-
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.
Phil Spencer: “The only concern I see from consumers about Game Pass is is it sustainable...Game Pass is doing very well for us and developers”
- Thread starter Proven
- Start date
20bn a year?
So half of the total gaming market development spending per year?
I agree it's still a bargain. Eventually gamepass ultimate (which I am a subscriber of) will be 20$ a month.
If Xbox wasn't being prepared to be written off by Nadella just a few short years ago, your point would stand, and when that trillion dollar company has a product that millions of people are invested in it's almost like concern would be a normal standpoint to take when you look at the Game Pass model, look past the PR and ask reasonable questions of it.
This isn't a concern because games that benefit from a MTX-heavy model would also benefit more from being free to play in order to widen the funnel.
That's for sure not the only concern raised by consumers and I'm pretty sure Phil knows that.
Once suscription services like Game pass and psnow become the major way to consume games on consoles, it will fundamentally change the design of games.
We have seen it time and time again. Publishers will always take advantage of the situation .
Even worse, Microsoft, sony and every platform with a suscription service will get a pricing monopoly on their platform, where they get to decide how much worth a game is on their service.
Indies will lose total control over pricing their games. They can't compete with the service so they have to put it on the service but ultimately it will be MS, etc. who will decide how much worth it is, not the developer and not the consumer.
And that's a bad future imo.
Once suscription services like Game pass and psnow become the major way to consume games on consoles, it will fundamentally change the design of games.
We have seen it time and time again. Publishers will always take advantage of the situation .
Even worse, Microsoft, sony and every platform with a suscription service will get a pricing monopoly on their platform, where they get to decide how much worth a game is on their service.
Indies will lose total control over pricing their games. They can't compete with the service so they have to put it on the service but ultimately it will be MS, etc. who will decide how much worth it is, not the developer and not the consumer.
And that's a bad future imo.
*looks at the first page of your post history*
sorry, i can't take your concern seriously.
I mean its pretty obvious what they're trying to achieve - get as many people hooked on Gamepass as possible, eat some huge losses for years in the meantime and then start the squeeze at both ends (consumer and devs) once people are basically reliant on it.
The way its going now it seems to be working so props to them and I for sure am happy to take advantage of the crazy offers whilst they eat the losses. 3 years free gamepass? Sure I'll take that
The way its going now it seems to be working so props to them and I for sure am happy to take advantage of the crazy offers whilst they eat the losses. 3 years free gamepass? Sure I'll take that
Saving up free trials when you can only ever use one. 4D Chess move that.
Redbox stopped renting out games GameStop is soon to go out of business the used games/ rent game models are dying with services like Gamepass/PS Now/Orgin Access/Uplay Plus are putting a end to that.
I never seen any threads talking about how the devs don't make any money from GameStop, Redbox or GameFly .
Gamepass is another stream of income for Developers and Publishers on the back end that they weren't getting before.
I see a lot of disingenuous replies in this thread I can see a thread talking about how Goose Game is coming to PS4 and how they are getting a free theme.
5 minutes later it's announced its going to gamepass those same individuals come into the other thread talking about how they hate gamepass. when it's really just they wish Sony could afford to Offer that kind of value to them.
Or they are concerned about Gamepass sustainability when they don't even own the system Or a single share of stock.
I never seen any threads talking about how the devs don't make any money from GameStop, Redbox or GameFly .
Gamepass is another stream of income for Developers and Publishers on the back end that they weren't getting before.
I see a lot of disingenuous replies in this thread I can see a thread talking about how Goose Game is coming to PS4 and how they are getting a free theme.
5 minutes later it's announced its going to gamepass those same individuals come into the other thread talking about how they hate gamepass. when it's really just they wish Sony could afford to Offer that kind of value to them.
Or they are concerned about Gamepass sustainability when they don't even own the system Or a single share of stock.
