I’m interested in the economics of it, and I’m no expert so would be great for some insight.

In years gone by, the quality and popularity of a game would directly correlate to it’s sales. Whereas for gamepass games, I assume that studios get a kick back percentage of revenue for installs, play hours, etc.

As the investment needed by a player to install is zero (barring a download and install, it’s all sunk cost from already having a gamepass), their threshold to try a game is a lot lower, therefore the requirements for the studio to ensure high quality is much lower for a similar return on investment. (I.e. more speculative downloads with lower return than lower hard sales with higher return).

What do you think?

  • Politoed6@alien.topBEnglish
    0·
    10 months ago

    Uhh… It’s literally referred to as Netflix for games, I’m not sure why you think it’s more comparable to blockbuster.

    You have full access to any game on gamepass the entire time you’re subscribed to game pass, same way you have full access to any TV show available on Netflix as long as you have Netflix. It’s not really comparable to blockbuster where u had to return games / movies and it was a short term rental, there’s almost no incentive to buy anything in the Netflix model

    • StatusPatience5@alien.topBEnglish
      1·
      10 months ago

      I think the benefit, and why Microsoft says GP has been profitable is because on top of being Gaming Netflix, they also sell the products.

      So not only do they get reoccurring revenue, they also get a 100% of first party/ 30% of third party games sold in their store, and then 70% from steam, PlayStation and Switch.