By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - How Sony will respond Game Pass?

Intrinsic said:
Nautilus said:

Of course? I mean, that's how business work. It's easier to sell you on a product/service if they are cheaper at first. Once the product/service is proven and it has a better pedigree/brand recognition, you can actually start charging an amount that actually makes you money.

MS is really behind Nintendo and Sony in terms of, well everything. So yes, going third party by releasing their games on PC and some on Switch, coupled with services like Gamepass and XCloud was their answer to make the brand Xbox profitable.It's how they choose to survive.

I know thats how business works. But thats not what makes this truly stupid.

There are people looking at this as if MS is being pro-consumer. But they aren't, what MS is doing is actually exactly what a company that doesn't really care about games or gamers would do. On the surface, it looks like they are opening up an entire ecosystem library to the consumer for very little money every month, but in truth, in the long term, what they are doing is actually constricting the library. 

How? I'm glad you asked...

Movies have the theatre/cinema, shows have TV and ads. The only truly viable business model for games is direct to consumer sales. A game takes at least 2 years to make, and some an even take 4+ years to make. They cost these companies anywhere from $20M - $200+ to make. Most of these AA games needs to sell like 2-3M copies just to break even. 

What do you think happens when you give gamers a service that means they never have to spend anything more than $10 on games each month? Yes, they may not get Cyberpunk on launch day, but guess what, it may show up in a year on gamepass so I will wait. And that kinda mindset trickles down. Then next thing you know, making those big $200M+ RPGs/Racers/Adventure...etc games don't make sense anymore. All that starts making sense are more GaaS type games. More games like Fortnite, Rocket League, Mine craft...etc. And trust me, every major publisher will churn out at least tw of those. Generationalgaes, games that release once a gen and milks you on mxt and "season passes" for the rest of the gen.

An all that is before the price hikes start coming in. Its a race to the bottom. MS gets a service, ties you into an ecosystem full of games that you don't actually own and can only play as long as you stay subbed. But at the same time,the constrict the gaming output of the industry as a whole over the course of years.It's the ONLY possible outcome from stuff like this. 

Think about it, if you own an Xbox, you have to be a VERY BIG FOOL to not sub to gamepass. Why in God's name would you pay $60 for halo when you can play it for $10? But thats the thing, you are still playing what is truly a $60 game. In time, all the games you will see on the service would be $10 game equivalents.Or games would start getting broken up into "volumes".

Why? Because MS still has to pay for those games to be on gamepass. Take for instance, in one year, AC, COD, Cyberpunk,Tomb Raider, FIFA all release. Each sells r at least has the potential of selling 10M copies across two different platforms. Thats at least $3B in revenue just for those 5 games. MS would have to foot that bill if they want those games to be there on day one. And we aren't even talking about the 50 other smaller games that will also release that year. So what happens when gamers "wisen" up and just wait till the games come to gamepass anyways? Those companies end up selling far fewer games than they would have. Or, they release the game in split up volumes that they can sell individually to MS. Or they dn' release their games on the Xbox platform at all.

JWeinCom said:

If they hike the price, then you stop using the service. If it's successful, there will be competitors.

Something can be good for a company and also be good for consumers. 

In this case, by then the damage would have been done. 

I am not against a service like game pass, I am just against how MS is trying to implement it. Games should not appear on it day one. Give the games a chance to perform in the open-market. Hell give it 3 months, though I think 8-12 months would be ideal instead. If yu train your userbase to expect everything day one, then they would simply not buy anything and just wait. That kinda mindset is bad for the industry. It's putting too much power in the hands of the person that drives that service. And it's simply not viable.

"Games should not appear on it day one."

Exactly. The movie industry doesn't put their movies onto Netflix day 1, not even to buy digitally day 1. They survive by having an exclusive period where you can only see it in theaters, then you can buy it digitally or physically, then later it comes to subscription services.

It's the same with ps+, 3+ year old games get added 'free'. Putting a small game once or twice on it day one is a nice incentive but it shouldn't be the norm. Discounts on new games with a subscription service makes sense if that subscription service pays (a large part of) that discount to the publisher. Yet basically, that subscription service should also cough up near full price to day one use of the games released on it day one. How much would that drive up the price...

