• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Is Game Pass Genius or am I overthinking it?

stitch1

Member
Currently game pass has around 15 million subs paying something around $10 a month. So Xbox is bringing in something like $150mil a month. In this next generation let's say they double the subs to 30mil. That's $300 million a month. It's all digital and all funds currently flow straight to them.

So you ask yourself, how do they plan to double in subs and how do they keep current subs happy? It seems like they have an answer for everything.

Bigger longer better games. You'll see a lot more RPGs because they last longer. Keeping people engaged.

Online games. Games like Sea of Thieves and Destiny keep people logging in week after week to run missions and have monthly events.

Indie games. They may not stay on the platform for very long but they will keep a fresh batch coming so gamers have something new to try often. Gives a lot of exposure to the devs and there's always something interesting to check out without a barrier to entry.

Racing games. They have had this locked down for awhile with the two different Forza titles. These will continue on for both the sim and arcade one two punch.

Shooters. With Halo becoming an open world game as well as games as a service online game this should keep fans locked in. Then add in Gears and possibly Perfect Dark.

What's a quick and cheaper way to get content on the service? Backcompat games. These games weren't making anyone any money before. But now if a handful of gamers decided to go back play some of these games it keeps them on the service.

Of course they'll still do some big name third party games to keep it fresh. I'm also sure they'll keep a large selection of kid and family friendly games as well.

The more game types they can get going on the service the wider the net they cast to get more people on the service. The more they can keep people coming back month after month the more they can find bigger projects. But at the same time they lower the risks for experimental games.

But you say $500 consoles are a huge barrier to entry. But they even thought about that. Sure a lot of us are willing to pay that no questions asked. But say your younger kids want to play Minecraft so you get them the Series S for $300. Or maybe you have a PC buddy that doesn't want a console but wants to still play online with you. Cross platform play with game pass for PC. Then there's xcloud. No system needed at all. I could see this getting added as a smart tv app. So to recap you could play on mobile/tablet, PC, premium console, and budget console with browser support coming.

To me looking at it as a business model a game like skyrim / fallout or the Witcher is more valuable than a game like The Order 1886 because they can easily be played for 100 hours + rather than just an afternoon. However, they could take a chance on something more creative like the order because of the monthly safety net.

I bring up The Order because I enjoyed it for what it was. However, it apparently went over budget, missed their deadlines, and then underperformed at retail. So I kind of doubt Sony will ever do a follow-up. It's only about an 8 hour game. Something like that on gamepass is great for a quick play because they aren't asking you for $60 for that 8 hour experience. That's a quick 1000 achievement score and on to the next.

With game budgets getting higher making the barrier to entry lower makes a ton of sense. $15 a month give you so many options and helps raise game budgets. Currently game pass brings in enough to fund three $50 million games a month. Or with budgets getting higher they could fund one $250mil+ GTA 5 sized game every two months. If they can grow the service to 30mil subs they could afford to fund a AAA game each month. Of course they wouldn't need to. Games take years to make. But the income would be there.

This seems genius but yet I read a lot of people thinking it's unsubstantiated. I don't think microsoft became one of the wealthiest companies without some smart people making business models like this.
 

.Pennywise

Banned
120173379_10222942867867915_4517702247733418332_n.jpg
 

Tranquil

Member
This is pretty much my first time owning an xbox I'll be giving it a shot. I don't like that I don't own the games and they can just remove them each month.

Figuring I'll give it a few months for a trial run.
 

Kagey K

Banned
This is pretty much my first time owning an xbox I'll be giving it a shot. I don't like that I don't own the games and they can just remove them each month.

Figuring I'll give it a few months for a trial run.
Just use it to play games you like. If you see a game you had a passing interest in is leaving play it and either try to beat it or go buy it.

I found out today Tacoma and Afterparty are leaving. So until I beat them both that is my focus.

Thankfully it gives me goals that way as well. Until today I was floating back and forth trying to find a new game to play while I wait for my Series X
 

odhiex

Member
It's a risky business that MS can afford and I commend them doing so. I think It would not be profitable for MS for a while.
 
Last edited:
I do think it is genius to invest so heavily into it and even taking losses along with making sure it will be available on a large selection of platforms. That some people think it is unsustainable, even at $10 a month, baffles me. I don’t know where those people got their calculations from (from their ass).
 

Kagey K

Banned
It’s really simple. Let’s take the big boy everyone wants to talk about Spider-Man.

They had about 2 million people buy it at full price. The other 10 are padding through either sales or bundles, either way even after all the sales and bundles and day 1 buyers they didn’t even hit 10% of the userbase.

MS is going a different way, amd instead of asking a person to buy one game, they are offering a bunch of games for the same round price as Sony wanted you to pay for Spider-Man.

Some will come and some will go, but they can end with a much larger overhead of revenue if people stay subscribed instead of buying bundles or discounts.

It’s really not a hard system to figure out.
 

BaneIsPain

Member
Great for games that require less major changes for development like sports titles. As for consumer, it is a great deal.
 

jigglet

Banned
The truth is no one has a fucking clue. This model might be unsustainable and comes crashing down. Or it could be the next big thing.

Or it could be the next big thing with really negative repercussions that no one has even thought about yet.
 

Kagey K

Banned
They do. It's so unexciting that you don't even know about it, apparently. The reason? Because they don't have new 1st party games launching on it.
I,kept hammering in this fact when Gamepass first launched. They asked me why I wouldn’t subscribe and I said over and over again, it was a good deal for new Xbox owners but did nothing for me as long time customer.

Finally they added something to convince me to come in.

There’s nothing worse than being a long time customer and getting treated like a second class citizen because you bought into thier shit too soon.

Yet so many here are happy to do it.
 

