MS wants to put GP on everything.
Game Pass on the Nintendo Switch 2?
- Thread starter Gamer79
- Start date
Sgt. Pinback
(L3) + (R3) | Spartan rage activated
I mean, it would be an awesome idea if Nintendo wanted to be like Microsoft and destroy their brand and their software sales.
vaibhavpisal
Member
Nintendo bros are used to shelling out $60 for basic remasters.
I don't think Nintendo is going to ruin what they have built over last generation.
MS will likely charge $10 extra for their games on system, purchase only.
I don't think Nintendo is going to ruin what they have built over last generation.
MS will likely charge $10 extra for their games on system, purchase only.
Codes 208
Member
If its just gamepass cloud or akin to gamepass pc (but for the switch xbox ports) it wouldnt be that big of a deal, considering theres only a handful of xbox games on switch as-is
DownLikeBCPowder
Member
For now.
Codes 208
Member
Again, not that big of deal. They could halo and gears and it likely still wouldnt phase nintendo.
Currently, Gamepass PC hasnt really put a dent in Steam for example.
laynelane
Member
And Sony, as well. It's not happening because there's no financial incentive for either company to allow it on their platforms. It's been years of it not happening and yet this type of conjecture still occurs. I'm sure we'll have the same conversation when the PS6 comes out too.
reinking
Gold Member
This is not new. Phil really thinks he is the smartest guy in the room and has always wanted Nintendo. This is just part of his "long game" that is not going to work. Remember these gems from the FTC leak?
"Spencer named Nintendo as "The prime asset for us in Gaming."
"I don't think a hostile action would be a good move so we are playing the long game."
He has said for years that he wants Game Pass on Nintendo and PlayStation consoles. Why would he not? It would grow subscriptions. I see a few issues with him getting this done. For one, he is coming from a position of weakness. Neither Sony nor Nintendo need Game Pass to attract users. What is he actually offering them?
Microsoft will support Nintendo and Sony in the form of bringing Microsoft games to their consoles. At least for now. I do expect there to be a court battle over consoles having "walled gardens" at some point in the future. After all, once MS is focused on software sales, they are not going to want pay 30% and the signs are already there that this is where it is headed.
"Spencer named Nintendo as "The prime asset for us in Gaming."
"I don't think a hostile action would be a good move so we are playing the long game."
He has said for years that he wants Game Pass on Nintendo and PlayStation consoles. Why would he not? It would grow subscriptions. I see a few issues with him getting this done. For one, he is coming from a position of weakness. Neither Sony nor Nintendo need Game Pass to attract users. What is he actually offering them?
Microsoft will support Nintendo and Sony in the form of bringing Microsoft games to their consoles. At least for now. I do expect there to be a court battle over consoles having "walled gardens" at some point in the future. After all, once MS is focused on software sales, they are not going to want pay 30% and the signs are already there that this is where it is headed.
Last edited:
Soapbox Killer
Grand Nagus
I don't know if that is the right question. It makes a shit ton of money every year ( $4-5b yearly I think) and that doesn't seem to translate into console sales but I think if you extrapolate the numbers it would equal people buying 3 first party Xbox games a year or something like that.
dragonyeuw
Member
There-in lies the issue. Gamepass has cannibalized sales on their own platform. Guess what is going to happen if they port stuff like Halo and Gears to PS5/Switch 2 PLUS have those games on bespoke Gamepass apps for those systems at the same time? The exact same thing all over again.
Microsoft wants the best of both worlds, they want the install base of PlayStation/Switch to sell games while also using those platforms to push subs. They can't have their cake and eat it too.
I mean, you can have both. You can reach the people who want to buy games and get recurring revenue from the people who are happy subbing.
dragonyeuw
Member
The only way I agree that 'having both' would be preferable is eg. Nintendo allowing people on Switch to buy the old retro games ala carte instead of exclusively via subscription, because those retro games are supplementary to their core strategy of selling newer releases. I owned the Switch for 7 years and never once subscribed to their online, so anecdotally they lost the chance to sell me those games ( and I would have bought plenty of them between the platforms they offered).
Again, Xbox wants both subscription money for new releases while also selling those games in high numbers, and it very clearly isn't going to work within the confines of their own platform. Giving people the choice to either buy Halo on PS5 or sub to GPfor a few bucks a month may work for Microsoft, but I'm betting a significant number of PS5 users ( like XBox ones) will just add the Gamepass add-on ( like EA Play) since they're already subscribed to PS Plus. But the more important factor, Sony would likely take their 30% cut off each sale first, or else Gamepass would already exist on Playstation.
Last edited:
A bunch of decisions over 15+ years cannibalized their hardware including releasing all their games on PC. GP itself definitely doesn't hurt hardware sales.
Software sales were always going to be lower but they still make money through GP. Plus they potentially sell stuff like DLC to people who otherwise wouldn't have bought a game if it wasn't on GP but tried and liked it.
dragonyeuw
Member
I edited my post to add more.
Granted, a series of decisions led to where they are. GP as a concept doesn't hurt hardware sales, but giving the millions of PC gamers the option of 'eh I don't need an Xbox' certainly does. MS gets the money either way, but they absolutely have cratered the console by making it an option. I mean, the 'this is an Xbox' marketing ad couldn't be more clear in intent and in response to their hardware no longer sustaining their ecosystem.
But our opinions as to the viability of having their games both available for sale and subbing doesn't really matter. Xbox as a brand stands as testimony to that strategy. Ask yourself why Nintendo and Sony haven't allowed Gamepass on their systems if they felt it benefited their respective ecosystems.
Last edited:
Totally agree and said as much. Heck, I don't even have an Xbox.
It doesn't benefit them to not have total control on their systems like they have now.
dragonyeuw
Member
I'm not sure if we agree or disagree overall here. Maybe I'm having a slow day comprehension-wise. My overall point is, Sony and Nintendo grant access to their games in ways that complement each other, not take away from. I don't think Gamepass taking from software sales is even an argument, even if you can in simple terms 'have both' to get whatever bites you can from each cherry. The two biggest console stakeholders in terms of hardware and software sales are clearly steering clear of this philosophy with their own games, and they'll allow Microsoft on their platforms in ways that don't upend how they manage their respective ecosystems and branding ( which I 'think' you're saying sooo.. we agree?)
Also, file me under the 'eh, I don't need an Xbox' crowd since I access Gamepass on PC ( currently playing Doom Eternal with Ninja Gaiden II Black booted up next. Finished Indy a few weeks ago). And I'm someone who had an OG Xbox, 3-4 360s, One X, Series S and X. I just didn't see the point in extraneous hardware anymore.
Last edited:
