Xbox Game Pass Launches Enable 'Secure Success', Says Indie Publisher

Tell that to the comments on Push Square. I got told to stop defending Gamepass, for whatever reason. They don’t seem to understand that the revenue from Gamepass cancels out that from the lower sales - Thats the whole point of signing to Gamepass in the first place.

Like it’s so obvious that if the revenue is still coming in then lower sales don’t matter as much. And I believe this is mostly upfront payment, allowing them to start their next game quicker.

Regardless, I will be enjoying Gamepass until Microsoft cannot sustain it anymore or all the Publishers and Developers refuse to sign their games up. May as well enjoy it whilst it lasts, amid all this doom and gloom, right?

Such a pointless discussion lately. If the deal was harming games they wouldn't continue to make the deals to put the games there. The whole reason they get the big paycheck when they agree to go to the service is to offset the loss of sales. Why do people still doubt this service model?

Separate arguement - People put way too much stock on shotty sales figures (only from one region, only physical, etc.) It's just a way to form a narrative and get hits on social media.

I suspect there's a lot of stories on either side of the fence as to whether Gamepass is good or bad for their games. Ultimately for us as gamers it's a great deal and it's a service I'll be using for a long time

There is a genuine possibility that Game Pass will damage the gaming industry. There are many valid concerns that are mentioned, including on Push Square but unfortunately get shot down because 'only fan boys' have negative thoughts about Game Pass.
Personally I think GP will have a similar affect to the Netflix scenario. Most blockbuster movies only come to Netflix after a long time or not at all - similar to GP. Only Netflix films do, which will be the MS games that do, along with a lot of the 'indie' or less successful films/tv which is what most of GP is populated with. Netflix has been slowly increasing the subscription costs, which will happen with GP over time.

It's interesting how many high profile and respected industry people are against the Netflix model and it's affect on the film industry, and that's in a space where there are a much larger spread of companies while MS are trying to gradually buy as much of the market share as possible. I guess maybe Disney being the closest example buying Lucasfilm, Marvel, 20th Century Fox. I'd argue that 95% of people on this site probably think that's not good for the industry and would complain if they tried to further buy WB and/or NBC. Some people don't realise that non Game Pass or Xbox owners see a similar trend happening in the gaming industry and are concerned. And to some extend the MS strategy feels more extreme compared to the film industry currently, especially with the cost of these merges being larger in size.

Oddly you don't tend to see Disney fans boys (maybe you do?) up in arms when those merges are investigated?

Game Pass is great. The biggest problem for years was piracy for most entertainment mediums and we've seen how subscription models seems to sort that out quite nicely

There will always been people that steal stuff because of many concocted self delusional reasons (giving it to the man etc) but in reality they're just cheapskate morons who don't want to pay for stuff.

@StonyKL Disney was already king before it made those acquisitions. Xbox has been trying to save itself. And you kind of slid there from Gamepass to Acquisitions which are two different topics to debate. With Playstation and Nintendo offering their approaches, and Xbox with the lowest market share by far, Gamepass won’t damage the industry especially as it’s apparently 100% unsustainable. Of course some of Push Square is offering proper discussion; but a lot of it is “Stop having fun!”.

Game pass is bad for Indie developers who can not get onto Gamepass. It’s like someone trying to sell a new kind of snack and trying to get it onto a grocery shelf. Did you know they gave to pay the store to stock it? The little guy gets pushed out…

@K1LLEGAL

I stopped visiting PushSquare tbh. The comment section gets pretty toxic most of the time and the stuff with the Hogwarts Legacy review was the last nail in the coffin for me (the reviewer, not the comments that time).
There's a lot of indie games that wouldn't be as known as they are if it wasn't for Game Pass.
Cool pic/gif btw.

Big fan of Gamepass but I feel it’s not a one size fits all kind of deal. I can see indie games doing very well on Gamepass, giving them both visibility and financial security while it would make little sense to put a game like Elden ring or Hogwarts on the service.

@Lup I haven’t visited either since their embarrassing Hogwarts review. I’ve always preferred the smaller community here anyway.

@StonyKL as Google Stadia found out - content is king. They couldn’t get it. That is why the Activision deal is so big as it’s gives them content to become a Netflix of games. As Netflix found out the only way to keep the model and content coming was too raise prices or add ads.

