Support NeoGAF

[feynoob]

You obviously never watched TV before they needed to release content to keep people paying for their services. Not saying it's all shit now. Of course shows/films will come out that are fine, but have you seen some of those amazing netflix Kevin Hart films? They seem to release movies every month that are just awful shit that wouldn't even be considered above Z grade in years gone past. And don't get me started on some of the awful shit on Disney plus...

Shows like Twin Peaks, Sopranos, Seinfeld, The Simpsons, The X Files, Deadwood, The Wire, Madmen etc were all shows before streaming and didn't need to be mass produced to provide content like today to keep people subscribed. TV/movies have never been worse and if people can't see that, they're either blind or have low expectations. And gaming will follow that path.

Were you in a dungeon?
Movies and shows at that time were shit. The difference is that now you can access all movies, compared to before. Which is why they feel like shit today.
Go watch any old movie and tell me that it's better than some of the movies today.

Acting and cinematic effect is much better these than before. Even low Budgeted movies have good cinematic scenes compared to before.

 

[feynoob]

I asked my babe A.I.

Q:
did Nadella or any other MS or Xbox executive ever said something about Game Pass being disruptive?

A:
Yes, Satya Nadella, the CEO of Microsoft, has described Game Pass as a "disruptive force" in the gaming industry. In an earnings call in July 2021, Nadella stated that Game Pass is "changing how people discover, connect and play games" and that it has "become a real cultural phenomenon."

In addition to Nadella, other Microsoft executives have also acknowledged Game Pass's disruptive potential. Phil Spencer, the head of Xbox, has described Game Pass as a "game changer" and a "new business model for games," while Matt Booty, the head of Xbox Game Studios, has called it a "disruptive force" that is transforming the way people play games.

Anything that changes consumers behavior is disruptive.

The issue however is people taking this disruption as a negative impact.

We have seen plenty of disruptive actions in gaming. Most notable timed exclusive 3rd party games or their content, Micro transactions, freemium model, and lastly digital content(dlc).

The stuff that I listed are normal these days, but weren't when they were new. It's all about how people view them.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Anything that changes consumers behavior is disruptive.

The issue however is people taking this disruption as a negative impact.

We have seen plenty of disruptive actions in gaming. Most notable timed exclusive 3rd party games or their content, Micro transactions, freemium model, and lastly digital content(dlc).

The stuff that I listed are normal these days, but weren't when they were new. It's all about how people view them.

i am talking about Xbox/MS comments. flip-flopping.

creates a muddy messaging

 

[MacReady13]

Were you in a dungeon?
Movies and shows at that time were shit. The difference is that now you can access all movies, compared to before. Which is why they feel like shit today.
Go watch any old movie and tell me that it's better than some of the movies today.

Acting and cinematic effect is much better these than before. Even low Budgeted movies have good cinematic scenes compared to before.

You MUST be kidding!?! Like seriously, are you talking normal? You mean to tell me there are better films out today than the original Star Wars trilogy? The Back to the Future trilogy? Terminator and T2?

And you think you can access ALL movies today? Where? When? HOW? I can PURCHASE most movies I want today from stores that sell blu ray discs.

And you think acting is better today? Is this due to streaming? And "good cinematic scenes"! What do you mean? My man, if you are going to argue films, come here with films today that are better than before streaming movies came out. I can guarantee you that you could not tell me 1 better film released on streaming that could touch The Godfather... and there is not 1 streaming TV show that touches The Sporanos or Breaking Bad... or The X Files or Twin Peaks.

 

[feynoob]

i am talking about Xbox/MS comments. flip-flopping.

creates a muddy messaging

Phil and Satya are still on point. Subscription has an advantage that it offers you large amount of library at set price, instead of buying it premium.
They are all in on streaming as that can reach potential audience that can't be reached due to console limitations (console hardware can't exceed 200m, certain markets are hard to reach). Streaming bypasses that. It's the future of gaming, whether consumers likes it or not.


This current take is from ID program guy who is tired of people narrative saying gamepass is bad for business and devs don't make enough money.
It's the normal early resistance for these type of business.

Both system can currently coexist. But in the future, one of them will be gone forever depending on consumers behaviors.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Phil and Satya are still on point. Subscription has an advantage that it offers you large amount of library at set price, instead of buying it premium.
They are all in on streaming as that can reach potential audience that can't be reached due to console limitations (console hardware can't exceed 200m, certain markets are hard to reach). Streaming bypasses that. It's the future of gaming, whether consumers likes it or not.


