I think it will depend on what Microsoft promises to the team. Eventually the funding needs to como from someone, and seems that Game Pass is great for games that can’t drive by selling copies alone or are not Baldur’s Gate III level of quality.
Yeah that’s fair. But with how they’ve managed other “first party” titles I do not trust their policies.
I’m most curious to see how Senua’s Saga comes how since it should be a single player-only game that won’t fit into the monetization scheme Microsoft seems to like most
Which monetization scheme is that? It’s not like Starfield, Hi-Fi Rush, or Psychonauts 2 had microtransactions, and those are just some of the games that actually had time to cook after Microsoft bought them. For how they’ve managed Halo and Gears, I don’t believe microtransactions made their way into the campaigns, unlike an Assassin’s Creed. I’m not sure I see the association here.
Both yes and no. Epic hasn’t gotten anything out of their attempt.
Xbox is another matter, they are still trying. It was more or less the point of buying all those developer studios.
They are just not rushing it.
But yeah, the plan is to get the Game Pass concept to a certain point of normalization. Which they’re quite close to achieving.
By every metric we know of, they’re very far from achieving it. Even with some of the largest companies by market cap now in their ownership, they’re still nowhere close to owning the breadth of games that get made. Palworld still sold more copies on Steam than there were Game Pass subscribers who tried the game out as part of their subscription. Growth for Game Pass has slowed dramatically to something in the ballpark of a plateau, and subscription services for games only accounted for 10% of spending. This was two weeks ago that Matt Piscatella of Circana said that the idea that subscription services would take over gaming is unsupported by the data.
Palworld isn’t a MS Exclusive and the studios they bought haven’t churned out anything of note, yet. So it makes sense there hasn’t been any inclination of sudden growth in subscriptions.
But as I said, it’s a long con. The plan remains the same, get Game Pass into as many homes as possible. Let subscription become the new standard. It’s Microsoft after all, their track record speaks for itself.
You don’t have to agree with me, time will tell if it works out for them or not. But as for my part, I’m still actively against it and will stick to my guns about “Subscription Services and Storefront Exclusivity” being a no go.
I don’t have a subscription to it either. Their games aren’t exclusive to Game Pass, and you can still buy them a la carte. In fact, my point with Palworld is that many more people still opt to even though the intuitive answer is that it’s cheaper to rent the game for one month than it is to buy it outright, but I think people have a pretty firm grasp at the value you’re giving up to not own it outright. It was a long con to get people to buy games from the Windows Store too, and people rejected it. They can’t squeeze blood from a stone if the market doesn’t want something. The online subscription service that is doing the nasty stuff that you’re afraid of is Nintendo’s; there are games there only available via subscription. Not to say you’re wrong for where you draw the line in the sand on what you will or will not buy, but nothing indicates we’re anywhere close to that doomsday scenario.
I think it will depend on what Microsoft promises to the team. Eventually the funding needs to como from someone, and seems that Game Pass is great for games that can’t drive by selling copies alone or are not Baldur’s Gate III level of quality.
Yeah that’s fair. But with how they’ve managed other “first party” titles I do not trust their policies.
I’m most curious to see how Senua’s Saga comes how since it should be a single player-only game that won’t fit into the monetization scheme Microsoft seems to like most
Which monetization scheme is that? It’s not like Starfield, Hi-Fi Rush, or Psychonauts 2 had microtransactions, and those are just some of the games that actually had time to cook after Microsoft bought them. For how they’ve managed Halo and Gears, I don’t believe microtransactions made their way into the campaigns, unlike an Assassin’s Creed. I’m not sure I see the association here.
Personally, I’d say anything on PC that goes Storefront Exclusive or require a Subscription to play is an automatic “no go.”
And MS leans quite a bit on both of those concepts.
But alas, the rest of the world seems to be of a differente mind. So eventually everything not indie will likely go down that road.
On PC they don’t do those things. Or rather, they tried, and the market rejected it.
Both yes and no. Epic hasn’t gotten anything out of their attempt. Xbox is another matter, they are still trying. It was more or less the point of buying all those developer studios. They are just not rushing it. But yeah, the plan is to get the Game Pass concept to a certain point of normalization. Which they’re quite close to achieving.
By every metric we know of, they’re very far from achieving it. Even with some of the largest companies by market cap now in their ownership, they’re still nowhere close to owning the breadth of games that get made. Palworld still sold more copies on Steam than there were Game Pass subscribers who tried the game out as part of their subscription. Growth for Game Pass has slowed dramatically to something in the ballpark of a plateau, and subscription services for games only accounted for 10% of spending. This was two weeks ago that Matt Piscatella of Circana said that the idea that subscription services would take over gaming is unsupported by the data.
Palworld isn’t a MS Exclusive and the studios they bought haven’t churned out anything of note, yet. So it makes sense there hasn’t been any inclination of sudden growth in subscriptions.
But as I said, it’s a long con. The plan remains the same, get Game Pass into as many homes as possible. Let subscription become the new standard. It’s Microsoft after all, their track record speaks for itself.
You don’t have to agree with me, time will tell if it works out for them or not. But as for my part, I’m still actively against it and will stick to my guns about “Subscription Services and Storefront Exclusivity” being a no go.
I don’t have a subscription to it either. Their games aren’t exclusive to Game Pass, and you can still buy them a la carte. In fact, my point with Palworld is that many more people still opt to even though the intuitive answer is that it’s cheaper to rent the game for one month than it is to buy it outright, but I think people have a pretty firm grasp at the value you’re giving up to not own it outright. It was a long con to get people to buy games from the Windows Store too, and people rejected it. They can’t squeeze blood from a stone if the market doesn’t want something. The online subscription service that is doing the nasty stuff that you’re afraid of is Nintendo’s; there are games there only available via subscription. Not to say you’re wrong for where you draw the line in the sand on what you will or will not buy, but nothing indicates we’re anywhere close to that doomsday scenario.