Support NeoGAF

[Shmunter]

At the start of 2020 PS+ had 45 million subscribers. It now has 48 million subscribers 2 years later.

Game Pass started 2020 with 10 million subscribers. It now has 25 million+ subscribers 2 years later.

That's a 5 to 1 growth advantage in favor of Game Pass when many would say many of Xbox's releases didn't really kick off till around the time Psychonauts 2 released, and even then you could find it Playstation.

That mad dash to Game Pass over the last 2 years, growing 15 million+ despite Halo Infinite's delay, despite not a single new title from Bethesda yet, before Starfield has come, before Elder Scrolls 6, and before a number of other major releases, made more interesting by the Activision acquisition, you start to see just how deadly Game Pass will become.

It tells you people are recognizing what the hell they're getting from Game Pass is too insane a value to pass up. What happens when Diablo IV drops, Overwatch 2, the new Blizzard IP? How about when World of Warcraft is added to Game Pass, and an existing WoW subscription automatically gets you Game Pass Ultimate at no additional cost? When COD, new ones and Warzone can finally be added to Game Pass? You think how does Warzone in Game Pass help? Simple, free perks you get just for signing up for Game Pass to play it.

Oh, and Bethesda has a shit ton of other games we still don't even know about yet.

It's pretty clear we are going to get more Game Pass like game services. It's almost certainly the future.

What Live Gold stats like? Maybe it’s just one bucket poured into the other?

 

[GigaBowser]

You do not want people to eave your subscription service, as that would mean losing monthly payments. Companies would do anything to keep these users.
Mobile industry is big, unlike consoles. Anyone can make games. You can make your own game. Which means tons of crap in the mobile market.

I wish I was as optimistic about this as you but I predict it's headed nowhere good which shouldn't be surprising because AAA gaming is going down the tank anyway. This will accelerate the process dramatically. Western third party devs are already finished as far as my tastes are concerned. The soul of the industry is in Japan though and once these devs start getting bought up for this subscription service crap it's adios amigos.

I guess we'll see who's right when the dust settles.

 

[RoadHazard]

What is this fascination bordering on obsession some users have with Microsoft and game pass's profit margins on this forum ?

I'm a subscriber to the service and wondering how they're sustaining the service is the last thing on my mind as a gamer ..

There might be a worry that "hardcore" gaming will become devalued like mobile gaming has, where people refuse to pay more than like a dollar for a game. If people stop thinking games are worth their money, what will happen to game quality? If you don't care about high budget single player games, sure, nothing to worry about, but some of us do want those games.

If you can't see the connection between what I'm talking about and too-good-to-be-true services like GP, maybe you should think about it some more.

 

[ChiefDada]

We know that if Sony announces that with a new PS+ subscription you get all of our new games day one, way more people end up signing up for it.

Yes, I would sign up in a heartbeat.

I would also be very pessimistic about the quality of future Sony single player blockbusters until they showed me 10 Fortnite/Candy Crush-like franchises they own that would serve to adequately support the enormous budgets their first party games have relied upon in the past.

 

[Vol5]

MS don't care for hardware sales? What an absolute garbage argument. They need to attract Sony and Nintendo fans to their service and right now with the current offering, nobody is going to do that, save for the hardcore gamer. They absolutely need Xbox hardware sales to drive GP adoption.

The only possible way we are going to see an acceleration in growth and return on investment is if their service runs on PS and Nintendo hardware (or just all hardware)...just like I run Now and Netflix on my Amazon box.

Their messaging is all over the place, but I absolutely expect Halo to be running on GP on my PS5 by the generations end. MS are going the publisher route...there is absolutely no doubt in my mind after their recent acquisitions. So in answer to the OPs question, currently, no. They won't or don't have a chair at the table and it isn't the future if the strategy stays as is, BUT, when we have GP running on PS5, it could be monstrous.

 

[GigaBowser]

MS don't care for hardware sales? What an absolute garbage argument. They need to attract Sony and Nintendo fans to their service and right now with the current offering, nobody is going to do that, save for the hardcore gamer. They absolutely need Xbox hardware sales to drive GP adoption.

The only possible way we are going to see an acceleration in growth and return on investment is if their service runs on PS and Nintendo hardware (or just all hardware)...just like I run Now and Netflix on my Amazon box.

Their messaging is all over the place, but I absolutely expect Halo to be running on GP on my PS5 by the generations end. MS are going the publisher route...there is absolutely no doubt in my mind after their recent acquisitions. So in answer to the OPs question, currently, no. They won't or don't have a chair at the table and it isn't the future if the strategy stays as is, BUT, when we have GP running on PS5, it could be monstrous.

