LogFAQs > #895293187

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	A Microsoft shareholder grilled them about their lack of Xbox exclusives
Frolex 02/02/18 1:42:26 AM #63:	Darmik posted... No they didn't. Microsoft always charged for online. When they introduced Games with Gold they removed the Netflix and browser restrictions. PS+ started with games. They started to lock online behind a paywall with the PS4. You can still play online for free on PS3 and Vita. The point is, xbox live has added one new service for paid subscribers over it's entire 15 run with games for gold. Other than that, both services have at best either done nothing but charge more for the same service or lock free features behind a paywall. You're not getting a whole lot more out of paying PS+ now than you were when it launched. They are not services that are constantly evolving and adding value for consumers. Darmik posted... Of course you're not going to be able to control sales under a subscription. That's the point. If you want the game you have to buy it separately. What else is there left for them to do? You pay $10 to access hundreds of games. You don't own any of them. If you don't like a games business model you play another one. If there's nothing else to play there's no reason to subscribe. If you want to own the game you buy it as normal. Like I said, I don't really have much a problem with the access pass model itself, as long as it's not locking away access to any games or content. But the concept of games as services, when individual games are going to be charging their own perpetual fees on top of subscription access on top of all the monetization that exists nowDarmik posted... The game industry isn't some unique thing that's more hungry for money than other industries. They're all the same. Do you have the same concerns over Netflix, Amazon Prime or Spotify? Of course they're going to take advantage of the biggest revenue stream. The biggest potential revenue stream for Microsoft right now is getting millions of people to subscribe to Game Pass. That's their goal. It's not an easy goal either. They need to entice as many people as possible and get people to buy Xbox consoles or gaming PC's. Saying they're randomly going to add additional subscriptions to play Dragon Age is nonsense. The fear mongering has to at least have some sort of sense. Otherwise you may as well claim that the game industry will randomly charge $120 for games with microtransactions tomorrow. Other entertainment products have not been nearly as blatant about extracting excess revenue from customers as the games industry has been. Movies don't lock content away behind paywalls after their initial purchase price, they don't hide footage behind video slot machines. And yes, services like netflix and hulu have slowly started to represent less value to consumers as distribution companies have consolidated who they license content to, and it's only going to get worse the more distributors start launching their proprietary streaming services. The difference is, individual game publishers are going to have a monopoly over their subscription from the jump. And yes, charging $120 for games with microstransactions is already a thing. Of course, they like always try to create the perception of value or player choice by throwing in some bonus items or missions that were just removed from the main game to upsell customers for some extra cash for a "deluxe edition" but like i said, it's not fear mongering when it's something that's already happening --- http://i.imgur.com/HOLHd4k.gif http://i.imgur.com/six2WTN.gif <cite>Frolex posted [p:895293187] in A Microsof... [t:76271670]...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote> No they didn't. Microsoft always charged for online. When they introduced Games with Gold they removed the Netflix and browser restrictions. PS+ started with games. They started to lock online behind a paywall with the PS4. You can still play online for free on PS3 and Vita.</quote> The point is, xbox live has added one new service for paid subscribers over it's entire 15 run with games for gold. Other than that, both services have at best either done nothing but charge more for the same service or lock free features behind a paywall. You're not getting a whole lot more out of paying PS+ now than you were when it launched. They are not services that are constantly evolving and adding value for consumers. <cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote> Of course you're not going to be able to control sales under a subscription. That's the point. If you want the game you have to buy it separately. What else is there left for them to do? You pay $10 to access hundreds of games. You don't own any of them. If you don't like a games business model you play another one. If there's nothing else to play there's no reason to subscribe. If you want to own the game you buy it as normal. </quote> Like I said, I don't really have much a problem with the access pass model itself, as long as it's not locking away access to any games or content. But the concept of games as services, when individual games are going to be charging their own perpetual fees on top of subscription access on top of all the monetization that exists now<cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote> The game industry isn't some unique thing that's more hungry for money than other industries. They're all the same. Do you have the same concerns over Netflix, Amazon Prime or Spotify? Of course they're going to take advantage of the biggest revenue stream. The biggest potential revenue stream for Microsoft right now is getting millions of people to subscribe to Game Pass. That's their goal. It's not an easy goal either. They need to entice as many people as possible and get people to buy Xbox consoles or gaming PC's. Saying they're randomly going to add additional subscriptions to play Dragon Age is nonsense. The fear mongering has to at least have some sort of sense. Otherwise you may as well claim that the game industry will randomly charge $120 for games with microtransactions tomorrow. </quote> Other entertainment products have not been nearly as blatant about extracting excess revenue from customers as the games industry has been. Movies don't lock content away behind paywalls after their initial purchase price, they don't hide footage behind video slot machines. And yes, services like netflix and hulu have slowly started to represent less value to consumers as distribution companies have consolidated who they license content to, and it's only going to get worse the more distributors start launching their proprietary streaming services. The difference is, individual game publishers are going to have a monopoly over their subscription from the jump. And yes, charging $120 for games with microstransactions is already a thing. Of course, they like always try to create the perception of value or player choice by throwing in some bonus items or missions that were just removed from the main game to upsell customers for some extra cash for a "deluxe edition" but like i said, it's not fear mongering when it's something that's already happening --- http://i.imgur.com/HOLHd4k.gif http://i.imgur.com/six2WTN.gif</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1