Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Xbox Chief: We Need To Create a Netflix of Video Games (theguardian.com)

Posted by msmash on from the future-of-gaming dept.

Phil Spencer, the man who heads up Microsoft's Xbox division, says that if the video game sector is to grow both creatively and economically it needs to start thinking along the lines of a video-games-as-a-service subscription model. From a report: Over the last five years we've seen the emergence of a new concept: the video game as a service. What this means is the developer's support for a new title doesn't stop when it's launched. They run multiplayer servers so that people can compete online; and they release extra downloadable content (DLC) in the form of new items, maps and storylines -- sometimes free, but very often paid for. [...] So being able to build and sustain a community around a single title takes the risk out of development. However, the costs of renting and running server networks and maintaining the matchmaking and lobby infrastructures make the model inaccessible for smaller teams. Should it be? "This is directly in line with what I think the next wave of innovation needs to be for us as a development platform," says Spencer. His solution, it seems, is to make Microsoft's Azure cloud computing platform more open to smaller studios, so they get access to a large global network of servers. "They don't have to go buy a bunch of servers on their own and stick them under their desks and hope they get enough players to pay for them," he says. [...] Spencer feels that, from a creative standpoint, we need new types of narrative experience -- but from a business standpoint, it's getting harder and riskier to commit to those games. Is there an answer? Spencer thinks there is -- and it comes from watching the success of original content made and distributed on modern TV services. "I've looked at things like Netflix and HBO, where great content has been created because there's this subscription model. Shannon Loftis and I are thinking a lot about, well, could we put story-based games into the Xbox Game Pass business model because you have a subscription going? It would mean you wouldn't have to deliver the whole game in one month; you could develop and deliver the game as it goes."

77 of 142 comments (clear)

  1. sega channel by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Informative

    sega did this in the mid 90s and it was a great service for its time. got a few games a month that you could play through a dialup modem. I wondered why no one has done it since.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:sega channel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And atari before it with the GameLine (later QuantumLink)

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameLine

    2. Re:sega channel by OffaMyLawn · · Score: 2

      For a more recent example, there's Playstation Now. It's not exactly what they're talking about, being for previous generation games specifically, but it's the same model type (and actually does work pretty well, or at least did for the trial period).

    3. Re:sega channel by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      thanks, didnt know about this one!

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    4. Re:sega channel by omnichad · · Score: 1

      And Nintendo Japan did something similar with satellite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    5. Re:sega channel by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Adding to the list, I was happily subscribed to Metaboli for a fair while.

    6. Re:sega channel by OffaMyLawn · · Score: 1

      Ah, was not aware of this. Only ran it for the trial period and cancelled (not enough time to play games anymore to justify the cost). Thank you!

    7. Re:sega channel by guises · · Score: 1

      People have done it since. This is basically what GameTap was, even including the funding of original content.

      Comparing this to Netflix though, and then saying, "It would mean you wouldn't have to deliver the whole game in one month; you could develop and deliver the game as it goes." - This is the opposite of how Netflix does it.

  2. Sooo Gamefly and/or Steam? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Keep innovating, Microsoft!

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    1. Re:Sooo Gamefly and/or Steam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ok. Beyond all the ranting from the peanut gallery that gets hung up over the slightest opportunity to engage in nitpicking word games... is there anything Steam does today that XBox Live doesn't do?

      (Seriously guys, it gets old. I know that Steam can drop any game at any time and that if Steam goes under so does your Steam library. We've been down this path and another rant just isn't warranted.)

    2. Re:Sooo Gamefly and/or Steam? by chispito · · Score: 2

      That's almost all you can do. The TOS is explicit that you do not own the games, and it is a DRM service meaning it can withhold permission to play any time it wants to

      Not entirely true. You can play games in offline mode without logging in and the publishers are free to provide DRM-free games via Steam in the same way that Kindle publishers can provide DRM-free ebooks if they choose. http://steam.wikia.com/wiki/Li...

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    3. Re:Sooo Gamefly and/or Steam? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Exactly, why don't they just get Steam on? SteamOS hasn't, to the best of my knowledge, taken off: most of their games are still best on Windows. So MS should just partner w/ Steam and get their platform completely supported on Xbox, so that one can play any Steam game on their Xbox. I'd actually buy an Xbox if they do that.

