MS straight up have said this.
No, they didn't. If they spend more time on Gamepass they will spend less time on purchased games. In the same way that using Gamepass they will spread their gameplay time between more games, meaning that they will spend less time with each game.
Again, MS has stated this, and so have gamepass partners. Go look it up.
Nah.
The people who watches a lot of movies, bought many movies and went more to the cinema now get subs to see movies. So the people who get these subscriptions pretty likely on average goes more to the cinema and buys more movies than the people who isn't a subscriber of this service. But this doesn't mean that they do it because they subscribed to this service, it's the opposite: the type of customer who consumes more movies is on average more interested on this kind of services. Same happens in games, the subber of services like gamepass must be someone interested on playing many different games, so pretty likely is someone who buy more games on average than the type of gamer who isn't interested on these services. This is what MS said: out of their users, the ones who are GP subs on average buy more games than the ones who don't.
But what I meant was a different thing, the behavior change of a user when gets a subscriptiton: in the example of the movies fan, after getting these movie subs services, they go less to the cinema and buy less movies than before gettting the subs. But in average pretty likely he will continue buying more movies and going to the cinema than the people who aren't subs. So same with games: the gamer who gets game subs like GP will decrease the number of games bought even if on average will continue buying more on average than the player who isn't on a sub. If you spend more time on a subscription, you'll spend less time on stuff bought outside it.
I mean for all consoles on average there are 7-14 games sold per console depending on the platform. If on average consoles have a life cycle of around 7 years, it means that the average player buys a game or two per year. The average player from GP or from Gaf obviously buys more than 2 games per year, maybe even more than 2 per month. So this type of user doesn't buy more on average because he started to be a GP subscriber. It's the opposite: he already was, as a result of this got a subscription and since he spends more time on the sub will spend less time than before in purchased games.
Yes, it would reduce up from amounts in exchange for a monthly fee. The old games being in the current sub only is why it has failed, rather miserably at 3 million subs.
Like xCloud, PS Now is limited to barely a couple of dozen of countries. You don't know the amount of xCloud or GPU subs, so can't compare GPU/xCloud to PS Now to know if 3M is a lot or not of if it's performing better or worse.
PS Now doesn't have a cheaper tier available worldwide with only the downloads, as it's the case of the base GP. With Spartacus Sony will add this as the new tier in addition to the existing PS Plus and PS Now tiers.
What remains to be seen is the balancing point, the assumption that sales of games will always trump a subscription model is pure conjecture at this point. The blend of the 2 may maximize sales overall.
Well, more than a conjecture is the current factual data: the game revenue as of now comes from F2P first, for paid games second and game subs are only a very small part of the business.
As an example Sony makes 25B/year and only 3.5B/year of them are from subs, when they have 50M subs.
I think you are missing that they have no intention of giving them away, they are getting regular sales and the gamepass revenue. You assume those amounts always lead to a loss, it's clear MS believes that will not be the case. I'm going with they have an idea what they are doing. You think the business plan to spend 90 Billion had no projected profits at the end?
I think that they weren't to grow their revenue enough to compete against people like Sony by themselves, so bought other big companies to add their revenue. They spent almost 100B and I think they will spend more until they pass Sony in revenue and if lucky (I think won't happen) in game subscribers. So they will be able to brag about having better numbers in gaming there.
They may have loses that would mean a disaster for any other company, but MS has a lot of money so they could be sustainable for them. I think their business plan is to try to make mainstream a business model that would will basically all their competition, who can't afford to have dozens of billions of loses. And once they kill the competition, they would switch back to a profiable business model.
There is no issue with MS hitting 50 million, they over that in gold subs, and they are probably already at 30 million gamepass subs.
Please stop lying wih the gold subs number. They can't have over 50M gold subs when they have barely a console userbase which is like that, around 60M maybe, and when Plus/(when we knew its numbers) Gold were under half of heir console userbase. Plus now at least a portion of Gold subs have it as part of GPU.
The 100 million may be inflated, but it's easily in the 50 million range, similar to what sony has publicly stated for PS plus.
100M and 50M are a total fantasy, must be way, way under that. Sony has 50M but they have the double of the console userbase than MS and (still, in theory will change with Spartacus) don't offer PS Plus inside a bigger subscription.
Also since you want to discount things that are cheaper, I don't think I have ever paid full price for PS plus, always got it for much less than regular price. Must mean everyone is paying less, right?
I almost always did get Plus in 12 month packs and when discounted or in CD key stores, got it way cheaper than the official $10/single month. And only got GP some months, using free PC GP months I got from promotions (I think I did use two promottions of 3 months each).
I don't know what people pays in game subs, but I know Sony made $3.5B from game subs in the last fiscal year, and they grow that number every year.