Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Xbox acquires Bethesda

I wonder how will be the market in 10 years and how publishers not owned by service providers will make money. This move is the beginning of what will make Gamepass maybe sucesseful and perhaps will make suscription the norm. I don't want that ; I don't want to see one or two service providers make a lot of cheaper games, GAAS, and make suscriptions climb when the traditional market is over. Like what makes Amazon successeful, losing money for years until the become one of the only way to buy on Internet. Like a lot of Netflix series, even the best ones, have a lot of common recieps. It's a way of using games I don't like. At least, if it will become the standard, i'ill be old enough to quit gaming without too many regrets ;)



Around the Network
kirby007 said:
goopy20 said:

Look, we all have different tastes in games. Personally I love stuff like Wasteland 3, battletoads, Grounded as well a AAA game like TLOU2. Only thing I'm saying is that Sony and MS are going with completely different strategies and it will show in the types of games they'll be focusing on.

Sony is all about story telling and single player blockbusters. If you don't like those sort of games, you're in luck because they wouldn't work with the GP model. MS will be about quantity, smaller scale games and experiences that keep people engaged with GP over a long period of time. Elder Scrolls Online, Tell me Why... perfect games for GP. Doom Eternal, Gear 5.. not so much. 

don't pardon me. But you just straight up talking out of your ass

Okay, enlighten me :)



goopy20 said:
kirby007 said:

don't pardon me. But you just straight up talking out of your ass

Okay, enlighten me :)

FS2020 works fine as a major draw and it doesn't get much more blockbuster.
Any big singleplayer(story) is a way to draw new people in or get resubs.
new content is allways good for a sub service whether its GaaS or oneshot and one shots causing bigger waves



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

kirby007 said:
goopy20 said:

Okay, enlighten me :)

FS2020 works fine as a major draw and it doesn't get much more blockbuster.
Any big singleplayer(story) is a way to draw new people in or get resubs.
new content is allways good for a sub service whether its GaaS or oneshot and one shots causing bigger waves

Flightsim is the perfect game for GP. It's not for everybody but anyone who's into sims can spend a whole console generation playing that single game. AAA Single player games on the other hand are just too expensive and take too long to make to and won't keep people engaged. They're one and done kind of games unless they have an amazing multiplayer.

Be honest now guys, how many of you have cancelled your GP subscription and renewed when there were some new big releases? I've just finished Wasteland 3 and cancelled right after. MS is still figuring this all out but I'm sure that's not what they want. That's why we're getting a GAAS Halo and we have to wait and see if that's a good or a bad thing.



hunter_alien said:
RolStoppable said:

If I use your logic of maintaining a good relationship with third parties, then Nintendo making a deal with Capcom to prevent Monster Hunter coming to PS Vita wasn't a moneyhat. Nintendo merely worked on having a good relationship with Capcom while Sony couldn't care less, hence why Sony's handheld business came to an end. But the truth is, once such a moneyhat has gone through, there's nothing that a competing console manufacturer can do about it.

You'll have to give some examples of this well documented fact that Sega got shitty versions of games and which third party games Nintendo had actual deals with.

To this day people are amazed/perplexed that Nintendo made more profits from console gaming during the PS2 era than Sony. You say bravo to that, but Sony's takeaway was a different one, hence why they didn't repeat it with the PS4. They realized that they'd be throwing a lot of money away for no appreciable reason.

Who is perplexed, the GBA pretty much guaranteed that Nintendo will remain highly profitable as the only relevant handheld manufacturer on a global scale.

Also, I hate doing research for others, but just for the argument's sake here you go:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27373587

Quote: "The idea is that the firm was obsessed by the quality of the titles released for its platform, leading it to impose restrictions on how many games other third-party publishers could release each year and reserving the right to reject their work if it felt it didn't meet Nintendo's standards. Sega deliberately took the opposite tack, resulting in it being able to boast a larger games library, even if it had more duds."

Nintendo almost literary severed its relationship with 3rd parties during that gen, hiding behind the "quality" mantra, yet notable real stinkers prove that it was mostly a tool to keep devs firmly in their ecosystem.

