cash_longfellow
Member
“Feargus Urquhart”…
-
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.
Obsidian CEO Feargus Urquhart, Says Xbox Game Pass Has Redefined Success For Games
- Thread starter Eddie-Griffin
- Start date
GHG
Member
Oh so you also want to be purposefully obtuse?
Since I have to spell it out. This:
https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/halo-infinite-had-the-biggest-launch-in-series-history-with-over-20-million-players/
Somehow led to this:
https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/t...es-hit-hard-by-microsoft-layoffs-9919521.html
Unless you're going to tell me
"MS = / = gamepass" when it comes to 343i?
But to be honest I don't know why I bother when all that's coming next is some disingenuous "thatwasdifferentthough.gif" type response.
Last edited:
Eddie-Griffin
Banned
Isn't Hitman 3 a single-player story driven game that got a second life because of GP?
Last edited:
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
lmao, this is absurd. They aren't getting paid in "hours spent at home or office." They get paid in dollars.
Looking forward to seeing their next big RPG is, but I hope their games don't get influenced by the average in-game time.
KaiserBecks
Member
They also hired 40000 people in 2022 but I guess Gamepass won’t save them either
It’s funny that news like this don’t make it over here. I wonder why?
MacReady13
Member
That is easy to say when the company that owns you has pretty much the deepest pockets in the world. Microsoft don’t worry about sales numbers but measure success based on time played. If all gaming companies were that rich it would be fantastic!
MadPanda
Banned
And how did Microsoft get so rich? By inheriting from a rich dad or because they know how to run the business?
MadPanda
Banned
Where can we find this interview?
LordBlodgett
Member
Everyone in here saying this means more GAAS games is not really thinking. How many big budget GAAS games have failed to meet expectations over the last few years? Off the top of my head I can think of Avengers, Halo Infinite (not strictly GAAS), Babylon's Fall, etc.....
I think this means that the ratio is no longer just " how much did we spend relative to how much dollars came in". The new ratio is "how much did we spend relative to how many hours have people put in".
This is actually good for smaller projects in my opinion. If games like Grounded and Pentiment are made by small teams with interesting idea, but they have a comparatively higher amount of time played for the cost then it's a big win. It's bad for projects like Halo Infinite where they spent $500 million bucks and can't even stay in the top ten most played games.
Overall I think this outlook leads to better outcomes for gamers. We should keep seeing devs take more chances.
I think this means that the ratio is no longer just " how much did we spend relative to how much dollars came in". The new ratio is "how much did we spend relative to how many hours have people put in".
This is actually good for smaller projects in my opinion. If games like Grounded and Pentiment are made by small teams with interesting idea, but they have a comparatively higher amount of time played for the cost then it's a big win. It's bad for projects like Halo Infinite where they spent $500 million bucks and can't even stay in the top ten most played games.
Overall I think this outlook leads to better outcomes for gamers. We should keep seeing devs take more chances.
Dirk Benedict
Gold Member
Assemble the Gods of past and get fucking NV2 going. No excuse. Get it fucking going, Microsoft.
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
It's nice to have major players go about business different ways. Sounds like a happy studio, sweet.
StueyDuck
Member
I mean that's not necessarily a good thing...
Buuuut in a perfect world it is a good thing because surely in this perfect scenario a game would be more creative and less designed to sell to masses
Buuuuut MS loves money and so does any company ever so I call a bit of BS on that statement as a whole and say that we are in the honeymoon phase still of subscription gaming.
Eventually it's either gonna be disneyfied or netflixized where it's designed purely for tiktok masses (every game is fortnite) or it will just get canceled after season 1
Money will always be the biggest contribution to any products success
Buuuut in a perfect world it is a good thing because surely in this perfect scenario a game would be more creative and less designed to sell to masses
Buuuuut MS loves money and so does any company ever so I call a bit of BS on that statement as a whole and say that we are in the honeymoon phase still of subscription gaming.
Eventually it's either gonna be disneyfied or netflixized where it's designed purely for tiktok masses (every game is fortnite) or it will just get canceled after season 1
Money will always be the biggest contribution to any products success
DeaDPo0L84
Member
I mean everything is being redefined nowadays so might as well.
Hero of Spielberg
Gold Member
Is this any great surprise to anyone? If MS studios are creating games primarily for GP of course the metric for success is going to be engaging people with the service.
MacReady13
Member
So everything they release is quality, is it??? They make money from everything cause they’re elite business people?
A.Romero
Member
The implication is that more engagement will keep people suscribed, just like the Netflix model. More chances for microtransactions too of course. I mean if someone doesn't by the game the chances are zero but if someone tries the game on a sub then chances are higher than zero.
It's a good but risky strategy. It entirely depends on a massive number of subs and spending just the right amount of money on content: too high and you eat on margin, too low and you lose interest and therefore subs.
