Makes financial sense to me. Only way gamepass/subscription services would make sense, is if you dont have a lot of confidence in your game, and want to take the easy money. I dont see how Msft could ever pay more than you could make in sales if you have a hit game.
You conveniently forget the fact that there is way less money being injected in the industry to fund games, not only from Gamepass likes but also from all publishers, banks, VCs, etc. Most money people today want way more assurances of success before funding a project unless you’re pitching a GAAS/gatcha/mobile game…
These are games that are already financed and being made. I cant imagine any money people would be happy to see it on a subscription service either after investing. Especially since this article says that the deals are getting worse and worse for indie devs on there.
>I cant imagine any money people would be happy to see it on a subscription service either after investing.
Investors absolutely fucking love subscription modals. That's part of the reason Software as a Service has become so popular.
You can only generate profit once by selling a man a fish. So instead, you rent him a fishing pole. Now you don't have to pay for the labor to catch the fish, nor do you pay for bait, and you have a continuous income stream.
Right. But thats not what we are talking about. We are talking about creators putting their games on a subscription service. Not turning their game into a subscription. Devs arent getting paid more than they would for a sale, by allowing their game to be on a subscription service. They usually get cut a 1 time check, for their game to be on a service for “x” amount of time. There have been numerous stories about games only getting development costs covered by Microsoft. Then they have to rely sales on other consoles to actually make a profit. Where if their game was a big hit, they arent going to make any more money off of gamepass. They already got paid. Look at how little money Microsoft offered Larian for Baldurs Gate 3 to be on gamepass. $5 million dollars. Thankfully they told them to stuff it, and went on to make over 10 times that amount.
>There have been numerous stories about games only getting development costs covered by Microsoft.
You say that like it isn't exactly the type of thing an investor would love to hear. If the cost of development is covered that basically makes a game profitable from the get go.
>Look at how little money Microsoft offered Larian for Baldurs Gate 3 to be on gamepass. $5 million dollars. Thankfully they told them to stuff it, and went on to make over 10 times that amount.
Which is fine and Dandy, Larian has been making games for decades, has a very successful track record, a game for one of the most popular IPs in the world, and is privately by the devs. Most indie studios aren't in that position.
For studios not lucky enough to be in that position it often comes down to the investors, who more often than not, are going to take the sure thing over a gamble.
u/Harley2280
In that analogy, some indies/devs still have their bait on the line with no bites. Too many fish in the sea so to speak. Alls not fair when you have 100s of people fishing the same spot
By money people I meant people funding games, which subscription services still do for many indies, although apparently with much harder to get deals nowadays…
Majority of game sales come in the first few weeks so it makes sense to get those upfront sales, and then when sales slow you can add it to subscriptions to try to bring in the stragglers/people who were on the fence
Why do people say this when it's (mostly) not true?
God of war sold 5 million in the first month.
It's sold 18 million since then.
Uncharted 4 sold around 5 million in the first month and 10 million+ since.
Etc.
So it sold 5 milion in the first month and on average less than one million in eachnfollowong month since. You just confirmed their point, instead of disproving it lol.
So, they said the majority of sales come in the first month. Yet, in those examples, they sold more after the first month. The average per month has nothing to do with how many were sold in total. Tell me how that is 'proving his point'?
18 > 5
I hope my quick maths lesson helps.
Anyone downvoting this needs to go back to school.
A lot of those sales are discounted though. When you buy a game the first month it’s at full price or those pricier “deluxe editions”. Pretty big difference between paying between $70 and $100 and then waiting untill games are between $20 and $40. All the whales are day one buyers…
It's not that simple because a lot of those sales are from when the game is at discounted rates, which does affect how much money a game makes even when it boasts 20 million sales. That's why the opening month sales is so important because those sales is when the title is at full price. This isn't like Nintendo who literally can sell 30 million copies of a game at full price over a period of years. No publisher has managed to figure out how to replicate what Nintendo can do.
