SvennoJ said:
Shiken said:
That does not reflect what is actually happening though. People who prefer to buy games still buy them, gamepass just allows them to play more games to bridge the gap between releases and try stuff that they could be interested in without the need to drop even more money on an expensive hobby. I did not pass on Nier Replicant under the, to be honest likely, chance that the game could go to gamepass. Nor did I pass on pre ordering RE8 just because RE7 is on there, giving hope that one day the same could happen for 8. Furthermore people were suprised at how well Outriders sold on XBox, despite being a day 1 gamepass game. For the most part, those that use gamepass for the sole purpose of being their only way to play games are the same people that would wait for a big discount before buying a game anyway. The difference here is that instead of only getting a small portion of what could have been a full price purchase, the developers have already been compensated to satisfaction by MS to get the game on the service in the first place. Used in tandem with what does get sold through at full price, profits can be higher than if they left it off the service. For all the controversy the Days Gone director caused by saying, "buy the game at fing full price", clearly people who wait for discounts are not good for devs when their profits are hinged on full price purchases. With an upfront payment from MS for gamepass, yes there is less risk. And this also applies to more games coming to XBox as well. For example Japanese devs a few years back for more niche games figured an XBox port was not worth the risk because it might not sell on the platform. But by putting their games on gamepass, the risk is bypassed as they get an upfront payment from MS, more people are willing to try the game, and the game is now available for those who do want to buy it to do so. Saying that lowering risk is not a factor is just plain wrong in cases like this. As for DLC and MTX, that is why raising games to 70 dollars is an even bigger problem than saving with gamepass. DLC and MTX plaguing full retail games has been an ongoing problem for year. They will never stop, and publishers will only push them harder with or without services. They said it was because prices for games do not go up with inflation. Now lets say that is true, the problem is that even WITH game prices being increased MTX and DLC will still be pushed just as hard regardless of services. The only thing the price hike does is take more money out of the pockets of consumers. And if the solution is wait till the price drops, that is no better than just playing it on gamepass if you are so concerned about devs making money without DLC. |
For example Japanese devs a few years back for more niche games figured an XBox port was not worth the risk because it might not sell on the platform. But by putting their games on gamepass, the risk is bypassed as they get an upfront payment from MS
How is this any different from the previous 'money hat' way, where certain devs get paid a certain amount up front to put their game on the console?
So because MTX and DLC are being pushed anyway, pushing it harder is ok? Game subscriptions makes games rely more on mtx, dlc, episodic content than without.
Anyway I just bought Returnal for CAD 102, physical edition, even though I don't even have a ps5 yet. Housemarque is great and their new game looks great as well. I'm glad they made a physical edition, now I just need to find a physical ps5. Some day. |
So in order to be a "true gamer"...I have to pay full price...for games I cannot even play?
Or is handing them your money early somehow going to prevent MTX and DLC?
Anyway it is different from a traditional "moneyhat" because unlike a "moneyhat" the game gets exposed to a broader audience via gamepass, and not just the existing fans.
Example, I played Nier Automata on gamepass and loved it. So in return I bought Nier Replicant at full price physical. That exposure got SE a sale from me, thanks to gamepass.
