FrankWza
Member
Ill just use your method to come back as an alt.Welcome back Frank, hope you stick around
-
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.
Gamepass hits 25m subs
- Thread starter reksveks
- Start date
ZywyPL
Banned
It's all on the publishers tho for sending review copies when they know well the games aren't finished. They obviously want the pre-launch spotlight, but the end result is often that gamers see the state of the game and decide to wait until it's patched, which often leads for buying the games on sale or even forgetting about the game at all.
Fredrik
Member
It’s just frustrating to see people use the scores for games with post-launch content. And things will become even worse as more games as service titles arrives, I don’t see the current review model working much longer tbh.
Lognor
Banned
So you do subscribe to Game Pass then? That must tear you up inside
ZywyPL
Banned
I don't agree on this one, because even if a games is meant to evolve with time, it still has to offer something at launch, and frankly, many GaaS titles come out with just one, maybe two game modes and just 4-6 maps, and the devs are like "have fun!"... Like really, I will, for 2-3 weeks maybe and then I'll get bored, with no new content in sight for months. Let alone any technical issues that'll be ironed out god knows when. Such hames deserve to get hammered by the media, people need to know what they're getting into with their money.
But if a game does get better after a year or two (not that anyone should care after such a long time), then yeah, it would be nice if the reviewers revisited the game and update their reviews, but kike I said, does anyone care anymore years later? Especially in era of YT, Twitch etc. if people want to know the current state of the game it's all there just two clicks away, while the reviewers are busy with actually new titles.
Fredrik
Member
The problem is that almost all games have post-launch patches today, while critics are reviewing games without even the day 1 patch since they rush through them to be there when the review embargo drops.
Does anyone care?
Well the gifs posted constantly for Driveclub show a game that critics never ever touched… There was no rain at launch.
GT Sport is still one of the most popular online racers.
Sea of Thieves is still one of the most popular MS games.
Looking at reviews today is completely irrelevant for anyone trying to decide if these games are for them.
Halo Infinite, years later we’ll still see review scores dropped because it doesn’t have co-op… even though it will by then have co-op.
I just don’t think the current review model is working.
The critic could kinda work around the evolving nature of modern games by stating that there are problems that will probably be fixed after launch.
Should the game be rated higher then?
No. Because what if the problems aren’t fixed? Or what if they’re fixed in the wrong way or break something else?
The reality is that the critic can and should only talk about what can be evaluated once it’s played, and that will in many cases going forward be completely irrelevant to anyone looking at reviews maybe just days after launch in some cases where user feedback is pushing devs to instantly fix something.
25
25m numbers are INSANE
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Looking at the 3 sub plans for games, not surprised PS Now is the worst. You got a combo old old games, hardly any new games, half the catalogue is probably stream only on PS systems and 100% of PC gaming is streamed. And even for first party games, Sony's heavy hitters arent even always there. They come and go. MS's first party games stick (old or new) unless it's something license based like Forza games which can disappear.Interesting graph re gaming sub growth
Sony isn't interested in pushing PS Now (although maybe that Spatacus rumour will change things). You can tell Sony doesn't care about PS Now because they even got rid of it from TVs. Years back the service was playable on Sony TVs and they even scrapped it.
lillars
Member
I like it, but I don't know if I will keep it past November which marks the end of my 3 years of gold to GP conversion. I rarely find me playing much on it these days. I'll probably just get it during months when something I want to play is out (particularly the new Bethesda offerings).
Schmick
Member
I hope PS Now never dies. It's been a god send for me. Without even purchasing a PS I've been able to play Sony exclusives on PC. I'm playing through GoW HD right now. My first ever experience with GoW.
YukiOnna
Member
You think 7M subscription growth within a year is "weak"? Especially when those figures were likely front loaded thanks to Forza and Halo to begin with?
ReBurn
Gold Member
I wonder how many Xbox Live Gold only subscribers there are nowInteresting graph re gaming sub growth
Jaybe
Member
It would be great to see it on the graph. it’s a shame MS didn’t release Xbox Live Gold numbers for years. I think they were around 42-45 million around 2013/2014. I’d be surprised if it is over 5 million now.
Last edited:
we have an insane grow to a service that is not forced ... 25m in 4 years to are a very very very good start it will be around 50 at the end of the gen. compare the gamepass result with a "secondary" service like psnow:
Psnow rel. 2014 - 3.2m users
GamePass rel. 2017 - 25+ users
I do not count ps + because it is a "forced" service that is, it serves users to access multiplayer otherwise it would never have the number of users it has .. just like live Gold
Last edited:
ZoukGalaxy
Member
People giving their soul and money digging their own no-ownership-grave.
That's sadly hilarious.
Digital future baby: corporates will dictate your playing times, games and can revoke anything at any time.
But hey ! Price is so cheap, who cares ?
That's how it starts, once nothing else will exist... let's show the real plan !
That's sadly hilarious.
