What take, and what indictment. Can you be more specific?
That the general takeaway from that tweet seems to be an indictment on Gamepass, and that the Gamepass deal may not have been so good for Outriders simply because the publisher hasn't yet paid the devs, which is a leap on such little information.
- We have no idea of the inner workings of the relationship between Square and People Can Fly - at what point in time or sales/revenue/profits they should receive payment
- We don't know about the commercial agreement between MS and Square. Were they paid a lump sum, was it part of a wider agreement with other games (which might mean Square could bucket the revenue from MS as not explicitly related to Outriders), is it based on performance metrics over time (players downloaded, time played etc.etc.)
- For all we know, the situation could well be the same (or worse) if the game hadn't been on the Gamepass service. Since we all know Xbox players don't buy games, it almost certainly wouldn't have been better .
- These days, especially for a live service game, to judge performance after 4-5 months alone is naive. Gamepass could have a huge benefit on the long tail playerbase for the game which could end up being worth a lot of revenue once Square and PCF actually monetize through DLC / Expansions / microtransactions. Plus, for all we know, it may not have been expected to be profitable at this point - all that PCF have said is that they'd have projected profitability based on the number of players but they don't have visibility on the detail (which, sounds like poor transparency on Square's part as publisher to PCF - but that's a separate issue not relating to gamepass, as it also applies to sales data on PS etc.)
What we do know, is that Square called out the success of the Gamepass model specifically on Outriders in shareholder calls, and that very early in the game's life, commission future expansions/a sequel (I think? I remember at least they publicly stated it is well on track to be their next major franchise). Maybe the above is wrong, and the situation is dire and Gamepass has been a total failure and they'd have been better off without it - but either way we don't know from the info we have, and I would suggest that overall, the commentary has been net positive by a long way.
Yup, but it's not about that for others. Many are facing the same issue.
In any case I agree that for engagement purposes there needs to be something else involved, which all ties in to how the GP will evolve. If we were to go deeper on it, we could spitball about how devs might make use of that, for example could it mean more microtransactions? Games/released sold in parts more? There's a lot of questions that a GP type system raises, and that's the point I'm obviously making, that it's not about the GP itself. Another tangent is the types of deals/contracts, another is publisher to developer relationships. There's a lot to unpack, a lot to think through and they have to work through as the system matures.
People need to stop thinking it's all about the single game and cheap pass. There's a lot going on underneath.
On the point about many facing the same issues, I will have to trust your vast ITK status and those connections - plus, I'm not sure if you're talking GP specifically or generally on that. There's little out there from devs that isn't positive on Gamepass and working with MS on this in particular, and whilst we could all understand why that doesn't necessarily mean that the situation is great for everybody (you don't want MS lawyers on your back - worst case, and best case, you don't want to get unfavourable treatment and support from one of the big platforms), we have seen negative discourse around Sony lately on that front and Xbox/MS in the past. Clearly, it won't be right for every dev / studio on every game, and it will take experimentation from both sides, but that's true of everything. We're seeing lots of publishers/developers putting repeat business through Gamepass. You'll see one game launch on GP, and a few months later, another few added and more and more of the portfolio available. Clearly they are doing something right in those instances.
Absolutely agree that there needs to be consideration for what an on-demand, all access model looks like and whilst I accept that Gamepass (& similar) accelerates that, it's clearly already happening regardless. The biggest games in the world right now are free-to-play and cross-platform (inc mobile), and playerbases that are paying and non-paying are able to thrive on primarily cosmetic & experience driven battle passes. That model has matured, and thankfully we are seeing less of the mad microtransaction, pay-to-win hell than we use to (but yes, they still exist). Then you have games like Halo, TLOU2, Cyber Punk which still have that initial cost and are launching without key aspects at launch and are being added later. Halo multiplayer is free (regardless of GP) and then on the other end you have paid titles like FIFA that somehow manage to be the more exploitative than F2P games on the MXT front.
