kingfey
Banned
Hope you find something good.
For me, I play fifa alot, when I am bored from gamepass. When I get bored from fifa, I play gamepass to refresh myself, or play other consoles. Consistent change keeps my taste in check.
-
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.
Will Gamepass lead to bad filler videogames like Netflix has done to tv shows?
- Thread starter Honey Bunny
- Start date
For me, I play fifa alot, when I am bored from gamepass. When I get bored from fifa, I play gamepass to refresh myself, or play other consoles. Consistent change keeps my taste in check.
kingfey
Banned
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Tell Tale are putting out a few games in the next year or so, so they're coming back in some way.
But those games will be available at retail, not exclusive to game pass (if at all).
So it's not Game Pass that could lead to filler games, those will absolutely still happen at retail if game pass ceases to exist tomorrow.
Hey man I respect if that's the way you feel, but you're unsubbing right at the time when MS's first party output is starting to take shape. Starfield, Redfall, Hellblade 2 etc are all coming out soon, Motorsport as well.
But I understand not everyone likes all kinds of games.
My personal case is the opposite to yours, GP has given me the chance to test out so many games I've played and finished that I wouldn't ever buy at retail.
AAA games are already filler bullsh-
Oh right, very good.
Why do we have seven pages when three posts was enough to definitively solve for this topic
Because there must always be irrational concerns regarding game pass.
KellyM
Member
They have been filler games before GamePass. Heck, look at all the digital games on the Switch. I would say the filler games started with PS3 and Xbox 360 and Wii online stores.
kingfey
Banned
people dont want to hear that. it defeats their narritive.
Steam alone can show you, what a fodder game is. But nobody cares about it.
THE DUCK
voted poster of the decade by bots
That just tells me either:
You don't play games at all
You don't have gamepass
You won't try anything you haven't seen a commercial for
Or some combination of the above.
Last I checked there were easily over a 100 games on it with a metascore of 80 or higher.
Let's not pretend "most" the games on gamepass are crappy, that's simply not true.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
How can I not support my claims?
My opinion is from actually seeing and knowing what's available.
What does filler games being available before MS entered the game business(according to you) have to do with anything?
Does this claim from you make it ok for GP to have fillers?
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
My own main concern with GamePass as a model is how sustainable it would be, let alone what actual net profits it could bring in, for companies not Microsoft if they were to implement Microsoft's approach 1:1. Let's face it; GamePass is likely not bringing in a ton of revenue or net profit for the Xbox division at this time. When Phil Spencer said it's sustainable, he meant that Microsoft as a whole has the size to incur any losses from operating the service in growth phase, which is 100% correct. That's because there's only one other company in the entire world of Microsoft's size, level of revenue, net profit, and resources, and that company's name is Apple.
A lot of people seem to be saying Sony should take Microsoft's lead, make a GamePass for PS and put all their games on it Day 1. Make all their games Day 1 on PC. This would effectively kill PlayStation IMHO, because not only is PlayStation much more important to Sony's bottom line than Xbox is to Microsoft's, but Sony don't have the level of resources or money to continuously incur losses on a GamePass-style model for years at a time. The losses they saw with PS3 alone were enough to put them in jeopardy of never releasing another game console again, because it, among other things, completely wiped out their PS1 AND PS2 profits!
If Sony were interested in pursuing a truly GamePass-like model, there's only two real options for them in order to make it work during a growth phase that doesn't severely impact their overall revenue and profits. The first IMO is to do things like bringing their new releases Day 1 to the service, but wherein you're still effectively paying for the full game. Just that your payments would be broken up into monthly installments, so your upfront cost is cheaper while still getting you the full game. These kind of versions of the games would need some type of DRM built into them that can then be removed once all payments are cleared, the owner would need to check in once a month to make the monthly payment. But other than that, they'd have all the same rights as if they purchased the game in full Day 1.
