Naraka: Bladepoint devs “not at all” concerned about losing out on sales with Xbox Game Pass launch

From VG247: "Naraka: Bladepoint, the third-person action battle royale from 24 Entertainment, has been holding a solid spot among the most popular games on Steam ever since its release almost one year ago. However, as you may have seen during Xbox and Bethesda’s not-E3 presentation the game is breaking free of the PC platform and heading to Xbox consoles. And it's available day one on Game Pass, to boot.

To find out more about the decision to hop on over to Microsoft’s side of town, I sat down with marketing manager Archer Wang. We also discussed what the studio hopes to gain from dropping Naraka: Bladepoint on Game Pass, and how the team aims to balance the game now that they’ve got a whole new audience to worry about."

sourOG753d ago

That’s the gamble. Do you take the set amount from the start or do you bet on an audience to push you over the top? It’s a risk game, taking the guaranteed money isn’t the wrong move. Neither is gambling it all on your product but your game could go unnoticed no matter how good it is.

Gamepass is almost like marketing for indies. The price of their marketing is their launch numbers for better or worse. Instead of paying for marketing they bet on their profits. I’m sure there are numbers bonuses on top of their flat rate as well. You still have to compete on gamepass but at least you are getting an immediate return and possibly great exposure. I’d rather have a marketing battle in the game space than the media space as a small time dev. Wasted money there.

gamer7804752d ago

Better to have options than no option. Seems like a good bet for a battle royale game

KillBill752d ago (Edited 752d ago )

Game Pass is a boon to multiplayer titles. Giving a direct avenue for player base building. If you are introducing yourself to a new console/system then it only makes sense to open the player base to the most gamers as possible. Game Pass does not exclude purchase of the game for those not in Game Pass or simply want to invest in the developer. It also allows for a larger base in potential add-on sales. Whether it be any in-store game options or battlepass systems or in-game currencies.

Not to mention the FREE publicity that comes with people talking about if the game going to Game Pass is a smart move. lol

sourOG751d ago

@gamepass and killbill
Yup same concept with ps plus. A couple devs has spoken out about how they should have gambled like the oddworld devs.

There is no guarantee it would have been that big if it wasn’t on psplus though. The numbers are fake but they feel like they missed out or made a mistake. Did they? Maybe. But that’s the option and I don’t blame them for choosing it. The “what ifs” don’t matter anymore.

DeathTouch753d ago

I bet single player games with no DLC and, specially, no MTs would sing a different tune.

gangsta_red753d ago

And yet there's a ton of just those on Game Pass...

753d ago
mkis007752d ago

Why didnt they launch skyrim anniversary on gamespass? I would have thought all releases would be on it.

DeathTouch752d ago (Edited 752d ago )

There’s a lot of movies on Netflix, yet their revenues will never be as big as a movie that actually sells full price tickets if you factor in the same proportionate audience.

Kaze88752d ago (Edited 752d ago )

Mostly owned by MS or other publishers who already have "gamepass" style subscription + indies which they seem to be paying good money in front. MS is taking quite a hit on their wallet, but for consumer it is a good deal anyway. But saying that this model is great for all developers to make best amount of money...uh no, its not. If you calculate for example Guardians of the galaxy which they paid 10 million dollars and how much of physical copies does that make? Well if for example console manufacturer takes 30% from the physical copy, one game is like 42 dollars, that would make 238095 copies sold to hit 10million. If you sell 20 million copies you would get 800 million dollars. EDIT: lets not forget, that Square thought Lara Croft reboot selling 3,4 million was a loss and a disaster. So someone paying you from the amount of 200k copies sold is a "good deal" to you lmao.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 752d ago
Zeref752d ago

There's a lot of single player games on gamepass

gangsta_red752d ago

"There’s a lot of movies on Netflix,"

Oh well, let Netflix worry about that, we're talking about Game Pass

Godmars290753d ago (Edited 753d ago )

But they know they're going to lose sales.

The only reasonable thing that makes GP a go to for devs is compensation from MS, which in turn cuts into GP's potential profits. If any.

752d ago Replies(8)
Obscure_Observer752d ago (Edited 752d ago )

"They *bought* Bethesda and Activison. Big difference between that and attracting 3rd parties, indie devs, to put their games on your service."

Plenty of third party to make its debut on Gamepass, dude.

Here´s some off the top of my head:

Wo Long: fallen dynasty
Atomic Heart
S.T.A.L.K.E.R 2
A Plague Tale: Requiem
High on Life
Hollow Knight: Silksong
Ara: History Untold

gangsta_red752d ago

"But they know they're going to lose sales."

Maybe the amount they received from MS for being on GP far exceeded their sales projections on Xbox.

"...which in turn cuts into GP's potential profits. If any."

Based on what? Seriously, how do you come up with that?


From my personal experience, if I beat a game on Game Pass and I enjoyed it, then I'm happy pay for the sequel at full price. In that sense, Game Pass is an investment towards better sales for that IP in the future.

RedDevils752d ago

Doubt you'll pay for sequel, people who cheap out will wait for it on GP again.

VenomCarnage89752d ago

Exactly, won't stop them from pretending on here though so that we can all think their such great people

Zhipp752d ago (Edited 752d ago )

i beat a borrowed copy of the last of us on a borrowed ps3 because i didn't have any respect for "cinematic walking simulators". A few years later i paid full price for TLOU2 on a PS4 i bought largely for that game.

