Support NeoGAF

[adamsapple]

thats the point.

If their existence was tied to GP then those studios shouldn't had existed in the first place

That's like saying if a game can't exist without crowd-funding, it shouldn't exist.

Some of the best indie games have come out of crowdfunding.

 

[ulantan]

Man it’s amazing how grand the views some of you have/had for GamePass. They exceed even those of Microsoft.

How exactly is MS driving the industry into a subscription model when all of their games are available outside of the service and they don’t lock anything behind it? And let’s say the industry would go into a subscription model, are you honestly trying to tell me Sony and Nintendo couldn’t compete? Please.

MS repeatedly stated their goal for GamePass was 10-15% of their revenue. Where’s it at right now? You guys always talk like you have concrete numbers.

They also had a goal of 100 million game pass subscribers. And if sony and Nintendo can afford to put thier games day one on their subscription service they would have.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

They also had a goal of 100 million game pass subscribers. And if sony and Nintendo can afford to put thier games day one on their subscription service they would have.

If you’re referring to the FTC stuff, that’s a number thrown out for years into the future.

Sony and Nintendo not putting their games on a service day one right now doesn’t mean they couldn’t compete in a subscription only industry.

Again, how are they going to make the industry revolve around subscriptions when they haven’t locked a single thing behind theirs, not even a single DLC?

 

[lh032]

yea i was wondering this many recently.
if you games is always on these subscription service, isnt that most people will just wait the sequels to appear on the service?


I think its like they said, its also hard to gain fanbase on your own IP franchise if they are always on the subscription service platform

 

[Varteras]

 

[reinking]

Game Pass has been great for indies, great for gamers, but terrible for the health of the Xbox console over all. I do hope those indies can survive if the money is drying up.

 

[ulantan]

If you’re referring to the FTC stuff, that’s a number thrown out for years into the future.

Sony and Nintendo not putting their games on a service day one right now doesn’t mean they couldn’t compete in a subscription only industry.

Again, how are they going to make the industry revolve around subscriptions when they haven’t locked a single thing behind theirs, not even a single DLC?

If the adoption rate was higher and people stopped paying for games it would cause a shift. Just because thier plan was a failure doesn't mean it was the plan. Neither sony nor Nintendo have the billions to put their games on a sub service day one with lowering the quality of thier games. Sony have said as much.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

If the adoption rate was higher and people stopped paying for games it would cause a shift. Just because thier plan was a failure doesn't mean it was the plan. Neither sony nor Nintendo have the billions to put their games on a sub service day one with lowering the quality of thier games. Sony have said as much.

If my aunt had a dick she’d be my uncle.

Their plan was to have a service where people could play games for a monthly or yearly fee and it would account for 15% of their revenue, max. Did they fail? What percentage are they at right now?

Sony also said rumble was pointless and their games aren’t coming to PC. Also where is this “billions” coming from? You guys really need to share your concrete Xbox numbers.

 

[solidus12]

But Phil and Colt said that gamepass was the future of gaming

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Ergo, thanks to the funds from MS and Epic, those Studios and developers were able to make their dream come true by launching their projects with minimal or no risk. That is, otherwise they would not even exist.

At what point was Gamepass and Epic Store bad for them and should P. Spencer and Tim Sweney be blamed? At what point do people make the interpretation that "MS and Epic have ruined Studios indi" from a statement from someone who is just lamenting that MS and Epic have stopped being so generous?

The type of nonsensical reaction is funny as they then defend that Studios Indi do not even need to launch their games on XBOX and/EpicStore to exist or even be profitable and here we have testimony according to which they were the reason for their existence.

What a dumb way to look at things. Most games need funding. Just imagine GamePass as another publisher.

That's like saying if a game can't exist without crowd-funding, it shouldn't exist.

Some of the best indie games have come out of crowdfunding.

No. I'm gonna try to be clear and concise.


Two Points that need clarifying.

1. GP is an evolution of subs services like PS+ and Games with Gold. (that is ok)
2. GP marketing and all the "best deal in gaming" was the push for DAY ONE GAMES. (this is the issue)


With the first point, the economy is simple: You make your game then sell it. and after that, you make a deal to reach GP. GP money is extra for the studio.

