Support NeoGAF

[Halo is Back]

This place pretty much exists for bickering and console wars. Take it all away and you have a boring forum. Maybe I should start
Consoleloveforums.com.......
Or they can create a no arguing subsection.....

On a side note, I have also noticed the PlayStation fan % being higher.

Taking it all away is a fairy tale. Reducing the pointless threads of trolling and hot takes was the point of this thread as the intention is laid out within the original post by the mod who created it. Some Xbox fans took this as a gesture of silencing and nuked their accounts.

 

[THE DUCK]

Taking it all away is a fairy tale. Reducing the pointless threads of trolling and hot takes was the point of this thread as the intention is laid out within the original post by the mod who created it. Some Xbox fans took this as a gesture of silencing and nuked their accounts.

So effectively making a general pro sony forum even more unbalanced? I don't really understand how that's a good thing long term. I get the intent, but it seems to have backfired in a way. Ms fans are scared to post anything with the word gamepass, and bunch left. I just got warned just for talking about this by a mod - saying I was console waring. I'm not even sure what it is they want here anymore. We can't argue about anything if it happens to favor on side or the other?

 

[SportsFan581]

We can still get some activity going here. There just isn't much to discuss at the moment, all the announcements have already happened for this month.

 

[MadPanda]

We can still get some activity going here. There just isn't much to discuss at the moment, all the announcements have already happened for this month.

Have they really? We've got only 1 batch of games at the beginning of the month, while we usually get two, and that batch was underwhelming honestly. I get it that we got outriders day one but I hope there should be more.

 

[Warnen]

To be fair the original mod made it clear that ALL Gamepass post should be in this thread. Many posters felt that was unfair becuase news and rumors about stuff coming to Gamepass deserved there own place on the forum. It was made clear later by the boss man that news/rumors can be there own thing.

 

[SportsFan581]

Have they really? We've got only 1 batch of games at the beginning of the month, while we usually get two, and that batch was underwhelming honestly. I get it that we got outriders day one but I hope there should be more.

There could be more sure, generally they happen earlier in the month though.

 

[Jemm]

 

[Nitty_Grimes]

Probs give DAH a go from that bunch.

 

[cormack12]

Holy fuck, slow down MS. I just started Octopath and now you're dropping DAH! and Fables. Fuck sake. My eye is twitching.

 

[Jemm]

Holy fuck, slow down MS. I just started Octopath and now you're dropping DAH! and Fables. Fuck sake. My eye is twitching.

 

[Spacefish]

It's pretty strange how enthusiastic people are for these subscription services. The analogy to Netflix is always drawn, that it was a force for creativity and experimentation within the film industry so the same will take place within the games industry. The two ecosystems are only similar on the top end, you can't make a film and release it in the cinema without massive amounts of money, 1 guy can make a game and throw it up on steam and outsell a AAA dev. The movement from the creatively bankrupt cabal of film corporations to slightly less creatively bankrupt streaming services was a semi positive one but the movement from a successful free market to a gate kept collection of streaming services is a disaster.
There are a number of major impacts this will have on the industry as a whole:

• Devaluing games which are the only media that has retained it's value in the shift to digital
• massive consolidation of power to a handful of service owners, control of "content creators" falls into ever fewer hands
• content control as they decide what gets greenlit or not, this may be fine when the guys in charge give a shit about the art but large corporations are full of soulless suits waiting to take over
• a push for GAAS systems as time and attention are the new metric for success
• decoupling quality from success, the audience has lower expectations for "free" media and the link between a genuinely good game and its financial success is muddied.

The argument is always that there's no need to worry and marketplaces will co-exist, but as more time and money is spend on subscription services less is spent on actual marketplaces, it then falls to Sony or Microsoft or Apple to divvy out the spoils. We have an almost perfect situation with steam on PC and I can't see it existing in 30 years. This ignores all the obvious problems from a consumers perspective with subscription services degrading once they pass the courting phase and being a pain in the ass once there are too many of them. I'm surprised there isn't a greater pushback from indie devs.

 

[LordBlodgett]

Destroy All Humans is an exciting random drop. I also like the idea of Second Extinction, but I think I need to find a group to play with.

 

[RAIDEN1]

Either its my internet connection or I don't know what but GTA V sure takes an AGE to download, even when you reach the point where it says "ready to start" you can't actually DO anything apart from watch sliding still images...you have to wait until the WHOLE game is installed before you can check it out...I've even left the console on overnight for some hours but still didn't make much difference....currently I am on 68.76 of 76.36 GB downloaded

 

[LordBlodgett]

It's pretty strange how enthusiastic people are for these subscription services. The analogy to Netflix is always drawn, that it was a force for creativity and experimentation within the film industry so the same will take place within the games industry. The two ecosystems are only similar on the top end, you can't make a film and release it in the cinema without massive amounts of money, 1 guy can make a game and throw it up on steam and outsell a AAA dev. The movement from the creatively bankrupt cabal of film corporations to slightly less creatively bankrupt streaming services was a semi positive one but the movement from a successful free market to a gate kept collection of streaming services is a disaster.
There are a number of major impacts this will have on the industry as a whole:

• Devaluing games which are the only media that has retained it's value in the shift to digital
• massive consolidation of power to a handful of service owners, control of "content creators" falls into ever fewer hands
• content control as they decide what gets greenlit or not, this may be fine when the guys in charge give a shit about the art but large corporations are full of soulless suits waiting to take over
• a push for GAAS systems as time and attention are the new metric for success
• decoupling quality from success, the audience has lower expectations for "free" media and the link between a genuinely good game and its financial success is muddied.

The argument is always that there's no need to worry and marketplaces will co-exist, but as more time and money is spend on subscription services less is spent on actual marketplaces, it then falls to Sony or Microsoft or Apple to divvy out the spoils. We have an almost perfect situation with steam on PC and I can't see it existing in 30 years. This ignores all the obvious problems from a consumers perspective with subscription services degrading once they pass the courting phase and being a pain in the ass once there are too many of them. I'm surprised there isn't a greater pushback from indie devs.

I am enthusiastic about things that are good for me as a consumer, and I reward those things. In every aspect of entertainment so far subscription services have been positive disruptors as a consumer. and I would also argue that they have made the fields that they compete in better as well. In fact lets look at a couple of these shall we:

Music - Original paradigm was all physical. Stores had limited space, and devoted most of it to major records labels. Your only chance to sell your CD if you were unsigned was at concerts. You had to buy the whole album or singles of hit songs. Physical was replaced by digital and Itunes rose to dominance. By 2014 they controlled upwards of 70% of market for music. You could buy just the songs you wanted. Then streaming came along. Spotify, Pandora, Rhapsody, etc.... Now for one low price you could listen to anything you want. The number of songs on these services continued to rise as subscribers did. From 1 million in 2011 to over 70 million now. It is now very easy for any artist to self publish on streaming or sales platforms using services like Tunecore. As a consumer I have a ridiculous amount of content, for a very low price. I also have many choices of streaming services. Besides that music variety is greater than it has ever been.

