That's a great evaluation and I agree 100% that's why I only had GP for less than 2 weeks. I canceled my sup when I still had a few months of use left and I never used it again once I thought about the end goalThe main problem with GP is probably more that it’s trying to make gaming disposable and so gamers burn money every month and come out with nothing. I’ve made comparisons with Netflix before, but that media is not anywhere comparable to whole games that go 10-100+ hours. It ends up being a feeding trough where gamers pay up and want everything to come to it. Microsoft kinda gave that false impression and it’s on them. But if you evaluate deeper, they’re just doing the same strategy they did with Azure by rug pulling everyone once people are invested in the ecosystem. So enjoy
PS Plus actually does a better job by not intersecting much with games that people would buy. So it ends up being a complementary service. Only some things have been devalued like my yakuza purchases.
Question: what do you think the impact of this consumer behavior will be on the gaming industry? We know that Gamepass covers ~20% of the development costs. Devs still expect to recover the rest of the 80% of development costs through sales. And even then it only leads them to a break even, not profits.Deja vu, the thread.
Love it or loathe it, Gamepass should be recognised as a massive part of gaming today. It’s certainly changed my habits, and I’ve been a gamer all my life, owning pretty much every console (okay, I skipped the Wii U) and rarely skipping a big release.
I’ve never played more games, for as much time, as since Gamepass. This weekend I’ll be playing Deathloop, Tinykin, that space salvage game I can’t remember the name of and my wife (very much a non-gamer) will inevitably be playing Dreamlight Valley. All games neither of us would have ever thought to buy at full price.
As for Sony’s stance, I’m never buying a full price game again, so whatever they believe they’ve not convinced me. I’ll wait for inclusion on PS+ or a below $20 sale for all of their games in future. Because I don’t believe in $70.
Once/if MS gets their AAA machine rolling, Sony has a big problem on its hands if it remains stuck in the past.
My opinion is your post is speculation.Question: what do you think the impact of this consumer behavior will be on the gaming industry? We know that Gamepass covers ~20% of the development costs. Devs still expect to recover the rest of the 80% of development costs through sales. And even then it only leads them to a break even, not profits.
With this consumer behavior, do you think we'll be getting more, better, and riskier games? Or do you think devs will make safer, small-budgeted games that are full of MTX and P2W mechanics?
Please do share your opinion.
I'd like to know what reason/s do you believe that more studios aren't inking deals for their games to be day one on GP?My opinion is your post is speculation.
I don’t expect to see smaller games full of MTX though, that’s for sure - and nothing about Gamepass (or PS+) to date suggests we have anything to fear like that.
Such an ignorant hot take. What would you say to the great divide in mobile vs. PC and console quality? There is absolutely a correlation between premium priced products and the higher quality experiences you can expect from them.There are lots of membership models which apply barriers to buyers. Whether music streaming, or Costco, or various loyalty programs in a range of products. They are all viable business models, and gaming isn't overly unique here.
I continue to be baffled by the mantra of "it's just not sustainable" cause "reasons". As a consumer, I don't give a shit about Sony or MS's bottomlines or how they rationalize their strategies as long as I can get value out of what they are offering. I think you'd be hard pressed to say GP isn't the best value in gaming - it may not cover all your gaming interests - and that's a reasonable opinion - but advocating for more expensive gaming experiences which $70+ dollar games are doing seems a weird advocacy as a consumer.
Never have I asked for a company to charge me more with the hopes that it increases quality - cause it usually just ends up as increased margins and profits for the business not actual improved products.
Why are you still arguing? We've both agreed that your behavior is in the minority. You're getting a good deal. Long term subscribers are getting a good deal. Everyone wins!
What finally got him banned?
My post isn't speculative at all. We have multiple official records that Gamepass signs deals by covering 20-25% of the development costs. That leaves 80% cost for devs to recover by other means.My opinion is your post is speculation.
I don’t expect to see smaller games full of MTX though, that’s for sure - and nothing about Gamepass (or PS+) to date suggests we have anything to fear like that.
Those are legitimate concerns. I hate how anyone dares to have an oposing view on GP is somehow considered "concern trolling." Subs and sales will definitely affect the money for a given project. I don't see how that's a controversial statement.My post isn't speculative at all. We have multiple official records that Gamepass signs deals by covering 20-25% of the development costs. That leaves 80% cost for devs to recover by other means.
Those are facts. Nothing speculative or debatable about that.
And why don't you see smaller games full of MTX? If people don't intend to buy games (like you said you won't buy most games), how else will the devs recover their money? If they don't recover their money, what do you think will happen?
Which scenario seems more likely to you?
- Those studios will be shut down?
- Their next games will have smaller budget, giving them a better chance to make more recovery or to minimize the loss at least?
- Their games will be full of in-app purchases to increase monetization possibilities?
- Or they will make even bigger and better-quality games and increase their development costs, even though they continue netting a loss? If yes, where will the money come from?
Honestly he had it coming but I'm glad that he's name here is now stuck with that avatar.
