Jump to content
rllmuk
Harsin

Xbox Game Pass

Recommended Posts

Here we go (I could be bothered, as wanted to see how close I was)

 

On 20/10/2012 at 23:12, bradigor said:

The comparison of PS+ to Netflix is a fair one and the way I can see gaming going in the mid-term.

If Sony were to change the PS+ model to say £10 per month, but you get access to all the games on the network as long as you subscribe, then it would be wonderful model.

They don't even need to do it for brand new releases. They could have it to games enter PS+ after 6 months, so people can still buy upfront if they so wish.

In doing so it could also prolong the life of an online game. You get the diehards (so to speak) buying and playing the shit out of it for 6 months, then the PS+ subscribers picking it up beyond that.

Although I am sure someone will come along and say how it isn't financially viable for the publishers, etc.

 

Wrong company though ;) also, seems I was a bit too conservative with how long after release games would appear :lol:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Orko said:

 

I just saw this. Why would anyone buy Sea of Thieves, now? :huh:

 

 

If you either intend to only play for a month or so, or if you plan to play it for a period of 6 months +; it would work out cheaper to buy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JPL said:

Surely it's going to decimate retail. Good move by MS though.

 

I can't wait to see how the anti-MS crew spin this to be somehow negative and bad for the consumer...

 

Four replies before the fanboy nonsense started. Not sure if I expected more replies or fewer before it started.

 

It's an insane strategy that greatly increases the value of Xbox Game Pass, something I've already made a fair bit of use of. Makes it highly likely that I'll play every MS exclusive. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Radish said:

 

Four replies before the fanboy nonsense started. Not sure if I expected more replies or fewer.

 

It's an insane strategy that greatly increases the value of Xbox Game Pass, something I've already made a fair bit of use of. Means I'll play every MS exclusive. 

The fanboy nonsense hasn't started yet, unless I've missed it. I'm just intrigued to see how this will be spun to be a negative. You know it's going to happen.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good move for MS. We're edging closer to the Netflix/Amazon Prime model of gaming. Gives them another clear USP over Sony, which is what they need. Don't think it's going to destroy retail unless other big publishers join suit (although retail is on borrowed time for whole host of other reasons).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, Orko said:

 

I just saw this. Why would anyone buy Sea of Thieves, now? :huh:

 


Choice innit. Microsoft are still gonna get the sub, and the chance that the user will stay subbed for a long time to keep playing these games, which is more money then they'd get than from someone just outright buying it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 minutes ago, gossi the dog said:

 

If you either intend to only play for a month or so, or if you plan to play it for a period of 6 months +; it would work out cheaper to buy.

 

True, but there's obviously all the other games that increase the value of the sub.

 

2 minutes ago, Bojangle said:

 


Choice innit. Microsoft are still gonna get the sub, and the chance that the user will stay subbed for a long time to keep playing these games, which is more money then they'd get than from someone just outright buying it.

 

I guess. Crazy decision for MS, but brilliant for consumers. Has made me think twice about my sea of thieves preorder, but only increased my desire to get a One X asap!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an intruiging move. I'd much rather pay £7.99 to play a game than £50. As long as there's something new of interest every six months, I'd be up on the deal. Sure, I wouldn't get a copy to keep, but then again that'd only be a problem if the game gets removed from the service when I'm still playing it. I'm sure I can pick it up for a fiver years down the line if it's a delisted classic that I want another play of.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Orko said:

 

I just saw this. Why would anyone buy Sea of Thieves, now? :huh:

 

 

The same reason some people still buy the DVD / Blu-Ray of House of Cards, Mr Robot, etc I would assume. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Orko said:

 

 

True, but there's obviously all the other games that increase the value of the sub.

 

 

Maybe just me, but I don't like having too much choice. I'd rather pay for the one game I want, and then be free to hold forever or sell, than be tied to a subscription, full of stuff that will largely distract me. I'm very much of the view that when it comes to games less is more.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gossi the dog said:

 

Maybe just me, but I don't like having too much choice. I'd rather pay for the one game I want, and then be free to hold forever or sell, than be tied to a subscription, full of stuff that will largely distract me. I'm very much of the view that when it comes to games less is more.

 

 

 

Wish I was like that. I'd only end up buying them all anyway, and be as distracted either way! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the face of it this is an excellent move for the consumer, but I've some trepidation over its longer term ramifications.

 

Namely: Games as a Service, a concept which most publishers seem to interpret as "charge them up front then keep charging them". Microsoft has been leaning ever harder in this direction and I'm wary that committing to launching games on Games Pass, thus 'losing' a bunch of full price sales, will put even more pressure on first-party titles to be chock full of not-so-micro-transaction bullshit.

 

Whatever the case, for now I'll definitely be playing Sea of Thieves, Crackdown 3 and State of Decay 2 via Game Pass.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A crazy deal. Presumably the price will be going up to at least £9.99 a month very soon.

 

Also, this is surely going to be along the lines of EA Access, in that you'll get no DLC and they'll bring out loads of special editions and pre-order bonuses for MS games to make people still buy them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had this every month since day one. There were 4 or 5 games that I wanted to play when signing up, I could probably get all 5 for about 40 quid but I'm lazy and tbh quite enjoyed checking out what they released each month (nothing mind blowing). This will justify my subscription for sure. Good stuff MS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I'd rather pay £7.99 a month for more time to play the games that I already have rather than £7.99 for more games that I'll never have time to play, but this still seems like a pretty good deal if you've just bought a console.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Fry Crayola said:

That's an intruiging move. I'd much rather pay £7.99 to play a game than £50. As long as there's something new of interest every six months, I'd be up on the deal. Sure, I wouldn't get a copy to keep, but then again that'd only be a problem if the game gets removed from the service when I'm still playing it. I'm sure I can pick it up for a fiver years down the line if it's a delisted classic that I want another play of.