This current take is from ID program guy who is tired of people narrative saying gamepass is bad for business and devs don't make enough money.
It's the normal early resistance for these type of business.

Both system can currently coexist. But in the future, one of them will be gone forever depending on consumers behaviors.

Your explanation is exactly what I am talking about.

just messy. bad PR, poor messaging.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Phil and Satya are still on point. Subscription has an advantage that it offers you large amount of library at set price, instead of buying it premium.
They are all in on streaming as that can reach potential audience that can't be reached due to console limitations (console hardware can't exceed 200m, certain markets are hard to reach). Streaming bypasses that. It's the future of gaming, whether consumers likes it or not.


This current take is from ID program guy who is tired of people narrative saying gamepass is bad for business and devs don't make enough money.
It's the normal early resistance for these type of business.

Both system can currently coexist. But in the future, one of them will be gone forever depending on consumers behaviors.

It is great for the MS business and it can work for some publishers too but with consequences. Erosion of perceived game value WILL affect how games are developed the more and more it happens, but I guess we just need to wait and act “shocked” when it happens (and I do hope it does not, but precedents are there, see mobile gaming).

 

[mckmas8808]

Game Pass isn't disruptive. Microsoft doesn't expect Game Pass to go beyond 15% of its overall game revenue. So most gamers are still inclined to buy games even on Xbox. Microsoft has added a revenue stream with a subscription service. So has Sony. Don't see how any of it would be called disruptive.

It's changed how some gamers are approaching video game purchases so far.

 

[mckmas8808]

It is great for the MS business and it can work for some publishers too but with consequences. Erosion of perceived game value WILL affect how games are developed the more and more it happens, but I guess we just need to wait and act “shocked” when it happens (and I do hope it does not, but precedents are there, see mobile gaming).

Does anybody think that Starfield won't sell 10 million copies within its first year on the market? If it doesn't, that'll be a clear and obvious sign that game value has been crushed with the Xbox-branded games.

 

[feynoob]

You MUST be kidding!?! Like seriously, are you talking normal? You mean to tell me there are better films out today than the original Star Wars trilogy? The Back to the Future trilogy? Terminator and T2?

Nostalgia is hell of a drug. Original star wars movie is hilarious. It worked for their time, because that is what people liked it at that time. And now people are hailing it as a great movie, despite not making any sense.

Terminator concept is great. Back to future same, but silly.

It's great to you, because you are from that era.

And you think you can access ALL movies today? Where? When? HOW? I can PURCHASE most movies I want today from stores that sell blu ray discs.

How many movies can you buy?
I can sub to Netflix for 20$, and watch 30-60 movies that month. Same with other subscription services. That is around 360-720 movies a year.

If I have to watch these movies, I have to buy them without a subscription. Most people won't buy that much movies a year.

It's one thing to have the ability to buy them. But it's another that you have to buy them and watch them. That is what subscription service does for consumers.

And you think acting is better today? Is this due to streaming? And "good cinematic scenes"! What do you mean? My man, if you are going to argue films, come here with films today that are better than before streaming movies came out. I can guarantee you that you could not tell me 1 better film released on streaming that could touch The Godfather... and there is not 1 streaming TV show that touches The Sporanos or Breaking Bad... or The X Files or Twin Peaks.

Breaking bad is a Netflix show. Better call Saul, game of thrones, stranger things, narcos, the seven.
Most of these are from Netflix.
We can go with the list if you want to.

Acting is much better these days since its not relying on your big shots. Unknown guys like Tom Holland are appearing out of nowhere. That is subscription and cable TV's do these days.

Maybe admit that the industry is gaining more competition to produce better content these days.

 

[feynoob]

It is great for the MS business and it can work for some publishers too but with consequences. Erosion of perceived game value WILL affect how games are developed the more and more it happens, but I guess we just need to wait and act “shocked” when it happens (and I do hope it does not, but precedents are there, see mobile gaming).

Game value died when devs started to release bad releases day1 and fix it later model.

Micro transactions killed a lot of games values like complete content, which people used to get before.

What you are seeing are the effect of the industry shit practices and consumers having enough of the shit these companies do.

Look at EA and Ubisoft. Look at Rockstar gtav live service milking.

Gamepass is merely an effect of those practices.

 

[Topher]

Asobo is from from a small studio.They have 260 employees on just LinkedIn.A million sold is a disaster when you consider 30% cut and the high production it had.It definitely cost big.

Ok, but a good chunk of that is supporting MS Flight Simulator so the company was never in danger and the game sold well. Why don't we skip the hyperbole?

 

[feynoob]

Ok, but a good chunk of that is supporting MS Flight Simulator so they company was never in danger and the game sold well. Why don't we skip the hyperbole?

Guy is smoking something.
1m copies for a game like that is good.
FYI, the game was released on 17th October. That is 2 weeks sales according to this article. And that with gamepass.
https://www.vg247.com/a-plague-tale-requiem-passes-1-million-sales-devs-celebrate

guy needs to slow down on his weed consumption.

 

[THE DUCK]

Since PS Plus Premium/Extra, I rarely buy non-Sony games. So yes, it's disruptive.

But I assume you are playing third party games on PS plus, which means you are contributing revenue to 3rd party developers still. Depending on how much you play them = the return to the 3rd parties. (although some games will have been paid a flat fee instead, in which case they have still been paid regardless of what you played)

 

[feynoob]

But I assume you are playing third party games on PS plus, which means you are contributing revenue to 3rd party developers still. Depending on how much you play them = the return to the 3rd parties. (although some games will have been paid a flat fee instead, in which case they have still been paid regardless of what you played)

This is something people dont realize.
MS/Sony arent putting these games on gamepass/ps+premium for free. They are paying these developers to put their games on their service. Plus additional money (playtime, download numbers). They also get money from game sales too.

 

[DarkMage619]

It is great for the MS business and it can work for some publishers too but with consequences. Erosion of perceived game value WILL affect how games are developed the more and more it happens, but I guess we just need to wait and act “shocked” when it happens (and I do hope it does not, but precedents are there, see mobile gaming).

First off I thought most mobile games are free. Most console games are not and Game pass no matter how often people talk about dollar deals is also not free. Also you did not mention the unsustainable nature of big budget games that take longer and cost more to produce. How is that beneficial to consumers? How do expensive games blocking certain people out of the hobby benefit the industry? If gamers are not able to continue to pay more and more for these games that model won't work long term. It is weird to advocate for more expensive games in the name of 'perceived game value'.

At least with subscriptions as long as enough people are signed up, the individual success of a title means less and all sorts of games from smaller titles like Pentiment to bigger games like Starfield could be funded. Developers have also mentioned more creative freedom as well. There has been no evidence of game quality dropping based on subscription services nor has any consumers been hurt by the model. Games like Last of Us Part 1 on PC and Resident Evil 4 remake had bugs and issues and neither are part of a sub service.

 

[feynoob]

First off I thought most mobile games are free.

They arent free. They have the illusion of being free, but most content is locked behind a paywall.

 

[fermcr]

No they won't! They have so much money they can (and will continue) to lose money to try take a share of the gaming market away from Sony. This is a company willing to spend over 60 billion to purchase another company to keep game pass games ticking over. They are ruthless and will stop at next to nothing to try ruin the competition.

Isn't that what every company try to do?... aren't all major companies (including Sony) ruthless and will stop at next to nothing to try ruin the competition?
Just look at Sony with their 3rd party exclusive deals. Sony has been ruthless in the console business since the PS1, constantly trying to destroy the competition. Just because there's another company with more money, doesn't mean Sony are glorified saints... and yes, neither Microsoft are saints.

 

[ironmang]

It is great for the MS business and it can work for some publishers too but with consequences. Erosion of perceived game value WILL affect how games are developed the more and more it happens, but I guess we just need to wait and act “shocked” when it happens (and I do hope it does not, but precedents are there, see mobile gaming).

What does this mean? I see it brought up all the time as an argument against GP but I don't get it.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

What does this mean? I see it brought up all the time as an argument against GP but I don't get it.

why buy games if "free"?

 

[Mr Reasonable]

What does this mean? I see it brought up all the time as an argument against GP but I don't get it.

To be fair looking at other streaming services, particularly music, has changed how much people are prepared to pay for music. A single album used to cost more than a month of Spotify does now. In that sense, music has become devalued. Some people still buy albums, but the music industry and it's performers have pivoted away from selling music being their core business and now live performance, merchandise, perhaps brand endorsements are bigger parts of their income. Bands used to tour to promote album sales, now you might argue that they make an album to have a reason to tour again.


