Support NeoGAF

[RaySoft]

You can buy Starfield outright if you want and you can buy the expansion outright.

But you can also sub to Gamepass and play it then pay for the Premium edition to get the expansion (along with all the other extras the Premium edition comes with)

We like to claim people are "renting" games on GP as if they have no understanding what a subscription service is as if the concept is new to them or something.

His analogy is super reductive and doesn't reflect reality at all.

I'm sorry if my point came trough as a decrement to Starfield. Not my intent. What I'm talking about is the "abuse" the publishers are laying on us. Why would you need to pay extra for playing earlier? The game is finished. You could open it up for all, but let's intensify the earnings by exploiting the ignorance of our crowd.
Sony, MS and Ninty (and everyone else) are doing the same thing. We are the only ones in between. Do you really think it's fair to actually pay more just to be a beta player?
(because the data they gain with this is priceless for them, and you're the ones paying)

 

[Kenneth Haight]

Unless you're dying

 

[Ozriel]

I have no problem with people paying £34 for a mystery box dlc but I'd hardly call withholding the game for 5 days from those not paying extra as "having options".

PROTIP: He used the term "extra content". Not early access.

Xbox leadership are a masterclass of fudging bad numbers to look better than they are.

Sure, it's profitable *if we exclude the entire cost of development for first party content. That's not really a genuine comparison, is it?

Lmao. There is zero logic in putting the entire cost of development on GamePass. Zero. You forget they still sell their games at retail?

They're recouping 100% on Steam sales alone for a lot of their AAA titles.

 

[twilo99]

You could open it up for all, but let's intensify the earnings by exploiting the ignorance of our crowd.

Maybe the dev needs the extra support lol

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

PROTIP: He used the term "extra content". Not early access.



Lmao. There is zero logic in putting the entire cost of development on GamePass. Zero. You forget they still sell their games at retail?

They're recouping 100% on Steam sales alone for a lot of their AAA titles.

lmao. if most people are playing their games through GP instead of retail, there is 100% a valid reason to charge some development against gamepass (pro-rated portion of revenue or otherwise). This isn't complicated. Omitting all dev cost for first party games on gamepass is completely dishonest and absolutely spinning the profitability numbers to look better than they are.

People thinking Gamepass is exempt from Dev costs when it's a primary means of consumption on the platform live in a fantasy land.

 

[Ozriel]

lmao. if most people are playing their games through GP instead of retail, there is 100% a valid reason to charge some development against gamepass (pro-rated portion of revenue or otherwise). This isn't complicated. Omitting all dev cost for first party games on gamepass is completely dishonest and absolutely spinning the profitability numbers to look better than they are.

Well, if there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that you have no idea how much of the development cost is put on GamePass.

What I do know for sure is that in a world where xbox games are sold at retail and put on GamePass, there's no logic in putting ALL the costs on Gamepass.

Feels like you're grasping at straws tbh

 

[Montauk]

Who's making you do all this? Sounds like a bad person in your life.

Phil Spencer has a gun to his head.

 

[Three]

PROTIP: He used the term "extra content". Not early access.

Pro tip: maybe read what I said about the actual content in the post you quoted. Protip I don't have a problem with it. Then read what was actually being discussed. Protip, it was early access being behind £34.

What do you call something that is not a requirement?

Something that is not a requirement doesn't mean it's having extra options though. For example a game charging $80 at release instead of $70 isn't 'having options' even if you aren't required to buy it day one.
In the same way I suspect most people wouldn't consider a game charging for an update as "having options" and a good thing.

Of course there is a reason, it's called capitalism!

Sure doesn't mean I have to pretend I'm being offered 'options' when somebody is trying to get more money for something though.

