Support NeoGAF

[GHG]

The bi-weekly anti gamepass thread.

You know you can still enjoy your subscription even of other people don't subscribe and don't believe subscriptions are the future of the industry right?

Or is this just some big pyramid scheme whereby relentlessly marketing the service to other people is the game? You tell me.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

“Grass is blue. Others may disagree with me, but that’s fine”

AAA is solely a reflection of budget. According to Wikipedia



Dismissing big budget games like Gears 5 and FH5 for being sequels (especially while you cite sequels like GoW and TLOU2) makes no sense.

And of course, you’re unwilling to engage with the likes of Starfield.

Don’t forget that Halo Infinite is somehow not a AAA game

It doesn’t matter what MS does, they’ll find a way to discredit it and move on to another silly angle.

 

[Helghan]

You know you can still enjoy your subscription even of other people don't subscribe and don't believe subscriptions are the future of the industry right?

Or is this just some big pyramid scheme whereby relentlessly marketing the service to other people is the game? You tell me.

You know we don't need to question Game Pass's sustainability every few weeks when there is no new information right?

 

[Nautilus]

Why do you think most MS first party games are becomming GAAS? Or have microtransactions in some capacity?

Relying purely on subscriptions never was and never will be sustainable. So that's why they are turning their games into services. But that in turn is affecting the game's overall quality.

Gamepass is and will work, but it will come at a cost. I particulary don't care, as long as this doesn't affect Nintendo and Sony too heavily, as I couldn't care much for Xbox as it is the inferior of the three for me.

 

[GHG]

You know we don't need to question Game Pass's sustainability every few weeks when there is no new information right?

This is the thread title:

Is a Subscription Service Model Truly Sustainable in this Industry?​

This is a discussion about all subscription services. It's about the business model as a whole. Stop crying.

 

[Ozriel]

This is the thread title:

Is a Subscription Service Model Truly Sustainable in this Industry?​

This is a discussion about all subscription services. It's about the business model as a whole. Stop crying.

OP says the thread was inspired by Gamepass in his very first paragraph:

As I think more and more about Gamepass I find myself questioning if this system is truly sustainable moving forward, making enough money to continue such a service...

Then proceeds to mention Gamepass every other paragraph and doesn’t cite any other sub service except a mention of PlayStation (used solely as a contrast to GP) in the voting choice.

Nice try, but reading OPs is encouraged vs just clinging to headlines.

 

[Fabieter]

OP says the thread was inspired by Gamepass in his very first paragraph:



Then proceeds to mention Gamepass every other paragraph and doesn’t cite any other sub service except a mention of PlayStation (used solely as a contrast to GP) in the voting choice.

Nice try, but reading OPs is encouraged vs just clinging to headlines.

Don't see a problem with op making a point with gamepass for other subscriptions as well. There is a high chance that gamepass and other subs will be sustainable longterm but there have to be adjustments to budgets and how games are made 100%.

 

[GHG]

OP says the thread was inspired by Gamepass in his very first paragraph:



Then proceeds to mention Gamepass every other paragraph and doesn’t cite any other sub service except a mention of PlayStation (used solely as a contrast to GP) in the voting choice.

Nice try, but reading OPs is encouraged vs just clinging to headlines.

And since then we've had discussions regarding other subscription services throughout the thread. Again, it's a discussion surrounding the business model. That means a discussion about the pros and cons of the model, both in terms of it's impact on consumers and the industry as a whole.

Just because it's not the usual gamepass circle jerk you guys are upset? Why the fragility?

 

[PeteBull]

Afik AAA games are hardly sustainable with the old buy to play way. Dont see it being sustainable without cut backs in the budget and how games are made.

Its very fair metric, u can even see 4 very polarising examples from 2nd half of 2022- Saints Row, Gotham Knights- those bombed hard despite very big potential for all kinds of reasons, vs Bayo 3 and Ragnarok, those will make solid profit, for obvious reasons too- high quality game.

If those 4 games came to same subscription service, then 2 bad games would be rewarded, or at least not punished for their mediocrity(putting things gently), while the 2 good games wouldnt be rewarded enough for their hard work and actual top notch quality- in other words, bad seed and good seed would be mixed together and service subscribers would pay for all 4 being in there anyways.

Luckily its still capitalism so bad product is called out/gets backlash(like 4080 from nividia, priced terribly, both of them, not only the unlaunched 4080 12gigs version) and good one is praised and rewarded

 

[Ozriel]

And since then we've had discussions regarding other subscription services throughout the thread. Again, it's a discussion surrounding the business model. That means a discussion about the pros and cons of the model, both in terms of its impact on consumers and the industry as a whole.

The OP questions GP’s sustainability in the very first paragraph. You’re tackling someone who says “there’s no need to question GP’s sustainability every week”.
I don’t see how that works.

Probably no need to mention that most posts in this thread are focused on GP.

Just because it's not the usual gamepass circle jerk you guys are upset? Why the fragility?

the irony indeed.
Also, Is this you admitting the thread is largely GP focused?

Don't see a problem with op making a point with gamepass for other subscriptions as well. There is a high chance that gamepass and other subs will be sustainable longterm but there have to be adjustments to budgets and how games are made 100%.

There’s really nothing to back this assumption up, tbh. Especially in a world where subscription services coexist with retail sales. For example, Steam sales alone will comfortably cover Development budgets for Starfield if it sells anywhere near what Bethesda’s RPGs sell on PC.
It’s an even easier discussion for other services like PS+

 

[Ozriel]

Its very fair metric, u can even see 4 very polarising examples from 2nd half of 2022- Saints Row, Gotham Knights- those bombed hard despite very big potential for all kinds of reasons, vs Bayo 3 and Ragnarok, those will make solid profit, for obvious reasons too- high quality game.

If those 4 games came to same subscription service, then 2 bad games would be rewarded, or at least not punished for their mediocrity(putting things gently), while the 2 good games wouldnt be rewarded enough for their hard work and actual top notch quality- in other words, bad seed and good seed would be mixed together and service subscribers would pay for all 4 being in there anyways.

The bulk of consumers aren’t on subscription services. Saints Row and Gotham Knights are sold at retail and Steam and are being punished at those outlets. So In your scenario, the ‘mediocre’ games are still not really getting away with it.

On Steam, Gotham Knights has a 72% score and has only 6K concurrents. Steamspy estimates less than 500k sales (not an accurate metric but it’s something). So they’re not getting away unscathed.

 

[DetectiveBananas]

Trying game pass now and can’t say it’s a great value at $15 a month for a lot of games I already own on Steam at a much cheaper price

 

[PeteBull]

The bulk of consumers aren’t on subscription services. Saints Row and Gotham Knights are sold at retail and Steam and are being punished at those outlets. So In your scenario, the ‘mediocre’ games are still not really getting away with it.

On Steam, Gotham Knights has a 72% score and has only 6K concurrents. Steamspy estimates less than 500k sales (not an accurate metric but it’s something). So they’re not getting away unscathed.

Exactly, and i like it that way

 

[Fuz]

Hope not.

 

[Fabieter]

The OP questions GP’s sustainability in the very first paragraph. You’re tackling someone who says “there’s no need to question GP’s sustainability every week”.
I don’t see how that works.

Probably no need to mention that most posts in this thread are focused on GP.



the irony indeed.
Also, Is this you admitting the thread is largely GP focused?



There’s really nothing to back this assumption up, tbh. Especially in a world where subscription services coexist with retail sales. For example, Steam sales alone will comfortably cover Development budgets for Starfield if it sells anywhere near what Bethesda’s RPGs sell on PC.
It’s an even easier discussion for other services like PS+

It's about the return of investment. Starfield not selling on Playstation and selling less on xbox will make the calculation for Starfield different compared to previous Bethesda software games. But yea i agree the reasoning ms putting games on steam is probably its the only way they stay in the black.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Why do you think most MS first party games are becomming GAAS? Or have microtransactions in some capacity?

