By significant chunk of SNK you mean a controlling share of SNK. Which is frustrating as they are releasing their best work in years.
You'll disappointed to know how many games companies have shares owned by the Saudis.
Indeed, that is the problem with public companies. I can't see the PIF ever getting enough shares to trigger a takeover though.
I don't think Nintendo had any choice in the matter. Shares were up for sale and the Saudi PIF bought them up.
Don't own Nintendo (although a bit shocking to see Nintendo have sold out somewhat), play no Capcom games lately, mostly the same with EA… I'm inadvertently already avoiding most! Embracer one is harder… Then again, they've either closed or broke the games they own so far, so could be inadvertently avoiding them too. Judging by SA's intent to be the global games hub by 2030 (the "Kingdoms Vision"… ugh), me thinks I won't be able to completely avoid them for long.
Hands off Nintendo !
Unfortunately it isn't just eSports. The Saudi PIF, run by Prince Bonesaw, own a significant chunk of SNK and about 10% of a large number of other big companies in the space like Nintendo, EA and Embracer.
I'm trying to boycott anything that has sold out to oil but it's difficult, because a lot have! And it really doesn't affect me anyway because I'd rather play games than watch other people play them. Just amazing how blind people get when money is waved in front of them. I've let the IOC know my feelings, not that it would change anything. Maybe start an aul change.org petition to get people to boycott it… doubt it would work, but any negative publicity is good for us. I may also just continue to do nothing but complain and turn into an old man before my time.
I think it's the other way around really: the IOC think we're that thick to believe that kind of corporate fluff claws them back some degree of moral standing to make a partnership of that ilk. They'd know precisely what kind of people they're getting into bed with so have made loud claims how otherwise amazing and equal they are.
Unfortunately this is a small drop in an ocean by the Saudis to try and diversify in light of the slow decoupling from Oil & they'll make sure Western-Corporate "morality" remains flexible enough in light of those barbarians' wealth. And seems like fans of sports etc. don't care either, so far, as long as their team is winning.
Well that's something to easily ignore and not take part of/follow. Money can buy literally anything. I love the IOC quote
"we have also ensured that the Olympic values are respected, in particular, with regard to the game titles on the programme, the promotion of gender equality and engagement with the young audience, which is embracing esports."
I actually thought the IOC, without knowing anything about them, wouldn't be that thick. Guess I was wrong. Gender equality in Saudi Arabia! Hah! And not just once off, for the next 12 years! I genuinely hope gamers garner together and simply ignore or even actively ensure people don't engage with it. Any streamer who takes part should be shunned from the community. I'm even tempted to email Sony/PS and ask them to remove GT7 from the games being played, because they shouldn't want anything to do with this either. But… money will win. It always does. Shame, I may have been interested in it.
I see the (e)sportswashing continues: though given this is the IOC we're talking about, morality is lower down the rung with them, even compared to other sports corporations;
Yeah the "at this time" looks to be they saw the backlash and sent a hasty enough email to show it ain't as bad as the headlines for those lucky enough to be using it already.
For now il continue with it and see what to do when they for sure pump it up
"At this time" doing a lot of work there…..
Ultimately, I think this is a result of the business model that they've chosen, but also a result of the changing way in which people play, and spend money on, games. So much money in the industry is now going to to live service games like Fortnite, hardware sales are missing targets, games that got the ok only two or three years ago no longer make financial sense.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Sony put their prices up soon as well, I think it's coming up on full year report season soon, and every company seems to be missing targets in the gaming space.
So it seems it wasn't as bad as I first thought ( still annoying as I loved the loop hole) and the increase is only for no sign ups, if you have auto renew set up the prices and tiers stay the same or I am reading the email completely wrong.
"Recently, you may have heard about changes to the price of Xbox Game Pass subscriptions. At this time, these increases will only affect new purchases and will not affect your current subscription for the market in which you reside, as long as you are on an auto-renewal plan. Should you choose to cancel your plan and repurchase, you will be charged at the new current rate. If for any reason there may be changes to your existing account, we will notify you at least 60 days in advance and you will have the option to cancel or change your subscription plan at any time."
