Support NeoGAF

[Hobbygaming]

, if you're still buying Xbox games to play on your Xbox... why?? What games are you still buying that aren't on Game Pass? How much gaming do you need when you've already got so much stuff on Game Pass available for "free"?

There's a ton of great games that aren't in Gamepass that one would be missing out on

 

[DeepEnigma]

And premium prices.

Imagine saying this after the nVidia prices.

 

[Bulletbrain]

well he is right , look at halo infinite it is financially a flop.

I wonder what metric is used to judge the financial success of a game that's launched day 1 on a subscription service. Surely it can't be straight sales because obviously it will be lower. It just doesn't make sense to becnhmark straight sales when your key strategy is NOT focused on straight sales. Netflix uses a benchmark of full viewership within the first week iirc according to the creator of Sandman. It's not a pure financial metric, but it's a good measure for engagement. It's likely Infinite's underperformance was a more a result of the games quality not meeting expectations, rather than its distribution model. I.e even if it didn't launch on gamepass day 1, it would have underperformed.

 

[rodrigolfp]

Imagine saying this after the nVidia prices.

Maybe the Nvidia prices are worthy.

 

[Hobbygaming]

3-5 full price AAA games a year> $15 a month for a year of a library full of dated games and fillers.

100% and I buy indies and AA too. I love traditional gaming and supporting the artform. If it looks interesting to me, I'm there

 

[DeepEnigma]

Maybe the Nvidia prices are worthy.

 

[Bulletbrain]

Imagine saying this after the nVidia prices.

Difference is the vast majority of people are justifiably pissed off at the prices, instead of defending them.

 

[mansoor1980]

I wonder what metric is used to judge the financial success of a game that's launched day 1 on a subscription service. Surely it can't be straight sales because obviously it will be lower. It just doesn't make sense to becnhmark straight sales when your key strategy is NOT focused on straight sales. Netflix uses a benchmark of full viewership within the first week iirc according to the creator of Sandman. It's not a pure financial metric, but it's a good measure for engagement. It's likely Infinite's underperformance was a more a result of the games quality not meeting expectations, rather than its distribution model. I.e even if it didn't launch on gamepass day 1, it would have underperformed.

unfortunately we will never know that although i liked the campaign despite the open world.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Difference is the vast majority of people are justifiably pissed off at the prices, instead of trying defending them.

That specific user is okay with them

 

[Bulletbrain]

unfortunately we will never know that although i liked the campaign despite the open world.

Point is, we need to be careful of attributing the "failure" of a certain title to it's distribution model Vs its inherent quality. Infinite had a fair share of development issues so I think the game would have sadly underperformed even if not on gamepass. It just didn't meet the lofty standards of the series.

 

[Punished Miku]

3-5 full price AAA games a year> $15 a month for a year of a library full of dated games and fillers.

I do both.

 

[Ghost of Caelid]

If they launched in PS plus, less people would buy them and Sony would make less money. Which means less budgets for the games we love

I'll gladly pay the $70

I’m glad you would. I pay 70$ too. I prefer to have games launch into a monthly service as a fan of gamepass but still paid 70$ for demons souls. Sony would make less on the front end but the purpose of sub services are more money in the long term. Why ps plus exist.

 

[CamHostage]

There's a ton of great games that aren't in Gamepass that one would be missing out on

I was speaking hypothetically (and hyperbolically.) There are still some reasons to crack open your wallet if you are an Xbox game owner...

But even those games, a lot of people are still balking at buying them because chances are the good ones might show up on Xbox Game Pass eventually. That fear-of-paying-for-free crept in on the PlayStation library for a while as PS Plus went on, but it's at a whole other level for Xbox.

And that's a giant impending situation Sony is hoping to dodge, if possible. (Nintendo is under that same asteroid's shadow.) They don't want to give away The Last of Us Part One and God of War Ragnarok until they absolutely have to. They don't want to value the service over the title? Whereas Microsoft is like, "I heard tell grandma you want 'Halo' for Christmas, did you mean to say 'Xbox Game Pass' "?

