Support NeoGAF

[Guesclin]

We've seen a few in the industry take that stance lately while others have said it's good, so it's always interesting to see the different perspectives. Naturally I have to ask though, if that is your stance what made you take a deal to join a subscription day 1?

The hope was that the exposure would lead to people who got the game as part of their subscription to at least buy the little add on pack or to encourage a friend to buy it on another platform so they could play it together but we haven't seen that, or at least not yet. What we've seen is that content has been devalued and that people are less willing to pay for things, which in the long run will likely mean less games being made and a lot more studios going under.

Some will say player count doesn't mean much because someone can play for 5 minutes and never touch a game again and count. While that's true it does seem like most are enjoying and playing the game a lot.

... Personally, I think the whole industry should agree to only allow games on subscription services a year after release. We need to mimic the old movie model of having it in theatres then on DVD then on TV or streaming. The current structure will prove very damaging to anyone who is not owned by a publisher soon if it continues.

Plus I'm sure it's nice having a bit of a security blanket so to speak when it comes to a Game Pass check coming in and guaranteeing a certain level of revenue.

Years ago the check for subscription services was big enough to make a big difference, but these days unless your game is tiny, or you're a rare enormous brand, it isn't much. But MS have been amazing partners and we're so glad to be working with them.

Revenge of the Savage Planet Creative Director Alex Hutchinson Talks Success, Game Pass & The Future

Check out our exclusive Alex Hutchinson interview discussing the success of Revenge Of The Savage Planet, the effects of Game Pass and what’s next

gamersocialclub.ca

 

[DeepEnigma]

Personally, I think the whole industry should agree to only allow games on subscription services a year after release. We need to mimic the old movie model of having it in theatres then on DVD then on TV or streaming. The current structure will prove very damaging to anyone who is not owned by a publisher soon if it continues.

 

[Punished Miku]

I do find it funny that we're going to have another thread of hysterics about devaluing games right after Nintendo and MS raised prices to $80. I'm all for devaluing it as much as possible.

What he is asking for is developer and publisher collusion to limit consumer choice and have everyone ignore subs for a year, while he puts 2 of his games on a sub including one just last month which was a day 1 game. He's wrong by the way, as we've never had movies follow this model exclusively. Stuff was always coming direct to video throughout the 80s, 90 and on. Stuff was being made for direct to TV. Stuff was being made for subs like HBO, Showtime in the 80s and had nothing to do with theaters.

We're in a content excess moment, and consumers are getting squeezed nonstop with every manner of expense increase and he wants to rig the game because he can't compete in a free market where people are choosing subs because they offer a great product at a great price. He's not even saying he won't put his own stuff on a sub, which is totally fine (and he put 2 games on a sub already?), he wants everyone else to ignore it too so that people are blocked from having choice and options. Pretty cowardly, and a sign of someone not really grappling with what's actually happening in the industry. If demand is declining for his product, it's really got nothing to do with the sub service on the last place system being phased out.

There are so many games out right now, GP is probably going to be what saves this guy from closing his studio. No one is talking about it. GP promotions is the only reason I've seen anyone even mention the game so that was about the only marketing I saw for it.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Looks like the game bombed and he is blaming it on gamepass.

Anyways, game looks cool but too competitive time right now. Oblivion, Clair Obscure, Doom back to back. Am yet to play kcd 2 and Split Fiction. Will get to it at some point maybe.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

A lot of people don't really understand how free markets work.

Free markets still have rules and regulations.

The problem with subscription services by big companies is that they're predatory pricing. Predatory pricing looks good initially, but once competition is drowned out, it becomes damaging to markets and that's what is happening here.

First, you have payouts that were once generous becoming significantly less generous, but these studios are now built out around the pricing of the early model. They're not able to easily shift towards B2P and the consumers are conditioned against B2P.

This is what we've seen on the Xbox, that B2P sales have shrunk and that most of the consumers are on GamePass and won't buy a game unless it is also on GP with few exceptions of large scope titles.

Once the consumer is also tied to subscription models, the subscription holder can return to raising rates now that it does not have to contend with B2P and because fewer studios can build out the B2P experiences, consumers have no where to go but to pay increased subscription rates.

Fortunately enough, Sony did not follow suit towards a GamePass type model despite gaming journalism pressing them to do so. It would have crashed the gaming industry.

