Support NeoGAF

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

ITT we don't get what Game Pass is...

Option 1 - Go ahead and not subscribe to Game Pass and buy your games as you normally do. Every single title available via Game Pass is available for outright purchase as well. This isn't Netflix.

Option 2 (the best option IMO) - Sub to Game Pass and enjoy the discounts to buying the games outright still, discount DLC/add-ons/expansion/skins/MTX etc. Hell you can even play the game under GP and then buy it if it leaves GP at a further post launch discount too. You get to play games and see what you like before you buy at a discount.

GAF sometimes man...

 

[Humdinger]

Yeah, that's pretty much how I would use it (if I had it) -- as a rental service, to check games out and see which ones I wanted to buy. But then, I would just end up playing that game, so I'd unsub from GP. I'd probably go in cycles like that.

Also, using GP to try out indies makes sense to me. I would be able to play through them rather quickly, so I wouldn't need to buy them.

 

[Korso]

Imagine having OP as your friend

"I don't get why anyone will watch a movie in theatre…you don't get to keep the movie"

"I don't get bowling…you don't get to keep your bowling shoes or bowling ball"

"I don't get why people sing karaoke…you don't get to keep the mic and the karaoke equipment"

Traditionally you never did with those examples... Games are different. Can anyone imagine being your friend. "You can't have an opinion without me chastising you"

 

[GHG]

You aren't wrong (maybe a touch hyperbolic) but they aren't wrong either. I bet I could go through my largest game libraries (Steam, GOG, and PSN) and be perfectly fine if I didn't own 80% of those titles. That percentage is going to vary depending on how judicious you are with your purchases, but I'd guess you could come up with a substantial percentage. These subscription services and Valve's refund policy let you kick the tires on things you are interested in without fully committing to them.

If we are to be minimalistic then yes of course there are plenty of games in our libraries that we would be willing to give up. There will also be plenty of games that we regret buying due to poor judgement or being misled.

However I'm a firm believer that the direct connection between consumers and creators is an important one. When I purchase a game on steam and I decide to keep it beyond the refund period what I'm essentially saying to them is "this product is worthy of my money".

On the other hand with the gamepass/subscription model individuals typically aren't making that selection, they aren't "voting". What is happening is that the business that runs the sub service is curating content for the service and they decide what is worthy and distribute fees accordingly (the fee distribution side is a whole other can of worms, it's a topic within itself), the direct connection is lost. Developers/publishers need not fear any potential blowback (or even mass refunds) if a game is poorly received. They've already got their up-front fee. And in terms of the consumers? Well due to the apathy that these services are creating, they will just brush it off and say something along the lines of "who cares, it was free with gamepass" and then move on to playing/trying something else on the service.

The argument might be that publishers/developers wouldn't want to do this kind of thing because it will reduce the chance that they get another opportunity to launch a game on gamepass (or similar service) - I say not so fast.

We only have to look at the example (or lack thereof) that Microsoft themselves are setting with the service with their big ticket releases of late (Redfall, Starfield and Forza Motorsport). If the people who run the subscription service can't be fucked to ensure the games they release on the service are of a high standard, and the consumers who subscribe to said service don't give a fuck about what they are playing (in part, due to the abundance of options the service offers, people can mindlessly jump around from shit game to shit game and be ok with it because their time is being occupied - a phenomenon which in particular can be seen with Netflix viewership), then why exactly should any third party developer seeking to release on the service care?

The new cities skylines is about to launch on the service, they are already apologising for how shit it's going to be (they are basically telling us the game isn't finished) but they will be getting their gamepass payday regardless. How does that benefit anyone?

 

[Shake Your Rump]

I recently discovered the false value of these subscription services. I subscribed to PlayStation plus from 2016 until this past May. All those "free" games are gone. Games that I have played but would enjoy playing again.

Never again.

 

[FoxMcChief]

Imagine wanting to buy a game, lol

 

[marjo]

I think posting "Am I the only one" in any topic title should result in an insta-ban? Am I the only one?

