• 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.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Xbox Removes Yearly XBL Gold Subscription | Is Free Multiplayer Coming?

Is Free Multiplayer Coming to Xbox?

  • Yes

    Votes: 101 28.9%
  • No Way

    Votes: 249 71.1%

  • Total voters
    350
Status
Not open for further replies.

Agent X

Member
Jun 7, 2004
8,154
1,387
1,720
New Jersey
Second, you don't know how Sony feel about PS Now. Do you really think they're happy MS can boast asking five times more subscribers for their younger service? Do you think they're happy about all the Future of Gaming articles?

I don't think they really care about the "number of subscribers", especially since it's apparent that the majority got in on the frequent "dollar deals" Microsoft was running. They're more concerned about revenue and profit, rather than cheaply padding the "volume" statistic and pinning hopes on the notion that the users don't flee once full price kicks in.

You've written a lot here to basically agree with me.

But I'm sorry, its much too early to worry about barred DLC. The idea that Microsoft will poison the chalice but Sony... Won't? Will, but Microsoft will do it first?

Either way, its just not relevant now. Nothing ever moves forward if you're scared about how bad actors might take advantage. Presume the best and react when there's something wrong to react to.

I hope that neither party poisons the chalice. But Microsoft has a track record of executing such moves whenever they have a captive audience (or at least perceive that they have one).

Case in point: About a decade ago, when Netflix first offered streaming video services, Xbox 360 was one of the only devices that supported it, aside from PCs and maybe one or two other obscure devices). Sensing that they had "no competition" in the space under the TV set, Microsoft struck a deal to keep the service exclusive to their console for two years...and then proceeded to force Xbox 360 users to pay for an Xbox Live Gold subscription merely to have access to the Netflix app. (This was in addition to Netflix's fee...so these customers had to pay two fees.)

Even after the exclusivity period ran out, and the service became available to PS and Wii without paying an additional fee to the console manufacturer, Microsoft still kept their fee for a while. It was only that after published reports came out that Wii and PS3 became much more popular devices for Netflix viewing, that Microsoft finally removed the Xbox Live Gold requirement. They weren't acting out of generosity, but rather as an attempt to save face and prevent even more of their users from jumping ship.
 

Mmnow

Member
Jun 16, 2020
1,025
1,713
370
I don't think they really care about the "number of subscribers", especially since it's apparent that the majority got in on the frequent "dollar deals" Microsoft was running. They're more concerned about revenue and profit, rather than cheaply padding the "volume" statistic and pinning hopes on the notion that the users don't flee once full price kicks in.

We're going to fundamentally disagree on this, so I don't see much to gain from us toing and froing over details. What I will say is this: Sony isn't a forum fanboy - their execs don't spend all day reframing their rival's successes as losses.

You can bet your bottom dollar that between now and launch, PS Now will get a rehaul, and if not a big one, then certainly in that direction. If Gamepass IS the future of gaming, and we'll disagree on that, Sony won't want to be left on the starting line when it gets confirmed.

And if it isn't the future of gaming, well then they'll have improved a service that currently gives them little good PR.

I hope that neither party poisons the chalice. But Microsoft has a track record of executing such moves whenever they have a captive audience (or at least perceive that they have one).

Case in point: About a decade ago, when Netflix first offered streaming video services, Xbox 360 was one of the only devices that supported it, aside from PCs and maybe one or two other obscure devices). Sensing that they had "no competition" in the space under the TV set, Microsoft struck a deal to keep the service exclusive to their console for two years...and then proceeded to force Xbox 360 users to pay for an Xbox Live Gold subscription merely to have access to the Netflix app. (This was in addition to Netflix's fee...so these customers had to pay two fees.)

Even after the exclusivity period ran out, and the service became available to PS and Wii without paying an additional fee to the console manufacturer, Microsoft still kept their fee for a while. It was only that after published reports came out that Wii and PS3 became much more popular devices for Netflix viewing, that Microsoft finally removed the Xbox Live Gold requirement. They weren't acting out of generosity, but rather as an attempt to save face and prevent even more of their users from jumping ship.