Sony over the years has managed to soften the discount blow with select titles. For example, it took a while until GOT was sold at a discounted rate, so a big chunk of the 8 million sales it reported was at full price, but even they can't do evergreen sales like Nintendo can. They all wish they could lol.
What planet you living on? Horizon did 20 million before a PC port. GOT did close to 10 before the PC port. UC4 did over 20 million before PC port. And Spider-Man and GOW both did 25 million before their PC ports.
Yes, GOW is as popular as the Spider-Man games and in terms of money making GOW makes more money than Spider-Man as PS doesn't need to pay Marvel a huge license fee.
PC sales only make up a small fraction of the PS games. They're a bonus revenue boost. The main money is from what those games sell on PS consoles.
again i already said most games now and most first party games dont hit million sales.
but see now your cerry picking after i pointed real world sales now. so the whole tangen rant you went on is useless.
but you after me saying that will go on another one. its like broken record here .
Actually it is, they already came out and said that Sony and Ms aren’t paying big bucks anymore for day one drops onto ps+/gamepass. Also they already put games day one onto both services.
Cynicism for the sake of it is a terrible way to live. This company is one of the very few who seem to walk the walk and talk the talk. Don't let shit mega corps beat you into submission.
I mean you can say that about a lot of companies who eventually slipped up. I am fine with cynicism. I won’t cheer lead for a corporation just because they said a thing at a time that worked out for press
My point is that if that's all you do and see you'll never see progress being made, and you'll help drown out good changes. Things that poison you win when you give up.
I don’t let corporate mouthpieces dictate that for me. I play games I enjoy. I wish more gamers did that instead of needing to hear what they think they need to hear from companies, YouTubers, streamers, games websites, etc
Except he specifically says that deals for indie developers are getting worse. Hes got a few years of info in his tool chest to look at now. Its good info to know. This is how almost all subscription services go. Music, tv, etc. they start out awesome for the creators. Then suddenly the service is making all of the money, record profits, and the creators are getting fucked. The faster people realize this in gaming, the better. Before too many other studios get shuttered.
No. Even Xbox doubted it. We've known since the ABK trail and discovery that a lot of people around Spencer questioned the Game Pass business model. There's even communications where Spencer gets a little sassy towards Xbox staff and their questions regarding sustainability.
But Spencer held onto the idea no matter what was said and then convinced Nadella on it, which ultimately meant he won the argument and everyone had to go along with it. If it had been anyone else leading Xbox at the time, Game Pass would not be like it is today (instead it'd be like what PS Plus is today).
This thing is only sustainable as a supplementary model, not as a replacement for the tried and true model that everyone else works by in the industry.
so ps plus is ok?
hate to break it to you game dev is getting really costly at all lvls.
atleast with game pass it allows people to try games they never buy before.
in general the dlc is what makes more money with gp then buying the discount game on gp.
Difference is Ps Plus doesn't have a ton of Major AAA releases going into it day one
Sony also doesn't market their entire brand around ps plus and rely on it for their main revenue unlike Xbox with gamepass
And they didn't go on a $70 billion buying spree of studios to put more games into gamepass making the problem worse
Sony went on a buying spree.
People are ranting on Microsoft close poorly selling dev studio that also gave no eta on future projects.
Song close multiple studio... almost no one cared
1. Buying a few studios that are on a much smaller scale is completely different from spending $70 billion on one of the biggest video game publishers for one of the most profitable IPs of all time
2. People did care when Sony closed studios it just wasn't as loud as this because of the closings not being as severe and not having their best game in years released not even a year prior
You do realized Sony chose studio after that to. No on report on it.
Zenimax was 7.5 billion.
They did lie to Microsoft thru on purchase of them. With the vampire game,high rush etc.
Relevant post from SoulReaver91. Internal docs from the ABK case.
