Support NeoGAF

[John Wick]

Aren't EA and Ubisoft publishers. If they hate gamepass so much why are their games on there? That doesn't sound unanimous to me...just sayin.

A poster already explained it above. Clearly the publishers don't want their big games day and date on GP. It makes sense to put games on that aren't really going to sell much after a certain time.
If this was the argument you bought to the table then you'll have to try a bit harder.

 

[Helghan]

People see subscription games as having less value. If you can get 100+ games for a yearly fee, why would you pay $70 for one game?

It’s the same for how Netflix has devalued film etc.

Are you buying more or fewer games as a subscriber?

For AAA games to continue to be made from non-first party publishers they need their $70 up front.

If everyone would be on a subscription and buy no games or no one would be on a subscription and only buy games, I'm sure that the subscription is actually generating more money that can flow back into creating great games.

This can easily be calculated based on avg. games bought per year per user, and the price of a monthly/yearly Game Pass subscription

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

And yet they still put the games on there?

No. Jim Ryan doesn't put any games on GamePass... WTF are you talking about?

 

[SEGA_2012]

Jim and Phill are two clowns.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Publishers told him, and he said this in court. So obviously can't be lying.

If Xbox has other evidence on record, they are free to sue Jim Ryan here. If they don't, then it means they also accept it.

 

[phil_t98]

No. Jim Ryan doesn't put any games on GamePass... WTF are you talking about?

its an odd statement to say publishers don't like gamepass when Sony has a very similar service but they don't put their own games on day one

so with Jims statement are publishers scared Microsoft do that and why?

 

[adamsapple]

Publishers told him, and he said this in court. So obviously can't be lying.

If Xbox has other evidence on record, they are free to sue Jim Ryan here. If they don't, then it means they also accept it.

Which publishers ?

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Well Microsoft said they love it. I'm afraid this is all heresay.

Jim said MS is not a publisher. Checkmate.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

So this court case would have the emails where Microsoft has reached out to secure big ip day one and it not come to fruition. I guess we can view those emails?

Can't be certain of that.

 

[Freeman76]

Another false Jim Ryan narrative. The publishers getting paid don't seem to mind the security.

Amazing how much mindshare XBox has on this site. Almost XBox obsessed. The vast majority of current threads are all XBox related. And, like this one, even the Sony articles are about Xbox.

Anyone but fanboys can see that Jim Ryan is a mug. After he spoke yesterday even their investors got cold feet and started pulling funds because the guy just talks shit. Its nothing to do with Xbox vs Playstation for most people, apart from the minority who defend their beloved toy so fiercely that they have to ignore facts to maintain their hatred for their 'opposition'. The world of gaming is cracked

 

[Chukhopops]

If only he could have avoided the whole all business, then maybe, just maybe fanboys wouldn't make long-nose jimbo memes all the time.

That’s his fault for not saying something accurate then. It’s not like people don’t get upset when Phil Spencer says something that can be interpreted wrongly over an hour long live interview…

I think it’s known that some publishers like Take-Two don’t like sub services in general (not GP specifically). Others clearly enjoy the added visibility and the sales it brings, like Paradox, Humble Games, Focus etc.

It’s not a black/white situation.

 

[JackMcGunns]

Did he ask GAMERS if they like GamePass? I bet he didn't.

 

[Loomy]

From a business perspective, Day 1 on Game Pass only benefits Microsoft and small studios

 

[DeepEnigma]

I'm guessing it's this...

AAA 3rd party publishers like receiving the revenue from their new releases.

MS is offering them money, but the amount is too small to court these bigger titles to GamePass.

Then, when these titles release, they're seeing 80:20 splits in favor of PlayStation because GamePass is dulling their audience. When you have access to so many games, it's harder to justify spending $70 on a new release. These publishers feel that GamePass has shrunk the audience on XBox...therefore they don't like GamePass.

During the PS4 / XBox One gen, we saw game sales splits commensurate with the install base. We're not seeing that today.

 

[Ozriel]

A poster already explained it above. Clearly the publishers don't want their big games day and date on GP. It makes sense to put games on that aren't really going to sell much after a certain time.
If this was the argument you bought to the table then you'll have to try a bit harder.

