MS's monetisation model for GP *spawn

[Nesh]

Xbox Game Pass has changed the metric of success, says Obsidian boss

Obsidian Entertainment studio head Feargus Urquhart has said that Microsoft's acquisition has given the studio a chance to continue making big-budget RPG games, but Game Pass has changed the metric for success.

www.trueachievements.com

While the team has the flexibility and budget to continue making large worlds, Urquhart says that the metric for success has changed slightly due to the rise of Xbox Game Pass. “I can’t go off and spend a billion dollars and only a million hours get played on Game Pass, ‘cause people aren’t paying that much for their subscriptions," Urquhart said. "And so a lot of it is really kind of looking, ‘okay, well what do we think success is?’” How Obsidian approaches development hasn't changed, but it's now important to ensure that its games have "something for everybody," as a successful game is judged by how many millions of hours players have played the game, as much as its sales estimates.

Is it possible that MS allocates revenue to developers according to hours spent on each game? Even as such it doesnt sound like enough. Each subscriber pays a fix amount. Out of that amount we have allocation to costs, profit for MS and revenue to multiple devs. For it to be fully profitable for both MS and the developer, Gamepass must generate enough post-subscription sales, and have reached a critical size of subscribers.
MS never announces profitability of GP, only increase of subscribers and some revenue info, and how money is allocated to each dev is under secrecy with each dev having a unique contract.

Was it here that I remember something about Coalition not reaching the revenue estimates of Gears due to Gamepass?

edit: Checking the forums for Gears it looks like it didnt bode well for Gears of War players how MS tried to monetize it. Putting it in Gamepass, seems to have generated extra costs to players who bought the game and to those that want to access the full content
https://forums.gearsofwar.com/t/thi...a-baaaaaaaad-idea-re-store-prices-etc/35907/3

Gears 5 is a flop

edit 2: My niece wanted to play this, so we tried playing your broken game online. It didn’t work, but what was funny was character selection. This early teenager would rather play as Jack than Del lol. If that’s not a damning rebuke for your writing/story staff, I don’t know what is lol. End...

forums.gearsofwar.com

This is the problem with MS. They are viewing the products as simply number generating units and they get out of touch from what players want to experience. And as such this is how Halo and Gears of War have been gradually losing their steam.
These two games were system sellers, some of the most anticipated franchises ever, not just for XBOX. From being at the top as powerful franchises, they were mishandled, diluted and became stepping stones for Gamepass growth.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Is it possible that MS allocates revenue to developers according to hours spent on each game?

I'd have thoguht so. How else would you do it? I guess titles could be negotiated with specific payments alongside time-played revenues. But if you are paying $10 pm for a sub, and play one game exclusively for that month, the money from that sub ought to go to that game dev to be fair, surely? Split your time 30:70 with two titles? Than the portion of sub for revenue would be split that way.

Isn't this how Spotify works and one of the criticisms as to why it's hard to make good money from it, while also having to be on it to get any money at all? The income pool is diluted across more players. But in the case of GP, reportedly spending is up in IGCs count towards revenue, effectively encouraging a 'F2P' model for game monetisation. What we don't have is numbers on that spending - are the subscribers spending more money on GP than they were without GP? Or is the 'spending more' arrived at some other way?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Is it possible that MS allocates revenue to developers according to hours spent on each game? Even as such it doesnt sound like enough. Each subscriber pays a fix amount. Out of that amount we have allocation to costs, profit for MS and revenue to multiple devs. For it to be fully profitable for both MS and the developer, Gamepass must generate enough post-subscription sales, and have reached a critical size of subscribers.
MS never announces profitability of GP, only increase of subscribers and some revenue info, and how money is allocated to each dev is under secrecy with each dev having a unique contract.

MS as well have stated multiple times that the payments to developers is flexible based on developer needs and that they work with the developer to tailor a reimbursement plan that works best for the developer.

If that means payment by hours played they'll do it. If it's a lump sum payment, they'll do it. If it's based on how many players check out the game even if they don't play the game for long, that's likely possible also. If they want a static amount each month it is on GP, MS would likely do that as well.

If a developer and MS can't come to an agreement that works for both the developer and MS, then the title doesn't end up on GP.

Regards,
SB

 

[iroboto]

This is the problem with MS. They are viewing the products as simply number generating units and they get out of touch from what players want to experience. And as such this is how Halo and Gears of War have been gradually losing their steam.
These two games were system sellers, some of the most anticipated franchises ever, not just for XBOX. From being at the top as powerful franchises, they were mishandled, diluted and became stepping stones for Gamepass growth.

Or. It’s just learning for them since they are the only one in the market doing this. They are bound to fumble compared to their competitors who are doing a strategy as old as their first console.

MS is the only one making inroads in this space, everyone else is just looking on to see if they fall.

This is a relatively new thing for Xbox, game pass is not that old. And game pass isn’t the problem. Free 2 play continues to conquer the market which has had a significant impact on multiplayer games. You can’t beat free. And you cannot monetize nothing, so f2p model is what forces MS to go the microtransaction route.

 

[dobwal]

I'd have thoguht so. How else would you do it? I guess titles could be negotiated with specific payments alongside time-played revenues. But if you are paying $10 pm for a sub, and play one game exclusively for that month, the money from that sub ought to go to that game dev to be fair, surely? Split your time 30:70 with two titles? Than the portion of sub for revenue would be split that way.

Isn't this how Spotify works and one of the criticisms as to why it's hard to make good money from it, while also having to be on it to get any money at all? The income pool is diluted across more players. But in the case of GP, reportedly spending is up in IGCs count towards revenue, effectively encouraging a 'F2P' model for game monetisation. What we don't have is numbers on that spending - are the subscribers spending more money on GP than they were without GP? Or is the 'spending more' arrived at some other way?

Music streaming has to contend with the existing royalty models in that industry. MS probably follows a TV streaming model where they tend to provide a upfront payment for licensing rights over a certain time period.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

MS as well have stated multiple times that the payments to developers is flexible based on developer needs and that they work with the developer to tailor a reimbursement plan that works best for the developer.

Smaller devs like Mike Bithell have spoken about Gamepass and how accommodating Microsoft are. He leans into monetisation options but doesn't go into detail for obvious reasons.

 

[Nesh]

Or. It’s just learning for them since they are the only one in the market doing this. They are bound to fumble compared to their competitors who are doing a strategy as old as their first console.

MS is the only one making inroads in this space, everyone else is just looking on to see if they fall.

This is a relatively new thing for Xbox, game pass is not that old. And game pass isn’t the problem. Free 2 play continues to conquer the market which has had a significant impact on multiplayer games. You can’t beat free. And you cannot monetize nothing, so f2p model is what forces MS to go the microtransaction route.

This is very irrelavant. The dilusion of Halo and Gears has nothing to do with MS being forced to handle them differently because of "F2P" games and microtransactions. it is purely their insistence to transform the market and milk consumers regardless what their own consumers want, by using their popularity as a stepping stone. It is nothing more than a greedy mishandling.

 

[Nesh]

MS as well have stated multiple times that the payments to developers is flexible based on developer needs and that they work with the developer to tailor a reimbursement plan that works best for the developer.

If that means payment by hours played they'll do it. If it's a lump sum payment, they'll do it. If it's based on how many players check out the game even if they don't play the game for long, that's likely possible also. If they want a static amount each month it is on GP, MS would likely do that as well.

If a developer and MS can't come to an agreement that works for both the developer and MS, then the title doesn't end up on GP.

Regards,
SB

It sounds like a mess

 

[iroboto]

This is very irrelavant. The dilusion of Halo and Gears has nothing to do with MS being forced to handle them differently because of "F2P" games and microtransactions. it is purely their insistence to transform the market and milk consumers regardless what their own consumers want, by using their popularity as a stepping stone. It is nothing more than a greedy mishandling.

Your timing is well off for any of that to be true.
Halo and Gears losing it, is a result of 2 franchises that quite honestly ended after the 3 entry in the series.

The gaming market in those particular areas have changed dramatically. Halo lost out because of its insistence on esports and to constantly fight a changing shooter market.
Their development cycle is too long to compete with dedicated f2p shooters that are introducing new mechanics every year.

That has nothing to do with game pass. Halo and gears suffers significantly from scope issues in trying to accomplish too much.

Not a gamepass problem, these are issues long before gamepass.

Blaming their failure on gamepass is novel, you’re the only one I’ve seen drawing that connection.

 

[Nesh]

Your timing is well off for any of that to be true.
Halo and Gears losing it, is a result of 2 franchises that quite honestly ended after the 3 entry in the series.

The gaming market in those particular areas have changed dramatically. Halo lost out because of its insistence on esports and to constantly fight a changing shooter market.
Their development cycle is too long to compete with dedicated f2p shooters that are introducing new mechanics every year.

That has nothing to do with game pass. Halo and gears suffers significantly from scope issues in trying to accomplish too much.

Not a gamepass problem, these are issues long before gamepass.

Blaming their failure on gamepass is novel, you’re the only one I’ve seen drawing that connection

It is both a gamepass problem and a mishandling of the product. MS is out of touch in terms of what the fans of the franchise want.
It is evident in the SP, in the MP and the monetization. Microtransactions and F2P models forced directly or indirectly only make it worse.

 

[iroboto]

It is both a gamepass problem and a mishandling of the product. MS is out of touch in terms of what the fans of the franchise want.
It is evident in the SP, in the MP and the monetization.

You know halo and gears from their peak on 360 to today are made by entirely different studios right?

Bungie left to make destiny and Epic left to make Fortnite. They know when a franchise is done. And your top go to reason is to blame gamepass?

 

[Nesh]

You know halo and gears from their peak on 360 to today are made by entirely different studios right?

Bungie left to make destiny and Epic left to make Fortnite. They know when a franchise is done. And your top go to reason is to blame gamepass?

I know and it is irrelevant. If Bungie and Epic feel they want to move on, is irrelevant to how MS handles the franchise afterwards.

For example Gears 3 was still going super strong and was breaking record sales before someone else handling it.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I know and it is irrelevant. If Bungie and Epic feel they want to move on, is irrelevant to how MS handles the franchise afterwards.

For example Gears 3 was still going super strong and was breaking record sales before someone else handling it.

The Gears franchise had moved 22 million units in 8 years from 2006 - 2014 (when they were sold to MS). That would include Gears of War 1-3 as well as Gears of War Judgment.

Microsoft Buys 'Gears of War' Franchise From Epic Games

Microsoft on Monday morning announced it has acquired the Gears of War franchise from Epic Games for an undisclosed sum.

www.pcmag.com

That number jumps to over 41 million by Aug 2019. So an additional 19 million units sold in 5 years between 2014 and 2019 (inclusive).

The Coalition Studio

The official website for The Coalition Studio

www.thecoalitionstudio.com

As of August 2019, total global sales for the Gears franchise surpassed 41 million copies sold.

Gears 5 went on sale September 10, 2019. So, that number doesn't include Gears 5 sales.

In fact Gears 4 was the only Gears title released during that timeframe other than some remasters. That implies that Gears 4 sold relatively well. Even if the remasters sold, say 10 million units, that still leaves 9 million units for Gears 4. For Gears 4 to sell worse than the initial releases of the original trilogy (approximately 6 million units each) the remasters would have had to sell over 13 million units. I'd find that kind of hard to believe.

Gears 5 sold better than Gears 4 according to MS despite Gears 5 being day and date on Game Pass while Gears 4 wasn't.

The big XO19 interview: Xbox boss Phil Spencer on Game Pass, streaming and Project Scarlett

At Microsoft's big XO19 event in London yesterday, Xbox boss Phil Spencer told the gathered press all about Game Pass, …

www.eurogamer.net

Phil Spencer: Gears 5 sold well for us. It sold better than Gears 4

So, I'm kind of not seeing Gears interest dying out.

