Raphael Colantonio (Arkane Co-Founder) "Why is no-one talking about the elephant in the room? Cough cough (Gamepass)"

Let people who enjoy game pass, enjoy it ffs. No one wants to pay 80 dollars for games, this model does nothing but provide value and it's optional for devs to opt-in. Sounds like some cry baby bullshit to me.
 
Let people who enjoy game pass, enjoy it ffs. No one wants to pay 80 dollars for games, this model does nothing but provide value and it's optional for devs to opt-in. Sounds like some cry baby bullshit to me.
Guess who made their games 80 dollars though? None of it is optional for first party either (this developer complaining was from such a studio, creator of Dishonored and Prey). Their sister studio was shut in the previous round of layoffs.
 
It is. Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?
I'm not going to tell my wife "hey honey, I'm going to spend 10x more on games this year because I need to save the industry from GamePass".

I prefer to give companies like MS the opportunity, if applicable, to resolve their problems of mismanagement or unsustainable models.
 
All 1P studios are forced to put it on there, wtf are you even talking about here?
Wow, Microsoft is forcing Microsoft to put Microsoft games on Microsoft's service!

Just kidding, but Microsoft owns the studios. There's no one 'forcing' anyone, it's all the same company. Saying that it's forcing itself to put its own games on Game Pass is like complaining that Netflix is forcing its movies to be included in the catalog. It's their decision, the risk is theirs, the loss (or profit) is theirs too. If the model doesn't work, it's them who will have to deal with it, not the studios individually.
 
Wow, Microsoft is forcing Microsoft to put Microsoft games on Microsoft's service!

Just kidding, but Microsoft owns the studios. There's no one 'forcing' anyone, it's all the same company. Saying that it's forcing itself to put its own games on Game Pass is like complaining that Netflix is forcing its movies to be included in the catalog. It's their decision, the risk is theirs, the loss (or profit) is theirs too. If the model doesn't work, it's them who will have to deal with it, not the studios individually.
If your boss is telling you to put your game on a sub service, accept pennies instead of tens of dollars and fuck up your bonuses (an action no sane employee will ever take willingly), then it's safe and accurate to say that they're forcing you to do it.
 
Let people who enjoy game pass, enjoy it ffs. No one wants to pay 80 dollars for games, this model does nothing but provide value and it's optional for devs to opt-in. Sounds like some cry baby bullshit to me.
It seems at this point that Game Pass is actually more damaging to the industry than piracy. Let that Sink In
 
If your boss is telling you to put your game on a sub service, accept pennies instead of tens of dollars and fuck up your bonuses (an action no sane employee will ever take willingly), then it's safe and accurate to say that they're forcing you to do it.
Not boss, owner.

They (Microsoft) own the company and they want the games produced by the company they own to be put on the service that they also own.

Raphael Colantonio should have been fired by Microsoft the second he made those comments to the public.

The minute he sold his company to MS and cashed their check he lost the right to complain about anything Microsoft does with THEIR company.
 
Last edited:
Not boss, owner.

They own the company and they want the games produced by the company they own to be put on the service that they also own.

Raphael Colantonio should have been fired by Microsoft the second he made those comments to the public.

The minute he sold his company to MS and cashed their check he lost the right to complain about anything Microsoft does with THEIR company.
No it's literally their boss doing this.

Unless you're telling me Phil Spencer or Matt Booty owns Microsoft.
 
No it's literally their boss doing this.

Unless you're telling me Phil Spencer or Matt Booty owns Microsoft.
You clearly don't seem to understand why a company would want the games it produces from the studios it owns to be on the service it also owns.

Instead you've decided to split hairs and argue meaningless semantics, which does absolutely nothing but make you look like you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Gamepass may not be profitable for MS but that's their problem and it shouldn't have any impact on the money that 3rd party devs get from putting their game on the service. As for 1st Party Devs, again, that's Microsoft's problem and frankly, they have more than enough money to float 1st party developers who are struggling.

