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?

DPsx7 said:
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. 

Enh, be careful with that. If you invest money into the library and they jack the price you're gonna either have to suck it up or lose access to everything.

Yeah? That's kind of the point? Just like if I stop paying Netflix I don't get access to those movies anymore. As of now, save files can be used if I decide to buy the game outside of gamepass, so if I no longer find gamepass worth it, then I could buy whatever games I still care about and move on.

If it's important to me to have continued access to all the games I'm playing, then gamepass is not the way to go.



Around the Network

If they'll really have, they'll try to devise something that make both devs and users happier with the deal, but they'll also keep on offering everything they can to gamers that shiver just thinking about gaming as a service.
As long as MS sells its products as a service, it's just a matter between MS and its users, but this thing could become dangerous: once many users have become addicted, they won't notice if the deal becomes nastier, but 3rd party devs and publishers most surely will, some could be badly hurt, and unable to do anything, while the biggest publishers could ask MS for their share to grow, at the expense of smaller ones.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 
 


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.



DPsx7 said:
JWeinCom said:

Yeah? That's kind of the point? Just like if I stop paying Netflix I don't get access to those movies anymore. As of now, save files can be used if I decide to buy the game outside of gamepass, so if I no longer find gamepass worth it, then I could buy whatever games I still care about and move on.

If it's important to me to have continued access to all the games I'm playing, then gamepass is not the way to go.

The point is to get locked into rising costs? I suppose if you have the saves then yeah you have some other option besides going cold turkey.

Well we were talking about MP not too long ago so you may want to keep access to certain games.

The point is that you pay for the service for a certain period of time at a certain rate. Once that period has expired, you can choose to sign up again at whatever the current rate is, or you can choose not to sign up. I don't see how anyone is locked into anything. 



JWeinCom said:
DPsx7 said:

The point is to get locked into rising costs? I suppose if you have the saves then yeah you have some other option besides going cold turkey.

Well we were talking about MP not too long ago so you may want to keep access to certain games.

The point is that you pay for the service for a certain period of time at a certain rate. Once that period has expired, you can choose to sign up again at whatever the current rate is, or you can choose not to sign up. I don't see how anyone is locked into anything. 

As with majority of subscriptions you have to opt out to get out - this is the case for GP where you continue to pay unless you cancel the sub. Which a lot of people neglect to do.

Granted some companies make this more of an hassle. Take cellphone companies for example. A lot of people also subscribe to so much stuff forget what subs they are paying for, which is what these companies want.



Around the Network

A few random thoughts:

-Some people say it's bad for developers. How do those of you feel about the "free" games given away by PS+ and GWG? At least with Game Pass, those AAA games are just temporarily on the market. You may buy it later. With the other services, if they give you a game, it's almost yours. They're not making any more money from you unless you buy DLC.

-At least one person said they still prefer digital because they can control their purchase. Remember the time people couldn't even play Heavy Rain on PS3 despite owning it physically? Physical is no guarantee of anything.

-Some ham would be pretty good right now. A nice ham and cheese sandwich...

My point is, even if you buy physically, there's just so much to download, so much to patch in, and DRM is so ingrained in modern hardware (2005-present), even if you buy physical, you're just buying digital with a disc in your hand. The world changed and we didn't even notice.

At this point, even with big games coming to Game Pass, it's still just a percentage. People will still gravitate towards retail or (like me) just buy digitally because they think they own the game that way.

We don't.

-One last thing: Attach rates. How many games does the average gamer buy? If you're like me (the way I used to be) you were buying multiple games a month. Awesome for the industry. I think gamers don't fall under that umbrella. If M$ can convince millions of those gamers who were spending $0 a month on nothing to spend $15 a month on something they weren't even interested in... 🤔



Twitter: @d21lewis

Game pass isn't even pro consumer, guess it is if you see the low sub price for a catalog of games. GAAS will never give you big budget games, it simply won't pay for it. In that sense to me it is not pro consumer, I would rather pay full price games that give me these experiences.



I don't feel that Sony needs to. Sony makes games worth paying for.



Random_Matt said:
Game pass isn't even pro consumer, guess it is if you see the low sub price for a catalog of games. GAAS will never give you big budget games, it simply won't pay for it. In that sense to me it is not pro consumer, I would rather pay full price games that give me these experiences.

Double edged sword.

On one hand, that means the big games get to sell for full price and make all the money they can. Despite having Game Pass Ultimate, I still buy the games I really want to play.

There's smaller games I'd never even consider but I've given them a shot on Game Pass. I assume they're making money somehow. Maybe a percentage based on how much traffic they bring to the service (like YouTube). Who knows?

There are certain games that come to Game Pass the exact same day they release on PS4 and Switch for MSRP (Streets of Rage 4, for example).

There actually are big AAA games for it. Gears 5 was one of the best games of 2019 and it was there before it could be bought in stores. Other big games end up on the service, too. Games like Doom, Devil May Cry 5, Outer Worlds, etc.

At the end of the month, you don't really have anything to show for your $15 besides some memories and some Achievement points but that goes for a lot of things in this life. They're selling us something without really selling us anything.



Twitter: @d21lewis

d21lewis said:

A few random thoughts:

-Some people say it's bad for developers. How do those of you feel about the "free" games given away by PS+ and GWG? At least with Game Pass, those AAA games are just temporarily on the market. You may buy it later. With the other services, if they give you a game, it's almost yours. They're not making any more money from you unless you buy DLC.
The games on Plus and Gold are very old and done most of the sales it could and still receives a pay from Sony plus some publicity that may or not give some leg (I have noticed a lot of these show up on promotion early before or after being given away), sad is that the Indie games given away aren`t even downloaded by most subscribers.
-At least one person said they still prefer digital because they can control their purchase. Remember the time people couldn't even play Heavy Rain on PS3 despite owning it physically? Physical is no guarantee of anything.
I don`t remember this case, every game I had I could play without ever linking to the internet. Please the source, I got curious.
-Some ham would be pretty good right now. A nice ham and cheese sandwich...

My point is, even if you buy physically, there's just so much to download, so much to patch in, and DRM is so ingrained in modern hardware (2005-present), even if you buy physical, you're just buying digital with a disc in your hand. The world changed and we didn't even notice.
Still can play all of those even without any patch or anything of the like.
At this point, even with big games coming to Game Pass, it's still just a percentage. People will still gravitate towards retail or (like me) just buy digitally because they think they own the game that way.

We don't.

-One last thing: Attach rates. How many games does the average gamer buy? If you're like me (the way I used to be) you were buying multiple games a month. Awesome for the industry. I think gamers don't fall under that umbrella. If M$ can convince millions of those gamers who were spending $0 a month on nothing to spend $15 a month on something they weren't even interested in... 🤔

We know on average a console have like 12SW sold per HW sold, and since there are plenty of guys like us who buy like 12 games a year then there is also those that perhaps buy a CoD or Fifa per year and nothing else. So yes if GP is made in a way that it doesn`t take away from current market but make people that weren`t expending money to expend that would be good. In a way it is similar to Sony introducing plus, at first when it only gave games away and discount it had 1-2M subs (3% attach ratio), but when it got mandatory it rose to like 40%. So we have to wait to see how things will turn out. I just am very against this making the industry go towards the GAAS and MP model.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."