None of that is empirical evidence.The lack of big budget single player games on gamepass so far. People already subscribing to play the first party GaaS games that MS predominantly currently offers. Mtx being the main revenue driver from gamepass. GaaS games like MLB showing up on it. EA moving to majority microtransaction games before everyone else and having EA Access (before gamepass existed) and now being part of gamepass. It's clear GaaS are trying to thrive on it and AAA single player games are simply not. If you asked me what AAA single player only game released for gamepass so far I would honestly struggle to name you one. That's empirical evidence.
Exactly. I cant believe why people still can't understand why Sony bought Bungie for 3.6b. Just one or two hit games will recoup all the costs back.Yup. They want that Fortnite money. If they release all of this on PC as well (which they will) if they manage a few hits those revenue numbers will easily break all their records.
Now we know why Sony was desperate for Bungie.If only one of those ten games becomes a megahit, it's still worth it. Successful live service games just print money.
You must be an insider lol
Not sure why no one believed me, i named almost every game
1) They are historically very bad at single player games because they rejected most single player games. Their mandate historically has been social/online games because they have been pushing online subscriptions since the original xbox.None of that is empirical evidence.
1. MS are just historically very bad at single player games and they suck at it, they have bought devs to fix that.
2. How are you figuring out "People already subscribing to play the first party GaaS games that MS predominantly currently offers"? Also remember there is a difference between why they sign up and what they play.
3. Again source of "Mtx being the main revenue driver from gamepass" how are you defining this? do F2P games outside of GP count? does games bought by GP users count against this or for it?
4. Don't know how you are coming to "It's clear GaaS are trying to thrive on it and AAA single player games are simply not." Its quite interesting to see the GP most popular chart, 50% i was classify as a GAAS. the rest are old AAA and smaller indies.
Exactly.Some of you are so dramatic. Gaas fuckin sucks but not every single attempt will turn out like warzone or fortnite.
You have to kidding yourself if you think all of a sudden Sony or any dev will stop producing high quality single player games thats been doing great numbers.
Destiny has over 1M pre-orders for their new expansion...Exactly. I cant believe why people still can't understand why Sony bought Bungie for 3.6b. Just one or two hit games will recoup all the costs back.
Can you imagine this with PS5 capabilities?Warhawks time to shine!
![]()
Everything you said here has nothing to do with Gamepass. The biggest GaaS games right now are either free or cost a small entry fee. Literally zero GaaS games are locked behind Gamepass. You could spend ten thousand hours grinding GaaS games and not only don't you have to subscribe to Gamepass, you essentially have zero incentive to do so. That might change in the future of course.1000s of hours spent grinding in a GaaS game and monetisation via mtx or 20hrs completing a big budget single player game. Which do you think will keep the player subscribed for months. Which one has mtx monetisation which is where GP is seeing its current spending.
Can you imagine this with PS5 capabilities?
I'd love them to either make a new one or at least get Bluepoint to do a remake.
Some of those could be recent so may not affect the original 25 number?Herman Hulst said they had 25 PS5 games in development.
![]()
Sony has 25 PS5 games in the works, including characters you’ve never seen
Hopefully bringing more next-gen to the next-gen console.www.theverge.com
So nearly half of the games they are working on are GAAS.
GAAS existed before fortnite.Fortnite changed the entire industry. Monumental.
bollocks about literally zero GaaS games are locked behind gamepass. That's a strawman. Where did I say you can't buy the games? I said a lot of people subscribe to Gamepass and play GaaS games. That's what's released and that's where the money is and that's what keeps people engaged to subscribe.Everything you said here has nothing to do with Gamepass. The biggest GaaS games right now are either free or cost a small entry fee. Literally zero GaaS games are locked behind Gamepass. You could spend ten thousand hours grinding GaaS games and not only don't you have to subscribe to Gamepass, you essentially have zero incentive to do so. That might change in the future of course.
![]()
So here we are... the part where "gaas trash" becomes good now.
I know someone is going to crack out all the quotes soon enough lol
Any new single player games from them will begin to require GaaS elements when they see how much money they can make. Once Bungie's tech is entrenched at PS Studios every dev will use it.They basically make like 2 single player games a year right now. 3 in a good year like 2020. Releasing 10 gaas games in the next 5 years will pretty much make them a GaaS developer.