That said, if the gaming division of Microsoft isn't profitable, it's not because of Gamepass. It's because their in-house developers have put out nothing but slop for the past 5+ years.

And for 3rd party devs - stop giving us "modern audience" slop, stale gameplay, and for the love of God, stop with the long-ass development cycles. If you're an established studio and can't go from "vague concept" to going "Gold" on a game in 2-3 years then you are doing something wrong.

Naughty Dog, even though they are a Playstation brand, is a prime example of this. A game company that has grown too big for their britches. Assuming this "generation" started in 2020, Naughty Dog should have released at least two new games by now, if not more. Not remakes, not remasters, not upgrades - new games. They, and a bunch of other developers have grown fat and lazy on their own success and all those studios need to be gutted. Bring in fresh talent that actually wants to work, won't complain about crunch, and have a passion for making games.

We need more developers like Falcom and RGG and a hell of a lot less like Naughty Dog and Rockstar
I agree. These major publishers need to downsize their studios massively and stop allowing developers to spend 4+ years on projects that go nowhere.
 
It seems at this point that Game Pass is actually more damaging to the industry than piracy. Let that Sink In


Truly spoken like a SmashJT follower.


If your boss is telling you to put your game on a sub service, accept pennies instead of tens of dollars and fuck up your bonuses (an action no sane employee will ever take willingly), then it's safe and accurate to say that they're forcing you to do it.

What a bizarre argument. First party studios aren't 'forced' to put games anywhere, it's part of their employment and contract to put games out where their parent company tells them, this is also weird cause some (see above quoted) often claim that games are now made with GP in mind, so by that logic it should be built into their development pipelines too. Third parties are also not forced to agree to GP terms under duress, they willingly choose these deals often in lieu of monetary assistance either pre-release for development or marketing at release etc.

On that note, Raphael was awfully quiet about this when Weird West launched on GP. He even penned an article on the Xbox website celebrating it. Should have voiced some concerns back then too.


cR71ALRrHZqKR2Mi.jpg
 
Last edited:
It seems at this point that Game Pass is actually more damaging to the industry than piracy.
Maybe not worse than totally unopposed piracy would be, but I think MS succeeding in what it set out to achieve with GP would be worse for gaming and for the industry than piracy in its current form is.
 
Did you read my full comment?

First-party studios are owned by MS, which also owns Gamepass. They aren't being "forced" to put their games on Gamepass.
Eh, I can imagine people making CoD feeling they're being forced to put their latest cash cow to a 1$ subscription service after 20 years of having loads of people paying full price day one for it.
 
You feel better now that you've got all that virtue signaling no one gives a shit about out your system?

I work for my money. I spend my money how I please. If I can get something for a good price and the value proposition works for me, then I will. If you have a problem with how others spend their money, then I invite you to tell me what flavor of autism you have where you think a consumer being smart with their money is selfish.

This "support the devs" take that's hot in the games community right now has to be the biggest crock of shit I've seen in quite some time, especially when these devs are forcing sociopolitical views in their work, blaming "gamers," and in some cases pushing for mtx in games themselves, not the publisher.

Fuck right off, nerd.
Lmao, touch a nerve did I? Believe it or not, devs work for their money too, it usually helps if they have money to pay their staff. You clearly have room temperature iq if you cannot see how gamepass releasing everything day 1 is not sustainable to support the budgets of current games. Gamepass acting as more of a backlog library is clearly more suitable for the health of the industry. As someone else pointed out, it's the same as movie studios releasing their movies first to cinemas and then to streaming/retail after, which is exactly the same model that Playstation Plus, EA and Ubisoft follow. If Gamepass becomes the dominant model, it will just end up like netflix which just releases mostly slop designed for maximum revenue efficiency and milking of ip instead of actual well crafted original content. How can you not correlate the two? Why are you talking about devs pushing crappy woke shit it in as if I'm a fan of that, it's crap and I hate that shit too. The entire point is to have a discussion. I love GP, but if you cannot see the wider picture of the industry here and how this will affect development in the future, then that's on you.
 