 

[Black_Stride]

I'm sorry if my point came trough as a decrement to Starfield. Not my intent. What I'm talking about is the "abuse" the publishers are laying on us. Why would you need to pay extra for playing earlier? The game is finished. You could open it up for all, but let's intensify the earnings by exploiting the ignorance of our crowd.
Sony, MS and Ninty (and everyone else) are doing the same thing. We are the only ones in between. Do you really think it's fair to actually pay more just to be a beta player?
(because the data they gain with this is priceless for them, and you're the ones paying)

You are paying extra for the artbook, soundtrack, skins, story expansion, watch, box thing, constellation patch, steelbook case and early access.
Why are people hung up on only getting early access, thats probably the least valuable thing in the premium and constellation editions.

 

[twilo99]

Pro tip: maybe read what I said about the actual content in the post you quoted. Protip I don't have a problem with it. Then read what was actually being discussed. Protip, it was early access.


Something that is not a requirement doesn't mean it's having extra options though. For example a game charging $80 at release instead of $70 isn't 'having options' even if you aren't required to buy it day one.
In the same way I suspect most people wouldn't consider a game charging for an update as not "having options" and a good thing.

Sure doesn't mean I have to pretend I'm being offered 'options' when somebody is trying to get more money for something though.

Okey, you don't seem to like the word option.. how about opportunity?

They are giving me the opportunity to buy the DLC early and play the game 5 days before the official release for an arbitrary fee that I am willing to pay because I've been waiting for this game for a while and I will be buying the DLC anyway. I feel good about it.

If you don't feel good about it, you don't have to do any of that..

 

[Montauk]

Side note but it's funny how much they're pushing the cheap looking patch (the watch also). They've been in all the gameplay showcases and now the live action advert.

 

[twilo99]

Side note but it's funny how much they're pushing the cheap looking patch (the watch also). They've been in all the gameplay showcases and now the live action advert.

Right? It's shocking how they want to sell their merch and make some money.. it makes no sense.

 

[Black_Stride]

Side note but it's funny how much they're pushing the cheap looking patch (the watch also). They've been in all the gameplay showcases and now the live action advert.

The Constellation Edition sold out in two seconds.
But i know what you mean:

 

[Montauk]

Right? It's shocking how they want to sell their merch and make some money.. it makes no sense.

It makes sense. I still find it funny and desperate.

The patch design ain't all that guys, and the version in the live action ad looks cheap.

 

[Montauk]

The Constellation Edition sold out in two seconds.
But i know what you mean:

Wow, two extremely triggered responses to a small comment in a row?

You can like whatever you want, including buying through the nose for cheap plastic crap - I was just saying that I found the focus on pushing the merch and the patch design being basic is funny to me.

Starfields Iconic(tm) patch will truly go down in history as a piece of merch.

 

[Black_Stride]

Wow, two extremely triggered responses to a small comment in a row?

You can like whatever you want, including buying through the nose for cheap plastic crap - I was just saying that I found the focus on pushing the merch and the patch design being basic is funny ti me.

 

[RaySoft]

Maybe the dev needs the extra support lol

The people who actually makes the games are usually passionate people who love what they do. I salute them. The flipside though, is that at some places the board are populated with people misaligned.

You are paying extra for the artbook, soundtrack, skins, story expansion, watch, box thing, constellation patch, steelbook case and early access.
Why are people hung up on only getting early access, thats probably the least valuable thing in the premium and constellation editions.

Im sorry they got you

 

[Three]

Okey, you don't seem to like the word option.. how about opportunity?

They are giving me the opportunity to buy the DLC early and play the game 5 days before the official release for an arbitrary fee that I am willing to pay because I've been waiting for this game for a while and I will be buying the DLC anyway. I feel good about it.

If you don't feel good about it, you don't have to do any of that..

I can understand that a $80 game, paying for updates, or paying extra/£34 for early access is a choice but it is hardly considered "good to have options". It's just a way for them to make you pay more money.

 

[Montauk]

But you're wrong that I want people to dislike the things I dislike.

Saying I don't like the patch, the watch or their tired attempts to sell them isn't me issuing you a command in any sense.

Please, sit in a dark room and calm down. You can sooth yourself by thinking about your little plastic case.

 

[Puscifer]

Who's making you do all this? Sounds like a bad person in your life.

