• 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.

Phil Spencer admits F2P is future, not subscription model...

Men_in_Boxes

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman



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!
 
Last edited:
adamsapple

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Xbox Games Pass "I think it'll stay in that 10-15% overall revenue, and it's profitable for us"
Click to expand...

Game Pass has gone from 'sustainable' to 'it's profitable for us'.

Happy Well Done GIF by Top Talent
 
TransTrender

TransTrender

Gold Member
I don't know if this actually holds up or if this is irrational exuberance by suits because ROI...again.
Wall Street investors HATE uncertainty, and F2P games are still hit or miss when it comes to their irrational expectation levels of success, and that uncertainty kills the Wall Street boner.
What does give Wall Street a HUGE boner is Monthly Recurring Revenue since it's tangible, predictable, and gives certainty for revenue expectations and future guidance.
 
Stuart360

Stuart360

Member
Phil has always said Gamepass is a side option, another way to access games, i dont remember him ever saying its the future ands everyone will be on Gamepass.
I even said i predict 50mil Gamepass subs by the end of this gen, but even then thats 50mil subs from like 300mil PC and Xbox gamers.
 
Klayzer

Klayzer

Member
Microsoft searching for that Genshin Impact style profits game. I wouldn't be surprised if major companies started eyeing Hoyo for a possible buyout.
 
P

Platinumstorm

Member
I guess this is relevant with the takeover, but Blizzard is charging over $20 for a skin customization in overwatch. Two Halloween skins are going for $47.


This will be really good for smaller and independent studios since the big players are becoming such rip-offs that they're going to ruin gaming.

I would be ok paying $100 for games today. They've barely changed in price over the last 20 years and have gotten cheaper in most aspects. I cannot stand battlepasses, f2p garbage with 10,000 currencies obfuscating what the price of something actually is.
 
Last edited:
R

reksveks

Member
TransTrender said:
What does give Wall Street a HUGE boner is Monthly Recurring Revenue since it's tangible, predictable, and gives certainty for revenue expectations and future guidance.
Click to expand...
MS nor Apple or anyone else won't be able to convert a decent chunk of their 3rd party transaction-based revenue into a subscription revenue; i think the economics just wont work cause of the revenue generated by whales.

The game is to increase MAU/Engagement to get more transactions on your storefront.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/10/opinion/sway-kara-swisher-phil-spencer.html?showTranscript=1

Transaction is bigger than subscription. Subscription is growing faster, just because it’s relatively new. And with Game Pass, we were one of the first movers in that space. But the transaction business is very large. We still sell physical disks.
Click to expand...
 
DragonNCM

DragonNCM

Member
Men_in_Boxes said:



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!
Click to expand...

No thanks...the moment they implement F2P model with moneygrabs ingame bullshit I will not play single game.
 
Ghost of Caelid

Ghost of Caelid

Banned
F2P is in a good place despite all the old heads complaining. It’s a game that’s free with cosmetics up for sale. I might spend 50$ on a game I put hundred of hours into on cosmetics by the time I put it down. 20$ on fall guys , 30 on infinite, 30 on cod (2 years of Warzone) which is 80$ on games I usually would pay 60/ 70 a piece. So yea it’s the future, some will spend a lot, some a little and the rest in the middle. The price should be fair but at the same time cosmetics don’t affect gameplay and strictly fomo. I think more games will be f2p but we have a decent balance rn.
 
Heisenberg007

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
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.
 
Men_in_Boxes

Men_in_Boxes

Snake Oil Salesman
GHG said:
That's literally how every F2P game makes their money these days. Prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

Cosmetics are only viable if players are having fun playing your game.

Good luck making a bad F2P game that no one wants to play after a few hours.
 
StreetsofBeige

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Heisenberg007 said:
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.
Click to expand...
If that’s the case then every console maker is doing it wrong because they all have paid sub plans for MP and games, but allow F2P MP gaming without needing a sub plan.

Why have MP sub plans and GP and PS+ if they can play Fortnite and such for free?
 
DaGwaphics

DaGwaphics

Member
Men_in_Boxes said:



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!
Click to expand...


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.

Heisenberg007 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
R

reksveks

Member
Heisenberg007 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hmm, GP + Riot deal is probably an example against that as well as all of the other GPU perks. Also remember Fortnite has a subscription model as well.

Its not as clean cut as your comment.
 
Helghan

Helghan

Member
As long as it's cosmetics I don't mind. I never pay for stuff like that, others will and keep the game alive for me to play for free.
 
StreetsofBeige

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
DaGwaphics said:
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.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Even COD has free warzone. What Activision could had done is bury that as a mode within buying a copy of the game.

But the game coexists with warzone and the core game. And both do great. The game still sells 20 million copies like nothing happened and even more play warzone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

VGC: "Phil Spencer, for so long cast as Xbox’s saviour, may ultimately be remembered as the man who killed it.”
Opinion Business 2 3
142
9K
March Climber replied
TheVerge: Phil Spencer says Xbox is working so that "every screen has is Xbox"
Rumor
8
626
rofif replied
Phil Spencer’s Microsoft memo on ‘Xbox everywhere’ — The Verge
News 2
83
5K
KungFucius replied
Phil Spencer on what the hell is happening in the games industry and why exclusives have become a risky business
Business Game Dev 3 4 5 6 7
301
18K
ProtoByte replied
Xbox Could Become Less Relevant If It Doesn't Thrive In Mobile, Phil Spencer Says
2
92
5K
Heisenberg007 replied
Top Bottom