Support NeoGAF

[NullZ3r0]

Sony have PSnow



Microsoft aren't in the business of selling hardware.


How will that make a positive impact for me, an Xbox console gamer?

When. I've heard that since 2010. And when the content starts coming to Gamepass, it will be good for about 6 months, then we're all boned.

I haven't heard it since 2010. Microsoft didn't have 23 studios in 2010. The games are coming. Microsoft is walking the walk by putting their money where their mouth is instead of bankrolling B-tier 3rd parties to produce exclusive titles.

 

[Alright]

I haven't heard it since 2010. Microsoft didn't have 23 studios in 2010. The games are coming.

We will see at E3. I don't doubt it could be spectacular but fool me once, shame on your, fool me 10 times, shame on me

Microsoft is walking the walk by putting their money where their mouth is instead of bankrolling B-tier 3rd parties to produce exclusive titles.

They should be bank rolling B-tier studios to put content on GP. If and when those B-tier studios release a top notch game, Microsoft could swoop them up for free.

Buying studios is great and Microsoft bringing the Fallout franchise and Obsidian (even if in name only!) under the same roof is the best gaming news to happen in decades.

Microsoft will have missed a trick if they don't chase cost-effective content that could reveal a AAA studio in the making. Imagine if the next Bungie is out there, just waiting to catch a break?

 

[Batiman]

Gamepass is beast. This ain’t stopping. I have some die hard Sony fans at work that are going with Xbox this gen over Ps5. I think mlb the show pushed them over the edge.

 

[NullZ3r0]

We will see at E3. I don't doubt it could be spectacular but fool me once, shame on your, fool me 10 times, shame on me

They should be bank rolling B-tier studios to put content on GP. If and when those B-tier studios release a top notch game, Microsoft could swoop them up for free.

Buying studios is great and Microsoft bringing the Fallout franchise and Obsidian (even if in name only!) under the same roof is the best gaming news to happen in decades.

Microsoft will have missed a trick if they don't chase cost-effective content that could reveal a AAA studio in the making. Imagine if the next Bungie is out there, just waiting to catch a break?

Once again, the proof is in the pudding. Microsoft bought studios and bought Bethesda. You'd have to believe that all of a sudden these teams would forget how to make good games and will put out 23 ReCores and Crackdown 3's.

 

[Menzies]

The ones that Microsoft have even said, they're competing with; Amazon and Google.

Do people even listen to what industry leaders say? Or do people just ignore and consume?

I partly believe the Bethesda acquisition was a shot across the bow for Google and Amazon.

Sent a rather strong message that they would need to make some very large investments of a similar nature to enter into this competitive arena.

What we've seen so far is a rather meek effort, with respect to Stadia and Luna and a lot of internal studio cancellations. Even reports that Stadia was paying Capcom $10 million just to make multi-platform Resident Evil 7 available on their service...yikes.

You get the feeling that they don't really have the boards full backing and that this is treated as a 'side project' similar to Microsoft's efforts before Phil/Satya. If they decide to get serious they have the potential to be a serious contender, but they need to part with some serious cash to be competitive.

 

[iJudged]

in b4....ahhhh too late

 

[TBiddy]

Read what i put to the other guy. It explains it.

Not really. Google already tried and failed miserably to compete. Amazon keeps cancelling game after game. Facebook doesn't give a shit about gaming. Apple has their Arcade+, which seems to consist of games that noone gives a shit about.

 

[Elias]

Awesome news. This number will explode with ads for games that connect directly to the browser based streaming service. Just need to get that streaming stick, and this will truly become the most ubiquitous platform ever.

 

[Hezekiah]

But some of the people are twisting it like "You can get 3 years of Game Pass Ultimate for 1$"
Which is not true. Because you also need to grab a 3 years of Gold before that (3x60$) and then use a conversion for 1$.

And mainly. People who are using conversion trick for 3 years of Game Pass Ultimate are unlikely to stop subbing to Game Pass after those 3 years, because after three years they will be invested in ecosystem.
So...Gold users are using a conversion method for GPU subs, which is exactly what Microsoft wants (Microsoft wants people to sub to GP instead of Gold. That's the reason why the wanted to raise a price of Gold to make it nobrainer to rather sub to Game Pass). And people who are using 1$ promotion for new subs are probably sticking long term (that's why number of subs is increasing day by day).

So, everything is according to plans...

They'll also be invested in paying $60 a year, not $180 a year - and that's not including any price increases which are inevitable.

