Support NeoGAF

[Punished Miku]

I don't mind not having permanent ownership and I'd wager that the vast majority of people are happy to make that tradeoff as well. (See: Netflix's rise in popularity)

I like owning it. It's extremely easy to do both. Having a sub means I can beat a game and then it's literally years before I need to replay it. Just wait 5 years and buy it for dirt cheap. Win/Win. Usually the money I would spend on buying things that are on the sub, I can use to buy other games not on the sub, so I just end up playing way more games.

If ownership is ever phased out, it would be massively controversial. MS is smart to keep everything optional, that goes for cloud and subs. Trying to force things is a losing strategy, as we saw on Xbox One. They don't have an unconditional fanbase at all and people will leave, ironically - for how much people criticize Xbox players for unconditional loyalty.

 

[Vox Machina]

Yeah, "buying" add-ons to something you don't own makes no sense to me. Sub ends, your "purchases" are gone. That's why I'm buying Starfield off of Steam. And yeah, I'm buying the $100 version with all the bells and whistles.

Incorrect. If your sub. ends your purchases are still there. I'd still own any purchases I made. If those purchases require a base game to operate I still have the option to purchase the base game. Same with Steam.

Considering Game Pass tops out at 15% of MS game/content revenue then I'd say you wagered wrong.

I'm a PC gamer, so I've made my peace with buying "licenses" to games (that can be revoked at any point) ages ago.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Yeah, "buying" add-ons to something you don't own makes no sense to me. Sub ends, your "purchases" are gone.

But $35quid for 5 days early on something you don't own... while still paying a monthly sub! LFG!!!!

That's why I'm buying Starfield off of Steam. And yeah, I'm buying the $100 version with all the bells and whistles.

 

[Vox Machina]

But then you are buying a game on top of paying $17 for the service.....

That $17 for the service isn't just for that game. It's for a catalogue of games. I don't pay Netflix $15/month for 1 movie a month, nor do I pay Microsoft for 1 game a month.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Yeah, "buying" add-ons to something you don't own makes no sense to me. Sub ends, your "purchases" are gone. That's why I'm buying Starfield off of Steam. And yeah, I'm buying the $100 version with all the bells and whistles.

This is a really good point, I hadn't considered.

It really makes the idea that games on services like GP and PSN+ being able to be profitable by promoting MTXs a bit absurd. As you say, there's almost no incentive for gamers to buy DLC, add-on content and MTXs for games that will be kicked off the service in 12 months.

 

[havoc00]

 

[Vox Machina]

This is a really good point, I hadn't considered.

It really makes the idea that games on services like GP and PSN+ being able to be profitable by promoting MTXs a bit absurd. As you say, there's almost no incentive for gamers to buy DLC, add-on content and MTXs for games that will be kicked off the service in 12 months.

The difference is the option to purchase the game doesn't go away. You can even purchase the game for 10% off if you have Game Pass Ultimate.

 

[Topher]

Incorrect. If your sub. ends your purchases are still there. I'd still own any purchases I made. If those purchases require a base game to operate I still have the option to purchase the base game. Same with Steam.

You missed the point. I own something that I cannot access any longer unless yes, I make another purchase. It's like buying a car without an engine. "Oh...just buy an engine". You are in "no shit" territory there my man. Buying DLC for rented games is just stupid.

 

[mckmas8808]

The difference is, Sony had a head start in the console market, Sony are miles ahead in consoles sales and Sony have the mindshare of general consumers and yet they're still trying to strangle the competition at every turn.

Xbox really doesn't have a choice but to make big moves if they're to stay in the market.

It's do or die

Why isn't making great content ever an option when you all say stuff like the bolded?

 

[MarkMe2525]

Media telling him Sony were strongarmed into a deal and all they got was CoD for 10years -

Do we have evidence of this? I could absolutely be reading you wrong, but are you suggesting the judge should be swayed by hearsay?

"All they got was Cod for 10 years" MS commitments to other platform holders have been unprecedented. Granted, they needed grand gestures to be made so that the regulators would be satisfied, but these are grand gestures nonetheless.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Nope. One of the cool things about Game Pass is you can choose to keep access to the game even if you unsub. It's simple, you just buy it! If I unsub from Netflix I don't have any way of keeping access to their Movies/Shows.

Bruh, what mental gymnastics.

Base game is not included, so you paid $35 to play it 5 days early, on top of your sub price for the month, on top of having to buy the game if you unsub.

 

[DryvBy]

I don't mind not having permanent ownership and I'd wager that the vast majority of people are happy to make that tradeoff as well. (See: Netflix's rise in popularity)



Lmao

What does Netflix's popularity have to do with the individual that is you? Permanent ownership should be the goal when you spend money.

