3 ms·

I'm confused why you think they aren't tracking what games are played for how long, and won't optimize based on that. I would assume there's some royalty type s

I'm confused why you think they aren't tracking what games are played for how long, and won't optimize based on that. I would assume there's some royalty type situation with gamepass where the games that get played more get some percentage of a pool. You can rail about cable all you want, but some of the best shows of the last few decades were on cable. Breaking bad, mad men, the shield. Greatly expanding the choices allowed for networks to take risks in attempts to gain a small but I yerested audience, rather than having to appeal to the entire general public, and what we got was amazing.

smolder 4y ago
More time spent does not equal enjoyment. Some games treat their players like employees and make them work pretty hard for their imaginary prizes. I wouldn't want a games library optimized for maximum time expenditure.
- PaulHoule 4y ago
  I've only seen a few games so I can't say this is universal but when I play Japanese games on the Xbox all of the achievements say something like "5.4% of gamers accomplished this" which indicates that very few people finish this games, but a few western games I played didn't seem to show these percentages and I wonder if this is an attempt to work on people's psychology.
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    I didn't realize this was a thing that could be enabled/disabled per-game. I think all achievements on Steam come with the "x.x% got this" stat.
- kbenson 4y ago
  While I agree paying out based on time spent may incentivize games into poor behavior, I think there are ways to account for that (e.g. weeks of the month the game was played more than an hour or two total). Greatly reducing the up-front investment to try out a game allows for different types of games to find an audience. If I have to pay $20 to try out some indie title, I might put it off a long time until it's on sale or never try it. If it's already included in a subscription I pay for, I might try it early or right after hearing some buzz about it. More people jumping in on that buzz can create a wave of enthusiasm that greatly increases the reach of the game that wouldn't happen if a similar number of sales trickled in over an extended period, which might increase players (and possibly sales on other platforms) more than otherwise. It's been noted many times in the past, some of the big breaks for indie studios were when they got accepted into these programs or ones like it.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  No kidding. The whole idea of (even partially) evaluating a game's value/quality by how long it takes to finish it is a mind virus. It leads to bloated, grindy experiences where a shorter game might have been more appropriate or even more fun.
0x457 4y ago
Because that's not what gives them money. They are tracking what games bring in new subscribers.
coldpie 4y ago
> I would assume there's some royalty type situation with gamepass where the games that get played more get some percentage of a pool. My understanding is for non-exceptional games (like, not Fortnite-scale), they just provide a flat fee with a fixed-length contract. Your studio gets $X and it will be on GamePass for Y months. I'm sure gameplay stats are taken into account for future contract renewals or for other games with the same studio, but no, I don't think there is any kind of explicit revenue sharing going on. It can be a hard decision for studios, since they have to balance lost income from sales against the guaranteed income and added publicity from being on GamePass. Source: Stuff I remember from podcasts, mostly Brandon Sheffield on Insert Credit. Sorry, I know that's not a great reference =/

smolder 4y ago

More time spent does not equal enjoyment. Some games treat their players like employees and make them work pretty hard for their imaginary prizes. I wouldn't want a games library optimized for maximum time expenditure.

PaulHoule 4y ago
I've only seen a few games so I can't say this is universal but when I play Japanese games on the Xbox all of the achievements say something like "5.4% of gamers accomplished this" which indicates that very few people finish this games, but a few western games I played didn't seem to show these percentages and I wonder if this is an attempt to work on people's psychology.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  I didn't realize this was a thing that could be enabled/disabled per-game. I think all achievements on Steam come with the "x.x% got this" stat.
kbenson 4y ago
While I agree paying out based on time spent may incentivize games into poor behavior, I think there are ways to account for that (e.g. weeks of the month the game was played more than an hour or two total). Greatly reducing the up-front investment to try out a game allows for different types of games to find an audience. If I have to pay $20 to try out some indie title, I might put it off a long time until it's on sale or never try it. If it's already included in a subscription I pay for, I might try it early or right after hearing some buzz about it. More people jumping in on that buzz can create a wave of enthusiasm that greatly increases the reach of the game that wouldn't happen if a similar number of sales trickled in over an extended period, which might increase players (and possibly sales on other platforms) more than otherwise. It's been noted many times in the past, some of the big breaks for indie studios were when they got accepted into these programs or ones like it.
AlexandrB 4y ago
No kidding. The whole idea of (even partially) evaluating a game's value/quality by how long it takes to finish it is a mind virus. It leads to bloated, grindy experiences where a shorter game might have been more appropriate or even more fun.

0x457 4y ago

Because that's not what gives them money. They are tracking what games bring in new subscribers.

coldpie 4y ago

> I would assume there's some royalty type situation with gamepass where the games that get played more get some percentage of a pool. My understanding is for non-exceptional games (like, not Fortnite-scale), they just provide a flat fee with a fixed-length contract. Your studio gets $X and it will be on GamePass for Y months. I'm sure gameplay stats are taken into account for future contract renewals or for other games with the same studio, but no, I don't think there is any kind of explicit revenue sharing going on. It can be a hard decision for studios, since they have to balance lost income from sales against the guaranteed income and added publicity from being on GamePass. Source: Stuff I remember from podcasts, mostly Brandon Sheffield on Insert Credit. Sorry, I know that's not a great reference =/