Xbox’s Spencer Sees Progress Toward Activision Deal Approval, says he expects that console exclusives are something "we're just going to see less"

[peter42O]

Yep, and I also said them able to offer Elden Ring among other games for Series S buyers to get for "free" was another smart move, tho I still question why Series S needs that type of push in August unless either the numbers are low or they feel numbers in the holiday shopping season could be suppressed by Sony and Nintendo stuff at that time.

Still though, it's association with a genre that's now mainstream. I do think Sony have something cooking with FromSoft though, maybe in collaboration with Blue Point. I'd be shocked if they didn't or haven't for a couple years by now.

I think it's because they manufacture more Series S consoles than X (2 to 1) and probably don't want to get a massive inventory of them so deals/adding a free game will help them sell faster and keep inventory at a steady rate instead of having warehouses full of them. It could also be that com November/December, Microsoft will push Series X instead so better to push the cheaper console now while pushing the expensive console later.

I think From Software simply stays multi-platform because that's what Elden Ring is. And it's cross-gen. Imagine going from 5 platforms including PC to just 2. They won't get anywhere near the sales of Elden Ring. Also, didn't From Software say years ago that they had no interest in doing Bloodborne 2? So unless it's a PS5 exclusive new IP, I think From Software simply stays as is. I do agree that it's association with a genre that's now considered mainstream. And I think that Wo Long game is also a souls game so Microsoft going after genres and games you wouldn't think they would.

I don't think this holds true for every studio. Some studios don't want their money to be beholden to a single platform holder via an upfront advance, which is what the lump sum GamePass deals are. At some point, if MS's 1P gets really rolling, and they need less reliance on 3P games in GP, then teams that have managed sweetheart upfront deals in the past can find themselves in trouble if they now have to generate money by selling directly to their customers.

Because what if those customers aren't there, especially on certain platforms, because they took GamePass money in the past all the time? What if they didn't garner enough actual fans even with the GamePass money? It means they may've built only a small audience of partially dedicated fans through the service, which could not be enough for the IP to stand on its own if in case GamePass isn't something they can rely on in the future.

I agree that Microsoft won't need to rely on these 3rd party deals once their studios get rolling but I do believe they will still do Indies/AA games with maybe an AAA title here and there. The games they get on Game Pass day one may decrease but not by a big enough margin to where anyone would notice.

Personally, I always "blame" (if you want to use that word) the publisher accepting the Game Pass or timed exclusivity deals. I have never blamed Sony or Microsoft because as a hardware manufacturer, this is what they should be doing.

Building a consumer fan base with one game though doesn't guarantee that they will be there with their next game. Look at the studio that did Subnatica. They just revealed some weird board type game. I don't see majority going from Subnatica to that game so for them, if they were to accept a Game Pass day one deal, it could make a lot of financial sense.

Game Pass should never be looked at as something that can be relied on. For publishers and consumers, it be looked at as nothing more than getting your content to those who want it.

Also, you say that some studios or publishers wouldn't want to beholden to a single platform holder, however, a lot of publishers (more AAA than AA) accept timed exclusivity deals which is far worse than a Game Pass deal because most Game Pass deals are multi-platform games like Plague Tale Requiem and Lies of P to where if you own a PS5, you can still buy and play it as opposed to say paying for a game to be timed exclusive for a certain amount of time. At least with Game Pass deals, majority of them, the games are still everywhere day one.

The bolded hasn't really happened for most of the bigger games, though. Some of the smaller indie games? Absolutely, but there are even some which have done very badly in sales while going to GamePass Day 1. We haven't seen Halo Infinite being in GamePass lead to a substantial increase in that game's sales. We haven't seen similar for FH5, either.

Saint's Row, I don't know if that's the best example, because that's the pure definition of a "mid" game being saved financially by GamePass money from Microsoft. It's a lifeline made out of money, basically, if it were to go into the service. Same if it ended up on Sony's service. That may build goodwill between the platform holder, Embracer and the game developer for future deals and whatnot, but it creates a further perception problem for the service among critics of it being a breeding ground for middling content.

Which on the one hand can be argued against if you want to go by MetaCritics purely, because IIRC most GamePass games are a 78 MC or higher. But it's also fair to say that a lot of those games are regardless not appealing to the mainstream or have a very specific niche, I don't know if those types of niches serve a subscription service the same way they would an actual console, however, and you still need the big AAA games there Day 1 to help carry them which GamePass hasn't had much of since late last year and one of those in particular (Halo) you can arguably say is effectively dead for the short-term.

Halo Infinite and Forza Horizon 5 aren't good examples because with first party games, they will never leave the service unless it's a licensing issue so unless you're a collector or just really want to own a copy of the game, there's no reason to buy them when you know months/years later, these games will still be available on Game Pass.

All of it is a risk either way. There's a lot of freaking games that get released on a weekly basis and most of them flop. If im a small studio and I see pre-orders, google trends I think it's called and other metrics that tell me my game is getting no traction and minimal at best interest, I would easily try to get a Game Pass or PS+ day one deal because at the very least, I want to break even with the cost I put into the game.

Every game/developer/publisher is it's own unique situation. Can Game Pass backfire for some? Absolutely but it can also be of great benefit.

Yeah, maybe Saints Row isn't the best example. Meta Critic wise, I just found a site via Reddit that tracks all this shit -

Xbox Game Pass library browser | GamePassport

Find the next game to play with GamePassport, a convenient browser for the Xbox Game Pass library. Compare critic and user scores, filter by categories and features.

gamepassport.net

Around 80% or so, games are at least a 70+. There's very few actual bad games on the service. Granted, a lot even if good could be not what most want to play but then again, I keep seeing that Power Wash Simulator game in the top 10 of most played so who knows. lol

I agree in regards to majority of games not being appealing to the mainstream and whatnot as this applies to me but in fairness, Game Pass has a lot of great games that I would play if I ddn't already complete them years ago. And I agree that there hasn't been any big AAA games day one on Game Pass since Halo Infinite. I do see Plague Tale Requiem as the closest in this regard because while it's an AA game, it looks like an AAA title.

Going back to Lies of P, I think it'd of been an even bigger play if MS paid more on the top to test putting the game into GamePass exclusively for a month or so, then do digital/physical Xbox releases when it also comes out for PS consoles. They've already tested the inverse with Forza Horizon 5, but testing it the opposite way would be a good test for what the service could do on its own merits.

Just how many people are willing to sub if the game is exclusive for a month or two? BTW I've also thought that Sony could do something similar, if they want to bring back smaller indie/AA games based on legacy IP; put them in PS+ either exclusively or with digital copies purchasable at launch, then a month or so later do digital release and/or physical release for games where they deem that worthwhile. Could even just skip right to collector's physical copies if they wanted.

I disagree with making a third party game exclusive to Game Pass for a month because that would set a bad precedent and I don't think it would help all that much if at all. I would never do this. A game like Forza Horizon 5 makes sense though because it's Microsoft's game and it wasn't in Game Pass early. The gold edition or whatever it was called was available to purchase 4 days early which every publisher does nowadays. And majority of these early access sales was on PC via Steam as they would much rather buy and play the game on Steam than Windows 10 PC via Game Pass. Outside of their own published games, I don't see Microsoft doing this at all.

I think how many people would subscribe to get early access would depend completely on what the game is. If it was GTA then yeah, I see tens of millions of people signing up. If it's some new no name game or a Saints Row for example, I would put people subscribing as minimal and overall, probably not worth the investment in getting the game early for a month.

Either way, I don't see this happening for third party games at all especially since it would make things more complicated from the publisher's perspective of who's marketing the game. Like, it releases on October 10th everywhere on everything but you can get it a month earlier if you subscribe to this or that but can still purchase the game on it's original release of October 10th. I think this would become way too complicated and confusing which in turn could just completely turn off potential consumers right off the bat to where they say, the hell with that game.

 

[Snake29]

They are behind in console sales and thus marketshare ... and they are back in the last spot

They never left that spot.

 

[IntentionalPun]

Honestly, they could not be more specific and clear about this.

They absolutely could be more clear.

They could come out and say "Yes, games not on contract, that come out after the contract expires, will release on Playstation."

They could use "franchise" in their description instead they call "Call of Duty" a "title", and later use "games."

What is actually under contract for Playstation? A series of specific Call of Duty games. Not the franchise. So games being available "after the contract is up" does not imply anything other than those games not being delisted.

And before you or anyone else claims this is some Xbox fan copium, it's not.. I do not want any Acti-Bliz games to be held back from Playstation, it's my primary console lol

Lawyers are writing everything MS says about ABK, especially anything that was a written response to something.

And that "not profitable" thing has another huge grain of salt.. MS can do things that don't profit them.. and that statement was directly followed with "Even if we do make them exclusive" logic.

From a literal standpoint, all MS has promised anyone is they won't remove the contracted games from Playstation, after the contract is up, even though they'd have the right to de-list. Pretty much every statement they've made could apply to that, as they never outright say "Future titles of this franchise."

What they said easily fits the idea of COD's F2P mode being multi-plat indefinitely too, with mainlines being exclusive.. as long as there is one title you can buy and/or download on Playstation, "Call of Duty" is on playstation.

 

[Heisenberg007]

They absolutely could be more clear.

They could come out and say "Yes, games not on contract, that come out after the contract expires, will release on Playstation."

They have said exactly that. "Microsoft will continue to make Call of Duty and other popular Activision Blizzard titles available on PlayStation through the term of any existing agreement with Activision. And we have committed to Sony that we will also make them available on PlayStation beyond the existing agreement and into the future so that Sony fans can continue to enjoy the games they love.

They could use "franchise" in their description instead they call "Call of Duty" a "title", and later use "games."

Then people would be speculating that they said "franchise" and not "Call of Duty", so it could mean some other franchise Note that they haven't specified a specific game title. It's the entire franchise they refer to when they say COD.