 

[Aroll]

And Sony just gave them MLB on Gamepass, it's a game that matters to Americans, no one outside of US will buy it btw

Sony didn't "give" Microsoft anything. They do not own the rights to MLB. 3 years ago they were negotiating a contract extension on the MLB license. MLB told them it could no longer be platform exclusive if they wanted to re-up the deal. Now, Sony could have told them nope, when the current deal ends were done. That was Sony's leverage. They could threaten to stop making the The Show. To which, MLB likely did not care - they would just spin up a new deal with 2K or EA and move on with their day. Instead Sony said sure, but we are not publishing the game outside of our platforms. MLB goes that's fine, we will pay to to publish it elsewhere. In giving up publishing rights to the MLB, that's how it ended up on GamePass with a phat check from Phil Spencer. Sony didn't GIVE them anything. Maybe Sony underestimated what the MLB was going to do, but that's about it. Sony could have kept publishing rights and published it themselves, keeping it off Game Pass. But they didn't.

so what is the actual profit here? so far microsoft did not show the financial report on gamepass, all we see here is subscription count.
I mean you can say alot of things on the subscription count since you can sub with 1 dollar as well.

Not trolling, just curious.

-

I don't think they'll give us that level of granular transparency tbh - the main thing is if the division overall runs an operating profit.

I think people often look at Game Pass as a business model siloed, but it is very much supported through their usual revenue streams of digital game sales, DLC, MTX, Minecraft etc.

So, this has been talked about quite sparingly by Microsoft and likely for very good reason: The numbers aren't exactly going to look good at the moment. This article goes over it in more detail:

Here is an interesting deep dive into the financials of gamepass.

Essentially, people have to look at Game Pass differently. So before Game Pass existed there was a certain revenue threshold their gaming division was making. To get back to that threshold with the game pass model, it basically takes roughly 50 million game pass subscribers. This suggest that at this moment, Game Pass is technically not making them the same profits they made without it, thus costing Microsoft revenue, which means they are losing money by having Game Pass right now.

However, pure revenue streams are not, indeed, profits. You could have 20 billion in gaming revenue, but if your gaming division is costing you 30 billion a year, you are losing 10 billion. That's typically not considered good. We just saw this happen with Netflix for a decade. It got away with it, because investors Kept investing despite Netflix not being profitable assuming they would hit a delta some day, and reap the benefits. Which has now happened in 2021.

We learn a few things from that article about how Microsoft makes Game Pass work for game publishers:

- They pay an up front fee for the game to be on a Game Pass, an amount publishers have said off the record that is "definitely enough" to put it there. Meaning it likely is some equivalent of what they think a high number of sales would be.
- Then microsoft offers a bonus structure to pay more based on how often the game is downloaded and how long people spend time playing it.

That's all great for the publishers of course. Microsoft is paying them handsomely.

But, between their own in house studio costs to make games (plus acquisitions) and what they pay others to even be on Game Pass, reality is - Game Pass is far and away NOT a profitable venture at this moment. Microsoft is assuredly losing a ton of money on Game Pass right now. However, is that the point Microsoft is focused on? Absolutely not.

Microsoft has failed to find the consistency of Nintendo and Sony. Sony seemingly always sells close to or over 100 million units. Sony's games over the years have only sold more and more. Nintendo's games always sell a ton even when the system doesn't it, and even when Nintendo has systems that sell poor it's always answered with a new system later that sells well. Both those companies have nailed down how to stay successful long haul in the industry. Outside of Xbox 360, the other 2 platforms for Microsoft haven't exactly sold that well in the marketplace. They also failed to build upon itself and offer more and more exclusive content. Whatever Microsoft had been doing, wasn't really working in comparison to the other two platform holders. They needed to do something different.

So they did. Game Pass and eventually XCloud. For Microsoft, Game Pass isn't about profits now. This was the argument people used that they HAVE to keep Bethesda games multiplat to make enough money - Microsoft is NOT concerned with profit margins today. Phil Spencer got the CEO to buy into the Netflix and Spotify strategy - looking at the long haul goal rather than the short term turnaround. Because Microsoft as a company is already massively profitable - they can afford to take such a risk and invest long haul. I don't know what the real threshold is before Game Pass starts to churn profits. 50 mil gets them to their prior revenue levels, but that doesn't factor in their increased cost they are paying to third parties and all their studios they have now and paying for all the games being developed too. They factually NEED more revenue than ever before to break even. So if 50 mil gets them to old profit levels, is 100 million their break even point? I don't know. Only Microsoft knows internally.

They are focused on growing game pass. They may destroy 30 million subs this year. Maybe destroy 40 next. If they can grow by 10+ million per year, I think Microsoft will take that no matter the losses now, because there is a end goal of being more profitable in gaming than ever before.

 

[Flutta]

So 1$ * 23 mil?

