Support NeoGAF

[poppabk]

Isn't PC and console games total only about 30% of video game spending? Also growth has flattened - does he mean that subscriptions are no longer growing or that the rate of growth has leveled off at say +20% per year.
The statement is too vague to make any real conclusions.

 

[Topher]

So gamepass was never going to destroy the industry like many fearmongered?

You're feeding into more of that fearmongering Mat is talking about

What's this "fear mongering" bullshit? Is that what we are calling it whenever says something negative about a product or service? And what does Matt care? He should just provide the data. Isn't his job to tell anyone what they should think. That guy gets on his high horse far too often.

 

[Banjo64]

You're feeding into more of that fearmongering Mat is talking about, which is what I was pointing to as well.

Phil, himself, has said he doesn't see a future where game pass is 50% or more of Xbox's total revenue, i-e the whole dominant idea is sort of a forum-creation than anything they realistically expect, it is doing what he intended to at the moment, and is profitable to them as it stands.



For me, and many others, it is an incredibly valuable service. I reckon the same is true for many PS+ subscribers as well, but no one expects it to become the dominant gaming medium any time soon.

Xbox’s own internal projection was 100m subscribers by 2028.

 

[Klayzer]

What's this "fear mongering" bullshit? Is that what we are calling it whenever says something negative about a product or service? And what does Matt care? He should just provide the data. Isn't his job to tell anyone what they should think. That guy gets on his high horse far too often.

So much this. Negative opinions equals fear mongering is fucking stupid. If that's the case, nobody would ever have a dissenting opinion.

 

[Tajaz2426]

You're feeding into more of that fearmongering Mat is talking about, which is what I was pointing to as well.

Phil, himself, has said he doesn't see a future where game pass is 50% or more of Xbox's total revenue, i-e the whole dominant idea is sort of a forum-creation than anything they realistically expect, it is doing what he intended to at the moment, and is profitable to them as it stands.


For me, and many others, it is an incredibly valuable service. I reckon the same is true for many PS+ subscribers as well, but no one expects it to become the dominant gaming medium any time soon.

No, it has no value as you do not own. You are renting a house and paying the bills for the owner is all you are doing. When they close shop or servers, you have nothing like you started, you just have less in your bank account.

People like you, are the reason we will own nothing in the future. Just like Jeep and other car manufacturers want a subscription to start my vehicle from remote, sooner or later I’ll have to pay one to the car company just to drive my vehicle.

You folks are leading us down a path of no ownership whatsoever.

 

[NickFire]

You're feeding into more of that fearmongering Mat is talking about, which is what I was pointing to as well.

Phil, himself, has said he doesn't see a future where game pass is 50% or more of Xbox's total revenue, i-e the whole dominant idea is sort of a forum-creation than anything they realistically expect, it is doing what he intended to at the moment, and is profitable to them as it stands.

Your loyalty is admirable.

But fearmongering and forum creation is laughable.

Also, the source has credibility issues in my humble opinion. Same guy who says no plans for what the CEO and CFO seem to be suggesting are the plans, right?

 

[Punished Miku]

What's this "fear mongering" bullshit? Is that what we are calling it whenever says something negative about a product or service? And what does Matt care? He should just provide the data. Isn't his job to tell anyone what they should think. That guy gets on his high horse far too often.

I think it's pretty obvious he means the idea that subs will rob us of all our rights and we'll be paying for Jeep subscriptions to start our cars and eat bugs packaged at the World Economic Forum. That kind of fear mongering. What he's pointing to instead is that it's more of an additive distribution model, not a full replacement.

 

[DForce]

You're feeding into more of that fearmongering Mat is talking about, which is what I was pointing to as well.

Phil, himself, has said he doesn't see a future where game pass is 50% or more of Xbox's total revenue, i-e the whole dominant idea is sort of a forum-creation than anything they realistically expect, it is doing what he intended to at the moment, and is profitable to them as it stands.



