Punished Miku
Banned
Not necessarily. I never tried Forza in 20 years. Now I'm a fan.
-
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.
- Thread starter PJX
- Start date
Hero of Spielberg
Member
Don’t bother, the goalposts will just shift again.
ReBurn
Gold Member
He probably believed it at the time.
Lord Malachite
Member
The PS+ Extra/Premium catalog is quite difference. Few games launch day one on it, and the number of titles is less than GP. As is the number of subs. The only reason I have Premium is for all the classic PS2/PS2/PSP titles I get included. It's saved me more than the MSRP annual price of Premium already.
PS has not built an entire culture around the sub model nor actively trained its userbase to eschew buying games in favor of it. It's a supplement, not the default.
Donald mac Ronald
Member
Haha what. Since when have ps gamers stopped buying games because they will end up on plus.
Hero of Spielberg
Member
As mentioned before, this line of argument is irrelevant to the OP and misses important reasons for why GP is even being pursued by MS in the first place
Rawbutt Jellybean
Member
Don't look at me. I didn't claim people will stop buying games because they're "waiting for them to be free".
sharp weiner
Member
Even worse than AI, British.That assessment from the studio you know that totally exists is so incredibly obviously AI generated. People used to put effort into bait.
Punished Miku
Banned
Explain to me this "active training" to avoid buying games. You get a 20% discount to buy while on GP which is not nothing. Adds up. Also if you play any game on the leaving soon list you get a full page ad directing you to buy from the store each time you start it in that 2 weeks. There's also ads for other games on the system start screen and in a dozen other rows on the system UI since the update. Then you also get rewards points for gift cards to buy games from the store with pop up achievement style messages telling you to claim the points. There's also full page unskippable ads on rare occasions for game launches like they did for Call of Duty in October.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Neo_game
Member
I think it was Sony that started giving free games on subscription first on PS+. IMO that was more than enough some older good games that probably you would not buy or consider playing. Not sure they had to pay devs or devs get some incentive if many people try their game but that was more than enough. GP I think will only work for Gaas type of games for devs. It is a SP game killer IMO
Unknown Soldier
Member
You say this but revenue for Marvel Rivals on Xbox is literally about 2% of the total, PC and PS5 is the other 98%
Nobody is spending any money on Xbox anymore
It makes them money by MS giving them your money. If MS doesn't, the industry has been fucked for somebody trying to sell games on their own. It's only good when MS are pouring you the gravy but it's made a shitty situation outside where nobody buys them now, especially on xbox.
Majima Everywhere System
Member
Gamepass was free money upfront from a platform where the sales might not even be calculated business plan.
When PS+ happened in 2010 the free games were unpredictable and rarely if ever day 1, they were older games and the library/claim window limited. It was equivalent to waiting for a cinema blockbuster like Terminator to show on cable tv or come to blockbuster on DVD. It wasn't until EA Access/gamepass and to some extent now PS+ premium/extra that gamers started getting conditioned to not buy anything and wait.
EA access and gamepass were driven by EAs and MS' increased focus on microtransactions during the xbox one era prior to these subs introduction. Nobody went in so hard on killing games sales as much as MS though. They started releasing ALL their games day one on the service in 2017-8 and essentially made xbox the "gamepass box" by not caring about game sales anymore in the slightest. They wanted to be "the netflix of gaming". They conditioned people not to buy games or even hardware. That's what you do when you try to emulate netflix or Spotify in the gaming world rather than using other avenues like "cable TV" for extra revenue from older stuff. You literally don't give a shit about game sales, the box office or record sales anymore. You disrupt and kill things that were there before. You can't really argue "blockbuster/cable TV" had already conditioned people. Sure, maybe to some extent but it hadn't really if you were being honest and reasonable. The drive for subs over game sales is much more recent.
