The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Let people like what they like.
Some will always be like you and bother to sub and unsub as they find content they want. Most will not bother and will forget they are even paying for it, just like Netflix and all the others. For me, it's not a significant amount of money where I would even worry about cancelling even of there was a drought, but so far it has been really good anyway.I'm subscribed and I like it. But they need to keep it interesting in some way. The addition of EA games is a great move. But I need my steady dose of AAA games coming in, otherwise I'm going to unsubscribe and subscribe only when something interesting comes by.
I'm subscribed and I like it. But they need to keep it interesting in some way. The addition of EA games is a great move. But I need my steady dose of AAA games coming in, otherwise I'm going to unsubscribe and subscribe only when something interesting comes by.
I keep posting my experience with Game Pass because I want people to genuinely think about if they are saving money or not. Fair enough if you don't care and want the convenience Game Pass brings but please stop saying it saves you all this money.
I have a subscription to Netflix to watch about 5 shows. I've had it for 3 years now, so I've spent £100+ every year to be able to watch these 5 series when I want to, on many devices.
What a total fucking ripoff lol I could've bought each series on disc + a decent 4K BD player to play them on for much less than that, but I keep it because its split 3 ways with flatmates so its like "Its only £3 quid a month..." but it REALLY adds up and you should actually check you aren't being hung out to dry with how you use the service.
This is true on an individual basis, but you still end up valuing the service. I'm guessing you still have Netflix even though it may not always have something new and interesting.Having alot of games available to me for cheap somehow makes me not value them as much.
This is true on an individual basis, but you still end up valuing the service. I'm guessing you still have Netflix even though it may not always have something new and interesting.
That's a good point. But now for some reason, i now realize I'm wasting money because I'm not utilizing the service efficiently. Kinda like having a gym membership but never going.
This right here. Streaming audio quality os woefully inadequate if you invest in good sound. Picture quality too.For real! I own a physical movie collection with over 1600 titles on either Blu-ray/HD-DVD and 140+ UHD's and about 1300 dvd's packed away in boxes because I only watch media in HD resolutions for the better part of a decade.
But to be frank the reason I still buy Blu-ray's is because A/V quality of a Blu-ray/HD-DVD can only be matched by a 4K stream at best, we talk only video quality here as for audio a 4K stream is barely DVD quality. There is a visible and audible difference. A digital downloadable game bares no difference to the physical game so the argument becomes moot. BTW, it's the first time I hear that phrase "the wall of virginity". Cute!
The unknown factor regarding whether I'll even like a game I purchased or not cannot be overstated. Gamepass saves me a load of money because I can try one game & if I don't like it, I download another etc.
If I buy a game at full price, I don't enjoy it & never go back, kaboom, it's a net-loss. Whereas with Gamepass, nope, I get the luxury to choosing among many. There's also the fact games cannot be compared to films or series because whilst they're indeed a time sink (like a series), I won't really care to "own" one of these titles just to replay it years later when I already have the achievements & I'd rather use the week/two weeks I need to finish a game in order to play another title.
In terms of industry benefits, I can see how Gamepass gives life & revenue to older titles which would be either dead under normal circumstances (i.e. like a game such as Alien Isolation which has been on Gamepass for a while) or would only exist via used game sales (like in prior Xbox 360/PS3 eras).
This right here. Streaming audio quality os woefully inadequate if you invest in good sound. Picture quality too.
And wall of virginity? Women love my wall of movies. Gamer girls love my wall of games. If anything used right they can pick up girls. But again this collection is for MY enjoyment. Same with any other collector of physical media.
For real! I own a physical movie collection with over 1600 titles on either Blu-ray/HD-DVD and 140+ UHD's and about 1300 dvd's packed away in boxes because I only watch media in HD resolutions for the better part of a decade.
But to be frank the reason I still buy Blu-ray's is because A/V quality of a Blu-ray/HD-DVD can only be matched by a 4K stream at best, we talk only video quality here as for audio a 4K stream is barely DVD quality. There is a visible and audible difference. A digital downloadable game bares no difference to the physical game so the argument becomes moot. BTW, it's the first time I hear that phrase "the wall of virginity". Cute!
