Gamepass this gamepass that. Gamepass A CANNIBAL?

[Koba St]

How is it any more unsustainable than constantly increasing the price of games per generation citing development cost when the truth is more money is made by selling DLC and other content than selling a game anyway?

In about a decade the business model of gaming is almost guaranteed to be more on the side of selling it as a service to users rather than selling individual software to users. Sony is already ramping up live service games.

Do you not pay attention to the world around you? How many companies like Adobe and others have transitioned from selling software as in individual purchase to selling it as a service? Can you even purchase Photoshop as a normal piece of software you own outright anymore?

You keep comparing subscription of non gaming services to gaming services like Gamepass which is clearly not the same.

 

[Gizmo_Duck]

You keep comparing subscription of non gaming services to gaming services like Gamepass which is clearly not the same.

The biggest difference is games just take far longer to make than tv shows/movies, and music. Not only that but it takes a far higher skill set and time commitment to sit down and play them.

Games won’t be adopting the same practices as office apps, music, and video because the market of hardcore gamers isn’t big enough to sustain it

 

[Pressure]

The biggest difference is games just take far longer to make than tv shows/movies, and music. Not only that but it takes a far higher skill set and time commitment to sit down and play them.

ames won’t be adopting the same practices as office apps, music, and video.

Music albums take less time to make and are almost entirely driven by subscription models.

Thanks for proving your own argument wrong

 

[winb83]

You keep comparing subscription of non gaming services to gaming services like Gamepass which is clearly not the same.

A video game is a piece of software. Video games being late to the party doesn't change the fact that there is more value long term in having a consumer perpetually pay you a monthly subscription fee to software they don't own then there is selling them individual software in single one time purchases.

It's like any other business. They make more selling you a car perpetually in monthly payments than they do selling you the car outright. People like monthly payments. Businesses like them. It works out better for the business long term to keep you paying a monthly fee for the rest of your life. While the customer pays more over their life they don't feel the damage as much because the payments are broken up.

You're naïve as hell if you think that because a business is successful the way it is right now the model can never change or evolve. Even if it changes at the expense of the incumbent model. Do you think Disney cares more about home video sales or about Disney+ growth. 10 years ago Disney+ didn't even exist and now it's the focus of the company.

 

[Gizmo_Duck]

Music albums take less time to make and are almost entirely driven by subscription models.

Thanks for proving your own argument wrong

Wut thats exactly what i said

 

[winb83]

Music albums take less time to make and are almost entirely driven by subscription models.

Thanks for proving your own argument wrong

Everything else in the consumer markets are moving in a given direction and these guys are burying their heads in the sand acting like stuff can't change just because they like it the way it is.

You buy a damn car right now and they're selling you features they build into the car as a subscription. Features you used to get for an individual one time purchase like remote start.

The market will always evolve to follow the most profitable business model and that model is a customer making you a monthly payment for the rest of their lives.

 

[invincible1914]

This is a very disingenuous argument. How do you live with yourself?

If you took away Gamepass, all of those subscribers arent going to go out and buy XBox games.

 

[Pressure]

Wut thats exactly what i said

Explain to yourself why folks are paying for subscription models for music when they don’t care about the vast majority of albums being released day to day and only consume a small portion of the offerings?

Then explain to us how owning a video game outright is different than owning music outright? Or any other type of consumed entertainment media?

 

[invincible1914]

Microsoft cares more about selling Gamepass than they do about even selling the console.

 

[Gizmo_Duck]

Explain to yourself why folks are paying for subscription models for music when they don’t care about the vast majority of albums being released day to day and only consume a small portion of the offerings?

Then explain to us how owning a video game outright is different than owning music outright? Or any other type of consumed entertainment media?

The point is that the type of person that want an endless supply of cheap games probably isn’t as high as a person who wants 3 drake, taylor swift, or bad bunny albums a year.

There’s a vastly bigger market for casual music listeners and theres a far higher supply of any type of music they may want. You cannot equate music to video games, video games might be big but most people are only playing one or two games year round.

Theres a reason subscription gaming is growing at a snails pace while even paramount + have over 50 million subscribers already.

 

[Pressure]

The point is that the type of person that want an endless supply of cheap games probably isn’t as high as a person who wants 3 drake, taylor swift, or bad bunny albums a year.

There’s a vastly bigger market for casual music listeners and theres a far higher supply of any type of music they may want. You cannot equate music to video games, video games might be big but most people are only playing one or two games year round.

Theres a reason subscription gaming is growing at a snails pace while even paramount + have over 50 million subscribers already.

Millions of users currently use gamepass.

Gaming being smaller than film isn’t an argument.

None of this response has anything to do with what I asked

 

[Gizmo_Duck]

Millions of users currently use gamepass.

Gaming being smaller than film isn’t an argument.

None of this response has anything to do with what I asked

What you asked doesn’t pertain to my original point. The point is gaming won’t be adopting an overall subscription model because there isn’t enough demand for it. Peeeerioodt

Microsoft already alluded to the fact that gamepass subs are slowing down and they don’t see higher percentage growth coming from it. You can bookmark this post now, Microsoft will slowly pivot away from their day 1 gamepass approach by the end of this gen.

 

[winb83]

The irony is all these companies are taking baby steps to the same path. Microsoft just went all in first.

Right now Sony is selling backwards compatibility as a service. They could have easily made PlayStations able to play older games. They elected not to then created a service called PlayStation Plus Premium to sell people the ability to play games on modern hardware that they might right now own physical copies of on older hardware. That's games as a service. Games that could have been individually sold.

Nintendo is selling backwards compatibility as a service. Could Nintendo not sell those backwards compatible games as individual purchases? Oh I know they could call it the virtual console. They too have deliberately decided not to do that.

This is happening gradually whether or not you're onboard. It will only get more prominent going forward. Until another lucrative business model comes along this is it.

 

[Gizmo_Duck]

The irony is all these companies are taking baby steps to the same path. Microsoft just went all in first.

Right now Sony is selling backwards compatibility as a service. They could have easily made PlayStations able to play older games. They elected not to then created a service called PlayStation Plus Premium to sell people the ability to play games on modern hardware that they might right now own physical copies of on older hardware. That's games as a service. Games that could have been individually sold.

Nintendo is selling backwards compatibility as a service. Could Nintendo not sell those backwards compatible games as individual purchases? Oh I know they could call it the virtual console. They too have deliberately decided not to do that.

This is happening gradually whether or not you're onboard. It will only get more prominent going forward. Until another lucrative business model comes along this is it.

If anything it proves Microsoft was too hasty jumping in the deep end with it.

 

[Rekkapryde]

The irony is all these companies are taking baby steps to the same path. Microsoft just went all in first.

Right now Sony is selling backwards compatibility as a service. They could have easily made PlayStations able to play older games. They elected not to then created a service called PlayStation Plus Premium to sell people the ability to play games on modern hardware that they might right now own physical copies of on older hardware. That's games as a service. Games that could have been individually sold.

Nintendo is selling backwards compatibility as a service. Could Nintendo not sell those backwards compatible games as individual purchases? Oh I know they could call it the virtual console. They too have deliberately decided not to do that.

This is happening gradually whether or not you're onboard. It will only get more prominent going forward. Until another lucrative business model comes along this is it.

Issue is they have no games while Nintendo and Sony do. Using GP as a diversion for the fact their exclusives are severely lacking was always goofy. Especially when Phil promised every year they'd get some.

They jumped in balls deep with no ammo.