There's an interesting piece about the viability and sustainability of GP over at Eurogamer. Well worth a read.
Is Xbox Game Pass too good to be true?
Is Xbox Game Pass too good to be true?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
EUROGAMER | Is Xbox Game Pass too good to be true?
- Thread starter terminaljeremy
- Start date
To me gamepass is the best thing that has happened in gaming in the last 10 years, outside of the rise of online games.
I took away the the only barrier in buying games, I buy no other media, why should gaming be different? I am no longer buying into ecosystems that don't fully support subscrition services, and publishers that dont release their games day 1 on said service.
It's also good for the enviroment, no more shipping plastic discs around the globe etc.
I took away the the only barrier in buying games, I buy no other media, why should gaming be different? I am no longer buying into ecosystems that don't fully support subscrition services, and publishers that dont release their games day 1 on said service.
It's also good for the enviroment, no more shipping plastic discs around the globe etc.
People really need to stop worrying about the viability of Gamepass and either just enjoy it or ignore it. Only time will tell how well it does.
one company has near infinite money to burn and the other doesn't.
User Banned (3 Days) - drive-by posting, platform wars
Do the people writing these dumbass articles have any proof or indication that something like Game Pass is unsustainable or are they just writing these for the clicks? Saying "Oh hey it might be unsustainable based on no evidence at all" seems silly to me.
The catch is that you don't own the games and they can be removed from the service at some point (except first party). It's not rocket science.
Gamepass is a little too good to be true but who cares since looking at it as a skeptic does nothing.
It's been around for 3 and a half years and keeps getting better and better. The future of the service is brighter than ever and as someone who is subbed for the coming years it is very exciting.
I'll let the trillion dollar company decide its sustainability, in the mean time I'll play a bunch of games for cheap.
This was a really good lengthy read.
Gamepass as it is now is a win for Xbox, developers and consumers. It's nice to see that the Gamepass money has been helping smaller publishers and developers.
I'll let the trillion dollar company decide its sustainability, in the mean time I'll play a bunch of games for cheap.
This was a really good lengthy read.
Gamepass as it is now is a win for Xbox, developers and consumers. It's nice to see that the Gamepass money has been helping smaller publishers and developers.
Last edited:
I have been questioning the financial viability of Game Pass for a while. It can't be making enough to offset every publisher/developer's costs or revenue they'd have gained from not being on the service, especially when big titles are coming day and date.
It's something I definitely question the long-term viability of it as more and more stuff get added.
It's a fantastic concept and great value for the consumer, but the maths just doesn't add up for me. I guess the only way it works is due to Microsoft's huge Scrooge McDuck-style money pit
This echoed basically everything I've heard from Actual Developers about Game Pass: at least for now? It's beneficial for all involved. I'm friends with a guy who had his game put on Game Pass, and while he wouldn't go into detail for obvious reasons, he was clearly happy with the arrangement, and he's a pretty small developer in the space. I think some healthy skepticism is valid (many of the points raised by Martin Scorcese about the transformation of films from art to just content to fill out a platform catalog definitely have the chance to apply here!), but a lot of the talk around Game Pass feels like concern trolling at best.
That's not what's happening. Sony thinks they can make more money selling their exclusives while MS doesn't quite have the user base to make the same revenue on their games so they have opted for the subscriptions instead. Both strategies work from a business perspective with the exclusive route Sony takes being high risk, high reward.
I've skimmed through it and it's a boring compilation of what some other people in the industry have already said about it, plus wrong data (Microsoft's gaming revenue in FY2020 ending June 2020 was around 12 billion, not 9.6).
pretty dumb article, seems like concern for concern's sake.
people need to stop worrying about the sustainability of a service from a trillion dollar company. developers are well compensated (and have other means to sell their games if they're not happy), gamers are happy, and microsoft seems to be invested in game pass for the long term. could it one day prove to be unprofitable and shut down? sure. but that's true for anything.
people need to stop worrying about the sustainability of a service from a trillion dollar company. developers are well compensated (and have other means to sell their games if they're not happy), gamers are happy, and microsoft seems to be invested in game pass for the long term. could it one day prove to be unprofitable and shut down? sure. but that's true for anything.
