3 Likes
Does Xbox NEED a superhero/licensed IP game? No.
Would it be nice? Yes, if it’s done well!
2 Likes
I don’t think you actually are a dissenting voice here. I don’t think I’ve seen many people suggest that it wouldn’t be good to have these games.
The question is always who would make it. I have zero doubt that if The Coalition came to management and said we want to make Mandalorian that they’d be allowed to pitch it to Disney. It takes people that want to do it, and many of the new XGS teams are finally able to create their own games without crowd funding or cutting corners. If they don’t want to hip on a licensed IP, what do you do? XGSP is the obvious answer but I haven’t seen anyone throw out any realistic names.
1 Like
It’s a well thought out response. I’d say we disagree less than you think. I’m not saying a licensed character or movie has no value. One of the things I point out is that these huge publishers keep paying for licenses so obviously, there is value. They have a lot more marketing power than a new IP.
The most important thing for Game Pass is great games. Establishing a reputation for quality and consistency. Most licenses reduce the batting average of creating a great game. You need a perfect matchup. There’s been only 2 superhero IPs by two studios that have had a significant impact in the past 20 years. None of those second-tier games had legs. In order for a game to have legs beyond the launch window, it needs to be quality. In this new subscription business model, quality games continue to have residual value over time as they keep adding to the selection a potential new player will have access to when they first enter the ecosystem.
In a perfect world, you get all of it. On the order of importance, they need 1) E rated content 2) Japanese/international content 3) PC content. That’s where the biggest opportunity lies for expanding the reach of Game Pass.
As an aside, I do believe Star Wars offers more creative freedom and flexibility than Superhero licenses. It’s one of the most videogame-ass licenses in the movie industry. If they found a good matchup for the Mandalorian, I wouldn’t be mad about it.
In time, they’ll have licenses. They’ve already announced 1. Another is rumored. It’s just not something Microsoft needs to “answer”. It’s a nice-to-have rather than a critical element. When the right matchup comes along, they’ll happen.
4 Likes
I agree completely. Also Batman power is he’s rich.
1 Like
Only B-man we need
1 Like
The problem you have, isn’t getting an IP to license. It’s who can you get to make it?
I’d take Deadpool all day long but all the Xbox studios are working on new games, bar Double Fine and Arkane Lyon, I’d hazard a guess they will soon be starting a new project each.
I usually dislike superheroes games & movies (especially Marvel) but I would love a Batman game though.
Batman is cool
4 Likes
3 Likes
I don’t think they need one, but if they get the right game done correctly it could be really amazing. For example another lame Superman game isn’t going to do anything, but actually making a great one? That would be something.
It all boils down to making great games, what type it is doesn’t matter as much.
2 Likes
If MS wants to hit the 100 million plus game pass users they need to stack more big exclusive IP. It doesn’t have to be super hero games but whatever it is needs to appeal to a large audience like elder scrolls 6 can
For me, the answer to this question is simple. No, Xbox doesn’t need to make an exclusive superhero game but it would be cool if they did make a good one.
1 Like
Great video/article: yeah, numbers prove that a superhero game, or a licensed game is not automatically the end of the world, but, it still could be a great opportunity if you find the right collaboration, like Rocksteady-Batman or Insomniac-Spiderman. We’ll see how fares MachineGames-Indiana Jones. So yeah, “need” is too strong as a word for this situation, but it could help greatly to open even more mainstream eyes to the platform if done right, that’s undeniable.
2 Likes
Lol its fine haha. I figure I have said all I have to say on this topic at this point. I see a dedicated thread has been better for this. OBM and Deogame are approaching this from a very charitable POV. 
1 Like
A licenced property like Spiderman, Wolverine, or Batman will help sell copies of a shipped game. But if you’re letting 20m+ gamers play it at no additional cost on day one as a matter of policy, the equation is very different.
They need games they invest AAA budgets into to become permanent residents in the Game Pass library. Due to the lower sales from all exclusives launching into the service, the expense is justified by the fact that the content will keep acting as a GP pull in perpetuity. They might not literally make their money back on sales of that exact game, but if GP continues to grow it will safely cover the development cost of all their first party output, and that’s all that matters.