TV & Movies - Original paradigm was physical & cable. You could rent or buy. All movies for sale were from big studios, though you could often rent direct to video movies that were smaller budget. TV was shown on a schedule and was filled with commercials. Tons of shitty filler content existed to fill dead time in schedules. Movies and TV were pretty much all made by studios, and smaller projects barely existed unless it could be sold as direct to video. Whe digital rolled around it meant that you could buy movies and TV shows and watch on your own schedule with no commercials. Then streaming came, offering on demand content with no commercials for low prices. There is a war for content and creators are getting bigger budgets than ever before, with Netflix, HBO, etc.... hiring talented directors or writers directly and giving them resources instead of signing deals with studios. As a consumer I have more choices than ever before, at a lower cost, with no commercials, and streamed when I want. In 2005 my father paid nearly $200 a month for TV/Internet. Nowadays you can get Amazon Prime, Netflix, Hulu, Paramount+, HBO altogether for around $60 and you have more content than you had before at a lower cost.

I see games being no different. Consumers are going to go where they are treated best, and Gamepass is incredible for consumers who play a lot of games, plus curation of the game library is top notch. Looking at your "major impacts" section, I also disagree with every single one:

• Devaluing games which are the only media that has retained it's value in the shift to digital
  • Games have already been "devalued" with Steam, a service you praise. My entire huge Steam back catalog was purchased at very extreme discounts. I also own over 600 Xbox and over 150 PS4 games that I purchased at very low prices (it is rare for me to pay more than $10 for a game). Game publishers seem to have found that there is plenty of long tail money to be made by offering their digital games at low prices.
• massive consolidation of power to a handful of service owners, control of "content creators" falls into ever fewer hands
  • Content is going to become more valuable as companies compete, not less. Good games now have more avenues to make money, even "risk-free" subscription money.
• content control as they decide what gets greenlit or not, this may be fine when the guys in charge give a shit about the art but large corporations are full of soulless suits waiting to take over
  • Shitty games won't be played, even on subscriptions. If a streaming company makes nothing but shit then who would subscribe to it. This is the silliest argument. Subscriptions allow for more risks to be taken because there is a built in audience who will be willing to try things. I have tried a bunch of games I wouldn't have ever purchased because I might as well, and some have been killer games.
• a push for GAAS systems as time and attention are the new metric for success
  • This shows me that you've never used Gamepass. There are a handful of GAAS games and hundreds that are not. Most successful GAAS games are going to be free to play and on every platform. For a subscription you need experiences that keep people subscribed, not F2P games
• decoupling quality from success, the audience has lower expectations for "free" media and the link between a genuinely good game and its financial success is muddied.
  • People are going to play and buy good games whether they are ever put on a subscription service or not. If a game is on a subscription service and is good it is probably going to increase its sales and word of mouth by being on that service. If its shitty its going to get ignored, subscription or not.

 

[sunnysideup]

It's pretty strange how enthusiastic people are for these subscription services. The analogy to Netflix is always drawn, that it was a force for creativity and experimentation within the film industry so the same will take place within the games industry. The two ecosystems are only similar on the top end, you can't make a film and release it in the cinema without massive amounts of money, 1 guy can make a game and throw it up on steam and outsell a AAA dev. The movement from the creatively bankrupt cabal of film corporations to slightly less creatively bankrupt streaming services was a semi positive one but the movement from a successful free market to a gate kept collection of streaming services is a disaster.
There are a number of major impacts this will have on the industry as a whole:

• Devaluing games which are the only media that has retained it's value in the shift to digital
• massive consolidation of power to a handful of service owners, control of "content creators" falls into ever fewer hands
• content control as they decide what gets greenlit or not, this may be fine when the guys in charge give a shit about the art but large corporations are full of soulless suits waiting to take over
• a push for GAAS systems as time and attention are the new metric for success
• decoupling quality from success, the audience has lower expectations for "free" media and the link between a genuinely good game and its financial success is muddied.

The argument is always that there's no need to worry and marketplaces will co-exist, but as more time and money is spend on subscription services less is spent on actual marketplaces, it then falls to Sony or Microsoft or Apple to divvy out the spoils. We have an almost perfect situation with steam on PC and I can't see it existing in 30 years. This ignores all the obvious problems from a consumers perspective with subscription services degrading once they pass the courting phase and being a pain in the ass once there are too many of them. I'm surprised there isn't a greater pushback from indie devs.

Fucking best post ever

 

[SportsFan581]

They did have more announcements for us for this month, sweet! I'll definitely take a look at DAH.

 

[Spacefish]

I am enthusiastic about things that are good for me as a consumer, and I reward those things. In every aspect of entertainment so far subscription services have been positive disruptors as a consumer. and I would also argue that they have made the fields that they compete in better as well. In fact lets look at a couple of these shall we:

Music - Original paradigm was all physical. Stores had limited space, and devoted most of it to major records labels. Your only chance to sell your CD if you were unsigned was at concerts. You had to buy the whole album or singles of hit songs. Physical was replaced by digital and Itunes rose to dominance. By 2014 they controlled upwards of 70% of market for music. You could buy just the songs you wanted. Then streaming came along. Spotify, Pandora, Rhapsody, etc.... Now for one low price you could listen to anything you want. The number of songs on these services continued to rise as subscribers did. From 1 million in 2011 to over 70 million now. It is now very easy for any artist to self publish on streaming or sales platforms using services like Tunecore. As a consumer I have a ridiculous amount of content, for a very low price. I also have many choices of streaming services. Besides that music variety is greater than it has ever been.

TV & Movies - Original paradigm was physical & cable. You could rent or buy. All movies for sale were from big studios, though you could often rent direct to video movies that were smaller budget. TV was shown on a schedule and was filled with commercials. Tons of shitty filler content existed to fill dead time in schedules. Movies and TV were pretty much all made by studios, and smaller projects barely existed unless it could be sold as direct to video. Whe digital rolled around it meant that you could buy movies and TV shows and watch on your own schedule with no commercials. Then streaming came, offering on demand content with no commercials for low prices. There is a war for content and creators are getting bigger budgets than ever before, with Netflix, HBO, etc.... hiring talented directors or writers directly and giving them resources instead of signing deals with studios. As a consumer I have more choices than ever before, at a lower cost, with no commercials, and streamed when I want. In 2005 my father paid nearly $200 a month for TV/Internet. Nowadays you can get Amazon Prime, Netflix, Hulu, Paramount+, HBO altogether for around $60 and you have more content than you had before at a lower cost.

