Support NeoGAF

[Godot25]

When would you consider GamePass hitting "its stride" then?

Microsoft announced in January 2018 that all first party games will launch into GP day one. So it was clear that if they bought Ninja Theory, Obsidian, inXile etc. That all their games will be for GP.

Funnily, Sea of Thieves which is live service games was created in time when Game Pass didn't exist...

 

[Raonak]

Gamepass is the scourge of the industry no doubt.

 

[tsumake]

I like Metascore better than engagement to be honest if I "HAD" to pick. But how about we don't do any of that. How about they do it the same way these guys did it?

Quincy Jones

Shigeru Miyamoto

James Cameron

You look at the product that you are going to "sell" to the public less like slot machine\cash register and more like a personal work of art.

I hear ya, but all of people you mentioned were very much about the commercial aspect of their work. Didn’t Miyamoto compare videogames to toys?

If you mean that they have/had aesthetic/artistic standards for their work, then yes. They didn’t make something purely for profit.

 

[Fredrik]

If this is the future, we need another video game crash.

If it’s needed then it’ll happen.
Until then. Enjoy!
I’m currently paying half a pizza per month for Gamepass and all the games Microsoft’s 23 1st party studios will release, plus 300+ other games. And I’m paying the same for the best streaming service Geforce Now. If things turn sour I’ll just vote with my wallet on whatever is the best deal at that time. I’ve been gaming since the early 80s, I’ve learned that things come and go, it’s alright, the industry won’t go under without something else building up somewhere else to try correct it.

 

[tsumake]

Gamepass is the scourge of the industry no doubt.

Personally I don’t have an issue with Gamepass. I’m not a fan of this “engagement” metric. This metric is akin to casino tactics.

 

[JerryinSoCal]

Companies talk engagement when they aren't doing as well as the competition in sales, engagement is a stupid metric to measure success as playtime doesn't equal money brought in. You could sell 100k copies of a game that 90% of the people finish or spend a certain amount of hours playing but it's not as successful as a game that sells a million copies that only 40% finish or spend less time playing at least not from a business perspective.

 

[Bragr]

This is only gonna be a problem if studios base their game solely on the potential success and financial gain of the product and not ideas.

 

[MacReady13]

And this is what I've been saying for years. This is why a lot of us are not so gung ho on games as a service or a game service that a company is putting all its eggs in.

Exactly right. It might look all good for now but eventually it will turn. And there are many millions who are feeding this beast cause it looks good now. Just wait...

 

[Hobbygaming]

It’s not bad for the gaming industry at all. It’s bad for consumers.

I get your point but bad for consumers in this case can turn into bad for the industry EX: Less money for AAA games since people will buy less games

Less money = stifled creativity and smaller budget games

 

[phil_t98]

We agree about TLOU2. I'm talking about the games that have the high level engagement, but it's not because the game is actually good.

What examples can you use for that?

 

[phil_t98]

Yeah but that still doesn’t change the underlying formula that devs would be funneled into. Also great games can be a few mare hours of engagement for a user vs hundreds or thousands under service models.

So what underlying formula is that?

As opposed to what exactly?

 

[Azurro]

This is where services like Gamepass is headed, and it's not a coincidence that Halo is supposed to be a live service game of sorts. MS needs people to stay subscribed to their service, so it's cheaper and more efficient to do that using games as a service rather than single player experiences.

 

[MacReady13]

Do you want bigger paywall than 70+USD/game? Gaming is an expensive hobby, much more than movies or TV. Most of the people in the world can’t afford it through normal ways. GP like services allow these people to have access to a much bigger catalog of games without relying to alternative methods.

Mate here in Australia we were paying PREMIUM prices for games that ran around 20% slower years ago! We still purchased games, regardless of price. Gaming always has and always will be an expensive hobby for most of us. We just didn't purchase a tonne of games each year! And why should anyone purchase tens of hundreds of games a year? If you are happy feeding subscription services cause now it is fine and you can play 200-odd games whenever you like, good for you. It is only leading down a really bad path which this thread is trying to highlight to people, even though many are missing what some of us are saying.

 

[mckmas8808]

I hear ya, but all of people you mentioned were very much about the commercial aspect of their work. Didn’t Miyamoto compare videogames to toys?

If you mean that they have/had aesthetic/artistic standards for their work, then yes. They didn’t make something purely for profit.