I think if we're looking to a decade ago, we could find dozens of anti - consumer moves from all of the big 3. I just don't see the value in presuming the worst.

Ms are playing up their pro consumerism, and rightly so. Its only because they feel they're on the cusp of a brand new and very profitable revenue stream. Enjoy a games company not nickel and diming you for a change, and hope that it lasts.
 

reinking

Member
Jun 1, 2020
1,323
1,962
445
I bet they're just going to unite Live and Pass.
I believe this is the most likely scenario. They removed a discount price for Gold that brings it in line with console only Game Pass. If they make online play free many people will opt to play online free and not bother with Game Pass which takes them out of Microsoft online services. If they roll people from Gold to Game Pass they are going to streamline their services, significantly increase Game Pass numbers (which helps in negotiations) and bring a value to those that they convert. I do not see Microsoft leaving the money on the table or more importantly risk shrinking the number of users on their services.
 
Last edited:

CuteFaceJay

Member
Sep 11, 2019
1,951
1,241
420
If this is actually happening that would for sure give folks reasons to buy into the xbox platform. can't wait to see what is going to happen on 23rd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Punkster88

Agent X

Member
Jun 7, 2004
8,154
1,387
1,720
New Jersey
We're going to fundamentally disagree on this, so I don't see much to gain from us toing and froing over details. What I will say is this: Sony isn't a forum fanboy - their execs don't spend all day reframing their rival's successes as losses.

Once again, I don't think we're in disagreement. I'm sure Sony knows what's going on behind the scenes of their own service: how much money they're laying out, and how much money they're pulling in. They don't have to win every battle (or every statistic), they'll just aim to win the ones that matter most to achieving a successful business. The same is true of Microsoft.

You can bet your bottom dollar that between now and launch, PS Now will get a rehaul, and if not a big one, then certainly in that direction. If Gamepass IS the future of gaming, and we'll disagree on that, Sony won't want to be left on the starting line when it gets confirmed.

As a subscriber to PS Now for over 4 years, I agree that there are several aspects of the service that could stand to improve.

I don't feel that Sony needs to have a carbon copy Xbox Game Pass. There are certainly some aspects of Xbox Game Pass that are worth adopting, but not all of them. There are also certain features that both services are lacking, which need attention from both companies.

I think if we're looking to a decade ago, we could find dozens of anti - consumer moves from all of the big 3. I just don't see the value in presuming the worst.

Ms are playing up their pro consumerism, and rightly so. Its only because they feel they're on the cusp of a brand new and very profitable revenue stream. Enjoy a games company not nickel and diming you for a change, and hope that it lasts.

There are skeletons in all of their closets. I chose that example because it's resembles the situation that some people are proposing--specifically, trying to transition users from a lower-cost service to a higher-cost service, phasing out the lower-cost option, and then (once they're locked in with no other choice) hoping they'll continue to pay the higher price to avoid losing features that were previously cheaper or free (or are free on other platforms). From the consumer perspective, this is not something that you should root for, thus my comment "Be careful what you wish for" (which, BTW, was not aimed at you specifically, but the forum readership in general).

Let's hope this isn't what's actually happening...


My point exactly.
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: Mmnow

xStoyax

posts out of context tweets for attention
Oct 29, 2017
608
2,491
780
Another one comes out to say free online is coming
 

Bogroll

Likes moldy games
Jan 25, 2018
2,043
1,861
555
England
A wild guess for a bit of fun. Console £200 then some sort of subscription model.
Or maybe the 12 month option has gone to subsidized for a cheaper box.
 
Last edited:

newtypepilot

Member
Aug 19, 2015
2,891
1,323
605
zero chance they bring back free online multiplayer. It's easy revenue. They are the reason this is industry standard in the first place.

Most likely they'll integrate it with Game Pass to extract more money per customer.
 
Aug 21, 2018
1,286
817
460
zero chance they bring back free online multiplayer. It's easy revenue. They are the reason this is industry standard in the first place.

Most likely they'll integrate it with Game Pass to extract more money per customer.
gamepass ultimate is pretty expensive..people do not want to pay more than 40-50 for online.
 

