Support NeoGAF

[Victor Omega]

Microsoft's Game Pass, while undoubtedly a great deal for gamers, has shown signs of following in Netflix's footsteps in a way that might not be entirely beneficial for the gaming industry.

You know how Netflix often flaunts the success of its original series, telling us they're "trending" but not revealing the actual viewership numbers? This lack of transparency has implications in the film industry, especially for creators who want to determine the real success and value of their work.

Now, think about this in the context of gaming. Microsoft might shout from the rooftops (Twitter) that a game on Game Pass has a ton of active players. But what they're not telling us is how many new subscriptions they got because of that game or how many folks bought it at full price.

If Game Pass starts operating purely on a 'new subscription' model, there's a genuine concern that games could be developed solely to drive these numbers. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar? Think of Netflix producing show after show just to get more subscribers.

If every game's value is tied only to its ability to drive subscriptions, what happens to the traditional gaming market? Microsoft once praised the idea that Game Pass would offer players more variety, but if this trend continues, it could end up stifling the very creativity and variety it promised to champion.

The real danger is if developers start crafting games not out of passion or creativity but out of a need to fit a 'subscription-friendly' mold. We've seen how this can play out in other media, with unique ideas often sidelined for 'safe bets' that guarantee views or plays.

The gaming industry thrives on innovation and creativity, and it would be a genuine tragedy if we lost that in the pursuit of subscription numbers.

What do you folks think?

 

[ByWatterson]

Oh shit did I make a new thread format?

And my initial take is: Will investors start demanding actual numbers like you mention here? How long can MS get away with not only not reporting Gamepass subs, but not even game division profit? Crazy to me.

 

[killatopak]

Nah. I would still not like it even if other companies do it.

It’s simply unsustainable. Xbox is actually the only one capable of doing gamepass because of Microsoft and still it isn’t as good as what it was envisioned.

You underestimate the amount of investment needed for a loss leading strategy like this to be pulled off.

 

[bitbydeath]

 

[ZehDon]

Nah.

 

[Knightime_X]

Only if all platforms follow

 

[Dirk Benedict]

It's nuts. The leaks gave us insights into how Microsoft Gaming Division thinks and operates. That's the gist!

 

[SlimeGooGoo]

I think we all should embrace GNU/Linux

 

[THE DUCK]

Microsoft's Game Pass, while undoubtedly a great deal for gamers, has shown signs of following in Netflix's footsteps in a way that might not be entirely beneficial for the gaming industry.

You know how Netflix often flaunts the success of its original series, telling us they're "trending" but not revealing the actual viewership numbers? This lack of transparency has implications in the film industry, especially for creators who want to determine the real success and value of their work.

Now, think about this in the context of gaming. Microsoft might shout from the rooftops (Twitter) that a game on Game Pass has a ton of active players. But what they're not telling us is how many new subscriptions they got because of that game or how many folks bought it at full price.

If Game Pass starts operating purely on a 'new subscription' model, there's a genuine concern that games could be developed solely to drive these numbers. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar? Think of Netflix producing show after show just to get more subscribers.

If every game's value is tied only to its ability to drive subscriptions, what happens to the traditional gaming market? Microsoft once praised the idea that Game Pass would offer players more variety, but if this trend continues, it could end up stifling the very creativity and variety it promised to champion.

The real danger is if developers start crafting games not out of passion or creativity but out of a need to fit a 'subscription-friendly' mold. We've seen how this can play out in other media, with unique ideas often sidelined for 'safe bets' that guarantee views or plays.

The gaming industry thrives on innovation and creativity, and it would be a genuine tragedy if we lost that in the pursuit of subscription numbers.

What do you folks think?

I dont get it, how is tying a games value to the subs any different than tying it to traditional sales? In both cases the developers need to deliver. If anything gamepass offers potential for greater creativity for a larger group of developers like what MS has since it secures a large steady revenue stream even if a game or 2 fails.

 

[T-0800]

I dont get it, how is tying a games value to the subs any different than tying it to traditional sales? In both cases the developers need to deliver. If anything gamepass offers potential for greater creativity for a larger group of developers like what MS has since it secures a large steady revenue stream even if a game or 2 fails.

Because with the traditional model you need to deliver on day 1.

