360°

30FPS Standard Will Always Deliver Better Storytelling in Games than 60FPS - Heres Why

The gaming world appears to be moving on to the 60fps standard and we aren't sure that's such a good move. Here's why in the 30fps vs 60fps debate, the "Magical Story-Telling" and "Cinematic Experience" will Always stay with 30fps and Not 60fps.

Read Full Story >>
wccftech.com
Irishguy953863d ago

Yeah well 60Fps will always be better for gameplay. If devs really want, drop to 30FPS for cutscenes, but please try for 60FPS if it's a FPS or racing game

ADodoBird3863d ago

Yea Exactly, 60FPS is great for Racing and Fighting. But RPGs and Storydriven games should be 30fps :)

mattdillahunty3863d ago (Edited 3863d ago )

this author is making a very bad comparison across two different mediums, and it's apples to oranges. comparing frames per second in movies and video games is NOT a direct comparison, so saying one way will work best in both is not correct.

do movies have screen tearing, or anti-aliasing, or input lag, or anything involved in rendering video game code? no. movies deal in captured light, and it's reproducing the picture already shown, and it's going to reproduce it perfectly fine and perfectly smooth (assuming all the equipment is top notch, etc). video games have to deal with so much more because it's a different medium.

30fps in video games can mean more input delay, more possibly screen tearing, and other problems. frankly, going to 60fps and higher in video games just approaches the smooth quality that Hollywood already gives us.

sorry, not trying to sound like a dick or anything, but this author clearly has no idea what he or she is talking about. you don't just get an idea in your head and run with it. think it over, do some research, and write a piece based on facts and logic.

ZodTheRipper3863d ago (Edited 3863d ago )

He's only talking about Alan Wake - didn't that come out on PC? There you can make an easy comparison between 30 & 60FPS. I'm still thinking that games like GTA5, Killzone or InFamous are better with 60fps - this is the key to responsive and fluid gameplay.

ProjectVulcan3863d ago (Edited 3863d ago )

If the game is 30FPS but is locked solid to it, no drops frames or tears, and the control response is totally consistent, I don't really care too much. This is the key to making a good 30FPS game.

The best games that tell a story like the best movies capture you and get you to suspend your disbelief. This is much more difficult if the technical aspects of the game get in the way.

Quality motion blur at 30FPS helps no end as well. We have some console games with a good implementation but most don't do it or get it right. Alan Wake has a nice implementation. The game is plainly aiming at being cinematic.

This has been a pretty costly effect for existing consoles to manage. Again, Alan Wake manages it, but that game is very very low resolution on 360. I would expect the new consoles to be able to afford it. It'll help a lot.

There just hasn't been enough power to do high resolution, high quality motion blur and high quality AA on a console together. The newer consoles will be much better at that.

Mega243863d ago

60fps is a very different experience for many games than 30fps, a game that moves much smoother has advantages on gameplay.

@matdillahunty -- totally agree with you, when it comes to games there are so many variables to have the perfect looking game with great balance of gameplay running @ 60fps, Tomb Raider at 30fps is not the same experience as it is at 60 fps, its way better.

hay3863d ago

In short: 30FPS gives pretty much 0.0333 second time for all the operations application can do to read input, run logic and then draw everything. Locked 30FPS means they manage to do all of this in this time fraction of a second. 60FPS on the other hand, gives you 0.166 frame time.
Since usually most of frame time goes to visuals(them textures or vertex data can be fat), there's simply more time to draw with 30FPS.
The other side of the coin is the fact, that usually input is one of the first thing read during a frame, draw among the last. Which makes the time calculated above to be pretty much a delay of your input. It's obvious to be close to twice as big with 30FPS.

Sh*t hits the fan if frames are displayed incorrectly each second, too fast, to slow, unstable(varied frame time), etc.
Or if your PC is too slow to render 48FPS, HD footage properly(twice the bandwidth maybe?). Which might often be the case.

I can take 48FPS anytime over 24. But it's still within heavily brain limiting 60/updates blinks a second frequency(which can be responsible for dimnishing of multitasking capabilities).

frostypants3863d ago

@mattdillahunty

"going to 60fps and higher in video games just approaches the smooth quality that Hollywood already gives us."

