I Hope Game Pass Freedom Means More Single-Player Games From Arkane

Arkane's games have rarely been big money makers. The first Dishonored was a big hit, but since then the studio's games have gained a reputation as rich, complex, systemic titles that impress its fans and developers but have a hard time making much mainstream impact.

Deathloop was pretty good, and Redfall looks like it could be good, too. But, it's disappointing to see a studio renowned for its rich single-player experiences pivoting so hard toward multiplayer.

Read Full Story >>

The story is too old to be commented.
51d ago
gangsta_red51d ago

This is where I see the benefits of GP for MS's smaller more indie-type developers could be. Being able to still create smaller games without the pressure of having it be some huge, open world, triple A, high definition game.

This can even apply to the bigger studios that may just want to make some passion projects to release to the public.

ApocalypseShadow51d ago (Edited 51d ago )

Now, single player "one and done" games are okay. Interesting how things seem to be okay now that the Seattle Scourge is okay with them.

2 TRILLION worth. Is spending around 80 billion in acquisitions to feed a service. Let me think... Isn't this enough money to invest in smaller developers to publish their games, help with marketing and advertising and provide technical expertise to allow these developers to flourish without the artificial backbone of illusionary payments of success..

Wouldn't it have been better to help them sell games instead of help Microsoft make money off of them in a service?

gangsta_red50d ago (Edited 50d ago )

"Now, single player "one and done" games are okay."

When were they not okay? Oh, is this the part where you think you
caught me in some hypocrisy and you desperately try and find anything to prove it, only to fail miserabley as you always do..?

Seattle Scourge... That's funny, how mad are you right now??

"Isn't this enough money to invest in smaller developers to publish their games, help with marketing and advertising..."

Isn't that exactly what they're doing? Helping smaller developers get their game recognition and giving these smaller devs money up front, that for all we know covers a good portion of development and on top of that automatically gives their game an audience instead of releasing on a marketplace that's overcrowded and overshadowed by bigger, more well known IPs.

Doesn't this make a lot more sense for these smaller devs who continue to put their games on GP?

Or do we go with your fan fiction of what you want to believe only because your Japanese co. doesn't want to provide great deals with games because their to busy developing GaaS, Live service games and buying timed exclusives from big time developers?

ApocalypseShadow50d ago

The only reason Microsoft is okay dropping these games on game pass and not publishing these games to sell is because Microsoft never takes risks. Still don't. That's my real point above. They are not willing to let the games stand on their own two feet.

And big companies with their own services or not, aren't willing to bet their biggest franchises on a loss leading service propped up on Mr Warbucks wallet. Or they would be jumping at the chance to launch day one on it. Monster Hunter was only by a check. Not because Capcom was that interested. That was the same with Devil May Cry. That was like 19 million reasons. Not, "game pass is great." It's generating insane amount of money." No. Capcom decided to just take the money because they know Xbox fans aren't buying games.

Microsoft are fine that these games support their service. Will even give developers a little money to put games on there. But again as we see, Microsoft is risk adverse to helping developers. Only helping developers help game pass. If developer's games fail to get traction, Microsoft doesn't care. They only care about game pass gaining traction.

They are coming in low at the moment as we see with any subscription service. But if you think it'll stay cheap, think again. Developers will ask for more money. Then Microsoft will turn to consumers for more money. This is how this works. You think it's all roses now. But you'll all be paying soon enough. Just like paying for online came to being them went up in price.

I might be old school when it comes to a great system, great software. Just turn the game on and play. I'm not interested in monthly fees like some others are. That add up to paying even more fees. But you guys are fine with that. But it's really not helping these developers. Just a matter of time before you see it. It's not like most fans care. Didn't care about subscriptions, broken consoles, micro transactions, dlc that didn't fit on a disc, years without Microsoft effort to make big exclusives, a large corporation trying to monopolize the industry. Why would I think you care about anything real?

shinoff218349d ago

Even if Sony makes a couple gaas games that's not gonna be mostly what they make. Sony is still gonna bring the games we all want and enjoy.

Please stop talking about Sony buying timed exclusives from third party while ms is out there buying publishers of multiplatform games. What's really worse donut. Ms also has timed exclusives dating back to when they were rookies.

ApocalypseShadow50d ago (Edited 50d ago )

Xbox fans say that all the time that Sony's games are one and done. Walking simulators and such. You know I'm not making it up. Not saying all of you. But a good amount of you. But now single player games from acquisitions is great. They would have still been great as multiplatform releases and developers would still have independence.

Thing is though, Microsoft could have just as easily built up good will by investing money and effort to grow these smaller developers to become better. Bigger. Instead, it's a safety net of payments to be on a service where gamers sample multiple games for pennies. But you really don't know if someone really likes your games.

We've all sampled food at a buffet. But when a particular food is good, you'll have more of it only. Game pass is also one and done as there's nothing that would keep gamers engaged. Gamers can download a developers game. Which counts as a player. But they could easily move on to another game as there no value there like a purchase is.

When you buy something, you put more effort into it because you spent money on that item. Being allowed to play these smaller games or even bigger ones for almost nothing just leaves these games as throwaways to move on to the next throwaway. It's just like Plus when I used to have it years ago. I downloaded and collected every monthly give away. But found I wasn't playing the games. Maybe 5 percent of them or less.

But I found I played almost 100 percent of every game I bought. Why is that? Because I spent money on something I like and it had value. None of these developers riding on a check will ever know if their game was really great or valuable. Never know if their game would have sold well on its own.

But Microsoft is the one on top of the pyramid that stands to make the most. It's not going to be that small developer. As most game pass games do not sell in the millions. They are only sampled by millions. What happens when the developer just wants to sell their game? The community won't buy it as gamers expect that small game to be played for pennies in a service. Xbox fans right now are expecting games to land in game pass. None of you ever say anymore on if a game sells well to make a sequel or spin off. Buying had become foreign to you.

Shadowsteal50d ago

It goes both ways, gamepass allows people to try games they never would have bought otherwise.

gangsta_red50d ago (Edited 50d ago )

"But now single player games from acquisitions is great"

We can go back and forth on what fanboys say on both sides, but what exactly would that prove here?

"When you buy something, you put more effort into it because you spent money on that item"

Not true, I have plenty of games I bought and haven't finished. And they sit there collecting dust or on my hard drive waiting for the time for me to get to it. This is where the term backlog comes in. It all comes down to your personal interest and which games your giving time to finish, not which ones you got for "free".

"None of these developers riding on a check will ever know if their game was really great out valuable."

So the developers that made Hi Fi Rush, Chained Echos, Wasteland 3 Psychonaughts 2, Pentiment will never know if their game was great or valuable, even with the high praise, high scores and great reviews? C'mon Shadow, you know better than that and you're being disingenuous trying to find excuses to downplay GP.

"Thing is though, Microsoft could have just as easily built up good will by..."

Why is that all of a sudden MS's job to do that? Sony and Nintendo both don't do what you're saying and yet you want MS to go out thier way when they have already provided a huge automatic audience on a service that continues to grow.

"As most game pass games do not sell in the millions"

And yet developers continue to put their games on GP. Is it a gamble, sure, but you think putting your game on the market place next to high profile triple A games will fair any better?

There are plenty of great smaller games in retail and digital that won't sell millions and will never be recognized because it gets overlooked by bigger games or games that have gained better recognition.

"We've all sampled food at a buffet"

We've all been to fancy restaurants, do you go through the menu and order the mozzarella sticks or do you spend your hard earned money on the Iranian Beluga Caviar? At least at a buffet I can pay for the price of entry and have a plate with both.

ApocalypseShadow50d ago (Edited 50d ago )

Does EA put their new release game on game pass day one? Does Rockstar put their new game on game pass day one. Capcom? Nope. None of them. Why is that? Even Activision wasn't dumb enough to think game pass "players" would equal "sales."

None of them risk because they know unless a huge check is offered, they would lose money. Only exception is if they were making bank on micro transactions and DLC for sales to not matter. But that's what Microsoft has trained you to think. That sales don't matter. Unless they finally get sales then they toot their horn for 15 minutes.

I think I'd rather have customers coming into my restaurant buying meals than sampling bread sticks. Only reason game pass is afloat is because of Daddy Warbucks. It isn't because it's making money.

So, Microsoft, a SOFTWARE company shouldn't invest in developers to make them better? That may push those companies to release their games as exclusive on their platform? I guess being a software company is meaningless.

See, I know you Red. You're one of the individuals that rides on Redbox and Game fly, and such things. It isn't a bad thing to save money. But game pass, even as an option, only pushes Microsoft's agenda to remove the idea that sales matter. Because they were getting beaten by sales over and over again. They wouldn't be trying to buy up multiplatform publishers who made more money on PlayStation if it wasn't about sales numbers. That move is significant in trying to reduce Sony's sales numbers.

These smaller developers like Arkane can survive for now with a check. But that will become their permanent option as less and less gamers will be willing to buy their games if they can just wait to play it for $10. $15 if it's online. $1 if it's a special.

Ra3v3r50d ago


EA - they have their own service and that's included in Game Pass. Day one? Not so much but they do offer trials on most games day one, so kinda.

Ubisoft - they do put stuff on their service.

Capcom not putting stuff day one yet we just got Monster Hunter. Go figure.

Even Squenix have tested the water with a lot of day one releases.

Activision just see £/$ signs but yeah, no day one stuff. Well until MS own them that is...

You can't cherry pick information and omit the stuff that doesn't support your claims.

The Redbox/renting dig is oddly personal. If you have cheap access to any media of course people are going to take it. As a lot of others say - do you buy every TV show, movie, piece of music you buy? Really impressed you're able to wait until every TV series finishes and becomes available for purchase before you watch them rather than watching them on TV via a service you need to pay a monthly subscription for whether that's Sky TV or any of the US cable providers.

Then there's the Arkane thing 😂😂😂 you do realise they are now 1st party aye? They're not sitting waiting for that Game Pass cheque cos they're funded by MS. They don't have to worry about sales any more if the IP is popular and drives GP subscriptions.

And whilst everyone on here argues about sales as per usual, even the beloved Shuhei Yoshida said engagement is more important than sales these days.

gangsta_red50d ago


It doesn't matter what EA, Activision, etc are doing, MS is doing something different that stands out from the other many sub services.

Those companies you mentioned are third party companies that rely on completely different metrics for success and even then Capcom has still released games day and date on GP and reports have come out that Sony paid them to stop. Activision also allowed themselves to be bought out, a power house third party company that was facing multiple financial and ethical issues. This is why it's not all about retail sales in the end.

As a gamer I'm glad I have Redbox, Gamefly, GP as well as retail. There is no way I could have played the amount of games I have already just buying them alone. Not with the grown up responsibilities I have.

The problem is you're still stuck in this old way of thinking of how sales is identified, that it can only be measured by retail. And that's not the case anymore, this is why we're seeing more and more subscription services with original content, this is why we're seeing a greater push in GaaS and MP games, more DLC, more MTX, because the measure of success can't be dependent on just retail sales alone.

"Only reason game pass is afloat is because of Daddy Warbucks. It isn't because it's making money."

And this is a bad thing? MS is providing payment and a gauranteed audience for games. In turn we get to have a wide selection of games to play for a low price. I'm not even understanding why anyone who calls themselves a gamer would argue against this other than it's because it's from MS.

Seriously, think about it. You just claimed MS should support devs and then next discussion you claim GP is only happening because MS is handing out checks...supporting devs....which is it? Are they supporting devs or not?

"...only pushes Microsoft's agenda to remove the idea that sales matter."

And this matters to me how? You see this is what it really comes down to because a lot of the past ammo against MS is gone. MS has more first party studios, has a more powerful console, has more options to play, have a good number of exclusives (coming), the good ol days of arguing points against MS is slowly coming to an end and sales is the last desperate measure. So MS taking that away but still providing an outlet for developers is causing concern to many because what is there for them to complain about when devs are still getting paid and releasing games.