Nothing wrong with that. Ton of games on GP to play. Not sure I'd would apply that sentiment to the majority of subscribers overall though. I think that would be an interesting poll question for sure.
Honestly he had it coming but I'm glad that he's name here is now stuck with that avatar.
Yep I told him that he'd eventually get banned if he continued that way...So this is really not surprising and mods gave him plenty of chances to correct its behaviour but he as impermeable to reason.He did get plenty of chances and some even tried to help him out here. I guess he really didn't accept that his behavior wasn't correct.
Yep I told him that he'd eventually get banned if he continued that way...So this is really not surprising and mods gave him plenty of chances to correct its behaviour but he as impermeable to reason.
For instance should I buy gt7 right now while it's on sale or will it be on ps plus soon.........
How could they when he made so little sense ?What's sad is that the ones he supported didn't even bother to help him out for the most part.
I think it will be at least a year and probably longer. The new service launched June 13th. I believe the newest first party game on the service is Returnal which April 30th, 2021. The release date for Ratchet and Clank will be a good test as it launched June 11th, 2021 and still isn't on the service.
Time will tell, but you are probably right. I could maybe live with a year, but only if it is like clockwork. If it ends up being 2 or 3 years for even half the aaa stuff I will bow out.
I haven't been following this thread and tried reading back a bit. So literally all you guys were fighting about is that Lognor claimed that most people stay subbed to a subscription even if they don't use it every month frequently?
That's the big argument?
And Nintendo and me. I don't want mtx trash in my games and I value high production games.Best for Sony I guess.
Yeah, that's how every single sub service works. I can't believe people are so petty that they couldn't even admit this.I didn't read all of it either, bit isn't that true?
Creatures of habit and laziness, likely a very good chunk of consumers stay subbed to any subscription they are part of, that's why the sub services are so valuable, the cash flow is so consistent. Of course over time and depending on competition will matter, but if things are at least "ok" people will keep things turned on.
Question: what do you think the impact of this consumer behavior will be on the gaming industry? We know that Gamepass covers ~20% of the development costs. Devs still expect to recover the rest of the 80% of development costs through sales. And even then it only leads them to a break even, not profits.
With this consumer behavior, do you think we'll be getting more, better, and riskier games? Or do you think devs will make safer, small-budgeted games that are full of MTX and P2W mechanics?
Please do share your opinion.
I didn't read all of it either, bit isn't that true?
Creatures of habit and laziness, likely a very good chunk of consumers stay subbed to any subscription they are part of, that's why the sub services are so valuable, the cash flow is so consistent. Of course over time and depending on competition will matter, but if things are at least "ok" people will keep things turned on.
With how many sub services there are now and the prices I doubt this is as true as it used to be
I haven't been following this thread and tried reading back a bit. So literally all you guys were fighting about is that Lognor claimed that most people stay subbed to a subscription even if they don't use it every month frequently?
That's the big argument?
Why was he banned? I can't tell honestly. I don't want to read the entire thread, and his ban message doesn't really make it clear.That's not why he was banned though.
Why was he banned? I can't tell honestly. I don't want to read the entire thread, and his ban message doesn't really make it clear.
was literally boofed cuz of console warring u can check it >>> https://www.neogaf.com/bans/Basically he was providing data from sources that he didn't share with us. That's sums it up more or less.
was literally boofed cuz of console warring u can check it >>> https://www.neogaf.com/bans/
I didn't read all of it either, bit isn't that true?
Creatures of habit and laziness, likely a very good chunk of consumers stay subbed to any subscription they are part of, that's why the sub services are so valuable, the cash flow is so consistent. Of course over time and depending on competition will matter, but if things are at least "ok" people will keep things turned on.
I haven't been following this thread and tried reading back a bit. So literally all you guys were fighting about is that Lognor claimed that most people stay subbed to a subscription even if they don't use it every month frequently?
That's the big argument?
The argument was he was claiming to have posted all this data that he never did.
He was obviously on thin ice with the mods as it was, but the guy was constantly console warring. I'm guessing that's why he was banned. Not sure. I know I didn't report him.
Yes just making shit up can be considered console warring. I don't have any issues with people posting data as long as they state their source or that they crunched those numbers. Without that its impossible to have a meaningful debate.
Do I believe people subscribe to gamepass for more than a month?
Yes
Do I believe that 95% of first time subscribers continue with the service (for example)?
Not without any proof.
I told him I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with him on his point, but I wanted to see his data. Repeatedly he said go find it myself or stop posting. Being a bit of a dick about it, frankly. That's when I knew he was lying.
Lmao the irony on display here, aren’t you the one who keeps saying it’s not clear whether GP subscriber numbers are cumulative or current? When the question was solved years ago in MS SEC reports?Making claims / statements and presenting them as facts without providing a source to back up your argument is problematic.
Personally, I tune out whenever I come across someone pushing false numbers and stats. Only to then act dumb, deaf, or aggressive when you ask for receipts. I mean, it's hilarious to watch. But I can't engage with them beyond the initial ask for a source. And they make it clear that they're being disingenuous.
