EUROGAMER | Is Xbox Game Pass too good to be true?

[Iron Eddie]

If the business model is successful -- and this article paints an extremely positive picture of it -- then you have to imagine that Sony and Nintendo are going to be there imminently as well.

It's not some technological triumph, outside of perhaps the streaming aspect; it's a business model, and it's clearly just the numbers that are preventing Sony and Nintendo from copying it right now.

Click to shrink...

Sony, and even more so Nintendo, will keep with tradition until it no longer works for them. Microsoft also has a little thing called Windows and Azure which will both greatly help to pave the way for the risk they are taking now. In other words they can afford to gamble much more than Sony and Nintendo can. Sony and Nintendo rely much more on their gaming revenue and don't have the resources like Microsoft does to lean back on.

My fear with gaming subscription services has always been that it'll turn into a situation similar to spotify, where music has been increasingly devalued. Sure we can access pretty much any music we want for $10 a month, but outside of the biggest artists no one makes any substantial money from music streaming.
This is probably most likely to happen with indie games if we ever get to the point where people expect indies to be available for "free" and don't want to pay out of pocket. But so far everyone seems happy with the compensation they get, so it doesn't seem to be a huge issue at the moment.

Click to shrink...

Artists have always fought with contract deals and ownership of their own material, nothing new. Indie bands also love Spotify and Soundcloud as it gives them far greater exposure. There is also a ton of money being made with music streaming, the issue is with the percentage given to the artists. I would imagine game developers are feeling much better about how they are compensated with Game Pass.

 

[Still a Gray Area]

I never said it was the be-all and end-all, I simply said that if you're an indie and you're not launching on Game Pass then you're missing out on a lot of revenue and exposure, nothing more, nothing less.

We've already heard one indie publisher say that Game Pass provided enough revenue to fund 3 more games and another Dev say Game Pass allowed them to finish their game and be profitable



Seperately we've also seen Sony fuck over at least one indie dev in regards to their pricing and general complaints about how the Switch shop used to be great but now the shop is full of shovelware it's hard to find the good games

All this leads me to my conclusion, Game Pass is currently great for Indies if you can get on it and if it's not one of your primary targets for launch then you're a bit daft in my opinion.

Don't confuse this with saying they should only sell their game on Game Pass, that's never been said and Game Pass isn't an "on or off" thing, but indies who are on it say it's great and has made them more profits than other platforms.

edit:

just wanted to edit this quote in as I love its honesty:



Edit 2: thanks to InRainbows for saying this in a lot less words 😁

Click to shrink...

I think both of you misread my point. Which could very well mean that I articulated it poorly. Magog , whom I was really responding to, was pushing that Gamepass is/will have this yet unseen negative impact on the industry which includes Devs losing money by not being chosen to be on the service. I challenged that by asking how in the world would you quantify that unless you were fully banking on Gamepass monies to begin with.

My response to gothi is simply that it could be and has been said of other services/programs as well. e.g. PS+ or taking Epics money for store exclusivity.

At the end of the day, Gamepass is a positive for everyone involved at the moment.

 

[Magog]

I think both of you misread my point. Which could very well mean that I articulated it poorly. Magog , whom I was really responding to, was pushing that Gamepass is/will have this yet unseen negative impact on the industry which includes Devs losing money by not being chosen to be on the service. I challenged that by asking how in the world would you quantify that unless you were fully banking on Gamepass monies to begin with.

My response to gothi is simply that it could be and has been said of other services/programs as well. e.g. PS+ or taking Epics money for store exclusivity.

At the end of the day, Gamepass is a positive for everyone involved at the moment.

Click to shrink...

You're right. It could just be bad luck or sour apples from the indie devs complaining about not making money on Xbox unless they are chosen for gamepass. Still trying to find the article I read to see if I can get more details.

 

[cakely]

Great article.

You can really tell from the responses who read it and who didn't. It's nuanced. They absolutely acknowledge that Game Pass is an incredible value, and that Microsoft believes it's sustainable. They would know!

There's also a discussion there if subscription models, like Netflix, Spotify and Game Pass might have a negative effect on content and the answer seems to be: "it's mixed".

 

[gothi]

I think both of you misread my point. Which could very well mean that I articulated it poorly. Magog , whom I was really responding to, was pushing that Gamepass is/will have this yet unseen negative impact on the industry which includes Devs losing money by not being chosen to be on the service. I challenged that by asking how in the world would you quantify that unless you were fully banking on Gamepass monies to begin with.

