This. 100%.
Sorry SlimySnake but that's a you fault. Same shit as people pre-ordering games.
Can't compare it anyways cause its a different business model... For most streaming services.
I do want the OP to clarify that as well.
They mean not as the main attraction. So not releasing on it first and foremost.
Thats the proof gamepass doesnt make them big money, and it doesnt make big moeny for AAA 3rd party games on gamepass either, otherwise like mentioned those publishers would run to MS themselfs to be there at launch, and yet instead activition prefered CoD to not be there, for as long as its not part of MS, and that was correct choice- game sold gangbusters making record profits so far, at least early on, as a Gafer im sure u stumbled upon that recent news urself without me needing to point it out, but just incase i did
Product position/marketing is kinda irrelevant to the conversation, no?
WTF?
What does it have to do with marketing? It clearly means can they sustain releasing games to a subscription service forgoing the sales on the platform from release day or would it work as a kind of added feature for older games. Like TV and movies.
as in completely forgoing all revenue? if so, would GP be included on "as an additional feature".
Not really. They haven't done it so far with any reasonable consistency.
Being pushed toward making GaaS filled with MTX doesn't seem to be the result of subscription services like game pass or PS+, though. It's more the result of people actually being willing to dump more cash in total into a free to play live service game than a traditional $70 game with traditional DLC purchases. If game pass and PS+ extra went away tomorrow people would still dump loads of cash into Fortnite.
I dont mind fortnite being there, if some1 is enthusiast(stupid) enough to pay tens/hundreds of bucks for mtx , who am i to stop him/her, what i mind is first party studios being forced to make multiplayer/GaaS/mtx packed shit games instead of proper top quality singleplayer experiences, it hurt MS a lot, and if sony goes same path, it will hurt them big time too(imho ofc).
I can understand that. I also can't think of any examples where developers have been forced to make crap games instead of good games by subscription services. Reason and logic should lead us to the conclusion that it's in the best interest of a subscription service to have more games people like to play than games people don't like to play to entice subscribers to pay for the service. If developers try to pump out shovelware and the services are nothing but that people will just stop subscribing.
The difference is pretty obvious if people don't act like there is no difference. Straight to TV releases also sometimes can be bought. Doesn't mean that the strategy for those movies are the same as any other movie release. The obvious difference is that when you do straight to sub releases you forgo sales and your strategy is clearly different for the games release even if you happen to also sell it. The "added feature" is a poor way of phrasing it but it's akin to TV for old movie releases vs straight to TV if people still have trouble distinguishing the difference between the options.
We are talking about game releases I would think. It's asking would releasing straight to a sub service work or do you believe it only works as an additional "feature"/revenue stream . Like once a movie has had its sales it goes to TV vs straight to TV releases.
I believe that Office is like a GaaS game though. It's a service. It is a forever use product with updates. So instead of paying $100 or so every year to get the features and security updates people were more willing to subscribe. Games though I think would struggle. Especially as f2p games if you are going GaaS can make subs seem redundant.
Just an example , sometimes deals happen and u gotta bite or u lose it
What I mean by 'struggle' isn't that the service isn't profitable or sustainable. It's that I think games aren't suited to it like office as a service is. A GaaS game would rather go f2p because otherwise it would be limiting itself to a smaller audience for mtxs and a big single player game would not make as much because it would forgo launch sales. Do I think smaller titles can thrive on it? sure. Like some straight to TV/sub movies do currently.
And also, xbox first party games?
Indies will never be that expensive. And Xbox first party. Thats already pretty much how its going. Every once in a long while, like 4x a year, you get a larger third party game like Wo Long or High on Life. Pretty sustainable.
They haven't released a new elder scrolls game since the 360/ps3 era. Starfield was supposed to be a ps4/xbone game. Halo infinite took years longer and came out undercooked. You think there's going to be plenty of games? With AAA taking longer then ever we will see a few games. Remember Hellblade being the first game to show for the new xbox? Where is it?
Powerwash Simulator is a good game though
They've got (Google) 23 first party studios. Worst case they all start taking about 6 years per game like 343 did with Halo Infinite and Gamepass only gets 4 first party games a year. If the Activision deal goes through, then some years you'll get 5 games.
They've been buying shit since Nadella announced Phil would be head of xbox in 2014. I had a Xbone in 2015. I don't see no new elder scrolls, Starfield still hasn't come out yet, Wasteland 4 is going to be a while. I don't see no Quest for Glory, no Hexen, no Heretic, and no revival of any of the stuff they had in the 90s and 2000s. Where's my god damn games, Bruce?
Your whole post is about weird hypotheticals that make not are highly unlikely and this false idea that subscription services, namely Netflix is not profitable despite the fact that it's been profitble for almost 2 decades.
That's not even true. The most popular music streaming platform has only recently become sporadically profitable and has lost billions over the years. Artists are the ones making money. here but it's shit money compared to bck in the day.
Gears 5 and Forza, yes. But they are the 5th sequel of safe franchises with a set formula. I don't consider Halo Infinite or Flight Sim AAA games. The rest have yet to come so we don't of their production quality or budget and whether they match the current AAA standards. Other games they have launched include Crackdown 3, Bleeding Edge, Grounded, and now Pentiment.
Bumblebeetuna
may think, I'm not pointing fingers at Gamepass. I never even mentioned Gamepass once in my comment. I was talking about subscription services in general.
Gears 5 and Forza, yes. But they are the 5th sequel of safe franchises with a set formula. I don't consider Halo Infinite or Flight Sim AAA games. The rest have yet to come so we don't of their production quality or budget and whether they match the current AAA standards. Other games they have launched include Crackdown 3, Bleeding Edge, Grounded, and now Pentiment.
Anyway, unlike what
Sony can afford to launch a game like Stray on PS+ but God of War Ragnarok or TLOU 2? Nope, not happening. That's what AAA means to me. Others can disagree with me, and that's fine
I would be interested to know since you had gamespass, what games on that service did you play?
