Support NeoGAF

[alabtrosMyster]

this is a Google doing Google things. why is Gamepass being drawn in again?

as long as Phil heads XGS, im sure he is well aware what makes a gamer ticks, the last time they tried to force Kinect TVTVTV didn't work out

Because MS has been using active user accounts as a success metric for years, gamepass and games as a service fit very well with this social media type approach. And if you think it's a Google thing, get a LinkedIn account and try to ignore it, they will spam you to death (ms property)...

Xbox use their engagement numbers to drive publicity value when you try to start your games (this is just in the easing in phase, games on Xbox will be like DVDs of they get the chance).

Sony aren't ignoring this trend, but they are not building their presence in gaming on this manipulative B.S. (however, of MS or stadia, etc. Becomes very successful it could change).

 

[tsumake]

Because MS has been using active user accounts as a success metric for years, gamepass and games as a service fit very well with this social media type approach. And if you think it's a Google thing, get a LinkedIn account and try to ignore it, they will spam you to death (ms property)...

Xbox use their engagement numbers to drive publicity value when you try to start your games (this is just in the easing in phase, games on Xbox will be like DVDs of they get the chance).

Sony aren't ignoring this trend, but they are not building their presence in gaming on this manipulative B.S. (however, of MS or stadia, etc. Becomes very successful it could change).

I would hesitate to point the finger solely on MS, nor would I say they are the driver of this practice in gaming. TV has been using engagement metrics (Neilsen rating) since time immemorial. Seems like uninspired higher ups have found a way to migrate that metric to gaming.

In terms of gathering and analyzing consumer data, I'd sooner think of Alphabet than MS or Sony. But it doesn't mean they don't engage in it as well.

 

[Deleted member 471617]

MC/OC scores for me personally don't mean shit. I have skipped more 90+ rated games because they're either of no interest to me or highly overrated. Majority of games that I have put the most hours into are games around the 80 and less mark. Engagement is the most important aspect because it show that the consumer is enjoying the game to keep going back to it. How many consumers actually complete games? Majority of games that consumers buy including the highly rated ones are barely completed and instead thrown in a backlog for decades to never be played again. Sure, the company got the sale from it but chances are, that consumer will never bother with either that franchise/series again because if they didn't beat the game they just purchased why would they buy the next one? Or bother with that particular developer and/or publisher because they again, didn't complete the game which most likely means that their games are not for that individual consumer.

It was me developing and releasing a game, I wouldn't care if you're buying the game, renting the game via GameFly or playing it via a subscription service like Game Pass. What I would care about is if you completed the game and enjoyed it enough to want to re-engage with it if DLC or expansions were released for it. That's what I would care about because I know I have that individual consumer's interest and investment into my game and not money wise but something that's more important than money - time. If you're spending your time playing my game, then that tells me that you're enjoying the game to where you want to keep playing it and if you still back after completion, that tells me that you want more out of that game which is where post-launch content comes into play.

There's a reason why Minecraft, Fortnite, GTA Online, COD online, Forza Horizon 4, Sea of Thieves, etc. are the biggest and most played games on a continuous basis, it's because the individuals playing them are enjoying them even after putting hundreds of hours into them because if they weren't they simply wouldn't.

So basically this entire "concern" is just fucking bullshit because it's been around for decades with games like Diablo, World of Warcraft, Counterstrike and whatever else is out there that im simply forgetting. Sales success is great and all but there's no guarantee of keeping those same consumers for the following game but if you get people to engage with the first game for a longer period of time, you'll not only get more out of that consumer but you'll also be far more likely to get that same consumer to jump into your next game for the same amount of time if not longer.

Of course, what majority including Linneman are simply not seeing is that the majority of gamers nowadays are not old school or old for that matter. They want to play their friends are playing and don't give two shits about MC/OC, sales and all this other shit as it's meaningless to them.

The bigger issue is why people feel "concerned" in the first place? Gaming is bigger now than ever before and having consumers engage with their games for longer period of time is a good thing. Not everyone wants to nor has to play every game released. Some just want to play their 10 or so a year while others may want to just stick to 2 or so games and that's it. Best of all, buying/renting a game that's a one and done still exist and aren't going anywhere so you still have what you prefer.

On a related side note, I like both one and done games and long term games. I play both. But both depend on what the genre is and if im actually interested in the game. I will play Far Cry 6 in October but once I complete the base game, the game is done. I own and have played The Division 2 and are currently up to season 2 and being able to go back to a game love and enjoy playing every three months is great. Basically, there's plenty of room for both and why people are concerned about engagement being the primary reason for success in the first place is beyond me because not every game is based on that anyway so until that actually happens which it won't, there's no reason to be concerned at all.

Best of all, instead of anyone being concerned, why not just spend that time playing the games that you actually want to play instead of worrying about all this other shit which at the end of the day is just a waste of time.