My response to gothi is simply that it could be and has been said of other services/programs as well. e.g. PS+ or taking Epics money for store exclusivity.

At the end of the day, Gamepass is a positive for everyone involved at the moment.

Click to shrink...

fair enough! I think we agree, everyone (apart from Sony) says it's currently a substantially net positive.

 

[FacelessSamurai]

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.

Click to shrink...

Except even if I add up all the cost of a single year of Gamepass Ultimate I am still spending less than before. I literally pay what I would have for 2 games a year for a full year of the service. If Ms releases more than 2 full priced games a year I'm already making bank. I think it's recurring revenues they are after more than having people spend more than before like you are saying.

The service will reach a point where there is so much content on it that it will be a no brainer to continuously stay subscribed and where the few people that do 10$ months once in a while will completely stop, just like with Netflix, Prime, Spotify, etc.

 

[TheDutchSlayer]

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.

Click to shrink...

This and it will go up in price and once your hooked your going to be pissed that its going up but most of us will keep paying for it.

 

[Adryuu]

There's another thought I had with this. We are just renting a curated collection of games, right? But still, renting. So, what does it even matter to us if it stops being sustainable for MS and they stop the service? We got what we paid for, in the end. We lose absolutely nothing of our own. I'm fine with that, in the event this crashed and just stopped being a thing. It's not like I think I'm buying the games or whatever, I'm just paying for a service. If I paid monthly, at the end of the month I'd decide if it was fine or not, each time I paid.

What does it even matter to me, if I am getting what I'm paying for, apart from worrying about it having a future, of course.

And I think most people who is asking the question may not even a subscriber. Let Microsoft decide if it's worth it for them, as it's them who are on the other side of this business. For me it's working, so let me peacefully enjoy it while it lasts (and I hope it lasts for a long, long time).

Also, this business model doesn't mean you can't use a different one at the same time. I haven't stopped buying games or anything. I'll still buy whatever game I'm really interested in owning, at launch even. Or just games I wanna try and aren't on the service (yet/anymore/whatever). I also own other platforms anyway, and don't use services on them, btw.

Do people not buy BD anymore because of Netflix?
Even better, as I find the Spotify comparison more apt than Netflix. Do people not buy CDs anymore because of it? I don't think so, and I think everyone involved thinks the same. Game Pass is not a substitute of the established model and won't change the industry that much in the long run. So as a different kind of thing, it sure must be sustainable and, more importantly, profitable. But as I said, what should we even care if we are at the other side of business and we are getting what we pay for.

 

[Deleted member 46804]

That's not what's happening either.
Microsoft feels that in the long term, the money they can make from a committed base of active subscribers can supersede revenues from traditional retail sales. It's not about user base or anything since they'd probably make more money NOW by focusing solely on retail.
For Microsoft, this is a long term play.
The 'user base' argument also doesn't make much sense when you factor in that MS user base for first party games also includes PC.

if Microsoft had sold 100 million xbox one consoles, they'd probably have still launched Gamepass.

Click to shrink...

It is totally what's happening. Microsoft is in a position where they can give up making money off of the sales of their exclusives because they don't make as much money as Sony's. Sony needs a much higher subscription number in order to make up for lost sales. The situations across consoles are not one to one.

 

[StereoVSN]

I spend more money on GamePass than I spent on regular Xbox games prior to that. I think I'm the target audience here. It's almost like an anti-whale strategy.

A console attach rate is usually like 7 to 10 games per console, right? So that's $420 - $600 spent on games per user. GamePass is $15/mo I think? That's $900 over a five year console generation, way more revenue in the ecosystem. That's where the math works out in GamePass's favor.

Click to shrink...

Yeap, MS and Pubs deal in averages. It doesn't matter that some Era gamers spend that much a year as it gets offset by 10x folks buying couple games each year or less.

So GamePass at $15/month basically brings a winning combo. Cost for hosting digital media is quite low and MS out of all people I may sure has done the math. So if they can get folks to spend more with GamePass on average then they would have spent anyways PLUS they will buy other games not on GamePass as well, it's a win-win for everyone involved.

 

[Lylo]

I think it works for Microsoft because i'm sure they have a lot of users like me, who pays for the service for years, but have only played a handful of games on the service.