I hate to keep bringing this up but Game Pass and PS Now isn't a "great value". You can just sub to GameFly and have your own curated catalog of non-permanent gaming. And you can still buy DLC for games you don't own!

 

[DeepEnigma]

You missed the point. I own something that I cannot access any longer unless yes, I make another purchase. It's like buying a car without an engine. "Oh...just buy an engine". You are in "no shit" territory there my man. Buying DLC for rented games is just stupid.

I car is a car, until it doesn't have an engine. Then it's just a horseless carriage.

 

[Thirty7ven]

Incorrect. If your sub. ends your purchases are still there. I'd still own any purchases I made. If those purchases require a base game to operate I still have the option to purchase the base game. Same with Steam.



I'm a PC gamer, so I've made my peace with buying "licenses" to games (that can be revoked at any point) ages ago.

If you buy add ons through Gamepass the add ons will work on your steam license?

 

[graywolf323]

If you buy add ons through Gamepass the add ons will work on your steam license?

doubt it, the Steam versions of Forza Horizon aren't even cross-save compatible & definitely not cross-buy even for DLC

 

[havoc00]

I car is a car, until it doesn't have an engine. Then it's just a horseless carriage.

The gaming industry is the only one a company could sell a car without all 4 tires and still charge full price and be like ya we'll get you your 4th tire in a few weeks, thanks for paying full price, come again!

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Bruh, what mental gymnastics.

Base game is not included, so you paid $35 to play it 5 days early, on top of your sub price for the month, on top of having to buy the game if you unsub.

Best Deal in Gaming™

 

[Vox Machina]

You missed the point. I own something that I cannot access any longer unless yes, I make another purchase. It's like buying a car without an engine. "Oh...just buy an engine". You are in "no shit" territory there my man. Buying DLC for rented games is just stupid.

I mean your statement was factually incorrect. There is no point to miss. Acting as if the business model makes no sense because you personally don't understand how it works isn't right. Plenty of people buy DLC / Early Access / MTX for games they're playing on Game Pass knowing the games could leave the service at some point precisely because the option to purchase the game remains should the game leave the subscription.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Best Deal in Gaming™

 

[havoc00]

Best Deal in Gaming™

4 the players!

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

4 the players!

It's Time to Pay™

 

[Solidus_T]

Yeah, "buying" add-ons to something you don't own makes no sense to me. Sub ends, your "purchases" are gone. That's why I'm buying Starfield off of Steam. And yeah, I'm buying the $100 version with all the bells and whistles.

Wait... you have to buy add-on content for game pass games!?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Best Deal in Gaming™

4 the payers!

FTFY

Don't forget leather jacket man's
"The more you buy, the more you save!"

 

[Rubim]

See, tweets like this are embarrassing.

1. Sony didn't force Square Enix to make Final Fantasy a timed exclusive... they simply bid and Square Enix agreed. Square could have simply said no and moved on with their day, or Microsoft could have matched the bid or bid more.
2. Starfield was never going to be exclusive, it was going to be a timed exclusive. This means it would have been released on other platforms 6 to 12 months later. Yet again, Microsoft could have matched the bid or made a better offer.
3. Every gaming company has done the same thing Sony has for decades, so I have no clue why Sony is getting singled out.
4. Microsoft is literally buying other studios to make them exclusive, which is way worse than what Sony has done. Bethesda was not an exclusive studio before Microsoft bought them, but Phil has just made them an exclusive studio. If it weren't for the money COD gets from Sony, they would have completely shut Sony out of the COD deal. And if Nintendo wasn't as big as they are, they would have completely shut them off.
5. Microsoft is preaching about wanting everyone to play their games, but they're going in the direction of making them exclusive, which potentially shuts out millions of users and forces them to spend a crap load of money to play on their system. And that judge is adamant that this deal is good for gamers.

The issue with this:
didn't force Square Enix to make Final Fantasy a timed exclusive... they simply bid and Square Enix agreed

or this:

Starfield was never going to be exclusive, it was going to be a timed exclusive. This means it would have been released on other platforms 6 to 12 months later. Yet again, Microsoft could have matched the bid or made a better offer.

For Starfield it turned out that they outbid Sony by purchasing the whole Publisher.
I don't like paying exclusivity on third-party, its the same reason why i dont like buying out a publisher that's known for multiplataform third party to make it do exclusives.

You can't be pro on what Sony did then shoot at Microsoft for doing a better deal all around (aka, buying the fucking publisher). It's just that Sony tried to fight with a knife and Microsoft pull out a gun.