 

[DaGwaphics]

Luna, Stadia, Occulus and Apple app-store = have no presence in gaming?

No serious presence. And certainly they haven't showed any kind of commitment, let alone the financial investment needed to compete. Google already axed their first-party development, Amazon has been trying for years and can't seem to get a game out if their lives depended on it, while Apple has made virtually no investment at all (owning a platform that happens to have games on it isn't what I'm talking about). Those certainly are companies with the $$$ to try and make it happen, the question is will they ever make a real push for it.

@ A Aroll I think you are taking that article too literally. It references what it would take to replace the current earnings with GP earnings alone, but that isn't a realistic situation. MS is continuing to earn on their existing gaming platform, they did the $10b in combination with GP.

 

[Jemm]

Well, despite the fact that all the subscribers are paying only $1, it is still sustainable and there isn't need for price increases any time soon. Microsoft can really do wonders with that kind of income.

Xbox head Phil Spencer went on the Dropped Frames podcast this week (as reported by VGC) and said that Microsoft has no plans to increase the price of Xbox Game Pass anytime soon. "We like the value that Game Pass is today," Spencer commented. "From a business model, it's completely sustainable the way it is, and I mean that."

Source: Xbox Game Pass prices aren't going up anytime soon (destructoid.com)

 

[MonarchJT]

I'd be curious to know how many of those are $1 subs. I wouldn't be surprised if it was way more than half.

I'm sure 99.9% ...that 0.1% is me paying full price coz I'm a dumb shill

 

[ZywyPL]

Just like Netflix. They sunk a huge amount of money in to create this 'new' market. Once they turned a profit and owned 100% of that market, the rest came out of the woodwork. Seriously, list all of the streaming services that you can now get:

Apple tv
Amazon
Disney
Hulu
BBC Iplayer
ITV player
Channel 4OD

and they're just the ones i can think of off the top of my head. Now replace those with gaming services.

Microsoft know what's coming. They've even said as much.

I mostly agree with what you're saying, but the thing is, waiting for someone else to build up the market and then being seriously LTTP creates the problem with taking away the audience from a service they've been on for so many years/decades. Because despite the fierce competition showing up, Netflix is still the most popular service, and what's more it's still constantly growing, so what those other services are basically fighting for are customers who are willing to pay/use multiple services, or people who still aren't using any service at all, but no one who's already on Netflix will completely resign from it, unless the company suddenly starts seriously messing up with the content or pricing.

And there's the other, even bigger issue, because with movies, music etc. you don't lose much, if anything, when switching to another service, but with video games there are saves, achievements, friends list, DLCs and what's not, people are tied up to video games infinitely more than with other type of content, so the longer the competition waits the more they're actually working in MS' favor.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Doesn’t matter console wars are about AAA production despite a game pass success which gamers love.

 

[Alright]

Once again, the proof is in the pudding. Microsoft bought studios and bought Bethesda. You'd have to believe that all of a sudden these teams would forget how to make good games and will put out 23 ReCores and Crackdown 3's.

Don't remind me of Crackdown. The first 30 minutes were enjoyable and unique, then...yeah.

I partly believe the Bethesda acquisition was a shot across the bow for Google and Amazon.

Possibly. I believe it was to get the VR IP's from ID software and bolster Xbox's studios (plus, i really really really really want a remaster of Fallout 1 and 2 for consoles. No changes)

Sent a rather strong message that they would need to make some very large investments of a similar nature to enter into this competitive arena.

What we've seen so far is a rather meek effort, with respect to Stadia and Luna and a lot of internal studio cancellations. Even reports that Stadia was paying Capcom $10 million just to make multi-platform Resident Evil 7 available on their service...yikes.

All Google were doing was chucking their name in to the ring. A "We're here and watching" kind of approach

You get the feeling that they don't really have the boards full backing and that this is treated as a 'side project' similar to Microsoft's efforts before Phil/Satya. If they decide to get serious they have the potential to be a serious contender, but they need to part with some serious cash to be competitive.

I disagree to an extent. Microsoft have stated that they want to push subs/Azure server usage and right now, the biggest threat to that is AWS, who host Facebook, Google, Apple and of course, Amazon. That's why "xbox aren't competing with Sony, we're competing with Amazon" is the second most important piece of information that Microsoft have released

No serious presence. And certainly they haven't showed any kind of commitment, let alone the financial investment needed to compete. Google already axed their first-party development, Amazon has been trying for years and can't seem to get a game out if their lives depended on it, while Apple has made virtually no investment at all (owning a platform that happens to have games on it isn't what I'm talking about). Those certainly are companies with the $$$ to try and make it happen, the question is will they ever make a real push for it.