 

[sacrament]

yea

Click to shrink...

I've seen no evidence, and actually steps moving away from a similar service. What makes you think Sony would do GP with their first party studios?

 

[Bosh]

I still question how sustainible it is, but I don't disagree its the best value in gaming. The article mentions this, but to assume its maximizing profit in long run users have to 1. Be subscribed monthly and 2. Be paying full price. Below are my numbers for Sony/Xbox (Since they overlap a lot in content)

Subscription Services
2020 GamePass | $11 Spent , 15 Games Beat , 137.5 Hours played. (Cost per title is 0.73 and cost per hour is 0.08)
2020 PSNOW | $23 Spent, 5 games beat, 47 Hours played (Cost per title $9, cost per hour 0.99)

Purchasing
2020 Xbox Games bought | 10 games, $55 total (8 used, 2 Digital), Digital games are the only part Microsoft gets cut, which was $8.16 total
2020 PS4 | 23 Titles Bought, $453 spent (All of it Sony gets cut minus $12 for Used games).

2021 GamePass (Covers Jan 2021 - Jan 2022) | $56 Spent, so far 4 games beat, 31 Hours played (1.80 hour, 13.93 per title, both of those numbers will only lower throughout year)

At the end of the day it doesn't matter to me at all ifs its up or down for them, I still get to play great content for the time being. The cool backend piece, which the article does a great job covering is because this is more of an unkown area, it allows creative payment structures (And marketing) for different publishers/developers instead of one size fit all they were in before.

 

[Inugami]

What do you mean they aren't splitting it? You don't think EA and every other third party gets a cut?

Click to shrink...

That is not a split, it's an expense (ie they are paying for it) versus a direct split (ie retailers taking a cut). A silly, but important distinction.

 

[Trup1aya]

What do you mean they aren't splitting it? You don't think EA and every other third party gets a cut?

Click to shrink...

I don't think "cut" or "split" is the right term to use. Publishers aren't negotiating a percentage of GP subscription revenue.

MS is paying publishers for a license to feature content on the service for x amount of time. For publishers, participation in GP is a sale transaction.

 

[gifyku]

I still question how sustainible it is, but I don't disagree its the best value in gaming. The article mentions this, but to assume its maximizing profit in long run users have to 1. Be subscribed monthly and 2. Be paying full price. Below are my numbers for Sony/Xbox (Since they overlap a lot in content)

Subscription Services
2020 GamePass | $11 Spent , 15 Games Beat , 137.5 Hours played. (Cost per title is 0.73 and cost per hour is 0.08)
2020 PSNOW | $23 Spent, 5 games beat, 47 Hours played (Cost per title $9, cost per hour 0.99)

Purchasing
2020 Xbox Games bought | 10 games, $55 total (8 used, 2 Digital), Digital games are the only part Microsoft gets cut, which was $8.16 total
2020 PS4 | 23 Titles Bought, $453 spent (All of it Sony gets cut minus $12 for Used games).

2021 GamePass (Covers Jan 2021 - Jan 2022) | $56 Spent, so far 4 games beat, 31 Hours played (1.80 hour, 13.93 per title, both of those numbers will only lower throughout year)

At the end of the day it doesn't matter to me at all ifs its up or down for them, I still get to play great content for the time being. The cool backend piece, which the article does a great job covering is because this is more of an unkown area, it allows creative payment structures (And marketing) for different publishers/developers instead of one size fit all they were in before.

Click to shrink...

How are you buying new PS4 games at about $20 per game?

 

[Bosh]

How are you buying new PS4 games at about $20 per game?

Click to shrink...

Fair Question, I don't buy everything at release. For 2020 on PS4, I bought 3 games at launch for full price (Last of Us 2, Ghost of Tsushima & Nioh 2). Yakuza: Like a Dragon I got at launch but with targets promo which brought it down to $43 after tax. Collections I will break up by titles I am going to play in them (So Yakuza Collection is $22 for each title). Reson for breaking up collections by titles I am going to play is because PC bundles tend to have a few games you want to play and a bunch you don't. From there though, Persona 5 Royal I got for $22 during Black Friday and almost every digital game I got in 2002 was sub $15.

I mainly track all this stuff as a fun hobby to compliment the 52 games a year thread I take part in, so I get some interesting data.

 

[Deleted member 43]

Really well done article.

 

[Rzarekta]

The thing I dislike about these discussions is that many people say it's the best thing to happen to gaming in a long time, but it's not actually an improvement to gaming, it's just a really good value proposition. GamePass didn't miraculously make great games appear out of nowhere, what it's doing is letting people who don't have the money, or people who simply don't want to spend the money, to try new games out. And that's awesome. But GamePass isn't improving anything about the industry outside of value. Value is a big thing, of course, but for someone who doesn't mind spending money on something I love, GamePass literally does nothing for me. I'm not the only one who feels this way. It's awesome that it's there, and millions of people will use it, but from the outside looking in, MS hasn't actually put out industry defining software in ages. That's the stuff that gamers should really care about when talking about the industry moving forward. It's the software that keeps things moving, not the value proposition of being able to try games that are already available to everyone, but for a lot cheaper.

Anyway, of course it's sustainable, MS has infinite money. If it wasn't, they wouldn't be putting so much energy into it.

 

[PopcornMegaphone]

The thing I dislike about these discussions is that many people say it's the best thing to happen to gaming in a long time, but it's not actually an improvement to gaming, it's just a really good value proposition. GamePass didn't miraculously make great games appear out of nowhere, what it's doing is letting people who don't have the money, or people who simply don't want to spend the money, to try new games out. And that's awesome. But GamePass isn't improving anything about the industry outside of value. Value is a big thing, of course, but for someone who doesn't mind spending money on something I love, GamePass literally does nothing for me. I'm not the only one who feels this way. It's awesome that it's there, and millions of people will use it, but from the outside looking in, MS hasn't actually put out industry defining software in ages. That's the stuff that gamers should really care about when talking about the industry moving forward. It's the software that keeps things moving, not the value proposition of being able to try games that are already available to everyone, but for a lot cheaper.

Anyway, of course it's sustainable, MS has infinite money. If it wasn't, they wouldn't be putting so much energy into it.

Click to shrink...

There's no need for gatekeeping on this. Offering more people value can absolutely be in the discussion of "best thing in gaming".

That said, I think GP offers more than that. Game discovery is huge for me. "Slay the Spire" was my GotY despite never having heard of it before it landed on GP.

 

[gothi]

The thing I dislike about these discussions is that many people say it's the best thing to happen to gaming in a long time, but it's not actually an improvement to gaming, it's just a really good value proposition. GamePass didn't miraculously make great games appear out of nowhere, what it's doing is letting people who don't have the money, or people who simply don't want to spend the money, to try new games out. And that's awesome. But GamePass isn't improving anything about the industry outside of value. Value is a big thing, of course, but for someone who doesn't mind spending money on something I love, GamePass literally does nothing for me. I'm not the only one who feels this way. It's awesome that it's there, and millions of people will use it, but from the outside looking in, MS hasn't actually put out industry defining software in ages. That's the stuff that gamers should really care about when talking about the industry moving forward. It's the software that keeps things moving, not the value proposition of being able to try games that are already available to everyone, but for a lot cheaper.

Anyway, of course it's sustainable, MS has infinite money. If it wasn't, they wouldn't be putting so much energy into it.

Click to shrink...

It's directly attributable to enabling more games to be made and more risky, less commercial, games to be made, if that's not improving the industry somewhat then nothing is.

Mike Rose, of indie publisher No More Robots - which has brought cult hits like Hypnospace Outlaw, Descenders, and Yes, Your Grace to Game Pass, among others - is characteristically upfront about it, joking: "What more does a developer or publisher need than a shitload of players and a shitload of money?"

"The last Game Pass deal we did," he explained, "we've basically then just taken the money that came from that deal, and we're now funding three more games... we've got four games coming out this year and three of those were essentially funded using Game Pass money." The cyclical effect of that kind of money can be transformative for small or mid-sized publishers. "It's taken us from 'let's keep doing what we're doing' to 'we can start funding bigger things now' - we can really help different people out."

Click to shrink...

and

Tim Schafer, head of Double Fine, spoke of how Game Pass helps his studio "see where we fit in," amidst development of the slightly out-there Psychonauts 2, and suggested that the structure might allow the team to be even more creative than before. "It does make me think about some of the crazy game ideas we've had," he said, "and some of them you're just like... I can never pitch this to any publisher. I would never get this signed. But I am now opening up that folder of documents again, and going 'oh I really love this idea, I bet I could do that now'."