I see games being no different. Consumers are going to go where they are treated best, and Gamepass is incredible for consumers who play a lot of games, plus curation of the game library is top notch. Looking at your "major impacts" section, I also disagree with every single one:

• Devaluing games which are the only media that has retained it's value in the shift to digital
  • Games have already been "devalued" with Steam, a service you praise. My entire huge Steam back catalog was purchased at very extreme discounts. I also own over 600 Xbox and over 150 PS4 games that I purchased at very low prices (it is rare for me to pay more than $10 for a game). Game publishers seem to have found that there is plenty of long tail money to be made by offering their digital games at low prices.
• massive consolidation of power to a handful of service owners, control of "content creators" falls into ever fewer hands
  • Content is going to become more valuable as companies compete, not less. Good games now have more avenues to make money, even "risk-free" subscription money.
• content control as they decide what gets greenlit or not, this may be fine when the guys in charge give a shit about the art but large corporations are full of soulless suits waiting to take over
  • Shitty games won't be played, even on subscriptions. If a streaming company makes nothing but shit then who would subscribe to it. This is the silliest argument. Subscriptions allow for more risks to be taken because there is a built in audience who will be willing to try things. I have tried a bunch of games I wouldn't have ever purchased because I might as well, and some have been killer games.
• a push for GAAS systems as time and attention are the new metric for success
  • This shows me that you've never used Gamepass. There are a handful of GAAS games and hundreds that are not. Most successful GAAS games are going to be free to play and on every platform. For a subscription you need experiences that keep people subscribed, not F2P games
• decoupling quality from success, the audience has lower expectations for "free" media and the link between a genuinely good game and its financial success is muddied.
  • People are going to play and buy good games whether they are ever put on a subscription service or not. If a game is on a subscription service and is good it is probably going to increase its sales and word of mouth by being on that service. If its shitty its going to get ignored, subscription or not.

I don't see how you can completely disagree with my points when in your own examples it has all already happened.

Music is now at a point where a track or album has no real value, In order to make real money as a musician you must convert popularity into live concerts. Spotify is brought up constantly as a joke among musicians because of how little they pay the artists. The devaluation of music was through piracy and streaming services and is now mostly complete. Sure, its great from a consumer perspective, I listen to whatever I want for free but the field is so hard to survive in I cant see anyone in their right mind remain if they haven't hit it big by their early-mid twenties. It is now a hobby status activity and all that entails for the quality and quantity of artists.

Movies and TV, you're agreeing with me, It's slightly better now than under the old creatively bankrupt system (which mirrors our AAA+ industry). But there are major shifts in output which are concerning for videogames.

• "Steam devalued games already" is not an argument against subscription services lowering them further. You could say we are in the "iTunes phase" with videogames except piracy was too difficult to completely ruin the market, the perceived value is still high enough to make a living on your own. Movies never transitioned to digital sales, a marketplace was never really established before streaming. I don't see how you can argue the perceived value of film hasn't fallen off a cliff the same way it did with music, I don't know a single person who still buys blurays or digital files anymore, everyone I knew had an active collection of VHS and dvd's growing up, now, why would you? its going to be "free" on a streaming service. Steam stopped its ridiculous sales a few years back because they were worried about this exact problem, they have stabilised in a workable, healthy position. Those games you purchased at extreme discount is still magnitudes more than smaller games will make sucking Microsoft teat in 10 years, the contingent who pay full or even half price will be completely gone.
• Consolidation of power already happened in those industries, Corporations are paying big now because they are running a race, the pool of money slows down once they gain market dominance, have a big enough library and decide to take profit. Also, they should never be the ones to decide the value of media, the consumer should. A handful of big corporations deciding the value of a piece of art is a disaster compared to what we have now.
• Shitty, mediocre games ARE played its already happening. Outriders, the medium? These are a new class of "gamepass" games that are too shit to buy but good enough to waste time on. The amount of dogshit tv shows and films that gain traction on Netflix far outnumbers and sort of quality media. You draw people in with blockbusters and sustain them with trash. You can't get more supportive for quality, experimental games than a market that is willing to buy them, this is what we already have.
• You are talking about right now, gamepass hasn't even succeeded yet. It will be years before we see the effects on media and the degradation of the service. It is a fact that once you're subscribed you vote with your time and attention, not your wallet, the shift from funding film to TV shows has already happened with streaming services for this reason. GAAS games are the experts at stealing time and attention for relatively low investment, their methods will crop up all over the place as service owners who now control what is greenlit, look at the data and seek to maximise.
• You cant deny people watch "good enough" media on streaming services just because its on there and they need something to do, they wouldn't reward those same shows or movies if they had to buy them. Netflix even removed the rating system to muddy the waters even further. When anything is perceived as "free" people have been shown to reward mediocrity with the only metric they are now measured by.

 

[Magic Carpet]

It's pretty strange how enthusiastic people are for these subscription services

Enthusiastic is a strong word. It's a service. I pay a monthly service to have my car washed at a local carwash. Pay a monthly fee and I can run my car as many times as I want through the carwash. Am I enthusiastic? Yay My car is clean with minimum effort on my part.
Yay I can play tons of games with minimum effort on my part. Yay.
I pay full price for Cyberpunk and live with my dissapointment.
I pay for Playstation Plus and live with Days Gone this month, a game that was never on my radar but I am enjoying so far.
Services keep me playing games. They also keep my car clean.

 

[Spacefish]

Enthusiastic is a strong word. It's a service. I pay a monthly service to have my car washed at a local carwash. Pay a monthly fee and I can run my car as many times as I want through the carwash. Am I enthusiastic? Yay My car is clean with minimum effort on my part.
Yay I can play tons of games with minimum effort on my part. Yay.
I pay full price for Cyberpunk and live with my dissapointment.
I pay for Playstation Plus and live with Days Gone this month, a game that was never on my radar but I am enjoying so far.
Services keep me playing games. They also keep my car clean.

If games and the way you spend your free time elicits the same emotional response as your car not being dirty you should probably find a more fulfilling hobby.