Which really is such a minor catch IMO. They even give you a discount if you want to buy something before it leaves the service, and they tell you if something is leaving soon. I never got this argument, and I'm over "ownership" as a holy grail. If I have played a game for 30 hours thanks to Game Pass, removing the game from the service won't nullify this experience I've had. And if I really, really, really want a plastic box, I can still get one at any point.
It is or will be viable, otherwise no company (specially a trillion dollar one) would invest money on it.
what i would like to know, and i know they are not going to reveal this, is the duration people subscribe to game pass for.
do people subscribe to gamepass year round? or only for a month or a few months at a time, spiking around the time of some hot new release on the service? does it face the same issues as streaming serivces? https://www.latimes.com/entertainme...aming-services-churn-hollywood-netflix-disney
it's obvious, and corroborated by the data (40% more games played by game pass subscribers, and 20% more time spent gaming than nonmembers) that people with gamepass simply...play more games.
do people subscribe to gamepass year round? or only for a month or a few months at a time, spiking around the time of some hot new release on the service? does it face the same issues as streaming serivces? https://www.latimes.com/entertainme...aming-services-churn-hollywood-netflix-disney
it's obvious, and corroborated by the data (40% more games played by game pass subscribers, and 20% more time spent gaming than nonmembers) that people with gamepass simply...play more games.
That they're saying it's unsustainable based on no evidence at all? Yes. They're not saying it's unsustainable.
OP
OP
Holy cow, some of the posts here are a bit disappointing. A few people already moaning that it's concern trolling instead of journalism but clearly the article is about putting that specific concern trolling to bed, with facts. Try reading it, maybe?
I didn't say they said it's unsustainable, only that it might be. Read my first comment again.
Interesting article, it seems like sustainability isn't the right word, as costs are covered. The doubt would be if, given enough Xboxes are sold (and they should, the XsX is an amazing machine) MS would find it more profitable going to a more classic approach.
Last 12 months when they've doubled GP subscriptions are impossible to track on their financial results, at least for what they've shown. But he's right on saying that such companies can tolerate endless losses if their goals aren't immediately tied to profitability. Where I am not convinced, is by those saying the shift to a subscription model would have no influence on creation compared to a retail one.
Last edited:
Seriously, the article is a completely earnest attempt to answer, and I'd even go as far to say allay, the concerns some people hold in that regard. Bulls charging at imaginary red flags.
Your read is that the article is one made in bad faith, it isn't. Read it properly or stop commenting on it. I'm sorry, but when your opening gambit is that the article is made in bad faith and concern trolling about it being solely to get clicks and then you admit you straight up haven't read it earnestly, I couldn't care less about this weasel-wording.
It was clear what you were trying to imply about the text and from that it's clear you didn't actually read it properly, which you yourself admit.
For me it's great as a demo service, i can test games that look interesting and then buy them on PlayStation to have everything in one library. Additionally i can try out some Xbox exclusives i never played because i never had a 360 and One.
People who are concerned for the sustainability and people who call it "best deal in gaming" are both missing the point of a subscription service. Many subscription services trick people into thinking they're great deals because the monthly cost is low compared to buying a game. But think a couple of months ahead. Those monthly costs will add up and eventually you find that you've spent quite a lot.
The end goal for Microsoft is that they're going to get $180/year from every user (you need Ultimate to play the games online). That is far more than the average player spends on their console.
The one thing Microsoft does not want you to do (and the one thing that actually makes Game Pass a good deal) is that you spend $10 to play a game for a month instead of $60, and then cancel the service immediately.
The end goal for Microsoft is that they're going to get $180/year from every user (you need Ultimate to play the games online). That is far more than the average player spends on their console.
The one thing Microsoft does not want you to do (and the one thing that actually makes Game Pass a good deal) is that you spend $10 to play a game for a month instead of $60, and then cancel the service immediately.
To me if MS say it's viable then that's enough for me. I suspect they have far more data, knowledge and financial understanding of the figures to know whether it's viable than anyone outside of Redmond.
