Support NeoGAF

[Rick Dangerous]

I recently read a good piece of (virtual) paper on games industry.biz that I encourage you to read : https://www.gamesindustry.biz/what-would-a-game-pass-dominated-landscape-look-like-opinion

Initially, when I first saw the word monopsony, I thought they invented some buzzword that mixes Monopoly + Sony.

it is actually the word describing the situation where there is only one Buyer.
Standard silicon valley "platforms" have followed this path endlessly and gamepass is trying to replicate it.
- first, a massive subsidized service / product to gain market share
- then lock in clients via usage, subscription(Netflix, or other things. reputation (Airbnb). One you pay a subscription, the one thing you try to avoid is to by a product and hope that your subscription becomes the dominant one and products will come in your subscription fee without any extra expense.
- then extend your reach by buying the market, smaller competitors and reducing the offer of the remaining competitors this way.
- then become a monopsony, the only place viable to sell products that some producers were selling directly to customers.
- then rise the prices to end client when there is no more alternatives.
- then raise your margin on third party product makers to raise even more your margin
- then fire a lot a employees that you hired to reach your monopsony goal because you don't need them anymore at this stage
- and finally do some massive lobbying/ corruption/ intimidation of the political sphere so that the hammer of break up never strikes.

This process has disrupted huge industries.
Gamepass is exactly that. Ps+ on a lesser extend but still awful.

Those companies and particularly Microsoft does not want only your cash, they want to control your future.

Fuck this future, it's awful and should not happen.

 

[ANDS]

Companies just won't put their games on GP then. Simple as. I could see this view if STEAM or EPIC didn't exist. Or if there aren't success stories of companies just putting games out themselves with their own DRM solutions. Is GP an easy way to get a foot in the door and some upfront cash - sure. But it isn't the only way. . .at least not yet.

. . .in time? Probably, but that's not a thing that can be stopped and just an evolution of the market.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Those companies and particularly Microsoft does not want only your cash, they want to control your future.

 

[Supple]

Companies just won't put their games on GP then. Simple as. I could see this view if STEAM or EPIC didn't exist. Or if there aren't success stories of companies just putting games out themselves with their own DRM solutions. Is GP an easy way to get a foot in the door and some upfront cash - sure. But it isn't the only way. . .at least not yet.

. . .in time? Probably, but that's not a thing that can be stopped and just an evolution of the market.

Yep. GP is good for recouping some dev costs and getting some exposure to Xbros but ultimately games will always sell better on other platforms other than Xbox.

 

[Lunarorbit]

So like when Walmart disrupted communities in the 90s and undercut local stores so they were the only choice.

Probably not as good an example now that online shopping has taken over but I lived in some small communities in americorps in Kentucky and Arkansas that only had a Walmart to depend on cause they shut everything else down

 

[DavidGzz]

Netflix has plenty of competition. Sony and Nintendo will simply adapt if Game Pass ever becomes like Netflix. It isn't so serious.

 

[cormack12]

All companies want you on a subscription revenue service. The only thing they'd like more is a non refundable yearly payment instead.

It's over dramatic. If anything you'll see more alternatives like Ubisoft+ which will then be regulated and instead of needing one consolidated subscription, consumers will need like 3/4 for all their content needs. Sports TV model.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Apple has long had monopsony power over phone components suppliers. No one really understands this either outside of people who follows the smartphone industry.

 

[ANDS]

So like when Walmart disrupted communities in the 90s and undercut local stores so they were the only choice.

Local stores could have responded. . .well no they couldn't because they were operating within a business structure that couldn't work with prices at a point as low as WALMART (or any other big box store). WALMART was a good idea. . .for WALMART. The downstream effect on other businesses weren't going to be good but that's the point of economic evolution. Rideshares (and gig economy) have basically broken all the old "tradesmen" rules we had to live with and no one blinked an eye at the poor cabbie (or plumber or landscaper). Why should we lament gaming? Gaming either has to go the GP route, or - seeing the wildly obvious future - pivot to a new model that doesn't let the "Netflixification" of videogame occur.