On the PC (& mobile) side, they would need to establish their own launcher/storefront, or enter some incredibly lucrative partnership with someone like Epic or CD Project (GOG). Something where they can retain 100% of profits from 1P sales, and get their 30% from 3P sales. They'd probably also want to do something where they can monetize the launcher/storefront with ad-supported free model, and stackable tiered options (I think they should do this with the rumored Spartacus too, where you can build your sub in a-la carte fashion) offering various perks like free monthly games, PS1/2/3/PSP/Vita BC with streaming, maybe Crunchyroll and digital film VOD perks etc. That way they can control/stabilize any drop-off in console sales with the users going to PC and using the launcher/storefront, either in its free form or subscription-based form, buying and renting games through that.
Sony's other option, if they still wanted to have an answer to GamePass that's sustainable for them, would be to partner with a larger company, or potentially enter a merger. Because they would need to be able to sustain operating losses doing things in the same way Microsoft is doing for GamePass, and they can't do that as they are currently. While they aren't the only option, a popular one is probably Apple. And in truth, this would be a worst-case scenario for Microsoft, so the people saying Sony should do a GamePass of their own...if it's not like the stuff I was saying earlier, you better realize that this option would not be to Microsoft's benefit much at all (if that's something you care about).
Otherwise I don't particularly see why they need an answer to GamePass but I don't see the same arguments being made for, say, Nintendo. Sony as a corporation brings in more than 2x the net income as Nintendo, and PlayStation contributes a decent bit to that (as does mobile). Their strategy for gaming growth seems to be in using live-service games as their multi-platform presence, at least some of them. They probably don't want to jeopardize their brand image or selling power by making everything they are multiplat or PC Day 1 (if ever), because if that has a perceptible impact upon hardcore fans and they stop buying the hardware, it can impact revenue of 3P developers who rely on PlayStation as a major source of their revenue.
So it's not just about Sony, here, they have to consider the needs of their 3P partners as well. Unless they have a digital storefront/launcher on PC that can effectively serve as a replacement for the physical PlayStation console (meaning the vertical integration Sony have with PlayStation and its ecosystem would have to be duplicated on the PC side), then it would be a net negative upon their bottom line and brand, and also hurt 3P developers. That could cause a rapid spiral and make them an also-ran in the console gaming market, all from what'd basically be a self-inflicted wound.
There's also no guarantee that 3P devs and pubs would be able to make up the lost revenues & profits from a severely depreciated PlayStation install base (due to many leaving because of Sony putting all their games, especially non live-service GaaS titles, on Steam Day 1 or shortly after launch on PlayStation) through Xbox (since that would have a similar situation) and Switch (wherein native versions might not even be possible due to hardware limitations). I'm curious how something like the FTC could see such a large negative impact in overall console gaming market revenue coming about, because Sony were otherwise goaded into pushing for GamePass features and PC Day 1 the exact same way Microsoft does it, in a manner where alternative revenue streams for 3P partners could be ensured. But I'd imagine they wouldn't like that and could see it as grounds for a wider investigation into the practice of services like GamePass and even Microsoft's acquisitions to push GamePass growth, if they felt it was warranted.
Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft have to follow their own paths to ensure success. Microsoft's found theirs, or at least they're in the process of doing so, but that isn't really Sony's path. If it is, and to be in a way that doesn't actually severely damage Microsoft (seriously; Sony teaming up with or entering a partnership with a company like Apple to push their own GamePass alternative is likely Microsoft's worst nightmare, and for good reason), then they would still need to take soft steps and only truly start committing to it if the prospect of manufacturing consoles in the future to meet demand looks grim.
Otherwise if Sony panics for whatever reason, and just starts reacting for the sake of reacting, they risk making the same mistakes SEGA made when systems like the 3DO, Jaguar and, yes, even the PlayStation, entered the market. Instead of capitalizing on their strengths (arcade gaming, merging the home & arcade closer together through not just cohesive hardware but also services), SEGA tried replicating Sony's strengths and paid the price for it. Now they're a (pretty strong) 3P developer and publisher because of those mistakes; there's probably some people who look at this crossroads (well, it's not really a crossroads) for Sony and are gleeful about supposed karma or whatever, but there's no actual reality for Sony where they're "paying the price" for anything; the PS brand's stronger now than it's ever been and their revenues & profits are higher than they've ever been, too. Their 1P is effectively top-of-class in the industry in many aspects, and even their other divisions like film are stronger than they've been in the longest time.
