Support NeoGAF

[pasterpl]

Yeah one has good exclusives coming out on the New hardware this year and the other has..... not shown much.

Play gamepass on your xbox 1 X... no need to pay $xxx for a service you can have on your current console. Pay service, own nothing.
Personally Id take that $150 a year and buy and own 2-3 games I love

to be honest I am not sure which platforms you are referring to as both will have a quite limited launch lineups

 

[Hunnybun]

The average gamer buys two full-priced games a year. $120
A year of GP, with no discounts or 1$ upgrade path. $120
Only GP carries much higher costs for MS, given they have to pay partners, and deal with offering discounts, promotions, and the like.

I don't disagree with you, a diverse selection of SP games would be really appealing, but it's nowhere near sustainable, and we've seen that. Most, if not all recent MS releases featured heavy mtx, gaas elements, and were designed for continued player retention first and foremost.
It's not that SP experiences can't happen, they just become increasingly less likely and lower budget if you're relying on a subscription model for revenue. It's why most SP releases on GP are not from MS, but from companies that made their profit selling the game already.

After all, a single GP release, to get the same revenue, needs to either:
- Keep a player subscribed for 6 months
- Bring in 6 times as many people for 1 month
The latter is far more attainable, which is why GaaS happen. This again does not translate to profit.


Subscription services go through a period were they bleed money to get more content and subscribers, which may eventually translate to some profits over the very long-term. Again, Netflix is 12 Billion dollars in debt, and I don't believe GP and XBox have anywhere near the same capacity for growth, given the increased costs of games over TV/movies.


For subscription services to become profitable they first go through a very lengthy period were they bleed cash (and were most crash and burn), trying to get more content

I agree with the thrust of your post, that GP must be bleeding money now and will struggle to make money even in the long term, especially given that Ms has little prospect of ultimately controlling the market and being free to raise the price. I think this is a questionable strategy for them.

But I don't really follow your point that it's much more expensive for them to run vs traditional game sales. Surely they've always had to give 3rd parties their cuts etc, haven't they? The only genuinely new cost I see is literally the infrastructure (online portal etc) around the service itself.

 

[Tulipanzo]

I agree with the thrust of your post, that GP must be bleeding money now and will struggle to make money even in the long term, especially given that Ms has little prospect of ultimately controlling the market and being free to raise the price. I think this is a questionable strategy for them.

But I don't really follow your point that it's much more expensive for them to run vs traditional game sales. Surely they've always had to give 3rd parties their cuts etc, haven't they? The only genuinely new cost I see is literally the infrastructure (online portal etc) around the service itself.

The opposite is true in fact, they get 30% off the sales of every third party title on XBox. On GP instead they have to pay publishers either a flat sum or a fee per-download for every game they feature.

Edit: I think it's a good service, but it's being made a disservice, imo, by the quality of XGS's output. After all, I'm far more likely to subscribe, if I own that shiny new xbox

 

[Hunnybun]

The opposite is true in fact, they get 30% off the sales of every third party title on XBox. On GP instead they have to pay publishers either a flat sum or a fee per-download for every game they feature.

That amounts to the same thing, in principle. You're just characterising the first as them getting x% of someone else's sale, and the second as them having to pay out x% of their sale. But the only thing that matters is the relative ratios and ultimate net sale Ms receives.

 

[Nikana]

The opposite is true in fact, they get 30% off the sales of every third party title on XBox. On GP instead they have to pay publishers either a flat sum or a fee per-download for every game they feature.

Edit: I think it's a good service, but it's being made a disservice, imo, by the quality of XGS's output. After all, I'm far more likely to subscribe, if I own that shiny new xbox

Neither actually.

"Xbox Game Pass is the first time subscription is fair for developers"

Xbox Game Pass is the first time that the subscription model has made economic sense for game developers, according to …

www.gamesindustry.biz

 

[Tulipanzo]

That amounts to the same thing, in principle. You're just characterising the first as them getting x% of someone else's sale, and the second as them having to pay out x% of their sale. But the only thing that matters is the relative ratios and ultimate net sale Ms receives.