 

[Buggy Loop]

I would have probably used it more for AA / indie games on PC if Xbox app wasn't so shit. When i stopped using it they had the problem where games could remain on SSD without anyway to remove the taken space even after uninstalling. Never checked if they fixed that, but it was an instant uninstall.

 

[Shake Your Rump]

Also, convenience + saving money thrumps everything as a dad

I'm not picking on you, but this comment struck a chord. To me, this seems like the tragedy of the commons. "I'm maximizing my personal value at the cost of the industry as a whole".

At any point in time, and for whatever reason they see fit, a developer or publisher can either change or remove your "products", without your consent, and there's nothing you can do about it.

IMHO, that is taken into consideration by gamers on Steam. The extreme price cuts and generous refund policy make it so. All we need is a way to transfer licenses to other users as I'm ready for full digital.

 

[AeonGaidenRaiden]

You do know that you can buy any game on gamepass and keep it for life?

 

[bender]

If we are to be minimalistic then yes of course there are plenty of games in our libraries that we would be willing to give up. There will also be plenty of games that we regret buying due to poor judgement or being misled.

However I'm a firm believer that the direct connection between consumers and creators is an important one. When I purchase a game on steam and I decide to keep it beyond the refund period what I'm essentially saying to them is "this product is worthy of my money".

On the other hand with the gamepass/subscription model individuals typically aren't making that selection, they aren't "voting". What is happening is that the business that runs the sub service is curating content for the service and they decide what is worthy and distribute fees accordingly, the direct connection is lost. Developers/publishers need not fear any potential blowback (or even mass refunds) if a game is poorly received. They've already got their up-front fee, and in terms of the consumers? Well due to the apathy that these services are creating, they will just brush it off and say something along the lines of "who cares, it was free with gamepass" and then move on to playing/trying something else on the service.

The argument might be that publishers/developers wouldn't want to do this kind of thing because it will reduce the chance that they get another opportunity to launch a game on gamepass (or similar service) - I say not so fast.

We only have to look at the example (or lack thereof) that Microsoft themselves are setting with the service with their big ticket releases of late (Redfall, Starfield and Forza Motorsport). If the people who run the subscription service can't be fucked to ensure the games they release on the service are of a high standard, and the consumers who subscribe to said service don't give a fuck about what they are playing (in part, due to the abundance of options the service offers, people can mindlessly jump around from shit game to shit game and be ok with it because their time is being occupied - the phenomenon in particular can be seen with Netflix), then why exactly should any third party developer seeking to release on the service care?

The new cities skylines is about to launch on the service, they are already apologising for how shit it's going to be (they are basically telling us the game isn't finished) but they will be getting their gamepass payday regardless. How does that benefit anyone?

Consumers still get to vote by keeping their subscriptions or not. The subscription provider will offer new contract and contract extensions to publishers/developers and that will eventually become data driven based on the habits of the subscriber base (new subscriptions, cancelled subscriptions, time played, full game, DLC and MTX purchases, etc.) which again is consumers getting to vote.

Games releasing in a broken state isn't new or exclusive to these subscription services. This might be a more prominent state of affairs these days and at the very least far more public, but there are more factors involved (scope, budgets, etc.) than just being launched on subscription services. And while Microsoft is one of these subscription providers, using them as the end-all be-all probably isn't wise as they've largely been inept as a publisher for the past decade, Game Pass or not.

 

[Kataploom]

I don't get the issue of ownership, you're not paying on a game by game basis, just play what you want to play and move on, if you feel like wanting the game for yourself, you can buy it at discount.

 

[A Most Virtuous Cat]

There are people that like to own things and other people that like to be owned.

Ayyyyy

 

[ReBurn]

Not true. Most cartridges require little to no patches, and not all discs need patches.

Patches aren't the right way to look at what happened with cartridge games, but revisions are. There were several cartridge-based games that shipped multiple revisions that made updates to the game. It wasn't uncommon for later revisions to change the initial game for many reasons. Sometimes bug fixes, sometimes other things.

Revenge of Shinobi is a good example. They went from a Spider-Man lookalike to an actual Spider-Man character between launch revision 00 and revision 01 when Sega had a license for the character, then carts released with revision 04 turned Spider-Man into a pink character with slightly different behavior because the Spider-Man license expired. Similar changes happened in later cartridge revisions to replace the Batman with some anime demon, Rambo with a generic soldier. and Godzilla with a dinosaur skeleton.

 

[adamsapple]

If we are to be minimalistic then yes of course there are plenty of games in our libraries that we would be willing to give up. There will also be plenty of games that we regret buying due to poor judgement or being misled.

However I'm a firm believer that the direct connection between consumers and creators is an important one. When I purchase a game on steam and I decide to keep it beyond the refund period what I'm essentially saying to them is "this product is worthy of my money".

On the other hand with the gamepass/subscription model individuals typically aren't making that selection, they aren't "voting". What is happening is that the business that runs the sub service is curating content for the service and they decide what is worthy and distribute fees accordingly (the fee distribution side is a whole other can of worms, it's a topic within itself), the direct connection is lost. Developers/publishers need not fear any potential blowback (or even mass refunds) if a game is poorly received. They've already got their up-front fee. And in terms of the consumers? Well due to the apathy that these services are creating, they will just brush it off and say something along the lines of "who cares, it was free with gamepass" and then move on to playing/trying something else on the service.

But this is patently not true, myself and other users in this thread have given examples of content we bought either while it was on the service, or when it was about to leave because we also deemed that 'the product is worthy of our money'.

What you're missing is that in most cases, it could be a product that we would never have bought in the first place had it not been on a convenient service for us to try.

You used the word nihilism earlier, that's the feel I get from some of your posts, G. Your posts give the feel that people who play via sub services don't matter, which, again, patently not true.

We only have to look at the example (or lack thereof) that Microsoft themselves are setting with the service with their big ticket releases of late (Redfall, Starfield and Forza Motorsport). If the people who run the subscription service can't be fucked to ensure the games they release on the service are of a high standard,

Two of those three examples you've given are games which were given one or more year(s) extensions from their original projected release dates (Summer and November '22 respectively, or in Starfield's case it was originally projected to be a 2021 title).

Besides, are you really going to say sub services are the main venue where games are pushed out in an unfinished or poorly optimized state? Need I remind you of Jedi Fallen Order's launch or The Last of Us Part 1's PC version, or basically any of Alex's DF videos from this year ?

You do know that you can buy any game on gamepass and keep it for life?

 

[Švejk]

If you have all the time in the world to just play games, it's great.
If you only have a few hours a week to play games, not so much.

 

[GHG]

But this is patently not true, myself and other users in this thread have given examples of content we bought either while it was on the service, or when it was about to leave because we also deemed that 'the product is worthy of our money'.

What you're missing is that in most cases, it could be a product that we would never have bought in the first place had it not been on a convenient service for us to try.

Two of those three examples you've given are games which were given one or more year(s) extensions from their original projected release dates (Summer and November '22 respectively, or in Starfield's case it was originally projected to be a 2021 title).

Besides, are you really going to say sub services are the main venue where games are pushed out in an unfinished or poorly optimized state? Need I remind you of Jedi Fallen Order's launch or The Last of Us Part 1's PC version, or basically any of Alex's DF videos from this year ?

Regarding people purchasing games - the data is there, xbox gamers are not buying games like they used to. What you might do specifically is not something that is translating across the entire userbase.

And on the topic of broken games, I've not said it's a phenomenon exclusive to sub services, far from it, that problem runs deeper (pre-order culture and QA now being outsourced at most studios). However it certainly isn't helping the situation when publishers are being given money up front in similar fashion to how they would with potentially millions of pre-orders, only this time there is no risk of those pre-orders being refunded.

You used the word nihilism earlier, that's the feel I get from some of your posts, G. Your posts give the feel that people who play via sub services don't matter, which, again, patently not true.

Now you're just chatting shit.

 

[Dream-Knife]

Yeah I'm against subscription anything besides utilities.

 

[adamsapple]

Now you're just chatting shit.

Well, I'm sorry but that's how it reads, most of your posts seem like that when the topic of sub services come sup, G.

