Support NeoGAF

[Ass of Can Whooping]

He cares, read this.

Gamepass subs increased from 18 million to 30 million from Jan 2021?

I guess they're exactly as gullible as the Take Two CEO. 🤷‍♂️ I think we all know that the Take Two CEO is pretty gullible and doesn't know a lot about business. Certainly not compared to the visionaries on NEOGAF DOT COM!

www.neogaf.com

I would advise reading this thread (above) before engaging with people here. The disingenuous behavior on display here is staggering.

Lmao Derktron

 

[thismeinteil]

So they're probably at 21M-22M, now. Considering they've been having constant sales for $1 and giving a few months for free, not that great. It's going to be a looooong road to 100M, if they make it. Doesn't help that PS5 is handily beating it WW everywhere. It's just the console more people are wanting.

 

[DeepEnigma]

He cares, read this.

Gamepass subs increased from 18 million to 30 million from Jan 2021?

I guess they're exactly as gullible as the Take Two CEO. 🤷‍♂️ I think we all know that the Take Two CEO is pretty gullible and doesn't know a lot about business. Certainly not compared to the visionaries on NEOGAF DOT COM!

www.neogaf.com

I would advise reading this thread (above) before engaging with people here. The disingenuous behavior on display here is staggering.

 

[MacReady13]

Well according to the VR thread, Microsoft should now give up on sub services as it isn't given them the numbers they desired...
Seriously though, this is GLORIOUS news. Fuck sub services, especially in gaming. Anything that encourages people to not want to own their own shit and is not doing as good as intended is perfectly fine with me. I hope it continues to fail miserably for them. Just wait until they stop giving away $1 subs.

 

[Chukhopops]

So they're probably at 21M-22M, now. Considering they've been having constant sales for $1 and giving a few months for free, not that great. It's going to be a looooong road to 100M, if they make it. Doesn't help that PS5 is handily beating it WW everywhere. It's just the console more people are wanting.

Yeah getting +/- 480k net new subscribers every month for the last twelve months is a disaster. Where did the 100M goalpost come from? Even PS+ is at 46.3M.

 

[The Eradicator]

The two-year growth is exactly where they want it to be. R reksveks did the math earlier.

And over time, those numbers won't match up the same way. It's like you're only hearing half of what you want to. I explained why the numbers do that

 

[IntentionalPun]

Either way these definitely were numbers decided in FY2019 (likely July 2018):

Our Compensation Committee (and for Mr. Nadella, the independent members of our Board) granted PSAs in fiscal year 2019 that pay out based on specific pre-established, performance goals and strategic performance objectives tied to creating long-term shareholder value as well as our TSR performance relative to the S&P 500. Performance was measured over the three-fiscal year performance period ending June 30, 2021.

The bigger FY2020 naturally lead to a smaller FY2021 bump percentage wise.. as someone else previously pointed, overall, the payout was essentially 100%... meaning they met their multi-year goal.

I also suspect the FY2020 number was a 2-year long metric, set out in FY2019, but that's harder to discern.

 

[Kimahri]

Well according to the VR thread, Microsoft should now give up on sub services as it isn't given them the numbers they desired...
Seriously though, this is GLORIOUS news. Fuck sub services, especially in gaming. Anything that encourages people to not want to own their own shit and is not doing as good as intended is perfectly fine with me. I hope it continues to fail miserably for them. Just wait until they stop giving away $1 subs.

Do you buy to own music, films and shoes, or do you use spotify, netflix etc?

I mran, I do, I'm just curious if people who hate gaming subs feel the same about other mediums.

 

[IntentionalPun]

And over time, those numbers won't match up the same way. It's like you're only hearing half of what you want to. I explained why the numbers do that

Really not sure what you are on about. They hit their 2 year goal, it was front loaded. There is no "over time" as we have no idea what their future goals are anyways.

You will naturally have a harder time hitting a percentage in year 2, if you had +50% growth in year one, as.. that's how percentages work. You don't expect a service to grow at the same rate percentage wise over time, as adding the same amount of users year over year becomes a smaller and smaller percentage. Particularly when we are talking about a service that was pretty damn small in 2018 when these goals were set.

And some of that +50% in FY2020 are customers who would have signed up in FY2021... they signed up, earlier than expected... which means.. more money.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

The 37% growth was already achieved by giving away milions of subs for free and 1$ Xbox Gold conversion deals! So it's underwhelming

Meh. I play games not run Microsoft so I mean, it is what it is.