Really hope they have scaled up but the lack of any new game announcements from them outside of the two insomniac marvel games is troubling.
No, the majority of games played, period, are GaaS. It has nothing to do with Gamepass.bollocks about literally zero GaaS games are locked behind gamepass. That's a strawman. Where did I say you can't buy the games? I said a lot of people subscribe to Gamepass and play GaaS games. That's what's released and that's where the money is and that's what keeps people engaged to subscribe.
The majority of games played on Gamepass are GaaS.
FTFY. Fortnite didn't do anything that hasn't been done long before it, it was CoD that started with map packs and then MTX, and everyone saw how well it works and followed suit. Fortnite is F2P but that's nothing new either, with LoL being the very best example of how a free game can bring billions on skins alone.
I agree that it was a good buy, the price just seems a bit steep. Many people thought the $2.5b Minecraft deal was terrible, now in hindsight it looks like MS got away with robbery. The market sure is crazy nowadays.The Bungie buy is starting to look like a smart bit of businesss for Sony. Buying a studio that has a very successful GAAS game, and have done for years.
It kind of also explains the whole 'All future Bungie games will still be on everything' that people couldnt get their head around. Its simple, they didnt buy Bungie for their games, more for their experience and tools in the GAAS field.
Quite a smart buy for Sony to be honest.
Oh its def steep, especially when it seems more to do with Bungie's experience in the GAAS field, rather than their games.I agree that it was a good buy, the price just seems a bit steep. Many people thought the $2.5b Minecraft deal was terrible, now in hindsight it looks like MS got away with robbery. The market sure is crazy nowadays.
Let's hope they don't tack on un-needed MP elements onto their SP offerings.
Yeah, I assume someone at Sony was like "we have no clue how to do GaaS, let's buy some of the best knowledge in the industry" and hence the price wasn't that important. It's a long term investment and it will likely pay off.Oh its def steep, especially when it seems more to do with Bungie's experience in the GAAS field, rather than their games.
Still if this GAAS style is the way they want to go, buying Bungie will def help them in that quest.
yeah, lets pretend theres no premium sp titles on pc, xbox and switch.Nope, it was, is and always will be trashy abnomination compared to premium singleplayer titles we are used to get as playstation players.
GAAS existed before fortnite.
Only ended up proving the point this person "GAF" was making. Move to a subscription model and your business strategy changes to microtransactions/GaaS. You have all the people who said this is OK to blame for that who couldn't see the woods for the trees of how it changes the games being made.
A single player game somebody plays and completes in 20hrs is less likely to keep somebody subscribed than a GaaS game like Destiny or Sea of Thieves, etc where a player grinds for 1000s of hours.
That is true but I disagree on something else not that. Gamepass promotes engagement (MAU) over game sales and that naturally promotes GaaS, and AAA single player games don't thrive on it. You can disagree but you often just do this with a strawman or gifs.No, the majority of games played, period, are GaaS. It has nothing to do with Gamepass.
Somebody already mentioned this. That's not what people are doing.Actually that's quite wrong, a GaaS that people "grind for 1000s of hours" will just have people buy that game instead, there'd be no reason for that person to subscribe to Game Pass
CONGRATULATIONS TO MY FELLOW SHAREHOLDERS
not a shareholder anymore though but shh
I guess we have to agree to disagree. From my perspective, if all I ever played was GaaS stuff, why the hell would I ever subscribe to Gamepass? Makes zero sense.That is true but I disagree on something else not that. Gamepass promotes engagement (MAU) over game sales and that naturally promotes GaaS, and AAA single player games don't thrive on it. You can disagree but you often just do this with a strawman or gifs.
Which promotes engagement?
"1000s of hours spent grinding in a GaaS game or 20hrs completing a big budget single player game."
Somebody mentioned that people dont sub to gamepass for GaaS games because they can play them outside of it. I'm proving that they don't. And they certainly dont.
The majority of games played on it are GaaS games with microtransactions. The majority of new releases on it are GaaS. Way above 50% of the games played are GaaS. Among Us is a damn f2p game but one of the top Gamepass played games every day.
People are saying that new AAA single player releases can thrive just as well but I've seen literally nothing release for it so far and Sony refusing to release their AAA single player releases on theirs yet people are still adamant that this is not empirical evidence that they are not suited to it.