    4. Re:Sooo Gamefly and/or Steam? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Okay, so how do I get a DRM-free Civ VI? (Please don't say 'FreeCiv', since it's stuck in a time warp from the 90s.)

    5. Re:Sooo Gamefly and/or Steam? by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Good Old Games has Civ 1-4. Don't know if 5 or 6 have been (legitimately) released DRM-free anywhere yet. I suspect they'll hit GoG or some similar site eventually after the devs decide that the greater sales exposure is worth the increased piracy risk (given of course that they somehow still believe the piracy risk is 100% regardless of DRM. It only takes one successful crack to take piracy from 0% to maximum and there's always at least one.)

    6. Re: Sooo Gamefly and/or Steam? by Yesfan001 · · Score: 1

      I agree - Amazon's offering is the first thing I thought of when I read this story. FYI, though, Amazon's program is called "Lumberyard", not "Lumberjack".

  3. Steam? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Isn't this just describing Steam?

    1. Re:Steam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, steam is not a subscription service. You buy each title you want, once, and that's it. If you want the dlc, you pay a separate unlock fee, once, to get it.

      This is a monthly payment, and you get access to all the titles and all the dlc for them (however many your hard drive can hold), and you can swap them out and play them as much as you want....until you cancel the subscription; when you lose access to all of them.

    2. Re:Steam? by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Not really. Steam is like buying DVDs off of Amazon. You own (sort of) the product and you don't have to keep paying a subscription fee to maintain access.

      This sounds like a model where you pay a subscription fee and can just play whatever games are available through the service. If you quit paying, you lose access, but otherwise you can play whatever game you want through the service. There have already been a few different services that have tried this in the past, and some more recent ones as well (I recall NVidia having some service where you could "rent" one of their high-end graphics cards and play through the cloud) so it's hardly a new idea or something that doesn't exist. I just think that most people prefer to buy the games outright rather than having a subscription model.

    3. Re:Steam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you never have to pay anything more beyond the "purchase" price, then it's not renting; renting means that you make regular payments in return for continued use of the item or service in question.

      It may be correct to say that you don't "own" your Steam games, but that just means that what you purchased is a license to use the game according to term specified by Steam, rather than the less restrictive (but also not unlimited) terms applying to the use of a traditionally purchased copy of a game.

    4. Re:Steam? by supremebob · · Score: 1

      Or EA Access for that matter. EA Access is an annual subscription service ALREADY available on the XBox that gives you "free" copies of older EA games, early beta access, and 10 hour trials of the newer titles. If you like the games, you can buy them at a discounted price from the EA store.

      So, yeah, it doesn't sound like Microsoft is doing much "innovation" here. They are just ripping off and expanding on an existing service already available to XBox customers.

    5. Re:Steam? by asylumx · · Score: 1

      Ok, "Origin Access" then?

    6. Re: Steam? by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      That's why I said "sort of" when I was making the point. The same holds true for DVDs as well though, you don't own the movie, you're just leasing a plastic disc. If you break your DVD you would have to buy a new one and laws at the time made it illegal (or tried to at least) to circumvent the copy-protection mechanisms included on the DVD to create a digital backup of the contents.

    7. Re:Steam? by cfalcon · · Score: 2

      > but that there are a lot of studios you can't buy through Steam

      I mean, he could be saying that, but if he is, he's an asshole.

      > . Origin, Blizzard, Microsoft Studios

      "Origin" is just "EA". If Spencer wants Microsoft on Steam, he should put ALL his games on Steam, right?

      To ask "why aren't all of these guys available in one place" is a stupid question, because he's looking out at a landscape with Microsoft, Valve, Blizzard, and EA each having some kind of proprietary distribution platform, all of the non-Steam ones created to try to eat Valve's lunch. It is lucrative to control the platform so much, and obviously Microsoft would like to be in on that. But why would Blizzard choose to sell through a subscription service? What games would sell well that way? The only game that could even be adapted to that model is really Overwatch, with Starcraft and Diablo arguably getting there maybe. Why would EA opt to serve games through them? EA presses really hard to make Origin mandatory for all of its games. Why would Steam choose that? Just to put a subset of its Windows-only games through there?