MS gets $10/month from each subscriber, and $20 from each $60 release. Since costs are the same for distribution, 2 months of GP gives them the same revenue.
However, they get to keep most of those $20, while they have to pay all their partners part of those $10.

It really isn't the same thing, and that's fine, taking losses is built into the idea of a subscription service.

 

[Hunnybun]

MS gets $10/month from each subscriber, and $20 from each $60 release. Since costs are the same for distribution, 2 months of GP gives them the same revenue.
However, they get to keep most of those $20, while they have to pay all their partners part of those $10.

It really isn't the same thing, and that's fine, taking losses is built into the idea of a subscription service.

Right but let's assume that a gamer either buys 2 full price games or has GP at $10 a month.

Revenue in the first scenario is (2 x $60 x 30%) $36. You're saying that's great cos they don't pay anything out of that $36.

Revenue in the second scenario is (12 x $10) $120. You're saying that's bad because they have to give 3rd party partners a cut of that $120. But isn't it obvious that it actually depends on what the cut is? If it were, say, 60%, then they'd end up with profit of $48, which is better than the first scenario.

 

[Tulipanzo]

Neither actually.

"Xbox Game Pass is the first time subscription is fair for developers"

Xbox Game Pass is the first time that the subscription model has made economic sense for game developers, according to …

www.gamesindustry.biz

The article actually doesn't clearly highlight HOW devs are paid, but it seems it's a fixed sum as I said. In fact, developers at Paradox calls the model "decent", as it doesn't work as well for games that have higher replayability and were paid per-hour by Onlive.

I'm pretty sure some devs were getting deals based on number of downloads, but even if it's all fixed-sum the rest of my point stands.

 

[Nikana]

The article actually doesn't clearly highlight HOW devs are paid, but it seems it's a fixed sum as I said. In fact, developers at Paradox calls the model "decent", as it doesn't work as well for games that have higher replayability and were paid per-hour by Onlive.

I'm pretty sure some devs were getting deals based on number of downloads, but even if it's all fixed-sum the rest of my point stands.

And it specifically says it's not like Spotify or Netflix to which you compare it too. So try again. Your point has no evidence as usual.

 

[Tulipanzo]

Right but let's assume that a gamer either buys 2 full price games or has GP at $10 a month.

Revenue in the first scenario is (2 x $60 x 30%) $36. You're saying that's great cos they don't pay anything out of that $36.

Revenue in the second scenario is (12 x $10) $120. You're saying that's bad because they have to give 3rd party partners a cut of that $120. But isn't it obvious that it actually depends on what the cut is? If it were, say, 60%, then they'd end up with profit of $48, which is better than the first scenario.

You're confusing revenue and profit.
Revenue is $120 in both cases, $36 is the profit (- server costs) for game sales. We don't know the costs for GP, but they have to pay all partners, and account for discounts made, as well as the same server costs above, from those $120.

 

[Tulipanzo]

And it specifically says it's not like Spotify or Netflix to which you compare it too. So try again. Your point has no evidence as usual.

Then how exactly do you think they are paid, if you say they are not paid either a flat-sum, or per-download?

"Spotify pays you depending on how many times your song is played," Wester said. "Netflix pays you a fixed fee, depending on what it thinks your TV series is worth. They are fundamentally different things, and that's what you see [with Game Pass] as well.

They are saying Netflix and Spotify are different, and then go on to talk about being paid a flat-sum on GP, and how that's "decent" for their kind of output. "What you see [with GP] as well" is a flat-sum, like Netflix.

 

[Redlight]

Yeah one has good exclusives coming out on the New hardware this year and the other has..... not shown much.

Play gamepass on your xbox 1 X... no need to pay $xxx for a service you can have on your current console. Pay service, own nothing.
Personally Id take that $150 a year and buy and own 2-3 games I love

Exclusive preferences are a matter of taste.

One will charge you $60 for each, the other will give their exclusives to you for free if you already have a sub. Also, you're free to drop in and out, so you could pay for a month, play the games you want, then unsubscribe if that's your thing.

Also, you wouldn't actually have $150 - you'd only have $70 left after you pay for PS+.

Gamepass is great value, there's no getting around it.