The second point is problematic: You make a game with GP money as one, if not the primary source of funding. The marketing pushes "Day one on Game Pass". aka "No need to buy this game". What happens next?

The budget that you got from GP was coming from outside the "economy of gaming" You can not count on that funding next time because you are not generating sales inside Game Pass (sales/revenue for the studio).

It's like budgeting a project and pointing to a blank spot in the funding document and saying, "Here is where the GP money is going to be"


Crowdfunding to make your dream game. you are asking people to give you money. (you don't need to recoup that money, there is not a ROI for those who donated) and for many is a one-off thing.



But then you say: "Without that money, they couldn't have made the game in the first place." Yeah, and the issue is that money doesn't exist now. GP money was an illusion of an economy that didn't exist. and that's kind of cruel for these devs.

Sorry, but GP was a monumental screw-up that harmed those small indie developers who depended solely on Game Pass money to exists. and that's all I am saying.

 

[ulantan]

If my aunt had a dick she’d be my uncle.

Their plan was to have a service where people could play games for a monthly or yearly fee and it would account for 15% of their revenue, max. Did they fail? What percentage are they at right now?

Sony also said rumble was pointless and their games aren’t coming to PC. Also where is this “billions” coming from? You guys really need to share your concrete Xbox numbers.

Thier recent acquisitions were to fuel gamepass all 88 billion dollars worth.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

No. I'm gonna try to be clear and concise.


Two Points that need clarifying.

1. GP is an evolution of subs services like PS+ and Games with Gold. (that is ok)
2. GP marketing and all the "best deal in gaming" was the push for DAY ONE GAMES. (this is the issue)


With the first point, the economy is simple: You make your game then sell it. and after that, you make a deal to reach GP. GP money is extra for the studio.

The second point is problematic: You make a game with GP money as one, if not the primary source of funding. The marketing pushes "Day one on Game Pass". aka "No need to buy this game". What happens next?

The budget that you got from GP was coming from outside the "economy of gaming" You can not count on that funding next time because you are not generating sales inside Game Pass (sales/revenue for the studio).

It's like budgeting a project and pointing to a blank spot in the funding document and saying, "Here is where the GP money is going to be"


Crowdfunding to make your dream game. you are asking people to give you money. (you don't need to recoup that money, there is not a ROI for those who donated) and for many is a one-off thing.



But then you say: "Without that money, they couldn't have made the game in the first place." Yeah, and the issue is that money doesn't exist now. GP money was an illusion of an economy that didn't exist. and that's kind of cruel for these devs.

Sorry, but GP was a monumental screw-up that harmed those small indie developers who depended solely on Game Pass money to exists. and that's all I am saying.

That’s a lot of words to still be so wrong. Again, just look at GamePass like another publisher. “money outside of the industry” GamePass is funded by Microsoft, who runs Xbox.

and yeah that money might not exist now, but that’s not a GamePass issue, that’s happening all over the industry. The article doesn’t even say there isn’t stlll money there, just that the deals aren’t as good. The same thing can and does happen with any regular publisher.

Thier recent acquisitions were to fuel gamepass all 88 billion dollars worth.

The acquisitions were done to fuel GamePass, physical software sales, digital software sales, revenue from MTX in the games on Xbox, and all of that as well on other platforms.

If your theory were correct and the goal is to drive the industry to subs, none of those acquired games would be releasing outside of GamePass. They’d all be digital only and only on platforms with GamePass.

You’ll be able to buy the next CoD on PC, PS4, PS5, and maybe even Switch. Who knows if it’ll even be in GamePass. They only just now added one ABK game to GamePass, Diablo IV. Doesn’t sound like they’re striving to make GamePass the standard for how we consume games. And the lack of GP growth was there before they acquired ABK.

 

[Tams]

He is saying that thanks to Gamepass games and Studios could be founded..... Imagine those games and Studios indi without the funding of Gamepass/MS.