Yeah this is an absolutely false narrative being pushed around here. MS needs for Xbox to step up their hardware sales dramatically if they have any hope for "consolidation". You can't set trends when you're selling the least hardware.

 

[adamsapple]

There might be a worry that "hardcore" gaming will become devalued like mobile gaming has, where people refuse to pay more than like a dollar for a game. If people stop thinking games are worth their money, what will happen to game quality? If you don't care about high budget single player games, sure, nothing to worry about, but some of us do want those games.

If you can't see the connection between what I'm talking about and too-good-to-be-true services like GP, maybe you should think about it some more.

While I see what you're saying, nothing so far has indicated that GP will take gaming the way of mobile gaming.

Just look at the slate of announced/upcoming MS studio games:

Xbox Game Studios list: All Microsoft studios and upcoming Xbox studio games

A complete list of Xbox studios owned by Microsoft, including upcoming games from Xbox Games Studios.

www.eurogamer.net

A wide majority of them seem to be tailored toward cinematic/single player experiences.

We're worrying about a hypothetical that may or may not happen in the next couple of years, and then there's also the forced correlation between subscription services and GaaS that OP is trying to make. GaaS does *not* need subscription services to be it's own thing.

Those are two different things altogether which are trying to be lumped into the same category.

I hate to be that guy but if/when a similar service launches on Sony platforms, it'll be interesting to see how many folks change their tunes and sub to that service happily.

 

[kingfey]

I wish I was as optimistic about this as you but I predict it's headed nowhere good which shouldn't be surprising because AAA gaming is going down the tank anyway. This will accelerate the process dramatically. Western third party devs are already finished as far as my tastes are concerned. The soul of the industry is in Japan though and once these devs start getting bought up for this subscription service crap it's adios amigos.

I guess we'll see who's right when the dust settles.

Subscription service is good for gaming industry if done right.
The good part, is that it promotes freedom creativity. The bad part, Devs abusing this power, to push unfinished products.

Its neither good, nor its bad. It just needs balance. And that balance, comes from harmony relationship between devs and gamers. If one thing devs love, its people playing their games.

 

[RCU005]

Don't get me wrong. Renting games on the cheap is great (even considering picking up a Series X), even though I prefer a Steam like service, but I keep hearing all this buzz about Gamepass like MS sets the trends even though they sell the least consoles and have since 2017 since Gamepass started.

I hear buzz about revenue, but what about profits?

Why is Nintendo selling the most hardware and low budget games for full price making way more profit than anyone if giving your games away and devaluing your IP's is such a great idea?

People are saying Gamepass is the future because as consumers, they are just seeing "free" games for a very small fee (in comparison to buying all those games)

They never and will never stop and think about the business that goes behind it.

IMO, Microsoft is burning money with this service. They are trying to force a future that it's very complicated to actually happen. Things might go their way, but it will be incredibly expensive for them and will take a lot of time.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I disagree hard on that one. Pushing first-party to a rival absolutely risks the health of the home ecosystem. Even a streaming only option isn't a particularly good look. If Sony users are willing to stream a game and subscribe to your service, why do that on PS. They can take that controller onto another device easy enough and now they have access to the full GP offer. From there they can potentially buy content for games they otherwise would have played on PS. Better to find more neutral partnerships to push streaming (Roku, TV manufacturers, PC vendors, etc.) There will be some financial strings there as well (even Roku will expect a cut), but it would likely be something that could easily be absorbed and that would not effect the titles that could be made available. Same for Sony at the end of the day. A PS or Xbox in the cloud is still worth a lot more than streaming first-party on a competitors box.

That's not to say that something like MineCraft or CoD won't be multi-platform, but you give up everything, you have no leverage left. That didn't work so good for Stadia.

That's an interesting point, and wasn't exactly on the top of my mind when making that post. Reason why might've been because, at least when we look at financial results, for Sony and Microsoft 1P games make up less than 20% of their gaming division revenue. And I figured that for those who would only play those 1P games on consoles of those platform holders, that percentage is likely less than 10%, provided options with release parity were also available (which at least for Microsoft, is the case).

So that's likely less than 10% of division annual revenue coming from people who would absolutely stick to that console platform and its ecosystem even if other options were available WRT acquiring & playing the 1P content. Not a large percentage, but then there's the other role of 1P content and its exclusivity, acting as a conduit to draw in people from various niches and keep them in to invest further inside the ecosystem. That 10% might not be large in-and-of itself but they're probably among the more hardcore/core types that could be big spenders.