There is also a decent book about it, detailing how :

The Ultimate History of Video Games: The Story Behind the Craze that Touched our Lives and Changed the World

Most of the relevant parts are on the SNES wikipedia page, under the Console wars and Changes section, so feel free to check them out.

This is also a topic that was widely covered by several online personalities including the AVGN and even Digital Foundry, so it's pretty hard to imagine that you never came upon this info.

You keep dodging and changing points.

The PS2 sold more than 100m units of hardware and more than 1b units of software from 2000-2006 while the GBA sold 80m units of hardware and ~350m units of software in the corresponding timeframe. The point wasn't about Nintendo being profitable during that time, it was about Nintendo being more profitable than Sony during that time. Nintendo had notably lower unit sales of hardware and software, but made more money.

You were supposed to show something that supports your argument that Nintendo had exclusivity deals with third parties, but instead you picked a quote that says that Nintendo turned games down which is the opposite of making deals with third parties (i. e. not even allowing them to publish certain games). Nintendo limiting the amount of games that third parties could publish during the NES era and early SNES era is well-known, but that's something entirely different to what you claimed. Likewise, you've got nothing to support your statement that Sega got shitty versions of games (i. e. multiplats were worse on the Genesis/Mega Drive because Nintendo paid for that to be the case); what your quote states is that Sega didn't turn down games, so they had exclusives from third parties that were duds.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Around the Network
goopy20 said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

Is the pattern a quality library of different genres? What do I win for getting it right?

Wow, lots of great games with loads of replay value across different genres, and these aren't even their big titles. Sounds terrible.

Look, we all have different tastes in games. Personally I love stuff like Wasteland 3, battletoads, Grounded as well a AAA game like TLOU2. Only thing I'm saying is that Sony and MS are going with completely different strategies and it will show in the types of games they'll be focusing on.

Sony is all about story telling and single player blockbusters. If you don't like those sort of games, you're in luck because they wouldn't work with the GP model. MS will be about quantity, smaller scale games and experiences that keep people engaged with GP over a long period of time. Elder Scrolls Online, Tell me Why... perfect games for GP. Doom Eternal, Gear 5.. not so much. 

The thing you don't seem (or don't want) to understand is that for ANY subscription-based model to be able to keep people subscribed you need to offer two things: Quality and variety.

Variety: If they only offer GAAS as you say, people who don't like that will just go away.

Quality: If people don't like what they offer, they will just go somewhere else to find it. And no, people will not keep paying "just because is cheap." You yourself have said MULTIPLE times that you just subscribe whenever a game that interests you comes in and then unsubscribe again.

Oh, and Halo is not simply going GAAS. They have said multiple times that the single-player campaign will be "the longest yet." So I ask you, if Sony provides you a satisfying single-player campaign on the next Spiderman, but then they keep adding stuff over the years on top of it, will you see that as a bad thing?



I will not go to where Gamepass is avaible. Gamepass will come to me! >:(



I am a Nintendo fanatic.

goopy20 said:
zero129 said:

Awhile ago in this thread your saying MS doesnt have the brand power to support GP against Sony and google etc in the cloud space.

Now your saying once again they dont have content and games will be cut down and sliced up etc.

Yet if you have used GP you would see that isnt the case.

Lets say we are all playing in the cloud, will the masses subscribe to Game Pass or will they go with big brands like Nintendo or Playstation? I'm not convinced MS would win that one as Sony and Nintendo simply have better brand awareness among the gaming crowd. It's just that they're not trying to compete in the Cloud gaming services yet. If they were, it would be far more likely that Sony and Nintendo become the Netflix of gaming, and MS would become more like Amazon, providing to platform for the industry and making a fortune from it. 

I've been using GP for a while now and its pretty obvious that they're focusing on different types of games. Its not like they have no exclusives, its just that they were less noticeable compared to the big blockbusters Sony had.

Hell this year alone we had; Bladed Edge, Minecraft Dungeons, Grounded, Wasteland 3, Battletoads, Gears Tactics, Ori, Tell me Why and Flightsim. If you can't see a pattern there, then I don't know what to tell you. They've been pouring out a ton of A AA games because those don't take a fortune and 5 years to make and are perfect for the GP business model. Halo is going GAAS and we'll have to see what they'll do with their other IPs.

