General Gaming Developers share their thoughts about Xbox Game Pass (Eurogamer)

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

The former CEO of Paradox Interactive was pretty blunt:

 

Quote

"While the Game Pass model to us is still a decent model, we think we're not getting paid enough, because people play our games more than they play very single-player driven narratives."

 

[PaladinSolo]

Paradox also wants to sell you a dozen DLC ad ons for every single fucking one of their games, no one is buying them if they don't own the game.

[Keyser_Soze]

Let's listen to the Paradox guy, the one who's praising EGS.

[Dodger]

There was also this from Playdead

 

Quote

"Consumers want as many games as possible, as free as possible, and you can't get anything for free, so you need to find the right price, but that's the angle," began Dino Patti, co-founder of Playdead and latterly, Somerville developer Jumpship. "Developers need to look at what does this get me, and for me, and I might be biased, but I think the way business is for Game Pass, it's the first time it's actually what I would consider fair for developers.

"[All the other times] I've been suggested subscription it's never worked out, because they don't know what developers need, and in the end, it is developers putting out a game for free!" Patti went on, adding, "with Game Pass they're doing it correctly for the developers.

 

[XxEvil AshxX]

3 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said:

Let's listen to the Paradox guy, the one who's praising EGS.

 

who apparently would like to charge per hour for his company's games.

[Bacon]

CEO complains about not making enough money. Wow, unheard of. 

[Keyser_Soze]

6 hours ago, XxEvil AshxX said:

 

who apparently would like to charge per hour for his company's games.

 

He kinda does that with the amount of DLC they put out for their games.

[RedSoxFan9]

[Keyser_Soze]

That's $150 worth of DLC but that's the sale price!

[Xbob42]

That torrent is KILOBYTES worth of data!

[Paperclyp]

I’m uneasy about services like gamepass, because they start off looking like amazing deals for us, but in the end they’re always used to fuck us over. 

[Keyser_Soze]

[Remarkableriots]

20 hours ago, XxEvil AshxX said:

 

who apparently would like to charge per hour for his company's games.

I don't see what is wrong with that. If his company's games are played for a lot longer on a streaming service they should get a bigger cut. 

[PaladinSolo]

38 minutes ago, Remarkableriots said:

I don't see what is wrong with that. If his company's games are played for a lot longer on a streaming service they should get a bigger cut. 

Because it doesn't make sense, what game charges you more if you play it more, if they feel they aren't getting paid enough per unique user thats their fault for agreeing to it.

[Paperclyp]

17 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

Because it doesn't make sense, what game charges you more if you play it more, if they feel they aren't getting paid enough per unique user thats their fault for agreeing to it.

Services and agreements change over time. They haven’t really figured out how to make the model work yet. Your first sentence doesn’t really apply, because they’re not talking about charging the user more, they’re talking about charging the company managing the service more. Which makes sense. If their game is bringing more users to their service and keeping them there longer, it makes sense to compensate them better. 

 

You’re correct that they’re the ones who agree to the terms, but those terms aren't in perpetuity, and it’s beneficial for companies to put these ideas out there for future negotiations. Many musicians did the same when streaming services were getting big. 

 

I understand that this specific dude’s company goes overboard with DLC and so it’s fun to dunk on him, but the point he’s making is a good one. What about games that are responsible with DLC? They need to find a way to make the system work for them, too. (Which could mean a completely new take on extra content with games). 

[Keyser_Soze]

2 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

I understand that this specific dude’s company goes overboard with DLC and so it’s fun to dunk on him, but the point he’s making is a good one. What about games that are responsible with DLC? They need to find a way to make the system work for them, too. (Which could mean a completely new take on extra content with games). 

 

What he says doesn't make sense. People play our games more than a single player game. But if you bought the game at $60 / $20 (whatever - Skylines is $8 right now) you could play it as long as you want and you wouldn't have to pay a penny more.

[PaladinSolo]

3 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

Services and agreements change over time. They haven’t really figured out how to make the model work yet. Your first sentence doesn’t really apply, because they’re not talking about charging the user more, they’re talking about charging the company managing the service more. Which makes sense. If their game is bringing more users to their service and keeping them there longer, it makes sense to compensate them better. 

 

You’re correct that they’re the ones who agree to the terms, but those terms aren't in perpetuity, and it’s beneficial for companies to put these ideas out there for future negotiations. Many musicians did the same when streaming services were getting big. 

 

I understand that this specific dude’s company goes overboard with DLC and so it’s fun to dunk on him, but the point he’s making is a good one. What about games that are responsible with DLC? They need to find a way to make the system work for them, too. (Which could mean a completely new take on extra content with games). 

No its pretty much figured out, if these devs don't like it don't put your game on the service.

[Paperclyp]

1 minute ago, Keyser_Soze said:

 

What he says doesn't make sense. People play our games more than a single player game. But if you bought the game at $60 / $20 (whatever - Skylines is $8 right now) you could play it as long as you want and you wouldn't have to pay a penny more.

I honestly don’t know what that has to do with what he’s talking about in terms of having his game on game pass. I would guess the dev would prefer they buy the game outright, but without a lot of contextual data it’s hard to get into that discussion. 

[Paperclyp]

1 minute ago, PaladinSolo said:

No its pretty much figured out, if these devs don't like it don't put your game on the service.

Lol oh ok. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 hours ago, Paperclyp said:

I’m uneasy about services like gamepass, because they start off looking like amazing deals for us, but in the end they’re always used to fuck us over. 

As long as you recognize that the service should only really be used for single-player "one and done" titles, I don't see how we're being screwed by them.  You're going to have to elaborate on this further for me to see the logic here.

[PaladinSolo]

2 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

Lol oh ok. 