 

[kingfey]

Because MS has been using active user accounts as a success metric for years, gamepass and games as a service fit very well with this social media type approach. And if you think it's a Google thing, get a LinkedIn account and try to ignore it, they will spam you to death (ms property)...

Xbox use their engagement numbers to drive publicity value when you try to start your games (this is just in the easing in phase, games on Xbox will be like DVDs of they get the chance).

Sony aren't ignoring this trend, but they are not building their presence in gaming on this manipulative B.S. (however, of MS or stadia, etc. Becomes very successful it could change).

Just say you are salty, because Microsoft is giving their users, all you can buffet, which you will happily pay 60$-70$ on your preferred console.

I respect Microsoft for going all in on this model. Games have become bloated. We have 3 hardware systems, and pc gaming, which releases thousands of games yearly. Its impossible to know which game is good.
And the only thing that is being talked, are games which ign, and other journalists games scream about it. The same people who said, cyberpunk2077 was good game. No way in hell I would trust these guys.

Gamepass at least let's me try games like bug fable, which people have been recommending to me. I doubt you know this game too.

 

[Pull n Pray]

It wouldn't make sense to subscribe to Game Pass to spend all your time playing the same 1 or 2 games all year. It would make more sense to purchase the games. Several months ago, Phil Spencer was asked about whether Game Pass would incentivize Xbox to concentrate of endless GAAS games, and he basically said the same thing. People won't stay subscribed if they aren't getting value from the service. And if you spend all your time playing 1 or 2 games, you aren't getting value.

 

[kingfey]

It wouldn't make sense to subscribe to Game Pass to spend all your time playing the same 1 or 2 games all year. It would make more sense to purchase the games. Several months ago, Phil Spencer was asked about whether Game Pass would incentivize Xbox to concentrate of endless GAAS games, and he basically said the same thing. People won't stay subscribed if they aren't getting value from the service. And if you spend all your time playing 1 or 2 games, you aren't getting value.

This is one of the main problems, which customers scream about. They don't do enough search, for what they are getting in to it.
How can you spend paying 12 months (you can cancel the service), and scream that you aren't getting games to play. This isn't exclusive to gamepass only. It happens to ea play, psnow, luna, stadia, and even uplay+. Same thing for streaming services.

Like dude, the subscription says, cancel anytime you want. Yet, you still pay for it for the entire year. Then complain about not getting enough value from it.

The level of entitlement is of the roof.

I wouldn't be surprised, if these people also scream at those poor cashier people, because they made wrong purchase.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Once every company decides it wants to release their own subscription service for their own games then many of you will not see how bad this shit will get. Just keep feeding Microsoft what they want- I mean it's already starting now with Netflix getting into the game. Imagine them throwing their billions of $ at a company you love. You'll then need to subscribe to Netflix to play that particular game. When does it end? For most of you, who cares, right???

That's all good and well. I'm okay with that. I feel fairly confident that Microsoft effectively secured the future of Xbox, Gamepass and a crucial part of PC gaming history when they went out and secured Bethesda. Bethesda will be responsible for easily some of the biggest and best games released this entire generation and for generations to come. They're a literal high quality game factory.

The reason I'm happy about Microsoft securing videogame companies is because I know they have Xbox, I know Windows PC Gaming is important to them. I know what their priorities are. Bethesda would have been one of the biggest targets of other companies out there, and I couldn't be any happier that it was Microsoft who ended up getting them. As for other game companies, we will see. I feel fairly confident that were another big publisher about to be acquired by someone they feared would put their futures at risk, said company would reach out to either Sony or Microsoft to acquire them, whoever they felt was the best fit.

I know it's standard procedure to see Microsoft as the bad guy in many cases, but I see Microsoft as safe guarding a major piece of the future of gaming by keeping the likes of Bethesda away from Amazon, away from Google, away from Netflix. If Netflix by chance embraces PC gaming then I don't mind who they buy. I'm a subscriber of Netflix also. I get it automatically through my T-Mobile cell phone plan.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

It wouldn't make sense to subscribe to Game Pass to spend all your time playing the same 1 or 2 games all year. It would make more sense to purchase the games. Several months ago, Phil Spencer was asked about whether Game Pass would incentivize Xbox to concentrate of endless GAAS games, and he basically said the same thing. People won't stay subscribed if they aren't getting value from the service. And if you spend all your time playing 1 or 2 games, you aren't getting value.

I greatly disagree, even if I only play 2 games for the entire year. $10-15$ is nothing for a person with a steady job and solid income. Game Pass to me isn't just about what you're going to end up doing, but what you could suddenly be in the mood to try out and play. Removing the barrier of having to drop $60 just to see what something is about, even for a short time, is a major value and incentive to have Game Pass. Even if you don't end up trying anything else outside of 1 or 2 games, it's still a great value because more are likely still being added to your collection of playable titles, and you didn't need to pay $60-$120 for the two you're paying. Monthly subscriptions for many, regardless of what the yearly cost is, is about eliminating the upfront cost to a lot of people, and that alone makes them a great value.