 

[aries_71]

Local stores could have responded. . .well no they couldn't because they were operating within a business structure that couldn't work with prices at a point as low as WALMART (or any other big box store). WALMART was a good idea. . .for WALMART. The downstream effect on other businesses weren't going to be good but that's the point of economic evolution. Rideshares (and gig economy) have basically broken all the old "tradesmen" rules we had to live with and no one blinked an eye at the poor cabbie (or plumber or landscaper). Why should we lament gaming? Gaming either has to go the GP route, or - seeing the wildly obvious future - pivot to a new model that doesn't let the "Netflixification" of videogame occur.

Very well put. Still, what is the wildly obvious future, though? I don’t think the current model is sustainable, and we are constantly seeing examples of huge triple A studios spending many years and hundreds of millions on what basically amounts to playing Russian roulette. One bad design decision/bet and you get a dud. You could have a Last of Us or a Forspoken. Too risky, that’s not sustainable.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Well yeah only ignorant people don’t understand what’s going on. Blame it on poor education or whatever but it is what it is.

 

[calistan]

Just get yourself a Game Pass sub and stop whining about it.

 

[Bragr]

I recently read a good piece of (virtual) paper on games industry.biz that I encourage you to read : https://www.gamesindustry.biz/what-would-a-game-pass-dominated-landscape-look-like-opinion

Initially, when I first saw the word monopsony, I thought they invented some buzzword that mixes Monopoly + Sony.

it is actually the word describing the situation where there is only one Buyer.
Standard silicon valley "platforms" have followed this path endlessly and gamepass is trying to replicate it.
- first, a massive subsidized service / product to gain market share
- then lock in clients via usage, subscription(Netflix, or other things. reputation (Airbnb). One you pay a subscription, the one thing you try to avoid is to by a product and hope that your subscription becomes the dominant one and products will come in your subscription fee without any extra expense.
- then extend your reach by buying the market, smaller competitors and reducing the offer of the remaining competitors this way.
- then become a monopsony, the only place viable to sell products that some producers were selling directly to customers.
- then rise the prices to end client when there is no more alternatives.
- then raise your margin on third party product makers to raise even more your margin
- then fire a lot a employees that you hired to reach your monopsony goal because you don't need them anymore at this stage
- and finally do some massive lobbying/ corruption/ intimidation of the political sphere so that the hammer of break up never strikes.

This process has disrupted huge industries.
Gamepass is exactly that. Ps+ on a lesser extend but still awful.

Those companies and particularly Microsoft does not want only your cash, they want to control your future.

Fuck this future, it's awful and should not happen.

You are overreaching, that this is gonna lead to corruption and intimidation is fantasy and just dim view thinking.

The article is the same article that gamesindustry.biz has been writing for a year now. Especially with this particular writer, he writes the same article over and over with different spins.

All it says is that Game Pass might become so big that publishers must take part in it to survive. But what we are seeing is that all the publishers are offering up their own services. And right now, the kind of money you get from paid sales is not gonna go away anytime soon, successes like Hogwarts Legacy and Pokemon Violent/Scarlett make sure of that.

 

[Unknown?]

Local stores could have responded. . .well no they couldn't because they were operating within a business structure that couldn't work with prices at a point as low as WALMART (or any other big box store). WALMART was a good idea. . .for WALMART. The downstream effect on other businesses weren't going to be good but that's the point of economic evolution. Rideshares (and gig economy) have basically broken all the old "tradesmen" rules we had to live with and no one blinked an eye at the poor cabbie (or plumber or landscaper). Why should we lament gaming? Gaming either has to go the GP route, or - seeing the wildly obvious future - pivot to a new model that doesn't let the "Netflixification" of videogame occur.

Well if people cared about quality rather than price it wouldn't have been so disruptive.

However we live in a world where we trade time and effort for currency and another group gets to create currency from nothing so they don't need to work for purchasing power while making the hard earned currency worth less for everyone else through inflation.

 

[diffusionx]

The only thing that GamePass seems to be disrupting is Microsoft's ability to sell videogames on console. It hasn't done anything. Even on PC, it seems a lot of people are choosing to buy MS games on Steam. I don't think the number of people who want this are anywhere near what MS thought/hoped. The ones who do are buying MS consoles but as we are starting to see, they aren't buying that many. Xbox is getting its ass kicked yet again.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

the deal still is going through tho

 

[ANDS]

Well if people cared about quality rather than price it wouldn't have been so disruptive.

Tell that to the single mom who couldn't afford to feed and clothe her kids at "traditional" market prices.

 

[poppabk]

What you described is still a monopoly and has zero to do with gamepass.
A monopsony you are effectively the only buyer and so can pay less for a service or good.

 

[Rick Dangerous]

I don't think I'm overreaching. I just don't want what I see may happen.

I'm against global corporations that have as a unique goal to make sickening profits that benefit only 0.001% of inhabitants and to smother any real competition, and Microsoft is one of those giant corporation.

 

[Rick Dangerous]

The only thing that GamePass seems to be disrupting is Microsoft's ability to sell videogames on console. It hasn't done anything. Even on PC, it seems a lot of people are choosing to buy MS games on Steam. I don't think the number of people who want this are anywhere near what MS thought/hoped. The ones who do are buying MS consoles but as we are starting to see, they aren't buying that many. Xbox is getting its ass kicked yet again.

I agree but only until now. If they buy top actors of the industry, their catalog will become more difficult to ignore. And Microsoft can buy any other company.

 

[Rick Dangerous]

Netflix has plenty of competition. Sony and Nintendo will simply adapt if Game Pass ever becomes like Netflix. It isn't so serious.

Well in this case it's totally shit for a customer. Because in order to get all what you want, you basically need to subscribe to several offers. Much like I prefer to watch movies at the theater rather than have them behind a subscription paywall. This is only good for people that don't want to move their asses from the sofa. Like someone say, you trade your freedom to choose for convenience.

 

[ÆMNE22A!C]

I recently read a good piece of (virtual) paper on games industry.biz that I encourage you to read : https://www.gamesindustry.biz/what-would-a-game-pass-dominated-landscape-look-like-opinion

Initially, when I first saw the word monopsony, I thought they invented some buzzword that mixes Monopoly + Sony.

it is actually the word describing the situation where there is only one Buyer.
Standard silicon valley "platforms" have followed this path endlessly and gamepass is trying to replicate it.
- first, a massive subsidized service / product to gain market share
- then lock in clients via usage, subscription(Netflix, or other things. reputation (Airbnb). One you pay a subscription, the one thing you try to avoid is to by a product and hope that your subscription becomes the dominant one and products will come in your subscription fee without any extra expense.
- then extend your reach by buying the market, smaller competitors and reducing the offer of the remaining competitors this way.
- then become a monopsony, the only place viable to sell products that some producers were selling directly to customers.
- then rise the prices to end client when there is no more alternatives.
- then raise your margin on third party product makers to raise even more your margin
- then fire a lot a employees that you hired to reach your monopsony goal because you don't need them anymore at this stage
- and finally do some massive lobbying/ corruption/ intimidation of the political sphere so that the hammer of break up never strikes.

This process has disrupted huge industries.
Gamepass is exactly that. Ps+ on a lesser extend but still awful.

Those companies and particularly Microsoft does not want only your cash, they want to control your future.

Fuck this future, it's awful and should not happen.

Fuck. I thought this was all just intended for the players...

It was. Just not how you thought.

Sad yet predictable shit.

