With THQ Nordic currently acquiring several dormant IPs with the intention of showing some love to franchises and growing their portfolio, what would you like to see them buy? I've laid out my five hopes and tried to be relatively realistic.
By putting Black Ops 6 on Game Pass, Microsoft plans to gauge its growth, pricing, and monetization changes, at the cost of less game sales.
If they have follow up games that are bangers, then this strategy will work. But if it’s Call of Duty followed another dead period then it won’t last.
From MS financial perspective I think it may be the opposite.
A year of GamePass on PC is less than the price of two full price games. For all the people that would have bought COD for $70 but instead started subbing for GP, MS will get an extra $50/year which is good.
However, for each banger that MS puts out, that's lost potential revenue because the GP sub won't need to buy it.
So it only makes sense where the new GP customers would have otherwise not spent more money with MS... Which is the case if MS puts out low quality shovelware.
If you’re looking at the short term you are correct. But if Xbox can have multiple bangers then subscriptions should increase. Which is what they want, recurring revenue.
I think this is more about microtransactions. MS wants to see if the upfront losses will be offset by more people login into the “free” game and buying more microtransactions to justify not selling as much COD games.
I honestly not sure. I feel like everyone who likes COD is already playing/buying it so I’m not sure how much more engagement they can get by putting it on gamepass. On the other hand, I also feel a lot of COD players are casual gamers, and they are the type to click on anything that is “free” ex: mobile gaming style
I don't see it working if Call of Duty makes less money and profits over time from gamepass 🤔
I dont understand why have it on it when we all know it sells with the name alone. Seems stupid to lose so much sales and $ just to have it on game pass. They basically shooting themselves in the foot with a already injured foot from all the other times they shoot themselves in the foot.
@blackblades, that's my exact point, even on xbox where most software sells poorly CoD still sells millions, but the thing is, if you don't put it on GP you kinda shatter the whole idea they've build GP up to be, they've dug this hole themselves.
I think it might tick up subscribers a bit, but warzone is already free and gets millions of players regardless of GP. But where will those extra subs come from? Xbox sales are dropping like a rock, PC gamers are very firmly rooted in Steam and will just buy it there.
@black
If they don't include it on Game Pass, they lose the claim of First-Party Day-One on Game Pass, and thus would begin the slippery slope of what's-ok-to-not-include and the devaluing of the service, and further sinking Microsoft/Xbox's already tarnished reputation.
Stuck between a rock and a hard place and this move buys them time to work out more future-math.
I still expect a price increase in GP to compensate but who knows. With all the factors in play like COD points there are too many variables for someone on the outside to predict what will happen. I assume they have a forecast model where this all looks peachy.
When the game does not hit 1 Billion in revenue in under two weeks they will wonder why and the next thing you know; Season Updates will no longer be free.
Yeah I expect paid DLC and season pass in your face, now you are buying for a game you are renting
That's where they're relying on PC and PlayStation gamers to pick up the slack. They know their business model isn't lasting so in order to give it away "free" for Xbox, they're banking on PC and PS5 customers to make up for the sales loss on Xbox, otherwise they wouldn't be able to pull this off like they want to. Xbots don't see it but, it's their gaming brethren that'll keep their console manufacturer afloat a little longer because the service they hold so dear isn't viable anymore. So, it's by the good graces of their fellow gamers they live to fight another day.
Consumers don't understand how Xbox Game Pass really works. It's not about the volume, and maybe Xbox doesn't want them to know. It's not about how many games you play. Developers don't make money by how many people play their game, it's HOW LONG you play. How many hours to put in.