Ozzie666

Member
Jun 27, 2020
646
623
295
I'm sure they've done the math. As nice as that piece of membership pie is, I believe much more is made taking 30% from all purchases. Free subscription, or partly, would probably come back 10 fold in software/currency purchases.

It's a gamble to be sure.
 

wolffy71

Member
Feb 19, 2014
723
651
555
Id bet they are just honna rework the tiers of game pass pricing wise. So they wont want people to subscribe now beforehand.

Probably a higher priced tier for an all encompassing tier. And maybe some discounted version with the all digital console. But they arent losing monthly gold cash unless they are crazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CatLady

wolffy71

Member
Feb 19, 2014
723
651
555
I don't think they really care about the "number of subscribers", especially since it's apparent that the majority got in on the frequent "dollar deals" Microsoft was running. They're more concerned about revenue and profit, rather than cheaply padding the "volume" statistic and pinning hopes on the notion that the users don't flee once full price kicks in.



I hope that neither party poisons the chalice. But Microsoft has a track record of executing such moves whenever they have a captive audience (or at least perceive that they have one).

Case in point: About a decade ago, when Netflix first offered streaming video services, Xbox 360 was one of the only devices that supported it, aside from PCs and maybe one or two other obscure devices). Sensing that they had "no competition" in the space under the TV set, Microsoft struck a deal to keep the service exclusive to their console for two years...and then proceeded to force Xbox 360 users to pay for an Xbox Live Gold subscription merely to have access to the Netflix app. (This was in addition to Netflix's fee...so these customers had to pay two fees.)

Even after the exclusivity period ran out, and the service became available to PS and Wii without paying an additional fee to the console manufacturer, Microsoft still kept their fee for a while. It was only that after published reports came out that Wii and PS3 became much more popular devices for Netflix viewing, that Microsoft finally removed the Xbox Live Gold requirement. They weren't acting out of generosity, but rather as an attempt to save face and prevent even more of their users from jumping ship.
The fee is use the live ecosystem, its not that hard to conceive.
 

jshackles

Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
Jul 2, 2013
18,410
21,105
1,455
Oregon
Getting rid of Xbox Live Gold makes sense for a lot of reasons
  • They have a new, more universally loved subscription service (Game Pass) and they don't want to confuse consumers
  • "Games With Gold" (four free games every month) is actually somewhat of a hindrance to Game Pass long term growth. The longer you're subscribed to Gold, the bigger your library of available games gets - and they can't remove them like they can on Game Pass. Long term subscribers to Gold will have less reason to want to subscribe to Game Pass.
  • "Games With Gold" pt 2 - Users will expect to get free Xbox Series X games on the service when the console launches, and Microsoft would rather they just use Game Pass for this purpose
  • "Games With Gold" pt 3 - Currently you get two BC games every month, and they're yours to keep forever. This was (from my understanding) a limitation with the digital storefront. My guess is with the store re-launch, where OG Xbox and 360 games are "modernized", they won't want to do this any more.
  • Getting rid of the Gold requirement for online multiplayer brings feature parity with PC, something they've been pushing a lot lately.
  • "Deals With Gold" could easily be phased out by having weekly store discounts available to everyone. Game Pass subscribers already get store discounts on Game Pass games.
  • This will generate a lot of goodwill, and will make the total cost of ownership for the PS5 seem much higher by comparison
 
Last edited:

Dee Dah Dave

Member
Nov 24, 2013
6,560
2,760
745
England, UK
Yeah I think they are going to do it, and to offset the initial loss of revenue they will bump the price of both Gamepass subs.

