• 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.

For developers, Gamepass is the worst thing to happen to the industry.

Three

Member
2010 then, like I said 2008 or so.

Either way, it never had a games catalogue like you;re suggesting.
A very limited one it did but a "catalogue" none the less. I can even show you that games stayed if that's what you're disputing. July, vs August.
Or fast forward a year or so
images

images


It's semantics to say "it's not a games catalogue" if games are staying between months and things were rotating in and out despite how limited it was. It's pretty much "a catalogue" that spanned over more than 1 month to claim forever.
 

Kacho

Gold Member
The thread title is a tad hyperbolic when things like wokeness and live service exist.

I'm no fan of Game Pass or services in general, but it's undeniable that Game Pass has been a blessing for indie devs. Microsoft cuts them a check which helps cover dev costs and gives the developers a safety net.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
And it was a completely different service with streaming only. Not sure why there is debate on this, PS+ clearly introduced a GP style mosdel in response to GP. It’s not a criticism of PS+, it’s just a fact
The confusion I think is youre not classifying PS cloud service years as a sub plan because if it doesnt involve downloadable games it doesn’t count in your books.

The rest of us are. As long as it has a monthly sub plan price with tons of game, that's a sub plan regardless if it's stream only or downloadable.

GP came out summer 2017. PS Now came out years earlier. Maybe not in Australia, but in other markets.
 
Last edited:
A very limited one it did but a "catalogue" none the less. I can even show you that games stayed if that's what you're disputing. July, vs August.
Or fast forward a year or so
images

images


It's semantics to say "it's not a games catalogue" if games are staying between months and things were rotating in and out despite how limited it was. It's pretty much "a catalogue" that spanned over more than 1 month to claim forever.
We didn’t get that in Australia. But yes, that is a game catalogue, albeit l8mited as you said.

Either way, the introduction of the extensive game catalogue into PS+ was a
response to GP. So rounding back to where this whole conversation started, Sony adopted the Gamepass style game catalogue as part of their PS+ offering after GP launched
 
This isn't surprising in the least. Exactly what most reasonable people feared when GP came into the picture. It would lead to devaluation of games and create a race to the bottom model of gaming. We are seeing the main disadvantage of subscription services as growth has predictably slowed down and the well of money has dried up with it. Now the only games benefitting from GamePass are those games that have a lot of engagement and other games that aren't able to drive engagement are lost in a sea of forgotten devalued games.

We are seeing how GamePass has essentially killed software retail on Xbox and now it's even hurting revenue of F2P games like Marvel Rivals on the platform. In the end, GamePass has ended up hurting the Xbox platform and the smaller indie devs it was initially designed to help in theory. It has basically trained gamers not to want to spend money on games at all and to wait for everything to come to the service on Xbox, and basically ignore everything not on the service. It may have started as a way to help the platform and create exposure for smaller games but I think it has done more harm than good sadly.


I still disagree GamePass is the worst thing to happen to the industry though. The worst thing to happen to the industry is greedy executives and shareholders. Them and social justice activists getting into gaming. GamePass while kinda shitty and unsustainable in its own right only ends up hurting Xbox in the long run. These other things I mentioned are an industry wide problem.
 
Last edited:

Insanemaelstrom

Gold Member
And it was a completely different service with streaming only. Not sure why there is debate on this, PS+ clearly introduced a GP style mosdel in response to GP. It’s not a criticism of PS+, it’s just a fact
So they copied gp by adding a download button?. So the main feature of gp is a download button? Or is it a catalogue of game that functions similar to netflix.

PsNow was an attempt at netflix for gaming, same as gp. They both offer a catalogue of games that stay for quite some time. Besides download( which is now got back in 2018) and day 1 games, they are both exactly similar.

Also, if you want to argue about being able to download games, even then EA access was there before gp. It also offered a catalogue of games that you could download, way before GP. GP took the concept of PsNow and expanded on it. It is hilarious to think that PsNow and by extension PS extra is a copy of gamepass.
 
So they copied gp by adding a download button?. So the main feature of gp is a download button? Or is it a catalogue of game that functions similar to netflix.

PsNow was an attempt at netflix for gaming, same as gp. They both offer a catalogue of games that stay for quite some time. Besides download( which is now got back in 2018) and day 1 games, they are both exactly similar.

