Support NeoGAF

[MarkMe2525]

My point is that game pass doesn't cheapen gaming in any capacity. If anything it encourages people to broaden out with a curation of games that they might not have been able to discover due to the vastness of these stores.

I never would have played that new team 17 game or downhill. Add these two to the countless new games I discovered through Game pass. I never would have played these games if I had to pay upfront, they simply never would have gotten the shot to impress me.

 

[MarkMe2525]

I am starting to believe such image posts are a way to avoid confronting the truth. Because if you actually had to type out what you are thinking you would reveal something you rather not say. If I am so wrong, then tell me so. And tell me why I am wrong. PC gaming had been suffering from horrible console ports for an entire generation, and I find it dishonest for Xbox to suddenly act like PC gaming was somehow always Microsoft's ally.

Are you going to repost someone else's video as a reply again, so that you don't have to think?

I mean you are right that the PC platform hasn't always been Microsoft's ally, but I would argue since 2016 that changed, so for four years it has been. That's not an insignificant amount of time.

 

[Nikana]

I never would have played that new team 17 game or downhill. Add these two to the countless new games I discovered through Game pass. I never would have played these games if I had to pay upfront, they simply never would have gotten the shot to impress me.

Exactly this. Even at $10-$15 a lot of games are too risky for many consumers. And with the market being flooded with sub par games, GP gives some of the smaller devs not only exposure but income. And as their games become more popular they then can ask for more money in the future if they decide to go with GP again.

 

[Stooky]

I'm curious about how much profit devs get from GP versus individual sales.

 

[Nikana]

I'm curious about how much profit devs get from GP versus individual sales.

Likely will never get those numbers but it would have to depends on a game to game basis I would assume as popularity and exposure plays a critical role in individual sales.

 

[jshackles]

I'm curious about how much profit devs get from GP versus individual sales.

In the traditional model, developers are paid once (up front) with Microsoft taking a 30% cut off the top. In the Game Pass model, developers are (reportedly) paid based on user's actual play time.

If you're a developer and you make a game that isn't very long or most people find boring, you're better off with the traditional profit model because your revenue is all generated up front. If you make a game that has a high replay value or a wide audience appeal, the Game Pass revenue model will probably work out better for you over time. Remember, just because games are on Game Pass doesn't mean they aren't also sold in the traditional way.

 

[MarkMe2525]

just report and move on.

Report? I don't agree with this guy but he is allowed to have a misinformed opinion.

 

[IntentionalPun]

In the traditional model, developers are paid once (up front) with Microsoft taking a 30% cut off the top. In the Game Pass model, developers are (reportedly) paid based on user's actual play time.

This is not true at all; in fact it's been reported that GamePass does the Netflix style "negotiate a deal up front" model.

"Xbox Game Pass is the first time subscription is fair for developers"

Xbox Game Pass is the first time that the subscription model has made economic sense for game developers, according to …

www.gamesindustry.biz

Here's a dev complaining about how they think it's unfair because their games get played for 1000's of hours.

"OnLive, for example, they said, 'You can have your game on our service, we're going to attract a lot of customers, and we're going to deliver you money based on how many hours people play your game.'

"Now, at Paradox we love that business model, because people play our games for 3,000 or 4,000 hours... While the Game Pass model -- to us -- is still a decent model, but we think we're not getting paid enough, because people play our games more than they play very single-player, narrative-driven games."

MS negotiates a fee for a game to appear.. these games are generally WAY PAST their prime, aren't getting a lot of new sales, etc. They also might have a sequel or big DLC on the horizon that they want to attract players to. So MS is probably getting a really good deal.

 

[Nikana]

Report? I don't agree with this guy but he is allowed to have a misinformed opinion.

Being misinformed is one thing. Being obnoxiously obtuse for the sake of fighting for a console is a different story.

 

[jshackles]

This is not true at all; in fact it's been reported that GamePass does the Netflix style "negotiate a deal up front" model.

"Xbox Game Pass is the first time subscription is fair for developers"

Xbox Game Pass is the first time that the subscription model has made economic sense for game developers, according to …

www.gamesindustry.biz

Here's a dev complaining about how they think it's unfair because their games get played for 1000's of hours.



MS negotiates a fee for a game to appear.. these games are generally WAY PAST their prime, aren't getting a lot of new sales, etc. They also might have a sequel or big DLC on the horizon that they want to attract players to. So MS is probably getting a really good deal.

I was somewhat intentionally dumbing down the argument calling it "user's actual play time" which I'll admit is a bit inaccurate.

My understanding (and your article somewhat confirms it without outright breaking NDAs) is that developers are paid by Game Pass as a percentage of monthly play time per user. So if I'm a Game Pass subscriber, and half of my play time is in Gears 5 and the other half is in Fallout 76 then Microsoft gets half of my subscription fee and Bethesda gets the other half. Percentages like that will scale outwards, so if I play both games for 100 hours each those companies get the same split. But if I play one game for 10 hours and the other for 90, that's a 10%/90% split. Microsoft puts their first party titles in as the draw, because obviously the more time you spend playing those the less they have to pay out to third parties.

"Spotify pays you depending on how many times your song is played," Wester said. "Netflix pays you a fixed fee, depending on what it thinks your TV series is worth. They are fundamentally different things, and that's what you see [with Game Pass] as well.

Dude literally says "this isn't like Spotify or Netflix".

"I've never seen anything like this in my 16 years in the industry," Wester said

Later in the article he says Game Pass is not like anything the industry has seen.

Paradox might not like this model (although Cities Skylines has reportedly done well on the service this year) because they are competing for the same cut of $10 every month. They only get the "full" amount if you play nothing but Paradox games. If you play 1,000 hours of Cities Skylines in a month, they still only get like $10. If they were paid on actual play time (say, $0.25/hour) then that same 1,000 hours would mean $250 which is a huge difference.

The only thing I've heard about negotiating up front is for marketing deals related to game pass or paying third party devs to put their game there Day One. But I believe (though can't confirm because of NDAs) that these games still get the same revenue split.

 

[IntentionalPun]

I was somewhat intentionally dumbing down the argument calling it "user's actual play time" which I'll admit is a bit inaccurate.

My understanding (and your article somewhat confirms it without outright breaking NDAs) is that developers are paid by Game Pass as a percentage of monthly play time per user. So if I'm a Game Pass subscriber, and half of my play time is in Gears 5 and the other half is in Fallout 76 then Microsoft gets half of my subscription fee and Bethesda gets the other half. Percentages like that will scale outwards, so if I play both games for 100 hours each those companies get the same split. But if I play one game for 10 hours and the other for 90, that's a 10%/90% split. Microsoft puts their first party titles in as the draw, because obviously the more time you spend playing those the less they have to pay out to third parties.

Quote where it implies any of this?

Dude literally says "this isn't like Spotify or Netflix".

Later in the article he says Game Pass is not like anything the industry has seen.

He doesn't say Game Pass is like nothing the industry has ever seen; he says the industry has never had so many options.

I get how his words may imply "Gamepass is different than netflix or spotify" but the article does not in any way describe what you are cliaming... and he certainly didn't LITERALLY say that lol

And the guy is complaining that they don't make enough money even though their games get played way more than anyone else. Why would he not like GamePass if he got most of a users monthly sub? He realizes that the Spotify model is designed to pay you way less than the monthly fee per user even if someone plays your songs on repeat all month? No company is going to pay a content owner more in a month for a user than that user paid the service lol

Everything about that article suggests to me that it's not based on time.. other than maybe some vague suggestion that it's not like Spotify or Netflix (however you claiming he LITERALLY says something he didn't is kinda of..not true.)

edit: To be clear.. I do see your argument, and think you might be right.. but I also think if you are right that dev is an idiot.

 

[jshackles]

Quote where it implies any of this?

My understanding of how the revenue split for Game Pass works comes from discussions I've had with developers and people I know who work at publishers who have let little details slip here and there. It's not a theory that's based entirely on the article you posted. But the article you posted lends credibility to the theory - because they are outright saying "it's not an upfront negotiation, and it's not a pay-per-hour plan".

"For me -- and I might be a bit biased -- but I think the way the business is with Game Pass is the first time subscription is what could be considered fair for developers," he added. "All other business models that have been suggested with subscriptions have never worked out, because they didn't know what developers actually need.

"With Game Pass, Microsoft is doing it correctly, I feel, for the developers."

How does the above make sense, if Microsoft is just paying developers a one-time flat fee to appear on the service? Is that "doing it correctly"? Is that what developers really need - upfront cash? And if your theory on a one-time negotiated fee is correct, why are third party games being removed from the service at all? Are you implying that the deals are inked for timed platform exclusivity, without even being locked to Game Pass or even Xbox? I read this as "Microsoft has finally figured out how to pay developers fairly" which is feedback I've heard from my industry contacts as well.

He doesn't say Game Pass is like nothing the industry has ever seen; he says the industry has never had so many options.

OK.

And the guy is complaining that they don't make enough money even though their games get played way more than anyone else. Why would he not like GamePass if he got most of a users monthly sub? He realizes that the Spotify model is designed to pay you way less than the monthly fee per user even if someone plays your songs on repeat all month?

I feel like I spelled this out pretty plainly in my last post. They're saying "we love the OnLive model, because we got paid by the hour" so if someone plays their games for the purported 3,000 - 4,000 hours then that's some serious revenue for them at least hundreds of dollars. In comparison, they realize that someone could play their game for thousands of hours over the course of, say, four months - and they'd only get a percentage of that person's monthly revenue for those four month. For the sake of argument and easy numbers, let's call it $40. (It's actually less, as MS takes a cut right off the top of the subscriptions just like they do for digital sales, as I understand). That same user could also spend hundreds of hours playing something else, maybe, which would cut into their revenue also. Paradox is saying: "$40 isn't enough, when on the other model we made hundreds. Or in a traditional model we would make $60."



By the way, I'd love to proven right or wrong on any of this. But I don't think we'll ever know the full truth because their NDA seems to be pretty air-tight.

 

[IntentionalPun]

My understanding of how the revenue split for Game Pass works comes from discussions I've had with developers and people I know who work at publishers who have let little details slip here and there. It's not a theory that's based entirely on the article you posted. But the article you posted lends credibility to the theory - because they are outright saying "it's not an upfront negotiation, and it's not a pay-per-hour plan".

How does the above make sense, if Microsoft is just paying developers a one-time flat fee to appear on the service? Is that "doing it correctly"? Is that what developers really need - upfront cash? And if your theory on a one-time negotiated fee is correct, why are third party games being removed from the service at all? Are you implying that the deals are inked for timed platform exclusivity, without even being locked to Game Pass or even Xbox? I read this as "Microsoft has finally figured out how to pay developers fairly" which is feedback I've heard from my industry contacts as well.

You are probably right; but I dislike when people claim someone "literally" says something when their wording is far more vague.

OK.

Quote the whole paragraph, it's in the interview, he's talking about the status of the industry, not Gamepass specifically.

"I've never seen anything like this in my 16 years in the industry," Wester said, addressing the kind of deals now available thanks to these new platforms. "People are throwing money at everything, and if you can't make money today in the games industry then you probably will never be able to make money, ever, in this industry -- if you're an established company, because new companies always struggle.

By the way, I'd love to proven right or wrong on any of this. But I don't think we'll ever know the full truth because their NDA seems to be pretty air-tight.

I think you are probably right, what is throwing me off is how dumb that developer comes across.

Nobody making any money is going to pay him hundreds of dollars because a gamer played his game for thousands of hours. It makes no sense as nobody in the business is designing a platform where the "pay per hour" could easily go above the monthly fee collected by the service. That includes spotify who pay tiny fractions of a fraction of a cent per stream.

So I just can't reconcile his "complaint" with what you are saying. "it's not fair, we want them to pay us more than the monthly fee!" is what he is saying basically. It makes no sense at all in this industry in general where you can pay a one time $60 fee and play a game for as many hours as you choose.

His "complaint" is what made it hard for me to believe "time played" is being taken into account at all.

 

[IntentionalPun]

TLDR I greatly appreciate you correcting the assumptions I made based on that article and think the model you are describing makes sense jshackles .

That still leaves me with so many questions.. guess it all boils down to how popular a game is going to be + how much time someone is going to spend on it. And really how many months they are going to play it on the service. I don't see why that dev thinks somehow that model favors short narrative driven games lol

But still leaves so many weird scenarios.. what is someone logs into GP for a few hours a month to play one game? Their entire fee minus cost goes to that dev?

 

[wolywood]

I like Game Pass, but it's not anything new or revolutionary - Sega was doing something similar all the way back in the Genesis days (Sega Channel).

 

[MarkMe2525]

Being misinformed is one thing. Being obnoxiously obtuse for the sake of fighting for a console is a different story.

I'm sensitive to the reports. I have been banned for such a petty thing. Lol I like to "debate" and prefer an open platform. The costs of open platforms of discussion are they are open to trolls and idiots which I'm ok with. I do understand your point and can understand your position on it.

P.s. maybe I'm ok with idiots because I am one.

 

[Hezekiah]

Pretty much, these services are constructed to hemorrage money until they're the last service left standing. This isn't to comment on the quality of it, just it's long-term viability, which MS (and to a lesser degree Sony with PSNow) haven't been that open about.

