Developer says Game Pass is good for Microsoft, horrible for individual games

Mark Kern, the former team lead for World of Warcraft, and producer of Diablo 2, Starcraft says the goal is to get you in cheap and make money through in-game purchases and predatory monetization.

[LostPotato]

Funny coming form an ex-Blizzard employee. As his former employer does the same thing.

[ApocalypseShadow]

Sure about that?

**Mark Kern, the Team Lead on the original World of Warcraft, and a former producer & developer on Starcraft, Brood War, and Diablo 2, tells the story about the meeting that led him to quit his job.

Shortly after WOW had launched, the game had become a huge success, performing much better than Blizzard had anticipated. In the years leading up to launch, Blizzard had hired many new employees. Top executives now wanted to do a mass firing of these hires.

Kern was opposed to the firing, saying "we told them that we were like a family." The team spent the last 2 years in crunch time and didn't deserve to lose their jobs. He also didn't believe that the firings were necessary because WOW was a huge financial success. Instead, he proposed normal performance reviews and firing only those hires who weren't performing up to standards.

In a closed-door meeting of 4 or 5 top Blizzard executives, Kern was told that with WOW's success "we're a real business now." Kern says this was the moment when "big corporate gaming" thinking similar to Electronic Arts began to take over at Blizzard. He quit shortly thereafter. Blizzard went ahead with the firings and they were hugely unpopular and damaging to team morale.

Kern identifies this as the shift away from Blizzard being a "boutique" developer of niche games for a hardcore audience and towards its current "big corporate" approach to mass market games like Diablo Immortal.**

There's the company. And then there's the man. They became EA like and he left.
https://massivelyop.com/201...

[4Sh0w]

Same dev tweeted this:
"Of course devs are happy with Xbox gamepass *right now*, as Microsoft is fully willing to lose billions today to secure content that will entrench them as the winner 10 years from now."

-So #1 he says devs are happy with Gamepass so he's only SPECULATING about "what if" in the future???= Microsoft bad.

-#2 He provides no actual real life example of a game or dev that Gamepass was "horrible" for.

#3 He has no personal experience with making any deal for a Gamepass game.

#4 This dev clearly is a former employee with an axe to grind, he's been outright biased in other tweets saying he hopes the Activision deal is blocked?

-Shadow none of that you wrote has anything to do with Gamepass.

[rlow1]

Hence, if they had been unionized, that wouldn’t have happened. Shame how the top always takes the most and throws Pennies at the peasants….. then fire them for good measures. Shameless

[Petebloodyonion]

I can respect a man who upholds his convictions and principles to the point of quitting a company.
Lots of ppl would have folded instead and complained for eternity.
Amen to this guy.

[Rynxie]

Basically Apple and Google approach to mobile gaming. The games are free, but everything else in the game will cost you money (an arm and a leg).

[ApocalypseShadow]

Yes. Eventually, that's what Microsoft wants by trying to go mobile by using Activision for game pass. Milk the shit out of micro transactions and DLC and every mobile thing in the book. Skins and all. Season passes. All that trash. Nickel and dime. Drip fed content.

[jeromeface]

not when he was there einstein

[frostypants]

They do now. Blizzard absolutely did not do that crap for the games he worked on. At one point Blizzard was among the most respected studios in the industry. Then Activision happened.

[neutralgamer1992]

This is why Microsoft has to buy content because not many 3rd party publishers would put their game on GP without a giant check upfront. There is a reason this FTC case has revealed how many studios and publishers had on its list to possible acquire

We already see Xbox sales account for less than 20% on AAA games which launch on all major platforms. Gamepass is creating a mindset of sooner or later game will end up on GP

For gamers it's amazing value and same for smaller indie titles but for major AAA games GP won't benefit developers

Who by the way depend on game sales to early royalty

[Eidolon]

Funny how?

[SullysCigar]

Yes - and this is what most people understand.

Yet, occasionally, a random developer will stick their head above the parapet and weakly defend Gamepass. When they're currently under contract, they don't want to bite the hand that feeds and risk future games going unpublished / unpromoted / unnoticed, because that also risks them losing out on microtransaction revenue.