 

[Nikana]

Then how exactly do you think they are paid, if you say they are not paid either a flat-sum, or per-download?


They are saying Netflix and Spotify are different, and then go on to talk about being paid a flat-sum on GP, and how that's "decent" for their kind of output. "What you see [with GP] as well" is a flat-sum, like Netflix.

it seems it's actually a flat fee plus usage and if it attarcts a certain amount of usage more money is paid. According to cross code devs.

"Essentially, Microsoft makes you an offer, they pay you a pretty good sum ahead of time which is guaranteed, and then the game goes to Game Pass. The number was high enough for us and our publishers, so we thought yeah we will do that."

 

[Hunnybun]

You're confusing revenue and profit.
Revenue is $120 in both cases, $36 is the profit (- server costs) for game sales. We don't know the costs for GP, but they have to pay all partners, and account for discounts made, as well as the same server costs above, from those $120.

I'm not confusing anything. I was just trying to make things simple since it seemed to me you were struggling to understand.

You keep referring to costs to be borne from the $120 as evidence that GP is a less profitable model. But those same costs have already been deducted from the $36 received under the traditional model. It's incoherent to cite the costs as a problem in one scenario but ignore them in the other.

The only things that matter are the gross revenues under both models and the respective percentage cuts 3rd parties receive. Since we don't know either, we can't reliably conclude that one is more profitable than the other.

 

[Tulipanzo]

I'm not confusing anything. I was just trying to make things simple since it seemed to me you were struggling to understand.

You keep referring to costs to be borne from the $120 as evidence that GP is a less profitable model. But those same costs have already been deducted from the $36 received under the traditional model. It's incoherent to cite the costs as a problem in one scenario but ignore them in the other.

The only things that matter are the gross revenues under both models and the respective percentage cuts 3rd parties receive. Since we don't know either, we can't reliably conclude that one is more profitable than the other.

If the cost is 70% of revenue for one game sold, why exactly would it be lower when you have to pay for several more games?

Unless you're suggesting MS is severaly undercutting developers, they are more than likely losing money, as you said.

 

[Tulipanzo]

it seems it's actually a flat fee plus usage and if it attarcts a certain amount of usage more money is paid. According to cross code devs.

"Essentially, Microsoft makes you an offer, they pay you a pretty good sum ahead of time which is guaranteed, and then the game goes to Game Pass. The number was high enough for us and our publishers, so we thought yeah we will do that."

So a flat-sum, like Netflix, like I said. With more money potentially based on downloads, like I said.

 

[Nikana]

So a flat-sum, like Netflix, like I said. With more money potentially based on downloads, like I said.

That's not what you said.

GP instead they have to pay publishers either a flat sum or a fee per-download for every game they feature.

It's a flat fee plus a usage rate. Meaning that the flat fee can be lower and then if the game sees traction you get more money.

Netflix- Flat Fee for entirety of license
Spitify- per play.
GamePass - flat fee plus usage/traction rate once on service.

 

[Hunnybun]

If the cost is 70% of revenue for one game sold, why exactly would it be lower when you have to pay for several more games?

Unless you're suggesting MS is severaly undercutting developers, they are more than likely losing money, as you said.

I agree they'll almost certainly be losing money, but the devil's in the detail.

IMO the main problem will be that GP subscribers will play way more games than before, so Ms will have to pay more downloads-based fees under GP than the traditional model. Publishers will be getting small bits of revenue just because gamers will be downloading games simply because they're free, and barely playing them. There'll be a cost attached to that for Ms.

But it's all just guesswork. Who knows how these deals are actually structured.

There's also the possibility that the average GP subscriber is probably still buying games traditionally at the same time. Let's say before they were spending $120 a year on games, but now it's something like $150 (GP plus a full price game every 2 years). That changes the equation: GP has actually increased the value of each Xbox owner to Ms.

 

[Tulipanzo]

That's not what you said.

GP instead they have to pay publishers either a flat sum or a fee per-download for every game they feature.

It's a flat fee plus a usage rate. Meaning that the flat fee can be lower and then if the game sees traction you get more money.

Netflix- Flat Fee for entirety of license
Spitify- per play.
GamePass - flat fee plus usage/traction rate once on service.