@Lup Agreed. I own every console under the sun as well as a gaming PC and VR. I deliberately avoid Push Square for anything Sony related.

It is just sad honestly because you'd expect the sister Nintendo Life and Pure Xbox to be somewhat decent.

I don't think it's an accident that big AAA titles tend to avoid the service for a good while after launch, or that smaller publishers are often eager to have their games included.

I know some gamers decry the lack of AAA content on GP, but its most effective function really does seem to be to shine a spotlight on smaller content that might otherwise get lost amidst a busy release schedule of bigger third-party titles.

Basically, if your sales expectations are low, it's a pretty massive net positive to get both the payout from Daddy Warbucks and have attention called to your product. If you expect to sell hundreds of thousands or millions of units on Xbox, though? Ehh, maybe not so much.

I will say that there are at least a few games I haven't bought because they launched on Game Pass. I was gonna grab the console port of Omori at launch, but I couldn't stomach paying $29.99 when it was free on GP. The same will likely be true of Silksong.

Overall, though, I do see it as being beneficial to smaller devs and publishers.

So now that we know that No More Robots wants all of their games on GamePass, what’s their next game?

In answer to their question:

"All I can say is, we're aiming to get every single title we publish from now on, onto Game Pass. In doing so, we'll secure success for each title, and relieve immense pressure for the devs

But please gamers, continue to explain why it's bad for us"

Getting paid for your games whatever isn't bad for the devs but is bad for the gamers. You are basically telling us you are getting paid for completion and not for sale numbers which sounds like you aren't getting rewarding for your quality but for quantity.

@carlos82 hit the nail on the head. As long as it benefits us as both gamers and consumers I’ll be happy. I think it’s the best subscription deal out there by a large margin.

Key word being "indie"

Where's the AAA devs saying this? The main complaint about gamepass is about it being full of indies, which to some people would be fine but to the majority they want to play AAA games as well. Even if it means bumping up the price of gamepass Microsoft should get out the cheque book and get some AAA games on the service that aren't already years old.

Only one big third party game has launched day one so far for me and that was outriders which square say failed to turn a profit for them.

Edit: I would include MLB the show as that's a huge seller and I'd wager people subscribe to gamepass for that alone.

@UltimateOtaku91 "only one big third party game at day1"!!!
Since Outriders launch the AAA games to come to Game Pass include Flight Simulator, Psychonauts 2, Forza Horizon 5, Halo Infinite, Plague Tale Requiem, Hi-Fi Rush etc...
Sounds like it's not Game Pass that's the problem here....

@pip_muzz I said third party.....

@UltimateOtaku91 touché 😅

the main negative of gamepass that i can think of is related to digital only games in general and that being, in say, 10 years time none of the games will exist anymore.

i have such a massive back log of games and for the monthly price of gamepass i can buy 1-4 games to add to my backlog so it isn't for me but i can see the value.

also i can see the appeal for ms, you have a million subscribers that is like garaunteed 20 million dollers a month, easy enough to fun a few indies etc...

@pip_muzz also I'm not saying plague tale isn't a good game because its an excellent game, but it's not a AAA game that would draw a boat load of people to gamepass, last I heard it has had over 1 million players but that includes on other systems and on a service with 25 million subs. What Microsoft needs to add are games like Assassins Creed, Hogwarts Legacy, Dying Light, Witcher etc those kind of big games day one. I'm sure more people would join, people would pay more for their sub, and silence the critics.

Depends on the definition of “AAA” I guess. In the next two weeks, we’ve got Atomic Heart and Wo Long Fallen Dynasty. Then The Show 23 later in March. All three are full price $60-70 titles that I would have been interested in. Big enough for me at least.

@UltimateOtaku91 exactly- for Microsoft to get a AAA game they currently have to buy companies making AAA as they are being squeezed/ extorted for any content.

@UltimateOtaku91 does mlb the show count as a AAA third party day 1 release?

@Somebody tbf I think yeah it does as its a major franchise multi million seller, same goes for any other of the big sports games as well

It figures an indie studio would think so. It's a model tailormade to alleviate the risk of failure from poor performers. Instead of having to test and impress the market, you get a decent but not great return guaranteed.
On the other hand, it's the reason why 3rd party AAA games have been severely lacking lately, as they can predict a commercial success using traditional lucrative sale model.

