This is basically a rental model. The 2 game limit is just for the cheapest option, you could always pay more for more. If you want a reasonable quality catalog at a sub $10 price there needs to be some level of restrictions. If you want complete freedom it’s going to come at increased cost or a worse catalog.
Demos are rare today though. Not to mention some are outright misrepresenting the actual game. Spending some money to try a game without having to do a refund if you don’t like it is a reasonable value. As a PC player I would absolutely spend $15 bucks for a single month to try a few $40-60 games that I would likely purchase through steam after trying. I wouldn’t pay more than a single month at a time though, which also isn’t great for Microsoft.
It would be a hard limit of 2 games/month you could play, without paying more. This is a hard shift in model, but I think it makes it sustainable long term for developers to make their games part of it while allowing the price to be reasonable. Previously game pass was subsidized by Microsoft trying to grow their subscription base, so devs got big payouts to list their games. Publishers/devs aren’t making much if anything from being on game pass, especially indie titles that might only have 20 hours or less of gameplay. With cloud saves you could easily not lose progress if you took a month off from a game to try something else
This model creates a pathway that a developer could get $1-2 per install per month (or more for new/premium tier games) which would be reasonable income after initial launch sales. The vast majority of gamers also don’t play a lot of different games, so those that want more can pay for it while a lower price is available for the majority. There’s also the classic games tier that isn’t restricted as most the games aren’t really that valuable, but it’s a separate add on to keep the main price low.
For games as a subscription to work, it has to balance perceived value for consumers and developers. The unlimited model isn’t sustainable without a price point that makes buying games outright more attractive. I think a better scenario is allowing the subscription to create a funnel to direct sales, which I think this solution does.
I don’t think unlimited subscription models actually work with game development economics. If I had to do something I would make it this way.
7.99 game pass, access to a rotating library of roughly 1-2 year old games. Each month you can select 2 to download/pick and play. Can change selections each month.
+4.99 more games, 3 more games per month to download.
+4.99 classic games, allow unlimited downloads of older games, roughly 3+ years old.
+9.99 premium games, access to games roughly 3 month to a year old. Maybe select titles on day one. Still limited to 2 total downloads with base plan.
+2.99 discount club, receive exclusive discounts and general reduced prices on games that are part of other packages. Allow additional games to be selected/downloaded if one was purchased.
+4.99/9.99 streaming and premium streaming unlocked for any/most games in your library.
That’s the downside to a unified market.
It will probably be fine. Ammonium nitrate isn’t really needed for a garden, at least not in concentrated blends, unless your soil is fucked. Shitloads of nitrogen just makes plants bigger, which isn’t something you normally want for most vegetables.
I wouldn’t be surprised if drugs that failed quality control were labeled for animal use.
P is for Pterodactyl.
Maybe you found a stupid expensive one or it was real and made to be non firing. This looks like the same price range as an airsoft version.
They had an effect because they were invited to the party. A VP of an opposing party wouldn’t be in the room. Instead of VP Cheney orgastrating a war it would be Chief of Policy or secretary of presidential affairs Cheney doing that.
The VP being a prominent figurehead of workgroups or policies only exists because the president allows it. A non aligned VP wouldn’t be any more impactful than a current opposition party leader.
A president doesn’t have to share everything with a VP, famously Truman was never informed about the Manhattan project until he became president. That would likely be the norm in a case where president and VP were opposed.
This article seems to be lumping mobile and PC into the same bucket which is probably more of a red flag for the analysis they are doing here. Of course revenue is going to be more split when you add in tons of mobile games that are very effective at taking lots of money with minimal interaction.
Imagine what? The vp then lives in their own residence and likely isn’t part of policy meetings. Instead it’s a nameless faceless advisor.
There’s maybe some minor chaos when the vp becomes active president for a day due to a colonoscopy or something, but that can mostly be undone or planned around.
That’s still not a big deal. The only difference is bills that pass the house and tie in the Senate could become laws instead of vetos. It’s a very low possibility.
The expansion of presidential powers and the willingness of Congress to abdicate their responsibility is a far bigger problem.
Just make it the last thing.
I’m not looking to pull 7 Gs anytime soon. That’s more than going to space.
For a while (maybe still) Russian rockets even had a shotgun on board after wolves got to a landing first.
There’s not really follow on issues from the president and vice president being elected together instead of in opposition. The opposition is supposed to be Congress not a person with only symbolic power.
That barely existed as a system because it didn’t work well in practice. It was amended in 1804, there were only 3 presidents elected that way, Jefferson was in office when it was ratified.
NP and PA are both reasonable options. NP is probably faster, but both can end up at about the same place.
Something major is going to have to change at some point though with game pass. This year is probably the last time we see a day one release of a major title. Cutting CoD is to test the waters for future cuts.