 

[MacReady13]

Do you buy to own music, films and shoes, or do you use spotify, netflix etc?

I mran, I do, I'm just curious if people who hate gaming subs feel the same about other mediums.

I still buy cd's. I'm waiting for my 5 Halloween 4K blu rays to arrive and my 4K copy of The Guest to arrive. So yes, I still do buy physical and i'm happy to OWN my movies and music and games. Some games I purchase digitally and know they won't be around forever but sometimes I have no choice with certain games. I don't want to have a subscription service for games! You just don't get how it will splinter the market- and it will happen if this shit takes off. It's happened to tv/movies. It will happen here to and in the end you will pay MORE to NOT own anything you play. If that is the future you want then go right in for it. Throw money down the drain to own nothing.

 

[elliot5]

Well according to the VR thread, Microsoft should now give up on sub services as it isn't given them the numbers they desired...
Seriously though, this is GLORIOUS news. Fuck sub services, especially in gaming. Anything that encourages people to not want to own their own shit and is not doing as good as intended is perfectly fine with me. I hope it continues to fail miserably for them. Just wait until they stop giving away $1 subs.

Lmao "continues to fail miserably". It missed some executive bonus payout targets. It's still growing.

If it was in decline or stagnant that would be a different story. Jesus h. You're acting like it's going to be pulled for good based on one missed target

 

[The Eradicator]

Really not sure what you are on about. They hit their 2 year goal, it was front loaded. There is no "over time" as we have no idea what their future goals are anyways.

You will naturally have a harder time hitting a percentage in year 2, if you had +50% growth in year one, as.. that's how percentages work. You don't expect a service to grow at the same rate percentage wise over time, as adding the same amount of users year over year becomes a smaller and smaller percentage. Particularly when we are talking about a service that was pretty damn small in 2018 when these goals were set.

And some of that +50% in FY2020 are customers who would have signed up in FY2021... they signed up, earlier than expected... which means.. more money.

"Over time" means that you can't do the math the way they're trying to present it, because it doesn't work that way over a broader sample size. The growth % matters depending on the size of the overall group. From one year to the next, yes, you can compare the % and come close to the correct number, but they aren't exactly the same. Over time, those differences get exasperated, making them more noticeable.
If you have $100 dollars, and earn 10% interest in one day, you have $110. If you gain an additional 10% the next day, you have $121 dollars. You can't "add" the 10% and 10% to say that you have 20%. That's wrong, you have 21%. That's the principle of what I'm talking about. The larger the number grows, the more the most recent % will matter. Over just a 2 year span, your comparison points haven't had enough time to differentiate. I'm not even talking about Xbox , this is just how % work "over time". It matters WHEN you are calculating the %. Just because it happens to work out in this example, that doesn't mean it holds true as a rule.

 

[FoundryMusic]

So they're probably at 21M-22M, now. Considering they've been having constant sales for $1 and giving a few months for free, not that great. It's going to be a looooong road to 100M, if they make it. Doesn't help that PS5 is handily beating it WW everywhere. It's just the console more people are wanting.

 

[IntentionalPun]

"Over time" means that you can't do the math the way they're trying to present it, because it doesn't work that way over a broader sample size. The growth % matters depending on the size of the overall group. From one year to the next, yes, you can compare the % and come close to the correct number, but they aren't exactly the same. Over time, those differences get exasperated, making them more noticeable.
If you have $100 dollars, and earn 10% interest in one day, you have $110. If you gain an additional 10% the next day, you have $121 dollars. You can't "add" the 10% and 10% to say that you have 20%. That's wrong, you have 21%. That's the principle of what I'm talking about. The larger the number grows, the more the most recent % will matter. Over just a 2 year span, your comparison points haven't had enough time to differentiate. I'm not even talking about Xbox , this is just how % work "over time". It matters WHEN you are calculating the %. Just because it happens to work out in this example, that doesn't mean it holds true as a rule.

Nobody is adding numbers.. if you do the math based on the actual numbers given by Microsoft, you'd hit roughly the same number after 2 years w/ the target percentage as the actuals.

There is no mysterious "over time", there are 2 years we know enough info on to conclude the overall 2 year growth was roughly the same.

 

[Jigsaah]

I'm late to this thread obviously. Too busy playing New World.

I guess my take on this is that it's somewhat disappointing, but growth is still growth. This growth has happened with very few notable exclusives this year.