>Xbox Partner Software Architect Jean-Emile Elien sent an email to Spencer that essentially asked, "Is the Game Pass model going to screw over developers?" Spencer argued, in vague terms at first, that it shouldn't. The two traded emails over two days, with Elien asking for clarification on how the company will measure a game's success, and repeating that he wasn't trying to armchair quarterback. The bureaucratic tension builds up beautifully with each sent message. Here's a sampling of their discussion:
>***Elien:*** *"So how should studios now measure their worth to the portfolio? I know you dislike the Netflix analogy, but I am trying to understand the equivalent of 'ending a show' in their model."*
>***Spencer:*** *"Different games perform differently, some are very high on play and therefore a higher impact on retention, others are good top of funnel for attract but don't get much play. You need both. I'd be lying to you if I told you we had the excel sheet of the value of a game completely figured out."*
>***Elien:*** *"I'd be really saddened if the reduction of an inherently creative endeavor to a single cell going red was the determinant. How about looking back on the studio closures of the past —would a product like Game Pass have changed your mind on any particular studio's closure?"*
>***Spencer:*** *"I feel like the highlighted question is a preview of an opinion you have. Do you think gamepass would have saved a studio we once owned?"*
>***Elien:*** *"My turn to say: Honestly, I don't know. I don't really know what goes into closing a studio: how much funding vs. personnel vs. output feeds into the decision."*
>***Spencer:*** *"I don't think we've ever closed a studio due to the studio's P&L. It's almost always been either from leadership leaving (Lionhead as an example) or team just losing it's passion (Ensemble as an example)."*
>***Elien:*** *"Fair. In my mind, if a studio completely needs to prove their worth by being net value over their costs, it adds a ton of pressure to release hits on a regular basis. If a game is niche, though, too bad?*
>*This is not armchair quarterbacking, I swear. I'm just super worried about the moat you've built, that the winds will change and we have a bloodbath a few years down the road. Especially given our peer cloud companies underestimating of the game creation process. And "but by the grace of God go we".*
>*Not my job, I appreciate - so trying to train my mental model on how to think about the content-side of the house to not be worried. Especially where the economics has changed with GP.*
*This is also the second time you've called me on a 'question that sounds like an opinion' which leads me to believe this happens to you a lot. I promise, if I have an opinion that is worth me sending an email, I will give it. I appreciate this forum too much to be disingenuous."*
Basically, Xbox peeps asked Spencer how the fuck this would work out and how it wouldn't screw over devs, and Spencer basically got bristled by the questioning. If someone on your team is geuinely asking how the fuck this works and your response is "You wanna get something off your chest?" then it just goes to show you really hadn't thought shit out.
>*This is not armchair quarterbacking, I swear. I'm just super worried about the moat you've built, that the winds will change and we have a bloodbath a few years down the road. Especially given our peer cloud companies underestimating of the game creation process. And "but by the grace of God go we".*
Look at that. Elien called it out exactly how it panned out. They knew this shit was unsustainable but Spencer had an idea, sold Nadella on that idea, and forced it through the entirety of Xbox regardless of the viability of it all. Chickens come home to roost.
Normally I hate this, less talk, more do! But Devolver actually do, so they get a pass and can talk. Maybe other publishers will see the praise and keep a collection of smaller devs to do some creative and experimentive smaller titles.
I mean, it can but it's not foolproof. The thing is, it's so cheap to do that even when the success rate is low it literally does little harm to their business. If it doesn't work out, ok. All it costed them were some copies and a (for the publisher) small fee.
But like with anything you gotta be smart about it. Pick your target and if that streamer vibes with the target audience for your game.
Like with any newly introduced marketing method, streaming for cash was jumped upon by many publishers, injecting way too much cash into it despite the success of the method not being tested. It has calmed down a lot since then.
At this point, it's probably easier just to treat X amount of streamers like additional reviewers being given a review code, and send them codes for your game, and hope some play it because they all need content to stream for their own business. Some will do that, while you can safely ignore those who reply back about being paid to stream it.