So in that sense, you could say that Gamepass style subscriptions could devalue the medium. But, despite Gamepass being widely recognized as the best of these services, and regularly referred to as the greatest deal in gaming, most Xbox players have not signed up. Most gamers buy their software.

So, at the moment, there's probably not much to fear.

I think, as I've said before, that the biggest insurance we have for games not being "ruined" by Gamepass is that other platforms exist where games most be purchased and Xbox continues to sell all games. If Xbox went Gamepass only, they'd lose audience. If all the games are structured so they can gouge players then players will go elsewhere.

So, I don't think there's much to worry about.

 

[ironmang]

To be fair looking at other streaming services, particularly music, has changed how much people are prepared to pay for music. A single album used to cost more than a month of Spotify does now. In that sense, music has become devalued. Some people still buy albums, but the music industry and it's performers have pivoted away from selling music being their core business and now live performance, merchandise, perhaps brand endorsements are bigger parts of their income. Bands used to tour to promote album sales, now you might argue that they make an album to have a reason to tour again.

The music industry seems to be doing great despite music streaming being popular for over a decade. The top artists are still making bank and smaller artists have a much greater chance of starting a fanbase than they ever have in the past. I'm pretty sure live performance was always their biggest money maker even before streaming. Albums sales primarily goes to the labels.

So in that sense, you could say that Gamepass style subscriptions could devalue the medium. But, despite Gamepass being widely recognized as the best of these services, and regularly referred to as the greatest deal in gaming, most Xbox players have not signed up. Most gamers buy their software.

So, at the moment, there's probably not much to fear.

I think, as I've said before, that the biggest insurance we have for games not being "ruined" by Gamepass is that other platforms exist where games most be purchased and Xbox continues to sell all games. If Xbox went Gamepass only, they'd lose audience. If all the games are structured so they can gouge players then players will go elsewhere.

So, I don't think there's much to worry about.

Let's say the GP number rises to something very high like 80% of Xbox owners, how would that damage the industry? Sales would dip but does that matter? I guess what I don't get is why a game's "value" matters if they're still getting paid either way.

 

[Panajev2001a]

The music industry seems to be doing great despite music streaming being popular for over a decade. The top artists are still making bank and smaller artists have a much greater chance of starting a fanbase than they ever have in the past. I'm pretty sure live performance was always their biggest money maker even before streaming. Albums sales primarily goes to the labels.

Let's say the GP number rises to something very high like 80% of Xbox owners, how would that damage the industry? Sales would dip but does that matter? I guess what I don't get is why a game's "value" matters if they're still getting paid either way.

Same goes for what DarkMage619 was saying…. Games still cost a LOT to produce, gamers demand AAAA quality graphics and 40-50 hours long games with little repeated content, devs and publishers still need to make a profit out of their games. We as consumers, while we enjoy the occasional GaaS and F2P games can see issues with both (we dream of subscription services delivering the great games we enjoyed for the past 15-20 years, launched straight on the service on day 1, but not having to pay for them just a small subscription fee… which is not sustainable if devs did not change their business mo del and the way they design games: the fee you pay would need to rise a LOT more, think American cable TV situation per month, and you would still have the issue of the middleman deciding who gets what and how and what games appear on the service essentially which must be music to PC gamers’ ears as an idea ).

GaaS games live and die by engagement and mostly only have a minimum of content developed for launch (instead of the full epic content they used to make) and only develop new intent based on the pre-launch and post launch engagement (aka why the SP additional content for Halo: Infinite and some multiplayer features never arrived post launch, they were never completed or started in earnest) and they are not best for all genres and game types (they are designed to make you stick with the game for a long time, constantly waiting for new content drops). The model also rewards/encourages episodic content drops, instead of a single big release because the subscription service’s goal is to keep people subbed for as long as possible.

F2P games are one area where mobile led the charge with game value erosion (people do not buy games, the amount of people that would spend more than $9.99 then more than $4.99… then… $0.99, etc… kept dropping and dropping). Games stop being made as something that, once you buy them, you can enjoy without constant gambling like dopamine optimised mechanics and manipulation and just focus on fun: the dev knows that getting you to play their game which still cost a fortune to make makes them no money so they need to focus on extracting as much money out of you once they got their hooks into You post download.
There are games with micro transactions now, there are GaaS games, but the console audience still generally buys their games and many games (see Nintendo’s own games, but lots of Sony and Capcom, WB with Harry Potter: Legacy, and many other publishers) are designed to let you enjoy these large epic experiences having fun not being “engaged“ and ready to pay more and more as you progress through the game, the game was designed to make money with the sale not to make most of its budget by exploiting their users/trying to coerce/pressure them to spend as they play which F2P games (or games that get a fraction of their budget from a subscription) must do to be profitable.

