Rossco EZ
Member
every time i see gamepass posts i think the same thing, always reads like an adWhy do these fucking losers who go on about gamepass always speak like they're part of a microsoft marketing team?
Last edited:
every time i see gamepass posts i think the same thing, always reads like an adWhy do these fucking losers who go on about gamepass always speak like they're part of a microsoft marketing team?
Seriously. It'd be like getting into an argument over Netflix and Hulu. lol.every time i see gamepass posts i think the same thing, always reads like an ad
I'm actually wondering if there's some dark corner of the internet where people engage in post wars between Netflix, Disney +, Apple TV +, HBO Max... Must be hilarious. Best deal in streaming! Loving my Californication for free this month, suck it up!Seriously. It'd be like getting into an argument over Netflix and Hulu. lol.
The best deal in television!Seriously. It'd be like getting into an argument over Netflix and Hulu. lol.
How long do you have to wait for those physical games to be worth something decent?In general, Digital games and gaas are anti-consumer because they take ownership away from the consumer. You don't truly own your games anymore if you purchase digital or gaas. The hook is the deal is good because you are able to play so many games at a cheaper subscription price but you never actually own any of these games, you are renting them. You are saving money for these companies because they no longer have to produce physical media and that is why these companies would prefer an all digital and gaas industry. Because they would own the rights to these games even after you purchase them.
So if you are a gamer who only uses gaas because you believe you are saving, at the end of the generation, lets say you are either subscribed to either gamepass or spartacus and lets assume both cost $15 dollars a month. Lets assume you are a gamer subscribed to one of these services for the entirety of the 9th generation and you don't purchase physical media. Lets assume this generation lasts 8 years. $15 for 12 months meaning you are paying $180 a year. $180 a year for 8 years(assuming this generations lasts 8 years) would bring you out to spending $1440 for the generation with nothing to really show for it. & you have to keep spending money in order to access those games you previously played because you never truly own them. & many of those third party games and Indie games will have been removed from these subscription services. Meaning some of those games you can no longer access if you wanted to go back to them without purchasing them.
Meanwhile, physical media collectors still own their physical games. Not only that, 95% of these games will have gone up in value and can be resold for profit. Meaning you can get back every dollar you spent the previous generation and more. The value of physical games tends to go up the older they get.
For example, looking through my backlog of physical games. I have a brand new copy of Dragon Quest VIII for the 3ds. When I originally purchased it, I got it around $30 dollars. The launch retail price was $40. This game currently sales for $100 and up used (opened) and $150 and up brand new (sealed). Castlevania Order of Ecclessia cost me $30 dollars on the DS new. It now goes for $100 dollars and up used and $200 and up brand new. Attack on Titan 2: The Final Battle cost me $30 dollars New. It now goes for $170 and up used and $350 and up brand new. You get the idea.
So while everyone is claiming they are "Saving" on gaas, in the end, physical collectors are the ones who are really saving their money. I can sell 1/4 of the games I have purchased over my years as being a gamer and get back every dollar I spent on gaming and still keep 75% of my collection. Now currently, I have no intention of selling games in my collection. But as a physical collector, the point is that option is available to me. My purchases have value that will only appreciate over time(increase in value.) & because the gaming Industry is currently being dominated by digital gaming and possibly gaas in the future, the value of physical media is going to go up even more when these companies decide to hit the switch and no longer produce physical media because of the popularity of digital gaming and gaas models.
Now I'm not going to tell anyone else how to spend their money, if you see digital media and gaas as a better value, knock your selves out. I do purchase digital games when that is the only option available for the game. But just understand that the consumer is not truly saving when it comes to digital and gaas, these companies are the ones who are saving by taking away your ownership.
The premise of the thread I understood was that moving away from owning the console + the game disc with the data for the game was better than renting access to the game on a computer you don't own for a limited time over an also payed internet connection.
Though this may open the market for new players, those players by and large will be competing in the streaming format, which is covered above.
How long do you have to wait for those physical games to be worth something decent?
If you are trying to tell me that the physical game you bought for $30 is now worth more than you paid them you are talking 15+ years or more, and even then probably just for certain well liked games in amazing condition on platforms where a digital copy does not exist. Go look at the ridiculously low prices for most Xbox One, 360, or PS4 games on Ebay and you'll see what I mean.
I play games for fun, not to collect. Same as TV or movies honestly
you're right, I remember now, I was pointing out shit was actually way worse than he assumes so worrying about this is pointless. so high I had to go back to op lolThe premise of the thread is that OP considers various big publishers having their own subscription services to be anti consumer. Instead of Sony, MS, Ubisoft, Amazon, etc having their own service, he wants everyone to work with Microsoft and have Gamepass be the only subscription service available.