Did the Poster also explain about EA and Ubisoft’s sub services where they put their games on day one?

What about the MLB? Or Atlus putting new Persona games there, day one?

 

[saintjules]

Please not 100 single threads on what Jim or expert A or B said.

Thank you! It's so fucking annoying.

 

[Helghan]

Publishers told him, and he said this in court. So obviously can't be lying.

If Xbox has other evidence on record, they are free to sue Jim Ryan here. If they don't, then it means they also accept it.

Hahaha, you can be so naive. He also didn't remember if he met with regulatory bodies after October 2022. Yeah OK Jim, this was only all over the media...

 

[Gone]

Jim Lyin at it once again.

 

[crackajack]

This can easily be calculated based on avg. games bought per year per user, and the price of a monthly/yearly Game Pass subscription

Any user that spends more money with GP than he would have without it, is terribly stupid. So yeah, might have actually worked on average. lol

I spent most money before old Plus was a thing, on PC, and before that on expensive Nintendo cartridges. But after Plus arrived I switched to mostly playing whatever they added to the service and since then, so also now with Extra and Premium, I spent more on the sub than on single games on all plattforms combined. So Sony "lose" money on me and I can play more than ever. Would I have been in the MS ecosystem GP would have been the very same. I spent more on 360 games than on PS4, while having a PS3 and not having an Xbone.

From a business perspective, Day 1 on Game Pass only benefits Microsoft and small studios

Small studios I can see, if they happen to get a good deal on a mediocre or even bad game.
But imho MS played their trump card too early. And benefited way less from the whole GP adventure than they could have with a little more patience. Gamepass without day one would have made also an impact. Free stuff is nice but if it does not generate revenue afterwards, like mobile does, it just devalues the entire portfolio. Day one after getting their pipeline in order would have been an immense news while now people are already expecting eveything in it, their marketing is basically based solely on this, so finally getting into gear hopefully after Starfield, is already tarnished by dropping that too early. Sony countered it and did not even have to match day one because exclusives matter more than just being a cheap flat rate offer with lacking in exclusives. MS played their cards imho a bit rushed, like the whole spent billions for desired dominance strategy is overall. They want to buy success and have no real clue that work should get them there too, just were they left of the gas after being envious of the Wii and chasing that dream.

 

[ReBurn]

Not if they end up being copy pasta like so many indie games have become.

Subscription services and cheap/free to play games disincentivize creativity and experimentation. If you are trying to design a low cost product that drives the largest number of plays/downloads you aren’t creating a 20 hour point and click puzzling adventure featuring a fencing Gorilla named Greg.

You get a tweened animation- or low effort pixel-based metroidvania side scroller or isometric dungeon crawler with procedurally generated areas. At least the merchandising of a digital store front culls some of the b-game rejects.

When everything is included with your subscription, you are faced with the infinite scroll nightmare of games created by developers that liked playing games but had no business making them.

In case you haven't noticed AAA is copypasta these days, too. We're in the era of sequels that are the same game as the previous game with pretty much just a new story. That and an endless stream of remakes/remasters of older games. AAA plays it so safe that new ideas and ways to play have slowed to barely a trickle. Even new IP's are iterating on the safe patterns and gameplay loops set two generations ago. Modern era AAA is higher effort copy and paste, but it's pretty much copy and paste just the same except the games take 5 years and $100m to make.

It also seems like your opinion on indies is informed more by talking about them in online forums and not actually playing them, because indie production values has also been increasing alongside AAA. There's tons more variety in Indies than there is in most of what the big publishers, including the platform holders, are putting out.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Jim Lyin at it once again.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

its an odd statement to say publishers don't like gamepass when Sony has a very similar service but they don't put their own games on day one

so with Jims statement are publishers scared Microsoft do that and why?

Jim's comments are correct. And the criticism for GamePass includes PS+ Extra/Premium too. He didn't need to mention his own service because it's obvious.

Publishers don't like game sub services because they destroy individual game value. GamePass's impact is more pronounced than PS+ because the obvious differentiator between GP and PS+ is MS's push for games to launch day and date on their respective service.