Yes to the bolded. That's what I mean. And good creatives do what Bragr said below. If you based your creation on good ideas and not just financial gain, then you're on the right path. If the premise of the gameplay loop is to be a slot machine first and then sprinkle in some interesting story later..........PFFTTT!

This is only gonna be a problem if studios base their game solely on the potential success and financial gain of the product and not ideas.

What examples can you use for that?

Not sure you've heard of it, but a game called Pixel Gun 3D is terrible with this. And I mean awful! Read below.....

It is required for the player to watch an advertisement-based video for about 30 seconds (it depends on the length of the video) before receiving currency from the chest. It is recommended to watch the full batch of advertisements everyday (a full batch of advertisements is 5 advertisements). One set takes only about 10 minutes, and the player can get 20 gems and 45 coins per batch. Assuming the player can consistently keep up with this schedule for at least an entire week, the currency is multiplied by 7, making the player earn 140 gems and 315 coins just from watching the advertisements.

The player can even extend this method of earning currency by watching advertisements twice a day. Given that there is a 12 hour cooldown, it is possible to watch up to two batches of advertisements per day, in other words, earn up to 40 gems and 90 coins per day. The player can achieve this by watching one batch of advertisements in the morning (for example, 7:30 AM), and assuming the entire process takes around 10 minutes, the player can watch the second batch at 7:40PM, after waiting for the 12 hour cooldown. If the player can keep up with this schedule consistently for a week, they can earn 280 gems and 620 coins.

Free Currency

This article describes a content in Pixel Gun 3D, which is not a tutorial. You can find a bunch of tutorials here. The Free Currency chest, also known as "Free Currency", is one of the cases that are found in the lobby. It was introduced in the 9.3.0 update as the "Free Coins chest", where it...

pixelgun.fandom.com

Now what Gaffer in there right mind thinks this is something gamers want? And trust me......watchable in-game Ads will 100% come to GamePass in the future. And I'm not saying this to rip GP per-say. It's just that almost all subscription models travel down this path.

 

[Duchess]

But this is Stadia plan, not a GamePass plan.

I believe that MS is paying devs up front, with nothing extra.

 

[reksveks]

And trust me......watchable in-game Ads will 100% come to GamePass in the future.

Watchable in-game ads will come with or without gamepass, there isn't really a relationship between it.

 

[mckmas8808]

But this is Stadia plan, not a GamePass plan.

I believe that MS is paying devs up front, with nothing extra.

Is this the "ONLY" form of payment? Or can pubs also get paid through engagement numbers?

Watchable in-game ads will come with or without gamepass, there isn't really a relationship between it.

Maybe, but usually that stuff gets cut out if you buy the product directly. Otherwise if you want to stream it or download it as part of your subscription, then you have to pay with your eyeballs.

 

[CrustyBritches]

This is where services like Gamepass is headed, and it's not a coincidence that Halo is supposed to be a live service game of sorts. MS needs people to stay subscribed to their service, so it's cheaper and more efficient to do that using games as a service rather than single player experiences.

The MP is F2P like Warzone or Fortnite. To get the single player you need to be subscribed to Game Pass or purchase it. Your incentive to subscribe in this case would be single player mode.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

This Gamepass concern thread would work better if Gamepass actually worked that way. It doesn't.

 

[Duchess]

Is this the "ONLY" form of payment? Or can pubs also get paid through engagement numbers?

I think the other option is "exposure"

 

[Clear]

Its important to understand that GaaS being made more prevalent is not the most concerning result of moving towards subscription models. Its a side-effect, not the root of the issue.

The real bug-bear is that in an ecosystem where everything is notionally equal in terms of access-cost, how does the audience decide what to spend their time with? The answer to which is most likely going to be purely marketing driven.

In simple terms it becomes about visibility. If a product gets highlighted then its going to get more attention, and more attention equals more engagement. And the kicker is of course this is not something the end-user or even the product creator has any control over whatsoever, its all down to what the curators of the service deem to give the "rub" to.

Obviously this means that first-party is going to get priority. Then the biggest third-parties with established brands and mindshare for their content. Next up comes third parties who know how to play this particular game; they are the ones who spend inordinate amounts of time marketing the hell out of their product top-to-bottom. This group is analogous to the biggest names in the mobile space.