Yeah I'll admit I likely didn't think of this too much earlier but thinking on it now it could create a complication in versions of streaming services for competing consoles that offer wholesale access to 1P content, even if streaming-only. Still don't think it would be an issue for GaaS MP-centric titles, and maybe select 1P titles (say if they're staggered out a few months after initial release) provided as cloud-only. There has to be some form of it working, that can justify having tailored versions of these services on competing console platforms, that don't necessarily hurt ecosystem engagement particularly for that 10% who could be among the larger "whales" .

I find it ironic that the ones that keep talking about future of gaming are the same ones that show the less great games

You do realize Microsoft had the best-rated 1P games of last year, correct? That's higher than any 1P game from Sony or Nintendo for that year. They also had multiple highly-rated games in 2021.

No chance of game subs becoming the dominant distribution channel.

Unless every major third party publisher and dev is assimilated under the corporate banners of Sony, MS and Nintendo, the third party publishers themselves will simply cock block any attempts to make Netflix-like sub-services dominant by refusing to support them.

Sub services being dominant would change the entire gaming landscape meaning most of the biggest most popular games cannot be supported unless they're financed by first parties (which requires a massive number of ever-increasing subscriber-base to make it make any sense at all).

I don't think they need an infinite increase in subscription numbers to justify these services, or to bring in a healthy amount of revenue and profit. Would they need more than the 25 million GP currently has, or the ~ 4 - 6 million PS Now has? Sure. But I don't think they need something crazy like 100 million, let alone 250 million etc. What's more important is the concentration of subs paying the median rate for a lengthy time period, and from there, how many of them are spending on MTX/DLC content, how many are purchasing games in the service regardless (at a discount), etc.

30 million subs with 95% paying a $10/mo median for roughly 8 months average is much better than 100 million subs with 50% paying a $10/mo median for only 3 months average. We still have to wait and see where some of these subscription services land in that regard. But here's something else interesting: if the average attach rate for a typical game console is 8 games, and let's say 4 of those are indie and 4 are AAA, and all are full-price, then the average console would generate $360 for the platform holder over the course of a generation.

If that console were to sell, say, 100 million units, then the average revenue for that platform through software sales for a generation would be expected to be at $36 billion. But that's assuming each console gets that 8-unit attach rate with games at full-price (half being indies and half being AAA). However, in real-world terms, if you look at the attach rates for various console, and even considered all of those games being at full price, you'd still "only" get $48 billion lifetime. Now look at PS4's annual results; over the course of the past seven years, considering an average of $20 billion annually, that's $140 billion in revenue for the division lifetime-wise. Clearly way more than software revenue from game sales through attach rates would suggest.

So then compare that again with a subscription service, say it reaches 100 million users but 20% of them are on scattershot deals and discounts, conversion tricks or whatever. Another 10% are regular subs but don't stay on the whole time annually. Another 10% are regular subs and probably stay on a bit longer, but still aren't "steady" subscriptions. So, that leaves 60%, or 60 million, who are regulars, and pay a median $10/mo annually. That's $7.2 billion annually; over the course of a typical generation that would generate $50.4 billion in revenue off subscriptions.

Which as you can see falls in line with a traditional model of 100 million console owners buying 8 full-priced AAA games over the course of a generation. However, you're getting slightly more revenue off the subscription model, with less overall users, and with theoretically lower operating costs (maintaining a server cluster for the subscription model would cost less in the long-term than manufacturing 100 million console units, paying for their assembly, certification, shipping costs etc. and coverage for warranty repairs for each unit). That's a net gain all-around.

Now, we don't know what the split is for something like GamePass when it comes to how many are paying for the whole year, how many are $1 conversions (which still means the XBL Gold sub just gets "converted" to a GPU subscription), how many are paying for regular GP vs. GPU etc. However, I think some people vastly overestimate how many people are "gaming" these services or aren't paying for the overall content. Similarly a lot are being misguided in speculating if reported numbers of subs are concurrent or not; standard practice is to report concurrent users, because financial results will eventually show what the numbers really are, anyway. Kind of like how Netflix's results of revenue backed up their claim of some 200 million subs basically being roughly 200 million concurrent users, not cumulative.

So I guess I'm mentioning all of this to show that, if developers/publishers are fearful subscription services will squeeze out AAA games from them without a platform holder's involvement, then they should've been worried a long time ago with that already happening in the traditional space. We've already seen several teams partner with platform holders to get funding for AAA projects, anyway, all without the presence of a subscription service. So it's not like subscription services will suddenly make that a thing. I think as long as you still have consoles and still have a need for physical media for specific markets, then 3P devs/pubs will still have options aside from relying on a subscription service.