Can this be the case with a licenced property? Forza 7 popped off Game Pass yesterday due to licencing, which suggests its problematic. And even if it can, does this end up prohibitively expensive for Xbox?
We will see with Indiana Jones, I guess. If the game ends up being pulled off GP after a period of time, we will have a pretty clear indication of why MS aren’t too keen on these types of games.
Lower sales is a urban legend: yep, it lowers the day one sales, but the lifetime sales are higher due to bigger exposition, FH4 it’s the best selling Forza title and possible the best selling driving game period.
Cars licenses are much more hard to get than comics/movies properties, I assure you of that, moreover those licenses won’t expire in 4-5 years like Forza, I’d say at least 10 years.
1 Like
It’s obviously not an urban myth. It’s basic logic that more copies would sell if you don’t let a huge chunk of the market play it through their GP subscription. If Sony let their gamers play Spiderman through PS Now, PS Now would have a much higher instal base and Spidermand would have had much lower sales. It’s axiomatic.
Forza Horizon 4 was the first in the series to launch into Steam and has been on sale near continuously. It’s done very well for them in unit sales, as the policy of launching games into Steam has done for all their games – although they lose 30% to Valve doing this, and generally sell for much lower price than on console. But if they did the same and it wasn’t on Game Pass, it would have sold even more. This is obvious.
The reason this is still a good strategy for Microsoft is that adding big AAA games to Game Pass is an integral part of growing the service, and the day will come when the subscription revenue from that service comfortably outstrips the sales they would have made otherwise. It’s a game of scale.
That same equation doesn’t work if the games can only be on GP for a limited time. I’m not saying I know a licenced game would have to come off for sure. I’m not a lawyer or an expert. I’m just saying that if this was the reality for a licenced movie/comic property, then it might be a reason Xbox would think twice about that approach.
1 Like
FH4 launched on Steam 2,5 years later, Steam is nowhere near the cause of its success. Phil Spencer said Gears 5 sold better than Gears 4.
3 Likes
Memory failed me there on it launching there, I take your correction, but this doesn’t change the fact that its sold extremely well on Steam. This is well documented. Same goes with Gears 5, Sea of Thieves etc.
Do you have numbers to back up your theory that Xbox exclusive sales are down to Game Pass subscribers inscrutably paying for games that they can play through Game Pass and will never leave the service?
I don’t buy it.
I 100% buy that GP can boost sales for third party games on GP for a limited period. I feel like I am proof of this. I download a game I never would have looked at if it wasn’t on GP, find myself loving it, and think “well I may as well buy it with the 20% discount as it will drop out at some point and I want to keep it”. I can say, regardless, that I have never bought a first party game through Game Pass, because I know it’s never going to leave. It will still be there, likely with ‘Optimised’ enhancements, three Xbox generations onward.
I don’t get why anyone would.
There is also the argument that people playing the game advertises it, and non-subscribers are more likely to buy. This likely has some traction, but the bigger GP gets, the less power this effect has, as more people have the service and will just play it there.
MS know this, and this is part of their strategy. Those AAA games from their 23 studios are all about building a library of unparalleled value that people are going to subscribe to GP to play. At the same time, they will sell all the copies they can on Steam and to non-GP subscribers on console. One day, the annual revenue of GP subscriptions will dwarf all of the money they invest in game development. That’s the end game.
Whatever your views, I don’t see how you can dispute that if there are two AAA developments:
- Cost $100m. Launches into Game Pass and stays there forever.
- Cost $100m. Launches into Gem Pass and then has to be removed after 2 years due to licencing.
That option 1 is better for Xbox. I mean you can try and argue against that, but it’ll be tough.
1 Like
The proof is Phil or Matt Booty repeatedly saying that GP enhances sales, maybe not day one sales, but lifetime sales it’s almost obvious, due to the larger public attention and the GP mandatory sale. As I already said above, he commented on Gears 5 saying it sold better than 4. Also SoT lanunched on Steam 2,5 years later, so another game not successfull because of Steam. I think people exaggerate Steam involvement in Xbox game success: yeah, it’s a good perk, but it’s not the end all of their strategy, far from it. Anyway 2 years of license time is a big stretch, Forza is the shortest I know and that’s 4 years and, as I already said, car makers are stricter than movie makers.
1 Like