VICE: Ever since the dawn of gaming, there has been a huge debate about whether video games can be considered art. This has been inflamed time and time again by the latest releases, which constantly push the boundaries of what can be achieved within the medium. Naively, those arguing against always seem to deny the creators and artists the proper credit for their work, labelling their output as nothing more than a toy. This is disingenuous and underappreciates the amount of effort and painstaking research that goes into the development of many modern games.
The Ori and the Blind Forest studio CEO has asked the fans to purchase the game instead to completely support it.
I've been told that this is an outlier and 99% of devs feel the opposite of what moon studios is saying right here.
"It can be? If you're a smaller dev and get an upfront fee to put your game on gamepass and it blows up, that's great.
I merely pointed out that Moon would make no money at this point from people playing Ori on gamepass - so not the best way to support us!" - Thomas Mahler, Moon Studios
"This is the exact argument people have been saying about GP for years now"
It's not. Moon studios had no say in their game going on GamePass, because it's a 2nd party game and Microsoft own the Ip and games. Moon was paid for developing the games and presumably get a cut of sales, GamePass is hurting their sales but this is a different situation.
They make no money because they were already paid an upfront fee. So they MADE money, but make no additional money.
yeah of course because people renting games and not buying them is so much better for studios.
Microsoft has conditioned people not to pay for their hobby or at least not to pay to own anything
@GamerRN
"They make no money because they were already paid an upfront fee. So they MADE money, but make no additional money."
So it's a good thing that they make no additional money despite their game having continued success well after the initial payment?
@Lightning77
"Because it is. You can name on one hand the studios GP doesn't help."
Just in the past few months we have had statements from Larian, 2k and now Moon Studios (as well another indie studio that released it's game pass but I can't remember who it was) have made similar statements recently about the effect of subscriptions on sales and profitability.
Heck you recently saw in Insomniac's leaked slides that after games were put on subscriptions the sales of the games almost totally dried up, which is something they have publicly been saying for years. And on top of that even though xbox fans constantly deny it, Microsoft leaks as well as their own statements and actions (like putting thier games on rival platforms) clearly show that putting games on subscriptions lowers the potential profit of a game.
It's time to accept the reality that the long term effect of subscriptions has been lowered revenue and profit for game sales almost universally across the board.
Credible research and information keeps showing that people don't buy games that are on subscriptions and more and more people don't buy games they suspect are coming to subscriptions.
Look into Outriders situation, unless you are a very small indie dev, gamepass loses money for everyone involved, including Microsoft.
"oh really. The Microsoft /Game Pass Dream Bubble is bursting, eh?"
I don´t think Sony agrees, because they´ll continue and release yet another brand new MBL game on Gamepass day one for the fourth time in a row!
@Crows90
"Because they have a choice right?"
Yes they do. They could say no. Nobody is forcing Sony to make MLB games to Xbox at gun point, especially day one on Gamepass.
Christopher
"That's not by Sony's choice..."
Of course, it´s their choice. They could just said *no* to MLB and made their own baseball game just like EA did.
Besides, It´s a GaaS title after all and one of the most played on Xbox. So it´s not really hurting Sony in any way, and I´m 100% positive that they relly love those fat checks from MS.
"This is a poor argument."
You can say that, but, the Interesting and undeniable fact is that after four years making MBL games available on Gamepass day one, nobody from San Diego studio got fired in Sony´s recent wave of layoffs.
Just food for the brain.
That's not a business choice that was decided by Sony, that decision was decided by the MLB. Sony will reap the rewards only because Sony's first party developers (Sony San Diego Studios) develops The Show. If it wasn't for the MLB licensing contract of The Show the game would still be exclusive to PS.
"Of course, it´s their choice. They could just said *no* to MLB and made their own baseball game just like EA did."
Well this isn't EA, they lost the license to Fifa, not Fifpro, or the premiere league or champions league or the euros.
MLB I'm guessing (i don't play baseball) is the only licence to it. They have no choice, indeed. American gamers will want authentic teams im sure.
@christopher: “That's not by Sony's choice... This is a poor argument.”
Have you see him have a rich valid argument when it comes to Sony. 🤷🏿
@obscured: “Yes they do. They could say no. Nobody is forcing Sony to make MLB games to Xbox at gun point, especially day one on Gamepass.”
Sure buddy whatever keeps you happy same as no one is forcing Xbox to now and in the future release their games on PlayStation and Nintendo oh btw in the near future Xbox will go fully 3rd party like Sega 💵💰
do you understand the concept of licensed games? good lord the straw arguments or just lack of actual real information is astouding.
*** Of course, it´s their choice. They could just said *no* to MLB and made their own baseball game just like EA did. ***
That's an illusion of choice. It's not a choice. You're acting ignorant to try and serve up a bad argument.
you have to remember that these games are old now, they are given a fee upfront for their titles to be on gamepass, but for new people to play the games naturally you want to drive them to standalone sales as opposed to them playing on a service that they've already been paid for.