Hate to burst your bubble man, but the standard for Hollywood films is 24fps.

mattdillahunty3863d ago

@frostypants

hate to burst YOUR bubble, but i already knew that and you completely missed my point. even though movies are only 24fps, they're a lot smoother and aren't subject to things like screen tearing, framerate drops, etc. ie things that happen in video games when a bunch of frames have to be rendered one by one. so even if video games have higher frame rates, movies tend to be smoother because of what they're displaying and the method used for recording and displaying it.

hence why i said the higher the fps goes in video games, the closer it gets to movies in the QUALITY of the picture. not the frames.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 3863d ago
codelyoko3863d ago

that IS what the article is saying :P That bieng said semi-action games like RYSE should also be 30fps imo... too much smoothness ruins the Heat of the Moment feel.

serpentine193863d ago

RYSE is all about timing. It would play pretty poorly at 30fps.

thejigisup3863d ago

Idk why you think smoothness is ever a bad thing. A game can be crisp and clear, visually as the developer intends without having to sacrifice frame rate. The beauty of having more frames allows you to make sure things are seen that you want seen. You can clean things up or muddy them. Devs want something to be blurry, choppy, inconsistent well then make do it at 60 fps. We have the tech.

Ju3863d ago

But...Ryse IS 30fps...(if you are lucky).

iamnsuperman3863d ago (Edited 3863d ago )

Could it be that we are not used to it. Using the movie example (the hobbit is a bad example anyway as it already looks weird with the intensive CGI moments) we are not used to the more frame per seconds. That doesn't mean the lower frame rate is better because of what you said (weak link in my opinion). I assume 60fps looked weird to start with when we played games but it looks normal now.

edit: to me 30 fps and 60 fps are more suited to different genres and game modes. Not because it affects story telling but because it can be a waste on limited resources (i.e. could be used to do other stuff without really sacrificing quality)

Tapani3863d ago

There is a reason they chose 24fps for movies. It's because under 24fps the human eye perceives the images differently (as a sort of slide show). Just over 23fps the human eye perceives the events as "cinematic" and experiences the action in front of your eyes as more "epic" or "meaningful" than in 30 or 60fps. This was a very conscious choice.

For games, however, developers are trying to keep the artistic direction coherent. This is why they chose 30fps for cut-scenes AND gameplay, because this allows better gameplay while the cinematic action also looks "gamey".

Nowadays, I would like to see how games really look like if the cut-scenes were in 24fps and gameplay in full 60fps (for responsiveness).

Nerdmaster3863d ago

Actually, they chose 24fps because it was cheaper (they had to use less film) than 30fps. It was the lowest they could achieve without sacrificing too much smoothness. So there was no such scientific study as "being more epic" in this decision, it was purely about money.

Allsystemgamer3863d ago (Edited 3863d ago )

It has nothing to do with how appealing it is. Film is extremely expensive so they lowered the count to 24 so they could produce the clearest and most fluid image without any choppyness. It just stuck that way and has become standard so that's why we see it as cinematic. Anything above just seems unnatural now and is not appealing. I saw the hobbit in 48fps and it was not appealing in the least bit.

I'm a film student.

Tapani3863d ago

I rest my case and admit I was (under) wrong (impression)! Thanks for correcting me. Cheers! :)

Ju3863d ago (Edited 3863d ago )

FYI, 60fps (and 50fps PAL) was there long before we actually had to drop to 30fps. Interestingly "ancient" consoles were not fast enough to multitask, everything was linked to the VBlank (which is actually simulated on LCD) and was a hardware limit of the then used tubes. Everything which would not be in sync with the VBeam would tear and made those games pretty much unplayable. LCD's have no raster beam and thus no physical (hard) refresh rate, more like a "pixel refresh frequency" (usually given in ms).

The current gen is a weird thing. It actually dropped the standard frequency to 30fps but also at the first time made cinematic games possible.

The next gen will be interesting because it seems we got enough bandwidth to consider 60fps the way they were originally intended. But at the same time, I am wondering if the assumption is true that the lower frequency is better for cinematic experiences. I also believe it is necessary for a better, more lifelike animation system - 60fps would just "skip" frames. 60fps are awesome for fast paced action games, but not movie like animations.

The Meerkat3863d ago

No, just no.

You are saying that a slower rate allows your brain to fill in the gap and that this is somehow better. Well how about 20 fps so your brain can make it even better? Or even 10 fps, or how about a hold up some pictures for you?

If the lower frame rate gives YOU the magical feeling then that is simply down to the associations YOUR brain makes.
If you had grown up watching movies at 60fps and someone showed you one at 30fps your reaction would be "What the hell is this crap". People always resist change.

I want to feel immersed in my games/movies and I don't want to be distracted by 30fps.

You sound like the people 10 years ago who said HD wasn't needed. Or the people who say that the imperfections and crackles of vinyl records is what makes them better.
These people are/were wrong.

With higher resolution you need higher frame rates.
30fps was ok with a CRT SD but its very noticeable at 1080p.

I expect to hear your argument more and more as PS4 games are released at 60fps and XB1 games are 30fps but that will just be the usual fanboys.

60fps is the future.

codelyoko3863d ago

You clearly did not read the article. Anything below 24 FPS wont register as a seamless video. Why do you think every single movie in Hollywood is shot at 24fs? Because it has the "Magic" thats why. If you think the ENTIRE production industry is plain wrong and you are right, then that's up to you.

The Meerkat3863d ago (Edited 3863d ago )

Well aren't you lucky that your eyes don't work as well as mine.

Because 24 fps doesn't register as seamless video to me. If there is any camera movement it give me one hell of a headache.
Why is every movie filmed at 24fps? Money is most likely the answer.
1. 24 fps was the minimum they could get away with so they did. 48 would have have been better but twice as expensive for the makers, distributors and cinemas.
2. Because every movie maker wants the maximum profit they film their movies for maximum distribution. So they have to film for the lowest denominator. Many cinemas wouldn't be able to show a movie at 48 fps.
3. DVDs which are still the biggest sellers wouldn't be large enough to store a 48fps movie in a format that DVD players could show.

At every stage 24 fps makes things cheaper. NOT BETTER.

Ju3863d ago (Edited 3863d ago )

The thing is, like HD or even 4K the technology is there to shoot e.g. movies at whatever frequency you want. And yet we are stuck with 24fps. And they tried (see the 48fps experiment). But it doesn't seem to work otherwise we would already have it.

The same way we use a post processing filter over the image - because technically you can shoot ultra sharp images at what ever frequency with no motion blur what so ever and yet it's not happening and it sure isn't what we would enjoy.

_QQ_3863d ago

This is all just brainwashing, trying to make it seem okay that most "next gen" games need to conform to 30fps.

frostypants3863d ago

A slower rate allows for that horsepower to be spent on better detail and effects. You cannot increase the framerate without giving up detail. I do find it stunning how many video game enthusiasts don't understand this.

TwistingWords3863d ago (Edited 3863d ago )

Game and film production and how motion is conveyed are 2 completely different entities stop comparing the two.

24 frames of film, is 24 frames of real time motion captured within 1 second, which correlates to anything above 40 frames in relation to 3D animation.

MuhammadJA3863d ago

It doesn't matter whether it's 60 or 30 as long as the FPS is stable and steady.

Show all comments (75)
350°

Sarah Bond dodges questions on Xbox studio closures

While on stage with Dina Bass at The Bloomberg Technology Summit the President of Xbox, Sarah Bond, was asked about the Xbox studio closures of Arkane Austin, Tango Gameworks, Alpha Dog, and Roundhouse Studios

22h ago
ApocalypseShadow18h ago

Of course she did. She's part of the problem and will just tow the company line.

VenomUK17h ago(Edited 17h ago)

Bloomberg’s Dina Bass could barely read her scripted question without looking at her notes, whilst Sarah Bond who WAS expecting the question spoke without saying anything of substance or answering the question in any meaningful way. Clearly she’s had the same expert PR training as Phil, but this avoidance was disrespectful. In time the short-sighted decision to shut down Tango Gameworks will be seen as of the most notorious examples why Phil Spencer messed up his tenure in charge of Xbox. That’s a fully built out talented team that could’ve been put to work on any project.

Additionally, Phil Spencer should not be using Sarah Bond as a patsy for his mistakes- he should be answering that question.

gleepot14h ago

I think you are all really overselling Tangos value. Hi-Fi rush was a lot of fun. Ghostwire was incredibly dull. Evil within 1 and 2 were just okay.

lucasnooker14h ago

Evil within 2 was incredibly under rated. I thought that game was surprisingly good

NotoriousWhiz11h ago

Someone else said it best. I don't think it was a Phil decision. It was most likely a Satya decision. I think Microsoft is done giving out free money to Xbox.

Cacabunga8h ago

people please boycott Activision Bethesda next release and support Hellblade.
these people mus understand that they cannot treat their fans and employees that way.
scumbags.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 8h ago
XiNatsuDragnel17h ago

Yikes you don't help Sarah 😬 making a problem worse

Christopher16h ago

She's playing her role. There's absolutely nothing any of them can say other than the truth, this is about profit margins and not quality, so they just don't answer anything and wait for gamers to forget.

shinoff21836h ago

I think news is coming of more ps5 release but they gotta be careful cause Xbox is still sitting on store shelves. They can't get left holding all that stock

Lightning774h ago

Come next month they'll flash nice looking games in our faces and expecting us to forget.

The only thing that'll be going through my mind at their showcase is how many of those studios will get shut down after release.

I'm not joking around either. MS probably expects every game to be like COD and do COD numbers. What a way to destroy gaming for the entire industry because they're dumb af at being realistic in what success means for each game.

-Foxtrot3h ago

Always feels she was brought in / promoted for this. Happened just before things started to be out in motion.

Phil and co have someone to throw under the bus and share the blame with

zaanan7h ago

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Hofstaderman17h ago

Like a deer caught in the headlights.....

notachance17h ago

I always wondered why xbox had multiple leaders with similar titles like Phil Spencer, Matt Booty, and Sarah Bond, like, how many heads do you actually need?

Seems to me it would be more cost efficient to cut 2 of them instead of all those studios.

DarXyde16h ago

Frankly, I suspect she is the most competent of them. I don't mean that I like her more, I mean that she's the best at articulating herself and giving the talking points MS wants to give. The others are starting to sound more like her than her sounding like any of them.

Are any of these people "responsible" for what's happening? No. This reeks of Nadella. But that being said, I don't see any of the Xbox heads stepping down in protest.

"Don't shoot the messenger", sure, but at the same time, the messengers don't seem to take umbrage with the message. Not enough to remove themselves from it, anyway.

CS73h ago

I disagree. Nadella is looking for profit as a CEO should in my opinion.

The problem is Dr. Phil & Co. had 10 years to bring Xbox back on track and have been failing woefully.

Phil needs to sell to Nadella that if we are to make a profit, we need to make great games. And to do that we need employees here for the long haul and the freedom to work on creative projects.

But as Phil said himself he doesn’t believe great games sell consoles.

RpgSama9h ago

Dude, 100%, forgot Major Nelson and Aaron Greenberg, like what is the point for all these suits? They have more C-level executives than games released in a generation.

This is just so they can all pass along the hot potato one at a time and in between all of them can say a lot without actually saying anything, misinformation at its finest.

Show all comments (40)
70°

The Games Industry Continues To Wonder What Is The Point Of Its Own Existence

While many gaming layoffs are cruel, Tango Gameworks being culled after Hi-Fi Rush doesn't even make sense.

Read Full Story >>
thegamer.com
Psychonaut851d 3h ago

Good read. I think the point is important. Cuz the message it sends is, make a bad game? Well shut you down. Make a good game? We still might shut you down. How the fuck are you supposed to feel any sense of job security under those conditions. The level of core incompetence at play in the upper levels of this industry is staggering. This is common sense shit. You can’t chase trends on a 2 year cycle when games take fucking 6-8 years to make. Just let artists fucking art for gods sake. They don’t understand the basic principle that they’re all haggling for the same slice of fucking pie and the market will not bear it. Find a different fucking pie.

TiredGamer1d ago (Edited 1d ago )

Might be a great game but it clearly did not make enough money to justify having the team make another game (under the MS umbrella).

It's never been just about whether your game is good or bad. The industry is full of great/underrated games that have a cult following or critical acclaim, but that fail to make great sales. Sad but true. It's a high stakes game, and at the end of the day, companies have to be profitable and make profitable investments. At the very least, there has to be the expectation of a long-term profit even if not profitable today. That goes for anything, no matter if the company is gigantic or a tiny mom-and-pop. We don't have to like it, but our buying habits played a hand in creating this monster.

I will keep harping that the industry has overreached its actual market and that it will implode. That implosion is already starting.

ApocalypseShadow19h ago

I partially agree with what you're saying in that companies need to sell well to make it in the industry. Something I've said again and again. Sony and Nintendo understand this about gaming by selling the game for as long as you can, then drop it on a service for additional revenue. It's why you won't see Sony and Nintendo expensively developed games on a service day one. It doesn't make business sense to do so.

The thing is about Tango is that they weren't given a chance after the acquisition when their game was shadow dropped on a console where gamers are told to not buy games but to rent them on a service for pennies. That kills day one sales even for small indie like developers who have big budgets for their company size.

Microsoft destroyed them in favor of pushing their services over investing in these developers futures or their games they created.

P_Bomb21h ago

“…make a bad game? Well shut you down. Make a good game? We still might shut you down.”

I got chills. It shouldn’t have come to this.

470°

Report Claims Xbox Is Planning More Cuts Following Studio Closures

"The sudden closure of several video-game studios at Microsoft Corp.’s Xbox division was the result of a widespread cost-cutting initiative that still isn’t finished.

This week, Xbox began offering voluntary severance agreements to producers, quality assurance testers and other staff at ZeniMax, which it purchased in 2020 for $7.5 billion, according to people familiar with the company’s plans. Others across the Xbox organization have been told that more cuts are on the way.

Speaking about the closures more broadly, Booty said that the company’s studios had been spread too thin — like “peanut butter on bread” — and that leaders across the division had felt understaffed. They decided to close these studios to free up resources elsewhere, he said.

Game Pass has not seen the massive growth that Xbox boss Phil Spencer may have been hoping for."

Read Full Story >>
purexbox.com
just_looken1d 21h ago

Sense it seems very few remember that human's were around before 2020 the next studio to close will be bethesda based no doubt on the history of.

Fallout 76
Elder scrolls online
elder scrolls blades mobile
fallout mobile
The vr versions of old games

Then you got starfield pissing out cash nothing to cover it.

I doubt tod's team or any sub team is making m$ cash they are no doubt on the chopping block for job cuts

If you can remember before 2020 even fallout 76 was made with over 4 studios.

purple1011d 8h ago (Edited 1d 8h ago )

pretty sure starfield coming to playstation 2024, nx gamer deep diving on the creation engine update in a recent blog, he seems to think, there is a lot of stuff developed to use on starfield for its Playstation release,

who will buy it though, ?? I think M$ has lost all good will now, after the Activision debacle, and now all these studios closing, people dont want to support them even if the game is half decent

Abear211d 7h ago

Bethesda is the only studio to release anything noteworthy on Xbox. Take Bethesda out and they have nothing this Gen. Hifi Rush and Starfield are probably their two biggest hits.

Cacabunga1d 4h ago

They are counting on bethesda and activision on consoles and PC.
I really hope there would be a massive boycott movement against just the next release. I’m sure they will reconsider.

They see employees as trash, i will never give them a dime.

Eonjay22h ago

Someone said that cost $350 million to make Starfield. The use cost of making games has gotten crazy. With MS putting everything on GP it makes it harder to recoup costs. This is why I assumed that everything is coming to PC and PlayStation. I think they will have a whole slew of titles ready for the Switch 2 launch.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 22h ago
-Foxtrot1d 22h ago

"Speaking about the closures more broadly, Booty said that the company’s studios had been spread too thin — like “peanut butter on bread” — and that leaders across the division had felt understaffed. They decided to close these studios to free up resources elsewhere, he said"

So what you're saying is...you bought all these studios and you guys can't run them.

Jesus.

Inverno1d 22h ago

Spread thin after firing over 2000 employees a few months prior. So basically they created the problem and their solution was to just fire more people. Absolute geniuses over at Xbox, of course can we even believe this to be the reason for the closures?

FinalFantasyFanatic1d 5h ago

I was just thinking this, they just fired all those people and now stated they are spreading their staff thinly, this just reeks of incompetence.

just_looken1d 20h ago ShowReplies(2)
Profchaos1d 20h ago

Leaders can't run them hire more management create new roles don't shutter entire studios cause you can't figure out how to run them.

Unless the reality is this whole consolidation thing was really an excuse for IP harvesting

anast1d 10h ago

He's lying. They are doing it for the shareholders.

1d 17h ago
kayoss1d 3h ago (Edited 1d 3h ago )

The crazy part is that if Xbox goes under, all these great studios will also go under. They've bought up all these studios and instead of letting the studio manage themselves, they fire 2000 across and now they're complaining that they're understaff. Sounds like xbox bit off more than chew. Just like all the promises that they've made but cant keep.

JEECE1d 1h ago (Edited 1d 1h ago )

Well, what do you mean by "if Xbox goes under"? Because MS itself isn't going under. So if they decided Xbox was no longer worth it, it's not like they would just eat all those losses. Sure, for individual developers where there are substantial costs in terms of the people working at the studio and minimal money to be made selling related IP (i.e. Arkane Austin probably costs a lot in resources but MS couldn't have made much selling the studio because Redfall is worthless and they probably want to keep the Prey IP), they may just close them, but if they were getting out of gaming completely, they could sell the IP and related studios elsewhere. Like we may mock Bethesda Games Studios on here, but their biggest IP (Elder Scrolls and Fallout) are very valuable. Similarly, I know Halo has seen much better days, but you are kidding yourself if you don't think that IP is worth a lot.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1d 1h ago
Eonjay1d 22h ago

Reports are suggesting that Game Pass will be getting a price hike soon and that Call of Duty may not be added to the day one offering. I honestly have a hard time believing this but it does beg the question why exactly did GP fail? I think the answer is that it just didn't get the growth that it anticipated. Jim was right but I wish he wasn't because at the end of the day, its gamers, devs and other front-line workers who have to absorb the blow for Spencer and team's miscalculations.

1d 21h ago
NotoriousWhiz1d 21h ago

And out of the ashes something even better than Xbox will be born.

Eonjay1d 21h ago

Honestly as long as is not a situation where the industry has to contract in order focus wealth on a few people who are already trillionaires..

Barlos1d 15h ago (Edited 1d 15h ago )

It's already here and it was born before Xbox was even a thing. It's called PlayStation.

Tacoboto1d 20h ago

I think 2022 killed the Series X.

2021 was a good year for Xbox though and maybe the best in a long long time, hardware and software and as a publisher. Halo Infinite launched to popularity, Forza Horizon 5 blew everyone away, Psychonauts 2 was so well received, Flight Simulator on console, Deathloop even on PS5 & PC.

But they followed that up with next to nothing. Then 2023 with Redfall, a disappointing Forza, Starfield, and 2024 leads with closures and layoffs. And some tweets reminding us Hellblade is days away.

The only disappointment with the PS5 is not enough Sony games. Xbox followed up no games with disappointing ones.

Einhander19721d 6h ago

PlayStations history has been built around third and second party publishing. The vast majority of games that people recognize as PlayStation games were made like this.

Insomniac only because a PlayStation Owned studio a few years ago in response to Microsoft buying up studios, every game they made prior to that for PlayStation was as a third party making a games published by Sony.

PlayStation has had an incredible year using that business model.

We got Granblue Fantasy: Relink, Final Fantasy VII Rebirth, Helldiver 2, Rise of the Ronin, Stellar Blade, and Silent Hill is right around the corner.

Eonjay1d 3h ago

I think Xbox S. Brand was already dying for some time. Your 2022 point is interesting but also remember that is a year after the lock down which hD created false demand.

Einhander19721d 6h ago

"I honestly have a hard time believing this but it does beg the question why exactly did GP fail? I think the answer is that it just didn't get the growth that it anticipated."

What?!?

Game Pass failed because from day one it was maintained by subsidization. Game Pass was never profitable, I mean, sure you can say that was because it didn't get the growth they predicted, but their predictions of it having "billions" of subscribers were completely ridiculous, to the point where saying that it didn't have fast enough growth is as completely out of touch with reality as their predictions.

Eonjay1d 3h ago

To clarify, what I am saying is that there is a scenario where GP would have worked and thats where they had a lot more subscribers. You see MS isn't dumb and they charted out how many subs they would need to make the system work. That's why Spencer testified that they would need 80 million subs by 2027 (which is crazy now in retrospect). Now we also understand why Satya Nadella's bonus a few years back was based on that unrealistically high Growth in GP subs. From the beginning they knew that the only way to make it work was with a large base of subs. This is because as you said simply subsidizing won't work forever.

Einhander19721d 2h ago

"To clarify, what I am saying is that there is a scenario where GP would have worked and thats where they had a lot more subscribers."

Yea... but again they expected/wanted an obviously unobtainable number of subscribers. Do you think that taking the risk was a good idea if it was based on getting billions (even 80m) of users?

"You see MS isn't dumb"

Are you sure? Have you been reading the news?

"That's why Spencer testified that they would need 80 million subs by 2027"

This was a refined estimate for the courts, and probably more truthful maybe... but go back and look at the first few years of game pass Microsoft actually said they were going to reach billions of people. Yes that was marketing, but still what they presented to the public to sell the idea.

I actually don't want to argue with you, normally I find your comments agreeable, but this one just came off a little off base to me.

Tacoboto1d 2h ago

"Game Pass failed because from day one it was maintained by subsidization"

I do agree with Eonjay here - *if* Microsoft got the subs they want, Game Pass could have worked. Microsoft assumed people would buy into a subscription service like they already do for TV and Movies and Music.

But that didn't work out, at all, with the catastrophic consequences that we're seeing today.

"Microsoft actually said they were going to reach billions of people"

Reach != Subscriber count. That's your own conflation. Reaching just means "being available in" and usable in, billions of people with the awareness and ability to access the service. There exists no quote saying they estimate "billions" of subscribers.

Eonjay22h ago(Edited 22h ago)

No worries. I consider it more of a conversation than an argument. I learn alot from people who don't agree with me. Bring it on lol!
And yeah I forgot about the whole 'reach billions' PR from MS. I think theybare a victim of their own BS. I think at these companies you do have people push back on pipe dreams from the management.
I mean clearly it wasn't a good idea lol.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 22h ago
FinalFantasyFanatic1d 5h ago

Maybe they need to put less games on there or just simply charge more from the beginning, I think they guttered their bottom line, they didn't make as much as they could have from selling games.

kayoss1d 3h ago (Edited 1d 3h ago )

GP fail because these studios poured in $100 of millions to makes these games only for it to given out free in GP. Even if Microsoft pay them to put in on GP, they are not making some of the profits they can potentially make. Especially not for AAA games. For studios making lower quality games, this may work but not for AAA. Look at Sony, their AAA games are award winners. Look at god of war ragnarok, they sold 5 million copies to date and needed to sell 3 million copies to break even. Thats a tough market to be in when your AAA game is not guarantee to break even let alone trying to make a sizeable profit.

JEECE1d 1h ago

Ragnarok sold 15 million as of last November.
https://blog.playstation.co...

kayoss4h ago

Sorry, i missed the 1 when typing 15. But the point i was making is that not all AAA games are guarantee to be a success.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4h ago
Scissorman1d 22h ago

For all the armchair executives who were calling for Sony to release its big-budget AAA games on PS+, the same exact thing would have happened at PlayStation. Game Pass has killed Xbox. Congrats.

shinoff21831d 22h ago

There's not many of of us clamoring for Sony to do this because most of us understand it would kill Playstation. I'm sure there's a few but I've not seen alot of it myself.

just_looken1d 21h ago Show
porkChop1d 10h ago

"the same exact thing would have happened at PlayStation"

But the same thing *has* been happening at PS. They've closed, what, 3 or 4 studios so far this gen? Laid off plenty of staff, restructured studios, etc.

BehindTheRows1d 8h ago (Edited 1d 8h ago )

PlayStation isn’t struggling. Xbox is. That’s the difference.

Sony also didn’t buy out multiple publishers with LOTS of studios and leave them in a state of uncertainty.

So, he’s absolutely right that Sony not following Game Pass in its entirety was smart as this very thing could have happened. Name a team, like Tango, who wasn’t struggling (like Tango) that Sony closed. Every closure was because of a studio who wasn’t pulling their weight.

rlow11d 6h ago

You’re right about that. People on here will turn a blind eye and downvote because it’s Sony. Jim Ryan flew to the London studio and spent the day with them. The very next day they were all fired.

Calling out MS and not Sony. No matter how the studios came to be. Won’t make a damn difference to those who lost their jobs. In the end it’s all the same.

FinalFantasyFanatic1d 5h ago (Edited 1d 5h ago )

This is why I have always advocated that Sony should not follow Microsoft's footsteps and adopt their model, Xbox couldn't afford to do it, Playstation certainly can't either.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1d 5h ago
1d 21h ago
Show all comments (104)