Support NeoGAF

[JLB]

Or it could be 30%, you don't know.

The fact remains, it does not lead to increased sales and they knew this internally from the get-go. So they PR'ed bullshit.

Maybe things are not simple, maybe there are systemic effects, you now? Ask yourself where Xbox would be without Gamepass. Ask yourself if a game, for example, HiFI Rush would have sold so much on PC Steam without the good vibes from early Gamepass users.
World is not flat, literally and metaphorically.

 

[StueyDuck]

As always this is a case by case basis...

Like a game like hogwarts on gamepass would be an absolute fucking disaster when you see the gangbusters it's selling currently.

But a game like hi-fi rush. That probably did the title justice for I can't imagine the budget was too high for it

 

[Heisenberg007]

that happens regardless of gamepass though?studios rising and dying has been a constant of the industry since its creation.
hell the well oiled first party machince created by sony in present days was built in the ps3 era over a lot of games and relatives studios being closed down so that the better ones could prosper.

And Game Pass is increasing that probability significantly because it decreases game sales.

game development cost is increasing because production values (aka photorealism, hollywood level voice actors, stellar marketing) are increasing...if that's your concern, you should stop pretending always stellar graphics and voice acting and focus on gameplay, which is something I agree with.

but even in this case, this has nothing to do with gamepass...it's just that instead of spending money to create games and try to sell consoles, microsoft is putting money to make games and trying to sell subscriptions.

Why not? Tech has advanced. So have game prices. I'm expecting better games with high production values now. Why should I expect and accept smaller-scoped games with low production value just so they can appear on a game subscription service?

I'd not give my money to a business like that that compromises on its creative vision. Others are welcome to do so. But considering that GP has continuously missed its growth targets (and sales of games like God of War) it seems like the overwhelming majority of the gamers have the same mindset as me.

 

[JLB]

As always this is a case by case basis...

Like a game like hogwarts on gamepass would be an absolutely fucking disaster when you see the gangbusters it's selling currently.

But a game like hi-fi rush. That probably did the title justice for I can't imagine the budget was too high for it

Exactly my point a few comments above. But sometimes attempting to show a logic a bit more complex than a high school situation is kind of too much.

 

[Thief1987]

HiFI Rush would have sold so much on PC Steam

How much? It has 6k ccu peak. Please, stop painting it as a some big Steam success.

 

[JLB]

How much? It has 6k ccu peak. Please, stop painting it as a some big Steam success.

CCU on a single player game?
Probably the approx. 130k copies sold is a much better metric.
Now ask yourself how much would have sold not being on Gamepass / having no hype at all.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

This was always the case when it came to the game that is on Gamepass itself, being sold on Xbox consoles. Where it leads to more sales is in sales of other games on Xbox that aren't on GamePass, sales of games leaving GamePass, and sales of those same games on PC/other consoles. Hi-Fi Rush has been a top seller on Steam for weeks after it got shadow dropped, and part of the reason for that is through WoM after people tried it on GamePass. GamePass allows one to try out games they might not normally touch, find that they like that style/genre, then they end up buying games in the future that are similar to that title(a foreign concept to many on here who are proud of playing only one type of game the rest of their life).

This is spin and misinformation at its finest.

The reason the game is seeing we on steam has absolutely nothing to do with gamepass. It's selling on its own merits, don't take that away from the team that worked on it. Its doing well on steam because there are more people that have steam than there are that only have gamepass on their PC. And obviously, a majority of those people would rather pay $30 for the game than sub to gamepass.

Your theory suggests that the majority of PC gamers and steam members have gamepass, and use that as a gateway for new experiences. I have steam, I do not have gamepass (with the exception to the odd month or two I sub to it and pay whatever exclusives Xbox has to offer each year).

And let me tell you something about stats like x times this and percentage that. Whenever you see shit like that, you will do well to take it with a grain of salt. Eg. Say I make a game, an indy game. $10. I can't or lack the budget to market it. I release the game, not on gamepass.. only 200k people buy it. I make $2M. Done. But say it's on gamepass instead, so 3M people download. MS pays me $5M to put my game on there ( notice that's triple-digit, 200%+ to be exact). Now, MS gets to say, 15 times more users (3M vs 200k) and triple-digit (200%+) revenue.

They aren't lying...but notice it does not sound that good when you actually break the numbers down? And this is what MS is ready good at, they should fucking give them an oscar for it.

CCU on a single player game?
Probably the approx. 130k copies sold is a much better metric.
Now ask yourself how much would have sold not being on Gamepass / having no hype at all.

