It's an example of the devs pushed back and the platform holder changed their models.In the very source you posted
It's an example of the devs pushed back and the platform holder changed their models.
this countering the hype or social proof bought content is a good point..and this is not helping AAA game because a good amount of their sales are that...Yes always feel for the developer, what about the consumers. Gamepass is the best thing that has happened to indie devs. Playstation just recently got flak last week. They are prepping a game pass competitor we know that from GOW developer. But meanwhile, they need to revamp their digital store with a sensible section for games and prices especially since they now have a dedicated digital-only store. Indie Highlights, Regional pricing, and more engagement in-store. It's good that devs are paid on an engagement basis. Games are not single art pieces where you can fancy art for art's sake. Its a digital product that people are required to pay for. If people are not playing your game it's a flop. No clickbait sales. Its actual democratization of product. Earlier once you duped a player with hype or false advertisement you still got the money for that instance but now you don't. I mean developers are known to say so many useless stuff afterward, you want maps the game is not for you, you want pause button the game is not for you, you want a shorter experience and no level gating that you will need to buy timesaver for, too bad it's not a game for you, oh our game has optimization Issues play on 720p on your 1080ti because our game is demanding. Oh yeah, then how about putting that on the cover of your game jackass. The point is it must hurt the developer's wallet if people are not interested in playing their game. That's real power to the players.
like i said earlier people using the service ,thank to the ease and freedom to access more content are sending the right signals:Hopefully Microsoft sees the value in short games that you're not supposed to play over and over as well. Games like ICO, SotC or Journey. They have a place in the industry and should continue to have it under this new model.
Halo, Forza, Fable, and many other big MS first party titles will be focusing on GaaS due to GamePass. The multiplayer focus is real on these kind of services.For what is worth GamePass have a shit ton of these short Indie titles and almost none of those live service shovelware games. I know that Destiny is there...which well, that game should be F2P anyway. I think engagement on GamePass is fine metric, not in hours, but in downloaded/played games. Time based engagement is what sucks. This could very easily comes with xcloud sadly...
The bigger problem is those MP titles/Gaas titles, available in stores.
why is that? If your average subscriber for Netflix finishes an entire season of a new show vs a new show only getting the first episode watched and a majority dropping off it, wouldn't that imply the show with the entire season viewed was more successful?
"It's the death of creativity".
No one can take this seriously.
It literally represents a faster evolutionary process compared to traditional AAA development.
Great postIt doesn't matter how obvious the future is, people refuse to acknowledge it. The overriding reaction to this will be that stadia is irrelevant so there's nothing to worry about, not that this is the inevitable outcome of any media service. I await the next 5-10 years when people are surprised about mediocrity being rewarded, declining service and game quality, service exclusives, the uptick of GAAS, collapsing retail market, indies having to rely on service providers to survive and inescapable platform mandated censorship.
OP makes a console war thread and tries to make it look like "pinnacle of intellectual discussion".
Smart.
I too am concerned as per JD, in particular Gamepass and so many Journalists out there praising it and wishing on Sony to do the same. Good luck reviewing never ending games for a living!….…….discuss…
That’s the most corporate thing I’ve read today.
Stadia is irrelevant - the addressable market is what matters.I'm not too worried. Nobody gives a shit about Stadia.
I understand that. I'm not referring to quality, I'm referring to engagement success which is the word that was highlighted in the comment I responded to.30 hours to finish the Marvel's Avengers campaign.
6 hours to finish Portal.
Length of engagement is no indicator of quality or success.
Nah, supporting the traditional AAA business model, where the majority of gamers don't finish games, is the most corporate thing you've read all day.
Engagement incentives lead to player first game design that encourages mechanics with real depth.
We're entering an era of gameplay over graphics. Can't wait.
Environment influences content in the long-term.
Been saying this for years; subscription services are disruptive in more dimensions than just as a sales/distribution mechanism. Product that is in a Darwinian sense more "fit" for these ecosystems will thrive and dominate, while others will go extinct. What this successful product looks like, and most certainly what it doesn't look like, is very easy to identify based on what is considered valuable by the operators of such services.
As soon as the KPI moves from sales/revenue to engagement -MS' stated position for a few years now- this process becomes inevitable.
They were focusing on GaaS, even before GamePass was a thing. And as far as I know Halo: infinite goes further, with it's MP component being F2P.Halo, Forza, Fable, and many other big MS first party titles will be focusing on GaaS due to GamePass. The multiplayer focus is real on these kind of services.
"Shit ton of short indie titles" that maybe wouldnt have much revenue otherwise by themselves, yes.
But we are talking about AAA singleplayer titles such as TLOU 2, GOW, GOT and etc. that wouldnt make sense financially.
Why would a company waste so much money with singleplayer games on a live service model such as this?
Do you want bigger paywall than 70+USD/game? Gaming is an expensive hobby, much more than movies or TV. Most of the people in the world can’t afford it through normal ways. GP like services allow these people to have access to a much bigger catalog of games without relying to alternative methods.To be honest this all started with and is no different than when Netflix really hit its stride. Every cord cutting evangelist was signing its praise to the heavens saying this was the future and we no longer needed to pay high cable company bills. ..... and then the Movie / TV studios woke up and said well then we need our own app / subscription too. Now we have Netflix, Paramount+, Hulu, ESPN+, Discovery+, Disney+, HBO Max and many more who have started to lock their content behind these pay walls. This is the future you all wanted... and gaming is following the path to a degree but frankly, the paywall has always been their with gaming. It was the hardware. You had to pay for the hardware to get to that content. New models like Stadia and Gamepass are not as concerned about the hardware as they give you options but the paywalls all still exist.
Nope... don't mistake me talking about how this came to be as me saying I want bigger pay walls than what we see now. I personally like the Xbox approach as it gives latitude of where / how you play to a degree (pc, mobile and console) and I like the library w/ the inclusion of day 1 releases. That said, I won't be shocked to see this model expand to other companies like say a Ubisoft or heck maybe a Tencent sub too. Its a potential slippery slope and that is really I suppose the main thing to note.Do you want bigger paywall than 70+USD/game? Gaming is an expensive hobby, much more than movies or TV. Most of the people in the world can’t afford it through normal ways. GP like services allow these people to have access to a much bigger catalog of games without relying to alternative methods.
But subscription based services do change spending habits for the worstEverybody in their respective corners now? Cool.
It would be bad if this was the ONLY way devs get paid. Subscription based service do not prevent consumers from buying the actual game.
The concern in this thread is goin to be at epic levels. For no damn reason.
Putting AAA games on it makes sense to get new subscribers only. Because they cost a lot, and you can bet that MS is loosing money by putting those AAA games there Day One.They were focusing on GaaS, even before GamePass was a thing. And as far as I know Halo: infinite goes further, with it's MP component being F2P.
Well yeah I don't really want to get in the arguing that a lot of indie games, simply are not as engaging as they should have been however for example Fall Guys is/was popular mainly due to being on PSN+, another subscription service. But yeah, they probably wouldn't make that much money otherwise.
I think that putting there AAA SP games make sense, since the sales of such games dies down pretty quickly (quickly as in that it does not take years, for sales to drop) and for PS game, you get money once and that's it. And since majority of the people are not buying games at rate, which is common on the Neogaf, I believe that it's better if they get hooked on any subscription service by some AAA SP game and then continue paying (in which 100% goes to MS), rather than buy 1-2 games per year. So even from this standpoint, it make sense. ~10 bucks per month from your audience is nothing to sneeze about.
Conversely I would not say, that it's worth to put there a Gaas game, because the publisher/dev of the game probably expect way more money from MS/Sony to have it there than some SP title.
And I also believe there is another angle to this, people don't really consider subscription as something they are actively paying for, since it sucks money automatically, so there is a situation when your next release gets release on GP, so now you have money for some other game, which actually boost the revenue coming to MS or other publishers, so I believe that it's not so black and white.
But will see, if this perspective of mine is too optimistic, issue is, that publishers/devs actually pushing this shit on us, being it on subscription or not. But I do agree, that at least platform holders should act more virtuous in this.
But subscription based services do change spending habits for the worst
People are being conditioned into not buying games at all and that's very bad for the gaming industry
The future of gaming is not GamePass vs traditional $70 games.
The future of gaming is the game that dwarfs 2018 era Fortnite in a few years.
The Windows or Internet Explorer or Google of games is coming.
John Linneman, “I concur and this isn’t just about Stadia. Engagement as a primary metric for success is a direction that concerns me for the reasons stated here and more. Let’s hope this doesn’t become the norm.”
Since we’re on a core gaming forum, there must be some depth of thoughts to be explored by members…..
I too am concerned as per JD, in particular Gamepass and so many Journalists out there praising it and wishing on Sony to do the same. Good luck reviewing never ending games for a living!….…….discuss…
Not every game is included in the subscription service. I use Gamepass, but I bought Guilty Gear Strive just recently. I know it's not on Xbox, but the point is I'm not "trained" to do anything...I'm just looking for the best deal to play the games I want. Most of the games on Gamepass, I already owned by time they were released. I've bought games that I never would have because of Gamepass, not in spite of it.But subscription based services do change spending habits for the worst
People are being conditioned into not buying games at all and that's very bad for the gaming industry
But subscription based services do change spending habits for the worst
People are being conditioned into not buying games at all and that's very bad for the gaming industry
John Linneman, “I concur and this isn’t just about Stadia. Engagement as a primary metric for success is a direction that concerns me for the reasons stated here and more. Let’s hope this doesn’t become the norm.”
Since we’re on a core gaming forum, there must be some depth of thoughts to be explored by members…..
I too am concerned as per JD, in particular Gamepass and so many Journalists out there praising it and wishing on Sony to do the same. Good luck reviewing never ending games for a living!….…….discuss…
Do you think this is a positive trend?
here's an alternative point of view, games will have to get better to keep engagement high.at the moment if you buy a game that's a dud you have paid for it, with a subscription service you won't play it any longer. so all in all it will make games companies make more engaging games for us gamers
Putting AAA games on it makes sense to get new subscribers only. Because they cost a lot, and you can bet that MS is loosing money by putting those AAA games there Day One.
Again, look at Sony where every new IP sells 10M copies. They arent evergreen, sure, but they sell a lot, resulting in great revenue numbers.
Using Netflix again as an example: its like releasing The Godfather Trilogy to get new subscribers, but after getting so many, it makes sense financially to make tons of cheap series or movies like The Kissing Booth to keep the masses engaged.
We will see how it goes, but looking at Netflix and other streaming services, I'm not optimistic.
yeah but you can include that but if the game is garbage people will move onNo. You can increase engagement by introducing addictive and superficial gameplay loops and creating easy access skinner boxes. Quality isn’t really an issue, which is why engagement is an attractive metric to these companies.
yeah but you can include that but if the game is garbage people will move on