LittleBusters
Banned
MS losing money on Game Pass is relevant if they can't bring true AAA experiences to it.
-
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.
Jim Ryan: PlayStation about big blockbuster games that cost a lot to make, Game Pass model would not make financial sense
- Thread starter Rolla
- Start date
Hes right and ive been saying it. Sony and MS just arent aiming for the exact same thing. Close? For sure but MS is looking for games that they will continue to make money on. Sony is just making big single player games. Both obviously offer some of each but they have different business plans, no doubt.
NoMoChokeSJ
Banned
To this day I don't get the Sony loyalist obsession with discrediting game pass. I'm a consumer, not a share holder. I want what is going to provide me the most value.
Those that bash on gamepass act like it is the only source of revenue for MS out of their store. They still have their cut of games sold not on gamepass, games that have microtransactions or deluxe editions, ftp nonsense, ECT, ECT. I've bought games going off of gamepass to make sure I have them as well since most of the 3rd party games are timed and at times older.
And then look at the success of flight simulator 2020.. good luck finding a windows or xbox certified flightstick anywhere and it hasn't even been announced for consoles yet.
The talk of it holding aaa games back while MS announced quite a few games coming to gamepass that are AAA such as Avowed, Hellblade, Halo, Fable, ECT. It's just a tired argument.
Those that bash on gamepass act like it is the only source of revenue for MS out of their store. They still have their cut of games sold not on gamepass, games that have microtransactions or deluxe editions, ftp nonsense, ECT, ECT. I've bought games going off of gamepass to make sure I have them as well since most of the 3rd party games are timed and at times older.
And then look at the success of flight simulator 2020.. good luck finding a windows or xbox certified flightstick anywhere and it hasn't even been announced for consoles yet.
The talk of it holding aaa games back while MS announced quite a few games coming to gamepass that are AAA such as Avowed, Hellblade, Halo, Fable, ECT. It's just a tired argument.
Illo
Member
I agree.
Gamepass makes more sense if the business model is to development games like Sea of Thieves that has shops for micro transactions. Because once a consumer makes an investment in a game that they get via a monthly subscription the more likely they keep the subscription and keep playing the game. Microsoft wants to capture players into the ecosystem of games.
The goal seems to be to establish a netflix-like library to gather reoccurring players with games people wouldn't typically buy months or years after release. Sprinkle in some exclusive content meant to keep them playing in turn paying, then sell the players as a product to games with thick micro transaction/cash stores who are more likely to buy because they feel like the game is free.
Also indie titles get exposure + huge cash in deal day one (word i hate using as a artist) which helps drives support and people buy from them on other platforms.
Game companies make a huge cut.
Xbox gets a cut of micro transactions.
Playstation matching this format with their newly released games wouldn't capitalize on being on such a platform, wouldn't recooperate their costs in the short nor long term and people wouldn't want to play reoccurring costs for membership since they would just finish a 10 hour story campaign, quit their membership then come back later.
Unless PlayStation made their games episodic that released weekly or developed their own games with the intent of marketing mind-share of gamers playing reoccurring games as a service like Sea of Thieves. Then the game pass model just doesn't work for them in the long term.
Playstation better off offering free games via PS+ once their games are heavily adopted and sold off for profit. So they can say they are offering games for free, knowing full well the only a small portion of gamers don't own those games and its real goal is to entice Xbox gamers to their platform in the short term.
Gamepass is what an emagulation of what Microsoft is historically.
Not to say Gamepass is a huge game changer. Its value to gamers is its perceived value, when at the day your probably spending the same amount of money or even more on Gamepass then you are on Playstation. The difference, ultimately comes down to which you prefer. A huge backlog/variety of all types of games constantly being added. Or a handful of 1st party award winning high quality cinematic titles.
To a lot of consumers I see where Xbox has the better deal to a larger audience of people, especially families.
Gamepass makes more sense if the business model is to development games like Sea of Thieves that has shops for micro transactions. Because once a consumer makes an investment in a game that they get via a monthly subscription the more likely they keep the subscription and keep playing the game. Microsoft wants to capture players into the ecosystem of games.
The goal seems to be to establish a netflix-like library to gather reoccurring players with games people wouldn't typically buy months or years after release. Sprinkle in some exclusive content meant to keep them playing in turn paying, then sell the players as a product to games with thick micro transaction/cash stores who are more likely to buy because they feel like the game is free.
Also indie titles get exposure + huge cash in deal day one (word i hate using as a artist) which helps drives support and people buy from them on other platforms.
Game companies make a huge cut.
Xbox gets a cut of micro transactions.
Playstation matching this format with their newly released games wouldn't capitalize on being on such a platform, wouldn't recooperate their costs in the short nor long term and people wouldn't want to play reoccurring costs for membership since they would just finish a 10 hour story campaign, quit their membership then come back later.
Unless PlayStation made their games episodic that released weekly or developed their own games with the intent of marketing mind-share of gamers playing reoccurring games as a service like Sea of Thieves. Then the game pass model just doesn't work for them in the long term.
Playstation better off offering free games via PS+ once their games are heavily adopted and sold off for profit. So they can say they are offering games for free, knowing full well the only a small portion of gamers don't own those games and its real goal is to entice Xbox gamers to their platform in the short term.
Gamepass is what an emagulation of what Microsoft is historically.
Not to say Gamepass is a huge game changer. Its value to gamers is its perceived value, when at the day your probably spending the same amount of money or even more on Gamepass then you are on Playstation. The difference, ultimately comes down to which you prefer. A huge backlog/variety of all types of games constantly being added. Or a handful of 1st party award winning high quality cinematic titles.
To a lot of consumers I see where Xbox has the better deal to a larger audience of people, especially families.
Shmunter
Member
Peter Moor. Yes, one of the key personalities in the golden era of 360
Slings and Arrows
Banned
Sorry Lyin Ryan, but you've burned my trust in you worse than a Wendys.
Besides, i don't give a shit about your finances.
Besides, i don't give a shit about your finances.
LarknThe4th
Member
If they get to about 40 million subscribers then they will have a repetitive predictable stream of about 400 million Euro a month
If they get about half of that after paying off all their partners then that's nearly two and a half billion euro a year in revenue
That's what they are working towards, if they have that many subs then they can easily afford about three big AAA games a year themselves to prop up the service
There is gigantic financial potential with this service, and consider that they will most likely be far above 40 million subs at the end of this gen!
I predict at some stage in this gen Sony will turn Now into a Gamepass like service, probably as a reasoned to buy into the Playstation 6(or whatever it will be called)
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
PS Now hasn't reached critical mass yet to do the Gamepass model.
Whereas MS has money to subsidize it with tons of us doing the $1 upgrade for 3 years of gold (which we would have bought anyway), Sony is not in the position to do that.
Whereas MS has money to subsidize it with tons of us doing the $1 upgrade for 3 years of gold (which we would have bought anyway), Sony is not in the position to do that.
Torrent of Pork
Banned
It's cool, I'm actually happy that all 3 companies are pursuing their own niches in the gaming world. I'll eventually buy a 2nd hand PS5 near the end of the gen with hopefully a bunch of cheap exclusives to play.
Game Pass is more my speed by far, but Sony puts out out good shit when they do so.
Game Pass is more my speed by far, but Sony puts out out good shit when they do so.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Yup. Great to see each company fighting for gamers in their own way. One thing that has been a boon is digital deals, PS Now/GP subs etc.... Ya, the online fees suck, but it can get countered fast with deals and tons of games for cheap or on sub.
For all you young gamers who never played during the cartridge days 30 years ago. Not only were games a lot due to rom chip costs, but you got hardly any deals. Those games seemed to stick at regular price for a while, when maybe half price 3 years later. There is no way games got dumped for cheap 6 months later like now.
If you wanted to try new games you had to go to the store and rent them for $3/day EACH. Or trade games with a friend at school.
Last edited:
Torrent of Pork
Banned
Fuck me, I remember saving up my allowance for a long time to finally buy a copy of Super Mario RPG which was $100 in '96 money.
Exactly then the goal post shifting to what counts as game.
For those who don't like this gamepass route by Phil guess what the division was dead with out it. It was under funded sent to die out. It was gamepass that got the division the cash to work on fixing the horrible first party situation. To make the games mentioned by you that don't count because they don't follow the Sony template AAA game. I love some of those games but there is more to gaming than cinematic 3rd person adventure games.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Going by MS's stock price which is near all time highs, it seems the more MS focuses on GP, the higher the stock price!
Torrent of Pork
Banned
In the world of beautiful action-adventure RPGs and 3rd person adventure games, I probably spent this year with more hours put into Skyrim SE, and Stardew Valley than anything else.
Hell, Undertale was my GOTY in 2015.
I am freaking jacked for fable and avowed. I love me a well done rpg. Small games I never would of played I tried and loved like ruiner that is the magic of gamepass for me. Gears was great but finding something you would never try but can't put down.
OuterLimits
Member
Our games are too good for that shitty Game pass model. In fact they are so damn good, we are going to raise the price during a global pandemic and our customers will love it!!
Torrent of Pork
Banned
Graveyard Keeper
Void Bastards
The Outer Wilds
Afterparty
Astroneer
FFXV
Grounded
Sea of Thieves
Journey to the Savage Planet
Moonlighter
Spiritfarer
I wouldn't have played any of these games without Game Pass. They all would have languished in that, "I'm mildly interested, but not $20 interested," space.
Silent Viper
Banned
No one forcing you to use Game pass. You rich person looks like, you go buy 70$. Game pass is for budget gamer like me.
Explosive Zombie
Banned
Weird use of inflation... what? I'm saying that by the standards of the year Irishman came out it was not actually very expensive. You don't just need inflation to prove that... Avengers Endgame cost over 350 million dollars, Rise of Skywalker 275 million, the Lion King cost 260 million, Toy Story 4 200 million, even a movie as butt ugly as Captain Marvel cost 160 million. So if the bar for Netflix spending on a feature is close to 160 million on a film that doesn't even have the amount of VFX-based action sequences as CAPTAIN MARVEL then I'm not sure what YOU'RE arguing.
Oh okay, because you keep saying your inexpensive movies are better and you want more of those, make it clear what you mean.
Is this even Gamepass bashing? I'm just saying don't expect blockbuster level games day/date on it. You think Cyberpunk will come to gamepass day/date? Doom Eternal didn't and definitely don't expect first party XBOX games that look like God of War or Horizon Zero Dawn. Okay... Netflix outspending studios making romcoms doesn't really mean much does it? And you have one example of an expensive Netflix movie... ONE... and it's not even expensive by the standards of the year it released! Plus, where did that budget go? Was it just for the actors? Transformers 4 might be trash but the point was you compared it to movies in 2014 when Irishman is a 2019 movie, it's a silly thing to do to make your budget point. Netflix has one big budget blockbuster film by the standards of... a mid-tier sleeper hit from 2014? Okay, great argument. You're intentionally avoiding what my argument is to be silly, it's not even just budgets it's the TYPE of movies.
I think Gamepass will rarely get the biggest games day/date... and I'm not sure they have yet? Like ever? Prove me wrong.
Halo Infinite is a game that looked so poor they delayed it for a year. The Initiative? They make a game I'll tell you if it fulfills my criteria lol. Wait, you do get the Craig joke right? It's how bad he looks, Transformers 4 has amazing effects, whatever you think of the quality of the film.
Netflix has had success? All reports I've seen is that they're losing money constantly. That their business model's accounting obscures operating profits, that their liabilities expand at a faster rate than their revenues. There was a 2018 argument that their lack of profits actually paradoxically help their stock value but currently they've lost 9 billion in stock value and 3 million a day since due to the Cuties fiasco.
How does my point not apply to Gamepass? Can you name a AAA big budget game that went to Gamepass day/date so far? Can you name more than 1? Am I wrong to think games as ambitious as Cyerpunk only get made because they expect 60-70 dollars per pop? Prove it, and do better than you're doing.
chilichote
Member
I'm not sure that was sarcasm, but I'm not rich and very rarely buy a full price game either. I play a lot from PS Plus or buy from Sales.
And: if I were a "budget gamer", I would almost certainly not use a monthly subscription.
Last edited:
megreotsugua
Banned
Good points. Sony should stick with their business of AAA blockbuster games. Those games shouldn't release day and date on PS+/PS Now because it doesn't make sense. They would have to change the business model of their games to make sense for a day 1 release on PS+/PS Now. I don't want to them to change their AAA games into GaaS.
With that said though, I also think Sony should give MS game pass a run for their money. Their 14 studios should stick to their forte which is making single-player AAA games. But it doesn't mean that Sony shouldn't copy game pass business model for their PS+/PS Now.
