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

Microsoft has apparently eliminated the $1 Xbox Game Pass trial once again, just before the release of Starfield



Today:
F4i5tM4bwAA1zIh

Earlier this month:
F4i5tusboAA5-yD
 

intbal

Member
Wasn't working for me, anyway. I haven't been subbed for 18 months. The $1 deal would show up on my console, but as soon as I clicked it, it always took me to the regular price page.
 

Bojji

Member
I got 3 months of PC pass for less than 7$ from Eneba so I can't complain.

They let you have account with GP trail on MS store and use your own in Xb application.
 
No one is going to pay a full price subscription to rent 1 game
I prefer to just buy the game
Wow, yeah I dunno what to tell ya, dude. That’s absolutely not true. I guarantee a large number of people will sub for 30-60 days just for Starfield. Even if you pay for 2 months it’s less than half the price of the game, and statistically most people won’t ever finish it anyway, because it’s so big.
 
Last edited:

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Is this a sign that Microsoft is getting comfortable with the subscription numbers? Starfield will most likely give them a bump even if it is temporary.
It's a sign of MS realizing that this is not sustainable unless they get 10s of millions of people paying $14.99 a month. I bet they saw many of their numbers likely came from those $1 deals.

I don't like Gamepass and think it is bad for the industry long term. I have zero faith that MS will ever be able to turn a profit on it.
 
Last edited:

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Wow, yeah I dunno what to tell ya, dude. That’s absolutely not true. I guarantee a large number of people will sub for 30-60 days just for Starfield. Even if you pay for 2 months it’s less than half the price of the game, and statistically most people won’t ever finish it anyway, because it’s so big.
Which is 100% what MS DOESN"T want. They want people comfortable with the service that they don't cancel the $14.99 per month price. Netflix/Amazon survived on that for years, but producing high quality content has gotten so expensive and prices have risen to the point that people are cancelling. Disney had hoped to capitalize on that, but Disney+ continues to lose subscribers. This will be a HUGE challenge for MS as well. They don't need to 10-20M subscribers to be successful. If the ABK deal goes through, then they will need a 30-40M $14.99 a month subscribers.

Unfortunately, I think the era of subscription services is about to crash. MS is investing a lot in this service at a time when people are unsubscribing. MS still has the advantage of being the only game service though. Will that actually protect them? WHo knows, but I have my doubts.
 
Last edited:
Business-wise it's the smart decision. Virtue-signaling pro-consumer message-wise, it's the wrong decision. But I bet the people who were weaponizing this for being "pro-consumer" are going to shut up and have no objections in light of its elimination, the price increase, and (probably soon) reducing the total cap on MS Reward points towards the subscription.

They definitely want to maximize ARPU off the service and, barring that, actual software sales now. Was always just a matter of time.

Seems like a red flag and shows low confidence in Starfield's ability to impress customers enough to buy it, or subscribe to game pass after 14 days to keep playing it.

Nah I think it's just them admitting what the rest of the industry already knew: subsidizing a subscription service at ridiculous lows for so long is not a sustainable business model if you actually need to make money.

I don't think the game itself seems anything mind-blowing, but it was always going to sell some decent amount of copies simply by virtue of the studio making it.
 

DJ12

Member
Fair play to them, it's one way to find out if their plan for the future will actually increase subs.

Personally. I hope it fails and no one signs up for gamepass until the 1 dollar option comes back.

I'm not against sub services, but if I'm renting games it's got to have all the dlc included like ea and ubi do. I don't want to waste good money buying dlc for a game I could lose access to at any point in the future.
 

YuLY

Member
You know what? Good!

A lot of hard work and money has been put into Starfield to make it the game of the generation, is it too much to ask for people to pay a bit to access it? they can still not pay full price for the game and just buy a month of the normal gamepass tier. This is legit a non issue and if you think it is then lol.

I'm ready Todd!
 

