Fits as well, depression phase will come only after Bethesda dish the greats, so it may take a long time for complete healThis is more like the bargaining phase.
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.
Also what does Sony's 1P offerings have to do in this? You started this discussion framing it around 3P titles, now suddenly you focus on 1P? And the main reason you do so, is to enforce your opinion of Sony having the better 1P games, and MS not having any for Series launch? Well, you're free to have that preference of opinion, but it's extremely petty of you to bring it up in the context you do, because it comes off as very defensive and to then use it as a dismissive dig towards MS just makes it look kind of pathetic.
I think most of us would agree MS dropped the ball with not having at least one big IP AAA game ready for launch, and the one they had planned (Halo Infinite) had to be delayed. Okay, we know this. But how does that even factor into your original argument about GP not being a great value for gamers because they "still have to buy the third party games"? (which is a false premise, as already stated: you aren't forced to buy any games).
Wait a sec'...no, your original argument wasn't seemingly the actual intent of your argument, going by this response you posted.
It's not good for customers to avoid paying $70 for a game they may never actually end up completing? Are you making this into a pro-corporations argument?
You do realize that devs and pubs are financially compensated for providing their games on GP, right (we can debate about how sustainable that would be for MS, but then you have to consider there is a point where the service reaches enough numbers to have those subscriber numbers act as the potential compensation all on its own, which could also mean any direct compensation from MS can be minimized. Kinda how this stuff tends to work over time)?
That we have factual evidence of games which have enjoyed sales boosts due to being on GP? That even if there was no GP and people still needed to buy the games outright, the actual devs wouldn't be getting the lions-share of that cash, even as royalty bonuses in their contracts? Because quite a lot of publishers are just that greedy with that sort of thing and shortchange the actual developers?
Jeez, dude...
Then people will vote with their wallets.Until that goes away though...
“As an industry, we can price things whatever we want to price them, and the customer will decide what the right price is for them.”
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...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.
Then people will vote with their wallets.
Gamepass doesn't have value if :
Beyond the above I can't think of any logical reason why you wouldn't think it has value and wouldn't consider subscribing
- 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
You could say that the value of their post was a fallacy.OPs post backfired completely. What a failure.
- 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:
There are cheaper ways to economize and still play the games that you really want.
- 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.
Quoted for truth.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 incline to 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.
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.
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.
In what universe could Game Pass - a service that is not even a contract - not be considered great value?
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.
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.
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.The Netflix model doesn't make sense for games, simply because engagement time with games is EXTREMELY variable compared to films.
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.
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.
I think this is more, "games released in a very basic state which will be constantly updated". Telltale is dead and Hitman 3 is going to be released all at once. Episodic gaming had its time.
Even Microsoft's own Tell Me Why released it's three episodes across three weeks, that's still one month of subscription. They could easily have spaced those episodes out further to keep people on the line.
Are you joking right? Its on every game thread, why i must spend 80 on games when I have gamepass? Good luck playing cod on game pass for exampleShow me one. Shouldn't be hard.
You seem to be forgetting that: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.
The Netflix model doesn't make sense for games, simply because engagement time with games is EXTREMELY variable compared to films.
3) The number of people who would actually spend $60-70 six times per year on games is low, even for hardcore gamers.
Beyond the above I can't think of any logical reason why you wouldn't think it has value and wouldn't consider subscribing
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.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.
Exactly.Subscription can work as supplemental but not the primary way to consume games. However, PS Plus is already doing that to a lot of people. And then there's the multitude of free-to-play games, games on sale, and cheap second hand games.
This thread, constant shit polls,....what's happening around here these days?