 

[reksveks]

I do like the fact that people point back to tv being much better in the 90 where those companies were still selling a subscription service but it was just a bundled one.

Re the point, GP has the potential to be disruptive but the change will be positive to some devs and negative to other deals and the size of the change is unknown.

 

[StealthGoblin]

You are doing apple to oranges comparison... "I wouldn't describe it as disruptive, because I don't think it is in the way that like Uber came in and got rid of all the taxis in that industry,"

The problem is that analogy is that that didn’t happen. There are plenty of taxis around.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

The music industry seems to be doing great despite music streaming being popular for over a decade. The top artists are still making bank and smaller artists have a much greater chance of starting a fanbase than they ever have in the past. I'm pretty sure live performance was always their biggest money maker even before streaming. Albums sales primarily goes to the labels.

Unfortunately that's all wrong, with the exception that a very small number of top artists are still making a lot of money.

Let's say the GP number rises to something very high like 80% of Xbox owners, how would that damage the industry? Sales would dip but does that matter? I guess what I don't get is why a game's "value" matters if they're still getting paid either way.

Well, nobody expects Gamepass to hit 80% but people who say that Gamepass will devalue games are arguing that gamers will currently pay $60/70 for a single title but will eventually refuse to pay anything but $15 a month to play all games.
In that sense, you could argue that the games have become worth less in the eyes of the consumer.

 

[Panajev2001a]

The problem is that analogy is that that didn’t happen. There are plenty of taxis around.

Almost as if governments stepped in to restrict the gig economy and disruptions… .

 

[Panajev2001a]

I do like the fact that people point back to tv being much better in the 90 where those companies were still selling a subscription service but it was just a bundled one.

Re the point, GP has the potential to be disruptive but the change will be positive to some devs and negative to other deals and the size of the change is unknown.

Interesting you talk about bundled TV subscription services (cable TV, which is what MS is pitching GamePass to be). Very expensive and with lots of ads .

 

[Mr Reasonable]

Interesting you talk about bundled TV subscription services (cable TV, which is what MS is pitching GamePass to be). Very expensive and with lots of ads .

It's always compared to Netflix, where there are no ads, not cable TV.

 

[reksveks]

Interesting you talk about bundled TV subscription services (cable TV, which is what MS is pitching GamePass to be). Very expensive and with lots of ads .

Comparison between Gamepass , Netflix or cable don't really work. Gamepass is much more closely aligned to something like Amazon Prime but I have already had this conversation.

What people compare GP to, does seem to change alot.

Rather irrelevant but I prefer the new streaming services cause I use them and can be much more flexible re my usage.

 

[ironmang]

Unfortunately that's all wrong, with the exception that a very small number of top artists are still making a lot of money.

Huh? The music industry is doing great. Smaller artists have reach that they didn't when they were forced to hock CDs for $5 outside of concert venues and that reach leads to revenue from digital music, youtube, concert tickets, merch, etc. Album sales split were always massively in favor of the labels and artists used new albums to promote tours, not the other way around.

Well, nobody expects Gamepass to hit 80% but people who say that Gamepass will devalue games are arguing that gamers will currently pay $60/70 for a single title but will eventually refuse to pay anything but $15 a month to play all games.
In that sense, you could argue that the games have become worth less in the eyes of the consumer.

There's a ton of very popular, high quality free to play shooters and that doesn't stop CoD from selling 30 million copies every couple years. Games are still going to sell if they're not on a sub service. I'm just having trouble seeing how the industry is negatively effected by sub services.

 

[Panajev2001a]

It's always compared to Netflix, where there are no ads, not cable TV.

For now… for now… noticed how a lot of their content is series vs movies though ?

 

[Mr Reasonable]

Huh? The music industry is doing great. Smaller artists have reach that they didn't when they were forced to hock CDs for $5 outside of concert venues and that reach leads to revenue from digital music, youtube, concert tickets, merch, etc. Album sales split were always massively in favor of the labels and artists used new albums to promote tours, not the other way around.