@UltimateOtaku91 it would be interesting to hear square talk about outsiders success now. Just by still being available it is one of the most successful live service type games of the last few years. Didn't they just tease another expansion? Doesn't sound like it failed.

@StonyKL you’re missing one bit here I think, that Microsoft releases multiplatform games (minecraft, cuphead, …) and you can also still buy a game for pc, cloud, console instead of playing it on game pass.

So Game Pass is just an extra option in the whole lineup of ways to play. Unlike netflix movies.

@StonyKL I’m sure Microsoft has a quality check before putting a game on game pass.

There’s as good as zero shovelware on the service.

@UltimateOtaku91 @pip_muzz atomic heart releases on day one on game pass. And so did the monster hunter rise and persona ports.

@Moonglow

Outriders, Plague Tale Requiem, STALKER 2, Atomic Heart, Wo Long, Lies of P are all 3rd party heavy hitters that can drive players.

Nah, those are all indie games /s

(dont forget that baseball game they been adding for 3 years in a row, made by a tiny indie company that barely has any exposure in the industry... name escapes me.... )

With all the talk of Gamepass I've never seen someone cite specifics of how it works. Does MS just pay a flat rate to have it for X months, do they pay a commission per download, or how exactly is their payment decided?

It’s not hard. Game Pass is good for Defenders but not for Starfield, unless subscription numbers go through the roof.

And even if it’s not bad, it’s not smart either, since they’re losing potential sales in the launch window, which tend to be important for high profile games.

Now Microsoft can play this game anyway, Sony and Nintendo probably not, so if the day1 launch on the service becomes standard practice for the industry, chances are in the long run a lot of games, great games, won’t be made.

Then again, if a gamer loves a single platform more than games, amen to that.

The subscription model does work for indie games (aslong as there's enough people willing to subscribe for Indies)

@Azathoth I think they should be required to hand over all that information in their court case over the acquisition then regulators can say weather or not Sony & other companies that aren't as big could compete

@AlwaysPlaying i both kinda agree and disagree with you lol. I personally love indies and look forward to them more than the big games....and that's all because of gamepass. Before gamepass I would have never played these games - so gamepass allows more Indies to be played. I also only play gamepass so if you're not in there I'm not playing you....but i likely wasn't playing you before gamepass anyways so really not a lost sale from me personally. It's a great deal for me and most of the devs are getting me to play their games when i never would have before so they are benefiting as well. Only one to potentially lose anything is a trillion dollar company that says it's happy as well.

@StonyKL he could also be saying that knowing that you won't be homeless if your game doesn't sell well allows you to focus on making a great game you want to make? You have to be allowed into the service at the end of the day, so you make a trash game you likely won't be back, it's on their interest to make as good e game as possible.

@Friendly
Cuphead isnt a Microsoft game.
Also they didnt make Minecraft they bought it.

I think it's all just game dependent. Not everything is a fit for Game Pass - and that's okay.

Ultimately, it's up to the developer whether Microsoft's offer to be on Game Pass fits their needs.

People want to paint Microsoft as ruining the video game industry, but Game Pass isn't a requirement. Developers can say "no".

@K1LLEGAL

He's an indie dev. He further proves our point lmao.

When I hear that from Capcom, Square, EA, Rockstar or whoever, then I might consider it lmao.

@northofthewall

Pushsquare complains about sony a lot actually. Don't see that much, here on PX. Short term memory I guess but you should check their soapboxes.

@awp69

You know, atomic heart and wo long look so good to be on gamepass, so that's really good. I am sure wo long will be good. We'll see about AHeart

@Friendly Day one for Xbox Game Pass (or Xbox in general) but the fact remains that they're ports of games that already released so, in one side, their public already bought and played them before (MHR on Nintendo (which is where most the Main Monster Hunters have been residing ever since Sony betrayed the Vita), P5R on PS4) and in the other side, they don't take too much of a budget compared to a entirely new game, so it's easier they will make it back regardless.

If these games released on Xbox Game Pass as they did on their Original Platforms (at the year they were originally released) and they succeeded, another, rooster would be singing

@Sebatrox Tbf look whats happening to ubisoft, their games are underperforming, games always on sale for some reason, they are cancelling games, shutting down multiplayer games that haven't been on the market long, they are recording £500 million losses this fiscal year.