The only karma Sony as to pay is if they go carelessly chasing after companies like Microsoft when they have no reason to. I don't agree with some of the "analysts" out here, I don't think the market is significantly changing in ways companies like Sony and even Nintendo aren't prepared to make adjustments for. In the meanwhile, they can gradually prepare for a stronger presence on PC, a means of doing Day 1 there and on a service, that doesn't leave them up shit's creek if console owners start gravitating to said options en masse, financially speaking. Because like I said right at the start, Sony doesn't have the resources or sheer corporate size of a Microsoft.
They have to play this smarter, not harder.
EDIT: Notice I didn't even answer the OP's question but hey they figured to answer it themselves in the OP. Not that I actually agree with that answer btw; we'd need more actual releases to come about before seeing if there's a patter to support OP's idea. So there's almost no point in making statements like what the OP has done: we literally don't have enough games released yet to prove one way or the other
A lot of people seem to be saying Sony should take Microsoft's lead, make a GamePass for PS and put all their games on it Day 1. Make all their games Day 1 on PC. This would effectively kill PlayStation IMHO, because not only is PlayStation much more important to Sony's bottom line than Xbox is to Microsoft's, but Sony don't have the level of resources or money to continuously incur losses on a GamePass-style model for years at a time. The losses they saw with PS3 alone were enough to put them in jeopardy of never releasing another game console again, because it, among other things, completely wiped out their PS1 AND PS2 profits!
If Sony were interested in pursuing a truly GamePass-like model, there's only two real options for them in order to make it work during a growth phase that doesn't severely impact their overall revenue and profits. The first IMO is to do things like bringing their new releases Day 1 to the service, but wherein you're still effectively paying for the full game. Just that your payments would be broken up into monthly installments, so your upfront cost is cheaper while still getting you the full game. These kind of versions of the games would need some type of DRM built into them that can then be removed once all payments are cleared, the owner would need to check in once a month to make the monthly payment. But other than that, they'd have all the same rights as if they purchased the game in full Day 1.
On the PC (& mobile) side, they would need to establish their own launcher/storefront, or enter some incredibly lucrative partnership with someone like Epic or CD Project (GOG). Something where they can retain 100% of profits from 1P sales, and get their 30% from 3P sales. They'd probably also want to do something where they can monetize the launcher/storefront with ad-supported free model, and stackable tiered options (I think they should do this with the rumored Spartacus too, where you can build your sub in a-la carte fashion) offering various perks like free monthly games, PS1/2/3/PSP/Vita BC with streaming, maybe Crunchyroll and digital film VOD perks etc. That way they can control/stabilize any drop-off in console sales with the users going to PC and using the launcher/storefront, either in its free form or subscription-based form, buying and renting games through that.
Sony's other option, if they still wanted to have an answer to GamePass that's sustainable for them, would be to partner with a larger company, or potentially enter a merger. Because they would need to be able to sustain operating losses doing things in the same way Microsoft is doing for GamePass, and they can't do that as they are currently. While they aren't the only option, a popular one is probably Apple. And in truth, this would be a worst-case scenario for Microsoft, so the people saying Sony should do a GamePass of their own...if it's not like the stuff I was saying earlier, you better realize that this option would not be to Microsoft's benefit much at all (if that's something you care about).
Otherwise I don't particularly see why they need an answer to GamePass but I don't see the same arguments being made for, say, Nintendo. Sony as a corporation brings in more than 2x the net income as Nintendo, and PlayStation contributes a decent bit to that (as does mobile). Their strategy for gaming growth seems to be in using live-service games as their multi-platform presence, at least some of them. They probably don't want to jeopardize their brand image or selling power by making everything they are multiplat or PC Day 1 (if ever), because if that has a perceptible impact upon hardcore fans and they stop buying the hardware, it can impact revenue of 3P developers who rely on PlayStation as a major source of their revenue.