The value of Gamepass keeps increasing over time so it’s not unreasonable to bump the price a bit now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HerjansEagleFeeder

Nikana

Go Go Neo Rangers!
Jan 26, 2016
11,620
16,564
915
Getting rid of Xbox Live Gold makes sense for a lot of reasons
  • They have a new, more universally loved subscription service (Game Pass) and they don't want to confuse consumers
  • "Games With Gold" (four free games every month) is actually somewhat of a hindrance to Game Pass long term growth. The longer you're subscribed to Gold, the bigger your library of available games gets - and they can't remove them like they can on Game Pass. Long term subscribers to Gold will have less reason to want to subscribe to Game Pass.
  • "Games With Gold" pt 2 - Users will expect to get free Xbox Series X games on the service when the console launches, and Microsoft would rather they just use Game Pass for this purpose
  • "Games With Gold" pt 3 - Currently you get two BC games every month, and they're yours to keep forever. This was (from my understanding) a limitation with the digital storefront. My guess is with the store re-launch, where OG Xbox and 360 games are "modernized", they won't want to do this any more.
  • Getting rid of the Gold requirement for online multiplayer brings feature parity with PC, something they've been pushing a lot lately.
  • "Deals With Gold" could easily be phased out by having weekly store discounts available to everyone. Game Pass subscribers already get store discounts on Game Pass games.
  • This will generate a lot of goodwill, and will make the total cost of ownership for the PS5 seem much higher by comparison

Carrying GWG over to Series X is actually a really good point. removing that I have to imagine would make someones job a lot easier to not have to negotiate GP along with GWG,
 
Last edited:

Xoul

Neo Member
Jun 30, 2020
2
22
105
I think they automatically convert everyone’s gold membership to Gamepass and hope people don’t cancel. Give them a taste and hope it sticks, especially like the $1 conversion deals, I have 3 years of ultimate for like $100 because of that.

anyways if they’re real about their services direction, Online multiplayer needs to be free, push gamepass hard, convert remaining gold to gamepass.

more people use your platform, more revenue from MTX in games like fortnite, more users could create more digital revenue in theory and youget goodwill ingamers minds.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
9,326
10,430
980
I did not see this week. Holy smokes if they drop the multiplayer pay wall. That would be a HUGE marketing point / potential value proposition for players. On the flip side, if they effectively raise the price by including it with gamepass, that would be a huge turn off for a lot of people. At least if they know in advance.

Very interested to see where this goes. If they do drop the pay wall altogether, I'm gonna feel like a cat watching a tennis match with my head snapping back and forth regarding what to pick up next gen.
 

01011001

Member
Dec 4, 2018
8,208
12,829
620
Gold has to go, it's pretty obvious. they have to unite PC and Xbox and can't artificially make one side of their customer base pay to play online.

also the amount of different subscriptions will get confusing.

IMO, it becomes more and more likely the more you think about it.
 
Apr 25, 2012
1,158
2,167
960
Berlin, Germany
Free multiplayer on consoles? I almost forgot that it was a thing someday...
It's sooo fun to crossplay with people on xbox and ask them why the servers work for me even though I'm not paying.

/edit: this made me sound like a douche.
I just talked to a couple of friends about it and it felt like for the first time they realized they were not treated fairly.
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: Bonfires Down

jshackles

Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
Jul 2, 2013
18,410
21,105
1,455
Oregon
Microsoft already has free cloud saves (a feature that Team Blue has to pay for). Free Xbox online multiplayer already exists for PC, and other companies like Valve have been operating this type of infrastructure (for free*) with huge success. There is no reason to believe a company the size of Microsoft, which is already heavily invested in cloud infrastructure to the point of Sony paying them to use it, would need to subsidize that cost any more like they would have had to 15 years ago. These servers are now being subsidized by Azure, Office 365, and Game Pass subscriptions.

The rest of the Xbox Live Gold perks (Games with Gold, Deals with Gold) are easily sunsetted to Microsoft's benefit. Honestly, free online multiplayer is absolutely the right move for Microsoft going forward.
 
  • Like
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Nikana and NickFire

quest

Not Banned from OT
Jul 17, 2004
6,212
3,214
1,695
With using xcloud more next generation it makes sense to remove multiplayer from gold but replace it with xcloud access. Then ultimate can still make sense and give them good revenue from xcloud users with out pissing off others who don't use it. Use it get gold or ultimate if not your not your worry. Give gold users option of 50% months to gamepass on remaining months if they don't like the xcloud.
 

