How do you think Microsoft's aggressive subsidising of Game Pass will effect the Industry?

[Fisty]

At best, it will be just a continuation of MS's old "come talk to us" thing where if you want to thrive on the platform you will need MS to put you on the service. With the focus on GP, it leaves little oxygen for indies that want to go with the traditional model of "make game, sell game to people" and everything becomes "doing it for the exposure" when you arent one of the big dogs.

At worst, third party games start being designed around the fact consumers dont pay an entry fee for their games and F2P-like models proliferate (possibly even to other platforms) as a result.

And all you have to do is look at the current streaming situation in film/tv to see where this ends up. Major services bidding for exclusive rights to franchises/games/pubs and major pubs simply breaking off and starting their own service and taking their games with them, fracturing libraries across multiple services. Eventually, it will be wayyyyy too expensive to license huge titles and these services will go back to focusing on their owned IP and content

 

[Mass Effect]

I'm not going to speculate on how game design will be affected by the rise of sub services, but I will tell what will inevitably happen once they become more mainstream.

As time goes on, more subscription services will start showing up. Something like Game Pass is a great deal now because it's basically on it's own right now outside of like two other services (EA/Origin Access and PSNow), but what happens when half the library is gone because the games are on other competing services now?

Much like Netflix vs. everyone else and Spotify vs. everyone else, we're going to get a situation where you're going to need like 5 different subscriptions to play the games you want or simply deal without. Every big publisher will most likely have their own --- EA and Ubisoft already do; Take Two is probably next, with more coming. Other big companies like Apple and Google are already joining the fray. Amazon, Nvidia, Steam, Epic might be there soon too.

And that's the other thing: the inevitable streaming subscription services are going to compete with the "traditional" ones as well I bet. I fully expect a future to where Borderlands 4 or whatever is subscription exclusive Epic Cloud Streaming or some shit, where it wouldn't show up on something like Game Pass for years.

So yeah, enjoy Game Pass or PSNow while you can, because you're in the honeymoon period now. It's going to get a lot more inconvenient in the coming years. Honestly, for me, once the fuckery starts, I'll probably pick one sub service and buy the rest of the games as normal because fuck juggling multiple subscription services. And if there's a game I want to play, but it's not on the sub service I'm subscribed to and I can't buy it traditionally? Oh well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Boy]

I could see this working for games that has a single player campaign along with a multiplayer.
Subscribe to play the campaign, but stay subscribed to play the online portion while you purchase things in-game via micro transactions. That in itself i can see making up for the $60 loss.

For games that don't have online, i expect it to work like free-to-play apps where you purchase things in game. In return you might start getting more half assed experiences which will hamper the games.

Or game campaigns could be split into smaller episodic content like chapters, in return shorter development times and keep people subscribed to the service to play them when they come out.

I dunno, i guess we'll see where they go with this thing. It's still too early to tell. I just hope it doesn't affect game designs in a negative way.

 

[Elephant]

They have to sell consoles to be present in the console market. Nintendo and sony are going to compete at some point with game pass, they're not allowing Microsoft to invade their platforms.

Click to shrink...

If PlayStation doesn't come out swinging with PSNow I can see the next console race being a lot tighter than it was this generation. Especially as I expect Xbox to have a huge focus on GamePass ready for the launch of their next console.

Of course, Sony would be pretty stupid not to challenge them from the very beginning of next gen with PSNow, and I don't think they're stupid.

I wouldn't expect anything like this from Nintendo unfortunately. They're currently happy in their own little bubble. They won't make a move until they absolutely HAVE to.

 

[Jaded Alyx]

I think it was, but it was limited to EA games only, which hampers its appeal.

Click to shrink...

Not on PC.

 

[AtomicShroom]

Investors love recurring revenue more than anything else in software businesses. That's how you get sky high valuations. I think the industry was going to trend this way whether Microsoft started it first or not.

Click to shrink...

This. They're hoping people stay subscribed to perpetuity. They want that yearly $120 out of your pockets and into theirs. For people who regularly consume more than $120 worth of games (factoring resell and used) per year, that's a pretty good deal. The thing is, most people don't. And they're hoping that these very casual buyers who might only normally buy one big blockbuster per year will end up being parted with more money than than they normally would, turned into sweet MS profit. They wouldn't be doing this if it wasn't more profitable when all is said and done, so someone is getting shortchanged somewhere.