 

[Punished Miku]

First, you have payouts that were once generous becoming significantly less generous, but these studios are now built out around the pricing of the early model. They're not able to easily shift towards B2P and the consumers are conditioned against B2P.

Anyone that built out their studio assuming that every game they make will receive a large GP check is a moron. GP is not gaming socialism. They offer a deal if they want. That's entirely the fault of the studios. What a ridiculous assertion. That's like claiming that any sequel is built out on the assumption that consumers will buy it at retail and it's consumers' fault if they don't buy it after the studio grows.

 

[Gojiira]

Lol yet another small dev calling out Gamepass. Good on him.

 

[analog_future]

We're in a really weird spot right now where retail games are more expensive than ever and subscription services like Game Pass seem like a better deal than ever.


I can't lie, I'm guilty of it myself. Paying $70 for a new game sounds insane to me when I can pay $12 or whatever for PC Game Pass and play it that way.



I think streaming/subscriptions in general completely devalues every entertainment industry. We've already seen the same thing happen in the music and movie industries. Who the hell is paying $20 for a CD or $30 for a blu-ray nowadays when streaming subscriptions are so much cheaper?

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Anyone that built out their studio assuming that every game they make will received a large GP check is a moron. GP is not gaming socialism. They offer a deal if they want. That's entirely the fault of the studios. What a ridiculous assertion. That's like claiming that any sequel is built out on the assumption that consumers will buy it on retail and it's consumers' fault if they don't buy it after the studio grows.

Think about what you're actually saying here without the straw man.

It's not about not getting a deal, it's when you make 4 deals for 75 million dollars each and then suddenly on the 5th deal they want to give you 10 million. If you think that's something the developer can foresee, I'm willing to bet you've never done any business before.

The recourse is obviously to not use GP, but now you essentially have no publisher. You're locked in.

It's always interesting to see people cheer for companies to manipulate the market with leverage and use that leverage to become a monopoly and then use that monopoly status to harm the supply chain and consumers. Like what are you getting out of that?

It's always interesting to see people root against the people who make the thing that is central to their hobby. We're seeing more and more of that with the thread on people against the voice actors for example. Weird times for sure.

 

[DeepEnigma]

It's always interesting to see people cheer for companies to manipulate the market with leverage and use that leverage to become a monopoly and then use that monopoly status to harm the supply chain and consumers. Like what are you getting out of that?

It's always interesting to see people root against the people who make the thing that is central to their hobby. We're seeing more and more of that with the thread on people against the voice actors for example. Weird times for sure.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

We're in a really weird spot right now where retail games are more expensive than ever and subscription services like Game Pass seem like a better deal than ever.


I can't lie, I'm guilty of it myself. Paying $70 for a new game sounds insane to me when I can pay $12 or whatever for PC Game Pass and play it that way.



I think streaming in general completely devalues every entertainment industry. We've already seen the same thing happen in the music and movie industries. Who the hell is paying $20 for a CD or $30 for a blu-ray nowadays when streaming subscriptions are so much cheaper?

Trust me, I get it, but it's how we got Walmart and Amazon.

And I'm not saying that I'm innocent or anything. I used MoviePass when it was a thing, but at least then I knew that MoviePass was only hurting itself since the theaters we're getting full money. MoviePass tried to use their userbase as leverage against the theaters to reduce their payouts, but the theaters held firm.

Individual developers aren't as able to do this. Most scramble to find a publisher in the first place.

Music might be an exception here. I think people spend more on music now than they were before. I think streaming music revenue surpassed physical music revenue. I'd have to check on that though.

Someone might spend 20 dollars on a cd, but how many CDs are they buying on average per year vs spending 10+ dollars a month for a music subscription service or generating ad revenue in excess of what they would have spent on physical media?

Movies and games on the other hand? Yeah, it's only going to hurt.

 

[Punished Miku]

Think about what you're actually saying here without the straw man.

It's not about not getting a deal, it's when you make 4 deals for 75 million dollars each and then suddenly on the 5th deal they want to give you 10 million. If you think that's something the developer can foresee, I'm willing to bet you've never done any business before.

The recourse is obviously to not use GP, but now you essentially have no publisher. You're locked in.

