ChorizoPicozo
Member
On MS side it will mean AAA games as well. People are getting conditioned to basically see MS/Game Pass as the Netflix of the gaming industry.
-
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.
One Dev’s Xbox Struggles May Show How Game Pass Is Already Changing Games -Vice
- Thread starter Ezekiel_
- Start date
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Outside of PS+ there's only a 2% difference in sales on Xbox and PS. So, it didn't exactly burn the charts anywhere compared to PC being their biggest platform in terms of sales and Switch the 2nd most.
Last edited:
Haven was poorly made shit, they’re lucky anyone even looked at it.
Furi is overhyped, it’s MEH.
I’d be more interested in hearing from a dev that makes actual good games.
Gamepass is starting to gain momentum, so people want to knock it down. “Gamepass is starving devs and sucks, and also dumps babies in buckets of water” is the new hot topic.
Furi is overhyped, it’s MEH.
I’d be more interested in hearing from a dev that makes actual good games.
Gamepass is starting to gain momentum, so people want to knock it down. “Gamepass is starving devs and sucks, and also dumps babies in buckets of water” is the new hot topic.
Last edited:
kingfey
Banned
That is the current problem for indie games. With how easy it is to make them, people would floor any market with their games. This causes playstore and appstore situation.
That is greed. Its like you giving me $200k for my $5 game. When I see 300k people downloading it, I would be thinking about the possibility of making $1.5m. But here is the catch. That is if my game sells that many copies in the 1st place. So oddworld devs were jealous of those numbers, and thought they could make more money. Sadly, that is not how it works, when there is a risk of losing those sales to other games.
You have to balance the loss vs the profit. 1 wrong step, and you could lose sales like square with avengers.
It depends on how devs negotiate with these deals. Epic court documents shows us a glimpse of those deals.
Gaining secure money is much better for devs. Low sales would compensate for the remaining money.
For example, securing 300k sales would be a lot better for devs. They would only need to see a few more sales to cover the cost.
octiny
Banned
kingfey
Banned
Steam and switch sold the most, while PS had 7%. That should tell you about it.
Last edited:
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
That works while MS or Sony keep paying games for being on GamePass or Sony’s equivalent and more games launching through those and more will shift to a model where usage or other active engagement metrics are what you get paid for (the current model obviously does not scale if they want the services to make good profits).
The problem they are quoting with the title update, they did reach out to MS, was in their mind the model and MS incentives are on getting new content constantly releasing that paying to secure updates to free updates older content… or amongst many many games to put an update to an older title under the spotlight (boost its ranking in terms how how visible it is to people).
It does not seem like in this case MS was going to pay them to put them back on GamePass and/or the terms were not enough to justify their Xbox port costs for the update. While on the other platforms the game would sell slowly but steadily on its own. Their titles are not heavily MTX filled I think to drive revenue this way either… all in all it is not a huge thing, but it does display several ways the GamePass model incentivises changes in games or changes to a game release strategy (heavy MTX would have helped, split the update in a new title with new branding instead of a free update for users would have also interested MS more, but still even that at some point will have a lot of how much they pay for each game and usage alone will not help much, time is not infinite for players).
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
The shitty ones.
They had to take sony's money to be able to finish the game. It was nos necessary greed, more,like frustration or 'saltiness'.
Sure.
It depends on the production cost of said game, + the willingness of MS/Sony or Epic to pay for it.
kingfey
Banned
Mtx doesn't work on games, if they content of the game isn't up to the task.
People spend money on mtx, which has some sort of value.
So having mtx on gamepass does nothing, if the people don't like your content.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
I am not saying it is a slam dunk, lots of games on the App Store and Play Store are failing and they have MTX, but it has not stopped to be the prevalent model. Value is also very hard and shifty to define for people, they will spend to stay engaged and get their dopamine hits or pass the time and it is easier to fleece them a few $ here and a few $ there as they play.
Last edited:
kingfey
Banned
Playstore and app store makes sense, since it's free.
But for consoles, you need incentives.
Halo infinite MP is prime example of mtx game with little content now.
Panajev2001a
GAF's Pleasant Genius
The perceived value of the latter is also free, not sure many millions are buying this game out of GamePass so we are entering a similar territory.
Again, splitting titles in smaller games you release more frequently, developing a slice of a title and release updates to it (essentially develop the game as you release updates to it, live service model), or banking on heavy MTX in your game is a strategy you use to cope when the perceived value of games crater or when you have a service prioritising constant stream of new content or a mix of both… but…
You are mixing having MTX or one of the other strategies to adapt/cope with the market model does not mean you will succeed at it.
kingfey
Banned
Games don't work like that.
The content you are talking about is live service games. So they have to make the game a live service game.
That is harder than making a complete game.
One bottleneck for these models is keeping players. Gamepass users won't subscribe to the service for a game like that.
Destiny 2 had to be free to attract users.
