460°

Xbox Game Pass a "difficult" financial model for The Callisto Protocol

The Callisto Protocol developer, Striking Distance Studios, considered adding its upcoming horror game to Xbox Game Pass, but "as a single-player linear game, it's really hard to be successful in those types of services."

Read Full Story >>
trueachievements.com
Jin_Sakai639d ago (Edited 639d ago )

Why does this read as “acquire us and we’ll put our game on Game Pass?” After all, Striking Distance Studios is Led by Dead Space and Call of Duty Franchise Veteran Glen Schofield.

crazyCoconuts639d ago

Confirmation bias? To me it reads like they would need MS to fork over more money than MS is comfortable with because Striking Distance is anticipating healthy sales, and they know GamePass will eat into sales of individual units. Maybe that's my confirmation bias talking 🙂

Crows90639d ago

Exactly. Gamepass is good for older titles with no legs or new titles that haven't gotten much traction or are nervous of not being successful enough.

Eonjay638d ago

The bulk of money that a single player non- live service game can earn back will usually be from early initial sales revenue. This is why a lot of Sony's first party games would suffer if they were offered day and date on a subscription service.

To be clear, Day and Date is most effective when the games on the sub are live-service

Understand this and you will understand the goals and stances of both Sony and Microsoft. You will also understand Striking Distance Studios. This is all it boils down to. Everything else is noise.

Godmars290638d ago

@Crows90:

Doesn't take away from the point that GP influences what types of games are made. Just like DLC and MTs.

n1kki6638d ago

Which is completely fine. There are thousands of developers making games. For some devs it will make sense for some it won't. Gamers love to argue in absolutes. But business isn't one size fits all. They all have different operating models, expenses, funding. Every third party game that goes on there will demand a lump sum and some sort of royalties from MS. This is no different. I don't know why this type of shit is even news any more.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 638d ago
I_am_Batman639d ago (Edited 639d ago )

I don't think this has anything to do with a potential acquisition. A short single-player game simply won't entice subscribers to stay on the service for more than a month. Microsoft probably isn't very generous when it comes to these type of deals, because they aren't a good match for their service model. Obviously there are pros and cons, but I can't blame them for being reluctant to sign a deal, that'll undoubtedly cut into their sales potential.

Lightning77639d ago

If that were true then A Plague Tale Requiem As Dusk Fall and that Immortality game won't be on the service.

I_am_Batman639d ago

@Lightning: Obviously the risk/benefit analysis won't be the same for every game. Budgets and estimated sales projections, among other factors, will influence decision like this.

We won't know whether these deals worked out for both sides, unless they can sustainably keep operating under the Game Pass model.

Tacoboto639d ago Show
SoulWarrior639d ago

I know you've turned in to a huge gamepass Stan recently but come on, maybe it's not all sugar and rainbows for every Dev to have a game on it.

CaptainHenry916639d ago (Edited 639d ago )

Krafton owns them though 🤔 do they mean Microsoft acquiring Krafton? BTW live service games and multiplayer microtransactions games is best for gamepass 😁 that's what Microsoft really wants that money 💰 🤑

Lightning77639d ago (Edited 639d ago )

Like what games? Like Immoral Felix Rising? A Plagues Tale Requiem, High On Life? Yep those single player games will be loaded with Microtransactions....

Troll attempt fail. Like always.

CaptainHenry916639d ago (Edited 639d ago )

@Lightning
It's facts one day you'll figure that out. it's the reason they got in the game industry. Doesn't take a genius to figure that out 🤔

LoveSpuds639d ago (Edited 639d ago )

@lighting
There us a world of difference between adding games to Gamepass after they have been available for sale and the sales are starting to dry up and launching a game, day one on Gamepass.

Also, I would suggest that Calisto Protocol has a far higher sales potential than any of the games you have touted,. It stands to reason that a 3rd party dev who is confident in the quality of their game will likely earn more money than your average deal from MS.

There are other less tangible considerations too when it comes to devaluing your products by giving them away cheaply.

Lightning77639d ago

You mean those types of games that are multiplats and are on other consoles and services yeah it is fact. Let's paint the whole picture and not cherry pick what you want next time.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 639d ago
+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 638d ago
Redemption-64639d ago

Microsoft has their own single-player games within the service, and I still think you're going to see the platform holder studios provide single-player games in them; I'm just saying [that] as a financial model, it's a difficult one to make work as an independent studio," James said. "I think you're going to see single-player games, but it will probably come from the hardware companies."