For me, and many others, it is an incredibly valuable service. I reckon the same is true for many PS+ subscribers as well, but no one expects it to become the dominant gaming medium any time soon.

And we have emails directly from Phil about how he felt about growth.

And no, it's not fearmongering because Mat spoke directly about the benefits for developers and players. Stagnant growth is something Phil and Microsoft were hoping did not happen. Mat is also speaking about overall subscriptions, even PS+ which has its benefits.

The problem is that PS+ growth is stagnant at a successful point, Game Pass has not.

For me, and many others, it is an incredibly valuable service. I reckon the same is true for many PS+ subscribers as well, but no one expects it to become the dominant gaming medium any time soon.

Not surprised that you misrepresenting his words.

“Game Pass as an overall part of our content and services revenue is probably 15 percent,” he told The Journal’s Sarah Needleman. “I don’t think it gets bigger than that. I think the overall revenue grows so 15 percent of a bigger number, but we don’t have this future where I think 50 to 70 percent of our revenue comes from subscriptions.”

It's literally 15% of the overall revenue, even if the number increases.

“If you take a long-term bet, which we’re doing, that we will be able to get access to players on the largest platforms that people play on — Android and iOS phones — we want to be in a position with content, players, and storefront capability to take advantage of it,” he said, alluding to the recent disclosure that Microsoft wants to build an Xbox store that’s available on mobile devices.

He's talking about growth. That's their long-term bet.

Their main objective is to grow and they're betting on mobile. A bet isn't guaranteed, it's a gamble.

You can't ignore Phil's emails where he talks about the lack of growth and trying to stay in the business.

 

[ZoukGalaxy]

Good GREAT AWESOME news !

 

[Alan Wake]

Gamepass has it's place. I think it could work as a $7.99 a month with older games and less known games. But for Day 1 AAA releases, I do not support as I do not believe it is sustainable.

That's been the question all along. I do believe Sony's model here is more sustainable. Xbox could do day 1 release for some games maybe, but every first party game on Game Pass day 1 is crazy. And, as it turns out, not good saleswise.

 

[Topher]

I think it's pretty obvious he means the idea that subs will rob us of all our rights and we'll be paying for Jeep subscriptions to start our cars and eat bugs packaged at the World Economic Forum. That kind of fear mongering. What he's pointing to instead is that it's more of an additive distribution model, not a full replacement.

Just comes across as pre-emptive finger wagging to me. Probably being on twitter so much is getting to him.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

Xbox’s own internal projection was 100m subscribers by 2028.

Xbox' target set by Nutella was 100M subs by 2027.

Impossible target, probably set as an excuse to go 3rd party.

 

[adamsapple]

Xbox’s own internal projection was 100m subscribers by 2028.

It can be a high subscriber count but still be 15~ % of total revenue. Especially in light of the revenue ABK, mobile etc will bring.

What's this "fear mongering" bullshit? Is that what we are calling it whenever says something negative about a product or service? And what does Matt care? He should just provide the data. Isn't his job to tell anyone what they should think. That guy gets on his high horse far too often.

Are you reading this thread? Quarter or more replies are people who read the flattened growth figure and go "lol and xyz company put all their chips on it being dominant", when no one, even Phil, expects a sub service to be the dominant revenue generator.

That fearmongering.

And we have emails directly from Phil about how he felt about growth.

Can you cite a quote?

And no, it's not fearmongering because Mat spoke directly about the benefits for developers and players. Stagnant growth is something Phil and Microsoft were hoping did not happen. Mat is also speaking about overall subscriptions, even PS+ which has its benefits.

The problem is that PS+ growth is stagnant at a successful point, Game Pass has not.

How much revenue does PS+ earn for Sony, legitimately curious. Cause we already know from previous reporting that GP earns roughly close to 3 billion USD.

Not surprised that you misrepresenting his words.

It's literally 15% of the overall revenue, even if the number increases.

