- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://yiffit.net/post/475688
Xbox Game Pass Core subscribers will get access to a small selection of the games available with the regular/higher tiers of Game Pass, starting with more than 25 games
==========
2 years ago I had to move to a temp place. First evening, I unpacked my PS3 which I hadn’t had time for for a long time. Lots of games on it (and on discs), so I could just sit and play Journey.
Had all my games had been this subscription sort, I’d have nothing.
Now I know you can still buy games - for now, anyway. But since these companies make you pay for multiplayer anyway, it’s an easy upsell for them. Just pay a bit more and you can play so many games… Just pay forever.
You must log in or register to comment.
All of the games on gamepass are available for purchase at reasonable prices. Gamepass is a choice for people that want a wide variety of games to play right now for a reasonable price. Maybe one day sony or Microsoft first party games could become sub only but that seems very unlikely given the relatively high selling price of games compared to Blu rays, cds, books, etc… . It’s too profitable not to offer them for sale.
This is a very silly argument.
Just watch this silly argument become less silly as we first see indie games become exclusive to subs, then an odd MMO, until in 5 years the first MicroVisZard game will be exclusive. There will be outrage of course, but it will die down, people will become tired of protesting, and sub-only games will be the new standard. Just like it always is with every crap these companies pull.
You still didn’t provide any logical reason why anyone wouldn’t also sell the games outright. Please explain the business case for a third party developer to make their game subscription only. First party games I could see this happening with, maybe, although I still find it unlikely. For third party? What benefit would their be for either side of that deal? They would both be limiting their income stream.
The clear benefit is, because Microsoft (or Sony or Nintendo or whoever) will pay them a ton of money.
Just like it always is with any other exclusive contract.
It’s not like that’s not the case already. Stadia had 3rd party exclusives, Apple’s game subscription has exclusives.
You’re missing the entire point of these subscription services. They exist to to keep you paying regardless of whether you use them or not. For them, a one-time investment in a videogame developer is worth it if it marginally helps them to get enough people to forget to cancel.
If you’re not getting it, you’re not familiar with the subscription model, and not familiar with the videogame industry.
Like who do you think is going to decide which games will be sub-only, you? No, you’ll just find one day that a game you were looking forward to get announced as a subscription exclusive.
It’s pointless to argue about shit that’s happened time and time again. If in 5 years there will be less than 20 games exclusive to GamePass, you can come back and call me stupid.
Your arguement is pure speculation and doesn’t reflect the actual economics of game pass.
First of all, the game pass incentive structure clearly does not cover the full cost of game development and revenue expectations. The reason we know this, outside of dev studios saying so, is because every 3rd party game that goes on game pass is only there for a limited period of time. There is no reason to do that unless the game pass incentive structure only covers a fraction of their costs.
So why do they do it? Well, it depends on the studio, but I see two reasons:
- Indie studios do it because it gives them an influx of cash to help with development while providing an instant audience. That said, it’s a gamble because they have to assume that their audience is bigger than game pass - a lot of indies publish on Steam first and then go on Game Pass later to get that sweet sweet pay day.
- Bigger studios will use Game Pass as a marketing tool, sort of like an extended free play weekend with some extra MS cash. The idea is to get people hooked through a “trial” of sorts and offer a game pass exclusive discount during the entire game pass run so that they can buy it to play after the game is off game pass.
Regardless, both strategies assume that a percentage of subscribers will buy the game. If they don’t, well, the player probably wouldn’t have bought it anyway so at least you got something.
1st parties are different, sure, because their games are on game pass forever. However, I’d like to point out that there isn’t a single 1st party Microsoft title that is exclusive to game pass. Even Starfield is still trying to incentivize gamers to buy with early access and funky smart watches. Why would they bother if game pass was enough.
And sure, Microsoft could just pay 3rd parties for their entire development costs to get exclusivity. But consider that to make all games game pass exclusive, not only are they paying for all of their 1st party game development (each AAA is like $200-500m) and then pay the same costs for every 3rd party game, and then pay for the servers to stream them. All of that funded from an $11 - 17 / month subscription. They would be losing money like crazy.