 

[Represent.]

I mean Forza Horizon 5, Flight Simulator, Psychonauts 2 and more are quality first party titles and their approach was to put them on Gamepass. What point are you trying to make?

So basically 2 quality first party games since launch. And one of them is Forza (HALOGEARSFORZA meme). The other was from a studio they just bought and is also on PS4. The potential is there for good stuff in the future but i don't even think its controversial to say it (good first party support) has not been there for the better part of a decade now. Not since the early-mid 360 days actually. And to compare their output to Nintendo/Sony is just ... yeah.

 

[DavidGzz]

When are they going to deliver an updated Bloodborne for $70? I'm ready to bend over. Come on and protect us some more, Sony. Please.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

I do both.

That's Cool.
Personally I find $15 a month to be rather expensive to rent games, especially when I buy the games I like.

 

[Punished Miku]

That's Cool.
Personally I find $15 a month to be rather expensive to rent games, especially when I buy the games I like.

My impulse purchases were far past that. This gives me constant new game dopamine and saves me money. Not for everyone though, I get it.

 

[bender]

There's a ton of great games that aren't in Gamepass that one would be missing out on

While true, GPU (and now Sony's offering) make it much easier to wait on games that you are interested in but aren't completely sure you'll love. In the past I'd usually wait for these to go on a heavy discount before purchasing but more recently I find myself say, "well if this is on a heavy discount, I bet it will show up on GPU sooner than later". And in the meantime you have massive catalogues of games to try out. On the flip side, GPU hasn't effected me purchasing games that I know I'll love, even if they are day-and-date release. I bought the expensive editions of both Forza Horizon and Flight Sim. I also think those are the only two titles I've purchase since I got an XSX aside from some older BC stuff. And now with Sony's offering, I'm going to buy far fewer first party games as my interest has largely dwindled in their tent pole AAA offerings. I can wait a few years to play Horizon, God Of War and whatever Naughty Dog does next.

 

[sainraja]

I think day one for Sony titles makes sense for their upcoming GaaS offerings, but the core single player experiences? No chance.

Well, most GaaS games are free-to-play anyway. But someone gave an example of League of Legends and Game Pass recently....so there are still ways to enhance that kinda thing with a sub. If it is a first-party offering that kinda thing is easy to maintain but if it is via third-party, how long will it be available?

 

[Unrivaledx88]

I believe GP model will lead to devaluation of games and gaming as a whole.
Hard to profit sub model
Games have to be cheaper to make
Games have to be gaas
Userbase gets used to free/cheap games.

Death of 60-70$ high quality games... and death of physical and and ownership... so HOPE IT'S NOT END ALL BE ALL !
I like ps because of physical games but it was really hard to find tlou part 1 in stores day 1... almost like they printed very little copies.

At the same time - I have almost 600 games on steam and just also got a steam deck... a digital only device. My brain is pancake

Thissss

Crazy thing is Gamers hate Microtransactions yet they entertain a subscription that… yes you get day one games on a service but long term this service will lead to games with more in game purchases… right now its golden tho enjoy it while it lasts

 

[SenjutsuSage]

A lot of people saying, "I'll gladly $70." So would I. We can assume everybody here has no problem spending money on big games they want. However, when you start seeing enough of those same incredible games coming to you for effectively free year after year, month after month, how many times will you be as willing to spend that same $70 time and time again if you don't have to? This isn't just about $70 games, but $60 games, too. If I have a choice between keeping my damn money in my pocket and instead using that to go out to a nice restaurant or get something else nice that I want, that's precisely what I'll do. And I say this as someone who has plenty to spend and buy just about whatever I want. But at some stage there comes a point where "effectively free" for a low monthly fee starts to look a lot more appealing than dropping $60.