Click to shrink...

 

[ShapeGSX]

Did anyone think it was not a loss leader? It eventually becomes profitable two ways : higher costs or less third party games.

Click to shrink...

It eventually becomes profitable a 3rd way: with enough subscribers. They're in the subscriber acquisition phase with all of these deals. At some point, they have enough subscribers that it is self sufficient and profitable. The games will keep subscribers...subscribed.

 

[Falchion]

GamePass so good it's now a controlled substance.

 

[andresmoros]

Yes. You, however, didn't read the rest of my comments.

Click to shrink...

No, just the first comment. Your first comment makes it sound like you didn't read it, sorry.

 

[kanuuna]

Interesting article. I think it's awesome to the positive impressions from third parties on the service.
As a customer, my only concern is that of the inevitable price hike(s). Game Pass is cool, but if it were, say, 5€/month more expensive, I'd probably jump off that train. Although if I did have a Series X, I'd probably not care.

On the PC side, I wish they'd just toss the UWP stuff. Every PC game on Game Pass just feels like a lesser version of a PC game you'd get from any other storefront because of it. I can kind of see the argument for the 'cheap version' being a gimped one, but on the other hand, you don't a get a stripped down, shit version of a Xbox game on GP for Xbox.

 

[Rzarekta]

It's directly attributable to enabling more games to be made and more risky, less commercial, games to be made, if that's not improving the industry somewhat then nothing is.

Click to shrink...

Sorry, but can you please show me the examples of that so far? Because that hasn't happened yet. It's a possibility for the future, but you can't make a claim like that thus far in GP's life when it's simply not true.

 

[PopcornMegaphone]

Sorry, but can you please show me the examples of that so far? Because that hasn't happened yet. It's a possibility for the future, but you can't make a claim like that thus far in GP's life when it's simply not true.

Click to shrink...

From the article:

Mike Rose, of indie publisher No More Robots - which has brought cult hits like Hypnospace Outlaw, Descenders, and Yes, Your Grace to Game Pass, among others - is characteristically upfront about it, joking: "What more does a developer or publisher need than a shitload of players and a shitload of money?"

"The last Game Pass deal we did," he explained, "we've basically then just taken the money that came from that deal, and we're now funding three more games... we've got four games coming out this year and three of those were essentially funded using Game Pass money." The cyclical effect of that kind of money can be transformative for small or mid-sized publishers. "It's taken us from 'let's keep doing what we're doing' to 'we can start funding bigger things now' - we can really help different people out."

Click to shrink...

 

[Biteren]

it seems to be really good right now and up coming, beyond that it has potential to not be as good but alot of folks seem really happy with gamepass

 

[Iron Eddie]

The thing I dislike about these discussions is that many people say it's the best thing to happen to gaming in a long time, but it's not actually an improvement to gaming, it's just a really good value proposition. GamePass didn't miraculously make great games appear out of nowhere, what it's doing is letting people who don't have the money, or people who simply don't want to spend the money, to try new games out. And that's awesome. But GamePass isn't improving anything about the industry outside of value. Value is a big thing, of course, but for someone who doesn't mind spending money on something I love, GamePass literally does nothing for me. I'm not the only one who feels this way. It's awesome that it's there, and millions of people will use it, but from the outside looking in, MS hasn't actually put out industry defining software in ages. That's the stuff that gamers should really care about when talking about the industry moving forward. It's the software that keeps things moving, not the value proposition of being able to try games that are already available to everyone, but for a lot cheaper.

Anyway, of course it's sustainable, MS has infinite money. If it wasn't, they wouldn't be putting so much energy into it.

Click to shrink...

It's actually both, software and value. Right now yes, Microsoft hasn't put out a lot of stuff that many are interested in but they didn't go on a buying spree of new studios and creating a whole new studio for nothing. It can also be a big improvement to peoples gaming if it opens up the door for easier access to try games. I played many titles like Void Bastards and Slay the Spire, plus other titles like Crackdown 3 right away which normally probably would have waited for a sale down the road that I would likely have ignored if not for Game Pass.

It is not a one size fits all but then again what is?

 

[gothi]

Sorry, but can you please show me the examples of that so far? Because that hasn't happened yet. It's a possibility for the future, but you can't make a claim like that thus far in GP's life when it's simply not true.

