No, I definitely don't think most studios have more than half their people leave in a short time. Among apparently other issues that don't seem too dissimilar from Activision/Blizzard, ironically enough.
Point remains. The guy doesn't read too much.
This thread is also hilarious. People saying Gamepass is "amazing" because it allows them to not buy games. Probably the same people that will argue with a straight face that Game Pass is profitable. Even when MS is spending now "76 billion" to acquire one studio, when next year's game is
already cancelled. How long do you think it will take MS to make 76 billion in profit on the games division, let alone Game Pass, to recoup all that? Yeah I know they "don't care" because they make plenty of money elsewhere, but again ... this is the definition of MS "subsidizing" gamer habits. And we got people like
kingfey
arguing in this very thread that services like GP are now necessary because it's too expensive to make games and companies like MS have to subsidize them, which is the argument I've put forward about the danger GP presents in changing attitudes about buying games. This idea, of course, gets laughed at by a certain group, even though we've already seen this effect on the general software side of life as a result of mobile and are seeing these kinds of opinions already expressed here about games.
We also have that thread talking about XBL going away and potentially being rolled into GP as a new 15 dollar a month baseline. All of a sudden plenty of the "core" group, for lack of a better word, are complaining about price! Saying 15 dollars is just too much and it's going to piss off a lot of gamers. This is still likely well below what it would take to support the service unless they start getting into big subscriber numbers, but they definitely have a ceiling on those subscribers given the number of Xbox gamers out there. But I still thought this was a deal? AND this is the price another certain core group of people try to tout as what the real price is that everyone is paying. "Nobody pays a dollar to get on the service" gets said by some. So if everyone is paying for XBL and GP anyway ... I mean that would be a minimum of about 15 dollars a month (GP is 9.99, XBL can be had for 50-60 a year if you buy annually).
So is the monthly cost too much or is it not? It's still cheaper than buying XBL annually and a couple games a year. What are fans afraid of? I saw plenty of forum users saying they did the $1 conversion (like I did) as well ... again something I am told doesn't really happen. Because if it does happen a lot, or the numbers are given out right after Christmas to include the people who got a system for the holidays and want to try the three month dollar trial or what not ... that means GP isn't pulling in much. But if everyone is paying roughly 15 dollars a month anyway, the new plan is no big deal, so I wouldn't see the need for the hand wringing over the price.
So ... can't have it both ways.
Are people paying monthly and GP is making good money, and the 1 dollar conversion isn't a factor?
Or will 15 dollars a month (minimum) be too much, because the value of GP is largely using Microsoft's onboarding offers that allow you to get all of their software for free, for up to
three years, for the price of a bag of candy?
So yeah. A lot of the usual people touting GP in here as usual, saying it's because Microsoft is buying them so much software for free. There is just no way they can keep spending like this unless they truly don't care about their financials. And the people arguing they are "fine" going the way they are have to know deep down they are wrong, because we are getting two conflicting arguments based on what the current news is. Something is going to have to change at some point,
unless most people are getting the one dollar ultimate trial and simply staying on. Which I personally doubt, or there wouldn't be rumblings of forcing the minimum expenditure up.
Quick note on my personal stance on the pricing. I actually think moving the service to a 15 dollar a month minimum would be a necessary move to make the service "viable." That would equate to XBL and two games a year for most. I think a lot of people probably spend within that range normally. Then when you factor in things like MTX and DLC and hopefully a higher subscriber count ... you start to get into the kind of scale that could potentially work. But look at the freakout that happened in that thread. Gamers are cheap. I am just not sure a gaming sub, where many people aren't playing games
constantly (myself included) just don't see the value in subbing to something like that every month. It's why there is no way in hell I would pay for a monthly gaming service. I just don't play that much and want to actively select what I am buying and spending my
time on. It's not like a music streaming service where you can use it hours a day while you work, or a video streaming service where you can use it almost every day to unwind. gaming is dedicated and focused, and I imagine the number of people playing every day, is very small compared to the general audience.
This went way further than I intended. I just can't believe how much emotion gets wrapped up into Game Pass by the Xbox only crowd. It poisons every discussion now, to the point where this crowd jumps into Sony game threads saying how much Sony needs a GP competitor when no one is asking for it or talking about it except for them. It's insanity. Why aren't you Xbox only folks talking about the
games you are playing? I'm currently playing Elden Ring. I'd love to talk about that instead.
holy shit...
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/I7S3R6Q6P5JKVI3QRUUFXBCJEA.jpg)
