This should be the biggest news story of the month. It looks like Microsoft finally realized what Jim Big Daddy Ryan realized years ago. F2P is the future of this medium, not GamePass. Obviously both will coexist for a while, but if Phil Spencer is publically saying he only sees 10 - 15 percent revenue potential, a pivot could come sooner rather than later.
My F2P bros, huzzah!
I don't think he's implying what you think he is, tbh. LOL
F2P has been the biggest driver of revenue since fortnite blew up. That's the future of multi-player only experiences, no question. That's why Halo multiplayer released F2P. GP is for games with traditional campaigns (whether single player only or with multi-player coop). That's why I've always said the people that thought MS would go full GAAS because of GP weren't thinking it through very well, because big GAAS games are always going to be F2P for the most part. Though I guess it depends on what you consider GAAS, I don't automatically consider anything with DLC/MTX as a GAAS, some people do.
What's interesting is that the F2P model goes directly against the subscription model. Only a paid game on a subscription service can be an incentive to join that subscription.
I don't understand what Phil is thinking here, but they (or anyone else for that matter) cannot focus on these two things at the same time. You gotta pick one over another.
Why on earth couldn't you do both? LOL
Unless you figure that MS/Sony and the rest are going to quit making campaigns and single player content. Just like with Halo, the multi-player component doesn't add value to a subscription, but the campaign does.
I will agree with the point about the online MP subscription, you've got to think that the relevance of Xbox Live Gold and PS+ Essentials isn't all that long for the world with the way things are going. That's why both MS and Sony are trying to transition to a different game based subscription that can still have value.