In my old job I just gave up on trying to explain why Netflix's "Dolby Atmos" is shite quality compared to actually uncompressed Dolby TrueHD you'd find on a Bluray (Not even just 4K BD, old 1080p BDs as well), let alone disc-based Dolby Atmos. So if someone was going to only watch netflix/streaming services and never from disc they never achieve the audio quality I sold them the device with, but eventually I just gave up because it makes it confusing and they feel deceived. If Neflix doesn't make it clear its not the same I figured I'll pretend it is unless the customer is switch on to that sort of thing or brings it up themselves.
Dolby Atmos on Netflix is "Dolby Digital Plus", which is lossy (but still better than old lossy DD 5.1) with the height channel metadata from a real Atmos track, so you aren't going to hear nearly as big a difference as with the same demo in lossy DD5.1 vs. lossless TrueHD.
Sony should have a service like Game Pass, but I don’t think giving away first party exclusives is a smart move.
Bullshit of course, EA and Ubi both have their subscription services and do perfectly fine without file encryption.The file encryption is necessary or else people would just download and steal the games.
Sony should have a service like Game Pass, but I don’t think giving away first party exclusives is a smart move.
This is good for single player games it makes them less risky since you have a subscription base to cover costs. As we have seen Microsoft will have many more single player games than in the past with the 3 rpg studios, ever wild ect. It will let double fine and other studios make single player games with out the pressure of huge day 1 sales or they are a failure.I think the main problem with Game Pass and services like it (PS now?)is much the same as Netflix, Amazon Prime, Apple TV ect...content quantity and quality, and delivery times vs subscription cost.
The economy reality of it is that games cost a LOT of money to make, these days more than ever, and this is the primary reason for developers and publishers wanting to increase the price to 70$...to maintain the same profit margins as they had when they were cheaper to make. So then the problem becomes; can Game Pass support this massive cost for all it's day-and-date titles?
The answer to that, just purely mathematically; is no. Publishers will want to sell their games for full price when those games had huge budgets, the only way they will be okey with putting it at launch day on Game Pass will be if MS subsidizes this cost heavily (favoring their game above others on the service), or they have massive micro transaction schemes (likely predatory). Microsoft will likely only be willing to heavily subsidize large games for so long, especially considering they are already doing so with their own first party games, once they withdraw the "profit guarantee" it's likely that large singleplayer games (without a micro-transaction focus) will stop appearing on the service until a year or so after initial release. This will mean that the service will heavily favor smaller indie games which are cheaper to produce, microtransaction heavy games (that might've been free-to-play if it weren't for the service), and of course big MS first party games or partnership games.
Of course the alternative would that the service massively increases in price, or they make a tiered system which lets you play "launch day games" if you pay for the Game Pass gold or whatever (for like 30 a month or something).
I know how difficult it can be to explain to not so tech-savy people that their Netflix 4K stream is a regular Blu-ray video wise at best and not even close to real 4K UHD's. Let alone the audio quality you get from stream, I didn't even know Netflix started to offer Dolby Atmos but only a handfull of selected titles no? But if that's the case and it's DD Plus it's base HD-DVD quality, which wasn't too bad for 2006 but really outdated now.
Yes i do. But i know i don't own those films. The picture quality is lesser and thus not a suitable replacement for me. Same with game pass. Games can suddebly disappear, you don't own anything or streaming is of lesser quality by lag compression artifacts or just gaving to be at the whim of a long download before anything can be played. I do understand why people like it but the picture implies ownership.
It also caps the expected returns. Without microtransactions, you would need to restrict how much money you spend making it or you never recoup the costs.This is good for single player games it makes them less risky since you have a subscription base to cover costs. As we have seen Microsoft will have many more single player games than in the past with the 3 rpg studios, ever wild ect. It will let double fine and other studios make single player games with out the pressure of huge day 1 sales or they are a failure.