      Notice also that Netflix is by NO MEANS a one-stop shop for shows. Individual networks have been pulling their titles to try to get people to come onto just THEIR platforms, but with a subscription. Netflix has their own titles, which they won't share with competitors. Amazon and Hulu are doing the same thing. By this definition, someone would need to make a Netflix for movies and shows before you'd expect Microsoft to make a Netflix for video games.

      Oh, also note that Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and others, all try very hard to make their shit work on all platforms. Even Linux is reasonably well supported. Microsoft, meanwhile, is brutally ludicrous about tying everyone to Windows. Would a Microsoft store work on Mac? What about Linux? What about Nintendo's Switch, or Sony's PS4 Pro? Steam at least tries to support all major x86 platforms. Microsoft would never. Never ever.

    8. Re: Steam? by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      > Wrong. If you break Steam TOS, you lose access to those games. You don't own the game, you lease it.

      You lease it, but it is often a one-time lease cost that lasts indefinitely. Sometimes the one-time lease cost is literally zero.

      I get your desire to jump on anyone making the mistake between Steam offering you a game, and you actually going and buying the game. But it's still a reasonable analogy to make, especially given that your Steam library will last for years, and probably eventually decades. Given that the same type of shenanigans needed to free a Steam-installed game from Steam are also needed to free most modern games from their licensing servers, it's reasonable to talk about it like that. It takes serious effort to exert your ownership over your purchased products, be they on Steam or in physical disk form.

    9. Re:Steam? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Go on... in what way is it remotely like Steam? I'm curious to know what you were thinking when you posted this?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    10. Re:Steam? by Comboman · · Score: 1

      If you never have to pay anything more beyond the "purchase" price, then it's not renting; renting means that you make regular payments in return for continued use of the item or service in question.

      I only pay once when I rent a car. Paying monthly (when you don't own) is leasing. Paying once (when you don't own) is renting.

      --
      Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    11. Re:Steam? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      The difference between a tv show and a game is that I watch a tv show once, whereas I play a single game for many hundreds of hours.

      I think a better analogy is a TV Series on Netflix, not a TV show. For example, if you watch all of The West Wing that about 113 hours of viewing, give or take.

    12. Re:Steam? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      No, steam is not a subscription service. You buy each title you want, once, and that's it. If you want the dlc, you pay a separate unlock fee, once, to get it.

      This is a monthly payment, and you get access to all the titles and all the dlc for them (however many your hard drive can hold), and you can swap them out and play them as much as you want....until you cancel the subscription; when you lose access to all of them.

      It's going to be more like a Pay/Cable TV subscription. With the basic package, you only get access to a limited set of semi-popular games. To get access to the full catalogue, you need to pay for the gold package. Want DLC, you can pay a nominal sum for a DLC package per game.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    13. Re:Steam? by SandWyrm · · Score: 1

      No, they're describing World of Tanks.

  4. Netflix vs. YouTubwe by tepples · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If a future offering from Xbox is the Netflix of video games, then what's the YouTube of video games?

    1. Re:Netflix vs. YouTubwe by DraconPern · · Score: 1

      Twitch is the youtube of video games.

    2. Re:Netflix vs. YouTubwe by puddingebola · · Score: 1

      I'm still waiting on the Pop Rocks of Video Games.

    3. Re:Netflix vs. YouTubwe by JoeDuncan · · Score: 1

      ... what's the YouTube of video games?

      http://www.abandonia.com/

    4. Re:Netflix vs. YouTubwe by CrashPoint · · Score: 1

      What's the public access radio of video games?

      Greenlight.

      What's the library of video games?

      The library.

      What's the turn down service of video games?

      Your mom.

  5. I hope this fucking fails by cfalcon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I very much hope this fucking fails.

    The business models are completely different. Every mode of distributing games for cash has FULLY influenced how games are designed. If you make a game that sells at a store, it has to fit on whatever media you are selling it on (pretty easy these days), and it has to be complete. If everyone has internet connections, you can ship a halfassed game with a fraction of content instead, and we see that. If you can do in-app purchases, then a science will spring up about how best to trick and exploit your customers- start with a free, fair and fun game, then gradually ramp up the difficulty until it is either an expensive, fair, and fun game, or a free, unfair, and unfun game. And we see this too, and not to a small degree- there's huge expensive studies done about how best to rip people off.