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
You understand that the point of Game Pass is to generate revenue for Microsoft, right?
No. It's purpose it to generate a profit and keep people subscribed to their service. $14.99 a month comes out to $180 a year, which is no longer a good deal if you ask me considering you wont own those games when the sub expires. Netflix, and other streaming services have all lost subscribers. How MS expects to gain subscribers and make this sustainable AFTER investing $70B into it is beyond me.
 

Montauk

Member
No. It's purpose it to generate a profit and keep people subscribed to their service. $14.99 a month comes out to $180 a year, which is no longer a good deal if you ask me considering you wont own those games when the sub expires. Netflix, and other streaming services have all lost subscribers. How MS expects to gain subscribers and make this sustainable AFTER investing $70B into it is beyond me.

Is anybody being forced to pay for Game Pass?

Of course GP has the possibility of sustainability issues. Why then then complain about them removing the $1 trial, which is the subject of this thread?

Continually offering people your expensive games service for $1 is the definition of unsustainable.
 

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
I'm not against sub services, but if I'm renting games it's got to have all the dlc included like ea and ubi do. I don't want to waste good money buying dlc for a game I could lose access to at any point in the future.
I think it was a HUGE mistake on MS part to make AAA games available on Day 1. Gamepass is a great deal at like $9.99 a month or $60 a year. Have a handful of solid games on that service. I also cannot see how they can ever come close to making back the $70B they are about to drop ABK/Bethesda without having an unheard of increase in subscribers and not just trial. Those paying the $14.99 a month.
 

Montauk

Member
I think it was a HUGE mistake on MS part to make AAA games available on Day 1. Gamepass is a great deal at like $9.99 a month or $60 a year. Have a handful of solid games on that service. I also cannot see how they can ever come close to making back the $70B they are about to drop ABK/Bethesda without having an unheard of increase in subscribers and not just trial. Those paying the $14.99 a month.

Lol it would be great value at $60 a year would it? Yeah, ooh, I reckon. How does a single game cost nowadays?

Game Pass is an incredibly good deal, as long as you’re fine with not owning the games.

If we’re making up fantasy numbers, why not argue that GP should cost $20 a year? Why not $10?

Why not? We’re all just making stuff up and having fun over here righ?
 
Last edited:

Elysium44

Banned
Is anybody being forced to pay for Game Pass?

Of course GP has the possibility of sustainability issues. Why then then complain about them removing the $1 trial, which is the subject of this thread?

Continually offering people your expensive games service for $1 is the definition of unsustainable.

The trial is now 14 days and this game is something you would play for a long time as I understand it. (I am not too familiar with Bethesda games, I have played Oblivion and Fallout 3 and never got into them much.)

To me, letting people demo your game shows confidence in it, this is so good that people will buy it. I bought Forza Horizon 4 when it came out, after using a game pass trial that Christmas. Without the trial, I wouldn't have bought it.
 

JohnnyFootball

GerAlt-Right. Ciriously.
Lol it would be great value at $60 a year would it? Yeah, ooh, I reckon. How does a single game cost nowadays?

Game Pass is an incredibly good deal, as long as you’re fine with not owning the games.

If we’re making up fantasy numbers, why not argue that GP should cost $20 a year? Why not $10?

Why not? We’re all just making stuff up and having fun over here righ?
Bullshit. How many AAA games games would you have bought from MS that are exclusively available only on Xbox? Starfield is literally their first big exclusive that isn't Forza. $180 equals about 3 games. MS has never had anywhere near that amount of content in over 10 years to justify that

You talk about fantasy numbers? If you bothered to read my post I said that having AAA games on that service is what I think is not sustainable. I feel the Gamepass Core model is a much better model. THey should adopt the PS Plus Extra model, where they have a ton of games, but the AAA games go to that service 6-12 months down the line. Sony is proving that model is sustainable and aren't being denied the revenue from Day 1 releases. And yes, revenue DOES matter.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom