Support NeoGAF

[IDappa]

Battlefield would be a huge get and hella expensive. BF1 sold 20 million copies across three platforms. so EA would be looking to replicate those numbers. If MS wants it, i am guessing EA would ask for something that equals 7 million sales at a $60 price tag.

That's $420 million. Maybe EA lets it go for half that if MS can convince them that the next gen version wont sell 7 million on consoles that barely even have a 7 million install base right now. Also, i suspect a guaranteed $200 million check is hella tempting to EA which might not have faith in this franchise after a big misstep last time around.

MS has an 18 million gamepass monthly install base. that should grow to 20 million by fall. thats $200 million in revenue every month. they can easily break even. It would also big a massive get and go a long way towards convincing the general public that gamepass isnt just B games and first party AAA games, but also third party AAA games on day one.

that said, if the ps5 version ends up selling 7 million copies in november and december then their CEO would have to answer some serious questions from shareholders.

You need to remember that yes BF1 and BF3/4 were bangers which really pushed battlefield as a CoD contender battlefield 5 completely fucked all that up and angered a big chunk of the playerbase.

 

[SlimySnake]

You need to remember that yes BF1 and BF3/4 were bangers which really pushed battlefield as a CoD contender battlefield 5 completely fucked all that up and angered a big chunk of the playerbase.

right, i did remember that which is why i said this:

Also, i suspect a guaranteed $200 million check is hella tempting to EA which might not have faith in this franchise after a big misstep last time around.

 

[93xfan]

Guess that rules out Halo, amirite?

/s

OP did make the thread at 3:43PM...

 

[MadPanda]

I honestly don't understand the craze for these so called insiders and leaks.

What do we get from that? I'm not talking about this guy in particular but in general. Most of the time they just spoil the official reveal and I hate it.

Also, often times those insiders and similar look like attention whores, trying to get the spotlight on them even for a brief moment.

Rant over.

 

[bender]

My mom used to take me to Pizza Hut to redeem a free personal pan pizza as part of their Book It! program. Needless to say, Reggie and I are on a first name basis. He let me in on a little secret.

Splatoon 3

 

[RPS37]

Halo isn't third party!

 

[M16]

Battlefield would be a huge get and hella expensive. BF1 sold 20 million copies across three platforms. so EA would be looking to replicate those numbers. If MS wants it, i am guessing EA would ask for something that equals 7 million sales at a $60 price tag.

That's $420 million. Maybe EA lets it go for half that if MS can convince them that the next gen version wont sell 7 million on consoles that barely even have a 7 million install base right now. Also, i suspect a guaranteed $200 million check is hella tempting to EA which might not have faith in this franchise after a big misstep last time around.

MS has an 18 million gamepass monthly install base. that should grow to 20 million by fall. thats $200 million in revenue every month. they can easily break even. It would also big a massive get and go a long way towards convincing the general public that gamepass isnt just B games and first party AAA games, but also third party AAA games on day one.

that said, if the ps5 version ends up selling 7 million copies in november and december then their CEO would have to answer some serious questions from shareholders.

xbox and ps take a 30% cut, so its not $60 ,more like $42. so the math turns out to be $294 million for 7 million copies. also those 20 million copies are lifetime and not all full price.
lets also not forget that games on gamepass can leave, so they could still sell copies after gamepass.
i bet the price isnt as steep as some may think.

 

[IDappa]

right, i did remember that which is why i said this:

Except you are still thinking they'd be able to ask that price as if BF5 didn't exist in that same post. it wasn't just this minor misstep as your reply seems to lead on which is why I pointed out they had lost plenty of goodwill and a good chunk of their fanbase. Really there isn't any need to be a snarky cunt also.

 

[Xaero Gravity]

Fits the timeline and its a first-person shooter and likely be in gamepass day one. Its third game, so its new!

Wasn't that already confirmed for Game Pass though?

 

[longdi]

Battlefield would be a huge get and hella expensive. BF1 sold 20 million copies across three platforms. so EA would be looking to replicate those numbers. If MS wants it, i am guessing EA would ask for something that equals 7 million sales at a $60 price tag.