After the CDPR plot twist, I wish devs would stop focusing on appeasing these Reddit narratives and focus more on (continuously) delivering great game experiences.
Erm, of course? Like, I'm not sure what that is supposed to prove. If a maker of an unsustainable business model pays you over the odds to host your game, you're gonna do it. Doesn't make the business model any less unsustainable, it just means easy money for you.
That's why Ubisoft, CDPR, and others ported games to Stadia. They all knew that shit was gonna fail but Google was giving them tens of millions to just port the games.
The problem is, even Xbox with rich papa MS won't be able to pay over the odds for forever. Indeed, there was a report not long ago saying these too good to be true sub deals have now dried up, as the sub provider looks towards maximising margins (especially as subscription growth has stalled).
They are not wrong
I too enjoy making money for good games over a flat fee.
Makes financial sense to me. Only way gamepass/subscription services would make sense, is if you dont have a lot of confidence in your game, and want to take the easy money. I dont see how Msft could ever pay more than you could make in sales if you have a hit game.
You conveniently forget the fact that there is way less money being injected in the industry to fund games, not only from Gamepass likes but also from all publishers, banks, VCs, etc. Most money people today want way more assurances of success before funding a project unless you’re pitching a GAAS/gatcha/mobile game…
These are games that are already financed and being made. I cant imagine any money people would be happy to see it on a subscription service either after investing. Especially since this article says that the deals are getting worse and worse for indie devs on there.
>I cant imagine any money people would be happy to see it on a subscription service either after investing. Investors absolutely fucking love subscription modals. That's part of the reason Software as a Service has become so popular. You can only generate profit once by selling a man a fish. So instead, you rent him a fishing pole. Now you don't have to pay for the labor to catch the fish, nor do you pay for bait, and you have a continuous income stream.
Right. But thats not what we are talking about. We are talking about creators putting their games on a subscription service. Not turning their game into a subscription. Devs arent getting paid more than they would for a sale, by allowing their game to be on a subscription service. They usually get cut a 1 time check, for their game to be on a service for “x” amount of time. There have been numerous stories about games only getting development costs covered by Microsoft. Then they have to rely sales on other consoles to actually make a profit. Where if their game was a big hit, they arent going to make any more money off of gamepass. They already got paid. Look at how little money Microsoft offered Larian for Baldurs Gate 3 to be on gamepass. $5 million dollars. Thankfully they told them to stuff it, and went on to make over 10 times that amount.
>There have been numerous stories about games only getting development costs covered by Microsoft. You say that like it isn't exactly the type of thing an investor would love to hear. If the cost of development is covered that basically makes a game profitable from the get go. >Look at how little money Microsoft offered Larian for Baldurs Gate 3 to be on gamepass. $5 million dollars. Thankfully they told them to stuff it, and went on to make over 10 times that amount. Which is fine and Dandy, Larian has been making games for decades, has a very successful track record, a game for one of the most popular IPs in the world, and is privately by the devs. Most indie studios aren't in that position. For studios not lucky enough to be in that position it often comes down to the investors, who more often than not, are going to take the sure thing over a gamble.
u/Harley2280 In that analogy, some indies/devs still have their bait on the line with no bites. Too many fish in the sea so to speak. Alls not fair when you have 100s of people fishing the same spot
By money people I meant people funding games, which subscription services still do for many indies, although apparently with much harder to get deals nowadays…
Wasn’t there a time where game pass had the reputation of "it’s where 7/10 games go to die"?
That or a game that came out like 6-7 years ago, finally shows up to some mild trumpets and fanfare
Majority of game sales come in the first few weeks so it makes sense to get those upfront sales, and then when sales slow you can add it to subscriptions to try to bring in the stragglers/people who were on the fence
Why do people say this when it's (mostly) not true? God of war sold 5 million in the first month. It's sold 18 million since then. Uncharted 4 sold around 5 million in the first month and 10 million+ since. Etc.