Huh?

No one is forcing anyone to put their games on Gamepass. If a dev decides to partner with MS and have their game release on GP to the detriment of their company, then that's on them.

I mean, if a company can't make good business decisions then fuck 'em. They deserve to go out of business.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If a company makes a good game it will sell whether it is on Gamepass or not. Expedition 33 proves this point.

Devs are lazy and looking for excuses for poor sales instead of admitting that their products sucked and took too long to develop.

Every game company that closes was probably a game company that shouldn't have been in business anyway and every Dev that gets laid off is just one more Dev that couldn't prove their worth to the company they were working for.
GP growing, leads to lower sales on other platforms. If GP grows to become dominant, they are entirely reliant on what target "plays" or whatever metric MSFT set and the revenue they agree to pay the devs. Microsoft paying each and every dev a decent cut is not sustainable even for megacorp microsoft. This disincentivises risk and originality in developers projects, leading to crappy games. I love GP, but I think it's only sensible that games are not launching day 1 on it. People who are hyped for specific games or whatever will buy that at retail, and then like a year later or whatever it will come go GP, Ps plus etc and the subscribers on that can play it then. I think it seems that perhaps we're making slightly different arguments here. I'm a big fan of GP and have an active sub with it, I'm just looking at the bigger picture here in how it's affecting the industry as a whole depending on how releases on it are managed.
 
Last edited:
Gamepass may not be profitable for MS but that's their problem and it shouldn't have any impact on the money that 3rd party devs get from putting their game on the service. As for 1st Party Devs, again, that's Microsoft's problem and frankly, they have more than enough money to float 1st party developers who are struggling.

That said, if the gaming division of Microsoft isn't profitable, it's not because of Gamepass. It's because their in-house developers have put out nothing but slop for the past 5+ years.

And for 3rd party devs - stop giving us "modern audience" slop, stale gameplay, and for the love of God, stop with the long-ass development cycles. If you're an established studio and can't go from "vague concept" to going "Gold" on a game in 2-3 years then you are doing something wrong.

Naughty Dog, even though they are a Playstation brand, is a prime example of this. A game company that has grown too big for their britches. Assuming this "generation" started in 2020, Naughty Dog should have released at least two new games by now, if not more. Not remakes, not remasters, not upgrades - new games. They, and a bunch of other developers have grown fat and lazy on their own success and all those studios need to be gutted. Bring in fresh talent that actually wants to work, won't complain about crunch, and have a passion for making games.

We need more developers like Falcom and RGG and a hell of a lot less like Naughty Dog and Rockstar
I definitely agree about management problems at studios, it's massively obvious this generation. Sony in particular has fcked it up this gen and had an appalling 1st party release schedule, only insomniac have put out actual next-gen games and even some of their projects have been clearly rushed (SM2). ND are mia and just milking remasters, the rest have just made boring safe cross gen games.

I think it's incredibly selfish to say devs should just accept crunch though, wtf is that. Devs clearly should be passionate, and these 1st class studios should only accept the best devs,
but no, I completely disagree about just accepting crunch, how is that fair at all. Devs have families, hobbies and an actual life to live too lmao, they're not just robots.
Extended hours are to be expected as games hit certain targets, but this should be planned for properly by management and their hours should be fair and fairly compensated.
This goes for all industries, not just gaming. Everyone is entitled to a fair work/life balance.
 
Lmao, touch a nerve did I?
You started your response to me by calling my stance selfish and small minded, and are surprised at the reply? Yeah, not reading the rest of your post, which is no doubt some of the creamiest shit on this forum right now. Again, fuck right off, nerd.