It was pointed out by several analysts at the time and discussed at length on this forum. Gears is a well known franchise and Game Pass Ultimate was discounted right as it launched. It was crazy not to play it via GPU basically.
I established three points: the game hasn't sold especially well, its price dropped rapidly, it isn't retaining players well.
Yes. Lots of people played it out of the gate, most having played very little for the privilege, and few carried on playing it thereafter.
I don't really understand your point? I'm using several metrics to show that Gears 5 hasn't been that successful, and I'm not using it to say anything whatsoever about how successful Game Pass is as a whole.
Ask yourselves this question:
If a console ended a 7 year generation with a "14:1" attach ratio, would that console be a huge success?
Then look at the full price of Gamepass, which is... the cost of 2 games per year, representative of that 14:1 attach ratio mentioned above.
People need to realize these services can be massively profitable as is, at the asking price. They aren't some loss leader meant to eventually squeeze consumers/developers out of profits once people are hooked. Right now MS is giving GP away at super low prices hoping people keep subscribing at full price, so there's some loss leading going on.. but the service itself is not designed that way.
Do the math; GamePass is MORE than sustainable at full price, it's a massive revenue success for everyone involved as long as it's mainstream enough to attract casuals along with the whales who are saving money from it.
edit: To be clear this post is a vast oversimplificaiton just meant to highlight the amount of revenue a $9.99 / month service can bring in relative to what the average console owner is spending per year. Attach ratio is imperfect, as is the comparison.
If a console ended a 7 year generation with a "14:1" attach ratio, would that console be a huge success?
Then look at the full price of Gamepass, which is... the cost of 2 games per year, representative of that 14:1 attach ratio mentioned above.
People need to realize these services can be massively profitable as is, at the asking price. They aren't some loss leader meant to eventually squeeze consumers/developers out of profits once people are hooked. Right now MS is giving GP away at super low prices hoping people keep subscribing at full price, so there's some loss leading going on.. but the service itself is not designed that way.
Do the math; GamePass is MORE than sustainable at full price, it's a massive revenue success for everyone involved as long as it's mainstream enough to attract casuals along with the whales who are saving money from it.
edit: To be clear this post is a vast oversimplificaiton just meant to highlight the amount of revenue a $9.99 / month service can bring in relative to what the average console owner is spending per year. Attach ratio is imperfect, as is the comparison.
Last edited:
Do you still buy games regularly? Or do you just play games on the service?
I don't care about the ecosystem, I can use multiple accounts/cards.
How was I rude? I'm sorry but it's been explained in this thread, and every other thread regarding this ad nauseum. It's the critics of GamePass that need the citations. Gears 5 has driven alot of signups to GamePass, likely more than any other game before it, and if you search the stories posted here and on the internet around it's release, you'll see where that hypothesis comes from.
Hmm interesting that you were able to find this without asking for receipts sarcastically LOL...
People are really acting like a public company is just TOTALLY fabricating all talk on GamePass because you aren't being giving some SKU equivalent that you wouldn't understand anyway. And...MS is also silencing ALL DEVS from saying anything negative 😂
The consumers or developers? In this hypothetical I think it would be incredible for both. Lots of money for Devs and lots of great quality games. Maybe Sony might invest more, nintendo, etc. Who knows. Having said - it's a very implausible hypo.
PS Plus became a mandatory subscription like Live Gold. It's not really comparable. Unless they get rid of Gold and then make Game Pass mandatory to play online.
I agree, but for games like Gears 5 that cost full price it feels like they anticipated lower sales for more Game Pass users and increased the price of cosmetics as a result.
But i'm sure there will be major 1st party games that don't use MTX in the future.
I think your post nails it. How many people will continue to subscribe to it after their promotions at $1 end? Although I know the value is amazing, I won't be paying $15 a month on top of the up front costs of buying the console and or making a PC to play the service on - especially when I play the games I want, which at times aren't on the service. I know the value is great, but with all the competing subscription services in my life, it's starting to take a toll. Maybe my mind will change come 2021, when the promo ends.