"...less gamers will be willing to buy their games if they can just wait to play it for $10. $15 if it's online. $1 if it's a special."

Again, how is that any different than what we see in retail. I even seen you comment on waiting for games to go on sale. Gamers can also eventually wait for EA games to come to EAccess and GP, gamers can wait a year or less for Sony games to come to their service. Every point you made can be applied to retail and digital.

But the point here is that devs like Arkane now have the beautiful option of trying different things because of MS Daddy Warbucks steady checks. Allowing devs freedom without being chained down to the volitle retail market?

In closing your whole argument just sounds like you don't like GP, a service that provides gamers a huge variety of games for a low price, allows development freedom, while also supporting devs and you only hate it because it's from MS.

Petebloodyonion50d ago

"Does EA put their new release game on game pass day one?"
Nope but they do put them on day 0 (before release) on EApro

How about Ubisoft+?

And I fail to grasp your rant about sales, sales, and sales If you're not aware these companies don't care about sales they care about profit, profit, and profit.
Case in point Days Gone devs asking ppl to buy the game at full price so they can make profit

On the other spectrum, I'm sure that the makers of Hi-Fi Rush, Stray, and PLague Tales Requiem are really mad that their games launch on day 1 on a subscription service
especially when they sold lots of copies on Steam despite the fat checks from MS and Sony
And that brings us to a question How come ppl stil buy a game on PC when Game Pass exists?
Wasn't Sea of Thieves only alive because of Game Pass?

And let me ask you a last question
Why is sony paying companies to not put their games on Gamepass if it's not profitable for them?

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 50d ago
Dreisdest49d ago

Can't believe you're being downvoted for this very reasonable take. Condolences.

Christopher50d ago

Doesn't the fact that they're including MP in their first Game Pass game kind of show the opposite?

lonewolf1050d ago

Isn't that why they say I hope, rather than a statement of fact around it?

Christopher50d ago (Edited 50d ago )

"I hope they don't do what they're already doing even though the evidence shows me otherwise."

That's what I'm calling out. Not that they hope, but that they should look at what's right in front of them instead of just blind hope.

porkChop50d ago (Edited 50d ago )

I just see it as Arkane experimenting. They did the same with Deathloop. They've always had an interest in fusing SP and MP. Remember The Crossing back in the day? It got cancelled but it was the same idea.

I don't think Arkane would go MP with every game though.

lonewolf1050d ago

Not real evidence of them totally abandoning SP games though is it, do you think a studio is only shaped by one or two games?

Christopher50d ago

I'm utilizing the data we have and not the data people are hoping for in the future. When the data changes, so will my opinion.

lonewolf1050d ago

I'm utilizing the data we have and not the data people are hoping for in the future. When the data changes, so will my opinion

So the past data for them holds no merit then? That is also data we all have now.

Christopher50d ago (Edited 50d ago )

Old data: not on game pass, no MP

New data: on game pass, has MP

Edit: I'm a huge fan of Arkane and Redfall is the only game on Xbox I care about right now. But, that's just what we know. They bring out a new Dishonored, I'll be the happiest chaos bringer out there.

lonewolf1050d ago

I cannot see them being an MP/live service game dev solely going by a single GP game. That's like worrying about Naughty Dog becoming an MP only studio (which I am not worried about) as they are looking to release an MP title.

Only time will tell.

Petebloodyonion50d ago

Just a quick question?
What do you consider MP?
For example, in Deathloop you can invade other players' games as Juliana instead of the AI
Do you consider this including MP?
In Redfall you play a game like Dead Island(That's the best thing I found close to what Redfall is)
You can play the game alone or you play it, Coop.
Do you consider this including MP?
Playing TMNT Arcade, Final Fight, and Dragon's Crown with friends
Do you consider this including MP?

Christopher50d ago (Edited 50d ago )

I consider playing with others online or in-person to be MP. In any capacity. I'm also certain that's what MP is by definition.