 

[Magic Carpet]

If games and the way you spend your free time elicits the same emotional response as your car not being dirty you should probably find a more fulfilling hobby

If you rather I can wash my car the old fashion way. Put on flip flops, shorts, garden hose, bucket of soapy water and a sponge.
Which service should I choose. Am I only allowed to choose one?
Can I not buy games full price and pay for a service?
Why are you standing in front of a carwash holding up a sign that says I shouldn't pay for a carwash? Why do I have to do it the old fashioned way?
How is my clean car hurting you? How is my clean car hurting the carwashing industry?

 

[Magic Carpet]

you should probably find a more fulfilling hobby.

I realize I'm being flippant and goofy but believe it or not I agree with darn near everything you've said. Quality goes down. The 90's were the last great decade of both music and movies. The internet ruined everything.
The world is simply not the same as it was. Funny thing is the 90's were where gaming really got going. And yes I see it quickly diminishing.
Mobile. I bought the very first iphone when it came out. waited till they go the game store and bought a game for 15 bucks. Super monkey ball or something like it. Can you imagine paying 15 bucks for a cellphone game today?
Anyway. fast forward to today and I don't even bother opening the app store on my phone with the ocean of crap crap crap. It wasn't untill Apple offered a service apple arcade that I started to download games for my iphone again.
It took a service to even get me to look at what the cell phone games have to offer.
I think it's going to happen to PC and console gaming. I think we may already be there with the release of Cyberpunk. A service may be all that saves gaming.

 

[Spacefish]

If you rather I can wash my car the old fashion way. Put on flip flops, shorts, garden hose, bucket of soapy water and a sponge.
Which service should I choose. Am I only allowed to choose one?
Can I not buy games full price and pay for a service?
Why are you standing in front of a carwash holding up a sign that says I shouldn't pay for a carwash? Why do I have to do it the old fashioned way?
How is my clean car hurting you? How is my clean car hurting the carwashing industry?

The point is that washing your car isn't a great analogy for the game industry. There are no meaningful consequences depending on how, when or if you do it. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to spend their money, it is smart to take advantage of a good deal. This is just a discussion about long term trends that will change the industry in irreversible ways. I happen to think that there are a lot of negatives that go unmentioned and there are many falsely or naively presumed positives that are overemphasised.

A service may be all that saves gaming.

I don't think gaming needs saving, the future was always with indies, not AAA. An audience that values good indie games enough to pay for them directly is such an amazing and rare thing to have. Independent Musicians, film makers, comic book artists, authors, painters, all artists would kill to have the kind of marketplace indie devs have on steam. I see no future for that kind of market once services take over. The direct connection between an audience and a creators success is the ideal, introducing middle men who have the power to interpret, shape and curate creative output is not my idea of saving anything. Everyone agrees the ps2 era and prior were the golden age, we were already heading back in that direction but in a natural bottom up manner, now we will move closer to it in a temporary, top down, diminished manner that relies on suits in corporations being the first in history to restrain their search for profit in favour of artistic freedom.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

It's pretty strange how enthusiastic people are for these subscription services. The analogy to Netflix is always drawn, that it was a force for creativity and experimentation within the film industry so the same will take place within the games industry. The two ecosystems are only similar on the top end, you can't make a film and release it in the cinema without massive amounts of money, 1 guy can make a game and throw it up on steam and outsell a AAA dev. The movement from the creatively bankrupt cabal of film corporations to slightly less creatively bankrupt streaming services was a semi positive one but the movement from a successful free market to a gate kept collection of streaming services is a disaster.
There are a number of major impacts this will have on the industry as a whole:

• Devaluing games which are the only media that has retained it's value in the shift to digital
• massive consolidation of power to a handful of service owners, control of "content creators" falls into ever fewer hands
• content control as they decide what gets greenlit or not, this may be fine when the guys in charge give a shit about the art but large corporations are full of soulless suits waiting to take over
• a push for GAAS systems as time and attention are the new metric for success
• decoupling quality from success, the audience has lower expectations for "free" media and the link between a genuinely good game and its financial success is muddied.

The argument is always that there's no need to worry and marketplaces will co-exist, but as more time and money is spend on subscription services less is spent on actual marketplaces, it then falls to Sony or Microsoft or Apple to divvy out the spoils. We have an almost perfect situation with steam on PC and I can't see it existing in 30 years. This ignores all the obvious problems from a consumers perspective with subscription services degrading once they pass the courting phase and being a pain in the ass once there are too many of them. I'm surprised there isn't a greater pushback from indie devs.

But your whole list of points is based on your concept of "gate keeping" games, which is false. You're free to not subscribe and still purchase said games. You're also free to purchase them while being subbed, whether games are currently included or rotated out of GP. We have also seen games released on other platforms at "normal" prices and still be part of GP too.

You've obviously missed recent articles with more games being developed, more sales being made, more concurrent players and generally nothing but a positive response across the board from those developing, platforming, selling and playing anything via GP.

 

[DarkMage619]

The point is that washing your car isn't a great analogy for the game industry. There are no meaningful consequences depending on how, when or if you do it. I'm not trying to tell anyone how to spend their money, it is smart to take advantage of a good deal. This is just a discussion about long term trends that will change the industry in irreversible ways. I happen to think that there are a lot of negatives that go unmentioned and there are many falsely or naively presumed positives that are overemphasised.

I don't think gaming needs saving, the future was always with indies, not AAA. An audience that values good indie games enough to pay for them directly is such an amazing and rare thing to have. Independent Musicians, film makers, comic book artists, authors, painters, all artists would kill to have the kind of marketplace indie devs have on steam. I see no future for that kind of market once services take over. The direct connection between an audience and a creators success is the ideal, introducing middle men who have the power to interpret, shape and curate creative output is not my idea of saving anything. Everyone agrees the ps2 era and prior were the golden age, we were already heading back in that direction but in a natural bottom up manner, now we will move closer to it in a temporary, top down, diminished manner that relies on suits in corporations being the first in history to restrain their search for profit in favour of artistic freedom.

Do you have any actual proof that Game pass is hurting the quality of gaming? Are the majority of games on the service GaaS? With the recent events of Anthem and Avengers failing what makes you think companies are going to push more of a failing model? Most importantly since Game pass is purely optional if you don't like it don't use it. It's existence is hurting no one and if the service is so bad it will die out naturally just like the Kinect on the X1.

 

[Spacefish]

But your whole list of points is based on your concept of "gate keeping" games, which is false. You're free to not subscribe and still purchase said games. You're also free to purchase them while being subbed, whether games are currently included or rotated out of GP.

You've obviously missed recent articles with more games being developed, more sales being made, more concurrent players and generally nothing but a positive response across the board from those developing, platforming, selling and playing anything via GP.

as I said earlier:
The argument is always that there's no need to worry and marketplaces will co-exist, but as more time and money is spend on subscription services less is spent on actual marketplaces, it then falls to Sony or Microsoft or Apple to divvy out the spoils.

You're talking now when a small minority are using subscriptions, I'm talking 10+ years in the future. Devaluation of individual units causes market collapse which leads to gate keeping by corps. This is not a conspiracy or anything new, it has already happened in other industries.

Do you have any actual proof that Game pass is hurting the quality of gaming? Are the majority of games on the service GaaS? With the recent events of Anthem and Avengers failing what makes you think companies are going to push more of a failing model? Most importantly since Game pass is purely optional if you don't like it don't use it. It's existence is hurting no one and if the service is so bad it will die out naturally just like the Kinect on the X1.

Like I said, gamepass is nascent and its current state is not indicative of where it will end up. Quality is subjective, I don't like GAAS mechanics, the phycological treadmills they employ are undeniably effective at retaining attention and player bases. you can't argue that its not beneficial for subscriptions to have cheaply produced media that takes longer to consume. The effects this will have on media is up to interpretation. The service wont die out because it will maintain the minimum amount of quality to sustain a userbase, the loss is the potential future we could have had with a healthy market.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

as I said earlier:
The argument is always that there's no need to worry and marketplaces will co-exist, but as more time and money is spend on subscription services less is spent on actual marketplaces, it then falls to Sony or Microsoft or Apple to divvy out the spoils.

You're talking now when a small minority are using subscriptions, I'm talking 10+ years in the future. Devaluation of individual units causes market collapse which leads to gate keeping by corps. This is not a conspiracy or anything new, it has already happened in other industries.


Like I said, gamepass is nascent and its current state is not indicative of where it will end up. Quality is subjective, I don't like GAAS mechanics, the phycological treadmills they employ are undeniably effective at retaining attention and player bases. you can't argue that its not beneficial for subscriptions to have cheaply produced media that takes longer to consume. The effects this will have on media is up to interpretation. The service wont die out because it will maintain the minimum amount of quality to sustain a userbase, the loss is the potential future we could have had with a healthy market.

I still find it hard to be true when GP crosses platforms such as PC, console, mobile and likely more over the next decade you seem concerned about. You have some validity to your argument but I just don't see MS/GP being a closed system anymore now or over the next decade, they've long left that corporate mantra behind.

Netflix is some 24 years old at this point. Would you describe their impact on your comparative industry as positive? Would you agree more movies, tv shows, industry growth, competition etc has occurred?

 

[Spacefish]

I still find it hard to be true when GP crosses platforms such as PC, console, mobile and likely more over the next decade you seem concerned about. You have some validity to your argument but I just don't see MS/GP being a closed system anymore now or over the next decade, they've long left that corporate mantra behind.

Netflix is some 24 years old at this point. Would you describe their impact on your comparative industry as positive? Would you agree more movies, tv shows, industry growth, competition etc has occurred?

It's not about hardware, gamepass is the platform, its about what consumers value and who they will give their time and money. Microsoft will move to maximise profit as all corporations do. It makes no sense to put your games on steam if the market collapses and you're making all your money on gamepass anyway. It makes sense now (in the transitionary phase) because people still pay a decent price for games and the market for individual purchases is bigger than services. In the coming content war between services it only makes sense to move to gamepass exclusives, this is why they are going crazy buying up developers left and right.

I already mentioned why Netflix was sort of an improvement over the creatively bankrupt film cabal but games have a healthy marketplace that rewards even indies which is unique, more important than AAA games and at risk.

Anyway, I've said all I'm going to say, I'm mostly repeating myself now. People will flock to a good deal no matter the long term consequences, it's not like any amount of whining will change what's about to happen.

 

[SportsFan581]

I'm not sure how some of the logic works with the naysayers. Either the service is bad or will be bad and is doomed to failure, or it is the best thing since sliced bread and it is going to collapse the outside market due to its success. Hard to build a good working theory building on both those concepts at once. LOL

IF MS was so successful with GP that it changed the rules of the gaming market, that means they have many billions of dollars rolling in, and like with all of these services, most of that money will get reinvested into the games and the service itself. This notion that most spending is going to be cut if they find success is just not something that has happened with any services of this type yet. Netflix has been profitable now for quite some time and they are still spending a ton (more $ per subscriber than they ever did before, in fact). With Netflix, I can see spending going down a bit in the future, just because their growing library of in-house content will lessen the need to license as much content, but still the spending per year will be huge.

Also, acting as if the market is healthy as it is, neglects the fact that we've almost lost an entire market. The AA market that once thrived providing experiences that weren't quite to AAA level but were far above the average indie. Indie games are not a replacement for this space. And then let's not even mention the fear that runs the industry in regards to launching new AAA IP.

 

[sunnysideup]

I don't see how you can completely disagree with my points when in your own examples it has all already happened.

Music is now at a point where a track or album has no real value, In order to make real money as a musician you must convert popularity into live concerts. Spotify is brought up constantly as a joke among musicians because of how little they pay the artists. The devaluation of music was through piracy and streaming services and is now mostly complete. Sure, its great from a consumer perspective, I listen to whatever I want for free but the field is so hard to survive in I cant see anyone in their right mind remain if they haven't hit it big by their early-mid twenties. It is now a hobby status activity and all that entails for the quality and quantity of artists.

Movies and TV, you're agreeing with me, It's slightly better now than under the old creatively bankrupt system (which mirrors our AAA+ industry). But there are major shifts in output which are concerning for videogames.