So it's not just about Sony, here, they have to consider the needs of their 3P partners as well. Unless they have a digital storefront/launcher on PC that can effectively serve as a replacement for the physical PlayStation console (meaning the vertical integration Sony have with PlayStation and its ecosystem would have to be duplicated on the PC side), then it would be a net negative upon their bottom line and brand, and also hurt 3P developers. That could cause a rapid spiral and make them an also-ran in the console gaming market, all from what'd basically be a self-inflicted wound.
There's also no guarantee that 3P devs and pubs would be able to make up the lost revenues & profits from a severely depreciated PlayStation install base (due to many leaving because of Sony putting all their games, especially non live-service GaaS titles, on Steam Day 1 or shortly after launch on PlayStation) through Xbox (since that would have a similar situation) and Switch (wherein native versions might not even be possible due to hardware limitations). I'm curious how something like the FTC could see such a large negative impact in overall console gaming market revenue coming about, because Sony were otherwise goaded into pushing for GamePass features and PC Day 1 the exact same way Microsoft does it, in a manner where alternative revenue streams for 3P partners could be ensured. But I'd imagine they wouldn't like that and could see it as grounds for a wider investigation into the practice of services like GamePass and even Microsoft's acquisitions to push GamePass growth, if they felt it was warranted.
Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft have to follow their own paths to ensure success. Microsoft's found theirs, or at least they're in the process of doing so, but that isn't really Sony's path. If it is, and to be in a way that doesn't actually severely damage Microsoft (seriously; Sony teaming up with or entering a partnership with a company like Apple to push their own GamePass alternative is likely Microsoft's worst nightmare, and for good reason), then they would still need to take soft steps and only truly start committing to it if the prospect of manufacturing consoles in the future to meet demand looks grim.
Otherwise if Sony panics for whatever reason, and just starts reacting for the sake of reacting, they risk making the same mistakes SEGA made when systems like the 3DO, Jaguar and, yes, even the PlayStation, entered the market. Instead of capitalizing on their strengths (arcade gaming, merging the home & arcade closer together through not just cohesive hardware but also services), SEGA tried replicating Sony's strengths and paid the price for it. Now they're a (pretty strong) 3P developer and publisher because of those mistakes; there's probably some people who look at this crossroads (well, it's not really a crossroads) for Sony and are gleeful about supposed karma or whatever, but there's no actual reality for Sony where they're "paying the price" for anything; the PS brand's stronger now than it's ever been and their revenues & profits are higher than they've ever been, too. Their 1P is effectively top-of-class in the industry in many aspects, and even their other divisions like film are stronger than they've been in the longest time.
The only karma Sony as to pay is if they go carelessly chasing after companies like Microsoft when they have no reason to. I don't agree with some of the "analysts" out here, I don't think the market is significantly changing in ways companies like Sony and even Nintendo aren't prepared to make adjustments for. In the meanwhile, they can gradually prepare for a stronger presence on PC, a means of doing Day 1 there and on a service, that doesn't leave them up shit's creek if console owners start gravitating to said options en masse, financially speaking. Because like I said right at the start, Sony doesn't have the resources or sheer corporate size of a Microsoft.
They have to play this smarter, not harder.
EDIT: Notice I didn't even answer the OP's question but hey they figured to answer it themselves in the OP. Not that I actually agree with that answer btw; we'd need more actual releases to come about before seeing if there's a patter to support OP's idea. So there's almost no point in making statements like what the OP has done: we literally don't have enough games released yet to prove one way or the other
kingfey
Banned
Because OP made a claim, that gamepass will make alot of fillers. Yours is not gamepass. But 3rd party, which is on other systems.
Gamepass isnt responsible for those games.
purvispisgah
Member
I'm in a position where $15 per month is a trivial expense and there has been at least 2-3 games every month since I started subbing that interested me. Honestly, most months it's been like 5-10 new games that had a premise interesting enough to try.
I have more money than time for games, so GP has been great for me. And the gems on the service have all been games I'd almost certainly have ignored for a variety of reasons.
I do think that a lot of game mechanics will end up becoming templatized (more or less) with new narrative/art coats of paint. I consider this a good thing and a way that games have a big advantage compared to other media, but I could be wrong.
I have more money than time for games, so GP has been great for me. And the gems on the service have all been games I'd almost certainly have ignored for a variety of reasons.