It's always interesting to see people cheer for companies to manipulate the market with leverage and use that leverage to become a monopoly and then use that monopoly status to harm the supply chain and consumers. Like what are you getting out of that?

It's always interesting to see people root against the people who make the thing that is central to their hobby. We're seeing more and more of that with the thread on people against the voice actors for example. Weird times for sure.

It's not strawman anything. GP is a business and they can offer whatever price deal they want. Anyone assuming they are getting 75 million every game they make is a moron. These are all games available on PC, PS, Switch, and Xbox. It's literally on everything. GP may offer more if they're trying to invest in subscription growth and may offer less if they see growth slowing. It's an entirely optional business transaction, period. If you didn't secure a GP deal, don't assume you have one when making a development budget for your game. Make a game you can afford to make, and then negotiate a deal if you want to, or don't.

What do you mean you have no publisher? The 1st one is published by 505 games. MS isn't publishing anything with these games. 505 Games just put Blades of Fire on Epic exclusively also for a check. That's entirely up to them. This guy's 2nd game is literally self-published so he chose to not have ANY publisher which is why this game has ZERO marketing aside from the GP deal he decided to take, and the GP money went direct to the developer instead of to a publisher by his choice. He literally didn't even secure a publisher for the game at all, and now puts it on GP to save his game, which it probably is.

It's always interesting to see people root against the people who make the thing that is central to their hobby. We're seeing more and more of that with the thread on people against the voice actors for example. Weird times for sure.

I will root for myself. I don't root for game developers, and they definitely don't root for consumers. They are in the business of extracting money from us by putting out products we want. Put out something we want, it gets bought. That's the extent of the relationship.

The truth is everyone has so much to play right now that they don't even have time to play this game, even for free. It's literally downloaded on my system and I can't get to it yet. The only strawman is this guy's GP rant that completely misrepresents the movie industry. Does anyone think this small self-published game is the equivalent of a theatrical release, or is this exactly the kind of direct to DVD / TV movie equivalent we've gotten for decades?

 

[Darsxx82]

Years ago the check for subscription services was big enough to make a big difference, but these days unless your game is tiny, or you're a rare enormous brand, it isn't much. "But MS have been amazing partners and we're so glad to be working with them."

 

[analog_future]

Trust me, I get it, but it's how we got Walmart and Amazon.

And I'm not saying that I'm innocent or anything. I used MoviePass when it was a thing, but at least then I knew that MoviePass was only hurting itself since the theaters we're getting full money. MoviePass tried to use their userbase as leverage against the theaters to reduce their payouts, but the theaters held firm.

Individual developers aren't as able to do this. Most scramble to find a publisher in the first place.

Music might be an exception here. I think people spend more on music now than they were before. I think streaming music revenue surpassed physical music revenue. I'd have to check on that though.

Someone might spend 20 dollars on a cd, but how many CDs are they buying on average per year vs spending 10+ dollars a month for a music subscription service or generating ad revenue in excess of what they would have spent on physical media?

Movies and games on the other hand? Yeah, it's only going to hurt.

In the end, relying on consumers to pay way more for the content they're being offered just to keep said content from being devalued is always going to be a futile effort. You can't expect middle and lower class consumers to pay more "for the good of the industry". It's never going to happen.

In the end the responsibility lies on the shoulders of the industry providing these options to consumers. Like movie streaming for example. If streaming doesn't make you any money as a corporation, why did you dive in head first and offer all of your content on it like Disney did with Disney+ or HBO did with Max? They made extremely poor business decisions and it's not the consumers job to dig them out of it.

 

[Guesclin]

Years ago the check for subscription services was big enough to make a big difference, but these days unless your game is tiny, or you're a rare enormous brand, it isn't much. "But MS have been amazing partners and we're so glad to be working with them."

 

[Mibu no ookami]

In the end, relying on consumers to pay way more for the content they're being offered just to keep said content from being devalued is always going to be a futile effort. You can't expect middle and lower class consumers to pay more "for the good of the industry". It's never going to happen.

In the end the responsibility lies on the shoulders of the industry providing these options to consumers. Like moving streaming for example. If streaming doesn't make you any money as a corporation, why did you dive in head first and offer all of your content on it like Disney did with Disney+ or HBO did with Max? They made extremely poor business decisions and it's not the consumers job to dig them out of it.

I strongly suggest people look into history of loss leaders.

