-
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.
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
Don't you think that might be because people don't care about owning psychical crap and would rather stream what they want to watch?
I mostly worry about how it might affect game design if games are primarily subscription based. Will it lead to more dlc/slow "episodic" releases. And what that means for story focused single player games.
But from a value perspective this is certainly a good deal for customers so far and I'm not surprised if it is also a good deal for MS.
And streaming services like Netflix still release whole seasons of series all at once even if it made financial sense to not do that. So maybe nothing to worry about.
But from a value perspective this is certainly a good deal for customers so far and I'm not surprised if it is also a good deal for MS.
And streaming services like Netflix still release whole seasons of series all at once even if it made financial sense to not do that. So maybe nothing to worry about.
You're not getting numbers. So what's the options, detail every thread for the next 5 years like has happened with the last 2? Or move the fuck on.
Yes? What would lead you to believe I don't think that?
but because of this, they are less willing to pay more for movies individually, thus movies budgets are affected. Either budgets get smaller, or they get funding from a streaming service, or they use stuff like product placement to fund it, etc.
they will care about owning physical crap when their favorite content disappears due to licensing issues, servers being taken offline, etc
There has been a massive unprecedented rise on spending in content though. Content creators have way more avenues to make money than ever.
Where is the evidence of movie budgets being effected because streaming movies is a thing? I don't think there has been any conclusion as a result. There's still big blockbuster movies and still indie, and still movies in between. Movie industry is just fine. People still go to the movies despite Netflix.
Note: I'm not really asking for proof...but there's no indication of what you saying is the truth. Also, product placement has been in movies WAY before streaming services...James Bond and <insert car> anyone?
I'm not saying I agree with the concern, but the idea is that Microsoft won't keep offering a service that doesn't make them enough money. That's what people are worried about. I don't understand how so many people don't seem to get that. People don't give a shit about how much cash Microsoft has - they just don't want them to stop offering Game Pass.
That said, it seems like Gamepass IS making them lots of money. Which is awesome because it's an amazing service and I don't want them to ever stop offering first party games on Day 1.
People are concerned that microsoft might stop offering gamepass?
I dont feel like that is the concern I've witnessed at all.
You don't think so? Maybe I'm giving people the benefit of the doubt. But I have definitely seen SOME concern that the service will lose its quality (no more First Party games on Day 1, fewer big third party games) if MS isn't making enough money. I think that would be a perfectly reasonable concern if the evidence weren't indicating that Game Pass actually IS making money.
Every
You're conflating different things here. Your concerns and theoretical example is about devaluing one form of distribution in favor of another. Movie theaters and DVDs get replaced by cheap big screen TVs and Netflix but the creatives in the industry and their content are not devalued.
The gaming equivalent is consumers moving from physical methods of distribution. The value of games isn't determined by the value of a gaming disc. Its determined by the values of the studios and their IPs....which are all going up. Studios and their IPs will continue to increase in value considerably as they become more accessible and recognized worldwide. Subscriptions and streaming will increase the accessibility and recognizatuon of IPs and developers which means Game Pass + Xcloud will increase the value of gaming. The decreasing value of physical discs will be accelerated.
Theres a real discussion to be had. Renting vs owning. Physical vs virtual. Analyst projections, the growing pool of competition, the purchasing of studios and yearly revenue trends show that gaming, as it relates to actual studios, IPs and content is gaining value faster than ever before.
You're conflating different things here. Your concerns and theoretical example is about devaluing one form of distribution in favor of another. Movie theaters and DVDs get replaced by cheap big screen TVs and Netflix but the creatives in the industry and their content are not devalued.
The gaming equivalent is consumers moving from physical methods of distribution. The value of games isn't determined by the value of a gaming disc. Its determined by the values of the studios and their IPs....which are all going up. Studios and their IPs will continue to increase in value considerably as they become more accessible and recognized worldwide. Subscriptions and streaming will increase the accessibility and recognizatuon of IPs and developers which means Game Pass + Xcloud will increase the value of gaming. The decreasing value of physical discs will be accelerated.