Now obviously that isn't all to do with ubisoft+ it's mainly because people know their games go dirt cheap soon after release so why buy day one, but it would be interesting to know how much impact its having on their revenue compared to before they had ubisoft+.

@Moonglow they probably need to raise its subscriber count considering the losses they are taking. Plus the amount of games they are cancelling and shutting down, in the short term ubisoft+ is the only thing bringing in any kind of money. I'm surprised its even took them this long to bring it consoles.

@northofthewall

So one thread made you think Push square is biased? The other stuff they have done to attack sony doesn't matter?

Because services are a thing now. That's why they added the thread. It's a big concern if Sony does it.

@Neverwild

Also they didnt make Minecraft they bought it.

They didnt buy Minecraft, but they own it, and under their ownership the game has received multiple ports to platforms like Switch, PS VR and even have kept their commitment to release spinoff games like Minecraft Legends and Minecraft Dungeons on all platforms, that was @Friendly's point.

@UltimateOtaku91 It's not just Ubisoft with Ubisoft+, EA also offers EA Play Premium that also offers day one games on their service.

@Tharsman
No his point was propably that they make games and put them on other consoles which isnt true.
They bought Minecraft for 2.5 billion.
It was already kinda big when they bought so ofcourse they wouldnt take it away from other consoles.
When they make a game and put it on Switch, and Playstation also then you can make a point.

@northofthewall It's easier to just not give them your energy, there's no point in giving them any attention, gives you more time to enjoy life playing what you want the way you like.

@Neverwild

No his point was propably that they make games and put them on other consoles which isnt true.

But it is true. They made Minecraft Dungeons, and they are making Minecraft Legends. Its an acquired IP, but these spinoffs are their games.

It's also what they are promising they are going to do with Call of Duty, treat it exactly as they treat the Minecraft IP.

Ori is also their game, they financed it and own the IP, although they dont own the developer. They greenlit the Switch port.

So I'm hearing that his games aren't all that good and he make more from the puny fee he received from gamepass because he can't sell a lot of games.

@Arkantos2990 Atomic heart is a new game.

And so will S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 be. Oh, and MLB the show is.

Day one on any platform, 3d party.

@Neverwild From what I know the IP Cuphead is owned by Microsoft, just as Bayonetta is owned by Nintendo.

Also, weird line to draw. Following your reasoning Sony didn’t make Ratchet n Clank or Spiderman.

Also, Ori is a game series made and released on other platforms afterwards.

I'm convinced that most of the people that insist game pass isn't sustainable studied business under the 90s CEO of Kmart that insisted adding grocery was going to kill Walmart and he'd have no part of it.

@NEStalgia I’m convinced they’re either ponies or the basic b****es that say indies don’t count as real games.

@Tharsman Not just day 1, but early access where available, and all DLC included for $100/yr.. EA play is actually amazing value on PC, especially for big sports players.

@StonyKL one issue to take with the voices against both gp and Netflix it's it's not usually the small outfits complaining, is the juggernauts... Of course they wouldn't like it, it opens them to much more competition from smaller players, and reduces their share of the pie. When everything is expensive, people will pay only for safe purchases. The biggest names are the main beneficiaries as it guarantees more sales. Film, music, TV, games, it's the same all around. There's only so much entertainment people will buy. The traditional model ensures the big players are the safest purchases. Their grumbling is genuine but the nature of it is obscured.

I'm many ways we're just reliving the 60s when publishers fought tooth and nail against public libraries, and then mimeograph machines. And 80s when publishers fought tooth and nail against video (then game) rental stores until blockbuster emerged and made a huge publicly traded face that was harder to try to shut down. Publishers on video have had it easy for the past decade and a half when that all vanished and people just adapted to buying only the biggest titles.

@Sakisa Technically that's really most game consumers. Yet the irony is that's the very mindset Game Pass is poised to change.

Rough guess is maybe 10% with actual concerns over the model, 40% "indies don't count", and 50% gatekeeping.

@Moonglow

It’s called capitalism.

@Sebatrox

Ubisoft is a textbook example of mean practices at the heart of game design, they have nothing to do anymore with the great games I was talking about.

Also, Ubisoft is not a platform holder and their service is not even on console yet… I guess their numbers are very low anyway, they’re pretty much irrelevant for the matters we’re discussing here.