Also, if you want to argue about being able to download games, even then EA access was there before gp. It also offered a catalogue of games that you could download, way before GP. GP took the concept of PsNow and expanded on it. It is hilarious to think that PsNow and by extension PS extra is a copy of gamepass.
Question time, do you genuinely believe Sony would have made the PS+ changes they did RE games catalogue if MS hadn’t introduced GP?
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Question time, do you genuinely believe Sony would have made the PS+ changes they did RE games catalogue if MS hadn’t introduced GP?
PS sub plans came out before GP did in 2017.

Not sure why you keep debating the point.

Just because PS sub plans were stream only at the beginning and in your Australia didn’t get the service until years later (as per the article I found) doesn’t mean it doesn’t count.
 

clarky

Gold Member
Are you an actual dev with published games or just a dude fucking around in his bedroom? Both is fine, just curious.
 
PS sub plans came out before GP did in 2017.

Not sure why you keep debating the point.

Just because PS sub plans were stream only at the beginning and in your Australia didn’t get the service until years later (as per the article I found) doesn’t mean it doesn’t count.
Then why bring it to PS+ and make the games available for download? What prompted that change given they already had the service available for so long?
 

cireza

Member
As a developer, Game Pass doesn't benefit studios the way it was promised. Developers were told that putting their games on Game Pass would lead to increased sales through greater exposure, but that hasn’t worked out as expected. Talking to a few developers that I know they stated that while the initial spike in visibility was noticeable, it hasn’t translated into the kind of long-term sales growth theye were led to believe. Instead, players seem content to engage with their game on the service and then move on to the next title, leaving traditional revenue streams stagnant. Does Game Pass harm developers in ways that are only becoming clear now. Unless Microsft is doing a huge payout, a lot of indie developers I know aren't seeing reasons to release their games on the platform and they payout has decreased dramatically since the buyouts.

A studio I know sent the following assestment to me.

  • Revenue Uncertainty: Developers often rely on upfront sales for predictable revenue. Game Pass shifts this model to a subscription-based payout, which can be inconsistent and tied to engagement metrics rather than actual game purchases. This leads to financial uncertainty for studios, especially indie developers.
  • Devaluation of Games: With so many titles available for a low monthly fee, the perceived value of individual games decreases. Consumers may become less willing to pay full price for games outside the subscription, creating a "race to the bottom" in pricing.
  • Unsustainable Expectations: Game Pass fosters a culture where players expect to access a large library of high-quality games at minimal cost. This places pressure on developers to lower prices or join the subscription service, often at unfavorable terms.
  • Lack of Long-Tail Sales: Titles on Game Pass may experience a surge in engagement initially but suffer from reduced long-term sales as players move to newer titles within the subscription. This affects studios that rely on steady income from evergreen titles.
  • Indie Developers Struggle: While exposure on Game Pass can boost visibility, many indie developers report that the revenue from the platform doesn’t compensate for the loss of traditional sales. Additionally, it can be challenging for smaller games to stand out among a vast library.
This totally reads like ChatGPT, not "a studio you know" lol.
 

KungFucius

King Snowflake
As a developer, Game Pass doesn't benefit studios the way it was promised. Developers were told that putting their games on Game Pass would lead to increased sales through greater exposure, but that hasn’t worked out as expected. Talking to a few developers that I know they stated that while the initial spike in visibility was noticeable, it hasn’t translated into the kind of long-term sales growth theye were led to believe. Instead, players seem content to engage with their game on the service and then move on to the next title, leaving traditional revenue streams stagnant. Does Game Pass harm developers in ways that are only becoming clear now. Unless Microsft is doing a huge payout, a lot of indie developers I know aren't seeing reasons to release their games on the platform and they payout has decreased dramatically since the buyouts.

A studio I know sent the following assestment to me.

  • Revenue Uncertainty: Developers often rely on upfront sales for predictable revenue. Game Pass shifts this model to a subscription-based payout, which can be inconsistent and tied to engagement metrics rather than actual game purchases. This leads to financial uncertainty for studios, especially indie developers.
  • Devaluation of Games: With so many titles available for a low monthly fee, the perceived value of individual games decreases. Consumers may become less willing to pay full price for games outside the subscription, creating a "race to the bottom" in pricing.
  • Unsustainable Expectations: Game Pass fosters a culture where players expect to access a large library of high-quality games at minimal cost. This places pressure on developers to lower prices or join the subscription service, often at unfavorable terms.
  • Lack of Long-Tail Sales: Titles on Game Pass may experience a surge in engagement initially but suffer from reduced long-term sales as players move to newer titles within the subscription. This affects studios that rely on steady income from evergreen titles.
  • Indie Developers Struggle: While exposure on Game Pass can boost visibility, many indie developers report that the revenue from the platform doesn’t compensate for the loss of traditional sales. Additionally, it can be challenging for smaller games to stand out among a vast library.
This is mostly speculative.
First of all nobody in their right minds would believe that a game on Gamepass would be bought by those who played it on Gamepass. You are somehow conflating the value of the exposure with long term sales based on what exactly? The exposure can and only will lead to sales on other platforms where users don't have access to Gamepass.