Yes. why wouldn't that 15% continue to be the same 'even if the numbers increase'

Game Pass sub counts increase with big releases, we already know that.

Microsoft says Starfield’s release was Game Pass’s biggest-ever new subs day | VGC

The Bethesda RPG powered a record Q1 for Microsoft’s gaming business…

www.videogameschronicle.com

 

[adamsapple]

- double post -

 

[DeepSpace5D]

I too have started to fall off the subscription wagon. I recently went down to PS+ essential from Premium, and honestly I wouldn’t even have that if I didn’t game online.

 

[Elios83]

Subscriptions won't work with games as they worked with music and movies.
Completely different contents, most people can't play more than 1-2 games per month, people who are into gaas can play the same game for months if not years.
There is no point in having access to hundreds of titles you will never have the time to play.
Gamers are also more considerate about owning contents and collecting stuff.

To keep people engaged and users growing constantly on a gaming subscription, basically most publishers would have to find financially viable to provide all their premium contents day one on such subscriptions and that just isn't happening.
Both Microsoft and Sony are finding out that there is a much lower ceiling to these subscriptions that what they were expecting.
The difference is that one is betting the farm on Gamepass, for the other it's an option in parallel to a traditional and profitable business model.

 

[Sanepar]

What a great news! Resist gamers! Let's kill this shit!

 

[DForce]

Can you cite a quote?

Xbox Will "Exit The Gaming Business" If Game Pass Doesn't Get Enough Subscribers

"If we do not make more progress than this off console, we would exit the gaming business."

www.thegamer.com

He's specifically speaking about the chart and game pass growth. I don't know why people deny this. He's concerned about growth. That's clear as day. They didn't spend billions od dollars to remain where they are.

How much revenue does PS+ earn for Sony, legitimately curious. Cause we already know from previous reporting that GP earns roughly close to 3 billion USD.

I don't know how much they earn off-hand, but GP earns billions in "profit" without calculating operation costs within the division, which makes it completely different.

Yes. why wouldn't that 15% continue to be the same 'even if the numbers increase'

Game Pass sub counts increase with big releases, we already know that.

Microsoft says Starfield’s release was Game Pass’s biggest-ever new subs day | VGC

The Bethesda RPG powered a record Q1 for Microsoft’s gaming business…

www.videogameschronicle.com

It says it in his quote. He believes revenue will grow and it will remain around 15%.

If you think they spend nearly 80 billion dollars and they're satisfied with remaining where they are then you're fooling yourself. lol

 

[semiconscious]

At the end of the day, there is so much concurrent payments, leeching monthly/yearly off the bank account, the average gamer is willing to tolerate (gaming, music, TV, etc) and sub prices will only go up in the future. Paying $150-$200 per year with hope that the bone the company throws at you has some meat on it is pretty non-sensical to me...

& done...

especially considering that all you have to do once the company does finally throw that bone (big release) is simply sub for a month, play it, & then drop your sub...

 

[Horseganador]

 

[Majima Everywhere System]

Movies and music: Subscription is great! Relatively equivalent option to choose from, seemingly infinite choice for your taste, low investment in to anything you select until you find your next addiction which you definitely binge and move onto what’s next.

There is video games: vast quality difference, limited choices to suit your taste, high investment to see if you even like it, and then if you do like it, you may not move on for months.

Seems like something is off in the value prop, unless you have summers off.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

To think many on Gaf mocked him for that.

 

[DrFigs]

the subscription model just kind of sucks for businesses and consumers. i don't really understand why companies push so hard for it. especially in gaming where (especially on the console side) it's not like piracy is a huge problem.

 

[MisterXDTV]

Movies and music: Subscription is great! Relatively equivalent option to choose from, seemingly infinite choice for your taste, low investment in to anything you select until you find your next addiction which you definitely binge and move onto what’s next.

There is video games: vast quality difference, limited choices to suit your taste, high investment to see if you even like it, and then if you do like it, you may not move on for months.