Sony, Nintendo, Take2, Activision all seem to agree that day1 releases on a service make no sense. This gotta mean something right? EA has its own service, and yet they put FIFA on it only at the end of the football season.

@northofthewall PS don’t care about counter balancing anything, that was made even more apparent after the Hogwarts review and the ***** show of the comments section when they deleted anything that went against 'the message'. Couple that with their staff who actively dislike Xbox and they very carefully choose what narrative to spin. Yes they post the occasional ‘soap box’ but they are few and far between.

Storm in a tea cup. Of course guarenteed income is a saviour for indies, no one has ever denied that and its why GP is the best place to try indies.

Xbox has always spun the narritive that it works for all games, but its quite clear no other AAA publisher thinks so. Xbox has now had to admit that it cannablises sales, and its a story as this is a message they have unsurprisingly tried to surpress previously.

Hence rolling out these stories. We all know about indies, but smoke and mirrors always works right?

GP cannablises a games sales, and thats a stated Microsoft fact.

its good for devs, great for gamers, the ones who arnt making as much money are Microsoft.

But then why should we care if Microsoft doesn't add a few more million to the profit column they're are a massive mega corporation time we got a good deal .Microsoft dont care either they just want people to play games in their ecosystem

@Friendly

From what I know the IP Cuphead is owned by Microsoft, just as Bayonetta is owned by Nintendo.

Both of those are wrong. Cuphead is owned by its Studio MDHR, they never agreed to relinquish the IP as part of the publishing deal, nor did Microsoft demand it. Ori belongs to Microsoft, though. At some point during the XBox One generation Microsoft started to demand ownership of any IP they practically fully financed. Cuphead was signed up before that policy change.

Bayonetta belongs to Sega, but the titles that have launched on Switch have been entirely financed by Nintendo and they own exclusive rights for them, but not for the Bayonetta IP itself.

@xxk7xx

EA has its own service, and yet they put FIFA on it only at the end of the football season.

EA puts FIFA on their EA Play Pro day one. That service is $15 a month or $100 for the full year.

EA Play [basic] is only $5 a month but you don't get access to games until a year later (sometimes a bit earlier?)

The thing is that right now the EA Play Pro service is only available on PC, not on consoles, so many console players are not aware of it.

@Titntin

Xbox has always spun the narritive that it works for all games, but its quite clear no other AAA publisher thinks so. Xbox has now had to admit that it cannablises sales, and its a story as this is a message they have unsurprisingly tried to surpress previously.

I listed the claims xbox has done in the past in another post and they do not contradict the statements made then.

They claim more players, more preorders [day one], 2.5x MTX and increased franchice sales. They specifically note how the impact of going into GamePass day one is way larger on indie games.

The new claims about sales "cannibalization" are on the 12 month window following inclusion on GamePass (there is debate if that means sales decline after 12 months have passed, or for those 12 months immediately after being added.)

That is not a contradiction to the original statements of higher preorders, and all the things I noted. The fact that many publishers that include their games on Game Pass return to the program is proof that the publishers are all very happy with the results they are seeing, combined with the payout they get from jumping on board.

@Sebatrox

Console and pc are different businesses. They don’t put it on ea play on console because they make a lot of money selling copies of the game and clearly don’t want it on game pass ultimate for example.

@Tharsman

Again, I wonder how many people are subscribed to ea pro. Here we’re talking about business models that can potentially disrupt the console market, what has the pc scene to do with it?

@Wheatly Yes, thanks for your comments, and I agree entirely.
Theres a whole range of outcomes for devs from brilliant to not so brilliant. For me at least its devalued games on the platform and I wont spend £70 on a day one title, when the service gives them away. I suspect Im not the only one and this reduces overall sales regardless of if the title is on gp or not. I do worry about its sustainability.
However, as a consumer Im doing very well from it and its certainly saved me money on xbox this gen..

@Tharsman ah, learning something new every day. Thanks!

And Astral Chain IS owned by Nintendo, am I right?

@Friendly According to the wiki, Platinum's own website states Astral Chain is owned by Nintendo so I think so.

@xxk7xx

Here we’re talking about business models that can potentially disrupt the console market, what has the pc scene to do with it?

Whomever said we talking about consoles? We are talking about the gaming industry and having subscription services with games day one in the platform. Trying to exclude PC from the gaming industry is as nitpicky as pretending Nintendo is also not a competitor in that industry.

Edit to add: worth noting that EA is the publisher for Wild Hearts, they agreed to add that game on Game Pass Day 1, and they have plenty of their own data to know how day one additions impact sales.
Edit 2: NVM mixed up Wild Hearts with Wo Long Dynasty.

Push square has been trash for quite a while now! I haven't listened to a thing I've had to say for many years now. And I thought I just recently made headlines for trying to sway the public from playing Hogwarts legacy. So I could care less what they have to say. All I know is game passes great for people like me who aren't going to go out and spend $70 on every single game out there just to try if it's good or not! And all these multi-million-dollar corporations that make these big AAA games complaining that game pass cannibalizes! Are the same dirt bags pushing out unfinished games that are completely broken just to make some arbitrary deadline and then eventually get around to fixing it when they feel like it! Is that good for the gaming industry? So I don't want to hear it cry me a River. Business is business and in business there's always going to be someone else saying that this is ruining this or this is bad business practices. Tough s*** learn to adapt or get the f*** out the way!

@themightyant The question on larger titles is how much is Microsoft willing to pay for additions to the service.

As of the latest numbers we have, Game Pass has about 25 million subscribers, assuming the lowball case of $10 a month (ignoring that a small chunk of that are Gold conversions, or have a $1 month within the year, or might actually be paying $15 a month for Ultimate) we are talking about 3 billion dollars a year that they can distribute between developing their own games (remember, these games also sell so they dont have to 100% finance the development out of game pass) and paying big money for day one additions into the service.

Given how much money some platforms that will remain unnamed can pay for games to not even be published on XBox at all for 2 years (or more,) I dare bet many developers would be unwilling to negotiate a day one deal that MS might be able to afford.

Honestly, only games that I think are out of the question and outside of Xbox's budget are games that are also too big for anyone to pay for console exclusivity.

In a hypothetical world where the deal was done today (subscription numbers were likely way lower at the time) I could see Microsoft offering more money for Final Fantasy 16 being multi-platform and Game Pass day one, than Sony would had been able to pay to keep the game PS5 exclusive.

I think this is why we are seeing bigger and bigger titles hit the service every year. The more subscribers they get, the higher their buying power to negotiate these deals will be, and it will be worth it for Microsoft if those additions further increase their subscriber base. So long they stay under 3 billion a year, Game Pass would even stay profitable.

@Tharsman

Nope, wild Hearts is not on gamepass, there’s only a 10h trial. Clearly their data tell them it’s better to leave the launch window “game pass free”. They might do otherwise on PC because these are two different markets as is widely known in the industry.

@xxk7xx my bad on Wild Hears, I got confused with Wo Long Fallen Dynasty.

@themightyant Of course major brands that already sell are going to sell less units of they're day 1 on the sub. I don't think that was ever disputed. However there's two other elements to that. The one is do those major releases generate and retain subscribers? Looking at EA Play on PC were talking all major self selling titles plus all dlc for $30 more per year than one game without dlc. There's CLEARLY more involved in the finances even at the aaa tier that these companies know that we do not. On the surface they're losing money like crazy. In reality they're marketing the heck out of it.

The other is, Ms knows getting major brands on board is impossible for the reasons you say which is why they're in massive growth mode via acquisitions to produce said content themselves, and do it all within scoped budgets. Plus they know the majority of their sales is still unit sales. I think your point is valid but that's precisely the reason they're buying abk...

@NEStalgia EA games especially sport ones are known for predatory mtx/lootboxes.

Is that a route MS wants to go down? because sure as s*** they will come up against regulations again.

@themightyant said it much better

@themightyant Even if you were to assume every single GP subscriber was a $1 upgrade, the accounting does not become "GP only made a dollar", but instead it is a conversion of the remaining Gold balance into GP, and the offset is considered a marketing expense.

Honestly, though, they have told us that the PC side is showing the largest growth, and you don't have anything to upgrade into that from. Those users are simply singing up for the $10 plan, not for GPU.

So game pass is:

• 1.5 billion a year minimum, assuming every single subscriber is a gamepass conversion
• 4.5 billion a year maximum, assuming every single subscriber is a GPU subscriber that did not convert
• 3.0 billion assuming every single subscriber is paying $10 a month without conversion and no one at all ever pays $15

Halo Infinite was reportedly $500 million for example.