That's what I don't get. It's like they're now actively encouraging just getting a month here and there. I used to buy annual because it was cheaper overall, but Xbox have stopped selling them digitally and getting "physical" 3rd party is getting harder. You can only get the monthly €14.99 or 3 month ones @ €44.97 each so no savings. Unlike PS where the longer you buy the more you get, the 12 month a lot cheaper than the per month (€203.88 @ €16.99/month compared to €151.99). They've dropped the ball with hapes of lost revenue due to the open loophole they didn't mind people using because it drove up sub numbers. Now, all those people are most likely not going to resub because it's too expensive and no opportunity to legally save by giving 12 month loyalty. I think this will drive people to PS.
I just let my premium renew automatically because I had got redundancy at the time so wasn't a big issue paying the extra for 1 more year, especially seeing as I may make use of the premium features if I'm broke soon. But next year I'll likely drop back down unless Premium starts offering something more worth it than demos, classics and some free films. Adding PSVR2 games is a start! But I'll never expect Day 1 Sony produced games. And Sony will never do it, as they have already stated. I think MS is finding out why.
Taking Starfield as an example, I played in once and I have no intention to play it again. For me GP was great value, I got to play some day 1 games and only paid a fraction of the cost, and I got to play some games that I really enjoyed but it is very unlikely that I would have bought them - Redfall and HiFi Rush are 2 prime examples.
So for me it will still be good value even at 20 a month, if I still have the option to pause it.
I don’t think the issue is necessarily Day 1 games, but pushing a subscription service as your preferred method of providing games with the same model as streaming is inherently flawed. Games aren’t consumed in the same way as films or TV and trying to retain subscribers in the same way cannot work. You can watch something on a streaming service a few times a month without a huge time commitment and feel you’re getting value. Big AAA games(what we mostly mean by Day 1 games) can be absolutely massive and designed to take up hundreds of hours of your time making the idea of a subscription service sort of redundant.
Take Starfield. I know people who absolutely love it and put hundreds of hours into it. While it was great value to play it through a subscription at the beginning, considering 90%+ was just on that single game, it became clear it was cheaper just to buy the game instead of paying every month to play it. Or when a game comes out that isn’t on the service? I got so wrapped up with BG3 last year I cancelled game pass because it was clear my gaming time would be taken up for the next while.
Then there’s the issue of quality when a game doesn’t require sales to succeed. Would Redfall have been released in the fashion it was if it wasn’t to add content to a subscription?
Don’t get me wrong, there’s going to be loads of people that get great value every month and use it for most or all of their gaming. But the idea that a subscription would be the way forward for gaming in the way MS was pushing it was never going to work.
Day 1 games themselves aren't a bad idea, the issue has been Xbox struggling with Day 1 games that attract enough people. Their exclusives over the past 5 years haven't been that great, and while they have a keen eye for picking up titles from indie or smaller studios to be Day 1 it hasn't been enough to draw people away from PS5/Steam.
There's little difference between what MS are doing and what the likes of Netflix, Disney+ and Prime have been doing for years; once you start reaching saturation, start increasing the price. MS have already borked themselves with the cost of studio acquisitions which they need to recoup even though some of those studios might take years to get out their next game. MS can't really add any new features to Gamepass to attract more people, so all they can do is subtract, offer a lower tier and increase the cost of the normal "Day 1" tier.
Day 1 games have always been Gamepass' biggest selling point and MS could have taken the hit on the cost of it if it lead to the ubiquity and market share they envisioned. But that never materialised because of the quality of their own games and still not being able to claw users back that they lost to Sony with the Xbox One launch.
An extra 3 quid a month isn't going to make any difference to me. I think GP is worth it for the amount of indies they have on the service and it pays for itself due to fact I'm much happier to give games a go if i'm not paying full whack on something I'm not completely sold on. Granted this wont be everyone's position and I agree the cheapest tier should be lower to attract new subs but its a simple choice, if it doesnt present value to you, dont use it.
I'm genuinely trying to figure out how they think such a price increase would just be accepted. Like, are they so delusional that they think how they've carried on for the last few years justifies a price increase? I'd say something if they were dropping banger after banger out, but they've fell flat in basically every area since.
On the plus side, hopefully this will help renew the second hand physical market and a few more game shops open again. But MS are also trying to ditch physical consoles too as far as I'm concerned. They're basically handing the market to Sony/PS. PS+ Premium doesn't feel that bad anymore. Always said Day 1 games were a bad idea, and now we're seeing a spoiled rich kid realise he's spent most his money and trying to claw it back before he gets fired for incompetence. Just seems mad that not a single person in Microsoft has said "Hang on a sec Phil, do you actually know what you're doing?". When he became head, he basically fixed the XBone disaster, but since then he's, imo, only made bad decision after bad decision.
