It tells me that people would rather use a sub to play a game than outright owning it. The very thing most people on GAF fear because it‘s one step towards the non-ownership of games society everyone dreads.
Ontop of that I will still never shake the feeling that it‘s lost revenue for e.g. SP games. You keep talking about MS first party titles and that‘s cool I guess, but imagine launching your new title as a 3rd party on XGP to lackluster sales cause everyone hops on to try it in XGP? MS surely can‘t compensate you good enough to warrant the lost sale. What do they pay you by? Hours played? Downloads initiated? How long does it take to recoup development costs. Would love to be a fly on the wall of GP license agreement meetings.
The FUD of digital games including sub based is exactly that, FUD. NeoGaf lives in a vacuum that doesn't represent the core and even aversgr gamer.
What I never understood about the argument that the digital/subscription futute is so bad is that nobody bats an eye when people either rent or buy used games. Especially rent.
Why do consumers choose these methods that are actually not good for gaming companies because they see less revenue, because it allows them to play more games for less money. Exactly what gamepass is trying to do.
Yet the dight tooth and nail that it's awful for them as a consumer because they don't don't *own* the game they plan on renting or trading in.
I'm not sure how else to put how gamepass isn't bad for first or third party developers.
I totally get how at first glance it can be a bad thing because why pay $20 for this game when I can hop onto gamepass for $10 and play it? 20> $10, it has to be bad.
Again, you're looking at it in a vacuum. The average gamer doesn't represent that majority of users and generation of revenue.
It's impossible to say exactly how revnue is split but it's fair to assume that a developer is paid when their game is in gamepass to begin with, and whenever it's downloaded. Time played doesn't make a lot of sense for the medium that's at stake. But it's also fair to assume a developers cut is much less than what it would be if they were to just sell a copy outright.
But there's also a key factor that you're forgetting which is people who have gamepass actually buy more games because they get to play the full experience and get a discount if they decide they want to keep it. It's the Amazon model which I think everybody can say I'd working.
Give people a large benefit for a price that engages them more. Amazon isn't even about selling the cheapest products. Their business plan is about selling the MOST items possible. They want you to buy a prime membership so you get everything through them. And it's proven that people with a prime membership buy more items, the same way people with movie pass see more movies and with gamepass they play more games.
if you have 30 people play Ashen, which is debuting on gamepass, and they make 75 cents per download, and 4 of them are converted to a sale, vs 2 outright sales. The revenue is higher for developer.
Even though those 26 other people hopped in and either finished the game on gamepass or either bounced off entirely, they developer still made 75 cents off of a consumer that might of never gave them a nickle.