- Sony can make business deals with small 3rd party devs to make GaaS games for them to be released on PS+/PS Now Day 1.
- Sony should make the deals like the one they did with Rocket League and Fall Guys more often.
- Sony's 14 studios could also help contribute on PS+/PS Now Day 1 GaaS games occasionally. But they should absolutely not focus on it. Maybe release small GaaS games from time to time between big releases.
- Some of Sony's 14 studios could be expanded to accommodate GaaS games in their portfolio so that the strategy won't be at the expense of their single-player AAA games output.
- Sony has a portfolio of really fun small games (Patapon, Loco Roco, Dreams, etc.) as well as multiplayer games that will fit a GaaS model. (Fat Princess, Little Big Planet, Warhawk, Twisted Metal, Calling All Cars, etc.)
- Sony could acquire multiple small studios to concentrate on GaaS games to be released on PS+/PS Now Day 1. (Big studios with a lot of talent like Insomniac are expensive and harder to manage anyway, so they're really picky when it comes to acquiring big studios. Small studios though are a lot more manageable.)
- They should stick to $60/year or perhaps add a $90/year with combined PS+ and PS Now.
- Randomly releasing single-player AAA games after 2 years of release for a limited time is optional.
Last edited:
ZywyPL
Banned
He's actually right on that one, I wrote it in the other thread already, that 1-2 SP-only AAA games just don't fit such business/service model, nobody would want to pay monthly for a service without any content. Their doing what works best for them, don't expect anything more than TPP "cinematic experiences" from Sony's 1st party studios on PS5, if ever, that's what brings them most money and builds up brand strength/recognition. Although those 80€ will most likely hit them hard and make their strategy obsolete.
12Dannu123
Member
This is the reality that Sony will face if they move their games to a subscription service, they will be facing years and billions of losses with no guarantee of profit. Microsoft only recently started to ramp up spending on Game Pass, so they're in the 2013-2015 stage in increasing investment. Microsoft can do this because Xbox is not a core business, so they can experiment and take risk with new business models. PS is a core business and is what keeps the company afloat. I don't think Sony is big enough to go this route against a Big tech company like MS.
But the fact that MS is using this model of subsidising the losses using money from other divisions to gain market share should be a huge concern to Sony and any company that has gaming as a core business, the reasoning being to compete against MS, they will need to compete and also face huge upfront losses to get their service running, but because the company has gaming as a core business, they cannot sustain the losses.
But the fact that MS is using this model of subsidising the losses using money from other divisions to gain market share should be a huge concern to Sony and any company that has gaming as a core business, the reasoning being to compete against MS, they will need to compete and also face huge upfront losses to get their service running, but because the company has gaming as a core business, they cannot sustain the losses.
Last edited:
megreotsugua
Banned
This is the reality that Sony will face if they move their games to a subscription service, they will be facing years and billions of losses with no guarantee of profit. Microsoft only recently started to ramp up spending on Game Pass, so they're in the 2013-2015 stage in increasing investment. Microsoft can do this because Xbox is not a core business, so they can experiment and take risk with new business models. PS is a core business and is what keeps the company afloat. I don't think Sony is big enough to go this route against a Big tech company like MS.
But the fact that MS is using this model of subsidising the losses using money from other divisions to gain market share should be a huge concern to Sony and any company that has gaming as a core business, the reasoning being to compete against MS, they will need to compete and also face huge upfront losses to get their service running, but because the company has gaming as a core business, they cannot sustain the losses.
There are two problems here:
1. Whether Netflix business model will work as speculated is still up in the air. It's still speculative.
2. Whether the speculative profitable business model of Netflix will apply to video game business.*
It's speculation on top of a speculation.
*Where will the constantly paying subscribers come from? I think MS is misjudging the casual players who game on their phones and tablets. I don't think they will buy into this subscription of $15/mo. There are lot of cheaper alternative to enjoy games. Game pass main competition is not Sony's AAA games. It's not PS Now. It's not PS+. It's not even itself or the lack perceived value for now. It's the multitude of free-to-play games that the casual gamers are willing to spend money on and play for months if not years before they move on to another free-to-play games. So no, I don't think there is a big untapped market like they think there is.
On the other hand, the market for single-player AAA games are relatively small compared to the casual market. But this market is proven to be willing to pay up for single-player games provided the quality is there.
