Gaming

20022 readers

739 users here now

Sub for any gaming related content!

Rules:

1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

141

Leaked Xbox Boss Email Perfectly Explains Why Game Publishers Are Eating Themselves Alive (kotaku.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] EveningNewbs 39 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The suggestion here is that the type of game that can thrive on a subscription service is either a small one that benefits from better curation and visibility or a live-service one that can make up revenue on the backend by charging all the new players microtransactions (the new store shelves are inside the games themselves).

I've been saying this since Game Pass launched: it encourages scummy monetization. The kind of games that come to it are going to have more and more content locked away behind microtransactions to make up the money lost by not selling copies. It's going to gradually become full of "free" to play garbage, and people will accept it because they didn't pay for an individual game outright.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Of the two options that Phil says Game Pass encourages (and I agree with his analysis), one is the opposite of scummy and something the market could use more of.