Its pretty fucking simple, "we'll give you X amount to put your game on our service" you either say yes or no, don't say yes then whine people like your game and play it a lot.  The idea they would have made more money not putting the game on the service is just stupid, theres no telling if people would have played your game in the same numbers had they not already paid for access to it via the service.

[Paperclyp]

3 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

As long as you recognize that the service should only really be used for single-player "one and done" titles, I don't see how we're being screwed by them.  You're going to have to elaborate on this further for me to see the logic here.

Because I don't think that's the end goal for the service. I think its goal is to be an all encompassing service that eventually gets too big for its britches and changes the whole industry for the worse, ala Netflix. 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

Its pretty fucking simple, "we'll give you X amount to put your game on our service" you either say yes or no, don't say yes then whine people like your game and play it a lot.  The idea they would have made more money not putting the game on the service is just stupid, theres no telling if people would have played your game in the same numbers had they not already paid for access to it via the service.

Never heard of the idea of negotiating through the press?

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

Because I don't think that's the end goal for the service. I think its goal is to be an all encompassing service that eventually gets too big for its britches and changes the whole industry for the worse, ala Netflix. 

How has Netflix made the industry worse? It certainly is different, but I would say overall better.

[Paperclyp]

2 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said:

Its pretty fucking simple, "we'll give you X amount to put your game on our service" you either say yes or no, don't say yes then whine people like your game and play it a lot.  The idea they would have made more money not putting the game on the service is just stupid, theres no telling if people would have played your game in the same numbers had they not already paid for access to it via the service.

That is a very short term way of seeing it. 

 

To use the music streaming analogy, you could have told Taylor Swift back then that fine, if you don't like what Spotify is compensating you, don't sign the deal. Which, happened (she had a deal, then she didn't like what she was being compensated given how much her music was benefiting the service, so she left, and they eventually offered her more, so she came back). And that's a very viable thing for Taylor Swift to do. 

 

But smaller musicians, or in this case game developers don't have as much freedom. Their only option might be to get on to a service like Game pass, and as time goes on and these services become more the norm for how people consume games, so eventually they're even more pigeonholed. And if they don't fight now, they might not have any leverage in the future. 

 

Again, I understand this specific dude's point rings a little hollow. But throwing your hands up and saying "well don't make the deal then" is at some point just being willfully obtuse about what he's doing here. 

[Paperclyp]

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

How has Netflix made the industry worse? It certainly is different, but I would say overall better.

I actually go back and forth about it, but it's too powerful, and now it's creating this arms race on content so eventually we're going to be paying more than ever to watch the stuff we want to watch. You're going to need your Disney subscription, your HBO subscription, your Netflix one, you're going to need a live TV subscription, etc. And it's changing the way that HBO creates content. Instead of quality, they're switching to quantity to compete. 

[SaysWho?]

7 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

How has Netflix made the industry worse? It certainly is different, but I would say overall better.

 

I could certainly see the argument that more and more streaming services will exist, you'll need a billion of them to watch everything, and it'll end up costing more than cable did anyway. In addition to that, as streaming grows, someone's ownership of the media declines. 

 

I don't think he's saying it's already worse. I just hope purchasing something and subscription services coexist.

[Paperclyp]

Also, I'd maybe encourage people to read the entire article if you haven't? 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Paperclyp said:

I actually go back and forth about it, but it's too powerful, and now it's creating this arms race on content so eventually we're going to be paying more than ever to watch the stuff we want to watch. You're going to need your Disney subscription, your HBO subscription, your Netflix one, you're going to need a live TV subscription, etc. And it's changing the way that HBO creates content. Instead of quality, they're switching to quantity to compete. 

 

7 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

I could certainly see the argument that more and more streaming services will exist, you'll need a billion of them to watch everything, and it'll end up costing more than cable did anyway. In addition to that, as streaming grows, someone's ownership of the media declines. 

 

I don't think he's saying it's already worse. I just hope purchasing something and subscription services coexist.

 

I get that. For me I just turn subs on and off as I finish the content I wanted to see on that service. Netflix is my only consistent subscription and I can see that ending in the next year or so. I spend significantly less on TV service now then when I had traditional cable/sat services.

[SaysWho?]

Just now, sblfilms said:

 

 

I get that. For me I just turn subs on and off as I finish the content I wanted to see on that service. Netflix is my only consistent subscription and I can see that ending in the next year or so. I spend significantly less on TV service now then when I had traditional cable/sat services.

 

Hell yeah, so far it's been good and the streaming live TV services have been good. But I do think there have been some warning signs for the future. Hopefully it pans out.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

Hell yeah, so far it's been good and the streaming live TV services have been good. But I do think there have been some warning signs for the future. Hopefully it pans out.

We are definitely in for some growing pains, but streaming music had the same thing for a few years, I think we will settle in to a future where things don’t feel so fractured. It’s messy right now for sure!

[crispy4000]

I personally worry about backlogging anything under a subscription model.  Games are long to the point where my subscription could expire before I can finish, or worse, they get delisted by the time I want to return if something else distracts me.  Good stuff leaves Games Pass every month.

 

Plus, having to navigate between subscribing/unsubscribing based on what I most want to play at the moment would be a pain in the ass.  And a money wasting prospect too if I’m not on top of it.

 

I’m quite happy with game prices these days as is.   I’m most concerned about a blowback that could affect standard pricing, and a bunch more progression affecting micro-transactions mucking up single player stuff (like with Odyssey or Shadow of War initially).

 

 

[Spawn_of_Apathy]

21 hours ago, Bacon said:

CEO complains about not making enough money. Wow, unheard of. 

So Paradox going go EGS exclusive next?