Last edited:
NoMoChokeSJ
Banned
This is apples and oranges. Game Pass isn't marketed towards cell phone and tablet game players, it's a xbox and PC driven service. From a parent perspective a subscription service works. Plus there is a whole segment on here that ignores the game rental market and long standing service such as Gamefly. But unlike those services there is no physical purchases they have to make, no postage they have to provide.
sainraja
Member
He's saying that because he believes that to be the case based on his experience but don't mistake that as a weakness because he seems to be positioning the ecosystem to support something like game pass if it does become the norm. The PlayStation Plus collection isn't GamePass, but it is a collection of games we get for being a member. Not to mention they also have PlayStation Now which is what GamePass is, minus the first-party day one and the singular subscription option.
I wonder if Sony plans on supporting their back catalog (PS1/2) with the Plus Collection similar to what Nintendo is doing with the SNES/NES on the Switch. I know just speculating as they haven't said anything but it is very much possible and likely not announced yet since it is not ready.
Last edited:
megreotsugua
Banned
Oh. Then their goal of multi-million subs is now getting farther from happening. This business model won't really be sustainable.
I always thought the goal was to hook the casuals to game pass through streaming.
NoMoChokeSJ
Banned
Except they say that they already have 10 million subscribers... Which would be multi-million subs. As for sustainability... Think about it. If they can get 20 million subscribers at $15 a month, that is $300 million a month or $3.6 billion a year in subscription fees. This doesn't include additional sales profits from exposure, dlc or microtransactions, ECT.. If they didn't see sustainability in it, they wouldn't keep expanding on it.
It'll be interesting to see if Sony changes their tune if game pass turn out to be a gold mine in the long run.
Last edited:
sainraja
Member
Well, ofcourse, they will. That kinda goes without saying.
But I really hope it does not happen. I am not a huge fan of subscriptions and over the course of time have been forced to accept that for some services but I don't wish for a time where we can only get games via a subscription.
Last edited:
megreotsugua
Banned
They need regular paying subscribers. Numbers can easily be inflated specially when you run $1 promo and then immediately declare you have 10 million subs.
MS is threading on thin ice and I'm not sure it will turn out well for them with only xbox and pc as potential customers. I don't know how long GP subscribers will be willing to pay when the games they want to play are not in the selection. A single game can make a subscriber unsubscribe once they get hooked in a game outside of GP and it's the only game he wants to play for months.
It's different how we consume movies and shows from how we consume games.
NoMoChokeSJ
Banned
Unless you offer a financing option that locks in a subscriber for 2 years. I'm sure they'll be fine.
tryDEATH
Member
People acting like games cost $100's of millions to license for GamePass. The game industry isn't Hollywood with their highly inflated budgets, most games are made relatively cheaply and don't require an absurd amount of units to be sold to turn a profit.
I would even go as far and say that a huge majority of titles on GamePass were near break even or already profiting from their games and GamePass was just an additional cherry on top income revenue stream from, which they didn't need millions up on millions to either survive or break even. It was a mutually beneficial relationship to further grow the games audience and turn into paying customers.
As for the 1st party titles that will be more expensive to make, they will be amortized over a extended period in the financial books, thus they won't have a negative impact on the bottom line in any particular year.
I also love how everyone here conveniently ignores Sony's strategy, which is paying humongous amounts for timed exclusivity to large publishers/developers(CoD, FF VI, Project Athia, FF 7R, Destiny, and many more), which basically prohibits a publisher access to 10's of millions of customers. That is totally a much more pragmatic approach than GamePass.
Keep eating up the lies that Jimmy is throwing out there and pretend to be concern about MS bottom line.
I would even go as far and say that a huge majority of titles on GamePass were near break even or already profiting from their games and GamePass was just an additional cherry on top income revenue stream from, which they didn't need millions up on millions to either survive or break even. It was a mutually beneficial relationship to further grow the games audience and turn into paying customers.
As for the 1st party titles that will be more expensive to make, they will be amortized over a extended period in the financial books, thus they won't have a negative impact on the bottom line in any particular year.
I also love how everyone here conveniently ignores Sony's strategy, which is paying humongous amounts for timed exclusivity to large publishers/developers(CoD, FF VI, Project Athia, FF 7R, Destiny, and many more), which basically prohibits a publisher access to 10's of millions of customers. That is totally a much more pragmatic approach than GamePass.