What this Indian developer is stating is simply his concern that MS and Epic are no longer so willing to finance so many projects or pay the same money. That is, he is regretting that Gamepass and Epic Store no longer exist as a lifeline for his projects.

Imagine interpreting that as "MS and Epic have ruined Studios Indi" .

PS. And no, Id@Xbox funds Is not the same as Gamepass money funds.

You're making it sound like Game Pass came in and saved the indie industry.

The indie industry was doing just fine before Game Pass and will do just fine afterwards. Just a few shit developers won't get any breaks now, and a few good ones won't get as easy of a ride anymore.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I tend to look at the big picture with news like this.

We’re getting less diverse content for a subscription service where growth has stagnated.

We got news from Dring saying that Microsoft plans to focus less on Game Pass going forward.

We also can’t forget that Microsoft has started the process of porting their games to other platforms.

Not looking good for the future of Game Pass.

I think Game Pass could have a future as a catch-all, multi-game perks-based subscription service. As in, subscribing giving you various free and cost-reduced MTX/DLC etc. perks in tons of different games, among features-based bonuses like cloud streaming, new game purchase discounts, etc. Maybe also as a means of funding more OG Xbox and 360 games to add for BC with enhancements.

That combined with acting as a service for catalog/legacy releases in rotation based on the tier should probably be a good enough start.

The only goal gamepass had was drive an unsustainable loss lead model no other platform holder could follow. thus driving the the industry into a subscription model Only Microsoft could even remotely maintain. Pushing out other competitors. The only reason this didn't work was because the games on offer were not good/frequent enough to keep and grow subscribers. Driving them to huge aquisitions to feed it. No one else can do that.

Yeah, basically this.

Why do you say it’s unsustainable? Before they mixed in Xbox live with the numbers it was around 30 million subscribers that were paying in average $11 a month if memory serves me correct. (I could be off a bit) That’s almost 4 billion a year. Not including sales of the game on Xbox or PC. That was pre ABK deal. That’s a shit ton of money. You saying it’s unsustainable is just parroting what other people without any data to back it up are saying to serve your viewpoint.

It was not $4 billion a year, not even close. The leaked CADE court case numbers pegged Microsoft gaming services in 2022 at $2.9 billion collectively. But that included Game Pass, XBL Gold, Bethesda's Creator club or whatever it's called, ESO, and Fallout '76. And that was just according to revenue.

We also had the statement this year that Microsoft spent around $1 billion in licensing fees for games content into Game Pass, which would cut down from the revenue. Given the decline in services revenue post-pandemic, the leaked 2022 figures are the peak of whatever Microsoft's gaming services combined brought in for a given calendar year. Meaning it's impossible Game Pass alone was ever pulling in anything near $4 billion annually.

Is it unsustainable? Maybe, maybe not. The market will decide in the end.

The market's already decided. Services growth has plateaued for all companies in all markets. Game Pass only saw 9 million baseline growth in two years thanks to folding in XBL Gold subscribers.

In other words, Quest 2, a device in what many keep calling a "dead market", sold more in one year than Game Pass saw in sub growth in two whole years.

In terms of “changing customers mindset” is a really silly argument. Can you not think for yourself? Can other people not think for themselves? It’s not as if they took away the option of buying games, now if they did that it would be a REAL problem. I was always under the impression choice is good. Is renting or leasing a house or car a bad thing, should that be shut down because it’s changing a customers mindset?

Tell that to the media and press who have been hammering in the idea that $70 games are too expensive, AAA games are unsustainable, that console gaming's too expensive, even that $70 games are "anti-consumer" of all things.

Now some of those things could be true but if most in the media were saying them, it was mainly because it all conveniently benefited pushing towards a subscription-based gaming future. That was their primarily point of reasoning, not because they genuinely cared about those particular issues (at least not until very recently).

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

That’s a lot of words to still be so wrong. Again, just look at GamePass like another publisher.

Ok, tell me a publisher that funds a game with the incentive to NOT SELL that game.


This is the other aspect of the conversation. (and this is why I have so much disdain for "pundits" and shills).

