-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Fallacy Of Game Pass “Value”
- Thread starter On Demand
- Start date
- Status
scoobidoo112
Member
This thread is giving me a headache.
What does the value of game pass have to do with the price of separately sold games, or the fact that not all games are offered with it? Those things have absolutely nothing to do with the price of game pass or what you are getting for your money.
That's like complaining that leasing a car is a scam because I can't lease every car in the world and if I were to purchase a car it would be expensive. Makes no sense.
What does the value of game pass have to do with the price of separately sold games, or the fact that not all games are offered with it? Those things have absolutely nothing to do with the price of game pass or what you are getting for your money.
That's like complaining that leasing a car is a scam because I can't lease every car in the world and if I were to purchase a car it would be expensive. Makes no sense.
pr0cs
Member
Gamepass doesn't have value if :
- You don't primarily game on Xbox or pc
- You have very specific taste in games (niche, Japanese, etc)
- You are a collector and find that having collections are more important than actually playing /finishing games or prefer physical copies/collector eds for all gaming
- You only play 2-3 titles per year
ResilientBanana
Member
I feel like for $10/ month, being able to play hundreds of games for that $10 / month, day one no less, is quite a fucking deal.
Fits as well, depression phase will come only after Bethesda dish the greats, so it may take a long time for complete heal
Goodness, get decimated with facts and then pull out the fanboy rhetoric. Nice
You seem to really miss the point here because you're not in a headspace to accept anything outside of your narrative. Yes, GP saves you money. You're not forced to buy games that are on GP; however if you choose to buy them, you get a discount because they are currently on GP. If you decide you don't want to buy those games then you can still play them through GP until they may happen to be taken out of the rotation.
This is really not complicated to understand, but you're trying your best to do so.
Not forced to buy what games on Game Pass? You're the one missing the point. I'm talking about the games that are not on there. Which is the majority of 3rd party games. It's value is flawed compared to PS since those XB owners will be paying the same price. People always make it seem like you never have to pay full price for a game with GP when you do for the simple fact not every game is on GP! Over the course of just a few years into next generation SX owners will end up spending the same amount of money as pS5 owners. Now a new narrative has popped up about $70 games for PS5 which increases the value of GP. That silly narrative doesn't even realize games will be $70 on SX too. With the majority of them not being available on GP. How do measure value then? With the assumption that those might be on the service later? I don't think so.
I brought up Sony's first party games as counter argument because the poster said GP is better than anything Sony is providing to its consumers. I find that hilarious since people buy consoles for games and Sony has been delivering in spades on that front. That fact is inarguable. As we can see from the pS4 games released this year alone, up to the PS5 games at launch.
On top of the fact that they already have their own PSNow streaming service which has been out since before GP.
Changing the up front cost of games will change the type of games being made. You can already see proof of this after the COD DLC became free. Now we get less maps and the maps aren't the same quality they used to be. They're basically throwaway maps to give you perception you're getting the same content for free. We will see this especially with COD Cold War Zombies this year. Say goodbye to the Zombie maps we used to get and get ready for filler.
People want games to be cheaper or free or put on a service and not expect the quality to suffer. Doesn't work that way. Sony has said plenty of times their games can't be available day one on PSNow because they cost alot to make. Guess what will have to change if they did?
Cheaper budget>>>Cheaper design>>>Cheaper overall quality.
So yes. The entire gaming industry forgoing full priced games for a streaming service based one will have a detrimental affect on the kinds of games being made.
Last edited:
Warablo
Member
Then people will vote with their wallets.
I understand the concern of the big bad corp making it so we can only play games on a subscription service or a price hike. You guys shouldn't worry about the "what if's" until it actually happens.
Microsoft almost has double the studios Sony has now, so expect to see more games rolling out for Microsoft this generation.
Last edited:
Nhranaghacon
Banned
You ALL, ALL seem to be ignoring one EXTREMELY IMPORTANT DETAIL HERE.
Only 1 Console Manufacturer
has had a spokesman (Jim Ryan) come out and state Publicly that "Next Gen - Games costing Under 70.00 Dollars will not be a Financially Viable Option moving forward with our larger titles"
XBOX Has not taken this stance publicly.
This Same Spokesman has gone on to essentially say "It Is a WASTE OF MONEY if we put our 100 Million Dollar Budgeted games on a subscription service"
Direct Quote: Jim Ryan "We are not going to go down the road of putting new releases titles into a subscription model. These games cost many millions of dollars, well over $100 million, to develop. We just don't see that as sustainable."
So to date - Only One Console - PS5 - Has officially put out statement's backed by it's own CEO's citing that games have been too cheap, that an increase to 70 dollars is needed and that there is no money to be made by putting blockbuster launch titles on a subscription service on day 1.