 

[Vox Machina]

If you buy add ons through Gamepass the add ons will work on your steam license?

Depends on how the authentication in-game works. I play Halo Infinite on Steam but my purchases thru the Xbox App (with my Game Pass discount) work in-game. I'd assume the same is true for stuff like Forza car packs because everything authenticates on the back-end thru Microsoft/Xbox account.

 

[PaintTinJr]

If I'm not mistaken, no regulator on the planet Earth has put forward evidence that CoD is a required input in the Cloud Gaming "market". So, no, I don't think that at all. Even the CMA's objection was more about MSFT's ownership of Windows and the Xbox Console OS and market-leading position in Cloud Gaming (pretty sure Nvidia is the actual market leader, impossible to tell without unbundling Xcloud from Game Pass Ultimate tho)

The phase 1 did successfully argue that it was an essential input in the CMA draft, but it was a lack of evidence (back then, not now with Booty's email) that Microsoft had no incentive to partially foreclose - by withholding CoD - caused the Console SLC to be dropped before the phase 2 decision.

The pre-merger deal between Sony and Microsoft shows how essential it is, and more importantly the CMA expert deems it essential, so by expert opinion which Microsoft can't successfully challenge according to Marcus Smith in the first CMC appeal comment, your claim about regulators is false. But why even make such a comment 700pages too late, when everyone here understands the importance of CoD ownership. It is so essential that Microsoft are potentially gambling $5b of a merger breakup fee to not divest it like they were asked originally by the CMA.

 

[Punished Miku]

I mean your statement was factually incorrect. There is no point to miss. Acting as if the business model makes no sense because you personally don't understand how it works isn't right. Plenty of people buy DLC / Early Access / MTX for games they're playing on Game Pass knowing the games could leave the service at some point precisely because the option to purchase the game remains should the game leave the subscription.

Yep. If there's a GP game I love enough to actually want more content, it just feels like a tip almost. I have the DLC and fully beat the game. A year or two later, I can buy the game for $20, and they seem to be pretty invested in maintaining BC so the purchase feels worthwhile going forward as well.

I'm subbed through the end of 2025. How much does everyone think Starfield will cost on sale on Black Friday in 2025?

 

[Topher]

I mean your statement was factually incorrect. There is no point to miss. Acting as if the business model makes no sense because you personally don't understand how it works isn't right. Plenty of people buy DLC / Early Access / MTX for games they're playing on Game Pass knowing the games could leave the service at some point precisely because the option to purchase the game remains should the game leave the subscription.

Context man. Yes, technically you are correct in that the "purchase" remains, but it is entirely useless until I make another purchase. That was the point.

And I also didn't say anything about the "business model", now did I? Makes perfect sense for MS to take DLC money for games someone doesn't own. On the other hand, it makes no sense for a person to make that purchase. Buy the game outright first. Seems you think what is good for Microsoft and what is good for the consumer are one and the same.

 

[Rockondevil]

Wait... you have to buy add-on content for game pass games!?

You're renting the base game. DLC is an optional extra.

 

[Topher]

Wait... you have to buy add-on content for game pass games!?

Yes, you get the base game with Game Pass and nothing else.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Do we have evidence of this? I could absolutely be reading you wrong, but are you suggesting the judge should be swayed by hearsay?

"All they got was Cod for 10 years" MS commitments to other platform holders have been unprecedented. Granted, they needed grand gestures to be made so that the regulators would be satisfied, but these are grand gestures nonetheless.

Yesterday evening on GAF I quoted the parts from the conditional adjournment decision at the CMC in regards to Sony changing their minds, and the judge wanting a statement from Microsoft that explained Sony's change of mind - probably so when Sony would mount a challenge against the draft he would know that Microsoft lied when Sony contradicted them and explained the leverage Microsoft had gained via the CMA.

 

[DForce]

The difference is, Sony had a head start in the console market, Sony are miles ahead in consoles sales and Sony have the mindshare of general consumers and yet they're still trying to strangle the competition at every turn.

Xbox really doesn't have a choice but to make big moves if they're to stay in the market.

It's do or die

And you're another person trying to make MS out to be the victim.

Was Sony so far ahead during the 360/PS3 days?
No.
Microsoft and Sony were neck to neck in consoles sales and Microsoft was getting tons of Console exclusive games.

Mass Effect timed exclusive.
Dead or Alive 4 exclusive deal.
And more.

You guys need to stop. It's embarrassing.

 

[Vox Machina]

Yep. If there's a GP game I love enough to actually want more content, it just feels like a tip almost. I have the DLC and fully beat the game. A year or two later, I can buy the game for $20, and they seem to be pretty invested in maintaining BC so the purchase feels worthwhile going forward as well.