Theres a real discussion to be had. Renting vs owning. Physical vs virtual. Analyst projections, the growing pool of competition, the purchasing of studios and yearly revenue trends show that gaming, as it relates to actual studios, IPs and content is gaining value faster than ever before.
And if the quality goes down then people stop playing no harm no foul.
the real question is if EA and Ubisoft are going to be ok! We need to know the numbers for their sub services to verify and tell them if they are making healthy business decisions! :O
I don't get what you mean. People can of course stop paying, but the whole point is that particular outcome is not desirable. We don't want the service to be stripped back to the point that not paying is considered a good move. The goal/desire is for the service to continue and be strong.
That's a pretty baseless and far out there concern. If you are not subscribing because of that concern then why wouldn't you be subscribing to ensure it stays successful? It's like saying, "I want this movie to succeed at the box office because I like it, but I'm not going to bother seeing it in theaters cause reasons".
Microsoft has a better track record supporting online gaming services than any of the competition anyway.
Exactly. Subscribe and enjoy the service. And like most things, if it unfortunately starts to suck then like most things, you stop paying and move on. No harm.
It's almost as if Microsoft has an incentive to keep making the service attractive to customers.
Netflix is 12 billion in debt and that hasn't stop them releasing all of The Witcher season 1 episodes and all the other crappy/mediocre/brilliant high budget shows and movies. So I think Game Pass is fine.
No one has even hinted at episodic games for Game Pass have they? After three years. Why worry about it?
And the only game announced for next gen outside of Halo is Hellblade 2 which is likely SP only. The Intiative was created to make a single player "AAAA" game (we'll see). Ninja Tneory is making one. Obsidian will surely be working on Outer Worlds two. MS has only two MP-only IP no? Sea of Thieves and Forza Horizon? And the latter you can play alone pretty easily if you like.
Doesn't seem a pressing concern.
I've found myself not buying from amazon due to some high prices and other reasons I'll mention shortly. Good thing was there's plenty of other outlets still. I've bought a wide variety of items and I'm actually surprised just how shitty amazon uk is now. So much crap on there from third parties and amazon's own stock is quite sparse and other items not updated with newer product lines.
We really have no idea how Game Pass is doing other than what Phil has said, so I guess we have to take him at his word, but he's never going to say anything negative about it so idk. I find it hard to believe its making them any money given how frequently they're giving it away for free or $1. I guess it depends on what they're paying developers to put their games on the service, but still... the economics of it all are hard to wrap your head around. They'd have to have a LOT of subscribers paying the normal $10/month for this to work out for everyone involved.
You mean they didn't acquire all of those studios solely for list wars?
Typical Gamepass 'concerns':
Encourages episodic content?
Hasn't for the last three years.
Unsustainable for devs?
They get paid at retail release window and again in later GP window when initial release sales dry up. Get paid twice? Sounds good to me.
Unsustainable for MS?
If MS are paying for this quality I'm getting I'll make sure to milk them as long as possible.
But the quality will soon drop?
Then I'll cancel same way I'd do with any subscription service where the quality of service dropped.
MS are roping devs into bad deals?
Probably the same kinds of deals (most likely fee and engagement bonus) being negotiated by Sony for the exact competitor PSNow. Note developers have publishers and business development functions for a reason. If they're signing up for Gamepass it's because it's a good business decision, not done on a whim.
We don't know the numbers?
Lol, EGS, Steam, PSNow, Stadia, Gamepass ain't giving you numbers. No platform holder would undermine their negotiating position with publishers by releasing subscriber numbers their competitors would use that's retarded. Only exception is if you're the clear market leader (assert dominance) or you're the only player in the market.
Encourages episodic content?
Hasn't for the last three years.
Unsustainable for devs?
They get paid at retail release window and again in later GP window when initial release sales dry up. Get paid twice? Sounds good to me.
Unsustainable for MS?
If MS are paying for this quality I'm getting I'll make sure to milk them as long as possible.
But the quality will soon drop?
Then I'll cancel same way I'd do with any subscription service where the quality of service dropped.
MS are roping devs into bad deals?