Many 3rd party developer's chimed in supporting this stance and then quickly announced price increases.
Microsoft, on the other hand - has not officially supported the notion of a mandatory 70$ price hike for it's next gen 1st party Triple AAA titles.
On the contrary, it has come out insisting all of it's titles will launch on Gamepass along side purchasable options and believes that launching titles
on a very cheap subscriber service is a economically lucrative option. Microsoft has stated that it plan to expand from 100 games to thousands of game's
living on it's GamePass EcoSystem but firstly intends to launch on Triple AAA 1st party titles on GamePass Day 1.
So there are the actual important detail's PS5 70$ increase proponent's seem to be missing in this particular argument.
I leave you all with this quote, the only actual quote worth taking at face value in respect to Xbox's position on this price increase.
Phil Spencer
He essentially states - gamer's control the fate of game price's moving forward - please vote with your wallet.
Only 1 Console Manufacturer
has had a spokesman (Jim Ryan) come out and state Publicly that "Next Gen - Games costing Under 70.00 Dollars will not be a Financially Viable Option moving forward with our larger titles"
XBOX Has not taken this stance publicly.
This Same Spokesman has gone on to essentially say "It Is a WASTE OF MONEY if we put our 100 Million Dollar Budgeted games on a subscription service"
Direct Quote: Jim Ryan "We are not going to go down the road of putting new releases titles into a subscription model. These games cost many millions of dollars, well over $100 million, to develop. We just don't see that as sustainable."
So to date - Only One Console - PS5 - Has officially put out statement's backed by it's own CEO's citing that games have been too cheap, that an increase to 70 dollars is needed and that there is no money to be made by putting blockbuster launch titles on a subscription service on day 1.
Many 3rd party developer's chimed in supporting this stance and then quickly announced price increases.
Microsoft, on the other hand - has not officially supported the notion of a mandatory 70$ price hike for it's next gen 1st party Triple AAA titles.
On the contrary, it has come out insisting all of it's titles will launch on Gamepass along side purchasable options and believes that launching titles
on a very cheap subscriber service is a economically lucrative option. Microsoft has stated that it plan to expand from 100 games to thousands of game's
living on it's GamePass EcoSystem but firstly intends to launch on Triple AAA 1st party titles on GamePass Day 1.
So there are the actual important detail's PS5 70$ increase proponent's seem to be missing in this particular argument.
I leave you all with this quote, the only actual quote worth taking at face value in respect to Xbox's position on this price increase.
Phil Spencer
He essentially states - gamer's control the fate of game price's moving forward - please vote with your wallet.
Last edited:
devilNprada
Member
Nintendo already does not have "Home Console". As a multi console family, it is an important feature for me, so it's a legitimate concern...
Sony has other services to provide Value to their subscription, like Movies and Music.. It is not a zero sum game; one or the other, as much as a hardware purchase may be.
Yeah, when any service provides value people will subscribe. No reason not get multiple services....
Last edited:
megreotsugua
Banned
It's different how we consume games from the likes of movies and shows or even music. The Spotify/Netflix for gaming will simply not work in large scale as they think it will.
Casual gamers will primarily play free-to-play games and the yearly iteration of COD/FIFA/NBA which they play for months and months. They of course play some other games occasionally that they can borrow from a friend, a game on sale, or a cheap second hand game. This class of gamers will find no value in game pass when there are cheaper alternative out there that will let them play the games that they want.
Hardcore gamers will find no value in a glorified rental of games even if it has a selection of hundreds of games if the games they want are not included. And a lot of games, the majority actually, will not be included in Game Pass.
When Starfield turns out to be a good game, I'll pay $10 on PC Game Pass, play the game, finish the game, and unsubscribe. MS just made game rentals very easy for everyone.
MS is inflating Game Pass numbers by including everyone who have subscribed once and those who just tried the service. In order for it to be sustainable it has to have regular paying subscribers. Reality will hit hard to Phil Spencer when his plan to come back through Game Pass starts to break apart.
Casual gamers will primarily play free-to-play games and the yearly iteration of COD/FIFA/NBA which they play for months and months. They of course play some other games occasionally that they can borrow from a friend, a game on sale, or a cheap second hand game. This class of gamers will find no value in game pass when there are cheaper alternative out there that will let them play the games that they want.
Hardcore gamers will find no value in a glorified rental of games even if it has a selection of hundreds of games if the games they want are not included. And a lot of games, the majority actually, will not be included in Game Pass.
When Starfield turns out to be a good game, I'll pay $10 on PC Game Pass, play the game, finish the game, and unsubscribe. MS just made game rentals very easy for everyone.
MS is inflating Game Pass numbers by including everyone who have subscribed once and those who just tried the service. In order for it to be sustainable it has to have regular paying subscribers. Reality will hit hard to Phil Spencer when his plan to come back through Game Pass starts to break apart.