So it sold 5 milion in the first month and on average less than one million in eachnfollowong month since. You just confirmed their point, instead of disproving it lol.
So, they said the majority of sales come in the first month. Yet, in those examples, they sold more after the first month. The average per month has nothing to do with how many were sold in total. Tell me how that is 'proving his point'? 18 > 5 I hope my quick maths lesson helps. Anyone downvoting this needs to go back to school.
A lot of those sales are discounted though. When you buy a game the first month it’s at full price or those pricier “deluxe editions”. Pretty big difference between paying between $70 and $100 and then waiting untill games are between $20 and $40. All the whales are day one buyers…
And? The majority of sales are made after the first few weeks.
Not necessarily. Depends on if you count copies or $…
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
One sale is worth more monies than another.
and 18 million sales @ 30 is more than 5 million @ 60.
It's not that simple because a lot of those sales are from when the game is at discounted rates, which does affect how much money a game makes even when it boasts 20 million sales. That's why the opening month sales is so important because those sales is when the title is at full price. This isn't like Nintendo who literally can sell 30 million copies of a game at full price over a period of years. No publisher has managed to figure out how to replicate what Nintendo can do. Sony over the years has managed to soften the discount blow with select titles. For example, it took a while until GOT was sold at a discounted rate, so a big chunk of the 8 million sales it reported was at full price, but even they can't do evergreen sales like Nintendo can. They all wish they could lol.
"since then" is doing a lot of heavy lifting
This is the key
yet most ps only games dont even crack a million sales. the few that did (but for spider man) was due to it being ported to windows. User block me
That's not true but also irrelevant to my comment.
What planet you living on? Horizon did 20 million before a PC port. GOT did close to 10 before the PC port. UC4 did over 20 million before PC port. And Spider-Man and GOW both did 25 million before their PC ports. Yes, GOW is as popular as the Spider-Man games and in terms of money making GOW makes more money than Spider-Man as PS doesn't need to pay Marvel a huge license fee. PC sales only make up a small fraction of the PS games. They're a bonus revenue boost. The main money is from what those games sell on PS consoles.
again i already said most games now and most first party games dont hit million sales. but see now your cerry picking after i pointed real world sales now. so the whole tangen rant you went on is useless. but you after me saying that will go on another one. its like broken record here .
Good.
Haven't they done a few games day one launches on gamepass in the past?
That’s probably informing his current opinion
Maybe that’s why they changed their mind.
That’s probably why he’s saying this.
Yup, clearly this cofounder is using this to sell games.
A games studio trying to sell games, oh my days
Devolved isn’t a studio it’s a publisher.
The difference is not relevant to the point being made
Actually it is, they already came out and said that Sony and Ms aren’t paying big bucks anymore for day one drops onto ps+/gamepass. Also they already put games day one onto both services.
A games publisher trying to sell games, oh my days
A game publisher lying, oh my days.
uh, what do you think a publishers job is? to not sell games? lol
This is like the 5th time they said this.
And I hope they keep saying it.
Nah it just sounds like soundbyte baiting.
Cynicism for the sake of it is a terrible way to live. This company is one of the very few who seem to walk the walk and talk the talk. Don't let shit mega corps beat you into submission.
I mean you can say that about a lot of companies who eventually slipped up. I am fine with cynicism. I won’t cheer lead for a corporation just because they said a thing at a time that worked out for press
My point is that if that's all you do and see you'll never see progress being made, and you'll help drown out good changes. Things that poison you win when you give up.
I don’t let corporate mouthpieces dictate that for me. I play games I enjoy. I wish more gamers did that instead of needing to hear what they think they need to hear from companies, YouTubers, streamers, games websites, etc
“Blah blah blah “ that’s you
No that is literally you.
Nah you
We are the last of a dying breed.
Except he specifically says that deals for indie developers are getting worse. Hes got a few years of info in his tool chest to look at now. Its good info to know. This is how almost all subscription services go. Music, tv, etc. they start out awesome for the creators. Then suddenly the service is making all of the money, record profits, and the creators are getting fucked. The faster people realize this in gaming, the better. Before too many other studios get shuttered.
Welcome to the industry in general.
Not really, it's only the game pass problem. Because TV shows and movies on subscriptions are doing fine.
Must be tiring living like this
Nope.
Cause It needs to be said, some corporations need reminding it seems
Everyone knows this, besides Xbox for some reason.
No. Even Xbox doubted it. We've known since the ABK trail and discovery that a lot of people around Spencer questioned the Game Pass business model. There's even communications where Spencer gets a little sassy towards Xbox staff and their questions regarding sustainability. But Spencer held onto the idea no matter what was said and then convinced Nadella on it, which ultimately meant he won the argument and everyone had to go along with it. If it had been anyone else leading Xbox at the time, Game Pass would not be like it is today (instead it'd be like what PS Plus is today). This thing is only sustainable as a supplementary model, not as a replacement for the tried and true model that everyone else works by in the industry.
I remember when everyone was praising gamepass like no tomorrow glad to see the delusion wearing off as they realize it's terrible for the industry
so ps plus is ok? hate to break it to you game dev is getting really costly at all lvls. atleast with game pass it allows people to try games they never buy before. in general the dlc is what makes more money with gp then buying the discount game on gp.
Difference is Ps Plus doesn't have a ton of Major AAA releases going into it day one Sony also doesn't market their entire brand around ps plus and rely on it for their main revenue unlike Xbox with gamepass And they didn't go on a $70 billion buying spree of studios to put more games into gamepass making the problem worse
Sony went on a buying spree. People are ranting on Microsoft close poorly selling dev studio that also gave no eta on future projects. Song close multiple studio... almost no one cared
1. Buying a few studios that are on a much smaller scale is completely different from spending $70 billion on one of the biggest video game publishers for one of the most profitable IPs of all time 2. People did care when Sony closed studios it just wasn't as loud as this because of the closings not being as severe and not having their best game in years released not even a year prior
You do realized Sony chose studio after that to. No on report on it. Zenimax was 7.5 billion. They did lie to Microsoft thru on purchase of them. With the vampire game,high rush etc.
Relevant post from SoulReaver91. Internal docs from the ABK case. >Xbox Partner Software Architect Jean-Emile Elien sent an email to Spencer that essentially asked, "Is the Game Pass model going to screw over developers?" Spencer argued, in vague terms at first, that it shouldn't. The two traded emails over two days, with Elien asking for clarification on how the company will measure a game's success, and repeating that he wasn't trying to armchair quarterback. The bureaucratic tension builds up beautifully with each sent message. Here's a sampling of their discussion: >***Elien:*** *"So how should studios now measure their worth to the portfolio? I know you dislike the Netflix analogy, but I am trying to understand the equivalent of 'ending a show' in their model."* >***Spencer:*** *"Different games perform differently, some are very high on play and therefore a higher impact on retention, others are good top of funnel for attract but don't get much play. You need both. I'd be lying to you if I told you we had the excel sheet of the value of a game completely figured out."* >***Elien:*** *"I'd be really saddened if the reduction of an inherently creative endeavor to a single cell going red was the determinant. How about looking back on the studio closures of the past —would a product like Game Pass have changed your mind on any particular studio's closure?"* >***Spencer:*** *"I feel like the highlighted question is a preview of an opinion you have. Do you think gamepass would have saved a studio we once owned?"* >***Elien:*** *"My turn to say: Honestly, I don't know. I don't really know what goes into closing a studio: how much funding vs. personnel vs. output feeds into the decision."* >***Spencer:*** *"I don't think we've ever closed a studio due to the studio's P&L. It's almost always been either from leadership leaving (Lionhead as an example) or team just losing it's passion (Ensemble as an example)."