Relying purely on subscriptions never was and never will be sustainable. So that's why they are turning their games into services. But that in turn is affecting the game's overall quality.

Gamepass is and will work, but it will come at a cost. I particulary don't care, as long as this doesn't affect Nintendo and Sony too heavily, as I couldn't care much for Xbox as it is the inferior of the three for me.

Xbox games are available at retail and the digital store. They aren’t relying “purely on subscription”, and there’s no bigger push at MS for GaaS or MTX than there is at Sony. It’s where everyone is going.

 

[jumpship]

Unless you're a trillion dollar tech giant willing to subsidize your subscribers for years, able to target billions of users with a combination of full access and control of a huge OS platform, your own dedicated cloud infrastructure and plans to disrupt the mobile market by tying major I.P to your service and make it the only way to access those games on mobile in the future.........then yeah its sustainable.

For the rest of the industry financially no, its not.

Phil himself described game pass as a "disruptive" service so it was never formed to compliment the current business model in the industry it was always meant to disrupt it.

PS+ or that type of service is more sustainable for the industry by offering catalogue games with occasional budget / AA day one releases. With big AAA releases already having had their full price ROI can gain extra income on the service.

Has any other company committed to offering all new releases day one on their service? Pretty sure the answer is no, think that says it all as it would destroy their entire business model.

 

[Heisenberg007]

“Grass is blue. Others may disagree with me, but that’s fine”

AAA is solely a reflection of budget. According to Wikipedia

GOW - 'GOW'

And of course, you’re unwilling to engage with the likes of Starfield.



Well, the service continues to grow, so…

Oh you quoted Wikipedia. You know anyone can edit that text, right?

Anyway, I shared my opinion, and I stand by it. I don't know what to tell you if you think Forza 5, Halo Infinite, and Flight Simulator had the same budget as GOW and TLOU 2.

 

[K2D]

Is bad for gatcha games, so...

Must not be all bad?

 

[reksveks]

I don't know what to tell you if you think Forza 5, Halo Infinite, and Flight Simulator had the same budget as GOW and TLOU 2.

I don't think he said that, just like I don't think you are saying that the definition AAA is now the same as having the same budget of GOW/TLOU2 (two games where we probably don't know the exact budget of).

I do find the changing definition of AAA* to be a bit weird.

P. S. I always hate that term

 

[Ozriel]

Oh you quoted Wikipedia. You know anyone can edit that text, right?

Anyway, I shared my opinion, and I stand by it. I don't know what to tell you if you think Forza 5, Halo Infinite, and Flight Simulator had the same budget as GOW and TLOU 2.

Halo Infinite very likely cost more to make than GOW. 343 has more employees, the game took longer to make, has an MP mode and there’s a lot of stuff outsourced to external devs including the likes of Certain Affinity.

Me quoting Wikipedia isn’t the issue. AAA has always been defined by the budget for the title. You not knowing this is kinda an embarrassing admission.

AAA is a budget threshold. You insinuating all AAA games have the same budget might well be the worst thing I’ve read on GAF this quarter. Well done!

 

[Nautilus]

Xbox games are available at retail and the digital store. They aren’t relying “purely on subscription”, and there’s no bigger push at MS for GaaS or MTX than there is at Sony. It’s where everyone is going.

What?

GAAS is inevitable for the foreseeable future, but almost every internally developed game that we know more about has microtransactions in some capacity. Halo Infinite, Grounded, Forza, etc.

All the while, almost no Nintendo games have microtransactions, and Sony games(for now at least) has very few games with microtransaction.

And just because everyone is doing it, doesn't make it okay. Microtransactions, especially on paid games, is cancer and should always be treated as such.

 

[Paasei]

Only if whatever is on said service stays on there for all eternity.

I just wish it won’t be, ever.

 

[lh032]

no.
With the rising development cost and the stagnant ceiling of subscription service, its not going to work in a long term.

 

[Laptop1991]

Not unless they get more of the top games being made and added at a much faster rate than now, i already own all the older games, i want on my PC clients, i have no reason to pay a subscription unless it's for new games, and they are scarce at the moment.