    So, what does a subscription based service incentivize? First of all, shitty games that look good enough to justify a subscription, games with artificially long end-points such as MMOs, and of course, the same in-app purchases. Basically, it has the worst commonalities of all the existing models. But wait, there's more! If the subscription is, say, 15 a month, then that's not enough to pay for free access to like 5 good MMOs and two dozen good first person shooters. How do you divide the 15 a month anyway? By the games played by each person? It ends up having the same compensation issues that Spotify does, except unlike performers, you don't go on tour with your game- your distribution is your entire model, full stop.

    There's almost no way that, even if highly supported and well liked, this is sustainable. This is just middle-men engaging in huge rent-seeking, and they will be the only ones to possibly make any kind of cash out of this, which will be entirely on the backs of any developers.

    A more optimistic view is to offer temporary access to older games, for people who like them but don't want to go through the drama of maintaining their ability to play them separately for long periods of time. That's the best case scenario, and not the one they are talking about. I suspect even that would fail too.

    And I'm sure this would be just more Windows-specific garbage (Xbone also runs Windows, AFAIK), as if the world needs more of that.

    1. Re:I hope this fucking fails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Anytime I read 'the Netflix of....' I just chuckle.

      I'm working on the Netflix of toilet paper. Its gonna wipe the competition away.

    2. Re:I hope this fucking fails by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      > that there is one, singular, successful subscription MMO: World of Warcraft

      I mean, that's not quite true. It's close to true, though. Final Fantasy XIV is subscription based (they have a free-to-play trial up to level 35, similar to WoW's free-to-play trial up to level 20 or 30 or I forget). They use the EXACT same model as WoW, with a real-money store for a few cosmetics (they don't offer a level boost, or the ability to buy in-game currency, but they may eventually- both of those things are things that WoW has added in the last few years). While FFXIV doesn't enjoy the same success that WoW does, they are absolutely a profitable game.

      Other games might be profitable as subscription, but use a hybrid model where all their serious players are on subscriptions, and their free trial is level capped or otherwise similar. Star Wars: The Old Republic uses this model. I think Wildstar has something like that, but I doubt Wildstar is profitable yet.

      Profitable subscription based MMOs that are not WoW exist. What took so long to get through the heads of various investors is that a given subscription MMO is extraordinarily unlikely to get to WoW's level of success or profitability, so this should definitely inform your development costs, and model- it should not need to get to "at least half of WoW" in order to turn a profit, because it almost assuredly will not.

      > Of course, what Microsoft wants to do is eliminate the discs entirely, to try and kill the resale market. Which is what this is really about.

      That's actually a really good point, and I'm sorry I missed it.

    3. Re:I hope this fucking fails by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      > First of all I see this as a platform that can host everything and is cloud based so they are only transmitting what you view to you.

      Latency. So much lag. There's actually services that offer this right now, and they all tooootally suck. A modern client uses a lot of power on your side, but as a result, it is displaying the server state, and also making predictions based on that. This cuts dramatically down on the amount of latency you personally have to deal with. But if your input device and your output device both have serious latency, you will be in for a WORLD of hurt.

      > You would no longer have to buy any additional hardware or worry about DRM/which platform you are on.

      I mean, do you think we don't all do this today for some bad reason? Your hypothetical is already something that people try to do, for single and multiplayer games alike.

      > As you can see each publisher/developer would receive their equivalent funds and we start voting with our money as an extension of our time.

      Right, that it itself the problem. In your hypothetical, the guy making Madden 2018 realizes that he needs to get his Xbitch subscribers to play his game more than the others. So the first thing he does is offer a passive reward, maybe even for being just logged in. Tell your team to go practice. The practice plays itself on loop, but you can interact for slightly greater rewards per time. Now he's getting 8 hours a night while you leave your team practicing. Since the game is now rebuilt around the idea that teams practice while their owners are asleep, this isn't really an advantage to the player in any way (except for the players that aren't doing this yet), but it totally dicks up the accounting system.

      So Microsoft walks in and says, none of that. But once the incentive is established, everyone will walk up to that line and do what they can. Now EA offers a bonus in game A for playing a bunch of game B. Or any game simply offers rewards for heavy playtime.

      You get more of what you pay for. And this system absolutely encourages it to be gamed.

