I don't think I've ever scrutinized something that benefits me as a consumer as hard as some of you have. Too much time on your hands.
-
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.
The appeal of Xbox Game Pass doesn't exactly fit with the realities of modern gaming
- Thread starter Neat
- Start date
This is the reality of the games industry I'm afraid. We've gone through various shifts of delivery system and technology and monetisation and every one has had an effect. It's never all good and it's never all bad, there will be winners and losers. Certain types of games which will be less viable, and certain types which will be more. I'd say there are two obvious things to be optimistic about:
1) Game Pass will moderate risk for developers as you're less dependent on a successful launch
2) Game Pass will punish games that traditionally sold on hype and disappointed
100% agree. The concern over game pass is just a weird take overall. I don't get it or probably ever will. Its the best value in gaming this entire generation in my opinion.
I can give you another, it allows Microsoft to try riskier or more inventive games because they don't need to worry about how that game will sell.
You don't need Game Pass to do this if you budget properly. Look at what Nintendo is doing with smaller exclusives like Astral Chain. They definitely aren't going to start making AAA games that wouldn't viable otherwise because of Game Pass. Those type of games will still be allocated resources appropriately for the expected return.
That would make some sense if all you care about are the Microsoft day one releases. Didn't DMC5 just join Game Pass? You know, the game with no DLC that fans can't stop begging to get one expansion at least?
My time with Game Pass has been spent like 10% with Gears and 90% with third party titles that I didn't play yet for some reason or another, like Abzu, Tomb Raider or Blazing Chrome.
My time with Game Pass has been spent like 10% with Gears and 90% with third party titles that I didn't play yet for some reason or another, like Abzu, Tomb Raider or Blazing Chrome.
Game pass offers up a pretty good value, but it doesn't take a genius to realize the model works better with MP or GaaS games than it does with AAA single player games. It becoming the main way to play games would be awful for game quality in the industry. What would even encourage publishers to make amazing games if they're not pressured to sell x million copies?
This thread treats traditional gaming and GaaS as an EITHER or an OR thing. It's not especially with 'realities of modern gaming'. Both will co-exist for the foreseeable future. OP is not critically thinking this through.
I don't see your point OP.
GamePass isn't any more conducive to incomplete GaaS games than it is to games that are fully featured and functional upon release.
Its success is at least partially contingent to it offering a variety of games across the design spectrum. Everything from linear single player games, to grindy GaaS games, and everything in between.
What's most important is that they have another game waiting for in the catalog when your finished with one. They don't need to only offer games designed to be played indefinitely- that notion doesn't even make sense. People have limits to the number of GaaS games they can focus on. If that's all they offered, then their would be no value in subbing- people would just buy the one game that's eating all of their time.
GamePass isn't any more conducive to incomplete GaaS games than it is to games that are fully featured and functional upon release.
Its success is at least partially contingent to it offering a variety of games across the design spectrum. Everything from linear single player games, to grindy GaaS games, and everything in between.
What's most important is that they have another game waiting for in the catalog when your finished with one. They don't need to only offer games designed to be played indefinitely- that notion doesn't even make sense. People have limits to the number of GaaS games they can focus on. If that's all they offered, then their would be no value in subbing- people would just buy the one game that's eating all of their time.
If Microsoft has to adjust the business model of game pass for some reason that it is not working, then we'll come to those issues. Stuff like mtx, dlc, etc have been here way longer before game pass.
Some of you all are crazy. The market will always fix itself. If GP gets shitty, and ends up delivering subpar games, people will unsubscribe.
Luckily you can still buy 3rd party games if GP is not for you. Additionally, there is the Sony and Nintendo systems still. That's going to push MS to keep delivering a worthwhile product or people will leave.
The industry is better with a healthy 3 system market that is offering different experiences.
Luckily you can still buy 3rd party games if GP is not for you. Additionally, there is the Sony and Nintendo systems still. That's going to push MS to keep delivering a worthwhile product or people will leave.
The industry is better with a healthy 3 system market that is offering different experiences.
If anything it's better to play these barebones or "broken" games on a subscription service because there's no commitment or initial investment. OP would have an argument if it was only Game Pass where these issues were happening but as we all know we've had a ton of full priced titles that have launched with weak content or major issues.
This, plus some people screaming "but gamepass doesn't make money" really make me wonder if this is a gaming forum or investment forum sometimes
Remember the good old days when you rented a game from blockbuster on Friday night for $9.99 and had to bring it back on Monday?
Now you get to do that for a month for the same price. Except instead of one game, you get something like 80 or 100 or whatever. And you can cancel at any point, just like Netflix. If you're like me, you'll just let the subscription keep going, because odds are there's always at least something you can play even if it's not the great game that $60 would have bought you. But hey, I get to play a bunch of games for 6 months for the price of that one game.
I don't know. It seems like a fine deal to me.
Now you get to do that for a month for the same price. Except instead of one game, you get something like 80 or 100 or whatever. And you can cancel at any point, just like Netflix. If you're like me, you'll just let the subscription keep going, because odds are there's always at least something you can play even if it's not the great game that $60 would have bought you. But hey, I get to play a bunch of games for 6 months for the price of that one game.
