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

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."

Comments

sega channel

[ganjadude]

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.

Re:sega channel

[OffaMyLawn]

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).

Sooo Gamefly and/or Steam?

[Captain Splendid]

Keep innovating, Microsoft!

Re:Sooo Gamefly and/or Steam?

[chispito]

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...

Steam?

[jfdavis668]

Isn't this just describing Steam?

Re:Steam?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Steam?

[cfalcon]

> 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.

I hope this fucking fails

[cfalcon]

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.

Re:I hope this fucking fails

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

They have this

[utahjazz]

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?

Bundle it with Xbox LIve

[bigdady92]

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.

Let's milk our customers for as long as possible

[Artem S. Tashkinov]

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.

Eliminate used game sale, reap more profit

[Rick Schumann]

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.

Seems like a bad deal

[rsilvergun]

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.

DLC is the key

[gosand]

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.