 

[Zuzu]

I'm not sure if it would massively change the way games are made. If the goal of Gamepass is to create new subscriptions then games will need to be created that fits in line with that goal. I don't think it will completely drive out passion and innovation however. Even now, when a traditional game is created there is also a monetary goal that is the primary motivator for making the game. Passion and innovation are still present in making the game (or at least some games lol) but they have to be channelled in such a way that they will also lead to the game making money.

For Gamepass games the goal is to make money through subscriptions so ideally games need to align with that goal. Will that significantly change the way games are made? It's hard to say whether it will substantially change the gameplay mechanics or types of games that will be made. What attracts people to a subscription service? Probably the same types of things that attracts people to any number of games. Things that attract people to games are fun gameplay, interesting experiences, good graphics, good story, enjoying time with their friends etc. If MS wants people to subscribe to Gamepass then they need to offer these types of games. But games that do this well usually require innovation and passion and high quality execution. So, like traditional gaming which is trying to attract purchasers, subs have to offer these types of games to get subscribers. So I don't think games will necessarily lose passion and innovation because they will be a part of a sub. The games need to be good and attractive to people just like traditional retail games.

However one way that subs might exacerbate a particular issue in gaming is through trying to maintain retention of subs. One way to retain subscribers could be to release more GAAS and games that aim to get people addicted to them so that they stay subscribed. But this would be an extension of an issue that's already in the industry. Perhaps subs could make this worse. But a sub service full of GAAS games wouldn't do so well imo so I think sub services will always need to have diverse and fun games to do well.

 

[Riky]

I dont get it, how is tying a games value to the subs any different than tying it to traditional sales? In both cases the developers need to deliver. If anything gamepass offers potential for greater creativity for a larger group of developers like what MS has since it secures a large steady revenue stream even if a game or 2 fails.

Yes the subscription model actually encourages more risk and innovation, Arkane Austin have just survived Redfall, the traditional model would have shuttered them. As we're seeing with several studios recently you don't meet expectations you're gone, this means risk taking and innovation take a back seat to delivering safe sequels over and over again.

It's good to know the likes of South Of Midnight and Clockwork Revolution are going to hit millions of players and those are the sort of games we need, new franchises from talented studios.

 

[Crayon]

Lol we just saw them lowball BG3. It was a second rate computer rpg.

 

[mckmas8808]

The problem ISN'T Microsoft. The business model itself is the issue. MS is doing what a subscription service should do. Push for engagement.

 

[Madserb2023]

I like Gamepass and I think it's because of that, and also bringing every game out on PC as well. There is no reason to either own an Xbox or buy games. I would have absolutely bought Starfield at full price if not for Gamepass.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

I don't know if the problem is GP or MS... what I do now is, I can't think of a good reason why a company keeps things like new subscription growth rate, number of games sales or downloads....etc a secret. I mean even on YouTube, it's right there, you see how many views something has and you see how many subscribers a channel has.

That these subscription models, from Netflix and now from MS are so secretive with what should be the most open and transparent stats, is a clear red flag for me.

 

[Ozzie666]

I think they are confused and keep changing course. We've seen it for years. For example, if you believe the 75/25 split in favour of the Series S. Ask yourself this question, is it a manufactoring issue and supply issue? or does ther Series S make more sinse for their GamePass mantra? Their entire brand and marketing is all about GamePass. So why do they need to compete with Sony and hardware power? Why wouldn't they double down and push the Series S harder, which is a capable box and supports Gamepass. Maybe there is some truth to the Series X being their pro console, but that's not marketed clearly.

Gamepass is everything to them, drop out of the power race, settle between PS5 and Switch, closer to PS5. Let developers worry about just the S and get more out of it. Become that companion console and senisble option. I think it's a lesson to Micrsoft, that power isn't everything. They have PC gamepass for power users. The hardware chase seems counterintuitive for Gamepass.

 

[mckmas8808]

I don't know if the problem is GP or MS... what I do now is, I can't think of a good reason why a company keeps things like new subscription growth rate, number of games sales or downloads....etc a secret. I mean even on YouTube, it's right there, you see how many views something has and you see how many subscribers a channel has.

That these subscription models, from Netflix and now from MS are so secretive with what should be the most open and transparent stats, is a clear red flag for me.