• "Steam devalued games already" is not an argument against subscription services lowering them further. You could say we are in the "iTunes phase" with videogames except piracy was too difficult to completely ruin the market, the perceived value is still high enough to make a living on your own. Movies never transitioned to digital sales, a marketplace was never really established before streaming. I don't see how you can argue the perceived value of film hasn't fallen off a cliff the same way it did with music, I don't know a single person who still buys blurays or digital files anymore, everyone I knew had an active collection of VHS and dvd's growing up, now, why would you? its going to be "free" on a streaming service. Steam stopped its ridiculous sales a few years back because they were worried about this exact problem, they have stabilised in a workable, healthy position. Those games you purchased at extreme discount is still magnitudes more than smaller games will make sucking Microsoft teat in 10 years, the contingent who pay full or even half price will be completely gone.
• Consolidation of power already happened in those industries, Corporations are paying big now because they are running a race, the pool of money slows down once they gain market dominance, have a big enough library and decide to take profit. Also, they should never be the ones to decide the value of media, the consumer should. A handful of big corporations deciding the value of a piece of art is a disaster compared to what we have now.
• Shitty, mediocre games ARE played its already happening. Outriders, the medium? These are a new class of "gamepass" games that are too shit to buy but good enough to waste time on. The amount of dogshit tv shows and films that gain traction on Netflix far outnumbers and sort of quality media. You draw people in with blockbusters and sustain them with trash. You can't get more supportive for quality, experimental games than a market that is willing to buy them, this is what we already have.
• You are talking about right now, gamepass hasn't even succeeded yet. It will be years before we see the effects on media and the degradation of the service. It is a fact that once you're subscribed you vote with your time and attention, not your wallet, the shift from funding film to TV shows has already happened with streaming services for this reason. GAAS games are the experts at stealing time and attention for relatively low investment, their methods will crop up all over the place as service owners who now control what is greenlit, look at the data and seek to maximise.
• You cant deny people watch "good enough" media on streaming services just because its on there and they need something to do, they wouldn't reward those same shows or movies if they had to buy them. Netflix even removed the rating system to muddy the waters even further. When anything is perceived as "free" people have been shown to reward mediocrity with the only metric they are now measured by.

On point again

 

[Spacefish]

I'm not sure how some of the logic works with the naysayers. Either the service is bad or will be bad and is doomed to failure, or it is the best thing since sliced bread and it is going to collapse the outside market due to its success. Hard to build a good working theory building on both those concepts at once. LOL

IF MS was so successful with GP that it changed the rules of the gaming market, that means they have many billions of dollars rolling in, and like with all of these services, most of that money will get reinvested into the games and the service itself. This notion that most spending is going to be cut if they find success is just not something that has happened with any services of this type yet. Netflix has been profitable now for quite some time and they are still spending a ton (more $ per subscriber than they ever did before, in fact). With Netflix, I can see spending going down a bit in the future, just because their growing library of in-house content will lessen the need to license as much content, but still the spending per year will be huge.

Also, acting as if the market is healthy as it is, neglects the fact that we've almost lost an entire market. The AA market that once thrived providing experiences that weren't quite to AAA level but were far above the average indie. Indie games are not a replacement for this space. And then let's not even mention the fear that runs the industry in regards to launching new AAA IP.

How is devaluing media and a service degrading over time mutually exclusive? Netflix is shit now but the devaluing already happened, we aren't going back. They retain marketshare because, as with xbox live and PS+ enough people have proven that they will pay for increasingly mediocre services once they have overcome the initial hurdle. Investment isn't infinite, it shows supreme naivety to expect Microsoft to give a shit about anything but money when the time comes to take profit, they aren't growing the service as a charity. A single company controlling massive amounts of investment is exactly the nightmare I'm talking about, nobody should want that, Phil Spencer isn't going to be in charge forever, its only a matter of time till another dumbfuck EA alumni like don mattrick shows up.

The entire industry was indie, they grew to AA till they graduated or died off competing in the new AAA space, this was the physical media, publisher controlled era. It wasn't until digital marketplaces took off (a feat that no other digital media managed as successfully) that indies came around, what we were seeing was a natural rebirth of the industry from grass roots, this time without clueless publishers and platform holders to gatekeep. You can even see indie games going through parallel generational leaps as they scale up from tiny 2d arcade experiences to full on 3d AA experiences. Indie games now are very different than 10 years ago, they were set to become exactly what everyone is missing from the early 00s and prior. Yeah, maybe this will still happen to some degree but now were heading back to platform holders in gatekeeping positions. Better pray they don't get greedy and clueless, its not like there's an endless cycle of that shit happening in our industry.

 

[ErRor88]

 

[SportsFan581]

Netflix is shit now but the devaluing already happened, we aren't going back.

So, that is the crux of your argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accolades_received_by_Netflix Seems like they are still doing okay as far as critical acclaim.

Remember, Netflix isn't built to replace feature film, it's built to replace cable TV. I'm not sure how you could make the argument that cable TV hasn't always had its share of cheap, uninspired content. I'd argue the other way and say that Television in general is a sub-mediocre space with a small number of true standouts. I'd say Netflix is comparable to that reality in regards to their original programming.

I'm not seeing the bounty of AA indies you describe either. Seems like there is a stark gulf in budget between even the most ambitious indies and the AAA titles from the largest publishers.

Back on topic:

Impressive growth numbers. The service is really starting to catch fire now.

 

[Aguero9320]

I don’t have a major problem with the thread after Evilore changed the stupid original rule, but it does make Gaf a bit less useful for me. It takes much longer to read this thread to find out if anything interesting has happened, than it did to dip in and out of the other threads. Here I have to really read every post, regardless of whether it’s of interest, because the topic is so broad. So I end up reading all that crap about Putin and censorship because I don’t know if the thread is going to get back on track or not.

As a result, I haven’t bothered reading it much - it’s actually a massive waste of my time.

Not expecting anyone to care, just some feedback on how this change has made Gaf a little less relevant to me personally. Would have been much better to implement some kind of rule to discourage the console wars IMO.

 

[SportsFan581]

I don’t have a major problem with the thread after Evilore changed the stupid original rule, but it does make Gaf a bit less useful for me. It takes much longer to read this thread to find out if anything interesting has happened, than it did to dip in and out of the other threads. Here I have to really read every post, regardless of whether it’s of interest, because the topic is so broad. So I end up reading all that crap about Putin and censorship because I don’t know if the thread is going to get back on track or not.

As a result, I haven’t bothered reading it much - it’s actually a massive waste of my time.

Not expecting anyone to care, just some feedback on how this change has made Gaf a little less relevant to me personally. Would have been much better to implement some kind of rule to discourage the console wars IMO.

Agreed. I feel like locking the obvious offenders would have taken care of the excessive thread problem on its own. But, we work with what we've got.

 

[Spacefish]

So, that is the crux of your argument.

No its not, stop misinterpreting me if you want me to stop spamming this thread.
TLDR
Services lead to devaluation which leads to traditional market collapse which leads to irreversible control in corporate hands instead of consumers.

I said multiple times that services weren't currently bad for film and TV only that they degrade over time (as new services crop up, content splinters and companies stop bleeding money on investment you pay more for less than you used to, this trend is going to continue till it reaches breaking point when the mass market pushes back, the mass market has much lower standards than the enthusiast). This was semi positive for film and tv because the old gatekeepers were even worse. Videogames are in a different position. Streaming services are already replacing cinema, this was happening even before the pandemic.