I do think that a lot of game mechanics will end up becoming templatized (more or less) with new narrative/art coats of paint. I consider this a good thing and a way that games have a big advantage compared to other media, but I could be wrong.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
Ezquimacore
Banned
gamepass has a lot of awesome content and a lot of filler content, your attitude towards Microsoft will dictate if your opinion is bad or good. Still the best service in gaming and is not even close.
AKA if you're a MS hater you will find a way to make a bs thread like this one.
AKA if you're a MS hater you will find a way to make a bs thread like this one.
Last edited:
kingfey
Banned
I am just responding to this.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
As you've stated the thread title is "Will Gamepass lead to bad filler videogames like Netflix has done to TV shows?" The existence of filler videogames before MS entered the console gaming market means the question is silly on its face. Game pass has no bearing on the quality of games it is an independent point. This is especially true of an optional service.
There is no such thing as a Game pass exclusive game. Also if the games on the service are mostly bad people won't sub and the service will die. Game pass has been GAINING subs. You arguing people like bad games?
The facts show that Game pass has lots of highly rated and award winning titles which is the closest we can come to an objective judge of the services' quality. Your disagreement may just mean you are simply wrong and you are entitled to be so.
You COULD support your claim by showing, through a concensus of impartial reviewers, that the majority of games on the service are bad and proof the service is the cause of those games being bad. Of course you can't because again the thought behind this whole thread is BS as I mentioned before.
kingfey
Banned
That is something people wont do.You COULD support your claim by showing, through a concensus of impartial reviewers, that the majority of games on the service are bad and proof the service is the cause of those games being bad. Of course you can't because again the thought behind this whole thread is BS as I mentioned before.
I am still waiting for valid argument that supports this thread.
"Xbox live gold is full of filler games, because that is what they drop on the service. I can provide the evidence."
Statements like that would have been better.
The more i think about the more episodic gaming makes sense for something like gamepass. Kinda shortens the wait time for a release. Finish the episode? The a bunch of other games you can play until the next episode drops if its good. No interest? Cancel the season/stop development.
kingfey
Banned
That is a risky for gaming.
Gaming benefits from short term memory of gamers. Nobody has the brain to wait for episodic games, because of how many games are out there.
Its one hit success, or miss the train. Even for gamepass. Since that service gets 16-22 games a month. Any of those games, can steal the spot light.
Rhazer Fusion
Member
Yeah, probably in all honesty. Of course there will be good games on Gamepass, but I noticed that a healthy amount of games that are either met with mixed reviews, ultra niche, older or don’t sell well generally end up on Gamepass as well. Hopefully Gamepass doesn’t end up just being a dumping ground for games that either bomb or aren’t well received in the future though, but we’ll see what happens.
kingfey
Banned
Finally a good response.
This is something I can agree on. MS needs to stop putting games on the service, if they dont sell very well. It needs to be games, that they actually want for their service.
Hopefuly we can see some chances about those action.
Last edited:
DaGwaphics
Member
The rub there is there are a lot of acclaimed games that don't sell well. I would never want sales to be the primary criteria for what is considered a good GP addition. They are doing a superb job curating the collection as it is, if they just keep doing what they've been doing, they'll be more than fine. Plus, there is the issue where sales for day one additions are completely unknown. There will always be some misses.
Last edited:
kingfey
Banned
The problem is that, it creates the notion that these games are not wanted by the people. That is bad stigma for these games. Much worse than them being a filler.
Some devs will use that to take advantage of MS, because their games are not selling very well.
final fantasy stranger of paradise might come to gamepass soon at this rate.
The Inventor
Member
There are good shows on Netflix, also good games on GP. If games turn to be shitty, it will only be the dev team's fault.
DaGwaphics
Member
Good games are good games. Let that reign supreme above all else.
But even there, new games are unknowns at the time these deals are made. Thus, some less than stellar things are bound to hit there. It's up to MS itself to deliver the software that the services reputation will be built on. The third party hits are just gravy, and there are a ton of third-party games on there with healthy sales for the size/genre of the games (both old and new).
Last edited:
kingfey
Banned
That is true. But when you have a service, that you are selling, you need to be careful what you put in. Business isnt about emotion, but how you increase that business. Sony managed to make a name for themselves, because they were strict.