I'm actually trying to think of one as I type this. Has Xbox release an exclusive to date? So to have this kind of growth without one day one exclusive released is actually pretty impressive IMO.

We still have Forza, Halo, and others coming within a few months. They just released Back 4 Blood and Scarlet Nexus, both of which I'm playing on the service now.

I think a better measurement might be the trends. Has Microsoft been bleeding subscribers? Are they seeing an uptick and then a subsequent and near equivalent downtick.

All this announcement shows are 2 points in time compared to one another. Is there any information on how they arrived at 37% growth? What was considered when they projected 48%?

Still a lot of questions, but I don't think fans should panic, nor should naysayers be celebrating.

You guys are so fuckin toxic reading these pages.

 

[The Eradicator]

Nobody is adding numbers.. if you do the math based on the actual numbers given by Microsoft, you'd hit roughly the same number after 2 years w/ the target percentage as the actuals.

There is no mysterious "over time", there are 2 years we know enough info on to conclude the overall 2 year growth was roughly the same.

In this application, you're correct. The growth rate in terms of total subs will end up being the same, no matter when you're factoring the %. I was saying something different, which doesn't apply in the same way. What I'm saying is, you can't add up the % and calculate the overall growth rate, because it doesn't work that way. But yes, if you do the math out, the growth rate equals out over time. What I'm saying is that you can't add 87% growth to 38% growth, and find the real number, which is what I thought was being suggested

 

[The Eradicator]

This isn't a prediction. It is a metric by which the payout for executives is derived. The executives will get 82% payout for the performance of the Game Pass metric. This is a retrospective metric, not predictive analysis. So no, this target is not a projection at all.

The target is what they projected the growth % to be, and they didn't hit the projected target, leading to the bonus only being 82% of what it could have been, if it had hit the projections. You're making a purely semantic argument. In this case, they mean the same thing, I don't know what you're arguing. What do you think they base targets on? Projections.

 

[reksveks]

If you have $100 dollars, and earn 10% interest in one day, you have $110. If you gain an additional 10% the next day, you have $121 dollars. You can't "add" the 10% and 10% to say that you have 20%. That's wrong, you have 21%.

I don't think we are doing additions as mentioned before.

I are just stating that if you have the 4 (or x) yearly growth numbers for example of 10%, 20%, 30% and 40%, it doesn't matter which order those growth number appear in aka 1.1*1.2*1.3*1.4 = 1.4*1.3*1.2*1.1, then compounded growth is the same, right? I think I know what you are referring to but no-one here is doing additions.

 

[The Eradicator]

Think the argument that they are making is the targets for the exec bonuses are going to be different to internal targets, I could be wrong with their arguments so others, please do correct me.



I think we might be using different definitions of 'add', my calculations is a multiplication and has nothing to do with addition.



I think chonga is better highlight my point.


I am getting slightly confused: y1 of 38% growth and y2 of 87% growth is exactly the same as y1 of 87% growth and y2 of 38% growth, right? That's true, no matter the y0 number.

If we repeat the calculations for y3/4 with the same growth numbers, it's exactly the same. If MS keeps failing to hit targets, that becomes an issue.

I mean, I guess you could make the supposition that the bonus target isn't the same as the company target, but for sake of argument, isn't this whole thread built on the assumption that they're the same?

And yeah, you're right about the y1 vs y2 growth. I was saying something that doesn't apply the same way, now that I look at it. Yes, the growth rate doesn't matter in which year it happens. What my point was is that you can't just add up the 87% and the 38% to find the total growth YOY. That's when the timing would matter. But yeah, you all are correct about the growth % between years. The numbers end up the same. I was talking about a different type of growth calculation.

 

[The Eradicator]

I don't think we are doing additions as mentioned before.

I are just stating that if you have the 4 (or x) yearly growth numbers for example of 10%, 20%, 30% and 40%, it doesn't matter which order those growth number appear in aka 1.1*1.2*1.3*1.4 = 1.4*1.3*1.2*1.1, then compounded growth is the same, right? I think I know what you are referring to but no-one here is doing additions.

Yep, I was more reacting to the math i was seeing earlier in the thread, and I wrongly got into lecture mode. You are correct in regards to YOY growth. My apologies for assuming

 

[XXL]

I'm confused.

People are saying it's because the big games aren't there yet and wait until they release.