Last edited:
Vol5
Member
It's decent value right now, that can't be argued. However, all these studios spending $100millions on development (HALO Infinite $500mil) only for that game to be placed on a rental platform on it's release? Absolutely not sustainable. I suspect their message will start to shift over the next 12-18 months or the cost will go up.
megreotsugua
Banned
- Game Pass will also have to contend with a lot of free-to-play games that obliterate Game Pass when it comes to engagement metrics. Casual gamers will always gravitate towards free-to-play games. They of course play other games too occasionally. Borrowing from a friend, buying games on sale, or buying second hand games are all cheaper way to play games "THAT YOU REALLY WANT".
The only people that Game Pass will attract are:
- MS hardcore fans
- Trophy/Achievement hunters
- Occasional subscribers who subscribe and unsubscribe when a game pops up that they really want and they can't get them for cheaper outside of gamepass. Basically renting the game for $10. Not bad.
Last edited:
Gamepass has been very good, it’s continuing to improve, and it has the spotlight. Microsoft now have a bunch of new studios you may have heard about under their belt - their games will go on Gamepass day one. EA has also handed in their notice to their current landlord and is moving into the Microsoft mansion in November. Gamepass is also in more countries worldwide than Sony’s PSNow, I can jump onto Gamepass seamlessly on my PC, oh look an android device! Might play some games via xCloud on that.
OPs post backfired completely. What a failure.
OPs post backfired completely. What a failure.
splattered
Member
Your post literally reads like the Don Mattrick "No, please don't... no" meme
Kagey K
Banned
You could say that the value of their post was a fallacy.
Right, yeah, sure.
Posts like this would be cut down 90% if Sony announced their own Game Pass.
How are threads like this real? In what universe could Game Pass - a service that is not even a contract - not be considered great value? Since it got announced its like there's been the Straw-Reaching Olympics happening.
PlayerPurple
Member
Quoted for truth.
The Netflix model doesn't make sense for games, simply because engagement time with games is EXTREMELY variable compared to films.
Films are typically one-and-done two hour sessions: it's very unlikely that a movie will be taken off Netflix in the middle of you watching it. Games, on the other hand, are things people can (and expect to) come back to for hundreds of hours over the course of months.
I imagine people won't be so hot on GP once a "free" game they liked gets taken off the service before they were finished playing it.
alabtrosMyster
Banned
It's the worst service of its kind.Who thinks all 3rd party games will be on Gamepass?
Point is loads of Triple AAA games will be day and date that you either won't get on the PS5 or will have to pay a premium for.
You've got an uphill battle trying to convince anyone Gamepass isn't amazing value TBH.
lastmessiah
Member
Well, they give you advance notice when a game will be taken off the service. And then you can just buy it with a discount from Game Pass.
Last edited:
megreotsugua
Banned
It's a great value for the audience I enumerated above. With that said, PS Now is also a good value whenever a game pops up there that you want to play. $10 rental is not bad especially if you can't get the game for cheaper.
But it will not hit critical mass appeal because of how different we consume games from movies, shows and music. Free-to-play games alone obliterates all game pass engagement metrics. Let alone MMO.
DaGwaphics
Member
You measure value by what is on the service, not what isn't. $70 games will be an option for both consoles, no one has an edge there. If you buy most 3rd party titles at $70 your time is probably already spent, and GP might not be a good value for you. If you are like a lot of people and frequently wait for discounts or purchase used games, GP is another option that is available to you. The selection has been very good IMO, add to that MS first party all being included and the older EA catalog being there, the value is just fine for me.
Personally, I've spent less and less on new games. Basically, just buying new versions of old favorites or trying new things that are on sale, GP is perfect for me. I've tried a lot of games I never would have without GP. I can see GP being great for families as well.
Polygonal_Sprite
Gold Member
I’m guessing people are comparing first party games on PS5 at $70 vs the extremely low cost of Game Pass.
Many AAA third party games come to game pass in their first year aswell. There’s no comparison on value. I don’t know how that can even be argued. Sony historically have much higher quality and quantity of exclusive games though so it’s all down to preference.
Many AAA third party games come to game pass in their first year aswell. There’s no comparison on value. I don’t know how that can even be argued. Sony historically have much higher quality and quantity of exclusive games though so it’s all down to preference.
megreotsugua
Banned
Quoted for truth.
Last edited:
pr0cs
Member
if you look at cost per month of say buying 6 games per year vs gamepass for a year it's still cheaper to sub to gamepass. Unless you play a very small amount of games per year then gamepass is still much better value. If you taken into account that of those potential 6 games you buy that 1 of them turns out to be a dud, then the value goes up exponentially.