 

[Rick Dangerous]

Companies just won't put their games on GP then. Simple as. I could see this view if STEAM or EPIC didn't exist. Or if there aren't success stories of companies just putting games out themselves with their own DRM solutions. Is GP an easy way to get a foot in the door and some upfront cash - sure. But it isn't the only way. . .at least not yet.

. . .in time? Probably, but that's not a thing that can be stopped and just an evolution of the market.

I'm sure they won't, except if you are actually bought by Microsoft...

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

I recently read a good piece of (virtual) paper on games industry.biz that I encourage you to read : https://www.gamesindustry.biz/what-would-a-game-pass-dominated-landscape-look-like-opinion

Initially, when I first saw the word monopsony, I thought they invented some buzzword that mixes Monopoly + Sony.

it is actually the word describing the situation where there is only one Buyer.
Standard silicon valley "platforms" have followed this path endlessly and gamepass is trying to replicate it.
- first, a massive subsidized service / product to gain market share
- then lock in clients via usage, subscription(Netflix, or other things. reputation (Airbnb). One you pay a subscription, the one thing you try to avoid is to by a product and hope that your subscription becomes the dominant one and products will come in your subscription fee without any extra expense.
- then extend your reach by buying the market, smaller competitors and reducing the offer of the remaining competitors this way.
- then become a monopsony, the only place viable to sell products that some producers were selling directly to customers.
- then rise the prices to end client when there is no more alternatives.
- then raise your margin on third party product makers to raise even more your margin
- then fire a lot a employees that you hired to reach your monopsony goal because you don't need them anymore at this stage
- and finally do some massive lobbying/ corruption/ intimidation of the political sphere so that the hammer of break up never strikes.

This process has disrupted huge industries.
Gamepass is exactly that. Ps+ on a lesser extend but still awful.

Those companies and particularly Microsoft does not want only your cash, they want to control your future.

Fuck this future, it's awful and should not happen.

This sounds like Sony's business model from the late 70's to the 90's, Walmarts Business model since creation, and Nintendo's Business model from 1983-1993

We also have a crap ton service companies people use that to this, including your food delivery apps, where at least in the US there's only 3 that are viable 99% of the time.

 

[ZoukGalaxy]

People are too short sighted to see that, they dig their own tomb with all subscriptions.
*pay everything, own nothing* and you will be so happy... wait for it once monopoly is achieved.

Also, "Oh, you buy your games ? What year it is ?", just wait.

 

[X-Wing]

Netflix has plenty of competition. Sony and Nintendo will simply adapt if Game Pass ever becomes like Netflix. It isn't so serious.

That's quite a naive way of looking at it. Game funding will drastically change if subscriptions become the standard way to distribute games, it's happening already.

 

[JohnnyTropics]

I own/owned a PS1, 2, 3, 4, Vita, & psp-GO.
At one point I owned an Xbox One, and now I own the S series.
When I started up the S series and logged into my Microsoft account, games that I had purchased a decade ago weren't just available to download, they were prominently displayed in my library like "hey, do you remember buying this? well, here it is, you bought it, go ahead and download it again."
That same experience on a Sony console? Lol. I've spent hundreds if not thousands on the PSN over the course of my life, and those purchases are lost to the ether. I literally am unable to play a game as simple (and Wonderful) as pixeljunk Monsters unless I fire up my PS3. I can buy it on Steam, but for some reason Sony is unable to give me that experience on hardware that has improved how much since that game came out?
Believe me. BELIEVE ME. If Sony had their shit together to the extent necessary to do something like Gamepass, they would. They're not abstaining from doing it because of some sense of morality. They are complete amateurs at developing their ecosystem, no? No? Why don't we go grab a table in Playstation Home and talk about this.

 

[BeardGawd]

Netflix has plenty of competition. Sony and Nintendo will simply adapt if Game Pass ever becomes like Netflix. It isn't so serious.