Yet, every thread that talks about GP (previous to this one) always states its the best deal in gaming because there is so many great games to play.

Again, people need to get their stories straight.

 

[The Eradicator]

That's not true. They didn't meet the growth percentage that gave a bonus to the executives. Usually the actual growth target is less than that.
And no, you didn't talk about Xbox but you were talking about the gaming division underperforming.

You think the two numbers are different? So MS wants a different growth rate than where they set exec bonuses? This whole thread is based on those numbers

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Well according to the VR thread, Microsoft should now give up on sub services as it isn't given them the numbers they desired...
Seriously though, this is GLORIOUS news. Fuck sub services, especially in gaming. Anything that encourages people to not want to own their own shit and is not doing as good as intended is perfectly fine with me. I hope it continues to fail miserably for them. Just wait until they stop giving away $1 subs.

Wow, how selfish and stupid a take is this?

There's nothing wrong with having options, and for some people a service like GamePass lets them play games they may not have gotten a chance to play otherwise. I can't even begin to go into what a vile dipshit mentality it is to actively want a company to fail at something that's, at most, an option for people that doesn't prevent them from buying licenses to play physical or digital editions of games on their platform (until the servers go down so any online features that physical/digital purchase may've had are no longer accessible), out of no other reason that your own personal greed.

Your opinion here is the very definition of ignorance and toxic gamer mentality.

 

[reksveks]

Yep, I was more reacting to the math i was seeing earlier in the thread, and I wrongly got into lecture mode. You are correct in regards to YOY growth. My apologies for assuming

It's alright, it happens to us all.

Regarding the point around executive compensation targets, I assumed they are probably very close to the internal ones or the same. It's something that I don't have good insight into honestly.

 

[NickFire]

I'm confused.

People are saying it's because the big games aren't there yet and wait until they release.

Yet, every thread that talks about GP (previous to this one) always states its the best deal in gaming because there is so many great games to play.

Again, people need to get their stories straight.

Both stories can be true and remain consistent.

Think of a strip club. During the week there's a roster full of great 7,8, and 9's. But its the 10's that work on weekends that draw the really big numbers.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Think of a strip club. During the week there's a roster full of great 7,8, and 9's. But its the 10's that work on weekends that draw the really big numbers.

 

[Silent Viper]

Why you all need numbers? You all share holders? Just play fucking games and stop worrying about sales of a billion dollar corporation you no life trolls. Smh

 

[Deerock71]

 

[Kimahri]

I still buy cd's. I'm waiting for my 5 Halloween 4K blu rays to arrive and my 4K copy of The Guest to arrive. So yes, I still do buy physical and i'm happy to OWN my movies and music and games. Some games I purchase digitally and know they won't be around forever but sometimes I have no choice with certain games. I don't want to have a subscription service for games! You just don't get how it will splinter the market- and it will happen if this shit takes off. It's happened to tv/movies. It will happen here to and in the end you will pay MORE to NOT own anything you play. If that is the future you want then go right in for it. Throw money down the drain to own nothing.

You don't know that. We're not deep enough into it to know how this will turn up. Judging by how it is so far though, I find Microsoft's output far more interesting than most competition, so I can't say I share ypur worries quite yet.

Bur I quite frankly don't care about owning games anymore. I used to. I had a whole room with games stacked floor to ceiling on every wall, until one day I just got fed up, and basically gave 90% of it away. With few exceptions I play a game once, that's it. I see no need to own them, and I don't feel like I throe money down the drain since I got plenty of entertainment out of them.

With movies and music it's different. I collecr classics and harder to find movies. And with music, I listen to it all the time, so having a physical collection I can browse through makes far more sense.

But games? No. I don't care. I'm done collecting them. Just give me the experience, I don't care how.

 

[onesvenus]

You think the two numbers are different? So MS wants a different growth rate than where they set exec bonuses? This whole thread is based on those numbers

Obviously. Ones reflect their expected growth and the other ones an extraordinary achievement.
Have you ever been part of those kind of things? Let's say that you are expected to sell A but if you sell 3 times A you get a bonus. Do you think the business forecast is based on you selling A or on you selling 3A?

 

[Lognor]

But there arent alot of people crying doom and gloom in this thread…. And so what if people were?

what most interesting about this thread is that we finally have an idea on somewhat accurate numbers and not FUD people have been running with for weeks at a time. It has nothing to do with dooming the service, more of getting a better grip on gaf PERCEPTION vs. REALITY.