After these 3 big groups, comes everyone else, with indies who cannot afford to do any sort of marketing on their own behalf right down at the bottom. Basically these are the Charley Buckets of game-dev... they need a "golden ticket" of some description to elevate themselves out of the ghetto. And make no mistake, this is a ghetto. There are a lot of these guys, and many of them are deserving of better, but... well you might get a breakout or maybe two in any given year.

The bottom line is this sort of environment is more about marketing than creativity. GaaS and all aspects of "stickiness" only come into play when you have a product that has the attention of a decent chunk of the market. So it pre-supposes that you've already put the legwork in terms of ad-campaigns, marketing and promotion partnerships, know how to present the product in such a way as to appeal to a wide general audience etc.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Exactly right. It might look all good for now but eventually it will turn. And there are many millions who are feeding this beast cause it looks good now. Just wait...

Same people who said this about oblivion horse armor dlc are now the same ones buying all these season passes. How do I know? I listen to people insult me on this very forum about how casual a gamer I am because I don't buy them in games like FIFA.

The worse that will happen for game pass is a price increase. The model, exactly as it exists today, is here to stay. Perhaps EA Play may eventually go away from Ultimate once that deal expires, but the same way netflix, HBO Max and Disney Plus have existed, or will go on existing for years using that same business model, so too will Game Pass. Microsoft is a $2 trillion dollar company and gaming is as popular as ever. The next major edition of Windows is focused around game pass and gaming. We will be sitting right here come 2027-2030 saying "remember when people told us Game Pass would shift and become this terrible thing? It's even better now and has kept its promise due to all these game releases."

Just wait till Game Pass hits what I believe to be the magic 40 million figure. It will become unstoppable.

 

[kingfey]

Fable
Starfield
Avowed
Elder Scrolls 6
The Outer Worlds 2

These arent quality games according to gaffers. They need to have rich story, with massive cinematic scenes, that will make you drop your controller, make a tea, and comeback. Drink it, until the cinematic scene ends. I almost dosed out in the opening of Last of us 2. If it werent for the zombies encounter, and the lack of ammo, and the feeling of helplessness, I would have dropped the game completely.

 

[mckmas8808]

Same people who said this about oblivion horse armor dlc are now the same ones buying all these season passes. How do I know? I listen to people insult me on this very forum about how casual a gamer I am because I don't buy them in games like FIFA.

The worse that will happen for game pass is a price increase. The model, exactly as it exists today, is here to stay. Perhaps EA Play may eventually go away from Ultimate once that deal expires, but the same way netflix, HBO Max and Disney Plus have existed, or will go on existing for years using that same business model, so too will Game Pass. Microsoft is a $2 trillion dollar company and gaming is as popular as ever. The next major edition of Windows is focused around game pass and gaming. We will be sitting right here come 2027-2030 saying "remember when people told us Game Pass would shift and become this terrible thing? It's even better now and has kept its promise due to all these game releases."

Just wait till Game Pass hits what I believe to be the magic 40 million figure. It will become unstoppable.

I don't think there's many people that think GamePass itself will turn into a terrible thing. Besides a price increase, the only bad thing that I believe will come, will be an in-game Ad-Support Gamepass subscription model that cost half the price of the normal subscription.

Like Gamepass Ultimate goes up to $22 a month yet Gamepass Ultimate (with in-game Ads) will cost $9.99 a month. To me that's the "worst" thing I expect MS will make GP.

 

[kingfey]

Same people who said this about oblivion horse armor dlc are now the same ones buying all these season passes. How do I know? I listen to people insult me on this very forum about how casual a gamer I am because I don't buy them in games like FIFA.

The worse that will happen for game pass is a price increase. The model, exactly as it exists today, is here to stay. Perhaps EA Play may eventually go away from Ultimate once that deal expires, but the same way netflix, HBO Max and Disney Plus have existed, or will go on existing for years using that same business model, so too will Game Pass. Microsoft is a $2 trillion dollar company and gaming is as popular as ever. The next major edition of Windows is focused around game pass and gaming. We will be sitting right here come 2027-2030 saying "remember when people told us Game Pass would shift and become this terrible thing? It's even better now and has kept its promise due to all these game releases."

Just wait till Game Pass hits what I believe to be the magic 40 million figure. It will become unstoppable.