 

 

 

On this note, I was looking forward to playing MGS:V via game pass but its leaving the service as of the new arrivals next month. So that has been on there about a year*

 

Sounds like MS' own titles are permanent

 

* rubbish, game pass launched in june 2017 and MGS:V joined in November so it has actually only been on there for three months

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's incredibly rare I would spend longer than a month with any single game unless it REALLY got its hooks into me, so essentially I'll just be paying £7.99 for each new first party release rather than full price. Great for me, but it feels like MS will be losing money on people with my spending/gaming habits.

 

That said, I'm not sure this is aimed at someone like me in terms of future profitability, they probably want as many players as possible in on their latest GAAS games so they can make the money up with microtransactions and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting move by Microsoft, they are willing to sacrifice their retail sales for first party published games to get Game Pass upto scale. Trade out upfront $60 payment per title for whatever the annual charge is, $120 currently per subscriber if they remain subscribed for the full 12 months. So how long before they can convince a large third party this also makes sense for them to do? As nobody else has any strategic reason to put their expensive new games on a subscription service instead of charging $60 for it at launch.

 

Certainly makes Xbox Game Pass more attractive to people who like to play a lot of games. If Microsoft can convince every single Xbox One owner to buy into it, they'd be generating ~$3 Billion per year, assuming every single Xbox One console has to have a separate account to use it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Ferine said:

On the face of it this is an excellent move for the consumer, but I've some trepidation over its longer term ramifications.

 

Namely: Games as a Service, a concept which most publishers seem to interpret as "charge them up front then keep charging them". Microsoft has been leaning ever harder in this direction and I'm wary that committing to launching games on Games Pass, thus 'losing' a bunch of full price sales, will put even more pressure on first-party titles to be chock full of not-so-micro-transaction bullshit.

 

Whatever the case, for now I'll definitely be playing Sea of Thieves, Crackdown 3 and State of Decay 2 via Game Pass.

 

 

 

I am not so sure, I think games as a subscription service could be an answer to all the DLC and Micro Transactions nonsense we currently have.  If a publisher can hook you into a service for a gauranteed monthly payment I think this solves a few financial issues regarding off payment for multiplayer games which are then heavily used by the customer for a long time to come by providing an actual income to pay for free updates, extra content etc.  It becomes profitable for a publisher to keep you playing a game so you keep subscribing to the service so they will go out of their way not to piss you off with extra charges for new content. 

 

Eventually, what it will allow publishers to do is evolve titles rather than replace them.  Fifa will become a service which instead of yearly releases will simply be a free download with a subscription that continues to update and evolve forever.  It frees up a lot of development time and manpower to improving and evolving existing games rather than releasing a game and then almost becoming in the publisher's interest to stop you playing it so that you will buy the sequel when it is released in a year's time.  Set the price at the right level and it is also not a bad deal for the consumer either (say £40 yearly fee for FIFA which is about what you could pay for it online but you're guaranteed updates as they happen). 

 

50 minutes ago, Radish said:

 

Four replies before the fanboy nonsense started. Not sure if I expected more replies or fewer before it started.

 

It's an insane strategy that greatly increases the value of Xbox Game Pass, something I've already made a fair bit of use of. Makes it highly likely that I'll play every MS exclusive. 

 

Again, I think it could be a sensible financial strategy.  £8 a month is £96 a year.  For a hardcore user that could be lost revenue but for a casual user it could be about the same as they would spend anyway.  But crucially it gets rig of pre-owned sales, that £96 goes directly to Microsoft without anything being taken by retailers, it helps guarantee income and you save money on the actual cost of manufacturing and shipping the game.  A guaranteed £96 per year for new titles and back catalogues could be quite the money maker if it becomes widely adopted by customers. It is also utilising back catalogue titles that likely ceased generating real revenue years ago. There may be a cost associated to letting people play the new Halo game as part of the service but there is no cost associated with also enticing someone to use the service by offering Halo 3 for free as well. I wonder if MS looked at the numbers and realised it would never become widely used as a service unless new games were included. 

 

Music, Films, Games, it is all heading in the same subscription direction because as soon as you can tie someone into a subscription service, inertia suggests that they will stick paying for the service for a long time, even if there are periods when they do not use it as much as they might have intended to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Majora said:

It's incredibly rare I would spend longer than a month with any single game unless it REALLY got its hooks into me, so essentially I'll just be paying £7.99 for each new first party release rather than full price. Great for me, but it feels like MS will be losing money on people with my spending/gaming habits.

 

That said, I'm not sure this is aimed at someone like me in terms of future profitability, they probably want as many players as possible in on their latest GAAS games so they can make the money up with microtransactions and such.

 

yeah, I don't even multiplayer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose you can look at EA/Origin Access to see how large third parties view subscription services at present, EA give you a trial to try to incentivise you to buy the retail version before launch and only currently put games on the service permanently when they've done the majority of their expected retail sales, and they get to keep most of the subscription money, rather than a slice of somebody else's subscription money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it wouldn't be sustainable for third parties to jump on this too, or else that 8 pound per month ends up getting spread incredibly thinly....96 pound a year doesn't sound bad but if that has to cover all the existing games already on the service, new MS first party titles plus whatever third parties jump on board, you're looking at the share of that 96 pound per game shrinking dramatically as the line-up increases.

 

This feels like something that can only sustain MS first party at its current price. A true Netflix model with all publishers involved would need to be much more expensive.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Netflix model itself is falling apart anyway, which is why Netflix is having to spend so much money making original content to keep their subscriber base. More companies with a large enough attractive back catalogue would probably be better off copying EA, rather than joining a first party sub service, just like Disney, et al are telling Netflix where to go and starting up their own service to keep more of the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.