MS is still suffering from Xbox one naivety. They need to say "We have a service. You can put your games in", not "We have a product. You can put your failed games in". They need to make an image for themselves, if they want to sell gamepass.
That is something, they need to focus on. MS made statement during E3 last year. They need to build on that Image, that gamepass is the service for games. and that they are fully invested in.
PSlayer
Member
I think in the long run, as more and more people adopt, the quality of the free stuff will drop because MS will be less willing to burn money and more eager to profit.
Same thing happened with netflix.
Honestly i'm very skeptical and cynical about subscription based models that give expensive shit for free. I don't think they can be profitable in the long run specially when they are giving you other peoples products. That doesn't mean we shouldn't take advantage of those deals though. If corporations want to subsidize our hobby as an attempt to gain market share, so be it.
Same thing happened with netflix.
Honestly i'm very skeptical and cynical about subscription based models that give expensive shit for free. I don't think they can be profitable in the long run specially when they are giving you other peoples products. That doesn't mean we shouldn't take advantage of those deals though. If corporations want to subsidize our hobby as an attempt to gain market share, so be it.
kingfey
Banned
Gamers are so obsessed with Metacritic. MS would be stupid to lower their game, as long as that form of review exist. Plus Sony also exist, which makes MS want to make high quality games.
I dont get this quality argument, because gamepass is subscription service. They still need to compete with other platforms. Unless Sony, or Nintendo disappears, their quality wont drop.
Keihart
Member
If the streaming industry is anything to go by, a subscription service would encourage devs to take even more risks.
That's exactly what has happened on services like Netflix, with memes like the one on southpark of them aproving anything.
You can see similar results on the gaming industry with games that secure funding by doing exclusive deals like the indies that increase production values by either being exclusives to a platform or even subscription service sometimes like PS+ or game pass.
THE DUCK
voted poster of the decade by bots
I'm not sure why people keep saying netflix has no quality shows and acting like they aren't putting money into content, they spent 13.6 Billion dollars on content in 2021, you guys act like they threw a couple hundred million at it and called it a day. There's a reason why they still have a crap ton of subscribers.
Last edited:
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
I won't respond to much of this because I didn't say all of that.As you've stated the thread title is "Will Gamepass lead to bad filler videogames like Netflix has done to TV shows?" The existence of filler videogames before MS entered the console gaming market means the question is silly on its face. Game pass has no bearing on the quality of games it is an independent point. This is especially true of an optional service.
There is no such thing as a Game pass exclusive game. Also if the games on the service are mostly bad people won't sub and the service will die. Game pass has been GAINING subs. You arguing people like bad games?
The facts show that Game pass has lots of highly rated and award winning titles which is the closest we can come to an objective judge of the services' quality. Your disagreement may just mean you are simply wrong and you are entitled to be so.
You COULD support your claim by showing, through a concensus of impartial reviewers, that the majority of games on the service are bad and proof the service is the cause of those games being bad. Of course you can't because again the thought behind this whole thread is BS as I mentioned before.
Unless you are talking about someone else while talking to me?
Anyways...
I gave my valid reasons in this thread why to ME the service is made up of fillers for the most part.
Do what a few others in this thread haven't done and read those posts.
But quoting my opinion to try and police yours instead of respecting mine and a few others who posted theirs who see it differently than you is foolish.
DarkMage619
$MSFT
Bottom line is that there is no evidence that Game pass is creating bad filler games. If your opinion is that it is you are wrong unless you can prove it. I gave you an easy to prove your case. I don't have to respect an unsupported and unsubstantiated position. The idea that Game pass is creating bad filler games is absolutely foolish.
I don't think the Game Pass per se is bad. It's the software on PC that is utter trash. If Game Pass had a Steam integration and would be less restrictive and I'd use it more. Right now I often only use it to try out games.