      > this might incentivize developers to build and support games for longer

      It might incentivize developers to try to drag out playtimes, even when they aren't fun. Which is more likely?

      Also, there's a cap to how much game can be paid for this way. If I need to pay 15/month to play, say, WoW, why would I expect a game of that quality to be delivered to me as part of another 15/month subscription? If I was EA, would I launch my title on this system, or wait 6 months and offer a gimped, or maybe very grindy version?

      It's a bad idea. I very much hope it fails for this reason. It pays people to make shitty game, and it chokes out good games. Very probably.

    4. Re:I hope this fucking fails by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      This service already existed. It was called OnLive, and it was actually quite a bit better than you'd expect in terms of image quality and lag. I'm not really sure why it failed, but my guess is that people just don't want to consume video games the same way they consume video content - the replay value of many games may make consumers of a subscription service feel like they're double-paying for stuff.

      Anyway, if the same factors are in place, I expect a microsoft version of OnLive to do just as well as the original.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:I hope this fucking fails by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Latency. So much lag.

      Yeah, would be easier, simpler and better for everybody if they just let you download the games and run them locally.

      Much as Steam does.

    6. Re:I hope this fucking fails by Altrag · · Score: 1

      one, singular, successful subscription MMO: World of Warcraft

      Define "successful." If you mean "makes a profit," then you're flat out wrong. If you mean "as successful as WoW" then well yeah, I guess that's true.

      You also need to define "failure." There's plenty of MMOs that closed or tried F2P (or some other model) because they were starting to lose money -- but that doesn't negate all of the money they made before they started going downhill. An MMO that made $100m over its life and shutdown after deciding a loss of $10m couldn't be turned around is still a $90m profit, which is a big win in most peoples' books, even if its not the biggest win they could have dreamed up. Even if you replace those m's with k's that's still a pretty nice chunk of money they walk away with.

      I think too many MMOs tried to define success as "WoW-killer" and failure as "didn't kill WoW." Of course by that metric you're going to lose. Well unless you happen to be the one that succeeds but none ever managed that and now the MMO heyday is pretty much over, so the likelyhood of any new WoW-killer claims is pretty slim (even though "beating" WoW would technically be much easier now since they're also losing significant numbers of subscribers as the market for MMOs declines. That said, the last numbers they released a year or two ago were still above the next largest MMO in its prime.)

    7. Re:I hope this fucking fails by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      I mean, no, it's not simpler for the player to run the game locally. It's merely vastly better. In theory, you could play on ANY device with a good connection, as long as it supported a controller you liked enough. You could play on an old iPad, some pre-Core x86s, anything that was able to drive a video stream and read your inputs.

      The problem is that latency. Everything else is a problem on the remote side, which, presumably, they would be highly motivated to run efficiently.

    8. Re:I hope this fucking fails by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      > it was actually quite a bit better than you'd expect in terms of image quality and lag

      It was clear that eliminating lag was their #1 priority, but they still were off by over a factor 2 on their promised lag.

    9. Re:I hope this fucking fails by n329619 · · Score: 1

      Voting with money as an extension of our time (down to hours) is a not the best idea for games. This is because now games will be designed toward length rather than content.

      Have you seen idle games like farmville or Clash of Clan? hardcore players probably don't even consider them fun or interactive, but under the money per time, those games will earn the most. Players leave their game on for the day in exchange for rewards.

      Even MMO or FPS games will end up with farming or loading screen before you get to the action, just to get longer "gameplay" time.

      One alternative is to change it to base on a monthly (or longer) token (per game hidden from players) where if the players open the developers game once within that month (or longer), it will use the player's token and the developers will get their funding. Hopefully encouraging the developers to create content that brings back player every months (or longer).

      There are still loophole with this alternative like 'what is the funding', but hopefully this is a good starting point if the option to subscribe takes place.

    10. Re:I hope this fucking fails by bongey · · Score: 1

      Fear not, Microsoft is expert at screwing up. Microsoft has years of experience find the best way to create the most spectacular product failures ever. Examples of their long running success of showing other companies what not to do include:Zune,Kin,Windows Me,Windows Mobile. Internet Exploder 6 and their most successful product failure, Microsoft Bob.