Your position was that they were paid neither a flat sum nor a fee.
I then pointed out I had heard of fee-based contracts, and you then changed your mind, still not based on your source, to mean it does both.

Your source says they're using a flat-sum, which is good. I don't know what you're arguing for, since I never criticized the way devs got revenue.

 

[Nerd Strangler]

The average gamer buys two full-priced games a year. $120
A year of GP, with no discounts or 1$ upgrade path. $120
Only GP carries much higher costs for MS, given they have to pay partners, and deal with offering discounts, promotions, and the like.

I don't disagree with you, a diverse selection of SP games would be really appealing, but it's nowhere near sustainable, and we've seen that. Most, if not all recent MS releases featured heavy mtx, gaas elements, and were designed for continued player retention first and foremost.
It's not that SP experiences can't happen, they just become increasingly less likely and lower budget if you're relying on a subscription model for revenue. It's why most SP releases on GP are not from MS, but from companies that made their profit selling the game already.

After all, a single GP release, to get the same revenue, needs to either:
- Keep a player subscribed for 6 months
- Bring in 6 times as many people for 1 month
The latter is far more attainable, which is why GaaS happen. This again does not translate to profit.


Subscription services go through a period were they bleed money to get more content and subscribers, which may eventually translate to some profits over the very long-term. Again, Netflix is 12 Billion dollars in debt, and I don't believe GP and XBox have anywhere near the same capacity for growth, given the increased costs of games over TV/movies.


For subscription services to become profitable they first go through a very lengthy period were they bleed cash (and were most crash and burn), trying to get more content

I honestly have no idea what you just said. Why am I renting Halo for $120 a year instead of just buying it exactly?
And I don't understand the tie in with GaaS. So Halo is a 10 year plan or whatever, if I can play Halo for 10 years for 60 bucks how does that incentivize me to buy gamepass? Wouldn't it make much more sense to release more Halos and not less? Because the more Halos I don't have to buy, the better value gamepass becomes.
Or are you saying Microsofts long term goal for gamepass to only sign people up for a month at a time rather than indefinitely? And for some reason gamers won't sign up for a month unless its a GaaS game?

I am super confused.

 

[Tulipanzo]

I agree they'll almost certainly be losing money, but the devil's in the detail.

IMO the main problem will be that GP subscribers will play way more games than before, so Ms will have to pay more downloads-based fees under GP than the traditional model. Publishers will be getting small bits of revenue just because gamers will be downloading games simply because they're free, and barely playing them. There'll be a cost attached to that for Ms.

But it's all just guesswork. Who knows how these deals are actually structured.

There's also the possibility that the average GP subscriber is probably still buying games traditionally at the same time. Let's say before they were spending $120 a year on games, but now it's something like $150 (GP plus a full price game every 2 years). That changes the equation: GP has actually increased the value of each Xbox owner to Ms.

Yes, it's the kind of problem we have. MS is pivoting their business model heavily to GP, but being very opaque at what the costs are and how sustainable the model is.

As per your second point, it's up in the air. Some users may be spending more, but some high-spending users may be spending less.
I'm buying 6 exclusive games on PS4 this year, a PS GP-clone would mean I just don't pay for any of them. What about the people that got years of GPU for $1.
This could just be MS being very aggressive with offers and discounts, but then it might mean increased monetization long-term, which carries its own risks.

Ultimately talking about the business side of GP is a game of speculation. I think there's stronger grounds in commenting on whether as line-up it's worth getting a console over (which is still where MS makes most money).

 

[Nikana]

Your position was that they were paid neither a flat sum nor a fee.
I then pointed out I had heard of fee-based contracts, and you then changed your mind, still not based on your source, to mean it does both.

Your source says they're using a flat-sum, which is good. I don't know what you're arguing for, since I never criticized the way devs got revenue.

I didn't change my mind on anything. You said they had to pay either a flat fee or per rate fee. To which is neither of those options. It's not just a flat fee and it's not just a per rate fee. Period.

Trying to claim you were right because you said they have to pay a flat fee is false. Your options given did not include the actual business plan.

As usual you claim things with no sources is my point.

