's contracts for a while. There is certainly circumstantial evidence that points to this being the case rather than not, What other games where Sony has had marketing rights have we seen the game on Gamepass day one? A game that Sony are marketing but appears on Gamepass day one certainly would undermine the desired effect of the marketing contract in the first place so it really would make more sense for this clause to be in by default. Look at what happened with MLB The Show, due to the way it went from exclusive to multiplat obviously left it open for the game to come to GamePass day one and Microsoft capitalised on that oversight. Maybe the clause wasn't something that Sony even considered at the time the contract was originally drawn up due to MLB The Show was exclusive and the clause was not needed. When the contract was amended the clause was left out as an oversight perhaps. Whatever the case there is certainly factual evidence that Sony are actively blocking games going to Gamepass and also that Microsoft have the appetite to undermine Sony's marketing deals where they can, remember the Destiny aftershave?
 

CeeJay

Member
Big, fun, not MTX filled games not built on “engagement” and whose main transaction happens before people start playing (this being able to just have fun after) are not compatible with a Netflix or GamePass only like model for games.
You also have a single Gatekeeper their main interest is keeping you subbed.

Iwata had it right when he warned about what happens if Games’s perceived monetary value eroded in console and PC gaming like it has done on mobile, we have seen where it leads to.

The problem is that a lot gamers may just look at god the short term picture may seem land by the time game publishers have all adapted and gaming changed even more well… we will see what happens, IMHO look at your Android and iOS devices for gaming as that is the landscape we are preparing ourselves for.
There is a flaw in that logic though. People buy phones primarily as a communication device and the games are secondary at best and when you consider the experience you get on a phone I would say that you could call that second rate as well. A games console is primarily bought to play games so that is where you expect to find the premium experiences and expect to pay the premium prices.

If you want to look at mobile devices which are primarily a device for games (Switch) then we see the opposite, games that are full price AND maintain those high prices for longer than on non-mobile games machines. Sure, this counter argument is a bit flawed too due to the Nintendo way of keeping prices high but it does highlight that there is very much a difference between the market for games on phones compared to dedicated devices.
 

quest

Not Banned from OT
Big, fun, not MTX filled games not built on “engagement” and whose main transaction happens before people start playing (this being able to just have fun after) are not compatible with a Netflix or GamePass only like model for games.
You also have a single Gatekeeper their main interest is keeping you subbed.

Iwata had it right when he warned about what happens if Games’s perceived monetary value eroded in console and PC gaming like it has done on mobile, we have seen where it leads to.

The problem is that a lot gamers may just look at god the short term picture may seem land by the time game publishers have all adapted and gaming changed even more well… we will see what happens, IMHO look at your Android and iOS devices for gaming as that is the landscape we are preparing ourselves for.
Actually they are made for it. To keep people happy with a subscription they need to see value which is engagement plus variety. If your playing a single GAAS a subscription service is worthless you can buy that game cheaper. The value comes from playing many games over the course of your subscription. Also the developer is being short sighted in 18 months they can drop it on Playstation Extra or GamePass. Get eyes on the game again plus a check from Microsoft or Sony after sales are dead. Get more fans of the IP for any future sequels and more sales.
 

Schmick

Member
So i guess, what is being said is, is that because a select few games are not suited for Gamepass... Gamepass should just die?!
 
So i guess, what is being said is, is that because a select few games are not suited for Gamepass... Gamepass should just die?!

Or that we will continue to need other game distribution models indefinitely and should make sure that the subscription model doesn’t completely consume games like movies and music or else we could lose entire genres of games altogether?
 

DaGwaphics

Member
Thats not really a ‘gotcha’ thats usually what happens when a game hit sales saturation. He’s talking about releasing a game day 1 on the service as a 3rd party AAA developer

Honestly, I can see where he is coming from there. A third party doesn't directly benefit from the subscription revenue and is limited to whatever specific deal can be arranged. A different thing entirely from first-party.

I can see where many games can get a sales boost from GP, games like Psychonauts 2 or similar. In that situation, even if you figure a third of Xbox owners have GP, there is a good chance that the exposure from the inclusion allows you to sell more copies to non-GP users as a result. For big AAA games, they already have maximum exposure in most cases, that might lessen the effect. Probably why the AAA games from third-parties we've seen on there fit a certain mold with a lot of monetization opportunities. Whereas, when it comes to more AA type releases we see almost all genres covered. I think it will be up to MS to bring the AAAs for the most part, at least in terms of the day one releases.
 

Schmick

Member
Or that we will continue to need other game distribution models indefinitely and should make sure that the subscription model doesn’t completely consume games like movies and music or else we could lose entire genres of games altogether?
Yep, Phil Spencer has recently referred to Gamepass as an 'option'.
 

IDKFA

I am Become Bilbo Baggins
This is an issue that needs to be fixed, especially if we want a future where all third party games drop day one on Ganepass. I don't want a future of all multiplayer or live service games.
 

legacy24

Member
I agree with him, if I was a dev I would consider adding to gamepass after a year or when the sales have declined significantly enough to justify putting it on gamepass
 

Leyasu

Banned
Lol I know. I thought I would I would go all in on the drama. Because that's what's happens here at GAF.

You should see the difference in the way that this is discussed on other forums. Even Sony fanboys on other forums know that being a single player game doesn’t mean it can’t work on a service. It’s just on here where they still slurp the Sony execs jizz regarding single player games and repeat the pr about quality being affected.
 

SLB1904

Banned
Developer: subscription service is tough to sell single player games.

Neogaf user: bUt iF tHeY gIvE yOu 3 bILLiOn DoLLA!


No shit sherlock 😒
 

Deerock71

Member
He's negotiating for a better price. Why should he care what it "sells" on Game Pass? They get their money up front.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
He's negotiating for a better price. Why should he care what it "sells" on Game Pass? They get their money up front.

That's true too. There's probably no game made that can't work on GP if MS is willing to make a good enough deal for it. I guess the balance is what MS is willing to offer vs. what makers of AAA games are willing to accept. So far it hasn't seemed like the sides come together that often on AAA new releases.
 

lefty1117

Gold Member
I think the guy is spot on, if I was selling a single player game that I didn't plan to support with a lot of ongoing DLC and stuff, hell yeah I'd try to maximize my profit by selling through whatever channel takes the smallest cut possible for maybe the first year after release where New Game Buzz will stimulate some sales. Then Gamepass or whatever after a year or so. Online games or GaaS type of games where it's more about the RMTs and ongoing purchases, and they can afford to sell the base game cheap, those are the games that make sense day 1 on a sub service.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
Communications director at Remedy.


yeah but what does this Sony shill know? Sure his studio has made Xbox exclusives like Alan Wake and Quantum Break, but with comments like that you can bet he’s suckling on the teet of Jim Ryan.

tenor.gif


It’s the only logical explanation.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
This is an issue that needs to be fixed, especially if we want a future where all third party games drop day one on Ganepass. I don't want a future of all multiplayer or live service games.
Make sure you continue to support single player game sales then and spend a lot of money in Nintendo’s ecosystem.
 

DaGwaphics

Member
This is an issue that needs to be fixed, especially if we want a future where all third party games drop day one on Ganepass. I don't want a future of all multiplayer or live service games.

All third party games will never drop on GP, LOL. MS couldn't afford it, unless the price bumps up to like 3 figures a month or something.
 
Clearly gamepass wasn't going to cover costs, so selling the game traditionally to get sales and recoup costs makes sense. Once sales start diving after a year or two we might see it show up on a service.
 
Top Bottom