Hobbygaming
has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
Can you elaborate?
Striking Distance CEO claims gamepass model is tough to sell single player games in
- Thread starter remember_spinal
- Start date
- Drama Business Game Dev
Leyasu
Banned
Then their dead no matter what. Not just because of subscription services, but because of the way the industry is trending?
Is that what tyou mean?
Hobbygaming
has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
93% of Hades boxed sales were on PlayStation, it was probably way more digitally on PlayStation too
https://www.thegamer.com/hades-physical-uk-sales-playstation-consoles/
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Yeah. Consumers have the industry they deserve.
Leyasu
Banned
So it is not that "gamepass is designed to kill single player games" like you claimed, more just that the industry is going that way?
ChorizoPicozo
Member
No.
The industry (individual) games are moving towards a service-based experiences.
Game Pass is going to exacerbate this and kill the single player games.
Knightime_X
Member
Doesn't gp pay the price of development?
How could it be hard when you start out of the hole first?
How could it be hard when you start out of the hole first?
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
I mean he aint wrong. Halo and Forza had 20 million players and only Forza landed in the top 20. At the very bottom. Halo was MIA despite being the biggest AAA Xbox game in 2 years. Mortal Kombat 11, a 3 year old game beat both Forza and Halo. Back4Blood flopped and still landed in the top 20. And this was a very weak year for games. Miles Morales a $50 2 year old game was the 4th best selling game and a freaking baseball game ended up in the top 10. If you cant crack top ten in a slow year with your two biggest IPs than what chance does Callisto Protocol have?
Leyasu
Banned
you might be right. But we won't know for another decade or so at the earliest
CeeJay
Member
Which may or may not be better or worse for consumers. You've essentially just described evolution by natural selection.
StealthGoblin
Banned
Even selling 500k at $70 would outstrip a GP payment. If it was so financially viable to do so, they'd do it.
Gameplay Gods Bless
Member
Lol they could have bought all of Eidos for a bit more than that.
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
I'm sorry, but I'm going to wait and see what the Hellpoint devs have to say.
Topher
Identifies as young
He was saying it wouldn't fit Sony's business model. He didn't say it wouldn't work for anyone. I would think the two are very different strategies which is why Phil Spencer wants to broaden his net as much as possible with mobile and other devices beyond consoles. Jim Ryan does as well, but it is still a model focused on game sales.
Men_in_Boxes
Banned
No one can no one way or the other. It all depends on how much Microsoft offers them and how much Striking Distance projects their sales at launch.
GamePass seems to work well for indies but it hasn't proven to be reliable for AAA titles.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Games are both creative and commercial endeavours so the issue comes when the imperative to produce positive ROI impacts the form of the product in a creative sense.
Once again, I invite you to look at the mobile landscape after a decade of rapid technological improvement. I don't believe that its entirely the fault of the economics that its such a stagnant and frankly uninteresting segment, but its definitely played a role in the way things have turned out.
Sorry, but in my opinion, right now, is about as good as its ever going to get for a-la-carte service offerings; Currently we are predominantly seeing product greenlit under legacy conditions on these services, so it looks like a free lunch. Once product starts being tailored for these platforms though... then we're going to see the bill come due.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
I can see their point, and it's why Sony isn't going to put their bread and butter first party games on their service day one.
It works for Microsoft, because what they've been putting out are largely GAAS titles. I'm sure if you're a small indie you can make out, but Calisto's got a bigger budget to make up for.
It works for Microsoft, because what they've been putting out are largely GAAS titles. I'm sure if you're a small indie you can make out, but Calisto's got a bigger budget to make up for.
Guilty_AI
Member
Problem is, current monetization model for Single Player games is already victim of this anyway.
Charging a high once in a life-time payment inspires:
-Hyper focus on visuals and specific set-pieces. After all you just need a few impressive scenes to put on trailers so players get convinced to buy the game.
-Get chummy with reviewers, streamers, and other people who can form opinions, since all that matters is for those to convince the players to get the game and be done with it. So design games in a way that makes those specific publics happy and likely to give the game praise (relatively easy, can be finished in a weekend, low-to-no learning curve, preference for passive engagement rather than active, etc)
So changing this current environment in which a game is sold isn't necessarely a bad thing, though game rental or Multiplayer GAAS aren't my prefered alternative for the current model.
Last edited:
Jimmyisback
Banned
It's probably going to come to game pass. I estimate 6 months.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
That would make sense though. Get those sales in at launch on all the platforms, and when the well runs dry, you sell it to Microsoft/Sony for Game Pass/Plus use. Sell it to Amazon or Epic for free giveaways.
But giving it away day one with that budget size is kneecapping yourself.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Probably not.
Sony marketing means they have the first right of negotiation on a sub service. And we know they love to utilize it.
Belthazar
Member
Guardians was not on game pass at launch tho.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
100 million is way too fucking high tho, it's probably more than the entire budget and marketing for Calisto.