I'm sure you've never ever expressed concern - founded or otherwise - for a million/billion/trillion dollar company. I'm positive. Probably nobody in this thread not acting concerned ever has. This is a unique trait to those in this thread asking hard questions about an Xbox service. There's literally nothing wrong with the first page of my post history unless you're adverse to discussion, so let's not go there. I don't think anyone out there hates on GP as a service - but ask some questions about its long term viability, and suddenly the ones who feel threatened for some strange reason try to discredit others for doing so.
I'm not concerned. I think GP is great value right now as I haven't subbed for full price yet. My sub expires in February and I dont intend to renew unless i get another month for a quid or what not. If they can eat a loss for the last year they can keep eating or I just wont renew.
LEGO VIP (UK) had free 14 day trial codes - you applied one - signed up to recurrent billing for a free extra month - turned it off then added another 14 day trial code........rinsed and repeat = 3 years free gamepass ultimate. This was done by literally thousands of people in the UK and is not the first such case. I mean its cheap regardless but there are multiple instances like this where its being literally given away or close enough.
I have no doubt they are eating an absolute TON of money on it right now and will do so for probably a few years. When Phil says its doing well it is not in regard to their bottom line
You claimed that Gears 5 is one of Microsoft's most profitable games of all time. You are unwilling to actually give any evidence to support this claim (unsurprising as you'll find it incredibly hard). So let me lay it out for you again.
Gears 5 did not sell well. It is nowhere near one of Microsoft's best selling games.
Gears 5 will struggle to monetise strongly because it has a dwindling player base.
Gears 5 definitely lead to a lot of Game Pass subscriptions but they were extremely heavily discounted
If you think this paints a pretty picture for games like Gears 5 (high budget, moderate quality) on subscription services you're seriously mistaken. More over, while a lot of people do make extremely repetitious points on this forum about Game Pass, Game Pass does not defy economic gravity and, whatever the fanatics here think, Game Pass will have downsides.
Due to various deals I have gamepass well into 2023? I believe.
For that reasons alone I will be buying the new xbox regardless of price and power. Phil knows how to market and lock in a consumer base.
He is a genius. He figured out a way to establish a plan to retain and gain customers for their next console. No other manufacturer has ever done that this well. Next gen for a lot of people is potentially a reset. There are a lot of people that jump ship if the competition is better.
For that reasons alone I will be buying the new xbox regardless of price and power. Phil knows how to market and lock in a consumer base.
He is a genius. He figured out a way to establish a plan to retain and gain customers for their next console. No other manufacturer has ever done that this well. Next gen for a lot of people is potentially a reset. There are a lot of people that jump ship if the competition is better.
gamepass is great on xbox
on pc it's merely good, because it doesn't have the same library (e.g. untitled goose game coming to console but not pc, probably due to epic exclusivity deal), and offers the typically-inferior and locked down windows store versions of games. but on pc it's just $5 a month (but for how much longer?)
on pc it's merely good, because it doesn't have the same library (e.g. untitled goose game coming to console but not pc, probably due to epic exclusivity deal), and offers the typically-inferior and locked down windows store versions of games. but on pc it's just $5 a month (but for how much longer?)
This is a really good point I feel that some people overlook - I actually paid like 3$ in Forza Horizon 4 to buy my IRL car (2016+ Honda Civics) as it was available as DLC. I wouldn't have even played the game otherwise.
That has little to do with getting few games at the beginning of gen. It's easy to pick up games when the market is saturated and prices drop fast. Aggression is irrelevant when only a handful of games are releasing.
If anything what your saying makes no sense, because they're practically giving gamepass away, which makes it an even bigger risk to publishers, without MS paying hand over fist.
Thanks Phil for clarifying again, not that i was bothered about it. Game Pass has been incredible..best thing to happen this gen imo.