Dumbass Jezz Corden regurgitates what people inside Xbox tell him (like it is his insight and analysis).

"Game Pass creates viral marketing and increases sales". Right?

well. Xbox´s message is to not buy the games. compounded by the effect that Xbox has a quality problem and GP to be associated with "mid" games. People outside that ecosystem see that game and say:
"oh, its on game pass? The quality must be bad"....is a game not worth buying.

“money outside of the industry” GamePass is funded by Microsoft, who runs Xbox.

outside the "economy of gaming"

very different.

and yeah that money might not exist now, but that’s not a GamePass issue,

have you spotted the contradiction?

IF game pass money was coming from the "economy of game pass" and the lack of money is

not a GamePass issue,

where is the money coming from, then?

that’s happening all over the industry.

but that's not a Game Pass issue, correct? You said:

GamePass is funded by Microsoft, who runs Xbox.

yeah, cuz Game Pass doesn't have a sustainable/profitable economy.

The article doesn’t even say there isn’t stlll money there, just that the deals aren’t as good.

The same thing can and does happen with any regular publisher.

Not the same. Regular publishers are encouraged to sell their games. Microsoft with Game Pass is not, which is messed up for third-party titles, especially indie ones that don't have the marketing budget to tell people to buy their game.

 

[fallingdove]

Not surprising. The idea that Xbox was going to just give indie companies money up front to be featured on GamePass was never going to last.

What happened to GamePass is profitable under its current operating model?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

But the loans have to be paid back. MS were giving indies free cash to fund the games that didn't have to be paid back.

Obviously they preferred the GP deals vs. going for business loans.

Problem is that game devs, for some reason, are unilaterally fucking terrible at planning, setting realistic goals, and budgeting. I will always look at Shenmue 3 as the penultimate "what the fuck are you doing?" game.

That's the point I was making in a giggling snarky way. lol

Gravy train is slowing down. Time to do what everyone else does when they need money. Head over to the bank and get a loan. If a sheet metal company needing money to run a plant or a plumber needing money to buy vans, supplies and hire a couple assistants can get a business loan, I dont see how an indie game company cant either. Just man up, apply and prove to the bank the $1 or 2M needed to make an indie game is a good bet and you'll get approved.

it cant be that hard to get a loan. Look at all the businesses you see every day. The number of them who needed no loan and are currently debt free is few. So if they can start from the ground up, so can an indie dev.

But a lot of them know their games, business proposals and planning (as Pejo said) are dirtbag shit where no bank would give them a dime.

 

[FeralEcho]

The fate of all subscription services....Start out strong and fizzle out as it becomes unsustainable. Who could've seen it coming?

 

[poppabk]

"they've allowed some indie developers to "break even" on their games even before release,"


Well yeah, this level of deal where you pay the entire cost of development to just have short term rental rights or store exclusivity was never going to last. You could just pay to have the game made and have all the rights for the same money.

 

[Saber]

Hope they take this as a life lesson for taking the easy money way. Rethink before going to those subscrition services.

On a positive note, we're gonna see less Gamepass shilling on GAF.

One can dream...

 

[Ozriel]

No. I'm gonna try to be clear and concise.


Two Points that need clarifying.

1. GP is an evolution of subs services like PS+ and Games with Gold. (that is ok)
2. GP marketing and all the "best deal in gaming" was the push for DAY ONE GAMES. (this is the issue)


With the first point, the economy is simple: You make your game then sell it. and after that, you make a deal to reach GP. GP money is extra for the studio.

The second point is problematic: You make a game with GP money as one, if not the primary source of funding. The marketing pushes "Day one on Game Pass". aka "No need to buy this game". What happens next?

The budget that you got from GP was coming from outside the "economy of gaming" You can not count on that funding next time because you are not generating sales inside Game Pass (sales/revenue for the studio).

It's like budgeting a project and pointing to a blank spot in the funding document and saying, "Here is where the GP money is going to be"


Crowdfunding to make your dream game. you are asking people to give you money. (you don't need to recoup that money, there is not a ROI for those who donated) and for many is a one-off thing.