Honestly, to me is Xbox Game Pass is effectively free. Just the same way I see my Netflix Subscription offered to me through T-Mobile as free. Technically I'm paying for it, yes, but for me the value is worth it, so it doesn't exist as something where I'm not getting my full bang for my buck regardless of how I use it, even if I don't game for a whole month. All the games are still right there at my fingertips. It's my own personal blockbuster.

 

[Heisenberg007]

That's all good and well. I'm okay with that. I feel fairly confident that Microsoft effectively secured the future of Xbox, Gamepass and a crucial part of PC gaming history when they went out and secured Bethesda. Bethesda will be responsible for easily some of the biggest and best games released this entire generation and for generations to come. They're a literal high quality game factory.

The reason I'm happy about Microsoft securing videogame companies is because I know they have Xbox, I know Windows PC Gaming is important to them. I know what their priorities are. Bethesda would have been one of the biggest targets of other companies out there, and I couldn't be any happier that it was Microsoft who ended up getting them. As for other game companies, we will see. I feel fairly confident that were another big publisher about to be acquired by someone they feared would put their futures at risk, said company would reach out to either Sony or Microsoft to acquire them, whoever they felt was the best fit.

I know it's standard procedure to see Microsoft as the bad guy in many cases, but I see Microsoft as safe guarding a major piece of the future of gaming by keeping the likes of Bethesda away from Amazon, away from Google, away from Netflix. If Netflix by chance embraces PC gaming then I don't mind who they buy. I'm a subscriber of Netflix also. I get it automatically through my T-Mobile cell phone plan.

And when was the last time Bethesda released such a game? Maybe Skyrim in 2013? They have 8 studios, and they haven't released a GOTY-level game that is both a commercial and critical success in over 8 years.

The other guy had a point. No gaming company is safe, and no future is secured. Consolidation will have consumers like us subscribed to multiple services or buying multiple machines to enjoy the games that we were enjoying on one machine only a couple of years ago. While most of us hardcore fans will do that, what about the majority (90%+ gamers out there).

 

[SlimySnake]

And when was the last time Bethesda released such a game? Maybe Skyrim in 2013? They have 8 studios, and they haven't released a GOTY-level game that is both a commercial and critical success in over 8 years.

The other guy had a point. No gaming company is safe, and no future is secured. Consolidation will have consumers like us subscribed to multiple services or buying multiple machines to enjoy the games that we were enjoying on one machine only a couple of years ago. While most of us hardcore fans will do that, what about the majority (90%+ gamers out there).

Skyrim came out in 2011.

Fallout 4 came out in 2015 and was the second biggest goty winner after Witcher 3. Easily beating out the 3rd place bloodborne.

2015

We're tracking Game of the Year (GOTY) awards from around the world. Discover what media outlets and players voted as the best titles every year.

www.gameawards.net

Bethesda's main studio is about to release a game next year that will likely be a runway GOTY winner like Skyrim was back in 2011.

 

[Team Andromeda]

John talking crap yet again and yet more pandering to the SONY crowd.

 

[ZywyPL]

First and foremost Stadia needs to become a meaningful medium to begin with, which with their pay-per-game business model I don't think it'll happen anytime soon. Plus with this kind of developer approach, it's very possible that the platform will be filled with nothing but MP titles where people do spend hundreds, thousands of hours, while SP-oriented games will be a rarity, making the platform so much less competitive. I think it's a great short-term plan to get the platform rolling, but in longer term it'll become its biggest flaw.

Not to mention it's Google, once the userbase gets big enough the games will be just an addition to all the ads the service will be bloated with, the bigger the audience the more ads, on YT they don't even play just ads anymore but literally put 4-5min. songs into your playlists/livestreams, and I cannot fight the feeling this is the end-game for Stadia as well, to reach as many gamers and then live off the ads revenue. Which might help to pay the devs of course, but still, the end-user experience will be questionable.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Skyrim came out in 2011.

Fallout 4 came out in 2015 and was the second biggest goty winner after Witcher 3. Easily beating out the 3rd place bloodborne.

2015

We're tracking Game of the Year (GOTY) awards from around the world. Discover what media outlets and players voted as the best titles every year.

www.gameawards.net

Bethesda's main studio is about to release a game next year that will likely be a runway GOTY winner like Skyrim was back in 2011.

My bad on Skyrim. It has had so many releases. Tough to keep up with the year.

Fallout 4 may have won lots of awards, but it wasn't one of the best games this generation by any stretch, and it was a step down in almost every way. From 91 Metacritic (Fallout 3) to 84 Metacritic (Fallout 4). Then came Fallout 76 (52 Metacritic). Fallout 4 also sold just ~13 million copies across all platforms (PC + Xbox + PS).