Yes you are. Talk about problematic statements.The problem I have with GP figures is that I'm not sure where the PR and actual data stops. Microsoft refuses even when asked in previous earnings calls to clarify the following.
1. Does the announced numbers include concurrent or anyone who has used the service since it's introduction
2. Does the numbers include all promo and £1/$1 and confectionary/food giveaways
Without clarification, GP's actual numbers could be a significant reason why Halo hasn't been able to recoup, even with "20 million" players.
Why would you say gamepass of covers 20% of dev costs? Clearly ms studio games are 100% (and there are a ton of them and represent a lot of aaa content) , and by all other accounts we have heard ever gamepass deal is individual, some cover more, some less. Some up front, some after they have been out for months or years.
Sad to see Lognor go, his mistake was to get tangled in all those dumb arguments I suppose.
But your entire premise is based on speculation. This 80/20 thing you are stating as hard fact… It’s clearly not as contracts are confidential and there’s no way Gamepass deals are negotiated on a standardised contract anyway so you can’t equate one to all, plus the cornerstone of Gamepass will be first party going forward anyway.My post isn't speculative at all. We have multiple official records that Gamepass signs deals by covering 20-25% of the development costs. That leaves 80% cost for devs to recover by other means.
Those are facts. Nothing speculative or debatable about that.
And why don't you see smaller games full of MTX? If people don't intend to buy games (like you said you won't buy most games), how else will the devs recover their money? If they don't recover their money, what do you think will happen?
Which scenario seems more likely to you?
- Those studios will be shut down?
- Their next games will have smaller budget, giving them a better chance to make more recovery or to minimize the loss at least?
- Their games will be full of in-app purchases to increase monetization possibilities?
- Or they will make even bigger and better-quality games and increase their development costs, even though they continue netting a loss? If yes, where will the money come from?
It'll be on a case by case basis. Sackboy, which released on Nov. 11, 2020, alongside Miles Morales and Demon's Souls, still isn't on the service.I think it will be at least a year and probably longer. The new service launched June 13th. I believe the newest first party game on the service is Returnal which April 30th, 2021. The release date for Ratchet and Clank will be a good test as it launched June 11th, 2021 and still isn't on the service.
I haven't been following this thread and tried reading back a bit. So literally all you guys were fighting about is that Lognor claimed that most people stay subbed to a subscription even if they don't use it every month frequently?
That's the big argument?
Is Nintendo wrong as well then? Or just Sony?But your entire premise is based on speculation. This 80/20 thing you are stating as hard fact… It’s clearly not as contracts are confidential and there’s no way Gamepass deals are negotiated on a standardised contract anyway so you can’t equate one to all, plus the cornerstone of Gamepass will be first party going forward anyway.
Your 1-4 list is also 100% speculative.
It depends what you class as MTX too - I’ll happily buy DLC for a Gamepass game as long as it’s new content (as in the Forza DLC pack for example), but I don’t consider that MTX.
Not looking to argue with you on a Sunday though. I just feel that it’s inevitable that many more people will choose value to them today over ‘long term health of the industry’, even if your point holds, so my personal opinion is Sony will be proved to have been on the wrong side of this down the line and will have no choice but to adapt to survive. It’s not going to be a choice to stubbornly do things the old way.
This is just console warring bait.Again a thread like this ? Come on we all know (well at least I thought so) that, if MS decides to put all the 1st party games on GP on day one, it is because their 1st party games are... average, since the end of the 360... And nobody buy them.
- Gears has lost its momentum since Gears 3 (I loved 4 and 5 but people didn't care those games)
- Recore (lol)
- Sunset Overdrive (ahah)
- Dead Rising 3 (cool but didn't sell)
Even Halo 5 didn't sell, the Forza games sold "a bit" but not as much as. they expected, so after 7/8 years not selling their 1st party games they decided to include them in their new subscriptions system...
Wether it will reduce games quality of games or not, we dunno yet.
But at least I think that yes, Yoshida is right, to be sure to keep making high quality AAA games, you need to sell the games at a full price on day one, those games costs a lot to make and the GP doesn't bring enough money to MS so they'll need to rise the prices (as it happened on Disney +, Netflix, etc), the appeal of GP now is that it's cheap (I'm not talking about some ways to get 3 years of GP at 60$ or so, most of people dunno how to do this and it probably won't be possible next years)... If it becomes 20$ a month, I dunno how people will react.
My worries that MS will spend less and less money in their "exclusives" from the studios they purchased and will end up making AA games, which is cool why not, but it's a big change.
So again yes, a subscription service is mandatory those days, people like to enjoy some games "on the fly", going throw catalogues of many titles and PS+Extra/Premium has more games, and mathematically more good games, that the GP has, but not including AAA 1st party games is the good way to go, it assures a big enough revenue to fund next AAA high quality games. I mean, compare Horizon FW, God of War Ragnarok, Returnal, Demon's Souls, Ratchet & Clank, to... Halo Infinite, that's embarrassing.