Support NeoGAF

[mdkirby]

I’d 100% prefer to play xbox games on ps with dualsense, but it ain’t happening

 

[Kerotan]

Yes but as I said, why would anyone use the Sony store to get an Xbox Gamepass sub? It doesn’t make sense, please read my comment carefully again.

I guess if MS offering GP through playstation similar to how EA Play is offered.

 

[Kerotan]

It is not that easy with subscription services. What if the payment for Gamepass goes via Windows or XBox store, where does Sony get the money from?
Like you might use the Amazon Prime, Netflix, Disney+ or whatever app on Playstation, but you as a subscriber never pay Playstation, the money to pay Playstation has to come from those companies to make Playstation to allow the app.

The EA subscription service is on Playstation, so it is possible under the right condition. Not sure what these conditions are, but allowing the app to a direct console competitor is questionable...

I guess MS would have to make it available directly through playstation.

 

[T-0800]

I’d 100% prefer to play xbox games on ps with dualsense, but it ain’t happening

 

[64bitbros]

I don't think, when he's talking about Playstation and Nintendo, he is talking about Gamepass.
He's talking about bringing xbox titles to other platforms. As in bringing something like Starfield to Ps5 and Switch 2.
This is not about Gamepass.

 

[Physiognomonics]

Sony could agree to this if MS stopped releasing consoles. But I doubt they will.

 

[kyussman]

So Sony tell them to fuck off,they limp along for the coming years selling fuck all consoles(putting out underwhelming games,which honestly seems to be the norm now)and failing to meet their sub numbers.......then what.For a company that have invested so heavily lately their future doesn't exactly look great.

 

[Darsxx82]

Nah, it makes perfect financial sense.

First, if the goal is to create one ecosystem and not sell products to another, then why have their games on Steam? If they pull out of the console market, why not just publish their games on Sony and Nintendo consoles as they do on Steam? By putting their games on the PS/Nintendo store for individual sale, as well as offering a lite version of GP, they'll make more money then ever and easily become the biggest third-party publisher on earth.

I think the confusion here has more to do with confusing XBOX becoming a 3rd party with the need or incentive to abandon its console business.

First, because XBOX is already possibly Playstation's largest 3rd party partner since the acquisition of ABK, which joins a significant number of games from Bethesda and XGS itself that have support on PS.

The fact is that those words from the CFO of MS are related to this current situation and the desire to bring Gpass to PS and Nintendo is not new, 3 years ago P. Spencer declared that same desire while behind the scenes he was deciding the total exclusivity of the games of Bethesda was important to encourage the console business and its ecosystem.

Second, because it is not as simple as losing income from sales of XBOX console users and gaining income from PS and Nintendo users.
The abandonment of the console business that it generates (in the worst case) is 45-55 million users pero gen Most of them loyal to the brand and that means 21+ million continuous Gpass subscriptions. Add 30% of all 3rd party game sales, microtransaction (Fornite etc) subscriptions and DLCs that are the majority of revenue and continue to grow with each fiscal Q.
Imagine what GTAVI is going to generate in revenue and what it can mean when it comes out among the 30 million XSeries consoles that will be available at the moment... Do you think that is going to be compensated?

In what logic would it be possible to risk the main sources of income of the gaming business and the ecosystem controlled by a bet in which you do not know how rooted Gpass will have on platforms where it will have competition from the manufacturer itself. Will conditions clearly be worse to create and expand an ecosystem in which you have control?

Until cloud gaming is established, it will always be necessary to retain users and income in a controlled space, not the opposite.

However, just because I can see this happening doesn't mean I want it to happen. Far from it.

The competition that Sony and Microsoft provide each other has hugely benefited gamers, but what happens if Microsoft leaves the console space? Would Sony even bother trying so hard? Would somebody else step in like Apple?

I also love my Xbox consoles. I've had Xbox consoles since the OG Xbox (got it with Halo and Project Gotham Racing) and I would be gutted to see them leave the console space.

The situation of the industry and competition in consoles if MS abandoned the XBOX consoles would be disastrous. But I don't think that at this point that matters to those who have been wishing and celebrating the end of the Xbox console for 20 years.

If there is one thing in MS's history, it is that it is unpredictable. Logic does not always serve to predict its steps. But on the other hand we have a base of recent indications and decisions and the future spectrum.

It would be the most absolute stupidity for MS to abandon console hardware at a time when it would be easier to provide support with 50+ own Studios. An unbeatable situation to face a next generation where you start from 0 before the arrival of cloud gaming. Is MS really going to miss that opportunity?