Seems like something is off in the value prop, unless you have summers off.

I would argue it's great only for music as you get ALL the music with just ONE subscription...

Good luck with that for movies: to have access to everything you need 6 subscriptions and now providers are starting to realize that maybe dealing with cable companies was more profitable...

LOL

They killed a business model that had been working for decades to pour billions down the drain!

 

[Topher]

Are you reading this thread? Quarter or more replies are people who read the flattened growth figure and go "lol and xyz company put all their chips on it being dominant", when no one, even Phil, expects a sub service to be the dominant revenue generator.

That fearmongering.

I'm reading the very post you replied to and this bullshit "fear mongering" just ain't there.

 

[adamsapple]

To think many on Gaf mocked him for that.

I was pointing to the same thing back then as well.

 

[LordBlodgett]

Do you have actual data to back that up for Gamepass, because Microsoft sure as hell isn't providing it.

Absolutely none, purely my conjecture. I just think the world is moving towards digital ownership and subscriptions more and more with each generation and that subscriptions will end up being a larger portion of the market than they are now as there is less pushback against it the younger you are. In 2014 when we were moving some of our clients to Office online subscriptions it was only like 3-4% of the market and tons of my IT colleagues hated the idea because "you don't own the license". Those guys are now complete dinosaurs and the market has wholeheartedly embraced software as a service. Turns out most companies do not care whether they own the software as long as they can use it. Price does have to make sense though. Our company moved away from using all Adobe products because their subscription is outrageous and there are good alternatives for less. We use Microsoft 365 because the value is very high for what we pay.

I don't care whether I own the music as long as I get to listen to it, I don't care whether I own the movie or TV show as long as I can watch it, and I don't care if I own the game as long as I get to play it. Obviously though it has to be worth my while. I have never subscribed to Ubisoft plus because it is $240 per year, Most of their games are not must play to me, and are often deeply discounted within 6-12 months after release. On the other hand Gamepass has been massively worth it to me and has saved me thousands of dollars. I have been able to play hundreds of games (many which i just tried, and never finished), and I do not care that I do not own them.

I will say that as a Microsoft shareholder with over 30k in stock I am betting on subscription based services continuing to grow.

 

[Crayon]

I think this is another case of execs believing all the social marketing seen online for years. You couldn't go anywhere without droves of people practically trying to outdo each other with gamepass namedrops and small essay threads about how it changed their life. When I was on era, a thread about publisher of the year got derailed on the first page with tons of people saying game pass should be a nomination.

In reality, it doesn't make a lot of sense for enthusiast gamers because they are largely adults and even family people now who hardly have time to play a few games. They'd rather buy the ones they want. In some cases it can even be cheaper to get the 4 50-hour games you will play in a year than the gpu sub. The incessant raving about first party day 1 slams into the reality that they don't really have much first party that reaches an elite level.

Subs are good for kids that want everything and will play anything. It's not good for grown casuals who buy just a couple games a year and spend most of their time on a multiplayer game. It doesn't make sense for those core gamers who have their hands full just buying what they want. In my experience, the ps+ catalog (which imo looking at the game lists is similar to game pass but with the 1p games being older and better not to mention cheaper), it's fun to cruise around on when I don't feel like a proper session. Neat for checking out games that I've seen around but never knew what they were. That's about it. I can say it demolishes my steam wishlist, which was packed with games that had been there for years and I apparently didn't want to play that bad. I still don't play them just because they are on the sub.

So we lived in a game pass commercial for years and a reality distortion field online which started the very day it was announced, before anyone even tried it. Some execs looked at their tech giant algorithms saying that everyone loved it, and bet the farm.

 

[Go_Ly_Dow]

The worrying thing for Xbox is that the US is really the only market where they actually sell any consoles.

 

[LordBlodgett]

The man issue here is that gaming costs too much for the companies to be fully or mainly supported through subscriptions. It's not working either for Movies and TV shows. Have you paid attention?