Just in this topic you've practically correlated the death of an art form with some folks being ok with sub services and renting games. Just a teensy bit extreme

 

[L*][*N*K]

I have a copy of NFL Street on PSP that I bought , played it for 3 hours and never touched it again, it is sitting there on my shelf as we speak, that is what Gamepass is for.

 

[GHG]

Consumers still get to vote by keeping their subscriptions or not. The subscription provider will offer new contract and contract extensions to publishers/developers and that will eventually become data driven based on the habits of the subscriber base (new subscriptions, cancelled subscriptions, time played, full game, DLC and MTX purchases, etc.) which again is consumers getting to vote.

I think the difference here is that in a situation where everyone playing the game has had to pay full price (or close to it) in order to play it and the product doesn't meet expectations then the developers/publishers will really feel and hear it in the form of refunds and a backlash of not so favourable feedback. For reasons explained in my previous post, this degree of direct feedback is missing when a sub service is involved and the response from players will be a lot less emotional since there is no longer a direct connection/transaction.

Well, I'm sorry but that's how it reads, most of your posts seem like that when the topic of sub services come sup, G.

Just in this topic you've practically correlated the death of an art form with some folks being ok with sub services and renting games. Just a teensy bit extreme

It's not extreme when version 1.0 for a game launched on the service is being released over a week after the game was made available to the public.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

If we are to be minimalistic then yes of course there are plenty of games in our libraries that we would be willing to give up. There will also be plenty of games that we regret buying due to poor judgement or being misled.

However I'm a firm believer that the direct connection between consumers and creators is an important one. When I purchase a game on steam and I decide to keep it beyond the refund period what I'm essentially saying to them is "this product is worthy of my money".

On the other hand with the gamepass/subscription model individuals typically aren't making that selection, they aren't "voting". What is happening is that the business that runs the sub service is curating content for the service and they decide what is worthy and distribute fees accordingly (the fee distribution side is a whole other can of worms, it's a topic within itself), the direct connection is lost. Developers/publishers need not fear any potential blowback (or even mass refunds) if a game is poorly received. They've already got their up-front fee. And in terms of the consumers? Well due to the apathy that these services are creating, they will just brush it off and say something along the lines of "who cares, it was free with gamepass" and then move on to playing/trying something else on the service.

The argument might be that publishers/developers wouldn't want to do this kind of thing because it will reduce the chance that they get another opportunity to launch a game on gamepass (or similar service) - I say not so fast.

We only have to look at the example (or lack thereof) that Microsoft themselves are setting with the service with their big ticket releases of late (Redfall, Starfield and Forza Motorsport). If the people who run the subscription service can't be fucked to ensure the games they release on the service are of a high standard, and the consumers who subscribe to said service don't give a fuck about what they are playing (in part, due to the abundance of options the service offers, people can mindlessly jump around from shit game to shit game and be ok with it because their time is being occupied - a phenomenon which in particular can be seen with Netflix viewership), then why exactly should any third party developer seeking to release on the service care?

The new cities skylines is about to launch on the service, they are already apologising for how shit it's going to be (they are basically telling us the game isn't finished) but they will be getting their gamepass payday regardless. How does that benefit anyone?

A well thought out post, but....we have multiple indies and studios getting their "first game chance" with GP and going on to release sequels or more games in the works. There are, at a guesstimate, 9 out of 10 success stories of just this nature over those devs reporting GP failure or not going on to release another title for GP etc.

Are you suggesting buying titles outright doesn't have such inherent problems? e.g. Cyberpunk 2077 or previous history Bethesda jank titles before the MS acquisition. Seems like you're conflating an industry problem with one specific industry service.

 

[FoxMcChief]

I have a copy of NFL Street on PSP that I bought , played it for 3 hours and never touched it again, it is sitting there on my shelf as we speak, that is what Gamepass is for.

Imagine buying Redfall.

 

[RPS37]

I think of it like Rent to Own. I'll play and it the game is super dope, I'll buy it when it disappears for a discount.