"As an independent, third-party, it's really hard to make a linear third-person game work within those services

crazyCoconuts639d ago

I'd guess it either has to be a relatively cheap to produce game to fall within the $ they're getting from MS, or has micro payment aspects to it that allow them to get a continuous revenue stream

senorfartcushion639d ago

It doesn’t cost as much to make a games as a service game. They’re always half-asses, meaning less effort, less production time and money sunk into the project, and less rights for the creatives involved.

A large part of live services is that it is a lot easier to fight against the idea of a residual cheque. If the game is constantly being worked on then the developer doesn’t get the back-end as there is never a backend in place during production.

MIDGETonSTILTS17639d ago

Lol the only games that come to Game Pass are:

1)M$ owned games (Redfall and High on Life)
2)Games that don’t expect or didn’t get great sales, so they need to recoup their investment (Guardians of the Galaxy)

Callisto Protocal devs would likely prefer category 1 over 2, but M$ is also likely hoping they can make an argument to them that they are category 2.

I’d expect them to sell well, and I doubt they’ll take a check pre-launch, because the game is getting attention. So, barring an acquisition, I think this game will cost Xboxers $70.

People still remember Dead Space.

roadkillers639d ago

What about Hades? I’m sure that game did well along with TMNT

MIDGETonSTILTS17638d ago

I think it sold very well on PC, but I wonder how their console sales compared.

That was early in GP history too, maybe M$ paid too much (because they can) to get a great game in the mix early on?

Hades was definitely one of the highest profile games to come to GP. I just have doubts that M$ will always splash the pot like that

jznrpg638d ago (Edited 638d ago )

Hades was out on Switch for a year already and made a lot of money there .

DefiledViper639d ago (Edited 639d ago )

Nope $70. Read more carefully. The $60 version is for Xbox One. So unless you want to play through backwards compatibility on your XS, you’ll be paying $70 to buy.

638d ago Replies(1)
onisama638d ago

70$ is something to be proud of? because sony is getting rusted for it ...so your like a sony child who is happy that other companies following up sony decision of making games more expensive!!! wow hell those ponies will give me a heart attack!! this shouldnt be something to be proud of or defend whatever brand it is but sony washed your brain to the core

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 638d ago
gangsta_red639d ago

I don't understand why this one game is being so heavily focused for GP as if it was supposed to come to the service in the first place.

Not every third party new releases will come to GP as some might not see it feasible or want that.

As nice as it would be, no one is expecting every new game to appear on GP.

VenomCarnage89639d ago

I'm thinking Xbox guys are starting to legit think everything will release on GP so they don't spend money anymore and just wait. But onto the point of the article existing,
maybe it's worth mentioning when devs directly state that they'd make less out the box on GP since it directly contradicts what many business gurus on this site say

gangsta_red639d ago

"maybe it's worth mentioning when devs directly state..."

There aren't too many devs that say this and the ones that do never had the intention of putting their game on GP in the first place. it's just a lot of imaginary financial wizards on this site like to pretend they have more industry knowledge than the actual accountants in the gaming business.

I find this mainly comes from Sony bros (mostly old alt accounts) that patiently wait for any bad news about GP no matter how small it is, then they run to their nearest reply button and make up anything to pretend that GP is ruining the industry in some outrageous way.

Tedakin639d ago

They do. I'm an Xbox guy and can admit this. Every time any game is announced, Xbox gamers are like "Is it on Gamepass?" No. Why not take some of that money you saved using Gamepass and buy it?

VenomCarnage89639d ago (Edited 639d ago )

@Gangsta

"And none of them intended to put their game on GP in the first place"

Firstly, you're making sh*t up right in front of us. Don't even pretend otherwise either because you know every company runs numbers to determine how to position their investment to see the highest returns possible. If their equations tell them that GP will make them the money bags like you pretend to know it automatically will, then why on earth would anyone possibly NOT put their game on there asap?? (I guess they are just Sony fanboys amirite)

Yeah no, in actuality it's almost like after crunching the numbers and determining their money strategy, they saw what you keep not seeing.

gangsta_red639d ago

@Carnage

What exactly are you even arguing here?

I don't know what's stranger, the fact you actually believe what you're talking about or arguing a point I never made in the first place.

I've said from the beginning that not every company is going to put their game on GP (for whatever reason they see fit). I literally said that in my first comment.

