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

synchronicity said:
I'd much rather pay the better indies for their low-budget, but passionate creations than be part of a AAA microtransaction future. It's not gaming - it's commerce with a gaming skin.
Click to expand...
HtCytqG.gif
 
Ghost of Johto said:
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.
Click to expand...
Only if you like playing a certain kind of game. The game design changes completely to accomodate the F2P model. The kind of games I enjoy would not work with the F2P model. It isn't about being an old head. I have played multiple F2P games and played lots of F2P mobile games. After years, I realized F2P games go for a quantity over quality approach. Most of the content either involved cosmetics or grinding or repetitive RPG mechanics.

If you aren't a multiplayer oriented gamer and don't care for grinding and want story and interesting gameplay mechanics to be a focus, F2P games aren't it. Also, not everyone has access to stable internet connection as these games are usually online only. Playing most of these games with horrible ping is a headache. Forget about using the most out of my 144 HZ display.
 
synchronicity said:
I'd much rather pay the better indies for their low-budget, but passionate creations than be part of a AAA microtransaction future. It's not gaming - it's commerce with a gaming skin.
Click to expand...

Thankfully that is an option. Some of the most fun I've had in gaming this year is Windjammers 2, Infernax, Vampire Survivors and Door Kickers Action Squad (lttp on this one).
 
This reads a lot like

"Here's our subscription, subscribe and get all our first party games for free…we're making all our games free to play"
 
They obviously want their own f2p blockbuster like Genshin Impact or Apex Legends. Gamepass is just a side b*tch that keeps paying the bills until that happens.
 
Last edited:
It seems like many decisions were taken recently internally about future strategies, which type of games to make and prices.
Phil is trying to prepare the ground.
 
SSfox said:
He really has no idea what the fuck he's doing. Today he say something, tomorrow another thing, and a week later another thing.

Bro the future is simply "GREAT GAMES", either it can be full priced games, and it can be F2P games, but mostly it's gonna be the full priced games, as for those F2P it's veryspecial and rare to hit the Fortnite, PUBG, Genshin success. Many F2P have failed hardcore and still do.
Click to expand...

Always chasing the latest trend.

Never creating or innovating.
 
from subscription model is profitable to F2p is the future.

Amazing Phil, as always.
 
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...

comprehension for the loss? first big daddy Ryan has zero published free to play games. So not sure why you are giving him credit? He barely has any GAAS titles, so free to play is a larger jump.

Second, 10 - 15% of gaming revenue when that revenue continues to grow will means it will get bigger, but never be larger then 15% overall. They are limited by how many consoles they sell beyond PC. So your doom and gloom take on it is kinda ridiculous.
 
aclar00 said:
Unironically, a black t-shirt and performance pants...and a 5 year old Rav4 that we got once we had a kid. Both more functional than unique. Dont get me wrong, i understand the yearnintlg to be unique or standout, but to spend money to do so on a digital character that isnt a direct representation of self just baffles me a bit....but to each their own.

There are people who would question why i pay for video games, just as i would question why someone else would pay what i would consider an exhubertant amount of money on them.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure if buying a Metallica T in real life is that much different than buying a Metallica T in the digital realm. It's certainly a new frontier we're wading into though.
 
DragonNCM said:
No thanks...the moment they implement F2P model with moneygrabs ingame bullshit I will not play single game.
Click to expand...

But there are already mutliple F2P games on PlayStation and Xbox. And by it's very nature, all F2P games have in game microtransactions.

You gonna quit gaming, then?
 
I don't really agree, but i can't really complain. Sunk a lot of hours in f2p games, and only spent money in 1 (Dota 2). Currently having a good time with OW2.

I don't agree f2p is trash. Some of the best multiplayer games are f2p. Now that i think about it, outside of WoW i don't really think nowadays i would buy a multiplayer game.

I also like the subscription model, i don't really care about 'owning' the game. I'm a bigger fan of new experiences than replayability.
 
Platinumstorm said:
We used to pay 65-$80 for SNES games back in the 90s, N64 games were always around the $60 price point too I believe. I do not have financial hardships, and that certainly factors into things. I definitely used wait for games that I don't have an interest in to hit low prices, but games that I'm interested in I am very willing to spend $ on to support, but I'm not interested in getting ripped off.

I would rather spend $100 on a game I'm going to play and not have to waste time on buying a battlepass to unlock a stupid weapon charm than $20 on 4 games that will just sit in my Steam collection to never be touched.
Click to expand...
I never paid those prices as I want foolish enough to own a n64 😜 ps1 games never topped $50 and usually I'd find them at the game stores and get 4-5 games for that price. Suikoden 2 $20, Tomb raider $10, ff7 $30, etc...

As for current games, steam, psn, eshop sales... As someone who is 95% single player it pays to wait. Pc has the most and cheapest games. Not being into multiplayer makes buying games so much more affordable. My only issue is having a backlog that would take 2 lifetimes to get through.

