You including or excluding mtx/dlc?
If excluding, you could make an argument but not sure it's anything more than a possibility cause we don't have any insight into an proper a/b test. I wonder what the game split numbers in the UK before gamepass.
If including, then I think you might be more off the mark.
I wasn't factoring MTX/DLC at all. I was only talking about
how consumers pay for and consume the first-party software you're creating: either by paying $60 upfront or via paying a $15 p/m subscription service.
Those two things are mutually exclusive. And because Xbox is doing both, I don't understand what their business strategy is and I don't see how they could be successful with it. That was/is the gist of my argument. If they want them sweet sweet retail sales (like Sony does), then they can't put their games on GP day one. OTOH, if they want people to subscribe to GP, then they can't put their games on retail on day one (like Netflix doesn't).
They are doing both at the moment -- which is weird.
In the end, if a game doesn't sell (like Psychonauts), the argument is that "well it was on Gamepass, so sales do not matter." But did Psychonauts increase Gamepass subscribers?
Also, if a game sells a lot on Xbox, the argument is "see, Gamepass increases game sales". But more sales actually means that people aren't subscribed to Gamepass and/or playing that game via Gamepass.
It's all very convoluted as a business strategy. And I think because of that, Xbox is in the last position in terms of hardware sales, last in terms of revenue, last in terms of profit, and hasn't been able to release an updated GP subscriber count for almost a year now.
Edit: And just to make it clear, if Sony starts releasing its game on PS Now day one or PC day one, all these questions apply to them as well. Nintendo is pretty set in its own ways and leaves no ambiguity in how they want to do achieve things and what their KPIs are.