Same, I've bought games that were leaving Game Pass before and even ones that weren't just because I loved the game and felt like "tipping" the developer.

Context man. Yes, technically you are correct in that the "purchase" remains, but it is entirely useless until I make another purchase. That was the point.

So exactly the same as Steam? Steam allows me to buy DLC without owning the base game.

And I also didn't say anything about the "business model", now did I? Makes perfect sense for MS to take DLC money for games someone doesn't own. On the other hand, it makes no sense for a person to make that purchase. Buy the game outright first. Seems you think what is good for Microsoft and what is good for the consumer are one and the same.

Why? I already have access to the game? What's good for the consumer is to have access to the game. If they have Game Pass and the game is on there they have access, if the game is leaving Game Pass they have the option to purchase it forever just like they would have that option on Steam, except in this case the game is discounted because it's leaving Game Pass (another perk).

Its very weird that you think your worldview around the idea of "permanent" ownership before investing in value-adds should be kept by everyone else. It's not like MSFT is pulling the wool over everyone's eyes here. It's a very simple proposition and people get it. Again, the option to purchase the game "permanently" is always there, even IF the game is expected to remain on Game Pass permanently.

 

[Vox Machina]

Bruh, what mental gymnastics.

Base game is not included, so you paid $35 to play it 5 days early, on top of your sub price for the month, on top of having to buy the game if you unsub.

Talk about mental gymnastics lmao. Do you truly think people pay Netflix to watch 1 movie a month? The Game Pass sub. price gets you access to a catalog of games, not just 1 game, and you are forced to buy the game if you don't sub.

The only difference between these two scenarios is the price of Game Pass, which, again, gives you access to the entire catalog of games.

 

[poppabk]

That might be true for mobile games that pass time while sitting on the can. No way that is true for the high end games that people actually want. There is a much lower ceiling for the potential audience for high end gaming than movies / TV. Magnitudes lower.

The library requirement is also an order of magnitude lower approx 500 games vs approx 5000 shows and movies.

 

[Ginzeen]

The phase 1 did successfully argue that it was an essential input in the CMA draft, but it was a lack of evidence (back then, not now with Booty's email) that Microsoft had no incentive to partially foreclose - by withholding CoD - caused the Console SLC to be dropped before the phase 2 decision.

The pre-merger deal between Sony and Microsoft shows how essential it is, and more importantly the CMA expert deems it essential, so by expert opinion which Microsoft can't successfully challenge according to Marcus Smith in the first CMC appeal comment, your claim about regulators is false. But why even make such a comment 700pages too late, when everyone here understands the importance of CoD ownership. It is so essential that Microsoft are potentially gambling $5b of a merger breakup fee to not divest it like they were asked originally by the CMA.

Their not gambling anything. Their selling off their cloud rights in the UK. That's fixes their SLC

 

[MarkMe2525]

Yesterday evening on GAF I quoted the parts from the conditional adjournment decision at the CMC in regards to Sony changing their minds, and wanted a statement from Microsoft that explained their change of mind, probably so when Sony would mount a challenge against the draft he would know that Microsoft lied when Sony contradicted them and explained the leverage Microsoft had gained via the CMA.

OK... That is one interpretation. So we do not have evidence of Sony being strong armed? We are preemptively assuming that they we will find evidence.

Also, why would Microsoft be liable to explain Sony reasoning for accepting the deal? MS offers a deal, and in no way are privy to the behind the door discussions of Sony.

 

[Deleted member 848825]

I car is a car, until it doesn't have an engine. Then it's just a horseless carriage.

I see the analogy more as you renting the car and then buying a full body kit, rims and sports exhaust specific for that car. And when you stop renting, they take back the car and leave you with a worthless pile of accessories at the kerb side.

 

[Vox Machina]

I see the analogy more as you renting the car and then buying a full body kit, rims and sports exhaust specific for that car. And when you stop renting, they take back the car and leave you with a worthless pile of accessories at the kerb side.

Except if you want to keep using the car you're allowed to purchase it at a discount. Everyone else was forced to pay full price for it.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I see the analogy more as you renting the car and then buying a full body kit, rims and sports exhaust specific for that car. And when you stop renting, they take back the car and leave you with a worthless pile of accessories at the kerb side.

You're not wrong.

 

[havoc00]

The FTC has already made it quite clearly that they have exactly 0 interested in negotiating with MS at all, nvm negotiating with them in good faith. And just as it relates to sizeable mergers as a whole, their attitude is clearly to drag everyone to court rather than simply working something out. No point picking up the phone for them at this point, unless, magically, the first word's outta Khan's mouth are "I'm so sorry, I really fucked up here..."

