You have some valid points, but it seems this day one strategy isn’t really working out for Microsoft as much people think. Seems like their hardware sales dropped even further when they announced all games will come to PC. I like Gamepass, but I really think people are overestimating it’s importance. It’s been available for around 4 years for cheap and has it really made a substantial difference for Microsoft compared to Sony and Nintendo? Sony’s “archaic” method helped them dominate 4 generations. Nintendo is the most old fashioned and traditional game company around, yet they are doing better than ever.
A few or even some older first party games on PC is fine, but imho day one games on PC and say, PSNow would give gamers less reason to buy a PS5. How smart would putting $100 million AAA games on a cheap subscription service be? Also, I don’t think we will see as many AAA games from Sony if they have to prepare and build them around a subscription service. When was the last huge budget game we saw from Microsoft? Halo Infinity is coming, but isn’t that a GAAS game? Who wants to see that for Sony first party games honestly? I certainly don’t.
I guess gamers are vocal about this because they do not want to see Sony turn into Microsoft 2.0. People say Sony has to adapt or get left behind? Why? They are still in the lead by a large margin, so why fix what’s working? What Microsoft does is fine and distinguishes them from Sony a bit, but do people really want that for Sony?
Xbox One hardware sales fell off because they made way too many mistakes in 2013 that haunted them for the entire generation. Also, because PS4 started off great, a lot of people including myself jumped from Xbox 360 to PS4. Hardware sales are important but they're not as important when you have the PC and Cloud user install bases at your disposal where as with Sony, all they have is hardware and that's it. If Sony sells 120M PS5 consoles and Microsoft sells 85M Xbox Series X/S consoles but has an extra 20M on PC and another 20M via Cloud, that's 125M which is far more valuable than the 120M that Sony would have. Plus, more importantly, having three ways to play is far more important simply because the growth potential is massive where as just being all about consoles has a ceiling of around 130M.
Game Pass has been around for years but between 2017-2020, it wasn't fully utilized to the greatest potential because Microsoft/Spencer were simply waiting for this generation to start. I wouldn't have spent any money at the end of Xbox One generation either because it wouldn't change anything. A new generation equals a fresh start. The previous generation means nothing when a new generation begins. I look at Sony and loved PS4 which is my #1 all time gaming console but this time around, they haven't done any thing for me. I still own a PS5 but this time around, im not expecting Sony to match what I had with PS4.
Sony dominates because they're a worldwide brand and look at what their competition did. Sega died. Nintendo stayed with cartridges and then used mini-discs for N64/Gamecube. PS2 dominated mainly because it was the cheapest DVD player at the time. $300. Xbox was the new kid on the block and unlike Sony in 1995, they didn't have the competition screw up. Sony slipped with PS3, barely beat out Xbox 360 and lost to Nintendo Wii. They dominated in 2013 but look at why - Nintendo was a disaster with Wii U and Microsoft screwed up horribly. When your competition screws up badly, you don't really need to do anything.
As for Nintendo, they'll always succeed because there will always be kids/teenagers, their consoles are rarely if ever sold at a loss and their games are the most successful in the industry because they rarely if ever go on sale and more importantly, are nowhere near expensive to create and develop.
Sony putting their exclusives on PC day one again doesn't affect their console sales because it's two different demographics and user install bases. If anything, I think it's more about Sony fanboys have a list of exclusives to brag about than anything. If PC users were to buy the exclusives, that's extra revenue for Sony who otherwise wouldn't have bought them since they wouldn't be buying a console. Even years later, Sony fanboys go nuts for some odd reason which tells me it's just for bragging rights as opposed to actually seeing Sony be more successful than they already are.
As for PS Now, getting a subscriber for $10 a month that stays subscribed which would be $120 a year is far more valuable than a single $70 purchase especially if that purchase is disc based because Sony doesn't get the entire $70. Why wouldn't anyone buy a PS5? First, if there's no specific PC/Cloud version, the games would still only be on PS5 but in addition to buying them, you could subscribe to PS Now and play them day one. If the content is there, people will stay subscribed and getting a set amount of guaranteed revenue every month is worth far more than selling a game for $70 and if that $70 game is a new IP, that's an even bigger risk. But having a subscription service eliminates that risk completely once you build and establish it which is what Microsoft is currently doing.
Microsoft was able to get Outriders day one which has been the 3rd most played game across Xbox consoles only behind COD Warzone and Fornite which are both free to play games. If it wasn't for Game Pass, Outriders wouldn't even be in the top ten. Having a subscription service and putting third party games into it is extra advertising and marketing that the publisher doesn't have to pay for. MLB The Show 21 is going to be huge and if the rumors about Resident Evil VIII being on Game Pass day one end up being true, oh man, that's going to be huge for Game Pass, Xbox and Microsoft while Capcom would get a massive upfront payday guaranteed along with whatever other bonuses are in the contract while at the same time, stays available for purchase to everyone on every platform. Basically, no one loses.
