VideoGame_Discussion

Yeah but once game pass becomes like a $30-40 dollar a month premium who’s really going to use it as much? Even at the rate it’s at now I only subscribe for like 3 months out of the year and gorge myself on all the games available I want to play at the time then say peace out for another 8-10 months.

TalonJedi87 wrote:

Once all games are streaming only you won't have a choice

Blah. The future of gaming access kinda sucks. Think I’ll just go back and replay all the disc games I’ve been saving for those depressing rainy future days.

Just like everything else- once the young are convinced this is the way it always was we will look like the loons for saying this isn’t the way.

Damn those kids and their music.

Feeb wrote:

Money. A consistent revenue stream and making like $200M+ each month off it is nothing to sneeze at. It takes away the pressure of having a AAA title flop. Over 2 billion dollars a year is one hell of an incentive to carry on down this path.

I think GP is a great value, especially compared to PS+. PS+ mostly just gets things that GP already had a year prior.

This is true. At least GP gives you new releases right away sometimes. PS+ is always on a delay with new games.

Sony made a mistake trying to provide a GP alternative. If you have your hedgehog don’t be baited into a pissing contest.

I’m not sure on numbers for these things. Is this data even public? Especially on the MS side they are historically very stingy with numbers. I know a couple of years back Sony made almost a billion more than ms in subs. It’s a user base game basically- and ms has been forced to leave its own base to keep up.

Not trying to bang on Sony for their approach with PS+ but I feel like I read the head of Sony just recently said that he didn't think GP made any sense because people only play one game at a time.
Maybe I didn't catch that correctly, but if so, I have no clue where they got that from. Maybe before GP I was more like that, but in the past 2 weeks or so I've played at least 7 different games on my XSX alone, plus likely 4 more on my PC.

For me with GP, I did the $1 upgrade initially and had right around 2.5 years when I did, then I got a full 37 months and did it again, only for the full 1 month price of $15 then. When that runs out in about 13 months I don't think I'll renew. I've accumulated so many games on that system and others that don't get as much attention, so I'm good with letting the sub lapse and maybe I'd go back to the old Live which is of course now GP-core or whatever - but maybe not, I had Live to play with my college buddy who lives far away, but he's a dad and doesn't play much period and even less so co-op.

I also know other people who didn't game a lot on their X1 but opted to try GP for the $1 price and then didn't pay attention and kept getting charged the $15/month and played virtually zero games via it before I believe eventually waking up to the fact and canceling. I'm sure like with most subs, M$ hopes folks do that and pay for it whilst hardly playing games. I presume that most GP contracts have an 'acquire' component to get games and then a 'use based' fee - meaning that if Ubisoft opts to put AC Syndicate on there, M$ pays them a flat fee and then tracks how much Syndicate gets played and then pays Ubi for time usage and/or number of players whom actually played more than like 30 mins. Clearly that's my assumption, but that model would mean that 1000s of active subs paying $15+/month and playing almost nothing period or think of those CoD only type of players, results in a good bit on income vs. pay outs. Not that GP doesn't seek to promote it's breadth of games, it does, but I'd bet they love folks who really only play 1 or a few games a bunch, vs. folks who play lots and lots of different games.

I tend to play a single game to exhaustion before I move on. It makes more sense to just own them if I’m putting 100 hrs in over a few weeks. It also keeps me a bit more honest- I’ll actually play what I invest in instead of just moving on and forgetting it. Good and bad. I only play things I know I like and don’t branch out too much. This is fine by me- I don’t have all the time to try it all and I know I’ll enjoy the time I do have.

There's zero wrong with that @Feeb and I was more like that before getting GP. I dumped days worth of time into The Division and its sequel and have lots of hours spent in the Forza Horizon series. I also see the value of playing only 1 at a time for at least a single genre, like I can't generally be playing 2+ FPSes at once b/c of controls or things that might be different. But I also have played a lot of smaller titles in the past few years, so playing multiple works for me. Plus of the several I've played on my XSX recently, some were more of a try it out type vs. diving in deep. I do like to explore in games as well, to get more from them and collecting things, so I hear you on that front too.

See, this just annoys me.

Wanted to grab Lego Star Wars for my kid on Xbox, digitally. $60! Yet, it's $15 physically, insane.

Yep. With physical, the market decides what the price will be because used games exist and also because stores eventually want to clear out stuff that isn't selling to replace it with stuff that will. With digital, if the publisher never wants it sold for a penny less then full MSRP then that's where it stays.

Your only hope at that point is to try to get the currency to buy it at a discount, and most of those deals are 10% or occasionally 15%.

(On the other hand, I'm also opposed to paying a ridiculous sum of money for a physical copy as opposed to a cheap download)

MrBean wrote:

standard $18 and deluxe $21 on eshop

So with all these rumors and announcement of MS going third party... We now possibly have Starfield being brought over and Gears of War being talked about. You have to ask yourself was buying Activision Blizzard a good thing? If you love the Xbox and how things traditionally were, you are probably thinking no. MS I think has finally realized that GP is not sustainable and that it's not going to give them the ROI they needed. I think this also finally pours cold water on the "MS has deep pockets and can play a long game"

I think it's kind of weird that Starfield could be headed over and the reason MS bought Zenimax was to keep it off. I mean. At least they will make more money of this.


If they release the first Halo on PS5 I will buy it just to have it on my shelf.

The way MS has handled its house over the last 3-4 years I’d definitely be concerned about the quality and frequency of releases moving forward. Maybe we’ll be surprised and this expedites blizzard’s ridiculously long dev times.

The rumors over the last few days are all sorts of weird and unnerving to me. I finally got back to Xbox after loving the original, the 360, moving completely to Sony because of the Xbox One mess, but the Series X bringing me back. Now all the third party talk...I don't know. Maybe they dug too big a hole with Game Pass and the Xbox One.

Spencer said they'll talk about it next week, but from a purely Xbox standpoint, that seems like an eternity. Maybe someone leaked these rumors to dissuade Xbox from doing them. I guess we'll see.

When 75% of your product name is box you really need a console. It really speaks to the idea that Xbox is a culture and not necessarily a machine that plays games. This is good and bad in that it promotes an unhealthy brand loyalty and emotional ties to inanimate products. This idea is not exclusive to MS stuff of course. Some extreme behavior on all fronts. It’s also an intended consequence of the loyalty they push. Sega don’t do what nintendont anymore - but that’s an example of the tribalism these guys try to create. You reap what you sow- the backlash will be emotional as well- which is usually not rational. Don’t think for a second that MS wanted to abandon these strong console based ties. Spin it as “obvious way to make more money” but realize the bombardment of how “pro consumer” Xbox was touted to be only to now espouse the idea of them only being in it to maximize profits. Not mutually exclusive but definitely a feel of hypocrisy- for me personally.

I don't regret buying my Series X but if I was hit by financial woes and decided to sell a console, it would likely be a top contender.

Probably would sell the PS4 first though since I have a PS5 and that makes it a bit redundant

Yeah nothing is sacred anymore when they’re all chasing after the same thing. Money. I member when the console wars were in full bloom and having an Xbox meant you can only play Halo and Gears on an Xbox and having a PlayStation meant I could only play games like Final Fantasy VII and Crash Bandicoot on PlayStation. Man times have changed when corpos want not just some of the money, but all of the money. It indeed does beg the question as to why MS spent almost 70 billion dollars on Activision if their goal is to go multi-platform though. Do they feel their selection of games and revenue will make for a large return on investment in say 10 years or less? That’s the only thing I can think of is analysts told MS to do this now and come out ahead and then some in the years to come.

Because when they own the biggest brands I'm gaming, they can sort of dictate the direction of the industry.

They are pushing hard for the all digital, zero consumer ownership future where every gamer is a continuous revenue stream. Being far and away the largest player in the industry allows them to dramatically increase the pace towards that goal.

For every one of us old guard who says we won't take part of that there are plenty of younger gamers who will.

I’m surprised - and not- by the number of Xbox guys cheering the idea of no more Xbox but making more money and having a bigger share than Nintendo and catching Sony. When did we become cheerleaders for billionaires?

Feeb wrote:

Everyone loves an underdog story.

No Xbox? No games? Winning.🤔

They may own the biggest brands but I am worried with MS's track record after the purchases. They are still having issues pushing out quality games. We have had Hi-Fi Rush. Starfield has been anything but a solid release.

It would have been great for MS if they could make games loo Ike Sony or Nintendo but this has sadly not been the case and has led to this.

Phil Spencer tweeted this today due to all the rumors:

"We're listening and we hear you," Spencer said in a tweet. "We've been planning a business update event for next week, where we look forward to sharing more details with you about our vision for the future of Xbox. Stay tuned."

It'll be interesting to see how that goes. To see how much of these rumors are true.

His comments give the rumors legitimacy. I mean if they were not true you would and should stop them instead of ignoring them and waiting as they could do more damage to your brand.

benstylus wrote:

Makes sense. I’m an old core gamer myself and prefer disc vs digital and I can already see them dissolving all future games by disc and pivoting to the all digital future. They’re already starting with Hellblade II this year being all digital I believe. I guess limited run games is going to be the place to go for the old disc folks like myself’s future. Blah.

TalonJedi87 wrote:

Or just play the old games til they don't play no more.

Superb idea.

I wonder if they will do a limited gamepass of sorts for certain platforms where it will be cheaper but less stuff. Maybe only certain exclusives and what not.

If they have trouble releasing Games, how are they going to do only releasing games? What will Sony Fan Boys do when there is no Xbox, will they talk about the good ole days of hat'in? Will they buy and play MS games or will they still hate on them?

Dusk wrote:

I think that is the only way Sony or Nintendo OK it. 1st party MS games and nothing that could cut take away from there bottom line. I mean if game "A" comes out on GP on a PlayStation or Nintendo then they loose out on a potential sale. This could be a good thing for MS as it would allow them to cut back on some overhead ie. money tossed at putting 3rd party on GP. At very least 3rd party games need at least a year before they are eligible for GP so not to cut into sales on other consoles. This is honestly why I think Sony's approach is far more sustainable. With all the IP and studios that MS has at there finger tips it should not be a problem pumping out games on a decent schedule right? That's why they did this... that's what they told us.

I don't see Gamepass coming to PlayStation as long as Sony has its own competing subscription product.

Unless MS heavily subsidizes Sony to allow it as an add-on tier to PlayStation Plus or something.

It's more plausible for Switch but even then it seems unlikely. Nintendo is doing it's own thing and it's working well for them so why change?

Again, I can only see it working if it's stripped of 3rd party. Only way it makes any sense for Sony to do it. GP as it stands would be a horrible business move in there part.

benstylus wrote:

So as more info comes out about the Xbox layoffs, it's clear that it's a whole lot more than just redundant positions being eliminated after eating Activision.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/tech/article/tech-layo...

RIP Toys for Bob

Yeah that is not good. I was looking forward to Toys For Bob releasing a new Crash and/or Spyro game.

Nadella is protecting the bottom line. He will cut fat even if it means games gets hit pretty hard to keep the holders happy. His 10 year resume looks really good overall- I doubt he’s as patient going forward.

Big layoffs, but, fortunately, it looks like Toys for Bob isn't dead. They're moving to working remotely: https://www.theloadout.com/xbox/toys-for-bob-layof.... I wish they had more Skylanders games. I just finished Superchargers recently, and it was a lot of fun. Trap Team and Swap Force were great too.

Apparently there is a bunch of unrest among dev's. They are not liking the new compensation rules since MS is moving away from physical sales and never post sales it's not sitting well with a lot. I can see MS bleeding a lot of the talent they acquired as things shake out.

What gets me though is MS apparently is pushing forward with there next gen console. What is the point? Honestly, I see absolutely no point in owning an Xbox when they go multiplatform. Not only that, look at 3rd party support... Will they want to support a platform with so many question marks around it? The optics are pretty bad when you have MS choosing not to full it's full weight behind a console they made. They have been so wishy washy about there hardware lately.

It also looks like they are renaming Xbox Game Pass to Microsoft Game Pass.

https://media.gamestop.com/i/gamestop/MSFTXBDemoDa...

The Xbox branding is there, but it's interesting they name chosen. Instead of Xbox Gamepass it's Microsoft Gamepass.

The Xbox name is unfortunately tied to the toxic club culture they built it on. They’re probably hoping Microsoft is a bit less polarizing- and they may be moving towards no box, so no Xbox.

Sounds silly but lots of gamers want nothing to do with Xbox.