Yep. Just like movies and music there will be plenty of competition. People will have tons of variety and less upfront costs. Win-win for everyone. People just hate that it's MS who is the front runner.

 

[DavidGzz]

Well in this case it's totally shit for a customer. Because in order to get all what you want, you basically need to subscribe to several offers. Much like I prefer to watch movies at the theater rather than have them behind a subscription paywall. This is only good for people that don't want to move their asses from the sofa. Like someone say, you trade your freedom to choose for convenience.

You sub when you see something you want to play, unsub when you don't, the same way I do when I see something good on HBO. Plus on Game Pass you can buy to own if you want to keep something with an additional discount from being subbed. I'm not lazy, I'm in the gym 2 hours a day, but I like to save money. I can try Wild Hearts, play Hi Fi, and get to play Atomic Heart in a couple of days because of Game Pass. What's not to love?

That's quite a naive way of looking at it. Game funding will drastically change if subscriptions become the standard way to distribute games, it's happening already.

I see how some would be concerned, but I'd be fine with shorter episodic SP adventures. You have to understand that there will be PLENTY of funding if service like Game Pass have 100+ million subs and you'll still have blockbusters. Look how much HBO spent on The Last of Us.

 

[Griffon]

You subscribed guys will pay over a thousand dollar over less than a decade and if you unsub you'll have absolutely nothing to show for it.

Pay everything and own nothing.

When you have a favorite games that lasts 3+ months you basically paid for it with the sub, but still you'd own jack shit. Games aren't movies or music, we don't consume hundreds per year. Subscription is a trap.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

Companies just won't put their games on GP then. Simple as. I could see this view if STEAM or EPIC didn't exist. Or if there aren't success stories of companies just putting games out themselves with their own DRM solutions. Is GP an easy way to get a foot in the door and some upfront cash - sure. But it isn't the only way. . .at least not yet.

. . .in time? Probably, but that's not a thing that can be stopped and just an evolution of the market.

But Gamepass IS stopped... By Free To Play.

The desire to control the market, doesn't work when Free To Play games have no intention to be restricted to Xbox platforms. And gamers would always have the option to consume endless amount of content without subscription fees. Yes, they end up paying more from exploitive gambling mechanisms, but it does mean Gamepass can't take that market at all.

 

[ZoukGalaxy]

People just hate that it's MS who is the front runner.

Yes, and that's for a good reason: Microsoft has an colossal history of antitrust cases and court lawsuits against them where they finally just pay fines like nothing happened, they have abused of their dominant position in so many cases, present and past.
The truth is they doesn't give a shit: they just pay and continue, and finish to try buying any competitors.
When you own a market, you set the rules as unfair they can be and you don't care because you're alone.

 

[Griffon]

Companies just won't put their games on GP then. Simple as. I could see this view if STEAM or EPIC didn't exist. Or if there aren't success stories of companies just putting games out themselves with their own DRM solutions. Is GP an easy way to get a foot in the door and some upfront cash - sure. But it isn't the only way. . .at least not yet.

. . .in time? Probably, but that's not a thing that can be stopped and just an evolution of the market.

The issue is if they get CoD and other megahits that normies buy every year. It's a critical mass.
Third party AAA publishers wont be able to ignore it and will be looking to make deals. And MS will give those a preferential treatment for a few years so that they can lock up the market.
MS will use as much money as necessary to get there. No competitor can spend that much without folding.

 

[TonyK]

- and finally do some massive lobbying/ corruption/ intimidation of the political sphere so that the hammer of break up never strikes.

Gamepass is exactly that.

I only want to play Atomic Heart, Wu Long, Lies of P, Starfield, Hellblade 2... free on day one. End of the world is a fair price.