He's 10 years at it now, maybe it's time he step down and let someone else try. Jim Ryan had 5 years and was out the door, maybe MS should have done the same. I dunno, I'll never understand that high a position. But I was basically right about Day 1 games not being a good idea. I wish it wasn't so, Sony need competition and I fear what they may potentially do if they get all the market to themselves (excluding Nintendo's own market, nobody is touching that). But Xbox are not that, and they're pricing consumers out of it. Unless there's another massive loop hole to get 3 years for €200, I won't be signing up. And there won't be.
Subs only work when they are cheaper than X number of the old way to access media. Netflix took off as it was cheaper than renting /buying X dvds. Game pass as it was cheaper than buying 2 games.
But if it's the same price as 4 new games that's a bit much for most people.
Once you have burnt through the good games in the back catalogue it's very hard to justify.
‘Play it day one on Game Pass*’
*terms & conditions list as long as the side effects list in American TV ads for medicine
Also, short of them putting GamePass on Steam, not really sure what growth Microsoft are expecting on PC from hiking the price. The price hasn’t been the problem: it’s the **** app (often with worse or outdated versions of games!) and an audience centred elsewhere. Now with this new move console gamers will rightly feel like they’re getting a raw deal compared to the PC crew.
Would really, really love to see Phil Spencer interviewed by a journalist who isn’t a light touch or in Xbox ‘fan media’.
I’ve long thought that a tier without Day 1 games would be a good thing but the pricing is completely crazy - it’s almost as expensive as the old ultimate price but with far less value.
If it was something around $8 it would be a nice sub to have to try something different after finishing a game or trying the day 1 indies that pop up there, a price point that won’t make you feel that bad if there’s some months you don’t use it that often. But $20 a month for a games subscription is far too much to pay unless you’re using it all the time, and $15 tier has very little value so is seemingly priced to encourage you to spend the extra $5 a month. A total mess really.
That'll be me out and il just go back to gamesharing and buying the games I want to play. Was great while it lasted all the same.
I wonder does gamepass work on gamesharing?
They're making it less and less likely I'll resub next August or thereabouts... €20 month/€240 year because there's no mention of a yearly discount, that's just far too rich... or €15 month/€180 year for the back catalogue, no day 1, no cloud gaming. Yeesh... makes PS+ palatable.
MS are just making up for the obviously unsustainable business model they tried to pull off with GP. It's not gonna end here.
I wonder how much money they lost on HBII overall.
Its like starting an MMO and noping out when you see there's 7 different currencies. If I'm confused I'll nope out.
Same goes for you hitman and your convoluted buying system which confuses me for a sale and I say I'll come back and get it and never do.
Just in time for Call of Duty, Microsoft has hiked the price of GamePass and made it all more confusing. But worse than that, they’re removing the guaranteed day one games from the standard tier for new subscribers - so basically only Ultimate and PC subscribers (both of whom will also now be paying more) will get the guaranteed day one games. Existing members will keep their old ‘core’ membership for now at least, but newcomers are out of luck. That’s the essence of the convoluted name changes and tier changes. Restrictions on stacking too.
And this is the inevitable outcome with subscription services: more and more expensive, with a service diminished by more and more caveats and omissions, and of course no ownership of the games you’re paying for.
Seems oddly counterintuitive to do this before launching the flagship game on there - obviously CoD is intended to get more subscribers on there, but signing up to the expensive Ultimate tier is a pretty weak deal IMO relative to just buying the game outright.
https://support.xbox.com/en-US/help/subscriptions-billing/manage-subscriptions/game-pass-updates-july-2024
In a just world, what Embracer has done to these studios would be wildly illegal and their various executives would be (at a minimum) barred from ever running a company again.
Embracer continuing to ruin the gaming landscape with the news of Piranha Bytes closure. I enjoyed the 3 Risen games, jank and all. Couldn't get into Elex and the Gothic games have a strong following i believe. One positive out of this is 2 of the owners of PB have just opened a new studio, Pithead Games, with intent to concentrate on rpgs. Expect a fun return of iank in the future.
