Xbox Game Pass has reached more than 35 million subscribers

So only 1 million subscribers in the last 15 months, despite adding Call of Duty, Indiana Jones, Avowed, and so many other games?

Animated GIF
 
saintjules said:
There's a reason they're still continuing the subscription model nearly a decade after starting it. So why haven't they stopped it if it's bad business?

Your other points aren't indicative to what my comment was about. but anyway, everyone is going to charge $80 at some point. So when Playstation eventually gets to that price point, are they going to be in 'trouble' as well with their business and do a hail mary as well?
Click to expand...
I honestly think that they are regretting the Day One gamepass thing

But they can't backtrack it. They dug themselves into a hole. Hence the multi platform push and rising gamepass costs (of which we'll see probably the largest one this year by holiday)

The whole concept of games are $80… well SOME of them will be. And unless you're buying over 3 $80 games/year, Gamepass isn't a massive financial deal. It's not like every single game ever gets released on the service. Most people don't want to wait a year for it to hit the service.

The reality is that gamepass is loaded with older games and indie bloat. The average person doesn't care about that. So dropping $70 on Indiana Jones is no big deal to most. It's not like they're thinking "oh if I subscribe to Gamepass I'll get Indiana Jones AND a bunch of shit I don't care about"

This narrative that people on gaming forums represent the majority is so weird
 
JoeDanny said:
Xbox really needs to invest more resources in Xcloud. The Game Pass library is great, but streaming games to your phone or whatever platform you want should totally be the future. IF they can finally get it working great. GeForce NOW is a good example of what Xbox needs to be doing. Flexibility in choosing framerate, resolution, bitrate, etc. And it looks amazing with barely any hitches. And even if it does lag, the stuttering doesn't break the game into a blurry mess like Xcloud constantly does. Imagine if the barrier to entry to the entire Game Pass catalog is just a screen that you most likely already have? And maybe a controller? That seems to be what they want it to be... but Xcloud just sucks so much dong that it's never going to get there at its current pace. Streaming could be the future if they just give it some extra love.

Yeah, yeah, there's the whole issue of not owning your games, and that does suck. But digital games have been a thing for a while now anyway. Streaming is just an evolution of how your existing library/Game pass can be delivered to you, but I think the instant-access-to-any-game promise is an overwhelming pro outweighing the cons.
Click to expand...
Xcloud is not going to do anything. It's a great ancillary service but it isn't going to draw in new people. It just isn't.

If someone cares about gaming, they have a console or PC. You would literally be throwing resources to appeal to a fraction of a fraction of people.

Streaming isn't the future. It just can't be. The vast majority of the world and even a large portion of the US doesn't have internet speeds or access that would make it a viable alternative
 
JoeDanny said:
Xbox really needs to invest more resources in Xcloud. The Game Pass library is great, but streaming games to your phone or whatever platform you want should totally be the future. IF they can finally get it working great. GeForce NOW is a good example of what Xbox needs to be doing. Flexibility in choosing framerate, resolution, bitrate, etc. And it looks amazing with barely any hitches. And even if it does lag, the stuttering doesn't break the game into a blurry mess like Xcloud constantly does. Imagine if the barrier to entry to the entire Game Pass catalog is just a screen that you most likely already have? And maybe a controller? That seems to be what they want it to be... but Xcloud just sucks so much dong that it's never going to get there at its current pace. Streaming could be the future if they just give it some extra love.

Yeah, yeah, there's the whole issue of not owning your games, and that does suck. But digital games have been a thing for a while now anyway. Streaming is just an evolution of how your existing library/Game pass can be delivered to you, but I think the instant-access-to-any-game promise is an overwhelming pro outweighing the cons.
Click to expand...
It's also incredibly expensive to support, because you have to be running and maintaining a ton of powerful machines. No wonder Nvidia started limiting monthly hours and that's despite having record profits (in general). So you're risking not only not owning anything, but also at some point being limited how much you can play.
 
35 million X what...10 bucks a month on the low end? That's alot of money. Obviously this number goes up and down by the hour but if they are averaging this...

There's no way they are spending that much money on deals alone. There are other expenses...sure...but I pay 12 dollars a month on PC. Xbox folks are paying more. Then consider what happens when they put gamepass on basically everything...TVs, handhelds...minifridges...

Can somebody explain how this is not sustainable?
 
Last edited:
saintjules said:
Sounds like good numbers. It's been said by man people that GP isn't a sustainable model. What is now 8 years later and it's still there.