Please just stop this... do you need us to ist out 20 indy games that were on steam and sod significantly more or better than this game and was never on gamepass?

Are we really doing that now? Attributing the success of a game to its availability on gamepass?

 

[JLB]

This is spin and misinformation at its finest.

The reason the game is seeing we on steam has absolutely nothing to do with gamepass. It's selling on its own merits, don't take that away from the team that worked on it. Its doing well on steam because there are more people that have steam than there are that only have gamepass on their PC. And obviously, a majority of those people would rather pay $30 for the game than sub to gamepass.

Your theory suggests that the majority of PC gamers and steam members have gamepass, and use that as a gateway for new experiences. I have steam, I do not have gamepass (with the exception to the odd month or two I sub to it and pay whatever exclusives Xbox has to offer each year).

And let me tell you something about stats like x times this and percentage that. Whenever you see shit like that, you will do well to take it with a grain of salt. Eg. Say I make a game, an indy game. $10. I can't or lack the budget to market it. I release the game, not on gamepass.. only 200k people buy it. I make $2M. Done. But say it's on gamepass instead, so 3M people download. MS pays me $5M to put my game on there ( notice that's triple-digit, 200%+ to be exact). Now, MS gets to say, 15 times more users (3M vs 200k) and triple-digit (200%+) revenue.

They aren't lying...but notice it does not sound that good when you actually break the numbers down? And this is what MS is ready good at, they should fucking give them an oscar for it.


Please just stop this... do you need us to ist out 20 indy games that were on steam and sod significantly more or better than this game and was never on gamepass?

Are we really doing that now? Attributing the success of a game to its availability on gamepass?

So you think that HIFI Rush success has nothing to do with Gamepass and being there and on the dev_direct had no effects at all.

 

[digoutyoursoul]

Here in the UK, the split between multi platform game sales is pretty substantial. I remember in the 360 days it was pretty close for most big titles but now?

I know, more people are going digital and people say that Xbox players are more likely to buy digital however PS5 has a digital offering too and cheaper than the disc option.

 

[Harlock]

Wow, they discovered fire.

 

[Thief1987]

Probably the approx. 130k copies sold is a much better metric.

Where did you get this numbers? By that kind of "approximation" Elden Ring with 950k CCU sold 19 million copies in the first weeks on Steam alone.

 

[Majukun]

And Game Pass is increasing that probability significantly because it decreases game sales.

decreases sales but increases subscriptions, which is the real objective of the release, of course it can fail to do both, but so can a retail release.

Why not? Tech has advanced. So have game prices. I'm expecting better games with high production values now. Why should I expect and accept smaller-scoped games with low production value just so they can appear on a game subscription service?

If you think development prices are the point, you should care.
the reality is that studios closing has been a thing regardless of dev cost and of business model.

I'd not give my money to a business like that that compromises on its creative vision. Others are welcome to do so. But considering that GP has continuously missed its growth targets (and sales of games like God of War) it seems like the overwhelming majority of the gamers have the same mindset as me.

focusing on production values and thus expensive games actually narrows the creative vision though, since publisher aim on what is proven successful already when that much money is at stake,while they can open to more creative games when there's less at stake, or when they have their game already paid for thanks to MS and gamepass.

and again, you seem to think that the 60/70 bucks model automatically makes better games, which is simply not true...MS average first party quality has not been great, but that predates gamepass anyway, and we can discuss for a while on the objective quality of some of the sony releases, but that goes up to taste like anything else.

 

[NeroDaGod]

As always this is a case by case basis...

Like a game like hogwarts on gamepass would be an absolute fucking disaster when you see the gangbusters it's selling currently.

But a game like hi-fi rush. That probably did the title justice for I can't imagine the budget was too high for it

This is the thing. AAA games should be striving to be on the same level of quality as Hogwarts. And if they are, then why would you put any AAA game with as much hype as Hogwarts on gamepass? It's counterintuitive.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

So you think that HIFI Rush success has nothing to do with Gamepass and being there and on the dev_direct had no effects at all.

So we are talking about exposure?

You know another name for that right? Marketing.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

This was always so obvious, why wouldn't it. If you are a gamepass subscriber you'd be insane to also buy every game day one or close to launch.

I always thought Microsoft claimed it helped sales in the way that game pass is also like organic advertising. I'll talk about how good a game is and some other peeps in the office or my friends circle will a either buy it or b sign up for game pass...whichever they prefer.