Sarah Bond has been appointed head of Hardware.... Do we want to think that P. Spencer did it knowing that they are going to stop making hardware??

Nadella a week ago saying that his biggest mistake was not insisting on Windows mobile and mobile hardware. Imagine saying that while deciding that it is not worth insisting on the console business based on the social power of the XBOX brand being in a better situation than ever.

Not to mention the leaked plan for new hardware in 2028. Or how they have risked the approval of the ABK acquisition by insisting only on multiplatform COD but not for the rest of the games...

That should be a better basis for predicting what is going to happen than the statements of a CFO, which are nothing more than a current reality and far from meaning the end of Xbox consoles.

 

[Astray]

If you're already on PC the solution is simple - stop buying 3rd party games on console. There's really no need to unless there are chronic performance issues on PC and you want to play the game before either the developer or community fix them.

This type of (valid) sentiment is exactly why if Microsoft wants to continue in this console biz, they need to start addressing this "3P is imminent" idea ASAP. Because this sentiment if it spreads it would force them to go 3P anyways.

 

[Darsxx82]

.

 

[Robb]

Of course they do, the problem is that no one else wants it.

Makes zero sense for Sony/Nintendo to let people play all those 3rd party games through MS service and loose out on the commission fees.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

.

I know you deleted your post, but i want to focus on our point on why Xbox might want to leave the Console.

The problem is that the entire business plan of being a console platform, is to be a walled garden. And the only reason it makes money is because you charge rent for third party developers. You can make money by selling first party games, but it all boils down to third party rent.

The issue with Xbox is that they are losing market share and thus the walled garden is getting smaller and smaller. The amount of money you can earn in the walled garden is proportional to the market share you got of paying customers.

There is a fixed cost in releasing new consoles every 7 years or so. And there is a cutoff point whereby the console isn't going to make back the money it costs to develop and sell the damn thing, if not enough consoles were sold. Microsoft, RIGHT NOW, has to decide if they want to fund a Nextbox, a commitment of another decade. If they decide to throw the dice and try again, there would be no easy way to turn back.

 

[DryvBy]

The only advantage you get from GP is the MS first party and they don't have anything amazing. Sometimes you get a great game on GP (Rem 2 for example), but that's it.

Even their cloud service is awful compared to Sony unless you're wanting to stream on the go.

So why would Sony do a full GP? I could see the EA Pass or Ubisoft type solution where it's an add-on but MS doesn't have any must have stuff.

 

[Darsxx82]

I know you deleted your post, but i want to focus on our point on why Xbox might want to leave the Console.

I haven't deleted it, I just posted it twice by mistake when editing...

The problem is that the entire business plan of being a console platform, is to be a walled garden. And the only reason it makes money is because you charge rent for third party developers. You can make money by selling first party games, but it all boils down to third party rent.

The issue with Xbox is that they are losing market share and thus the walled garden is getting smaller and smaller. The amount of money you can earn in the walled garden is proportional to the market share you got of paying customers.

In the worst case they will have a user base of 45-55 million. But the fact is that their software is not limited to console users because they also launch day one on PC whose user base is greater than all consoles combined.

Without forgetting that their IPs that generate the most income are launched and supported on all possible platforms (including PS and Nintendo)

That is to say, in reality Xbox first party games reach a user base greater than that of Playstation itself. It was decided years ago that Xbox console users would no longer be their only source of income. But the fact is that 50 million users (the vast majority of them loyal users and main generators of Gamepass subscriptions) is clearly essential today and in the medium long term.

There is a fixed cost in releasing new consoles every 7 years or so. And there is a cutoff point whereby the console isn't going to make back the money it costs to develop and sell the damn thing, if not enough consoles were sold.

For many years MS has also been a hardware company. I believe that they are currently in an unbeatable situation to attend the launch of any new hardware, including consoles.

At a time when more and more companies are starting to create their own gaming hardware (Valve, Asus etc...) I don't think MS is going to have any major problems.

Microsoft, RIGHT NOW, has to decide if they want to fund a Nextbox, a commitment of another decade. If they decide to throw the dice and try again, there would be no easy way to turn back.

MS is today in the best possible situation in its history to face the launch of new hardware and a new generation. It has never been in a better position to support its own console financially and in terms of the number of Studios. 45-55 millons while in the worst sales case you could expand certain releases to a larger user base (Switc 2 and PS), I certainly don't think it would be an unsustainable situation.

I think it would be the worst possible decision to end the hardware and a loyal user base precisely at the moment when they would not have the need to do so, also having the support and compensation that their games are released on PC to compensate.

That said, we have a leaked plan according to which they are already developing a new console for 2028 (with knowledge of the current situation) and they have appointed Sarah Bond as head of hardware..... It is clear that the intention right now does not seem to be that of not launching more consoles.

 

[cripterion]

If it could mean the death of PS+, sure why not.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

I haven't deleted it, I just posted it twice by mistake when editing...


In the worst case they will have a user base of 45-55 million. But the fact is that their software is not limited to console users because they also launch day one on PC whose user base is greater than all consoles combined.

Without forgetting that their IPs that generate the most income are launched and supported on all possible platforms (including PS and Nintendo)

That is to say, in reality Xbox first party games reach a user base greater than that of Playstation itself. It was decided years ago that Xbox console users would no longer be their only source of income. But the fact is that 50 million users (the vast majority of them loyal users and main generators of Gamepass subscriptions) is clearly essential today and in the medium long term.




For many years MS has also been a hardware company. I believe that they are currently in an unbeatable situation to attend the launch of any new hardware, including consoles.

At a time when more and more companies are starting to create their own gaming hardware (Valve, Asus etc...) I don't think MS is going to have any major problems.

MS is today in the best possible situation in its history to face the launch of new hardware and a new generation. It has never been in a better position to support its own console financially and in terms of the number of Studios. 45-55 millons while in the worst sales case you could expand certain releases to a larger user base (Switc 2 and PS), I certainly don't think it would be an unsustainable situation.

I think it would be the worst possible decision to end the hardware and a loyal user base precisely at the moment when they would not have the need to do so, also having the support and compensation that their games are released on PC to compensate.

That said, we have a leaked plan according to which they are already developing a new console for 2028 (with knowledge of the current situation) and they have appointed Sarah Bond as head of hardware..... It is clear that the intention right now does not seem to be that of not launching more consoles.

It seems you are not listening.
The less that Xbox earns money off the hardware, the less reason to MAKE the hardware. If the hardware is bringing in less money for its existence than other sources then it is the first to go, because the hardware costs the most. It doesn't matter how proud you are of MS hardware, it need to make money to be worth designing and selling it. And at this point the line is crossed.

The point is that the Xbox console , like all nearly all consoles except for Nintendo's, is by itself a money sink. You can't AFFORD a Series X if it is actually sold at a profit. And i have no idea why you think Xbox magically have 50million customers guaranteed; there is no reason to believe there is a floor to how many customers you can lose. Unless that floor is having no customers left.

 

[TrebleShot]

It was clear form the start that this would be the outcome of GP and it will happen unless sony decides to not play ball which is by all accounts possible just look at how long they resisted Dolby Atmos for.

They will eventually fold just depends when.
They have been very slow to have EA Play and Ubisoft Connect as part of plus.

What you want is a monthly fee that includes GP, +, Ubisoft COnnect, EAPlay all in one, never happening but would be great.

GP on PS consoles, a matter of time.

 

[kruis]

This isn't news really, they said this awhile back, its also why you saw MS support EPIC in their issue with Apple.

So MS pulls out of the hardware game and the risks / RD associated with it and coat tails SONY.

You think the same cloud servers that MS uses for Office 365 will also be able to run 3D games? That one cloud gaming server can run a huge number of simultaneous instances of a next gen Halo with RT shadows/RTGI in 4K 60fps?

Nope.

If MS drops consoles for cloud servers, they'd still have to design and manufacture millions of next gen cloud gaming servers but now they'd have to pay for all of those investments themselves instead of letting their loyal customer base pay for that next gen console themselves

Going all in wrt cloud gaming is a huge financial risk for MS and Sony compared to the current revenue model.

 

[Sethbacca]

Sony could agree to this if MS stopped releasing consoles. But I doubt they will.

Yeah, this is the only way I see Sony capitulating to allowing an MS first party only Gamepass on their system. There's no way they'll ever allow full gamepass with 3rd party offerings though.

 

[systemr123]

I guess if MS offering GP through playstation similar to how EA Play is offered.

Yes but Sony would never allow this if it means you could play those games in your sub on other platforms as well, so that rules out the essence of Gamepass

 

[systemr123]

The only advantage you get from GP is the MS first party and they don't have anything amazing. Sometimes you get a great game on GP (Rem 2 for example), but that's it.

Even their cloud service is awful compared to Sony unless you're wanting to stream on the go.