Why the hell would they limit themselves to the cost of subs when they could continue doing what they’re already doing and make money off both subs and purchases and avoid funding all of game development?
So how is it that Amazon has paid a ton of money for Tolkien rights to make a subscription TV show, why did Apple pay a ton of money for Foundation to have an Apple TV subscription show, why does Netflix pay for F1 rights and funds Drive to Survive, a subscription show?
I’m not seeing boxed BRs of these being sold in the millions.
It’s simple and it’s been repeated ad nauseum. Subscriptions are a goldmine. You get someone to buy a thing once, you get money once. You get them to “subscribe”, and you can be squeezing them for years. How do you think WOW has been making all that dough for 20 years? Why is every shitty company doing subscriptions for everything?
Besides, the cost of the game isn’t even important to most releases anymore. The likes of EA, Take 2 Ubisoft make way more on lootboxes and other nonsense. Then why would they not place the core game into a subscription service? They’ll still get paid, in perpetuity no less, have more eyes on the game and even convince people they’re getting a good deal. Fucking genius.
But let’s say you’re right. Let’s say that the only sub exclusives will be 1st party games and never any 3rd party. Isn’t that enough? Instead of paying for Halo or Uncharted or whatever once, you’ll pay for years if you want to play it.
Anyway, I’m out of these discussions.
Ed: ok one more thing after all. Consider what “1st party” means with Microsoft now. Everything from Activision, Blizzard, Bethesda, id Soft and a ton of other companies. Maybe you’re right, why pay for any 3rd party exclusive if they already own everything?
- Streaming video is a completely different market with different rules, different costs, snd different delivery expectations. Also Amazon is well known for deliberately losing money to crowd out markets. Microsoft is not.
- Yes, subscriptions are a gold mine. But we’re not arguing about that. To do what you’re suggesting, they would have to cut off their boxed copy revenue in the vain hope that they can maximize their streaming revenue. But what I’m saying is that its far smarter to offer a subscription to xbox gamers AND continue to reap the boxed copy cash from sony fans and those who don’t buy in. Especially because exclusivity contracts cost waaaayy more than timed streaming deals.
- “Besides, the cost of the game isn’t even important to most releases anymore” - are you actually suggesting that studios and publishers don’t care about money - okay sure.
- “Then why would they not place the core game into a subscription service?” Nobody is arguing that. You’re confused about your own argument. You argued that the likes of EA, Take 2, Ubisoft would exclusively put their games on game pass and agree to not sell boxed copies - and that’s ludicrous.
- “Instead of paying for Halo or Uncharted or whatever once, you’ll pay for years if you want to play it.” Except that’s not what’s happening. You can buy a boxed copy of Halo Infinite if you want. You can buy Uncharted. Nobody is forcing you to “pay forever” for it. You’re paranoid, dude.
- “Maybe you’re right, why pay for any 3rd party exclusive if they already own everything?” Even after the Activision acquisition, they are still a distant 3rd place in marketshare behind Sony and Nintendo. Sony and Nintendo own way more of the gaming market. Is it right that 3 companies own do many studios? No. Is the Activision acquisition a good thing? That’s a complicated question and a complete non-sequitor from your original argument. MS wanted to kill exclusives. Sony made this era all about exclusives. Sony fanboys teased everyone else about their exclusives. Now MS is in the exclusives game snd you’re all crying about it. Be careful what you wish for.
As I said before. If in 5 years there will be fewer than 20 big-name AAA games exclusive to subscription services, you can come back and call me stupid.
Otherwise I’m tired of constantly pointing out how rotten the game industry is (not even singling out M$ here, they just happen to be even worse in other industries as well, so it’s a double whammy), how dumb and evil services like this are, and am also tired of all these arguments.
I don’t mind debating, but if you believe all this will always be great with sweet deals and “free” games and no major subscription exclusives, and MS will be generous out of pure goodness because it’s gonna kill those evil console exclusives, despite how often history repeats itself over and over with the customer always getting fucked, I don’t know what to tell you anymore.
BTW I never complained about platform exclusives. Xbox can have its Halo and Gears and whatnot. Never understood the panic around the Epic launcher either, if people already accept a dozen other launchers.
There’s a difference between having a buying a few studios here and there, and trying to become the same kind of monopolistic behemoth MS wants to be in everything. I actually think Xbox has been a pretty okay brand overall, but the corporation behind it is cancer and one has to be on the lookout around them at all times.
And the other thing I’m strongly against is obvious, I think…
We’re already seeing big name titles come out exclusively digitally, and companies like Bungie charge so much for their games that it might actually be cheaper as a subscription. I don’t think you’re too far off at all.
I wish Memmy supported bookmarking a specific comment because this would be the first one. These predictions are made time and time again and they prove themselves every time. I absolutely believe we will have at least some subscription exclusive games within 5 years, if that.
Subscription only games already exist and have existed for a long time.
Ever heard of World of Warcraft, little known indie game
I guess I was picturing single-player AAA titles
For now at least, I see it as what I used to do back in the good ol’days and rent games from blockbuster. What I don’t like is having to be connected online to play a game. Even though you buy a game online once that service disappears your screwed.
I see it as a library. I pay a fee, I read as many books as I want, I give them back when I am done, I can get them again if I want to.
What I see as a problem is preservation of games. One day they stop providing a download and then these games are gone for good. Books get preserved by the government(s), games rarely.
I also get free (not F2P) games a week on PC, more than I will ever be able to play in my life and good games too. There is no chance my PC will ever be an empty paperweight, especially not because of backwards compatibility and because legally DRM free games (GOG for example, itch.io etc.) exist that you can even download and store yourself so if your internet is down you can still install them.
Subscription services will start to become a problem once one business has a monopoly and Microsoft is on their way there maybe. But I guess it will work how it is with Netflix. First Netflix was good, then everyone wanted to make their own version of Netflix and now people decide more and more to set sail again, because one subscription might be ok, three or more are not anymore. Game Pass, Nintendo, Ubisoft+, EA, …
This is the way I look at it. I sub to Xbox game pass a couple times a year. It’s generally been a dollar but I think they changed that promo recently ish. But I play the game I want for like 3 hours then promptly forget I have game pass. But I always go in and cancel it after buying the first month so no harm no foul there.
The preservation thing is just a problem with all sources of digital media, it seems. Even video isn’t archived nearly as much as books and papers. There are physical copies of things that collectors have in their possession and could archive for historical purposes but don’t because they’re selfish and don’t want to “devalue” their collectible.
I blame Call of Duty & Gears of War & Halo. As soon as people accepted a fee for multiplayer, it was over. I remember thinking “PS3 is gonna win this; who’s gonna pay for Xbox live, no way,” and then people did it.
Admittedly, I like Game Pass lol. It’s awesome for trying out games: I got it to try Psychonauts 2, then bought it, also tried High on Life & decided to skip it.
Considering how few actual gamers seem to have become game devs, it’s only a matter of time before you’re right about not being able to buy games. Just like car seats not heating if you don’t subscribe.
I mean, something like Spotify is the same. I don’t really buy music anymore and if I stopped subscribing then I’d not have access to music… But the quality of the service is good enough and value good enough that I don’t really mind.
Its just a balance of are you getting more value out of it than you’d get just buying games when you want to play them
Music is at least easy to
pirateback up.Games are also easy to pirate if you have a PC
I’ve not been gaming on PC for a while so I won’t judge, but a few years ago it was often quite a nightmare. Has HAWX2 been cracked already? How’s the situation with playing cracked online (non-MMO) games? Can you play anything that comes out?
(I’m not trolling… I’m quite curious actually. I don’t know I’d have the nerves for it today.)