I have definitely seem some of that in your thread, but perhaps you're right and I shouldn't use sweeping generalizations. For a subscription service the number is still good. It didn't meet Microsoft's internal expectations. But it's not the end of the world. And there is really nothing to compare it to to say what is good or what is bad.

 

[DenchDeckard]

You know the best thing about this news. It tells Microsoft that you're gonna have to deliver strong first party games on gamepass day one to make it a success.

They will see a huge boost from halo and forza 5 but they gotta deliver big games like starfield and more to really propel gamepass to success. Time is ticking because once those 1 dollar subs run out people will cancel if they don't feel the content is there.

So all in all its great for all of us because it either fails because of microsofts inability to deliver strong first party games or MS steps up and delivers on what they've they've missing for 5 years and increases output and quality of its first party titles or we just go back to buying one or two games big games a year like the competition.

 

[The Eradicator]

It's alright, it happens to us all.

Regarding the point around executive compensation targets, I assumed they are probably very close to the internal ones or the same. It's something that I don't have good insight into honestly.

Unless we see otherwise, I would have to think they'd be the same, or very close, as you said

 

[The Eradicator]

Obviously. Ones reflect their expected growth and the other ones an extraordinary achievement.
Have you ever been part of those kind of things? Let's say that you are expected to sell A but if you sell 3 times A you get a bonus. Do you think the business forecast is based on you selling A or on you selling 3A?

Well then, why don't we wait until October 26, when MS release their earnings statement, and we'll see what the "real" numbers are, if you think that they're drastically different. You have no way of knowing that, you're just speculating. At this point, all we have to go on is the bonus target. I'm inclined to believe they're the same, unless shown otherwise. Not sure why you think the growth projections would be so different though. Those numbers seem reasonable to expect for the service. I don't think the "real" target was 15% growth, but that's pretty much what you're suggesting.

 

[KAL2006]

Honestly think Gamepass won't be a big as some people think.

Many people don't play that many games and many people play games that are not on Gamepass. The model works with music and movies, and TV shows more as you can easily consume that type of content faster. A game like Monster Hunter World took me 8 months to get the most out of. Then I also resold the game. If it was on Gamepass id be paying 8 months worth of subscription and not be able to keep the game. It's cool for people who like dipping in a ton of games but there are people out there who finish a few games a year and are into games not available on Gamepass.

 

[onesvenus]

Well then, why don't we wait until October 26, when MS release their earnings statement, and we'll see what the "real" numbers are, if you think that they're drastically different. You have no way of knowing that, you're just speculating.

Let's wait until 26. And btw, you have no way of knowing that the real numbers are similar either, don't act like you are not speculating

 

[reksveks]

Honestly think Gamepass won't be a big as some people think.

Many people don't play that many games and many people play games that are not on Gamepass. The model works with music and movies, and TV shows more as you can easily consume that type of content faster.

I think a key thing about Gamepass is that games could technically get a bit shorter if they want to. MS won't need to really arbitrarily increase the length of the game to hit a specific price point. I don't mind a shorter game honestly but others might.

 

[The Eradicator]

Let's wait until 26. And btw, you have no way of knowing that the real numbers are similar either, don't act like you are not speculating

I am speculating. That was my point in saying that the whole thread is built on the assumption that the target number stated also represents MS actual projections. We're ALL speculating here. The difference is that, for the first time, there's SOME actual numbers to speculate over, rather than everyone pulling random numbers out of their behinds.

 

[MacReady13]

There's nothing wrong with having options, and for some people a service like GamePass lets them play games they may not have gotten a chance to play otherwise.

How in the FUCK did people play games before Game Pass then? You don't NEED to play every game on the planet. Ever heard of restraint? You know, people do save their money for that 1 game they want and then spend their hard earned on it and enjoy it. It's how many millions of us have been doing it for many many years.
Don't see the need of you getting personal against me. I don't want our industry to turn into what Netflix did to film and tv. Now there are more sub services than we can count and to have them all is a complete rip off. If you are happy for gaming to eventually go down that path then keep feeding these companies what they want. I'm happy to keep my money and buy the games I want, when I want.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

How in the FUCK did people play games before Game Pass then?

I guess something analogous to how people played games before game consoles existed or became mainstream, y'know like arcades?

You don't NEED to play every game on the planet. Ever heard of restraint?

