201
cross-posted from: https://yiffit.net/post/475688
Xbox Game Pass Core subscribers will get access to a small selection of the games available with the regular/higher tiers of Game Pass, starting with more than 25 games
==========
2 years ago I had to move to a temp place. First evening, I unpacked my PS3 which I hadn't had time for for a long time. Lots of games on it (and on discs), so I could just sit and play Journey.
Had all my games had been this subscription sort, I'd have nothing.
Now I know you can still buy games - for now, anyway. But since these companies make you pay for multiplayer anyway, it's an easy upsell for them. Just pay a bit more and you can play so many games... Just pay forever.
All of the games on gamepass are available for purchase at reasonable prices. Gamepass is a choice for people that want a wide variety of games to play right now for a reasonable price. Maybe one day sony or Microsoft first party games could become sub only but that seems very unlikely given the relatively high selling price of games compared to Blu rays, cds, books, etc... . It's too profitable not to offer them for sale.
This is a very silly argument.
Just watch this silly argument become less silly as we first see indie games become exclusive to subs, then an odd MMO, until in 5 years the first MicroVisZard game will be exclusive. There will be outrage of course, but it will die down, people will become tired of protesting, and sub-only games will be the new standard. Just like it always is with every crap these companies pull.
You still didn't provide any logical reason why anyone wouldn't also sell the games outright. Please explain the business case for a third party developer to make their game subscription only. First party games I could see this happening with, maybe, although I still find it unlikely. For third party? What benefit would their be for either side of that deal? They would both be limiting their income stream.
The clear benefit is, because Microsoft (or Sony or Nintendo or whoever) will pay them a ton of money.
Just like it always is with any other exclusive contract.
It's not like that's not the case already. Stadia had 3rd party exclusives, Apple's game subscription has exclusives.
You're missing the entire point of these subscription services. They exist to to keep you paying regardless of whether you use them or not. For them, a one-time investment in a videogame developer is worth it if it marginally helps them to get enough people to forget to cancel.
If you're not getting it, you're not familiar with the subscription model, and not familiar with the videogame industry.
Like who do you think is going to decide which games will be sub-only, you? No, you'll just find one day that a game you were looking forward to get announced as a subscription exclusive.
It's pointless to argue about shit that's happened time and time again. If in 5 years there will be less than 20 games exclusive to GamePass, you can come back and call me stupid.
Your arguement is pure speculation and doesn't reflect the actual economics of game pass.
First of all, the game pass incentive structure clearly does not cover the full cost of game development and revenue expectations. The reason we know this, outside of dev studios saying so, is because every 3rd party game that goes on game pass is only there for a limited period of time. There is no reason to do that unless the game pass incentive structure only covers a fraction of their costs.
So why do they do it? Well, it depends on the studio, but I see two reasons:
Regardless, both strategies assume that a percentage of subscribers will buy the game. If they don't, well, the player probably wouldn't have bought it anyway so at least you got something.
1st parties are different, sure, because their games are on game pass forever. However, I'd like to point out that there isn't a single 1st party Microsoft title that is exclusive to game pass. Even Starfield is still trying to incentivize gamers to buy with early access and funky smart watches. Why would they bother if game pass was enough.
And sure, Microsoft could just pay 3rd parties for their entire development costs to get exclusivity. But consider that to make all games game pass exclusive, not only are they paying for all of their 1st party game development (each AAA is like $200-500m) and then pay the same costs for every 3rd party game, and then pay for the servers to stream them. All of that funded from an $11 - 17 / month subscription. They would be losing money like crazy.
Why the hell would they limit themselves to the cost of subs when they could continue doing what they're already doing and make money off both subs and purchases and avoid funding all of game development?
So how is it that Amazon has paid a ton of money for Tolkien rights to make a subscription TV show, why did Apple pay a ton of money for Foundation to have an Apple TV subscription show, why does Netflix pay for F1 rights and funds Drive to Survive, a subscription show?
I'm not seeing boxed BRs of these being sold in the millions.