Will they make a push to join in with traditional console gaming? Not a chance. Hardware is a huge limitation. But if all of the 'console' features come through a Browser, or at worst a 'fire stick' like device, then that hardware limitation is completely removed.

We're not talking about a Google console or an Apple Pippin 2, we're talking about delivering a service that will work on any browser capable device, just like Xcloud.

Apple could offer their current trough of shite, money-hat some exclusives from 3rd Parties (Something both Sony and Microsoft have done in the past) and push all of that for a fraction of the price that Microsoft do (because Apple et al don't need the ROI that MS do, because they've invested very very little)

I mostly agree with what you're saying, but the thing is, waiting for someone else to build up the market and then being seriously LTTP creates the problem with taking away the audience from a service they've been on for so many years/decades. Because despite the fierce competition showing up, Netflix is still the most popular service, and what's more it's still constantly growing, so what those other services are basically fighting for are customers who are willing to pay/use multiple services, or people who still aren't using any service at all, but no one who's already on Netflix will completely resign from it, unless the company suddenly starts seriously messing up with the content or pricing.

Yes, you are right, multiple subs is the norm these days and i expect no different from PSNow, GP, XBL gold and whatever crap Apple et al come up with.

You have to take in to account that streaming isn't aimed at western gamers or even traditional or casual gamers. Little Timmy has grown up with COD, no way will he let 'lag' stop him from flicking Beast mode [on] and going on a kill streak, he will buy the next Xbox/Playsation, not a Stadia like device.

But Microsoft's own words were "there are 3 billion gamers". They're including mobile and Asian markets in that and guess what? Little Timmy and his Cod and Fifa friends and Lord Nerdlinger with his table top RPGs are small fish compared to the whales out in Asia.

And there's the other, even bigger issue, because with movies, music etc. you don't lose much, if anything, when switching to another service, but with video games there are saves, achievements, friends list, DLCs and what's not, people are tied up to video games infinitely more than with other type of content, so the longer the competition waits the more they're actually working in MS' favor.

Nothing it say that won't evolve. Who knows, maybe EA and Acti agree to 'cross saves' among platforms. Now, i don't know much about the technicality behind streaming the data from a server to a device, but i would imagine that EA et al would only need to make a version for AWS and a version for Azure? IF that's true, then cross-saves and other functionality may be easier than we think.

You do raise a good point though. What differenciates GP and Xcloud with the (potential) offerings of Google? Maybe it is the feature set. We've seen how EGS was raked over the coals for lacking basic features that Steam has.

Maybe Google will have exclusive features that Apple, Microsoft or Sony wont.

 

[Croatoan]

I think they can implement a robust system in game which skirts a lot of the Gamepass limitations.... while also conventionally promoting their creation club

Who is they? The modders say they will never be able to make it work. They would have to be microsoft.

 

[Low Moral Fibre]

Pathetic. Disney managed to get to 80m Disney+ subs in a year.

Admittedly Disney is the biggest entertainment brand in the history of mankind and half the world was stuck at home with kids and there are probably only several billion smart devices capable of showing Disney+ in existence in the world but other than that 80m clearly should have been achievable.

 

[MadPanda]

while grabbing all of those Mobile-gaming whales on the way down

Do you even know who are whales in that context? If you do, could you explain how MS is doing that?

 

[Andodalf]

Who is they? The modders say they will never be able to make it work. They would have to be microsoft.

.......................


Bethesda?

They can host mods in game. The system they use for XBox One could of course work for PC gamepass, as it's all in game and in their servers. They will work the same way mods do on Xbox right now. Which is pretty good. Not ideal, but more than enough for a lot of people

 

[Alan Wake]

Only thing I'd like to know is how many of us are actually paying full price and how many are just 1 dollar subscribers.

 

[sainraja]

Sony didn't "give" Microsoft anything. They do not own the rights to MLB. 3 years ago they were negotiating a contract extension on the MLB license. MLB told them it could no longer be platform exclusive if they wanted to re-up the deal. Now, Sony could have told them nope, when the current deal ends were done. That was Sony's leverage. They could threaten to stop making the The Show. To which, MLB likely did not care - they would just spin up a new deal with 2K or EA and move on with their day. Instead Sony said sure, but we are not publishing the game outside of our platforms. MLB goes that's fine, we will pay to to publish it elsewhere. In giving up publishing rights to the MLB, that's how it ended up on GamePass with a phat check from Phil Spencer. Sony didn't GIVE them anything. Maybe Sony underestimated what the MLB was going to do, but that's about it. Sony could have kept publishing rights and published it themselves, keeping it off Game Pass. But they didn't.