They don't want the advertisers to know the real numbers for a valid reason. Once people know that x amount of people played Game Y on GP and the number isn't looking good.........that'll cause some real issues. It's best for all parties involved to NOT have all the information.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I don't know if the problem is GP or MS... what I do now is, I can't think of a good reason why a company keeps things like new subscription growth rate, number of games sales or downloads....etc a secret. I mean even on YouTube, it's right there, you see how many views something has and you see how many subscribers a channel has.

That these subscription models, from Netflix and now from MS are so secretive with what should be the most open and transparent stats, is a clear red flag for me.

By advertising the subscription growth rate that opens them up to public pressure on performance. Same with the number of game sales or downloads.

It also gives immediate insight into what content is considered a failure.

Even Sony will advertise the top downloaded games on PSN but doesn't give numbers for how many downloads for each game.

Back in the day, we'd get real solid metrics on sales data and those days are largely gone.

 

[mckmas8808]

I think they are confused and keep changing course. We've seen it for years. For example, if you believe the 75/25 split in favour of the Series S. Ask yourself this question, is it a manufactoring issue and supply issue? or does ther Series S make more sinse for their GamePass mantra? Their entire brand and marketing is all about GamePass. So why do they need to compete with Sony and hardware power? Why wouldn't they double down and push the Series S harder, which is a capable box and supports Gamepass. Maybe there is some truth to the Series X being their pro console, but that's not marketed clearly.

Gamepass is everything to them, drop out of the power race, settle between PS5 and Switch, closer to PS5. Let developers worry about just the S and get more out of it. Become that companion console and senisble option. I think it's a lesson to Micrsoft, that power isn't everything. They have PC gamepass for power users. The hardware chase seems counterintuitive for Gamepass.

Not if GP stales out at 40 million users for them.

 

[THE DUCK]

Because with the traditional model you need to deliver on day 1.

What? Games don't sell full volumes on day one, they take months or years to fully realize on. Both models require developers to deliver quality games overall, or they will.shut down those studios in either case.

 

[THE DUCK]

Lol we just saw them lowball BG3. It was a second rate computer rpg.

Yes I'm sure you and every other armchair expert had this game pegged as a massive hit despite the fact that a game hadn't been released in a decade. Right.

 

[PonyStation4]

I don't know if the problem is GP or MS... what I do now is, I can't think of a good reason why a company keeps things like new subscription growth rate, number of games sales or downloads....etc a secret. I mean even on YouTube, it's right there, you see how many views something has and you see how many subscribers a channel has.

That these subscription models, from Netflix and now from MS are so secretive with what should be the most open and transparent stats, is a clear red flag for me.

There's no benefit to doing that. Microsoft probably doesn't want competiting companies finding out they got paid less for more downloads.

 

[jayj]

Didn't Sony just jack up the prices for all of their PS+ online services? Not exactly a good time to single out Microsoft as the bad guys right now lol.

 

[TexMex]

Been waiting for your official press release thank you

 

[Crayon]

Yes I'm sure you and every other armchair expert had this game pegged as a massive hit despite the fact that a game hadn't been released in a decade. Right.

I did not. What is your point?

 

[THE DUCK]

I did not. What is your point?

The point was many didn't see it coming, it's not that surprising that ms didn't either. It's not like it was being developed in house.

 

[Doctor Hades]

Unless GamePass subscriptions increase through PC users then Microsoft obviously need to sell a lot more Xbox consoles. The problem on PC is that most PC users hate the Xbox app and Windows Store because the actual apps are poorly designed and prone to breaking, whether during the initial downloads or during patching.

They've improved it a bit but it still lags way behind the convenience of Steam for example. I speak from personal experience where I actually ended up buying some games on Steam because I had so many issues with the GamePass versions corrupting and so. (And before anyone blames my PC, I have around 800 games installed across Steam, EA, UbiSoft, Battle.net and Epic and have no issues with any of those at all, it's just the Microsoft apps. I have not had a single Windows crash and games run stable as well so it is nothing to do with my system or storage, which use the same drives as the GamePass games. I suspect it is an issue with the way games are encrypted by Microsoft that is more prone to breaking. There is also no reliable way to verify game files and, god forbid, you get one of those horrid cryptic 0x error codes.)