Regards,
SB

 

[eastmen]

The Gears franchise had moved 22 million units in 8 years from 2006 - 2014 (when they were sold to MS). That would include Gears of War 1-3 as well as Gears of War Judgment.

Microsoft Buys 'Gears of War' Franchise From Epic Games

Microsoft on Monday morning announced it has acquired the Gears of War franchise from Epic Games for an undisclosed sum.

www.pcmag.com

That number jumps to over 41 million by Aug 2019. So an additional 19 million units sold in 5 years between 2014 and 2019 (inclusive).

The Coalition Studio

The official website for The Coalition Studio

www.thecoalitionstudio.com

Gears 5 went on sale September 10, 2019. So, that number doesn't include Gears 5 sales.

In fact Gears 4 was the only Gears title released during that timeframe other than some remasters. That implies that Gears 4 sold relatively well. Even if the remasters sold, say 10 million units, that still leaves 9 million units for Gears 4. For Gears 4 to sell worse than the initial releases of the original trilogy (approximately 6 million units each) the remasters would have had to sell over 13 million units. I'd find that kind of hard to believe.

Gears 5 sold better than Gears 4 according to MS despite Gears 5 being day and date on Game Pass while Gears 4 wasn't.

The big XO19 interview: Xbox boss Phil Spencer on Game Pass, streaming and Project Scarlett

At Microsoft's big XO19 event in London yesterday, Xbox boss Phil Spencer told the gathered press all about Game Pass, …

www.eurogamer.net

So, I'm kind of not seeing Gears interest dying out.

Regards,
SB

It's just a line of thought that continues the mantra of MS ruins everything

20 Wild Behind-The-Scenes Facts That Show How "The Last Of Us" Was Made

"I couldn't believe what they had just built for a scene that's like a minute long."

www.buzzfeed.com

I mean does this make uncharted and the last of us unsuccessful because they want to move on from them ? Or does it simply mean that developers don't want to develop the same game for decades of their lives ?

The news cycles just reinforce peoples thoughts

Sony closes a bunch of studios and buys up new ones and no one bats an eye.

MS lays off some bethesda and 343 studio employees and OMG maybe MS's games wouldn't stick if they kept those employees.

MS puts out a great developer direct but that isn't good enough we need to get the anti ms train rolling asking where starfield is , omg we heard its unplayable and in horrible shape.

It's just the normal news cycle. It's just the normal people casting fud onto ms.

Halo Infinte was a great single player game it's sitting at a 80 meta score from critics reviews

Gears of war 4 is a 84/86 , Gears 5 is 84 , Gears tactics is a 82

Forza horizon 5 is a 92

Both horizon games are in the high 80s , Spiderman was an 87 , imles morales is an 85 , Ghost of Tusushima is an 83 , last of us part 2 is a 93, ratchet is a 88

However the way MS's games are talked about it sounds like they would all be in the 50s or 60s

 

[Sonic]

I sure hope Naughty Dog goes with a new IP. I'm tired of Uncharted and while the games are fun I want something new. Naughty Dog's the one studio that disappointed me this past generation.

 

[Nesh]

I mean does this make uncharted and the last of us unsuccessful because they want to move on from them ? Or does it simply mean that developers don't want to develop the same game for decades of their lives ?

Its not me who made that point.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sony closes a bunch of studios and buys up new ones and no one bats an eye.

That's not true. Sony came in for lots of criticism for closing studios and shelving IP people liked. I agree there's some skewed anti-MS narrative at times, but that misrepresentation goes both ways as part of your 'same old news cycle'.

The truly sad part here is another thread that's turning into a them-v-us 'debate' with the actual discussion about the platforms lost.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I'm closing this thread as I feel the whole premise was antagonistic, not inquisitive. It's not a healthy approach to discussion.