On your second point, I know several people that got years of the service for 1$ by converting Gold time. I guess that's fine, but I'm imagining if it'd be worth it for say, Sony, to lose all my first-party purchases in exchange for some PS+ top-up (a service I was going to renew anyway). I'd imagine that's part of why they aren't offering yearly gold anymore.

Yeah they've been very aggressive with it so far which is good for gamers but I question the long-term viability - at least for big-budget games on day one.

The fact that we don't have the financials is telling. MS will be hoping to increase its reach this gen, but if their first-party output increases significantly they will need a massive uptake/price increase in subs, and that is reliant on hardware sales regardless of what people say about hardware sales only being important to Sony and Nintendo.

 

[MarkMe2525]

I like Game Pass, but it's not anything new or revolutionary - Sega was doing something similar all the way back in the Genesis days (Sega Channel).

..... I mean I kinda see what your saying but c'mon.... that's a stretch right there. I always fantasized about getting the Sega channel growing up. Mama wouldn't pay for it though

 

[MiguelItUp]

The amount that you get for the price of their subscription is surreal. On PC it's in beta and it's STILL beyond worth it. $5 extra dollors for XCloud? I did it in a heart beat.

 

[SportsFan581]

TLDR I greatly appreciate you correcting the assumptions I made based on that article and think the model you are describing makes sense jshackles .

That still leaves me with so many questions.. guess it all boils down to how popular a game is going to be + how much time someone is going to spend on it. And really how many months they are going to play it on the service. I don't see why that dev thinks somehow that model favors short narrative driven games lol

But still leaves so many weird scenarios.. what is someone logs into GP for a few hours a month to play one game? Their entire fee minus cost goes to that dev?

Good questions.

I had figured this was all just negotiated upfront like Netflix. LOL

I guess this is why they can put as much on there as they do.

 

[12Dannu123]

Yeah they've been very aggressive with it so far which is good for gamers but I question the long-term viability - at least for big-budget games on day one.

The fact that we don't have the financials is telling. MS will be hoping to increase its reach this gen, but if their first-party output increases significantly they will need a massive uptake/price increase in subs, and that is reliant on hardware sales regardless of what people say about hardware sales only being important to Sony and Nintendo.

It's reliant on XCloud, the console market has been stagnant in sales for years. It's unlikely going to grow beyond 200 Million.

Cloud Gaming can target any platform.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

xCloud and GamePass are only as good as the games that are available to use on them. If Microsoft can get good games from their studios, then they'll be hanging their hat on quality software and the most powerful hardware, not services that use those games. They are going all in for GamePass, and why not, it's an amazing service. But Phil has always described xCloud as a cool convenience that will never be as good as local hardware.

To put it another way, if Sony or Nintendo had similar services, would you say they were hanging their hats on them? No, because they still have strong studios making quality games. If Microsoft gets there, the services don't matter as much sense you can buy every game on GamePass. If MS continues with stuff like Crackdown 3, Bleeding Edge, Grounded, State of Decay 2, etc, games that might be just fine or even very good to some people but most people couldn't give a rats ass about, then the services won't matter.

 

[Three]

Game pass is the definition of unmatched value. Haven't bought. $60 game since. Not even $40. I do expect at some point that GP will be $20 a month at some point if not more and that'll be the downfall.

It's $10-$15 month. I have a backlog of bought games bigger than all the games worth playing on gamepass. I buy games that I actually want at that price every other month on sale. I own those games I don't need to pay again to keep playing thrm and they don't get removed from my library.

It's actually not that good a value for me unless I planned to buy MS first party games on release in which case it is, those occasions have been rare though. There are months were I don't even play at all and forgetting to unsubscribe would be annoying to pay $15 for nothing.

It really is a good plan though and it's geared towards combating vendor lockin by making it easy to have access to a collection of games without the initial huge cost.

 

[Laptop1991]

As a PC only gamer myself, i won't be paying for the PC version, there is just not that many games released each year that i buy now and play that would justify a monthly fee and i prefer other PC client's to Microsoft's anyway i would rarther buy them as i always have but i can see it being good value to someone that plays most of the new games a lot.

 

[FunkMiller]

I keep coming back to a central point:

Game Pass is worth it, if there are the games on there worth playing.

I have Netflix. I don't have Disney Plus. This is because Netflix has new shows I want to watch, Disney does not.

Game Pass and Xcloud are a bit pointless to anyone other than people already invested in the Microsoft ecosystem, unless there are great NEW games to play.

I haven't seen any evidence of these existing at launch of Series X.