What does this have to do with the argument of subscription vs. purchase for games? In both cases you still need restraint, and you needed restraint when renting from Blockbuster etc. back in the day too. The only thing different here is paying $60 for one outright purchase of a single game or a $10 monthly fee for potentially multiple games you might hop back and forth on in a span of time.

You know, people do save their money for that 1 game they want and then spend their hard earned on it and enjoy it. It's how many millions of us have been doing it for many many years.

So? Millions of people used to go down to the pub or arcade to spend quarters playing their games there, too. Often times really good players could beat those games for less than the cost of buying the (usually inferior) console version outright. Also you're underestimating how popular game renting was, even during SNES/Genesis days. Devs even made their games harder in instances specifically to make it harder for players to beat them during a 3-day/5-day rental period, especially in places like America.

Don't see the need of you getting personal against me.

Not against you, but your mentality/POV on this topic. Two different things. You can adjust your thought process on this as that's your own choice. But I apologize if you took it as language directly towards you aside from that.

I don't want our industry to turn into what Netflix did to film and tv.

Well, I don't want to see mega-corporations like Microsoft, Sony, Tencent, Embracer Group etc. buying up developers and publishers, but that doesn't change the reality of what's happening. My personal feelings mean nothing in the grand scheme of this, and as long as options aren't being taken away from the customer or your financial/privacy etc. data being violated because of a subscription/streaming service, the games industry taking up a more subscription/streaming-friendly model option shouldn't be upsetting you.

It's not like these companies will stop if you're upset, anyway.

Now there are more sub services than we can count and to have them all is a complete rip off.

Then the market will course-correct naturally. Some of the services will go away, others will merge into a single, larger offering. It's happened with cable TV, with music streaming, with film/television streaming...it'll eventually happen with game subscription/streaming too.

We're already seeing that in a way with EA Play now essentially a part of GamePass Ultimate, for example.

If you are happy for gaming to eventually go down that path then keep feeding these companies what they want. I'm happy to keep my money and buy the games I want, when I want.

Well, you're not really "buying" those games, you're buying a license to use them but whatever.

I wouldn't even say I'm necessarily "happy", but I'm content and willing to accept the path things take. I'd love for arcades to be a major part of the industry again for example, but I can accept the reality they aren't anymore. I don't cheer on for things I don't want (like acquisitions), but I'm not gonna go kicking and screaming if something goes down that way, either.

I try keeping my outlook on the industry, generally optimistic. Helps with making gaming that much more fun tbh

 

[Dr Bass]

Is that you Shawn Layden?

No lol. But funny.

 

[XXL]

Both stories can be true and remain consistent.

Think of a strip club. During the week there's a roster full of great 7,8, and 9's. But its the 10's that work on weekends that draw the really big numbers.

 

[Kagey K]

How in the FUCK did people play games before Game Pass then? You don't NEED to play every game on the planet. Ever heard of restraint? You know, people do save their money for that 1 game they want and then spend their hard earned on it and enjoy it. It's how many millions of us have been doing it for many many years.
Don't see the need of you getting personal against me. I don't want our industry to turn into what Netflix did to film and tv. Now there are more sub services than we can count and to have them all is a complete rip off. If you are happy for gaming to eventually go down that path then keep feeding these companies what they want. I'm happy to keep my money and buy the games I want, when I want.

Gamefly, Blockbuster, Libraries, Demo Discs, Sega Channel.

There have always been plenty of ways to try out or play many games without having to shell out full cost of the game itself. It's not a new or foreign concept.

 

[MacReady13]

Gamefly, Blockbuster, Libraries, Demo Discs, Sega Channel.

There have always been plenty of ways to try out or play many games without having to shell out full cost of the game itself. It's not a new or foreign concept.

Sub service is unlike any of these. It is here to stay. And if that is what you want then fine. Continue this path. I'm not for it. At all. And when it all goes to shit I will continue playing retro games knowing that gaming will never be the same as it once was...

 

[MacReady13]

I guess something analogous to how people played games before game consoles existed or became mainstream, y'know like arcades?



What does this have to do with the argument of subscription vs. purchase for games? In both cases you still need restraint, and you needed restraint when renting from Blockbuster etc. back in the day too. The only thing different here is paying $60 for one outright purchase of a single game or a $10 monthly fee for potentially multiple games you might hop back and forth on in a span of time.



