Game Pass is not profitable yet - Tom Warren

Exactly if you had gold, you can upgrade to gamepass for $1. Whats the objection?
Not the person who commented, but I think the objection is that you need $1 on top of $180 to use that deal. Not everyone is an Xbox Live Gold subscriber for 3 years.

I think that's a fair point. It's $181, not $1 -- unless you already have gold stacked up for 3 years.
 
Not the person who commented, but I think the objection is that you need $1 on top of $180 to use that deal. Not everyone is an Xbox Live Gold subscriber for 3 years.

I think that's a fair point. It's $181, not $1 -- unless you already have gold stacked up for 3 years.
Hence $1 deal as I originally said. 🤷
 
Not the person who commented, but I think the objection is that you need $1 on top of $180 to use that deal. Not everyone is an Xbox Live Gold subscriber for 3 years.

I think that's a fair point. It's $181, not $1 -- unless you already have gold stacked up for 3 years.
That's a 1 dollar deal …

if you've already paid up for Live, you could convert it for … 1 dollar.

It's taking advantage of money already paid and the additional capital required is … again …

1 dollar.
 
Hence $1 deal as I originally said. 🤷
That's a 1 dollar deal …

if you've already paid up for Live, you could convert it for … 1 dollar.

It's taking advantage of money already paid and the additional capital required is … again …

1 dollar.
I think it's a matter of technicality that we are stuck in now, but ...

How I think is that "you can get Gamepass for 3 years for $181". You may have paid 33%, 67%, or 99% of that amount some time ago that you can now utilize, but the total amount necessary to activate that deal is $181 -- so you'll have to pay the remaining balance.

I don't think many would have 3 years stacked up if they had no reason to convert to Gamepass.
 
Last edited:
Not the person who commented, but I think the objection is that you need $1 on top of $180 to use that deal. Not everyone is an Xbox Live Gold subscriber for 3 years.

I think that's a fair point. It's $181, not $1 -- unless you already have gold stacked up for 3 years.
It's not $180 for 3 years. Unless your real lazy or stupid or both you can get gold for $30-35. If your tech savvy then $23 from Xbox Brazil. $69 in total + $3 for GPU.
 
It's not $180 for 3 years. Unless your real lazy or stupid or both you can get gold for $30-35. If your tech savvy then $23 from Xbox Brazil. $69 in total + $3 for GPU.
You may or may not get deals for everything under the sun. I'm mentioning list price -- which is what the majority of gamers will get it at.

PS+ is $60 (although you can technically get it for as low as $30). But it's the list price that matters when comparing products and for the majority of people (not us, who are hardcore gamers, and spend hours on gaming forums)
 
I think it's a matter of technicality that we are stuck in now, but ...

How I think is that "you can get Gamepass for 3 years for $181". You may have paid 33%, 67%, or 99% of that amount some time ago that you can now utilize, but the total amount necessary to activate that deal is $181 -- so you'll have to pay the remaining balance.

I don't think many would have 3 years stacked up if they had no reason to convert to Gamepass.

The guy is making out that the majority of people stack 3 years worth of XBL by default, excludes that cost and only includes the cost of $1/£1.

Ive never know anyone to have 3 years worth of XBL/PSN at a time, unless they are purposely going for this deal, so it's disingenuous to not include the cost of it. Who coincidently has EXACTLY 3 years worth of XBL and converts it at that exact time, unknowing that they just maximised on savings.

So here's me, new to Xbox since the the 360. I came to the XSX with no owned games and no membership of anything. I bought 3 years worth of XBL to convert to Gamepass.... And the dude is saying it cost me a total of $1.

The only people who say "you spent $1 for 3 years" are Sony diehard fanboys who are trying to downplay the service and its popularity. The service is obviously not going to turn a profit atm (like every other subscription service in the world, they are in subscriber aquisition mode, offering good deals). Those deals will go at some point. I myself think the sub is worth the full price atm. We will see what gamepass is like in the future.
 
Last edited:
Netflix only became profitable in the last few years despite being streaming since 2007. I doubt Gamepass will be profitable right away.
 
Seriously, I've been years on this forum and never ever understood the fixation here about how much money a trillion dollar company makes or doesn't make. And for just as long nobody could ever answer the question why anyone should be concerned?

I don't care! It's not in or out of my pocket now is it? I enjoy the best deal in gaming and continue to do so, for as long as it is going I'll be subscribed simply because it's a no brainer if you like games.
It's a concern if MS decide to hoover up more publishers/developers to feed their Gamepass strategy.
 
Last edited:
My final word on this.. i own every game for ps3 and ps4 , and vita, i could ever want. I barely ever play any of them.

Having access to every game, for a pretty nominal fee, games which i wouldn't even actually OWN, Would pretty much kill my already gimped chances of latching on to and finishing great titles.
 