    11. Re:I hope this fucking fails by n329619 · · Score: 1

      After posting, I've already notice a number of AAA titles that would take tokens that is worth per year instead of per month. An example would be bioshock. Here the 'funding' just gotten harder to resolve.

  6. They have this by utahjazz · · Score: 4, Informative

    I already pay Microsoft about $60/year for a subscription service that allows me to download and play games. It's called XBox Live Gold. Perhaps no one told the new boss at XBox about?

    1. Re:They have this by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      Seriously. As is, XBox Live Gold is not a service, it's just extortion.

  7. Bundle it with Xbox LIve by bigdady92 · · Score: 2

    Give me more games per month on xbox live and make sure I can play them forever on xbox live. Charge an additional 9.99$/mo to give me games on release day that I can play as long as I have an active XBL account. Honestly once I beat a game there's very little reason I need to keep it on my shelf, in my system, or other type of media. I have HORDES of old games that collect and the chance of me playing .0001% of them is slim to none.

    I'll take a modern service that gives me all my content+new content for a very low monthly rate.

    --
    Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
    1. Re:Bundle it with Xbox LIve by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      "Why can't it be both?"

      If the subscription model is optional, then that's fine, but I'm worried it will become mandatory. There's no reason why I should keep paying for my small selection of games forever because people like you keep buying tons of crap that isn't good enough to play more than once.

  8. Re:Server Maintenance Costs by zlives · · Score: 1

    hear hear

  9. Let's milk our customers for as long as possible by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let me translate this marketing talk into something that average people would understand: "Let's milk our customers for as long as possible by first selling them an early alpha and then, while solving critical bugs, adding some missing features so that the game doesn't look and feel like a demo product".

    Sorry, this is such a shitty concept it must die. Games in 80s, 90s and early 00s were released as complete final products and rarely if ever received any patches or DLCs. Now with the advent of a high speed Internet connection, even operating systems are offered as beta products (I'm looking at Windows 10). This is all done to save money on QA/QC and to increase the profits of game publishers (not, not developers) - the companies which basically do nothing, except clever often misleading marketing.

  10. Looking forward by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

    Looking forward to games being randomly pulled in and out of the catalogue while I'm in the middle of playing them, at whim of always changing agreements between the streaming service and the publishers.

  11. Eliminate used game sale, reap more profit by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 2

    Sounds to me more like they want to eliminate people's ability to sell used games (because you'll never own a copy, only 'rent' it) and at the same time gain perpetual profit from the 'rental' of 'streaming' games to people. Basically, it's a return to the Video Arcade: you walked in with a pocketful of quarters, and left with your pockets empty. Also reminds me of the original DivX business model: they wanted you to buy a physical disc, but you'd have to pay a fee every time you wanted to watch it. I hope nobody falls for this.

    1. Re:Eliminate used game sale, reap more profit by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Basically, it's a return to the Video Arcade: you walked in with a pocketful of quarters, and left with your pockets empty.

      I kinda take issue with how you phrased this -- as though the arcade gamer simply gave away his money for nothing. At the arcade, you were paying for the time you spent playing the games. Like many other things in life, sometimes money is exchanged for an experience alone, and just because you don't have a tangible good to show for the exchange doesn't mean you were cheated..

    2. Re:Eliminate used game sale, reap more profit by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Do me a favor? Stop putting words in my mouth, okay? I never said anything about the value of the money you spent in an arcade, because I didn't think I had to say anything about it: it's implicit. But the fact of the matter is, that you tended to come in and spend what you had in your pockets. That's the only reason arcades existed as long as they did. When home games started reaching the point of parity with arcade games (or close enough at least) coin-op game arcades started dying off -- for that reason, and for the reason that they tended to attract crime, so local LEOs and parents alike didn't really shed a tear when they died off.

  12. Seems like a bad deal by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    I do the old XKCD gag of playing old games on old hardware. I buy most of my games for
    Besides, this already exists and is called Gamefly.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Seems like a bad deal by Sumus+Semper+Una · · Score: 1

      On the flip side, the lowered barriers to entry caused by not needing to go through a traditionally restrictive publisher have resulted in a modern renaissance for indie games. Low budget titles available through gog.com or Steam have some real gems among them. Granted, there are a lot of terrible low budget games and "in development" games that never get finished too, but I'll accept that as a price I'm willing to pay for really imaginative and refreshingly fun titles being regularly released by people or studios I've never heard of.