EDIT: Against my better judgement, read it anyway, and here you are going on and on about room temperature IQ and wanting to have a discussion. Do you know how discussions work, you dumb fuck?
 
Last edited:
I think it's incredibly selfish to say devs should just accept crunch though, wtf is that.
"Crunch" is part of multiple industries, not just game development.

It's a known factor before you go to work in any of those jobs.

No one is forcing anyone to be a game developer, but if you choose that career, you should be ready, willing, and able to crunch. If not, find another career path.
 
I love GP, but I think it's only sensible that games are not launching day 1 on it.
Then there's zero reason for most people to use the service.

I subscribe to GP specifically for the Day 1 releases. I don't subscribe to PS Plus because it doesn't offer Day 1 releases.

Quite often, I will try a game on Game Pass Day 1 and if I like it, will immediately buy the game for full price on either Steam or PlayStation (depending on the game) so I'm not stuck in the Game Pass ecosystem, which isn't really mod-friendly on PC.
 
You started your response to me by calling my stance selfish and small minded, and are surprised at the reply? Yeah, not reading the rest of your post, which is no doubt some of the creamiest shit on this forum right now. Again, fuck right off, nerd.

EDIT: Against my better judgement, read it anyway, and here you are going on and on about room temperature IQ and wanting to have a discussion. Do you know how discussions work, you dumb fuck?
Instead of actually discussing my points, you instead ask me if I understand how discussions work and call me a nerd on a video game forum you are also posting on.
 
"Crunch" is part of multiple industries, not just game development.

It's a known factor before you go to work in any of those jobs.

No one is forcing anyone to be a game developer, but if you choose that career, you should be ready, willing, and able to crunch. If not, find another career path.
I think crunch is probably inevitable, but it's clear the gaming industry has a management problem, so it just so often devolves into pushing an unsustainable amount of pressure onto developers leading to them burning out so often, it needs to be managed properly.
 
What a bizarre argument. First party studios aren't 'forced' to put games anywhere, it's part of their employment and contract to put games out where their parent company tells them, this is also weird cause some (see above quoted) often claim that games are now made with GP in mind, so by that logic it should be built into their development pipelines too. Third parties are also not forced to agree to GP terms under duress, they willingly choose these deals often in lieu of monetary assistance either pre-release for development or marketing at release etc.

On that note, Raphael was awfully quiet about this when Weird West launched on GP. He even penned an article on the Xbox website celebrating it. Should have voiced some concerns back then too.


cR71ALRrHZqKR2Mi.jpg
You're splitting hairs here. If as an individual within a studio you experience a studio takeover it doesn't mean you agree to the business model that the company buying you out is implementing. Sure you can decide to disagree with their model and stay and nobody would be forcing you to stay or you can even decide to leave and still disagree as this Arkane founder has done. In the end if you stay you're being forced to do something by your higher ups though. Not sure why you're disputing that. You even had leaked emails of the anger felt by Pete Hines for being TOLD to adopt a specific strategy from higher ups.



A war he now seems to have won internally.
 
Last edited:
You're splitting hairs here.

We're all splitting hairs here.

The fact is that for any number of devs that have said GP isn't viable, you can find a similar number saying they love the model.

Raphael was free to express his displeasure in 2022 as well, only years after his game released and finished its tenure on the service does he speak up about how it's not been working out for 8 years.
 
We're all splitting hairs here.
Nobody else is being pedantic to the level of defining what "forced" means in the context of first party studios having to do something though. All first party studios have a mandate (ie are forced) to adopt a gamepass strategy.

The fact is that for any number of devs that have said GP isn't viable, you can find a similar number saying they love the model.

Raphael was free to express his displeasure in 2022 as well, only years after his game released and finished its tenure on the service does he speak up about how it's not been working out for 8 years.

Because he set up a new studio, got GP funding from MS and saw that it just dried up after. He saw first hand that it was not beneficial in the long-run. Especially post ABK where third party indie funding is generally low now. Those who've said they "love the model" are usually those who were on the gravy train at some point or currently are. They're at the whim of MS though.
 
