Vawn
Banned
Microsoft also sells these games for $60. Is your mind blown now?
Have you seen their sales numbers lately? Or how low these games chart on NPD, etc?
Microsoft also sells these games for $60. Is your mind blown now?
Friday OP strikes again
Have you seen their sales numbers lately? Or how low these games chart on NPD, etc?
He wanted absolute surrender, its very strange.
Really what he is looking is for everyone to say that,"Game Pass is not a rental service and its the greatest thing ever!". Very abnormal behavior, I really don't see the difference between that and PS Now, I mean if they were equal price I would probably go with PS now if someone put a gun to my head.... but its just a rental service. Yet, you ask simple questions like, if its so great why is Microsoft selling a $119.88 a year service for $1, its because they are trying to get customers. Obviously its not so great at $119.99.
The funny thing is, I'm not even one of the ones that said it was bad, I said it was a nothing burger.They get even madder if you tell them its basically an rental program with limited revenue potential.
They attack me and I:
- don't think its bad as the OP suggested
- see it as a simple rental program, which is what it is like EA Access, uPlay+, PS Now, etc... although there are differences between them all
- I don't see where it works outside of non-Xbox as a Hardware in the real world
- limited revenue from video game rental services... the clue for this is nobody wanted to sign up for XBGP at $119.88 or PS Now at $99.99 a year... they have to drop the prices drastically.
I actually agree with the OP on some of it, he just wants a desired end result..... Game Pass is not simple rental service and its the greatest thing to gaming since ever!
It’s not the greatest thing but it’s also not the end of all things or the worst thing to happen like some try to make it out to be.
Actually I said the opposite in this thread, its not really a real business model.... but Microsoft can continue funding it losing big money or not indefinitely. (That's actually the Xbox product for the last 20 years) Microsoft can fund it indefinitely, but at some point Satya wants service revenue (see his book) that is generating positive cash flow. The hardware is meaningless to Satya, although strategy wise they may release hardware.You are in every Gamepass thread, downplaying, attacking it, saying it’s not sustainable yet it’s been alive and kicking for two years now.
Oh and if it was doing as bad as some would hope, I’m pretty sure big brother Nadella would shut it down(because who wouldn’t?)
A few months later, Spencer took over as head of Xbox. Whatever jubilation he felt was short-lived; a few weeks into the job, he got a call from Satya Nadella... 'I don't actually know a whole lot about why we're in gaming,' Nadella told him... Many developers who had worked on the Xbox One felt let down by Microsoft's big vision; it was, as some told Spencer, not in line with 'the soul' of what Xbox was. 'Satya was transparent that there could be a future where gaming isn't a business that Microsoft should be in,' Spencer told me... He looked at where Xbox had failed, and how the brand could be saved — if at all. When he finally called Nadella back, it was to say this: 'If we're going to stay in the gaming space, then let's make sure we're all-in. The last thing I wanted to do was run the gaming organization here as kind of an afterthought of the company and kind of half-in, half-out. Let's go fix who we are.'
Have you seen their sales numbers lately? Or how low these games chart on NPD, etc?
Doesn’t take away the fact that they still have Physical and digital copies of full games if you want to own them.
So you’re saying they’ll lower the quality of games that already don’t sell well? That’s a bold strategy, Cotton. Let’s see if it works out for them.
What’s the problem with the hardware? All information points to it being more powerful than the PS5. That would indicate to me that Sony is the one that fucked up.
A more powerful console with its flagship launch titles only requiring a 10$ subscription. Sounds like a winner to me.
HUGE winner! Money printer!So what is your thoughts on PS+? Same as game pass? A money looser?
I'm saying they're making games with the understanding they don't need to be good enough to sell. They are already doing this. Just look at the difference in quality of Xbox games compared to both PlayStation and Nintendo.
It's made for TV movies vs AAA Blockbuster theater movies.
I'm saying they're making games with the understanding they don't need to be good enough to sell. They are already doing this. Just look at the difference in quality of Xbox games compared to both PlayStation and Nintendo.
It's made for TV movies vs AAA Blockbuster theater movies.
They been buying studios since the OG XB days.They can make those games just like Sony can. They just haven’t had the studios to do it. Now they do. Or maybe you’re right and devs are just farting around for half their work days and whipping up filler software the other half. What a colossal load of nonsense.
Another swing and a miss for anyone trying to rationally explain why game quality and investment would dip thanks to GamePass.
They been buying studios since the OG XB days.
How long do we have to wait to get a stellar RARE game?
yeah yeah us xbros love mediocre indie games you beat in 3 hours, the 90th installment in the gow franchise, yearly forza games and the 27th halo game. Much better. crackdown 3 was also great am i rite guiz?Pretty sure Xbox gamers don’t care for PD who make racing games with 75 meta critic scores or MM who hasn’t released a game since LBP.
most of the rest of the games are SP narratives you can beat in a weekend and half of them are on PC PS Now anyway.
it’s also easy for you to condense PS software since Sony has gutted their studios, getting rid of the junky studios and franchises. Sony has shut down more studios than are even left.