Customers like David Jaffe that only like to sample don't help the service succed. Jaffe is a cheapskate stoner who spends all his money on Diet Coke, Jolly Ranchers, and weed to fry his brains (it's medically proven, sorry to disappoint) but Jaffe wants as much as he can get for as little so, he's not much of an advocate. But he also plays games for a little while and then gives up, it's just his personality, maybe A.D.D. or something, but Game Pass is dependent on how long a gamer sinks hours in. Why do you think Phil Spencer wants Helldivers 2? Because gamers don't put it down. Hellblade II, they'll play the campaign and then be done. Games like that sink to the bottom of the pile, they disappear. Xbox LIKES Games as a Service business models because it sells their service, but that model doesn't work for Sony, Helldivers was a stroke a luck, lightning that won't hit twice because PS fans don't want that. But that's how Xbox keeps it's games at the top of the list and on their service. The longer you play a single game, that's how devs make money
subscribers go up, execs celebrate win, get bonus, price goes up, subscribers go down,
execs dont care, got their bonus,
If it works CEOs and shareholders get a payday and if it doesn't even more studios get closed by MS so CEOs and shareholders get a payday.
It will sell on PC & PS but as long as COD is for rent on Gamepass it will not sell well on the XB platform. Most folks such as myself that like COD just for the campaign would rather rent it for that month instead of paying $70 plus tax for the game.
Your smart.
its 70 for base plus 10 to 20 for a season pass plus another 30 for there better season pass,
...now you are finally getting how to use GP. No commitments, just play what is offered. if you like it so much and want to keep a copy for yourself... you can buy it when you want to. I used to buy games based on if they looked appealing and have been burned many times on things. With this, I can try before I buy. And I have actually bought several games after having rented them in the service. It literally is like the old days of renting only you get the whole store instead of pay per rental.
I've been knowing how to use Gamepass. I sub the service yearly & I play games on the service that I don't have to pay the full price for such as Persona 3:Reload. I mostly play & pay for games on my PS5 but if a game lands on GP that I'm interested in playing & I don't have to buy a copy for the PS5 I'll definitely play it on Gamepass.
And there you have it, it's like you actively want to destroy the industry. Just rent the games and then buy them, knowing that doesn't happen and the actual cost of pushing a rental service is studios closures and firings.
So far MS has done nothing with Bethesda and Activision except limit where they sell, close successful studies, fire thousands and mass industry consolidation. No new games are being made that weren't already coming and some like Tangos future titles that they were working on we will never get to see now because of MS and their greed.
Massive industry consultation benefits only the company doing it, consumers and the workforce always lose out because of it. What MS is doing leads to cuts and a lesser end product. If MS had spent the money on making games instead of taking them away we would have a far healthier industry, instead we have the same games but with restrictions and a service that has cannibalised sales.
Finally, the Vietnamese government has officially responded to Steam being blocked in the country.
VPN to buy games, fuck that if it's allowed or not, or just use a VPN and torrent what you can.
I just cannot believe we haven't had a game from them this generation nearly 4 years in.. crazy!
If the game is crap then yes there will always be negative feedback it comes with the territory. It's called word of mouth or welcome to the internet. Where the truth about a game comes out really fast whether the game is good or crap. If you can't handle the criticism because of a game then why publish the game. Why should people who never criticized or even played the game be punished? Vietnam has some really screwed up laws block Steam because they don't answer us rule. And going on a witch hunt with Steam please. Where's the proof, where's the evidence of this witch hunt. Somebody is butt hurt and has a Vietnamese Karen leading the witch hunt.
Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick doesn't think AI will reduce employment or lower development costs, and calls it "stupidest thing" he's ever heard.
They already have AI trained to do coding.......
How he thinks it's stupid is beyond me, Especially since we see it happening in real time.
Company A has 300 employees and lays of 200 to replace them with AI to release the same quality game.
Company B has 300 employees and keeps all 300 but instead uses AI to release a game with dramatically larger scale, scope, complexity, short dev cycle etc.
Company B would release a dramatically better product by using humans + AI and consumers would buy the better game.
I actually agree with this concept.
This is key facet. Its how the AI is used. It's actually is impressive as is and really would make an amazing addition to alot of people in their jobs, not just tech. It also has the potential for businesses to use to lay off large amounts of people, as much as they could to save money on labor. I hope too many companies don't go with the latter. But since usually companies are worried about bottom line over people...we will see some try and hopefully fail. But yeah, if its to help workers like in your company B scenario I'm totally down...Just scared Company A may be too enticing to some ceos and businesses.
