That way players have zero input in what games get made but well-connected companies (like one from Montreal famous for bad games and bad behavior) will get your money no matter what you do.
That way players have zero input in what games get made but well-connected companies (like one from Montreal famous for bad games and bad behavior) will get your money no matter what you do.
The Spotify model is that people who listen to Beyonce on repeat are subsidized by the person who listens to 1h of indie bands a month.
> Others want [agreements] more based on usage and monetization in whether it’s a store monetization that gets created through transactions, or usage. We’re open [to] experimenting with many different partners, because we don’t think we have it figured out. When we started, we had a model that was all based on usage. Most of the partners said, “Yeah, yeah, we understand that, but we don’t believe it, so just give us the money upfront.”
https://www.theverge.com/21611412/microsoft-phil-spencer-int...
Before I would pay $5, $10, or $20 for games with a chance I'll like them - some are worth way more, some worth way less. With Game Pass I have a 'sunk cost' so I download and try out games much more eagerly and find myself enjoying many more indie games than before.
I have seen an interview where an indie dev said that Microsoft covered their entire development cost for a game to get it on Game Pass, leaving their sales on other platforms to be 'pure profit' in a sense.
I am not having a great time with the 'traditional publishing' model of the industry right now. If it gets shaken up, that seems like a benefit to me, not a drawback.
It seems like this model is better for the consumer (pay one fee, play whatever and however much you like), but whether or not its better for the game developers, I don't know.
This is unnecessary pedantry.