Edit: Also it makes the perceived cost of entry much lower, which will likely attract many people, who in turn will fall prey to all the slimy in-game monetization tactics. It's all according to keikaku.

 

[TheXbox]

I worry about the future of feature-complete boxed products, and I see an even greater emphasis on in-game monetization in the near future. Ultimately, however, I think the GamePass model will expose more people to more types of games. As long as the games are still good, that's a net positive.

 

[deathsaber]

Its simple, they are basically trying to get this platform established and people hooked and "used' to the concept. Obviously $10 a month (and especially the $2 or $5 introductory prices a lot are paying) aren't enough to subsidize them letting people play their top new games for free day one. But the Xbox platform is a distant second place right now with Sony (maybe even 3rd if you consider Nintendo and its sales pace for Switch), and they need more people playing on the Xbox platform for than anything.

I think the their goal right now is to virtually give the service away and make it ultra attractive with titles like Gears 5 available at launch to get enough people on the service so its as widely adopted as something like Live or PS+ itself.

But the ultimate goal is they either slowly raise the price of Game Pass to bring in more revenue (they could easily ask $20 per month considering people are getting top new games when they launch and it would still be a good deal., or if they feel like the audience on the platform has grown is sufficient enough, eventually wean off the release of these big games from being day one available on Game Pass. Because I'm sure they want a whole lot more revenue from something like Gears 5 than the $2 a lot of players have likely invested right now to play it.

 

[Jiraiya]

I just see a bunch of people either giving gamepass too much credit for trends that were here before gamepass existed or creating scenarios that can't be argued against because it's made up and painted as an inevitably with NOTHING to back up the claim.

 

[Bradbatross]

Game Pass is the service I've been waiting for since I was a kid. I see it encouraging creative and unique experiences over cookie-cutter blockbusters.

 

[Brown Intruder]

I just see a bunch of people either giving gamepass too much credit for trends that were here before gamepass existed or creating scenarios that can't be argued against because it's made up and painted as an inevitably with NOTHING to back up the claim.

Click to shrink...

Can you give some examples please? I'm struggling to understand both of your points

 

[Bradbatross]

HAHAHAHA AHAHA HAHA

One of the best jokes i've seen in this forum in years.

Click to shrink...

Still waiting for the news that MS is parting ways with Playground.

 

[Pokemaniac]

Game Pass seems dangerously close to causing the same sorts of devaluation problems that mobile has. With predatory monetization already so widespread on consoles, that's just asking for trouble.

 

[Joe White]

Not every change is a good thing in the world and just because it may benefit you now doesn't mean it will further down the road.

Me personally as someone who actually likes to own their content physically this service isn't something I want to take off.

My predictions:

1) Launch the service at a too good to be true price luring folks over to try it and want it. This step is already happening.
2) Once the numbers have reached their goal they will likely increase the price (like Netflix and other service subscription providers do)
3) Now you're locked in to this system so you shrug and think an extra $5-$10 isn't much of a big deal when the price change occurs, all the while physical media will die out because they've hooked you in to their ecosystem and retailers and publishers bemoan the fact that physical sales are low and not worth the effort anymore.
4) Developers will want to make more money from their games given that it is all paid in via a subscription service now and will introduce a shed load more DLC, Season Passes and loot boxes to compensate for it.

Like I said I personally hate the subscription model, sure it has some short term gains but the longer term I just see it being a cancer on games we know here and now as developers/publishers will want to recoup the losses incurred by not selling their game at retail prices.

Click to shrink...

My experiences and predictions related on subscriptions seem much more positive, like:
0. GP offers fucking awesome user experience and content -> that will continue
1. less useless plastic on home and environment
2. more availability for games and entertainment -> bigger audiences, lower entry costs
3. less risks related to retail failures -> more freedom for development and innovation -> more new things -> better developer experience
4. no exclusivity, region based availability or lock to some limited physical hw

I can understand wanting to remain on proven things and owning something physical (like discs but not their contents), as well as having some fears related to changes and their possible effects... but hate? That seems kinda unhealthy as subscriptions have and will continue to have also positive effects to the industry.