I actually have been paying attention. Here is Netflix's Net income for the last ten years:

2022	$4,492 (millions)
2021	$5,116 (millions)
2020	$2,761 (millions)
2019	$1,867 (millions)
2018	$1,211 (millions)
2017	$559 (millions)
2016	$187 (millions)
2015	$123 (millions)
2014	$267 (millions)
2013	$112 (millions)

They are certainly not losing money. I understand that other streaming companies are not the 900 pound gorilla that Netflix is, but that is why Microsoft wants to become the biggest first. Many of the other streaming companies which are losing money (especially Disney & Discover) have basically tried to loss lead their way into subscribers since they are so late to the game (Disney+ was launched 38 months ago, compared to Netflix's 17 years of streaming). This also means all of these companies trying to shortcut their way to the top are competing with each other for movies. shows, creators, etc and are driving prices up unreasonably. First to market has a ton of advantages

 

[Sentenza]

Oh right, Piscatella is the moron who has me banned on twatter, despise the fact that I never interacted once with the fat fuck in my entire life.

 

[DenchDeckard]

What's this "fear mongering" bullshit? Is that what we are calling it whenever says something negative about a product or service? And what does Matt care? He should just provide the data. Isn't his job to tell anyone what they should think. That guy gets on his high horse far too often.

I don't think anyone's said anything negative. The statement was that sub services aren't taking away a massive share from other spend in gaming. That's a positive thing and should put a lot of people at ease.

I was pointing to the same thing back then as well.

I have a feeling that posters have created hypertheticals in their minds that don't linenup with what people were actually saying.

 

[Sanepar]

So gamepass was never going to destroy the industry like many fearmongered?

It was the real intention, to make a cloud renting business model only. But until now failed miserable like every MS strategy these last 20 years.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

I actually have been paying attention. Here is Netflix's Net income for the last ten years:

2022	$4,492 (millions)
2021	$5,116 (millions)
2020	$2,761 (millions)
2019	$1,867 (millions)
2018	$1,211 (millions)
2017	$559 (millions)
2016	$187 (millions)
2015	$123 (millions)
2014	$267 (millions)
2013	$112 (millions)

They are certainly not losing money. I understand that other streaming companies are not the 900 pound gorilla that Netflix is, but that is why Microsoft wants to become the biggest first. Many of the other streaming companies which are losing money (especially Disney & Discover) have basically tried to loss lead their way into subscribers since they are so late to the game (Disney+ was launched 38 months ago, compared to Netflix's 17 years of streaming). This also means all of these companies trying to shortcut their way to the top are competing with each other for movies. shows, creators, etc and are driving prices up unreasonably. First to market has a ton of advantages

You pick the one streaming service that has been profitable and ignore the 10 others that have lost money. Xbox has many many many challenges greater than Netflix. For starters Xbox console sales have tanked, the interest from PC Gamers is nil and please don't try to tell me that streaming games will save them.

 

[DenchDeckard]

It was the real intention, to make a cloud renting business model only. But until now failed miserable like every MS strategy these last 20 years.

That goes against everything Microsoft said. Not that they can be 100 percent trusted, but they never said this.

 

[a multicultural team of v]

I actually have been paying attention. Here is Netflix's Net income for the last ten years:

2022	$4,492 (millions)
2021	$5,116 (millions)
2020	$2,761 (millions)
2019	$1,867 (millions)
2018	$1,211 (millions)
2017	$559 (millions)
2016	$187 (millions)
2015	$123 (millions)
2014	$267 (millions)
2013	$112 (millions)

They are certainly not losing money. I understand that other streaming companies are not the 900 pound gorilla that Netflix is, but that is why Microsoft wants to become the biggest first. Many of the other streaming companies which are losing money (especially Disney & Discover) have basically tried to loss lead their way into subscribers since they are so late to the game (Disney+ was launched 38 months ago, compared to Netflix's 17 years of streaming). This also means all of these companies trying to shortcut their way to the top are competing with each other for movies. shows, creators, etc and are driving prices up unreasonably. First to market has a ton of advantages

Yes but remember Netflix cancels shows at the drop of a hat, raises their prices aggressively, and cracks down the most on account sharing and other "free" benefits. And they are also literally the only streaming company making any money. For Microsoft, building a business that relies on their company being the only one to actually be profitable seems a little wishful. For gamers, subscribers would face the exact same things they face with Netflix - more cancelled/unfinished games and higher subscription prices.