Over 6 to 7 years. And how much did it make back in unit sales (it sold well at launch charting on the digital storefronts it was available on) and the multiplayer is part of that budget and heavily monetized MTX. Even today, despite its perceived failure, Halo Infinite is still 21st most played game on XBox.

Anyways this goes out of the topic, we don have a ton of data but we have some. We know Nintendo paid around 6 million to make Monster Hunter Ryse exclusive for a year, that means: no sale on any other platform (PC think it was 6 months.)

I honestly doubt a deal where the same game instead became multi-platform day 1 BUT added the game Day 1 on Game Pass would be much higher than 6 million. I also doubt they paid anything near 6 million to have it in Game Pass day 1 given the game already was a year out on Switch and 6 months out on consoles.

EVEN if we considered the lowest possible mark of 1.5 billion a year, that is a lot of money for a lot of big deals every year, with the biggest impediment being the publishers being convinced of the model, but we are seeing every day more and more developers testing the waters.

Side funny/sad note:

• Halo Master Chief collection is currently #204 best selling xbox game
• Halo Infinite Campaign is #296, just 2 spots ahead of Beyond Good & Evil HD 360 BC game...

@Sakisa I was thinking about your comment as I excitedly read through the PSVR2 threads on Push, I feel at times like I'm reading an article about Game Pass. It may be less about "ponies" and more about "ponies happen to have one common point of view about what makes a good game" than I thought. The common thread is "if it's not an AAA graphical showpiece with copy/paste gameplay game made by a famous top team with a top budget, hyped by the majority of social media and influencers with posters in every retail store, it's not a "real" game that matters. Even Sony's not immune to this point of view, apparently.

Gamers are fickle though. I finished HiFi Rush's story yesterday. Got the rare achievements because less than 10% have beat Roquefort, let alone Kale. But, even for "bigger" games, looking at Horizon Zero Dawn, a 6 year old game at this point, and one of the "biggest" of the vaunted PS library, less than 80% of players made it past Rost's prologue. Less than 75% made it past the Proving (which is basically the start of the real game.) Less than HALF made it through the mid-point of the game. Less than a quarter actually hit the credits. And that's one of the supposedly biggest games around. Only 10-15% completed "side" quests I'd consider "major game events" or completed unlocking all their abilities, hit level 40, etc. The DLC is even sadder, looking at around 35% or less across the board. When you start getting into completing some of the less critical objectives, or hunting grounds trials, or hitting high levels, the number stops drifting far from the number that got platinum which is 5% or so. DLC hunting grounds trial was about 1%....

The way gamers talk about games, and the way the data shows people actually PLAY games is a very different thing.

@themightyant Definitely. Also, a key element often glossed over is how much investors value recurring payments and STABLE, PREDICTABLE revenue. It depends on the nature of your investors, but a major hedge fund for example, would much, much, much, much rather have a business with $100/yr per customer with between X-Y total customers per year, guaranteed, with a steady growth ratio, than having wild swings having X-Y total MAYBE $170 paying customers a year. Stability in the numbers and predictability around them is worth a lot particularly to institutional investors.

@stvevan @themightyant agrreed on EA and whale hunting, however one can't understate the value in raw sales their subs are still leaving on the table to persue that. I'd also say that the whole pattern of "$70 games" in general is ALSO a form of whale hunting. The focus on box office day 1 sales in general is absolutely whale hunting. The average player isn't paying those full prices, the average player is buying on sales. The day 1 buyers are all whales by nature. Maybe not into thousands on mtx, but whales nonetheless. At his point it's impossible to segment whale hunting from honest business, because the whole industry now exists around hunting whales. Except Nintendo, they simply allow only whales into the pool.

@Tharsman "Halo Infinite Campaign is #296, just 2 spots ahead of Beyond Good & Evil HD 360 BC game..."

That is sad. Beyond Good & Evil HD should be ranked way above the mediocre Halo Infinite campaign.

@themightyant

Monster Hunter Rise is probably a bad example as it wasn't really a Day 1 release.

Thats not the point, the point is Nintendo "only" paid 6 million to compensate Capcom for the fact that the game would not be sold at all in any other platform for a year (well, PC came 6 months later.)

So my question is: do you really think it is likely that "you will lose selling this on any platform at all" is cheaper than "a percentage of Xbox users wont pay for it, but they are likely to buy the DLC"?