And if it gets to a point where big AAA games are mainly coming from platform holders, then that won't be too different from blockbuster films in Hollywood that mainly come from a small handful of studios these days, or the vast majority of music coming from a small handful of record labels. There used to not even be 3P publishers in gaming until Activision was founded; maybe their acquisition is a prognosis of things to come and return back to that state, and I can see that being a big shock. At the same time though, all maturing industries eventually go this route; the bigger worry should be if platform holders start making deals with ISPs and retail outlets so that only their hardware & services are carried in them, or try squeezing out rival platforms from accessing certain chip manufacturers, etc. through BS deals.

Because at that point it would mirror how movie studios used to control the theaters and then the government got involved to shut that type of thing down. I strongly doubt that ever happens with gaming, however.

 

[kingfey]

People are saying Gamepass is the future because as consumers, they are just seeing "free" games for a very small fee (in comparison to buying all those games)

They never and will never stop and think about the business that goes behind it.

IMO, Microsoft is burning money with this service. They are trying to force a future that it's very complicated to actually happen. Things might go their way, but it will be incredibly expensive for them and will take a lot of time.

That future is here, with netflix, being the pioneer of that future. Most companies are moving towards that model.

If you go outside, and look at tech software's, most are on subscription service. Even Starbucks is on subscription service.

Starbucks Launches Reserve Roastery Subscription Service

When Starbucks opened its high-end Starbucks Reserve Roastery and Tasting Room in its hometown of Seattle back in December, we knew it was just the begi...

fooddigital.com

From gaming publishers, EA has EA play pro (day1 games), Ubisoft has Uplay+(Day1 games), MS has gamepass (Day1 games), and Sony has psnow. While Nintendo has Nintendo online, with n64 games.

 

[adamsapple]

I find it ironic that the ones that keep talking about future of gaming are the same ones that show the less great games

There were more Microsoft studio games in the top 10 GoTY winners of 2021 than any other publisher.

Do some of y'all even do the least amount of research before blindly hitting the reply button ?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

GaaS will put their games wherever they can. What incentive will developers have to deliver high budget single player experiences without GaaS or micro transactions if services like this become the norm?

Sub plans and GAAS games have been around for years. It doesn't stop Sony SP focused games from selling a ton of copies at full price.

Not everyone cares about GAAS kinds of games (even if free to download), and not everyone is even hooked up for online play where GAAS gameplay is heavy. Aside from playing Warzone, I don't think I've ever played any F2P games.

$60-70 SP games, F2P GAAS games and sub plans can all co-exist.

 

[faraany3k]

I hate the thing until my favourite corporation adopts it too.

Nice thread.

 

[GigaBowser]

I hate the thing until my favourite corporation adopts it too.

Nice thread.

Nah, GIGA don't play that.

If Sony becomes subscription service focussed and they stop making amazing single player epics I won't fuck with them either.

I used to love MS once upon a time. Even Nintendo up until the Gamecube, and then they did me dirty with their hardware.

 

[Elder Legend]

Nah, GIGA don't play that.

If Sony becomes subscription service focussed and they stop making amazing single player epics I won't fuck with them either.

I used to love MS once upon a time. Even Nintendo up until the Gamecube, and then they did me dirty with their hardware.

So Mario Oddysey, Zelda Breath of the Wild are not epic single player games anymore because you don't like the hardware? KEKW.

 

[GigaBowser]

So Mario Oddysey, Zelda Breath of the Wild are not epic single player games anymore because you don't like the hardware? KEKW.

High fidelity graphics and sense of wonder and joy make me feel immersed.

 

[Menzies]

I'm not sure that this is necessarily true.

From most accounts, it doesn't appear Sonys answer to GamePass will provide day 1 exclusives, which is arguably the most attractive feature of GamePass.

Alternatively, Sony seems to be pushing a ton of their chips into GAAS rather than creating a true GamePass competitor.

Microsoft would love it if Sony didn't change course from their PS4 era ways. Releasing one or two high profile AAA single player games that can be completed in a weekend, each year, is the rock to GamePasses paper. Especially now that XBox has so many more studios than PlayStation.

I'm not strictly talking about their answer to GamePass.

It's debatable that we'd see Sony pursue PC releases, billion-dollar acquisitions, a shift in focus from single-player games, and a more multi-platform approach had Microsoft not first made these moves.

I'm not sure what Sony is planning with their 'Project Spartacus' but if I'm asking myself why go to the trouble or re-branding and re-launching a service in the first place?
Is it because PS Now has a lower perception of quality?
Is it because PS Now has 1/5th the subscribers?