If you actually read the article in the OP and his quote, this is exactly what he is describing. Not that GamePass subscribers play it on GamePass and then buy it or something or that sales are higher than they would have been without GamePass. But that people play the games on GamePass and it raises awareness of the games for people who aren't subscribers and THEY go out and buy the games thanks to social aspects like word of mouth and seeing someone on Mixer (RIP), YT, Twitch, etc playing the game.

We saw direct evidence of that recently with High On Life, and the developers of the game confirmed as much. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, but you know, gotta prove Phil man bad!

The rest is just the typical GamePass doom and gloom nonsense we've heard for years. Games on the service will all become GaaS trash and they'll dramatically raise the price and start walling off content behind it etc etc, none of which are based in any logic or reason.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

The rest is just the typical GamePass doom and gloom nonsense we've heard for years. Games on the service will all become GaaS trash and they'll dramatically raise the price and start walling off content behind it etc etc, none of which are based in any logic or reason.

Please tell me you are joking.

And the only unreasonable thing is you using hyperbole to dismiss or discredit otherwise very valid opinions. Prices will be raised, albeit not dramatically. The GAAS model will proliferate, though not to all of the games.

And you only have to look at every single subscription service in existence to see that for yourself. The illogical thing is that you somehow expect that for whatever reason, MS will not do what every other sub-service has done before them, what a sub-service literally needs to do to grow... why?

 

[Handel]

So we are talking about exposure?

You know another name for that right? Marketing.

WoM is a strong form of marketing, and the more people with easy access to a product the faster that WoM will spread. Xbox GamePass users being able to try out Hi-Fi Rush and High on Life with no extra risk without a doubt helped both of those games sales out. It's not the only factor obviously, but discounting WoM as an element to their success is ludicrous. Nor is it some disrespect to say that GamePass WoM helped its success, no merit is being taken away from the game since if it wasn't so good then it wouldn't be getting such overwhelmingly positive WoM. These things go hand in hand.

People that actually love games should be happy how easy it is for more people to experience a wide variety of games without breaking the bank. I know that's the minority around these parts though, sad as that is.

 

[IFireflyl]

You might want to remove the names as you'll either get a ban for warring or it's deleted. And they will definitely report

I'll keep it the way it is. It can't be considered console warring when I called out all three companies. They threw shade at me plenty of times, and they can handle a bit of ribbing for it. I appreciate you looking out for me though!

 

[Heisenberg007]

If you actually read the article in the OP and his quote, this is exactly what he is describing. Not that GamePass subscribers play it on GamePass and then buy it or something or that sales are higher than they would have been without GamePass. But that people play the games on GamePass and it raises awareness of the games for people who aren't subscribers and THEY go out and buy the games thanks to social aspects like word of mouth and seeing someone on Mixer (RIP), YT, Twitch, etc playing the game.

We saw direct evidence of that recently with High On Life, and the developers of the game confirmed as much. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, but you know, gotta prove Phil man bad!

The rest is just the typical GamePass doom and gloom nonsense we've heard for years. Games on the service will all become GaaS trash and they'll dramatically raise the price and start walling off content behind it etc etc, none of which are based in any logic or reason.

Nope. These are all false assumptions.

If that were true, the games would see increased sales. Microsoft's document clearly says decreased sales.

Nowhere does it say that the sales decrease on console, and then increase on other platforms (e.g., PC), which results in a net higher sales count.

 

[Handel]

Please tell me you are joking.

And the only unreasonable thing is you using hyperbole to dismiss or discredit otherwise very valid opinions. Prices will be raised, albeit not dramatically. The GAAS model will proliferate, though not to all of the games.

And you only have to look at every single subscription service in existence to see that for yourself. The illogical thing is that you somehow expect that for whatever reason, MS will not do what every other sub-service has done before them, what a sub-service literally needs to do to grow... why?

It's been years of the same concern trolling around GamePass and none of the things the doom prophets have foretold have come to pass. Will GamePass have a price increase eventually? Sure, like all things do such as there now being $70 games. Even at $20 or $25 a month it's an incredible value. GAAS have not specifically been a thing geared towards GamePass, and specifically we haven't seen MS first party go down this route in a significant way. So far we have seen that their studios are largely making the same types of games they're known for.

 

[StueyDuck]

This is the thing. AAA games should be striving to be on the same level of quality as Hogwarts. And if they are, then why would you put any AAA game with as much hype as Hogwarts on gamepass? It's counterintuitive.