      The central server fad seems to be a big developer/publisher only obsession, fortunately. But yes, it is unfortunate that some otherwise good games decided they should assume that there's a central server that will always exist.

  13. Weird futures by lessthan · · Score: 1

    Weird how all the big companies seem to believe the future lies with us continuously paying them for the privilege of their services without them actually suppling a permanent product.

    --
    Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    1. Re:Weird futures by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Weird how you think this is weird. You may dislike it, but there's nothing inherently strange about it and there can be some pretty big benefits. Netflix of course being the prime example -- there's no way I could possibly afford to purchase everything I've watched on Netflix for full price, but between volume purchasing and amortization across shows, Netflix is able to provide a product that I wouldn't otherwise be able to obtain, even if its not "permanent."

      Whether or not this will work for video games is another question. The potential is there but I don't know if the economics are.

  14. Re:Let's milk our customers for as long as possibl by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    CEO: "We want to get more money for selling games."

    Marketdroid: "Users are not willing to pay more than $60 per game."

    Bright Idea Guy: "I know! We will sell games as a service and charge $10/month. Our customers will LOVE it!"

  15. DLC is the key by gosand · · Score: 2

    Sorry, this is such a shitty concept it must die. Games in 80s, 90s and early 00s were released as complete final products and rarely if ever received any patches or DLCs. Now with the advent of a high speed Internet connection, even operating systems are offered as beta products (I'm looking at Windows 10). This is all done to save money on QA/QC and to increase the profits of game publishers (not, not developers) - the companies which basically do nothing, except clever often misleading marketing.

    DLC is the name of the game.
    My sons are pre-teen, and they play various free games. They are amazed that they are free, cause they are sooo cool. (they suck) They see these youtubers (my least favorite word) prattling on about these games, and sit and watch them play them, and talk incessantly while doing so. But those games become popular, and if you get people hooked on it, you can sell them things. Upgrades/costumes/other levels, etc. It doesn't work on my kids, because I don't let it.
    This isn't a new concept, it's the razor/razor blade thing. But if they can get a subscription, then I am 100% sure there will be product tie-ins, commercials, and more things they can buy. It's like a pre-teen casino.

    Not picking on pre-teens, but I think the rest of us can see right through it. I asked my son the other day if he plays any of the new versions of Minecraft, and he said "No, all the new versions are weird and aren't fun since Microsoft bought them. I just play the older versions." I honestly don't think MS can do what Netflix did, and that's have a vision. They built their userbase and then came out guns blazing by daring to create original programming. I think it was the smartest thing they could do, and they didn't do it half-assed. MS will approach this game thing with kid-gloves and it will fail. By the time they have anything worth showing, the market will have moved on.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  16. And... by Grim+Beefer · · Score: 1

    Like Netflix, you need to do it in a way that's, more or less, invisible to a consumer's monthly expenditures. If you roll something like this out at $20-30/m, people are going to tell you to kiss their ass. This is the #1 reason these buffet-style services never work. They are ALWAYS too expensive. $30/m will get you just about any game you want, if it's a bit older, and you get to KEEP it.

    $10-12? Now you're talking. Enjoy your paychecks.

  17. Basically PS+ by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

    With PlayStation Plus you get an initial "instant game collection" and then they add about 6 games a month to your list and as long as you're subscribed you can keep playing all of them. Pretty much sounds like we already have that....
    And Steam has PC pretty well covered

    --
    Twinstiq, game news
  18. erm by knope · · Score: 1

    as steam killed the physical pc media, and thus gamestores no longer stock, this will do the same. however, this would be nice if implemented in the manor of steam, and given microsoft uni-model vision this should make for interesting replay value of old games on new consoles.... i digress, PC MASTER RACE! lol

  19. please dont by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 1

    seriously. owning copys of things used to be so nice. not having to pay 9.99 for the rest of my life to play this one game that hasn't updated in 8 years come on.

  20. Let me play devil's advocate here by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    AAA development keeps pricier. Cliff Bleszinski just wrote an article saying it's unsustainable. For every GTAV we get two Medal of Honors a Darksiders franchise and a Shenmue. Prices need to be raised, but folks wont' pay more than $60. Before you balk at that consider what a $55 copy of Lotus RECS for the Sega Genesis cost in 1992 adjust for inflation. It was about $110 bucks in todays money while Forza 5 sold for about half that and had hundreds if not thousands more features (especially if you count all the advanced graphics as individual features, which if you're the engine programmer/3D Artists makes sense).

    Arcades had this problem in the late 90s when they needed to raise the price to 33 cents a play and couldn't. It eventually killed them.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  21. It's time, Gamefly is too slow by rjejr · · Score: 1

    This is the future, we have been heading there with VC, PS+, Xbox Live gold, MS Game Pass, EA Access. Gamefly doesn't work anymore. I signed up on a Wednesday, waited 8 days for a game to ship the following Thursday, then wait another 4 days for it arrive the following Monday. Mail the game back 2 Monday's later, they get notified from the post office 2 days later on Wednesday, but it's still "At home" in my Q on Thursday. So for a 1 month rental period that's 14 days of playing and 15 days of shipping & handling. I still think NEW games should be sold, then after a year move them to rental. Just like movies - theaters, video-on-demand, DVD. People don't BUY 2 and 3 year old games, better to have them in a rental program than forgotten.

  22. I Guess MS Is All-In On AWS Too? by FairAndUnbalanced · · Score: 1

    I get the Netflix analogy, but, ya know, Netflix is all-in on Amazon Web Services (not Azure).

  23. Meh by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    This is exactly why I didn't get neither a PS4 or an XBox One. They already require a subscription for full functionality. The only reason I'm considering a Switch is because it sounds like it'll still be reasonably functional without having to pay for subscription too, even though Nintendo finally caved in and decided to join this crappy trend.

    Also, Spencer must have his head under a rock or something if he's just now realizing this crap . Playstation Now already exists, nVidia has Gamestream/GRID, Gaikai has been out there for quite a while now (the core of Playstation Now), and there are several other services and attempted services like these out there - GameFly, G-cluster, Kalydo, Playcast Media Systems, etc etc.

    I dunno about market reception on these, but I don't think many people are buying into this trend. I won't.

    1. Re:Meh by Altrag · · Score: 1

      PS4 doesn't require a PS+ subscription for general console-like functionality (ie: you can play games, including online games, without it.)

      PS+ primarily gives you cloud storage and periodic discounts/freebies in the PS store. Its not like XBox where you're practically forced into it.

      That said, I'm pretty sure the PS4 does at least require you to create a PS account. Which is annoying but its free.

  24. Already done by Khyber · · Score: 1

    "Over the last five years we've seen the emergence of a new concept: the video game as a service."

    It is absolutely not new, it was called an 'arcade' forty fucking years ago. Guess what happened to the majority of them?

    They shut down as home gaming became possible/affordable.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  25. Just great! by Comboman · · Score: 1

    It would mean you wouldn't have to deliver the whole game in one month; you could develop and deliver the game as it goes.

    Unfortunately it also means a game could get "cancelled" before it's complete if there aren't enough players to support it.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    1. Re:Just great! by Altrag · · Score: 1

      The opposite is also true though. A game that would have traditionally been cancelled because its over budget/time/whatever may be able to hang on if there's enough players supporting it.

      Random speculation is fun.

  26. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  27. Re:Let's milk our customers for as long as possibl by Cederic · · Score: 1

    I spend more than $10/month on games. Shit, I spend $10/month on games just with one retailer, and they're nowhere near my primary source of new games.

    Anything under about $30/month for access to 80% of the games released more than six months ago and I'd be far better off.

  28. Re:Let's milk our customers for as long as possibl by Altrag · · Score: 1

    There's got to be more to it than that. Very few people play one (and only one) game for 6 months straight, so right off the top the math you're providing is a losing equation. If you assume say, 1 week per game playtime on average (across all users and across all games,) then that means you're charging the user $2.50 for a $60 game.

    I somehow doubt that new releases would be on the service for a few weeks/months until the initial purchasing rush is over, and this is just a way to get you to pay $10/mo for old games that you may not have otherwise considered buying at any price because you'd forgotten about them or weren't interested enough to pay the full sticker price or whatever other reason.

    Then again, this is just some guy spouting off, so its entirely possible that he just made a "wouldn't it be cool if" rant that happened to become news simply because of the position he holds, without any serious thought toward the economics of it.