The last f2p games I played were warframe and I hated the long time to level or unlock anything. You could tell it was made for spending coin. Path of exile was fun, I just didn't like how you had to physically trade with people as there was no gold. And war thunder... I still play that. It and poe are the only f2p I actually bought anything. Warthunder is really fun and you can still unlock new planes and tanks easily. All other f2p aren't for me.
 
Last edited:
the_master said:
No
The bad thing about f2p is that you design the game to create the need to spend, spend sooner, spend faster, spend bigger ammounts and more often… play for as long as possible and keep paying. That is why they make so much money, and it is unstoppable cuse it drives itself.
It is only getting worse.
Click to expand...
Bad for you. There's options. Elden ring , HFW and GOW dropped this year. At the same time as OW2, rumble verse etc. I enjoy F2P so it's in a good space. But if you don't there's still many options.
 
F2P means sub AAA, cookie cutter games with heavy microtransactions and pay to win mechanics. Umm No!

Ol' Phil should be focusing on what exclusive bangers he is going to bring to Xbox, I'm still waiting after many many years... Where are they Phil, where are they?
 
Last edited:
Well of course, since gamepass is devaluating games.

If gamepass become hugely successful and is used by a majority of hardcore gamers, it will push devs to go F2P to try to get those gamepass gamers to still download their game even if it's not featured on GP.

Let's be clear: this is a fucking terrible scenario... and MS loves this.
 
Last edited:
Am I the only one who thinks this is interesting timing to say f2p is the future not subscription when the cma have been broadsiding gamepass. MS has already put out a few f2p games and none have done well, don't bring up sea of thieves because you have to buy that or use gamepass.
 
Yeah I hate the free to play model. What's the point of investing time and money towards something when the servers shut down and all your effort and stats disappear. This is why single player is best. Can't rely on multiplayer free to play anymore cause they will remove the things you enjoy.
 
DaGwaphics said:
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.
Click to expand...
You can do both, but both can't be your main focus at the same time.

For example, Sony's main focus right now is retail game sales. That's why their main focus can't be PS+ because first-party games' availability on PS+ day one eats right into their game sales (their other main focus). It's a zero-sum game. But Sony can focus on retail sales (primary focus) as well as F2P games (secondary focus).

Same goes here.

Gamepass (subscriptions) is the main focus of Xbox and their entire business model revolves around this. They can make and release a few F2P games here and there (like Halo Infinite) but that'd come at the cost of GP growth. Their preference would be to make paid games, not F2P games, so they can put them on GP day one and incentivize people to subscribe to GP.

Every first-party studio that makes an F2P means one less game for GP to push subscriber growth.
 
StreetsofBeige said:
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?
Click to expand...
You are actually proving my point right. F2P games aren't dependent on subscription services (they don't require PS+ or XBLG).

That's because it's harder to grow your subscription service on the back of F2P games. And to grow your sub, you need more paid games, not F2P games. Which is why I'm saying that these two are opposite strategies that don't synergize well with each other.
 
Ansphn said:
Why do people listen to Phil Spencer? This dude has been losing since he took over Xbox.
Click to expand...
Is he now?

7isQthe.jpg


Sorry for the French but I'm sure it's understandable as it is. A pretty positive way to lose in my opinion.
hlm666 said:
Am I the only one who thinks this is interesting timing to say f2p is the future not subscription when the cma have been broadsiding gamepass. MS has already put out a few f2p games and none have done well, don't bring up sea of thieves because you have to buy that or use gamepass.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter if MS made those games or not, they are still the top sellers and most active on their platform and I'd say it's the same for others.

The real issue with this F2P model is that it's high risk high reward, statistically a F2P game will die without any traction but if you're one of the lucky winners you'll make gigantic amounts of money. Seems like everyone is ok with the risk for a chance at the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
 
Evil Calvin said:
FTP will kill the industry. Only a few games are successful, most fail.......it will stunt creativity and new IP's.

I knew this industry was on that downward spiral.....it's been happening for years.
Click to expand...
You talk as if over half of the "AAA" announced games weren't either Marvel's: "Insert subname here" or blabla: Remake

Creativity and new IP's got fucked with the development costs' raise and greedyness from these developers, i can't blame them honestly because it's a smart move most of the times (economically) but
 
Heisenberg007 said:
Sony can focus on retail sales (primary focus) as well as F2P games (secondary focus).
Click to expand...
I don't think this is true anymore.

See: Dark green + orange (23%) VS. yellow (32%)

FKkj97pWUAYJRt4

sony4-630x363.png


PlayStation wants to retain the support of their single player fans, but all their behind the scenes machinations have been positioning themselves towards multiplayer. Jim Ryan invested in aircraft carriers when his closest competition was investing in battleships. Pretty impressive reading of the industry for a "non gamer".
 
Halo is Back said:
And Halo Infinite is a F2P game. It's almost like a company can have multiple revenue sources.

giphy.gif
Click to expand...
Clearly the comment went over your head. Spencer is the one that said "F2P is the future NOT subscription models"

Put down the Kool Aid. His words, not mine.
 
Last edited:
Heisenberg007 said:
You can do both, but both can't be your main focus at the same time.