So why would Sony do a full GP? I could see the EA Pass or Ubisoft type solution where it's an add-on but MS doesn't have any must have stuff.

Also, you would still need ps plus to play anything online so you have to get 2 subs that are almost the same, makes no sense

 

[Guerilla Munch]

No fucking chance, I haven't bought a game on Xbox since Gamepass launched and that's the last thing Nintendo wants on their platform.

 

[Boss Mog]

If it came to other consoles it would only be via streaming so what's the point? Most serious gamers have zero interest in streaming.

 

[kruis]

I know you deleted your post, but i want to focus on our point on why Xbox might want to leave the Console.

The problem is that the entire business plan of being a console platform, is to be a walled garden. And the only reason it makes money is because you charge rent for third party developers. You can make money by selling first party games, but it all boils down to third party rent.

The issue with Xbox is that they are losing market share and thus the walled garden is getting smaller and smaller. The amount of money you can earn in the walled garden is proportional to the market share you got of paying customers.

There is a fixed cost in releasing new consoles every 7 years or so. And there is a cutoff point whereby the console isn't going to make back the money it costs to develop and sell the damn thing, if not enough consoles were sold. Microsoft, RIGHT NOW, has to decide if they want to fund a Nextbox, a commitment of another decade. If they decide to throw the dice and try again, there would be no easy way to turn back.

Microsoft's real problem is the large number of development studios they've acquired in the past years combined with the increasing development costs for AAA games. The more games they put on day one on Gamepass, the more Xbox owners and Gamepass subscribers they need to pay for all of that. But it's very clear MS has missed all of their XB./GP sales targets by now and the difference between actual and planned sales figures will only grow larger with each year.

 

[Darsxx82]

It seems you are not listening.
The less that Xbox earns money off the hardware, the less reason to MAKE the hardware. If the hardware is bringing in less money for its existence than other sources then it is the first to go, because the hardware costs the most. It doesn't matter how proud you are of MS hardware, it need to make money to be worth designing and selling it. And at this point the line is crossed.

Rather, it is you who is not wanting to listen. Console hardware remains the main revenue generator in the XBOX gaming business, and also the largest base of monthly gamepass subscriptions. That is, I don't know where the situation you describe is when the tax data tells you that the income generated by Xbox consoles is greater today than it was in any current generation because today a user generates more income than what an X360 user generated via microtransactions, subscriptions and digital content. These incomes today are hardly expendable by MS and even less so when your option is a bet where you can hardly compensate, much less control.

Then, here we are talking about stopping making hardware. At a time when even minor companies are launching their hardware.

MS is in a better position than ever to have its own console on the market. That is the reality. No, I don't put my hand on the fire for MS or anyone, but it would be difficult to explain why they decided to kill off the console hardware at this time when they are in the best possible position when they didn't do it before. When you see that they have taken all the steps preparing a new generation in 2028 in docs where they predict 55 million XSeries sold..... What is illogical is to think that their position is to abandon hardware.

The point is that the Xbox console , like all nearly all consoles except for Nintendo's, is by itself a money sink. You can't AFFORD a Series X if it is actually sold at a profit.

We could discuss that situation, but the issue of hardware and its accessibility or potential market goes beyond a simple question of price. We are in an era where consoles for $500+ have no problems selling. A period in which 2000+ dollar gaming PCs compete with consoles (here this proposal is defended over buying a 500€ XSX....)

That is to say, the important thing and the key is to make adequate sales predictions and adapt the hardware to be launched based on those predictions. MS has been around for quite a few generations now.

And i have no idea why you think Xbox magically have 50million customers guaranteed; there is no reason to believe there is a floor to how many customers you can lose. Unless that floor is having no customers left.

?? MS itself plans (leaked docs) 55-58 million
XSeries sold in 2028, which is the date they plan to launch their new console.....

If after 3 years it has ~26 million and there are at least another 4 left...... the surprising thing would be if they did not reach that figure of 45-55 million in the end when it is supposed to be the time where the new Studios and projects come in full and the arrival of ABK games to Gamepass sure could help at least keep up sales cadence...

 

[Topher]

It was clear form the start that this would be the outcome of GP and it will happen unless sony decides to not play ball which is by all accounts possible just look at how long they resisted Dolby Atmos for.

They will eventually fold just depends when.
They have been very slow to have EA Play and Ubisoft Connect as part of plus.

What you want is a monthly fee that includes GP, +, Ubisoft COnnect, EAPlay all in one, never happening but would be great.

GP on PS consoles, a matter of time.