If so, I'm not sure that a re-launch of whatever this thing ends up being called, is going to move the needle when it doesn't offer day 1 exclusives. It will forever be compared (and ridiculed) against the competition.

 

[Yamisan]

I have a ps5 and xbx. I wouldn't have the Xbox if it wasn't for the gamepass as my ps5 is superior in every single other way. I'll never buy a single game on the Xbox X. Gamepass or game pass.

 

[DarkMage619]

Microsoft's been running Gamepass since 2017 and have continued to sell the least amount of hardware and first party software of all the major console manufacturers since.

What are the subscription numbers of the service? How do the numbers compare to similar services on other platforms? Has MS ever stated the point of Game pass is to increase console sales?

 

[GigaBowser]

What are the subscription numbers of the service? How do the numbers compare to similar services on other platforms? Has MS ever stated the point of Game pass is to increase console sales?

The less Xbox's there are in circulation, the less opportunities there are to sell Game pass. It's fairly self explanatory.

 

[Menzies]

The less Xbox's there are in circulation, the less opportunities there are to sell Game pass. It's fairly self explanatory.

I think both sides need to take a middle lane approach here.

Yes, console sales are important.

Yes, releasing the service on any device with a browser actively 'sabotages' console sales.

Does MS care? Yes

Does MS rightly know that they'll sell fewer consoles against PlayStation because of this? Yes

Let's all move on.

 

[SSfox]

snip

snip

I play games, not awards.

Also it's kinda funny how Awards don't matter for some people when Sony keep getting those non stop, but they matter when it's related for MS games... (but don't get me wrong, personally IDGAF about Awards in both cases).

Also some of those games aren't MS creation, they were bought after their creation, i value creation over post purshase.

 

[Kagey K]

I have a ps5 and xbx. I wouldn't have the Xbox if it wasn't for the gamepass as my ps5 is superior in every single other way. I'll never buy a single game on the Xbox X. Gamepass or game pass.

This is what we call a subjective statement.

The PS5 is in fact not superior in every other way, there are many things Xbox does better.

 

[pratyush]

You are also forgetting convenience which is a huge factor.

Cross-saves between PC/Xbox
Cross-platform capability on certain titles
and so on

None of those feature requires subscription model.

Only reason why Gamepass is popular is because of price. If it was 20$ a month from the start, most wouldnt have touched it.

There is nothing appealing about Subscription model. You dont own anything and still end up paying hundreds of dollars

 

[Kagey K]

None of those feature requires subscription model.

Only reason why Gamepass is popular is because of price. If it was 20$ a month from the start, most wouldnt have touched it.

There is nothing appealing about Subscription model. You dont own anything and still end up paying hundreds of dollars

Let's be honest here. Most of the games you own are worth shot now, and you aren't going to replay them again.

Everyone says they hate rentals because they are on a time limit to beat them, but if you buy a game and plan to resell you are on an even shorter time, because every hour you aren't beating it someone else is and driving resale prices down.

This argument holds no weight if you don't give a fuck about a game once you see the credits roll.

Why am I going to care about losing games I already beat when I can look forward into beating games I haven't played?

 

[reksveks]

There is nothing appealing to me about Subscription model

Fixed that for you

 

[Soosa]

People are saying Gamepass is the future because as consumers, they are just seeing "free" games for a very small fee (in comparison to buying all those games)

They never and will never stop and think about the business that goes behind it.

IMO, Microsoft is burning money with this service. They are trying to force a future that it's very complicated to actually happen. Things might go their way, but it will be incredibly expensive for them and will take a lot of time.

People also almost always forget that running a service isnt free.

Like, they calculate "subscriptions x monthly payment" == "wow MS is making xxx million/month! incredible!

while in reality having server farms and other stuff behind the scene costs lot of money, so it is not as simple as subs x fee.

And people always do this weird "but if you pay 69€/$ for games, you can get only 3 new games a year versus hundreds in game pass!!"
Or thinking that they get 400 games which would cost thousands to buy, but nobody plays them all, so it is really not simple as that.

Like some alien force would force people to pay full price, instead of buing games from sales and buying/borrowing used disc games.

15.99€/month -> ~190€/year -> that is like 5-10 games easily, for people that dont buy stuff day one.

And statistics say, that most gamers get only FEW games on average in one generation, so many people spend only 60-70€/year even if they buy games day one.

I just got dying light 2 for ps5 for 40€, few days after the launch because someone wanted to sell his NEW unopened copy as he had digital version and got disc as a gift. And I have done this for years, and almost always I can get used disc copy for 35-45€ within 2-4 weeks from launch. It is also easy, just clicking "buy it now" on auction site, pay it and it arrives throught mail. Never had issues as I just buy from people with positive feedback.