 

[Ozriel]

What?

GAAS is inevitable for the foreseeable future, but almost every internally developed game that we know more about has microtransactions in some capacity. Halo Infinite, Grounded, Forza, etc.

We certainly expect no MTX in Starfield, Avowed, Hellblade 2 or Fable. Grounded doesn’t have Micro-transactions AFAIK. None in Pentiment launching this month. None expected in Redfall or The Outer Worlds 2.

All the while, almost no Nintendo games have microtransactions, and Sony games(for now at least) has very few games with microtransaction.

Nintendo certainly charges for post launch content in Mario Kart and Smash Bros. Their mobile games have some of the worst MTX implementations seen. Sony’s focused more on SP games in the past, but they’re pursuing a renewed focus on live service GaaS games with micro-transactions.

And just because everyone is doing it, doesn't make it okay. Microtransactions, especially on paid games, is cancer and should always be treated as such.

Micro-transactions in live service games are a perfectly fine way to fund ongoing content. Absolutely nothing wrong with it as a general concept. Devs aren’t going to work for thoughts and prayers. The key issue is - as always - with the implementation. As long as it’s not predatory or gambling in nature, there’s nothing wrong with it.
I’m certainly not going to screech about ‘cancer’ because Capcom wants me to pay $5 in 2025 for a new SF6 character.

 

[Ozriel]

no.
With the rising development cost and the stagnant ceiling of subscription service, its not going to work in a long term.

If there’s a stagnant ceiling on subscription services, doesn’t that mean there’s more folks out there that will buy the games at retail?

 

[Heisenberg007]

GOW - 'GOW'

Me quoting Wikipedia isn’t the issue. AAA has always been defined by the budget for the title. You not knowing this is kinda an embarrassing admission.

AAA is a budget threshold. You insinuating all AAA games have the same budget might well be the worst thing I’ve read on GAF this quarter. Well done!

AAA is not actually a budget threshold at all. There is only one distinction: indies and non-indies.

A game by Supergiant games (Hades) no matter how excellent it is, is an indie game. A game by SquareEnix is a non-indie game. But calling Harvestella a AAA game is not fair either.
That's why these terms are not as straight-forward and always have some subjective perspective, because there is no hard-and-fast rule or concrete threshold, i.e., games with less than $50 million budget is not a AAA and vice versa.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

What?

GAAS is inevitable for the foreseeable future, but almost every internally developed game that we know more about has microtransactions in some capacity. Halo Infinite, Grounded, Forza, etc.

The MTX in Halo Infinite are in the free to play MP. The main game has no MTX or DLC. Forza had MTX long before GamePass, so that doesn’t represent a shift inspired by GamePass. Gran Turismo has also shifted to a GaaS model with premium currency and MTX.

What MTX are in Grounded? I don’t remember seeing any but I could have missed them. Fable? Redfall? Starfield? Avowed? Hellblade? What about other non-GaaS games they put on GamePass? What MTX did Psychonauts or Wasteland or Outer Worlds have?

All the while, almost no Nintendo games have microtransactions, and Sony games(for now at least) has very few games with microtransaction.

Nintendo mobile games are loaded with MTX and their console games have Amiibo content that can be exclusive content requiring an Amiibo or unlocks that save you time. Sony games have MTX and they’re developing ten GaaS titles right now.

And just because everyone is doing it, doesn't make it okay. Microtransactions, especially on paid games, is cancer and should always be treated as such.

Nah, depends on the implementation.

 

[Punished Miku]

AAA is not actually a budget threshold at all.

It's 100% a budget label. And furthermore, the only thing that even matters in the context of sustainability is budget and frequency of releases.

No one thinks Harvestella is a AAA game. It's also obviously not indie. It's a AA game. Almost all games from Japan are AA games.

 

[Iced Arcade]

You know you can still enjoy your subscription even of other people don't subscribe and don't believe subscriptions are the future of the industry right?

Or is this just some big pyramid scheme whereby relentlessly marketing the service to other people is the game? You tell me.