That's why I say it's a case by case basis.

And I have to be personally honest but the AAA games that aren't MS first party that have launched on gamepass have been pretty lowsy... darktide and back 4 blood both pooped the bed with their launches and quality.

So I'd rather have more hogwarts that I pay full price for than those b tier launch pass games... absolutely

 

[SLB1904]

CCU on a single player game?
Probably the approx. 130k copies sold is a much better metric.
Now ask yourself how much would have sold not being on Gamepass / having no hype at all.

The game looks cool. Loads of people would have bought. I have no doubt about it

 

[Dr_Ifto]

For every breakout hit that shows high sales on other systems, how many dont? There has to be an average between the break out games like High on Life/Hi Fi Rush, and the ones that don't break out, and that average is probably leading to less net sales/revenue.

 

[NickFire]

Anyone know the ratio of big games (60 or 70 games) to small games that increased sales from GP exposure? I know of MLB, but no others. I also assume increased sales were just card packs, so live service.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Nope. These are all false assumptions.

If that were true, the games would see increased sales. Microsoft's document clearly says decreased sales.

Nowhere does it say that the sales decrease on console, and then increase on other platforms (e.g., PC), which results in a net higher sales count.

Read my post again and tell me why your reply is relevant. I never said it results in a higher net sales.

And selling less overall isn't inherently a bad thing, because they make money off the subs as well. And they can make more money off any potential DLC with more players in the pool. And for third party publishers, they get a check plus the sales.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

WoM is a strong form of marketing, and the more people with easy access to a product the faster that WoM will spread. Xbox GamePass users being able to try out Hi-Fi Rush and High on Life with no extra risk without a doubt helped both of those games sales out. It's not the only factor obviously, but discounting WoM as an element to their success is ludicrous. Nor is it some disrespect to say that GamePass WoM helped its success, no merit is being taken away from the game since if it wasn't so good then it wouldn't be getting such overwhelmingly positive WoM. These things go hand in hand.

People that actually love games should be happy how easy it is for more people to experience a wide variety of games without breaking the bank. I know that's the minority around these parts though, sad as that is.

Sigh... not discounting WoM.. but not going to go into that any further.

But the bolded part. That I will address.

The reason this gamepass conversation is so difficult is down to this us vs the mentality that its supporters have. But if you ready want what's best for games and gamers alike... then you have to try and kook at gamepass (or any service like it) without bias.

Ask yourself a simple question, if gamepass is to become all it can be, and thrive, what does it need to do, and what or how will that impact the industry?

So first you have to first accept, that the current industry model, is not designed for something like gamepass. As it stands, a subscriber is better off just paying for like a month of gamepass or two, and playing all the service has to offer in that time each year. But you want them to be paying monthly,or at least for a yearly sub. This is where GAAS, or more specifically, serialization comes in.

If I owned such a service, and I had a game like GOWR to release, why release it in one month when I can split the game into 3 volumes and release one volume per month? Great, at any one time, in any given month, I have volumes from at least 10 games in rotation. So GOWR will be on volume 1, FF16 could be on volume 7, HZFW on volume 6, Starfeid on volume 5...etc. This ensures that I keep people paying that monthly subscription. And also that I can pay a sizeable amount of money to the publishers or the games on rotation.

And then I have to have a ton of games, to ensure that there is always great content... so now, it's not ok to just have 10 or 15 studios... I need 30 or even 40. This is the consolidation part. The more I have on my service, the more subs there are, the easier it is to get or force third-party publishers to support my service too. That too is also a form of consolidation.

And all for a small monthly fee of $15/$20... gamers the world over have access to all the games they could want. Without breaking the bank.

This is not saying MS is evil, I even that I am evil for trying to make the best service I can make.

Now, where do you see that going from there? The greatest con one man can do to another, is to make them willingly, happily... give up their liberties and freedom. all the while convinced you are doing them a favor.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Please tell me you are joking.

And the only unreasonable thing is you using hyperbole to dismiss or discredit otherwise very valid opinions. Prices will be raised, albeit not dramatically. The GAAS model will proliferate, though not to all of the games.

And you only have to look at every single subscription service in existence to see that for yourself. The illogical thing is that you somehow expect that for whatever reason, MS will not do what every other sub-service has done before them, what a sub-service literally needs to do to grow... why?

So you think the service will raise in price, but not dramatically. You think they will focus on some GaaS, but not in everything. Then you're clearly not the type of person I was talking about.