And now they're buying AA and indie studios with mediocre track records. And the Xbox diehards are saying we just need to wait for these studios to turn into Naughty Dog, Insomniac, Guerrilla Games, Sucker Punch, Sony Santa Monica, Bend, Media Molecule, Polyphony, etc.
Good luck with that.![]()
People aren't paying $100+ for a video game subscription, most don't even pay for online at $40-60. The first day games, have to either be half-ass releases or so spread out that most people won't bother or cherry pick. The math just doesn't compute. Like my example with EA, there really is no way for them to release all their games on a subscription day one and generate more than they would be as sales.
[b{They're never going to listen to ya... they're getting free shit and somehow they think all the big publishers got it wrong.[/b]![]()
And now they're buying AA and indie studios with mediocre track records. And the Xbox diehards are saying we just need to wait for these studios to turn into Naughty Dog, Insomniac, Guerrilla Games, Sucker Punch, Sony Santa Monica, Bend, Media Molecule, Polyphony, etc.
Good luck with that.![]()
yeah yeah us xbros love mediocre indie games you beat in 3 hours, the 90th installment in the gow franchise, yearly forza games and the 27th halo game. Much better. crackdown 3 was also great am i rite guiz?
Looks like I struck a nerveYou're right.
I much rather play the 25th uncharted, 40th GOW, wait 30 years for a meta 75 racing game & simply can't wait to see all the wholesome pandering in LOU2. Plz don't censor me. My excitement can't be contained, but I have doubts in seeing if they can top being a FedEx courier in a game. Absolute masterpiece.
You're right.
I much rather play the 25th uncharted, 40th GOW, wait 30 years for a meta 75 racing game & simply can't wait to see all the wholesome pandering in LOU2. Plz don't censor me. My excitement can't be contained, but I have doubts in seeing if they can top being a FedEx courier in a game. Absolute masterpiece.
Whatever makes you feel better. FWIW I'm not looking forward to the lesbians of us or that samurai game made by a bunch of white people. Keep feel persecuted though because somebody dare criticize your console box of choice.Ignore the troll. It’s better for your blood pressure.
Sony could release whatever they want, and brap would still hail it as a masterpiece.
Looks like I struck a nerve
Also it's funny that Uncharted has less games than gears and halo lmao.
Whatever makes you feel better. FWIW I'm not looking forward to the lesbians of us or that samurai game made by a bunch of white people. Keep feel persecuted though because somebody dare criticize your console box of choice.
The more things change...The industry will eventually turn into exactly what Netflix is.
Loads and loads of cheap, unpolished garbage, with a small number of really good games worth playing here and there.
Witcher 3 had sold thru 20 million units before appearing on gamespass.
I'm saying they're making games with the understanding they don't need to be good enough to sell. They are already doing this. Just look at the difference in quality of Xbox games compared to both PlayStation and Nintendo.
It's made for TV movies vs AAA Blockbuster theater movies.
Did Sony hurt your mom or something?Sony's gaming accolades are rarely for gameplay systems new or unique - the development strengths at Sony are for storyline, voice acting, animation, motion capture, musical score. Those titles cater to audiences that think the Marvel Cinematic Universe is high art. Probably wise to describe those titles as interactive stories, not videogames.
Tetris, Age Of Empires, Eve Online all demonstrate involved gameplay systems without the need for a hokey made for Netflix storyline tacked on. Sony play to thier strengths in making movies (shit ones mainly) and use that experience to inform the interactive story developers they currently employ as videogame developers.
Sony's pursuit to make games into interactive movies is far more detrimental to the videogame industry than a rental feature.
Same goes for Microsoft, Ubisoft, EA and so on - go and make fucking movies if that's what you want.
Now go, eat - the blood is in the water.
* bare in mind I can't stand any story exposition in games - I tried to play Frostpunk recently and there was a story cutscene at the beginning that fast outstayed its welcome. I quickly uninstalled the game and moved on with my life.
Did Sony hurt your mom or something?
I feel that some developers are afraid that if GP gets big and becomes the biggest thing on the market, since MS is(or will be) paying games on GP according to the "demand", the unpopular games will get less paid, getting the short end of the stick.To be fair, games were already getting devalued by third party suppliers like GameStop who made a killing on used games so this wasn’t something started with Gamepass with people not buying new copies because the value of those games(especially those that hadn’t perform well, which lets face it was a lot of games) plummet within days or weeks.
But I agree, I don’t know why developers are scared if Microsoft is paying them to host their games but it’s also something posted by Jason Schreier.
I feel that some developers are afraid that if GP gets big and becomes the biggest thing on the market, since MS is(or will be) paying games on GP according to the "demand", the unpopular games will get less paid, getting the short end of the stick.
I mean, people rather wait the games on GP, other than buying.
Just an hypothesis:
Sure, smaller games, most of times, do sell less, but they do have a fanbase that will keep them afloat... If this fanbase gets smaller, thanks to GP, and MS decides that they are less worthy.... they will get fucked.
What MS is trying to do might be considered a nightmare for developers. Imagine a generation were game pass is the king, so MS decides which game she should pay a lot to be on the service and which is not that "worthy", a new game made by a small studio like Disco Elysium, would definitly suffer from it, if consumers find GP to be the only thing they need.
Again, just an hypothesis, but a scary one for game makers.
Phil Spencer stated again in an interview that Game Pass subscribers play and buy more games than non-subscribers. So I wouldn't say it's bad for the industry, it's actually better for it...
Actually, Sony isn't doing it. They don't put their games on the service day one. As far as I know, EA give early access and to the vault, I don't think day one... but even if they did, the numbers would make less sense.
EA revenue is around $5b annually, people are not signing up for EA Access in mass with only about 3m at $30-50 a year. So, say they lower it $10 a year or $15 a year to get more subscribers... they would need 300-500m annual subscribers to reach that revenue number, generally speaking to cover new game development. Revenues would crash, they're simply is no 300-500m users for them to get. Lets say they get 25m users to for games day one at $50 a year, that is only $1.25b. (its a loser business model) Even if you can some how get some stupid idiot to spend $100 a year at 25m subscribers that is only $2.5b.
Most people are not going to pay a subscription for games that get rapidly cheaper after 3-6 months.
Upfront sales is where the money is generated especially with repeat users and whales... rental services are fine for small revenue streams for older catalog.... I think EA Access is generating around $100m in revenue, barely enough to cover marketing for one big game.
- Games are generally cheap, they are definitely cheap after initial release... boardline worthless after a year
- Gamers really only play a few games a year
- Gamers really don't need access to 100s of games for rental... as they can't play them
- where gamers would pay for subscription on say day one rentals.... the publishers would be losing money vs. sales
- digital sales is easily the best business model, although game rentals can make sense for older titles
As far as Microsoft, I see no reason for them to be the middleman other than the closed system called Xbox as a Hardware, which is why the major publishers stay away from Microsoft in anything other than Xbox as a Hardware, generally speaking..... additional middlemen seems very inefficient.
Even if you believe in services and if you believe in efficiency.... I'm unsure why you guys would want Microsoft involved. I'm so confused.
I think is like this:I don't understand how people don't seem to understand that devs are willingly putting their games on the platform.
Nobody from MS showed up at their home with a gun and forced them to put the game on Gamepass.
I know it's an hypothesis but just doesn't make sense. If I was an artist and X service is inherently bad for me why would I put my work on it? Especially since I don't have to as GP is only an option in a see of other revenue options.
Do have nightmares about Gamepass or something ? I created the thread and you seem to care way more than me. Even more weird since you obviously hate Xbox. Why would you even care so much
Don't tell me you're worried for the industry BS because we all know why you're so active in here.
I think you have nightmares about your reading skills or lack of. I don't even know what you're pissed off about. You setup a thread looking for a desired response and you're not getting it. There is no sense in you coming on a forum and getting mad because people don't agree with you.
Its even weirder that you can't even explain what you are pissed off about. (rage on)
But that's not always the case, right? Microsoft doesn't necessarily pay the developers to put their game on GP.I think is like this:
Today MS gives you a shit ton of money to put your games on GP, tomorrow GP has all the games and your games are not that valuable anymore, so they offer you a bad deal, however since everybody uses GP you are put against a wall.
That's the logic.... I guess.
But that's not always the case, right? Microsoft doesn't necessarily pay the developers to put their game on GP.
Also the results are pretty good for developers.
But that's not always the case, right? Microsoft doesn't necessarily pay the developers to put their game on GP.
Also the results are pretty good for developers.
But that's not always the case, right? Microsoft doesn't necessarily pay the developers to put their game on GP.
Also the results are pretty good for developers.
Pretty sure Xbox gamers don’t care for PD who make racing games with 75 meta critic scores or MM who hasn’t released a game since LBP.
most of the rest of the games are SP narratives you can beat in a weekend and half of them are on PC PS Now anyway.
it’s also easy for you to condense PS software since Sony has gutted their studios, getting rid of the junky studios and franchises. Sony has shut down more studios than are even left.
Last part is important though:Well, some developers seem to disagree.
![]()
The Netflix business model is bad news for indie games
The Netflix model doesn't work for video games. Neither does the Spotify plan, the HBO Go ecosystem or the Amazon Prime Video marketplace. Sure, digital distribution is king and subscription-based streaming services will absolutely become a dominant market force in gaming. But, when it comes to...www.engadget.com
Anyway, I am just trying to rationalize their fears.
Last part is important though:
"A lot of details are up in the air, when it comes to subscription deals in the coming gaming generation. Indie developers are at the forefront, negotiating their games away, and hopefully getting plenty in return."
If developers would still think this is shit or bad for gaming, wouldn't they have said this already? And not just once, but many times.