Timed access would be a good sustainable feature to sample the game, then offer you to buy it for a discount (or wait 2 years for it to be added to the catalog). Yet training your money earning user base, the early adopters with the highest attach ratios, to stop buying games is commercial suicide in the long run.



I could get Microsoft Flight Simulator for CAD 5.99 a month currently (unspecified limited time offer), yet I spend CAD 159 on the premium deluxe version instead. One, Asobo deserves my money for making this game. Two, Microsoft store problems. Three, cheaper in the long run as I'll be playing and coming back to this game for years and years. Game pass will easily be over 20 a month by the time I'm done with Flight Simulator.

The consensus on Steam between the FS enthusiasts seems to be the same. But they all want the premium edition which is not part of game pass. I guess that's also a way to make it possible to add games day one. Still publishers are missing out on a lot of $60 sales.



Around the Network
SvennoJ said:

I could get Microsoft Flight Simulator for CAD 5.99 a month currently (unspecified limited time offer), yet I spend CAD 159 on the premium deluxe version instead. One, Asobo deserves my money for making this game. Two, Microsoft store problems. Three, cheaper in the long run as I'll be playing and coming back to this game for years and years. Game pass will easily be over 20 a month by the time I'm done with Flight Simulator.

The consensus on Steam between the FS enthusiasts seems to be the same.

So an unbiased representative group.



Conina said:
SvennoJ said:

I could get Microsoft Flight Simulator for CAD 5.99 a month currently (unspecified limited time offer), yet I spend CAD 159 on the premium deluxe version instead. One, Asobo deserves my money for making this game. Two, Microsoft store problems. Three, cheaper in the long run as I'll be playing and coming back to this game for years and years. Game pass will easily be over 20 a month by the time I'm done with Flight Simulator.

The consensus on Steam between the FS enthusiasts seems to be the same.

So an unbiased representative group.

Totally ;) What I meant was the hardcore flight simmers, early adopters are still shelling out the big bucks :)



Halo 5: Microtransactions

Sea of Thieves: Released in an unfinished state.

State of Decay 2: Released unfinished.

Gears 4 :Microtransactions

Bleeding Edge: Released in a barebones state.

Gears 5 Even MORE Microtransactions

Halo Infinite: Full on GaaS/Fortnite/Destiny style game design.

Even MS knows the Gamepass model isn't sustainable without either getting lazy, or heavily leaning into Microtransactions.

P.S. What is the state of Microtransactions in Forza?

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 02 August 2020

Cerebralbore101 said:


P.S. What is the state of Microtransactions in Forza?



Around the Network
Conina said:
Cerebralbore101 said:


P.S. What is the state of Microtransactions in Forza?

Forza killer!

Or you could pay $12 and play the game, cash and cars roll in fast. Same as in Forza I guess. The expensive multi million credit cars are actually not for sale with real money in GT Sport, nor can you buy credits. This is simply for people too lay to play the game.

Anyway GT Sport has pretty much become GAAS as well, surviving off the ps+ subscription required for online play. That $12 isn't gonna pay for the game and all the free monthly updates.



Conina said:
Cerebralbore101 said:


P.S. What is the state of Microtransactions in Forza?

Yes, MTX in that game, and Uncharted 4, and TLoU remastered are bad. Sony blows for even allowing it. That doesn't excuse MS from throwing MTX into all three of their biggest flagship IPs (Forza, Halo, Gears). 

I can still enjoy the vast majority of Sony's exclusive titles without having to put up with MTX, or a half finished game. The same can't be said for playing Microsoft's games. 



Cerebralbore101 said:

Halo 5: Microtransactions

Sea of Thieves: Released in an unfinished state.

State of Decay 2: Released unfinished.

Gears 4 :Microtransactions

Bleeding Edge: Released in a barebones state.

Gears 5 Even MORE Microtransactions

Halo Infinite: Full on GaaS/Fortnite/Destiny style game design.

Even MS knows the Gamepass model isn't sustainable without either getting lazy, or heavily leaning into Microtransactions.

P.S. What is the state of Microtransactions in Forza?