Why would I feel bad about it when the company whose game is on there got paid, their game development costs partially or fully covered in the case of first party studios and some third party studios, and when a company chose to offer me such an incredible deal? I will indulge and keep indulging to my heart's content. Let them worry about their business bottom line. They didn't put money in my pocket, so I won't give them a dollar more than I feel is necessary.

 

[poppabk]

Sony will believe in a premium release while it continues to make them the most profit. If day 1 subscription releases become more profitable then they will believe in that.
MS will believe in day 1 releases until they don't.

 

[ryzen1]

This is the first thread where Game Pass is not praised like the holy grail.

 

[Hobbygaming]

A lot of people saying, "I'll gladly $70." So would I. We can assume everybody here has no problem spending money on big games they want. However, when you start seeing enough of those same incredible games coming to you for effectively free year after year, month after month, how many times will you be as willing to spend that same $70 time and time again if you don't have to? This isn't just about $70 games, but $60 games, too. If I have a choice between keeping my damn money in my pocket and instead using that to go out to a nice restaurant or get something else nice that I want, that's precisely what I'll do. And I say this as someone who has plenty to spend and buy just about whatever I want. But at some stage there comes a point where "effectively free" for a low monthly fee starts to look a lot more appealing than dropping $60.

Why would I feel bad about it when the company whose game is on there got paid, their game development costs partially or fully covered in the case of first party studios and some third party studios, and when a company chose to offer me such an incredible deal? I will indulge and keep indulging to my heart's content. Let them worry about their business bottom line. They didn't put money in my pocket, so I won't give them a dollar more than I feel is necessary.

That's the issue. If people get conditioned into not buying games and everyone is on a low cost service, how many studios do you see investing $100 - $200 million into an AAA game just to not make their money back

 

[adamsapple]

That's Cool.
Personally I find $15 a month to be rather expensive to rent games, especially when I buy the games I like.

You can avoid paying $15 a month with the gold conversion and drop the price down to 1/3rd for a year.

Get a whole year for $61 and get 20% discounts for any game on the service you want to keep permanently.

The options are there and they're pretty cool.

I believe GP model will lead to devaluation of games and gaming as a whole.
Hard to profit sub model
Games have to be cheaper to make
Games have to be gaas
Userbase gets used to free/cheap games.

Death of 60-70$ high quality games... and death of physical and and ownership... so HOPE IT'S NOT END ALL BE ALL !
I like ps because of physical games but it was really hard to find tlou part 1 in stores day 1... almost like they printed very little copies.

At the same time - I have almost 600 games on steam and just also got a steam deck... a digital only device. My brain is pancake

The only way all of this ever happens is if companies start making games exclusively for GP.

Which isn't happening any time soon. All the games on GP have to be sold at retail or digital storefronts as well, and in many cases they are sold on multiple platforms. I don't see a multiplatform publisher devalue a game for the sake of GP if they have to sell it at retail in 3 other places.

Similarly, even Xbox first party hasn't exactly suffered this. Yes, everyone loves to bring up Halo, I'm sure if I search it's already been mentioned about a dozen times already. But that game has a lot of other fundamental leadership issues that are not a subscription services fault. Games like Gears 5, Horizon 5, Motorsport 7 were developed and other games like Hellblade 2 etc are all being developed with the same scope as you'd expect a AAA retail only release to have.

It may be a concern in another 2 generations if all publishers and console makers decide that this is the only model they want to support, but I don't see it happening like that.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

You can avoid paying $15 a month with the gold conversion and drop the price down to 1/3rd for a year.

Get a whole year for $61 and get 20% discounts for any game on the service you want to keep permanently.

The options are there and they're pretty cool.



The only way all of this ever happens is if companies start making games exclusively for GP.

Which isn't happening any time soon. All the games on GP have to be sold at retail or digital storefronts as well, and in many cases they are sold on multiple platforms. I don't see a multiplatform publisher devalue a game for the sake of GP if they have to sell it at retail in 3 other places.