That’s a very unusual game to ask about so I have no idea. Way newer games have been cracked with way worse DRM (Denuvo).
As for playing online I think it depends on the game. Some I believe you can play but only with other pirates. I wouldn’t rely on it.
I don’t get why you would need nurves for it. If you stick to something like FitGirls official website it’s not too risky.
That being said if it’s better for multiplayer games to take advantage of steam sales. For an old game like Hawk2 it probably is only a few quid/dollars to buy.
Well I’m just against all DRM on PC, and wouldn’t be installing, never mind paying for, any of that bloatware like the game launchers.
As I said I don’t know how piracy is now, but a few years ago it was way too annoying, with patches not being cracked or properly distributed and whatnot. Then I also hear Linux isn’t as well supported as I’d like, and I wouldn’t accept W10 on a computer. (My last machine, that’s in storage, still had W7 as a primary with a W10 VM. Yea I know, it was also picky about what to run.)
It just sounds like a whole mess I don’t like dealing with anymore.
Now granted, consoles are getting worse as well, with the discless releases and paid multiplayer and whatnot. But I think it still flies that if I install an old 5 € game, I can disconnect the internet and play that thing offline forever until the consoles rusts to pieces, without the thing constantly bugging me about updates that break my stuff, or my downloaded DLCs becoming “inaccessible”.
I never had a problem with PCs, whether using them, setting them up, pirating or paying for games, but from AssCreed II onward and the onset of shitty launchers, I eventually quit. That HAWX2 I was waiting for years to be cracked, is just pop-in and play on PS3.
And rather than things becoming better, I rather suspect that shit has become normalised that nobody thinks about it anymore.
You don’t pay for launchers. They are free. You also don’t pay for multiplayer. If you don’t want launchers look at DRM free sites like Good Old Games or pirate them.
You can play Steam games without an internet connection. This is just like how consoles are packed with DRM but you can still play them offline. Why would you even think PCs are any different? Like consoles have always had worse DRM.
discless releases and paid multiplayer Paid multiplayer has always been a console thing never a PC thing. Discless releases seem only a good thing to me. Why would I want to wait to go to a store in order to have a game when I can download it at home in a few hours? From what I understand there are still releases where both are an option but frankly I don’t care.
Piracy on PC is very much alive and well outside of multiplayer games.
Have you thought about Windows 10 LTSC? I think that is your best option.
Also we are on Windows 11 now, not 10 as the latest version. Keep up.
There is also the matter of value psychology that’s in play. Of you pay for a title, it automatically gains value. Of it’s given to you for free (or as a all you can eat buffet) - the same title suddenly does not feel so premium.
Going to the movies vs watching a film on Netflix. Buying a vinyl of an album vs playing few songs on Spotify.
I understand that to some the value proposition is just too hard to pass. To me however it cheapens the games and makes them less interesting.
(I got a year of ultimate in some promotion. Installed a bunch of games, then never played them, instead enjoying other titles I actually personally picked and paid for)
I get your fear, but how is this any different (it’s actually much cheaper) than the rentals of old?
If you mean renting physical stuff like cartridges, there’s a limited amount of physical goods, so you rent what you need temporarily, and buy what you want to keep, just like with a moving van or whatever.
With digital goods, any scarcity is artificial. Any price change is just changing the number in a database. The whole concept is to make you pay for stuff you don’t need, and you won’t even be bothered by it, because there’s no physical clutter.
Subscriptions are the next level, to make you keep in perpetuity, forever, whether you’re using the service or not, and to make you afraid of ever cancelling lest you lose all “your” games.
Worse, in cases like this it’s even an easy upsell for them, because first they paywall multiplayer from you (which is ridiculous since you’re already paying for the game and console) and then they go “oh pay just some more to get all this”… Creating a problem and selling you the solution.
And also don’t forget that the conditions and price that are now won’t last. Remember when Netflix had everything and was really cheap.
I’m not great at explaining this, but it’s just overall a rotten business model.