PlayerPurple
Member
Sure, a paltry 20% discount. At that point, it might've been more lucrative to just wait for a sale on the retail/digital version, and play the game at your leisure without having to worry about it being taken away from you.
It's worth repeating: this is a loss aversion problem that's not really an issue with Music/Movie streaming services.
lastmessiah
Member
PlayerPurple
Member
You seem to be forgetting that:
1) There's no guarantee that the 6 games you want are even on GP (unless it's MS first party)
2) There's no guarantee that the game will be available when you want to play it (again, unless it's MS first party).
3) The number of people who would actually spend $60-70 six times per year on games is low, even for hardcore gamers.
DaGwaphics
Member
Oddly enough, you just explained how it is easier to get more value out of less content with video games as opposed to films/tv. A point that will make it easier for GP to maintain profitability and user loyalty in comparison to Netflix.
GP isn't for you. For those that do enjoy it, it's a great value. No reason for the concern. LOL
Last edited:
megreotsugua
Banned
Subscription can work as supplemental but not the primary way to consume games. However for Playstation gamers, PS Plus is already doing that. And then there's the multitude of free-to-play games, games on sale, and cheap second hand games.
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
- If you don't like the fact Xbox has a sub with tons of games because it gives their gamers a good value option. It makes $70 games look like a rip off if the games are on a cheap sub plan
Roronoa Zoro
Gold Member
It's about as good of a value as PSNow. Don't like sub services for gaming though so will get neither.
CrustyBritches
Gold Member
For anybody who's actually a Game Pass user it's no surprise to see games come and go from GP. That's one of the incentives for 3rd-party pubs/devs to put their games on the service. It's silly for that person to have said, "Once it happens". That's how it works.
What won't leave is almost all MS 1st-party games, and there will be a lot of them on there after all the recent acquisitions.
DaleinCalgary
Member
Its like Netflix, just because you have access to 100 games it doesnt mean you want to play any.
PlayerPurple
Member
Exactly.
And the key point with Plus games is that once you claim them, they stay with you for as long as you have your sub. You can download and play them at your leisure. There’s no sense that the service will take anything away from you unexpectedly or try to upsell you later, like GP.
After seeing Capcom’s success with RE2’s timed demo, I’d be super interested in a paid digital trial service, where every game released offers a 1-2 hour non-repeatable trial, available from day and date of release (or maybe even a little ahead) until the player’s trial has expired, for something like $5-$10 per month. It would provide the “little bit of everything” that people yearn for with Now/GP, be somewhat sustainable financially, and encourage developers to make better opening gameplay.
Last edited:
Bumblebeetuna
Member
No one thinks every single third party game will be on GamePass. Like, no one. The fact that you have to base your argument around that, shows how weak your argument actually is. Get out of here with that nonsense.
Also, even without the majority of day one third party games, GamePass still offers great value. I just got Doom Eternal, which still retails for $60 MSRP. I also got Vermintide 2, which is $25 at most places. Also just got Wasteland 3, $60 everywhere. Right before that we got Flight Sim, saved $60. And these are just the “big” games. I’ve already saved enough to buy a full year of GPU, and still have eleven months of not having to pay anything for any Microsoft game or plenty of third party games.
And the $70 games you’re talking about, I can just wait and buy them cheaper or pay nothing when they hit GamePass. Because of GPU the backlog is always full and I can wait instead of wasting $70. And now with Bethesda games coming day one, imagine just how much quality will be hitting GamePass day one each year. It’s amazing.
Also, even without the majority of day one third party games, GamePass still offers great value. I just got Doom Eternal, which still retails for $60 MSRP. I also got Vermintide 2, which is $25 at most places. Also just got Wasteland 3, $60 everywhere. Right before that we got Flight Sim, saved $60. And these are just the “big” games. I’ve already saved enough to buy a full year of GPU, and still have eleven months of not having to pay anything for any Microsoft game or plenty of third party games.
And the $70 games you’re talking about, I can just wait and buy them cheaper or pay nothing when they hit GamePass. Because of GPU the backlog is always full and I can wait instead of wasting $70. And now with Bethesda games coming day one, imagine just how much quality will be hitting GamePass day one each year. It’s amazing.
kingwingin
Member
Im sure this has been explained already but the value comes from not buying first party titles. If 3 get released in a year I'm already saving money.
LisaMariaMartin
Banned
This thread, constant shit polls,....what's happening around here these days?
Sony stans were pushed to the brink last month
TBiddy
Member
I read the OP and thought "well, it could just be a misinformed person". Then I read the comments OP made further in the thread and thought "Ahh, another concerned Sony-fanboy".
Why on earth do Sony-fans care about the perceived value of a service they have no intention of ever using?
Why on earth do Sony-fans care about the perceived value of a service they have no intention of ever using?
- Status