Click to shrink...

There are quotes from developers literally in the post you quoted.

 

[Rzarekta]

From the article:

Click to shrink...

That's marketing talk. Let's see when these "unique, risky games" start coming out exclusively for GamePass and are actually worth a damn.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

That's marketing talk. Let's see when these "unique, risky games" start coming out exclusively for GamePass and are actually worth a damn.

Click to shrink...

so this is sheer opinion on your part in other words and absolutely no one will convince you otherwise to begin with...

 

[PopcornMegaphone]

That's marketing talk. Let's see when these "unique, risky games" start coming out exclusively for GamePass and are actually worth a damn.

Click to shrink...

There is no such thing as a "GP exclusive", so your point can never be proven. However, GP is full of unique and risky games. Furthermore, those type of publishers seem to be happy:

Mike Rose, of indie publisher No More Robots - which has brought cult hits like Hypnospace Outlaw, Descenders, and Yes, Your Grace to Game Pass, among others - is characteristically upfront about it, joking: "What more does a developer or publisher need than a shitload of players and a shitload of money?"

"The last Game Pass deal we did," he explained, "we've basically then just taken the money that came from that deal, and we're now funding three more games... we've got four games coming out this year and three of those were essentially funded using Game Pass money." The cyclical effect of that kind of money can be transformative for small or mid-sized publishers. "It's taken us from 'let's keep doing what we're doing' to 'we can start funding bigger things now' - we can really help different people out."

Click to shrink...

Many interesting indie games are landing on GP day 1.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Yeah, it is kind of too good to be true.

Remember when Netfli snapped up the streaming rights of a bunch of stuff, got it for pennies on the dollar because no one else had made streaming work yet, and then had to raise prices once their sweetheart deals ran out?

That's Game Pass. Either Microsoft is taking a hit on every subscriber to act as a loss-leader, or they were able to secure favorable terms because it wasn't clear how valuable having a game on Game Pass was. Either of those aren't sustainable in the long run.

 

[Deleted member 22750]

That's marketing talk. Let's see when these "unique, risky games" start coming out exclusively for GamePass and are actually worth a damn.

Click to shrink...

Blah
😞

 

[OldDirtyGamer]

The thing I dislike about these discussions is that many people say it's the best thing to happen to gaming in a long time, but it's not actually an improvement to gaming, it's just a really good value proposition. GamePass didn't miraculously make great games appear out of nowhere, what it's doing is letting people who don't have the money, or people who simply don't want to spend the money, to try new games out. And that's awesome. But GamePass isn't improving anything about the industry outside of value. Value is a big thing, of course, but for someone who doesn't mind spending money on something I love, GamePass literally does nothing for me. I'm not the only one who feels this way. It's awesome that it's there, and millions of people will use it, but from the outside looking in, MS hasn't actually put out industry defining software in ages. That's the stuff that gamers should really care about when talking about the industry moving forward. It's the software that keeps things moving, not the value proposition of being able to try games that are already available to everyone, but for a lot cheaper.

Anyway, of course it's sustainable, MS has infinite money. If it wasn't, they wouldn't be putting so much energy into it.

Click to shrink...

The value is incredible yes, but for me and many others its finding new games, or games you were unsure of...right there waiting for you to try out. I could care less about the money side of gaming, but GP has let me play games i never would have bought or thought i would be interested in....and loving quite a few of them.
As for software moving things forward...absolutely. And i think the software is really gonna speak for itself in the future.

 

[crazillo]

The positive voices about Game Pass come from all directions: Microsoft, publishers, and many gamers. The article does discuss all sides but the positive aspects for me are echoed strongly in there, too. Personally, Game Pass has changed the way I consume games. I feel like that little kid in the video library again with a much lowered entry barrier. It's just great.

 

[Donepalace]

I can definitely see a big price increase at some point down the road the problem then will be the addictive nature of the service will be embedded into you that it will be very hard to unsubscribe again like with gamepass you see a game want to try it and immediately start playing it 10mins later ok great let's try something else then this and that etc

So to go back to the other store front where every game is behind the purchase now tag would be extremely difficult if you've been in this service for years at that point

personally I think it's a good service but it's not something for me I like to know what game I'm gonna be playing for the next 2 weeks etc and prefer to know what game I'm gonna be turning on before hitting the console As was said too much choice is actually worse in the end

 

[Scottoest]

That was an excellent article. I was expecting shallower analysis, but this actually goes really in depth on every angle around a service like this.