[AmUnRa]

Deleted

[AmUnRa]

5 downvotes because i deleted a post?? Whoooow🙄

[JEECE]

Yep, if you make a certain type of game, GP is the only way you'll make any money on Xbox. If you criticize, you might find yourself without the offer to put your next game on GP, and you'll be stuck launching a game a la carte to an audience conditioned to expect to get your games as part of their subscription.

[ApocalypseShadow]

Yes!!

Also. Even if successful on game pass, the base will be lead to only rent your games. Because they would be conditioned to. Those developers will be stuck with all their future games expected to be on the service. Because the base won't be buying any. Just waiting for when your developed games arrives and they pay almost nothing for your games. But Microsoft wouldn't care because it's their subscriptions numbers they are worried about. Not any of the developers or their games. Just being used for their purposes.

[crazyCoconuts]

Right - it should be clear to people that the owner of the service (MS / Sony) ends up picking the winners and the losers. It's like when the government gets involved in subsidies / tariffs / etc. The winners will sing to high heaven and the losers will complain. Ultimately a sub service dis-intermediates us from the game developers/pubs. On a small scale, no big deal - most of us still buy games based on how well they review, word of mouth, whatever. But on a very large scale, it gets to be bad because SO many people stop picking based on reviews, quality, etc. that the ONLY way for a publisher to survive is to be picked by one of these few companies... the monopsomy. That's when we all lose. Fewer game developers/publishers survive, market consolidation occurs, fewer choices, we all play the same crap even if it's not good, etc..

[spicelicka]

It's amazing that no one is asking the customers, no article brings that up. We're always criticizing developers and publishers for exploiting customers with overpriced games and microtransactions, for once something is in favor of the consumer and everyone here is against it. I paid $180 for 3 years of gamepass, that's the cost of just 3 games. It's absolutely insane value. I'm basically covered for the next 3 years, I literally get Starfield the day of, without having to worry about $70. There has never been value like this in the history of video games. If it fails in the future I'll just move on, simple. I'm sorry but I don't care what's happening on the corporate side because they don't care when we're getting screwed. I do care about developers but whatever happens is really not in our control, so there's no use arguing about it. The only people sh*tting on Gamepass are the ones who are missing out on it.

[SullysCigar]

No. You're seeing with emotion and thinking you're being attacked for enjoying cheap gaming - you're not.

The subject here stems from a developer's comments, about how they're impacted by subscription services, which is why that's the angle being discussed. The benefit to the gamer is a well-trodden subject and has been touted across the industry for years.

[ApocalypseShadow]

Remember when (if you were old enough) there was competition on the videogame sports market and you had multiple basketball, baseball, boxing, football games, etc on the market?

Then, EA went on a buying spree to kill competition or buy up their rivals. They purchased player licenses, ESPN license, logos, boxers, etc leading to everyone else being forced out of the market. Making deals with the NFL that lead to only Madden being the only licensed football game. Pushing Take Two to buy the baseball license to keep EA from locking that up and let anyone develop a baseball game. Resulting in Sony competing which lead their baseball game to be the winner with the Show. Visual Concepts not being able to make football, lead them to concentrate on basketball as the NBA told EA "No." from trying to buy up that license. They became the winner over NBA Live with NBA 2K.

EA also used their marketing and buying power to kill racing competition. You don't see them making Burnout anymore after purchasing their rival Criterion. They made it just long enough to kill the game and push Need for Speed. Bought out Code Masters who were once their rival. That's what EA does. Just as Microsoft will do with game pass. Trying to make it the defacto standard for gaming.

Instead of having multiple options, choices, it lead to a reduction. It lead to higher prices. Because NFL 2K sold at a lower price t $19.99 and was the better game. EA didn't like that. They reduced their price on Madden to $29.99. But as soon as they locked up football and became a monopoly, prices went back up. And Madden now is way higher than $49.99. Gamers lost. As EA sat on their ass yearly making an average football game.

You think game pass is great now. But it's going to cost you and the industry and the rest of us in the future and your support of it would have paid for the game industry's demise. Just like gamers supported EA and Madden over the years, look at the end result of gamers buying decisions. I know saving money is great. But the end result will have you paying threw the nose. When we all get screwed, make sure you take a look in the mirror on who was responsible for it.

[lelo2play]

Does Microsoft force developers to launch their games on Gamepass?