Gamepass is already a great value. I didnt know it completely, Until I bought switch yesterday. I had to spend 60$ for smash bros. 60$ for breath of the wild. And now, i will need to spend 120$ so I can mario kart 8, and mario maker 2 for my little brother. That is 240$ spent for 4 switch games. While on gamepass, I spent 180$ to have 1 year free for their games, and upcoming games, plus day1 3rd party games, and other 3rd party in the service.

At least, Sony games get cheaper over time. Imagine god of war costing 60$, or spiderman. I wouldnt have been able to afford the 3 consoles, and a pc gaming.

 

[kingfey]

I don't think there's many people that think GamePass itself will turn into a terrible thing. Besides a price increase, the only bad thing that I believe will come, will be an in-game Ad-Support Gamepass subscription model that cost half the price of the normal subscription.

Like Gamepass Ultimate goes up to $22 a month yet Gamepass Ultimate (with in-game Ads) will cost $9.99 a month. To me that's the "worst" thing I expect MS will make GP.

I doubt Microsoft out of all people will do it. They get their money from dlc, mtx, and games people buy on the service. Putting ads will make people leave the service. They want this service to be long term money printing. They wont jeopardize it. Even EA isnt doing it for their EA play service. That thing existed way before gamepass. And we are talking about the same EA, Who will happily charge you money for useless cards.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

And

These arent quality games according to gaffers. They need to have rich story, with massive cinematic scenes, that will make you drop your controller, make a tea, and comeback. Drink it, until the cinematic scene ends. I almost dosed out in the opening of Last of us 2. If it werent for the zombies encounter, and the lack of ammo, and the feeling of helplessness, I would have dropped the game completely.

Craziest part is many are possibly going off some very old assumptions with these games in particular. Nobody really knows what kind of technology they may use for cinematics, or how digital actors could come alive in more important scenes.

 

[Three]

High quality single player game that's 15 hours long. $70 upfront.

Free to play game with unlimited repetitive quests and RNGs. Microtransactions. $0 upfront.

Which do you think people will have higher "engagement" with and more players?

Number two is where we are headed.

I wish there was some metric for how diluted gameplay mechanics are. 100000 weapons isn't "content" to me if there is some %1 stat difference. Gameplay shouldn't be about stupid numbers it should be about variety and fun.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Gamepass is already a great value. I didnt know it completely, Until I bought switch yesterday. I had to spend 60$ for smash bros. 60$ for breath of the wild. And now, i will need to spend 120$ so I can mario kart 8, and mario maker 2 for my little brother. That is 240$ spent for 4 switch games. While on gamepass, I spent 180$ to have 1 year free for their games, and upcoming games, plus day1 3rd party games, and other 3rd party in the service.

At least, Sony games get cheaper over time. Imagine god of war costing 60$, or spiderman. I wouldnt have been able to afford the 3 consoles, and a pc gaming.

This is what people fail to understand right here.

And nothing says you have to pay out this money in advance. For the cost of just $10 or $15 right now, you can have access to hundreds of existing big releases and many more games in the coming years at $10 or $15 a pop per month.

That's killer value. I can say right now at that price Game Pass is effectively free for me. The money I make renders that $15 per month to far less than the value of a single penny, which is why I will always sing its praises until there's a legit reason not to.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I like Metascore better than engagement to be honest if I "HAD" to pick. But how about we don't do any of that. How about they do it the same way these guys did it?

Quincy Jones

Shigeru Miyamoto

James Cameron

You look at the product that you are going to "sell" to the public less like slot machine\cash register and more like a personal work of art.

The company who values engagement is going to outcompete the company who doesn't value any metrics, or values metacritic. Critics used to be able to predict what games the masses would adore. They've now become "activists" for pushing their types of games.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

High quality single player game that's 15 hours long. $70 upfront.

Free to play game with unlimited repetitive quests and RNGs. Microtransactions. $0 upfront.

Which do you think people will have higher "engagement" with and more players?

Number two is where we are headed.

Try high quality singleplayer AND multiplayer games that range from 15 hours long to the hundreds of hours long in enjoyment. $0 up front if you're already subscribed to Xbox Game Pass. All covered for as little as $10 per month or the option of spending $60 if you wish. A discount on that $60 if you have game pass.

Oh... and for $15 per month with game pass ultimate, you get the xbox versions as well as the PC versions.