Also, I feel Xbox has a bit of an brand identification issue. Part of this is due to their lack of commitment to releasing a steady flow of high quality exclusives since Xbox One but I also think it is the Microsoft name itself that drags Xbox down. Microsoft are well-known for being that "bland corporation that releases Windows" and they lack the 'cool' videogame vibe that Sony and Nintendo have well-established by now, through years of creating various iconic characters and franchises. Sony make movies and TVs and so on as well as games, Nintendo are purely a games company. Both are highly regarded by gamers. Xbox, I feel not so much, outside of their home territory. It doesn't help either that Xbox seems to suffer from poor management. I don't think Phil Spencer is a good fit for Xbox personally. Xbox is now in its fourth generation and yet it is still in third place behind Sony and Nintendo. Sure, there is always going to be someone in third place (unless someone drops out of the console market...) but Xbox lost all the momentum they built up with the Xbox 360 when they unveiled the Xbox One and have struggled to come back since. Buying every games company in existence isn't the answer to their problems but they seem to think, from the leak, that it is the only way to make GamePass appealing.

GamePass is only as good as the games and most current releases compromise of indie releases and third-party stuff that you can play on other systems and services anyway so once the initial buzz of having a large library to choose from wears off and you've tried all the stuff you want then its value drops significantly. It is exactly like NetFlix really. I subscribe to that but now find that it has very little of offer except the odd new release. That is also true of GamePass. Also, games are removed and added constantly, they're not available permanently, meaning that you aren't always guaranteed to be able to play your favourite games unless you then buy them.

I currently subscribe to GamePass Ultimate for PC and Xbox Series X but I am seriously considering cancelling it because I really don't use it much. I'd rather just buy the game I want on PC instead, which I can get from a third-party key seller.

 

[CeeJay]

If every game's value is tied only to its ability to drive subscriptions, what happens to the traditional gaming market? Microsoft once praised the idea that Game Pass would offer players more variety, but if this trend continues, it could end up stifling the very creativity and variety it promised to champion.

This reads like the FUD posts we were seeing about Gamepass in it's infancy. The service has now been running for over 6 years and we are still seeing loads of variety coming through. Even with just the first party titles, variety hasn't been an issue for quite a long time with games being released in many different genres for very different tastes. Microsoft's single biggest issue is that they haven't managed to release a real standout game in a mainstream genre that is GOTY material. They have however managed to push out some real standouts in niche genres such as RTS, Flight Sim, Racing, RPG.

AOE, Flight Sim, Forza, Wasteland, Outer Worlds, Psychonauts to name a few are all really high quality games from the last couple of years but are not in genres that win GOTY. That prejudice runs strong and for some reason the great games that MS do release seem to get disregarded whilst Spiderman, GOW, Horizon, Last of Us that all follow a much more homogenised formula get way more widespread adulation and recognition.

 

[64bitmodels]

Nah. I would still not like it even if other companies do it.

It’s simply unsustainable. Xbox is actually the only one capable of doing gamepass because of Microsoft and still it isn’t as good as what it was envisioned.

You underestimate the amount of investment needed for a loss leading strategy like this to be pulled off.

one major aspect of a subscription service is getting good games on the service. Microsoft can't identify a good game, and even if they could they're not willing to bargain to get it on GP day one.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I think they are confused and keep changing course. We've seen it for years. For example, if you believe the 75/25 split in favour of the Series S. Ask yourself this question, is it a manufactoring issue and supply issue? or does ther Series S make more sinse for their GamePass mantra? Their entire brand and marketing is all about GamePass. So why do they need to compete with Sony and hardware power? Why wouldn't they double down and push the Series S harder, which is a capable box and supports Gamepass. Maybe there is some truth to the Series X being their pro console, but that's not marketed clearly.

Gamepass is everything to them, drop out of the power race, settle between PS5 and Switch, closer to PS5. Let developers worry about just the S and get more out of it. Become that companion console and senisble option. I think it's a lesson to Micrsoft, that power isn't everything. They have PC gamepass for power users. The hardware chase seems counterintuitive for Gamepass.

But you don't even know the margins for XSS and XSX.

