Well … let’s see what’s actually on the Ubisoft channel before we go writing any obituaries.
Well more specifically, MS and Google could still contract specific games for their services. But passing subscription revenue onto the studios makes it much more attractive for them. Everybody loves subscription revenue.
Only problem is what I said earlier, you subscribe for the latest assassin’s creed game then cancel your sub when you beat it. That’s a tricky one to solve.
Luna will be available on iOS, but Amazon has once again sidestepped Apple’s App Store rules and fees.
Oh boy, Epic is gonna love that.
It’s a web app. They managed to make it work inside Safari, somehow. Doesn’t mean anything as pertains to Epic’s lawsuit, or Microsoft’s kerfuffle with xCloud either.
Google is going to have to completely rethink Stadia. An already weak service looks pointless with this launching.
It looked pointless at launch. Google doesn’t care about stadia.
Something I missed earlier from the Engadget article @Mellified posted:
With the Luna PWA, Amazon is once again sidestepping a hurdle that has proven insurmountable for companies like Microsoft and Epic.
“We worked with the Safari team to ensure that some of the things that weren’t there are there, and that allowed us to kind of get to where we are today,” Luna head of engineering and technology George Tsipolitis said.
Apple worked with them to enable it, that is interesting. I wonder if MS is going to go the same route?
I found that Engadget article very illuminating. I was impressed by the mention of genre-specific “channels”. I could easily see a bunch of older RTS games in a “strategy” channel, spanning several publishers. I’m sure the publishers would be happy to split some more subscription-based long tail revenue from specific genre games like that.
This could actually work. And if they mesh it with Prime (no chance it’s just included, but maybe at a discount, or with significant Prime Gaming perks) then it’s going to be very, very successful.
Also, this:
Huh? There’s no indication that they weren’t “able” to make it work on Android. But why would they, when they can just ship a native app there. On iOS, that is not an option.
Mostly sad that this probably means we’re going to stop getting the free games with Twitch Prime (although I’d love to hear that’s not the case please prove me wrong!!)
Why are they not launching it on Android until later then? From what I read, its not even launching on their own tablets, but those probably aren’t powerful enough to run it, I guess?
On a technical level, one of the platforms they’re launching with is Fire TV which is Android-based, so they clearly have a native Android app already. Why aren’t they launching their invite-only paid beta on the Play Store yet? Hard to say, but it’s purely up to Amazon, since we know very well that Play has no problems with apps like that. But whatever the reason, I am pretty fucking sure it’s not because of them wanting to make it a web app but being unable to on Android.
There is clearly some kind of a subtext to that tweet that you’re picking up on, but I genuinely don’t get it.
There isn’t at all, I don’t know shit about any of this except from the 2 articles I read. I found it odd it’s not coming out until later on Android, and a fairly reputable tech journalist seemed to think the same thing. That’s it. He could be completely wrong, I just thought it was an interesting thought.
Could just be a power play to push more users onto their semi-closed ecosystem. I suspect they have good data showing people don’t tend to go iPad > Fire Tablet very often, but I suspect old Android tablet > whatever Fire device is on sale this week is a more common transition.
The subtext I got was this being another little tweak in the ongoing Amazon vs Google app spat.
Never gonna happen. So many (GameTap, Metaboli etc) have tried - and failed.
For the most part, all of these services require quite a bit of work for a game to work on them. Most devs - especially indies - neither have the interest nor the incentives to put in the work for what doesn’t even amount to derivative income that’s worthy of note. It’s basically why there are few titles - most of them “also ran” - on these platforms. It’s also why exclusives - which have financial incentives - are a thing; and they still don’t guarantee success. Look at Stadia for example; while a solid platform, it’s not easy to develop for, let alone port (hello Vulcan!) a game to support it.
You are misunderstanding.
The Netflix model I’m referring to is actually paying a wahzoo of money (Netflix investway more than all of Hollywood into proprietary content production) to directly fund the developing of (and own the IP of) a LOT of shows. Basically in many places, if not all, they are the primary producer/investor in audiovisual content. And they are by far the biggest producer in the world. Studios no longer develop something and then monetize in Netflix. Netflix is the driver of production. And the required size of production means a lot of mid-size production companies get contracts.
That’s the way I see (hope) game streaming exclusives working. Guarantee you get the order of 2-3 AAA tens of AA and a hundred or two mid size indies (budgets bt. 500k and 2M) as exclusive content in your platform by directly funding the development of the games (the long queue of cheap content catering to many different types of audiences is key to Netflix’s model).
It’s either that or, as you say, poor value proposition stuff. Microsoft xCloud with streaming is now close to the model above, except they are Microsoft exclusive ports. If Amazon (who also produces a lot of directly funded audiovisual content) tries to compete on exclusives and a couple of the companies jump in and there is a significant number of subscribers to fight for, the pressure for truly exclusive content (not just streaming exclusive) to tie in subscribers will raise.
Of course Netflix’s model also skews revenue share (if your model is a success you get either bonuses or more lucrative further contracts, but not a direct revenue per view), which will make it impossible for studios working under this model to have a breakaway hit that funds them for years to come. Instead you get direct funding and total risk mitigation during the project lifetime.
Also, Unity supports Stadia solidly enough. Depending on engines, ports are feasible (it’s actually on the difficulty level of a console port), and if the production money is there the engines will be.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens to Netflix, because they are leveraged to their eyeballs, and the amount of debt they keep taking on only gets larger and larger.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is sitting on a war chest of about $120+ billion.
I understood perfectly. And your clarifications supports my points.
- There can’t be a Netflix model without content
- There can’t be content without investment. For the most part that investment is non-existent
- Thus the dearth of titles supporting of a Netflix model
Q.E.D