Publishers are already exploring a lot of these models, and with increased budgets and the time it takes to make games, it's worth considering that an ecosystem like gamepass is probably more suited to where things are headed. Waiting for a pay-off over 7 years of development or having to make big constraints (like no Campaign for this year's BF) is hardly the most sustainable thing longer term.
The one thing that has been promising from devs, pubs and MS commentary is that there seems to be a lot of flex around the commercial models used. If every deal was based on time played, then you'd see devs padding games out and looking to tie people in knots rather than create tight, quality experiences. If the deal was based on player churn, or player count, we may see that reflected in game design too. However, it seems MS are willing to let the devs/pubs drive the model used, and are even happy to help fund games pre-launch with lump sums, which then allow those devs to go and release on other consoles/devices. Hopefully all this means that the commercial model chosen is the one that is right for that specific game and player. I think where we are more likely to see an impact is on that delivery method as you say - moving to more episodic, or live service with expansions as you say - as with anything, that can be executed extremely well or absolutely terribly. There's nothing fundamentally wrong in those models and they all have shown they can work, but yes, the wrong dev (or more likely, publisher) and it can have a real negative impact and be a poor experience.
I totally understand people being skeptical, cynical, realists on this subject, but what I do find odd is that there seems to be this notion that somebody has to lose in these scenarios.
- MS will jack up the prices and the consumer will have no choice but to pay - probably true that price will rise, but in line with increased value I'm sure
- Games will be full of microtransactions and/or be a shell of what they should be with content releasing bit-part - at times, sure, but that isn't to say it wouldn't have happened anyway, and will also result in instances where the opposite is true - GP was the shot in the arm needed to avoid that.
- Games will be focused on multiplayer as that what keeps players sub'd and coming back rather than quality, story driven narratives - maybe, I can see it. But you can also make a case for saying that you don't need to cater to what sells on a model like gamepass, and something like Prey, Dishonoured or Wolfenstein can thrive in an environment where it isn't chasing sales of mainstream. The best thing for MS would be to offer a wide variety of games and quality experiences that cater to a large audience
There's many more. And I'm not saying that these aren't legit considerations, but I do think that gaming has enough growth and future head room for a win (consumers) / win (publishers & devs) / win (microsoft) scenario here. Somebody doesn't always have to be getting fecked over. It's clear that everything will move in this direction eventually - it's inevitable. We saw it with TV, with film, with music (with gaming bigger than music & film industry, fwiw!) - consumers who wanted to cherry pick content and typically buy physical copies (or at least, to have full guaranteed ownership and access of digital copies), studios that didn't want to make their productions available on streaming services as it may lesser quality / demand / undermine cinema sales, and then distributors like Blockbuster who felt the experience of renting in store would always be better than getting them delivered to your door (or device). All were left behind, and now almost everything is available as part of some wider subscription service, and it'll be the same for games.
If the likes of Gamepass get more games in more players hands, which I fundamentally believe will be true of this model longer term, I think it'll be (net) positive for everybody. Revenue will scale with larger audiences at a higher rate than costs will increase so there'll be much better return on investment for publishers and devs. There will be more flexibility in delivery models, and hopefully less need to chase to pure sales and up-sells which will hopefully result in overall better experiences for consumer (won't always be the case, but overall, I think so) and most importantly, huge value to the customer whose overall investment in gaming won't need to change much, but they'll benefit from that economy of scale and access a huge game library.
Remember seeing Sopranos full box set for £80 at HMV on a shelf and that was your only way to access it if you hadn't taped the whole thing (or pirated it..). Now, for the same price you can access Netflix for a year and the amount of money being pumped into television products and original content has grown exponentially. It'll be a similar thing with gaming.
As said before, I'm using gamepass as catch all here, but we all know Sony and Nintendo will move into this space, and when they do and have experimented themselves for a while, it'll be great (a bit of subscription fatigue and some annoying admin aside)
This is just my rambling, not very concise, 4.30am take - not necessarily all in response to you, but yeah.