Similarly, even Xbox first party hasn't exactly suffered this. Yes, everyone loves to bring up Halo, I'm sure if I search it's already been mentioned about a dozen times already. But that game has a lot of other fundamental leadership issues that are not a subscription services fault. Games like Gears 5, Horizon 5, Motorsport 7 were developed and other games like Hellblade 2 etc are all being developed with the same scope as you'd expect a AAA retail only release to have.

It may be a concern in another 2 generations if all publishers and console makers decide that this is the only model they want to support, but I don't see it happening like that.

I pay $40-50 a year for Gold and $25-38 for Plus.
I am content with the above so thanks but no thanks.

 

[adamsapple]

I pay $40-50 a year for Gold and $25-38 for Plus.
I am content with the above so thanks but no thanks.

Maybe you'll change your mind once you try it, but that is entirely your choice.

To me, just the number of day 1 games alone in 1 year more than make up for the 3 years of Gold > GPU conversion in terms of the monetary value.

 

[Fredrik]

I’ve realized that this service is not really made for people like us, it’s made for those who rarely buy games and those who have no problem being LTTP.
But I prepaid Now and got Premium cheaper so for now I still like the service.

 

[Heisenberg007]

And thank the heavens for that!

I think both models can exist.

People who aren't as obsessed with quality and high production value/budget and just want more games at a cheaper price can benefit from the Gamepass model.

People who have limited time and want to play the best of the best games can benefit from Sony's model of producing $200 million blockbuster games like the upcoming God of War Ragnarok.

Personally, I belong to the second group. There are so many games in my backlog right now (more than I could ever play), but I just keep thinking about Ragnarok and that's what I really want to play. You can bet I'll drop every other game the minute GOWR drops.

And that's why I hope Sony doesn't follow the day-one sub model and never stops doing what they do so well.

 

[reksveks]

His comments about Stray was very politician like

 

[Three]

I'm a movie buff because I have a netflix subscription. I don't care for watching the latest movies, going to the Cinema or owning a movie collection because I'm watching shit on netflix for "half the cost".
- The quintessential movie enthusiast.

 

[three_muffins]

Sony had PSplus before MS, so they giving games to PSplus describers on a montly basis for a long time. And Sony has now theyr version of "gamepass" with aprox. 800 games.

But they not throwing theyr first party games on theyr service day one, and are not pushing ore paying third party developers to,do that. But most third party developers are not taking the bait that MS is holding for theyr face. They want to sell theyr games first and much later put them on services, so they in a way agree with the Sony approach.

You sound more like a sony corporate identity and less like a gamer.

 

[akimbo009]

That's Cool.
Personally I find $15 a month to be rather expensive to rent games, especially when I buy the games I like.

Great. We can all agree consumer choice is awesome.

 

[Hendrick's]

2023 is good to be a rough year for Sony. They are damage controlling big time.

 

[Sosokrates]

Having first party games come day 1 on gamepass is a major advantage in the game subscription market.
It really shows the difference in stratagies both companies have. As the industry becomes more device agnostic I think subscriptions will become more important, but in there here and now doing day1 releases requires investment not every company can do. As a customer day1 releases offers a lot more value.

 

[tmlDan]

Can't we just enjoy that all three big game makers are in different areas, MS i fully invested in GP and Cloud, Sony is hybrid between Nintendo and MS, and Ninty is traditional with charging you full price for HD remakes and rare sales feeding on nostalgia.

There's something for everyone and more for those that have all three, none of us really know who will be the most successful in the long run.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I'm a movie buff because I have a netflix subscription. I don't care for watching the latest movies, going to the Cinema or owning a movie collection because I'm watching shit on netflix for "half the cost".
- The quintessential movie enthusiast.

I used to just stream everything but then I went back to going to the cinemas and buying blurays. Sure its more expensive but the quality is better and I get to watch what I want.