[Battlestar23]

MS pays devs/publishers for every game added to gamepass to make up for the loss of sales since Gamepass leads to less game sales on Xbox consoles (MS themselves have confirmed this in court documents/E-mails).
Heck even i have stopped buying games (around 4 years ago) on Xbox now that MS pays to have games added to the service. Why would anyone buy games on Xbox when MS is footing the bill for us gamers.

But the amount of money that MS pays to have all these games is starting to be not enough to cover for the loss of game sales because of increasing budgets which is why more and more devs/publishers are starting to talk negatively about gamepass.

That is why MS is raising the price of gamepass and it will continue raise the price again and again in the future to try and pay devs/publishers more money that they are asking for and also to try and start making a profit as they are not making a profit according to the court documents at the moment.

[jznrpg]

They will raise the price for more profits not to pay devs more

[PitbullMonster]

Would you rather pay 30$ for an Indie game or 15$ for one Month GPU with hundreds of games?
At some point Developers will be forced to launch their games in a subscription service because else no one is gonna play their games.
Just like music artists are forced to release their songs on a subscription service.

[jznrpg]

Eventually you will get what you pay for. MS is dangling carrots 🥕 to sucker you in and give you less for more will happen when they feel like they got enough of you stuck in their ecosystem.

[giovonni]

@jznrpg orrrrr this will force other companies to compete and offer better content in their streaming space.

[DarkZane]

@giovonni what is more likely to happen is Sony and Nintendo continuing like they are now and developers will just go with PS and Nintendo and skip Xbox because they won't make money on Xbox since the fanboys there are now too cheap to buy games.

[Omegasyde]

Yes. Their own studios.

[Rimeskeem]

I think it's less about if they force people to (obviously they don't) but whether they pay the top execs of the publishers a lot of money to do so and then those execs fire the people who made the game to save money. Basically giving them lots of money in case the game fails while making the actual developers unemployed.

Speculation ^

[ApocalypseShadow]

Could have told you that. Wait. I did. It's Microsoft on top of the pyramid.

[Godmars290]

Its MS having an idea and implementing it before thinking it through. Betting on the "potential" of its success, investing too much into it till they either kill it, force it, or put it aside to be forgotten. Never admitting to the mistake.

[shinoff2183]

Godmars

I don't believe they can kill gamepass. If they went that route it's game over in the console business. I think they've broken their fanbase far to much to turn back now. I'm just generalizing I know some of you xbox dudes buy games it's not all of you

[Godmars290]

"I'm just generalizing I know some of you xbox dudes buy games it's not all of you"

Sorry, closest I ever got to COD was a PS2 demo...

Just saying, you might be generalizing a bit too much.

[anast]

There are three basic rules: 1) Find people willing to be exploited and exploit them. 2) Invest as little as possible in the production of a product. 3) Sell "nothing" for something.

The goal is to pull in enormous profits by selling cheap goods while keeping the actual valuable resources. The consumer thinks they are getting value, but in actuality they are being exploited along with the employees by being sold "fools gold". This is in every industry. For example, I buy Nike shirt that might cost next to nothing to make and the quality is as low as humanely possible. This is what I get from this transaction. Next, since the shirt has a stupid image of their company I become a billboard. Here Nike has given me a worthless item in exchange for advertisement space, which is the actual valuable resource. This is what Nike gets from our transaction.

[WelkinCole]

You just explained capitalism at its worst

[anast]

This is capitalism at its best. This is how it is supposed to work.

[DivineHand125]

Have we seen any examples of this? The majority of games on game pass are from 3rd party developers and publishers. They are the same games we see on playstation and switch.

Not going to lie and say I never thought of this, but the issue is that I have not seen any examples of it.

[jznrpg]

Well no crap

[Crows90]

It's simple math. The fact that so many here deny simple math blows my mind.

If game prices need to go up that means costs are up. That means, can't believe I have to say the obvious, games need more to recover costs.

So how is it viable for me to pay $10 to play a $70 game vs paying $70 for the game that cost millions to make?
Now if I pay $10 and then spend $100 on micro transactions that would help the game make money...but this means gamepass is great for mtx heavy games. So this gives us a window as to the types of games Microsoft wants on gamepass.

Let's call those types of games subscription sellers instead of system sellers. Overall same idea.