So again what's with the broad generic statements you're making here that has absolutely nothing to do with the anything. Unless you just love replying to me just to make no point at all.

So now that you have strategically analyzed why other companies aren't putting their games on GP, how about crunch the numbers of the ones that are putting their games on GP, day and date. Or do those don't count? (Must just be Xbox fanboys pretending these up and coming games Atomic Heart, Lies of P, Scorn aren't coming to GP amrite?)

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 639d ago
senorfartcushion639d ago

It’s not hard to be successful with a single-player, linear game; it’s more the AAA developer/publisher toxic version of “success” has been bastardised since games were judged on how many copies they sold.

They’re now judged BEYOND copies sold for no other reason than “the publishers wanted to be more than simply successful.”

jznrpg638d ago (Edited 638d ago )

That makes no sense . A game either makes enough money to be successful or doesn’t . They need to have substantial PROFIT for it to be considered successful. Why don’t you people want companies to make money ? Jealousy ? Breaking even is pointless . Making a little amount of money won’t get you a new game
. They need to be very profitable to keep going that’s how companies work and we should be happy they are making money if they give us the products we want . Small margins is how companies go out of business and you people that don’t want to support your hobby are going to ruin it . Cheap &$)$:!8-&2

senorfartcushion638d ago (Edited 638d ago )

The single element that’s ruining gaming is how far the shareholders of AAA companies have pushed the goalpoasts for what constitutes a success.

What do you think microtransactions exist for?

They don’t give gamers what they want. They make horrible default, cheesecake bases for games and continue the rest of the development out after launch while making money from a few whales.
The majority of the fanbases suffer in the process.

I don’t care if companies make money, they just have to make their share. The reason why we have no substantial AA games in development now is because the market is broken and won’t allow for it. Again, this is obvious stuff.

Show all comments (69)
440°

Days Gone Director Says Bend's Project Costs Over $250M; Says PS Co-CEO Doesn't Want 2 Zombies Games

Days Gone director claims Sony has already poured in at least a $250M in Bend's project; says Days Gone sold more than Death Stranding.

shinoff21831d 5h ago

Well that sucks. Seems they want more online trash. I'd rather of had the sequel if it was single player

MrNinosan14h ago

What online trash games did PS Studios release last 10 years?

Notellin12h ago

The past has nothing to do with the future. This is such a terrible argument. Everyone knows about their current live service push.

_SilverHawk_11h ago

It's so tragic what happened to days gone. It is such an amazing game but bandwagoners trashed it and it underperformed in it's launch year. Days gone is the best open world zombie game released in the past five years. I was recently playing it on pc and I'm still amazed by it.

Games are very expensive to make and it seems like it's normal for a AAA game to cost over a quarter billion to make so if a quality game like days gone greatly underperforms then people shouldn't be upset when they see a lot of GAAS. I still remember a lot of bandwagoners calling days gone trash but years later it's now amazing when it's considered a failure by sony.

If a game isn't the best thing seen since hats with pockets then a lot of gamers who haven't played it automatically calls it rubbish and whoever made it should be incarcerated

Cacabunga10h ago(Edited 10h ago)

Co CEO prefers gamers to boycott.. so be it. I’ll never buy a gaas.
Just imagine buying a game you cannot replay in some years.. this shit must stop.

Days Gone did zombies in a very original way. The story was also so engaging. You actually only meet Zombie hordes later in the game. There are many more enemy groups to deal with.

MrNinosan8h ago

@Notelin
I am one of the few who bought Days Gone on release day and loved it completely.
However, "more online trash" is phrased like Sony has put out alot of trash online games.
We got what, 2 games? Helldivers 2 and GT7, 2 of the most sold Playstation games where both is loved by millions.

You, me and especially shinoff has no idea if Fairgames, Marathon and Concord will be trash.

Just because we (as in you and me) don't love or support online games, doesn't mean millions of other do.

And we don't know what Bend Studio is working with? We don't know if they're forced to make a online game or another amazing single player experience.

The only thing we do know is that it's not Days Gone, sadly due to poor sales the first 6 months.

shinoff21836h ago(Edited 6h ago)

More online trash wasmt meant how insee it comes across. I should've worded it different I was meaning the focus they currently have on it.