For that you're getting Starfield, Indiana Jones, Avowed, Fable, Elder Scrolls 6, The Outer Worlds 2, Halo Infinite, Deathloop, Ghostwire Tokyo, Doom Next gen, Perfect Dark, Contraband, Redfall, Stalker 2, Psychonauts 2, Forza Horizon 5, Forza Motorsport Hellblade 2 and Everwild for starters.

Perhaps number two is where you think we're headed on a specific platform, but it for damn certain isn't where we are headed on PC and Xbox.

IF people always tell us how well Sony's first party titles always sell, what is there to be worried about exactly? I'm confused.

Between Xbox Play Anywhere, Xbox Game Pass, Xcloud, Series X|S, DX12 Ultimate, Windows 11 Game Pass integration, their Xbox studio investments and the Bethesda purchase, Microsoft is pretty well prepared for the future.

 

[Faithless83]

This is the "cellphones won't affect the console space" all over again.
Just like movies and music are "build in factories" and not created anymore, the same will happen to games.

This is nothing new,, as devs are going for the safe route for a while now, but gamepass will crank this up to 11.

Take a moment and notice how much of the cellphone gatcha is being inserted into FULL PRICED games.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Alternative headline:

Guy who's job it is to grade graphics worries about business model that values gameplay over graphics.

 

[Three]

Try high quality singleplayer AND multiplayer games that range from 15 hours long to the hundreds of hours long in enjoyment. $0 up front if you're already subscribed to Xbox Game Pass. All covered for as little as $10 per month or the option of spending $60 if you wish. A discount on that $60 if you have game pass.

Oh... and for $15 per month with game pass ultimate, you get the xbox versions as well as the PC versions.

For that you're getting Starfield, Indiana Jones, Avowed, Fable, Elder Scrolls 6, The Outer Worlds 2, Halo Infinite, Deathloop, Ghostwire Tokyo, Doom Next gen, Perfect Dark, Contraband, Redfall, Stalker 2, Psychonauts 2, Forza Horizon 5, Forza Motorsport Hellblade 2 and Everwild for starters.

Perhaps number two is where you think we're headed on a specific platform, but it for damn certain isn't where we are headed on PC and Xbox.

IF people always tell us how well Sony's first party titles always sell, what is there to be worried about exactly? I'm confused.

Between Xbox Play Anywhere, Xbox Game Pass, Xcloud, Series X|S, DX12 Ultimate, Windows 11 Game Pass integration, their Xbox studio investments and the Bethesda purchase, Microsoft is pretty well prepared for the future.

Is this a commercial? Hope you are getting paid for this. Nobody even mentioned gamepass but that's where that's headed too when the metric that makes you money is engagement.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Alternative headline:

Guy who's job it is to grade graphics worries about business model that values gameplay over graphics.

10 years ago their articles were more objective. They spit out some stats or some 360/ps3 stuff and up to you to judge whether it's better or worse. It was more like PC benchmark sites where they churn out stats in an article.

It seems their articles now are a lot more subjective and opinionated.

 

[ZehDon]

I do enjoy how the OP makes a thread based on a tweet, that is based on another tweet, that was addressing an article about Google Stadia's business model and its plans - not a one mentioning Gamepass - and now we're four pages and counting on how Gamepass - whose known business models don't use engagement as a means of calculating revenue share, where developers have said the subscription model allows better experimentation as it lowers barrier to people trying their games - is going to burn down the industry, while no one seems to care to discuss Stadia - whose actual business model actually uses the engagement metric and was actually discussed in the actual article, the original tweet, and the actual tweet referenced in the OP.

You guys really need to be more subtle, you're far too obvious with this stuff.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Is this a commercial? Hope you are getting paid for this. Nobody even mentioned gamepass but that's where that's headed too when the metric that makes you money is engagement.

This whole thread is about secretly attacking subscription services like Game Pass. Let's not pretend otherwise.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

I do enjoy how the OP makes a thread based on a tweet, that is based on another tweet, that was addressing an article about Google Stadia's business model and its plans - not a one mentioning Gamepass - and now we're four pages and counting on how Gamepass - whose known business models don't use engagement as a means of calculating revenue share, where developers have said the subscription model allows better experimentation as it lowers barrier to people trying their games - is going to burn down the industry, while no one seems to care to discuss Stadia - whose actual business model actually uses the engagement metric and was actually discussed in the actual article, the original tweet, and the actual tweet referenced in the OP.