Digital future baby: corporates will dictate your playing times, games and can revoke anything at any time.
But hey ! Price is so cheap, who cares ?
That's how it starts, once nothing else will exist... let's show the real plan !
CrashNBurn_281
Member
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
All comes down to how much someone actually cares about owning a video game.
Same can be said about tv, movies and music. I dont think too many people buy BR discs, download movies for $20 or even buy songs off iTunes for 99 cents. Talk about cheapskates.
And for me, sub plan s great. I buy games too but only ones not on sub plan and when they are on sale on Steam, GOG or Xbox.
Nothing wrong with not owning something. I pay my fee and get use from it. You can lease a car or rent a water heater. Or you can buy a car or buy a water heater. Some rent/lease. Some buy.
Last edited:
DaGwaphics
Member
Absolutely. I'm the same, I buy games when I want to play something and it isn't offered in GP or PSNow. If it's offered in a subscription I just complete the game and am done with it. If a game has some kind of loop to it that I like to revisit, then I'll buy that so I always have it. To each their own.
To me the convenience of digital won out against the ability to sell the disks. And I was a diehard supporter of disks at the X1 launch, then I went and only bought like 6 or 7 disks for the X1 and even double dipped on a couple of those to make them digital. LOL
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
I said this in another post somewhere, but to me I think a lot of the "anti-sub plan" views arent even a PS or Xbox thing. It's more to do with with purists who always buy, and if they see anyone who leases, rents, or sub plans some movies, games or a modem from your ISP, they go ape shit because everyone knows buying is always more expensive than renting. So if they buy a BR disc from Amazon for $20 or game for $60 or $70, and they know someone pays $100-200/yr for some movie or game sub plan and can enjoy the same shit and a ton of other shit, and that renter doesn't care about owning, the purist has some deep down resentment and jealousy some other people are paying dirt cheap and having just as much fun as them. So they feel ripped off.
It goes something like this:
Purist pays $60 for game and other gamer does the same --> Purist: "Hey bud, great game huh?"
Purist pays $60 for game and other gamer has fun playing the same game on a sub plan for cheap --> Purist: "Hey bud, you know you dont own it right?"
Last edited:
12Dannu123
Member
How will Spartacus help PS Now's fortunes? The value propositions are the same, a catalogue of legacy games.
thismeinteil
Member
I think this makes it clear why MS needed to purchase Activision. GamePass is not growing like they thought it would. Even with their 1st party SW on it Day 1, including future Bethesda titles. Giving months away for $1. Since the 1st day incentive launch in early 2018, it's been growing at an average of 664K a month.
Of course, that includes the early months of the service that saw quicker growth. The estimate for last quarter, given the numbers we had the previous year and MS saying the percentage it grew (and missed their goal), were ~24M. So, even with the Xmas period and the launch of Halo, GamePass only rose at ~333K a month this past quarter.
I think slow GamePass adoption, and Halo seemingly not being a huge draw anymore, they needed something else to sweeten their FPS pot.
Of course, that includes the early months of the service that saw quicker growth. The estimate for last quarter, given the numbers we had the previous year and MS saying the percentage it grew (and missed their goal), were ~24M. So, even with the Xmas period and the launch of Halo, GamePass only rose at ~333K a month this past quarter.
I think slow GamePass adoption, and Halo seemingly not being a huge draw anymore, they needed something else to sweeten their FPS pot.
thismeinteil
Member
Why does that chart have GamePass start in 2020? GamePass has been around for years, now. 3 years have passed since the launch day incentives.Interesting graph re gaming sub growth
it's the first number Microsoft publicly shared. Not that hard to deduce eh?
thismeinteil
Member
Except all the other plans (Plus doesn't, but only because the chart starts after its inception) have it started at zero when it launched. So why not do the same for GamePass? Reeks of bias.
Last edited:
maybe, i guess, but if you put a dot at feb 2017 it would just show that the rate of growth in recent years exceeds it from 2017-2020
not really hiding muchSome people do really see conspiracy theories anywhere.maybe, i guess, but if you put a dot at feb 2017 it would just show that the rate of growth in recent years exceeds it from 2017-2020
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Growth is going to be slow for the simple reason that this sort of service doesn't appeal to everyone. It is what it is.
Last edited:
thismeinteil
Member
Except doing it like it is makes it seem like GamePass just came out a year ago and exploded out of the gate, especially to the not so informed. There's a narrative trying to be pushed. Pretty obvious when every other service on the chart starts at launch, not the first official number. You don't change the rules for making a chart in the middle of making that chart for no reason at all.maybe, i guess, but if you put a dot at feb 2017 it would just show that the rate of growth in recent years exceeds it from 2017-2020
Oh, I agree. I'm just stating the purchase of Activision makes a lot of sense, now. MS is heavily relying on GamePass as their future for Xbox. Them seeing slower growth last quarter, even with the holiday season, Halo, and the promise of Bethesda games, made them realize they needed more, especially if they want to become the Netflix of gaming with 75M-100M+ subs.