It's a flat fee plus a usage rate. We don't know what the usage rate entails. Time played? Downloads? No clue. But it is not a flat fee business model like Netflix which you love to compare it to since they are in debit. (with a positive operation cost I might add)

 

[Hunnybun]

Yes, it's the kind of problem we have. MS is pivoting their business model heavily to GP, but being very opaque at what the costs are and how sustainable the model is.

As per your second point, it's up in the air. Some users may be spending more, but some high-spending users may be spending less.
I'm buying 6 exclusive games on PS4 this year, a PS GP-clone would mean I just don't pay for any of them. What about the people that got years of GPU for $1.
This could just be MS being very aggressive with offers and discounts, but then it might mean increased monetization long-term, which carries its own risks.

Ultimately talking about the business side of GP is a game of speculation. I think there's stronger grounds in commenting on whether as line-up it's worth getting a console over (which is still where MS makes most money).

Oh absolutely, I definitely spend more than $120 a year on games. It must be more in the $300-400 range I'd have thought. I'm sure there's millions just like us.

 

[Tulipanzo]

I honestly have no idea what you just said. Why am I renting Halo for $120 a year instead of just buying it exactly?
And I don't understand the tie in with GaaS. So Halo is a 10 year plan or whatever, if I can play Halo for 10 years for 60 bucks how does that incentivize me to buy gamepass? Wouldn't it make much more sense to release more Halos and not less? Because the more Halos I don't have to buy, the better value gamepass becomes.
Or are you saying Microsofts long term goal for gamepass to only sign people up for a month at a time rather than indefinitely? And for some reason gamers won't sign up for a month unless its a GaaS game?

I am super confused.

A game you play for longer keeps you subscribed for longer, obviously.
More, but shorter Halo games keep you subscribed for a shorter length of time, and cost immensely more in development.
If you could just play Halo for 10 years, then obviously a sub seems worse, but that's clearly not the case.
GaaS elements can vary, but it means:
-Mtx on top of your subscription/game sale; loot boxes and the like
- DLC
- Expansions, which could be made free for GP, but not for regular users

Overall there's many more opportunities to monetize a GaaS on a sub than a SP game, which is why they are so common.

 

[Tulipanzo]

I didn't change my mind on anything. You said they had to pay either a flat fee or per rate fee. To which is neither of those options. It's not just a flat fee and it's not just a per rate fee. Period.

Trying to claim you were right because you said they have to pay a flat fee is false. Your options given did not include the actual business plan.

As usual you claim things with no sources is my point.

It's a flat fee plus a usage rate. We don't know what the usage rate entails. Time played? Downloads? No clue. But it is not a flat fee business model like Netflix which you love to compare it to since they are in debit. (with a positive operation cost I might add)

You're literally arguing an "and/or" in my original comment, and have to provide a source for your "and".

 

[Nikana]

You're literally arguing an "and/or" in my original comment, and have to provide a source for your "and".

An and /or in this case is the difference between three different business models. And you have constantly compared Netlfix's business model to Game Pass. So I doubt you mean "and" anywhere in your claims.

I already provided sources for my "and."

Have a good day.

 

[Genx3]

Not until I see a game take full advantage of the XSX HW or at least do something that couldn't be done last gen.

 

[Genx3]

People need to stop making the false claim that Game Pass is quantity not quality.
There are tons of quality games on GP and if you can't find at least a couple that you like then I'd say you're being disingenious.

 

[Insane Metal]

Absolutely not IMO. But whatever

 

[Tulipanzo]

An and /or in this case is the difference between three different business models. And you have constantly compared Netlfix's business model to Game Pass. So I doubt you mean "and" anywhere in your claims.

I already provided sources for my "and."

Have a good day.

The source you provided said it's a flat sum, as I had said.

Please don't waste time, if you can't back up your claims.

 

[ProgenitorCastle]

I am thinking of greatly reducing my games collection and as a result want to buy an Xbox Series X and Game Pass so this way I can still have a great selection of games to play if I want, but not taking up a ton of physical space.

 

[Nikana]

The source you provided said it's a flat sum, as I had said.

Please don't waste time, if you can't back up your claims.

Oh the irony.