I got my 3 years of GPU for 93-94€ total using cheap live gold -> GPU for 1€ trick, so it is super good deal, but if I would pay full price it would be almost 600€ and for 600€ it is just not worth it. (to me)

But is it future of gaming? probably for xbox, less likely for sony or nintendo, as they dont really have to do it, unless they can calculate that it gives them more profit.

Personally I think that GPU is great deal with 1€ trick, but after it ends and if I cant get it as cheap as that again, I probably wont get it and start to buy used disc version for those games I want to play.

 

[RoyalLaFlame]

I think both sides need to take a middle lane approach here.

Yes, console sales are important.

Yes, releasing the service on any device with a browser actively 'sabotages' console sales.

Does MS care? Yes

Does MS rightly know that they'll sell fewer consoles against PlayStation because of this? Yes

Let's all move on.

To be honest, I'm pretty sure MS is ok with selling fewer hardware units. They are aiming at gamepass becoming a streaming service first and foremost, with the option of playing locally. I think they care more about people playing these on a Smart TV or Mobile in the future, not so much on specific hardware.

If you want to reach the biggest audience possible, that's the way to go. Console sales are always limited, never a console has crossed 200 million units sold, but phones? TVs? That's exactly where I would focus on, but it will take some time until it becomes a fully-fledged streaming service.

 

[Elder Legend]

None of those feature requires subscription model.

Only reason why Gamepass is popular is because of price. If it was 20$ a month from the start, most wouldnt have touched it.

There is nothing appealing about Subscription model. You dont own anything and still end up paying hundreds of dollars

You're 100% right about that part.

Why would playing Elder Scrolls 6, Starfield, Perfect Dark, Awoved, The Outer Worlds 2, State of Decay 3, Fable, Horza Horizon 5, Halo Infinite (campaign), Redfall, STALKER 2, day 1 at basically no cost be appealing at all? I would much rather spend $70 for each one! Oh and and first party games stay there forever, which means a forever "rental".

Yes not appealing whatsoever.

And yes there are over 23 million subscribers who use Game Pass. You've nailed it that there is nothing appealing about it, couldn't figure it without you. Thank god I came across you, what would I ever do. You have such wisdom good sir.

/s

 

[AV]

There is nothing appealing about Subscription model. You dont own anything and still end up paying hundreds of dollars

The games you bought 5 years ago are worth about 10% of what you paid for them now. In fact, if you bought them digitally they're worthless, you can't even sell them outside of selling your entire <insert service> account. They're just rotting plastic/data that you may never play again, owning something is not inherently a positive.

GP is not really designed for people who want to replay the same games over and over again over a long period of time, no. For people that want to play games and move onto new games it's a godsend. Halo, Forza and Psychonauts 2 would have cost me £150 last year, that's a year and a half of Game Pass PC at full price. It's not even a debate how good the value is to a lot of people.

 

[adamsapple]

I play games, not awards.

Also it's kinda funny how Awards don't matter for some people when Sony keep getting those non stop, but they matter when it's related for MS games... (but don't get me wrong, personally IDGAF about Awards in both cases).

Also some of those games aren't MS creation, they were bought after their creation, i value creation over post purshase.

Mate, this is pretty hilarious

We went from "where's the quality" to "I don't care about recognition of quality" in 1 post.

 

[Dr Bass]

You're 100% right about that part.

Why would playing Elder Scrolls 6, Starfield, Perfect Dark, Awoved, The Outer Worlds 2, State of Decay 3, Fable, Horza Horizon 5, Halo Infinite (campaign), Redfall, STALKER 2, day 1 at basically no cost be appealing at all? I would much rather spend $70 for each one! Oh and and first party games stay there forever, which means a forever "rental".

Yes not appealing whatsoever.

And yes there are over 23 million subscribers who use Game Pass. You've nailed it that there is nothing appealing about it, couldn't figure it without you. Thank god I came across you, what would I ever do. You have such wisdom good sir.

/s

Just out of curiosity ... do you not see the problem with this statement?

 

[pratyush]

The games you bought 5 years ago are worth about 10% of what you paid for them now. In fact, if you bought them digitally they're worthless, you can't even sell them outside of selling your entire <insert service> account. They're just rotting plastic/data that you may never play again, owning something is not inherently a positive.

