What's the relevance of the download numbers for titles though, or market discussion? That value, GP subscribers, is its own metric. Where does "12 million Starfield players" fit in with a sales thread if those numbers aren't comparable to title sales and how are people supposed to interpret them?
Yes. I agree ongoing engagement is important. Download numbers doesn't tell you that when cost to download is zero. Of 12 million downloads, how many are potential clients Bethesda can sell content to? If 12 million buy the game, you know there's 12 million initially interested folk. If 12 million download a game for free, the number who are actually engaged with the game may be anything from 12 million to zero.
Tangential but important vector to this:
Does a single game's long term engagement really matter if it simply works as a gateway for people to sign up to a subscription service. If 5 million people all sign up for Gamepass because of Starfield and they all hate it, but find other games that make Gamepass worth it for them to continue subscribing, then Starfield's current player count is less relevant to Microsoft's strategy of driving a subscription based revenue stream.
I think it’s important if MS is looking to have varied revenue streams. It costs significantly less to make Starfield better and to release some MTX than it is to create an all new title.
This is what Bobby Kotick mean when he said subscriptions were "value destructive" for IP. There is an accepted marketing principle that things you get for "free" (*GamePass is not free) are perceived to be of lesser value to consumers than things paid for. There have been studies show that when consumers buy something, but are not immediately sold on it, they will likely persevere and may come to like or even love a product. When you remove that initial financial investment, that is less likely to happen.
I also downloaded Starfield on my Series X under GamePass but will probably never play it on Xbox. It was my backup should there be a some weird technical issues with the PC version. I wonder if I delete it on Xbox without ever having launched it, Microsoft will know. And wonder why...
I have not changed my position on market research. It is not silver bullet you perceive it to be for Microsoft to change their fortunes.
Kotick is talking about perception of value. The value in GamePass for many is for a cheap monthly subscription you get to access all that valuable content, that you would otherwise have to buy. If the perception of the value of that content drops, then the perceived value of GamePass also drops. All of the big independent publishers know this which is why big AA or AAA games from those publishers only come to GamePass way after launches, promotions and sales.What Kotick calls value destructive, I call consumer friendly.
This is why I've said before, and still believe, the most valuable type of games on Gamepass are actually games like MLB The Show. Not only was that a once Sony first party exclusive, it's Gamepass inclusion means that for the cost of the game, you can upgrade your Live (or Gamepass Core now) to Ultimate, and since the game releases annually, you always have the newest version as long as you keep the subscription.
From the article
What? People want deals or stuff for free when compared to paying full price?
I know what he's talking about. I just don't agree with it. I totally get why big publishers wait a year or more before bringing something to GP, but that's just because they're trying to maximize their revenues from those not willing to wait for it to hit GP. After all, if it truly "destroyed" value they wouldn't allow it at all. Gamers pretty much know that eventually CP2077 will be on GP after all.