 

[Rippa]

I think it would be totally worth subscribing to if they don’t pull games after a period of time. I think the concept of having certain games for a small window of time is hot garbage. I hated knowing I was halfway through a game, to come back to it a few weeks later only to find out it’s been taken off the service. And don’t talk to me about purchasing the games in question. It defeats the purpose of having this subscription model when eventually those game go on sale.

 

[bishopcruz]

I don't think I even need to comment on how deluded the idea GP is bringing in more single-player titles from MS is.

You get less money from players, then you have to make fewer games that last longer to be sustainable. Again, Halo as a Service.

Do we have evidence that they are getting less money from players? There are currently 10 million subscribers to Xbox Game Pass. Now let's just say that in time those 10 million people are paying $15 a month for GamePass, that is $150 million a month in revenue for the games that are on there. Again, that isn't where we are NOW, but let's look at the goal. That's 1.8 billion a year in revenue off of gamepass alone. That is the same revenue as 30,000,000 in game sales a year at full price if it works out as they would want it to. If they do better in the future and are at say, 20 million people on game pass, well... you can do the math.

Of course we need to know the costs of what they have to pay to third parties for being on that platform. It's likely a flat fee ala Netflix. But even then it can be one hell of a smart move, money wise. And it helps mitigate the risks, so one game in their lineup not selling up to expectations may not kill a franchise, like what happened with Alan Wake or Fable back in the day.

 

[Nerd Strangler]

A game you play for longer keeps you subscribed for longer, obviously.
More, but shorter Halo games keep you subscribed for a shorter length of time, and cost immensely more in development.
If you could just play Halo for 10 years, then obviously a sub seems worse, but that's clearly not the case.
GaaS elements can vary, but it means:
-Mtx on top of your subscription/game sale; loot boxes and the like
- DLC
- Expansions, which could be made free for GP, but not for regular users

Overall there's many more opportunities to monetize a GaaS on a sub than a SP game, which is why they are so common.

Isn't that what 343 said? They plan to expand Halo infinite for the next 10 years instead of making new games? Thats why everyone is talking about it becoming a GaaS.
The problem is I don't think this market of people who like to play a lot of GaaS games exists. The whole idea behind them is you don't need to play other games, which doesn't really work well for a subscription whos entire schtick is that you can play a lot of games for a low monthly fee.
Your theoretical target customer has to play multiple games a year, specifically for the GaaS element, and they have to be available on gamepass... I am just not sure that customer exists.

 

[Tulipanzo]

Do we have evidence that they are getting less money from players? There are currently 10 million subscribers to Xbox Game Pass. Now let's just say that in time those 10 million people are paying $15 a month for GamePass, that is $150 million a month in revenue for the games that are on there. Again, that isn't where we are NOW, but let's look at the goal. That's 1.8 billion a year in revenue off of gamepass alone. That is the same revenue as 30,000,000 in game sales a year at full price if it works out as they would want it to. If they do better in the future and are at say, 20 million people on game pass, well... you can do the math.

Of course we need to know the costs of what they have to pay to third parties for being on that platform. It's likely a flat fee ala Netflix. But even then it can be one hell of a smart move, money wise. And it helps mitigate the risks, so one game in their lineup not selling up to expectations may not kill a franchise, like what happened with Alan Wake or Fable back in the day.

The problem is that the average spending per-user yearly is $120, $180 with Gold. GP is also $120, or $180 GPU.
Revenue is thus identical, but you have higher costs due to having to pay all your partners, plus running discounts and such.
There's also the potential problem of high-spending users buying fewer games. Gears 5 sold 1/20th of Gears 3, and 1/5th of Gears 4, because more people got it on GP. That means that you need mtx and monetization to pick up the pace for lost sales revenue.

This is not a bug, subscription services, like Netflix, long operate as money sinks before someday hopefully turning a profit.
The issue we're seeing with games is them being turned into services to keep people subscribed as long as possible, which means no Halo 6 for example, just more Infinite.

To be clear, it's fine as a business model, I just feel they should make a better case for Series X, because ultimately XBox owners are the ones that will actually subscribe.