The showcase yesterday still continues to push some games (even AA ones) as day one availability on the platform. If the service was bad/not sustainable, why is it still seemingly moving strong all this time later?
Click to expand...
It's not rocket science, but so many people here just want them to fail I guess. Be it in defense of their preferred gigantic company or favorite plastic box, I really don't get it.

If Game Pass was absolutely not sustainable, they would've abandoned ship/reverted a long time ago. But instead they continue to lean into it and harder. With new games continuing to be day 1 releases on GP.

I get if GP isn't for you, or just not your thing. But it's an option for people to pay less to play some games they're interested in. I think it's just cool for people to have choices. In this day an age I'd much rather pay for a month of GP to play a game that launches on it rather than paying $80 for the same game that I will probably only play for a month or less any way.
 
Topher said:
I bet a lot of folks on PC do what I do with Ubisoft+ and subscribe for a month at a time when there is a game I want to play. So Game Pass is going to have peaks and valleys just like games sales do. Would love to know how many people actually pay the full amount every month every year.
Click to expand...
I pay every month for PC. I took about 3 or 4 months off at one point, but right now they constantly have games I am interested in. Finished Clair Obscur and was straight in to Doom.

The problem that MS have on PC, beyond steam just being really good, is that everyone can create a backlog of 100s of games including several AAA's for free.
 
Last edited:
MiguelItUp said:
It's not rocket science, but so many people here just want them to fail I guess. Be it in defense of their preferred gigantic company or favorite plastic box, I really don't get it.

If Game Pass was absolutely not sustainable, they would've abandoned ship/reverted a long time ago. But instead they continue to lean into it and harder. With new games continuing to be day 1 releases on GP.

I get if GP isn't for you, or just not your thing. But it's an option for people to pay less to play some games they're interested in. I think it's just cool for people to have choices. In this day an age I'd much rather pay for a month of GP to play a game that launches on it rather than paying $80 for the same game that I will probably only play for a month or less any way.
Click to expand...

Yes and I'm all for GP.

It's a viable option if there's a game I want on there and if it's a 3rd party game that doesn't have bigger enhancements on PS5 Pro or it's not a PS game in general, then I'll play it there. More options are always better.
 
Jigsaah said:
35 million X what...10 bucks a month on the low end? That's alot of money. Obviously this number goes up and down by the hour but if they are averaging this...

There's no way they are spending that much money on deals alone. There are other expenses...sure...but I pay 12 dollars a month on PC. Xbox folks are paying more. Then consider what happens when they put gamepass on basically everything...TVs, handhelds...minifridges...

Can somebody explain how this is not sustainable?
Click to expand...
Maybe ask Bobby Kotick:

bobby k on gamepass
 
Novaex said:
How is "reached" defined? I bought it for 1 month paying 1€ back then and cancelled it right after. Am I counted in the 35 million? Is it overall or concurrent?
Click to expand...
Yep, you have been "reached ". I also occasionally sub for a few $ to a month or 3 months (depending on what's the cheapest) and they counts.

This also includes anything from base yearly sub to console only to PC only to GPU. So basically there is no way to tell how much revenue MS is getting and Phil ain't telling.
 
Jigsaah said:
35 million X what...10 bucks a month on the low end? That's alot of money. Obviously this number goes up and down by the hour but if they are averaging this...

There's no way they are spending that much money on deals alone. There are other expenses...sure...but I pay 12 dollars a month on PC. Xbox folks are paying more. Then consider what happens when they put gamepass on basically everything...TVs, handhelds...minifridges...

Can somebody explain how this is not sustainable?
Click to expand...

It has already proven to be sustainable by virtue of still being around after 7-8 years. Whether or not sales are being canibalized to the point that they would make more money with traditional sales is another question. I can't imagine topping out at 35 million is what they had in mind though. Not if they are going to include the entire ABK slate on it going forward.
 
Topher said:
It has already proven to be sustainable by virtue of still being around after 7-8 years. Whether or not sales are being canibalized to the point that they would make more money with traditional sales is another question. I can't imagine topping out at 35 million is what they had in mind though. Not if they are going to include the entire ABK slate on it going forward.
Click to expand...
The goal was 100m.
 
Jigsaah said:
There's no way they are spending that much money on deals alone.
Click to expand...