LarknThe4th

Member
May 19, 2020
1,241
1,204
475
I mean I see how that would help them sell more boxes, but everything Microsoft have been doing for the last two years or so has been to shift to a subscription model above even getting there boxes underneath TVs around the world
 

quest

Not Banned from OT
Jul 17, 2004
6,212
3,214
1,695
I would be really surprised if Microsoft does make multiplayer free.
Think shocked would be more like. Mostly because it would make almost no difference in sales. Free multiplayer won't convince hardly anyone to move especially in Microsoft's worst area's main land EU abe the east. Be throwing money away for little gain. Spending the gold money on worthwhile studios would sell more consoles.

I mean I see how that would help them sell more boxes, but everything Microsoft have been doing for the last two years or so has been to shift to a subscription model above even getting there boxes underneath TVs around the world
Having boxes under the tv sells subscriptions. PC users don't want it since lord gabe does not get a cut. Samsung tv owns won't care. The whole does not caring about selling boxes is laughable. Its taking things out of context to concern troll.
 

LarknThe4th

Member
May 19, 2020
1,241
1,204
475
Think shocked would be more like. Mostly because it would make almost no difference in sales. Free multiplayer won't convince hardly anyone to move especially in Microsoft's worst area's main land EU abe the east. Be throwing money away for little gain. Spending the gold money on worthwhile studios would sell more consoles.


Having boxes under the tv sells subscriptions. PC users don't want it since lord gabe does not get a cut. Samsung tv owns won't care. The whole does not caring about selling boxes is laughable. Its taking things out of context to concern troll.

I'm not trolling 😂😂


I said "above even selling boxes" I didnt say they didnt care about selling consoles they obviously do

I'm asking a question, Microsoft want to be everywhere and their subscriptions are at the centre of everything and that plan goes beyond their hardware, it doesn't exclude it
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
9,326
10,430
980
Think shocked would be more like. Mostly because it would make almost no difference in sales. Free multiplayer won't convince hardly anyone to move especially in Microsoft's worst area's main land EU abe the east. Be throwing money away for little gain. Spending the gold money on worthwhile studios would sell more consoles.

I don't know about that. If all other things are equal (or Xbox is cheaper), a bright sticker / box ad regarding free multiplayer would be a huge deal for people, especially parents, IMO. Any household with two systems would save 120 a year, paying for the console after a while.
 

jshackles

Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
Jul 2, 2013
18,410
21,105
1,455
Oregon
I'm asking a question, Microsoft want to be everywhere and their subscriptions are at the centre of everything and that plan goes beyond their hardware, it doesn't exclude it
Microsoft definitely still wants to sell / focus on subscriptions though. They're just looking at all of the features they have currently and what they charge money for
  • Online multiplayer (Gold)
  • Four free games every month (Gold)
  • Subscriber-only discounts (Gold)
  • Catalog of console games (Game Pass)
  • Catalog of PC games (Game Pass PC)
  • Subscriber-only discounts (Game Pass)
  • Game Streaming (XCloud)
  • Rent-to-own console (All Access)
They have already announced that XCloud will be part of Game Pass subscriptions. As I mentioned above the Gold stuff could all be cut out of their service catalog by discontinuing the Games with Gold and Deals with Gold programs and providing people free online multiplayer. So that leaves two subscription services - Game Pass and All Access - both of which they're currently pushing hard. The All Access sub also includes Game Pass already, so it's not like you have to subscribe to multiple things.

Honestly, owning an Xbox without subscribing to Game Pass should almost be a crime at this point. If they just converted everyone's existing subscription from Gold -> Game Pass while offering free online, I feel like most people would be pretty happy with that. It would also entice a whole lot of customers to buy an Xbox this Christmas instead of a PS5.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LarknThe4th

LarknThe4th

Member
May 19, 2020
1,241
1,204
475
Microsoft definitely still wants to sell / focus on subscriptions though. They're just looking at all of the features they have currently and what they charge money for
  • Online multiplayer (Gold)
  • Four free games every month (Gold)
  • Subscriber-only discounts (Gold)
  • Catalog of console games (Game Pass)
  • Catalog of PC games (Game Pass PC)
  • Subscriber-only discounts (Game Pass)
  • Game Streaming (XCloud)
  • Rent-to-own console (All Access)
They have already announced that XCloud will be part of Game Pass subscriptions. As I mentioned above the Gold stuff could all be cut out of their service catalog by discontinuing the Games with Gold and Deals with Gold programs and providing people free online multiplayer. So that leaves two subscription services - Game Pass and All Access - both of which they're currently pushing hard. The All Access sub also includes Game Pass already, so it's not like you have to subscribe to multiple things.