 

[Deleted member 6235]

That's an excellent article. A lot of interesting from different developers. Hopefully Game Pass keeps being something healthy for the industry overall. I'm genuinely impressed by the No More RObots things lmao

 

[Scottoest]

I can definitely see a big price increase at some point down the road the problem then will be the addictive nature of the service will be embedded into you that it will be very hard to unsubscribe again like with gamepass you see a game want to try it and immediately start playing it 10mins later ok great let's try something else then this and that etc

So to go back to the other store front where every game is behind the purchase now tag would be extremely difficult if you've been in this service for years at that point

personally I think it's a good service but it's not something for me I like to know what game I'm gonna be playing for the next 2 weeks etc and prefer to know what game I'm gonna be turning on before hitting the console As was said too much choice is actually worse in the end

Click to shrink...

I'd hazard to guess most Game Pass subscribers are still buying games, considering any triple-A game not released by Microsoft isn't a guarantee to ever show up on the service, and CERTAINLY not at launch.

I also can't imagine Game Pass subs find the low opportunity cost to play games on the service to be an "addictive" experience. Game Pass is also part of the regular store on the console - it's just a different section.

Will Game Pass become an embedded part of peoples' gaming routine? Sure, I could see that. In fact, I think Microsoft are counting on that, same as people got used to paying for online multiplayer.

 

[12Danny123]

If the business model is successful -- and this article paints an extremely positive picture of it -- then you have to imagine that Sony and Nintendo are going to be there imminently as well.

It's not some technological triumph, outside of perhaps the streaming aspect; it's a business model, and it's clearly just the numbers that are preventing Sony and Nintendo from copying it right now.

Click to shrink...

The economics apply differently to Microsoft than it does to Sony and Nintendo. Microsoft has enough money to burn money on Game Pass until it gains market share and eventually a profit, they can do this because of their size and that Xbox is not a core business to MS. Gaming is a core business for both Nintendo and Sony, so they will be much more cautious and less willing to absorb billions of losses for 5+ years and that is without taking into account the competition they will be up against.

 

[Trup1aya]

Did anyone think it was not a loss leader? It eventually becomes profitable two ways : higher costs or less third party games.

Click to shrink...

or it continues to loss lead and never becomes Independently profitable.

or growth sees revenues increase disproportionately well compared to operating costs.

 

[StraySheep]

I took away the the only barrier in buying games, I buy no other media, why should gaming be different?

Click to shrink...

We should be buying media.

 

[12Danny123]

Interesting article. I think it's awesome to the positive impressions from third parties on the service.
As a customer, my only concern is that of the inevitable price hike(s). Game Pass is cool, but if it were, say, 5€/month more expensive, I'd probably jump off that train. Although if I did have a Series X, I'd probably not care.

On the PC side, I wish they'd just toss the UWP stuff. Every PC game on Game Pass just feels like a lesser version of a PC game you'd get from any other storefront because of it. I can kind of see the argument for the 'cheap version' being a gimped one, but on the other hand, you don't a get a stripped down, shit version of a Xbox game on GP for Xbox.

Click to shrink...

UWP will unlikely go away. It will improve, but not go away. Windows 10X, their light OS, UWP is running natively on that OS, Win32 won't. We will need to see how the Unified Xbox GDK work across PC and Console, but gut feeling is that they will use UWP and not Win32, especially Xbox doesn't support Win32 games.

I actually think it can lead to a healthier and more sustainable industry, as long as it doesn't end up going the route of each publisher wanting to have its own subscription service and putting games exclusively on them (like what's happening on the TV side).

Game Pass allows smaller games to find an audience and larger games to be made with smaller risk. Multiplayer games thrive because groups of friends don't need to buy several copies of the same game to play together. Single player games don't need to worry about not having enough "hours per dollar". Indie devs can make their games with a certain guaranteed financial return from Microsoft, while AAA publishers can lengthen the tails of their titles by making them easily available to anyone.

Click to shrink...

I think unlike the film and TV space, gaming companies aren't as established and don't own as many IPs. TV Film companies on average are a LOT bigger than gaming companies.

 

[JhOnNY_HD]

The only concern I have about GP its quality vs quantity aproach.