 

[Cthulhu_Steev]

If monthly/yearly software sales start going down by a ~third because MS is taking so much money out of the market because of the Game Pass deal (which is great for consumers at the moment) but how will the market respond?

To me it's not clear cut, MS won't say how much GP is making, but it's surely taking game sales away from the traditional market which will affect growth severely. Will GP devalue games over time, will developers and publishers make as much money from GP residuals as traditional models?

 

[Fiery Phoenix]

Game like God of War will not be possible.
Narrative Single Player Games with 15-20 Hours playtime will cease to exist because they are not profitable anymore.

Click to shrink...

How come? Phil Spencer has stated that Game Pass is good for exactly the opposite of what you're thinking.

 

[Qwark]

I thought at first that it might negatively affect developers, but haven't multiple developers come out to say it's only helped them? I hope it's not a "race to the bottom" scenario like what we saw with mobile gaming, or splintering of services like we're seeing with Netflix now (which tbf, would probably be really good for developers). I don't know, it's still early, but I like what I'm seeing so far and it seems good for the industry. Though I'm sure the honeymoon phase will end eventually and the deal won't seem quite so sweet.

 

[Jiraiya]

Can you give some examples please? I'm struggling to understand both of your points

Click to shrink...

So you don't see any mtx talk or that games will be will be accessible only if you subscribe to a certain service?

 

[Deleted member 52823]

I think that next gen when MS gains more market share thanks to a better product, the value of Game Pass will decrease.

 

[Benny Del Toro]

it may be isolated, but there have been multiple reports saying the opposite ( if i remember ill find a link when i'm not on mobile)

Click to shrink...

The only reports I can remember are the ones related to Forza Horizon 4 (not sure if this was the exact game but I do remember that it was Forza) or maybe you're talking about indie/smaller games? But even then we don't really know if its sales were positively affected by being on Game Pass or that it was because Game Pass was still relatively new so its sales weren't negatively affected.

We have newer reports though that seems that it negatively affected physical sales of Gears 5 (in UK IIRC), but then again maybe it was offset by digital sales.

 

[Complicated]

Game like God of War will not be possible.
Narrative Single Player Games with 15-20 Hours playtime will cease to exist because they are not profitable anymore.

Click to shrink...

Do we have any idea if God of War was profitable? It's not like Sony needs their first party games to turn a huge profit if they're bringing in hardware sales that get them 30% on every other purchase on the console plus $60 a year for online.

 

[Brown Intruder]

So you don't see any mtx talk or that games will be will be accessible only if you subscribe to a certain service?

Click to shrink...

Ok I get what you are saying.

Only that mtxs have been around for years, and games exclusively available on a subscription service will only happen imo in a one console future or some other total monopoly.

These fears are way overblown

 

[OneBadMutha]

There is no evidence:
- of increased micro transactions due to GP
- Indies not being able to sell games
- more GAAS games

I can understand some skepticism but where's your evidence? Gears micro transactions and Bleeding Edge being Ninja Theories first game? Anything else? Right now the evidence is really weak.

 

[Deleted member 8860]

Apple Arcade is targeting the crowd that is purely in the Apple Ecosystem with Apple Devices that's the strength of Apple Arcade. Microsoft's service is likely going to be agnostic and run on any device.

So the Android/Windows Crowd.

Click to shrink...

Google's got Stadia and the Google Play subscription service both set to launch within the next couple of months. Microsoft is going to have a tough time expanding outside of existing Windows/Xbox gamers.

 

[jayspeed]

I love GP. I hope it continues to grow so MS can keep adding good 3rd party titles to their library of 1st party titles. Even if Sony/Nintendo offer a similar service in the future, they will still sell their games the traditional way too. Having choice is a good thing for consumers.

 

[Dinobot]

This, but gaming subs in five years.

 

[Canucked]

If publishers/developers find it profitable then they will follow along and MS' investment was worth it.

If publishers/developers find it MEGA profitable we will end up with a bunch of competitor game pass services and MS will have to invest more to differentiate.

If publishers/developers find profit not worth it, MS will have to invest more to get there.

 

[Nameless]

I'm curious to see what Game Pass is after the introductory phase. All 1st party games currently on or announced for the service were developed with old business model in mind -- we have no idea what MGS projects look like when developed specifically for GP. Also it's late gen, there's glut of software out there with more releasing everyday. It benefits devs to use GP as a marketing tool to help standout and build some buzz & word of mouth -- especially if MS is cutting a check. Again, how do things looks once output slows as development shifts to next gen, and competing companies start vying for content and/or hording their own stuff in greater numbers?

 

[Crayon]

Some aspects are like free to play. Games aspiring to go on a sub service will be looking to incorporate f2p practices to a greater or lesser degree.

Good games will continue to be made and show up subscriptions so there should still be something for everyone.

A new wave of "snobs" will be born when aaa pushes monetezation past another threshold. Those players who previously put up with monetization in their aaa games may change their tune as the games start to be designed to accomodate the new model. Of course, if you want to make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs. I'm talking about part of an enthusiast core writing off these games. There will be millions more flocking to the ever more gatcha'd and dumbed down games as they converge with mobile.

 

[2Blackcats]

If PlayStation doesn't come out swinging with PSNow I can see the next console race being a lot tighter than it was this generation. Especially as I expect Xbox to have a huge focus on GamePass ready for the launch of their next console.

Click to shrink...

*in the US

 

[Almagest]

A new wave of "snobs" will be born when aaa pushes monetezation past another threshold. Those players who previously put up with monetization in their aaa games may change their tune as the games start to be designed to accomodate the new model. Of course, if you want to make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs. I'm talking about part of an enthusiast core writing off these games. There will be millions more flocking to the ever more gatcha'd and dumbed down games as they converge with mobile.

Click to shrink...

 

[Jiraiya]

Ok I get what you are saying.

Only that mtxs have been around for years, and games exclusively available on a subscription service will only happen imo in a one console future or some other total monopoly.

These fears are way overblown

Click to shrink...

Agreed. It's just funny gamepass is the harbinger of all these ills all of a sudden.

 

[SaintBowWow]

This, but gaming subs in five years.

Click to shrink...

I'm going to repost something I said in another Game Pass thread about why I don't see the absurd fracturing off subscription services coming to the gaming space.

I was just thinking last night about how game subscription services would eventually fragment, similar to what we're seeing now with movie/tv streaming, and ultimately become a headache or just no longer cost effective. However I think a few factors in gaming will ultimately prevent that from happening to the same degree.

For one, gaming has always been an industry where a small number of companies (console manufacturers) act as gatekeepers to playing third party games, which allows them to wield a lot of power. As both the service provider and the content manufacturer, Microsoft is able to integrate Game Pass features into the console experience in a way that someone like EA can't. Additionally, Microsoft could just prevent competitor services from working on their devices and can lock online play behind a subscription to their service, meaning almost anyone who could subscribe to a competitor's service would likely already have a Game Pass subscription.

Finally, Microsoft's eventual goal is game streaming. Game Pass will eventually become a service that can be used across many devices and Microsoft has the infrastructure to support that. Does EA? Unlike movie streaming services that just need to be able to competently stream HD video, any game streaming service will have to be able to stream games just as well as the market leader, as a service with a killer library will still be unappealing if the games play like shit due to streaming issues.

So while I do think there will be serious competitors to Game Pass in the future, I think the market will only be able to support a few, similar to how it can only support 3 console manufacturers today, and that we likely won't see a scenario where there are 10 viable services like this that all have content or services worth subscribing for.

Click to shrink...

TL;DR - Gaming is already fractured via console manufacturers and I can't see the market supporting more viable subscription services as it can support different consoles today. These services are very expensive and difficult to run and most publishers don't have the library or the infrastructure to compete with someone like Microsoft.

 

[Luminish]

Aggressive subsidizing to jockey for market share seems to be the trend of the entire tech industry right now and I have no idea how it'll turn out.

 

[Deleted member 50658]

Yes obviously.... Just look at Netflix spending over $100m for multiple 10 episode per season series.

Completely impossible to fun $50 - $80m games on a subscription service.

/s

Click to shrink...

Netflix have 150 million + subscribers at 10$.

Game pass maybe have a couple of million at perhaps 5$ average.

 

[OneBadMutha]

Netflix have 150 million + subscribers at 10$.

Game pass maybe have a couple of million at perhaps 5$ average.

Click to shrink...

How many subscribers did Netflix have at this stage? Is streaming games viable yet? Did Netflix customers who engaged with the ecosystem buy movies separately through them?

 

[SaintBowWow]

Netflix have 150 million + subscribers at 10$.

Game pass maybe have a couple of million at perhaps 5$ average.

Click to shrink...

Game Pass is significantly newer than Netflix, isn't even at the phase where it's device agnostic and streaming focused, and is being run by one of the biggest companies in the world that can burn money for years until the subscription cost is raised to something they can profit from.

 

[melodiousmowl]

The only reports I can remember are the ones related to Forza Horizon 4 (not sure if this was the exact game but I do remember that it was Forza) or maybe you're talking about indie/smaller games? But even then we don't really know if its sales were positively affected by being on Game Pass or that it was because Game Pass was still relatively new so its sales weren't negatively affected.

We have newer reports though that seems that it negatively affected physical sales of Gears 5 (in UK IIRC), but then again maybe it was offset by digital sales.

Click to shrink...

https://www.thegamer.com/xbox-game-pass-indie-sales/

theres that and some others – i think this kind of thing is why indies are jumping on it with gusto

 

[Deleted member 364]

One thing's for certain, it's devaluing Microsoft's first party games. Who the hell is gonna pay $60 for a Gears 6 now knowing they can play it for $5–10 lol.

 

[ForgedByGeeks]

Why do people think games will have to be dumbed down and budgets cut for something like GamePass at $10/months? Can anyone here do math?

Let just look high level. If GamePass eventually reaches even 50 million subscribers, about 1/3 of Netflix, that is $6 Billion per year in revenue. If you take away CC charge fees and distribution costs, it's still likely at least $5 Billion / year.

That's enough to cover around 50 AAA game budgets per year.

Covering the cost of making a game like Gears5 or paying a 3rd party like Capcom the rumored $19m for DMC5 is nothing when you are talking numbers that big.

Sure they are not there yet, but that is why MS is so aggressively investing in the space. They likely see a future where GamePass is around those number or higher. Hell, even if they reach 10 Million subscribers, that is enough to fund development of a AAA title every month of the year for the service.

Sure, this will eventually canabalize retail sales, but that doesn't appear to be happening yet.

Even when it does eventually happen, the revenues from these subscription services should be more than sufficient to compensate.

 

[nekkid]

I feel like some people think $2 is the normal monthly cost for Game Pass Ultimate.

 

[Lant_War]

Why do people think games will have to be dumbed down and budgets cut for something like GamePass at $10/months? Can anyone here do math?

Let just look high level. If GamePass eventually reaches even 50 million subscribers, about 1/3 of Netflix, that is $6 Billion per year in revenue. If you take away CC charge fees and distribution costs, it's still likely at least $5 Billion / year.

That's enough to cover around 50 AAA game budgets per year.

Covering the cost of making a game like Gears5 or paying a 3rd party like Capcom the rumored $19m for DMC5 is nothing when you are talking numbers that big.

Sure they are not there yet, but that is why MS is so aggressively investing in the space. They likely see a future where GamePass is around those number or higher. Hell, even if they reach 10 Million subscribers, that is enough to fund development of a AAA title every month of the year for the service.

Sure, this will eventually canabalize retail sales, but that doesn't appear to be happening yet.

Even when it does eventually happen, the revenues from these subscription services should be more than sufficient to compensate.

Click to shrink...

Don't forget that contracts have to be renewed, though. MS already drops games every now and then but after some time they just couldn't possibly put so many of them at one time.

 

[DonaldKimball]

Still waiting for the news that MS is parting ways with Playground.

Click to shrink...

What

 

[LittleAlchemist]

There is no evidence:
- of increased micro transactions due to GP
- Indies not being able to sell games
- more GAAS games

I can understand some skepticism but where's your evidence? Gears micro transactions and Bleeding Edge being Ninja Theories first game? Anything else? Right now the evidence is really weak.

Click to shrink...

To be fair, it's not like most of the industry is developing their games around subscriptions right now. In fact, even if they were, the games releasing on Gamepass now were already released/in-development years ago. So of course there is going to be little evidence for skeptics, the industry isn't centered around subscriptions yet. Right now most third party developers just used Gamepass as a nice bonus because of Microsoft's pay offs to get games on the service.