Second, the value of games has changed dramatically in the mostly digital world. Games used to see huge price drops because the physical media would be sitting on shelves otherwise and gamers could always buy used. Now platform owners are controlling the prices due to an effective monopoly with their stores. If Gamepass makes it harder to keep prices high on older games, good. I miss that.

Games are devaluing themselves. Many AAA games offer so much content that many who buy don't finish, but make a game that is trying to get you to buy it for 50 bucks or 30 bucks look like a waste. A service removes that issue and still brings in revenue equivalent to several games per year which is what a lot of people would spread across a few titles otherwise.

I think there is a lot of entitled delusion here. Basically: "Ooh a bunch of people played my unknown game on Gamepass and I deserve that number times full price, not what I got from MS when I thought nobody would play it without the exposure." This is the piracy = theft of full price item fallacy but targeted at services and thus blaming the gamers who are paying good money to support the industry via this model.
 
I suggest you get involved in the indie scene. You'll learn a lot. Attend a few meet ups, shows, conferences and people will talk. I'm in a Discord channel called Game Dev Local. We used to do monthly meet ups before Covid in central London not we do meets up in Brighton every couple of months. I'm in another group that's dedicated to Unity programmers and we do meets up every month near Clapham Common (London in case you don't know). But yeah, sure Jan.
Are you a developer?

What studio? What games?

Studios wouldn’t join it if it didn’t make them money.
 

mdkirby

Gold Member
The harm on the industry compounds over time as it conditions the value perceptions on each successive generation of gamers, ie future paying customers.
 

Allandor

Member
You don't need to write code to understand that providing your product for free to millions of people will reduce the sales of the product which would otherwise be available only through.. purchase.
They don't provide the games for free. It is more like Netflix & co. They get money for every played game, minute, whatever they have in their contracts. Constant money flow vs unpredictable game sales (especially for smaller games).
 

Insanemaelstrom

Gold Member
Question time, do you genuinely believe Sony would have made the PS+ changes they did RE games catalogue if MS hadn’t introduced GP?

Then why bring it to PS+ and make the games available for download? What prompted that change given they already had the service available for so long?
Making the games available for download and consolidation of services that offer similar stuff is not something unique. It happens all the time. When Sony bought crunchyroll, they merged it with funimation( a process that took a year or so). It was inevitable. They were also the most desired feature for the service, so yeah, even if gamepass didn't exist, Sony would have made the ps+ changes.
 
Making the games available for download and consolidation of services that offer similar stuff is not something unique. It happens all the time. When Sony bought crunchyroll, they merged it with funimation( a process that took a year or so). It was inevitable. They were also the most desired feature for the service, so yeah, even if gamepass didn't exist, Sony would have made the ps+ changes.
Sure
 

Laptop1991

Member
It's good for Xbox gamer's who either play a lot of games constantly or those that just sub to play a few games a year for a month here and there, but it doesn't make the sales and profit that games use to when you had to buy them, no way that is happening or Microsoft wouldn't need to go 3rd party,

My issue is the quality of games being made are going down to the Gamepass effect, and i still disagree with Phil Spencer stating great games won't sell hardware, he was saying they are not making them anymore as they don't need to and so far in my opinion he is right, they haven't made them so far, i hope that changes.
 
Last edited:

Orbital2060

Member
The harm on the industry compounds over time as it conditions the value perceptions on each successive generation of gamers, ie future paying customers.
The industry will be fine, and it has turned a corner on subscriptions whether people like it or not. Things have changed, and Game Pass has no doubt been a catalyst før the change in market economy. Retail is not going to bounce back, its gone for ever. The only harm done will be to other actors like fx Sony, if they insist on not putting 1p on their premium subscription service. Or make a deal for their customers that can equal that, which I dont see how they can do. A lot of people have depended on trading games in to keep up with releases and can not afford to pay the full price on a digital copy. Subscriptions make up for that lost ability to trade games in, at least it does for me.
 