You guys really need to be more subtle, you're far too obvious with this stuff.

Point exactly. The whole purpose of this thread was to attack Game Pass, despite this being about Stadia's model.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I do enjoy how the OP makes a thread based on a tweet, that is based on another tweet, that was addressing an article about Google Stadia's business model and its plans - not a one mentioning Gamepass - and now we're four pages and counting on how Gamepass - whose known business models don't use engagement as a means of calculating revenue share, where developers have said the subscription model allows better experimentation as it lowers barrier to people trying their games - is going to burn down the industry, while no one seems to care to discuss Stadia - whose actual business model actually uses the engagement metric and was actually discussed in the actual article, the original tweet, and the actual tweet referenced in the OP.

You guys really need to be more subtle, you're far too obvious with this stuff.

Good point. Makes sense considering who posted the article and brought up GP in the same breath.

 

[tsumake]

Point exactly. The whole purpose of this thread was to attack Game Pass, despite this being about Stadia's model.

So it’s your job to defend it?

 

[MacReady13]

Same people who said this about oblivion horse armor dlc are now the same ones buying all these season passes. How do I know? I listen to people insult me on this very forum about how casual a gamer I am because I don't buy them in games like FIFA.

The worse that will happen for game pass is a price increase. The model, exactly as it exists today, is here to stay. Perhaps EA Play may eventually go away from Ultimate once that deal expires, but the same way netflix, HBO Max and Disney Plus have existed, or will go on existing for years using that same business model, so too will Game Pass. Microsoft is a $2 trillion dollar company and gaming is as popular as ever. The next major edition of Windows is focused around game pass and gaming. We will be sitting right here come 2027-2030 saying "remember when people told us Game Pass would shift and become this terrible thing? It's even better now and has kept its promise due to all these game releases."

Just wait till Game Pass hits what I believe to be the magic 40 million figure. It will become unstoppable.

Once every company decides it wants to release their own subscription service for their own games then many of you will not see how bad this shit will get. Just keep feeding Microsoft what they want- I mean it's already starting now with Netflix getting into the game. Imagine them throwing their billions of $ at a company you love. You'll then need to subscribe to Netflix to play that particular game. When does it end? For most of you, who cares, right???

 

[tsumake]

- OP talks about engagement metrics being a troubling development in gaming

- mentions Gamepass as part of the problem (though arguably later refuted)

- some posters say somewhat negative things about Gamepass (probably OT)

- other posters are now calling “console war!”, which could get some users banned

This is getting ridiculous.

 

[elliot5]

Alternative headline:

Guy who's job it is to grade graphics worries about business model that values gameplay over graphics.

A little disingenuous because it's his personal opinion and he obviously has a big connection to older titles pre-GaaS and subscription based and yada yada. Hand waving his opinion away because of his role at DF is silly.

 

[tsumake]

A little disingenuous because it's his personal opinion and he obviously has a big connection to older titles pre-GaaS and subscription based and yada yada. Hand waving his opinion away because of his role at DF is silly.

You know what, devil’s advocate - an individual known for measuring game tech performance commenting on industry practices could be construed as out place, depending on what social media account he’s using (business/private). So, there could be a valid criticism there.

But, the content of Linneman’s argument is worth discussing.

 

[ZehDon]

Once every company decides it wants to release their own subscription service for their own games then many of you will not see how bad this shit will get. Just keep feeding Microsoft what they want- I mean it's already starting now with Netflix getting into the game. Imagine them throwing their billions of $ at a company you love. You'll then need to subscribe to Netflix to play that particular game. When does it end? For most of you, who cares, right???

I don't think you've been paying attention. EA already have their own subscription service. It's doing so well they bundled it into Gamepass Ultimate. Ubisoft already have their own subscription service. It's doing so well that most people don't know it exists. Sony already have their own subscription service. Actually, theirs is as old as the PS4, and one of the reasons Sony purchased Gaiki all those moons ago. It's doing so well after all those years they've nearly started talking about it. Nintendo already have their own subscription service. It's doing so well that its mocked openly on virtually every major forum.

The primary problem with these services is that they lack content - no one wants pay $10 a month to play old Battlefield or Assassins Creed titles, few people want to pay $10 a month to play older PS4 titles and high-latency PS1 games, and fewer still want to pay a monthly fee to play NES titles. Sony had to change their service to allow downloading some PS4 titles because they weren't seeing any traction. Gamepass is the only service that's resonated, and that's because Microsoft went all in - everything gamers want, on Gamepass, day one. So, the idea that Microsoft is some kind of unique and nefarious monster out to turn the industry into a slot machine whale doesn't really align to what we've seen - if anything, they were late to the game, but they've eclipsed everyone else combined because they gave people what they wanted - which wasn't slot machines and loot boxes, but quality console and PC titles.

Netflix can try and break into the games industry, but I doubt they actually will. It took Microsoft - who had enough free cash that they decided to try and buy fucking Nintendo - two consoles and nearly ten years to actually establish themselves, and they're still in third place. Google's attempt failed. Amazon is floundering. Apple had to backdown. No one's breaking Nintendo's stranglehold on the handheld market. Sony's got the home console market on a virtual lockdown, and has been the king for four generations and counting. Microsoft dominate the subscription space, and literally no one has the resources to challenge their cross-platform PC/Console/Streaming approach. What's Netflix honestly going to offer? Stadia-esque low-latency streaming - an approach that has already failed? Power to 'em, but they've got a long and painful road ahead.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

A little disingenuous because it's his personal opinion and he obviously has a big connection to older titles pre-GaaS and subscription based and yada yada. Hand waving his opinion away because of his role at DF is silly.

The conflict of interest invalidates his opinion.

 

[MacReady13]

I don't think you've been paying attention. EA already have their own subscription service. It's doing so well they bundled it into Gamepass Ultimate. Ubisoft already have their own subscription service. It's doing so well that most people don't know it exists. Sony already have their own subscription service. Actually, theirs is as old as the PS4, and one of the reasons Sony purchased Gaiki all those moons ago. It's doing so well after all those years they've nearly started talking about it. Nintendo already have their own subscription service. It's doing so well that its mocked openly on virtually every major forum.

The primary problem with these services is that they lack content - no one wants pay $10 a month to play old Battlefield or Assassins Creed titles, few people want to pay $10 a month to play older PS4 titles and high-latency PS1 games, and fewer still want to pay a monthly fee to play NES titles. Sony had to change their service to allow downloading some PS4 titles because they weren't seeing any traction. Gamepass is the only service that's resonated, and that's because Microsoft went all in - everything gamers want, on Gamepass, day one. So, the idea that Microsoft is some kind of unique and nefarious monster out to turn the industry into a slot machine whale doesn't really align to what we've seen - if anything, they were late to the game, but they've eclipsed everyone else combined because they gave people what they wanted - which wasn't slot machines and loot boxes, but quality console and PC titles.

Netflix can try and break into the games industry, but I doubt they actually will. It took Microsoft - who had enough free cash that they decided to try and buy fucking Nintendo - two consoles and nearly ten years to actually establish themselves, and they're still in third place. Google's attempt failed. Amazon is floundering. Apple had to backdown. No one's breaking Nintendo's stranglehold on the handheld market. Sony's got the home console market on a virtual lockdown, and has been the king for four generations and counting. Microsoft dominate the subscription space, and literally no one has the resources to challenge their cross-platform PC/Console/Streaming approach. What's Netflix honestly going to offer? Stadia-esque low-latency streaming - an approach that has already failed? Power to 'em, but they've got a long and painful road ahead.

I appreciate the sarcasm, but it has to start somewhere. Once it gains traction (and enough companies are seeing that it has) it will eventually take off. Mock all you like but this is the future that many sheep want and companies are happy to provide.

 

[longdi]

this is a Google doing Google things. why is Gamepass being drawn in again?

as long as Phil heads XGS, im sure he is well aware what makes a gamer ticks, the last time they tried to force Kinect TVTVTV didn't work out

 

[ZehDon]

I appreciate the sarcasm, but it has to start somewhere. Once it gains traction (and enough companies are seeing that it has) it will eventually take off. Mock all you like but this is the future that many sheep want and companies are happy to provide.

And what, precisely, is "it"? An optional subscription service that offers games, and if you don't want it, you can just buy the games like you always have?

 

[alabtrosMyster]

There you have it, xbox and gamepass are poison, like social media.

Give me real games.