Last edited:
Because he set up a new studio, got GP funding from MS and saw that it just dried up after. He saw first hand that it was not beneficial in the long-run. Especially post ABK where third party indie funding is generally low now. Those who've said they "love the model" are usually those who were on the gravy train at some point or currently are. They're at the whim of MS though.

i mean ... ok ?

The GP funding likely helped him fund development, provide initial marketing and a venue to release the game. Why would it need to keep funding the game year(s) after the fact, that makes no sense.

And, yes, of course everyone is at the whim of the publisher / platform holder. Sony isn't going to continuously advertise 3, 4 year old games on their dashboards unless it's a part of a big sale or something, either.

Nobody else is being pedantic to the level of defining what "forced" means in the context of first party studios having to do something though. All first party studios have a mandate (ie are forced) to adopt a gamepass strategy.

It's still a nonsensical talking point, those first party developers will release the game where their publisher requires them to. Again, that's not 'forced', that's a simple part of their employment contract.

Forced would be if MS starts putting games on the service against a publishers will, like if Baldurs Gate 3 went on Game Pass without Larian approving it. That's what 'forced' means, it's not splitting hair, it's a simple definition of what the term means.

So it's probably better to find a different term, 'forced' isn't appropriate here.
 
i mean ... ok ?

The GP funding likely helped him fund development, provide initial marketing and a venue to release the game. Why would it need to keep funding the game year(s) after the fact, that makes no sense.

And, yes, of course everyone is at the whim of the publisher / platform holder. Sony isn't going to continuously advertise 3, 4 year old games on their dashboards unless it's a part of a big sale or something, either.
Advertising is a little different to your income being entirely dependent on MS. Especially as the audience has been conditioned to wait for gamepass rather than buying games. This is the harm he is talking about.
It's still a nonsensical talking point, those first party developers will release the game where their publisher requires them to. Again, that's not 'forced', that's a simple part of their employment contract.

Forced would be if MS starts putting games on the service against a publishers will, like if Baldurs Gate 3 went on Game Pass without Larian approving it. That's what 'forced' means, it's not splitting hair, it's a simple definition of what the term means.

So it's probably better to find a different term, 'forced' isn't appropriate here.
How the hell could MS the publisher do something against MS's will? The heads of some bought publishers are forced to adopt MS' will. They cannot adopt a different strategy. Forced is entirely appropriate and was easily understood yet we're splitting hairs about it.
 
Last edited:
The heads of some bought publishers are forced to adopt MS' will. Forced is entirely appropriate and was easily understood yet we're splitting hairs about it.
The "forced" part of this goes out the window the minute they cashed Microsoft's check for the studio purchase.

They are no longer "bought publishers," they are Microsoft.

Just because Microsoft lets a studio it purchases keep it's name for marketing purposes doesn't make it any less "Microsoft."
 
The "forced" part of this goes out the window the minute they cashed Microsoft's check for the studio purchase.

They are no longer "bought publishers," they are Microsoft.

Just because Microsoft lets a studio it purchases keep it's name for marketing purposes doesn't make it any less "Microsoft."
"They" being who? The shareholders? Doesn't mean studio heads need to agree. I even gave you an example where one was angry for being told to adopt a strategy suggesting he had no choice.
 
Advertising is a little different to your income being entirely dependent on MS. Especially as the audience has been conditioned to wait for gamepass rather than buying games.

Using Raphael's example, his game released on 3 platforms at the same time so his income was in no way entirely dependent on MS or Game Pass.

And the conditioned part is just unsubstantiated stuff, if that were the case, the software sales on the platform would have completely dried up, which we know for a fact is not the case.


How the hell could MS the publisher do something against MS's will? The heads of some bought publishers are forced to adopt MS' will. Forced is entirely appropriate and was easily understood yet we're splitting hairs about it.