 

[Tulipanzo]

Isn't that what 343 said? They plan to expand Halo infinite for the next 10 years instead of making new games? Thats why everyone is talking about it becoming a GaaS.
The problem is I don't think this market of people who like to play a lot of GaaS games exists. The whole idea behind them is you don't need to play other games, which doesn't really work well for a subscription whos entire schtick is that you can play a lot of games for a low monthly fee.
Your theoretical target customer has to play multiple games a year, specifically for the GaaS element, and they have to be available on gamepass... I am just not sure that customer exists.

Yeah, that's the kind of problem MS has to deal with over the next-gen. I also don't think it's that great of an idea, but I guess we'll see.

Oh the irony.

I'm using your source there buddy

 

[Kokoloko85]

So many gamepass threads....

Swear half of you are advertisers for MS lol. How much is the commission, I want in?

Its a cool service, but just like Netflix, Disney Plus and Amazon prime.. There still gonna be a majority of people who will still want to buy dvds and download there own digital copy of there movie/ tv series etc.
Same with games. Owning Content is important.

its not gonna takeover the market just yet even if its your last hope for Xbox To win the “console” war.

Its going to be a secondary service for alot of gamers, not a primary be all end all thing which you guys claim.

Not that many People who arent Xbox fans are gonna buy an Xbox Series X to play gamepass... Or go out and Buy a PC instead of a PS5 so they can play on gamepass.
Cool for those that can afford a gaming Pc. But people arent magically going to be able to afford more gaming pc’s now instead of consoles So they can play gamepass.

Its not gonna make a million people go: “Oh instead of buying a PS5, Im gonnna pay for a PC that costs x2-x3 the price and get gamepass......” Or an Xbox Series X.

Obviously you will get some fans transfer over for Gamepass but I dont see millions of non Xbox fans moving over to PC or Xbox for gamepass.

Gamepass is great, theres no denying it, better than PS Now in most ways. I enjoy Ps Now when I do subscribe.
But its not gonna take over the market just yet. Its not MS’s secret plan to waste money creating consoles and not selling them and have just gamepass. Not yet.

By the time Nintendo does something similar you know then its gonna get commercial. Then Xbox will have competition in the streaming world.

 

[IDKFA]

I have a oneS and a PC, as well as a PS4.

No. This does not convince me to get a XSX. No need when I have a decent PC.

 

[mcjmetroid]

I think the playstation owner NO says it all haha.

 

[LittleBusters]

GP will ultimately succeed in its business model if it gets up to 50 million subscribers.

 

[Swipeyowifelike]

No, just like netflix or any of it's contemporaries never gave me the need to stop watching good movies. Sure I get plenty of movies, but a lot of them seem shot on a prayer and an iPhone.

 

[KAOS]

XsX is gonna be the best place to play the gamepass library of games! So for me the answer is an easy yes! I plan to buy both the XsX and PS5. In the pass I would have to save up plenty of money to buy the system and launch games. The XsX is making it easier on me! I'll buy the good launch exclusives on Ps5 and on XSX the third party games that take the best advantage of the systems(and that aren't on game pass). The games that I like on gamepass I will eventually buy for my library when they are on sale. That's the great thing about gamepass my impulse buying habit is gonna be under control! In fact the one thing I would recommend to MS is that maybe all Gamepass ultimate owners should get a special maybe 35% - 40% discount on all games on GP! You know to test that impulse buying control!

 

[supernova8]

You'd have to do the math to know for sure, but it seems questionable to me to pay $500-$600 for a console, just so you can save money on games.

The question would be, how long would it take for you to break even -- to make that $500 or $600 back on the savings? How long would you have to play? How many games? For example, would you be 3 years in, before you made the money back? Would that be a good deal for you? Then after three years, you could truly say you were saving money on games, but not before that. You'd have to recoup the initial costs first.

Remember, too, you don't own any of these games, they have zero resale value, and you can only play them while you are subscribed -- meaning you are obligated to continue paying a monthly fee. And I believe some games go in and out of rotation, so you can only play them while they are available on the service.

Also with games becoming more and more online-focused (that's both multiplayer and game patches), even if you do buy the games it's almost guaranteed you won't have access to the multiplayer and patches forever, and so you're sort of (or literally) getting a license to play said games until Microsoft/publisher decides to shut down their servers for that game.