Rarely do any first or 3rd party games launch on PS+/Now day one. Launching day one on a subscription service is the part that is value destroying for games. It creates a race to the bottom, similar to what F2P did to mobile games.

That said, even games launching on GamePass and PS+ after they've launched through traditional means is a problem for publishers. It conditions gamers on the platform to not buy games day one but wait for an eventual GamePass release later. That will invariably impact individual game long-term sales revenues.

Gamers clearly won't buy games anymore if they know everything will come to their gaming sub service. This is clear in Xbox FP game sales as well as their revenues from 3rd party software sales on the platform.

Also don't forget, PS+ Extra/Premium only exists because of the pressure GamePass put on PS as its competitor.

 

[fallingdove]

In case you haven't noticed AAA is copypasta these days, too. We're in the era of sequels that are the same game as the previous game with pretty much just a new story. That and an endless stream of remakes/remasters of older games. AAA plays it so safe that new ideas and ways to play have slowed to barely a trickle. Even new IP's are iterating on the safe patterns and gameplay loops set two generations ago. Modern era AAA is higher effort copy and paste, but it's pretty much copy and paste just the same except the games take 5 years and $100m to make.

It also seems like your opinion on indies is informed more by talking about them in online forums and not actually playing them, because indie production values has also been increasing alongside AAA. There's tons more variety in Indies than there is in most of what the big publishers, including the platform holders, are putting out.

I don’t play the AAA copy pasta either.

And my opinion is based on the games I have actually played. The last 5 I purchased were Prodeus, Tunic, Chained Echoes, Eastward, and Stray.

Some games have upped their production value but a large percentage of indie games releasing stick to many of the conventions I listed in my original response.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

In case you haven't noticed AAA is copypasta these days, too. We're in the era of sequels that are the same game as the previous game with pretty much just a new story. That and an endless stream of remakes/remasters of older games. AAA plays it so safe that new ideas and ways to play have slowed to barely a trickle. Even new IP's are iterating on the safe patterns and gameplay loops set two generations ago. Modern era AAA is higher effort copy and paste, but it's pretty much copy and paste just the same except the games take 5 years and $100m to make.

It also seems like your opinion on indies is informed more by talking about them in online forums and not actually playing them, because indie production values has also been increasing alongside AAA. There's tons more variety in Indies than there is in most of what the big publishers, including the platform holders, are putting out.

Fucking nailed it. AAA gaming these days is an assembly line of soulless sequels and focus group tested by the book mounds of meh. If services like GamePass/PS+ scares publishers and shakes the industry up, then good.

 

[PontiusFeeb]

Music publishers don't like people streaming music instead of buying CDs or LPs either. Sometimes consumers win.

 

[Gambit2483]

His point about devaluation strikes true to me.

I have PlayStation plus premium, but I still spend about £1500/yr on software for the ps5.

Yet since buying the seriesX a couple year ago, I’ve not bought a single game. “I’ll just get it on gamespass”

I’m an upper income 40yr old, so am not price sensitive and have had 40 years of gaming to expect that games are “bought” and the associated value proposition. Yet even I have been trained not to buy games on xbox.

Kids and teens playing now are price sensitive, so this will be even more acute for them. They will be spending their entire gaming life in a world where the value perception of games is “they are free with a relatively cheap subscription”, this value perception grows ever more acute the more major IP and studios microsoft swallow. In a decade that audience will be the primary spenders, and they will have been trained implicitly NOT to buy games.

Microsoft is also approaching it from a loss leader perspective paying out huge sums for games to secure them for gamespass, tho those values would still be a long way from covering development costs. The amount they are offering won’t be sustained as they make it attractive in its own right with first party IP. This is all happening under the shadow of exploding development costs.

Short term I can see devs seeing benefits from it, but long term I struggle to see how it won’t be hugely damaging to third party devs…unless they cram their games with other ways to monetise them after releasing on gamespass. Those disruptive forces will also make more studios more open to the relative safety of acquisition, further consolidating the market.

Anyhow, just my thoughts on it…we won’t really see the real impact of this stuff for another decade.

I don't think a subscription service can really work in this industry...I agree that the current and next generations are being trained on the Xbox platform to NOT buy games on the platform but my reasoning for why its unsustainable was more from the ever increasing number of publishers demanding a Gamepass deal.

In fact I made a Poll about it...

 

[StealthGoblin]

If everyone would be on a subscription and buy no games or no one would be on a subscription and only buy games, I'm sure that the subscription is actually generating more money that can flow back into creating great games.

This can easily be calculated based on avg. games bought per year per user, and the price of a monthly/yearly Game Pass subscription

Microsoft’s own data is that their GamePass subs spend about 20% less on games.

Think about it - if Sony thought they’d make more money by going the GamePass model - they’d do it. They are the best platform for revenue and monetisation. Jim Ryan knows his stuff. He lead SIE’s best geographical region and has had outstanding results since taking on the big job.

The head of Activision and Take feel the same way as him.

So the three biggest publishers by revenue are all publicly saying the same thing - the others, we can assume based on Ryan’s deposition, are saying it privately.

Microsoft stand to gain the most by disrupting the current model but in doing so devalue games. Great for consumers in the short term, but publishers will not be putting in big budget games into those services if they aren’t making their money back at the start.

 

[phil_t98]

Jim's comments are correct. And the criticism for GamePass includes PS+ Extra/Premium too. He didn't need to mention his own service because it's obvious.

Publishers don't like game sub services because they destroy individual game value. GamePass's impact is more pronounced than PS+ because the obvious differentiator between GP and PS+ is MS's push for games to launch day and date on their respective service.

Rarely do any first or 3rd party games launch on PS+/Now day one. Launching day one on a subscription service is the part that is value destroying for games. It creates a race to the bottom, similar to what F2P did to mobile games.

That said, even games launching on GamePass and PS+ after they've launched through traditional means is a problem for publishers. It conditions gamers on the platform to not buy games day one but wait for an eventual GamePass release later. That will invariably impact individual game long-term sales revenues.

Gamers clearly won't buy games anymore if they know everything will come to their gaming sub service. This is clear in Xbox FP game sales as well as their revenues from 3rd party software sales on the platform.

Also don't forget, PS+ Extra/Premium only exists because of the pressure GamePass put on PS as its competitor.

if that was the case he should be mentioning his own service to because it comes across wrong when your just criticising the opposition on something like this. calling out gamepass specifically comes across bitter were if he said publishers don't like subscription services it comes across better


how exactly is gamepass impact more pronounced then PS+ exactly?

 

[DeepEnigma]

if that was the case he should be mentioning his own service to because it comes across wrong when your just criticising the opposition on something like this. calling out gamepass specifically comes across bitter were if he said publishers don't like subscription services it comes across better


how exactly is gamepass impact more pronounced then PS+ exactly?

He was specifically asked a question about the Game Pass model. This was testimony not an interview.

Sony does not solely market PS+ like the end all be all "Netflix of Gaming™" service to the entire brand's makeup like MS does, and has been doing for 5+ years conditioning their base. Third party software sales splits are showing the side effect of that. Hovering around 80/20 like the PS2 era, not reflective of the console split 60/40 like it was every gen until this one.

Sony markets it as complementary. They still heavily push the individual sales distribution model through marketing and deals, which you would have to be a total intellectually dishonest clown to think Publishers/Developers still don't prefer that model for big AAA ROI.

 

[Roberts]

That’s his fault for not saying something accurate then. It’s not like people don’t get upset when Phil Spencer says something that can be interpreted wrongly over an hour long live interview…

I think it’s known that some publishers like Take-Two don’t like sub services in general (not GP specifically). Others clearly enjoy the added visibility and the sales it brings, like Paradox, Humble Games, Focus etc.

It’s not a black/white situation.

Yes, I don't doubt that some publishers have just about zero interest to put their games on Game Pass and I totally believe that Jim has talked about it with some of them, but to say "all publishers" is not just inaccurate, but a pure lie. I hope it just slipped off his tongue.

 

[Jigsaah]

A poster already explained it above. Clearly the publishers don't want their big games day and date on GP. It makes sense to put games on that aren't really going to sell much after a certain time.
If this was the argument you bought to the table then you'll have to try a bit harder.