-

So, this has been talked about quite sparingly by Microsoft and likely for very good reason: The numbers aren't exactly going to look good at the moment. This article goes over it in more detail:

Here is an interesting deep dive into the financials of gamepass.

Essentially, people have to look at Game Pass differently. So before Game Pass existed there was a certain revenue threshold their gaming division was making. To get back to that threshold with the game pass model, it basically takes roughly 50 million game pass subscribers. This suggest that at this moment, Game Pass is technically not making them the same profits they made without it, thus costing Microsoft revenue, which means they are losing money by having Game Pass right now.

However, pure revenue streams are not, indeed, profits. You could have 20 billion in gaming revenue, but if your gaming division is costing you 30 billion a year, you are losing 10 billion. That's typically not considered good. We just saw this happen with Netflix for a decade. It got away with it, because investors Kept investing despite Netflix not being profitable assuming they would hit a delta some day, and reap the benefits. Which has now happened in 2021.

We learn a few things from that article about how Microsoft makes Game Pass work for game publishers:

- They pay an up front fee for the game to be on a Game Pass, an amount publishers have said off the record that is "definitely enough" to put it there. Meaning it likely is some equivalent of what they think a high number of sales would be.
- Then microsoft offers a bonus structure to pay more based on how often the game is downloaded and how long people spend time playing it.

That's all great for the publishers of course. Microsoft is paying them handsomely.

But, between their own in house studio costs to make games (plus acquisitions) and what they pay others to even be on Game Pass, reality is - Game Pass is far and away NOT a profitable venture at this moment. Microsoft is assuredly losing a ton of money on Game Pass right now. However, is that the point Microsoft is focused on? Absolutely not.

Microsoft has failed to find the consistency of Nintendo and Sony. Sony seemingly always sells close to or over 100 million units. Sony's games over the years have only sold more and more. Nintendo's games always sell a ton even when the system doesn't it, and even when Nintendo has systems that sell poor it's always answered with a new system later that sells well. Both those companies have nailed down how to stay successful long haul in the industry. Outside of Xbox 360, the other 2 platforms for Microsoft haven't exactly sold that well in the marketplace. They also failed to build upon itself and offer more and more exclusive content. Whatever Microsoft had been doing, wasn't really working in comparison to the other two platform holders. They needed to do something different.

So they did. Game Pass and eventually XCloud. For Microsoft, Game Pass isn't about profits now. This was the argument people used that they HAVE to keep Bethesda games multiplat to make enough money - Microsoft is NOT concerned with profit margins today. Phil Spencer got the CEO to buy into the Netflix and Spotify strategy - looking at the long haul goal rather than the short term turnaround. Because Microsoft as a company is already massively profitable - they can afford to take such a risk and invest long haul. I don't know what the real threshold is before Game Pass starts to churn profits. 50 mil gets them to their prior revenue levels, but that doesn't factor in their increased cost they are paying to third parties and all their studios they have now and paying for all the games being developed too. They factually NEED more revenue than ever before to break even. So if 50 mil gets them to old profit levels, is 100 million their break even point? I don't know. Only Microsoft knows internally.

They are focused on growing game pass. They may destroy 30 million subs this year. Maybe destroy 40 next. If they can grow by 10+ million per year, I think Microsoft will take that no matter the losses now, because there is a end goal of being more profitable in gaming than ever before.

I just have to say great post!

 

[LuciferSatan]

I know it's a great value and nothing against those who enjoy the service, and I know it's been discussed at length, but I'm just not in favor of a "Netflix" model for gaming. I like to "own" and play my library at my leisure, and I also think that a subscription service will ultimately be a negative for the industry at large. It will gradually erode into a more "disposable/throwaway" mentality towards development and content imho. Passion and real creativity will ultimately die on the altar. (at least in terms of "mainstream" offerings)passion and creativity at the mainstream is already pretty much dead.

 

[Smoke6]

I haven't heard it since 2010. Microsoft didn't have 23 studios in 2010. The games are coming. Microsoft is walking the walk by putting their money where their mouth is instead of bankrolling B-tier 3rd parties to produce exclusive titles.

Can y’all stop with this shit! Then studios they just acquired all take forever to releases games and by the time some of them come to this gen you more than likely will be waiting til next gen and the one after that for there games!

hell no one knows the shape of any of there releases everyone’s excited for given they have the same type of track record as CD_projekt red!

I can see the bitching and moaning posts now!

anyways Netflix was something that was needed and our ways of life dictated that move in a real way. Nobody asked for a rental service and have people who can’t do basically business math tell others “since the service rocks we’re winning no matter it’s free games”!

matter of fact how many of y’all in here paying full sub fees for game passes?

 

[Alright]

Do you even know who are whales in that context? If you do, could you explain how MS is doing that?

we can see correlations with Netflix:

To attract more people, more content has to be put on the service
Law of scarcity says; the more of something there is, the less rare it is and is perceived as less valuable.
To get more value, you need to appeal to a wider audience.

It's the attracting wider audience part that is interesting. Netflix has genres for everyone, just like in gaming. However, unlike in gaming, Netflix requires 0 user input. Now you have content that is divided 'horizontally' by genre and 'vertically' by difficulty. To appease and appeal to everyone, you have to offer a lot of different catagories (FPS,RPG,platform) but you have to diversify that by difficulty/the level of user input required.

One person may enjoy an easy QTE fest TPS, someone else may want a wall-bouncy, fast-paced Gears game. The service has to appeal to as many people as possible, or it will either fail, or a competitor will come in.

To get that reach and appeal across so many genres, you need studios churning out new content at a regular pace. More content = less value so you open the gates for more people, which is more content, more options etc, etc, etc.

As soon as you open those flood gates to more content more people, more competitors will follow, as they want a piece of the pie.

To your point of how MS is doing it; well, they're doing it right now with lootboxes, dlc and MTX. In fact, all companies are doing it. If they weren't, would we have seen the introduction of MTX? or the vile predatory practices of Lootboxes and gambling mechanics? Would a FtP game (fortnite) be raking in billions without chasing these whales?

(Apologies for the rambly post, i took a phone call half way through typing this)

 

[abacab driver]

30+ mil by Christmas, easy.

Haters mad, scared, confused and a whole lot more.

 

[Croatoan]

.......................


Bethesda?

They can host mods in game. The system they use for XBox One could of course work for PC gamepass, as it's all in game and in their servers. They will work the same way mods do on Xbox right now. Which is pretty good. Not ideal, but more than enough for a lot of people

You seem to be missing my point. Bethesda is not going to support a script extender like SKSE, FOSE, etc, which means most of the best mods are not available to xbox or pc gamepass people. They wont support it because they cannot control it. I also don't want to use Bethesda's shitty walled garden mod system. I want to use Nexus mods, or other third party mod websites/loaders which are not held back by the politics of a major corporation.

The only way for the best mods to work on gamepass is for Microsoft to change how games are packaged on the PC. Make it open like steam and we are all good. Otherwise I will purchase on steam.

 

[acm2000]

Only thing I'd like to know is how many of us are actually paying full price and how many are just 1 dollar subscribers.

you can only do the $1 thing once, you can only do the xbox gold conversion once and then you have to wait till it runn out and hope the offer is still running, and also MS has sold a lot of series s and series x via All Access which includes Game Pass Ultimate at full price in the monthly credit.

 

[DaGwaphics]

you can only do the $1 thing once, you can only do the xbox gold conversion once and then you have to wait till it runn out and hope the offer is still running, and also MS has sold a lot of series s and series x via All Access which includes Game Pass Ultimate at full price in the monthly credit.

This, plus not everyone with an Xbox is browsing gaming forums looking for the latest news. These folks might just see the "upgrade for $1" ad in the dash and go from there, maybe they only convert 6 months or 8 months etc.

 

[Jemm]

This, plus not everyone with an Xbox is browsing gaming forums looking for the latest news. These folks might just see the "upgrade for $1" ad in the dash and go from there, maybe they only convert 6 months or 8 months etc.

I don't doubt that there are people who have the energy to jump through the hoops to keep using that deal (several accounts etc) and it's fine.

I'm paying full price (GPU), because:
A) I'm too lazy to do the above
B) I think the value is worth paying (price of 2-3 games / year)

Also, many people here buy games at full price on day one ("to support devs"), while they could wait for sales and price drops.

 

[DaGwaphics]

I don't doubt that there are people who have the energy to jump through the hoops to keep using that deal (several accounts etc) and it's fine.

I'm paying full price (GPU), because:
A) I'm too lazy to do the above
B) I think the value is worth paying (price of 2-3 games / year)

Also, many people here buy games at full price on day one ("to support devs"), while they could wait for sales and price drops.

Haha. I'm a bit in-between both scenarios personally, LOL.

I won't create multiple accounts etc. because I want everything I do purchase to be available in one account, but I totally will buy reups on BF at a discount. And I don't give the slightest thought to supporting the devs at full price. I don't think I've spent more than $25 or $30 on a game in years (I think RE5 was my last preorder). GP is proving to be worth the $15/mo. imo, so I'll stick with it even if I can't wrangle up anymore discounts, assuming that the services maintains the quality it has now (I actually think it will improve a lot once all the MGS start to deliver software).

Spoiler

Cheap Ass Bastard Alert!!!