 

[supernova8]

No, just like netflix or any of it's contemporaries never gave me the need to stop watching good movies. Sure I get plenty of movies, but a lot of them seem shot on a prayer and an iPhone.

Yeah that's why I have Amazon Prime but not Netflix. With Prime the video streaming is more a perk I get along with my free Prime delivery. I would never pay for Netflix by itself.

 

[Swipeyowifelike]

Yeah that's why I have Amazon Prime but not Netflix. With Prime the video streaming is more a perk I get along with my free Prime delivery. I would never pay for Netflix by itself.

And the movies are even shitter....shiter...whatever you know what I mean, i have that also. The dirty little secret is.......me and the fam share all this. How is my mom or dad or aunt gonna buy into this?

 

[MarkMe2525]

This has been a struggle for me. Everytime I think we'll I'll just get a PS5 because I really like their exclusives I think of gamepass. I look through my recently played games and almost all gamepass. I have no fear in buying games as I am middle aged and financially secure but it's so cool to try them without upfront cost. The conclusion I keep coming to is I'm going to do the same thing I did this generation. Buy an Xbox play the shit out of it until PlayStation 5 drops to $250. Then buy a PS5 and all the exclusive PlayStation hits for $20 a pop.

P.s. I'm surprised that the poll has 40% of people saying Game pass is enough for them to purchase an Xbox. I think that is significant.

 

[Ultraslick]

@op,
Right now, it’s not enough to get a new Xbox at or near launch since that money will be going to PS5.
But Gamepass is something, it seems like Microsoft is really counting on it as a value proposition, and it is.
Imagine Xbox without game pass/ there would almost be no decision between consoles.
Watch out for GP ultimate deals online, I have hit up that $1 for gamepass and extended a few times as well, good through 2023 for minimal $ so far.

 

[bishopcruz]

The problem is that the average spending per-user yearly is $120, $180 with Gold. GP is also $120, or $180 GPU.
Revenue is thus identical, but you have higher costs due to having to pay all your partners, plus running discounts and such.
There's also the potential problem of high-spending users buying fewer games. Gears 5 sold 1/20th of Gears 3, and 1/5th of Gears 4, because more people got it on GP. That means that you need mtx and monetization to pick up the pace for lost sales revenue.

This is not a bug, subscription services, like Netflix, long operate as money sinks before someday hopefully turning a profit.
The issue we're seeing with games is them being turned into services to keep people subscribed as long as possible, which means no Halo 6 for example, just more Infinite.

To be clear, it's fine as a business model, I just feel they should make a better case for Series X, because ultimately XBox owners are the ones that will actually subscribe.

Eh, but that assumes that they won't be buying big third party games as well. And look, yeah I think they made a good case for the series X as a machine, but not that great a case for their current first-party output. Which I don't think they really did. Then again, outside of Horizon I wasn't too psyched on the Sony conference, Miles might be good, but I am assuming it's something like "The Ballad of Gay Tony" and the only other thing I remembered from that set of games was the hipster Dinosaur furry game.

But honestly, for me the best selling point for the Series X is the ecosystem continuing to move over. That remains their advantage here, and it is nice. If I buy an XSX, even if it costs the same as a PS5, I don't need to buy additional controllers, or even a game at launch. That's actually pretty sweet. I mean, I WILL likely buy a game at launch, though Cyberpunk will likely be PC for me if only for the ability to mod in any way at all. PS5 requires an extra dual shock, and a couple of games, that's looking at an additional $180 off the top.

That's not a calculus that I expect any hardcore sony fans are going to agree with, or anyone who at this moment doesn't have an Xbox, but it is one I think works. It's similar to how when I had to buy my nephew a system on a budget I got him a used Bone for $99, and a couple of years of GPU, he has access to a lot of games, and since I am the only one who can afford to buy games for him and even KNOWS anything about games, it works out.

So, yeah, I figure I can wait till March for a PS5,

But I will also be honest, I might just be better off putting all of that Xbox money into a 3080 depending on price an availability anyway. We shall see.