I don't really see a big difference between what i did and what logic claims to do.

Anomander749d ago

@RedDevils and VenomCarnage89 Jesus, you would think no one has ever used GameFly or BlockBuster to rent games back in the day. That sure didn't hurt the developer's anything and I'm sure as shit knowing they didn't give anything to them either.

Silly gameAr752d ago

The gamepass model for sure kicks ass for indies and older games, and it's good to give them exposure and put people on something they might have otherwise missed out on. Plus, the check they get to put their games on the service is probably damn good.

But, like the CEO of Take Two said when he gave his opinion that was failed on N4G a couple of times, putting AAA games on sub services day one is where the real problem is. It's like making games so they can fail.

Orchard752d ago (Edited 752d ago )

So the CEO of a company which is still selling us the same GTA game for 3 generations thinks pro-consumer subscriptions are a bad thing? Never 🤯

Also, the article was failed because it was a month old. Submissions must be recent.

jukins752d ago

Clearly you missed the point. Pro consumer is a falsity. The only reason gamepass exists isnt because microsoft is being nice. Its because they can afford to lose money in hopes of gaining significant marketshare since the traditional model hasnt worked for them vs nintendo and sony.

But the rockstar ceo is correctnlike he said for his business it makes no sense to put games on gamepass when, as you said they get way more money selling 1 or 2 games for 3 generations than any amount microsoft is willing to put up or else gta5 would be a mainstay on gamepass

Silly gameAr752d ago (Edited 752d ago )

I guess you would know wouldn't you? You were the one that made sure to report them both, even the one that was a day old. You didn't like it because the ceo agreed with the Plus model more than the gamepass model tho.

Orchard752d ago

@Jukins Probably, and I suspect we'll see price increases over time for these subscription services, but for now, the consumer value is good.

@Silly A website re-posting a month-old interview doesn't make it new. It's the original sources posted date that counts. I don't make the rules, nor am I an administrator of this website / have the ability to fail articles 🤷

Chevalier752d ago

Really?! GTA V sold 160 million copies and has done and $6 billion in revenue. They sold 5 million per quarter the last 3 quarters back to back to back. Why the hell would a company with those kind of sales want to do subscriptions?

It's absolutely because their sales are so good they do NOT need to depend on a subscription. It's a great decision for their company to keep doing what they're doing and their sales prove it.

Orchard752d ago (Edited 752d ago )

I never said their sales were bad, I said they are anti-consumer as a company, which they are - and that is obviously why they are anti-subscription. Nothing which you said proves otherwise.

If you're looking for a reason why the industry shouldn't do something which is regarded as pro-consumer, the Take2 CEO's opinion ain't it. Unless you wanna be re-buying the same game for multiple generations in a row, a-la GTA5 & TLOU1.

Chevalier752d ago

"I never said their sales were bad, I said they are anti-consumer as a company, which they are - and that is obviously why they are anti-subscription. Nothing which you said proves otherwise."

Sorry that's absolutely BS. Now a company doing well in sales is 'anti-consumer'?! Again please explain why a company that has absolutely amazing sales for many products should pander to a subscription service when they're doing so well?! So why would they LOSE sales and revenue by jumping on Gamepass?! Why would they need to be on Gamepass when they're selling as well as they are and their products are known by everyone? They're not gaining further exposure and risk losing immense profit too. Also Rockstar CEO isn't wrong though, being on Gamepass day 1 for their products would lose them a ton of revenue.

"Originally released in September 2013, the game reached $1 billion in retail sales faster than any entertainment release in history, according to Take-Two. It is also the best-selling game of the decade in the US, in both unit and dollar sales, based on data from research firm the NPD Group.Aug 2, 2021"


They did $815 million in sales in 24 hrs, $1 billion in 3 days. So again please explain how they would benefit from being on a subscription service?! If anything they would stand to lose an insane amount of revenue being on a subscription service day 1. Just imagine Xbox gamers didn't like up for GTA shave off say 40 percent of those launch sales that's over $320 million day 1. Is Xbox going to pay Rockstar for that lost revenue?! NOPE.

There's no game on Gamepass that comes even close to making the kind of revenue that GTA does. Heck even NBA 2k does insane sales and that's a yearly release.

Orchard752d ago (Edited 752d ago )

Well, I consider keeping selling the same game for 3 generations, and re-charging people per generation as anti consumer.

Similarly, I consider GamePass in its current form as very pro consumer.

Thats my opinion, if you don't like it, tough - but you won't change it so don’t waste your time trying. It's as simple as that.

Chevalier752d ago

"Well, I consider keeping selling the same game for 3 generations, and re-charging people per generation as anti consumer.

Similarly, I consider GamePass in its current form as very pro consumer"

Getting their product to as many customers is anti-consumer? Weird I thought you guys specifically mentioned repeatedly that getting exposure on Gamepass was a benefit to the publishers? Here we have a publisher that ALREADY has huge exposure so wouldn't benefit from being on Gamepass in any way. Except they don't need Gamepass to do it they just sell the game instead.

Also if the customers are voting with their wallet and continue to buy the product then explain how that is anti-consumer? Which game sold 15 million copies in the last 3 quarters and matching up with that revenue? If it's anti-consumer then the consumer wouldn't support it now would they? Minecraft and Skyrim also got re-released into this generation and no one here makes any articles for them either.

As for anti-consumer then I would rather own a disc then pay to own nothing so I would suggest paying for a service where you ultimately own nothing is worse.