I doubt it will ever be profitable in its current state. Either they miraculously take all of Sony's consumers to boost their numbers or they reduce the amount of games or the level of games they offer or they start to screw the devs on the production costs to squeeze everything down. Either way it's got no longevity other than a landfill for MS money.
 
My final word on this.. i own every game for ps3 and ps4 , and vita, i could ever want. I barely ever play any of them.

Having access to every game, for a pretty nominal fee, games which i wouldn't even actually OWN, Would pretty much kill my already gimped chances of latching on to and finishing great titles.
Nintendo have the right idea as a business, don't devalue your product.

These publishers have been destroying their own ability to sell games.
 
Nintendo have the right idea as a business, don't devalue your product.

These publishers have been destroying their own ability to sell games.

I would argue Sony is in the same boat as Nintendo.

Their games are quality and for the most part all first party sell very well. Thing is SOny does more deals than Nintendo and is willing to do sales on their games since they release more than Nintendo with their exclusive third/second party deals. SO they have more traffic coming to their store on a daily basis, so their whole strat isn't centered around releasing one big title like pokemon for the year like NIntendo is.

Same idea, different execution.
 
The guy is making out that the majority of people stack 3 years worth of XBL by default, excludes that cost and only includes the cost of $1/£1.

Ive never know anyone to have 3 years worth of XBL/PSN at a time, unless they are purposely going for this deal, so it's disingenuous to not include the cost of it. Who coincidently has EXACTLY 3 years worth of XBL and converts it at that exact time, unknowing that they just maximised on savings.

So here's me, new to Xbox since the the 360. I came to the XSX with no owned games and no membership of anything. I bought 3 years worth of XBL to convert to Gamepass.... And the dude is saying it cost me a total of $1.
Exactly my point. At the end of the day, it costs you $540 for 3 years (if you subscribe for $15 per month with no deals) or $181 for 3 years (if you go through the XBLG upgrade route). You may have paid some of that amount previously, but that doesn't change the total cost.
 

Music streaming and a game subscription service are not the same thing. There are a few dozen developers/publishers involved with game pass, not tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) like on spotify. The deals are also different, developers are often paid up front on game pass. Spotify also doesn't sell DLC/microtransactions as add ons to their songs.
 
Last edited:
Oh wow. You know what? I don't fucking care!
I'm using the GP, i have game "for free" dudes, i really don't care, I'm not a Microsoft shareholder lol.
That service is a beast, best deal in gaming, will be profitable because yes ffs, it will have like 50 million subscribers in a couple of years, i mean there is a fucking good reason if Microsoft is still investing in the GP, there is a reason if I'm writing on a gaming forum and I'm not in Phil Spencer role, I know nothing after all, I'm paying the service I'm not managing it.
Relax and enjoy the gamepass ; )
 
Last edited:
Music streaming and a game subscription service are not the same thing. There are a few dozen developers/publishers involved with game pass, not tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) like on spotify. The deals are also different, developers are often paid up front on game pass. Spotify also doesn't sell DLC/microtransactions as add ons to their songs.
It's an interesting cope indeed, since Spotify is by far the #1 audio streaming platform in the world, yet somehow they're implying that Spotify is somehow failing? :messenger_beaming:
 
Oh wow. You know what? I don't fucking care!
I'm using the GP, i have game "for free" dudes, i really don't care, I'm not a Microsoft shareholder lol.
That service is a beast, best deal in gaming, will be profitable because yes ffs, it will have like 50 million subscribers in a couple of years, i mean there is a fucking good reason if Microsoft is still investing in the GP, there is a reason if I'm writing on a gaming forum and I'm not in Phil Spencer role, I know nothing after all, I'm paying the service I'm not managing it.
Relax and enjoy the gamepass ; )
And when we have the next video game crash,we'll know who to blame.
 
What is this "clear picture", you think the Spotify numbers show?
"Overall, the company made a net loss of €20 million, compared to a net loss of €356 million it made in the same quarter the previous year."

And this is with 165 million subs
 
Last edited:
Spotify added a new revenue stream to their streaming service, one that gamepass already had. Buying other shit on the platform

I keep saying Amazon Prime and Prime Video is the right comparison for Gamepass.
 
Last edited:
It's an interesting cope indeed, since Spotify is by far the #1 audio streaming platform in the world, yet somehow they're implying that Spotify is somehow failing? :messenger_beaming:
Depending on your POV, it is. As long as you're not one of the top musicians, that is backed by one of the bigger music studios, you can't make a living from earnings on Spotify.

They pay around 0.04 USD per 10 Streams... You can do the maths by yourself how many streams you need to have, if you are in a band of four people, if you want to make a living per month.
 
"Overall, the company made a net loss of €20 million, compared to a net loss of €356 million it made in the same quarter the previous year."

And this is with 165 million subs

Do you think that Spotify and Game Pass are even remotely comparable, outside the fact that they are streaming subscriptions?
 