GP is not really designed for people who want to replay the same games over and over again over a long period of time, no. For people that want to play games and move onto new games it's a godsend. Halo, Forza and Psychonauts 2 would have cost me £150 last year, that's a year and a half of Game Pass PC at full price. It's not even a debate how good the value is to a lot of people.

Its not about worth. I can rent a car and drive or buy one. Both gives the same service and car i buy will depreciate. Every asset depreciate.

You took a part of my response. I mentioned Gamepass is popular because its cheap. If it was expensive then paying high to not own stuff is not that appealing. It is only appealing when it provide lower cost. All other functionality of Gamepass have always existed and dont need subscription model.

 

[pratyush]

You're 100% right about that part.

Why would playing Elder Scrolls 6, Starfield, Perfect Dark, Awoved, The Outer Worlds 2, State of Decay 3, Fable, Horza Horizon 5, Halo Infinite (campaign), Redfall, STALKER 2, day 1 at basically no cost be appealing at all? I would much rather spend $70 for each one! Oh and and first party games stay there forever, which means a forever "rental".

Yes not appealing whatsoever.

And yes there are over 23 million subscribers who use Game Pass. You've nailed it that there is nothing appealing about it, couldn't figure it without you. Thank god I came across you, what would I ever do. You have such wisdom good sir.

/s

Great response.

Learn to read before posting sarcastic post. Makes you look dumb.

Gamepass initial cost is low and thats why it is popular. Not because games which havent released yet. If you cant understand that distinction then i am wasting my time on you.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I play games, not awards.

Also it's kinda funny how Awards don't matter for some people when Sony keep getting those non stop, but they matter when it's related for MS games... (but don't get me wrong, personally IDGAF about Awards in both cases).

Also some of those games aren't MS creation, they were bought after their creation, i value creation over post purshase.

I also play games, just saying that MC is often a barometer people use to judge a game's quality and MS had the best output last year out of the platform holders. That's data, it's out there and everyone can see it if they wish. Doesn't mean those games will be everyone's favorite, but they did score highly.

FWIW some of those games like Psychonauts 2, the reason they turned out so good was because of Microsoft providing additional funding and technical support so that the team could implement things that were otherwise going to get cut out. Tim Schafer even said so himself in that game's case. The game may've started outside of MS but MS definitely helped push it to reach a higher bar than it would've otherwise.

Spoiler

Too bad they completely dropped the ball in actually marketing the game, though. Extremely short-changed there IMO

 

[Fare thee well]

I've learned in the last couple of years that value of an asset/company no longer seems to be just tied to the consistency of what money they bring in; more tied to its 'prospective' worth, hype, and shareholder value. In many ways I feel even people like our billionaires are not worth that much if you were to only look at their max private liquidity. So I don't know if anyone knows the TRUE value of gamespass. It certainly appears popular amongst gamers and thats all I can say.
For me personally, I like throwing my money around directly to game studios that I support and paying directly to own directly. But if gamespass remains a great tool that doesn't starve game studio profits, then I'm all for it.

 

[DavidGzz]

Look at the state of AAA gaming though. The games are becoming fewer and far between, most of them are starting to implement GaaS and micro transactions, and the level of quality has generally been down. I expect the downward trajectory to continue. Gamepass type services will rapidly expedite it.

I'm not seeing it. The quality of the first party stuff has been about on par with the games that came before. Halo 5 to Infinite, Gears 4 to 5, Forza Horizon 4 to 5, Ori, etc. The fact that they are taking a while just shows that they are not rushing them. Quality takes time. Hellblade looks like one expensive project, for example. Now with Acti-Blizz on board, there should be a pretty steady flow of big games soon. I bet Starfield is taking more time and money than the stand alone game called Skyrim.

 

[AV]

Its not about worth. I can rent a car and drive or buy one. Both gives the same service and car i buy will depreciate. Every asset depreciate.

You took a part of my response. I mentioned Gamepass is popular because its cheap. If it was expensive then paying high to not own stuff is not that appealing. It is only appealing when it provide lower cost. All other functionality of Gamepass have always existed and dont need subscription model.

Of course it's about worth, hence the second part of your post about why it's attractive because it's cheap. People often rent cars because they can't afford them. People often buy used cars because the second you buy a new one its value is gutted. You buy a game because it's worth $60 to you, I play games on Game Pass because they either aren't or I don't know that they are yet. Conversely I have no problem paying full RRP for Elden Ring because I know that's one game I'll dump hours into on its own and probably come back to later.

For sure it's popularity is helped by how cheap it is, but the service comes first and the game selection just gets better and better. By the time the Actiblizz back catalogue is added, £7.99/m for PC GP is going to be more of an absolute steal than it already is. Hell, it's going to be cheap if (when, really) they raise the prices.