For example, Sony's main focus right now is retail game sales. That's why their main focus can't be PS+ because first-party games' availability on PS+ day one eats right into their game sales (their other main focus). It's a zero-sum game. But Sony can focus on retail sales (primary focus) as well as F2P games (secondary focus).

Same goes here.

Gamepass (subscriptions) is the main focus of Xbox and their entire business model revolves around this. They can make and release a few F2P games here and there (like Halo Infinite) but that'd come at the cost of GP growth. Their preference would be to make paid games, not F2P games, so they can put them on GP day one and incentivize people to subscribe to GP.

Every first-party studio that makes an F2P means one less game for GP to push subscriber growth.
Click to expand...

Are you 100% sure of the bolded line? Certainly that is what they have chosen to market their console with, but I think all these companies would like to have their own Fortnite. That's the holy grail of profits, but not easy to get.

Even them wanting to use GP to sell consoles comes back to that Fortnite style money in some ways, because selling you a console and having you play within their ecosystem is the only way for them to get their cut of that Fortnite pie.

Please note: This is just my opinion and when I say Fortnite I'm equally including Apex and all the rest.
 
Selling games is the future. Just like Nintendo had the best sales this gen with Switch and PS4 for Playstation games.
Its worked for decades, the future doesn't need to be subcription or f2p or mobile. Yes they can make loads of money with it but it shouldnt be the future model of video games. And this bafoon can't dictate it
 
It feels like only Xbox can have a year without any AAA release and get away with it.

How do they do that? Phil is a good talker, but he can't always talk his way out of it.
 
Im i reading this wrong? The tweet says he said "its the most popular business model" not that "it is the future".
 
Evil Calvin said:
FTP will kill the industry. Only a few games are successful, most fail.......it will stunt creativity and new IP's.

I knew this industry was on that downward spiral.....it's been happening for years.
Click to expand...
The most exciting gaming news stories this fall is about a Dead Space remake, a Resident Evil 4 remake and, now, a Witcher remake. The best selling game this year will most likely be a remake of Modern Warfare 2. We are already on the downward spiral of shit and, yes, F2P will be the death knell for sure.
 
Last edited:
Makes sense, plenty of examples out there showing that F2P game monetization makes a TON of money. Especially via mobile or easily accessible devices.

That being said, I'm not sure why anyone would be excited about this. On one hand, F2P games are pretty neat as it means more people can access them. However, they also introduce players to potentially predatory monetization practices. Which is awful for children, which, a lot of these F2P games cater to.

I think having some F2P and paid games coexist is more than fine. But I never wanna see a future where F2P game availability exceeds paid games.
 
Heisenberg007 said:
You are actually proving my point right. F2P games aren't dependent on subscription services (they don't require PS+ or XBLG).

That's because it's harder to grow your subscription service on the back of F2P games. And to grow your sub, you need more paid games, not F2P games. Which is why I'm saying that these two are opposite strategies that don't synergize well with each other.
Click to expand...
Xbox and PS sub plans are growing fine. And that's despite giant F2P games like Fortnite, Warzone, PUBG, Apex and whatever other popular F2P games there are. I think Destiny games are F2P too.

If F2P games were subscription killers, Xbox and PS sub plan members would drop like a rock.

Most F2P games are competitive shooter games. Not everyone plays those games.

Youre assuming Sony and MS mentioning GAAS and F2P means they will ditch supporting their sub plans with paid first and third party kinds of games.
 
Last edited:
FalsettoVibe said:
This gif never gets old. lol
Click to expand...

In case someone didn't get what that means:

www.altchar.com

Sony aggressively pushing GaaS model; two new live-service games to launch in FY22

Sony have two unannounced live-service games in the works that are scheduled to launch in the fiscal year 2022, the company confirmed in their latest Business briefing.
www.altchar.com www.altchar.com

videogamesrepublic.com

Sony wants to become a GaaS factory: 10 service games before 2026 - VideoGamesRepublic.com

To use an expression that one of our faithful readers found: a real “GaaS factory” is looming. In its latest conference with investors, the Sony group
videogamesrepublic.com videogamesrepublic.com

WelltodoUnluckyGemsbok-size_restricted.gif
 
He isn't wrong, and per usual people are extrapolating something out of nothing to twist a nothingburger Phil comment into something negative. It's a fact that F2P is the biggest revenue driver in the industry. PC gamers prefer F2P titles. Mobile users prefer F2P titles. Xbox users prefer F2P titles. PlayStation users prefer F2P titles. The only exception is maybe Nintendo users, but let's not act as if those popular F2P mobile titles wouldn't also explode on Switch, like the Mario Kart one and Pokémon Go.

But revealing that F2P is the most popular model doesn't mean it's "the future" or that other models have to stop or will go away. He even says sub models will continue to be around 15% or whatever of their revenue. Sub models and F2P don't mix. Regular games aren't going anywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Game Pass Is "Not For Everybody," says Phil Spencer
News Business  2 3 4 5 6
263
7K
mckmas8808 replied
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
Top Bottom