 

[Arsic]

Isn't PC and console games total only about 30% of video game spending? Also growth has flattened - does he mean that subscriptions are no longer growing or that the rate of growth has leveled off at say +20% per year.
The statement is too vague to make any real conclusions.

No statistical claims for his data. Which services . How it’s calculated. Etc.

May as well be HentaiGuy420 making this tweet because it has just much credibility.

 

[Tajaz2426]

Absolutely none, purely my conjecture. I just think the world is moving towards digital ownership and subscriptions more and more with each generation and that subscriptions will end up being a larger portion of the market than they are now as there is less pushback against it the younger you are. In 2014 when we were moving some of our clients to Office online subscriptions it was only like 3-4% of the market and tons of my IT colleagues hated the idea because "you don't own the license". Those guys are now complete dinosaurs and the market has wholeheartedly embraced software as a service. Turns out most companies do not care whether they own the software as long as they can use it. Price does have to make sense though. Our company moved away from using all Adobe products because their subscription is outrageous and there are good alternatives for less. We use Microsoft 365 because the value is very high for what we pay.

I don't care whether I own the music as long as I get to listen to it, I don't care whether I own the movie or TV show as long as I can watch it, and I don't care if I own the game as long as I get to play it. Obviously though it has to be worth my while. I have never subscribed to Ubisoft plus because it is $240 per year, Most of their games are not must play to me, and are often deeply discounted within 6-12 months after release. On the other hand Gamepass has been massively worth it to me and has saved me thousands of dollars. I have been able to play hundreds of games (many which i just tried, and never finished), and I do not care that I do not own them.

I will say that as a Microsoft shareholder with over 30k in stock I am betting on subscription based services continuing to grow.

Are you saying that wanting to own licenses or anything you spend money on is being a dinosaur? I’ll be a dinosaur all day I guess. I come from a world where they taught you in economics that purchasing goods and services should have value. There is no value when they chose there not to be. You are at their will and mercy. I couldn’t imagine spending what I did on my last home and them telling me I don’t really own it and after a few years they can take it back if they wish to do so. Same as music, it disappears off their service and even songs you buy outright disappear because the license is gone. I’m not seeing how that is beneficial for people in anyway. I believe the same thing happened with movies on Sony. And movies bought digitally, they just disappeared before folks complained enough and they got the licenses for those back. Happens every day on streaming and digital services.

I read a ton of blah blah blah I make money off Microsoft and they do subscriptions so keep it up so I make mine? Is that about right?

 

[Kacho]

Oh right, Piscatella is the moron who has me banned on twatter, despise the fact that I never interacted once with the fat fuck in my entire life.

He uses one of those community created block lists so you were probably on the list because you followed someone “problematic.” Dude is a total dork lol

 

[Rick Dangerous]

This was a total stupid statement. Look at 0365 and what is happening when a company has a stranglehold on a market with sub dominant...
Hopefully it's not yet there on thé gaming market and Hope all those subs will fall falt in their faces. Cancelled PS+ a few months ago. Stupid paywall for multiplayer.

 

[lh032]

2027.

 

[Clintizzle]

I'm probably missing something but at a high level, what % of new games are released on a subscription service? The only company that actively adds new games to a subscription service is Microsoft so if the data that Matt is working off didn't include PS or Nintendo - it would paint a very different picture, not in terms of Subs growth, but in terms of Sub vs other spending.