 

[SportsFan581]

No its not, stop misinterpreting me if you want me to stop spamming this thread.
TLDR
Services lead to devaluation which leads to traditional market collapse which leads to irreversible control in corporate hands instead of consumers.

I said multiple times that services weren't currently bad for film and TV only that they degrade over time (you are paying more for less than you used to, this trend is going to continue till it reaches breaking point when the mass market says fuck it, the mass market has much lower standards than the enthusiast). This was semi positive for film and tv because the old gatekeepers were even worse. Videogames are in a different position. Streaming services are already replacing cinema, this was happening even before the pandemic.

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

Again, I just think your argument is completely flawed from all angles. In regards to TV, yes users are spending less over any given period of time, so, that is a separate discussion. A much more complicated discussion at that since traditional TV is funded via advertisers and not end-users. I'm not sure how Netflix has put users in a position of paying more while getting less either. They have increased their pricing sure, but they are also spending more $$ on content per subscriber than they ever have. This becomes just a bit of personal preference whether you like the projects they are greenlighting or not, no different from traditional OTA TV.

However, in gaming, a monthly $10 subscription increases the lifetime spend of a user over the course of a typical console generation. Where even in the best case scenario the user traditionally will spend maybe $60x12 = $720 over the life of a console generation (and that's using industry averages that include every sale on the platform). And let's be honest, many people take advantage of sales (especially on digital), so lowering that total to say $300 or $350 isn't unrealistic in the least. We could compare that with 7 years of a $10 subscription and see that our spend is a solid $840. In gaming, subscriptions can easily increase the size of the pot overall rather than degrade it.

With the popularity of steam sales, you'd likely see the similar result there. There will always be outliers/big spenders, but working the averages the gaming subs are not trending the way you think.

I'll concede the one point, and that is that a successful GP style service does place the party curating the content in a much more powerful position than they would traditionally be in.

 

[Spacefish]

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

Again, I just think your argument is completely flawed from all angles. In regards to TV, yes users are spending less over any given period of time, so, that is a separate discussion. A much more complicated discussion at that since traditional TV is funded via advertisers and not end-users. I'm not sure how Netflix has put users in a position of paying more while getting less either. They have increased their pricing sure, but they are also spending more $$ on content per subscriber than they ever have. This becomes just a bit of personal preference whether you like the projects they are greenlighting or not, no different from traditional OTA TV.

However, in gaming, a monthly $10 subscription increases the lifetime spend of a user over the course of a typical console generation. Where even in the best case scenario the user traditionally will spend maybe $60x12 = $720 over the life of a console generation (and that's using industry averages that include every sale on the platform). And let's be honest, many people take advantage of sales (especially on digital), so lowering that total to say $300 or $350 isn't unrealistic in the least. We could compare that with 7 years of a $10 subscription and see that our spend is a solid $840. In gaming, subscriptions can easily increase the size of the pot overall rather than degrade it.

With the popularity of steam sales, you'd likely see the similar result there. There will always be outliers/big spenders, but working the averages the gaming subs are not trending the way you think.

I'll concede the one point, and that is that a successful GP style service does place the party curating the content in a much more powerful position than they would traditionally be in.

sure we should end it there.

The last thing ill say is your optimism about a debatable increase in total industry income only makes sense if you view Microsoft as a non profit charity that cares about art. Unfortunately, Microsoft is a business that deals in more than theoretical future gains, they have to eventually take that money.

 

[Bladed Thesis]

TLDR
Services lead to devaluation which leads to traditional market collapse which leads to irreversible control in corporate hands instead of consumers.

Yes!

Traditional market was buying a CD for $20 when you wanted 2-4 songs. Traditional market was paying $20 to watch a DVD of a movie. The traditional market was corporation dictating to consumers HOW WHEN WHERE and for HOW MUCH the consumer could consume media. And it was non-negotiable. You either paid $10 for a movie ticket or paid $20 for the DVD if you wanted to watch that movie. That traditional market, regardless if you're a physical media purist or collector, was NOT pro consumer. It was not controlled by consumers. It was 100% controlled by the corporations. So we're already operating from a place of corporate control. Acting like streaming services is GIVING control BACK to corporations is ridiculous. They never lost the control with physical media.

The music industry has totally not collapsed. There are more albums being made, more content being generated for music streaming platforms. And your argument of "artists hate streaming platforms, they make less money" is true for the major artists only really and that's because before consumers were being charged $20 for a CD that had 2-4 songs they wanted. The streaming of music has changed that game and yes major artists are no longer reaping the benefits of selling $20 albums.

Same goes for TV. Instead of paying $150 a month for cable because you wanted to watch 4-6 shows specifically, now you can pay $60 to get access to the content you want from 4-5 different platforms. Cable was overpriced for what people WANTED and the market has reacted. Cord cutting didn't just happen because consumers were robots who were told by their corporate overlords to unplug. That makes zero sense.

You seem to be confusing consumers getting what they wanted and are arguing that they should just pay for the overpriced media in the way media companies want to deliver it. Well, that's a very outdated market analysis.

Funny how your argument is about corporate control but you are completely missing the point that if the CONSUMERS wanted to consume media in the way that corporations presented it then streaming would have failed. Nobody was being forced to subscribe. Netflix wasn't forced on people in the beginning. And yet it succeeded. How? How did Netflix beat Blockbuster which was very much the corporate control and was supported by all the media conglomerates? You think all the cinema media corporations want to stream? They were making hand over fist selling physical media to people. Pay $20 for a blu-ray you watched 1-2 times when you first get it and once every 2-3 years afterwards.

TLDR: Corporations are/were always making a killing with physical media and don't/didn't want the digital revolution OR the streaming revolution. If you're a "i want to own my games/movies/music physically" purist, don't use the argument that physical media was some how liberated from corporations when it was how they spoonfed media while they dictated the price, the time, the release, the format, everything. Don't even get me started on how corporations have marketed physical media format upgrades to monetize the repurchasing of media libraries.

 

[Hezekiah]

Shouldnt generic discussions about the service like the number of subscriptions be included in this thread, otherwise it reduces the point of it?:

Game Pass is at 23m subs as of April 20th 2021

when did gamepass come out? in 2017? does anyone have an official chart metric

www.neogaf.com

 

[Spacefish]

Yes!