 

[Pimpbaa]

I like to play a lot of games, but I can't afford to pay $90 plus tax (here in Canada) for every game. There are always sales of course which I do take advantage of but waiting sucks (have to wait for 3rd party games on game pass too). Game Pass allows me to play a lot of games but saves me a ton of money for the really great games that I have no problem paying full price for (usually Sony's and Nintendo's stuff). It also allows me to try stuff I normally wouldn't buy. Lies of P for example, normally I wouldn't touch that because of how much I dislike how the main character looks. But because of Game Pass, I tried it and liked it and plan on playing it fully once I finish up Starfield and CP2077 Phantom Liberty (started from scratch).

 

[MagnesD3]

Agreed I want to own my games too but the masses use video games as a meaningless distraction so we have to deal with the consequences of thier stupid influence on the video game market.

 

[Fess]

It's like Spotify and Netflix. Do you want to own music and movies and TV-shows too?

 

[OuterLimits]

I've never seen people complain that they don't own GameFly games, so why do I see so many threads complaining about this with Game Pass?

Exactly. Nor do we have threads complaining about the huge library of games available on PS+

 

[mystech]

I used to feel the same way about Gamepass… then I tried it. Now IDGAF who gets triggered, I love Gamepass. There I said it!

That $16 a month has saved me hundreds! Some games I play for a bit and realize it's not for me. Others I play all the way through. There are fantastic games like Cocoon that I probably never would have tried if it wasn't on gamepass. There are other games I would have bought and had major buyers regret had I not been able to try them on gamepass first.

On the other hand, games that I know I want to take my time with and not be tied to a subscription, I purchase up front. I did this for Starfield even though I could have played it on gamepass.

 

[bender]

Agreed I want to own my games too but the masses use video games as a meaningless distraction so we have to deal with the consequences of thier stupid influence on the video game market.

Game Pass doesn't prevent you from being able to purchase games.

 

[Topher]

For the vast majority of games, Game Pass isn't even an option. Baldur's Gate 3, AC MIrage, Hogwarts Legacy, Diablo 4 (maybe later), RE4R, Street Fighter 6, Octopath Traveler 2, Armored Core VI and TotK. You don't get any of those with Game Pass. So Game Pass might be fine to fill in the gaps, the majority of games will still need to be bought.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

It's a very xbox console thing. If you are on console, you have to have it. On pc you have plenty of other options.

It has a lot of value, like all my friends have same library and we can start playing whatever we want from selection.

It makes console ecosystem stronger. I already have a plan to start Wo Long with 2 of my friends once it's final dlc drops in December.

 

[killatopak]

It's like Spotify and Netflix. Do you want to own music and movies and TV-shows too?

Uhh yes? I can't tell you how many times I watched Land Before Time and Iron Giant as an adult. That thing has sentimental value to me. My grandfather bought it for me when I pointed at them at the store. I still use the same VCD played on a dinky portable player with its own screen.

Obviously I don't want to own every show on Netflix and Spotify. Only those actually worth my time. Besides, shows on Netflix aren't permanent while some are only available in different countries. As for Spotify, lots of stuff aren't there especially underground and local music groups that aren't living in the country of US and UK. Some covers aren't there as well.

With regards to overall quality. Bluray is significantly better than 4K streams on Netflix. For Spotify, there is a limit at 320 kbps. Tidal offers higher quality but the cost is that their range of tracks and artists is less diverse. In my case, I ripped my Gundam Unicorn, Nier and Nier Automata OST to FLAC for example.

 

[duck_sauce]

There's a tiny but very noisy minority, some of which are probably Microsoft influencers, who scream about Gamepass. The reality is that most people still want to buy and own their games and the sales numbers reflect that.

I think it is the other way around and the gamepass numbers reflect that too.

How artforms are lost 101.

for me most games are not art. Let them get lost. Game preservation is a hobby for wealthy people with severe obsessive compulsive disorder

 

[MatrixReloaded101]

For the vast majority of games, Game Pass isn't even an option. Baldur's Gate 3, AC MIrage, Hogwarts Legacy, Diablo 4 (maybe later), RE4R, Street Fighter 6, Octopath Traveler 2, Armored Core VI and TotK. You don't get any of those with Game Pass. So Game Pass might be fine to fill in the gaps, the majority of games will still need to be bought.