MS may be taking the hit financially now but if they can scale up to 50-100m subs that will put them in a much better position to make it profitable as the costs don't scale up at the same rate. Plus as generations go on and the infrstructure is in place think of the money they'll save on developing, building and shipping consoles when you end up with GPU built into TV's or as an app on the likes of Roku & Firestick etc. On top of that you also don't have to bother with high street retailers taking a cut of every game sold.
At this point, I've seen no serious reason to suggest that they won't be able to make a go of it only speculation as to why it could fail.
MS may be taking the hit financially now but if they can scale up to 50-100m subs that will put them in a much better position to make it profitable as the costs don't scale up at the same rate. Plus as generations go on and the infrstructure is in place think of the money they'll save on developing, building and shipping consoles when you end up with GPU built into TV's or as an app on the likes of Roku & Firestick etc. On top of that you also don't have to bother with high street retailers taking a cut of every game sold.
At this point, I've seen no serious reason to suggest that they won't be able to make a go of it only speculation as to why it could fail.
I dont think it makes sense to shutdown this kind of discussions when it comes to GamePass and its viability. Yeah MS can take the hit because they have billions to burn and use it to push other agendas that benefit the overall company - thats not the case for other companies. So when you have people questioning other plattform holders, who actually need to turn profits just from games, to apply a similar system you always have to argue that just because MS can justify it the case might not be the same for everyone else.
People who question GamePass arent worried about MS, but about the GP system applied on the broader market and its sustainability. As said its fair to discuss especially if there are open questions.
MS is a unique situation with GP, same way Nintendo is maybe with the Switch as a hybrid plattform - what work for one company cant be 1:1 applied on everyone else. So if people understand how GP works and can be justified for MS, they might start to realize while the rest of the industry likely wont be offering anything on that level anytime soon.
That's a fine criticism and I don't really care to investigate the specific numbers because the exact magnitude is fairly irrelevant to the overall article, but it's pretty obvious that wasn't the linchpin of what you were talking about.
Sorry for singling you out, but as a media professional, this kind of stuff sticks in my craw, there's plenty of people in here making worse judgements on less, you were just the one quoted me.
As the person who used the term concern trolling, I feel it's important to clarify that I think the article was pretty good and was not using it in reference to the reporter in question lol.
lol yeah, the article actually explains how it's sustainable in the long run. But with title like this, Era immediately goes into defence mode.
Big companies invest in initiatives that will lose money all the time. Microsoft as a company is a huge fan of the approach of trying to starve out its competitors via loss leading initiatives with the goal of not initially making money, but costing competitors more. They plan to start making money only when the competition is effectively wiped out*. They've been doing it for decades, and I see no reason to assume they're doing anything different now.
*Important to note that the competition in this case isn't only Sony/Nintendo, maybe not even primarily, but also Google/Amazon.
I mean, to play devil's advocate, it's not entirely there fault to make those assumptions given the state of the media, but it's a pretty good article, y'know, regardless of your individual view.
OP
OP
sorry that was just a general comment, I certainly wasn't singling you out in particular and sorry if you felt that was the case
Funny enough. The person who created this meme still posts on this forum.
Maybe the question should be: is Microsoft Rewards too good to be true, when users are making Game Pass pay for itself with barely only Bing searches?
That, honestly, concerns me just a bit. But I think MS will just eventually cut the rewards themselves, increase the prices (in points) of redeemed goodies and increase the price of Game Pass.
Game Pass in itself should be good if every user payed the full monthly price, I guess, even if it ends up affecting game development for the worse in the long run (which I honestly doubt, but there's people who is self convinced of that).
That, honestly, concerns me just a bit. But I think MS will just eventually cut the rewards themselves, increase the prices (in points) of redeemed goodies and increase the price of Game Pass.
Game Pass in itself should be good if every user payed the full monthly price, I guess, even if it ends up affecting game development for the worse in the long run (which I honestly doubt, but there's people who is self convinced of that).
I'm on it. The mix of clickbaity title + wrong financial data made me think this was one of those articles and for that I apologize.