Traditional market was buying a CD for $20 when you wanted 2-4 songs. Traditional market was paying $20 to watch a DVD of a movie. The traditional market was corporation dictating to consumers HOW WHEN WHERE and for HOW MUCH the consumer could consume media. And it was non-negotiable. You either paid $10 for a movie ticket or paid $20 for the DVD if you wanted to watch that movie. That traditional market, regardless if you're a physical media purist or collector, was NOT pro consumer. It was not controlled by consumers. It was 100% controlled by the corporations. So we're already operating from a place of corporate control. Acting like streaming services is GIVING control BACK to corporations is ridiculous. They never lost the control with physical media.

The music industry has totally not collapsed. There are more albums being made, more content being generated for music streaming platforms. And your argument of "artists hate streaming platforms, they make less money" is true for the major artists only really and that's because before consumers were being charged $20 for a CD that had 2-4 songs they wanted. The streaming of music has changed that game and yes major artists are no longer reaping the benefits of selling $20 albums.

Same goes for TV. Instead of paying $150 a month for cable because you wanted to watch 4-6 shows specifically, now you can pay $60 to get access to the content you want from 4-5 different platforms. Cable was overpriced for what people WANTED and the market has reacted. Cord cutting didn't just happen because consumers were robots who were told by their corporate overlords to unplug. That makes zero sense.

You seem to be confusing consumers getting what they wanted and are arguing that they should just pay for the overpriced media in the way media companies want to deliver it. Well, that's a very outdated market analysis.

Funny how your argument is about corporate control but you are completely missing the point that if the CONSUMERS wanted to consume media in the way that corporations presented it then streaming would have failed. Nobody was being forced to subscribe. Netflix wasn't forced on people in the beginning. And yet it succeeded. How? How did Netflix beat Blockbuster which was very much the corporate control and was supported by all the media conglomerates? You think all the cinema media corporations want to stream? They were making hand over fist selling physical media to people. Pay $20 for a blu-ray you watched 1-2 times when you first get it and once every 2-3 years afterwards.

TLDR: Corporations are/were always making a killing with physical media and don't/didn't want the digital revolution OR the streaming revolution. If you're a "i want to own my games/movies/music physically" purist, don't use the argument that physical media was some how liberated from corporations when it was how they spoonfed media while they dictated the price, the time, the release, the format, everything. Don't even get me started on how corporations have marketed physical media format upgrades to monetize the repurchasing of media libraries.

you missed my point, it wasn't defending physical media. We did finally escape from corporate control that existed with physical media (the publishers who caused the creatively bankrupt modern AAA space and film industry). Videogames are the only digital media with a healthy digital market that isn't gate kept. Indie devs set their own prices, not giant corporations and people are willing to pay. Devs don't need to go on tour to make ends meet, they don't need to negotiate with giant corporations or publishers for royalties and distribution logistics, they make good shit then sell it. If you want to argue indie games are overpriced and anti consumer then we just disagree. I don't agree that musicians are in a healthy place when an album that takes moths to years to make is worth little more than a google search.

sure, people weren't forced, they choose using short term thinking, you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. China's disproportionate economic and political control wasn't forced on us, we walked into it on the highs of dirt cheap produce. A good deal isn't always pro consumer long term.

 

[Sealord of Braavos]

Shouldnt generic discussions about the service like the number of subscriptions be included in this thread, otherwise it reduces the point of it?:

Game Pass is at 23m subs as of April 20th 2021

when did gamepass come out? in 2017? does anyone have an official chart metric

www.neogaf.com

Eh, I think general discussion of Game Pass is fine for this thread, but if a news story warrants it - and I think the upsurge in Game Pass subscription growth that 23M suggest does - I happen to think it shouldn’t have to be automatically buried in this thread.

I find it so bizarre that good news related to Game Pass causes so much anguish for some. These folks are likely to never use the service so why become so invested emotionally? Just carry on doing what you are happy doing.

 

[SportsFan581]

The last thing ill say is your optimism about a debatable increase in total industry income only makes sense if you view Microsoft as a non profit charity that cares about art. Unfortunately, Microsoft is a business that deals in more than theoretical future gains, they have to eventually take that money.

Don't worry, I fully understand that MS, like all corporations, like those profits.

Gaming isn't a business with the highest rate of return. Especially on the software side, when you look at the numbers put up by the most successful publishers you'll see 15-20% operating returns, maybe 25%. Could MS want more than that, sure. But they could also gladly accept that rate of return and just look to grow their base of subscribers (like Netflix which still spends about 89% of their revenue on operation costs) to grow that profit number. Which would give them a nice amount of cash to spend on original content and third-party adds.

 

[Hezekiah]

Eh, I think general discussion of Game Pass is fine for this thread, but if a news story warrants it - and I think the upsurge in Game Pass subscription growth that 23M suggest does - I happen to think it shouldn’t have to be automatically buried in this thread.

I find it so bizarre that good news related to Game Pass causes so much anguish for some. These folks are likely to never use the service so why become so invested emotionally? Just carry on doing what you are happy doing.

Every time some random person tweets something about numbers there'll be a thread on it.

No idea why you're bringing feelings into it - this thread was created for a reason....

 

[Sealord of Braavos]

No idea why you're bringing feelings into it - this thread was created for a reason....

....to prevent some people from FEELINGS of annoyance at seeing so much positive Game Pass talk on the main page?

I do hear where you are coming from, but honestly I don’t think this thread is enough to contain the Game Pass discourse completely. I get the feeling that another Game Pass megaton is imminent (just a gut feeling) so prepare yourself accordingly.

 

[Halo is Back]

nice, excited to play DAH

 

[Hezekiah]

....to prevent some people from FEELINGS of annoyance at seeing so much positive Game Pass talk on the main page?

I do hear where you are coming from, but honestly I don’t think this thread is enough to contain the Game Pass discourse completely. I get the feeling that another Game Pass megaton is imminent (just a gut feeling) so prepare yourself accordingly.

There will be a 'GamePass megaton' threads every week by some people's standards on here. But most users don't want a ton of GamePass threads filling up the front page.

 

[MOTM]

Every time some random person tweets something about numbers there'll be a thread on it.

No idea why you're bringing feelings into it - this thread was created for a reason....

Random people tweet sales numbers of PS5’s all the time. Nobody crying about that.

 

[Hezekiah]

Random people tweet sales numbers of PS5’s all the time. Nobody crying about that.

So ask the mods for a thread on that, don't cry to me about it??

 

[Bogroll]

My mind for a split second went huh as the Playstation logos came on as I thought my playstation was on as I loaded MLB.

 

[Kilau]

My mind for a split second went huh as the Playstation logos came on as I thought my playstation was on as I loaded MLB.

Definitely a moment of pause there for me lol