No one, I'm just merely saying what's the point in subscribing if the entire point of GP was to deliver all this content with your monthly sub.

 

[twilo99]

I can understand that a $80 game, paying for updates, or paying extra/£34 for early access is a choice but it is hardly considered "good to have options". It's just a way for them to make you pay more money.

I have gamepass anyway and I plan on keeping it for a while, so the game being on there is just an added bonus.

If the game was a PC exclusive I would've bought the premium pack on steam or something, which would've cost me $100? Instead, I paid $31. The cost of GPU would've been there regardless.

 

[jorgejjvr]

No one, I'm just merely saying what's the point in subscribing if the entire point of GP was to deliver all this content with your monthly sub.

There was never a promise of 'all the content' like dlc and such. The game will be there Sept 6 with all the main story content available for gp subscribers day 1 without paying a single additional cent. Dlc should never be expected to be free/included with gp

 

[Forsythia]

All this nonsense for a bonus you receive when essentially preordering the dlc. If it weren't for Game Pass I would've preordered the premium edition. But I'm subscribed to Game Pass anyway, so I just bought the premium upgrade.

 

[Three]

I have gamepass anyway and I plan on keeping it for a while, so the game being on there is just an added bonus.

If the game was a PC exclusive I would've bought the premium pack on steam or something, which would've cost me $100? Instead, I paid $31. The cost of GPU would've been there regardless.

The fact that they've set early access behind $100 elsewhere doesn't mean the £34/$31 isn't designed to take more money from you. They could have just had "day one" for everyone 5 days early but they know people will pay money for it, It's not about good to have options.

 

[jorgejjvr]

The fact that they've set early access behind $100 elsewhere doesn't mean the £34/$31 isn't designed to take more money from you. They could have just had "day one" for everyone 5 days early but they know people will pay money for it, It's not about good to have options.

You do know you get more than just 5 days early right? Including a story dlc that will likely be $25-30 standalone

You know this right?

Yes, totally good to have options

 

[twilo99]

All this nonsense for a bonus you receive when essentially preordering the dlc. If it weren't for Game Pass I would've preordered the premium edition. But I'm subscribed to Game Pass anyway, so I just bought the premium upgrade.

This point seems to be extremely difficult to comprehend...

 

[Three]

You do know you get more than just 5 days early right? Including a story dlc that will likely be $25-30 standalone

You know this right?

Yes, totally good to have options

Yes if you can read you will see that I mentioned I have no issue with people paying £34 extra for a mystery dlc which they don't know anything about but we are talking about locking the game for 5 days unless you pay extra here. There is a reason this PSA thread is about $31 5 days early access and not about $31 mystery DLC. That's not a 'good to have' option that's just trying to get you to pay more for something they could give for nothing.

 

[jorgejjvr]

Yes if you can read you will see that I mentioned I have no issue with people paying £34 extra for a mystery dlc which they don't know anything about but we are talking about locking the game for 5 days unless you pay extra here. There is a reason this PSA thread is about $31 5 days early access and not about $31 mystery DLC. That's not a 'good to have' option that's just trying to get you to pay more for something they could give for nothing.

I mean I totally get it, it's still a business after all

 

[Three]

I mean I totally get it, it's still a business after all

Great, because we've already discussed this is capitalism too.

 

[jorgejjvr]

Great, because we've already discussed this is capitalism too.

Exactly, you're getting it

 

[twilo99]

Forza Motorsport seems to have a similar set up



I am not interested, but I am sure a lot of people would be since it comes with some extras.

I don't feel "cheated" in any way, I still get to play the game when it releases, sure yon can technically call it day 5 and not day 1 but cmon

 

[Three]

Exactly, you're getting it

I think you're slowly getting it otherwise you wouldn't have replied with this:

You know this right?

Yes, totally good to have options

If you had actually read it. Unless you think somebody trying to get more money from you by withholding it temporarily in the name of capitalism is a "good to have option".