Indies that put their games on GP got funding that usually went a long way to cover costs, but also still released their games on other platforms. Insisting there's no additional revenue when the games are usually also on Steam, Nintendo store and PSN....how does that make sense to you?

But then you say: "Without that money, they couldn't have made the game in the first place." Yeah, and the issue is that money doesn't exist now. GP money was an illusion of an economy that didn't exist. and that's kind of cruel for these devs.

Sorry, but GP was a monumental screw-up that harmed those small indie developers who depended solely on Game Pass money to exists. and that's all I am saying.

There certainly aren't any indies that built that entire business model on GamePass deals, since those are handed out on a game by game basis. That's a category you've just made up.
But like i said before, there's no logic in you continuing to insist that the indie devs sole source of revenue was GP. You imagine they're listed on other storefronts for $0?

 

[Meicyn]

its so weird how no one trusts microsoft

 

[adamsapple]

The budget that you got from GP was coming from outside the "economy of gaming" You can not count on that funding next time because you are not generating sales inside Game Pass (sales/revenue for the studio).

It's like budgeting a project and pointing to a blank spot in the funding document and saying, "Here is where the GP money is going to be"

This is the part you're either not getting or deliberately obfuscating, I already posted a link with a direct quote on it.

Indies pledge to put their game on game pass day 1 on the promise of getting their entire game funded. They are *not*, however, stopped from selling the game on 4, 5 other storefronts and platforms, including retail at Xbox.

They have already had their entire development funded, any and all money they're getting from even a single sale beyond that is 'profitable' to them, considering game pass and the like are 'free' marketing as well. All they need to do is cut and put out a trailer or two on youtube.

Now, does MS, or EGS or Sony, have an obligation to give the same offer to every indie project? Of course not. Hence, the plea from this Slay the Spire dev.

its so weird how no one trusts microsoft

 

[bender]

While it might be true, I wouldn't automatically equate indie funding drying up to struggles of the platform that previously provided the funding. The data models might just suggest that those types of games aren't contributing to the success of the platform and that that funding would be better served courting bigger titles. Something like Lies of P might be worth ten or twenty of Toem or Lightyear Frontier. And in the case of Microsoft, with their recent mergers behind them, they might be happy with their back catalogue and are looking for less filler.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Ok, tell me a publisher that funds a game with the incentive to NOT SELL that game.

GamePass deals don’t discourage developers or publishers from selling their game. All of the games are available on other platforms and outside of the service. I doubt you consider something like the FF7 remake deal to be Sony incentivizing SE to not sell their game. It’s not rocket science, but for some reason you guys try to play 4D chess with GamePass.

very different.

Not different at all.

have you spotted the contradiction?

IF game pass money was coming from the "economy of game pass" and the lack of money is


where is the money coming from, then?

There is no contradiction. MS was offering very good deals for smaller games. “Pots of gold” according to this developer. Now they aren’t. The industry is readjusting all over.

The money comes from Microsoft, the video game company. You can speculate that the money comes from outside of the Xbox division but you’re making an assumption with no data. Not worth arguing.

but that's not a Game Pass issue, correct? You said:

yeah, cuz Game Pass doesn't have a sustainable/profitable economy.

It’s not a GamePass exclusive issue, nope. But feel free to tie it to GamePass while studios are closing everywhere and layoffs are commonplace. Money is tight everywhere in the industry.

Also, you can’t have it both ways. You’re arguing that GamePass is funded by money from outside of the gaming industry but if that were the case, why is MS offering less money than before? The game industry is adapting, but Microsoft is making money hand over fist.

Not the same. Regular publishers are encouraged to sell their games. Microsoft with Game Pass is not, which is messed up for third-party titles, especially indie ones that don't have the marketing budget to tell people to buy their game.

MS does still encourage game sales. They advertise games that are on GamePass for you to buy outside of the service all the time and also has ads to show games in the service that you can buy. They even discount games in the service if you want to buy them.

And, more importantly, they’re all available outside of the service.