As of now I tend to avoid Game Pass (and hence its software) for one or more of following reasons:
- 3rd party games often leaving GP; I don't like the pressure and often won't start these games at all
- doesn't allow access to files, make it impossible to change or alter things the game natively won't allow, this includes settings like graphics, mods, or other thing sometimes necessary to make it work or customise your experience according to your setup (what PC gaming is all about)
-often only DX12 and no DX11 option; it's been proven time and time again that DX12 runs worse than DX11 on many setups. Due to the lack of starting parameters and MS's requirements you have less choices than on other platforms (e.g. Quantum Break, Outriders).
- still has ties to the Windows App store; game updates often have to be done via the Windows App store. So you already have this Game Pass app managing your games, get noticed about an update, and still have to open another app to proceed with the update
- can't move installation folder and can't find existing installations/games
- leaves a mess of data and blocked, unaccessible space in some instances (had to format a whole partition two times for a while because of the software)
- the Xbox login window at the start of games isn't gamepad optimised; playing on my couch with the controller isn't as convenient when I still have to grab my m/k. (Games with additional launchers on Steam have the same issue though)
- no dedicated language option like Steam; for games that don't offer in-game settings for that (and there's still a ton of that these days for some strange fucking reason) you have to change your Windows region and input settings so the app and game will load the perspective language and
As of now I tend to avoid Game Pass (and hence its software) for one or more of following reasons:
- 3rd party games often leaving GP; I don't like the pressure and often won't start these games at all
- doesn't allow access to files, make it impossible to change or alter things the game natively won't allow, this includes settings like graphics, mods, or other thing sometimes necessary to make it work or customise your experience according to your setup (what PC gaming is all about)
-often only DX12 and no DX11 option; it's been proven time and time again that DX12 runs worse than DX11 on many setups. Due to the lack of starting parameters and MS's requirements you have less choices than on other platforms (e.g. Quantum Break, Outriders).
- still has ties to the Windows App store; game updates often have to be done via the Windows App store. So you already have this Game Pass app managing your games, get noticed about an update, and still have to open another app to proceed with the update
- can't move installation folder and can't find existing installations/games
- leaves a mess of data and blocked, unaccessible space in some instances (had to format a whole partition two times for a while because of the software)
- the Xbox login window at the start of games isn't gamepad optimised; playing on my couch with the controller isn't as convenient when I still have to grab my m/k. (Games with additional launchers on Steam have the same issue though)
- no dedicated language option like Steam; for games that don't offer in-game settings for that (and there's still a ton of that these days for some strange fucking reason) you have to change your Windows region and input settings so the app and game will load the perspective language and
Just on these two, make sure you are on the latest version of the xbox app. It should fix both of those.
How to install or move your Xbox PC games to any folder
Microsoft finally gives users some control over their Xbox game files.
www.pcworld.com
kingfey
Banned
Pc version is terrible. If they manage to put it on steam, or they fix their store, their gamepass numbers would jump fast.
Because pc players sees the potential in this service. But God darn, MS is so stupid. They can't even make it very well, on their windows system.
Bernd Lauert
Banned
Phil Spencer said the exact opposite, though. People need to cope with the fact that Gamepass is a successful business model.
Mibu no ookami
Member
I don't think that means there isn't a lot of filler and the differences between gaming and tv models I think suggest this won't yield improvements.
With TV, specific channels and shows weren't independently monetized, they just generated revenue based on advertisements which we didn't want to watch in the first place.
The HBO model is essentially what Netflix adopted. Commercial free, paid subscription content. And HBO was already a success story.
With gaming, individual games already drive their own revenue. A subscription model JUST adds filler because the subscription model can't justify the sum of its parts.
If a game can sell 20 million copies by itself, there is no incentive to bundle it into a subscription model and if you do, the rest of the games values must therefore be smaller as well. At least for prices like 15 dollars per month. It is one thing if you do all original content, but once you start licensing out 3rd party content, it becomes increasingly difficult to justify the decreased margins, which is why the prices keep increasing on Netflix and the like. Their shows are successful like HBO shows have been, but they still need to pay for all the content they're offering, especially the stuff that isn't theirs. For everything great on Netflix they have 100 pieces of crap.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Have we seen any evidence at all of the concern to be true? Game pass has been available how many years now, 5?
has there been a surge in games, or even one game that microsoft or any other dev has made that’s specifically targeted at game pass and been shit?
has there been a surge in games, or even one game that microsoft or any other dev has made that’s specifically targeted at game pass and been shit?
Last edited:
kingfey
Banned
You are discounting the fact that these games need to sell those numbers in the 1st place. Only few managed to hit 10m+ in the 1st year.
Most big games take 4 years to reach 20m sales, and at discounted rates.
Then you have the sales that happen after 3-6 months, which sells the game faster.
These applies to games that do sell above 10m.
Anything below gets cheaper, and becomes harder to sell 10m.
So yes, Subscription service is sustainable for these games. Because not every game would hit big sale numbers. They are competing with other games. And lastly they will need to sell alot to bring, more than the cost of the game to make a profit.
Mibu no ookami
Member
I'm not discounting anything.
Subscription models aren't going to result in more/bigger budget games when these games currently benefit the MOST from individual sales.
The only way that subscriptions make sense is if the overall revenue increases for a company over what it had before or at least becomes more consistent.
If you look at Sony for example, they believe strongly that they can release 5-6 games in a generation and have those games hit 10+ million copies. That's ~3.6 billion dollars which is obviously smaller than total subscription revenue of a moderate userbase but that doesn't account for the lost royalty money of 3rd party games that you are now paying FOR rather than receiving revenue from.
Sony makes 30 percent of PSN game sale revenue. When a 3rd party game like Madden, FIFA, Call of Duty sells 10+ million, Sony gets that revenue. You put these games on a sub-model and there is no royalty money and you have to pay to have them on the subscription service. You only generate money from the consumer buying the sub.
It's a formula. How many users paying what amount of money would give you equal revenue to the current model? And is the subscription model sustainable when the cost of content increases?
Right now only 4) really applies though.
Anyway how come noone is whining that Netflix comparisons are unfair - GP after all is pretty late to the party (on PC anyway) while Netflix was very much a pioneer from the start, by the time competition started they already dominated, so they didn't have to fight uphill battles like GP does.
kingfey
Banned
It leads to security deposit. Most games are constrained for success, which means alot of content are cut out, to make the best sellable product. We seen that from cyberpunk2077.
Security deposit will make sure, those games have total freedom, without tailoring to success.
They believe that, because their console doesnt really have that much competition, when the competition keeping fucking up for some reason (Wii u, Xbox one).
If we calculate gamepass 25m at 10$, we are getting $3b a year or $24b in 1 generation. If we deduct 1.5b royalty for 3rd party games, that is $12b after 3rd party royalty.
6 games, at $45 average selling 20m copies will bring $5.4b. That subscription service can bring 12 games selling 20m copies at average of $45. or each game bringing $900m.
Keep in mind, that userbase of subscription service can reach more than 50m That number is just 25m, without selling any game.
That is if you block the buying option. Plus You get more users, if you have those 10m selling games on your subscription, you will increase the base numbers of those subcription.
Sony has 120m, while MS has 55m. MS has now 25m gamepass users. Sony could have double of those numbers. That is 50m users.
You also would have to account the mtx sales of those games. Putting a game with MTX on the service, will generate more money on a sub that has 50m. Because users arent really paying for that game, they are likely to spend money on that game. 2m players spending $10 every 3 month will generate $80m from mtx for 1 year. That is a single game. Now do the math for other mtx games on the service. The potential gain from those are alot.
Your formula would need to calculate what revenue those services has. A service, which has only subscription money will generate less money, compared to a service which has mtx+game buying option+dlc+subscription money.
Remember gamepass with 25m, from subscription alone without other form of revenue generates $3b. Those other form could increase the revenue from $3b up to $5b a year. The more the subscribers increase the more money it will generate.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
When did he say this? I'd like to see what he said.
FearlessBelgian
Member
Yeah for sure and i hope you like woke content because you will eat it by force.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
In your opinion.
Quit the fanboy policing.
XXL
Member
theclaw135
Banned
Curation is all on Microsoft. Are they doing enough to discourage abusing Gamepass with games that are only on the service to sell DLC?
FearlessBelgian
Member
Shai-Tan
Banned
4chan level shitposting
Similar threads
- Poll