So? Millions of people used to go down to the pub or arcade to spend quarters playing their games there, too. Often times really good players could beat those games for less than the cost of buying the (usually inferior) console version outright. Also you're underestimating how popular game renting was, even during SNES/Genesis days. Devs even made their games harder in instances specifically to make it harder for players to beat them during a 3-day/5-day rental period, especially in places like America.



Not against you, but your mentality/POV on this topic. Two different things. You can adjust your thought process on this as that's your own choice. But I apologize if you took it as language directly towards you aside from that.



Well, I don't want to see mega-corporations like Microsoft, Sony, Tencent, Embracer Group etc. buying up developers and publishers, but that doesn't change the reality of what's happening. My personal feelings mean nothing in the grand scheme of this, and as long as options aren't being taken away from the customer or your financial/privacy etc. data being violated because of a subscription/streaming service, the games industry taking up a more subscription/streaming-friendly model option shouldn't be upsetting you.

It's not like these companies will stop if you're upset, anyway.



Then the market will course-correct naturally. Some of the services will go away, others will merge into a single, larger offering. It's happened with cable TV, with music streaming, with film/television streaming...it'll eventually happen with game subscription/streaming too.

We're already seeing that in a way with EA Play now essentially a part of GamePass Ultimate, for example.



Well, you're not really "buying" those games, you're buying a license to use them but whatever.

I wouldn't even say I'm necessarily "happy", but I'm content and willing to accept the path things take. I'd love for arcades to be a major part of the industry again for example, but I can accept the reality they aren't anymore. I don't cheer on for things I don't want (like acquisitions), but I'm not gonna go kicking and screaming if something goes down that way, either.

I try keeping my outlook on the industry, generally optimistic. Helps with making gaming that much more fun tbh

No real time to go through each point. Arcade gaming is nothing like sub services at all. Arcade gaming went the way of the dodo cause console/PC gaming overtook what most arcade games could. That all started with the Dreamcast showing the arcade experience could be replicated in the home. Nothing was really lost from that, as arcade games were still around but they were also available in the home space too.

I don't want gaming to get fragmented to the point Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony, EA, Ubisoft, Capcom, Square Enix etc all start releasing games only on their services. We end up paying 10-15 dollars (for now) for each sub service and all of a sudden it becomes more than what games are worth today!

Like I have said previously, people today and mainstream "journalists" are happy with it and push it constantly so it's here to stay. I hate it and wish it were gone. Microsoft is a far cry from their glory days (360 era) and unfortunately gaming will never return to those great heights.

 

[kyoji]

Article from yesterday, Xbox Subs "Approximately 20 million"- Jeff Grubb

https://venturebeat.com/2021/09/28/xbox-is-lowering-the-price-of-game-pass-in-chile-hong-kong-and-israel/amp/?__twitter_impression=true "In the United States, Xbox Game Pass Ultimate remains $15 per month. Game Pass is Microsoft’s key strategy for gaming moving forward, but it is far from...

www.neogaf.com

Dabaus from the future? Vindicated.


funny how Banjo64 was quick to comment before but nowhere to be found now

 

[Banjo64]

Article from yesterday, Xbox Subs "Approximately 20 million"- Jeff Grubb

https://venturebeat.com/2021/09/28/xbox-is-lowering-the-price-of-game-pass-in-chile-hong-kong-and-israel/amp/?__twitter_impression=true "In the United States, Xbox Game Pass Ultimate remains $15 per month. Game Pass is Microsoft’s key strategy for gaming moving forward, but it is far from...

www.neogaf.com

Dabaus from the future? Vindicated.


funny how Banjo64 was quick to comment before but nowhere to be found now

The strange behaviour was and still is strange though? Unless you think spamming a thread 9 times and posting another thread within that amount of time is normal well adjusted behaviour?

 

[kyoji]

The strange behaviour was and still is strange though? Unless you think spamming a thread 9 times and posting another thread within that amount of time is normal well adjusted behaviour?

What did he spam 9 times? Im not seeing it in that thread, also he clearly wasnt triggered, seems like most of the people who jumped the gun and liked your post were though but looking at that list im not suprised lol.

 

[Banjo64]

What did he spam 9 times? Im not seeing it in that thread, also he clearly wasnt triggered, seems like most of the people who jumped the gun and liked your post were though but looking at that list im not suprised lol.

The mod comment when he was banned said that he was banned for spamming that thread and then making his thread. So you can see what you want to see.

Perfectly normal behaviour though, I know when I’m making my point I like to make 9 comments in rapid succession