Anything online is online trash to me. How long did naughty dog spend on that dumba last of us multiplayer, how about Concord, or even the other couple we hear about. I fk with Sony because rpgs and their 1st party single player games. Been like that for years. I hate seeing them waste time, money, and talent on trash. I understand bot every game is gonna be for me but this focus they've seem to had on multiplayer is extremely disheartening. Even at the state of play the only things I was really feeling were Astrobot and silent hill 2 and I'm content with that, not everything is for me. It's just the online focus I hate. Ms bought up 3 to 4 wrpgs developers, Sony just ignores rpgs 1st party wise.

And a days gone 2 would've been much better then whatever online sht bend is working on. I do know sometimes I get very idk emotional. I do need to work on toning that down a bit lol

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 6h ago
-Foxtrot1d 5h ago

It would be a shame if it was true that Hermen never gave the franchise a chance simply because he didn't like it and they already had a "Zombie" game with TLOU.

NaughtyDog are most likely moving onto a new IP next so it would have been the perfect time to do it.

ThinkThink21h ago

Here's where xbox steps in and releases state of decay 3 day and date on ps5.

shinoff21836h ago

I mean it's not out of the realm of possibility at this point.

Grilla14h ago

Days gone 2 was canceled before Herman was in charge. That happened like 4 years ago.

vfl52313h ago

4 years ago he was head of Playstation Studios. He would've probably had a hand in the cancelation.

Notellin12h ago

Man two seconds of research could have saved you from this comment. Amazing work Grilla you fit in with the uniformed N4G community who speaks before verifying anything that they say.

Redemption-6411h ago

Maybe encourage people to buy the game at full price and not when it's heavily discounted or go on plus. If this game had sold well when it was full priced a sequel would have been in the works. They made a single-player game that most people didn't support until they dropped the price.

Cacabunga10h ago

The guy’s just a moron.. he should have stayed within game development. His choices will have a terrible impact on the brand in the long run.

tay87019m ago(Edited 9m ago)

Dude is pretty pathetic. Sounds like a guy who's girl left him for someone better. Always talking about days gone sequel that never was, even though he is no longer at bend and hasnt been for a while. I for one am not upset about the lack of a sequel. It is one of the worst 1st party games in recent memory. Completely jank, played like an xbox game. The only redeeming quality was the hordes.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 9m ago
excaliburps15h ago

Yep. Kind of weird since it wasn't a sales flop, no?

I know we have to take what Ross says with a grain of salt since we're hearing just one side of the story, but even so, the game wasn't bad at all. Heck, it's my brother's favorite last-gen game from what I recall.

The amount of zombies on screen, imagine that with the PS5 and SSD? That would be insanely fun!

Grilla14h ago

Most copies were sold on sale. Not enough ppl bought it at full price. I paid 20$ for it 6 -7 months after release.

Notellin12h ago(Edited 12h ago)

Yeah we should never believe the creators side until we hear the corporate/big business side as history has shown we should always believe billion dollar corporations.

What a bootlicker statement.

derek8h ago

@Notellin, of course you'll believe an embittered ex-employee with an axe to grind because it's evil Sony he's complaining about. You guys act like days gone was this huge success and somehow Sony hates easy money a sequel would have generated. The game was mid and so was the response to it. They're still supporting the developer who is making a new ip that could be great.

shinoff21836h ago

Days gone was fantastic. I bought day one but didn't get around to it for months. When I finally did I was pissed at myself for waiting so long lol

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 6h ago
P_Bomb15h ago

Well I don’t want 10 live service games, but they have no problem doing that lol. Ugh.

CrimsonWing6914h ago(Edited 14h ago)

Oh great so we only get what the big wigs want… y’know, the people that really have their fingers on the pulse of what their consumers want. Faaaaantastic!

rippermcrip11h ago

Well consider they know the sales... they do know what the consumer wants.

It sold shit.

-Foxtrot6h ago(Edited 6h ago)

But if it’s true what this guy says it sold better than Death Stranding

Yet that got a sequel and Kojima aside out of them both DS didn’t really NEED a sequel compared to Days Gone which ended on such a cliff hanger twist.

Show all comments (61)
60°

Greetings from the newly minted CEO - Shams Jorjani

Operating under the username BigKahuna_AGS, Jorjani created a lengthy thread on the Helldivers subreddit to introduce himself to the community following his appointment as CEO in early May.

50°

Frostpunk 2 Dev Talks Creative Risks, Supply and Demand, and More

Game Rant speaks with Frostpunk 2 co-game director and design director Jakub Stokalski about everything 11 bit poured into the sequel.

Read Full Story >>
gamerant.com