Do you think services like GamePass hurt game sales?

[Kane99]

With Gamepass becoming a huge service for Microsoft and Xbox, and PlayStation having their own similar service now, do you think these services hurt the games that are on it? I know Microsoft and company makes a ton off of gamepass, but I sure hope that the games on gamepass, get a fairly decent cut out of each game, same with what PlayStation offers with their service. 

Do you think that many of these games would have sold more if they were outside of gamepass like services? Or do you think they stand to make more money from being tied to a gamepass like service? 

I imagine each game gets a cut out of the service fee, but how much do you think that'd be? 

And for the bigger titles that aren't technically exclusive, I wonder how much those titles get from gamepass. 

[Empire]

Not really, you end up paying more then what I game is worth if you only play one single game from there network and not to mention most games on that network is there own or they make deals. But I say they are making big time money. I know that they do sales and discunts but I say not on there

[killamch89]

It naturally will but it won't be that big of an issue (at least not in the short term). It does help people who wanted a certain game to try it out for the whole period of their subscription and decide if they want to buy that particular game or not.

[Syntax]

I believe that it helps them since people can play the game for free and then end up either buying the DLC, or other games from the same publisher if they liked their experience. 

[Justin11]

It's imperative and we can't dispute that gamepass pays for the right to have this games on their sites and that would guarantee that the game company made a profit off it and for as long as that game is rented, bought , sold or streamed on gamepass the game companies gets paid.

[Justin11]

It's imperative and we can't dispute that gamepass pays for the right to have this games on their sites and that would guarantee that the game company made a profit off it and for as long as that game is rented, bought , sold or streamed on gamepass the game companies gets paid.

[m76]

Yes, definitely. And it does not just hurt game sales, but game development as a whole. You don't agree? Let me explain.

If games are sold individually their sales are a direct point of reference for their popularity and a very good way to measure the audience's interest for that type of game.

Games pass and similar subscription services however are like streaming services. It turns games into just content, not individual products. On a subscription service you try a ton of games that you'd never ever consider buying otherwise. This dilutes the product, makes the quality less important to publishers and they focus on just adding more 'content' every month to keep you subscribed and coming back.

I don't want content, I want a work of art, that someone made because they believed in a vision, and not to fill a quota mandated by Microsoft or EA, or whoever.

[Shagger]

35 minutes ago, m76 said:

Yes, definitely. And it does not just hurt game sales, but game development as a whole. You don't agree? Let me explain.

If games are sold individually their sales are a for that type of game.

Games pass and similar subscription services however are like streaming services. It turns games into just content, not individual products. On a subscription service you try a ton of games that you'd never ever consider buying otherwise. This dilutes the product, makes the quality less important to publishers and they focus on just adding more 'content' every month to keep you subscribed and coming back.

I don't want content, I want a work of art, that someone made because they believed in a vision, and not to fill a quota mandated by Microsoft or EA, or whoever.

 

You are aware that steaming services and subscription services track the amount of people that play that game, watch that movie, listen to that song and so on, right? Not only does this generate, as you put point it, "direct point of reference for their popularity and a very good way to measure the audience's interest", but those numbers also set how much is paid to the developers/artists/publishers from the host of those streaming/subscription services. I have Gamepass, been subscribed to it for I think about a year, and I've played a grand total of around 9, maybe 10 games through it. Most of which I've either played before on other platforms (Wanted to play those games on PC, because that's whare I use Gamepass) or am playing to beat, like most recently A Plague Tale: Requiem.

 

For something like Netflix or particularly music streaming services like Spotify, I'd agree at least in part. People to pay to explore what's out there on these services as there's little risk to trying something out because the content there tends to be short. Like you listened to that song, album or watch hat movie or first episode or two of that TV series and didn't like, that's no big dealt, it's a couple of hours of your life lost, so what. For video games people tend to be more selective because it takes usually takes hours to know if the game will actually be a good fit for you, even if you have Gamepass or some other subscription. Yes, there's less financial risk by trying a game out through subscription you have anyway, but that's still a lot of time to waste if you try games randomly, so I'm a long way from convinced that's how people actually use these services, I sure as hell don't.

 

If I've used anything to try out games I'd never normally consider playing, it would probably be the games that have been away for free, like on Epic Games Store, GOG and occasionally Steam. And you know, I do play liked games like they way you described. I don't I've played more than about 3-4 hours of any of them with maybe one or two exceptions.

[Demon_skeith]

MS is making money to the point Sony had to copy it, I think it's doing well. Wonder how long till Nintendo jumps on it.

[Justin11]

11 hours ago, m76 said:

If games are sold individually their sales are a direct point of reference for their popularity and a very good way to measure the audience's interest for that type of game.

Sales was important when we had just physical copies of video games , now when almost all games are in digital copies by just downloading or installing the file to your console memory and where you can play games online, streaming services are just another form of stores where you go to hire  physical copies of games.

I think the Game companies still know how well their games are doing from the number of streams they are getting on those platforms.

Edited October 21, 2022 by Justin11

[m76]

10 hours ago, Shagger said:

 

You are aware that steaming services and subscription services track the amount of people that play that game, watch that movie, listen to that song and so on, right?

 Of course they track the data, but it is misleading, since everything is 'free', the data is skewed towards less interesting games.

10 hours ago, Shagger said:

 

For something like Netflix or particularly music streaming services like Spotify, I'd agree at least in part. People to pay to explore what's out there on these services as there's little risk to trying something out because the content there tends to be short. Like you listened to that song, album or watch hat movie or first episode or two of that TV series and didn't like, that's no big dealt, it's a couple of hours of your life lost, so what. For video games people tend to be more selective because it takes usually takes hours to know if the game will actually be a good fit for you, even if you have Gamepass or some other subscription. Yes, there's less financial risk by trying a game out through subscription you have anyway, but that's still a lot of time to waste if you try games randomly, so I'm a long way from convinced that's how people actually use these services, I sure as hell don't.

I tried out many games on games pass that I'd not have otherwise, and that gets included in their data, despite of the fact that 90% of the games I tried were not very good in my opinion, 5% mediocre, and 5% actually decent games. But all that MS sees is that I played all of them, they all get similar payouts, and all get their sequels greenlit. This is why I think it hurts game development. It reduces the bar for what gets picked up and published, because subscription services crave content even if it is low quality, this is no different in gaming than in TV.

10 hours ago, Shagger said:

If I've used anything to try out games I'd never normally consider playing, it would probably be the games that have been away for free, like on Epic Games Store, GOG and occasionally Steam. And you know, I do play liked games like they way you described. I don't I've played more than about 3-4 hours of any of them with maybe one or two exceptions.

Many indie games can be finished in 3-4 hours. And the average player doesn't even finish games, so the picture gets even more muddied.
I usually don't even go for free games because 99% of the time if it is a game I'm interested in then I already bought it by the time they are giving it away. But a subscription service is different, you get fomo to try more games before loosing the chance.  It's like a demo disc from way back when, where I'd try every game on the disc. Sure I'm not trying every game on games pass, only those that vaguely look interesting at least, but I'm giving the time of day to games that I'd never consider buying outright.

[killamch89]

On 10/21/2022 at 12:30 AM, Demon_skeith said:

MS is making money to the point Sony had to copy it, I think it's doing well. Wonder how long till Nintendo jumps on it.

The PS Plus just isn't quite as appealing and the fact that there are now some Playstation exclusives on Steam and more joining the platform over the next few years, Sony will really have to come up with a way to differentiate themselves from the Gamepass if they want to see any success.

[Grungie]

The developers should be getting a cut if they aren't already. I don't see how it hurts game sales, it's just an alternate stream of revenue. It lets people try out games that they otherwise might not have bought, and the developer gets a cut, as opposed to piracy where they got paid zero.

[killamch89]

3 hours ago, Grungie said:

The developers should be getting a cut if they aren't already. I don't see how it hurts game sales, it's just an alternate stream of revenue. It lets people try out games that they otherwise might not have bought, and the developer gets a cut, as opposed to piracy where they got paid zero.

More or less the point I was making but it would affect it inadvertently - not to large degree but you always have those people that'd normally always rush out and buy games on release will prefer Gamepass a whole lot more.

[Shortie]

I am a firm believer that Game Pass actually helps developers more than it hurts them and my reason for believing that is because you always get gamers who want to keep their collection going and because of that, even if the game is on Game Pass, it doesn't stop them from buying it physically and keeping it in their collection. Game Pass is a great way for gamers to be able to try games for an affordable monthly price and decide if a game is something they want to purchase it. I feel a lot of developers thrive from allowing their games to be on Game Pass.