Support NeoGAF

[Swift_Star]

I didn't say no one did. But there's not many people replaying the same game ten times.

My behavior is more common.... Because many people do it?

Source?

 

[iHaunter]

Not the future for me. I buy a handful of games I want to play throughout the year, that's it. I'll do GP for $1 when it pops up to try out games I would never buy.

 

[RevGaming]

Pretty much what I was going to say. I don't think for one second that a video game publisher is going to stop selling their games in favor of being part of a subscription. That's what it means to me when people say something is "the future". I see people say the same thing about streaming as if there will be no option to run games on local hardware. As long as there is a consumer base willing to pay money to buy games then publishers will be willing to take their money. It is just that simple.



Agree. More than likely there will be a drop in number of subscriptions at that point as well. But MS will have anticipated that.

Looking at how many copies gta trilogy sold, I can't see people cancelling the sub because the games that came that year were all bad. They will always have hope it will always get better. People are so guillible.

 

[lastmessiah]

This will be one of those threads like the Switch one where it is bumped years later with all kinds of embarrassing quotes. Game Pass is the future, deal with it.

 

[AV]

The_Mike Swift_Star you're both arguing about a thing you both know to be true for some and not for others, don't waste your collective time on a non-argument

 

[Nyxir]

Contrasting console sales against a multi-platform subscription service is disingenuous. Xbox doesn't need to sell 100m consoles to have 100m Game Pass subscribers. Hell, Xbox doesn't need to sell any consoles to have 100m Game Pass subscribers if taken to the extreme. This is the point of Game Pass. I presume you also meant PS3, as PS5 has just released this past year, and PS4 passed 100m a while ago.


Demonstrably wrong. The only objective fact is that people on mobile play games available on mobile. This is why there are mobile ports of GTA and Final Fantasy, and mobile versions of Fortnight and Call of Duty that have all been enormously successful.


Refer to point one. Game Pass like-services are designed to circumvent the need for expensive hardware outlays, thus lowering the barrier of entry to the ecosystem. People who can't afford a console still likely have a Desktop computer or mobile phone where Game Pass is also available. For a fraction of the cost of a retail game, they can have access to hundreds of games on their existing platforms. This also ignores the fact that the Series S is the cheapest next-gen console, and is referred to as a "Game Pass box".


As you may not be aware, Microsoft has recently invested approximately USD$77 billion dollars in acquiring two publishers, bringing their total internal development studios to around 32. In addition, Microsoft continues to sign third party games for timed appearance on the service each month. The games on Game Pass cross every genre. Microsoft has been quietly cultivating Game Pass with an enormous breadth of titles, and have boasted about the service's ability to service new title discovery. The point isn't to give RTS players unlimited new RTS games, but rather to entice RTS players to try non-RTS games because they can play as many as they want as part of their subscription. According to Microsoft, it's working well.


Using Sony as the example, three PlayStation 5 games costs AUD$375.00, at AUD$125.00 a piece. A year of Game Pass Ultimate, covering PC, Xbox, and xCloud, only costs AUD$191.40 if paid at full price on a month-by-month basis. The cost drops considerably if an annual subscription is purchased, or other deals and exploits are used to lower the price. The "casuals" you're referring to are likely just buying the biggest games - Call of Duty, Madden, and Fifa. Call of Duty was recently acquired by Microsoft and will be included in Game Pass next year, and Madden and Fifa's legacy titles are all available via Game Pass Ultimate's inclusion of EA Play. So, a casual can buy a year of Game Pass Ultimate paid per month and still have over AUD$180.00 in their pocket to buy a couple of retail games - including a brand new release that isn't on Game Pass.

The limiting factor in Game Pass's ability to achieve 100m subscribers is Microsoft's ability to consistently deliver industry leading titles on the service month after month after month. Games like Forza Horizon 5 are a great example of what they need to deliver, while Halo Infinite is an example of what they need to avoid - poorly made bloated games designed as "platforms" instead. We can discuss the ability of Microsoft's developers to achieve that goal, and the incentives they may have to turn everything into a GaaS that will hinder them, but, basically every reason you've stated so far is wrong.

According to Daniel Ahmad “Senior analyst at Niko Partners” the average consumer on PlayStation only spends around 120$ per year.
There will be a point in the near future where Game Pass will actually make more money than the traditional method. Hence Sony huge shift to GaaS.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

LMAO.

So you'll play the album for 40 hours like a video game? If you do that, you must be one in a billion.

Edit: I really thought people didn't do that in the first week it released. I must not know anybody like that or I haven't asked. I personally find it crazy.

Nobody plays an album for 40 hours straight.

But everyone who has fav artists and albums will play it for 40 hours or more collectively over time. An album is usually about 1 hour worth of songs across maybe 12-15 tracks. Pretty sure I've listened to every fav song or album over 40 times, even its pure background noise.

It's not like someone has to be sitting there staring at the stereo's track timer in order to listen to songs.

 

[RevGaming]

He just hates game pass because Microsoft is behind it.

No I don't. I won't want Spartacus either. I wish xbox live and ps plus didn't exist.

 

[Farawayfromhell]

I am not interested in knowing the profit margins of MS, I am interested in having games to play at a good price and when I feel like it.
This is the gamepass.
Those titles that I can't finish for one reason or another in the end I always buy at a good price... I buy them even if I liked for collecting obsessions.
It is really difficult for me to find negative sides in the agreement I signed with Microsoft, especially for what I pay.

 

[RevGaming]

Nobody plays an album for 40 hours straight.

But everyone who has fav artists and albums will play it for 40 hours or more collectively over time. An album is usually about 1 hour worth of songs across maybe 12-15 tracks. Pretty sure I've listened to every fav song or album over 40 times, even its pure background noise.

It's not like someone has to be sitting there staring at the stereo's track timer in order to listen to songs.

Over time, of course I believe you. I was referring close to release.

but Spotify is still losing money and music is cheaper and wider appealed, right?

I said earlier I didn't think there would be a problem with music, but I remember spotify loses money so.

Idk man. Too many services.

 

[Three]

I want to see what Sony is cooking up because I find it obvious that gamepass if not a loss leader, is running on profit fumes to gain market share.

Long term it needs to make the cheddar with price increases as sure as a bear shitting in the woods, especially compounded by throwing more into it with the recent record setting acquisitions.

One the price reflects the commercial reality, how many will keep on rolling with it?Especially in our seeming GaaS future of never ending f2p games. *sniff*

Then we will know.

I don't think it's running on fumes anymore. It has very few yearly big hitters but it's essentially a $120 a year subscription service. Add a bunch of indie low cost stuff, some GaaS releases throughout the year and you're golden. Just like PS+ except Gamepass sets you back an additional $120 to $180 a year for the subscription. GWG has gone to shit for it.

 

[Nyxir]

Over time, of course I believe you. I was referring close to release.

but Spotify is still losing money and music is cheaper and wider appealed, right?

I said earlier I didn't think there would be a problem with music, but I remember spotify loses money so.

Idk man. Too many services.

You can’t buy full games on Spotify.
You can’t buy DLC on Spotify.
You can’t spend mtx on Spotify.
It’s not comparable.

 

[RevGaming]

You can’t buy full games on Spotify.
You can’t buy DLC on Spotify.
You can’t spend mtx on Spotify.
It’s not comparable.

That's my point *Facepalm*

Comparing Netflix, Spotify to Gamepass is dumb. Yeah I get it's easier for people to see it as those, but Gaming is just consumed in different ways and has less audience to reach and people play less games than people watch movies/series and listen to music on average per year because of how interactivity changes that and how we consume it.

All three have different implications to be successful and I'm tired of seeing the if this exists, this can exist too, even if Netflix and Spotify are both losing money.

Look whatever. If Spider-man 3 is worse than the first two and I keep seeing that pattern with all of the AAA games because they went service-like, I rather do something else with my life. Enjoy BF2042 (which is on Gamepass) and GTA: Trilogy.

I'll be like pokemon 1st gen wunners. Playing old crap.

 

[BabyfaceRe]

The way money is made in the gaming industry these days is through MTX/DLC/recurring revenue. Game sales are almost entirely irrelevant in this day and age and the figures prove it (just look at the revenue reports for Ubi/Acti/EA etc).

With that in mind Gamepass becomes the most logical step forward; remove all barriers to entry and allow everyone to play everything for a fraction of the price of buying a new game every month. Once you're in you're in, and the money you saved on not buying games all year, can be spent on MTX, which is a far more potent revenue loop (no1 buys the same game a 1000 times but they may spend a 1000 bucks in 1 game).

Not sure what "evidence" OP is looking for exactly, but year on year growth is pretty good sign it is doing well. And that's before the $100bn worth of dev purchases even comes into play.

MS are slowly building the service to be completely undeniable and are getting closer and closer to that goal. E.g. Buying Cod on PS5 for $70 as opposed to gettin it as part of your GamePass Sub is objectively dumb. Fanboys will always fanboy, but dont forget that often in gaming households the one with the buying power is not the console owner but their guardian. They tend to look at things more objectively and try to find the "best deal" for their wallet. No retail assistant worth their salt could ever recommended a PS5 or even a Switch as the best value for money over and Xbox with Gamepass.

 

[RevGaming]

The way money is made in the gaming industry these days is through MTX/DLC/recurring revenue. Game sales are almost entirely irrelevant in this day and age and the figures prove it (just look at the revenue reports for Ubi/Acti/EA etc).

Yeah. Only the ones that are successful tho.

But yaaay for spending $1000 on skins on a game that can be shutdown if a horrible year of updates happens. So worth it and we absolutely want this as a community. Yippie!!!

Give me 3 cat ears for $70 over paying $70 for a more complete multiplayer Halo with all of its bells and whistles, oh and if I don't want it, I can wait for sale in a few months!!

Can't wait for Redfall and the prices of their characters.

 

[Evil Calvin]

I just have a simple question.

How do the developers make money off of their games being played on a service like this, than on unit sales?

Multiple things:

1. If a sequel will be coming out soon, having the original game on Gamepass helps boost interest and visibility
2. Often the game will have a steep discount for GP subscribers in case they want to BUY the game to own (they may be canceling GP in the near future)
3. DLC is often not part of Gampass....so they may put the DLC on sale
4. Expansion passes usually are not part of Gamepass. Those expansion pass sales obviously help the bottom line.
5. Games often are on Gamepass and then fall off of GP. Players who are heavily invested in the game may buy the game outright once it leaves Gamepass.
6. MTX. Publishers love that MTX revenue.

One example of that is The Outer Wilds. It launched on GP and then left it months later when it showed up on PS4. The word of mouth was great, so PS4 and X1 owners went ahead and purchased the game. Now, it's back on Gamepass when the DLC just was released. Those playing The Outer Wilds on GP may be very interested in getting that new DLC after playing the main game.

So, there are multiple reasons why publishers would put the game on GP.

 

[iHaunter]

That's a bit unfair, for every other indie game, you also get day 1 releases like Infinite, Forza Horizon, Outer Worlds and a lot more like Starfield, Redfall, STALKER 2 etc in the coming days.

They are all fairly big budget games.

Besides, Sony don't need a subscription service to get into GaaS, they have at least 10 in development right now by their own word:

Sony has 10 live service games in development | VGC

Sony has revealed during its earnings call that it plans to ship 10 live service games by 2026.

www.videogameschronicle.com

You've got more things to worry about than subscription services if you think they're the main cause of GaaS games.

That's "In addition to" not "Instead of," there's a difference.

 

[Swift_Star]

The_Mike Swift_Star you're both arguing about a thing you both know to be true for some and not for others, don't waste your collective time on a non-argument

That’s super obvious. That’s why no one should make a blank statement based on personal assumptions.

 

[BabyfaceRe]

Yeah. Only the ones that are successful tho.

But yaaay for spending $1000 on skins on a game that can be shutdown if a horrible year of updates happens. So worth it and we absolutely want this as a community. Yippie!!!

Give me 3 cat ears for $70 over paying $70 for a more complete multiplayer Halo with all of its bells and whistles, oh and if I don't want it, I can wait for sale in a few months!!

Can't wait for Redfall and the prices of their characters.

Damn someone seems triggered.

Not a fan of F2P either tbh but still need to take into account reality. Love how you glossed over Halo's MTX-free single player campaign was included with gamepass too, couldnt spend money in that part of the game even if you wanted too.

Played over 20 games on gamepass in the last 3 months, none had MTX.

I'm not in favour of MTX or whales but reality is what it is, gamepass is possible because of MTX and in its current state it is by no means plagued by F2P games, doesnt mean it wont be in the future but as it stands its great.

Also I would never pay $70 for a game because it aint worth it and is a total con. If HZD launched for $50 and the sequel launches for $70 that would mean that with a almost 50% price jump we will get roughly 50% more content right?

 

[Faithless83]

Remember mobile free games? That's where the industry is going.
Gamepass is expensive, buying studios is a way to alleviate the cost of having to pay the devs for gamepass time.

It's all nice playing 70$ games for 15$ a month, until we start getting flooded by 5$ experiences.
"We already are", I'm not counting indies... I'm saying big publishers will go the konami way.

 

[NickFire]

I am reserving judgment until we get past the introductory years. If the prices are right after the users have been acquired there is clearly a market for subscription. If the price gets to the point where you pay for a new game every two months, I'm not as confident it stays as popular.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Over time, of course I believe you. I was referring close to release.

but Spotify is still losing money and music is cheaper and wider appealed, right?

I said earlier I didn't think there would be a problem with music, but I remember spotify loses money so.

Idk man. Too many services.

Pretty sure Spotify has lost money every year, but still around. Without digging into it, they must had built up a giant IPO nest egg.

 

[MScarpa]

Because it affects him indirectly? Lets say people paid $15 for Spider-man 2. Lets say 90% bought it for $15 and you bought it $70.

Next game becomes smaller in scale because it didn't make that much money and you'll suffer more than them because you wasted $70 instead of $15.

Sony might not make more SP. Overall is a bad thing in the long term.

Again WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT! Besides following me into every thread, ik flattered, i know im pretty but who paid 15$ for Spiderman? And what does this have to do with gamepass?? Like i said you don't own xbox or gamepass this effects you in no way.

 

[Vognerful]

People comparing games to music and movies, are you lost?

Use tv series as better example!

 

[RevGaming]

Damn someone seems triggered.

Yes. Yes I am lol.

Not a fan of F2P either tbh but still need to take into account reality. Love how you glossed over Halo's MTX-free single player campaign was included with gamepass too, couldnt spend money in that part of the game even if you wanted too.

Don't you gain stuff from the single player for the multiplayer? I think that's the reason why the skins were overpriced. They gave you a campaign. What will happen with the only Single Player games? I'm seriously waiting for those 2018 acquires studios SP games so I can gain a bit of faith.

Played over 20 games on gamepass in the last 3 months, none had MTX.

That's the thing, MS pays them so they're not the problem. Is MS wanting to recoup that money somehow being the problem. I'm not worried about RE9 being there years later. I'm cautious about MS's first party games.

I'm not in favour of MTX or whales but reality is what it is, gamepass is possible because of MTX and in its current state it is by no means plagued by F2P games, doesnt mean it wont be in the future but as it stands its great.

I'm just cautious about FParty games.

Also I would never pay $70 for a game because it aint worth it and is a total con. If HZD launched for $50 and the sequel launches for $70 that would mean that with a almost 50% price jump we will get roughly 50% more content right?

I'm paying the $10 extra for better graphics, gameplay improvements, story improvements, animation improvements, enough content (although I'm fine if it's as long as the first one). I saw all of that in the trailers so I gladly paid $70 (I know about the ps4 -> ps5). God of War is the same case.

 

[AV]

Enjoy BF2042 (which is on Gamepass) and GTA: Trilogy.

It's not though, there's a 10 hour trial for a game you then have to buy. There's 1/3 of the GTA remaster game on Game Pass and the shocking quality has nothing to do with subscription services, R* outsourced it to a totally incompetent dev.

Much like your theory that FIFA and Madden could have been worse this year because they were on Game Pass (which we know isn't right because they took months to appear on the service), you're taking bad games and industry habits and drawing imaginary conclusions between them and Game Pass. It's got nothing at all to do with why all these examples turned out shitty.

 

[RevGaming]

Multiple things:

1. If a sequel will be coming out soon, having the original game on Gamepass helps boost interest and visibility
2. Often the game will have a steep discount for GP subscribers in case they want to BUY the game to own (they may be canceling GP in the near future)
3. DLC is often not part of Gampass....so they may put the DLC on sale
4. Expansion passes usually are not part of Gamepass. Those expansion pass sales obviously help the bottom line.
5. Games often are on Gamepass and then fall off of GP. Players who are heavily invested in the game may buy the game outright once it leaves Gamepass.
6. MTX. Publishers love that MTX revenue.

One example of that is The Outer Wilds. It launched on GP and then left it months later when it showed up on PS4. The word of mouth was great, so PS4 and X1 owners went ahead and purchased the game. Now, it's back on Gamepass when the DLC just was released. Those playing The Outer Wilds on GP may be very interested in getting that new DLC after playing the main game.

So, there are multiple reasons why publishers would put the game on GP.

I think the issue is the day 1 thing for me. All of that make sense, if it's an old game. People won't buy the game after they beat it.

 

[The_Mike]

Enjoy BF2042 (which is on Gamepass)

BF2042 is not on game pass though.

I just have a simple question.

How do the developers make money off of their games being played on a service like this, than on unit sales?

Multiple things:

1. If a sequel will be coming out soon, having the original game on Gamepass helps boost interest and visibility
2. Often the game will have a steep discount for GP subscribers in case they want to BUY the game to own (they may be canceling GP in the near future)
3. DLC is often not part of Gampass....so they may put the DLC on sale
4. Expansion passes usually are not part of Gamepass. Those expansion pass sales obviously help the bottom line.
5. Games often are on Gamepass and then fall off of GP. Players who are heavily invested in the game may buy the game outright once it leaves Gamepass.
6. MTX. Publishers love that MTX revenue.

One example of that is The Outer Wilds. It launched on GP and then left it months later when it showed up on PS4. The word of mouth was great, so PS4 and X1 owners went ahead and purchased the game. Now, it's back on Gamepass when the DLC just was released. Those playing The Outer Wilds on GP may be very interested in getting that new DLC after playing the main game.

So, there are multiple reasons why publishers would put the game on GP.

I'm pretty sure Microsoft also give the devs money up front for placing their games on the service.

 

[pratyush]

People like cheap stuff. Gamepass is cheap. So thats why people think its the future.

 

[Elder Legend]

People like cheap stuff. Gamepass is cheap. So thats why people think its the future.

You are also forgetting convenience which is a huge factor.

Cross-saves between PC/Xbox
Cross-platform capability on certain titles
and so on

 

[RevGaming]

Again WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!

I'm collateral damage lol! I'M COLLATERAL DAMAGE!!!

If games are getting worse and worse because most people pay $15, why would my $70 change that? Everyone has to pay $70 or the game won't get bigger and bigger with each entry.

Besides following me into every thread, ik flattered, i know im pretty

Somebody has their ego up in the clouds lol. How would I know that's you in your avatar lmao?

but who paid 15$ for Spiderman?

I mean in the future, where everything is on one service. I don't want Spider-man 5 to be 4 hours or look worse than Spider-man 2.

And what does this have to do with gamepass??

Collateral damage.

Like i said you don't own xbox or gamepass this effects you in no way.

It will if dumbass Sony wants to copy the exact formula. I'll buy the xbox for Starfield. Not yet though. Halo, Gears and Forza are still the only games in there.

 

[ByWatterson]

It gets tiresome when every other topic devolves into the same concerns about the future of gaming being ruined because of game pass, and/or how MS are able to sustain the service and what their profitability is. Just check the Bungie thread or that Phil Spencer getting an award thread, more than half those (and many other recent) threads devolve into the same drivel.

And truth be told, the ratio of people talking about GP being the second coming of gaming vs people concerned about the service is very lopsided in favor of the later going by what I've seen recently at least.

I used to be a skeptic - until Microsoft bought Activision.

They're not sinking literally tens of billions into something if it isn't working or isn't sustainable. If they're THAT confident, then I am, too.

Which is why I jumped in!

 

[RevGaming]

BF2042 is not on game pass though.

EA play?
Is it in the game?

I'm pretty sure Microsoft also give the devs money up front for placing their games on the service.

Then they forgot the scoreboard!!!! WHERE'S THE SCOREBOARD???!!! USE MS MONEY EA!!!! LMAO

 

[RevGaming]

WE ARE ALL COLLATERAL DAMAGE OF THAT DAMN HORSE SKIN TODD HOWARD WANTED TO ADD AND YALL BOUGHT IT!!!

TELL ME LIES TELL SWEET LITTLE LIES.

 

[Elder Legend]

EA play?
Is it in the game?

Then they forgot the scoreboard!!!! WHERE'S THE SCOREBOARD???!!! USE MS MONEY EA!!!! LMAO

You sound like that kid in school who throws a tantrum every time he doesn't get what he wants.

 

[RevGaming]

You sound like that kid in school who throws a tantrum every time he doesn't get what he wants.

WeRe Da ScuRboArd EA?

WHERE IS IT!!!!?

 

[Elder Legend]

WeRe Da ScuRboArd EA?

WHERE IS IT!!!!?

Up their butt.

 

[RevGaming]

Up their butt.

STOP BUYING CAT EARS OR THE NEXT HALO WON'T HAVE SCOREBOARDS TOO!!!


IMMA throw you a pie on your face.

 

[The_Mike]

EA play?
Is it in the game?

Theres a ten hour bf2042 trial. The full game is not on the service.

So you cant blame Microsoft or game pass on bf2042 being shit.

Then they forgot the scoreboard!!!! WHERE'S THE SCOREBOARD???!!! USE MS MONEY EA!!!! LMAO

And yet you found a way to blame Microsoft.

I'm sorry but you are super cringy. Have some dignity instead of having a meltdown about bf2042 in a game pass thread,and blame Microsoft for the game being shit. The game is not even on game pass lol.

 

[crozier]

One thing that occurs to me:

Games that would die at retail can thrive with Gamepass. I do think it devalues blockbusters, though.

 

[RevGaming]

Theres a ten hour bf2042 trial. The full game is not on the service.

So you cant blame Microsoft or game pass on bf2042 being shit.

GOD DAMMIT EA!!! IT'S ALL YOUR FAULT!!!

And yet you found a way to blame Microsoft.

I'm sorry but you are super cringy. Have some dignity instead of having a meltdown about bf2042 in a game pass thread,and blame Microsoft for the game being shit. The game is not even on game pass lol.

I was being serious at first, but the latest replies are not. I don't care. #*** gaming. I hope MS doesn't make a Call of Duty 2042.
Imagine if Halo released in 2020. We gotta keep em in check brother.

STARFIELD 2077 INCOMING!!!!


I'm joking. I have high expectations for Todd Howard's comeback. Prove us PS fans wrong HOWARD!!!!! PROVE US WRONG!!

 

[BabyfaceRe]

Yes. Yes I am lol.

Don't you gain stuff from the single player for the multiplayer? I think that's the reason why the skins were overpriced. They gave you a campaign. What will happen with the only Single Player games? I'm seriously waiting for those 2018 acquires studios SP games so I can gain a bit of faith.

That's the thing, MS pays them so they're not the problem. Is MS wanting to recoup that money somehow being the problem. I'm not worried about RE9 being there years later. I'm cautious about MS's first party games.

I'm just cautious about FParty games.

I'm paying the $10 extra for better graphics, gameplay improvements, story improvements, animation improvements, enough content (although I'm fine if it's as long as the first one). I saw all of that in the trailers so I gladly paid $70 (I know about the ps4 -> ps5). God of War is the same case.

Halo has always offered armour for MP in the SP campaign, dont think that was a marketing ploy.

We will have to wait and see on the purely SP games, but it's highly unlikely that things like ES6 is gonna get MTX added to it. If anything you will see more traditionally SP games have an MP mode added so that MTX can live there( e.g. Fal.out 4/Fallout 76). You don't buy bethesda for MTX fueled MP games, historically thats not thier main goal. Activision on the other hand....lmao

I strongly disagree with your statement about what you are paying more for because it is factually incorrect. The best version of all games is on PC, the cheapest version of games is all on PC. It's been this way since the beginning of PC gaming and will never change. That is nothing more than a marketing ploy. Every PS4 exclusive that has launched on PC has had better fidelity in every facet and has also been cheaper. Paying more for a better product is an absolute fallacy and Sony should quite frankly be ashamed to be siding with companies like EA with regards to bumping prices, under the illusion of a better product.

 

[AV]

I was being serious at first, but the latest replies are not. I don't care. #*** gaming.

If you've gradually been shown that none of your points are valid to the point of just shitposting instead, maybe don't fuck gaming yet. See if the thing you're worried about happening actually happens first.

 

[Ic3man]

It's the future, adapt.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I raised a similar point in another thread.

It does seem that Sony execs are in a 'us too' responsive mode with their strategy. It does raise an eyebrow that a market leader would pivot away from their strengths to latch on to the same strategy.

I don't blame them though, I wouldn't want to be the next Blockbuster.

I think the decisions made today are based on 10-year outlooks into the future.

I'm not sure that this is necessarily true.

From most accounts, it doesn't appear Sonys answer to GamePass will provide day 1 exclusives, which is arguably the most attractive feature of GamePass.

Alternatively, Sony seems to be pushing a ton of their chips into GAAS rather than creating a true GamePass competitor.

Microsoft would love it if Sony didn't change course from their PS4 era ways. Releasing one or two high profile AAA single player games that can be completed in a weekend, each year, is the rock to GamePasses paper. Especially now that XBox has so many more studios than PlayStation.

 

[RevGaming]

Halo has always offered armour for MP in the SP campaign, dont think that was a marketing ploy.

We will have to wait and see on the purely SP games, but it's highly unlikely that things like ES6 is gonna get MTX added to it. If anything you will see more traditionally SP games have an MP mode added so that MTX can live there( e.g. Fal.out 4/Fallout 76). You don't buy bethesda for MTX fueled MP games, historically thats not thier main goal. Activision on the other hand....lmao

I don't think the SP will have MTX, but either they have a smaller budget, or sell lots and lots of DLC (which I honestly barely buy DLC). Idk. I guess the conversation will be very interesting to have in December 2024.

I strongly disagree with your statement about what you are paying more for because it is factually incorrect. The best version of all games is on PC, the cheapest version of games is all on PC.

I'm not talking about the best versions. I'm talking about improvements that have nothing to do with running the game better on PC.

If the PC versions runs 4k 120fps, fine. That's not worth the $70. What's worth the extra $10 are what I mentioned above. Going BIGGER on everything.

 

[Hydroxy]

Games are not music and tv shows and should not be treated as such.

I don't know man, I like being able to play games legally for cheap. Especially great for people who live in low income countries who otherwise wouldn't be able to buy games individually. Both types of service can co-exist for now

 

[MScarpa]

I'm collateral damage lol! I'M COLLATERAL DAMAGE!!!

If games are getting worse and worse because most people pay $15, why would my $70 change that? Everyone has to pay $70 or the game won't get bigger and bigger with each entry.

Somebody has their ego up in the clouds lol. How would I know that's you in your avatar lmao?

I mean in the future, where everything is on one service. I don't want Spider-man 5 to be 4 hours or look worse than Spider-man 2.

Collateral damage.

It will if dumbass Sony wants to copy the exact formula. I'll buy the xbox for Starfield. Not yet though. Halo, Gears and Forza are still the only games in there.

Nobody has to pay ANYTHING. If I pay 200$ for a game is it that much better? Sony decided to charge 70$. I decided to buy used when i see fit.

Not sure what games are getting worse. I'm loving gamepass and saving money. Do you enjoy gamepass and xbox? Oh wait thats right, you don't own one, yet somehow you're obsessed with it. 25 million people enjoy the service. It doesn't effect you, and if your Sony decides to jump in the ring, so be it.

You're literally talking about things that COULD HAPPEN MAYBE SOMEDAY. If you're worried about your Spiderman not being as good or only being 4 hours, you should send Sony a check so they can afford to make Spiderman as you see fit.


EDIT: That didn't take long.

 

[AV]

Alexa, set a reminder to view the account suicide thread one week from now.

 

[DragonNCM]

Don't get me wrong. Renting games on the cheap is great (even considering picking up a Series X), even though I prefer a Steam like service, but I keep hearing all this buzz about Gamepass like MS sets the trends even though they sell the least consoles and have since 2017 since Gamepass started.

I hear buzz about revenue, but what about profits?

Why is Nintendo selling the most hardware and low budget games for full price making way more profit than anyone if giving your games away and devaluing your IP's is such a great idea?

As I remember MS was aiming for 50 million mark subscribers to make gamepass selfsustained service.
50 million at 15$ per month is a lot of money. That is 9 billion$ per year only form gamepass.