There is no shortage of people on this forum who have posted for years about the exact thing I described. Bait and switch pricing, focusing on GaaS and quantity with no regard for quality, locking content to the service, literally removing physical games entirely in every region worldwide, etc.

It's batshit insanity, and this thread is just another example.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

So you think the service will raise in price, but not dramatically. You think they will focus on some GaaS, but not in everything. Then you're clearly not the type of person I was talking about.

There is no shortage of people on this forum who have posted for years about the exact thing I described. Bait and switch pricing, focusing on GaaS and quantity with no regard for quality, locking content to the service, literally removing physical games entirely in every region worldwide, etc.

It's batshit insanity, and this thread is just another example.

I think everything that they say will happen. But not overnight. It could even be in over the next 10 years or more. Not in a way that people wi even have an issue with. That's the beauty of it.

It's just the natural progression of such a service. Does not matter who does it. If it were sony, Nintendo, MS, or even valve doing it... the outcome will be the exact same.

 

[GHG]

It's batshit insanity

Yes I agree, the continued ability for some people to bury their heads in the sand even in the face of evidence is indeed batshit insanity.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

I think everything that they say will happen. But not overnight. It could even be in over the next 10 years or more. Not in a way that people wi even have an issue with. That's the beauty of it.

It's just the natural progression of such a service. Does not matter who does it. If it were sony, Nintendo, MS, or even valve doing it... the outcome will be the exact same.

Ah, cool. Enjoy predicting your doom and gloom for another ten+ years then. One day maybe hopefully eventually potentially maybe something will be right

 

[SportsFan581]

I think it was always known by anyone with a functioning brain that games included in GP might get dinged a bit in pure sales on the platform. This is just like Office365 lowering the sales volume of standalone MS Office licenses. It's a trade off that MS accepts intentionally. They will sell less first-party software on their console in exchange for users subscribing to a recurring subscription that over the course of time will have them giving MS more $ than they would via the attach rate of the traditional model (or in the case of Office365 the sub payments will eventually total much more than the cost of the software). MS isn't losing anything there, long-term they likely make gains it is just an exchange. The guy from Bethesda that does the interviews (not Todd the other one ) even said as much himself. Good games will still sell outside the subscription (as evidenced by Hi-Fi Rush) and they get the sub revenue.

For third-parties it would depend on the size of the release and how well known it is to gamers in general. GP can certainly lead to an uptick in sales (even on Xbox) when included in GP because it creates word of mouth and elevates the awareness of the title. Huge third-party games that everyone knows about already are going to be harder to make work, which is why we haven't seen many of those unless there was additional MTX involved. And of course how big of a check MS is willing to write is going to be a consideration. Plague Tale Requiem had quite a bit of buzz around it and those devs seem to be pleased with the results with GP in the mix. When MS says that many games have sold better after being included in the service, I don't doubt that at all. These were games that gained enough awareness from the inclusion to sell more copies to non-GP Xbox users than they would have without the service.

What isn't correct is the assumption that game pass lowers sales of games not included in the subscription.

The amount of people in this thread that don't understand the basic premise of a recurring subscription is truly hilarious.

 

[GHG]

Ah, cool. Enjoy predicting your doom and gloom for another ten+ years then. One day maybe hopefully eventually potentially maybe something will be right

People have been proven right in under 24 months regarding the topic this very thread is about. Meanwhile you:

 

[ComputerBlue]

Even games that haven't been added might take a hit, I know there are some first party Sony games that I would have likely bought by now, or would have planned on buying in the future, where as now with a premium subscription I'm waiting until they get added.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

Ah, cool. Enjoy predicting your doom and gloom for another ten+ years then. One day maybe hopefully eventually potentially maybe something will be right

smh... ignorance is bliss.

Its the I can only see as far as my own hand people like you that is the reason a lot of these companies get away with the shit they do. These companies don't operate in months, or even years. The first seeds of a price hike would be made or suggested months or years prior. It was no coincidence that chatter about cost of games started making the rounds as far back as 2016... before games went up by $10 in 2020. Or that Phil talked about how some prices of things would have to change, almost 6 months before Xbox games have also become $70.

If you can only see what is happening when it has happened... then am sorry.

 

[Klayzer]

The 2 shitbags that tried to call me out are permed. I see the ones that tried to call you out didn't dare to show their faces today.

DanielsM died for this, shitty.

Man. I remember Daniels, was one the first to call out what Microsoft's grand plan was. Dude was constantly attacked for his opinions. Though, to be fair, he would post a manifesto at every opportunity. I think that's what got him permed.