Honestly, owning an Xbox without subscribing to Game Pass should almost be a crime at this point. If they just converted everyone's existing subscription from Gold -> Game Pass while offering free online, I feel like most people would be pretty happy with that. It would also entice a whole lot of customers to buy an Xbox this Christmas instead of a PS5.
So in effect they sort of direct the flow of revenue from Gold into a wider more encompassing "Next Gen" version of Gamepass, And jettison the Gold branding?

For me that would be interesting I've never had Gold, but I'm in love with Gamepass and wouldn't mind paying a bit more for it if they sweeten the pot a little bit honestly
 

quest

Not Banned from OT
Jul 17, 2004
6,212
3,214
1,695
I don't know about that. If all other things are equal (or Xbox is cheaper), a bright sticker / box ad regarding free multiplayer would be a huge deal for people, especially parents, IMO. Any household with two systems would save 120 a year, paying for the console after a while.
The mainland EU kept the ps3 afloat when it launched. Sony did everything but poop in the box but the mainland EU ate it up. The only reason we got humbled Sony was UK and the America's told Sony to get bent when presented with a shit sandwich. That loyalty is unbreakable. Sony could double psn fees in the mainland EU and Microsoft could go free and it make zero difference. That territory has blind loyalty.

I'm not trolling 😂😂


I said "above even selling boxes" I didnt say they didnt care about selling consoles they obviously do

I'm asking a question, Microsoft want to be everywhere and their subscriptions are at the centre of everything and that plan goes beyond their hardware, it doesn't exclude it
The goes beyond hardware is just being a company early to the game. They know xcloud is a supplement to current gaming. If that changes they are there to take market share. A box under the tv will drive subscriptions for at least the next 5 years. It is all about not being late to the game if cloud gaming takes off.
 

GlassAwful

Member
Dec 4, 2016
725
976
385
Initially I didn't believe this but after thinking too hard about I think I can see the reasoning.

MS is about to expand the Xbox ecosystem to just about every device you have access to. Gamepass and xcloud are coming to a phone, tablet, firetv, apple tv, and TV Ui near you over the next year.

They couldn't get away with charging for Xbox Live on PC and they know the uptake likely wouldn't fly on other devices as well, so they need a single subscription option that isn't ridiculously priced to capture the masses. They couldn't then leave punishing the diehards that buy their console by sticking them with an additional paywall that others won't have.

Doing this also has a side benefit of looking pro consumer and gaining additional good will to the brand.

So I believe it may actually happen, which is the first exciting thing I've heard about nextgen in a long time. Shit, I just jinxed it didn't I?
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: jshackles

LarknThe4th

Member
May 19, 2020
1,241
1,204
475
The mainland EU kept the ps3 afloat when it launched. Sony did everything but poop in the box but the mainland EU ate it up. The only reason we got humbled Sony was UK and the America's told Sony to get bent when presented with a shit sandwich. That loyalty is unbreakable. Sony could double psn fees in the mainland EU and Microsoft could go free and it make zero difference. That territory has blind loyalty.


The goes beyond hardware is just being a company early to the game. They know xcloud is a supplement to current gaming. If that changes they are there to take market share. A box under the tv will drive subscriptions for at least the next 5 years. It is all about not being late to the game if cloud gaming takes off.
Oh I agree, I feel they are being very forward thinking and are taking some risks to carve out a new frontier in the industry(streaming/subscription)

If it pays off in concert with bulking up the 1st party studios which they are, then the are a force in a whole new field of the industry.

