• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Microsoft announced Xbox Game Pass subscription service

SG-17 said:
Sad day for gaming. Continuing down the road of gaming as a service will not benefit the consumer in the long run.
Click to expand...

Yup. I was just talking about this in a different thread a couple days ago,

VlaudTheImpaler said:
See, hindsight is 20:20. As an environmentalist and permaculturalist myself I see that there are many, many issues in the world today that are only here because it didn't effect people immediately in the past.

I also run a business and can see how things that consumers have let slide have grown to bite them today, micro transactions being one. Businesses most of the time take baby steps when they want to implement something that they know people wouldn't go for immediately if they went all in at the time.

I'm not out to get Nintendo, but I don't think any corporation is above this and I have seen time and time again recently things that people hate implemented yet do nothing about. Like they feel defeated and resigned to the way the corporations want to do things. So, everytime I see an opportunity to advocate for anything pro consumer I try to take it.

Thing is, these huge businesses especially aren't going to go bankrupt by taking the time to implement the things said in the OP. The only people something like this is good for are the investors. Not the consumer.
Click to expand...

VlaudTheImpaler said:
I disagree in part.

I think having the platform be able to play your owned media for as long as the hardware lasts is just as important.

I think that the future that is best for corporations is games being streamed only. Where we the consumers don't own or store any of the data.

I think that at the rate that people are less and less concerned about preservation, about the ownership and accessibility of their product in the future, we are going to make it a reality for them and make their dreams come true sooner than we think.

Companies want to nurture the idea that games lose quality and value as time goes on. Part of it is making it frustrating to run their old games. If consumers let the bar in their minds for at what point in the future their products become obsolete and useless to them be pushed back further and further, little by little, we will come to a point where people will be ok with just streaming games that we don't own, where games can be removed from catalogues at any moment, and game preservation will be tremendously hindered or even stamped out all together.

Sure, none of us may live to see it. Hopefully. But if this isn't a future that you want at all then why not advocate against it?
Click to expand...

I don't know how you would convince people to stop though. We live in a world where instant gratification is what you pursue. It is encouraged and put on a pedestal. People are beginning to treat more and more things like food. They consume, digest, crap it out and then flush it never looking back. Until the new and slightly improved ribs are back on the menu...

These companies know exactly what they are doing and what they want, a future where games are only available via streaming, and they are taking baby steps to get there guised as convenience to the consumer.

I just don't see any way to stop it because it's not just something that is happening in gaming alone. This is a cultural issue. Thing is that companies study cultural shifts and they know that things usually go in cycles. Problem is, we back ourselves into a corner. When we let all these companies hop on board we are left with no options but theirs. When we are thirsty we only have their options now, drink from one of their taps. Period. We can't collect our own rain water to drink if we decide we don't like the way theirs tastes.
 
Hopefully stores will sell the subscription cards also so there can be discounts. I've never paid the retail price for Xbox live so I doubt I can justify paying the full $120/yr for this.
 
etta said:
That's kinda shitty, especially since the EA Vault doesn't remove them.
I dunno, feelings are kinda muted on this.
EA Access is exciting, this is kinda meh. With those titles shown, at least. If they get new releases, maybe.
Click to expand...

I think it's more than likely the way they'll get some third parties on board. I get this feeling that we'll get "Publisher" schedules much like we do with the sales. In this way people can try games they've always wanted and also adds to the possible "reviews" of a game. If there are enough publishers cycling through and a potential schedule to follow, I don't think this would be as big an issue as many are suggesting.
As for the current list of titles, it's obvious to me that this is just for the Beta portion. If you went off and added all the good titles now, you wouldn't get the sales later on. You don't give all your features (eg Games library) out during your beta run.

I am personally not excited for this as I just purchase a ton of games (it's my particular drug of choice) but I do believe they are on the right track. Does that mean the track will be able to sustain or is our culture too high class for this? I dunno.
All I know is I had always said that Gamefly should have gone down this avenue first.
 
Wait... they cycle games like Netflix? They don't keep them in the service forever? What is the point of this then? Even PSNow keeps the games there no? Or am I missing something
 
TalentAlwaysWins said:
Wait... they cycle games like Netflix? They don't keep them in the service forever? What is the point of this then? Even PSNow keeps the games there no? Or am I missing something
Click to expand...

Consumer: to be able to play a bunch of games you didn't buy, assuming they keep games for a reasonable amount of time on the service (like Netflix does for movies/shows) then the cycling shouldn't matter too much as long as you keep track.