When compared to the rental service it’s absolutely superior. Selection is limited, but it’s cheaper for sure. Before you payed per day per item, or had a subscription not unlike what we have now and still likely payed after renting so many items in a month’s time.
And in terms of paywall for multiplayer, they’ve been doing that since the original days of Microsoft consoles. It’s nothing new, you know it when you purchase an Xbox. I don’t like it, so I don’t buy Xboxes. I stopped buying PlayStations when Sony started. That said I do pay for Xbox Game Pass because the value I get is worth the cost.
I’m not gonna argue over the digital/physical divide and artificial scarcity. You’re not wrong, but that doesn’t have much bearing when you’re talking about $15 a month to play a rotating catalogue of games for as long as they’re on the service.
This year alone, I’m looking forward to playing Starfield, Lies Of P, Payday 3, Forza Motorsport, and STALKER 2. At $60 each, that would be $300 of games.
At the end of the year, I will have paid $119.88 for Game Pass.
Along the way, I’ve discovered other games I wouldn’t have otherwise known about and dipped my toes risk-free into games I would not have otherwise purchased. When looking for something to play with a group of friends, the fact that we all have Game Pass makes it easy to explore something new without asking anyone to spend $60.
If we look at Starfield alone, I’m probably going to let it ruin my life for 3 months ($29.97 in subscription). By the time I’m looking to jump in again, it will probably have gone on sale on Steam for less than $30.
At the end of the day, you don’t even own the games you are buying anyways. You get a license to play them while they are available and that availability can be revoked at any time.
Removed by mod
I mean I only ever use it when I get a new card and get the one month for one dollar and cancel it after.
I’ve heard that gamespass is supposed to be excellent value considering what you get. I don’t have an Xbox so I can’t say personally.
You pay for a subscription, just like this community loves.
Gamepass also gives you a 20% discount if you decide to purchase the games
Oh great, paying for an opportunity to pay. How generous.
So it costs less if you decide to keep a game you like and cancel gamepass? The discount works for gifting games as well
Help me with the math. A typical game costs 70-80 €$£ if I’m not mistaken. 20% of that is 16. This subscription is between 10 and 17 (so it says anyway, I don’t know the details).
So at best you can save 6 and get the subscription. Okay, I guess, but to me it sounds like a ploy to get you hooked to the subscription.
Or, we can take as a given that the 70 price of a game is just the basic tier and a “proper” version costs 100+. Fine, we can take that with the sub it can get cheaper, but then the user gets fucked either way.
Or we can buy multiple full-priced games a month. Ok fine, but then the rub is that some months you may not buy any games at all, and then if you forget to cancel, there go the savings.
What am I missing? As I said, I get that it may make sense for some people, but overall this whole thing smells like a scheme where the company creates a problem and is selling you the solution.
deleted by creator
At least I have the game on the console as long as it works… Not perfect by any means, but it’s not that far.
But I actually have most games on discs anyway, and on the PC side I only buy from gog and itch.
But true, it keeps getting worse. Most disc releases are just trash, as the whole game or a game-worth of patch needs to be downloaded.
I mean I hate it too but there are plenty of other options, you can easily just not use these services
I pay for ultimate while purchasing games. I have access to everything for purchase at a discount and have a unlimited selection on day 1 while getting the discounts when the games get old … if you only ever use the subscription service to play while it’s on there you are misusing the service. When games leave gamepass I’ve played them they go down in value and I buy them 80% off in a year
Of all the subscription based services that exist and fucking suck, this is far from one of them. It’s a great value for what you pay if you’re actually interested in lots of games. I can end up playing everything that comes out in a month and end up paying less in a year than buying those games outright in that single month.
Similarly, PS+ Premium, which I spent $120 for a year and it paid for itself within a week as I installed and played through 4 different games that would have totalled twice the subscription I paid. (4x$60=$240).
A better example would be the subscription cost of a single MMO like World of Warcraft. You pay the same monthly/yearly fee as GamePass. For one game. One game that is old as fuck and not really too relevant any more, at that.