 

[Kokoloko85]

Yes. And if you had read that, you'd know that "Notable Announcements" can get their own threads. Feel free to click "Ignore Thread" if you don't like this one.

Dunno if a rumour that 3million more subs is notable...
Its about there not being loads of gamepass threads on the first few pages. I guess it worked for a week

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

This is "IF" those 3rd party Publishers see extra value in their games being available as a subscription on Day 1. Many still might see value in actually selling the game the more traditional way.

I mean, this is true too, but the way I see these subscription services is in part some sort of curated, online-enabled F2P portal network, so if you're "freeing" up base costs for the customer on the base game, that allows them to convert those costs to buying additional content in the game.

It's a particular reason why I see the model being very beneficial for MP-orientated, persistently online games or genres like MP FPS, strategy sims, fighters, etc. It might still be a bit more loose in terms of what it does for single-player games without a strong multiplayer or online component, but in theory I suppose the draw in the model would mirror what we see from film/television subscription services, though that does rely on a draw of strong, major titles on that front.

I think once Microsoft's own 1P content in that style starts to show up on the service on the regular, it will incentivize 3P publishers to put more of those type of games on the service, or similar services that are around and expanding by that point. What we're also seeing is that in most cases, sales of the game on the platform with the services providing Day 1 access aren't actually being suppressed that much if at all; I know people bring up Gears 5 but that could be other factors related to IP burnout given that many other games have seen steady or increases in sales even while present on GP, including other 1P games like FS 2020.

 

[freefornow]

Xbox Game Pass General Discussion

EL Edit: Notable announcements can get their own threads. Monthly sets of regular releases can get their own threads. General ongoing talk can go here to cut down on the daily hype wars and bickering threads. Gamepass has definitely mixed up console gaming more than anything else in...

www.neogaf.com

 

[Aroll]

No serious presence. And certainly they haven't showed any kind of commitment, let alone the financial investment needed to compete. Google already axed their first-party development, Amazon has been trying for years and can't seem to get a game out if their lives depended on it, while Apple has made virtually no investment at all (owning a platform that happens to have games on it isn't what I'm talking about). Those certainly are companies with the $$$ to try and make it happen, the question is will they ever make a real push for it.

@ A Aroll I think you are taking that article too literally. It references what it would take to replace the current earnings with GP earnings alone, but that isn't a realistic situation. MS is continuing to earn on their existing gaming platform, they did the $10b in combination with GP.

The article is a bit... speculative of course. The larger point I was talking about stands however: Game Pass is likely not even remotely close to being profitable for Microsoft. But there is a Delta number of users at the current price point that makes it profitable. Only Microsoft internally knows what that end goal figure is. My guess is probably close to 100 million users, and I don't actually think it's that crazy. Given Game Pass is on PC, it's on Xbox, it's on Phones - it's going to be a great deal for pretty much anyone that is interested in what's on it.

I just have to say great post!

Thanks. I make mistakes sometimes - recently flubbed a bit in a Sony related thread. But I try to take a broader look at the landscape when talking about this stuff.

 

[IoCaster]

The article is a bit... speculative of course. The larger point I was talking about stands however: Game Pass is likely not even remotely close to being profitable for Microsoft. But there is a Delta number of users at the current price point that makes it profitable. Only Microsoft internally knows what that end goal figure is. My guess is probably close to 100 million users, and I don't actually think it's that crazy. Given Game Pass is on PC, it's on Xbox, it's on Phones - it's going to be a great deal for pretty much anyone that is interested in what's on it.

So if I understand you correctly, you believe that it'll need to generate $1 Billion+ revenue per month to be profitable?

 

[Valedix]

What is divs?

Divisions.... Duh lol

 

[LordBlodgett]

I'd be curious to know how many of those are $1 subs. I wouldn't be surprised if it was way more than half.

People asked this question at the million mark, 12 million mark, 18 million mark, and now 23 million mark. If those numbers keep growing it means that a decent amount of those $1 subscriptions are converting.......

 

[Menzies]

So if I understand you correctly, you believe that it'll need to generate $1 Billion+ revenue per month to be profitable?

Haha maybe he knows they're buying Sega, Square Enix, Konami and Capcom!

For recurring operating costs, surely, 100 million subscribers is not needed. If however, he's talking about eating into the sunken costs of fitting out Azure data centers around the globe and all the acquisitions...they'll definitely want to get that number up there.

I wonder how much of all this really actually needs to come back as operating profit though. As has been pointed out, the Netflix and Spotify ticker valuation's keep on rising without returning much! I get the feeling that as long as mindshare and popularity continues to rise with Xbox as a brand, then the resultant MSFT valuation will keep going through the roof anyway. Investors think they're riding a winner.