When you have the ability of big money to distort markets and consumer expectations, you're entering dangerous ground.

You say the responsibility lies with the industry, but it's not like the industry is an individual. People have competing interests and one big one right now is GamePass and Microsoft.

The reason why Disney and HBO got into streaming was because Netflix was eating their lunch and they saw what was coming. Which is exactly what I suggested to Miku. People were cutting their cable and physical media sales were decreasing because people could just watch things via Netflix for 10 bucks. Netflix would pay out for content initially, but once they had a large enough userbase, their payouts would diminish and you'd be forced to sell your content to Netflix at a fraction of the cost or not sell your content at all. Legacy media raced to get into streaming to prevent a monopoly.

You say they made extremely poor business decisions, but that's not at all what happened. If anything the poor business decision was letting Netflix get so big before fighting back.

 

[Punished Miku]

The reason why Disney and HBO got into streaming was because Netflix was eating their lunch and they saw what was coming. Which is exactly what I suggested to Miku. People were cutting their cable and physical media sales were decreasing because people could just watch things via Netflix for 10 bucks.

Good. I cut cable for a decade before Netflix went to streaming. And streaming is far, far better than a dated TV service SUBSCRIPTION loaded with ads for 6x the cost. It's a better product and that's why people are using it. If TV is worth the money they're asking, people will use it. That's the free market. You used to be locked in to cable contracts and even bundle in phone and other shit to it. It's the most exploitative subscription ever and it's dying because it sucks. Do you pay for cable TV? I sure as hell don't.

A lot of people here talk shit on Netflix, but the truth is it probably will hold it's subscribers all the way up to about $30, which is what they have said publicly. Even at that price it's probably 1/3rd the cost of cable TV and has no ads. It's literally better.

Cable TV was always a subscription, and it was basically a monopoly. They just got beat by another, far more modern and competitively priced subscription. HBO was always a subscription with the only difference being they can sell their service by themselves now without it being locked to a larger and far more expensive cable plan. With cable you were paying for countless shows you never watched when your TV wasn't even on on channels you didn't even want because it was the only option that existed. They took that monopoly status and jacked up prices, additional sports add on packages, and loaded it with as much ads as possible.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Good. I cut cable for a decade before Netflix went to streaming. And streaming is far, far better than a dated TV service SUBSCRIPTION loaded with ads for 6x the cost. It's a better product and that's why people are using it. If TV is worth the money they're asking, people will use it. That's the free market. You used to be locked in to cable contracts and even bundle in phone and other shit to it. It's the most exploitative subscription ever and it's dying because it sucks. Do you pay for cable TV? I sure as hell don't.

A lot of people here talk shit on Netflix, but the truth is it probably will hold it's subscribers all the way up to about $30, which is what they have said publicly. Even at that price it's probably 1/3rd the cost of cable TV and has no ads. It's literally better.

Cable TV was always a subscription, and it was basically a monopoly. They just got beat by another, far more modern and competitively priced subscription. HBO was always a subscription.

I cut the cord a long time ago. What I'm say isn't that cable was a superior model.

What I'm saying is that Netflix undercut competition in order to build up a userbase and now use that userbase to devalue content. You said it yourself, Netflix could charge 30 dollars and keep their subscribers. I think they could charge 50 and keep their subscribers to a point. I think they're in trouble once Stranger Things wraps up at the end of the year, but that's a different conversation.

But what you don't realize is it's not just cable that was supplanted. You've also seen a shift away from the theater model, dvd/bluray sales, and even digital purchases.

This means the industry overall is losing revenue it once had, meanwhile people are wondering why the quality of shows are in massive decline and throwing up conspiracy theories as to why, when the reality is, you can't just cut everyone's pay and think you're going to get the same results.

In the end the consumer is going to lose too. I think that's what people are short sighted on. There's a cost to this that just because you don't tangibly feel right away doesn't mean it isn't going to impact you.

Monopolies don't improve things for consumers.

Case in point. Madden. We used to get 3-4 maybe even 5 NFL games a year. All jockeying to be the best. the NFL and EA make an exclusive deal and that resulted in one football game that is the same year in and year out with no market pressure to improve. This model is not only emulated in other sports, but it gives way to MTX and additional monetization because there's no one to stop them.