Deals, maintenance of servers, people that are working around GP, etc. And the most important thing - game development costs. Every studio that MS owns now (and there are a lot of them) are spending money each day. Money that you would normally earn by selling games. For some time it relied heavily on GP but it is not enough it seams (for MS management for sure) so they started porting games to other platforms.
 
Jigsaah said:
35 million X what...10 bucks a month on the low end? That's alot of money. Obviously this number goes up and down by the hour but if they are averaging this...

There's no way they are spending that much money on deals alone. There are other expenses...sure...but I pay 12 dollars a month on PC. Xbox folks are paying more. Then consider what happens when they put gamepass on basically everything...TVs, handhelds...minifridges...

Can somebody explain how this is not sustainable?
Click to expand...
For one, this conversation can only be had on these terms if you take it that this 35 million is the current number, a consistent number year round, and/or even totally accurate number.

Secondly, this includes for Gamepass Core subscribers that used to be classified as XBL subs. Thats how Microsoft even got to the last 34 million they officially stated.

Third, Microsoft's own leaked documents indicate that they are 50% behind where they think they should've been even before locking down Activision.

Fourth, if that doesn't convince you then their increasingly desperate action should. They're throwing everything at the wall. Universal porting; a handheld that isn't even closed in on the Xbox ecosystem; 80 dollar charges for COD all the way down to mediocrity like The Outer Worlds; and mounting price increases for their console (admittedly amid tariff shit, but it's more complex than just that) and Gamepass itself.

Fifth, common sense. The sheer number of "first party" titles they've released to low sales, mediocre fanfare and no subscription growth is a bad portent for the future when things aren't as high speed. When the bill comes due for Fable, E-Day, Perfect Dark and the next Halo, for which exorbitant amounts of time and money have gone into making, the major studios would've blown their loads and not done it particularly well. What happens then? What happens if/when there's a major slip up on COD?

Furthermore, they're completely flipping the third party structure on its head. Every time a game goes to Gamepass, Microsoft are paying developers instead of making 30% when those developers sell the game on Xbox. Especially with PC Gamepass, the opportunity cost of slapping your title on there is even higher. This is especially true once a majority of AAAs are 80 bucks. Over time, the cost of getting these third party titles only goes up.

And that goes into what the plan for next gen is: All of these moves are chipping away at the Xbox brand, and an Xbox branded PC in place of an actual next gen console will be the final nail in the coffin from so many angles, it's difficult to justify going on with this post.

Other than that, I'll point out that my analysis of their numbers last quarter indicate a churn of subs rather than growth; and that the lack of enthusiasm for their showcase, where they usually get glazed, is a bad sign.
 
The Outer Worlds 2 is the 1st game that might tempt me to join Gamepass for a month just to play it cheaply, as it's not a game i would mod, and i'm not paying 80 quid either, then i would unsubscribe and wait for the game to be really cheap or given away for free by Amazon or Epic, so i would be counted in these numbers, but is that really growth, i could probably get a free month as well as i would be a new subscriber to get on the service but i wouldn't stay on it.
 
I mean their recent multi-platform push directly contradicts that 2027 article, but ok I guess.

Gaming as we know it will be dead in the next 2 years.

Sad Tobey Maguire GIF
 
Last edited:
ProtoByte said:
For one, this conversation can only be had on these terms if you take it that this 35 million is the current number, a consistent number year round, and/or even totally accurate number.

Secondly, this includes for Gamepass Core subscribers that used to be classified as XBL subs. Thats how Microsoft even got to the last 34 million they officially stated.

Third, Microsoft's own leaked documents indicate that they are 50% behind where they think they should've been even before locking down Activision.

Fourth, if that doesn't convince you then their increasingly desperate action should. They're throwing everything at the wall. Universal porting; a handheld that isn't even closed in on the Xbox ecosystem; 80 dollar charges for COD all the way down to mediocrity like The Outer Worlds; and mounting price increases for their console (admittedly amid tariff shit, but it's more complex than just that) and Gamepass itself.

Fifth, common sense. The sheer number of "first party" titles they've released to low sales, mediocre fanfare and no subscription growth is a bad portent for the future when things aren't as high speed. When the bill comes due for Fable, E-Day, Perfect Dark and the next Halo, for which exorbitant amounts of time and money have gone into making, the major studios would've blown their loads and not done it particularly well. What happens then? What happens if/when there's a major slip up on COD?