That's $420 million. Maybe EA lets it go for half that if MS can convince them that the next gen version wont sell 7 million on consoles that barely even have a 7 million install base right now. Also, i suspect a guaranteed $200 million check is hella tempting to EA which might not have faith in this franchise after a big misstep last time around.

MS has an 18 million gamepass monthly install base. that should grow to 20 million by fall. thats $200 million in revenue every month. they can easily break even. It would also big a massive get and go a long way towards convincing the general public that gamepass isnt just B games and first party AAA games, but also third party AAA games on day one.

that said, if the ps5 version ends up selling 7 million copies in november and december then their CEO would have to answer some serious questions from shareholders.

while the sums are more complicated in real life.

imo this is not much difference than buying a 3 month exclusivity. i can see BF on GP rotation for 3-6 months or you need to foot the DLC upgrades.
BF and COD can be played for a year or more.

with how cosy MS EA are now, you need EA origin login to use GP, meaning selling your data to EA too.

the monthly GP subs will help pay off partially for Phil. that's the beauty of confirmed reccuring income from subs.

so the exclusivity money hats may not be pricey or risky than the tradition money hatting that jimbo has engaged in

 

[SlimySnake]

Except you are still thinking they'd be able to ask that price as if BF5 didn't exist in that same post. it wasn't just this minor misstep as your reply seems to lead on which is why I pointed out they had lost plenty of goodwill and a good chunk of their fanbase. Really there isn't any need to be a snarky cunt also.

i am literally halving the asking price from $420 million to $200 million because of BF5 missteps because like you said, EA cant exactly said ask for 7 million units worth of revenue because MS would just point out the fact that BFV not only flopped but also poisoned the well.

And i said a big misstep, not a minor one. I am not sure how to go about proving this without quoting myself but here it is again, but at the risk of triggering you and being called a cunt, i will post it again.

might not have faith in this franchise after a big misstep last time around.

 

[SlimySnake]

xbox and ps take a 30% cut, so its not $60 ,more like $42. so the math turns out to be $294 million for 7 million copies. also those 20 million copies are lifetime and not all full price.
lets also not forget that games on gamepass can leave, so they could still sell copies after gamepass.
i bet the price isnt as steep as some may think.

thats a good point. the game is also available for sale on day one so its not like its a gamepass exclusive. if the sales are anything like outriders, we are looking at 15% sales outside of gamepass. thats roughly a million units they can sell on their own.

but those 20 million sales were all in the first year. lifetime the game did much better.

EA Reports Big Sales Numbers For 2017, Led By Battlefield 1

Electronic Arts’ big gaming year hasn’t even gotten started yet, with Star Wars: Battlefront II and a number of its sports games set to debut over the next few months. But the company reported its latest numbers for the second part of the 2017 fiscal year today, and things are looking good...

comicbook.com

again, its about what MS offers and what EA counters with. i think MS can easily afford to offer $200 million and EA would likely counter with $294 million using your math above. but then MS would point out that they could still sell a million units using the outriders number and bring it down a bit more to around $250 million range.

and who knows, maybe MS might have 25 million monthly subs by then if they keep this up over the summer. maybe RE8 would be far cheaper. maybe microsoft will be willing to take a loss that month just to make a big splash. it could be seen as an investment. i mean netflix didnt make any money for over a decade and they just poured in everything they made back into buying and creating content.

 

[Stuart360]

i am literally halving the asking price from $420 million to $200 million because of BF5 missteps because like you said, EA cant exactly said ask for 7 million units worth of revenue because MS would just point out the fact that BFV not only flopped but also poisoned the well.

And i said a big misstep, not a minor one. I am not sure how to go about proving this without quoting myself but here it is again, but at the risk of triggering you and being called a cunt, i will post it again.

You also have to remember that BF6 will almost certainly be like COD is with its store full of mtx and downloadable stuff (it is EA afterall), and COD literally makes hundreds of millions a month for its store. I'm sure EA would be very open to the idea of the game being on Gamepass, and have a few million extra gamers with the potential to spend money in the store.
I think the price for Microsoft to get this game on Gamepass will be a lot lower than people think.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Battlefield would be the obvious guess, but what if there's a Titanfall 3 on the horizon.