I have been a member since close to the start my spendature on microtransaction zippo zero nothing. Microtransactions are not anything I worry about. Playing a plague tale now zero reason to spend a dime. When the 3 double fine remasters come in 2 weeks that will be the same. Just play complete and uninstall.It also caps the expected returns. Without microtransactions, you would need to restrict how much money you spend making it or you never recoup the costs.
But the reality is that they would simply add in microtransactions. Because that is where the real money is in Gamepass.
They need to pay all those developers. I don't think it's an easy profit, otherwise, Sony would have jumped on it with their 100 million userbase.Currently game pass has around 15 million subs paying something around $10 a month. So Xbox is bringing in something like $150mil a month. In this next generation let's say they double the subs to 30mil. That's $300 million a month. It's all digital and all funds currently flow straight to them.
So you ask yourself, how do they plan to double in subs and how do they keep current subs happy? It seems like they have an answer for everything.
Bigger longer better games. You'll see a lot more RPGs because they last longer. Keeping people engaged.
Online games. Games like Sea of Thieves and Destiny keep people logging in week after week to run missions and have monthly events.
Indie games. They may not stay on the platform for very long but they will keep a fresh batch coming so gamers have something new to try often. Gives a lot of exposure to the devs and there's always something interesting to check out without a barrier to entry.
Racing games. They have had this locked down for awhile with the two different Forza titles. These will continue on for both the sim and arcade one two punch.
Shooters. With Halo becoming an open world game as well as games as a service online game this should keep fans locked in. Then add in Gears and possibly Perfect Dark.
What's a quick and cheaper way to get content on the service? Backcompat games. These games weren't making anyone any money before. But now if a handful of gamers decided to go back play some of these games it keeps them on the service.
Of course they'll still do some big name third party games to keep it fresh. I'm also sure they'll keep a large selection of kid and family friendly games as well.
The more game types they can get going on the service the wider the net they cast to get more people on the service. The more they can keep people coming back month after month the more they can find bigger projects. But at the same time they lower the risks for experimental games.
But you say $500 consoles are a huge barrier to entry. But they even thought about that. Sure a lot of us are willing to pay that no questions asked. But say your younger kids want to play Minecraft so you get them the Series S for $300. Or maybe you have a PC buddy that doesn't want a console but wants to still play online with you. Cross platform play with game pass for PC. Then there's xcloud. No system needed at all. I could see this getting added as a smart tv app. So to recap you could play on mobile/tablet, PC, premium console, and budget console with browser support coming.
To me looking at it as a business model a game like skyrim / fallout or the Witcher is more valuable than a game like The Order 1886 because they can easily be played for 100 hours + rather than just an afternoon. However, they could take a chance on something more creative like the order because of the monthly safety net.
I bring up The Order because I enjoyed it for what it was. However, it apparently went over budget, missed their deadlines, and then underperformed at retail. So I kind of doubt Sony will ever do a follow-up. It's only about an 8 hour game. Something like that on gamepass is great for a quick play because they aren't asking you for $60 for that 8 hour experience. That's a quick 1000 achievement score and on to the next.
With game budgets getting higher making the barrier to entry lower makes a ton of sense. $15 a month give you so many options and helps raise game budgets. Currently game pass brings in enough to fund three $50 million games a month. Or with budgets getting higher they could fund one $250mil+ GTA 5 sized game every two months. If they can grow the service to 30mil subs they could afford to fund a AAA game each month. Of course they wouldn't need to. Games take years to make. But the income would be there.
This seems genius but yet I read a lot of people thinking it's unsubstantiated. I don't think microsoft became one of the wealthiest companies without some smart people making business models like this.
I have been a member since close to the start my spendature on microtransaction zippo zero nothing. Microtransactions are not anything I worry about. Playing a plague tale now zero reason to spend a dime. When the 3 double fine remasters come in 2 weeks that will be the same. Just play complete and uninstall.
They need to pay all those developers. I don't think it's an easy profit, otherwise, Sony would have jumped on it with their 100 million userbase.
Don’t know about that.Currently game pass has around 15 million subs paying something around $10 a month.
Game pass is buffet for poor.
Game pass is buffet for poor.
*wrong thread
An idiot is me.