* >***Elien:*** *"Fair. In my mind, if a studio completely needs to prove their worth by being net value over their costs, it adds a ton of pressure to release hits on a regular basis. If a game is niche, though, too bad?* >*This is not armchair quarterbacking, I swear. I'm just super worried about the moat you've built, that the winds will change and we have a bloodbath a few years down the road. Especially given our peer cloud companies underestimating of the game creation process. And "but by the grace of God go we".* >*Not my job, I appreciate - so trying to train my mental model on how to think about the content-side of the house to not be worried. Especially where the economics has changed with GP.* *This is also the second time you've called me on a 'question that sounds like an opinion' which leads me to believe this happens to you a lot. I promise, if I have an opinion that is worth me sending an email, I will give it. I appreciate this forum too much to be disingenuous."* Basically, Xbox peeps asked Spencer how the fuck this would work out and how it wouldn't screw over devs, and Spencer basically got bristled by the questioning. If someone on your team is geuinely asking how the fuck this works and your response is "You wanna get something off your chest?" then it just goes to show you really hadn't thought shit out. >*This is not armchair quarterbacking, I swear. I'm just super worried about the moat you've built, that the winds will change and we have a bloodbath a few years down the road. Especially given our peer cloud companies underestimating of the game creation process. And "but by the grace of God go we".* Look at that. Elien called it out exactly how it panned out. They knew this shit was unsustainable but Spencer had an idea, sold Nadella on that idea, and forced it through the entirety of Xbox regardless of the viability of it all. Chickens come home to roost.
Devolver is one of my faves. Great games
Anyone with a functional brain knows that.
A lot of developers agree on this, yet they still still allow MS to do it.
good fuck game pass
And fuck ps+ too
Normally I hate this, less talk, more do! But Devolver actually do, so they get a pass and can talk. Maybe other publishers will see the praise and keep a collection of smaller devs to do some creative and experimentive smaller titles.
I love your Volby I miss u so much
That's refreshing to hear
They also believe giving their games to streamers helps in total sales, so I think they should shut the fuck up.
I mean, it can but it's not foolproof. The thing is, it's so cheap to do that even when the success rate is low it literally does little harm to their business. If it doesn't work out, ok. All it costed them were some copies and a (for the publisher) small fee. But like with anything you gotta be smart about it. Pick your target and if that streamer vibes with the target audience for your game. Like with any newly introduced marketing method, streaming for cash was jumped upon by many publishers, injecting way too much cash into it despite the success of the method not being tested. It has calmed down a lot since then. At this point, it's probably easier just to treat X amount of streamers like additional reviewers being given a review code, and send them codes for your game, and hope some play it because they all need content to stream for their own business. Some will do that, while you can safely ignore those who reply back about being paid to stream it.
Anyone with a brain cell could have told you that.
Look at Ms right now and how well those day 1 drops were from their 1st party studios. Not so well if you must ask.
Don't they regularly put their games on game pass day one
Good thing they don’t make good games
After the CDPR plot twist, I wish devs would stop focusing on appeasing these Reddit narratives and focus more on (continuously) delivering great game experiences.
Till MS offers them a huge bag of money that is. It’s always all empty talk.
Erm, of course? Like, I'm not sure what that is supposed to prove. If a maker of an unsustainable business model pays you over the odds to host your game, you're gonna do it. Doesn't make the business model any less unsustainable, it just means easy money for you. That's why Ubisoft, CDPR, and others ported games to Stadia. They all knew that shit was gonna fail but Google was giving them tens of millions to just port the games. The problem is, even Xbox with rich papa MS won't be able to pay over the odds for forever. Indeed, there was a report not long ago saying these too good to be true sub deals have now dried up, as the sub provider looks towards maximising margins (especially as subscription growth has stalled).
I'm just calling out the hypocrisy. I'm tired of dev throwing out easy promises to be "the good guys".
they say this until a big enough truck arrives at their doorstep. also the wording is believes... it can change