Fabieter

Member
It's good for Xbox gamer's who either play a lot of games constantly or those that just sub to play a few games a year for a month here and there, but it doesn't make the sales and profit that games use to when you had to buy them, no way that is happening or Microsoft wouldn't need to go 3rd party,

My issue is the quality of games being made are going down to the Gamepass effect, and i still disagree with Phil Spencer stating great games won't sell hardware, he was saying they are not making them anymore as they don't need to and so far in my opinion he is right. i hope that changes.

People who play alot of games, spend less money because of gamepass so the thread claiming it's bad for the industry is true aint it?
 

Laptop1991

Member
People who play alot of games, spend less money because of gamepass so the thread claiming it's bad for the industry is true aint it?
Yes, i said so, it's good for Xbox gamers as in they don't spend what they would have to in the past to play all those games.
 
Good argument.

You realize PS+ was before GamePass, right? It's just Sony did it in a way that didn't destroy their own brand and force them to go third-party.
By not including their 1st party day 1?

So then PS+ is actually the worst thing to happen to the industry.
 

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
I suggest you get involved in the indie scene. You'll learn a lot. Attend a few meet ups, shows, conferences and people will talk. I'm in a Discord channel called Game Dev Local. We used to do monthly meet ups before Covid in central London not we do meets up in Brighton every couple of months. I'm in another group that's dedicated to Unity programmers and we do meets up every month near Clapham Common (London in case you don't know). But yeah, sure Jan.

Sounds like you’re the evolved version of the guy that hangs out at GameStop for hours talking the cashier’s ears off about videogames.

So what games have you made, and what games have your little meet up friends made that have appeared on Game Pass?
 
Last edited:

Topher

Identifies as young
Plucky Squire, Humanity, Sea of Stars etc. PS Plus has its share of Indie day 1 releases as well.

In general, since the PS+ revamp, that service is a lot more similar to Game Pass than not.

No, it is not. The crucial difference is first party games. That's been the mantra for Game Pass since day one. The revamp didn't change that.
 

TintoConCasera

I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
No, it is not. The crucial difference is first party games. That's been the mantra for Game Pass since day one. The revamp didn't change that.
I wonder how those first-party devs are compensated for putting their games day 1 on GP.

I would guess they are getting a lot of money from MS for that. Otherwise yeah, I would understand GP being their doom.
 

Majukun

Member
I severely doubt developers were proposed more sales through gamepass, it does not make any sense .
if that is really what they were promised and they believe it, they were incredibly naive, but again if you are smart enough to start your own studio, you should also understand what would happen if you put your game on gamepass

what was promised is financial stability thanks to MS paying upfront for some of those games to be on the platform day one, and a way to monetize a bit after sales have died off (or never started in the first place)

I would argue that without the safety net of GP, we would have not got a bunch of amazing games, and that it's still a decent last drip of profit for games that have already dried up their normal user base.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Identifies as young
I wonder how those first-party devs are compensated for putting their games day 1 on GP.

I would guess they are getting a lot of money from MS for that. Otherwise yeah, I would understand GP being their doom.

Xbox has hit a bit of a wall in revenue growth according to their quarterly financials. I wonder how much Game Pass has to do with that, if at all. The internals of Xbox's economy is obviously going to be a bit more complex than the one with publishers who depend on sales and post-sales transactions. I'm not sure how you even translate Game Pass back to stockholders as a quantifiable amount of revenue per game. It's all a bit murky.
 

TintoConCasera

I bought a sex doll, but I keep it inflated 100% of the time and use it like a regular wife
I think a game being free on release can help boost it's sales in some, maybe very particular cases.

Think Rocket League. That game was gifted day 1 with PS+. Didn't it end up being super popular and making a lot of money?

Furi is another example. That game was also day 1 free with PS+ and the devs are still making games, so I guess they are doing fine.

So yeah, maybe not for big devs, but for smaller devs looking for an audience I can see GP being a good thing.
 
Last edited:
People who play alot of games, spend less money because of gamepass so the thread claiming it's bad for the industry is true aint it?
They want to artificially limit your options so they can extract more money and anything inhibiting that is "bad for the industry" if you're a shortsighted moron.. I think they're shit out of luck. Things are moving to PC and they aren't getting their limitations back. They better make something good enough to compete with GP or find another career. Lowering prices and increasing availability is the correct long term move for an aging, shrinking market.
 

Orbital2060

Member
Part of the problem here are the ballooning budgets for AAA, which in turn have pushed new game prices up way above what people are comfortable with. Somehow the industry needs to make great games on far lower budgets.
 

Humdinger

Gold Member
As a developer, Game Pass doesn't benefit studios the way it was promised. Developers were told that putting their games on Game Pass would lead to increased sales through greater exposure, but that hasn’t worked out as expected. Talking to a few developers that I know they stated that while the initial spike in visibility was noticeable, it hasn’t translated into the kind of long-term sales growth theye were led to believe. Instead, players seem content to engage with their game on the service and then move on to the next title, leaving traditional revenue streams stagnant.

Yup. This seems crystal clear now, although at the time GP was introduced, Phil and others claimed that it would boost game sales. Some people bought into that rhetoric. Even though it violated common sense, I wondered for a while whether it would prove to be true. But no, it didn't. It ended up reducing sales by 80% (on Xbox).

But it's no real surprise. Same thing happened with movies. Same thing happened with music. No surprise that the same thing happened with games.

It's interesting to see how the movie streaming services - once so hot, with surprising quality - are running into trouble because of fragmentation of the market and the poor quality of shows they're churning out. The latter (churning out low-quality "product") surely would have happened with GP eventually, had that model come to dominate the way Phil hoped.

Does Game Pass harm developers in ways that are only becoming clear now. Unless Microsft is doing a huge payout, a lot of indie developers I know aren't seeing reasons to release their games on the platform and they payout has decreased dramatically since the buyouts.

I've heard other indie devs say that GP has helped. Perhaps it helps some and hurts others.

A studio I know sent the following assestment to me.

  • Revenue Uncertainty: Developers often rely on upfront sales for predictable revenue. Game Pass shifts this model to a subscription-based payout, which can be inconsistent and tied to engagement metrics rather than actual game purchases. This leads to financial uncertainty for studios, especially indie developers.

MS pays them a flat fee up front, though, don't they? That would reduce uncertainty. Sounds like they also pay them based on "engagement" (i.e., how many people play it on GP). I see the point about that - but the same would be true of sales numbers. There is inherent uncertainty in how a game will perform over time. That's just built in.

  • Devaluation of Games: With so many titles available for a low monthly fee, the perceived value of individual games decreases. Consumers may become less willing to pay full price for games outside the subscription, creating a "race to the bottom" in pricing.

That has certainly been the case, and it's one of the biggest arguments against this model (especially with the Day 1 feature).

  • Unsustainable Expectations: Game Pass fosters a culture where players expect to access a large library of high-quality games at minimal cost. This places pressure on developers to lower prices or join the subscription service, often at unfavorable terms.

I'm not sure about this one. Do Xbox gamers really have that high of expectations? Seems to me that Xbox gamers have been starved for many years and are finally getting some good games appearing (Day 1) on the service. Even if they do expect good games on GP, I don't see how that means devs are pressured to join the service.

  • Lack of Long-Tail Sales: Titles on Game Pass may experience a surge in engagement initially but suffer from reduced long-term sales as players move to newer titles within the subscription. This affects studios that rely on steady income from evergreen titles.

Sure, but the same is true for game sales in general. This isn't specific to GP.

  • Indie Developers Struggle: While exposure on Game Pass can boost visibility, many indie developers report that the revenue from the platform doesn’t compensate for the loss of traditional sales. Additionally, it can be challenging for smaller games to stand out among a vast library.

Yeah, it must be tough to stand out as an indie developer.
 

Fabieter

Member
They want to artificially limit your options so they can extract more money and anything inhibiting that is "bad for the industry" if you're a shortsighted moron.. I think they're shit out of luck. Things are moving to PC and they aren't getting their limitations back. They better make something good enough to compete with GP or find another career. Lowering prices and increasing availability is the correct long term move for an aging, shrinking market.

I absolutely hate subscriptions of all kind. I prefer to have less fixed costs and just pay if I want something in specific.

Do you also blame hardware manufacturers for having high profit margins like apple. Would also like to have an iPhone for 10 bucks a month instead of 1500 but you know what? It needs to be worth it for the company.

Netflix has like 300m subs and a big part of the content is garbage. Games are even more expensive to produce so how would a high quality game subscriptions even look like.
 
I absolutely hate subscriptions of all kind. I prefer to have less fixed costs and just pay if I want something in specific.

Do you also blame hardware manufacturers for having high profit margins like apple. Would also like to have an iPhone for 10 bucks a month instead of 1500 but you know what? It needs to be worth it for the company.

Netflix has like 300m subs and a big part of the content is garbage. Games are even more expensive to produce so how would a high quality game subscriptions even look like.
If you hate subs, don't sub. Netflix content is compelling to 300m people who want something to watch without breaking the budget. Or HBO Max who consistently make many of the best shows had been subscription only since the 80s even on cable as an optional sub. Tons of phones are so expensive they are sold as subscription add ons to the phone bill.
 

Fabieter

Member
If you hate subs, don't sub. Netflix content is compelling to 300m people who want something to watch without breaking the budget. Or HBO Max who consistently make many of the best shows had been subscription only since the 80s even on cable as an optional sub. Tons of phones are so expensive they are sold as subscription add ons to the phone bill.

The phone plans are even more expensive like when you shop around for a bit. I own an s24 ultra without a plan and saved 400 bucks over 2 years for not doing a sub.

To each their own i don't see a positive for the industry. People who buy games subsidize the subscriptions.
 
People who buy games subsidize the subscriptions.
People who go to theaters and buy blu rays subsidize as well. You offer multiple streams of revenue for people to choose from.

You said the phone is more expensive on a sub. Same goes for games too. Buy once for $70 or sub for $200+ a year and spread it around. Sounds like subs subsidize as well. Weird.
 
Last edited:

ReBurn

Gold Member
we know thanks to Jason that a lot of the issues are coming from mismanagement.
At the end of the day the "why" isn't really relevant if it isn't addressed. If they spend more than they earn it's still an issue.

this is the videogame desing philosophy moving forward for all games. (also ads... just look ar mobile gaming)
I'm sure we'll see more strategies invented to bring in more money from games, and I'll tell you why.

A lot of people call it greed, but the reality is that $70 per copy in a one-time sales model doesn't bring in enough money to keep companies running. That's why you see so much MTX in paid games from companies like EA and Ubisoft. Microsoft's gaming software revenues are stale. They've had to give up and take big titles third party. Sony has been highlighting in their financials that their first party software revenues are underperforming and that they're depending too heavily on their cut of third party revenue. If it weren't for third party revenue Sony wouldn't be able to operate at the scale they are today. Nintendo is the only company really surviving on their own output.

there is no need to offer day and date game on any service (unless you want to prioritize the growth of such service or if it's your main business model)

These kind of services are just part of the economic chain of a game release lifecycle.

full price > price drops > definitive editions > sub services.
I'm not sure it's true that there's no need for day and date for Xbox. It's really all they have left now and it's because Microsoft took it there. That said, the economics of game development are what they are and Microsoft is going to have to go further into embracing other platforms to grow their addressable market. They need day and date on GP and PC to make enough money from their games. Day 1 on PC will have to expand to some day 1 on Sony and Nintendo's platforms as well.

The economics are already pushing Sony into doing things people thought they would never do. Sony's overall console customer base isn't exactly exploding with the demise of Xbox, and we've seen them do stuff like create their own sub service and release first party games on PC. Seeing Lego Horizon on Switch and PC day 1 was hand-waved away by some here as Sony being forced to do it by Lego. But Lego didn't force Sony into a deal for the Horizon IP. It was also Sony testing the efficacy of day 1 games on other platforms.

All that is to say that the current flow from full price to sub service you outlined has already changed for some Xbox and PlayStation titles to include a release on multiple platforms step before discounting occurs. It's going to have to expand to more titles unless the console userbase rapidly expands, because people aren't going to keep accepting price increases for games to pay for the increased dev cost. At some point games need to cost less to access in order to get more people spending money. Thats why we see discounts later. Day and date on multiple platforms does it sooner and with higher overall returns.

it couldn't save Tango.
Not sure what Tango has to do with it. It was already in limbo with the departure of its leader. But it does highlight that it's really no longer enough for a game to just make back its budget to be considered successful. A game now has to make enough money to fund its sequel. And in the case of a publisher-owned studio like Tango it has to pay for a portion of the ongoing overhead of the parent company.
 
Top Bottom