Joho79

Member
Now with so many first party studios they can release games in portions to keep the subs going. Smart yes!
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrS

DavidGzz

Member
He does not own any of those games. The guy on the right owns his game.


And? Do you keep replaying your games after you beat them? Can you resell your digital games? Besides, XGS games will never leave the service so he will always have access and if he wants to stop paying for Game Pass he/she can buy any of those games at a discount. People keep saying this like it's a negative. Netflix subscribers couldn't care less that they don't own all of the shows on the service and Game Pass subscribers couldn't care less that they don't own all of the games on Game Pass.


Now with so many first party studios they can release games in portions to keep the subs going. Smart yes!


I actually wouldn't mind if Fable were released similar to Final Fantasy 7. Chapter 1 in late 2021, 2 in 2022, so on and so forth.
 
I think true digital ownership of ANYTHING is a misnomer.

It does, however; make it more convenient to play music, games and movies.

I wouldn't dream of buying a DVD or CD of an album now when you can get a subscription of ALL music and a good selection of films instead.
Music is a good example unless you own vinyl. But dvds? Garbage. 4k streaming looks worse then a 1080p blu ray let alone a 4k ultra. I still buy my movies for superior picture quality and higher quality audio. I also buy my games physical because i actually own them. But I'm probably a dying breed owning shit.
 
Last edited:

Joho79

Member
And? Do you keep replaying your games after you beat them? Can you resell your digital games? Besides, XGS games will never leave the service so he will always have access and if he wants to stop paying for Game Pass he/she can buy any of those games at a discount. People keep saying this like it's a negative. Netflix subscribers couldn't care less that they don't own all of the shows on the service and Game Pass subscribers couldn't care less that they don't own all of the games on Game Pass.





I actually wouldn't mind if Fable were released similar to Final Fantasy 7. Chapter 1 in late 2021, 2 in 2022, so on and so forth.

I was more thinking portion out new games not portion out same game in chapters. Like, ok finished starfield but fable releases in two weeks better keep my sub rolling.
 
GP was amazing when I first subscribed, but now it's getting harder and harder to find games I want to play. Just way too many indie games for my liking.

I heard that EA's service is being added though at no extra cost? If that's true it will definitely keep me subbed for a while longer.
 
Judging by how subscription services have worked in every other entertainment field. I think it’ll be a massive success if executed correctly. Don’t know if I’d consider it genius because as I said every other entertainment field does this - makes sense a company like Microsoft would want to replicate and I’m sure Sony will end up doing the same.
 

MaestroMike

Gold Member
Nintendo Switch's snes back catalog is keeping me on their online service, but there service is cheaper than gamepass unless I do that xbox gold conversion deal. Anyways, I think back catalog that has games on systems you can't purchase anymore is very attractive at least for me. Going back to play JSRF would be so sweet!!
 

Redlancet

Banned
Rj
Sony should have a service like Game Pass, but I don’t think giving away first party exclusives is a smart move.
They haved? Also, i love how all gamepass embassators never told you of the nefarious repercusións a módel like this will have in the future for this industry, and i love how they talk about how people are Paying ten bucks when everybody and his Mother brags about having Pay one Dollar until 2023, also op numbers for development cost are nonsense
 
Last edited:
150m then substrac off operating costs(servers, salaries, data, etc)

Then marketing budget

Then other costs.


And then they have to divide the rest for +100 games to pay devs/owners.


I could imagine that one launch AAA title costs them full months or more of profits.

Gamepass is kind of a scam/trick to get something you dont need, it sells the image that you need it.

Like "hey, one bag of candy is 2€, but why dont you subscripe and get 200 bags/year for 10€/month? You save hundreds?" Deals

On paper it looks that you get lot with little, but in reality most will pay hundreds in a gen and play only 1-5% of what they offer. And in the end you just needed the one bag

GP ultimate is 13€/month = 155€ year. That is fucking expensive as subscription service to many.

When looking at statistics, doesnt average gamer buy only like 4-6games/gen?

Less than 1/year.

So having hundreds for cheap goes waste if they dont play more than few games year or even month, then it is just cheaper to buy games from sales.

Could be cultural thing, but here nobody I know is willing to pay for more than 1 video service or similar.

Like netflix only, prime only etc. Multiple are seen as being stupid consumer. And it includes other services too, so people dont want to have multiple subs of any kind, unless they really like it or need it

And people with ps+ pay for one sub, no room for more.

If costs vs what you get would not matter then people would not get the cheap 9.90€/month 100/10mbps internet connection as it is fast enough, they would get the 29-39€ 1000mbps connection.


Im really sceptical that it fucks ups games by lower quality, but we will see in 3-4 years I guess
 
Last edited:

Clintizzle

Lord of Edge.
I don't care about if it's sustainable/genius or not.

It means I save a lot of money. That's all that matters to me.

For those who are not sure about it, you can still go buy games as normal. Microsoft are definitely pushing the marketing for it but they are in no way forcing you to subscribe.
 

FeiRR

Banned
I paid 3 EUR for 5 months and then cancelled. I think it's a substantial loss for Microsoft and I like it that way. I'll repeat it when possible.
 

Damigos

Member
I was always wondering this :
Do MS choose what game go in GP? If i am a developer eg MS approaches me and tells me that my game will be on GP ? How much am i getting paid ? Can i say no, my game wont enter GP ?
Of course, the same questions apply for the 2 free games of PS+ too
 
that's completely different. do you have Netflix?
Yes i do. But i know i don't own those films. The picture quality is lesser and thus not a suitable replacement for me. Same with game pass. Games can suddebly disappear, you don't own anything or streaming is of lesser quality by lag compression artifacts or just gaving to be at the whim of a long download before anything can be played. I do understand why people like it but the picture implies ownership.
 
Top Bottom