OldBoyGamer
Banned
I wonder what would happen if they made Fury free on Xbox and charged for the DLC?
My hypothesis being that, xb sales for the DLC would be non existent due to everyone playing whilst it was on GP meaning they don’t actually own a copy and don’t have access to it anymore now that is no longer GP.
But if you now give the original game for free, the ‘ownership’ of the game would rise meaning you have an instant player base to sell the dlc to.
My hypothesis being that, xb sales for the DLC would be non existent due to everyone playing whilst it was on GP meaning they don’t actually own a copy and don’t have access to it anymore now that is no longer GP.
But if you now give the original game for free, the ‘ownership’ of the game would rise meaning you have an instant player base to sell the dlc to.
Last edited:
kingfey
Banned
It would be better for them, to cut those 2 platforms out.
No offense here, but both combined are 12%, while pc steam has 17%, and the rest is switch. In other words, those 2 platforms didn't perform very in sales.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
What was the budget on each game? These guys points just seem like "reasons" it doesn't make sense.
Last edited:
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Sounds like they didn't bother with Xbox updates because the Xbox sales are too low to bother with. If Xbox sales were swapped with PS+ and Steam, I'm sure they'd be all over it with updates even though he said their team is only 12 people.
Seems the exact same as my industry selling $10 shit in Walmart and Loblaws.
Those two giant companies get the resources because the sales are big. You got teams of 10+ people working on them. But then one account manager gets dunked on handling an entire smaller customer all by themselves. And for super small customers, there's no account manager at all. If the customer wants attention, you tell them to go through one of the wholesalers. Youre on your own.
Seems the exact same as my industry selling $10 shit in Walmart and Loblaws.
Those two giant companies get the resources because the sales are big. You got teams of 10+ people working on them. But then one account manager gets dunked on handling an entire smaller customer all by themselves. And for super small customers, there's no account manager at all. If the customer wants attention, you tell them to go through one of the wholesalers. Youre on your own.
Craig of War
Banned
Magic Carpet
Member
This makes better sense.
Microsoft could let a game just sit on the service just not bother promoting it. Then the developer would have no more incentive to release any new content.
A bit of a downward spiral there for platform- developer relations.
Someone would have to take a chance. Either Microsoft promotes a game vs another or the developer released new content.
Die on the vine or cream on top. Promoting a poorly received game makes bad tasting cream. New content means developer time and money lost.
Boy George I think I got it.
Hobbygaming
has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
I see fair point but keep in mind that Haven got an earlier release on GP and a late release on PS4 too but ended up with a much higher percentage than xbox. So I'm not sure late release is the reason for it. It didn't apply to Haven at least.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
I wish more developers shared this type of data. Thank you, The Game Bakers.
A few interesting things that popped up for me:
A few interesting things that popped up for me:
- PS paid 33% of the development cost to bring their game on PS+, while Xbox paid 25% of the development cost to bring their game on Gamepass.
- When Furi was on PS+, it still sold 7% on PlayStation. On the other hand, Furi sold only 5% on Xbox (despite not being on XBLG / GP).
- Comparatively, when Haven was on Gamepass, it didn't sell "at all" on Xbox (understandably so), but it sold 20% on PlayStation.
Kagey K
Banned
Couple things missing here.
WHAT DID MS Pay them for gamepass and how does that equate?
Why was Haven bug ridden garbage when it came out?
Both of those need to be substantiated before we draw conclusions.
Last edited:
Fredrik
Member
Math isn’t my thing. What am I looking at? A graph telling me that a game on a platform with 120 million users sell 2% more than a platform with 60 million users?
I don’t disagree that Gamepass is affecting games sales though, I save a ton of money from not having to buy anything, I’m hoping I’ll save money on PS+ too now that I’ve prepaid a couple years. If devs don’t get enough money from a subscription deal then that needs to be corrected asap or things will go wrong fast.
I don’t disagree that Gamepass is affecting games sales though, I save a ton of money from not having to buy anything, I’m hoping I’ll save money on PS+ too now that I’ve prepaid a couple years. If devs don’t get enough money from a subscription deal then that needs to be corrected asap or things will go wrong fast.
Last edited:
This is not entirely new. There were instances when games didn't get an update on console because the certification process by the console companies cost money in contrast to updates on Steam; there were instances were GOG received updates significantly later than the Steam version; were the mobile platform haven't had received a significant update not at all and players are waiting for over a year and a half now.
In so many cases you get almost the same service across all platforms and we kind of expect this as a standard. But the truth is some very few titles fall through for various reasons. And this one here seems to be one of the very few examples where Game Pass didn't work for that developer when it comes to an upgraded version of their game.
In so many cases you get almost the same service across all platforms and we kind of expect this as a standard. But the truth is some very few titles fall through for various reasons. And this one here seems to be one of the very few examples where Game Pass didn't work for that developer when it comes to an upgraded version of their game.