Slicker than your average
Banned
Imagine believing this garbage. Sony reacted to ms buying studio's. The gall to suggest Sony started this.
Kagey K
Banned
MS reacted to Sony trying to buy exclusive stuff from every publisher out there.
Trying to say otherwise is just plain delusional.
Eddie-Griffin
Banned
Hard to take this seriously when IO Interactive just reported a large jump in profits because of Game Pass in their financial report, mostly on Hit Man 3, and Game pass, which they mentioned on 3 separate pages iirc.
Kilau
Gold Member
We heard from Lorne Lanning regarding Oddworld on PS Plus so I don't see how this should be surprising to anyone.
https://gamerant.com/oddworld-dev-ps-plus-free-game-deal-devastating/
https://gamerant.com/oddworld-dev-ps-plus-free-game-deal-devastating/
Kagey K
Banned
He should have negotiated a better deal. If you can get at least get the cost of the game paid for through the deal, everything else is profit
The_Mike
I cry about SonyGaf from my chair in Redmond, WA
Some game devs has bootlicking journalists and a fan base that will scream goty on everything they release.
They know their games will be 80 plus at ease.
Slicker than your average
Banned
Please we could go back to the 360 era if that's the case.
Buying whole publishers to compete is completely different. It was a sign of failure to actually make games.
Kagey K
Banned
You should go check your history, I'm not going to rehash it again here but Sonys been doing it since before Xbox was a thing.
It's not something that started during the ps360 era.
Griffon
Member
Pretty much.
That is, if MS is willing to pay the real price of the game (sometimes they do, sometimes they offer shit deals that could barely pay 3 months of salaries for a small studio).
Then you create a market where only MS decides which games makes it or not. Taking that decision out of the hands of gamers.
Last edited:
Kilau
Gold Member
Sure, hindsight is 20/20 and I don't fully agree with his conclusion but other devs will look at his story and take it into consideration.
lh032
I cry about Xbox and hate PlayStation.
not surprising tbh, games that normally dont sell alot or probably wont met the dev/publisher expectation on day 1 sales figures, would only appear on gamepass day 1. (depends on Microsoft offer)
Thats why you dont see ELDEN RING on day 1.
I think callistol protocol is going to sell since they have Sony's marketing, so no point going to gamepass day 1.
Basically, its a "gamble" whether to enter gamepass day 1 for the dev/publishers.
Thats why you dont see ELDEN RING on day 1.
I think callistol protocol is going to sell since they have Sony's marketing, so no point going to gamepass day 1.
Basically, its a "gamble" whether to enter gamepass day 1 for the dev/publishers.
93xfan
Banned
Nice find.
MikeM
Member
Why wouldn't they enforce a clause in their agreement? Studios aren't forced to agree to the terms (much to the dismay of some here). Studios benefit as much as Sony.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
If we use the RE Village contract as a template, if Striking Distance games has agreed to a marketing contract, the clause in the contract prevents the game from going to game pass without Sony getting the first right of refusal in 12 months.
Flakster99
Member
DP
Last edited:
Flakster99
Member
Does anyone have a legitimate rebuttal for this? Because pure and simple this is blue-money talking (exclusive DLC and marketing), and anything Striking Distance Studios says is pure hogwash.
Last edited:
MikeM
Member
So? Studio signed the deal and they could have negotiated it out. Or not sign it.
Why do you think they agreed?
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
It alleviates some of the risk though. Sure your game could be a multi-million seller but also it could be a complete dud. If you can negotiate with all the services to get enough money to cover your budget or a certain percentage then it is the opposite of a gamble. Then any sales or paid expansions above a certain much lower level are profit.
Last edited:
Dirk Benedict
Member
RE Village was a game that was highly anticipated, by a pedigree studio and publisher that know their way around this industry, for decades at that. While striking Distance has some AAA Pedigree and many of them have experience shipping a product.
The studio itself and Krafton, are unproven. I think they would make more in the long run, if they put it on Game Pass, later on.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Well they have exclusive content for the PS platforms, that's pretty telling.
Crayon
Member
My guess would be a cascade of things:
Your leverage to deal likeley has something to do with how much playtime you get -> sp games are 15-50hrs -> looking at trophy and achievent numbers, most people don't play the whole game or even half the game when they buy it -> on a sub, I'm sure the average playtime is even less.
Aside from that, you do have to think about devaluing your brand on new releases. Not just the one game, but your whole label. It should be possible to train an audience that your games will launch on a sub or end up on one soon, and that might not be good if you just want it as an additional revenue stream.
Your leverage to deal likeley has something to do with how much playtime you get -> sp games are 15-50hrs -> looking at trophy and achievent numbers, most people don't play the whole game or even half the game when they buy it -> on a sub, I'm sure the average playtime is even less.
Aside from that, you do have to think about devaluing your brand on new releases. Not just the one game, but your whole label. It should be possible to train an audience that your games will launch on a sub or end up on one soon, and that might not be good if you just want it as an additional revenue stream.