 

[demigod]

If you actually read the article in the OP and his quote, this is exactly what he is describing. Not that GamePass subscribers play it on GamePass and then buy it or something or that sales are higher than they would have been without GamePass. But that people play the games on GamePass and it raises awareness of the games for people who aren't subscribers and THEY go out and buy the games thanks to social aspects like word of mouth and seeing someone on Mixer (RIP), YT, Twitch, etc playing the game.

We saw direct evidence of that recently with High On Life, and the developers of the game confirmed as much. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, but you know, gotta prove Phil man bad!

The rest is just the typical GamePass doom and gloom nonsense we've heard for years. Games on the service will all become GaaS trash and they'll dramatically raise the price and start walling off content behind it etc etc, none of which are based in any logic or reason.

Wow gaiz, all that WoM for High on Life. It probably sold millions on Steam right? Oh wait it sold under 200k.

Developers never lie right? Just like a certain CEO of a billion dollar company. Nope, never lie.

 

[Handel]

Sigh... not discounting WoM.. but not going to go into that any further.

But the bolded part. That I will address.

The reason this gamepass conversation is so difficult is down to this us vs the mentality that its supporters have. But if you ready want what's best for games and gamers alike... then you have to try and kook at gamepass (or any service like it) without bias.

Ask yourself a simple question, if gamepass is to become all it can be, and thrive, what does it need to do, and what or how will that impact the industry?

So first you have to first accept, that the current industry model, is not designed for something like gamepass. As it stands, a subscriber is better off just paying for like a month of gamepass or two, and playing all the service has to offer in that time each year. But you want them to be paying monthly,or at least for a yearly sub. This is where GAAS, or more specifically, serialization comes in.

If I owned such a service, and I had a game like GOWR to release, why release it in one month when I can split the game into 3 volumes and release one volume per month? Great, at any one time, in any given month, I have volumes from at least 10 games in rotation. So GOWR will be on volume 1, FF16 could be on volume 7, HZFW on volume 6, Starfeid on volume 5...etc. This ensures that I keep people paying that monthly subscription. And also that I can pay a sizeable amount of money to the publishers or the games on rotation.

And then I have to have a ton of games, to ensure that there is always great content... so now, it's not ok to just have 10 or 15 studios... I need 30 or even 40. This is the consolidation part. The more I have on my service, the more subs there are, the easier it is to get or force third-party publishers to support my service too. That too is also a form of consolidation.

And all for a small monthly fee of $15/$20... gamers the world over have access to all the games they could want. Without breaking the bank.

This is not saying MS is evil, I even that I am evil for trying to make the best service I can make.

Now, where do you see that going from there? The greatest con one man can do to another, is to make them willingly, happily... give up their liberties and freedom. all the while convinced you are doing them a favor.

You're not bringing an actual, evidence based argument, just a hypothetical boogeyman of what MS could do. Your notion of people being able to sub for a month or two and play all the games...even if you just mean games they're interested in, that would have to be someone with a limited interest pool or an excess amount of free time to get through all they want on the service when factoring in work hours+w/e social life one has+other hobbies that take up time. I've been subscribed to GamePass for a long time without making a significant dent into the games I want to play as there's not enough time to get through all of them.

I understand that people wonder about the sustainability of GamePass, but that really isn't a concern for the consumer. Xbox is in third place, they're not controlling the market so if these hypotheticals you're so frightened of come to pass there are other platforms to play games on.

 

[Henry Panic]

The reason why this isn't the scandal some think it is, is that some devs did actually see game sales increases. That was enough to push the PR. What this thread is doing is assuming no games profited with a sales increase, and you guys are foolishly avoiding the real scandal.

The ACTUAL scandal here is MS pr being different from what they claimed their internal data said. Which means technically, they lied to multiple regulators.

This creates a trust issue that may be the death blow to the Activision deal. This is the real scandal.

 

[GHG]

Man. I remember Daniels, was one the first to call out what Microsoft's grand plan was. Dude was constantly attacked for his opinions. Though, to be fair, he would post a manifesto at every opportunity. I think that's what got him permed.

He knew, just went about it in the wrong way.

Wow gaiz, all that WoM for High on Life. It probably sold millions on Steam right? Oh wait it sold under 200k.

Developers never lie right? Just like a certain CEO of a billion dollar company. Nope, never lie.