 

[DJTaurus]

Burn the Netflix of gaming.

 

[mckmas8808]

I mean, this is true too, but the way I see these subscription services is in part some sort of curated, online-enabled F2P portal network, so if you're "freeing" up base costs for the customer on the base game, that allows them to convert those costs to buying additional content in the game.

It's a particular reason why I see the model being very beneficial for MP-orientated, persistently online games or genres like MP FPS, strategy sims, fighters, etc. It might still be a bit more loose in terms of what it does for single-player games without a strong multiplayer or online component, but in theory I suppose the draw in the model would mirror what we see from film/television subscription services, though that does rely on a draw of strong, major titles on that front.

I think once Microsoft's own 1P content in that style starts to show up on the service on the regular, it will incentivize 3P publishers to put more of those type of games on the service, or similar services that are around and expanding by that point. What we're also seeing is that in most cases, sales of the game on the platform with the services providing Day 1 access aren't actually being suppressed that much if at all; I know people bring up Gears 5 but that could be other factors related to IP burnout given that many other games have seen steady or increases in sales even while present on GP, including other 1P games like FS 2020.

I agree. For multiplayer games it makes alot of sense. I wonder how MS will dole out budgets for their 1st party games going forward now that every one of their games will be on GamePass day one. There HAS to be some affect that it'll have on a per game basis relative to not being on GamePass.

 

[DaGwaphics]

I agree. For multiplayer games it makes alot of sense. I wonder how MS will dole out budgets for their 1st party games going forward now that every one of their games will be on GamePass day one. There HAS to be some affect that it'll have on a per game basis relative to not being on GamePass.

Why would there be any effect at all?

I doubt they will go entirely multiplayer focused if that's what you mean. If anything they will have a stronger focus on single player than they typically have just because that can play a little nicer with Xcloud. Other than that, I don't see how funding dev costs with subscription revenue vs. future sales is a negative, if anything the sub is more stable.

 

[mckmas8808]

Why would there be any effect at all?

I doubt they will go entirely multiplayer focused if that's what you mean. If anything they will have a stronger focus on single player than they typically have just because that can play a little nicer with Xcloud. Other than that, I don't see how funding dev costs with subscription revenue vs. future sales is a negative, if anything the sub is more stable.

For obvious reasons. The delivery system of a game influences the style and budget for games all the time. Like when MS greenlights gaming ideas starting this year, what's their motivation for greenlighting the game? Do they want to make the best possible version of every single game they greenlight? Or will the majority of the motivation be, "Hey we need more content for our subscription service to keep our numbers up."

That's a BIG question for MS going forward. We don't have the answer to that now.

 

[Magnific0giganticus]

Revenue, profit report? Didn't think so. Call me when they reach 200 million subs like Netflix has and barely make 2 billion out of it (yearly).

 

[DaGwaphics]

For obvious reasons. The delivery system of a game influences the style and budget for games all the time. Like when MS greenlights gaming ideas starting this year, what's their motivation for greenlighting the game? Do they want to make the best possible version of every single game they greenlight? Or will the majority of the motivation be, "Hey we need more content for our subscription service to keep our numbers up."

That's a BIG question for MS going forward. We don't have the answer to that now.

Probably not an either or. The best case scenario for GP members is that each studio works on their primary project full throttle, with these being the primary tentpoles that will underpin the service. Some studios could also have a smaller secondary team that is working on a smaller more experimental idea (like Grounded, etc.).

 

[mckmas8808]

Probably not an either or. The best case scenario for GP members is that each studio works on their primary project full throttle, with these being the primary tentpoles that will underpin the service. Some studios could also have a smaller secondary team that is working on a smaller more experimental idea (like Grounded, etc.).

I 100% agree with this. But.................like you said that's a best case scenario. It hasn't left my mind what MS did to some 2nd party games last gen. They screwed a good number of them up, because they meddled in the development process too much.

And they did so because they wanted to put their MS "magical touch" on each game with their personal philosophy. Now....maybe MS has learned from those mistakes and won't do that going forward. Or........maybe they'll double down on those mistakes. Only time will tell.

 

[Denton]

Just extended gamepass by 15 months for 70 bucks, so I am covered until october 2023.

Now I just hope MS will drop the encryption and unreliableness of Windows Store delivery.

 

[Flyingpanther]

Impressive. Personally I don't really like gamepass especially how Microsoft is forcing it so aggressive. But apparently iam one of the few

 

[MacReady13]

Granted we can still buy games even having game pass, and if that continues into the future then great BUT, if the future of gaming is exactly like Netflix and we can only "borrow" these games, how are people happy about that POSSIBLE future?