adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Yes, so has RDR2. He's talking about new games, OP messed the title.
-
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.
Take-Two expects Call of Duty will boost Game Pass numbers 'for a period of time', but wouldnt apply to their new games.
- Thread starter ChiefDada
- Start date
Yes, so has RDR2. He's talking about new games, OP messed the title.
Sushi_Combo
Member
As if releasing the GTA defective editions were "Rational" . Fucking Lol.
Pedro Motta
Member
Not day one, that's his point I think.But they already have been there
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
MrTroubleMaker
Member
Full of if they are offered enough money they will.
if they are offered enough money they will.
GHG
Gold Member
JohnnyFootball
GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Which MS isn't doing these days.Full of
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Topher
Gold Member
I'm looking at Arad's credits on IMDB and doesn't look like an irrational decision to me. I don't think Zelnick is suggesting all their decisions are success stories though.
ManaByte
Gold Member
The good movies Arad's name is on is due to Kevin Feige still being involved. As soon as Feige left in 2006/2007 to start Marvel Studios Arad's been on his own and failing.
Last edited:
DaGwaphics
Member
Haven't GTA V and RDR2 already been on GP? Not much of a memory on this guy judging from the thread title.
Yes GTA5 and RDR have been on both PS+ and GP but read the damn interview or at the very least OP tweet and pay attention to the word 'new' in it. A 2013 title is anything but new.
Tiago Rodrigues
Gold Member
This isn't 2017.Microsoft defence force incoming
You need to be blind to truly believe Gamepass is the way to go. Ms is literally releasing their stuff on PC and now even PS5 to keep their games profitable.
Trust me that if Call of Duty doesn't sell Gamepass the way they intend, even MS will change their stance on their own subscription service.
MrTroubleMaker
Member
And NBA2k and others.
If what he IS referring to is day one games and compare it with COD because of the rationality...... The comparison is a bit meh. For them it lacks rationality because they do not own the Gamepass returns, however MS does own the Gamepass returns.
This is exactly the reason why Ubi and Take Two themselves put their games on their own subscription services.
Topher
Gold Member
Arad's name has been on some very successful movies my man. Some turds as well, but that is also true for Feige. Either way, if I'm Zelnick looking at that resume then I'm not seeing choosing Arad as "irrational". Not even close.
Avi Arad | Producer, Writer, Music Department
Known for: Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, Morbius
www.imdb.com
Edit: Also, Feige didn't start Marvel Studios. Arad did.
Last edited:
GHG
Gold Member
I don't give a
But you gave enough of a shit to provide snarky commentary.
People who are still accustomed to purchasing games will be perfectly fine, I can assure you of that.
Last edited:
MrTroubleMaker
Member
Halo is Back
Member
Yes it's true and I've played them on Gamepass before
LOL, What other publishers are doing is putting their games on their own subscription services.
The reality is that the statements in the thread are not what many are trying to point out. So, yes, it's not rational for TakeTwo to put its games (imagine doing it with a GTAVI that's sold by default) on a competitor's subscription service day one. But it is rational to put your own game on your own subscription service. Even more so if you continue selling the game on the rest of the platforms normally.
splattered
Member
They got lucky with a few lightning in a bottle franchises and became stagnant through the years. Got lucky again doing a western version of the same game. I guess if your only goal is to make a small handful of games and release them repeatedly for 10 plus years then yay. You will be fondly remembered for a couple of titles.
COD still continues to sell well and make an insane amount of money even though it's now in gamepass. I don't even think COD is going to move the GP subscriber needle. So in the end what's the harm in also having in a sub service? Not much really.
MS may even see a large uptick in dlc/skin type purchases which is really what GTA thrives on with the online version.
They're going to make disgusting amounts of money with GTAVI but it could be even more if they had the balls to put it on sub for more exposure. I know people that had never tried GTA in their life until it was cheap or free.
Super rational.
COD still continues to sell well and make an insane amount of money even though it's now in gamepass. I don't even think COD is going to move the GP subscriber needle. So in the end what's the harm in also having in a sub service? Not much really.
MS may even see a large uptick in dlc/skin type purchases which is really what GTA thrives on with the online version.
They're going to make disgusting amounts of money with GTAVI but it could be even more if they had the balls to put it on sub for more exposure. I know people that had never tried GTA in their life until it was cheap or free.
Super rational.
AmuroChan
Member
Take-Two didn't do that though. The movie was in production well before Gearbox was even acquired by Take-Two.
ManaByte
Gold Member
Take Two was the publisher on Borderlands since 2009.
Saber
Member
Isn't GTA still selling despite being released in ages? If is based on the fact that GTA is an ultra seller then what you said only reinforces what he says.
The IP/franchise wasn't owned by T2 until T2 owned Gearbox and so they wouldn't have been involved with the movie decision making anyway.