Do you think that Spotify and Game Pass are even remotely comparable, outside the fact that they are streaming subscriptions?
No, it's even worse for gaming services

Way less subscribers and gaming being way more expensive = Even harder to turn a profit
 
This was already known. Most subscribers have got great deals at the start. Microsoft is hoping they will stick when they start charging usual bill and their studio start producing games. Right now they aren't making any profit but I don't think they are making any huge losses as well. They will make loss once their big hitters start dropping in few years and then MS will hope they can charge more

Still won't stop people from subscribing for few months and play all the title and then move on.
 
Last edited:
"Overall, the company made a net loss of €20 million, compared to a net loss of €356 million it made in the same quarter the previous year."

And this is with 165 million subs
Now imagine that streaming company has also 10 games on the Steam's top 100 biggest profit games of 2020, being probably the publisher with most games there.
 
Last edited:
Depending on your POV, it is. As long as you're not one of the top musicians, that is backed by one of the bigger music studios, you can't make a living from earnings on Spotify.

They pay around 0.04 USD per 10 Streams... You can do the maths by yourself how many streams you need to have, if you are in a band of four people, if you want to make a living per month.

Its pretty insane how despite Spotify having more subscribers and the worst revenue split with artists/content creators its still making losses every quarter.
 
No, it's even worse for gaming services

Way less subscribers and gaming being way more expensive = Even harder to turn a profit

There's also way less recipients of the revenue created = even easier to turn a profit

See, it's easy to make baseless claims. At least provide some decent math, if you want to have a debate.
 
"Overall, the company made a net loss of €20 million, compared to a net loss of €356 million it made in the same quarter the previous year."

And this is with 165 million subs
Think the little fact that YoY net profit improved EUR336m is also quite important when analysis this statement.
 
Jimmy Fallon Wow GIF by The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon


Bumping an old thread to concern troll and the fellow warriors pile on. Almost like they have a "secret discord" or conspiracy 🤣🤣
 
Do you think that Spotify and Game Pass are even remotely comparable, outside the fact that they are streaming subscriptions?

Musicians and their publishers have always made the bulk of their money from events/tours and licensing deals.

Hope Phil is working out hard to get in shape for the XO22 world tour events. Gonna need those sell out crowds more than ever.
 
There's also way less recipients of the revenue created = even easier to turn a profit

See, it's easy to make baseless claims. At least provide some decent math, if you want to have a debate.

There's only one recipient of revenue created in both cases. Spotify and Microsoft. Are you confusing that with providers of content?

The equation for streaming services is fairly straightforward. Profit/Loss = Revenue - cost of content - cost of running the service

It would hardly be stunning news that cost of content > revenue for Gamepass right now. It would be more surprising if it wasnt.
 
Last edited:
Musicians and their publishers have always made the bulk of their money from events/tours and licensing deals.

Hope Phil is working out hard to get in shape for the XO22 world tour events. Gonna need those sell out crowds more than ever.

Hilarious as always.

There's only one recipient of revenue created in both cases. Spotify and Microsoft. Are you confusing that with providers of content?

The equation for streaming services is fairly straightforward. Profit/Loss = Revenue - cost of content - cost of running the service

It would hardly be stunning news that cost of content > revenue for Gamepass right now. It would be more surprising if it wasnt.

I'm not confusing anything no, and I'm certainly not arguing that Gamepass is a money maker, but using Spotify as a proof is, well, useless, to be frank, since they can't be compared.
 
Just hope Shawn's maths has developed from the last time he commented where he thought you'd need a billion dollars a month coming in for a game subscription service to be profitable.
 
There's only one recipient of revenue created in both cases. Spotify and Microsoft. Are you confusing that with providers of content?

The equation for streaming services is fairly straightforward. Profit/Loss = Revenue - cost of content - cost of running the service

It would hardly be stunning news that cost of content > revenue for Gamepass right now. It would be more surprising if it wasnt.

The overall strategy for these subscription services is simple - it's a war of attrition to see who can survive the longest and then once a particular subscription provider believes they have command of the market they can control the prices on both sides of the equation.
 
Just hope Shawn's maths has developed from the last time he commented where he thought you'd need a billion dollars a month coming in for a game subscription service to be profitable.

Haha. I totally forgot about that!

"It's very hard to launch a $120M game on a subscription service charging $9.99 a month," he claimed. "You pencil it out, you're going to have to have 500 million subscribers before you start to recoup your investment.
 
Haha. I totally forgot about that!

"It's very hard to launch a $120M game on a subscription service charging $9.99 a month," he claimed. "You pencil it out, you're going to have to have 500 million subscribers before you start to recoup your investment.
My mistake, 500 million users paying $12 a month is actually $6 billion dollars a month :messenger_tears_of_joy: :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 
Top Bottom