Only a company with deep pockets and true willingness to enter the market like Microsoft could really stomach to try.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
That'd be truly sad if one of the biggest and richest companies in the world didn't make $200-$300 million AAA blockbusters and instead mostly made AA titles that smaller and indie developers make.
Xbox has the resources that very few companies in the world has. I hope they utilize it to the fullest and give us something that no other gaming company can. Otherwise, what's even their USP.
Dr.Morris79
Member
I do believe that good ol Microsoft has some heavy hitters coming out. I doubt we need to worry yet.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
To be very honest, even their big games don't have that kind of ambitious scope anymore -- one that amazes and creates that feeling of 'awe' and 'wow.' Redfall is one of the big AAA games, and it looks very mid at best.
There is no game on the scope of TLOU 2, RDR 2, TW3, God of War Ragnarok, etc. Phil Spencer calls Starfield and Elder Scrolls mid-sized games. Guess I'll just wait until they truly show something that would blow our minds; I just have very little hope at this point.
Fabieter
Member
So xbox netflix and PlayStation hbo kinda thing
hemo memo
You can't die before your death
I mean you have the fastest world record to break at least. You can do it.
ZehDon
Member
I don't disagree with the premise of your posts, however, I do feel it's worth highlighting in this specific case that the single player component - available on Game Pass - and the multiplayer component - available for free - both counted in the launch figure. However, it's the multiplayer that likely contributed to 343i being gutted, as that was expected to bring in the big long tail revenue, and it hasn't. Supporting this is that retail game - which has no multiplayer - seems to have sold perfectly fine, while the firing of the CEO didn't happen until after Multiplayer Season 3 was delayed. Rumours floated that the S3 delay was the final straw, because it meant Microsoft's big "live service" was dead. The failure of Infinite's multiplayer has nothing to do with Game Pass, so the gutting of 343i would have little to do Game Pass, too. In 343i's case, I'd say they took heavy losses because Microsoft gave them enough rope to hang themselves, and they damn well hung themselves.
feynoob
Banned
They know the reason for halo failure was the F2p model. They don't want to tell that to themselves.
The good old trend these days is to shit on gamepass model, like the old 1$ gamepass talk.
They always bring gamepass player numbers, and how gamepass eats sales while ignoring other external sales like steam.
In this case, halo failed to make money from live service model, due to how badly 343i failed in term of contents. Not to mention they specifically separate the 2 mode, which negatively affected the SP mode momentum, due to these bad news from the F2p side.
Lucifers Beard
Member
Player engagement being a success metric makes the cynical side of me think that the future of gaming is GaaS. We’re already seeing it a lot but I imagine it’ll be more prevalent moving forward for AAA games.
Gamers have used this metric for years. Metal Gear Solid was called "the ultimate rental" because you can beat it in a few hours. How often do we see good games dismissed because they are too short? Sidequest bloat is a direct result of customer preference. Measuring success by hours players have spent in a game isn't that far of a leap from how games are already designed.
feynoob
Banned
The money that these Iive service games bring is irresistible to these devs/publishers.
MS/Xbox destroyed halo while chasing this model.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
That's not necessarily the counter-argument, though. The main point is that vanity metrics like hours played and the total number of players do not put money in developers' pockets.
Success begets success. It is a bad idea to downplay dollar revenue, because it is still the most important metric for game sales.
feynoob
Banned
You think people play games they bought?
Both metrics have their pros and cons.
You have to remember that these games are the hard work of these publishers/devs.
While sales are important for any game, they will also like more people to play their games.
Benniewise de Clown
Banned
Doesn't this fall in line with Xbox PR?
"There have been X hours played on Xbox Series S/X"
"There have been X hours played on Xbox Series S/X"
Oddvintagechap
Member
This is make Ubisoft a trillion dollar company, they are the best bang for your buck in wasting your time. Assassin's creed black flag, ill finish you one day.
ZehDon
Member
We know Sony is making a deep play into GaaS, however, those would be excluded from their subscription service, as all major PS5 releases are. Sony is shifting to a GaaS focus because it wants microtransaction money from whales, not higher player engagement numbers. GaaS simply make a lot of money because of the microtransaction spending and many Game Pass titles don't have microtransactions. That's what Game Pass does - it allows non-GaaS titles to produce a recuring revenue stream via Game Pass itself. Microsoft is banking on economies of scale to make that work, and so far, it is. Players aren't interesting in subbing to access games that then require lots of additional purchases. That's not what Game Pass is for, that's what F2P is for, such as Halo Infinite's F2P multiplayer. So, I'd wager Game Pass retains its eclectic list of titles for the foreseeable future. Games like Starfield and Hellblade 2 are more useful for Game Pass than games like Destiny 2 and Lost Ark.