Probably the same kinds of deals (most likely fee and engagement bonus) being negotiated by Sony for the exact competitor PSNow. Note developers have publishers and business development functions for a reason. If they're signing up for Gamepass it's because it's a good business decision, not done on a whim.
We don't know the numbers?
Lol, EGS, Steam, PSNow, Stadia, Gamepass ain't giving you numbers. No platform holder would undermine their negotiating position with publishers by releasing subscriber numbers their competitors would use that's retarded. Only exception is if you're the clear market leader (assert dominance) or you're the only player in the market.
Last edited:
I'm genuinely curious why? Presumably you are going to be buying 2 or more Xbox exclusives anyway. Those games aren't leaving the service so I don't see the downside.
It's a classic case of appearing to be having a good faith discussion but setting the goal posts in a place you know the ball will never go.
Nobody ever said:
"I won't believe Street fighter 5 was a success until Capcom tells me how many hours were played across all players."
Why ask? Yes that number exists. But you know you're not getting that number, stop pretending to try.
Because it will show gamepass losing money even though he says it's fine
And that would prove it's not sustainable at its current price and offerings
I guess it depends on their expectations for the service at this point in its life. May not be setting the world on fire (not seeing a huge uptick in Xbox sales since it launched), but maybe the percentage of xbox owners signing up is on target. Time will tell.
In that scenario the only one losing money is MS, so why does that matter to a user's perceptions of the service surely they'd just use it anyway because it's a good deal?
Millions of people worldwide use Uber and its operating a growth model too and isn't profitable.
It's a standard business model the goal is subscriber growth, not profitability (initially).
Apple music gave 3 months free to everyone initially.
Spotify gives a free month, Netflix too.
It's so standard but seemingly this strategy for subscriber growth passes people on a gaming forum by when it relates to Gamepass.
Last edited:
Didn't Spencer say they've seen digital purchase growth since introducing Game Pass? If more people are playing and buying games I imagine Gold subs are up as well.
I'm not a fan of unsustainable things, because I get use to them and want them to last forever in whatever it's current state is
I rather get use to something that I know is sustainable that I'll be able to keep using for many years to come without much change
As is the case with most Gamepass threads, people will ignore the actual point of the post/article to argue over a heap of hypotheticals or whether Gamepass is successful. The OP article is not some proof of success, as that would require the numbers some of you so desperately crave despite it being obvious you'll never get them. The entire point of this and I think the last half a dozen Gamepass interviews I've seen has been Phil or MS quite literally in some cases saying "stop worrying about if it's sustainable due to how cheap it's being sold/given away. If you want to use it, use it, leave the rest to us". But that's no fun to fuel warz and so here we are b
Yeah I'm kicking myself for paying $40 for Bloodstained KS campaign, never again. The only time I'll pay for an indie game outright now is if I have to play it on Switch. And forget about funding KS games.
Then this service and all it's competitors should be of zero interest to you from the get go.
The service is only a catalogue of content behind a subscription whether it's GP, PSNow, Apple music, Apple Arcade, Spotify or Netflix.
And all of those services admit content leaves their catalogue from time to time consistent with deals signed by the platform holder.
If you want something permanent you'll never get that from a subscription service of any kind you're just renting the content.
Even if it was losing a LOT of money, there is still no indication that they would remove 1st party titles from it. Besides, most people believe that they are losing money because they are offering 1$ deals to new subscribers, so wouldn't they stop offering these deal way before they would even consider removing 1st party games?
I don't really use those services, Every once in awhile but they aren't my main form of consuming
I just use the free version of Spotify with ads
I think there are some people who are generally concerned with change. Some people who value physical and rightfully see this hastening the end of the traditional used game market. Others just root for these corporations like sports team and their team isn't doing it so it's time to put on the plastic warrior armor and battle it out for their team. Hard to tell who is who. I like to talk the the legitimately concerned because in the end, if you don't care about "owning" or physical media this works out for them.
That's such a strange attitude tho. Like, you helped fund a game's development. Isn't that where the value of (a somewhat paltry) $40 comes into play?
I certainly hope this mindset of devaluing games -especially indies - doesn't take hold more than it has already though. Certainly don't think game pass alone is the factor there, but it's part of the overall industry-wide trend.