AC Mirage is in the Ubi sub service.

But to your point, game pass is just a option it doesn't prevent games from being sold and as we can see by the sale numbers this year on other platforms games are still selling.

Lies of P sold 1m copies and it was available day one in game pass. People will always pay full price for quality.

 

[bender]

I think the difference here is that in a situation where everyone playing the game has had to pay full price (or close to it) in order to play it and the product doesn't meet expectations then the developers/publishers will really feel and hear it in the form of refunds and a backlash of not so favourable feedback. For reasons explained in my previous post, this degree of direct feedback is missing when a sub service is involved and the response from players will be a lot less emotional since there is no longer a direct connection/transaction.

The flipside would be the discovery discussion and these subscription services offer another way for developers to get noticed. There are a lot of titles I've tried on Game Pass that I would have never gotten to the refund state of your equation because I never would have purchased them in the first place. Anecdotal and all, but I own Hi-Fi Rush, Descenders and Infernax because I enjoyed them on Game Pass and wanted them in my library long term. You could turn my argument against me as there are countless other games that have had decent hype that I tried and just didn't suit my tastes (Spiritfarer, Death's Door, Unpacking, Eastward, Tunic and most recently Cocoon come to mind) but the win/win/win of that scenario is that I got to try those games which I had passing interest in, Microsoft got the subscription fee and analytics, and the developers/publishers got compensated via their contract with Microsoft.

I think the concern about subscription services "helping" games come in hot has some merit, but I don't think that is the biggest factor. I'd put that on budgets/inflated sales expectations, team sizes, enormity of scope in the average game, etc. Games take so long to make these days that the concept that is being worked towards can be out of vogue by the time of release and with team sizes so large, pivoting is like trying to turn a cargo ship. Budgets run out and publishers just push the game out the door, ready or not. They can then decide whether to and how much to support a game post release based on sales. Some titles get righted, others don't.

 

[Antwix]

Tons of games are one and done for me. I don't need to own everything I ever play. Some games are super story heavy and not worth revisiting or just not that good to ever play again. I rarely play multiplayer games with friends but sometimes when we're just chilling, we can load up what multiplayer game we're in the mood for that's in the GP library. Like Jackbox party pack was on there for awhile, as well as that new Party Animals game. I'll never buy those, but with friends, they're fun for a day to mess around in. Plus when my nephews visit, they can load up some kids games that again, I'll never buy. Also, it's good to discover random games/genres that you've never explored before.

But yeah OP, Game Pass must just be a "low income" thing.

Also OP, I hope you don't sub to Netflix, Hulu, HBO Max, or Disney+, I think those are for "low income" people too.

 

[bender]

For the vast majority of games, Game Pass isn't even an option. Baldur's Gate 3, AC MIrage, Hogwarts Legacy, Diablo 4 (maybe later), RE4R, Street Fighter 6, Octopath Traveler 2, Armored Core VI and TotK. You don't get any of those with Game Pass. So Game Pass might be fine to fill in the gaps, the majority of games will still need to be bought.

Filling in the gaps is probably one of the better arguments against Game Pass or at least why I think subscription services of its' kind have a limited reach at least compared to Netflix or Apple Music. Music and movies are of course way less of a time commitment but they are also far more portable and communal. Software attach rates (see Nintendo through 2021 below) tell us that average system owner might buy a few games a year. I guess the chicken or egg question would be would they rather own those few games per year or rent a library of hundreds. I'd have to guess the former is way more common than the latter and it has more to do with the time investment than the monetary investment. And if it is monetary, I'd rather spend my $120-180 per year on the 2-3 games of my choice rather than hoping they show up on my subscription service.

NES: 8.08
SNES: 7.72
N64: 6.83
GameCube: 9.59
Wii: 9.07
Wii U: 7.63
Switch: 7.33

 

[Torrent of Pork]

For me it's a couple of things.