AmuroChan
Member
I'm sure they still will, but not necessarily single player only. They'll be like Halo or Gears, which will have a campaign, but also have multiplayer that they can monetize.
diffusionx
Gold Member
In the past 5 years, these companies were seemingly pushing this world where sales don’t matter, numbers don’t matter, it’s dopey stuff like “engagement.” It’s not the first time, especially in tech, but it was wrong then and it is wrong now. You need to make money! “Hours spent” doesn’t matter if the players are doing it for free. I bought 3 years of Game Pass for $1, and got to play games that cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to make for virtually nothing, the numbers do not add up and they can never add up. Forza 8 just *looks* expensive, considering the timeframe it’s probably a $150M+ game at this point. You need a lot of people paying for subs to cover that, how many? well MS won’t say but I suspect it’s a lot more than they have. But wait MS is also dropping all their other expensive games on the service.
Whenever you hear “the rules have changed”, or “the economics are totally new”, or anything like that, run for the hills because the person saying that is running a con. Especially when they are saying this in reference to things like revenue not being important anymore. No, it always is.
Whenever you hear “the rules have changed”, or “the economics are totally new”, or anything like that, run for the hills because the person saying that is running a con. Especially when they are saying this in reference to things like revenue not being important anymore. No, it always is.
Last edited:
rhodesianshepard
Banned
AA tier games are great for gamepass. I'm guessing Microsoft can use it to recruit AA studios and maybe build them up for there?
But I'm highly questionable of Xbox consistently creating big budget AAA games like GOW, RDR2, Assassin's Creed, TLOU2. There are reasons why you practically never see big budget movies on streaming services. The money to recoup and profit from those budgets just doesn't exist when releasing day 1 on a streaming service. I think it will be the same thing for Gamepass. AAA games are just getting more expensive to produce. Unless Microsoft somehow monopolize the hardware side of the industry, I just don't see them generating enough money to do that
But I'm highly questionable of Xbox consistently creating big budget AAA games like GOW, RDR2, Assassin's Creed, TLOU2. There are reasons why you practically never see big budget movies on streaming services. The money to recoup and profit from those budgets just doesn't exist when releasing day 1 on a streaming service. I think it will be the same thing for Gamepass. AAA games are just getting more expensive to produce. Unless Microsoft somehow monopolize the hardware side of the industry, I just don't see them generating enough money to do that
This is going to be a tougher go for Microsoft going forward. Sony is aware of the Gamepass threat and is playing hardball with publishers (as we’ve seen in some of the statements made in the Activison acquisition litigation).
Basically if you want to release a game on PS5, you generally need to either (1) not release on Gamepass for X amount of time, (2) out the game on Sony’s subscription service on the same terms you offered to do for Gamepass. Most publishers don’t want to do #2 because they’d rather get the PS sales since, unlike MS console holders, Sony console holders are more likely to pay full price for games.
Sony is making much harder for publishers to go Vamepass day 1 and full price for PS1 on day1. We’re going to see whether older games and Microsoft’s fee first party offerings are enough to keep Gamepass going once a lot of the cheap promo offers start to run out. Based on Microsoft’s recent earnings report, it does look like Gamepass is running out of steam.
Basically if you want to release a game on PS5, you generally need to either (1) not release on Gamepass for X amount of time, (2) out the game on Sony’s subscription service on the same terms you offered to do for Gamepass. Most publishers don’t want to do #2 because they’d rather get the PS sales since, unlike MS console holders, Sony console holders are more likely to pay full price for games.
Sony is making much harder for publishers to go Vamepass day 1 and full price for PS1 on day1. We’re going to see whether older games and Microsoft’s fee first party offerings are enough to keep Gamepass going once a lot of the cheap promo offers start to run out. Based on Microsoft’s recent earnings report, it does look like Gamepass is running out of steam.
They get paid by MS regardless. I think MS' KPI is engagement. So "hours spent" directly translates to money for them. I don't know how MS measures performance and revenue shares their different studios but I suspect it's based on hours played like spotify is plays.
Last edited:
Eddie-Griffin
Banned
Halo was destroyed before Infinite, where were you since 2012?
Eddie-Griffin
Banned
Someone should tell Amazon this because they do this a lot.
Slicker than your average
Banned
Monthly active users; time spent playing; over 25s playing between 6pm and 10pm.
Gamepass allows us to do things we could never dream of.
With this attitude of it doesn't matter if we fail crap, I'm sure it won't affect quality over time, right guys?
Gamepass allows us to do things we could never dream of.
With this attitude of it doesn't matter if we fail crap, I'm sure it won't affect quality over time, right guys?
NickFire
Member
Player engagement most certainly matters a great deal. Whether sales, subs, or micros, no one spends if they aren't playing. The statements being discussed in this thread still strike me as silly though, and my guess is they were planned out to give the influencers a way to argue how successful their favorite company is. Exhibit A = the guy said the company still operates the same despite how success is now measured differently. Might as well just say we have two measures of success. The PR kind and the real kind.