My point is that there is a downward progression, as can be seen from the scores I just posted. Bethesda as a publisher (with 8 studios) hasn't published 10/10 games for years now. Skyrim (10 years ago) was that game though.

Having said that, I am excited to play Starfield. I have high hopes. It won't have the same appeal as Skyrim though, because it's a new IP, and that's fine. I still think it could be a great game.

 

[ZehDon]

My bad on Skyrim. It has had so many releases. Tough to keep up with the year.

Fallout 4 may have won lots of awards, but it wasn't one of the best games this generation by any stretch, and it was a step down in almost every way. From 91 Metacritic (Fallout 3) to 84 Metacritic (Fallout 4). Then came Fallout 76 (52 Metacritic). Fallout 4 also sold just ~13 million copies across all platforms (PC + Xbox + PS).

My point is that there is a downward progression, as can be seen from the scores I just posted. Bethesda as a publisher (with 8 studios) hasn't published 10/10 games for years now. Skyrim (10 years ago) was that game though.

Having said that, I am excited to play Starfield. I have high hopes. It won't have the same appeal as Skyrim though, because it's a new IP, and that's fine. I still think it could be a great game.

I'll leave there rest of your post alone, but wanted to comment on the bolded.

The "just" ~13 million figure you're rolling with was the shipped figure... for day one. It was the fastest selling Bethesda game of all time, and broke a couple of records set by Grand Theft Auto 5. Fallout 4 is a sales monster. Two years on from release, and Pete Hines from Bethesda declared it Bethesda's most successful game. Ever. Even surpassing the mighty Skyrim. The "downward progression" you've noted isn't accurate either. It requires Bethesda Games Studio's second Austin team to create that "progression" trend, a team who created their first game, Fallout 76, and it was an absolute disaster - no arguments there. But, the actual Bethesda Game Studio you're talking about? They created Morrowind (89 PC MC), Oblivion (94 PC MC), Fallout 3 (94 PC MC), Skyrim (94 PC MC), and Fallout 4 (84 PC MC). The "downward progression" you're talking about... is actually just one game... that was an absolute sales behemoth.

 

[Tschumi]

Hahahaha, I'm sorry i can't stop thinking he's talking about trying to get a girlfriend hahahahaha

 

[Heisenberg007]

I'll leave there rest of your post alone, but wanted to comment on the bolded.

The "just" ~13 million figure you're rolling with was the shipped figure... for day one. It was the fastest selling Bethesda game of all time, and broke a couple of records set by Grand Theft Auto 5. Fallout 4 is a sales monster. Two years on from release, and Pete Hines from Bethesda declared it Bethesda's most successful game. Ever. Even surpassing the mighty Skyrim. The "downward progression" you've noted isn't accurate either. It requires Bethesda Games Studio's second Austin team to create that "progression" trend, a team who created their first game, Fallout 76, and it was an absolute disaster - no arguments there. But, the actual Bethesda Game Studio you're talking about? They created Morrowind (89 PC MC), Oblivion (94 PC MC), Fallout 3 (94 PC MC), Skyrim (94 PC MC), and Fallout 4 (84 PC MC). The "downward progression" you're talking about... is actually just one game... that was an absolute sales behemoth.

The sales data I shared was as of March 2020.

The downward progression I was talking about was mainly the drop in quality (and scores) from Fallout 3 (94 MC) to Fallout 4 (84 MC). Then trend continued to Fallout 76 (52 MC).

Anyway, I wasn't shitting on Bethesda games. The initial point of the conversation was that the other guy said that MS has secured its future with Bethesda, which will be releasing GOTG. And because of that consolidation of industry and new entrants like Netflix with another subscription model doesn't matter to Xbox users. That was the disagreement that Bethesda hasn't released a GOTG for almost 10 years now. And while Fallout 4 was an excellent game, it was nowhere a GOTG by any stretch and, in fact, scored lower than its previous entry.

 

[Hawke502]

Then trend continued to Fallout 76 (52 MC).

Its important to say that Fallout 76 was made by a new studio, BGS Austin, the last game from the main Bethesda studio itself is Fallout 4

 

[kingfey]

The sales data I shared was as of March 2020.

The downward progression I was talking about was mainly the drop in quality (and scores) from Fallout 3 (94 MC) to Fallout 4 (84 MC). Then trend continued to Fallout 76 (52 MC).

Anyway, I wasn't shitting on Bethesda games. The initial point of the conversation was that the other guy said that MS has secured its future with Bethesda, which will be releasing GOTG. And because of that consolidation of industry and new entrants like Netflix with another subscription model doesn't matter to Xbox users. That was the disagreement that Bethesda hasn't released a GOTG for almost 10 years now. And while Fallout 4 was an excellent game, it was nowhere a GOTG by any stretch and, in fact, scored lower than its previous entry.

What constitutes a goty? Did these GOTY survived the test of time? Are people still playing these GOTY games?

