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.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.
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".It is. Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?
Wow, Microsoft is forcing Microsoft to put Microsoft games on Microsoft's service!All 1P studios are forced to put it on there, wtf are you even talking about here?
Did you read my full comment?All 1P studios are forced to put it on there, wtf are you even talking about here?
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.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.
It seems at this point that Game Pass is actually more damaging to the industry than piracy. Let that Sink InLet 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.
Not boss, owner.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.
No it's literally their boss doing this.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.
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.No it's literally their boss doing this.
Unless you're telling me Phil Spencer or Matt Booty owns Microsoft.
I agree. These major publishers need to downsize their studios massively and stop allowing developers to spend 4+ years on projects that go nowhere.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
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.
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.It seems at this point that Game Pass is actually more damaging to the industry than piracy.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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
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.Lmao, touch a nerve did I?
"Crunch" is part of multiple industries, not just game development.I think it's incredibly selfish to say devs should just accept crunch though, wtf is that.
Then there's zero reason for most people to use the service.I love GP, but I think it's only sensible that games are not launching day 1 on it.
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.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?
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."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.
Continue deflecting, you're doing great!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.
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.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.
![]()
You're 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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
The "forced" part of this goes out the window the minute they cashed Microsoft's check for the studio purchase.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.
"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.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."
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.
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.
It's like talking to a brick wall..."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.
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".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.
Yes it's not that hard at all. You're just being pedantic. Read what you have an issue with: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.
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.
If waiting for GP is that bad for sales, then every game maker shouldnt put their games on Steam 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.
What sort of dumb strawman argument is that? Obviously the boss can force you to do something....... bro what ?
Next time your boss assigns you something, tell them they're forcing you to do it and see how that goes![]()
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.
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?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.
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.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.
Box office profits are dead. Streaming film companies are doing fine unless they are producing crap content.The movie industry is literally teetering on the edge rn wtf are you on about?
They have always been roughBox office profits are dead.
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)Streaming film companies are doing fine unless they are producing crap content.