YouTube: HUGE XBOX News!! NeoGaf insider, Little Chicken, hints that Horizon Zero Dawn may be coming to Xbox! /s

 

[Heisenberg007]

Seems like Battlefield. Will be another huge get for GamePass if true.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

no joke, try Battlefield Hardline. WAY smaller maps, way less sniping, more arcadey and a cool campaign that is also super arcadey. the campaign is like an arcade stealth shooter, you can creep up to people and put them in handcuffs as a stealth move for example.

it is the only Battlefield game I really enjoyed ever. It was developed by Viceral Games (Dead Space)

LOL. Out of all the BF games, BF5 and Hardline are the only ones I never played. I even played 1943 on XBL (hated it). I never bothered with Hardline as it looked like an offshoot game, but given how I hate giant maps with snipers everywhere if there's one BF I should have tried is that game. lol

 

[twilo99]

Seems like Battlefield. Will be another huge get for GamePass if true.

Doubt it, but it would be big. Hopefully its on PC as well.

 

[Clintizzle]

Far Cry?

 

[Ryu Hayabusa]

 

[Heisenberg007]

Doubt it, but it would be big. Hopefully its on PC as well.

Highly doubt it. I'd bet my money against it. At this point, I'd assume that any big game launching on GamePass will only be the console version.

 

[johnjohn]

Battlefield would be massive.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

You never know. People doubted GP would get a day one game like Outriders or Sony games. It happened. EA was an extra fee. Got rolled into GPU at no extra cost to that tier.

MS also buddies up with EA with EA Play (or EA Access) since day one back in 2014 or 2015 when it launched, while Sony has partnership lock with COD. Funny how this is the reverse from the 360/PS3 days.

So if Sony is going to do their usual time exclusive COD content and extra early beta access for PS gamers, then MS might as well go full out and just get BF on GP.

 

[Stuart360]

Highly doubt it. I'd bet my money against it. At this point, I'd assume that any big game launching on GamePass will only be the console version.

Maybe but i'm not sure. I dont think they could get Outriders beccause of the very impressive sales it was gettting on Steam for the last 2 or 3 months. It seems Outriders isnt doing nearly as well on console.. The difference with Battlefiled 6 though is that PC Gmaepass has EA PLus integrated, and you get a 10 hour trial anyway. So i actually feel the PC would get it. I mean the 18mil Gamepass number covers both PC and console, and the amount of subscribers is the amount of subscribers, it doesnt matter if the PC usrbase draws the Xbox userbase, itd going to go on the Gamepass sub numbers.

 

[IDKFA]

Hopefully it's Battlefield!

I think the gaming God's heard me when I said I never wanted to purchase another game again and wanted all AAA third party games to release day one on Gamepass!

It's happening! BF could just be the start! We could be looking at a future where every game is released on Gamepass from day one and never leaves the service!

Please, please be true!

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Maybe but i'm not sure. I dont think they could get Outriders beccause of the very impressive sales it was gettting on Steam for the last 2 or 3 months. It seems Outriders isnt doing nearly as well on console.. The difference with Battlefiled 6 though is that PC Gmaepass has EA PLus integrated, and you get a 10 hour trial anyway. So i actually feel the PC would get it. I mean the 18mil Gamepass number covers both PC and console, and the amount of subscribers is the amount of subscribers, it doesnt matter if the PC usrbase draws the Xbox userbase, itd going to go on the Gamepass sub numbers.

Another way they can entice GP partnership is just adjusting their current strategy. Right now, a game is on GP or not. And if someone has GP sub, you get 20% off games if it's listed on GP.

They could just do something more conservative like 50% off instead of 20%. It's not a GP game for free, but the promo discount is much more. Who says every GP discount has to be only 20% off and only on participating listed games?

Think of it like bargain price promos for GP subbers only.

 

[Stuart360]

Another way they can entice GP partnership is just adjusting their current strategy. Right now, a game is on GP or not. And if someone has GP sub, you get 20% off games.

They could just do something more conservative like 50% off instead of 20%. It's not a GP game for free, but the promo discount is much more. Who says every GP discount has to be only 20% off?

Well i think people also need to remember that the whole point of doing these kind of deals for big name games is to get more people into subbing on Gamepass, so it would make little sense for Microsoft not to try there hardest to get the game for PC Gamepass also.
Like i said, i think Outriders was the exception, not the norm. I always got the impression that the Outriders deal was made pretty late in the day.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Well i think people also need to remember that the whole point of doing these kind of deals for big name games is to get more people into subbing on Gamepass, so it would make little sense for Microsoft not to try there hardest to get the game for PC Gamepass also.
Like i said, i think Outriders was the exception, not the norm. I always got the impression that the Outriders deal was made pretty late in the day.

With Outriders on GP and Avengers already on PS+, there's no way these games were strategically planned with MS and Sony a year or two ago during development.

That is one good thing about these sub plans. It gives game makers an option to change strategy if selling games at $60 looks like failure.

 

[DAHGAMING]

I'll pass.

Youl GamePASS , thats what you willl do, youl do what Lord Phil says. What Phil wants is what Phil gets.

 

[Mr.ODST]

If its battlefield 6 ... holy shit that would be huge.

Can see it now ... BF6 launches on gamepass day 1, thousands of threads about how it sold better on PS5 and why game pass is shit.

 

[Panajev2001a]

I think the gaming God's heard me when I said I never wanted to purchase another game again and wanted all AAA third party games to release day one on Gamepass!

MTX hell mobile gaming like seems to be what you are asking the console industry to become… oh well…the publishers will get their $60-100 for average consumer with the game purchase or by bleeding the whales dry afterwards designing games to make you purchase consumables and cosmetics and other elements over and over.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

MTX hell mobile gaming like seems to be what you are asking the console industry to become… oh well…the publishers will get their $60-100 for average consumer with the game purchase or by bleeding the whales dry afterwards designing games to make you purchase consumables and cosmetics and other elements over and over.

On the plus side, at least partnership deals with Sony and MS has money involved to prop up quality. All those F2P gaas games have no other funding.

We just don't now how much $$$ is involved.

If that leaked Capcom report was correct with Google paying Capcom $10 million just to bring RE to Stadia (without even a timed exclusivity deal or anything.... just please port it over), and Sony paying Capcom $5 million for timed exclusivity for a VR game, just imagine how much $$$ are thrown around for bigger deals.

 

[Panajev2001a]

On the plus side, at least partnership deals with Sony and MS has money involved to prop up quality. All those F2P gaas games have no other funding.

We just don't now how much $$$ is involved.

For now, but scale it to the idea the poster had about ALL games being on GP and on GP only… gaming would have to change. We may be happy to reap momentarily benefits until the system changes much more than we would like (MTX based free to play games affect game design, the landscape would change… we are hiding our head in the sand about the cost of making games nowadays especially without massive MTX when we jump in horror at $70 games, but publishers will still want that money out of the average player somehow —> predatory MTX or they will cheapen things out to maintain the profit margins or both).

Some third parties already use the term "optimised for GamePass" and we know where that will lead.

 

[IDKFA]

MTX hell mobile gaming like seems to be what you are asking the console industry to become… oh well…the publishers will get their $60-100 for average consumer with the game purchase or by bleeding the whales dry afterwards designing games to make you purchase consumables and cosmetics and other elements over and over.

As long as the base game is "free" I'm okay with that. Give it a few years and you won't be able to purchase a game outright. Not many anyway. The future is subscription services. I'm newly converted thanks to GP and I never want to go back to the days where I need to purchase a game for £70. That's just outrageous in this day and age.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Maybe but i'm not sure. I dont think they could get Outriders beccause of the very impressive sales it was gettting on Steam for the last 2 or 3 months. It seems Outriders isnt doing nearly as well on console.. The difference with Battlefiled 6 though is that PC Gmaepass has EA PLus integrated, and you get a 10 hour trial anyway. So i actually feel the PC would get it. I mean the 18mil Gamepass number covers both PC and console, and the amount of subscribers is the amount of subscribers, it doesnt matter if the PC usrbase draws the Xbox userbase, itd going to go on the Gamepass sub numbers.