Furthermore, they're completely flipping the third party structure on its head. Every time a game goes to Gamepass, Microsoft are paying developers instead of making 30% when those developers sell the game on Xbox. Especially with PC Gamepass, the opportunity cost of slapping your title on there is even higher. This is especially true once a majority of AAAs are 80 bucks. Over time, the cost of getting these third party titles only goes up.

And that goes into what the plan for next gen is: All of these moves are chipping away at the Xbox brand, and an Xbox branded PC in place of an actual next gen console will be the final nail in the coffin from so many angles, it's difficult to justify going on with this post.

Other than that, I'll point out that my analysis of their numbers last quarter indicate a churn of subs rather than growth; and that the lack of enthusiasm for their showcase, where they usually get glazed, is a bad sign.
Click to expand...
I can only go by what's being reported. I would need to go by the information I have available. Anybody who does anything else without proof to the contrary should not speculate.

Secondly, a sub is a sub? What does it matter if they roped in the online multiplayer aspect with the core subcription...it's still money in the bank.

To your 3rd point. Do their envisioned goals from the leaked document indicate a target for sustainability? I don't have the document, so I believe context is needed here. Square Enix has called games a failure because they've set their goals too high. This may or may not be the case with Microsoft. not saying you're wrong. I'm saying we don't have complete information.

I don't see their multiplatform approach as desperate...I see it as them doing away with the norm and pursuing a very aggressive avenue. One could argue that if they were doing as well as Sony is that this would never happen. I tend to disagree with that. I feel is forward-thinking. I do admit the development costs they have to be experiencing does give cause for concern...as it does with pretty much the entire AAA industry right now. Difference is, Microsoft is willing to pivot much more aggressively than anyone else right now. Not guaranteed to work...but I think it's a better strategy then holding onto the current methods.

I do believe the brand itself is in trouble. However, I think every manufacturer at this point is facing some tough choices. Sony has it's failures and Nintendo despite it's recent success, has become arrogant...which is crazy to me...but here we are. So what are they trying. Sony is trying to hold onto it's identity and profit in the PC space. Nintendo is still stuck in it's ways and deciding to just make the consumer pay more. Nobody is being more aggressive. I'd argue if Xbox is in trouble...the other two are also in trouble, possibly even more so. Especially since they don't have a trillion dollar company backing them. Xbox can afford to be aggressive. That's why I don't think this is desperate.
 
MiguelItUp said:
It's not rocket science, but so many people here just want them to fail I guess. Be it in defense of their preferred gigantic company or favorite plastic box, I really don't get it.

If Game Pass was absolutely not sustainable, they would've abandoned ship/reverted a long time ago. But instead they continue to lean into it and harder. With new games continuing to be day 1 releases on GP.
Click to expand...
Meanwhile, in reality:
  • Phil Spencer says Game Pass isn't for everyone.
  • Satya Nadella detaches Game Pass growth from his own executive bonuses.
  • Game Pass misses internal goals for 3 years consecutively.
  • Microsoft increases Game Pass price multiple times.
  • Microsoft stops day-one games for $15 tier and limits them only to a fraction of Game Pass users (Ultimate tier).
If you change the fundamental structure of your service, that's not "leaning into it harder."
 
Joel Was Right said:
ROG Ally and potential future console plans might ramp this up quite a bit. Game Pass as it was known up until now and what it can be from now on are two different things.
Click to expand...
That's overestimating both brands: Asus Rog and Xbox.

As of now, reports suggest that Rog Ally have sold somewhere between 500,000 and 800,000 units. And we all know the ever-receding value of the Xbox brand.

A device that previously could not even sell a million units will not be able to have any noticeable effect on a subscription service. If Xbox Series X and Series S ($230) couldn't move the needle, the Xbox handheld (likely to be priced between $800 and $1000) will certainly not.
 
Do they count that I had gamepass for a week back in 2019? Or that I had to reactivate my accunt for minecraft? How many people are actually re-newing and paying?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Xbox Game Pass is delivering more than ever, but will gamers notice?
2 3 4 5 6
256
2K
DevilHunterX0 replied
Splitgate 2 has reached over 1 million downloads
5
176
havoc00 replied
Glitch/Exploit: Dragon Ball FighterZ (Xbox) Free For Game Pass Subscribers
6
624
El Muerto replied
Xbox Game Pass has been absolutely incredible in 2025
2 3 4
177
2K
QuantumThermos replied
Xbox Game Pass Retro Announced
News Hardware  2 3 4
170
913
KungFucius replied
Top Bottom