 

[Rick Dangerous]

I own/owned a PS1, 2, 3, 4, Vita, & psp-GO.
At one point I owned an Xbox One, and now I own the S series.
When I started up the S series and logged into my Microsoft account, games that I had purchased a decade ago weren't just available to download, they were prominently displayed in my library like "hey, do you remember buying this? well, here it is, you bought it, go ahead and download it again."
That same experience on a Sony console? Lol. I've spent hundreds if not thousands on the PSN over the course of my life, and those purchases are lost to the ether. I literally am unable to play a game as simple (and Wonderful) as pixeljunk Monsters unless I fire up my PS3. I can buy it on Steam, but for some reason Sony is unable to give me that experience on hardware that has improved how much since that game came out?
Believe me. BELIEVE ME. If Sony had their shit together to the extent necessary to do something like Gamepass, they would. They're not abstaining from doing it because of some sense of morality. They are complete amateurs at developing their ecosystem, no? No? Why don't we go grab a table in Playstation Home and talk about this.

To make myself clear : I'm not pro Sony either. I just think subscription model suck in the long term, from any industry player.
The only subcription I have is base ps+, only to be able to play VF5 online, which is shit as it should be much closer to free to play online.

 

[BeardGawd]

Yes, and that's for a good reason: Microsoft has an colossal history of antitrust cases and court lawsuits against them where they finally just pay fines like nothing happened, they have abused of their dominant position in so many cases, present and past.
The truth is they doesn't give a shit: they just pay and continue, and finish to try buying any competitors.
When you own a market, you set the rules as unfair they can be and you don't care because you're alone.

Netflix owned the market. Playstation owned the market. They both opened up the market to more users and competition.

It's not just that it's MS in the lead that bothers people. The real problem is that it isn't Sony.

 

[daveonezero]

There is only one monopsony.

Amazon. I’ve heard this word like 5 plus years ago.

A digital platform being the leader is not a monopsony.

If anything the only other monopsony is Steam.

 

[ABnormal]

Netflix owned the market. Playstation owned the market. They both opened up the market to more users and competition.

It's not just that it's MS in the lead that bothers people. The real problem is that it isn't Sony.

You seem to be confused about the difference between "being succesful in a open competitive market" and "having monopoly of the major IPs that switch the most of the market".

Sony built its success while those major IPs remained multiplatform, thanks to a general offer that attracted multiplatform gamers more towards PS. MS is just trying to monopolize the most prominent IPs to stop being in a competitive market and forcing gamers to buy XboX monopolizing such IPs. If you cannot understand the difference, I'm afraid there's not even the chance of a discussion, in this topic.

 

[Unknown?]

Tell that to the single mom who couldn't afford to feed and clothe her kids at "traditional" market prices.

Everything would last longer negating a lot of that extra cost.

 

[The_Mike]

Tell that to the single mom who couldn't afford to feed and clothe her kids at "traditional" market prices.

 

[GymWolf]

That's as much as a real word as non-binary is a real gender.

 

[ABnormal]

Edit: Wrong thread.

 

[Kusarigama]

This is exactly what I think MS will do when the Activision Blizzard King deal goes through. To play ABK games on PlayStation and Nintendo, Sony and Nintendo have to let gamepass on their platforms. MS will rise the price of gamepass to "BETTER REFLECT THE VALUE THAT GAMEPASS BRINGS TO THE CUSTOMER AT A SUSTAINABLE MARGIN" and it will spiral out.

ESPN+ did similar thing with UFC ppv, they got the exclusive rights to UFC ppvs and they have since bumbed up the price of single PPV by 33%!

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

This is exactly what I think MS will do when the Activision Blizzard King deal goes through. To play ABK games on PlayStation and Nintendo, Sony and Nintendo have to let gamepass on their platforms. MS will rise the price of gamepass to "BETTER REFLECT THE VALUE THAT GAMEPASS BRINGS TO THE CUSTOMER AT A SUSTAINABLE MARGIN" and it will spiral out.

ESPN+ did similar thing with UFC ppv, they got the exclusive rights to UFC ppvs and they have since bumbed up the price of single PPV by 33%!

that is not going to happen.