Value of AI and value of humans will both be increased with human-AI complex. Each, by themselves, will not be independently better than the other. Whether AI will ever be independent from humans is the fear question of humans, ironically because of our doing. At this stage, most of the doing is because of humans, not because of AI. AI is doing exactly that by our design, until we have failed ourselves with an AI development that went awry. The biggest take is that humans have only ourselves to blame when things become wrong, and we have to decide what is the ultimate goal with AI we want to accomplish. It would take a person with high morals and high ethics to make right of AI. I would not want businessman to decide what AI should do or what capabilities it can have. AI should be in the hands of people with high moral fiber, or those operating on love, kindness, and compassion.
AI is SUPPOSED to be used as a tool, not a replacement. It's designed to do two important things artists can take advantage of immediately.
- Make the ideation/reference imaging process much quicker and easier (basically using it as a google search)
- Make mundane and time consuming tasks faster and easier so more time is spent on creation.
Unfortunately, what many have done is used it as a way to replace rather than supplement.
CS7
In the ideal world yes.
In the real world where companies have shown little desire to innovate and spent every effort to maximize profits the end result will be the same quality games (if were lucky) made by less people and more AI.
Company Real World: Fires 200 people and makes the same game cheaper using AI and the executives get record bonuses.
Edit:
Lets look at history, specifically auto manufacturing.
In the 70's and 80's the auto unions tried to oppose automation of jobs (robots) stating that they would take peoples jobs. And the people in charge who wanted to make more money said the exact same types of things that are being said about AI. But we can look at history and see that countless types of jobs were in fact replaced by automation, that was of course even compounded upon by computers.
The net effect was that the rich got richer less jobs were needed so wages were forced down by competition for the jobs that were left.
that concept works in the initial beginning phase of AI but once AI learns and surpasses the knowledge and coding expertise of even the best human employee than this CEO will no longer need competent humans in that line of work.
@Hue_My£D_Long
Yes but that is a choice then by massively increased productivity and this greater income and wealth and stagnating with similar levels of productivity and output and not creating much wealth. Usually the option that creates wealth prevails because a rising tide raises all ships.
You can already make your own SFX with text prompts now as well, of course it will lower development cost and time
WARNING WARNING ‼️ SARCASM AHEAD
Sure Strauss and robots didn’t take jobs from car factories.
Edit:Sad thing is he believes it and unfortunately he won’t be replaced for a long time by AI
He doesn't, he's just lying. These people lay people off so they can get bonuses. If AI takes jobs, their bonus goes bigger and the workforce goes smaller.
Because he sees AI as a tool to aid development. He wants to use AI to help make bigger and better games in the same timeframe. Other CEOs want to replace devs with AI to cut costs and make lifeless games faster for a quick buck. Strauss has the right idea, this is how AI should be used. To extend and expand the capabilities of devs.
There will be few companies who will go overboard and try to replace their employees with AI tech. The ones that will make the most money will be the ones that utilize ai, along with their employee talent, to make the best product possible
AI could handle some of the most time consuming processes. To expediate the development, so in return, costing the publisher's last money end time.
Not reliably they haven't. Coding done by ai is generally abysmal for all but the most generic tasks.
I think maybe sometimes we give people in these positions too much credit when it comes to intelligence.
I think you mean candor, not intelligence.
If you take him to mean what he's saying at face value, sure.
I don't. And I think he's clearly lying.
As long as it doesn't effect his inflated executive salary or his ridiculous bonuses I'm sure he's fine with it.
Dante's Inferno is my personal choice. It may be a GoW clone but its a very well made GoW clone.
Yeaaah dino crisis will never happen as much as I would love for it to see daylight again. Though capcom has changed and turned things around for them, it may happen if we ask. They did with onimusha
The world needs more Gex.
Hogs of War is underrated. Game is pretty good and fun.