 

[Topher]

So exactly the same as Steam? Steam allows me to buy DLC without owning the base game.

Being able to do that on Steam doesn't make that choice any better.

Why? I already have access to the game? What's good for the consumer is to have access to the game. If they have Game Pass and the game is on there they have access, if the game is leaving Game Pass they have the option to purchase it forever just like they would have that option on Steam, except in this case the game is discounted because it's leaving Game Pass (another perk).

Its very weird that you think your worldview around the idea of "permanent" ownership before investing in value-adds should be kept by everyone else. It's not like MSFT is pulling the wool over everyone's eyes here. It's a very simple proposition and people get it. Again, the option to purchase the game "permanently" is always there, even IF the game is expected to remain on Game Pass permanently.

Nope. Everyone is free to do as they please. Didn't say once that the option should be removed from anyone, now did I? I said it was stupid. And it is. That's my opinion.

 

[DryvBy]

The issue with this:
didn't force Square Enix to make Final Fantasy a timed exclusive... they simply bid and Square Enix agreed

or this:

Starfield was never going to be exclusive, it was going to be a timed exclusive. This means it would have been released on other platforms 6 to 12 months later. Yet again, Microsoft could have matched the bid or made a better offer.

For Starfield it turned out that they outbid Sony by purchasing the whole Publisher.
I don't like paying exclusivity on third-party, its the same reason why i dont like buying out a publisher that's known for multiplataform third party to make it do exclusives.

You can't be pro on what Sony did then shoot at Microsoft for doing a better deal all around (aka, buying the fucking publisher). It's just that Sony tried to fight with a knife and Microsoft pull out a gun.

You also can't be mad that you're not playing FF when you support buying up Bethesda years ago which turned several franchises into exclusives.

And if you're going to shame someone, share the shame with Microsoft as they have a huge history of doing the money hat tactic.

You're either against this behavior or your not. I assume you're not and these "but Final Fantasy!" excuses are just a way to put ammo into your argument gun. The problem is your bullets are Nerf.

 

[FrankWza]

I car is a car, until it doesn't have an engine. Then it's just a horseless carriage.

Yaba daba doooooooo

 

[DeepEnigma]

Talk about mental gymnastics lmao. Do you truly think people pay Netflix to watch 1 movie a month? The Game Pass sub. price gets you access to a catalog of games, not just 1 game, and you are forced to buy the game if you don't sub.

The only difference between these two scenarios is the price of Game Pass, which, again, gives you access to the entire catalog of games.

Except if you want to keep using the car you're allowed to purchase it at a discount. Everyone else was forced to pay full price for it.

"Discount" Minus the sub fees and 5 day early fees you paid already.

Man, you're not fooling anyone. This system is designed to extract MORE out of the gamer in the long run.

Yes, there are thousands of people who sub for just one movie or series, or even free trial it just to see it. Then unsub right after (which is why Netflix started to stop the full season drops all at once). Just like there are those who will sub for just that one game, which is what that 5 day early scam (if you don't read the fine print) is designed to do.

 

[Deleted member 848825]

Except if you want to keep using the car you're allowed to purchase it at a discount. Everyone else was forced to pay full price for it.

Yes but everyone else hasn't paid additional rental charges before hand...

 

[Vox Machina]

Being able to do that on Steam doesn't make that choice any better.

But there's a material difference. On Game Pass I have access to the base game for as long as I am happy to continue paying the sub. fee, and can use that content for the entirety of that time. If at any point the game either leaves Game Pass or I stop paying the sub. fee for whatever reason I still have the ability to purchase the game.

The hypothetical "permanent purchaser" was forced to buy the base game outright day 1 (if they wanted to play, that is).

 

[havoc00]

Yes but everyone else hasn't paid additional rental charges before hand...

I miss tipping the helpful employees at gamestop

 

[Vox Machina]

Yes but everyone else hasn't paid additional rental charges before hand...

Nor did you get access to a garage full of cars to use at your leisure during that time.

 

[MarkMe2525]

You missed the point. I own something that I cannot access any longer unless yes, I make another purchase. It's like buying a car without an engine. "Oh...just buy an engine". You are in "no shit" territory there my man. Buying DLC for rented games is just stupid.

I would assume the base game is going to be regularly discounted by the time it sunsets on gamepass. You likely will end up spending less than if you would have purchased game near launch. I have purchased a few games after they left, and never at full price.

Now this is only true if you don't subscribe to gamepass for that one particular game. I would agree that subscribing long term for a single title is quite dumb.