The most important sentence on Game Pass is practically this
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
I summarised it in this post: https://www.neogaf.com/threads/one-...dy-changing-games-vice.1636618/post-266163406
Fredrik
Member
Yeah but how is it interesting that a platform with 2x the user count is selling more copies of a game? Isn’t that expected and constantly shown in every single sales thread all the time?
I think people would fall off their chairs if Nintendo would remove the * and include digital copies in the software sales lists.
Given that we don’t know the budgets of Furi or Haven, there’s no guarantee that 33% of the budget or Furi is more than 25% of Haven.
Also, PS+ Is just one month. Gamepass deals are usually for a year. Big difference.
Throw in the fact that PlayStation userbase was pretty much 2x and It’s no real surprise that it’s sold more on PlayStation.
Last edited:
Zeroing
Banned
I do not even know what point you are trying to reach here?????
the game sold less on xbox... You were the one to talk about PS+ while the thread is about gamepass and it's rules and how the devs chosen to not release it on xbox.
nikolino840
Member
What does It means? Microsoft denied the game on game pass or the devs have said "no"?
nikolino840
Member
Becouse PlayStation users don't have bought the game
Punished Miku
Gold Member
That really does clear up this pie chart mess of an article.
Zeroing
Banned
Objection: hearsay!Becouse PlayStation users don't have bought the game
Bernd Lauert
Banned
All I see is Switch outselling PS and Xbox combined many indie devs have praised Switch, looks like the hype is real.
Also interesting tidbit: Microsoft paid €750k for Haven to be on Gamepass.
many indie devs have praised Switch, looks like the hype is real.Also interesting tidbit: Microsoft paid €750k for Haven to be on Gamepass.
Punished Miku
Gold Member
- Switch
- PC
- Sub service money
- Regular sales
M1chl
Currently Gif and Meme Champion
Seems like steam is first on that pie graph? I just woke up, so could be incorrect.
Punished Miku
Gold Member
I'm sure it can fluctuate a bit depending on the game. But yeah, PC and Switch are the best places for indies.
Zeroing
Banned
I was just telling a personal story how my friend brought the game after I recommend it. ShrugsOutside of PS+ there's only a 2% difference in sales on Xbox and PS. So, it didn't exactly burn the charts anywhere compared to PC being their biggest platform in terms of sales and Switch the 2nd most.
Little Chicken
Member
Yeah the game blew up on Playstation because of the PS+ release, before it even released on Xbox One for full price, I can't imagine why it didn't do very well...
CS Lurker
Member
Where are those big numbers? A 7%?
for reference, these are the numbers on their biggest selling platform
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Now let's look at other facts and request data.
What was the budget of each game and the studios internal projections of success?
Furi launched exclusively on ps+ and was ignored on xbox for around 5 months? But even with this late launch it only missed playstations sales by 2 percent on a box with half the install base.
Haven was a completely different game, I dont know if it had anywhere near the hype of furi, but 25 percent if its budget could still be more than one third of furis. I don't have any way to know this but you never know.
Did Haven launch day and date on all formats? Also was it on gamepass for more than one month like furi was on ps plus? If it ws on gamepass for a number of months then of course it reduces the possibility of sales.
I think this studio needs to be even more open with their data, give us the actual unit sales numbers on all platforms if they are going to do this kind of thing they need to go all out.
What was the budget of each game....and what was the unit sales, because steam is trouncing everything and it doesn't look like their games sold too well there.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
I think it's interesting because the game, Furi, sold more (7%) on PlayStation despite being free for almost half the user base with PS+, and sold less than (5%) on Xbox.
On the other hand, Haven was available on GP but it sold 20% on the other platform (PlayStation), when the previous game sold 5% on the other platform (Xbox). That's a 4x difference.
The other thing is the budget allocation. This is the first time we have got access to a direct comparison b/w budgets for these deals -- so that is already super interesting.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
The absolute $ value of the game's budget does not matter at all here because if the budget was higher, the ROI recovery would be only that much higher. And if the game isn't selling much on a platform outside of the subscription service, the only thing that matters is how much of the development cost (in percentage) is recovered from that deal.
For example, let's say Furi costs $100,000. With the PS+ deal, they recovered 33% of the dev cost, which means they now need to recover $67,000 (or 67%) from sales to break even.
On the other hand, let's say Haven costs $150,000 to develop. With the Gamepass deal, they recovered only 25% of the dev cost, which means they now need to recover 75% of the dev cost from sales to break even. Although they got more money from GP for Haven ($37,500) instead of what they got from Sony for the PS+ deal ($33,000), the PS+ deal was more financially feasible for them because it left them with less percentage of dev cost to recover to make a profit.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
I get you and it totally makes sense, but was haven available on all other platforms day one?
If it was, Sony secured an exclusivity deal and a ps+ deal for that 33% it's not the same thing.