There's a ton of very popular, high quality free to play shooters and that doesn't stop CoD from selling 30 million copies every couple years. Games are still going to sell if they're not on a sub service. I'm just having trouble seeing how the industry is negatively effected by sub services.

Ok mate, I've kindly explained why people say that subscription services could devalue games, I didn't realise you were just looking for someone to argue with.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

For now… for now… noticed how a lot of their content is series vs movies though ?

...ok?

Sometimes a simile can be pushed to breaking point. I think you could also point out that quite a lot of Netflix content seems to feature Adam Sandler, doesn't mean he's going to be in the next Gears Of War (fingers crossed though)

 

[ironmang]

Ok mate, I've kindly explained why people say that subscription services could devalue games, I didn't realise you were just looking for someone to argue with.

I didn't realize that you didn't want any response. Thought it was a friendly discussion lol, my bad.

 

[DenchDeckard]

You MUST be kidding!?! Like seriously, are you talking normal? You mean to tell me there are better films out today than the original Star Wars trilogy? The Back to the Future trilogy? Terminator and T2?

And you think you can access ALL movies today? Where? When? HOW? I can PURCHASE most movies I want today from stores that sell blu ray discs.

And you think acting is better today? Is this due to streaming? And "good cinematic scenes"! What do you mean? My man, if you are going to argue films, come here with films today that are better than before streaming movies came out. I can guarantee you that you could not tell me 1 better film released on streaming that could touch The Godfather... and there is not 1 streaming TV show that touches The Sporanos or Breaking Bad... or The X Files or Twin Peaks.

I can't believe your saying this stuff when we have the last of us tv show...its currently sat at 98% on rotten tomatoes. It's pretty much perfect tv.

Jokes aside. I think sopranos, the wire etc were incredible too...but they were made to make you subscribe to cable or satellite TV. Exactly the same thing as streaming services just streaming services came along to disrupt how the content is delivered. There's no real difference.

Your content is fed through an Etherley cable...thats all.

And I would put shows like severance and succession up there as absolutely top tier entertainment. There is good stuff amongst the shit. Its not like every tv show back in the say was to the quality of the wire. There was tons of shit too.....its basically the same as it is now.

Your argument just doesn't fly with me, sorry.

Let's look at gaming now...this generation...

Sony who is the market leader and known for delivering top tier games. Their ps5 line up has consisted completely of remakes or remasters, sequels and all pretty much cross gen games. There's been no new ip outside of returnal ( amazing indie darling) and you are worried that content will get worse? We are pretty much at the bottom of the barrel for safe sequels or cross gen titles and remakes. I can't see how game pass can be a bad thing when we have games like immortality, pentiment and more being given a chance to succeed.

I'm all for seeing where this experiment goes.

 

[StealthGoblin]

Almost as if governments stepped in to restrict the gig economy and disruptions… .

It’s almost as if there are basic workers rights that need to be upheld so there isn’t a race to the bottom…

I don’t know a single Uber/Deliveroo worker that is happy with their lot. They feel like there is no other option and the only bonus being flexibility. Everything else is trash.

 

[Panajev2001a]

It’s almost as if there are basic workers rights that need to be upheld so there isn’t a race to the bottom…

I actually agree , race to the bottom can be problematic but there was also a very very strong complaint from Taxi drivers (the same one when they try to give out more licenses) whose livelihood depends on being able to sell their license off when they retire too (in many countries).

I don’t know a single Uber/Deliveroo worker that is happy with their lot. They feel like there is no other option and the only bonus being flexibility. Everything else is trash.

True, suspect the cure by politicians will be even worse for them.

 

[MacReady13]

Sony who is the market leader and known for delivering top tier games. Their ps5 line up has consisted completely of remakes or remasters, sequels and all pretty much cross gen games. There's been no new ip outside of returnal ( amazing indie darling) and you are worried that content will get worse? We are pretty much at the bottom of the barrel for safe sequels or cross gen titles and remakes. I can't see how game pass can be a bad thing when we have games like immortality, pentiment and more being given a chance to succeed.

No , I think gaming today is fucked and game pass will make it worse. I believe before patches and DLC gaming was at its purest and best. Once the 360/PS3 era arrived, that was the beginning of the end of classic gaming for me. Now it's all about ripping off the consumer and making sure you can patch a game until it is almost unrecognizable!
I remember the days when legendary Miyamoto said something along the lines of not releasing a game until it was complete... Those days are LONG gone. And we are worse off for it.