Considering every service ever, (other than government services that your taxes go towards), is optional, I don't see that being a concern. Now, if the government were to mandate a Game Pass tax that everyone had to pay into, I'd agree, that would be pretty heavy handed and probably not in everyone's best interest.
First off, I said it is likely that it is the most profitable (we won't know for sure until quarterly or yearly numbers come out). You also ignored the whole rest of my post where I mentioned how games like this and The Outer Worlds bring in customers that also use the service beyond Gears. This is why your argument is flawed, but also because:
- We don't know how Gears sold exactly, and I never said it was the best selling or said anything about it's sales, besides the fact that it managed #7 on the NPD in a month where GamePass could be had for one dollar. Keeping in mind that the best selling XB1 game is Halo 5 that sold around 5 million.
- What is there to "monetize"? It's not Fortnite. Also, the player base doesn't reflect how many people still have GamePass.
- Even if GamePass was $1/month, let's say the 3 million in player base where all GamePass...that's still 3 million in revenue that only required costs to keep the servers on. Sub services are about bringing users into an entire ecosystem by lowering barriers to introducing new products.
- You are right, GamePass doesn't defy "economic gravity"...which is why it's doing great just like every other entertainment sub service has.
- I don't see any GamePass fanatics, and no one said that GamePass doesn't have downsides...it's just not regarding the revenue it is bring in. Unless you think Microsoft is outright lying on its financials and when making public financial statements.
Yup...perfectly explained again and ignored by people because of some fan bias.
Last edited:
Not if you got that 5 cents/day price error..... which turns to about 19 dollars a year for game pass ultimate
Yup; boils down to how many people are willing to pay full price, and who those people are.
If nothing but people who were buying tons of games anyways continue to subscribe, it probably won't work out. If it's a healthy mix of people who were buying tons of games and people who weren't, it probably will will work out.
And hopefully people who weren't spending $120 a year previously but are now, are also playing more games. That's the other thing about stuff like GamePass, it's a great value, it's not some "Math Trick" to try to profit (like something like MoviePass was), it legitimately is a nice way for any gamer casual / hardcore or not to play some games.
Yep.
Yep.
No great shock to see another gaslighting message from salesman Phil on this topic.
This doesn't make any sense.
In one year MS has to pay how much to every dev in every title they publish on GP? An amount that doesn't exist in the traditional model.
The comparison using revenue only as a metric to gauge sustainability it's just crazy.
I said this before and I will say it again : anyone trying to judge GP sustainability at this point it's just picking sides.
MS is playing a long term strategy and they can afford it so people should stop with the concern trolling, period.
Whether their strategy will work out, will be sustainable, will change costumers habits on a positive or negative , will be positive or negative for devs in the long run or whatever can only be discussed when we start having some relevant data about it and in a few years when we start to know see GPs impact into games, gamers habits and devs results.
Well as long as MS is subsidizing Gamepass, could care less if they make or lose money. One way to Quiet the retractors, of Gamepass is making money is release receipts. Until then, GP is just a subsidized service for all gamers to have fun until theu decide to increase the price or GAAS it.
There is absolutely nothing crazy about it and nothing you said is any sort of argument against my Math.
The answer to your question though: MS would have to pay way less than they'd make off of GamePass to those publishers. 3rd parties aren't putting their guaranteed 10 million+ sellers on GamePass day one. They are putting older games on it, or newer more low-profile games. At full price MS can EASILY pay these publishers and have a healthy profit.
My one big hope is that MS doesn't roll Game Pass into Xbox Live Gold and make it mandatory for online gaming next gen. As someone who primarily buys his games physically (so I can, y'know, actually own my games), this would really hurt MS's relation with retailers.
Unfortunately, since they probably will (it's getting harder and harder to buy an Xbox Live Gold subscription without GamePass attached to it), well...
Unfortunately, since they probably will (it's getting harder and harder to buy an Xbox Live Gold subscription without GamePass attached to it), well...