We’ve talked here before about the Achilles heel of Microsoft’s Game Pass service, and even Phil Spencer not 100% on its future, see: Microsoft CEO of Gaming Hints Closing Game Pass if Subscriber Numbers Don’t Meet Expectations by 2027
Former Microsoft PR Brad Hilderbrand put out quite an illuminating post on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/posts/bradhilderbrand_there-are-two-reasons-why-all-those-bethesda-activity-7193668143305670657-wUSw/) that’s worth a read involving the quandary that Microsoft faces with putting games on Games Pass day 1, something that they have touted as the be-all, end-all to the service. It’s hurting their bottom line in game sales as they aren’t experiencing the Game Pass subscriber growth they once had.
The biggest paradox with Game Pass is that basically every game that launches on the service badly misses its sales goals. Makes sense though, why pay full price to buy a game when you can play it for “free” as part of your subscription? This is accounted for somewhat by attributing portions of revenue to top-performing Game Pass games every month, but there are factors working against games. Namely, the fact that most games don’t stay at the top of the chart for more than a month or two, and also that Game Pass growth has stagnated. So games like Hi-Fi Rush, which is incredible mind you, gets a very small bump in revenue from being the hot Game Pass game for a month, then it falls off a cliff when everyone moves onto the next thing. Poor Redfall had it even worse since it launched so rough, it never had a chance.
Hilderband’s LinkedIn post is a response to Microsoft’s closure of several studios after acquiring Activision/Blizzard. Gamers were confused why good studios were getting axed, along presumably with some good devs that didn’t get jobs elsewhere inside Microsoft’s gaming ecosystem. People are saying, “What about the good games these studios cranked out?
The biggest problem in this author’s opinion is the economics around making games in 2024. Too much money is being spent to create these games, especially the AAA titles. Too much headcount, too many teams, too much complication. The answer is to go back to the days of smaller, more nimble teams of which we recently expanded upon here: OPINION: Maybe the problem isn’t AI, it’s too many people working on a single game?
Gamers don’t need regular hits of games that take years to make. Sure, some will tell you that’s the answer, but the real answer is make games you can afford to make, instead of making those huge, deep, mega splash games like Starfield and Redfall that you want to drive subscribers to Game Pass.
The game industry has been seduced by top tier AAA titles, and the ego of having as many of them as they can instead of focusing on games that gamers want to play. It doesn’t matter how many frames per second, how much ray tracing and other fancy modern tech features a game has if it isn’t fun to play. I’m not saying to go too far back in time, but perhaps focus more on modern updates of great arcade games, you know, like the space that Raw Thrills is thriving in with the arcades.
Go to any modern arcade, or talk with any operator and ask them what arcade games are making the most money? Raw Thrills modern games! Not pinball, that everybody and their brother is talking about (PGM, too, yes), it’s these giant arcade games, many of which are games released in the classic era, being re-imagined, shooting games like Jurassic Park which can be beaten in 30-45 minutes, but is a real dollar eater. Giant screens, wild and fun controllers. These games are attracting all ages of gamers, from young to old, and yet on the consoles and PC we see very few of these games being ported.
When they do port them, like with TMNT: Wrath of the Mutants (Launching April 23, 2024 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Arcade: Wrath of the Mutants – Steam Listing Live), they need to add features that PC and console gamers crave like: full online play (not just remote play), additional play modes and online leaderboards, not only provide a basic arcade port. They need to bring the modern arcade to the world, not just local play.
Game Pass should be like the old XBox 360 Live Arcade, that’s when the service was better. It has gone away from that, literally, chasing all these new expensive AAA titles. I’m not saying to completely abandon those games, but reduce those titles severely, based on your budget and get more innovation and a higher volume of games that are really, really fun to play. At the end of the day it’s not how much you spend to make a game, how many people involved, it’s whether or not it’s a fun game.
We must hope that Microsoft finds its way with Game Pass, because if they keep the path, it’s clearly a cycle of diminishing returns and its future is bleak.
Excellent article, and a topic that has been increasingly prevalent within the gaming community. Recently, I watched several YouTube videos where a gamer meticulously played through every iteration of the Battlefield franchise, evaluating each one based on its overall enjoyment factor. Unsurprisingly, many of the older titles, some over a decade old, consistently ranked higher in terms of pure gameplay enjoyment compared to the latest releases. This trend highlights a growing sentiment among gamers: the desire for developers to prioritize robust gameplay mechanics over superficial visual enhancements. While stunning graphics and immersive environments are undoubtedly impressive, their allure often diminishes with repeated playthroughs, sometimes even becoming a distraction. In my opinion, the core of a great game lies in its gameplay, and it would be refreshing to see more focus directed toward that fundamental aspect.
Well said, GoodGRIEFF. Some folks are probably wondering why I’m playing around lately with “simple” games with Rosebud.AI, it’s in great part because gameplay *is* the focus when you are limited in space. This is something too many modern game developers forget. They are seduced by having all the space to do amazing graphics and videos and stories but forget about the one thing we are doing: playing a game. When you distill the other parts of games down to the raw component, it’s pure gameplay. I love these simple games because gameplay is not something, it’s everything. Now, in a perfect gaming future we get both … the amazing simple, fun and innovative game with the great graphics, some video (although I could do without a lot of fancy story vids, but that’s just me).
Exactly! If gaming had always put flashy graphics and cinematic cutscenes over solid gameplay, many of us who grew up in arcades…where gameplay was everything…might never have become gamers. It makes me wonder, does our generation value gameplay more than today’s, where the emphasis seems to be on visual spectacle? That said, I’d love to see some of the classic games get a modern update with enhanced graphics, but nothing too over-the-top…just a fresh look that honors the original. Plus, adding some gameplay improvements that weren’t possible back then could really breathe new life into these classics for both old fans and a new generation.