Still I'm OK with others having access to subscriptions.

 

[Three]

A lot of people saying, "I'll gladly $70." So would I. We can assume everybody here has no problem spending money on big games they want. However, when you start seeing enough of those same incredible games coming to you for effectively free year after year, month after month, how many times will you be as willing to spend that same $70 time and time again if you don't have to? This isn't just about $70 games, but $60 games, too. If I have a choice between keeping my damn money in my pocket and instead using that to go out to a nice restaurant or get something else nice that I want, that's precisely what I'll do. And I say this as someone who has plenty to spend and buy just about whatever I want. But at some stage there comes a point where "effectively free" for a low monthly fee starts to look a lot more appealing than dropping $60.

Why would I feel bad about it when the company whose game is on there got paid, their game development costs partially or fully covered in the case of first party studios and some third party studios, and when a company chose to offer me such an incredible deal? I will indulge and keep indulging to my heart's content. Let them worry about their business bottom line. They didn't put money in my pocket, so I won't give them a dollar more than I feel is necessary.

Why go to a nice restaurant when you can keep the money in your pocket and make a sandwich at home? For some, buying a game like Elden Ring or God Of War Ragnarok is the restaurant. They spend their money and have a great time playing games.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Why go to a nice restaurant?

For the entertainment?

 

[Heisenberg007]

Having first party games come day 1 on gamepass is a major advantage in the game subscription market.
It really shows the difference in stratagies both companies have. As the industry becomes more device agnostic I think subscriptions will become more important, but in there here and now doing day1 releases requires investment not every company can do. As a customer day1 releases offers a lot more value.

It's not as big as some people think it is.

Think about it from a practical perspective and quantify it. Xbox's goal (it is just a goal atm, not a reality) is to publish 4 first-party games a year: one every quarter. Let's imagine for a second that they succeed at that goal and hit it 100% every single year.

Even in that best-case scenario, that only means 4 games on Gamepass on day one in 12 months -- the differentiating games that won't be available on any other sub.

Are 4 games in 1 year really such a big deal? Especially considering that the majority of subs won't play all 4 games, as everybody has different tastes. So for the average GP subscriber, they will benefit from 1-2 of those 4 first-party games in 12 months.

It's not that big of a USP when you quantify it and really look at it.

 

[pasterpl]

But I thought y'all loved the xCloud streaming? They also added it in 2018.

And stop moving the goalposts. They had a service first, it was a side bitch service, even less than that. It still is a side service for them, not a focal point.

Talking about moving goalposts. Lol.

On the topic, I think Sony will at least test some 1st party day one releases when the number of subscribers will be substantial on their service.

 

[sinnergy]

We believe in generations!!

 

[DarkMage619]

It's not as big as some people think it is.

Think about it from a practical perspective and quantify it. Xbox's goal (it is just a goal atm, not a reality) is to publish 4 first-party games a year: one every quarter. Let's imagine for a second that they succeed at that goal and hit it 100% every single year.

Even in that best-case scenario, that only means 4 games on Gamepass on day one in 12 months -- the differentiating games that won't be available on any other sub.

Are 4 games in 1 year really such a big deal? Especially considering that the majority of subs won't play all 4 games, as everybody has different tastes. So for the average GP subscriber, they will benefit from 1-2 of those 4 first-party games in 12 months.

It's not that big of a USP when you quantify it and really look at it.

Plenty of 3rd party games hit Game pass every month as well. I still have found no evidence that Game pass games are lower quality than games that cost $70 as people keep saying. If Starfield, Forza Horizon 5, and Flight Simulator are low quality games what is considered high quality? Do people realize that all Game pass games can be purchased normally too? How would low quality retail games even work?

 

[Sosokrates]

People who aren't as obsessed with quality and high production value/budget and just want more games at a cheaper price can benefit from the Gamepass model.

People who have limited time and want to play the best of the best games can benefit from Sony's model of producing $200 million blockbuster games like the upcoming God of War Ragnarok.

