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?

SvennoJ said:
They'll respond by continuing to make great exclusives.

/thread



Prediction: In 5 years Nintendo will Lauch a "Core Mario game"  very similar to Astro Bot. That said, many will Ignore Astro Bot existence and say Nintendo created this concept.

Around the Network
DPsx7 said:
sales2099 said:

I played 20 games on GP in 2019 alone. Played it, beat it, uninstalled, moved on to the next. I like to think I very much saved money playing 20 games for $15 a month. Games included day 1 Gears 5 and Outer Worlds (both $60 value at the time). 

Im sorry but this is a bad argument. Fear mongering and “what if” witch-hunts at its worst. 

Since it's essentially a rental program you're probably not playing bigger/longer games or not getting a huge variety. Sacrifices are made for the money you think you're saving. And hey if you have no complaints then whatever. It's not like M$ hasn't done bad things for the market before.

It is NOT a rental service like GameFly (or in Germany verleihshop.de) where you get access for a game only for a week and after that you get a week access for the next game.

It is a subcription service where you get access to ALL games in the subscription. Many games in Gamepass don't leave the library (or at least haven't in the first three years) and the games that have left the subscription stayed there at least for six months (as far as I know). Correct me, if you know about GamePass games which left earlier than six months after entering the subscription.

6 months - 3 years are more than enough to play through the longest games.

And lack of variety? Have you even looked through the current GamePass library for a moment?

Last edited by Conina - on 02 August 2020

DPsx7 said:
d21lewis said:

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.251206-Who-remembers-the-ApocalyPS3

This was the closest I could find. Almost like it was scrubbed from history! There was also another incident where the PSN was down for like a month. I thought THAT was the "ApocalyPS3" but I guess I was mistaken.

Also there are certain games that you buy in store but only get part of the content. There's a Tony Hawk game that's only a few GB on the disc but you have to download the rest. Games like Resident Evil Revelations 1&2, Overwatch, etc on the Switch gives you half the game on the card and you have to download the other. There are even games you buy physically and only get a download code in the box.

I don't recall that one, just the longer outage.

I think having to DL significant portions is rare. I went into the Spyro collection knowing that which is why I bought it used. Don't recall much else although I have lots of games left to play. The limited release stuff tends to hold off until a game has been patched so they can ensure you get the whole game on the disc. All games will start without patches, they just won't connect online which is understandable.

It is rare...but it's about to get a lot more common. I read a story saying that ninth gen games are going to be so big that you're going to have to download a significant portion no matter what. The discs just can't hold them all. It might be speculation but I can definitely see it being true.



Twitter: @d21lewis

DPsx7 said:
sales2099 said:

I played 20 games on GP in 2019 alone. Played it, beat it, uninstalled, moved on to the next. I like to think I very much saved money playing 20 games for $15 a month. Games included day 1 Gears 5 and Outer Worlds (both $60 value at the time). 

Im sorry but this is a bad argument. Fear mongering and “what if” witch-hunts at its worst. 

Since it's essentially a rental program you're probably not playing bigger/longer games or not getting a huge variety. Sacrifices are made for the money you think you're saving. And hey if you have no complaints then whatever. It's not like M$ hasn't done bad things for the market before.

2019 (21): Star Wars: TFU, Sonic & Knuckles, Sonic CD, Fable 3, Crackdown 3, Forza Horizon 4, Recore, Sniper Elite 4, Hellblade Senua Sacrifice, Sea of Thieves, Quantum Break, Resident Evil 5 Remastered, Resident Evil: Revelations, Resident Evil 4, Metro 2033, Gears 5, Kingdom Come: Deliverance, Stellaris, The Outer Worlds, Metro Last Light, Halo Reach (MCC) 


2020 (14):  Wolfenstein 2, Rage 2, Worms WMD, Metro Exodus, Bleeding Edge, Ninja Gaiden 2, Grand Theft Auto 5, Streets of Rage 4, LOTR: Shadow of War, Fractured Minds, Banjo Kazooie, Conkers Bad Fur Day, Alan Wake, Minecraft Dungeons

Currently playing: Red Dead Redemption 2, Witcher 3 

________

Bolded the bigger games I played. Does this look like variety to you? Enough games big and small? Cmon if you gonna talk down a service like this at least do some homework on the subject. 

As a married homeowner it’s great to have bang for your buck when your money is put to other things. If I were to play these multiplats on PlayStation id either A. Be spending hundreds more or B. Not play them at all to save money. As a teenager I would have lost my shit if I could play this much for so little. This is imo 100% a system seller in itself from a purely financial point of view.

Not bad for currently spending $285 (GPU) since Jan 2019 - Present. Roughly $8 per game. 

Last edited by sales2099 - on 02 August 2020

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

 

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?



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.