For me, a great game is the one that lets you do what ever you want to do. Bethesda games have something, that Sony GOTY games doesn't have. Mod support. It allows users to create their own content. Its why Skyrim, fallout4 is still being played by now, due to mods. Its a game, which was designed for the community. To me that is a GOTY game.

That is Microsoft goal. Its why they support mods. The community keeps the game alive, by supplying their own content.

 

[SlimySnake]

My bad on Skyrim. It has had so many releases. Tough to keep up with the year.

Fallout 4 may have won lots of awards, but it wasn't one of the best games this generation by any stretch, and it was a step down in almost every way. From 91 Metacritic (Fallout 3) to 84 Metacritic (Fallout 4). Then came Fallout 76 (52 Metacritic). Fallout 4 also sold just ~13 million copies across all platforms (PC + Xbox + PS).

My point is that there is a downward progression, as can be seen from the scores I just posted. Bethesda as a publisher (with 8 studios) hasn't published 10/10 games for years now. Skyrim (10 years ago) was that game though.

Having said that, I am excited to play Starfield. I have high hopes. It won't have the same appeal as Skyrim though, because it's a new IP, and that's fine. I still think it could be a great game.

I think they had one bad game in Fallout 76. And it was a spin off. Not a main title by their A teams who were busy working on Starfield.

I think Starfield might be even bigger than Skyrim. People have been clamoring for a space RPG for a decade and the fact that its next gen only should make it stand out among all the cross gen stuff coming out in 2022. At least when it comes to GOTY awards.

Say what you will about Fallout 4, but the combat was great and you were rewarded for exploring which is pretty much never the case with these open world games. I have high hopes for Starfield. Not being on PS might hurt its sales though. Thankfully its on PC where Bethesdas main base is anyway, but it will be going up against GoW 2 and Horizon 2 in the GOTY rankings where we will finally see just how these cross gen games will be received. Zelda BoTW did after all beat Horizon despite being last gen. At the very least, it's going to be an interesting case study.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

And when was the last time Bethesda released such a game? Maybe Skyrim in 2013? They have 8 studios, and they haven't released a GOTY-level game that is both a commercial and critical success in over 8 years.

The other guy had a point. No gaming company is safe, and no future is secured. Consolidation will have consumers like us subscribed to multiple services or buying multiple machines to enjoy the games that we were enjoying on one machine only a couple of years ago. While most of us hardcore fans will do that, what about the majority (90%+ gamers out there).

Surely this is a joke?

When was the last time they released a GOTY level game that is both a commercial and critical success? Does id software no longer exist or something?

Doom Eternal is 2020
Doom 2016
Fallout 4? 2015

Every last one of those games were big commercial and critical successes, with Fallout 4 being easily one of the biggest releases all generation and definitely received many GOTY accolades (for whatever that's worth to you)

Fallout 4 both sold unbelievably, well north of 15 million, and was widely critically acclaimed across the board and called one of the best game ever by many publications, although we'll need to see what the reviews say in the future now that Bethesda have to pay the Xbox tax

It's generally cool to troll Fallout 4 among supposed "hardcore" gaming circles as of late, but it's an extraordinary game by any measure, was easily one of the top games released and that I played all of last generation, and was almost certainly received as such by the majority of game review sites and gamers contrary to the senseless hate it gets lately, especially with how different it was different from New Vegas. I personally don't give a damn about any of the opinions of review sites, but supposedly many of you guys do.

Then I don't know what dishonored sold, but dishonored 2 was a critical success, as was Wolfenstein II. Most people enjoy the Wolfenstein games Those games are generally well received in the critical department. Arkane's dishonored games are very well done, and vastly underrated. The increased attention they will now get will only help them receive more appreciation. Prey is also considered by many to be a highly underrated gem in their arsenal, and an incredible game which has been labeled by many as a better bioshock, but I don't know what that sold, and I personally haven't played that one for myself yet. They also made Evil Within 2, another fantastic game. Anyway you slice it Bethesda is responsible for some of the best games this past generation.

As to what the majority of gamers will do, it doesn't really matter. They will get or subscribe to what interests them, or just continue doing things the way they always have. You do realize the ability to buy games is still a thing, and not going anywhere, right? The ability to buy full price games or DLC isn't going anywhere anytime soon. That's where the money is made, and the majority of gamers seem to handle that task just fine as is.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

What constitutes a goty? Did these GOTY survived the test of time? Are people still playing these GOTY games?

For me, a great game is the one that lets you do what ever you want to do. Bethesda games have something, that Sony GOTY games doesn't have. Mod support. It allows users to create their own content. Its why Skyrim, fallout4 is still being played by now, due to mods. Its a game, which was designed for the community. To me that is a GOTY game.

That is Microsoft goal. Its why they support mods. The community keeps the game alive, by supplying their own content.

Doom 2016
Doom Eternal
Fallout 4

Were all huge successes and all GOTY quality titles.

Hell, Prey was GOTY worthy for many for those who have played it. Many call it a next gen system shock.

And yea, I hate this artificial GOTY paper title stuff. My GOTY for 2014 was South Park: The Stick of Truth. Would anybody else have picked that? Who knows, but it was my personal GOTY. The game I enjoyed the most. Who the hell gets to decide what GOTY is? It's down to each individual.

 

[mckmas8808]

The company who values engagement is going to outcompete the company who doesn't value any metrics, or values metacritic. Critics used to be able to predict what games the masses would adore. They've now become "activists" for pushing their types of games.

Nah, not really. You might be thinking about specific reviewers, but overall they do a decent job of reviewing games.

 

[Samrf89]

this doesn't surprise me one bit. the end goal is death to all creativity and culture and this would definitely fall in line with that.

 

[Spukc]

Ok Mister 800% zoom

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Nah, not really. You might be thinking about specific reviewers, but overall they do a decent job of reviewing games.

They completely whiffed on a bunch of last gens best games. Back in the day, it felt like critics were much more in tune with the public.

 

[Fare thee well]

If engagement is measured as success, then you get games like black desert online, which are an overrated afk time killer and 2nd job. Fuck those games, seriously. Zzzzzzzzzzz

 

[too much eslim]

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.

Just making up stuff now huh

 

[Shmunter]

Just making up stuff now huh

The conundrum is, why wouldn't devs that engage players the most get the biggest slice of the pie?

Think in practical terms; a game that simply gets downloaded but played for 10 minutes never to be revisited should get what? Or a game that is hardly ever downloaded?

The issue lies that in a 'all you can play' scenario there is only one way this can work out long term.

So there is the other argument, - what if Xbox cuts a cheque to get a game on gamepass. Sure -why not, the most brilliant single player game!!! But then people only spend 1% of their gamepass time on it because they've played it through and are done. Will Xbox cut that cheque a second time for the dev?

These are the matters at hand.

 

[Bryank75]

Just making up stuff now huh

You think I just started now?

 

[kingfey]

The conundrum is, why wouldn't devs that engage players the most get the biggest slice of the pie?

Think in practical terms; a game that simply gets downloaded but played for 10 minutes never to be revisited should get what? Or a game that is hardly ever downloaded?

The issues lies that in a all you can play scenario there is only one way this can work out long term.

So there is the other argument, - what if Xbox cuts a cheque to get a game on gamepass. Sure -why not, the most brilliant single player game!!! But then people only spend 1% of their gamepass time on it because they've played it through and are done. Will Xbox cut that cheque a second time for the dev?

These are the matters at hand.

Its more akin to achievements, or unlocking trophies. They have a set of data, where they can track, how many players unlocked those trophies/achievements.

This usually gives out the correct data, you needed, to determine whether this person played the game or not.

For example, you will get a at a certain part of the game. If xbox/Playstation can get accurate data, of how many players got that achievement/trophy, they can pay the devs that way.

With these steps, its like buying a game, and playing it. And unlock these achievements/trophy on the way.

 

[Shmunter]

Its more akin to achievements, or unlocking trophies. They have a set of data, where they can track, how many players unlocked those trophies/achievements.

This usually gives out the correct data, you needed, to determine whether this person played the game or not.

For example, you will get a at a certain part of the game. If xbox/Playstation can get accurate data, of how many players got that achievement/trophy, they can pay the devs that way.

With these steps, its like buying a game, and playing it. And unlock these achievements/trophy on the way.

They've got actual playtime stats there, it's more important than achievements because an achievement is only unlocked once.

 

[kingfey]

They've got actual playtime stats there, it's more important than achievements because an achievement is only unlocked once.

Achievement allows you to know, how many people are actually playing the game. But like you said, it gets unlocked 1 time. So it might be unreliable for 2nd time players.

I can turn on the game, and leave it for 1 hour. That isn't playing the game.

Unless they have a system, which can track how many kills have you done, reached certain part of the game.

 

[ZywyPL]

They've got actual playtime stats there, it's more important than achievements because an achievement is only unlocked once.

True, many people don't finish the games, get only to a certain point, but that doesn't mean they don't spend tons of hours on the title. For example, I have personally never finished any GTA, because once I unlocked the whole the map I was just messing around for countless hours, which any achievement won't be able to tell. And in times where most games are open-world/sandbox experiences, I can only imagine how this is the case for many many people.

 

[Heisenberg007]

this is a Google doing Google things. why is Gamepass being drawn in again?

as long as Phil heads XGS, im sure he is well aware what makes a gamer ticks, the last time they tried to force Kinect TVTVTV didn't work out

Because MS has been using active user accounts as a success metric for years, gamepass and games as a service fit very well with this social media type approach. And if you think it's a Google thing, get a LinkedIn account and try to ignore it, they will spam you to death (ms property)...

Xbox use their engagement numbers to drive publicity value when you try to start your games (this is just in the easing in phase, games on Xbox will be like DVDs of they get the chance).

Sony aren't ignoring this trend, but they are not building their presence in gaming on this manipulative B.S. (however, of MS or stadia, etc. Becomes very successful it could change).

Because:

Xbox Game Pass Focuses On "Player Engagement" More Than Numbers, says Phil Spencer

Xbox Game Pass Focuses On “Player Engagement” More Than Numbers, Phil Spencer Says

Head of Xbox Phil Spencer provides some valuable insights on the inner workings of Xbox Game Pass and how the platform measures its growth.

gamingbolt.com

"There's nothing about review scores, there's nothing about retail sales of consoles or retail sales of games. The number one sign that our platform is healthy and growing is actually engagement on the platform." -- Phil Spencer

 

[GymWolf]

I greatly disagree, even if I only play 2 games for the entire year. $10-15$ is nothing for a person with a steady job and solid income. Game Pass to me isn't just about what you're going to end up doing, but what you could suddenly be in the mood to try out and play. Removing the barrier of having to drop $60 just to see what something is about, even for a short time, is a major value and incentive to have Game Pass. Even if you don't end up trying anything else outside of 1 or 2 games, it's still a great value because more are likely still being added to your collection of playable titles, and you didn't need to pay $60-$120 for the two you're paying. Monthly subscriptions for many, regardless of what the yearly cost is, is about eliminating the upfront cost to a lot of people, and that alone makes them a great value.

Honestly, to me is Xbox Game Pass is effectively free. Just the same way I see my Netflix Subscription offered to me through T-Mobile as free. Technically I'm paying for it, yes, but for me the value is worth it, so it doesn't exist as something where I'm not getting my full bang for my buck regardless of how I use it, even if I don't game for a whole month. All the games are still right there at my fingertips. It's my own personal blockbuster.

Is gamepass only 10-15 dollars for one year?! Even on pc?!

 

[kingfey]

Is gamepass only 10-15 dollars for one year?! Even on pc?!

Gamepass is technically free, If you break it down. Xbox live is 60$ a year. Pc gamepass is 120$. Xbox gamepass is 120$. Ea play xbox is 30$ a year. EA play pc is 30$ a year. Xcloud is basically free. Total is 360$. or 30$ monthly. You are only paying 5$ for xbox live, 5$ for gamepass pc, 5$ for xbox gamepass, total of 15$. and the rest is free.

Now imagine spending 15$ to access halo or forza, on mobile, pc, xbox for 15$ for that month. And you arent counting other games that are on the service.

in that mindset, gamepass is technically free.

I wish this existed while I was a kid. I would have finished alot of games.

 

[GymWolf]

Gamepass is technically free, If you break it down. Xbox live is 60$ a year. Pc gamepass is 120$. Xbox gamepass is 120$. Ea play xbox is 30$ a year. EA play pc is 30$ a year. Xcloud is basically free. Total is 360$. or 30$ monthly. You are only paying 5$ for xbox live, 5$ for gamepass pc, 5$ for xbox gamepass, total of 15$. and the rest is free.

Now imagine spending 15$ to access halo or forza, on mobile, pc, xbox for 15$ for that month. And you arent counting other games that are on the service.

in that mindset, gamepass is technically free.

I wish this existed while I was a kid. I would have finished alot of games.

Uh...what?

 

[kingfey]

Uh...what?

The value is much better than what you are really paying.
Its only a problem, if you are sticking the console only, and not playing on cloud, ea play or pc.

If you have both systems, like me, You will get insane value.

 

[GymWolf]

The value is much better than what you are really paying.
Its only a problem, if you are sticking the console only, and not playing on cloud, ea play or pc.

If you have both systems, like me, You will get insane value.

I would only utilize the thing on pc and only the microsoft side, i don't care about ea games.

I'm not really informed about the whole offer, i usually buy the games that i want to play on day one, in the past i used the gamepass beta on pc as a gigantic demo collection to know whqt to buy and what to avoid and it was good for 1 euro a month, but not more than that.

 

[kingfey]

I would only utilize the thing on pc and only the microsoft side, i don't care about ea games.

I'm not really informed about the whole offer, i usually buy the games that i want to play on day one, in the past i used the gamepass beta on pc as a gigantic demo collection to know whqt to buy and what to avoid and it was good for 1 euro a month, but not more than that.

You should try it. There are small good indie games.

If you dont like paying for the whole package, Use the free monthly 1$ ones. Make an account, and use paypal as a payment. You can save your money that way, and play these games for 1$. Only problem is, that account needs to be on for the gamepass app pc.

 

[Dane]

As if developers doesn't use these metrics for money, we went from people who did passionately and wanted to profit from it, to people who are in entirely for the profit, just like the whole debacle on the 50 vs 60 vs 70 dollars, you had the issue over game development costs rising and that you need to even go beyond the inflation to recoup costs on sales alone, but guess what they did? Nah, let's cut content and shove into DLC, and then fill in with Microtransactions, instead of fixing the problem, they profit out of it.