Before GP is ever on PS consoles, Microsoft must port all their games to PS. The only other way it could possibly happen is a streaming app, but I just can't see Sony agreeing to that at all. So if Microsoft truly wants Game Pass everywhere then they are going to have to fully embrace their role as a full third party publisher first.

Otherwise, how does a GP subscription even exist on PlayStation? With what games?

 

[AJUMP23]

You want horns, but you will die butt-headed.

 

[Moriarty1889]

Just pitiful how MS are making themselves look. All that money and all those studios they have acquired. Yet, they refuse to actually create new IP using all the assets they now have and try to build Xbox to a competitive brand as it once was in the 360 era. They would rather cry victim and try to beg other platforms to let gamepass be a part of their ecosystem. Pitiful and a disgrace tbh. MS have completely ruined and made a mockery of the xbox console brand. They need to just cut their losses and go third party publisher. Ashamed too because competition is good and with all the money they have they couldn’t even try to compete nor did they seem to want to. Subscriptions and GAAS is all they stand for now. Xbox as a console brand is but an echo of their gaming past.

 

[Mownoc]

EA are able to offer their own games on subscription on PlayStation consoles. Xbox could do the same for their first party titles if they actually released them on PlayStation.

Of course if they want their sub on PlayStation to include third party titles, or for gamepass ultimate subs to be cross platform on PlayStation consoles that is never going to happen. Sony will want a cut of every sub and they will not want the sub to include non-ms content, reducing the sales of those games on their store. It would have to be a "Gamepass for PlayStation" sub and only include MS Published titles.

But while MS make their software console exclusive then obviously Gamepass will never be on PlayStation or Nintendo. So MS you know what you have to do. If you want gamepass everywhere exclusivity has to go.

 

[Bond007]

This wont happen on competitor consoles until Microsoft exits the hardware business.
Why would competitors do it others wise to ultimately funnel player base to another console. To me having their own console is a non starter- and to be honest at this rate i dont see Xbox consoles in the future based on this trajectory.

 

[DryvBy]

Also, you would still need ps plus to play anything online so you have to get 2 subs that are almost the same, makes no sense

If they bundle it in the Premium, they could do that like Ubi does or EA Pass. Or people would pay for it at a discount as you wouldn't need everything on GP just the first party.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

If anything, allowing GP on PS should be a slam dunk for Sony. It's not like PS+ and Sony first party games would come over to Xbox.

The more gamers who follow GP to PS will mean less Xbox gamers buying Xbox consoles.

 

[consoul]

the goal is to make first-party games and Game Pass available on "every screen that can play games"

And that's why Starfield is on PS5. Oh wait.

 

[FF:Enhanced_Reality]

Ah, now I know why the UK court is allowing the case for Sony to go to court given one of the complaints hidden away is the lack of other store fronts and services on their device.

 

[Humdinger]

They will release a catered Gamepass on PlayStation that only has 1st party games because otherwise PlayStation wont let them do it.

I don't see how that's a good deal for MS, though. If they just put 1st party there, with the free Day 1 exclusives, who would sub to GP long-term? They'd just sub for a month or two, to play the exclusive, and then bow out. MS wants people to have a long-term relationship with GP; they don't want a "hit it and quit it" scenario. In order to get that, they need a robust GP catalog to hold them there. MS 1st party isn't going to be enough to do that.

 

[Ansphn]

I don't see how that's a good deal for MS, though. If they just put 1st party there, with the free Day 1 exclusives, who would sub to GP long-term? They'd just sub for a month or two, to play the exclusive, and then bow out. MS wants people to have a long-term relationship with GP; they don't want a "hit it and quit it" scenario. In order to get that, they need a robust GP catalog to hold them there. MS 1st party isn't going to be enough to do that.

MS has no choice. They will have to create a Gamepass Blue for PlayStation and a Gamepass Red for Nintendo. Sony would not allow a full Gamepass version that would compete with their PS+ Subscription and Cloud. Who would allow this?

 

[Humdinger]

MS has no choice. They will have to create a Gamepass Blue for PlayStation and a Gamepass Red for Nintendo. Sony would not allow a full Gamepass version that would compete with their PS+ Subscription and Cloud. Who would allow this?

I understand that. My point is that MS would not do that.

 

[NickFire]

I don't see how that's a good deal for MS, though. If they just put 1st party there, with the free Day 1 exclusives, who would sub to GP long-term? They'd just sub for a month or two, to play the exclusive, and then bow out. MS wants people to have a long-term relationship with GP; they don't want a "hit it and quit it" scenario. In order to get that, they need a robust GP catalog to hold them there. MS 1st party isn't going to be enough to do that.