MS/Publishers: a revenue stream for games that otherwise aren't making money anymore due to the used game market + get people to play games they might pay for DLC for and possibly even buy a full copy of through the 20% off deal.

Cycling games is the trade off likely for publishers to buy off on it; they have to split the revenue between a handful of publishers across 100 games, and the "deals" last for a certain amount of time. If they just kept adding games and not removing games they'd be splitting the 9.99 a month pie further and further and further.

And this way a publisher can experiment with the service; offer up a few games for X months, see how it works out for them, and then re-negotiate. It's the same way streaming services have so much content; companies don't want to sell the right to the content indefinitely. It's possible for instance some deals might be a flat fee.

IIRC Netflix for instance does timed deals for large fees rather than "per view"; MS may be doing the same thing. They can make deals for a year, and then know exactly how many subs they need to profit. The publishers benefit because the games they give up to the service are near-dead revenue streams due to how launch-month front loaded game sales are.
 
Intriguing on paper but I'm not jumping in on another $120 a year service on top of what I already have. Given my game buying habits I'm not sure what games could show up here where I'd want that that I didn't already own

It was a similar issue I ran into with gamefly years ago
 
riotous said:
Consumer: to be able to play a bunch of games you didn't buy, assuming they keep games for a reasonable amount of time on the service (like Netflix does for movies/shows) then the cycling shouldn't matter too much as long as you keep track.

MS/Publishers: a revenue stream for games that otherwise aren't making money anymore due to the used game market + get people to play games they might pay for DLC for and possibly even buy a full copy of through the 20% off deal.

Cycling games is the trade off likely for publishers to buy off on it; they have to split the revenue between a handful of publishers across 100 games, and the "deals" last for a certain amount of time. If they just kept adding games and not removing games they'd be splitting the 9.99 a month pie further and further and further.

And this way a publisher can experiment with the service; offer up a few games for X months, see how it works out for them, and then re-negotiate. It's the same way streaming services have so much content; companies don't want to sell the right to the content indefinitely. It's possible for instance some deals might be a flat fee.

IIRC Netflix for instance does timed deals for large fees rather than "per view"; MS may be doing the same thing. They can make deals for a year, and then know exactly how many subs they need to profit. The publishers benefit because the games they give up to the service are near-dead revenue streams due to how launch-month front loaded game sales are.
Click to expand...

I see. Interesting thank you very much for your post!

graywolf323 said:
actually games have cycled out of PSNow IIRC
Click to expand...

Which ones? Sorry I don't recall cause I haven't used it much
 
Is this to gateway to AAA launches from now on for MS?

Halo 6 for everyone with a game pass, money coming in from XBL gold and REQ microtransactions (with full purchase option available)

Is this a sustainable model for video game development?
 
TalentAlwaysWins said:
I see. Interesting thank you very much for your post!
Click to expand...

We'll have to see how it works out; the more subscribers they get the more money they can offer publishers for games.

But it's all a balancing act with these services because if every Xbox One owner has this service, that takes up a whole lot of gaming time for the potential customers. They can't make the service TOO GOOD or it will start to eat into new game purchases. "I'll just wait for the game to be on Game Pass." That's the sort of give and take they have to deal with. It's the same for TV/movie industry.

However these services seem to be working out for the likes of EA; predictable revenue streams are generally "worth it" in the end.

Hell the service existing keeps people using their Xbox, possibly attracts new buyers, and that means increased sales for publishers.

It's a really interesting business model that happens to also generally be a really good deal for consumers.

Although the "perfect customer" is the person who spends the $9.99 a month but is too impatient for most games to appear and buys them new :) Like I said, balancing act.
 
If I can cancel anytime, it'll be worth checking out. I don't have a lot of time right now, but this summer will be a different story. Could also be good for the kids.
 
ElBoxyBrown said:
Some big exclusive has to launch on this service on the same day it hits retail. Sea of Thieves would be such a great choice.
Click to expand...

This is what I mean, opening your games to more people via Win 10 is good, lowering the barrier even more with a subscription service is great

There's two ways to get mindshare

1. Make good things and market them
2. Make good things that are very easily accessible

SoT as a game pass launch would guarantee it becomes a hit
 
ElBoxyBrown said:
Some big exclusive has to launch on this service on the same day it hits retail. Sea of Thieves would be such a great choice.
Click to expand...
thats not going to happen. 100 old games is a amazing value. It'll be like EA Access, where games may get added 6-8 months after launch. You don't want to hurt day one sales, which is the majority of money you make. This is to still make money off old games instead of buying used. reason why gamestop took a big hit.
 
etta said:
Pretty cool but for the games that cycle out, can you keep playing them as long as you accessed them when they were available (akin to Games with Gold)? Or once they're out, they become unplayable?
Click to expand...