Aside: Not quite sure how you are doing your low estimate.

In the US, the MSRP for 1 year of Gold is $60, depending how you pay you can pay much more than that (if you go month to month it can be up to $120.)

Just worth noting this is, perhaps, one of those times where they were leading us with statistics.

Possible, but they credited their Game Pass growth for offsetting their sales losses several times already, not to the press but to investors. The growth and money they make out of Game Pass is high enough to often negate big losses in sales.

Cash flow vitally important as well, though perhaps not the biggest issue at M$

This was not aimed at me, but MS is definitively big on stable revenue streams, they have been doing everything they can to disincentivize users from buying almost any of their products across all categories, and encourage subscription models. Not very easy to buy Office these days, especially if you are at a corporate level.

@Neverwild good point. Can’t wait for Starfield on Switch.

Is it just me or Ubisoft just stupid with business - can we do a poll about that ?

@Tharsman Not easy and not cheap to buy Office. A single seat license is bad enough. Entierprise site licensing is stratospheric. Especially when combined with upgrade pricing. You have to REALLY know your organization will be locked into an LTR for internal connectivity reason to not just do the sub. Meanwhile they're practically giving the subs away, comparatively at corporate pricing.

Seems crazy at first, but they have their quarterlies more reliable than Old Faithful at this point.

@AlwaysPlaying They do some dumb things, but then they had almost 2bn in 9 month earnings +1.6% YoY in Q3. Stupid doesn't get you +2bn.

I like the way some PlayStation fans say Gamepass leads to diluted, lesser games, while they’re sitting at home playing Forspoken 🤣

@xxk7xx I hadn't even heard of EA play pro before had to look it up & it's only on pc where alot of EA games get cracked anyway & it's £90 a year as opposed to standard EA play which is £20 a year lol

@Would_you_kindly
I had no idea as well. Even ea must have forgotten it exists

@StonyKL Game Pass won't damage the industry at all. Just like Netflix didn't close cinemas.

It is another option, that's all.

I've watch Dr. Strange at the cinema, and watched Black Panther on Disney+. Both works great.

Even with all that Disney acquired, there are still lots of big studios like: Paramount, Universal, Sony Pictures, Warner Bros. and that is only from classic studios, there are now Apple get in the game with movies too.

Game Pass has lots of great games in it and there are big third parties titles coming to the service. Wo Long, new title from Koei Tecmo coming on March 3rd is a good example, as well as it did in the past with the whole Yakuza series, MLB The Show. And that we are talking only about big titles, there are great smaller titles on the service as well.

As for Microsoft acquisitions, it is the same situation as before. Even if they succeed with Activision-Blizzard there are still other large players such as EA, Capcom, Konami, Sony, Nintendo, Tencent, Embracer, Square-Enix, Koei Tecmo... and that's only a list of big publishers, if we go into studios the list has no end.

Disney and Microsoft, as big as they are becoming, are way too far from being big enough to be able to damage an entire industry.

@themightyant I don't think it's a secret that a delayed port rarely sells very well unless its ridiculously hyped. Not even Xbox diehard fans seemed to care about the fact that Deathloop was added to XBox Game Pass at the end of the day.

After long enough, interest is simply lost, and a port is just an attempt to expand the long tail.

As for the MSRP on Game pass, XBox has a single price. There might be sales here and there, and you might be able to scour the internet for cheaper codes that are of questionable origin, but the official price is that.

I just went to Game.co.uk and argos.co.uk and the price listed for a full year of Gold Live is 49.99 pounds. That rather evenly converts to $59.79 USD at today's exchange rate.

There might be a sale here and there during Christmas that are basically marketing but they definitively are never 40% off.

@themightyant It's cant be a good fit for all, because even if willing, it's unlikely Microsoft could finance adding every single third party game into the service at once either way.

I listed game and argos because they are larger retailers. If Microsoft was driving a sale, it would be unlikely specific to any smaller retailer, it would be an across the board sale.

For the most part, if they were not selling the things, they would not be carrying them.

How some of these retailers sometimes manage to cut near half the price, is something I can only guess, but I am 99.9% certain their cut of selling these digital codes is not 40% for them to be able to sell things at such step discounts without cutting into their own revenue. Hell, I would be shocked if it turned out their cut is 10%.

Can you link an example of this that is not cdkeys or another second-hand key marketplace?