Day and date. The only day and date people should be concerned about is MICROSOFT FIRST PARTY. WTF!? So it's being suggested that because publisher's don't often do day and date on Gamepass somehow this lends credence to what Jim Ryan is saying?

Go tickle yourself.

 

[Roxkis_ii]

Yes, I don't doubt that some publishers have just about zero interest to put their games on Game Pass and I totally believe that Jim has talked about it with some of them, but to say "all publishers" is not just inaccurate, but a pure lie. I hope it just slipped off his tongue.

I thought it was all publishers he's talked to.

I didn't directly hear his testimony so I could be incorrect.

 

[Methos#1975]

Lol,so Jim was telling the truth and one of those publishers is Activision lmao. You cannot make this stuff up.

 

[Negotiator101]

Mostly smaller publishers with games that don’t sell too well to begin with

And? Ryan didn't make a distinction.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Lol,so Jim was telling the truth and one of those publishers is Activision lmao. You cannot make this stuff up.

Have I missed something?

 

[Methos#1975]

Have I missed something?

Kotick stated he hates these subscription services and gamepass and that they hurt most companies financially a few minutes ago during his testimony

 

[SportsFan581]

These anti-GP beliefs are so commonly held that most of the major publishers have had multiple games on the service.

Yeah, that checks out.

 

[Roxkis_ii]

These anti-GP beliefs are so commonly held that most of the major publishers have had multiple games on the service.

Yeah, that checks out.

Day and date??

 

[envyzeal]

Have I missed something?

 

[SportsFan581]

Day and date??

There are tons of day and date games on there from all kinds of publishers, yeah. Not a lot of AAAs get added day one because obviously the numbers there are easier to make work for first-party, but even there I'm sure MS is the primary limiting factor and not the publishers (they don't want to pay the price they'd have to pay to get a huge AAA on the service day one, they can build those themselves and add them at cost).

Kotick's statements about this are great for MS's positioning, another way of saying that these games being on GP is not limiting Sony's subscription because these games would never have been on there anyway. Also drives home the point that consumers would never get this access without this deal.

 

[Azelover]

Please not 100 single threads on what Jim or expert A or B said.

At least we aren't talking about Michael Pachter anymore..

 

[Sleepwalker]

 

[NickFire]

IMO, this is one of those situations where truth and whole truth are not necessarily one and the same.

Also a good reminder that just because one man is full of shit, it does not mean his adversary is a saint.

And for what it's worth, Jim could have clarified new generation only impressions a lot sooner than when Sony actually did.

 

[FrankWza]

 

[Del_X]

Translation: "Sony doesn't like Game Pass"

 

[Ev1L AuRoN]

Gamepass is fine as a service, the day one access that I don't think its a good idea for AAA.

 

[Roxkis_ii]

There are tons of day and date games on there from all kinds of publishers, yeah. Not a lot of AAAs get added day one because obviously the numbers there are easier to make work for first-party, but even there I'm sure MS is the primary limiting factor and not the publishers (they don't want to pay the price they'd have to pay to get a huge AAA on the service day one, they can build those themselves and add them at cost).

But here's the thing, even if Xbox can make gamepass work for it's first party releases, it going to be sacrificing big third parties games to do it. It doesn't seem worth it to me, especially concidered their track record for original 1st part releases.

 

[kevm3]

I'm sure they don't. Why would they?

Maybe indie developers who are finding it hard to get eyes on their title would like it, but why would a company who just spent hundreds of millions on their title want to put it on some streaming service where gamers can access it and a bunch of other games for $16 bucks a month. That doesn't benefit anyone other than Microsoft.

 

[DenchDeckard]

You do understand that his role is to say he won't put cod on subscription services because MS needs him to have this stance......

MS are doing the public and consumers a favour by offering cod on game pass...which will happen if the sale closes.

But won't happen if it doesn't.

 

[Gambit2483]

Gamepass is fine as a service, the day one access that I don't think its a good idea for AAA.

Except that is the main feature that most Xbox owners use as a reason to pay for the service. Can you imagine if Starfield was no longer day one access?