And as someone said if GP stalls out, you aren't creating as many new users for GP.

I don't think doubling down on the Series S is the strategy you think it is.

If the XSX didn't exist you'd actually have fewer people buying XSS too.

When people buy a console, they're buying into an ecosystem.

What you'd end up getting is people would make PS5 games and then eventually port them to Series S if at all. I don't remember a time where the lower selling console and lower powered console is what the industry focused on for development.

 

[Dr_Ifto]

There is 3 things to think about with the cost of GamePass

1) Cost to run the service
2) Cost to put 3rd party games on the service
3) Cost to put 1st party games on the service (Development cost of the game)

Then, there are a few things to think about that having GamePass does

1) Loss of revenue from not selling 3rd party games
2) Loss of revenue from not selling 1st party games

After that, you have to formulate the following:

• GP Revenue - (Costs + Loss)

I am sure GP runs at a profit, but it is subsidized by XBOX writing off the loss of revenue, and they only factoring the following:

• GP Revenue - Cost

They are taking the "theoretical" loss in the other department to make GamePass look better than it is. That "theoretical" loss is sales that now never happen. Any sales they do make would be attributed to a different department than GP as well.

edit: hit the button early. I think that a GP model is not sustainable unless you have a company willing to eat away at their profits, and Sony cant do that. If I was a board member for MS, I would be asking why they are taking such a huge hit there.

 

[ByWatterson]

Because with the traditional model you need to deliver on day 1.

And the traditional model asks people to pay once. Subs ask you to pay constantly. So single-player titles are almost inherently incompatible with a subscription service over time.

 

[Unknown?]

I think we all should embrace GNU/Linux

We should! Why use an operating system that spy's on you, like Windows. Cortana is a straight up keylogger, which we all used to call malware.

 

[quest]

And the traditional model asks people to pay once. Subs ask you to pay constantly. So single-player titles are almost inherently incompatible with a subscription service over time.

Its the opposite single player games are perfect for subscribers. Gaas kills subscribers because if a person only plays 1 game they just pay for the 1 game. Subscriptions are valuable for the variety and playing lota of different games.

 

[adamsapple]

What do you folks think?

I think there's one too many reactionary threads.

 

[twilo99]

You underestimate the amount of investment needed for a loss leading strategy like this to be pulled off.

They seem to think that ~100 billion USD would be enough but we will have to wait and see what happens post Activision.

 

[FalsettoVibe]

The first 20 minutes of this are golden.





He's not hating on GP. In fact he roots for MS success. He is just stating facts and mentions a lot of the same concerns as the OP.

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

Notice how this poster makes threads: they preach a sermon as a blanket statement, then never discuss it with the posters who post in it. Not to mention that avatar is old as madonna. They've been using it in other forums for twenty years or so now.

 

[Salty Popsicle]

Because with the traditional model you need to deliver on day 1.

That's obviously not true when you have scenarios like Cyberpunk 2077 or No Man's Sky where the games were released in unacceptable condition and remained so for many months after release until patches and major updates were made available.

 

[DeaDPo0L84]

Gamepass is shit, anyone who thinks this model is sustainable and should be mirrored by other companies is objectively wrong. If it was some lightning in a bottle idea that Microsoft stumbled upon then other companies would be racing to copy them, that is not happening cause other businesses are actually ran well and not by a bunch of people throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

It's already having an impact.

The recent Unity pricing changes were a result of Unity seeing a rise in the distribution of Unity-based indie games through subscription services like GP versus discrete game sales.

Expect to see this trend continue with indies having an increasingly hard time selling indie games when services like GP devalue all games but have a disproportionate impact on smaller A and AA indie games.

The moment indies start being designed for player engagement metrics, instead of providing a quality, self-contained experience that justifies an upfront purchase, that's when you will lose entirely all the creativity, originality, and benefits of the indie A and AA categories as a testbed of ideas for AAA games. At that point, AAA games will all converge to a small subset of uber-popular genres that promote multiplayer, MTXs, and other such horeshit.

 

[Salty Popsicle]

And the traditional model asks people to pay once. Subs ask you to pay constantly. So single-player titles are almost inherently incompatible with a subscription service over time.