Halo 5, Gears 4/5 are all full campaign and multiplayer modes. You don’t have to spend a penny on micros and play the same meaty games as previous entries in the series. If you want a pink Lancer or a rare Halo helmet then sure, that’s your choice. 

SoT and SoD were advertised as games as a service. Today each game has substantial content then if they were single releases. That’s just the double edge sword of GaaS: lesser short term content but superior long term content. Nobody pressuring you to play these games day 1. I myself didn’t pick up SoT until it’s anniversary update.

Bleeding Edge to a lesser degree as it was marketed as a small scale passion project. As for Forza they are among the most non intrusive micros in the industry. Played Forza Horizon 4 with no incentive to purchase any DLC. 

I think the big difference you aren’t seeing is that Xbox does multiplayer. PlayStation does “one and done” games. Completely different takes on gaming experiences. And as we see above, when Sony does make a game with multiplayer like GT Sport they charge plenty with micros. Instead of focusing on your examples having micros, I prefer to look at it as: Xbox games have a full campaign and multiplayer component where as PlayStation mostly just does single player. Xbox puts in the effort to make games last. 

Last edited by sales2099 - on 02 August 2020

Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

DonFerrari said:
Drakrami said:

GamePass have 11million subscribers? PS Now has like 2 million, but not to mention PS + has 42 million subscribers. Meanwhile Microsoft is too shy/ashamed to announce their Xboxlive subscriber numbers. 

They give a MAU or total XBL subs, which was lower than PS+ the last time we saw.

M$ gives MAU which is 90million, which can't be correct vs 42million PS+. Just simply tell us how many paying subscibers per month. MS is just not a good loser, if they are in 2nd place in something, they will hide the number; like their console hardware sales. 



sales2099 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Halo 5: Microtransactions

Sea of Thieves: Released in an unfinished state.

State of Decay 2: Released unfinished.

Gears 4 :Microtransactions

Bleeding Edge: Released in a barebones state.

Gears 5 Even MORE Microtransactions

Halo Infinite: Full on GaaS/Fortnite/Destiny style game design.

Even MS knows the Gamepass model isn't sustainable without either getting lazy, or heavily leaning into Microtransactions.

P.S. What is the state of Microtransactions in Forza?

Halo 5, Gears 4/5 are all full campaign and multiplayer modes. You don’t have to spend a penny on micros and play the same meaty games as previous entries in the series. If you want a pink Lancer or a rare Halo helmet then sure, that’s your choice. 

SoT and SoD were advertised as games as a service. Today each game has substantial content then if they were single releases. That’s just the double edge sword of GaaS: lesser short term content but superior long term content. Nobody pressuring you to play these games day 1. I myself didn’t pick up SoT until it’s anniversary update.

Bleeding Edge to a lesser degree as it was marketed as a small scale passion project. As for Forza they are among the most non instructive micros in the industry. Played Forza Horizon 4 with no incentive to purchase any DLC. 

I think the big difference you aren’t seeing is that Xbox does multiplayer. PlayStation does “one and done” games. Completely different takes on gaming experiences. And as we see above, when Sony does make a game with multiplayer like GT Sport they charge plenty with micros. Instead of focusing on your examples having micros, I prefer to look at it as: Xbox games have a full campaign and multiplayer component where as PlayStation mostly just does single player. Xbox puts in the effort to make games last. 

A 10 hour campaign is meaty? Ok. 

You know what I have to do to change the color of my armor in GoT? Spend 15 of the flowers that are littered all over the game. 

GaaS isn't superior long term content. It's watered down content. They take 50 hours of gameplay and stretch it out into 300 hours, with artificial game lengtheners. Meanwhile a good single player game will offer up 20-100 hours of gameplay that respects your time. GaaS is like a single bottle of Soda watered down into twelve bottles. 

Advertising games as being bad, doesn't excuse them from being bad. 

What is a non-instructive MTX? 

You are right to speculate that Sony would have all MTX in their games if all their games were multiplayer based. It's pretty clear, that Sony would do that if their focus was on multiplayer. Thankfully it's not. 

Multiplayer takes considerably less effort and assets than single player. This particular point isn't one that you can't argue with me on (or anybody that has bothered to try their hand at making games). 




Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 02 August 2020