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."

[Jin_Sakai]

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.

[crazyCoconuts]

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 🙂

[Crows90]

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.

[Eonjay]

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.

[Godmars290]

@Crows90:

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

[n1kki6]

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.

[I_am_Batman]

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.

[Lightning77]

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

[I_am_Batman]

@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.

[SoulWarrior]

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.

[CaptainHenry916]

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 💰 🤑

[Lightning77]

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.

[CaptainHenry916]

@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 🤔

[LoveSpuds]

@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.

[Lightning77]

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.

[Redemption-64]

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

[crazyCoconuts]

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

[senorfartcushion]

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.

[MIDGETonSTILTS17]

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.

[roadkillers]

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

[MIDGETonSTILTS17]

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

[jznrpg]

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

[Ra3v3r]

Nope, $60

https://news.xbox.com/en-us...

[DefiledViper]

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.

[onisama]

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

[gangsta_red]

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.

[VenomCarnage89]

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_red]

"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.

[Tedakin]

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?

[VenomCarnage89]

@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_red]

@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?)

[senorfartcushion]

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.”

[jznrpg]

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

[senorfartcushion]

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.

[zsquaresoff]

Well this will break the hearts of xbox fans considering now they will have to pay 60$ for this game.

[Gamingsince1981]

Thats only the xbox one version, apparently the xbox sx version is 70

[JEECE]

No only Sony games are $70, remember?

[onisama]

sony fans happy that other games are following sony to rip evry gamer pockets but no xbox fans should not follow any games sold for more than 60$ !! let those brain washed sony fans do the worshiping

[jznrpg]

There were 70$ games before you just don’t remember EA games were 70$ NBA whatever etc .

[Petebloodyonion]

Then don't put it on Gamepass :)
It's not like the publisher is being forced :)
But they'll be quite the laughing stock if the game release quickly on another similar service.

[Redemption-64]

Not really, if it does release on another platform, it will mean that platform more than likely gave them far more money than MS was willing to give them. Hell am sure if MS cuts them a check right now that cover to possibly cover their expenses or expected sales on Xbox, they will agree

[Petebloodyonion]

then says it's because we want a bigger check instead of saying that a service like Gamepass is difficult for single-player expérience.
But somehow I'm believing that a bigger check suddenly makes it a compelling argument to go on a competing service and even more when there might be a blocking check given before to not go the Gamepass.

[jznrpg]

Laughing stock because they go where the money is? Gaming is not a charity what’s wrong with peoples thinking ?

[moriarty1889]

They are correct.

[Knightofelemia]

Easy release the game first rake in the money from the sales once the game has been out for a while then put it on Gamepass.

[BLow]

Spot on. And this is exactly what Sony is doing with their 1st party title but some people have a problem with this. Companies like money period lol. Nothing different than a movie coming to theaters first then the everywhere else later.

[Elda]

The very reason GP doesn't have first-day releases of AAA multi-plats especially the ones that are popular & highly rated. Developers want to profit off those retail prices first & foremost. The very reason I buy my games asap & I don't have to rely on GP knowing in most cases they won't have those newly released AAA multi-plats.

[GamingSinceForever]

This is exactly why Sony will never put their heavy hitters on a service day one. They know they can get $70 a pop at least during the 1st 6 months.

[SonyStyled]

If you’re buying AAA games for $70 six months after launch you’d be jumping through hoops TO pay full price. You can find those games in a sale for 30-40% off by that time. One week the PS Store, the next week Walmart, the week after Amazon, etc.

[GamingSinceForever]

Fair enough. However it is still more lucrative than placing it on Plus inside the 1st 6 months.

[Good-Smurf]

I just bought a brand new copy of GT7 for $16 just the other day so it's getting difficult to find and buy game at full price when it gets to be 6 months old.

[Pocahontas]

@Good-Smurf No you didn't! Source?

[jznrpg]

@goodsmurf I just bought an XboxSS for 50$ brand new . Anyone can play that game

[FPS_D3TH]

I feel like third party studios like this should be paid an exorbitant amount of money if Xbox truly wants it to come to game pass and elevate its library outside of all the studios they currently own. The potential loss in sales could greatly outweigh the cost benefits if you believe you truly have a heavy hitting well received and anticipated game. I believe Callisto Protocol does have that hype behind it where a gamepass payout very well likely doesn’t come close to potential sales revenue

[Bathyj]

Sounds like they are confident in their game. Good sign.

[northpaws]

That's the problem of GamePass, a studio would only put their games on GamePass only if they think they won't sell well. Because if you your games turned out to review well after a day 1 launch, you still won't get a cent more from GamePass, and as soon as the game leave GamePass, the players count will have a hard drop in 1 single day.

And I also give up on games on GamePass much more easily, because I FEEL like they are "free", so I FEEL like I lose nothing if I just stop playing it after 15 mins, but sometimes I missed out some good games because I didn't give it a good enough chance, so far, I paid 3 years of GamePass on my XBox Series X, only enjoyed Psychonauts 2, and Tonic, in the first year, and I still don't own any of these games.

But I have to admit GamePass is good for games that I never intended to buy in the first place, good quick rental for random games.

[Outside_ofthe_Box]

"And I also give up on games on GamePass much more easily, because I FEEL like they are "free", so I FEEL like I lose nothing if I just stop playing it after 15 mins, but sometimes I missed out some good games because I didn't give it a good enough chance"

This is actually an interesting point.

[SonyStyled]

It’s referred to as ‘engagement’, and it keeps going up

[Crows90]

Selling 5 million copies would net them 300 million in revenue. Even if they sell less than that I doubt Microsoft would be willing to fork over 100s of millions of dollars to make it worth it for them.

It's much better to release and sell millions and then talk with Microsoft or Sony.

[FlintGREY]

They better take that Gamepass check. With this game being $70 it won't sell at all on Xbox.

[jznrpg]

Nothing sells well on Xbox anyway . That’s why Gamepass exists . MS saw they weren’t selling games like competitors and thought let’s try Netflix of games because we aren’t making good enough games to sell millions like Sony and Nintendo. We can give them same quality but make monthly fees like the rest of our subs . Maybe you get lucky here and there and get a game that would be worth selling 10-20 million but I doubt it happens more than once every 5-10 years

[Harryvok]

And I think that's why Game Pass just doesn't get the types of games day one i'm really into. 'One and done' high quality third person action adventure games are exactly what i'm into and game pass doesn't really get those until much later.

[Destiny1080]

someone with inside knowledge knows gamepass is a complete and other fail and refuses to be another victim

[HeliosHex]

I agree. Some games especially a new ip confident in sales numbers can't afford to let game pass eat into those numbers. This game is a day one for me for sure.

[StarkR3ality]

No issue here, Phil said it himself when he said it'll be up to the developer how they want their games on the platform, whether that be Game pass or the good ol' fashioned way, the fact they thought about it shows Game pass is in every Devs mind.

For this instance I think that they are right to wait (it will come to game pass eventually) as it would eat into those big opening sales. Either way the game looks amazing and I can't wait!