I guess true gamer is a trigger term nowadays. In the ancient times, true supporters are those that support their passion by collecting stuff and visiting matches/performances/concerts. Using a service like gamepass is like watching soccer/concerts/movies on tv. That doesn't make you a true supporter.

What are the consequences of subscription services for collectors (leaving true gamer term out of it). Prices will go up (already to $70) for actually owning a game while collecting complete games becomes more difficult due to the shift to gaas. The shift to digital already eroded the extras, as well as achievements/trophies replacing meaningful things to unlock. Like artwork and making of videos.

The nickel and diming in the games industry is only further accelerated by streaming services. Digital downloads need to be small and the same as physical editions, prices needed to be low, just the bare bones game.

The arguments pro subscription services seem to be these

- Access to more content to try out
I have no issue with that but it's a small minority that will actually convert that try out into a purchase.

- MTX and DLC sales compensate for the loss of initial salve revenue
I have a big issue with that as MTX and DLC are already a big negative on current games.

- Steady income for developers, can take more risk
Erm no, steady income does not stimulate innovation

- Smaller games have more chance to get noticed
Some, maybe, those that conform to / are let on the service. The rest get an even smaller chance?

I wasn't trying to make any of them fit a specific criteria. You asked why would MS allow a publisher to release an incomplete game. I simply pointed out that MS itself has released incomplete games in the past. It's as if you've gone hunting and said "Why aren't there any deer to hunt? I really want to shoot a 12 point buck!". And then when I point out that there is an entire herd of deer just past the clearing you reply with "but none of them are 12 pointers!" It doesn't matter. The fact is that there are deer past the clearing. The fact is that MS has released incomplete games in the past.

You are confusing grinding for the items in Gears 5 for paying for them with actual money. How much would it cost to buy every skin outright?

Hoo boy! Talk about a false equivalency! If you and a friend both want an Amiibo item and the friend lets you scan his Amiibo your friend has paid once. If you and a friend both want a skin in Gears 5 without grinding your friend would have to pay twice. The Gears 5 skin is absolutely worthless once purchased. Most Amiibo actually go up in value. The Gears 5 skins make up a significant amount of cosmetic content in Gears 5. The entirety of all Amiibo unlock less than 5% of the game's total cosmetic content. The Amiibo cost physical labor to produce, and ship. The Gears 5 servers can issue infinite skins for practically no cost at all.

Another strawman. I said it isn't locked behind buying anything. You removed the word "buying" from the sentence in order to build yourself another strawman.

Those Amiibo trading cards were released in conjunction with Happy Home Designer (a spinoff game that was panned by both critics and fans alike). Nintendo decided to forward their functionality into New Horizons, but the cards themselves were discontinued long before Switch was even a thing.

Lol, please point out where exactly you have to pay for the Pocket Camp unlocks. https://ac-pocketcamp.com/en-US/horizons

I didn't spend $30 for content. I spent $30 for plastic toys to go on my shelf. Hell, one of them was bought all the way back in 2015 with the OG Splatoon. I also have four Metroid Amiibos. Guess what? I haven't even scanned them despite owning them for two years now. I just bought them because I wanted some cool Metroid related plastic statues.

I agree that Gamepass will never completely take over the industry.

My mistake. Could you clarify by what you meant by "you are clueless when it comes to how GaaS type games work"?

So... it seems some people are putting forth the argument that you should pay more than you have to for a product..? So you can be a true supporter? That's... odd. Like... if you went into Walmart and a game you wanted was on sale for $40, would you say "No Sir/Maam. I demand that you charge me $60. I am a patron of the arts."

Dunno about you guys, but I have bills. I'd like to pay them and still be able to enjoy videogames. If a subscription service helps me with that, I will go for it, even if folks on a forum are going to challenge my gamer cred.

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.

So essentially you can only be called a true supported if you have the money to do all those things? Must feel nice sitting on your high chair.

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.

Did I say that? I just like to support devs I like. That doesn't make me a true gamer whatever that means. It won't prevent MTX nor DLC, and I won't buy those anyway. It does add to initial sales and revenue.

What are the existing fans for a new title, by a new developer, promoted by the 'money hat' ?

There are many ways to get interested in a game, but true gamepass is one of those ways. It's just that you need to pay a subscription for that. Why didn't you buy Nier Automata since you loved it?

Glad you can admit you weren't trying to apply any context. Also, your comparisons are all very convoluted and mostly stupid. To make it simple for you, someone mentioned publishers purposely chopping up games and putting them on GamePass to sell people expansions. I asked why MS would allow that to happen. You chimed in with three games that neither a) were chopped up, or b) have paid expansions being sold to gamers. The only game you listed that even has an expansion is Gears 5 and guess what? It was free for GamePass users. Kind of hard to chop a game up and sell us expansions when only one of the games has an expansion and it's free.

I don't care about whatever dumb argument you were having with others. You stated something factually false, and I corrected you.

The same amount of money it could cost you to buy every Amiibo and Amiibo card: $0.

You just scan your friends Amiibo credit card, silly :)

Cute. I already rebutted your idiotic "My friend can buy it for me therefore its' free" argument.

You have no idea what Amiibos cost to make, or how much Gears skins cost to make, or how much of either content make up the total content. Also I love how you are admitting here that Splatoon users only get 95% of the game unless they dive into Amiibo hunting. Sounds like an incomplete game to me. Congrats, you're one of us!

Actually I do. We've had that discussion before in a thread where you got your ass kicked. You can figure out how much content makes up the total content by doing a little math. I linked to the wiki showing all the shirts in Splatoon 2. There's about the same amount of shoes and pants in the game as shirts. Any experienced Splatoon player already knows this.

You keep using that word. I don't think you know what that word means.

Strawman: To misrepresent or distort someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

You distorted my argument by taking out the word "buying" in order to make it look like I said that cosmetics weren't locked behind anything at all. You then went on to attack that position instead, of what I actually said.

Woah so you're saying a game released in 2020 has content locked behind cards that were discontinued prior to 2017. Sounds like another incomplete game. Wowzers!

All of that content can be gotten in game. It isn't locked behind anything.

Still waiting on you to show how you have to pay for Pocket Camp stuff. The page I linked to clearly shows that it's free. But I guess you'll just conveniently ignore that just like how you've ignored all of the things you've been factually wrong about.

Imagine shitting on people for enjoying a game because you think it's incomplete when you yourself are spending money on Amiibo toys to unlock content in games. Hilarious.

Imagine being proven factually wrong time, and time again, yet having the audacity to act as if your opponent didn't just prove you wrong. Hilarious.

Cool, so then you also agree that no one should give a crap about your silly hypothetical.

Except my hypothetical plays out exactly the same if you just replace Gamepass with two or more subscription services. It's funny that you didn't want to deal with my argument showing how it's definitely possible for most people to transition to streaming services. I listed multiple points in the history of the industry where things drastically changed. But I guess you don't know anything about history do you? Lol, I bet you don't even own a non-Xbox system. And if you do, you let it gather dust, instead of giving any other platform a fair shake.

No thanks, you seem allergic to reason. You seem so scared of GaaS that you will literally jump through hoops to make excuses for the live service games you play while you simultaneously degrade others for playing live service games you aren't into. You're boring, I'm done.

The problem here is that you've never played Splatoon 2 or Animal Crossing. So you have absolutely no idea how those games work. Trying to compare the teeny tiny amount of extra Amiibo content in either of those games to other live service games is laughable. You might as well try to compare a Newt to Godzilla. "You're such a hypocrite! You have a pet Newt! Why can't I have a pet Godzilla?" See how stupid that sounds? That's you.