It's simple and it's been repeated ad nauseum. Subscriptions are a goldmine. You get someone to buy a thing once, you get money once. You get them to "subscribe", and you can be squeezing them for years. How do you think WOW has been making all that dough for 20 years? Why is every shitty company doing subscriptions for everything?
Besides, the cost of the game isn't even important to most releases anymore. The likes of EA, Take 2 Ubisoft make way more on lootboxes and other nonsense. Then why would they not place the core game into a subscription service? They'll still get paid, in perpetuity no less, have more eyes on the game and even convince people they're getting a good deal. Fucking genius.
But let's say you're right. Let's say that the only sub exclusives will be 1st party games and never any 3rd party. Isn't that enough? Instead of paying for Halo or Uncharted or whatever once, you'll pay for years if you want to play it.
Anyway, I'm out of these discussions.
Ed: ok one more thing after all. Consider what "1st party" means with Microsoft now. Everything from Activision, Blizzard, Bethesda, id Soft and a ton of other companies. Maybe you're right, why pay for any 3rd party exclusive if they already own everything?
As I said before. If in 5 years there will be fewer than 20 big-name AAA games exclusive to subscription services, you can come back and call me stupid.
Otherwise I'm tired of constantly pointing out how rotten the game industry is (not even singling out M$ here, they just happen to be even worse in other industries as well, so it's a double whammy), how dumb and evil services like this are, and am also tired of all these arguments.
I don't mind debating, but if you believe all this will always be great with sweet deals and "free" games and no major subscription exclusives, and MS will be generous out of pure goodness because it's gonna kill those evil console exclusives, despite how often history repeats itself over and over with the customer always getting fucked, I don't know what to tell you anymore.
BTW I never complained about platform exclusives. Xbox can have its Halo and Gears and whatnot. Never understood the panic around the Epic launcher either, if people already accept a dozen other launchers.
There's a difference between having a buying a few studios here and there, and trying to become the same kind of monopolistic behemoth MS wants to be in everything. I actually think Xbox has been a pretty okay brand overall, but the corporation behind it is cancer and one has to be on the lookout around them at all times.
And the other thing I'm strongly against is obvious, I think...
Dude, stop turning me into your strawman.
I'm not arguing that the game industry isn't awful or that game pass is the best, or the Activision merger is good. Collectively, we already spilled so much ink on those things and inevitably it doesn't matter because they're happening anyway and all these arguements are only used to further divide gamers into "sony" or "MS" camps fighting over which multi-billion dollar company to hate or stan.
What I'm arguing against is your belief that you're going to be required to pay for game pass to get games. That has not happened. It will not happen for the reasons I already outlined above. This is a made up argument to drum up fear and hatred of MS (presumably in favor of Sony).
Name a single game, existing or future, that is solely exclusive to game pass without any other ways to get it. I'll wait.... ... ... ... ... And when you can't - then you should examine why you believe so strongly, without evidence, and despite evidence to the contrary, that this doomsday scenario will happen. And who it could benefit to make you, and others, believe and fear and argue with such emotion that MS is taking games away from you.
I already said it twice: if in 5 years there will be fewer than 20 AAA games exclusive to Game Pass, you can come back and call me stupid. And I'll even be happy about it.
Frankly it can be any service for what I care. If Sony does it first, I'll bitch about it just the same. Crap is crap. MS is well poised to get there first, but this whole trend of "you won't own anything and be happy" of subscriptions is larger than even MS.
So... Deal?
We’re already seeing big name titles come out exclusively digitally, and companies like Bungie charge so much for their games that it might actually be cheaper as a subscription. I don’t think you’re too far off at all.
I wish Memmy supported bookmarking a specific comment because this would be the first one. These predictions are made time and time again and they prove themselves every time. I absolutely believe we will have at least some subscription exclusive games within 5 years, if that.
Subscription only games already exist and have existed for a long time.
Ever heard of World of Warcraft, little known indie game
I guess I was picturing single-player AAA titles