Roman Empire
Member
Say what you will about T2 being one of the shittiest and scummiest companies in the business. They know how to milky money from the fanbase with all their annual sports games releases and rockstar re-releases.
We've known for a fact that Gamepass would skew costumers' views of what a game values due to how disposable they became with the subscription business. No company in their right mind would put their newest releases day-and-date on their platforms unless they had money to burn (Microsoft Gamepass) or they were robbing people blind with ridiculous prices for mostly mediocre games that go on sale fast a few months after release (Ubisoft+ Premium and EA Play Pro).
Sony nor Nintendo will ever release their big hitters day-1 on their subscriptions services because they know it'll hurt them long-term since gamers won't want to pay $70 (or more in the near future) for individual games any longer. It is simple math.
We've known for a fact that Gamepass would skew costumers' views of what a game values due to how disposable they became with the subscription business. No company in their right mind would put their newest releases day-and-date on their platforms unless they had money to burn (Microsoft Gamepass) or they were robbing people blind with ridiculous prices for mostly mediocre games that go on sale fast a few months after release (Ubisoft+ Premium and EA Play Pro).
Sony nor Nintendo will ever release their big hitters day-1 on their subscriptions services because they know it'll hurt them long-term since gamers won't want to pay $70 (or more in the near future) for individual games any longer. It is simple math.
AmuroChan
Member
Yes, but it was Randy Pitchford who engaged with Ari Avad to make the movie. Strauss Zelnick was not involved at all. Gearbox owned the IP.
Last edited:
Dr. Wilkinson
Member
Says the guy that put RDR2 on Game Pass for a period of time.
Look, of course it doesn't make sense for a third-party to launch a major blockbuster AAA into Game Pass, vs selling every copy they can for full price. Unless Msoft pays them so much to do it up front that they don't care about individual sales. Something ridiculous like $400 million or something. But I do think that putting catalogue titles that have been out for multiple years and no longer really sell in large numbers at $60-70 each, especially if there's a multiplayer component still active that might benefit from a second wind of players coming in. Because that leads to more people playing that might spend money on microtransactions or season passes.
Look, of course it doesn't make sense for a third-party to launch a major blockbuster AAA into Game Pass, vs selling every copy they can for full price. Unless Msoft pays them so much to do it up front that they don't care about individual sales. Something ridiculous like $400 million or something. But I do think that putting catalogue titles that have been out for multiple years and no longer really sell in large numbers at $60-70 each, especially if there's a multiplayer component still active that might benefit from a second wind of players coming in. Because that leads to more people playing that might spend money on microtransactions or season passes.
Gamer_By_Proxy
Member
Shots fired!
jm89
Member
kazuyamishima
Member
GTAV on a dying PS3 and 360 sold 11m units or $800m in one day. I think they would laugh at that “ridiculous” offer of $400m.
CuteFaceJay
Member
Wait wasn't GTA V put on Gamepass?
Magic Carpet
Member
Instead they go free on Epic Game store.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Holy shit, what a revelation. You mean Take Two’s not the same as a small indie developer?
I get that this is a thread to make fun of Game Pass and Xbox, but my God is it dumb.
I get that this is a thread to make fun of Game Pass and Xbox, but my God is it dumb.
Last edited:
Dr. Wilkinson
Member
That's because it didn't launch on next-gen for some time afterward. If you wanted the game at launch, you had to buy it for your old-ass 360 and PS3 system. That would never happen nowadays. It's a totally different world now with modern consoles and how things are launched. But of course a new GTA or RDR game from Rockstar might be one of the few exceptions to what I said. And since roughly half of the copies sold would come from PS platforms and thus no subscription, you wouldn't be losing the $800m in your example, you'd be "losing" maybe $300-$400 million. So it would just depend on how much Msoft agrees to pay to cover that loss of copies sold because of the launch into the subscription.
Last edited:
Dr. Wilkinson
Member
Base game will launch at $70 and there'll of course be premium tiers beyond that. No one reasonably expects otherwise in this environment.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
T2 games are on PS+ and GP all the time. They just do short term stints. Not forever deals.
BlackTron
Member
If I was only being carried by one game, I wouldn't give it away either.
HeisenbergFX4
Gold Member
Yes as were some of their other games.
I think some liberties were taken with the thread title as bait if I am being honest because the quote in the Tweet is
Take-Two still won't put its new games into the service because it makes rational decisions
And the actual quote from him is
However, he added that this move by Microsoft doesn't change how Take-Two views the subscription opportunity. "No, it won't affect our decisions," Zelnick says. "Because our decisions are rational."
Not sure if
ChiefDada
was intentional in that thread title or what but this entire thread is nothing but inviting sniping from each side
GHG
Gold Member
And what exactly is the problem with them releasing this as a new full price game, just as every other game releases?
Punished Miku
Human Rights Subscription Service
So do Ubisoft and EA and both have day 1 sub plans. I think Take 2 will eventually as well, it will just be their own thing.
Similar threads
- Locked