Was it Microsoft or Sony who is currently investing heavily in GAAS first party titles? I can't seem to recall...

https://videogamesrepublic.com/sony-wants-to-become-a-gaas-factory-10-service-games-before-2026/

"To use an expression that one of our faithful readers found: a real “GaaS factory” is looming. In its latest conference with investors, the Sony group confirmed its plans for the game-services area. By 2026, the company expects to be able to release 10 new titles in the live-service form."

 

[tr1p1ex]

Great games are great for gamers.

Gamepass is really just a store at the end of the day. One that currently gets lots of love because it loses money to bring the customer low prices.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Oh shit did I make a new thread format?

And my initial take is: Will investors start demanding actual numbers like you mention here? How long can MS get away with not only not reporting Gamepass subs, but not even game division profit? Crazy to me.

Why would investors care what product line profitability is when MS has never even stated what Windows and MS Office profits are? It gets all rolled up into silos. Same with Apple. They dont publicly state what the profits are for phones, Macs, watches are either. It's lumped into one massive number.

A bigger issue is why Sony is not disclosing PS+ subs anymore going forward when they've openly reported them since the beginning.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Gamepass is shit, anyone who thinks this model is sustainable and should be mirrored by other companies is objectively wrong. If it was some lightning in a bottle idea that Microsoft stumbled upon then other companies would be racing to copy them, that is not happening cause other businesses are actually ran well and not by a bunch of people throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.

Great service. I've done 6 years worth for dirt cheap. I'll let MS and their accountants worry about if they can afford to do it with the company's $60 billion profit per year.

Better than paying for worse sub services at a 33% price hike with zero day one games or big promo discounts. One service cant even do PC games or old console games unless it's streamed.

 

[poppabk]

And the traditional model asks people to pay once. Subs ask you to pay constantly. So single-player titles are almost inherently incompatible with a subscription service over time.

Take a look at Starfield player numbers vs subscribers. You think over 15 million subscribers have absolutely no interest in Starfield to even try it out? Subscription services survive on catalog content not the hype from a new release - Netflix lost subscribers at the same time as they released a new season of Stranger Things, Seinfeld and Friends are making hundreds of millions of dollars streaming deals. Games are slightly different in that the tech advances ‐ but single player games are going to be thr lifeblood of any subscription service.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

And the traditional model asks people to pay once. Subs ask you to pay constantly. So single-player titles are almost inherently incompatible with a subscription service over time.

And add up the price of all the SP games and it'll be way more than a sub plan.

For all the anti-sub plan gamers, just think of it like your NF or Spotify sub. Instead of paying $12/mth, feel free to buy all the TV shows, movies and $1 songs one by one. You can do that if you really wanted to. Most content can be bought on physical media or as a digital download.

I bet almost all people havent bought a movie disc or even a $1 song in a decade.

 

[FalsettoVibe]

A bigger issue is why Sony is not disclosing PS+ subs anymore going forward when they've openly reported them since the beginning.

Its is absolutely not the bigger issue....and also not even what this thread is about. MS has built their ENTIRE business model around GamePass. Sony on the other hand has not. PS Plus is complimentary to their traditional model. GP is front and center and therefore makes it way more important (to MS).

And add up the price of all the SP games and it'll be way more than a sub plan.

For all the anti-sub plan gamers, just think of it like your NF or Spotify sub. Instead of paying $12/mth, feel free to buy all the TV shows, movies and $1 songs one by one. You can do that if you really wanted to. Most content can be bought on physical media or as a digital download.

I bet almost all people havent bought a movie disc or even a $1 song in a decade.

Which somewhat validates the OP and the first 20 minutes of the video I posted earlier in the thread. No matter what fud you hear from Phil and team through the media, it is not sustainable. Especially after hearing the leaked info that came out here recently.

 

[poppabk]

Gamepass is shit, anyone who thinks this model is sustainable and should be mirrored by other companies is objectively wrong. If it was some lightning in a bottle idea that Microsoft stumbled upon then other companies would be racing to copy them, that is not happening cause other businesses are actually ran well and not by a bunch of people throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.

Don't Sony have a subscription service and Nintendo have a half assed one? Don't EA and Ubisoft have subscription services?
A sustainable model isn't always going to be the most profitable and the most profitable model for one company isn't going to be the most profitable for a different company.