Phil Spencer admits F2P is future, not subscription model...

Men_in_Boxes

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman



This should be the biggest news story of the month. It looks like Microsoft finally realized what Jim Big Daddy Ryan realized years ago. F2P is the future of this medium, not GamePass. Obviously both will coexist for a while, but if Phil Spencer is publically saying he only sees 10 - 15 percent revenue potential, a pivot could come sooner rather than later.

My F2P bros, huzzah!
 
Last edited:
Xbox Games Pass "I think it'll stay in that 10-15% overall revenue, and it's profitable for us"
Click to expand...

Game Pass has gone from 'sustainable' to 'it's profitable for us'.

Happy Well Done GIF by Top Talent
 
I agree that F2P games are and will continue to be the big money makers. I believe that's the path Sony is taking with the rumored TLOU Online and probably other titles.
 
I don't know if this actually holds up or if this is irrational exuberance by suits because ROI...again.
Wall Street investors HATE uncertainty, and F2P games are still hit or miss when it comes to their irrational expectation levels of success, and that uncertainty kills the Wall Street boner.
What does give Wall Street a HUGE boner is Monthly Recurring Revenue since it's tangible, predictable, and gives certainty for revenue expectations and future guidance.
 
Phil has always said Gamepass is a side option, another way to access games, i dont remember him ever saying its the future ands everyone will be on Gamepass.
I even said i predict 50mil Gamepass subs by the end of this gen, but even then thats 50mil subs from like 300mil PC and Xbox gamers.
 
Markio128 said:
Is this good or bad? I can't tell the difference anymore 😂
Click to expand...

It's good.

F2P requires developers work for your money with every transaction. They can't rest on laurels or offer us crap.

Subscription drinks your milkshake every month, in darkness, whether your paying attention or not.
 
Microsoft searching for that Genshin Impact style profits game. I wouldn't be surprised if major companies started eyeing Hoyo for a possible buyout.
 
I guess this is relevant with the takeover, but Blizzard is charging over $20 for a skin customization in overwatch. Two Halloween skins are going for $47.


This will be really good for smaller and independent studios since the big players are becoming such rip-offs that they're going to ruin gaming.

I would be ok paying $100 for games today. They've barely changed in price over the last 20 years and have gotten cheaper in most aspects. I cannot stand battlepasses, f2p garbage with 10,000 currencies obfuscating what the price of something actually is.
 
Last edited:
TransTrender said:
What does give Wall Street a HUGE boner is Monthly Recurring Revenue since it's tangible, predictable, and gives certainty for revenue expectations and future guidance.
Click to expand...
MS nor Apple or anyone else won't be able to convert a decent chunk of their 3rd party transaction-based revenue into a subscription revenue; i think the economics just wont work cause of the revenue generated by whales.

The game is to increase MAU/Engagement to get more transactions on your storefront.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/10/opinion/sway-kara-swisher-phil-spencer.html?showTranscript=1

Transaction is bigger than subscription. Subscription is growing faster, just because it's relatively new. And with Game Pass, we were one of the first movers in that space. But the transaction business is very large. We still sell physical disks.
Click to expand...
 
Men_in_Boxes said:



This should be the biggest news story of the month. It looks like Microsoft finally realized what Jim Big Daddy Ryan realized years ago. F2P is the future of this medium, not GamePass. Obviously both will coexist for a while, but if Phil Spencer is publically saying he only sees 10 - 15 percent revenue potential, a pivot could come sooner rather than later.

My F2P bros, huzzah!
Click to expand...

No thanks...the moment they implement F2P model with moneygrabs ingame bullshit I will not play single game.
 
F2P is in a good place despite all the old heads complaining. It's a game that's free with cosmetics up for sale. I might spend 50$ on a game I put hundred of hours into on cosmetics by the time I put it down. 20$ on fall guys , 30 on infinite, 30 on cod (2 years of Warzone) which is 80$ on games I usually would pay 60/ 70 a piece. So yea it's the future, some will spend a lot, some a little and the rest in the middle. The price should be fair but at the same time cosmetics don't affect gameplay and strictly fomo. I think more games will be f2p but we have a decent balance rn.
 
What's interesting is that the F2P model goes directly against the subscription model. Only a paid game on a subscription service can be an incentive to join that subscription.

I don't understand what Phil is thinking here, but they (or anyone else for that matter) cannot focus on these two things at the same time. You gotta pick one over another.
 
Heisenberg007 said:
What's interesting is that the F2P model goes directly against the subscription model. Only a paid game on a subscription service can be an incentive to join that subscription.

I don't understand what Phil is thinking here, but they (or anyone else for that matter) cannot focus on these two things at the same time. You gotta pick one over another.
Click to expand...
If that's the case then every console maker is doing it wrong because they all have paid sub plans for MP and games, but allow F2P MP gaming without needing a sub plan.

Why have MP sub plans and GP and PS+ if they can play Fortnite and such for free?
 
Men_in_Boxes said:



This should be the biggest news story of the month. It looks like Microsoft finally realized what Jim Big Daddy Ryan realized years ago. F2P is the future of this medium, not GamePass. Obviously both will coexist for a while, but if Phil Spencer is publically saying he only sees 10 - 15 percent revenue potential, a pivot could come sooner rather than later.

My F2P bros, huzzah!
Click to expand...


I don't think he's implying what you think he is, tbh. LOL

F2P has been the biggest driver of revenue since fortnite blew up. That's the future of multi-player only experiences, no question. That's why Halo multiplayer released F2P. GP is for games with traditional campaigns (whether single player only or with multi-player coop). That's why I've always said the people that thought MS would go full GAAS because of GP weren't thinking it through very well, because big GAAS games are always going to be F2P for the most part. Though I guess it depends on what you consider GAAS, I don't automatically consider anything with DLC/MTX as a GAAS, some people do.

Heisenberg007 said:
What's interesting is that the F2P model goes directly against the subscription model. Only a paid game on a subscription service can be an incentive to join that subscription.

I don't understand what Phil is thinking here, but they (or anyone else for that matter) cannot focus on these two things at the same time. You gotta pick one over another.
Click to expand...

Why on earth couldn't you do both? LOL

Unless you figure that MS/Sony and the rest are going to quit making campaigns and single player content. Just like with Halo, the multi-player component doesn't add value to a subscription, but the campaign does.

I will agree with the point about the online MP subscription, you've got to think that the relevance of Xbox Live Gold and PS+ Essentials isn't all that long for the world with the way things are going. That's why both MS and Sony are trying to transition to a different game based subscription that can still have value.
 
Last edited:
Heisenberg007 said:
What's interesting is that the F2P model goes directly against the subscription model. Only a paid game on a subscription service can be an incentive to join that subscription.
Click to expand...
Hmm, GP + Riot deal is probably an example against that as well as all of the other GPU perks. Also remember Fortnite has a subscription model as well.

Its not as clean cut as your comment.
 
As long as it's cosmetics I don't mind. I never pay for stuff like that, others will and keep the game alive for me to play for free.
 
DaGwaphics said:
I don't think he's implying what you think he is, tbh. LOL

F2P has been the biggest driver of revenue since fortnite blew up. That's the future of multi-player only experiences, no question. That's why Halo multiplayer released F2P. GP is for games with traditional campaigns (whether single player only or with multi-player coop). That's why I've always said the people that thought MS would go full GAAS because of GP weren't thinking it through very well, because big GAAS games are always going to be F2P for the most part. Though I guess it depends on what you consider GAAS, I don't automatically consider anything with DLC/MTX as a GAAS, some people do.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Even COD has free warzone. What Activision could had done is bury that as a mode within buying a copy of the game.

But the game coexists with warzone and the core game. And both do great. The game still sells 20 million copies like nothing happened and even more play warzone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Phil Spencer's Legacy as told by Phil Spencer
2 3
106
6K
Negotiator replied
Phil Spencer. Post if you're okay.
2 3 4
152
12K
Kerotan replied
  • Poll
Which UBI IP should Phil Spencer and XBOX purchase?
2
85
2K
Holammer replied
Phil Spencer: We're not going to put walls up on our games
2 3 4 5 6
298
15K
Dorago replied
Xbox Series S Parity Clause Is Staying Put, Phil Spencer Says
2 3
135
7K
Codeblew replied
Top Bottom