Same situation will befall HiFi Rush. All this talk but once all is said and done and there's an opportunity to look at sales numbers there will be misalignment between the level of buzz it had and the real world sales figures.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

You're not actually bringing an actual, evidence based argument, just a hypothetical boogeyman of what MS could do. Your notion of people being able to sub for a month or two and play all the games...even if you just mean games they're interested in, that would have to be someone with a limited interest pool or an excess amount of free time to get through all they want on the service when factoring in work hours+w/e social life one has+other hobbies that take up time. I've been subscribed to GamePass for a long time without making a significant dent into the games I want to play as there's not enough time to get through all of them.

I understand that people wonder about the sustainability of GamePass, but that really isn't a concern for the consumer. Xbox is in third place, they're not controlling the market so if these hypotheticals you're so frightened of come to pass there are other platforms to play games on.

For evidence, look at Netflix, Hulu, PlayStation plus, even Xbox.

What to you is hypothetical, to me is common sense.

take digital distribution for instance, when games first started being able to purchase digitally on the PS360, I could have tod you then that sometimes the future, the option would not be to buy a console and download digitally, it would be to buy a console and buy an optional disk drive. And today I can te you that the time is coming when physical games cost more than digital games, but furthermore when the only physical games you can buy would be collectors editions.

No boogeyman about any of this, it's just common sense. What and how do you make the most money? think like that, then a lot of this shit starts becoming obvious.

And that whole they are not controlling the market thing so no need to worry... I bet that's what Nintendo were thinking when they gave sony the shaft. You think MS wants to be in third place? Do you think anyone is in this to not control the market if they can? For sonys, how do you think that control comes about? Its by making a ton of great games. And when they can, buying some sort of exclusivity, which mind you... MS can just as easily afford to do too. But how does that control happen with gamepass? Its by buying up publishers and ultimately limiting what is available on other platforms.

 

[Dr_Ifto]

What isn't correct is the assumption that game pass lowers sales of games not included in the subscription.

I see everywhere, Ill wait for the game to hit GamePass. That directly lowers sales of games not included in the sub. You can go to a lot of forums and people say they stopped buying games, and just wait for it to be on GamePass or Extra.

 

[DeepEnigma]

More like delusional PlayStation fanatics do who twist what he says to satisfy their egos.Phil Spencer gave that statement in 2018 when game pass had like 3 million subs and it was just a complementary service.Things will obviously be different when big games will launch to 30 million game pass subscribers.

Keep carrying that water, Phil.

 

[deathsaber]

I have always said the price is going to go up. And not little bits, either.

While any increase won't be THIS drastic- lets be real- they could double that $15 monthly to $30 monthly no sweat, AND even if they charged like $50 per month, can you really argue its not a good deal? Most dedicated gamers buy something each month, and full price for a new game is $70 minimum now. For someone to spend $50 a month, and have access to the full first party library of games over multiple consoles, dozens of third party games, most all EA games (once they've been out for about a year). I mean, I might not buy it every month, but $50 is a better deal than $70 to play something you want on Xbox (and most likely you'll be done within the month and still have access to globs of other stuff).

And again, I'm not daft to think they will do $50. But taking that $15 per month to $25 or 30. I could see it happen in an instant and it would still be a steal at those rates.

 

[Dr_Ifto]

I have always said the price is going to go up. And not little bits, either.

While any increase won't be THIS drastic- lets be real- they could double that $15 monthly to $30 monthly no sweat, AND even if they charged like $50 per month, can you really argue its not a good deal? Most dedicated gamers buy something each month, and full price for a new game is $70 minimum now. For someone to spend $50 a month, and have access to the full first party library of games over multiple consoles, dozens of third party games, most all EA games (once they've been out for about a year). I mean, I might not buy it every month, but $50 is a better deal than $70 to play something you want on Xbox (and most likely you'll be done within the month and still have access to globs of other stuff).

And again, I'm not daft to think they will do $50. But taking that $15 per month to $25 or 30. I could see it happen in an instant and it would still be a steal at those rates.

While I can say I can afford $50 a month, I cannot justify that as an expense every month. I can easily see a jump to $20 in the next year, and then $30 within 3 years. I think $30 will be the sweet spot of pricing. Is it still a steal? Its only a steal if you use it to a high degree. Whats average gaming would someone have to play in order for that to make sense? Maybe they offer two tiers, with $20 a month for download up to 3 games a month, and then $30 for unlimited.

One thing to consider, is that Gamepass may cause the rise of AA games and the loss of AAA games, just to get games out faster, and cheaper to fit within Gamepass.

 

[Gambit2483]

I have always said the price is going to go up. And not little bits, either.

While any increase won't be THIS drastic- lets be real- they could double that $15 monthly to $30 monthly no sweat, AND even if they charged like $50 per month, can you really argue its not a good deal? Most dedicated gamers buy something each month, and full price for a new game is $70 minimum now. For someone to spend $50 a month, and have access to the full first party library of games over multiple consoles, dozens of third party games, most all EA games (once they've been out for about a year). I mean, I might not buy it every month, but $50 is a better deal than $70 to play something you want on Xbox (and most likely you'll be done within the month and still have access to globs of other stuff).

And again, I'm not daft to think they will do $50. But taking that $15 per month to $25 or 30. I could see it happen in an instant and it would still be a steal at those rates.

Price increase is absolutely coming this year. I predicted earlier that it will be around or at the release of Starfield. MS is going to make us PAY if we want to play their most anticipated title of the year.

 

[The Stig]

this is

the thread

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

I have always said the price is going to go up. And not little bits, either.

While any increase won't be THIS drastic- lets be real- they could double that $15 monthly to $30 monthly no sweat, AND even if they charged like $50 per month, can you really argue its not a good deal? Most dedicated gamers buy something each month, and full price for a new game is $70 minimum now. For someone to spend $50 a month, and have access to the full first party library of games over multiple consoles, dozens of third party games, most all EA games (once they've been out for about a year). I mean, I might not buy it every month, but $50 is a better deal than $70 to play something you want on Xbox (and most likely you'll be done within the month and still have access to globs of other stuff).

And again, I'm not daft to think they will do $50. But taking that $15 per month to $25 or 30. I could see it happen in an instant and it would still be a steal at those rates.

MS would be stupid to do it that way. The first step to the inevitable price increase of gamepass is what they have already done. Having individual games on their platforms cost $70. The higher the price of individual games, the more value gamepass has.

Next thing would be to take that price up from $15/month to $20/month. In another 3 or four years, that can go up by another $5....etc.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

You're not bringing an actual, evidence based argument, just a hypothetical boogeyman of what MS could do. Your notion of people being able to sub for a month or two and play all the games...even if you just mean games they're interested in, that would have to be someone with a limited interest pool or an excess amount of free time to get through all they want on the service when factoring in work hours+w/e social life one has+other hobbies that take up time. I've been subscribed to GamePass for a long time without making a significant dent into the games I want to play as there's not enough time to get through all of them.

I understand that people wonder about the sustainability of GamePass, but that really isn't a concern for the consumer. Xbox is in third place, they're not controlling the market so if these hypotheticals you're so frightened of come to pass there are other platforms to play games on.

It's hilarious how many times MS can clarify their visions for Xbox and GamePass but people still claim to know the "true intentions". And the expectations they have never mesh with reality or logic.

MS is in third place. They aren't in a position where they can remove all physical games, make everything GaaS, chop games up and release them piece by piece, etc etc. They have repeatedly said GamePass will remain 10-15% of their revenue, there will always be local hardware, etc. But people continue to predict this nonsense where they make GamePass super expensive, lock content behind it, end retail sales, and make all their games small AA GaaS type games and somehow succeed?

Again, insanity.

 

[Dr. Wilkinson]

Well, but obviously tho. Why would you buy a game for $60 or $70 when you could just sub in or out of Game Pass for a month here and there and play for 30 days. And if the game is so amazing and you never want to be without it, maybe you buy it at a discount. Game Pass is great but it doesn't lead you to buy individual games, it leads you to never want to cancel your sub. I assumed that was the whole point? I'm absolutely resubbing to check out Redfall, and will do so again for Starfield. If I love it, maybe I'll buy it. But with Starfield I'd have done that anyway, with or without Game Pass.

 

[deathsaber]

MS would be stupid to do it that way. The first step to the inevitable price increase of gamepass is what they have already done. Having individual games on their platforms cost $70. The higher the price of individual games, the more value gamepass has.

Next thing would be to take that price up from $15/month to $20/month. In another 3 or four years, that can go up by another $5....etc.

We'll see. Like I said, I think they could double the price offering the same product they do now and still make the compelling case of being the best deal in gaming.

Or, if they truly do feel like something is being lost in retails sales, they could "stay put" on the subscription price but do like they do in the movie industry- give new games that 60- or 90-day window solely for retail, and then they are added to the pass afterwards.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want any of this to happen, but neither would surprise me one iota IF it did.