Oh, so you're going down the old gamepass games are McDonald's and sony games are 5guys route.

Its clearly false, 3rd person action games with strong narritives are not the "best of the best" for everyone.
Sony is certainly the best in that specific genre, but Xbox does big budget games too like halo infinite starfield, fable, indiana jones etc and sony also does smaller games, sackboy adventures, returnal, tloup1, tlou fractions, concrete genie, astro, psvr2 games coming etc..

 

[Sosokrates]

It's not as big as some people think it is.

Think about it from a practical perspective and quantify it. Xbox's goal (it is just a goal atm, not a reality) is to publish 4 first-party games a year: one every quarter. Let's imagine for a second that they succeed at that goal and hit it 100% every single year.

Even in that best-case scenario, that only means 4 games on Gamepass on day one in 12 months -- the differentiating games that won't be available on any other sub.

Are 4 games in 1 year really such a big deal? Especially considering that the majority of subs won't play all 4 games, as everybody has different tastes. So for the average GP subscriber, they will benefit from 1-2 of those 4 first-party games in 12 months.

It's not that big of a USP when you quantify it and really look at it.

Well its a lot better then paying the same price and not having exclusives day 1.

 

[Three]

I used to just stream everything but then I went back to going to the cinemas and buying blurays. Sure its more expensive but the quality is better and I get to watch what I want.

Still I'm OK with others having access to subscriptions.

Yep there is really nothing wrong with doing either or both but it's obvious there are tiers to enthusiasts that people are ignoring just because they think they might need to turn in their "gamer card" .

You can listen to the radio and say you love music but then there are those who have music collections and go to concerts. If you're doing the former there is nothing wrong with that, just don't argue that the latter paying whatever it cost for the concert or music collection should be more concerned about cost when radio is 'free'.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Oh, so you're going down the old gamepass games are McDonald's and sony games are 5guys route.

Its clearly false, 3rd person action games with strong narritives are not the "best of the best" for everyone.
Sony is certainly the best in that specific genre, but Xbox does big budget games too like halo infinite starfield, fable, indiana jones etc and sony also does smaller games, sackboy adventures, returnal, tloup1, tlou fractions, concrete genie, astro, psvr2 games coming etc..

You can't deny that Sony's games have higher budget and production values. They simply are better at the moment, not because those are third-person narrative games but because their production values are almost unmatched at the moment: from sound design to graphics to mo-cap to gameplay mechanics to scope.

And of the Xbox games you have listed, only 1 has been actually released: Halo Infinite, and we all know how half-baked that was that it even led to a studio restructure and was reported as a financial failture. This only further validates my point.

Besides, we haven't even seen Fable and Indiana Jones yet, so how do you know they are big-budget games with high-production value?

 

[geary]

how many studios do you see investing $100 - $200 million into an AAA game just to not make their money back

That's the reason why the AAA industry is in the state that is (remasters, remakes, sequels). Because the budget for marketing and graphical fidelity (motion capture etc) has become so big, that no innovation is done at that level. On one hand you guys denounce the lack of innovation in AAA area, but at the same time you want big budget games and production value.

I personally have more fun in indies and AA games than in the big AAA games. They become so predictable in terms of story, narrative, gameplay.

 

[Menzies]

Yep there is really nothing wrong with doing either or both but it's obvious there are tiers to enthusiasts that people are ignoring just because they think they might need to turn in their "gamer card" .

You can listen to the radio and say you love music but then there are those who have music collections and go to concerts. If you're doing the former there is nothing wrong with that, just don't argue that the latter paying whatever it cost for the concert or music collection should be more concerned about cost when radio is 'free'.

As always, your hot takes and summary analogies miss the mark and intentionally falsely misrepresent.

 

[Three]

As always, your hot takes and summary analogies miss the mark and intentionally falsely misrepresent.

What has been falsely represented?