First party follows what their publisher mandates, there is no 'forced', that is part of their standard employment. This applies to any first party studio on any platform.

This shouldn't be that hard.
 
Last edited:
"They" being who? The shareholders? Doesn't mean studio heads need to agree. I even gave you an example where one was angry for being told to adopt a strategy suggesting he had no choice.
It's like talking to a brick wall...

Studio heads are no longer studio heads in this example. They are Microsoft employees who answer to both Microsoft executives and Microsoft shareholders.

If they weren't OK with this arrangement, then they shouldn't have sold their company to Microsoft, or they should have bailed when the company was sold.

As Microsoft employees, if they are unhappy with something Microsoft is telling them to do, they can quit. No one is forcing anything.
 
Using Raphael's example, his game released on 3 platforms at the same time so his income was in no way entirely dependent on MS or Game Pass.

And the conditioned part is just unsubstantiated stuff, if that were the case, the software sales on the platform would have completely dried up, which we know for a fact is not the case.
They mostly have dried up especially indie and smaller games. I don't know what you're referring to when you say "we know for a fact".
First party follows what their publisher mandates, there is no 'forced', that is part of their standard employment. This applies to any first party studio on any platform.

This shouldn't be that hard.
Yes it's not that hard at all. You're just being pedantic. Read what you have an issue with:
If your boss is telling you to put your game on a sub service, accept pennies instead of tens of dollars and fuck up your bonuses (an action no sane employee will ever take willingly), then it's safe and accurate to say that they're forcing you to do it.

ie: They're forcing you to do it because they have the authority to being your boss. What's the difference between "boss forces you to" and "standard employment mandates it"? Nobody is saying you can't leave the studio. Nobody is saying shareholders didn't accept the money. Those are entirely different arguments.
 
Last edited:
ie: They're forcing you to do it because they have the authority to being your boss. What's the difference between "boss forces you to" and "standard employment mandates it"? Nobody is saying you can't leave the studio. Nobody is saying shareholders didn't accept the money. Those are entirely different arguments.

...... bro what ?

"If your boss is telling you yo put your game on a sub service .... then it's safe and accurate to say that they're forcing you to do it"

Next time your boss assigns you something, tell them they're forcing you to do it and see how that goes:messenger_tears_of_joy:

We're just saying anything now to try and make Game Pass be the big bad boogeyman.
 
Last edited:
Advertising is a little different to your income being entirely dependent on MS. Especially as the audience has been conditioned to wait for gamepass rather than buying games. This is the harm he is talking about.
If waiting for GP is that bad for sales, then every game maker shouldnt put their games on Steam either.

Whereas a lot of console games have frontloaded sales, Steam sales are often very smoothed out as PC gamers are conditioned to wait for Steam/GOG -70% off deals and then buy tons of backlog games for dirt cheap. I do myself best I can. Game makers seem to have no problem selling on Steam, and there is no GP/PS sub fee given out to hold them over. So for sub plan games, at least they get a juicy fixed fee, and also sell it too at the same time as not everyone is even on gaming sub plans. I think the last public data was Sony said there were 45M PS subbers across their 100M+ user base. Xbox was around 25M across 50M. So both platforms are ballpark only 40-50% on sub plans. There's still 50-60% who will buy games outright.

As for Raphael's Weird West being dumped on sub plans right away, it goes to show he and Devolver have no confidence in the game. The traditional thing to do for games (most games are not even on sub plans to begin with) is to sell first, then put it on sub plans to make up last bits of revenue when copies sold dry up. MS first party games being day one is their own choice as a corporate strategy perk. Third party games dont have to follow them.

As I mentioned, most games arent even on sub plan, and even more so as day one. So it's on Raphael and Devolver why they dumped it on sub plans so fast. Copies sold of course will dry up. But they got the sub plan fees off MS and Sony. So they should be happy with the deal as they agreed to it.
 