I don't understand what you are saying here. This is the exact argument people have been saying about GP for years now. In the short term the upfront cost is good, especially if your game is either trash or was never going to be popular in the first place, but long term and if your game exceeds expectations then it's not as good. Also if your game is AAA and is a sure fire going to sell millions day one, people want those titles day one on GP as well and think it's sustainable for some reason when logically that doesn't make sense.
@Outside - I don't know if MS has any incentives in place where devs get bonuses if games do well. You'd have to talk to someone in the know there.
Same here. its a nice little compilation. Plus I have the XB special editions on disc (still sealed)... and it was all thanks to playing them in Game pass. I dont get why its so hard for people to understand how this service can actually lead to sales, not just blindly accept the few who complain about how sales weren't as good as they expected.
Because not everyone is like you.
Most people wont go out and purchase a game on other consoles or buy special editions of games they already played if they can just try it on their cheap subscription service and move on once theyre done with it.
I bought Ori for Switch because it's on GP and wanted to be able to play it on the go. That being said, at 120fps and 4K on Series X, that is the way to play.
Fingers crossed for a release on PS5, I'd snap them up even though I have them on Switch already.
They didn't have a choice to partner with Microsoft for funding and create the game for them?
I’m with OneLove on this. Don’t go begging to fans when you already took Microsoft’s money.
For smaller companies to even have a CHANCE to make some money on Xbox, they often have to put their games on Game Pass. Don't be dense.
Anyone who wanted Ori has most likely already bought it. The game is not going to sell significantly anymore but GP will offer free exposure so that when Ori 3 comes out people may be willing to buy. If your game is good enough people will support in even if they can get it on a subscription. I still buy plenty of games that are available on GP and I also have played plenty of games that I would not have played thanks to GP. Bottom line is this, make a product people want and they will buy it.
I think what the CEO is implying is that the studio makes more money per copy sold vs a player on GP. But I think we know that as common sense. Even without being privy to Moon/Microsoft's contract, I think we can assume that because of the nature of GP, more money can be made per player at retail than via subscription. And honestly this would also probably apply to Microsoft as well. As in they would make more money too. Thats why the only way to maximize the utility of a subscription is to have a really large subscription base.
These are some of the greatest games similar to Blasphemous to play while waiting for the much-anticipated Blasphemous 2.
They may not be as remembered by the vast majority as other classics, but these PlayStation 2 titles are still significant.
A good number of these games are pretty well-known in the gaming community. I don't know who this 'no one' is, but they might not have been a gamer during the time of the PS2. ICO? The Warriors? BULLY?!? C'mon now.
Not one of these is pretty "forgotten". But what you can forget are bad lists that need 15 clicks.
Because the approval system is fundamentally flawed. The amount shouldn't decrease for approval over time, nobody should be able to have more than one vote, and pending content should be more visible so those measures don't feel necessary to push through less immediately popular pieces.
The number of ways this system can be intentionally or accidentally abused so crap like this can get through has been ridiculous for ages now.
The title is misleading, it should be 15 best ps2 that you always ignored (hence the title of the video).
These games are not unknow but often left out when talking PS2 great game.
The warrior is a great game but let's be frank just mention it in a discussion amongs friends and half the crowd will go " OMG I forgot about that! "
I think that's just a factor of time. Most movies from the 80s/90s that are great are like that with me as well. They're still great, just been so much between now and then that you can't keep it all at the forefront of your mind.
15 games on 15 pages? F*** that. I'll save you a click:
The Thing
Virtua Fighter 4: Evolution
Deus Ex: The Conspiracy
Fatal Frame 2: Crimson Butterfly
Twisted Metal Black
ICO
Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy
Transformers
Silent Hill 4: The Room
Red Dead Revolver
War of the Monsters
XIII
Mercenaries: Playground of Destruction
The Warriors
Bully
Agreed. Some heroes put on their pants one leg at a time like the rest of us. Thank you.
I remember and know all the game exceot War of the Monsters...
But maybe my name is "no one"
Last time I checked (a year ago) War of the Monsters was available to buy as a ps2 classic on the ps store. Know I've still got my disc copy and fairly sure it's in my digital library
This video game journalist must not know any gamers, not be on any gaming sites, and is probably young only know of these games because of an older sibling.
None of those games are forgotten and most are spoken of fondly fairly often.
I have a notebook with that picture on it. Love that notebook
I absolutely adore Ico, but between the game's cover art:
http://static.giantbomb.com...
and this, http://www.abcgallery.com/C...
by Giorgio de Chirico, it doesn't just look like Fumito Ueda was "inspired" by the painter, rather, it looks a damn rip-off.