During a question and answer with followers on Twitter, the well-known analyst of the NPD group explained how the increasing importance of similar services could lead to a devaluation of the contents, especially in a market as big as the US one.
Yea, we're definitely going to see some games that are exclusively available as full purchases only.
Of course he feels this way, those services directly attack his job market.
I was just about to say that.
Glad that Sony doesn't put their 1st party titles Day 1 on PS Now just to cannibalize its sales like MS is doing for their titles.
They are not bothered by it, so why are you? Microsoft is a big company and they make up any lost revenue from this in other areas. They also did the same thing to Office with Office 365.
Why are you glad by that
And what do sales give consumers like you in return? A freebie of some sort? In what world do consumers prefer things to be expensive instead of cheaper?
Your glad that Sony isn't more pro consumer with ps now weird mode.
LOL! Yeah, will glad to pay a 60$ for a game just to support devs, even though i'm a consumer. You don't support devs hard work if you pay a 1$ ( like on Game Pass ) to play a game and ditch it. Yeah, Game Pass surely helped Gears 5..... dropped off a cliff from charts everywhere and game dropped on US Most played chart. It's below 20th place for almost 2 months know. Yeah, you know, play it for 1$ and then ditch it. From a consumer stance you shouldn't always look how to go cheap. It is just short sighted. Instead, let's support devs with 60$ ( or 30$ like for Concrete Genie and Medievil ) That old 60$ system is what kept the industry as a whole afloat all these years.
Has nothing to do with his job. NPD tracks and analyzes a lot of things. There will still be physical games to track. He's just stating the obvious, because games released day one on these services is devaluing the game. Not the quality of the game, but the demand for the game at the current going price for new releases.
You do realize that the devs are payed a rate BEFORE the games go to Game Pass dont you? You guys don't know what the hell you're even talking about. The devs are compensated to put the games on the service which is how you can buy them at a discount IF you have the service. If his job wasn't effected by it then how does he account for things being bought on a service that doesn't force you to buy anything?
NPD doesn't exist to count the sales of video games. It does track video game sales as one of their services. Their purpose is to count thousands of different products across hundreds of different markets. They then sell that data to whoever buys it, or do analysis on that data for companies, or sometimes the internet at large. If all retail video games ceased to exist, they'd still count console sales. If consoles ceased to exist, he'd analyze some other electronics or market.
Yeah I rather not have a future where my games are being controlled by the overlords.
Then keep gaming the same way that you have been gaming because that option will still be around. You are not forced to use the other options.
Your games already controlled that way. The most popular games on the planet won't let you past the start screen without an internet connection.
I'm glad that the F2P issue was raised. You're going to have an entire generation of gamers coming up that game just as much as we did as kids (if not more), but who also only know F2P games. Growing up, a new game was a rare and expensive event. Now, I'm a phone tap away from thousands of games available at no cost. That's an issue we're going to see leading to devaluation and crappy monetization practices more so then a paid subscription service.
So many things are coming next generation and those things will eat away at the traditional model like the smartphone did to DS. Now, 3DS was still a massive success, but there were many ways to consume content and that ate away at the handheld market the same way that Stadia, XCloud and, whatever else is coming will eat at the traditional home console market.
Downvote it all you want because it's inevitable.
You're stating the obvious, of course it is inevitable. But what you seem to want to ignore is that it is also inevitable that quality will suffer because of pricing.
ATTICUS If a game is ALSO released at retail....How will the quality suffer? The Outer Worlds begs to differ.
"ATTICUS If a game is ALSO released at retail....How will the quality suffer?" One example would be less physical and digital copies get sold due the game being on Gamepass. Which in turn could end up reducing the projected income from sales which could impact the games budget. The decrease in the budget could impact the quality of the game. Just an example of how a game added to Gamepass on release date could impact the quality level. "The Outer Worlds begs to differ." The Outerworlds was being made before Microsoft even aquired the company and was never designed to be a live service game or Gamepass title. I would wait and see how the next game ends up before coming to any conclusions.
Outer worlds is a shitty fallout clone its embarrassing how it got those high scores.
I've made this argument before related to Spotify for music...if a kid now goes from their teen years to college graduation with their parents paying for a subscription giving them access to essentially all music that has ever been recorded, how can they be expected to assign any value to an album? Of course, artists have other ways to make $$ (touring, merch, etc) but unfortunately that other avenue in games is MTX.
Artist barely make any money off the album anyway and the music industry is still thriving.
Because the artists make a ton of money from ticket sales? And other things such as product sponsorship and similar items. If they could only rely on streaming services the story would be very different for them.
Nice the NPD can recognize this after it's been said by the community for a while now. It not even a maybe scenario. If you can get a bunch of games day one for $10 a month, it's going to make the value of those games as $10, with an access fee of $10 to continue paying for them. Just look at any game that's been released on PS+ or GWG a year or two after it's release. They could easily go for $20-30 used, but then they release on those services, and suddenly, the used price is in the $5 bin at GameStop, and only sells on Ebay when you throw it in with other games in a game lot buy....or sold to pad out the games when you include them in the system. It basically makes it the equivalent of a sports game value wise.
Gears 5 is already a MTX riddled shit hole with 8$ for a flag. But yeah lemmings keep championing this as wow so amazing the other shoe will drop and we wont be able to go back. Microsoft is ready to ruin the industry cause they couldn't buy it. The best news would be if Microsoft just fudged off they only brought terrible things into the industry.
I've never seen people do so much Double speak as the "service" champions just because a company they like pushes it. It's simple economics and there's data and precedents for us to look at. Rainslacker broke it down beautify! First all you have to do is look at the mobile market where this originated. Two M$ who is pushing this hard doesn't invest in SP games the quality of Sony and Nintendo. I just don't understand why a company who isn't the leader in their own market would be looked to as a driving force in said market. The Outter Worlds is thrown up a lot but it was basically done before M$ even bought Obsiden. That's why it also released on PS4. I imagine the sequel will be built around the service model because that's what M$ is focused on and is pushing. I don't want cheap! I want good! Been gaming for a long time and most of us have grown accustomed to s certain level of quality. Not just in mechanics but in storytelling, character development and the intricacies of the games themselves.
With the state of gaming today, it's hard to say if the MT in Gears 5 are a result of needing to subsidize the lost sales due to game pass, or just because they want to make extra money anyways. It's not like these kinds of MT, some really bad, some more tolerable, are only released on sub services. It's been pretty common to throw these things in since last gen. I do believe, however, that these kinds of things are going to be more ubiquitous with sub services. These service providers know full well that they'll lose sales to people using the service. But, they also can potentially gain a lot of subs. So, while they may lose one sale, they gain 3-4 subs. Spread that out over several months, and they've easily recouped the lost sale. The trick is to make sure that you gain that many subs compared to each sale lost...metrics which have to be postulated based on historic analytical data. But, throw in MT, and now, you have 3-4 times the player base to sell to. In other words, a paywall for what is essentially a F2P game release paradigm. People can bypass the paywall sub and go straight for the full sale. They'll spend 5-6 months worth of sub costs on a single game. The publisher loses nothing in this scenario, but they still have this same customer to potentially sell these same MT to. Problem comes in though if those same people become so disillusioned with the product, that they eventually stop buying, and just don't bother with the sub service. I was fine with PSNow in it's initial form. It was basically an overpriced rental service. The distribution model was essentially the publisher selling rentals directly, with Sony distributing the game through streaming, and taking their cut of the sale. I didn't see value in it, but it was an option that I didn't really contest on principal. When the sub model came around, it was a similar rental service, but cheaper all around, and it wasn't really devaluing games, because most of the games weren't in their prime selling time. Overall, I wasn't against the model, because it didn't remove the value of games as a whole, and for the time being, it's not really major competition to the traditional model. It's either supplimental, or a replacement for those who don't go traditional routes. Game Pass, I don't actually have a problem with on principal. But, I do feel it's devaluing games, and I still have no faith that the long term value is going to remain as high as it is now. This is mostly due to the fact that MS is heavily subsidizing the service to get users onto it. That's a fine marketing paradigm, and nothing new. As a consumer, there is nothing wrong with taking advantage of it. It's really no different than walking into a retail store, and they are selling something at a loss just to get rid of it, and you know the company isn't making money, but it's their choice, so might as well take advantage of it. I do it all the time at Lowes, and will bargain with the managers on clearance items because they just don't want to deal with it. Same goes for Epic Game Store right now, or even Ubisoft's store. They're offering free games.
But, long term when they get past their initial adoption phase is where things become an issue. You can't keep doing these services in the same way, expect to make money, and not have other effects on the entire industry. People right now are looking at the short term gains, but not the long term effects. Somethings gotta give, and this NPD guy correctly pointed out that given the choice, people are going to go for the cheaper option. Look at the TV market. Many quality TV's started coming out with the LED market booming. There were halfway decent quality brands which were cheaper. Many people went for the cheaper options, which devalued the higher end models. There is a reason the more expensive brands are more expensive. But, if people are fine with something cheaper, the higher end brands have less incentive to do the initial R&D, and their marketing becomes less effective. While it hasn't hit a wall yet in the TV market, it means advancement slows down, and that's where this current model will lead to for gaming, as there is potentially less return on traditional game distribution. This is at a time when publishers are already lamenting high production costs, and low cost to sell to the consumer.
As a person who has a ridiculous backlog, because you know being an adult; I fully respect the idea of trying a game out or even being to finish one with a purchase or at the very least playing it and purchasing it later. Morons talk shit about this service but never ask themselves how HBO, Disney+, Netflix, Apple Music and all this other shit sustains without forcing consumers to purchase shit. Meanwhile I remember when games used to have demos and demo disk. Now you have a service that lets you trial or even finish a game and if it's good enough people usually purchase it. What exactly in the fuck is the problem? As stated before devs are not putting their games on this service for free the ARE being paid beforehand. You're a fool if you believe otherwise.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.