Last edited:
MacReady13
Member
No you’re wrong. Many like myself were hardcore Xbox gamers who jumped ship BECAUSE they focused solely on Gamepass over everything else. All we wanted was exclusive 1st or 2nd or 3rd party games like they had with the 360! Very simply they dropped the ball completely during the Xbone era and thought hey, let’s make a subscription service where yes, we lose money but if we can get the others to follow, they’ll see that this is where the world is heading, putting them out of business and we will stand alone!
I want Xbox to succeed but not in the way they’re going about it now. They think that they’re on this new way of thinking in the games industry but they’re 10 years ahead of the game! Bullshit. Subscription models like Gamepass won’t work for these companies. Hence why they’re now effectively a 3rd party company. Have a rental service for older games. Releasing games day and date is a mistake and you can clearly see it is as they’re now 3rd party. Deal with it or not, but it is sad as I only wanted 2 consoles- Nintendo and Xbox. They kept me going well during the original Xbox and 360 eras. I was doing well! Then they got stupid…
MacReady13
Member
I love hearing people always talk about how people were able to rent movies during the blockbuster era yet dvd sales could literally save a film that failed at the box office! That doesn’t happen now with Spotify, Netflix or Gamepass.
Rawbutt Jellybean
Member
I really wish you guys would follow the comments back to who I was replying to. Day 1 games has nothing to do with this. That person thinks subscription services where people can "wait for free games" is ruining the market. Sony has been doing it for over a decade. They've given away 832+ games in just the permanent monthly claims in addition to whatever other games have shown up on PS+ Extra/Premium and the PS4 collection they gave away when PS5 came out.
Who says I didn't? Maybe you didn't read what I said. I was comparing the "over a decade" 2010 version of PS+ to the blockbuster DVD releases/cable TV of old and how this is completely different to the drive now with Gamepass/PS+ Premium and Netflix. The former was an additional revenue stream once the sales were dead. It didn't condition people as much. The latter is not.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
“Focused solely on GamePass over everything else”
All of their games are still available to buy outside of the service, and they need to release games to entice people to sub to GamePass.
Some of you on the doomsday crew make no sense sometimes.
Rawbutt Jellybean
Member
You quoted me though and I was responding to someone who thinks retail games given away "free" (whether or not part of a sub) at any point is ruining the market. Blockbuster doesn't have anything to do with the side discussion I was having (that you joined by quoting me) so I didn't feel the need to respond to it.
Last edited:
Yes? I'm quoting you because the idea that games with gold or "PS+ from 2010" conditioned people the way that gamepass has now is blatantly false. It would be like saying cable TV conditioned people already when referring to netflix's disruption of the movie industry. It's apples to oranges. Disney+ wasn't a thing in the past for a reason but you would be mad to think that netflix didn't have an influence on the introduction of Disney+ or that Disney+ hasn't conditioned people to wait anymore than the cable TV of old. It's not the same. Asking "so did AT&T/Sky ruin the movie industry?" would have been dumb but that's the comparison you drew with it.
Last edited:
MacReady13
Member
We know they’re available to buy. So why are people not buying them? Xbox gamers won’t buy games! Why is that so hard to understand? And like I’ve stated MANY times, can you (or anyone else) explain to me how someone with an Amazon Firestick can purchase games on their firestick so it’s in their library to keep? This is the future Microsoft wants, just look at their advertising.
“Focused solely on GamePass over everything else”
All of their games are still available to buy outside of the service, and they need to release games to entice people to sub to GamePass.
Some of you on the doomsday crew make no sense sometimes.
Some people are struggling to understand what the word "focus" means and how that changes everything.
Rawbutt Jellybean
Member
If MS is conditioning people to "wait for free games" to show up on their service, then Sony has too and has for longer. You can certainly go find posts as far back as 2011-2012 of people saying exactly that soon as Sony started regularly giving AAA games away on PS+.
Neo_game
Member
Yes but these type of games still has better chance to make money. SP games have very little incentive on GP.
S0ULZB0URNE
Gold Member
More MS lies.Phil and his minions then spread the word.
Sales have went down.
If Disney+ is conditioning people to "wait for 'free' movies" to show up on their service, then Sky has too and has for longer. You can certainly go find posts as far back as 1989-1990 of people saying exactly that soon as Sky started showing some movies on Sky Movies.