[DOMination-]

I don't know how many GP subscribers there are, but I believe it's around 25 million? That's 25 million people paying monthly. All 25 million are not going to play your game.

Plus there are millions of people who pay for it yearly and barely use it. I know as I'm one of them as it's convenient to just jump into FH5 or MSFS (the only two games I have played on XSX) when I feel like it. For two years, that's actually cost me more than just buying those games but it's nice knowing I can just go on and download something new if I fancy it. I end up not bothering because I either don't have time or just prefer PS5 or PC and yes that makes me an idiot for wasting money. But the point is, there are millions of idiots like me who are doing the same because it's simply easy and convenient. And this type of customer is what subscription services bank on.

And whether I play a game or not, the developer gets paid up front by MS anyway. And I assume they then get paid an amount per download/play in addition.

So the question isn't about devs losing money because they don't. They get paid regardless. The question is, are MS losing money? And do they care? They currently make $20BN profit every quarter so I imagine right now they don't care even if it is losing money... FOR NOW.

Also, games may sell for $70 but the publisher doesn't make that, the RETAILER does. The Publisher has to pay for marketing and producing the physical copies of the games which by the way is really expensive. Then they usually sell to a distributor (very rarely they go direct) and sell the game for around $30. Then the distributor sells to the retailer for around $45.

Having games on Game Pass or on their on digital store means they don't have to pay those production fees and they cut out the distributor and retailer with all the money going to the publisher (MS in this case). So this mythical $70 you mention is really more like $25-$30 per unit.

You may still be right in that it's not viable. The thing is, we don't actually know that as we don't have the numbers and probably never will. But it's not as simplistic as the view you are making (imo)

[Crows90]

Well like usual im pretty sure MS lies about their subscriptions too.
How many are month to month? How many are for a year...whats the average lenght of a subscription? I know many individuals that only subscribe for 1 month at a time depending on games.

There should also be separation of gamepass on console vs on pc.

Not enough data to know any of this for sure.

As far as your pricing argument...so why are digital games priced the same? I understand what youre saying but regardless of what the unit return actually is...they still keep wanting to monetize. They wont be able to get as much money back if nobody actually buys their product.

I can name you quite a few games that made no direct money from me. But for the sake of your argument lets do some math there...
If when I pay $70 the publisher only gets $25-$30 Then how much does the publisher get when I pay $10 or $0?

Nuff said.

[kneon]

There is only one way that gamepass becomes viable without destroying the gaming industry, they need 100s of millions of subscribers paying more than they are today. That's not going to happen

[MIDGETonSTILTS17]

It’s a good Plan B if your game isn’t selling….

I just question how M$ will output 4 AAA games a year, have 100ish 3rd party games available, and not let the sub price balloon to $25+ a month…

….or start squeezing devs harder in the future if they want a “bailout” for their game that isn’t selling. I bet devs get paid out less for their work if Game Pass started maintaining traction without crazy $1 promotions.

[FyBy]

Od course. Game pass prioritizes quantity over quality. It is seen also on some video streaming services. Its inevitable.

[XiNatsuDragnel]

Gamepass still eats up sales so for indies it's efficient.

[StormSnooper]

yeah no kidding. This business plan makes gamers pay more for the same amount of gaming. You are paying for services every month but you might also purchase a game outside of the service because lets face it, the service does not have all the games you want to play...

[Minute Man 721]

😆 🤣 WoW I didn't know that Microsoft forced developers to release games on gamepass

[Flewid638]

I can see that. I have zero desire to buy Starfield, but I'll definitely try it for a few bucks on GamePass.

[Firebird360]

Gp will ruin the gaming industry eventually. It completely devalued games as a whole. Combine that with digital games on console and imo we're within 10 years of a collapse of the gaming industry.

[Minute Man 721]

The younger generation embraces digital

[TicklefistCP]

You guys not familiar with Mark Kern? He is an insufferable scumbag who is probably blacklisted across the industry. The man is the human embodiment of workplace toxicity. I doubt he has any idea how video game companies operate in 2023.

[archibold]

The only time I sign up for gamepass is when I want to play a single player title for 10 bucks on PC.
Ten bucks and I played through High on life, another 10 next month to play through Atomic Heart. Always make sure to cancel though.

10 bucks to play a brand new single player game can't be good for the industry methinks.