Halo Infinite will have a 20 hour campaign, their MP modes and post-launch content which is smart because that's how you keep people subscribed and invested. Playing through for example Miles Morales was great but it was a one and done for me (and mostly everyone) because there's no reason to keep playing it after completing the six hour campaign. Not every Microsoft game is going to be a live service game. Yeah, there will be some but they have 22 studios, 35 teams with more incoming so they will be able to even it out. Hellblade 2 is a single player story driven third person action adventure game. If there's any post launch content, it would be like The Witcher III where you get expansions and that's it.
One and done or a live service game simply depends on the game itself and what it is. Starfield is going to be a normal massive Bethesda Game Studios RPG that's probably 80+ hours and if you want more, you can buy the expansions. If not, you move on. Of course, getting people to stay and keep paying is what it's all about because that's worth money in the long term and overall than a single $70 purchase. Game Pass also eliminates the risk and pressure for the development studio because they no longer have to worry about sales and can simply concentrate on making the best game possible.
Look at Bend Studio. I loved Days Gone and I know that series is dead because while profitable, Sony wasn't happy with it and rejected the sequel but are going ahead with them developing a new IP which is far more risky than a sequel to Days Gone would be especially when the foundation and assets are already built from the first game. A Game Pass type subscription from Sony would allow the studios to stay intact, be given total and complete creative freedom which they obviously don't have anymore at Sony as this is pretty obvious at this point and eliminates the risk of a $70, $100M flop.
Not only that but facts are that the more people that play games in a subscription service, they're more likely to not only buy that game because they basically get a free full version demo of it via Game Pass but they'll also be more willing to spend more money on other games and whatnot which keeps them in the eco-system and adds more revenue to Microsoft with minimal risk.
Another factor is having a subscription service is more likely to guarantee that consumers stay in your eco-system and in turn, spend more money because they're invested. Buying one exclusive a year for $70 is not worth a year's worth subscription and unlike the subscription, the sale isn't the full price anyway. For example, I jumped from PS4 to Xbox Series X and I have already spent over $350 in three months not including the $800 I paid for the Xbox Series X bundle from GameStop. One of the main reasons is Game Pass because why should I buy a game for $60+ when I can stay subscribed an entire year for two games worth?
I was going to buy Outriders but instead, im playing it on Game Pass so I have already saved $50 and because of this, im thinking about buying Necromunda: Hired Gun which on sale for $34 on Xbox because I figured that I have already come out ahead and thus, have no problem putting more money into the Xbox eco-system where as with Sony and PS5, I bought Miles Morales for $50 on disc, played and completed it 95% in under 25 hours and traded it in for $20 credit with GameStop so it only cost me $30.
Haven't bought anything else on PlayStation 5 and won't until Ratchet in June and I will do the same thing. Buy, complete and trade in. Basically, Sony isn't getting an extra money from me where as with PS4, they had me spend over $3000 and that's just what I have documented. It's more like double that if not triple.
As for Sony not doing this and getting left behind, it's real simple. Sony can't just stay with one aspect and expect the same results. Look at 2013 Microsoft in which everyone bashed them for the decisions that they wanted to make. But look now, eight years later. Pretty much everyone is online gaming one way or the other. Digital Sales have surpassed physical sales overall and for live service games, no reason to buy it on disc. Point is that Microsoft saw what gaming was going to become but presented it in a horrible way with too many restrictions and limitations instead of it being optional.
Game Pass in my eyes is the paradigm shift for this industry because at the end of the day, nobody loses. Consumers win. The company in this case, Microsoft wins especially in the long term which is what business is all about. Publishers win because they get guaranteed money upfront and small Indie developers get upfront money and whatever else is in their contract that eliminates the risk of possibly releasing a flop and having to close down because of that flop. I know a lot of people worry about the quality of Microsoft's first party games but with so many studios, they can all take their time and be worry free due to Game Pass because they no longer have to worry about their game flopping where as with Sony, after today, I think their development studios don't have that creative freedom anymore (Naughty Dog remaking TLOU 2013? Like really? SMH), seem to be unhappy as a lot of people have left and will continue to leave and now have the extra added pressure of doing only AAA blockbusters which is a huge risk with minimal reward.
Obviously, we have to wait and see how it all plays out over the course of this generation but im much more confident in Microsoft's direction than I am Sony's.