 

[twilo99]

Microsoft's been running Gamepass since 2017 and have continued to sell the least amount of hardware and first party software of all the major console manufacturers since.

2021 was the first year I saw them taking that whole gaming thing seriously and actually spend some real money on it so if what you are saying is still the case after their recent investments, I would call it a failure, until then, its work in progress.

 

[Kagey K]

Great response.

Learn to read before posting sarcastic post. Makes you look dumb.

Gamepass initial cost is low and thats why it is popular. Not because games which havent released yet. If you cant understand that distinction then i am wasting my time on you.

Except they are using it to play games that are already out.

Actual gamers don't gather round exclusives like people on these forums do.

They play games for fun, not because they are Xbox or PS only.

Cost is low and they get a fuckton of games to play, saving them money to spend on other games.

 

[Ozriel]

There might be a worry that "hardcore" gaming will become devalued like mobile gaming has, where people refuse to pay more than like a dollar for a game. If people stop thinking games are worth their money, what will happen to game quality? If you don't care about high budget single player games, sure, nothing to worry about, but some of us do want those games.

If you can't see the connection between what I'm talking about and too-good-to-be-true services like GP, maybe you should think about it some more.

People watching feature length movies on Netflix hasn't stopped them from going to Cinemas to pay for movies.

We've had steam sales for a decade now, with games dropping to very low prices. Folks take advantage of key reseller sites to buy new AAA games for cheap. Yet I've never seen anyone claim that this 'devalues gaming'.

This argument has no merits at all.

 

[Ozriel]

None of those feature requires subscription model.

Only reason why Gamepass is popular is because of price. If it was 20$ a month from the start, most wouldnt have touched it.

There is nothing appealing about Subscription model. You dont own anything and still end up paying hundreds of dollars

Explains the success of subscription models like Office 365 and Gamepass.

In one paragraph you say Gamepass is popular. In the other, you say there's nothing appealing about it. Confused?

 

[Kagey K]

Explains the success of subscription models like Office 365 and Gamepass.

In one paragraph you say Gamepass is popular. In the other, you say there's nothing appealing about it. Confused?

Even if it was 20.00 (everyone wants the price to jump so high)

If they offered one game you like out of the 20 or so a month they add, you would still be at a break even point, where the value was exactly what you paid that month.

And they do this over and over again twice a month every month.

 

[DarkMage619]

The less Xbox's there are in circulation, the less opportunities there are to sell Game pass. It's fairly self explanatory.

You didn't answer the question. Even with 'less Xboxes in circulation' how are the sub numbers of Game pass vs similar sub services? Shouldn't be too hard to figure out. By the way MS doesn't need to sell an Xbox to get a person to sign up to Game pass.

 

[Jadsey]

As it currently stands, GamePass is a breeding ground for mediocrity.

My slim hope is that when Sony enters the subscription market, they drag standards up to their level as Xbox will have a competitor.

My fear is that Sony drop their standards to offer 3 years of gaming for a pound!

My unrealistic hope is that the whole thing fucks off and we can get back to a payment model that sustained a great industry for decades.

 

[Fitzchiv]

Don't get me wrong. Renting games on the cheap is great (even considering picking up a Series X), even though I prefer a Steam like service, but I keep hearing all this buzz about Gamepass like MS sets the trends even though they sell the least consoles and have since 2017 since Gamepass started.

I hear buzz about revenue, but what about profits?

Why is Nintendo selling the most hardware and low budget games for full price making way more profit than anyone if giving your games away and devaluing your IP's is such a great idea?

Microsoft are using penetration pricing to redefine the category, so ignore margin because they're sacrificing into grow the customer base and lower the overhead cost as it's spread across each user - then they'll extract increased margins via increased sales via Windows store, DLC etc.

The "big deal" is it gives access very cheaply, as you said, and the deeper people get into it the more reliant on digital libraries and sales they are.

Look, is anyone with Gamepass moaning and saying they're going to cancel it? No, because it's fucking excellent value - there's your smoking gun.

 

[MScarpa]

None of those feature requires subscription model.

Only reason why Gamepass is popular is because of price. If it was 20$ a month from the start, most wouldnt have touched it.

There is nothing appealing about Subscription model. You dont own anything and still end up paying hundreds of dollars

It appeals to me and 25 million others.

 

[Negotiator101]

Leave Nintendo out of this train wreck please

I'm so thankful Nintendo is thriving in their own bubble

Train wreck?

 

[The_Mike]

You can't set trends when you're selling the least hardware

And yet Microsoft managed to do it with game pass.