Once they are out you cannot play them anyore unless you bought them. Save games though will be saved if you decide to purchase the game.
 
Just saw the news.

Seems like a good service.

A direct opponent for PS NOW is sure to shake the market in a good way.

See nintendo ? that's how you do rentals.

Now that service would had been a killer if it would had been included in the xbox live subscription
 
Aaron Greenberg confirmed on twitter that Xbox home sharing policies apply to Xbox Game Pass just as it do with Xbox Live Gold.

Holy crap!!!!!!
 
Probably buried in this thread, but would there be a XBL Gold + Xbox Game Pass bundle together in 1 fee? (with a discount over purchasing seperately) I'd be down for that.
 
Just remember that not every single title within the 100 count will rotate.

Some titles may stay for months or come back due to feedback requests. Feedback will happen with this feature, no doubt. This is not a cut and dry service. It will adapt and become tweaked like everything else on xbox.

For example i anticipate halo 5 be in this service for months.
 
Samurai G0SU said:
Just remember that not every single title within the 100 count will rotate.

Some titles may stay for months or come back due to feedback requests. Feedback will happen with this feature, no doubt. This is not a cut and dry service. It will adapt and become tweaked like everything else on xbox.

For example i anticipate halo 5 be in this service for months.
Click to expand...

I really really hope there's a warning if a game will be going off the service

It'll probably be a prompt to buy the game now discounted and enjoy it permanently or something
 
Vormund said:
Probably buried in this thread, but would there be a XBL Gold + Xbox Game Pass bundle together in 1 fee? (with a discount over purchasing seperately) I'd be down for that.
Click to expand...

I would assume so. But they haven't given out more details yet. Will just have to wait and see.
 
SOR5 said:
I really really hope there's a warning if a game will be going off the service

It'll probably be a prompt to buy the game now discounted and enjoy it permanently or something
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty clear they are modeling this after Netflix, and as such we'll likely see similar "what's coming and going" notifications/posts however frequent they decide to rotate.

I for one think a rotating library is critical for a service like this, as it keeps it fresh, interesting, and will bring in different customers as the library changes over time.
 
XGP - $120/year
XBL - $40/year

That's some amazing annual revenue for MS. This download to box and play is what I dreamed PS Now would have become by now. It'll be interesting to see if and how Sony responds to this.
 
It is an interesting product offering. So we are looking at about $120 a year. I would have to see what games are available on the list. I typically pick up games a year or so later and usually at a big discount. I suspect in the long run this isn't as good value. Though i could imagine it is great value for someone who goes through a lot of games a month.
 
VlaudTheImpaler said:
Yup. I was just talking about this in a different thread a couple days ago,





I don't know how you would convince people to stop though. We live in a world where instant gratification is what you pursue. It is encouraged and put on a pedestal. People are beginning to treat more and more things like food. They consume, digest, crap it out and then flush it never looking back. Until the new and slightly improved ribs are back on the menu...

These companies know exactly what they are doing and what they want, a future where games are only available via streaming, and they are taking baby steps to get there guised as convenience to the consumer.

I just don't see any way to stop it because it's not just something that is happening in gaming alone. This is a cultural issue. Thing is that companies study cultural shifts and they know that things usually go in cycles. Problem is, we back ourselves into a corner. When we let all these companies hop on board we are left with no options but theirs. When we are thirsty we only have their options now, drink from one of their taps. Period. We can't collect our own rain water to drink if we decide we don't like the way theirs tastes.
Click to expand...

I think you make good points. And your post seems genuine. I just find it hard to dissect the truly concerned from the biased faux concern as the poster you quoted previously had zero issues with PS Now:

http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=207000659

And now that MS has a similar (arguably better) service, it's the end of the world as we know it according to that very same poster.

But I agree with you, all three would like to go this route. Sony is testing the waters with PS Now. MS is testing with this and Nintendo is doing their trial with their VC rentals.

With the way big-budget games and the market is changing, is it going to work? Will it be a necessary evil?
 
etta said:
That's kinda shitty, especially since the EA Vault doesn't remove them.
I dunno, feelings are kinda muted on this.
EA Access is exciting, this is kinda meh. With those titles shown, at least. If they get new releases, maybe.
Click to expand...

These titles are for a beta test. EA access is awesome, but it's inherently limited in the number of publishers that will participate.

For the cost of a Netflix account, you have a buffet of 100 full games to play at anytime. I don't see how that's shitty at all.

If you couldn't find a handful of games worth playing in a given month, you could just cancel.
 
This sounds like a great service for people who play a lot of games. Goes right after the gamefly crowd too. A bit expensive for me to dive in though. I just don't have as much time for gaming really so this service would be wasted on me.
 
So this is kinda a sweet idea. I think. Can't see Microsoft filling this up with bad, old games. Any info on what games will be on so far? Saw the companies but no mention of which games.

Also is this just me or can you just see a two year plan in total for this.

$30 a month plan that will include XBLG, Scorpio and this pass.

Heck I might actually buy a Xbox and try this out. Mistwalker games had become bc right?

statham said:
thats not going to happen. 100 old games is a amazing value. It'll be like EA Access, where games may get added 6-8 months after launch. You don't want to hurt day one sales, which is the majority of money you make. This is to still make money off old games instead of buying used. reason why gamestop took a big hit.
Click to expand...

Add more value by giving away free in game packs. Or is that already a thing with gold?
 
statham said:
thats not going to happen. 100 old games is a amazing value. It'll be like EA Access, where games may get added 6-8 months after launch. You don't want to hurt day one sales, which is the majority of money you make. This is to still make money off old games instead of buying used. reason why gamestop took a big hit.
Click to expand...

This is how I see it as well.
 
Trup1aya said:
These titles are for a beta test. EA access is awesome, but it's inherently limited in the number of publishers that will participate.

For the cost of a Netflix account, you have a buffet of 100 full games to play at anytime. I don't see how that's shitty at all.
Click to expand...
I meant the Halo 5 and Mad Max in the picture.
I'll reserve full judgement for when it's out of beta yea, but at the moment it seems meh for $120 a year.
If it was like within EA Access range, $30-40, then the age of the titles wouldn't matter as much.
 
etta said:
I meant the Halo 5 and Mad Max in the picture.
I'll reserve full judgement for when it's out of beta yea, but at the moment it seems meh for $120 a year.
If it was like within EA Access range, $30-40, then the age of the titles wouldn't matter as much.
Click to expand...

I am thinking $120 is like 3 games per year retail. If I can enjoy 5 current gen titles within 12 months of release, I am good.

Resident Evil, Halo Wars 2, Recore are games that I would gladly wait months to play.
 
watdaeff4 said:
I think you make good points. And your post seems genuine. I just find it hard to dissect the truly concerned from the biased faux concern as the poster you quoted previously had zero issues with PS Now:

http://m.neogaf.com/showpost.php?p=207000659

And now that MS has a similar (arguably better) service, it's the end of the world as we know it according to that very same poster.

But I agree with you, all three would like to go this route. Sony is testing the waters with PS Now. MS is testing with this and Nintendo is doing their trial with their VC rentals.

With the way big-budget games and the market is changing, is it going to work? Will it be a necessary evil?
Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry about that, I really had no idea what the intentions or beliefs where of the poster that I replied to.

I haven't supported any game streaming model (or baby steps in that direction) myself, though I do think it is really tempting in a way. The only thing that would get me to jump in on this is if companies, or even just one, vowed to never make games streaming only in the future and always offered their service as an option along with the ability to buy. If there where something companies could do, or even some sort of consumer legislation, that protected consumers in this way, where the manufacture of digital goods got a kickback or something for always providing a license to own their media along side a streamed option, along with some sort of assurance for game preservation, I would be good.

I dunno man. I just don't like a future where I don't own my games. Or rather, don't have the opportunity to own them. Which is what I think is going to happen.

Also, how would the modding scene even survive? I can't imagine games being streamed on PC that are bad ports and have tons of missing features and our hands are tied because we can't access the code to fix them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

[GameSpot] New Xbox CEO Could Make Game Pass Less Expensive, and Game Pass could be joining Netflix subscription)
Business  2
71
696
JerryinSoCal replied
Do you have Game Pass subscription?
2 3
135
1K
DavidGzz replied
Microsoft Reportedly Targeting Late 2027 for Next Xbox, Game Pass integration of additional subscriptions (e.g., World of Warcraft, Fallout First)
Opinion Rumor Platform  2 3 4
160
2K
jm89 replied
The Verge: Microsoft brings Xbox back, scraps Microsoft Gaming
2
85
401
HerjansEagleFeeder replied
[Game Developer] ID@Xbox global director says Xbox Game Pass is a discovery multiplier
48
413
Fess replied
Top Bottom