Last edited:
They always knew they need more and are on the look out for acquisitions or partnerships big and small. Activision was a prized jewel to be won and everything just lined up perfectly for them.
If game pass subs exploded to 35M due to Halo and Bethesda and Forza Microsoft STILL would have bought Activision. Not hitting their executive bonus targets doesn’t mean they said oh fuck gotta go bigger its not working, lets get Activision
SoloKingRobert
Banned
MrFunSocks
Banned
Good luck explaining the difference between CEO performance bonus targets and actual projected targets on here, it's a lost cause.
Last edited:
Kagey K
Banned
Because suddenly people like to play old games again.
I'd say we are going to need a perfect for Sparticus line for some games, but I don't think it will offer what some people are repeating so it might go unused.
Last edited:
Because its a tier and the friction of adding that tier might be less than the friction of adding a new subscription. I think it would work commercially. I am more interested if Sony release any physical cards for the new services if not, this move is much more about increasing the arpu of the network subscription.
Last edited:
Kagey K
Banned
Gpu is a tier of Gold. Not really seeing the distinction.
Between the two platform holders there wouldn't one really.
Between the current Sony set up and the new one, there is. That was the point of my comment.
I am one of the people that thinks MS should have a cloud only model for smart tv/mobile users which obviously is more in line with the current setup that Sony.
JimRyanGOAT
Member
Opposite
Just shows how lazy/dumb Sony is
Subscription services are obviously the future
Instead of looking at those shit numbers and thinking we should improve em
Sony has just sits on PS Now for too long without any attempts to improve the serive
Last edited:
Kagey K
Banned
They only got that high after they made steps to improve it.
They were much much worse prior, while being available on more devices.
It was only after they removed the streaming apps from tvs, changed the pricing and offered a download option did they hit this number.
Microsoft should eliminate the price for the multiplayer (gold), it would be enough to increase the price of gp by 1 or 2 euro to offset the economic loss, but this would have a huge marketing return especially it would RUIN COMPLETELY the image of the only service that is working on their rival machine PS+. Without this Sony would really be forced to release a gamepass clone.
Last edited:
Goalus
Member
Don't forget, dear Netflix subscribers!
You do not own the content you're watching!
12Dannu123
Member
A tier is a different subscription. The only different between the two types is the brand name, the fundemental value proposition in the same as its currently is.
Not to consumers in terms of their behaviour and perception of value is my point
Mibu no ookami
Member
Huge assumption that subscriptions are the future. Subscription models aren't a new concept. Maybe it seems that way because of subscription streaming services for movies, tv, and music, but that is just the advent of media best consumed online working well as subscriptions.
Gaming isn't 1:1 with music, tv, or movies.
Why? How many times are you going to listen to the Beatles discography versus how many times are you going to play Super Mario World? People in droves will rewatch the Office or Friends. The demand for older content on a continuous cycle isn't the same with gaming. I'd say it's more akin to the subscription service of the news and there I think you'll find that people don't want subscriptions for it. So the question becomes how top-heavy can you get before your content and investment is entirely too expensive for your subscription service?
Microsoft just made a 70 billion dollar investment into Game Pass, which means the pressure for Game Pass to be profitable and consistently profitable just shot up.
Let's say X1 sold 50 million units the whole generation. Putting PC aside, your goal with the XSX/S would be to get all 50 million users to return, add 10-40 million units, AND convert them all to game pass.
Are there 60-90 million gamers interested in paying a subscription? We're about to find out.
Microsoft knows that is a hard sell, especially on consoles, which is why they are putting so much focus on PC as well. Because they need to reach as many potential gamers as they can.
They missed projected target growth. Not CEO bonus targets.
Xbox Game Pass subscriber numbers grow but miss goal
The number of people subscribed to Xbox Game Pass has grown by 37 percent over the year ending 30th June, Microsoft has…
www.google.com
listen it's not that I'm not willing to listen to ideas other than mine or that we all have to think the same way. But let me say,....Music services works not because everyone listens to the same music again and again. Netflix work not because the uses are all about the same shows ..... but the datas show exactly the opposite of what you wrote (real datas and not anonymous armchair forum analysis) people listen and discover many new music genres than before, constantly watch new content on Netflix , and that's why Netflix invests a lot in new content ... and is the same reason why all the biggest companies in the world are in one way or another into subscription ervices....that's why Apple invented one ... Microsoft one ... Google one etc etc etc. subscription services works and have shown that they bring more revenue than the common sale and above all make users happier. It does not mean that the single sale of games (or of audio or movies) will be supplanted but that the majority of users will, will move to subscription services which are likely to be device agnostic just like gamepass (because that too is the past)
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Mibu no ookami
Member
Yeah, Netflix paid 100 million dollars for Friends because it's not about people revisiting old shows. And HBO spent 500 million dollars on it for the same reason...