MS is committed to letting people rent for a month and quit. They don't even offer 12 month subs is my understanding. Plus, once they integrate Activision games into GP that first party library is going to be massive. I won't be surprised if they eventually phase most 3rd party games out, or at least cut back big time on what they offer to 3rd parties. They just own so much now, and have a ton of studios working on content.

And even if they keep robust 3rd party on traditional versions of GP, there's no way Sony allows it without taking a commission. None of us know what percent of a monthly GP sub fee goes to 3rd parties to share, but the savings there would obviously make it more palpable for MS to agree to Sony taking their cut.

 

[Humdinger]

MS is committed to letting people rent for a month and quit. They don't even offer 12 month subs is my understanding. Plus, once they integrate Activision games into GP that first party library is going to be massive. I won't be surprised if they eventually phase most 3rd party games out, or at least cut back big time on what they offer to 3rd parties. They just own so much now, and have a ton of studios working on content.

I doubt that MS is truly "committed to letting people rent for a month and quit." That cannot be their desire or their goal. Like any subscription service, they want to retain customers.

Adding Activision will help, although the main candidate (CoD) can't be present, since it isn't going to be exclusive.

 

[SSfox]

No thanks

Sony will lose me and all my respect if they allow that trash to enter my PlayStation

 

[NickFire]

I doubt that MS is truly "committed to letting people rent for a month and quit." That cannot be their desire or their goal. Like any subscription service, they want to retain customers.

Adding Activision will help, although the main candidate (CoD) can't be present, since it isn't going to be exclusive.

Do they offer an annual subscription for it?

I'm not saying they want people to sub for a month and drop when new games come out. But if they don't try funneling people into long term subs, then they are definitely committed to allowing it.

 

[Humdinger]

Do they offer an annual subscription for it?

I'm not saying they want people to sub for a month and drop when new games come out. But if they don't try funneling people into long term subs, then they are definitely committed to allowing it.

No, I don't believe they do, but why does that matter? Monthly or tri-monthly subs are more lucrative and usually have the built-in auto-renew. That's how most subscription services operate.

I understand they are "allowing" it. Of course they are "allowing" it. What are they going to do -- prohibit you from unsubscribing after a month? Of course they "allow" it. I'm saying their goal is to retain customers, not lose them.

p.s. Sorry, I'm a little coffeed-up at the moment, and coming across a little more aggressive than I'd like. I'm just saying I don't think a first-party-only GP is going to retain many subscribers. But maybe with all the acquisitions, that picture has changed. I don't know.

 

[jm89]

No thanks

Sony will lose me and all my respect if they allow that trash to enter my PlayStation

It'll probably be a neutered version, i doubt sony will allow MS to dictate anything regarding how GP would work on playstation if it did happen.

The may make it mandatory to release whatever game that comes to GP on psn aswell.

 

[NickFire]

No, I don't believe they do, but why does that matter? Monthly or tri-monthly subs are more lucrative and usually have the built-in auto-renew. That's how most subscription services operate.

I understand they are "allowing" it. Of course they are "allowing" it. What are they going to do -- prohibit you from unsubscribing after a month? Of course they "allow" it. I'm saying their goal is to retain customers, not lose them.

It matters when your point is that they wouldn't want to make more money because some of the new customers might not stick around. Their entire business model already includes taking on the same risk you think would prevent them from taking on new business.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Sounds food ms. Just go full third party and let the people play where they want.

 

[Happosai]

Sounds food ms. Just go full third party and let the people play where they want.

Their food is already on PC and Xbox consoles (S | X). Nintendo and Playstation already have some lackluster 3rd party games from their own online services and such. They're not going to take on Gamepass. That's a poor diet.

 

[sendit]

 

[jumpship]

That awkward moment where you want the company you tried to spend out of business to accept your subscription service on their platform after your attempt fails.

 

[clintar]

I'm sure Sony would be open to the idea if you gave them a percentage of the Game Pass subscription.

 

[StueyDuck]

I’d 100% prefer to play xbox games on ps with dualsense, but it ain’t happening

In my dream scenario. Each box has their exclusives for a year or 2. But eventually becomes multiplatform and has cross play if it's online co-op.

Never gonna happen, but imagine if sea of thieves was coming out on PS this year and Tlou2remaster was actually the Multiplatform version.

I just like it where everyone gets to at least eventually play the game.