While sitting on my balcony, taking in the sun and sipping on my coffee, I started to think, like you do: Could Microsoft’s approach to gaming have worked? As we now know, all those billions they spent on legendary studios didn’t really pan out in their “kindergarten” experiment. Kindergarten, since giving these studios infinite time and money didn’t produce any cultural milestones, which I assume was the intention—but instead gave us a bunch of mediocre titles just to fill Microsoft’s requirement to remain under the sweet money-tree. Let me explain.
Gamepass
The thing is, I don’t think the Gamepass idea was totally bad, even if it looked like it might not really pay off from the start. Buying studios and then selling their game that has been in development for seven years for ten euros/dollars on a subscription service might not have been the smartest idea. I forget how many times I subscribed just for one game and I assume most people did the same, unless they forgot that they had the subscription going. Sniper Elite 5 is one such game, which I paid one euro to play, while Microsoft put millions to have it on their rental service. Not a winning practice in the long run.
I think the fundamental mistake done by Microsoft—if we have to stick with this model—is buying expensive studios just looking for security, instead of putting money towards hungry directors of small studios with an unproven record. I can see why, as on paper, it’s unproven versus proven, but we also have a price point we have to take into consideration, which eventually became unsustainable billions for Microsoft.
If we take Obsidian Entertainment, it’s a studio that has good releases, but for the last couple of years has merely been surviving, not creating true financial hits, like Pillars of Eternity II: Deadfire, for instance. To me, it’s no surprise the CEO jumped at the chance for a big company with a nice safety net—but does Obsidian’s trajectory strike you as a studio being hungry, eager to prove themselves, capable of making cultural hits? To me, they do not and their current state speaks of waiting for an opportunity that eventually came, which the CEO grabbed—and now Obsidian Entertainment is making the most bland RPGs with zero edge (Avowed, The Outer Worlds), just for content, not to create a mark on the world. There is no struggle, no push, just a kindergarten-esque holding pen for so-called legendary developers in the hope they would create art if just given freedom.
Old Hollywood
Could Gamepass have worked? In my opinion, yes, if we compare this to the movement of New Hollywood, something that happened in the 60s, lasting to the 80s. The golden age of Hollywood was passing, as things were getting stale with the public not showing up to sustain the old Studio model anymore. So many movie studios took a huge risk in letting a new wave of young, cheap American directors have their chance—Coppola, Scorsese, Lucas, De Palma—with films like Easy Rider, Star Wars, and The Godfather. It paid off greatly, as new blood was needed, fresh new movies were made, and everyone was happy for a while.
I think, if this approach was taken, instead of putting billions on “safe” bets, it could have worked. Just look at the indie market right now. There are thousands of creators that are just a monetary investment and some guidance from creating a great hit. Imagine if Microsoft took those billions and invested them into small studios with professional oversight, rather than just collecting old has-beens, looking for a quick payout before going into retirement—we could have had a plethora of strange new games to explore—for cheap!
Anyway, that’s my shower thoughts for now, so thanks for reading.
– Thomas