I completely agree that Xbox has not done enough to grow that GP base. I don't have any faith in cloud boosting that in the future either. but if we get back to me as a consumer, I don't really care. I still think GP is great value for me and how i like to play games.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

 

[kyussman]

So is GamePass still on course for 2 billion subs or no.

 

[newtypepilot]

xbox: let's triple down on our rental subscription service!!! we don't need no exclusive games!!!

 

[Three]

I actually have been paying attention. Here is Netflix's Net income for the last ten years:

2022	$4,492 (millions)
2021	$5,116 (millions)
2020	$2,761 (millions)
2019	$1,867 (millions)
2018	$1,211 (millions)
2017	$559 (millions)
2016	$187 (millions)
2015	$123 (millions)
2014	$267 (millions)
2013	$112 (millions)

They are certainly not losing money. I understand that other streaming companies are not the 900 pound gorilla that Netflix is, but that is why Microsoft wants to become the biggest first. Many of the other streaming companies which are losing money (especially Disney & Discover) have basically tried to loss lead their way into subscribers since they are so late to the game (Disney+ was launched 38 months ago, compared to Netflix's 17 years of streaming). This also means all of these companies trying to shortcut their way to the top are competing with each other for movies. shows, creators, etc and are driving prices up unreasonably. First to market has a ton of advantages

But they are not first to market. EA had EA Access on xbox before xbox even had a first party subscription, PS had PS Now and PS+. There were so many subscriptions before it. It's not a case of first to market in this space. Gaming subscriptions also compete with f2p for engagement and much like the subs money comes mainly from dlc/mtx so the likes of fortnite and free games on EGS means subs might not even be one of the cheapest forms of accessing content like netflix is. Netflix also did loss lead its way to where it is. It was losing money for a long time until the high fixed cost can be overcome by volume. There is a good read about it here

Why Debt Isn't Killing Netflix Any Time Soon

Why Netflix's capital structure and reliance on debt is a strategic choice.

www.forbes.com

What game subscriptions need is to reach a sustainable volume but it's proving a little more difficult than netflix with so many early players and f2p too.

 

[Banjo64]

It can be a high subscriber count but still be 15~ % of total revenue. Especially in light of the revenue ABK, mobile etc will bring.

Im genuinely not sure how that maths would work out. To grow the number of game pass users exponentially whilst remaining at 15% of total revenue would mean their other revenue streams would also have to grow rapidly.

The chart formed part of the FTC leaks via MS themselves. I believe it predates the ABK talks but I couldn’t see a date associated to the slide in my 5 mins of searching.

 

[simpatico]

Who's got time to play all the games on a service? The labor market in America is such that any halfway competent person has access to infinite work and money. They need to find a way to directly target NEET gamers. Maybe put more hentai games on GamePass? idk

 

[Duchess]

I think that subscription services in general have peaked. The service providers thought that these things would keep growing and growing, but nope.

Apparently, Paramount+ has been stuck at the same number of subscribers for the past 12 months. So much so that they're now thinking of doing some sort of merger with Warner Bros to try and turn things around.

Yeah, good luck with that. Just put your shit back on Netflix.

 

[Topher]

Im genuinely not sure how that maths would work out. To grow the number of game pass users exponentially whilst remaining at 15% of total revenue would mean their other revenue streams would also have to grow rapidly.

That's pretty much what Phil Spencer said when he revealed that 15% number

“Game Pass as an overall part of our content and services revenue is probably 15 percent,” he told The Journal’s Sarah Needleman. “I don’t think it gets bigger than that. I think the overall revenue grows so 15 percent of a bigger number, but we don’t have this future where I think 50 to 70 percent of our revenue comes from subscriptions.”

Xbox Game Pass accounts for 15 percent of Microsoft’s gaming revenue, says Phil Spencer

Microsoft’s Xbox Game Pass service is profitable and accounts for about 15 percent of the company’s overall Xbox content and services revenue.

www.engadget.com