I'm just interested whether the pivot is very pronounced like for instance them dropping bombs like "free online and it starts right now!" Or if it will be gradual like it has been to this point(on the front end at least, back end Microsoft have been looking for new angles on the industry basically since they got into it)
 

Nikana

Go Go Neo Rangers!
Jan 26, 2016
11,620
16,564
915
Oh I agree, I feel they are being very forward thinking and are taking some risks to carve out a new frontier in the industry(streaming/subscription)

If it pays off in concert with bulking up the 1st party studios which they are, then the are a force in a whole new field of the industry.

I'm just interested whether the pivot is very pronounced like for instance them dropping bombs like "free online and it starts right now!" Or if it will be gradual like it has been to this point(on the front end at least, back end Microsoft have been looking for new angles on the industry basically since they got into it)

If its happening I see Halo Infinite launch as being the day. Which is same day as Series X launch.
 

Crimson_Fate

Member
Jun 6, 2013
1,302
1,142
810
Florida
I think it would be a mic-drop for MS to drop the multiplayer gold requirement. If They want to sell a budget console like lockhart , then not having another sub necessary to play a game really makes that decision easy. Its also much more likely that people buy a game or two in its place.

I was planning on going with the PS5 and I don't buy more then one console. But I would actually consider purchasing an xbox this gen for cross-gen & multiplayer and exclusives if they remove gold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: splattered

PaintTinJr

Member
Jan 30, 2020
1,219
2,699
475
Oxfordshire, England
With all the impressive hardware in the new consoles - and historically since the PS3, platform holders have had hypervisors to reserve a fraction of the hardware for their own uses- so with cloud computing being on the rise- is there now an argument that the Gold paywall limits 2nd console sales, limits sales of online focused games and reduces connectivity of consoles that don't pay the subscription - thereby reducing the hardware to freeload cloud computing on?

Between the vast amounts of compute and the bandwidth of the SSD in every XsX and PS5, even borrowing a fraction of these system's resources is some serious compute, free storage, free electric, free internet and premises and cooling to house that compute.
 

lock2k

Banned
Jun 13, 2018
5,971
9,122
645
Brazil
If they removed the paywall it would be like an ultimate troll move. Have a paywall for years, competition follows suit, then they drop it. lmao

But I don't think they will do that. Too much money to leave behind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZywyPL

dave_d

Member
Jan 31, 2005
2,161
847
1,580
I'm just wonder if they actually do this what happens to your Xbox One GwG library. For the 360 and Xbox games those are apparently yours to keep and play even if you're not a subscriber. However they changed things for the Xbox One so it's more like Playstation Plus. You can only play Xbox One games you got from GwG if you're still a gold subscriber.
 

Dee Dah Dave

Member
Nov 24, 2013
6,560
2,760
745
England, UK
It’s supposed to be one ecosystem now and play wherever and however you want. So it’s a bit dumb for only console to have to pay for multi, but PC and xCloud don’t.
 

jshackles

Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
Jul 2, 2013
18,410
21,105
1,455
Oregon
I'm just wonder if they actually do this what happens to your Xbox One GwG library. For the 360 and Xbox games those are apparently yours to keep and play even if you're not a subscriber. However they changed things for the Xbox One so it's more like Playstation Plus. You can only play Xbox One games you got from GwG if you're still a gold subscriber.
The only way I see this working out is if they just grant you a permanent license for all your GwG games for the Xbox One. Otherwise, they could possibly face some legal action and it would absolutely fly in the face of their "doing this for the consumer" mantra they've playing up.
 

lock2k

Banned
Jun 13, 2018
5,971
9,122
645
Brazil
I'm just wonder if they actually do this what happens to your Xbox One GwG library. For the 360 and Xbox games those are apparently yours to keep and play even if you're not a subscriber. However they changed things for the Xbox One so it's more like Playstation Plus. You can only play Xbox One games you got from GwG if you're still a gold subscriber.

This is an excellent question.
 

Wizz-Art

Member
Aug 20, 2012
989
1,737
815
They are 100% not getting rid of something that makes them money securely. Merging it into Game Pass like Game Pass Ultimate has allready been done a year or so ago and a succes. It's leaving money on the table and I don't see Sony or Nintendo to follow suit. They (Sony) announced payed online this gen and they didn't catch any flack at all despite PSN continually being worse then Xbox Live.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.