I don't know. It seems like a fine deal to me.
lol. People should not worry if MS is making money. Jeeezzzze. I think MS knows how to make money. The concern is ridiculous.
What if these companies make more money with a subscription model then without?
Starting to move on from being concerned about Game Pass to fanboys literally just making shit up about it because it's a Microsoft product.
Cool. Cool.
Cool. Cool.
In what way is Astral Chain a risky game? Again though budget has to be recouped or you don't make more games. If Game Pass what a thing when Sunset Overdrive launched my bet is we'd have seen a sequel because it was a well received game that just didn't sell. If it launched on Game Pass it would have done much better.
Last edited:
Gamepass is loaded with Single Player games. I'm not sure how this argument makes any sense.
Nah this is slippery slope fallacy.
Publishers are paid by MS to appear on the service, and usually sign on when their game has already reached the end of its natural retail life. They get a windfall of cash they otherwise wouldn't be getting.
Those who appear during their retail window are paid by MS to offset the loss of retail revenues.
So outside of MS, publishers aren't losing their retail profits so there's no need to design their games around such losses. And MS makes up those cost via the royalties they get - which is the same exact percentage they've been asking since forever, but they benefit from the higher volumes.
Aside from a few first party titles a year, Gamepass isn't replacing retail, it's replacing the used game section at retail.
Last edited:
This is one of those round peg/square hole kind of posts. You're trying to define the game pass in one specific way (the whole industry, frankly): as a conduit for broken, just-released GaaS content. But that's ignoring all of the other content on the game pass. So far on the Game Pass I've played Blazing Chrome, Age of Empires Definitive Edition, Sunset Overdrive, Gears of War 4, Gears 5, Wargroove. I've also tried Void Bastards and Night Call. Many of those games are older, some are small budget indies, and most of them are as far from AAA GaaS titles as possible.
I certainly hope that the industry isn't thinking of GaaS titles in the way that you are, because only a certain number can afford to be sustained by the market. Lots of people don't even want GaaS games. I think Game Pass is designed to try to cater just enough to most audiences. For many committed to certain GaaS games like Destiny 2 they probably want to drag them in as a cheap way for those people to try other games they'd normally ignore.
Basically I think your whole premise is flawed.
I certainly hope that the industry isn't thinking of GaaS titles in the way that you are, because only a certain number can afford to be sustained by the market. Lots of people don't even want GaaS games. I think Game Pass is designed to try to cater just enough to most audiences. For many committed to certain GaaS games like Destiny 2 they probably want to drag them in as a cheap way for those people to try other games they'd normally ignore.
Basically I think your whole premise is flawed.
lol...ok, bud. Squeeze your 'MICROTRANSACTIONS ALL BAD!' ranting into a new thread.
The effect on "singleplayer" games (if it happens at all) won't be seen for a while, Game Pass is still in its infancy. I'm not 100% sure how viable these lesser or "AA" SP only games are in the long run when people know they'll end up on a subscription service within a year. I have no idea how much Microsoft pays for these lower profile titles but maybe it's enough for them since they probably wouldn't have sold that many copies in the first place. For a subscription service on paper it does make more sense to make a game you can keep going back to as opposed to a 5-10 hour "one and done". I'm sure we will have both though since you obviously still need variety.
I will say Horizon 4 definitely does feel a little bit like a game that was designed for Game Pass and long term retention (as opposed to a game that people will play the shit out of for a month but never touch again). The whole seasons concept and the weekly championships is clearly something that is meant to keep you coming back. To even see every season in the game you have to have it for a month minimum and if you want to play it again you have to wait another one. Also the tacked on cosmetics that are only attainable through RNG wheelspins basically.
Yeah there have been quite a few games that launched with barebones content and tried to compensate for that via "Roadmaps", but how is this a negative for a GP subscriber? If anything this is a positive, as a GP sub is 10/15$ while a new game is 60$. So I just don't get it.
Once again, if a game launches a buggy mess and doesn't work until X weeks of patches, how is paying 10/15$ for GP is worse than dropping 60$ for it?
Besides that, the network resources issues will be ironed out by MS, there is no indication that they will continue to have these issues with every game release.
MS went on an acquisition spree recently and will probably continue adding more studios to their lineup, their strategy as of right now is to release a new title about every quarter (rather than grindy games) , Mike Ybarra said so explicitly, so why bother make wrong and wild speculations about their strategy when we already know it?
Why do you think people will have that apathetic approach to SP but not any other game? What's the basis?
Someone saying I'll wait for that single player game to land on Gamepass is no different from someone saying I'll wait for that single player game to drop in price and/or land in the used games bin EXCEPT when it lands on Gamepass it results in another windfall for the dev/publisher. this is a bonus for SP devs And should make smaller, finite experiences MORE attractive.
I'm not sure why people argue GaaS games are "designed" for Gamepass. Gamepass is perfect for people who want to consume more concise experiences. Once your done with one experience there's plenty more to choose from.
Having GP just be loaded with GaaS would be self-defeating. Most People can only devote time one GaaS game at a time- many of the play one game at at time.
why would GaaS players, notorious for devoting all their time to just one or two games, be the main target for a service who's main attraction is the sheer number of games to choose from?