You ok? Hit me up if you need a friend to talk to

 

[lachesis]

I may sound like a very selfish person - but as long as I see any value to it at given price (which I'm doing less than $5 bucks per month for GPU, thanks to the $1 sub conversion) - I'm more than happy for it and I have no care for its sustainability. M$ can lose all their money for I care.

It may impact the overall gaming market and create some sort of dreaded GAAS paradise in the future and devs losing jobs all over the place creating some sort of Atari shock of yore - but you know - I just don't have to play any of those that I don't like, and ultimate choice is on me, and there are plenty of games still waiting to be played, a very good ones. Maybe AAA games won't come out for a little while after a good crash - but as long as the demand and market is there, they "will" manage to make those AAA games no matter what.

All things, come and go. There's no forever medium. Even if the sub is sustainable, it will be replaced by something else even more financially viable in the future. Just like Broadcast was replaced by Cable, then by DVR, then by streaming etc. I just don't believe one set thing lasting forever and ever anymore.

 

[GHG]

You ok? Hit me up if you need a friend to talk to

I'll talk to you after the next "anti-gamepass" thread in a couple of weeks.

We need to protect and grow gamepass at all cost. Will be good to talk about strategy.

 

[Helghan]

This is the thread title:

Is a Subscription Service Model Truly Sustainable in this Industry?​

This is a discussion about all subscription services. It's about the business model as a whole. Stop crying.

First sentence in this topic:
"As I think more and more about Gamepass I find myself questioning if this system is truly sustainable moving forward, making enough money to continue such a service..."

Enough said.

 

[coffinbirth]

Not really. I never buy games on Xbox, haven’t bought a single one since the Series X launch. And I’ve only bought one DLC, FH5 Hot Wheels.

How can that be sustainable?

I think the release strategy will change, I think we’ll still have day 1 releases but also early releases if you preorder.

Sony’s strategy won’t work either. The sub count will drop, The delays are too long. If people has already bought the big 1st party releases because they don’t want to wait 1-2 years there won’t be as interesting to subscribe to PS+, what’s left to be excited about are rare lowkey 3rd party day 1 releases, like Stray, and more late releases.

Late PC releases will disappear too because there will be negativity around every release, people with both console and PC will end up double dipping or, again, waiting too long, and PC-only gamers will be angry and negative because they can’t play yet and will have everything spoiled.

In the end it’ll all keep on evolving. Best strategy will win.
And I think that’ll be:
* Day 1 PC releases
* Day 1 subscrption releases
* Early release for preorders
* Big physical collector’s editions
* More DLC
* More expansions

Because the amount you spend on GP annually surpasses what the average gamer spends on games annually. Most people only buy 1-2 games per year. Obviously I'm not talking about the $1 subs, but in theory this checks out, otherwise. Sure, for every person whom pays full price you have one(ten?) that gets by on a dollar or only subs when a game releases and then unsubs once they've played it, but if it's anything like any other subscriptions, people sign up and just never unsub, regardless if they use it or not, looking at you, HULU.

Also, goes without saying your example here is entirely anecdotal, as is mine...and I've bought dozens of games this generation. I also compulsively buy games that leave GamePass, but that's a different story.

 

[Fredrik]

Because the amount you spend on GP annually surpasses what the average gamer spends on games annually. Most people only buy 1-2 games per year. Obviously I'm not talking about the $1 subs, but in theory this checks out, otherwise. Sure, for every person whom pays full price you have one(ten?) that gets by on a dollar or only subs when a game releases and then unsubs once they've played it, but if it's anything like any other subscriptions, people sign up and just never unsub, regardless if they use it or not, looking at you, HULU.

Also, goes without saying your example here is entirely anecdotal, as is mine...and I've bought dozens of games this generation. I also compulsively buy games that leave GamePass, but that's a different story.

I actually only pay like 1 full priced game per year for Gamepass Ultimate, through prepaying. But full price is what 2 or 3 full priced games per year?

Subscription money will add up, no doubt, but MS needs to pay for all 3rd party games they upload in their library, I’m thinking there won’t be much money left from that pool of money for the 1st party studios.
= Subscription cost will increase. Games will have more DLC. Episodic games will arrive. Games will become smaller.