1. A month of GamePass is the cost of a case of cheap beer, it's not expensive.

2. I have played dozens of games I loved that I never would have bothered with if not for GP. If the game seems even remotely interesting in the description, fuck it, let's give it a half hour. I don't even need to download it, I just stream it long enough to either download it, or move on.

3. Conversely there have been quite a few games I thought were tailer-made for my tastes. Turns out I got bored with it after a few hours. Sure am glad I didn't pay even a discounted price for a game I don't like.

4. Games that leave GP receive a nice discount for a week or two before they're removed. If I think I might want to play the game again, or I'm not finished I'll just buy it then.

 

[L*][*N*K]

Imagine buying Redfall.

Ikr?? and I love Arkane I have bought everything they made since Dishonored so I would have preordered Redfall with my eyes closed, yikes.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

Then enjoy the limited scope of gaming you get if you only play what you buy. If you're one of those "I never buy a bad game because I wait for reviews first" you're 100% missing some good stuff that will never get raving reviews from the *ahem* specialized press and from the majority of gamers that always play the same, safe stuff.

Also, believe it or not, I still buy games on Xbox. Even some I've played on GP first.

 

[adamsapple]

For the vast majority of games, Game Pass isn't even an option. Baldur's Gate 3, AC MIrage, Hogwarts Legacy, Diablo 4 (maybe later), RE4R, Street Fighter 6, Octopath Traveler 2, Armored Core VI and TotK. You don't get any of those with Game Pass. So Game Pass might be fine to fill in the gaps, the majority of games will still need to be bought.

Or Rented.

AC Mirage, Hogwarts, D4, ACVI are some of the games which I game-flied and got my fill.

Imagine buying Redfall.

Now this is a good example of a game that would have been an absolutely terrible purchase, especially at launch. The service helped people avoid that. And now that it's in a much better state, people can try it out again.

Then enjoy the limited scope of gaming you get if you only play what you buy. If you're one of those "I never buy a bad game because I wait for reviews first" you're 100% missing some good stuff that will never get raving reviews from the *ahem* specialized press and from the majority of gamers that always play the same, safe stuff.

Also, believe it or not, I still buy games on Xbox. Even some I've played on GP first.

Another good post. I wouldn't have tried amazing games like Signalis, Coffee Talk, Tunic, Sea of Stars etc if they weren't on the service, or even fair-to-good games like Aliens: Fireteam Elite and more.

 

[Heisenberg007]

No. 70% of Xbox owners agree with your stance and don't have Game Pass.

 

[existensmaximum]

Yeah I want to own my games (physically). Rented games or Gamepass etc devalue the games for me and it makes me stop caring about them

With a physical item I can at least sell or trade it if I like, eventually. Or collect it obviously.

 

[CrustyBritches]

Owning games is basic shit. You also need GP, PS+, and on top of that redeem all the free games on EGS.

 

[StueyDuck]

These subs mostly end up being glorified demos, it's great for kids but for adults with limited time and being able to afford a game they want, it's mostly "oh this game is on gamepass/ps+ let me quickly download" 1hour later "ah, that is why I didn't buy this originally" escape/delete/Uninstall.

Doesn't mean both subs don't have winners, sea of stars Is great, dead space remaster soon is great, I do however spend most my time on these subs scrolling through the lists of games and feeling like I don't want to play any of it.

 

[gaming_again]

See topic It's great for testing games but that's all for me. I guess it's good for low income players

Yeah. It was the same when I borrowed games from friends back in the day. There's definitely a psychological block against getting into them if I don't own them. This also translates into getting good at them.

 

[custardbun01]

Im with you. Lots of people don't give a shit though. I used it to play Starfield. Subscribed for a month, didn't like it, cancelled the subscription. Now I gotta offload this Series S I bought to play it.

 

[BootsLoader]

With the dawn of digital only games, it will be harder and harder to own anything. So buy now, as long as you can, you will not be able later.

 

[Barakov]

Own your game? What kind of nonsense is that?
What's next, you want physical copies of games too?
Don't you know PC only has digital as an option and they are perfectly happy!
Don't you want to be happy?
GIVE IN ALREADY!