Not going to bother with the back and forth anymore, you’re a known FUD machine when it comes to GamePass. Enjoy the last word.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Indies that put their games on GP got funding that usually went a long way to cover costs, but also still released their games on other platforms. Insisting there's no additional revenue when the games are usually also on Steam, Nintendo store and PSN....how does that make sense to you?

I'm not saying that there is no additional revenue. I'm saying that there is no revenue coming from Game Pass. That non-existent revenue is what would help fund the next game and pay the bills (after the initial funding). Therefore, you cannot count on Game Pass money for the next game or months/years of operation.

There certainly aren't any indies that built that entire business model on GamePass deals, since those are handed out on a game by game basis. That's a category you've just made up.

That's why I was specific in the conversation because someone suggested that Game Pass could fund studios or make games happen, implying that Game Pass was solely responsible for those games existing. That's why I said 'IF' in a previous statement, emphasizing that it depended solely on Game Pass in the statement you are replying to.

He is saying that thanks to Gamepass games and Studios could be founded.

But like i said before, there's no logic in you continuing to insist that the indie devs sole source of revenue was GP .

??????????? I'm saying the opposite: There is not revenue from Game Pass.

You imagine they're listed on other storefronts for $0?

the opposite again: The revenue comes from other storefronts

 

[havoc00]

On a positive note, we're gonna see less Gamepass shilling on GAF.

dont think so pal

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

If I earned a dollar every time I read someone on Twitter say "I will wait for this game to be on GP" I'd be filthy rich.

I can't believe we are arguing this.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

This is the part you're either not getting or deliberately obfuscating, I already posted a link with a direct quote on it.

Indies pledge to put their game on game pass day 1 on the promise of getting their entire game funded. They are *not*, however, stopped from selling the game on 4, 5 other storefronts and platforms, including retail at Xbox.

or you are ignoring my point of the "economy of gaming".

They have already had their entire development funded, any and all money they're getting from even a single sale beyond that is 'profitable' to them,

but there is no revenue coming from game pass, that's the point.

considering game pass and the like are 'free' marketing as well. All they need to do is cut and put out a trailer or two on youtube.

and that free marketing is telling people to "NOT BUY THE GAME".

Now, does MS, or EGS or Sony, have an obligation to give the same offer to every indie project? Of course not. Hence, the plea from this Slay the Spire dev.

as I asked to another dude. Tell me a publisher that funds a game and has not an incentive to SELL that game?


NOW. as you are very intimate with Phill. IF Game Pass has some kind of post-game pass lunch revenue model for devs. Then my point in nullified.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Please explain why Gamepass dying would be good for the industry?

EGS exclusives are the only reason some games even exist, Alan wake 2 for example since they funded the entire project.

Sone people are just desperate to pay $70 for every game they play I guess

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

GamePass deals don’t discourage developers or publishers from selling their game. All of the games are available on other platforms and outside of the service.

is MS/Xbox paying for those ports then, is MS/Xbox doing the marketing for other platforms?

I doubt you consider something like the FF7 remake deal to be Sony incentivizing SE to not sell their game. It’s not rocket science, but for some reason you guys try to play 4D chess with GamePass.

da faq? I didn't know FFVII was made by a little indie dev without a publisher.

use your brain my dude.

Not different at all.

Quite different, in fact diametrically opposite.

There is no contradiction. MS was offering very good deals for smaller games. “Pots of gold” according to this developer. Now they aren’t. The industry is readjusting all over.

The money comes from Microsoft, the video game company. You can speculate that the money comes from outside of the Xbox division but you’re making an assumption with no data. Not worth arguing.

MS a videogame company. how I enjoy playing Excel and and Typing Simulator.


you don't understand the point:

Game Pass doesn't encourage the "economy of gaming" and that is fact. there is not arguing about it.

It’s not a GamePass exclusive issue, nope. But feel free to tie it to GamePass while studios are closing everywhere and layoffs are commonplace. Money is tight everywhere in the industry.

of course is not. because the money is certainly not coming from Game Pass.

Also, you can’t have it both ways. You’re arguing that GamePass is funded by money from outside of the gaming industry but if that were the case, why is MS offering less money than before?

Because GP doesn't have a sustainable/profitable economy. and the supposedly brilliant business model was for GP to generate infinite money.

The game industry is adapting, but Microsoft is making money hand over fist.

oh, the classic. daddy MS has infitie money.

MS does still encourage game sales.

They advertise games that are on GamePass for you to buy outside of the service all the time and also has ads to show games in the service that you can buy. They even discount games in the service if you want to buy them.

And, more importantly, they’re all available outside of the service.

inside their ecosystem. i will tell you a little secret:

*whisper: Now they are selling their games on PS and Nintendo and indies devs are cancelling releases on XBOX/GP.... go figure

Not going to bother with the back and forth anymore, you’re a known FUD machine when it comes to GamePass. Enjoy the last word.

no my friend. The last word will come from Phil Spencer.

 

[adamsapple]

NOW. as you are very intimate with Phill. IF Game Pass has some kind of post-game pass lunch revenue model for devs. Then my point in nullified.

Phil and I got you covered.

"Others want [agreements] more based on usage and monetization in whether it’s a store monetization that gets created through transactions, or usage. We’re open [to] experimenting with many different partners, because we don’t think we have it figured out. When we started, we had a model that was all based on usage. Most of the partners said, 'Yeah, yeah, we understand that, but we don’t believe it, so just give us the money upfront.'"

dont think so pal

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Phil and I got you covered.

i knew it. its funny i had to be the one giving you the answer.

 

[Ozriel]

NOW. as you are very intimate with Phill. IF Game Pass has some kind of post-game pass lunch revenue model for devs. Then my point in nullified.

You mean like how the games are also sold at retail too? For revenue?

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

You mean like how the games are also sold at retail too? For revenue?

adamsapple already gave the answer thanks to my guide.

But despite that. What is happening inside Xbox suggests the "Economy of gaming" is not working inside that ecosystem. BUT that´s another conversation for a new thread.

 

[The Fuzz damn you!]

Their plan was to have a service where people could play games for a monthly or yearly fee and it would account for 15% of their revenue, max.

When did they state this?

 

[fallingdove]

They also had a goal of 100 million game pass subscribers. And if sony and Nintendo can afford to put thier games day one on their subscription service they would have.

It’s not about being able to afford it - Sony and Nintendo recognized how moronic it was to immediately take a hit on games that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to develop.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

If you’re referring to the FTC stuff, that’s a number thrown out for years into the future.

Sony and Nintendo not putting their games on a service day one right now doesn’t mean they couldn’t compete in a subscription only industry.

Again, how are they going to make the industry revolve around subscriptions when they haven’t locked a single thing behind theirs, not even a single DLC?

2027 isn't that far away bruv.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Remember when everyone called the PS4 "indiestation" because its first few years was light on AAA exclusives? Then indies said disparaging statements about Sony when their AAA production got rolling?

I wonder...

 

[Kdad]

Good, the straight to DVD approach to game releases has to stop. Make something gamers want to play not what CEO's need to pad their service.

 

[Gojiira]

Ergo, thanks to the funds from MS and Epic, those Studios and developers were able to make their dream come true by launching their projects with minimal or no risk. That is, otherwise they would not even exist.

At what point was Gamepass and Epic Store bad for them and should P. Spencer and Tim Sweney be blamed? At what point do people make the interpretation that "MS and Epic have ruined Studios indi" from a statement from someone who is just lamenting that MS and Epic have stopped being so generous?

The type of nonsensical reaction is funny as they then defend that Studios Indi do not even need to launch their games on XBOX and/EpicStore to exist or even be profitable and here we have testimony according to which they were the reason for their existence.