Keep eating up the lies that Jimmy is throwing out there and pretend to be concern about MS bottom line.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
The bigger issue long-term is that as the industry is switching to higher pricing across the board for retail product (both digital and physical), so will the cost of licensing such titles for GamePass, particularly if MS are looking for simultaneous launches.
The problem with services like GamePass and PSNow has always been convincing partners that its a viable choice monetarily. This is doubly problematic because expectations are fluid based on addressable market, as in the higher the install-base the more valuable the property is to the dev/pub/IP holder.
People tend to assume that having the bigger install-base should mean its easier to attract big names to these sort of alternative distribution schemes, whereas the reality is that the reverse is true because the "buy-in" cost is predicated on expected sales lost at retail.
The problem with services like GamePass and PSNow has always been convincing partners that its a viable choice monetarily. This is doubly problematic because expectations are fluid based on addressable market, as in the higher the install-base the more valuable the property is to the dev/pub/IP holder.
People tend to assume that having the bigger install-base should mean its easier to attract big names to these sort of alternative distribution schemes, whereas the reality is that the reverse is true because the "buy-in" cost is predicated on expected sales lost at retail.
alabtrosMyster
Banned
They charge you amount x, probably give an amount for time played to the studios that made the games you play.
I assume most people play only a small portion of the 100 games (which is awfully small, epic gave me more games for free).
GreyHand23
Member
I want results, not announcements. How many years has it been that Microsoft is continually behind when it comes to AAA exclusives and you want to tout games that are coming 2-5 years from now as value. Value means different things for different people and for people who value their time, we'd rather invest in amazing experiences than have to wait years to maybe get great games while playing mediocre to good games in the meantime. I look at the last cycle between PS4 and Xbox One and having game pass wouldn't make up for the fact that I'm missing out on the best games of the generation. If you want things for cheap then I think game pass and Microsoft are an awesome solution for you, but I and many others want a premium experience rather than the all you can eat buffet style. Nothing wrong with either approach and glad that they've chosen to diversify in different areas.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
Netflix has been making profit for years. You're talking cash flow which is different.This is the reality that Sony will face if they move their games to a subscription service, they will be facing years and billions of losses with no guarantee of profit. Microsoft only recently started to ramp up spending on Game Pass, so they're in the 2013-2015 stage in increasing investment. Microsoft can do this because Xbox is not a core business, so they can experiment and take risk with new business models. PS is a core business and is what keeps the company afloat. I don't think Sony is big enough to go this route against a Big tech company like MS.
But the fact that MS is using this model of subsidising the losses using money from other divisions to gain market share should be a huge concern to Sony and any company that has gaming as a core business, the reasoning being to compete against MS, they will need to compete and also face huge upfront losses to get their service running, but because the company has gaming as a core business, they cannot sustain the losses.
Netflix One Question: Is It Losing Money Or Making Money?
Netflix stock has emerged a star performer through the coronavirus pandemic, rising by ~25% year-to-date, as people consume more content while being confined to their homes. The company added close to 16 million subscribers over the first quarter, handily beating its guidance of about 7 million...
www.forbes.com
Last edited:
alabtrosMyster
Banned
You just explained why that kind of service is worthless.
NoMoChokeSJ
Banned
Not sure how that proves a point or shows the service is worthless.
Last edited:
NoMoChokeSJ
Banned
Right back at you buddy.
12Dannu123
Member
You don't know how modern business models work nowadays. Uber, Spotify, Office, Netflix all had huge losses to gain a huge userbase to eventually make profits later down the line. This is simply Sony unwilling to make the risk because PS is a core business and if Sony went the Game Pass route, they will deeper in the red longer and more than the PS3 era.
Team Andromeda
Member
LOL. There's plenty of AAA experiences on Gameplass already, never mind going forward.
ScarletSpider
Banned
.
Last edited:
pasterpl
Member
I love how people keep saying gamepass is full of mediocre games and ms produces smaller games because of gamepass, and then you look at likes of flight simulator, gears 5, rumoured $500M spent on halo infinite development, forza horizon games, ori, wastelands, gears tactics ...and this is only from ms studios, then we had games like rdr2 or gtav, Witcher 3 on gamepass as well, some of the best games this generation.