Last edited:
People also seem to be missing the point that none of this was a surprise.

It's not like a Microsoft executive walked into someone's office one day and said, "Your game is going on Game Pass" out of the blue.

Game Pass has been Microsoft's strategy for a long time now. If you sold your studio to Microsoft, you did so knowing that whatever that studio produced would be connected to Game Pass in some fashion.
 
...... bro what ?

Next time your boss assigns you something, tell them they're forcing you to do it and see how that goes:messenger_tears_of_joy:
What sort of dumb strawman argument is that? Obviously the boss can force you to do something.

Answer the simple question. What is the difference between:

"The boss is forcing me to" and "standard employment mandates me to"

Why are you being so pedantic about this nonsense? That's the question.
 
As for Raphael's Weird West being dumped on sub plans right away, it goes to show he and Devolver have no confidence in the game. The traditional thing to do for games (most games are not even on sub plans to begin with) is to sell first, then put it on sub plans to make up last bits of revenue when copies sold dry up. MS first party games being day one is their own choice as a corporate strategy perk. Third party games dont have to follow them.

Funny enough, as soon as the game's GP tenure ended, it landed on PS+ the very next month or so, if I recall correctly.

Devolver was extremely happy taking in sub-money from both Sony and MS without hesitation.
 
Let people who enjoy game pass, enjoy it ffs. No one wants to pay 80 dollars for games, this model does nothing but provide value and it's optional for devs to opt-in. Sounds like some cry baby bullshit to me.
If you mean don't interfere with your gameplay then of course. We would never do that. How would we do that? How COULD we even do that?

If you mean don't spread FUD when discussing the service, then that's not something we are doing. The FUD you see is actually truth, some opinions...if it looks like FUD to you, you may be financially or mentally invested.

We've been warning about this for years and now that the chickens are finally coming home to roost, you want to blame us. We did not hate on gamepass because we hate Xbox. We hate on gamepass because we can see how this service negatively impacts the industry. If this being discussed upsets gamepass users(though I'm not sure why), that is a function of their own minds. We are blameless. Nothing we say will take gamepass away from you, but you must understand how odd it sounds asking us to stop talking about it.
 
Last edited:
Funny enough, as soon as the game's GP tenure ended, it landed on PS+ the very next month or so, if I recall correctly.

Devolver was extremely happy taking in sub-money from both Sony and MS without hesitation.
Ya. They probably realized some MS/Sony sub fees were going to be better than selling the game. So they took the offer. It's like investing. You can park it into a guaranteed boring payout of 3% in a locked in fund. Or risk it yourself hoping to make big bucks in the stock market. You can also lose money doing worse than 3%. They took the 3% option.

If the fees were good, I'd take it too. Looking at SteamDB, the game had 2,000-4,000 in the first month, then it crash and burned rest of year with ballpark numbers of a couple hundred here and there CCU. That's it. Then lately of course 3 years later it's down to 50-100 CCU.

I hope this Raphael dude isnt doing 20/20 hindsight. Where he analyzes the numbers and notices if he and Devolver didnt do sub plan deals, they would had made more money from straight up purchases. So that's why he calls it out now. Too bad bud. You guys took the deal.

I guarantee you sore losers like this want to cherry pick. If the game sells crap, they keep the sub plan fee. If the game ends up still selling like crazy, the platform holder cancels the deal and gives them 70% cuts like normal.
 
Last edited:
Box office profits are dead.
They have always been rough
Streaming film companies are doing fine unless they are producing crap content.
Not necessarily. In fact, many of the most popular Netflix shows are garbage, and I'm not even talking about the mainstream ones, but the reality TV stuff. I also think Apple TV+ isn't making any money, even though it's considered one of the most prestigious platforms, alongside HBO, which is also having a rough time financially and creatively (remember that Nolan left WB because of streaming)
 
Top Bottom