"Money doesn't mean Microsoft can't fail!"
No, experience doesn't mean Microsoft can't make a mistake. However, any one or anything returning consistently good results across a long time frame affords us some base expectations that, unless something drastic has changed, the expected good results will continue. This is why we presume the sun will rise tomorrow, and aren't surprised when it does. Microsoft has been profitable for 40 years. I don't think Gamepass is going to change that.
The first part of my comment was a direct reply to the "they have money so trust the plan" part of your comment, because it is an asinine mindset to have in any possible way you can look at it. Call it "scatter shot" if you want, but if I disagree with what you say for two different reasons that require two different answers, I'm going to puth them both in my reply.
Talking about GamePass specifically, I don't care if they are "profitable", as I thought I made more than clear in the second half of my post. That's not the point. Why you would care in these terms, apart a from purely academic discourse, is beyond me. Do you work for them? Do you own stocks?
I'm not doubting that they know how to make money from customers one way or another, I'm doubting that the scenario you are imagining for the future is what will actually take place.
"Experience doesn't mean Microsoft can't make a mistake!"
No, money doesn't mean Microsoft can't fail. However, Microsoft's profitability retention, even through Balmer's stagnation and lack of foresight, afford us the expectation that Microsoft has a long-term profitability plan for Gamepass, as they do with all of their new ventures. According to Phil Spencer, Gamepass is both profitable and sustainable right now, and there's no price increase in the foreseeable future. Being that it's illegal for a publicly traded company to lie about its profitability, I'll go with Spencer's statements rather than your... whatever.
I don't know where that was said and in what terms, so I can't really comment on the merit of it.
I also don't know if it's part of the US law that a publicly traded company can never lie about profitability, but it's pretty well known that a lot of companies will lie or "bend the truth" even in their earning reports, so I doubt anyone would ever think to try to hold Phil Spencer accountable for a throwaway line said during an interview with some B-tier gaming magazine or influencer. The fact he by his own nature tends to "bend the truth"
a lot whenever he opens his mouth doesn't make me feel particularly more trusting of any promise or boast he makes, though.
"Gamepass is micro-transaction dependent".
No, Gamepass is not micro-transaction dependent. The monthly subscription cost supersedes the necessity of micro-transactions in every game. This has been discussed before. Please note: this does not mean that games will not have micro-transactions, only that Gamepass does not include additional incentives with which to add them.
I didn't even say any of this, so I don't know what you're talking about. I only mentioned lootboxes to emphasize how in general "company makes money out of it" doesn't automatically equate to "I want it for my games".
"Gamepass isn't long-term sustainable."
Yes, Gamepass is long term sustainable. As mentioned above, it's already sustainable right now.
If we take the current snapshot of the GamePass situation, the math just doesn't add up. You don't finance the development of dozens of exclusive games only to give them away at a fraction of their potential RRP, unless you either have zero trust that those games would be able to sell on their own merit, or you accept the "lost" money in the transaction as an investment and plan to make it back later somehow.
Which brings us back to the fact that what you and Micrsofot call "sustainable" are not necessarily the same thing. You are looking at a snapshot of what is going on today and say "yes, THIS exact thing as it exists right works perfectly, it is great for everybody and therefore it will never change". Microsoft doesn't think that way, because this is a kind of reasoning that doesn't even make sense for what would be a long term plan. Whenever anything is brought up at a meeting, at some point the question will be "OK, so how does this make us make more money than investing the same resources in some other way?"
The goal is not for GamePass to pay for itself and stay afloat, the goal is for GamePass to make more money than not having GamePass and investing that money in some other way. Every business decision is meant to MAXIMIZE its returns, not "exist without costing us money". So EVEN if we assume that right now and without ever changing GamePass would be paying for itself (which I strongly doubt), that would not be reason enough for Microsoft to take a risk of this kind. It means that, in the end, in some way or another that I can't exactly predict (but I can kinda guess, *cough* lower development budgets over time *cough* price increases), they calculated that when all is said and done this will make them more money than not having it.
What I'm trying to make you understand is that if option A and option B exist, and a company like Microsoft is going with option B, it's because they decided that option B makes them more money than option A. That money is not going to will itself into existence because their benevolent actions created positive karma in the universe, it's going to come from the people subscribed to the thing, in one way or another, because
it can literally come from nowhere else. It will either be them giving Microsoft more money for the same product, them giving Microsoft the same money for less product, or a combination of the two.
"Gamepass isn't a good deal for players".
Yes, Gamepass is a good deal for players. With no lock-in contracts, if something changes with Gamepass, I simply un-subscribe. I can purchase every game included in Gamepass, all offered with a discount while they're present on Gamepass. If I chose to subscribe, I have access to hundreds of terrific games - any I am notified in advance of any titles leaving the service. Why should I not enjoy the offering today on the basis that some years from now, Gamepass might have a price increase or might change?
If you look at it today, see what it offers and at what price and decide it's a good deal for you, then by all means go for it. I'm not being sarcastic, it will for a lot of people.
I'm not saying "don't subscribe to GamePass today because it might get worse one day". I'm saying "stop believing in fairy tales, because it
will get worse one day, or they wouldn't be even bothering".
"Gamepass means no more AAA games!"
No, Gamepass doesn't mean no more AAA games. Based on Microsoft's acquisition of Zenimax, and their building of what they've described as the first AAAA studio, it would seem the opposite is true.
Another thing I didn't even say, so have fun discussing with yourself I guess.
That said, the fact that some productions at Microsoft Studios will be scaled down is
not exactly a tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. It's not necessarely I bad thing, mind you; but you seem to think it would be, apparently...?
"Microsoft is just waiting to raise the price".
No, Microsoft aren't just waiting to raise the price. As mentioned above, one isn't on the table anytime soon. However, I want you to bookmark my post for this next bit: when Microsoft raises the price of Gamepass to match inflation, adding a dollar or two to the price point in 2022, I believe people such as yourself will begin the "See! I fucking TOLD you so!" posts without a shred if irony. Mark. My. Words.
Oh, you sweet, sweet summer child.
The price will be (and is) at any time precisely as much as they think they can get away with without losing too many people as a negative consequence, in terms of what those same people could still have paid in the future if they had not left. Calculating those prices are people with specialized economics curricula and years of experience in using marketing predictive algorithms. People who are paid a lot of money to figure out what course is the one, over a span of 5, 10, 20 years, that will make Microsoft the most money in the end.
You think the price won't be raised "any time soon" why, exactly? Because customers would riot and opt-out of the service en masse? In this case you give most people way too much credit. Because Microsoft wants to make games all over the world happy and is more than willing to leave millions of $ on the table for the Kumbayas? If that's why, I don't know what to tell you, I hope your private mental world is one worth living in, because reality sure is not as kind.
"Microsoft are trying to steal the games industry".
No, Microsoft aren't trying to steal the games industry. They're trying to disrupt it. Like Netflix did. Like Redbox did. Like eBay did.
I never said they are trying to "steal the games industry", first because "steal" implies a component of malice or illegality that is out of place in a discussion about business strategies and market shares, and second because the strive to do better than somebody else is by definition how our economic model works. You either make more money than somebody else, or who made more money than you will buy you and
make you make more money for them. Again, I don't know if you're just parroting what somebody else said even if it's completely irrelevant to what I said, or you really have this naive and simplistic vision of reality yourself.
Of course Microsoft are trying to disrupt the gaming maket, they'll do what they want to do and it will have the effects that it will have. The thing is, you assume and proselytize a hell of a lot of good will, good intentions, puppies and rainbows on the part of Microsoft, where there are none to be found if you just analyze the situation with a pinch of logic and a grip on reality.