They were never generous though, most devs agree that Playstation makes the better deals when it comes to Exclusivity Deals etc since they pay more, offer tech and services, publishing and marketing as well as support studios etc…MS has never been as generous in that regard.
As for Indies ‘not needing to launch their games on Xbox to exist or even be profitable’…I mean come on, None of the gamepass exclusive games are profitable, so big brain moment ok 6 Million Subs at $10 vs 6 Million PURCHASES at say $30, which do you think gives the most return to the devs?
Oh and just to further the point, the indies that released on PS first or multiplat from the get go all did way better, just look at No Mans Sky, Stray,Kena etc all made profit, not a single dev had to ‘worry about the well drying up’…

 

[Embearded]

A small, independent studio should not have to rely on funding from publishers to keep going, that's why its called independent in the first place.

It wouldn't be fair for the 1st party studios with all the layoffs if Microsoft kept giving the same amount of money to indies for GP.

 

[xrnzaaas]

Some indie studios likely got too reliant on the funding that would ensure they won't lose money on the project. Time go back to reality in which it's not easy to make your indie game stand out from xxx trash titles being released weekly on Steam or other digital storefronts.

 

[Boss Mog]

is this news?

Another company name with "baby" in it, feels like a warning sign. Don't really understand why any sane person would put "baby" in their company name when said company has nothing to do with baby products.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Was always gonna happen once MS bought Zenimax and ABK. They have the studios and IP they need now, they don't need to keep funding indies for content in their service.

Makes the indie devs who were cheering on the ABK acquisition look really bad in retrospect, but they should've seen this coming.

One correction: they didn't add ABK games to Game Pass either

So indie GP deals died because of Zenimax and ABK acquisition, and then Microsoft didn't add ABK games to Game Pass for 6 months (and counting) either

 

[YeulEmeralda]

Well Zenimax content turned out be a big disappointment. Can't shake the feeling a lot of people got their golden parachute from that deal.

 

[Sentenza]

I'm someone who never had any interest in Gamepass and the only time I tried to subscribe it (on PC) was for the "Three months for a dollar" offer years ago...

And I STILL have no idea how the entire thread turned basically into a "LOL GAMEPASS IS SHIT, AMIRITE GUYS??"
How is that your takeaway from this headline is not really clear.

My takeaway would be a lot closer to "Oh look, turns out you can't keep getting a payday indefinitely for stuff that hardly produces any revenues".
Or alternatively "It seems like in a scene where everyone and their grandma are releasing games every other day, you'll have to stand out if you want to get your cash bag".

 

[crackajack]

Hardly surprising. It was a gamble and possibly often a bad investment to offer blindly moneybags to some of them. Now everything turns back to a more sustainable, reality checked model, where games will have to have earned most or all of their profits already before landing on any of the subs and tiers or as freebies, with some exceptions, where the service thinks it is important to have it day one or kinda early and pay naturally more than if it is the last, rather late stepping stone for profits. I don't expect day one games, imho subs should be the very last option, and MS has possibly created a huge problem with them promising their own stuff on there, devalueing that and in the same strike everyone else's stuff too. Dragging everyone down to some almost mobile like everything has to be free doctrine/hell with only a few players paying happily. People acting like 79, 119 or 159 or whatever for endlessly renting dozens or time limited renting hundreds of games is no good bargain because the latest addition of games is not exactly what they wanted is just mind boggling weird and makes gamers appear like ultra entitled cheapass lunatics.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

They were never generous though, most devs agree that Playstation makes the better deals when it comes to Exclusivity Deals etc since they pay more, offer tech and services, publishing and marketing as well as support studios etc…MS has never been as generous in that regard.
As for Indies ‘not needing to launch their games on Xbox to exist or even be profitable’…I mean come on, None of the gamepass exclusive games are profitable, so big brain moment ok 6 Million Subs at $10 vs 6 Million PURCHASES at say $30, which do you think gives the most return to the devs?
Oh and just to further the point, the indies that released on PS first or multiplat from the get go all did way better, just look at No Mans Sky, Stray,Kena etc all made profit, not a single dev had to ‘worry about the well drying up’…

A lot of lol in this post but just a small correction, there are no “GamePass exclusive games”.

 

[Physiognomonics]

It was not sustainable, as predicted by many. It was a way for Phil and Tim to attract customers on their platform. But it could not last forever and it had harmful consequences for many developers. Like being addicted to some cheap drug.