It's also not uncommon that first party games get better/less egregious treatment than third party games in terms of consumer value. That's actually the case in most cases, because they want to sell boxes/services. Microsoft has had micro-transactions in their games for a long time, just because nothing has changed doesn't mean it can't possibly change.

 

[Deleted member 4761]

Game Pass is the best game service ever.
Hope more publishers follows MS.

 

[Windu]

My only fear is that games will become longer or padded out needlessly to keep you subscribed. Kinda like Netflix turning what should be a movie or miniseries into 5 seasons of a TV show. But so far so good.

Although I do admit Gears 5 felt like they added the open world stuff to pad out the campaign I don't think it was because of game pass. Seems like Microsoft wants their studios for the most part to create small in scope experiences but with polish. So they are saying and doing all the right things so far.

As for driving prices down? Eh prices were already down. There is so much competition in the market that I have more than enough to play and can wait years for games to be $10-$15 dollars. Game Pass is just allowing me to play some games earlier or even play some games that I never would have bought.

There will certainly be a tipping point with Game Pass though where the majority of Xbox Console owners are on the service. Right now they say Game Pass helps game sells, at some point it has to eat into them. But as long as developers are getting paid for their work behind the scenes, i don't care where the money comes from.

 

[Astra Planeta]

*in the US

Click to shrink...

They are already pretty even in the US.

 

[evilalien]

Do we have any idea if God of War was profitable? It's not like Sony needs their first party games to turn a huge profit if they're bringing in hardware sales that get them 30% on every other purchase on the console plus $60 a year for online.

Click to shrink...

It's sold over 10m copies. Of course it's profitable.

 

[M1chl]

If anything to gone by, if this going to mean, that there will be more AA games, I am all for it, this whole AAA bullshit gen, was probably the least enjoyable for me. Lack games like Control, Blair Witch, maybe Firewatch, Wreckfest etc. Where are this type of game, which has no chance on 60USD price tag a when they are prices less than 60, people automatically assume, they are shit. So Game Pass solve this at least from perspective of costumer. No t really much sleeper hits this gen.

 

[Dogui]

Why do people think games will have to be dumbed down and budgets cut for something like GamePass at $10/months? Can anyone here do math?

Let just look high level. If GamePass eventually reaches even 50 million subscribers, about 1/3 of Netflix, that is $6 Billion per year in revenue. If you take away CC charge fees and distribution costs, it's still likely at least $5 Billion / year.

That's enough to cover around 50 AAA game budgets per year.

Covering the cost of making a game like Gears5 or paying a 3rd party like Capcom the rumored $19m for DMC5 is nothing when you are talking numbers that big.

Sure they are not there yet, but that is why MS is so aggressively investing in the space. They likely see a future where GamePass is around those number or higher. Hell, even if they reach 10 Million subscribers, that is enough to fund development of a AAA title every month of the year for the service.

Sure, this will eventually canabalize retail sales, but that doesn't appear to be happening yet.

Even when it does eventually happen, the revenues from these subscription services should be more than sufficient to compensate.

Click to shrink...

I wonder if MS can sustain consistent subscribers like Netflix does tho. Like, a month that something big like Gears release could get at 50 million subscribers but be back at dunno, 10 millions the next month. (Not that a Gears game would move 40m people, it's just an example)

$120/year is kinda of a nice value to get access to hundreds of games, but we have to be aware that hardcore players would still buy $60 (or cheaper, in case of a indie/AA) games that won't be at game pass, and they will be playing/using their time on these bought games, making a consistent subscription to game pass to feel like losing money. Also, If someone want to play 3 specific games on game pass, it's easy to just subscribe for one month only and finish this 3 games.

Back then a lot of people subscribed consistently to Netflix because there was this notion that it had everything worth to watch and people wouldn't bother to subscribe to anything else. The trend is for this netflix numbers to decrease, because there's a lot of other relevant stuff against them.

With videogames, competition is easily stronger. Nintendo has its own big ecosystem, Sony has its own even bigger ecosystem, and maybe most players on pc would never subscribe to pc game pass (outside Gears 5 at $1 and big deals moments) due to the MS games nature of locking completely mods and stuff that makes pc gaming relevant.

PS+ and Xbox live can reach big consistent numbers because it's the only way to do online on the consoles. Maybe MS will do something like this to game pass as well?