 

I don’t think Sony counts as competition in streaming because they literally pay MS for Azure. Even if they win MS wins too. Nintendo’s online is still stuck in the mid 2000s they won’t enter the streaming game for a looong time. 

The irony is that there is no pattern with the games. They are all different genres. Sony is the one with the pattern. “Single player story driven 3rd person action adventure”. I applaud Xbox for their games this year, there’s more to gaming then one genre. 

Cmon Goop. You’d think buying Bethesda would tell you they are committed to A-AAA games. Game Pass needs all 3 levels of budget to thrive. 

Also I’d say Halo Infinite is a GAAS but also a AAA multiplayer component at its core. Again, something the competition doesn’t know how to do anymore (multiplayer). I refuse to downplay multiplayer games just because another fan group is obsessed with single player games. 

Last edited by sales2099 - on 22 September 2020

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

 

Flouff said:
I wonder how will be the market in 10 years and how publishers not owned by service providers will make money. This move is the beginning of what will make Gamepass maybe sucesseful and perhaps will make suscription the norm. I don't want that ; I don't want to see one or two service providers make a lot of cheaper games, GAAS, and make suscriptions climb when the traditional market is over. Like what makes Amazon successeful, losing money for years until the become one of the only way to buy on Internet. Like a lot of Netflix series, even the best ones, have a lot of common recieps. It's a way of using games I don't like. At least, if it will become the standard, i'ill be old enough to quit gaming without too many regrets ;)

Exactly.

GAAS with long term money losing model to get market share is the recipe to destroy the video game industry.  

Look at the mobile devices market. Lot of cash grab sub par games and the quality games get buried in the market.



chakkra said:
goopy20 said:

Look, we all have different tastes in games. Personally I love stuff like Wasteland 3, battletoads, Grounded as well a AAA game like TLOU2. Only thing I'm saying is that Sony and MS are going with completely different strategies and it will show in the types of games they'll be focusing on.

Sony is all about story telling and single player blockbusters. If you don't like those sort of games, you're in luck because they wouldn't work with the GP model. MS will be about quantity, smaller scale games and experiences that keep people engaged with GP over a long period of time. Elder Scrolls Online, Tell me Why... perfect games for GP. Doom Eternal, Gear 5.. not so much. 

The thing you don't seem (or don't want) to understand is that for ANY subscription-based model to be able to keep people subscribed you need to offer two things: Quality and variety.

Variety: If they only offer GAAS as you say, people who don't like that will just go away.

Quality: If people don't like what they offer, they will just go somewhere else to find it. And no, people will not keep paying "just because is cheap." You yourself have said MULTIPLE times that you just subscribe whenever a game that interests you comes in and then unsubscribe again.

Oh, and Halo is not simply going GAAS. They have said multiple times that the single-player campaign will be "the longest yet." So I ask you, if Sony provides you a satisfying single-player campaign on the next Spiderman, but then they keep adding stuff over the years on top of it, will you see that as a bad thing?

You forgot quantity there. I subscribed for 2 months and finished Wasteland 3, Battletoads, Grounded, Ori and played enough of Flightsim to know that it's not my cup of tea. Now I'm in lockdown, bored out of my mind and staring at 200 games thinking "nope, nope, nope". It's only $10 bucks but I cancelled anyway - because people are cheap bastards like that - waiting for new big releases before I sign up again. For MS to prevent this they'll need 3 things

  • quantity so every month there are a couple of A or AA games that'll make people wonder "what's next?!"
  • GAAS games that people can play forever
  • Or just cut normal AAA games into episodic content

Adding stuff to spider man is not the same thing as what they're doing with Halo. Games like Spider Man maybe get some DLC and then we're waiting for a sequel. With Halo there will be no sequel, they went full destiny on us. Not saying that is bad, we still have to wait and see how that'll turn out. All I'm saying is that they didn't make Halo GAAS because of design choice, they made it like that because of a business decision. And they'll probably do the same thing with most of their IPs. 

Last edited by goopy20 - on 22 September 2020