Gamepass Killing New Games Sales on Xbox

[kitler53]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/gi-biz-nier-replicant-debuts-at-1-in-the-uk-89-of-sales-on-playstation.416127/

Nier Replicant ver.1.22474487139 tops the charts, knocking FIFA 21 down to No.2. The last Nier game that was released came in March 2017 in the form of the acclaimed Nier Automata. 

89% of sales were on PS4 and 11% on Xbox One. 

looks like if MS doesn't pony up to put the game on gamepass there is no point to even releasing a game on xbox

[Xevross]

Not sure that can be the conclusion from this, however it does seem from what I've seen following sales that xbox versions of games sell much less when games are on Game Pass. Now that more people have it, Game Pass causing sales for a game to increase is definitely a thing of the past, it only used to happen because only a small amount of people had game pass and other people who didn't have it bought games to play with their friends/ on recommendations.

But more GP subscribers also means xbox can pay more money to have games be on the service, so its a balance of factors and I think devs are still very happy with it overall.

[BananaKing]

Not sure that can be the conclusion from this, however it does seem from what I've seen following sales that xbox versions of games sell much less when games are on Game Pass. Now that more people have it, Game Pass causing sales for a game to increase is definitely a thing of the past, it only used to happen because only a small amount of people had game pass and other people who didn't have it bought games to play with their friends/ on recommendations.

But more GP subscribers also means xbox can pay more money to have games be on the service, so its a balance of factors and I think devs are still very happy with it overall.

For now they might be happy. But it will reach a point where MS will control how much a dev can make money on xbox.

Gamepass sets dev revenue based in MSs hand, not the games performance. And this will kill devs in the long run if they cant generate revenues unless MS agrees to give it to them. Your game might blow up and have millions of players, but you won't get extra money because you already agreed with MS on a specific price.

[kitler53]

For now they might be happy. But it will reach a point where MS will control how much a dev can make money on xbox.

Gamepass sets dev revenue based in MSs hand, not the games performance. And this will kill devs in the long run if they cant generate revenues unless MS agrees to give it to them. Your game might blow up and have millions of players, but you won't get extra money because you already agreed with MS on a specific price.

pretty much.  the floor is also the ceiling.   

the more games on gamepass the fewer games people will buy because like i saw on the resetera thread posted many times today,... "i'll just wait for the game to come to gamepass".   MS gets to decided how much your game is worth.  MS get's the pocket your profits too...

[Xevross]

pretty much.  the floor is also the ceiling.  

the more games on gamepass the fewer games people will buy because like i saw on the resetera thread posted many times today,... "i'll just wait for the game to come to gamepass".   MS gets to decided how much your game is worth.  MS get's the pocket your profits too...

Its a genius strategy really. I think MS know that down the line they'll struggle to get external games on GP, which is why they're going super hard on acquisitions right now.

[Mmm_fish_tacos]

Game pass isn't  Sustainable and will likely end up hurting Xbox in the long run.

[BananaKing]

Its a genius strategy really. I think MS know that down the line they'll struggle to get external games on GP, which is why they're going super hard on acquisitions right now.

In my opinion its not genius. Its less risky and more about control than profits.

MS would have leverage over studios, and be able to profit extra on their account. But its a system where revenue is limited by user numbers, not demand for a title. You have your consumer, you tied them to your system, and you limit your profits to the 120$ per user no matter how many games they play.

Game X releases, X is turns out to be a hit and is mega awesome, the dev got 5 million for it. Doesnt matter if 1, 20, 60 million people play it. That 5 million is ALL they get. The money from the subscribition is all MS gets.

Game X released on playststion, for every sale the dev gets more money (obviously). Their monetary success is tied to the success of the game with players, not how much they negotiated with the platform holder. Sonys profits more on each unit sold.

The more demand, the more profit sony and the devs make. With gamepass, the more demand, the devs makes nothing extra, and its far less likely new subs will be acquired for one game.

Look at sonys latest FY profits, they are record for an industry, and nothing is close. Despite MS having 23 million gamepass subs. But gamepass is a lot safer, it a game is a dud, MS lose nothing, they still got their subscription, if 3rd party publishers release duds, less games, or lower performing games, they still get their sub money. In the traditional way, demand dictates profits  

So I wouldnt call it genius, id call it the safe bet, one that IMO is not sustainable unless the industry is completely consolidated and a monopoly or duopoly exist.

[Xevross]

In my opinion its not genius. Its less risky and more about control than profits.

MS would have leverage over studios, and be able to profit extra on their account. But its a system where revenue is limited by user numbers, not demand for a title. You have your consumer, you tied them to your system, and you limit your profits to the 120$ per user no matter how many games they play.

Game X releases, X is turns out to be a hit and is mega awesome, the dev got 5 million for it. Doesnt matter if 1, 20, 60 million people play it. That 5 million is ALL they get. The money from the subscribition is all MS gets.

Game X released on playststion, for every sale the dev gets more money (obviously). Their monetary success is tied to the success of the game with players, not how much they negotiated with the platform holder. Sonys profits more on each unit sold.

The more demand, the more profit sony and the devs make. With gamepass, the more demand, the devs makes nothing extra, and its far less likely new subs will be acquired for one game.

Look at sonys latest FY profits, they are record for an industry, and nothing is close. Despite MS having 23 million gamepass subs. But gamepass is a lot safer, it a game is a dud, MS lose nothing, they still got their subscription, if 3rd party publishers release duds, less games, or lower performing games, they still get their sub money. In the traditional way, demand dictates profits  

So I wouldnt call it genius, id call it the safe bet, one that IMO is not sustainable unless the industry is completely consolidated and a monopoly or duopoly exist.

Its genius for microsoft, it gives them money at the expense of others which in business I would call a genius move.

And you say not close but xbox are getting a bit closer to PS on revnues now, they made 3/5 of PS's revenue in this last year, despite it being a crazy bumper year from Sony, and with game pass still growing at a rapid rate they'll continue to close the gap. Can't talk about profits since they weren't disclosed.