Now, is there good examples of games based on metrics? Sure, SoT, NMS and FH4 responded to that very well, the thing is obviously at how many try to get into the market by trying to cash cow with shitty content and wreck their faces over it, you can't simply get into an entirely money speculation view without delivering something worth it.

 

[hlm666]

The conundrum is, why wouldn't devs that engage players the most get the biggest slice of the pie?

Think in practical terms; a game that simply gets downloaded but played for 10 minutes never to be revisited should get what? Or a game that is hardly ever downloaded?

The issue lies that in a 'all you can play' scenario there is only one way this can work out long term.

So there is the other argument, - what if Xbox cuts a cheque to get a game on gamepass. Sure -why not, the most brilliant single player game!!! But then people only spend 1% of their gamepass time on it because they've played it through and are done. Will Xbox cut that cheque a second time for the dev?

These are the matters at hand.

my quote from the first page from the article your thread is about.

"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 isn't even about time played, it's about days logged in. This whole thread is a disaster because people didn't even read the original article you should have linked to.

 

[Shmunter]

my quote from the first page from the article your thread is about.

"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 isn't even about time played, it's about days logged in. This whole thread is a disaster because people didn't even read the original article you should have linked to.

What's the difference?

 

[GymWolf]

You should try it. There are small good indie games.

If you dont like paying for the whole package, Use the free monthly 1$ ones. Make an account, and use paypal as a payment. You can save your money that way, and play these games for 1$. Only problem is, that account needs to be on for the gamepass app pc.

I'm probably gonna use the 1 dollar first month when there is gonna be a microsoft game that doesn't fully convince me, like i said, gamepass is just a gigantic demo library for me, i like to own what i like.

 

[hlm666]

What's the difference?

It means you could load up a roguelike do a bad five minute run die quit and load up an mmo and play for 5 hours and engagement rated by "how many days individual Stadia Pro players log into their games." means those 2 scenarios are equal. Now you have this basic concept spelt out can you see how half this thread being about gamepass is going to make all games grindy time wasters has nothing to do with the article your thread was about.

 

[Shmunter]

It means you could load up a roguelike do a bad five minute run die quit and load up an mmo and play for 5 hours and engagement rated by "how many days individual Stadia Pro players log into their games." means those 2 scenarios are equal. Now you have this basic concept spelt out can you see how half this thread being about gamepass is going to make all games grindy time wasters has nothing to do with the article your thread was about.

How does that extrapolate over days, months? Seems to me there is no difference.

Anyway I'm skeptical time as a metric wouldn't be kept, it would make little sense to ignore being a much more precise metric of engagement. You could finish a single player game in one or a dozen sittings for example. Even PlayStation monitors playtime and emails you a summary of games and how many hrs you've played on each, the stuffs in there.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

Just say you are salty, because Microsoft is giving their users, all you can buffet, which you will happily pay 60$-70$ on your preferred console.

200 to 300 games is for 20$ a month is but a small portion of my collection and it's unlikely to happen to be the games I want to play on a given month.

 

[JerryinSoCal]

Same people who said this about oblivion horse armor dlc are now the same ones buying all these season passes. How do I know? I listen to people insult me on this very forum about how casual a gamer I am because I don't buy them in games like FIFA.

The worse that will happen for game pass is a price increase. The model, exactly as it exists today, is here to stay. Perhaps EA Play may eventually go away from Ultimate once that deal expires, but the same way netflix, HBO Max and Disney Plus have existed, or will go on existing for years using that same business model, so too will Game Pass. Microsoft is a $2 trillion dollar company and gaming is as popular as ever. The next major edition of Windows is focused around game pass and gaming. We will be sitting right here come 2027-2030 saying "remember when people told us Game Pass would shift and become this terrible thing? It's even better now and has kept its promise due to all these game releases."

Just wait till Game Pass hits what I believe to be the magic 40 million figure. It will become unstoppable.

GP will be full of games built for microtransactions and games that are "free" for the launch portion of the game but you'll still have to buy any expansions/dlc that aren't first party, hell even ES Online is only "free" in GP for the launch portion, all of the expansions have to be paid for and MS owns that.

 

[Dirk Benedict]

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

It feels like they want to continue to gauge their products, even after they've been bought. While I see nothing wrong with that, I find it invasive to an extent. I also think it's no one's business what I do with my game, once I bought it. Unfortunately, if you are connected to the Internet, and on a PC gamefront or a console game front within those respective ecosystems, you will continually be milk for metrics. Time played, trophies/achievements earned, etc.

 

[bender]

... and the fact that its next gen only should make it stand out among all the cross gen stuff coming out in 2022.

Bethesda's tech usually feels pretty dated even at release. I don't think that will stop it from getting GOTY nods however.