 

[tatotiburon]

Xbox Gamespass : illegally unhealthy, unstable, unclear, too good to be true

 

[Fabtacular]

The only "danger" of GamePass (as long as MS is willing to fund it) is relatively steep subscription price hike. Otherwise I don't see anything else, especially if MS commits to big blockbuster single player games without any catch - like GAAS elements slapped on day one.

Click to shrink...

They can only charge what the market will bear. Personally, I think even $15/month is kinda pushing it.

For example, imagine a hypothetical situation where MS bought ALL the video games (literally all console/PC games) and put them on Gamepass. What could they charge?

They could charge $60/month, but then their subscriber base would be limited to people with a video game budget of $60/month. That's a pretty limited number of people. Maybe the top 2% of people who pay for console/PC games.

They could charge $30/month, but the potential subscriber base would be similarly limited. How many people are ready to spend $360/year for video games? Not that many people.

Even the $15/month they're asking is quite a bit. There was a statistic a couple years back where over the lifetime of the PS4 there were only around 9 games sold per console. If you figure the average console life is ~5 years, that's less than two games per year. If we generously assume that each of those games is sold at full price (which they obviously aren't) that's only $120/year. (Yes, admittedly you can tack on ~$40/year for PS+/GWG since Gamepass obviates the need for that expense.)

People can only play so many video games. And not only are there more than plenty of F2P games out there, but the pay-to-play games are bigger, longer, and more content-rich than ever. The average gamer can find no shortage of great gaming experiences to fill their time without spending $180/year. And when you see Ubisoft announce that they're going to move some of their focus away from AAA games and toward F2P games you can see that this will be truer than ever in the future.

My point is that the path to Gamepass profitability is much more weighted towards adding more users, rather than adding more fees. For the foreseeable future, at least, MS' investments in Gamepass content will be much more about "how can we get more users to sign up" and less about "how can we justify a price increase."

 

[Trup1aya]

We should be buying media.

Click to shrink...

Why?

In any case, SOMEBODY is paying for me to experience the media.

We should have multiple business models coexisting so that consumers can choose what works best for them.

 

[Scottoest]

They can only charge what the market will bear. Personally, I think even $15/month is kinda pushing it.

For example, imagine a hypothetical situation where MS bought ALL the video games (literally all console/PC games) and put them on Gamepass. What could they charge?

They could charge $60/month, but then their subscriber base would be limited to people with a video game budget of $60/month. That's a pretty limited number of people. Maybe the top 2% of people who pay for console/PC games.

They could charge $30/month, but the potential subscriber base would be similarly limited. How many people are ready to spend $360/year for video games? Not that many people.

Even the $15/month they're asking is quite a bit. There was a statistic a couple years back where over the lifetime of the PS4 there were only around 9 games sold per console. If you figure the average console life is ~5 years, that's less than two games per year. If we generously assume that each of those games is sold at full price (which they obviously aren't) that's only $120/year. (Yes, admittedly you can tack on ~$40/year for PS+/GWG since Gamepass obviates the need for that expense.)

People can only play so many video games. And not only are there more than plenty of F2P games out there, but the pay-to-play games are bigger, longer, and more content-rich than ever. The average gamer can find no shortage of great gaming experiences to fill their time without spending $180/year. And when you see Ubisoft announce that they're going to move some of their focus away from AAA games and toward F2P games you can see that this will be truer than ever in the future.

My point is that the path to Gamepass profitability is much more weighted towards adding more users, rather than adding more fees. For the foreseeable future, at least, MS' investments in Gamepass content will be much more about "how can we get more users to sign up" and less about "how can we justify a price increase."

Click to shrink...

$15/mo is psychologically a very different value proposition for the average game consumer than dropping $60 or $70 at a time. This is part of the reason why research shows people generally don't drop subscriptions after they sign up for them - $15 seems like nothing. And I suspect Game Pass is going to stay at that $15 price point for a long time, for several reasons I won't bother going into here.

I agree that ultimately the success of Game Pass hinges on scale, rather than increasing the fee. It's why they are doing everything possible right now to grow that subscriber base as quickly as humanly possible, including that rather hamfisted attempt to push Gold subs onto it a couple of weeks ago.

I don't think we'll know the outcome of that mission for at least a couple of years. The real proving moment will come when all of their studios start pumping games directly into the service, versus the more inconsistent big release it gets now, supplemented with third-party deals.