Furthermore, why would GaaS gamers choose Gamepass when they can devote all their money to that one game they play?
Nah- the biggest draw of Gamepass is the every growing variety. So it'll appeal most to people who want a lot of different things to choose from.
Last edited:
people who just care about bang for buck. Which is a lot of people considering how well F2P games tend to do.
"Game Pass is only for GaaS"
*continues to browse through all the single player games on Game Pass*
*continues to browse through all the single player games on Game Pass*
F2P games that are terrible end up shutting down. Maybe you don't follow gaming closely but it's littered with failed F2P games.
The way games are designed now, with prolonged engagement, surely makes them a good fit for Game Pass?
They want to keep you subscribed, right? One way to do that is with a good stream of new content. But the other way is to keep the existing content relevant.
They want to keep you subscribed, right? One way to do that is with a good stream of new content. But the other way is to keep the existing content relevant.
Neat I've read through your OP twice, and I've still not understood your point or why you've concluded what you did.
For a start, I'd argue Game Pass is actually ideally suited to GaaS models. In-fact, Microsoft will likely heavily rely on them for longer term subscriber retention.
Whilst someone could sign up for a single month of Game Pass to bang out several single player titles they were interested in and then simply unsubscribe the next month, with long term GaaS games they're less likely to, as the constant flow of updates and content is more likely to keep them playing for longer, and thus subbing for longer too.
Obviously the other addition to that is volume of content in and of itself. Game Pass will need to be stacked with content to keep users using the service month after month, and thus maintaining a longer term subscription.
For a start, I'd argue Game Pass is actually ideally suited to GaaS models. In-fact, Microsoft will likely heavily rely on them for longer term subscriber retention.
Whilst someone could sign up for a single month of Game Pass to bang out several single player titles they were interested in and then simply unsubscribe the next month, with long term GaaS games they're less likely to, as the constant flow of updates and content is more likely to keep them playing for longer, and thus subbing for longer too.
Obviously the other addition to that is volume of content in and of itself. Game Pass will need to be stacked with content to keep users using the service month after month, and thus maintaining a longer term subscription.
There is no concern here; Gamepass is a popular service and has great quality AAA games that are not GaaS or low quality like some of the people in here seem to suggest, and I don't see any of the upcoming first party games being GaaS either so OP has it completely wrong.
Also, have you even tried Gamepass? People see Gears5 being the big game right now and it has a few loot boxes and now it's: Oh, gotta be concerned, all games are GaaS on Gamepass and they are also all low quality games. It's not about being a fanboy or anything, the service had/has high quality AAA games and only a minority are GaaS. Maybe people should stop with the concerned trolling, pay 2$ to actually try the service, and realize they've been wrong all this time.
Business chatter aside, anyone on Game Pass should check out Creature In The Well on there that was just added. This is a small indie game with a current 76 Metacritic (shows that doesn't mean everything for me at least) that has really pulled me in after I checked it out today once I completed the campaign on Gears 5 and was waiting to play some Gears multiplayer later. It is a pinball/hack and slash/dungeon crawler/Journey vibe game that is one of the reason I love Game Pass so much to be able to play so many big AAA games and such interesting games such as this one.
No, the opposite is true. The type of gamer who devotes all their time to just one or two GaaS games won't get any value out of gamepass. The draw of Gamepass is the larger variety of games. Why would someone keep subbing if they just want to play the same game every month.
There will obviously be GaaS games on the service- simply because all types of games will find an audience on the service. But gamepass will be most attractive to those who want to play new things every month.
As long as there are more, interesting SP games to play the following month, a SP focused gamer isn't going to unsubscribe.
Fortnite battle royal is free but one of the highest grossing games out there... Devs will find a way.
I'd argue it's a bit of both. For example, people will play Gears 5 and Halo Infinite for several months, not dissimilar to Sea of Thieves or Forza Horizon 4, and part of the reason for that is going to be the constant flow of new updates and content. But simultaneously they may alternate between other games on the service in between, which is where the variety element comes in to play.
Sea of Thieves and State of Decay II had to release because Microsoft had nothing in the pipeline. It is nothing to do with the service. To give an example, Gran Turismo Sport launched with less content than Forza Motorsport 5 did, and that was a launch title.It launched at roughly the same time as Forza Motorsport 7, and with the addition to content, still does not come close.
We have seen Call of Duty move from having a piecemeal campaign to not having one at all. We have seen Battlefield have a mess of a release and slowly look to add features. We have seen games like Fallout 76, Destiny, Anthem all release half baked......is that not modern gaming?
I hate getting access to a wide range of current games for a reasonable price.
The GaaS argument is flipping ridiculous when you consider one game along with it's season pass is likely going to be similar cost to a year of Gamepass. Going into the issues with Gears at release and trying to attribute them to Gamepass is even more so.
The GaaS argument is flipping ridiculous when you consider one game along with it's season pass is likely going to be similar cost to a year of Gamepass. Going into the issues with Gears at release and trying to attribute them to Gamepass is even more so.