It seems doubtful to me because PC market is quite big (compared to Xbox console owners). If a gamepass deal includes the PC version, it would cost MS significantly more.

Moreover, neither Xbox nor PS see PC as a direct competitor as much anymore, compared to how each console platform sees the competitor in the other console platform. So it makes more sense to pronounce the value there -- and save some money while you're at it. I think that's the big reason why Outriders also didn't launch on PC. These deals, from a business POV, are meant to discourage sales on PlayStation and to encourage more PlayStation users to subscribe to GamePass (and abandoning the PS platform).

Just my 2 cents. But guess we'll see it in the next few months, if this rumor is true.

 

[Heisenberg007]

MTX hell mobile gaming like seems to be what you are asking the console industry to become… oh well…the publishers will get their $60-100 for average consumer with the game purchase or by bleeding the whales dry afterwards designing games to make you purchase consumables and cosmetics and other elements over and over.

This is a very valid point. The problem is when one brings it up, he/she will be labeled as a Sony Pony who hates Gamepass for no reason. But if games are encouraged to launch on subscription services day one, there is a higher probability that devs will include other monetization options in the game (MTX or in-game purchases).

MTX is okay if it doesn't affect gameplay. But there is no definite line for dev. "Experimentation" can easily become "manipulation" and a game can very quickly turn out to be pay-to-win.

While we are all enjoying day-1 launches on GamePass (they do benefit subscribers immensely, at least in the short term), we must also be wary of a darker future and be ready to oppose it if it raises its ugly head.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

For now, but scale it to the idea the poster had about ALL games being on GP and on GP only… gaming would have to change. We may be happy to reap momentarily benefits until the system changes much more than we would like (MTX based free to play games affect game design, the landscape would change… we are hiding our head in the sand about the cost of making games nowadays especially without massive MTX when we jump in horror at $70 games, but publishers will still want that money out of the average player somehow —> predatory MTX or they will cheapen things out to maintain the profit margins or both).

Some third parties already use the term "optimised for GamePass" and we know where that will lead.

Good point.

But also, gaming companies are all making record profits, where many of them make their big cash on mtx not disc/copy sales. They just dont want to PR that until forced to during quarterly earnings reports because if you do that in the face of gamers it looks bad.

All the PR about high cost of dev, overhead and studios closing due to being broke is counter to what record profit financials say. That's why they never say those things to gamers in the same Q&A session.

Since profit margins are so big, if they really wanted to, many could probably release at least some of their games on PS Now or GP only with a partnership deal, take a hit to overall sales with zero disc copy sales and the company still does fine.

We'll never get that as corporations are all about profits and more importantly growth. No company wants to be stagnant or sink.

That guy you responded to also didn't say GP only. His interest seems to be the current model for some games, which is GP access, but also disc sales for the rest. So not a 100% GP thing. There will still be opportunity for sales from traditional purchase games.

 

[Panajev2001a]

As long as the base game is "free" I'm okay with that. Give it a few years and you won't be able to purchase a game outright. Not many anyway. The future is subscription services. I'm newly converted thanks to GP and I never want to go back to the days where I need to purchase a game for £70. That's just outrageous in this day and age.

I prefer to buy less but enjoy more than get more and just engage with my daily allotment of dopamine hits: not all games deserve my $70, but some do and I pay what things are worth if I can afford to (…and if not I would wait). I think you say you are ok with it as you still imagine games not to change and stay the experiences you are accustomed to… oh well… .

 

[Fess]

I want Far Cry 6, is there any chance that's what's talked about?

 

[Panajev2001a]

MTX is okay if it doesn't affect gameplay

I do not believe it is possible.

Once the bulk of the game dev cost and profits come from MTX, I do not believe MTX can be done in a way that does not affect the gameplay aside from a button that says "send the devs $20 to help support their games".

 

[johnjohn]

This is a very valid point. The problem is when one brings it up, he/she will be labeled as a Sony Pony who hates Gamepass for no reason. But if games are encouraged to launch on subscription services day one, there is a higher probability that devs will include other monetization options in the game (MTX or in-game purchases).

MTX is okay if it doesn't affect gameplay. But there is no definite line for dev. "Experimentation" can easily become "manipulation" and a game can very quickly turn out to be pay-to-win.

While we are all enjoying day-1 launches on GamePass (they do benefit subscribers immensely, at least in the short term), we must also be wary of a darker future and be ready to oppose it if it raises its ugly head.

Devs are encouraged to have as many monetization options in their games as possible with or without Game Pass. The goal of game development is to make as much money as possible.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I prefer to buy less but enjoy more than get more and just engage with my daily allotment of dopamine hits: not all games deserve my $70, but some do and I pay what things are worth if I can afford to (…and if not I would wait). I think you say you are ok with it as you still imagine games not to change and stay the experiences you are accustomed to… oh well… .

I never pay full price. Cant even remember the last time I did. I do home sharing too which splits the cost. Only time I'm willing to get in right away is sometimes COD as shooters it's important to get in right away to learn the maps and level up fast than be a Christmas noob. Last time I bought a $60-70 game at full price on my own without any kind of E3 deal..... I don't even remember. Might had been during the 360 days.

Deals come so fast, I just wait for $30 or GP. Or EA Access. I don't care. I'll play last years NHL games.

The problem the industry has done which hurts themselves is the urgency for giant discounts fast. No other industry does this. You don't seem music or movie makers dumping tracks or BR discs at 60% off after half a year.

But that's competition. Most companies have an inherent strive to race to the bottom for pricing. However, not all do that. Nintendo, Activision and R* games hold prices well till there's discounts (Nintendo has got to be the best at it). And oddly, some quirky games like Farm Sims or Game Hunter games can somehow stick at $40 for a while too.

And when you do that, it just trains people to wait it out. Or just buy Nintendo, Activision and Deer Hunter at a high price because they know those wont be dumped two months later.

 

[IDKFA]

I prefer to buy less but enjoy more than get more and just engage with my daily allotment of dopamine hits: not all games deserve my $70, but some do and I pay what things are worth if I can afford to (…and if not I would wait). I think you say you are ok with it as you still imagine games not to change and stay the experiences you are accustomed to… oh well… .

I really don't imagine it changing the gaming landscape. Will we have more MTX and add one? Sure. But the base game experience will still be the same, just removing the £70 entry fee.

Imagine a future where games like Dragons Dogma 2, RE9, FIFA, etc release day one on GP or some equivalent streaming service. We're not far off with heavy hitters like ES6 and Starfield coming to Gamepass day one, and I doubt those games won't be filled with MTX.

I'm living in a future where I can get AAA games day one for £10.99 per month! I want to go further and want to be able to download all AAA games from every publisher on day one without having to blast £70 on a single game.

 

[ZywyPL]

I can see BF6 being the said game - EA is already on GP to begin with, plus BF series is on a serious downhill, so putting it on GP could make the franchise more popular again. The game already makes most of its profit from the DLC sales, so extending the userbase via GP could mean a much higher end profit for EA.

Or maybe EA is silently cooking up TF3 (fingers crossed).

MTX hell mobile gaming like seems to be what you are asking the console industry to become… oh well…the publishers will get their $60-100 for average consumer with the game purchase or by bleeding the whales dry afterwards designing games to make you purchase consumables and cosmetics and other elements over and over.

Isn't it more or less the same already? Most profits nowadays come from the post-launch DLC sales, not the units sold at launch window, that's why games launch unfinished, and that's the reason we see games dropping down the prices sooner than ever before, it's all about building a large playerbase as soon as possible. Which all makes sense since spending a few bucks every now and then is much, MUCH easier on the wallet for most people than paying up front the full price, which at the end of the day turns out that people actually spend more, way more than they would otherwise, as seen with the mobile market and F2P titles (especially the latter is giving a tremendous competition to MP-oriented, fully priced titles).

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Isn't it more or less the same already? Most profits nowadays come from the post-launch DLC sales, not the units sold at launch window, that's why games launch unfinished, and that's the reason we see games dropping down the prices sooner than ever before, it's all about building a large playerbase as soon as possible. Which all makes sense since spending a few bucks every now and then is much, MUCH easier on the wallet for most people than paying up front the full price, which at the end of the day turns out that people actually spend more, way more than they would otherwise, as seen with the mobile market and F2P titles (especially the latter is giving a tremendous competition to MP-oriented, fully priced titles).