It's wild to see someone cheer that on thinking that they'll win at the end of the day. Now, most people didn't cheer on the exclusivity deal, but because in the short term they think they're saving money, they'll cheer on things like GamePass. I assure you, you wouldn't cheer on GamePass if it cost 35-40 a month. And the only reason it doesn't is because Sony held the line on Day One games going into PS+.

 

[mayham2199]

I cut the cord a long time ago. What I'm say isn't that cable was a superior model.

What I'm saying is that Netflix undercut competition in order to build up a userbase and now use that userbase to devalue content. You said it yourself, Netflix could charge 30 dollars and keep their subscribers. I think they could charge 50 and keep their subscribers to a point. I think they're in trouble once Stranger Things wraps up at the end of the year, but that's a different conversation.

But what you don't realize is it's not just cable that was supplanted. You've also seen a shift away from the theater model, dvd/bluray sales, and even digital purchases.

This means the industry overall is losing revenue it once had, meanwhile people are wondering why the quality of shows are in massive decline and throwing up conspiracy theories as to why, when the reality is, you can't just cut everyone's pay and think you're going to get the same results.

In the end the consumer is going to lose too. I think that's what people are short sighted on. There's a cost to this that just because you don't tangibly feel right away doesn't mean it isn't going to impact you.

Monopolies don't improve things for consumers.

Case in point. Madden. We used to get 3-4 maybe even 5 NFL games a year. All jockeying to be the best. the NFL and EA make an exclusive deal and that resulted in one football game that is the same year in and year out with no market pressure to improve. This model is not only emulated in other sports, but it gives way to MTX and additional monetization because there's no one to stop them.

It's wild to see someone cheer that on thinking that they'll win at the end of the day. Now, most people didn't cheer on the exclusivity deal, but because in the short term they think they're saving money, they'll cheer on things like GamePass. I assure you, you wouldn't cheer on GamePass if it cost 35-40 a month. And the only reason it doesn't is because Sony held the line on Day One games going into PS+.

I agree with most of what you said except the quality of shows. IMO shows are better than ever these days. It's movies that have taken a massive hit IMO.

 

[Punished Miku]

But what you don't realize is it's not just cable that was supplanted. You've also seen a shift away from the theater model, dvd/bluray sales, and even digital purchases.

This means the industry overall is losing revenue it once had, meanwhile people are wondering why the quality of shows are in massive decline and throwing up conspiracy theories as to why, when the reality is, you can't just cut everyone's pay and think you're going to get the same results.

I really haven't seen any evidence that shows are declining in quality d/t loss of revenue. There really weren't shows like Game of Thrones that looked like high end movies until it was on streaming. Effects are going to get a lot cheaper soon too, and open that up for small pictures. Giant blockbuster movies, yes I bet they are declining and I could see that happening with some of the AAA bloated games as well. This is fine with me, because I don't personally view it as worth supporting with my money. If I did, I'd go see Captain America 5 in the theater but I skipped it. I'll go see Avatar 3 though, and that keeps breaking records so it's not in any danger from the looks of it.

In the end the consumer is going to lose too. I think that's what people are short sighted on. There's a cost to this that just because you don't tangibly feel right away doesn't mean it isn't going to impact you.

Monopolies don't improve things for consumers.

Nothing about GP is even slightly approaching a monopoly. If it was, sure I could agree with that. As it stands now, it's a total fantasy conversation.

It's wild to see someone cheer that on thinking that they'll win at the end of the day. Now, most people didn't cheer on the exclusivity deal, but because in the short term they think they're saving money, they'll cheer on things like GamePass. I assure you, you wouldn't cheer on GamePass if it cost 35-40 a month. And the only reason it doesn't is because Sony held the line on Day One games going into PS+.

Nothing about Gamepass is exclusive. The only one doing this is Nintendo. We have had multiple games that are exclusive to their sub, and even timed and disappear entirely. Every BC game is locked to it with no option to purchase, and they're spreading it to 3rd parties as well like Soul Calibur 2. No one seems to care. Gamepass is everywhere and your purchases on it even have multiple entitlements. They even have a PC store of their own but still put stuff on Steam. Just makes no sense to even include it in any conversation like this.

 

[MiguelItUp]

We're in a really weird spot right now where retail games are more expensive than ever and subscription services like Game Pass seem like a better deal than ever.