 

[reksveks]

I also compulsively buy games that leave GamePass, but that's a different story.

Same sadly.

 

[iQuasarLV]

Considering I, at most, purchase 2-3 games a year; that equates to 1 game every 4-5 months of subscription (5 in case of Sony $70).

 

[TwiztidElf]

The quality on GamePass has inevitably plummeted.
Just like many of us expected and said it would.

 

[gladdys]

This Q2 PS Plus broke the new record for revenue made by a game subscription from a console maker. It makes a ton of revenue and they only put there old games that already did their job selling all they could, which must be cheap for them. Almost don't sacrifies game sales and the sub gives them some extra revenue. Nintendo has a subscriptions for emulator roms they downloaded from internet, they don't even dumped the roms themselves. So yes, PS Plus and the Nintendo one must be sustainable and profitable.

To spend almost $100B on acquisitions and to sacrifice many sales from their own AAA games putting them day one on a game sub, plus paying every year several big 3rd party titles to put their game there day one plus having $1 deals and free months of sub in many places doesn't sound a sustainable business model. I understand is a very aggresive strategy to grow faster, destroy rival console makers and game publishers and later to rise prices, but doesn't seem good.

I see the Sony and Nintendo approaches more logical specially considering them as a secondary revenue source combined with game sales, dlcs and F2P titles.

I think it is still important to realise gamespass is optional and the games they are releasing can be purchased separately on both XBOX and PC.

 

[gladdys]

The quality on GamePass has inevitably plummeted.
Just like many of us expected and said it would.

Tell me how you measured the quality on gamespass and what metric you was looking at to detect a drop.

 

[TwiztidElf]

Every day when I turn on my PC and I see the Recently Added and Coming to GamePass sections of the PC GamePass launcher.

 

[Tmac]

Netflix started somewhat great... now it's plagued with generic sh*t and it's only getting worse.

Sure, this is going to end well.

 

[Zathalus]

The quality on GamePass has inevitably plummeted.
Just like many of us expected and said it would.

... but it hasn't? You can just look at the games from this and last month, quite a number of highly rated games.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Can anyone answer if playstation plus extra and premium is sustainable for Sony, do they make many loss on that service?

Something tells me they wouldn't do those tiers if they weren't profitable in some way?

So how cant they be sustainable?

 

[gladdys]

You know you can still enjoy your subscription even of other people don't subscribe and don't believe subscriptions are the future of the industry right?

Or is this just some big pyramid scheme whereby relentlessly marketing the service to other people is the game? You tell me.

Mate, everyday discourse around the world, will usually have a moment where you talk about your latest experience, film or show you watched, game you played, etc. It’s not marketing to talk about something you enjoy in a positive way.

I think there is a feeling though, that if someone enjoys something and other people don’t enjoy it and they want to keep telling you they don’t like it, it does get frustrating.

You don’t like Xbox, you don’t like subscription service, you love a rival competitor, then great. You go do you and everyone else can make their choices.

 

[GHG]

Mate, everyday discourse around the world, will usually have a moment where you talk about your latest experience, film or show you watched, game you played, etc. It’s not marketing to talk about something you enjoy in a positive way.

I think there is a feeling though, that if someone enjoys something and other people don’t enjoy it and they want to keep telling you they don’t like it, it does get frustrating.

You don’t like Xbox, you don’t like subscription service, you love a rival competitor, then great. You go do you and everyone else can make their choices.

Here's the problem Gladdys, you have people at the top of Xbox encouraging this very behaviour:

“The most powerful marketing is word-of-mouth marketing,” Greenberg stated. “We can’t create as many advertisements, as many assets as we want, but if both of you go tell one of your closest friends, ‘You have to get Game Pass!’ that’s way more effective than any marketing I can do.”