 

[CrustyBritches]

So it launches day 6 on gamepass, not day 1. And $31 is half of full game price. Same trick with Forza.

How is $31 half of $100? And keep an eye on that Premium Upgrade. It's going to be the same price even after the game launches and early access is over.

 

[adamsapple]

Forza Motorsport seems to have a similar set up



I am not interested, but I am sure a lot of people would be since it comes with some extras.

I don't feel "cheated" in any way, I still get to play the game when it releases, sure yon can technically call it day 5 and not day 1 but cmon

See, there's the beauty of choice.

I am going to play Motorsport, but my excitement is not high enough that I want to play it early or have access to the extra content packs. The regular game pass release date is good enough for me in that case.

Meanwhile, I am very excited for Starfield, so having DLC access, digital artbook and OST and the game a few days early is an easier choice for me there.

I have no problem with people paying £34 for a mystery box dlc but I'd hardly call withholding the game for 5 days from those not paying extra as "having options".

Withholding ?

What's the games retail release date again ?

 

[Three]

Withholding ?

What's the games retail release date again ?

Well done clever clogs. who do you think sets this arbitrary "release date" if you dont pay extra? What date do the people paying extra play on?

 

[adamsapple]

Well done clever clogs. who do you think sets this fake "release date" if you dont pay extra? What date do the people paying extra play on?

Nah man you lost the plot with that withheld comment

The games retail release date is the 6th, that's when the game goes live on game pass as well. People have a choice if they want to pay more for early access and the DLC content or they can wait for the general retail release. They have a choice if they want to get the premium add on with their game pass copy or just buy the game outright.

 

[Three]

Nah man you lost the plot with that withheld comment

The games retail release date is the 6th, that's when the game goes live on game pass as well. People have a choice if they want to pay more for early access and the DLC content or they can wait for the general retail release. They have a choice if they want to get the premium add on with their game pass copy or just buy the game outright.

So what are the people paying extra for premium playing if the game hasn't "released"?
You think MS setting a later date for people paying less isn't withholding it from those paying less and that's fine. I'd call you naive and tell you to continue to have Phils balls in your mouth though.

 

[Slicker than your average]

Yeah don't agree with this bullshit practice at all. Doesn't matter who's doing it, it's nothing but pure greed. It wasn't right when it happened with diablo 4 and isn't right now. I didn't see anyone defending it as much as this when it was a 3rd party game.

But now it's Xbox doing it, all of a sudden it's good to have options. You're defending paying half the price of the retail game cost as additional to your subscription price. Imo it should be included for gamepass members.

Keep telling everyone it's the best deal in gaming, while you're forking out an extra 30 dollars per big AAA game to play early. I even laughed when I saw some poster using people upgrading from game pass to ultimate as a way of measuring game sales..

 

[adamsapple]

So what are the people paying extra for premium playing if the game hasn't "released"?
You think MS setting a later date for people paying less isn't withholding it from those paying less and that's fine. I'd call you naive and tell you to continue to have Phils balls in your mouth though.

My man please spare me the intellectually dishonest banter, you know full well what early access means and how this isn't the first game to do that.

But to the greater point, you already went off the rocker when you attempted to push a narrative that anything is being withheld from players, you're conveniently ignoring the choice players have to partake in it or not at their discretion.

 

[Three]

My man please spare me the intellectually dishonest banter, you know full well what early access means and how this isn't the first game to do that.

Please spare me the shilling because you know full well that a week isn't really "early access" in the true sense of the word and the game has gone gold.

But to the greater point, you already went off the rocker when you attempted to push a narrative that anything is being withheld from players, you're conveniently ignoring the choice players have to partake in it or not at their discretion.

Conveniently ignoring everything already that was discussed about this being a choice you have but not necessarily a "good to have option" .

What next, Sony paying for week or months "early access" to CoD content is a "good to have option" from Sony if you buy the PS version, that you can take part in at your discretion and not a way to influence your spending. Who would have thought. You really are off your rockers.

 

[adamsapple]

Please spare me the shilling because you know full well that a weak isn't really "early access" in the true sense of the word and the game has gone gold.

In the "true sense of the word", you were still wrong about the game being withheld from anyone so there's that I suppose

Conveniently ignoring everything already that was discussed about this being a choice you have but not necessarily a "good to have option" .

And why is it not a good to have option? The whole thing about options is that it's at the persons discretion if they want to take it or not. People can get it early, or wait 5 days and get it on the release date. People can upgrade the game pass version, or they can buy the game outright. They're pretty basic choices that cover everyone who might be interested in the game.

What next, Sony paying for weak or months "early access" to CoD content is a "good to have option" from Sony if you buy the PS version, that you can take part in at your discretion and not a way to influence your spending. Who would have thought.

I want to say you should be smarter than this but the last few posts have me in doubt.

The difference in the scenario you've laid is that there is *NO WAY* for the people on the Xbox or PC eco system to partake in that. If you're trying to equate the two as the same, then my friend replying to you anymore would be a fools errand.

 

[Three]

In the "true sense of the word", you were still wrong about the game being withheld from anyone so there's that I suppose

If you think so what more can I say? The people who paid for gamepass could be given early access without a problem but it's you who is trying to spin a money making scheme of paying for a week early release as "having options".

And why is it not a good to have option? The whole thing about options is that it's at the persons discretion if they want to take it or not.

You're doing a pretty poor job of trying to paint a complete user-choice as anything bad here, mind you.

Because you don't understand the difference between a user choice to partake in a money making scheme and a "good to have option".

I want to say you should be smarter than this but the last few posts have me in doubt.

The difference in the scenario you've laid is that there is *NO WAY* for the people on the Xbox or PC eco system to partake in that. If you're trying to equate the two as the same, then my friend replying to you anymore would be a fools errand.

And I want to say you are smart enough to see the analogy but choose to ignore it. Early access to CoD content isn't designed as a "good to have option" for those who happen to own a PS and xbox/PC is it? You can still choose to take it or not but it's to influence spending much like this is. Much like this is not giving early access to those on gamepass so that they pay extra to play 5 days earlier. Keep trying to shill that money making scheme as a "good thing and options" though.

 

[adamsapple]

If you think so what more can I say? The people who paid for gamepass could be given early access without a problem but it's you who is trying to spin a money making scheme of paying for a week early release as "having options"

People who pay for game pass get the game on release date as promised. Do you want them to send free consoles to everyone who subscribed as well ? what an odd thing to feign outrage over them doing exactly what is promised.

Because you don't understand the difference between a user choice to partake in a money making scheme and a "good to have option".

Getting early access to the game along with the kind of content that is usually in almost all modern games' Deluxe editions (skins, OST, artbook) and the first story expansion now, or doing that later after the release at the players discretion *is* a good to have option. If it is a money making scheme and some people are smart enough to recognize that unlike others, they don't have to partake.

It is literally as simple as that.

And I want to say you are smart enough to see the analogy but choose to ignore it. Early access to CoD content isn't designed as a "good to have option" for those who happen to own a PS and xbox/PC. It's to influence spending much like this is. Much like this is not giving early access to those on gamepass so that they pay extra to play 5 days earlier. Keep trying to shill that money making scheme as a "good thing and options" though.

Again, a disingenuous comparison. The CoD content is withheld from 2 of the 3 platforms entirely with no option for them to get it even if they don't want to, there's no good to have option, or any option, there at all. And again you're reducing it just to the early access, which is just one of the many things that come with the premium bundle.

And now I see a couple of posters have also started injecting console war BS into this. It doesn't matter who does it, if anyone doesn't want to pay for the earlier access and added content, they don't have any obligation to. But you keep trying to paint it like people are somehow being falsely led into a "money making scheme" as you keep trying to paint it.

If you've cracked the code and firmly believe it's a money making scheme, don't give them your money.

End of story.

 

[jorgejjvr]

Damn, what a fun thread this has become lol

 

[Three]

Again, a disingenuous comparison. The CoD content is withheld from 2 of the 3 platforms entirely with no option for them to get it even if they don't want to, there's no good to have option, or any option, there at all. And again you're reducing it just to the early access, which is just one of the many things that come with the premium bundle.

Uh-oh you used the "off your rockers" word there. The xbox and PC SKUs are getting exactly what was promised and nothing was withheld, am I right? The PS version is just a 'good to have option' for those willing to partake to have early access to the content by buying that particular SKU. When it releases on xbox and PC THAT was the actual release date of that content. If you don't like it don't buy it. End of story. Am I doing this right? If you still can't see it I give up and I'm out.

 

[adamsapple]

Uh-oh you used the "off your rockers" word there. The xbox and PC SKUs are getting exactly what was promised and nothing was withheld, am I right? The PS version is just a 'good to have option' for those willing to partake to have early access to the content by buying that particular SKU. Am I doing this right? If you still can't see it I give up and I'm out.

No.

Everyone who can play Starfield on the platforms its on has the option to get the premium content on / before release, they have the choice to. We cannot say the same for everyone who can play the CoD games you're referring.

Damn, what a fun thread this has become lol

It is. Who'd have thought people having a choice to get early access via the premium upgrade / edition would become such a hot button issue.

 

[Kiya's Guard]

It's actually smart. For those who will sink 50-100+ hours into the game in one month, and be finished with it, they're essentially getting the entire game for less than half price.

Not sure what the issue is that you have with it. Are you jealous that PS doesn't offer opportunities with major AAA games like this to have them early and have full access to them without needing to pay the full $70 for them up front? Maybe you're playing on the wrong platform, brah.

Dunno what to tell ya

I'm probably not going to play it for a while, already learned with oblivion, skyrim and the fallouts.

It's actually smart. For those who will sink 50-100+ hours into the game in one month, and be finished with it, they're essentially getting the entire game for less than half price.

Not sure what the issue is that you have with it. Are you jealous that PS doesn't offer opportunities with major AAA games like this to have them early and have full access to them without needing to pay the full $70 for them up front? Maybe you're playing on the wrong platform, brah.

Dunno what to tell ya

Lol, I would argue back with "my gpu will surely play the game at 60fps" but that's besides the point. I was just laughing at the idea of playing a bethsoft game earlier than one should, knowing how their releases for the past 15 years have been

 

[Kiya's Guard]

So now its about not having a day one patch.

Where did we get the info about when the patches would drop because I legit would like to see it?

And I suppose its a different patch than the one the reviewers got

For the last decade we used to get day one patches with critical fixes in some cases. Maybe in this particular case there's no difference between the early and the global release day. I will still wait for a while until there's no news about game save corruption or similar stuff, but to each their own

 

[Three]

No.

Everyone who can play Starfield on the platforms its on has the option to get the premium content, they have the choice to. We cannot say the same for everyone who can play the CoD games you're referring.

They have the choice to buy a specific SkU and pay more. The other you have a choice to buy a specific SKU for another platform for early access for the same price or even buy another console. You are missing the woods for the trees though. You still don't understand it's witheld something to influence spending and it isn't a "good to have option" as much as it is just a choice to partake or not in something that's designed to influence your spending. Those aren't the same thing. And you used the word "witheld" much like you were having a go at me for suggesting the same for "not 5 days early regular sku", you've lost the plot too I'm guessing.

 

[adamsapple]

They have the choice to buy a specific SkU and pay more. The other you have a choice to buy a specific SKU for another platform for early access for the same price or even buy another console. You are missing the woods for the trees though. You still don't understand it's witheld something to influence spending and it isn't a "good to have option" as much as it is just a choice to partake or not in something that's designed to influence your spending. Those aren't the same thing. And you used the word "witheld" much like you were having a go at me for suggesting the same for "not 5 days early regular sku", you've lost the plot too I'm guessing.

You are equating buying into a whole different console eco system as the same as buying just an add on to a game and hardware you already have access to.

I'm done my man. Moving on.