I can't lie, I'm guilty of it myself. Paying $70 for a new game sounds insane to me when I can pay $12 or whatever for PC Game Pass and play it that way.

I think streaming/subscriptions in general completely devalues every entertainment industry. We've already seen the same thing happen in the music and movie industries. Who the hell is paying $20 for a CD or $30 for a blu-ray nowadays when streaming subscriptions are so much cheaper?

I couldn't agree more. I love video games, but I also love to save money where able, lol. So, in most cases I will go the much cheaper route if it gives me the same experience. If it's a game I end up enjoying and want to buy, I'll do it much later when it severely drops in price.

When it comes to music, I just stream everything. However, when there's an album I'm really hyped about (which unfortunately isn't often) or one that I want to own I just buy the vinyl. The samething happens with movies (which much like music, isn't often). If I love something a whole lot, I'll buy it to own it so I can watch it whenever I want.

 

[analog_future]

I strongly suggest people look into history of loss leaders.

When you have the ability of big money to distort markets and consumer expectations, you're entering dangerous ground.

You say the responsibility lies with the industry, but it's not like the industry is an individual. People have competing interests and one big one right now is GamePass and Microsoft.

The reason why Disney and HBO got into streaming was because Netflix was eating their lunch and they saw what was coming. Which is exactly what I suggested to Miku. People were cutting their cable and physical media sales were decreasing because people could just watch things via Netflix for 10 bucks. Netflix would pay out for content initially, but once they had a large enough userbase, their payouts would diminish and you'd be forced to sell your content to Netflix at a fraction of the cost or not sell your content at all. Legacy media raced to get into streaming to prevent a monopoly.

You say they made extremely poor business decisions, but that's not at all what happened. If anything the poor business decision was letting Netflix get so big before fighting back.

So then what's the solution here? I guess in the end that's what we're all trying to figure out. I feel like the entertainment industry had dug themselves a hole that's going to be really difficult to climb out of.

 

[Punished Miku]

So then what's the solution here? I guess in the end that's what we're all trying to figure out. I feel like the entertainment industry had dug themselves a hole that's going to be really difficult to climb out of.

Writing and acting are not expensive. It just has to be good. Crash and rebuild with something better. Look at a movie like Upgrade. The budget was $3 million. I saw it on streaming and I bought it.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

. Game Pass is the biggest mistake Phil pushed... it's going to be so nice when everything crumbles on itself

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I agree with most of what you said except the quality of shows. IMO shows are better than ever these days. It's movies that have taken a massive hit IMO.

I think this is only the case when you look at the exceptions. Movies are harder hit because they're one and done, but your average tv show is slipping as well. I still think we're getting great tv content, but just look at how many Netflix shows actually run beyond 3 seasons. We didn't get more Mindhunters because Netflix didn't want to pay for it.

I really haven't seen any evidence that shows are declining in quality d/t loss of revenue. There really weren't shows like Game of Thrones that looked like high end movies until it was on streaming. Effects are going to get a lot cheaper soon too, and open that up for small pictures. Giant blockbuster movies, yes I bet they are declining and I could see that happening with some of the AAA bloated games as well. This is fine with me, because I don't personally view it as worth supporting with my money. If I did, I'd go see Captain America 5 in the theater but I skipped it. I'll go see Avatar 3 though, and that keeps breaking records so it's not in any danger from the looks of it.

See above.

We'll see where movies end up once we recover from the writer/actor strikes, but I doubt it'll be a full recovery with how cheap studios are going with movies because of streaming.

Nothing about GP is even slightly approaching a monopoly. If it was, sure I could agree with that. As it stands now, it's a total fantasy conversation.

That's because GP has failed unlike Netflix. Again, it's Sony that stopped GP from being a standard model. Had they emulated GP, subscription models would have taken over B2P.

Nothing about Gamepass is exclusive. The only one doing this is Nintendo. We have had multiple games that are exclusive to their sub, and even timed and disappear entirely. Every BC game is locked to it with no option to purchase, and they're spreading it to 3rd parties as well like Soul Calibur 2. No one seems to care. Gamepass is everywhere and your purchases on it even have multiple entitlements. They even have a PC store of their own but still put stuff on Steam. Just makes no sense to even include it in any conversation like this.

You don't need exclusivity in order to be a loss leader or to have predatory pricing.