Xbox Game Pass Isnt Exactly Profitable At The Moment - gametiptip.com

Xbox Game Pass Isnt Exactly Profitable At The MomentMicrosoft's Aaron Greenberg has stated that Xbox Game Pass isn't currently profitable, but the company is in it for the long game.

gametiptip.com

So what that's led to is a bunch of people going into unrelated threads with the objective of doing nothing else but shilling gamepass. At one point here we had a group of people taking turns to create new gamepass threads pretty much every day (but I'm sure you knew that, you seem to have been here for a while seen as you think you know me), it got so bad that those types of threads had to be banned and a catch-all gamepass thread was created. Nobody likes a gamepass marketing bot, nobody.

I'm a simple man, if Xbox want me to show them some love then give me a steady flow of games I can sink my teeth into. I don't give a crap about anything else, especially so since I don't need their hardware anymore. It's not my fault if they want to overcomplicate things and focus their energy as a business in all the wrong places. PR and services will only ever take you so far.

But regardless, this is a thread about subscription business models, so it's absolutely a place where even people who aren't too fond of the business model can come and freely discuss it. My stance is clear, these models still have everything to prove when it comes to their long term viability in the gaming industry.

 

[coffinbirth]

I actually only pay like 1 full priced game per year for Gamepass Ultimate, through prepaying. But full price is what 2 or 3 full priced games per year?

Subscription money will add up, no doubt, but MS needs to pay for all 3rd party games they upload in their library, I’m thinking there won’t be much money left from that pool of money for the 1st party studios.
= Subscription cost will increase. Games will have more DLC. Episodic games will arrive. Games will become smaller.

And there's the problem with this conversation. GamePass being sustainable does not equate to GamePass revenue covering the entire Xbox division...though that's not out of the realm of possibility in the long run.

 

[gladdys]

Here's the problem Gladdys, you have people at the top of Xbox encouraging this very behaviour:

http://[URL]https://gametiptip.com/xbox-game-pass-isnt-exactly-profitable-at-the-moment

[/URL]

So what that's led to is a bunch of people going into unrelated threads with the objective of doing nothing else but shilling gamepass. At one point here we had a group of people taking turns to create new gamepass threads pretty much every day (but I'm sure you knew that, you seem to have been here for a while seen as you think you know me), it got so bad that those types of threads had to be banned and a catch-all gamepass thread was created. Nobody likes a gamepass marketing bot, nobody.

I'm a simple man, if Xbox want me to show them some love then give me a steady flow of games I can sink my teeth into. I don't give a crap about anything else, especially so since I don't need their hardware anymore. It's not my fault if they want to overcomplicate things and focus their energy as a business in all the wrong places. PR and services will only ever take you so far.

But regardless, this is a thread about subscription business models, so it's absolutely a place where even people who aren't too fond of the business model can come and freely discuss it. My stance is clear, these models still have everything to prove when it comes to their long term viability in the gaming industry.

Word of mouth is the most effective way to get buy in. That’s just a statement of fact.

I have no reference for the comments about boys on the threads and shilling, so I will take you at your word.

One question though, when you see threads pop up about the good games Sony has do you consider that shilling as well? Or if in a Xbox thread Sony games get brought up?

 

[GHG]

Word of mouth is the most effective way to get buy in. That’s just a statement of fact.

I have no reference for the comments about boys on the threads and shilling, so I will take you at your word.

One question though, when you see threads pop up about the good games Sony has do you consider that shilling as well? Or if in a Xbox thread Sony games get brought up?

Yes, if people are bringing up things related to PlayStation in unrelated threads in ways that mimic their PR/marketing then that is indeed shilling. Most of the time those people get dealt with in the same way that people who insist on doing the same for Xbox do.

People are free to state their opinions but if the only way they can express themselves is by mimicing the tone and wording of a company's marketing material then it's highly suspicious. Either that or they lack the maturity to be able to think for themselves. If you want clarity on my overall stance then this is it:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/xsx-or-ps5-the-decision-i-need-to-make.1605464/post-263496737

It would be nicer if there could be less blatant platform sales pitches and more discussions about actual games here but it is what it is for now. I hope once the industry gets out of the mini-lull it's currently in then the discussions here will also improve.