While technically true, if you think cable TV had conditioned people to wait for movies to show on a sub and affected the movie industry the same way Disney+/Netflix has more recently then there is no point continuing the conversation. They're not the same though. You might as well be talking about Sega Channel at that point if you're being so reductive when it comes to industry disruption and market conditioning. The truth is though that the push for subs at the expense of boxoffice sales and game sales is more recent. You know that but you'd rather be discussing 'firsts' and comparing apples to oranges when it comes to business model focus.
Last edited:
Rawbutt Jellybean
Member
I don't know why you keep bringing up Disney+ or netflix or whatever. They really have nothing to do with video games. Like you're not even talking about video games at all in your post now other than a sentence about the Sega Channel. You seem to not like me comparing PS+ to GP but for some reason want to talk about an entirely different entertainment industry.
Last edited:
Then unsurprisingly you've missed the point entirely.
MacReady13
Member
Like that 9-10 million seller Spider-Man? Or whatever it sold.
Rawbutt Jellybean
Member
That post was so absurd it's even hard to reply to. Just look at this:
You take issue with me comparing PS+ to GP but think cable TV is comparable to PS+? Like how am I supposed to respond to that?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I think in their quest to 'gotcha' you, everyone's forgotten the rofif posts you quoted in the first place, in which you made a perfectly valid point. He accused people of 'waiting for free on EGS or GP' in the same page multiple people are bringing up how PS has been doing it for even longer, without applying the same outcome there.
Last edited:
There is nothing absud about it. I'm not sure what you're not getting in the cable TV analogy. let me try with something you have no problem with since it's 'game related'.
somebody says "Xbox with Series S and gamepass is ruining/killing the retail store physical games market"
you reply "did the Sega Channel ruin the physical games market? they had games delivery over communication networks decades before in 1994"
you'd be ignoring the important facts there. Sega Channel was limited in library, it wasn't a focus of Sega, game and console sales were. so while technically what might be said about Sega Channel is true it is completely ignoring the fact that there was no real market conditioning of people or a focus on that business model. Now apply it to your own and suggesting PS+ did very limited free old games "a decade before in 2010" and hopefully this time you will get the analogy.
Last edited:
Shmunter
Member
Yeas, subs should mirror a secondary market. Just like video did in its day. An opportunity for revenue past the initial release.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
If Xbox gamers don't buy games, publishers wouldn't keep releasing them. You're taking GAF nonsense a bit too seriously. Also, you're incredibly naive if you don't know that an all-digital future is what every single publisher around would prefer.
Either way, you responded to a post of mine claiming MS was focusing on GamePass over games, I'm just saying that doesn't make any sense, you need games for GamePass.
Rawbutt Jellybean
Member
Because the analogy doesn't work. Cable TV movies were edited, filled with commercials, and put into set time slots. PS+ games were added to your collection as if you bought them digitally.
Please don't introduce made up conversations and say I would say something that I haven't.
All that happened was I replied to this:
By pointing out that it could apply to PS+ since the PS3 days yet it didn't ruin the market.
It's really not any deeper than that. We don't need to bring in Sega Channel or Cable TV.
Chukhopops
Member
Man it makes me sad that people now believe any random bullshit when OP’s post history is so obviously full of shit that never happened.
There used to be a minimum quality for shitposting…
There used to be a minimum quality for shitposting…
Last edited:
The analogy works perfectly in that they were movies where box office sales and maybe even DVD sales had mostly declined for and it was seen as an extra revenue stream for old content only. The movies were edited? Like wtf? how and how is that even relevant? Sky Movies also had no ads.set time slots? Like how you were just saying games were limited to a set month and "not a library" prior for 2010 PS+?