Question for you: does my definition of MP change anything about the first game pass game from Arkane having MP versus the specified desire by the author that game pass not lead them to more MP games?

Aside: I hated MP in Deathloop and think it detracted from making a stronger SP game. But I hope still that Redfall with its online co-op will focus on SP concepts and aspects and not turn out more like Borderlands with superficial repetitive SP elements intended to be repeated or retreaded.

Petebloodyonion50d ago

"Question for you: does my definition of MP change anything about the first game pass game from Arkane having MP versus the specified desire by the author that game pass not lead them to more MP games?"

Not at all, if you read carefully the article the author seems to hint that the shift from single-player only to adding MP components is due to some financial stress of previous titles not performing to expectation forcing the hand of Arkane. Now I'm pretty sure that the development of Redfall started before the acquisition following the thread so the wish of the author can still be fulfilled for future titles as seen with recent releases like Pentiment and As Dusk Falls (I would include Hi-Fi Rush but Gamepass had nothing to do with it)

I just asked because for me MP focus means that the core idea revolves around MP (Titan Fall, Final Fantasy XIV, WOW, Overwatch, etc,,,) so for me, a single-player game that had some multiplayer feature to enhances the experience is still a single-player game experience.
For example, in Deatloop having a human plays Juliana does not change the story nor the concept of the game since she would have appeared as an AI to protect the visionaries. Also as a note playing as Juliana is much harder than playing Colt since he needs to kill you once while you have to do it 3 times.

But I will agree with you regarding the potential state of the game meaning that It would be sad if the game turns into a Battle/pass, grinding for loot to get a different knife or any MTS inside the game to help you progress (see Back 4 Blood)
or something like the Avengers.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 50d ago
JEECE50d ago

Arkane is a perfect example that proves people don't actually buy the games they say they want. People constantly whine about everything being a live service, a sequel, or a remake, but when Arkane puts out excellent SP-focused new IP, people say "meh" and go back to Apex and Rainbow Six Siege.

Chriswheeler2249d ago

For me, I buy them but I've never been satisfied fully with an Arkane game. Dishonored came close though but Deathloop was meh

TheGreatGazoo3050d ago

Except they've said repeatedly its a single player, story driven, Arkane game that you can play coop, NOT a left 4 dead, destiny, or looter shooter style game.

Christopher50d ago

I wish they showed off more in the playthrough than just shooting things to put some worries to bed. They have compared it to Borderlands, which has some backend things that are big MP-focused, especially loot tables. They haven't said it's not a looter shooter style game, only that it won't drop from enemies like some other games.

There's gotta be something to encourage MP play, though, right? It's extremely rare that there isn't a benefit that would affect MP or SP in some way.

-Foxtrot50d ago

Okay then they need to show off a very deep gameplay video of a mission that can be done single player and the benefits of going solo

I’m not talking about that Lighthouse mission where it was edited to jump forward a lot and briefly show us I mean a full mission showing us the benefits and the rewards it can bring

Because all I’ve seen so far is a focus on co-op, stringing abilities together and the like

I want to see the pros of being alone and if there’s none then honestly there should be considering they said it’s a single player driven game.

Obscure_Observer49d ago (Edited 49d ago )

"I’m not talking about that Lighthouse mission where it was edited to jump forward a lot and briefly show us I mean a full mission showing us the benefits and the rewards it can bring"

Not only that Lighthouse mission but the Cultist mission as well. Both of those segments has shown that you have more than a way to accomplish your missions. You can go all Rambo with a Squad, but you´ll hardly accomplish a silent mission with them due obvious limitations. Squad should be good for fast-paced missions like hordes and infestations, but Solo, you can go Rambo, stealth, strategist or explorer.

Since Redfall is a RPG in a vast open world filled with plenty of missions, treasures, mysteries, NPCs (survivors), weapons and more I think the benefits of explore, investigate and discover more about that word by playing solo is more than obvious. But that´s just me and my two cents.

Show all comments (39)