No doubt.

Depending on the game, its way more important for giant player base free or cheap + mtx vs. lower player base $60 + mtx. If a game has an image of low user base, gamers will avoid it and then it's a lame duck. I don't remember too many games like this making a comeback. Maybe RS: Siege is one though.

That's why Activision (out of all greedy fucks) even does free Warzone. I bet there's tons of gamers who skip buying Call of Duty, but just milk free BR mode. Sounds counterintuitive since it looks like tons of sales will be lost, but it's got to be worth it. I dont buy mtx, my buddies dont (at least they claim they dont), but there's some random whale that's spent $500 on weapon skins or some shit to cover all of us cheapskates.

I dont see the quality of Warzone being bad. So at least Activision hasnt gimped quality yet.

It's a different time now. Traditionally, gamers would buy a game and dump it for something new. But the trend (esp for shooters) to go in cheap with mtx seems to be working. I'm not a shooter fan except for COD, but even I can admit the quality of those other F2P games seem to be pretty good. Just not my style.

All these Fortnites and Apex Legends can go on for another 5 years as long as the content coming out seems good. If this was 10 years ago, it would be pony up $60 for Fortnite 1, Fortnite 2, Fortnite 3.

 

[bender]

You don't seem music or movie makers dumping tracks or BR discs at 60% off after half a year.

Digital movies drop in price pretty darn quick.

 

[turtlepowa]

Can only be BF. Not my game, but huge for Game Pass.

 

[phil_t98]

I do not believe it is possible.

Once the bulk of the game dev cost and profits come from MTX, I do not believe MTX can be done in a way that does not affect the gameplay aside from a button that says "send the devs $20 to help support their games".

Fortnite or rocket league MTX dont effect gameplay at all, there is no uprising in MTX due to gamepass though. Games still have the DLC route they always had and cosmetic things came in way befor gamepass see COD as an example

 

[dead monkey uk]

Would be wild if COD came to Game Pass at the same Sony had the marketing rights.

Safer bet is Battlefield, MS have promoted the game and had custom BF consoles recently.

 

[cormack12]

BF6 will be a mic drop moment. However, I have to say these games like Outriders and BF6 appearing on the service are imo meant to be upsold. In that these are games with long legs and meant to be played online at endgame/multiplayer for a couple of years, maybe longer in Outriders case. It's not like PS+ where it's redeemed and it's yours. In a year or so, when the license is revoked or deal ends there will be a decision then about pricing where you can then buy it to continue playing for say £19.99 etc. I think that's the hook ultimately (at least with the bigger games) - I actually don't mind the model, it gives you a chance to get your value out of the title but then buy it at a reasonable price later if you want to continue to play it as one of your online/committed titles.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

BF6 will be a mic drop moment. However, I have to say these games like Outriders and BF6 appearing on the service are imo meant to be upsold. In that these are games with long legs and meant to be played online at endgame/multiplayer for a couple of years, maybe longer in Outriders case. It's not like PS+ where it's redeemed and it's yours. In a year or so, when the license is revoked or deal ends there will be a decision then about pricing where you can then buy it to continue playing for say £19.99 etc. I think that's the hook ultimately (at least with the bigger games) - I actually don't mind the model, it gives you a chance to get your value out of the title but then buy it at a reasonable price later if you want to continue to play it as one of your online/committed titles.

For sake of upselling sales, I dont get how they don't allow gamers to try a game, since there's hardly any demos like the 360/PS3 days, I don't see why MS or Sony don't allow gamers to download and play a game for lets say an hour to test it out. It doesn't even have to be an hour.

It's doable.

XBLIG used to allow every gamer I think 10 minutes of free trial per game. Then the trial ended and if you wanted to keep progress you paid up. So devs dont even have to spend time making a playable demo download. It's the final game.

A lot of games I bought back then were from testing the demo or trial. For me it wasn't even about trying to do as much as possible. It was just to test out the gameplay and if it ran well.