I agree.
Honestly, it feels like Game Pass is slowly being phased out or at least completely rethought. Microsoft is clearly shifting focus toward multiplatform releases, chasing higher margins, and moving away from Xbox-specific SKUs. That leaves Game Pass in a weird spot. Most likely, the service will shrink and become more of a side thing rather than the cornerstone of Xbox's strategy. And if the Xbox SKU keeps losing importance, there's a real chance Game Pass just gets phased out entirely—especially if it stops driving meaningful user engagement.
The whole "Netflix of games" pitch made a lot of sense back when the Series X|S launched and Xbox needed a strong selling point. But with more games launching on Steam, PS5, and elsewhere, it's obvious Microsoft is quietly backing away from that approach. Long term, Game Pass either has to evolve into something totally different or just fade away as Xbox moves toward a more open, platform-agnostic future.
MS's idea of "Netflix of games" never made any sense IMO, even when Game Pass was conceptualized. Video games are just such an innately different medium from television, movies, and music. You can't just fire them up in the background while doing housework or productivity on the computer, or even just scrolling social media. The active attention gaming demands is simply much higher than your typical other non-gaming media.
Also, even the shortest modern games these days, outside of MP-centric titles you can fire up for quick sessions, take at least a couple hours to complete. That's the length of most blockbuster and indie films, and we're talking about mainly very small indie games with that type of length. The type of games Game Pass did not predicate its main driving value off of. Even with MP-centric titles, you can certainly play them for 30 minutes or whatever but to get good at them in the first place, you're spending dozens upon dozens of hours grinding to master the mechanics and move up ranks.
I don't know if MS thought there was a market of hundreds of millions of casuals who'd have the same time investment as the ultra hardcore minority who like playing every AAA and beating them as quickly as possible, but if they did, they were wrong in 2017 and still wrong about that in 2025. Besides, that type of ultra hardcore player is going to want the platform or platforms that offer them as many of the big AAA titles as possible, and Xbox completely screwed up there through most of XBO's lifecycle and even during the first few years of Series S & X. For that type of player, the platforms of choice became PS4, PS5, and PC (and for those into Nintendo games, Switch). In all those cases, the ultra hardcore who'd otherwise be a fit for something like Game Pass (in theory) got all the multiplats Xbox had, plus the exclusives of those systems simply absent from Microsoft's ecosystem.
So, MS's first mistake with Game Pass was conflating a maybe 5-8 million ultra hardcore market segment with a 100 million casual market to pitch their "Netflix of gaming" model to. The other mistake was underestimating the preference of hardcore & core gamers in preferring to buy individual games. There are a lot of core gamers who don't need or even want to play every single game released, but they have their specific favorites they have no problem purchasing at release. So, the pitch of a service promising tons of games they don't care about, does nothing for them. This was true in 2017, and it's still true today.
I don't have concrete market research data to back up this position, but it's something I've arrived at after years of observing the growth, stall, and decline of Game Pass as a service, and tying that with information MS have both shared and obfuscated (including timing into when they did these things). It all adds up. IMO if a "Netflix of gaming" service wants to be successful, and we're talking about B2P games here, I think the only option is to do per-game subscription model types. Logistically implementing that would get complicated I guess, but these are major corporations who should have the talent able to handle the task. That's probably where the future of the B2P market goes honestly; it'll have to be something to address the increasing costs for games while not completely cratering the AAA market's revenue by cutting out everyone aside the more affluent income-rich customers. The AAA market can't survive without blue-collar customers.
It's worth noting that Xbox Chief Financial Officer Tim Stuart put Game Pass and subscription services on the same high margin category as the multiplatform releases. Unless you think he's lying to investors?
Also, Xbox's full price game releases on PS5 have shifted from $70 maximum to $80, alongside Nintendo releases. PS5 premium sales are also down 12% vs PS4. What does this say about the state of premium gaming?
No. It just means he's probably stupid.
Nah, the whole idea behind Game Pass was to lock people into the broader Microsoft ecosystem and have recurring monthly revenue. They expect that people will spend on other items outside of the subscription. It's not quite a loss leader, but it's a similar idea.
If they diminish the value of Game Pass, what do they genuinely have left? They didn't spend all those billions on studios just to acquire their revenue stream + have to deal with the insane amount of overhead involved.
They've already diminished Game Pass's value by splitting up offerings in additional tiers while removing content from lower-priced tiers. At one point, you got Day 1 access for every Game Pass tier. Now it's only available for Game Pass Ultimate.
And even there, a lot of games it's not "really" Day 1 because those who preorder get their version a few days early. All of this, while prices across all tiers have increased.
Keep in mind: I don't have anything necessarily against Game Pass. In fact, I think if there were a Game Pass style service for older or indie titles, that this would be something that would benefit those devs. Sony themselves make a ton of money on the added tiers of PS+, the only difference there being that they aren't putting day 1 titles into the service, and have absolutely no plans in doing so in the future.
Technically something like that already exists: Atari's Antstream, and FWIW Xbox did add it recently to one of the Game Pass tiers IIRC. I guess it's neat for what it is, tho considering a lot of those games have been in dollar-bin anthology collections and cheapo retro consoles for decades, maybe not that impressive.
I'd give it more weight if it included more of the latter Atari ST, Falcon, and '90s Atari arcade games. Or maybe they could pull a Nintendo and finish up cancelled games like Black Ice, White Noise.
Outside of that, an a-la carte indie/retro subscription service isn't an inherently bad idea. Nintendo kind of basically do that with retro games through NSO+, and I guess they've generally been the best at it. Tho, they also have other companies' retro systems there too like SEGA and NEC/Hudson. SIE's is decent, but they've been pretty slow in a lot of cases to add obvious titles, and I think there's a lot more they could be doing like adding network functionality to more titles, or doing English translations for Japan-only releases that should be experienced by more people. Even working with fan translators to bring some of that stuff to the Classic catalog would be nice, but they haven't done it yet.
There could be an opportunity in it for Valve to offer that type of service with indie titles specifically, if they meet certain criteria and whatnot. Though, they already tend to do a lot for indies and have Early Access, plus do demos during summer gaming festivals, so maybe they'd be less interested in a subscription service-type model for indies that's a-la carte.