These changes are grounded in prioritizing high-impact titles and further investing in Bethesda’s portfolio of blockbuster games and beloved worlds which you have nurtured over many decades.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Just the fact that they played some minimum amount should tell them the game contributed to the subscriber's enjoyment of Game Pass. Otherwise if they are both selling a game and giving it to Game Pass subscribers for free I'm not sure what they are expecting. Can't have your cake and eat it too, but I'm sure they would like that.

Maybe they are hoping that Game Pass is like extended demos and will lead to more game sales. But there are too many new games all the time for most to hold my interest.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

I think they expected more casual gamers to sign up for game pass while the more dedicated among us would still be buying new products.

Honestly, they'd probably be doing better if they didn't put games on there day 1. Sony doesn't put their biggest titles on PS+ at launch for a reason.

Halo and starfield had shit sales because we didn't have to buy them. If they required people to buy the triple-A in-house titles at launch, the double-A stuff like HiFi Rush could still be released on gamepass day 1 as an incentive for people to subscribe.

As it stands, Starfield and Forza burned the money that should be used for HiFi Rush and Ori.

[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

Absolutely agree, just recently instead of buying Manor Lords I just found a good deal on a month of Game Pass. I played it as much as I wanted (for now) for less than $10.