So then what's the solution here? I guess in the end that's what we're all trying to figure out. I feel like the entertainment industry had dug themselves a hole that's going to be really difficult to climb out of.

The industry pushing back on subscription models before its too late. I think Sony saved the industry by refusing to do Day One on PS+. Had PS+ and GP taken over the industry, Nintendo would have followed suit. And eventually it would have become impossible to sell gams on consoles unless they were part of a subscription service and the value would be lost and costs would be cut and choice would be diminished. This would have spilled over into PC.

I'll probably always defend Jim Ryan as he could have easily fallen into that and I promise you it would have been the end for gaming as we know it.

I don't think anyone really needs to do anything at this point. The works been done.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

It's always interesting to see people cheer for companies to manipulate the market with leverage and use that leverage to become a monopoly and then use that monopoly status to harm the supply chain and consumers. Like what are you getting out of that?

It's always interesting to see people root against the people who make the thing that is central to their hobby. We're seeing more and more of that with the thread on people against the voice actors for example. Weird times for sure.

Yeah it's also very interesting when you have threads about gaming sub services and you have people arguing in favor of the billion dollar companies who are jacking up prices on everything, charging for basic stuff like online play, releasing almost nothing but remastered or remade content, and nickel and diming customers to death with MTX and DLC. These weirdos forget that they are consumers sometimes, it's bizarre. A consumer should always look out for one thing and one thing only, themselves.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

I really haven't seen any evidence that shows are declining in quality d/t loss of revenue. There really weren't shows like Game of Thrones that looked like high end movies until it was on streaming. Effects are going to get a lot cheaper soon too, and open that up for small pictures. Giant blockbuster movies, yes I bet they are declining and I could see that happening with some of the AAA bloated games as well. This is fine with me, because I don't personally view it as worth supporting with my money. If I did, I'd go see Captain America 5 in the theater but I skipped it. I'll go see Avatar 3 though, and that keeps breaking records so it's not in any danger from the looks of it.


Nothing about GP is even slightly approaching a monopoly. If it was, sure I could agree with that. As it stands now, it's a total fantasy conversation.


Nothing about Gamepass is exclusive. The only one doing this is Nintendo. We have had multiple games that are exclusive to their sub, and even timed and disappear entirely. Every BC game is locked to it with no option to purchase, and they're spreading it to 3rd parties as well like Soul Calibur 2. No one seems to care. Gamepass is everywhere and your purchases on it even have multiple entitlements. They even have a PC store of their own but still put stuff on Steam. Just makes no sense to even include it in any conversation like this.

TV content is better than it has ever been. Movies are fine too, we just consume them in different ways. Personally as a consumer, why would I give a shit if Hollywood blockbusters are having a hard time being made? They're mostly ass with laughably large budgets thanks to overpaid actors and reliance on special effects. The movie industry was in dire need of a reshuffling of the market and I'm glad it's finally happening.

Someone replied to you saying Disney and HBO haven't made bad decisions and it's one of the funniest things I've ever read on GAF. Disney has messed up badly with the amount of content they've put on the service, the services they've bundled with it, the price increases and things like ads, and most importantly most of the stuff they've put on it has been absolute trash. HBO Max or Max or whatever it's called now, nothing else really needs to be said besides that. What's it even called now?

But none of these comparisons to things like Disney or Netflix etc etc are really 1:1 because as you said, nothing is exclusive to GamePass. It's an entirely optional service. Meanwhile if I want to watch White Lotus, I have to subscribe to whatever HBO's service is called now.

It's also funny that he says Nintendo is the only one not racing to devalue games, when they are the ones with content locked and exclusive to a subscription. And they're the ones getting slack right now from gamers because of prices.

 

[Humdinger]

Coming after his other remarks, that made me laugh, too. He says subscription services devalue games and will mean fewer games being made and more studios going under in the future, that GP's Day 1 model in particular is a bad idea, and that most GP payouts are meager. Then he says, "Oh, but Microsoft have been great to work with." lol

 

[m14]

I think this is only the case when you look at the exceptions. Movies are harder hit because they're one and done, but your average tv show is slipping as well. I still think we're getting great tv content, but just look at how many Netflix shows actually run beyond 3 seasons. We didn't get more Mindhunters because Netflix didn't want to pay for it.

Some of us are still hoping for that third season.