That might sound nice on paper but it's not something anyone should actually want. Competition is good for the consumer, having these big companies fighting for your time and money is one of the main factors fueling many of their "pro consumer" practices. Op is the only person I've seen basically arguing that letting a single company have a monopoly is somehow going to result in it being pro consumer.
Maybe MS should accept PS+ on their systems, how about that?Gamepass in its current state is a subscription that values your money a lot.
Microsoft first party titles day one, and a big catalogue of third party games. Some are even there day one.
Sony now wants their own subscription, which is understandable given the success with game pass, but this will hurt these subscription based services.
Just like are seeing both Microsoft and Sony acquiring companies to the left and right, we will now see the same that happened into TV streaming series.
Netflix had everything at the beginning. Then hbo and Disney wanted to make their own services to gain 100 percent revenue.
I am pretty certain, that Microsoft and Sony will not only pay for day one third party games on their services, but probably also pay third party games to be exclusive on their services.
If Sony just accepted game pass on their platform and got a cut of the sub, purchases etc.
These companies should stop ruining this for the gamers. It's anti consuming and I am sick of it.
Because they hope everyone will leave ps/Nintendo and go to Xbox.Why do these fucking losers who go on about gamepass always speak like they're part of a microsoft marketing team?
I think Gamepass is a great value. But with companies consolidating all the AAA talent in the industry to create a Duopoly, in the end consumers will have no control and likely no real ownership. There's just so much more money in subs.I literally don't know why people are freaking out about Game pass and Spartacus.
Both services are OPTIONAL! You can still chug along and buy individual games if you want. Nobody is forcing you to subscribe.
So almost $400 a year and you're still tied to only whatever these two companies put on their service?If Sony delivers awesome value for 15 bucks I'll subscribe to their service, too. Bring it on.
So almost $400 a year and you're still tied to only whatever these two companies put on their service?
I'm not saying there aren't good games I want to play on GamePass. And I'm not saying there wouldn't be lots of good games on whatever Spartacus ends up being. But, I can guarantee it won't be everything - I'll still have to buy games on both PS5 and Series X. And that's not even accounting for Switch.
And if we are paying $400 a year for two subscriptions, will we still call games we play on those services "free"?
That's the greatest trick of subscription services - they'll convince you it's "just" 5, 10 or 20 $ monthly - sounds like a pocket change and most people fall for it, they're too dumb to count and sum up how much money they spend overall in a year for merely borrowing the content and playing/watching like 10% at most of what's available.
Now I'm not saying that it wouldn't be worth it for some people, but I know that a lot of them just type in the credit card details and forget it, spending a lot of money even while they're not using the service.
Gafers were telling me that subscription isn't that lucrative, because Microsoft can't make their first-party games Day One in Game Pass without drop in budget and quality. And suddenly now "there is so much money in subs?"I think Gamepass is a great value. But with companies consolidating all the AAA talent in the industry to create a Duopoly, in the end consumers will have no control and likely no real ownership. There's just so much more money in subs.
Competing 3rd parties are the balancing factor in the industry. The majority of game sales are from 3rd parties and Sony and MS both win if everyone needs a MS and Sony subscription to play their "first party games" which would be the majority of AAA games in the industry. But if this is the way things are going, I can definitely think of worse companies establishing control.
Nah, that’s not true. I mean, I’ve just secured my Gamepass Ultimate until February 2025 for £3.22 a month, but I know that price is nowhere near sustainable.The only reason gamepass is great for it's users right now is that they're taking a "loss" in order to become the next Spotify or Netflix with a 100 million concurrent subscriber base. You're asking for the impossible.
Maybe MS should accept PS+ on their systems, how about that?
I don't understand your response. I wouldn't be committed to $400 per year. I'd be committed to at most a month at a time. If there's nothing on the service I want to play I can cancel and pay nothing to play nothing on the subscription service. Then I can just buy something to play. Even if I do pay $400 per year is it worse to subscribe and do that than it is to pay $400 or more per year to buy copies of games just to play them once, maybe never finish them, and never play them again?So almost $400 a year and you're still tied to only whatever these two companies put on their service?
I'm not saying there aren't good games I want to play on GamePass. And I'm not saying there wouldn't be lots of good games on whatever Spartacus ends up being. But, I can guarantee it won't be everything - I'll still have to buy games on both PS5 and Series X. And that's not even accounting for Switch.
And if we are paying $400 a year for two subscriptions, will we still call games we play on those services "free"?
But hey, I'm talking as a guy who buys all his games. On sale, sure (9 out of 10) but my back log has been ay high since forever, so..Nah, that’s not true. I mean, I’ve just secured my Gamepass Ultimate until February 2025 for £3.22 a month, but I know that price is nowhere near sustainable.
It needs to be more like £15-20 a month, and I think I’d be happy to pay that with a broader library.
Broken record, hah. Funny.THis iz Anti-kons00mer!!1