When you have trouble understanding the point entirely we do. The reason it (PS+/GWG) and cable TV didn't ruin their respective market is because it was limited and just a secondary source of additional revenue for old content no longer selling. Things like Gamepass/(PS+ Premium to some extent) and Netflix however is a completely different business model and the primary focus for xbox/netflix now. it can be said to be ruining the market by conditioning the userbase not to purchase games or tickets anymore. GWG/PS+, cable TV, sega channel whatever else did not offer content at the expense of their primary market of that media. Digital/physical Game sales or box office sales. Gamepass does and disrupts the market, just like Netflix did too. Gamepass failed a little compared to netflix but it attempted to nonetheless. PS+/GWG and cable TV were not the same even though they offered old content on a sub in prior decades.
Last edited:
PS+ extra and premium, EA Pass, Ubi and other publishers games subscription are also bad for developers. They’re also game subscription services. These services are only good for the companies offering the services.
Gamepass is the worst though since MS is putting all their weight as to release Day 1 AAA games on it for the purpose of achieving critical mass. It’s a good thing it will never happen and that most gamers would rather buy games than subscribe. It doesn’t hold value to most gamers anyway who only play 2-5 games per year. Time is a luxury and most gamers can’t play that many games to make it worthwhile.
Rawbutt Jellybean
Member
It doesn't because when PS+ added a game it went to your "instant game collection" and that game was identical to what you'd buy digitally. If a movie is on Cable, you wouldn't say it was part of your movie collection and it's not even the same movie as if you bought it. It's apples to oranges.
The point is old games being given away for free on subscription services won't ruin gaming like the original person in the discussion claimed. That's it.
That's as much as I'm going to talk about TV since it's irrelevant to the gaming industry but if you want to blabber on about Sky Movies (whatever that is) then be my guest.
A movie on Sky movies was identical to something you would watch at the cinema or on DVD. I'm not sure what you're on about. It was literally a limited number of old films being chosen to show to subscribers of a channel. Was it as disruptive as netflix? No.
Sure there is a difference in that once you claimed a game on PS+ essential releases for that limited period of a month you can then play any time but you have to remain subscribed to access it. Why is all this relevant though in making the point that a limited library of old content on a sub was not as disruptive in the past due to the very fact that the library was limited to much older unpredictable content on cableTV/Sat/PS+ vs what we have today regarding day 1 releases and collapsed game sales on xbox? How do you not get that the latter was far more disruptive. As was digital only xboxes, digital stores/gamepass and digital only releases vs Sega channel as another example of something old that wasn't disruptive. Even though Sega Channel was 'first'.
And again you ignore the very point of the conversation. You were making the claim it isn't disruptive by pointing to something that wasn't the same decades ago. I gave examples in other media using them as an analogy to say why your comparison to something that did it 'first' doesn't make sense when talking about market disruption because those were not primary business models or the focus they are today. There were key differences.
Last edited:
Rawbutt Jellybean
Member
Rewrite this without talking about TV, movies, or any entertainment industry besides video games and I'll respond. Already proved that one of your analogies was terrible, I'm not going to waste my time on the rest. Otherwise goodnight.
Already did that with a Sega Channel example and how it was not disruptive but you failed so... goodnight.
Last edited:
From Phil Spencer himself.
Phil Spencer: Game Pass leads to more game sales
This past weekend's X018 event was, arguably, a two-hour long advertisement for Game Pass, and given what Microsoft gam…www.gamesindustry.biz
In a video interview with levelup.com (as pointed out on ResetEra), Spencer says that putting games on Game Pass actually increases sales of the individual game.
Rawbutt Jellybean
Member
So giving away old games on a subscription service like Sega Channel, PS+, GP, and Epic won't ruin gaming, which has been my point in response to this post before you started talking about Netflix and a 40 year old British movie service.
Thanks for finally agreeing with me, whew.
hemo memo
You can't die before your death
They're not putting a gun to your head to release the game on GP.
This is the thing I don't get. It's like people have never heard of streaming services before. It's the same model. Would you call Squid Game a failure because it didn't sell?
This is the thing I don't get. It's like people have never heard of streaming services before. It's the same model. Would you call Squid Game a failure because it didn't sell?
Last edited:
