Im sorry. I should have ignored your post about having to now buy an Xbox to play Xbox games and how you feel it's unfair.
Daniel Ahmad (ZhugeEX) on the MS Xbox Live Gold situation: Gamepass biggest focus moving forward and MS looking to acquire IPs to bolster the service.
- Thread starter Marano
- Start date
- Status
it is definitely a long term play but that user said things would stay the same for GP for a long time, how would he know that? It's been growing at a steady pace even without major 1P input. MS currently has a good number of projects in the works for the service now and regarding short term growth, that is were the acquisitions come in, going forward i think short term growth will be directly impacted by the number of 3P and 1P heavy hitters Xbox is able to bring to the service.... a constant flow of good games from XGS and Bethesda Games will go a long way in bringing new subscribers while keeping current GP subscribers engaged between releases.
Last edited:
Why not just announce that Gold's discontinued and GPU is their new service? Doubling the price is the stupidest way to get what they want in that case.
What you suggest would be 3x the price, because GPU costs 180$ a year. But I guess you meant dropping the MP paywall. Well, no company will leave billions on the table.
Then MSFT takes the loss, shrugs it off, and carries on. Just like they have with numerous failed projects and products since the 1990s.
I had this long refutation built, but I honestly want no more parts of this thread. It ended up right back where it always does. Let's just say I disagree.
I was suggesting they just outright roll Gold into GPU and call it a day. Given what they wanted to charge for Gold, not too wild a solution. Make 3x instead of 2x. I have no faith they'd ever retire the paid MP restriction.
Here's my suggestion for Microsoft. Drop the Xbox Live naming completely and only offer Game Pass in three tiers from now on.
Game Pass Basic: $6 a month. Make this equivalent to what Live Gold is currently.
Game Pass Standard: $12 a month. Make this equivalent to what ultimate is currently minus cloud streaming.
Game Pass Ultimate: $15 a month. Keep this as it stands.
Game Pass Basic: $6 a month. Make this equivalent to what Live Gold is currently.
Game Pass Standard: $12 a month. Make this equivalent to what ultimate is currently minus cloud streaming.
Game Pass Ultimate: $15 a month. Keep this as it stands.
Why would they call something "game pass basic" if it doesn't provide you any access to game pass
Microsoft want at least 120 bucks from subscribers, not 60 bucks. That's the goal. Gamepass is 120 bucks, Ultimate is 180 bucks.
How they manage that without Gold or multiplayer behind a paywall, I don't know, it's genuinely square peg, round hole and that clearly happened the last few days.
A leap of faith, remove online multiplayer completely from behind a paywall. Hope consumers flock to Xbox, spend big on games, add ons, microtransactions and gamepass, far beyond any Gold revenue they lose because it's clear, they've hit a wall and while it's a recurring big chunk of money, the users are mostly static in subscriptions most likely so Microsoft have to take the risk to grow Xbox way beyond what it is right now.
Free online gaming without subscription.
Two tiers only
Gamepass - $120/year
Gamepass Ultimate 'XCloud included' - $180/year
Microsoft are lost trying to force what they did the last few days, they know it won't work.
You need a publisher with strategy/platformers/casual/JRpg games. They are good for FPS/Western RPGs
It's great, if you want to own an Xbox/invest in that ecosystem.
At least it would fit Microsoft's console naming convention.
Did consumers flock to PS3 when online Multiplayer wasn't pay walled there, and Xbox was charging for Live Gold?
They would instantly transfer all Live subscriptions into "Game Pass" subs.
But... your low tier is just Xbox Live Gold with a different name and a cheaper price. That isn't what Microsoft wants. They want people to be paying 15/mo.
The names of the tiers could be anything they want. The tiers of options and having everything under the "Game Pass" banner is the end goal.
They could offer discounted prices for changing tiers. My idea is just a starting point and could be improved.
The tiers naming isn't the issue for me. It's using the Gamepass name for XBL Gold, a well known subscription service even for casuals and parents. There is no need to change that name and naming it Gamepass would just confuse people. I think your pricing is good, though.
OP
OP
The 360 had things going for it that the ps3 didnt, including the most culturaly relevant games of the gen so in a way it made up for that and rrod.
Who is to say. You're talking about a mature platform breaking down barriers to access, it's hard to say with any certainty what would happen if they did, that's a judgement they are wrestling with or not as seen with their crazy price hike idea.
PlayStation and Nintendo are strong but if you offer cheaper access even with a higher priced optional subscription does that lead to greater return than holding onto an online paywall like their life depended on it ? It's hard to get people on board if you make your product less accessible. A cheaper Series S is one way but hey play free online is another that resonates with anyone and then you up sell gamepass.
I'm not their accountant, just throwing out a few wild balls that are no more crazy than what they attempted, minus a billion or so 😂
Truth always comes out. There are users that want to play games on PlayStation, and PlayStation alone.
People always move where the games they want to play are. On console, there is one platform holder that has disproportionately inconvenienced other platforms and become the go to console. Essentially, Sony has done what it has needed to do to remain at the top. This has essentially meant that there is a huge swathe of users that have become entitled; the thinking is that anything that rocks the boat is shitty.
I got an Xbox in the first year it launched because of one game. A single game that ended up not having a sequel all generation and it was the best decision I made in gaming. No one gets anywhere in gaming by playing nice; I would have remained on PlayStation 2 (especially with Sega messing up big time) as the primary console I gamed on without Microsoft ever giving me a reason to invest in Xbox. My weak spot was Dead or Alive 3.
I personally love what Microsoft is doing. Disrupt this market, grow market share to a point where the platform is once again more viable when it comes to attracting content. There will be those that are inconvenienced, but this is normal. Let them get the best quality product they can for users in their ecosystem, which is what Sony has looked to do.
They are like everyone else, that's right.
LA Times: Streaming services facing "churn" issue (people cancel after finishing what they wanted to see)
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-01-18/streaming-services-churn-hollywood-netflix-disney This was probably an expected thing because there aren't going to be many people with 4 or more subscriptions running at once. We're reaching a point where this signing up to...www.resetera.com
Which is why you need constant amount of content, so people don't drop off (the Netflix model). You can't do a Disney plus model of weekly drops for games.
This makes the purchase of Bethesda seem not really worth it. This is a company that puts out 2-3 games a year. It doesn't really solve the content problem. 7 billion could have went to buying a lot more content than what they'll get out of Bethesda studios.
7 Billion+ is the price to own well-known IPs nowadays. Spending Billions to acquire time exclusivity and worse, not owning the content, is not worth the hassle in a long term perspective.
With 7 billion, you can buy full exclusivity of several games without having to acquire entire companies. Once Bethesda is under MS, not much will change in terms of their dev cycle. Announcing games that take 3-4 years to come out doesn't do much for GP subscribers in the near term.
Microsoft has 23 studios. That's enough to establish a cadence of first party releases. Zenimax is so much more than Bethesda.
Also, the Bethesda games that come out usually are played for long. 100+ hour play throughs are quite common. So it works perfectly to keep folks engaged in Gamepass.
Making the games exclusive also helps sell xbox consoles, a vital first step in acquiring a GamePass subscriber.
Cloud being an entry point will work in a lot of urban areas. I've been to multiple cities and have seen average 200-300mbps internet, and I've seen a lot of people playing Stadia.
They can scale as more parts of the country and the world build out it's broadband and 5G services. It'll be slow for sure, but it's a sure fire strategy to differentiate.
They can scale as more parts of the country and the world build out it's broadband and 5G services. It'll be slow for sure, but it's a sure fire strategy to differentiate.
No, i only want to buy one console. I can feel it shitty personally and still understand what they are doing.
Which one do you want? The one with Spiderman (previously available on all formats) or the one with Fallout (previously available on all formats)?
OP
OP
For what it is worth a lot of people believe sony owns the spiderman IP because they own the movie rights, even here on ERA you can see it some times.
I don't care for Spiderman. If i was a Spiderman Fan that played the game on Xbox 360 i would fnd it equally shitty. Not the gotcha you think it was.
You can't blame Marvel Games that they wanted a partnership with the best possible developers and make a good product. Something that didn't happen before with their IPs.
and you can't blame Bethesda Games for wanting to partner with the best publisher possible , one who they have had a great relationship working with for years and would continue to help them make good products.
Yep, you can't blame the power of big money, that is true indeed :D
I know that in the (hopefully not so near) future subscription based gaming via streams will be the norm but I can only look at this developement with great scepticism and I want to delay/avert this paradigm shift as long as possible. Yes, right now Gamepass has one of the best values for costumers ever but I tend to look at it with a perspective to what happened at the TV sector. For all the series I'm watching right now I would need Netflix, Prime, Hulu, Disney+, HBO+Max, Crunchyroll and Funimation. That is some huuuuge monthly investment just to be able to watch TV (I know that it was always the norm in the US to pay for good TV, but here in Europe it isn't because it's free)
My biggest concern is that in the future I need to have a Stadia, Amazon Gaming, Steam, Epic, Gamepass, PS+AllInclusive etc. subscription to be able to consume all the games I want to play because everyone of the big players wants a piece of the (immensely huge) pie.
My biggest concern is that in the future I need to have a Stadia, Amazon Gaming, Steam, Epic, Gamepass, PS+AllInclusive etc. subscription to be able to consume all the games I want to play because everyone of the big players wants a piece of the (immensely huge) pie.
Well, thanks for the replies, but my point is that some games were multiformat and then they weren't. It has happened before.
I know this forum asked skews pro-Sony but it surprises me the hand wringing and acrobatics that goes on.
I can only imagine that someone is already typing why the Spiderman Ip is different because...
People who used to play it on a non PlayStation system didn't get to play the next game. It is what it is. Oh well. And move on or buy the system that has the games you want to play.
Which use case covers arbitrary exclusives like final fantasy and the like.
Cause people tell me to just shut up and buy a PlayStation if I want to play those games
Microsoft had this publishing deal for three games with BioWare for Mass Effect, and under the deal, the IP would remain with the developer. The deals for Ryse, Sunset Overdrive were similar.
Microsoft used to get Dead or Alive and Ninja Gaiden as exclusives, how is that working out?
Microsoft used to hire the likes of Team Ninja, Angel Studios, BioWare, DICE, Bizarre, Real Time Worlds, Ruffian, Double Helix to sometimes make IP that they own. How did that turn out?
You are not going to get far in the gaming industry if you do not have the ownership of IP and in current time, enough studios to help push out content. Microsoft knows this more than any other platform holder.
Get with the system. Get the one that has the games you cannot live without. Sacrifice the rest and be at peace with your decision. I miss out on Nintendo games, games that I have played previously and I am OK because I do not have the time to invest in the ecosystem. I manage just fine.
You cannot blame developers for wanting financial security either, or investors wanting to cash in.
Is it so difficult to understand why someone wouldn't want to buy multiple consoles?
Let's say you are watching Peaky Blinders on Netflix. Now HBO comes in and buys the rights to the next Season. You'd have to sub to HBO to watch it and pay for two months. Is it how it works now? Yes. Can i be annoyed about this? Yes i can.
You can check my post history in this Thread and see that i equally condemned Sony buying exclusive rights for FF games.
Oh i will do that and will manage just fine. But this is a Forum and i can voice my opinion and still think it's shit.
It's not different at all. It could be any other Marvel character. Insomniac choose Spider-Man. Marvel Games work with a lot of devs but only Sony managed to make a very good big budget game. Microsoft can also make a licensed property and no one will blame them if the owner of the property sign a deal with Xbox. Just like Indiana Jones (although it is pre-acquisition deal).
It's still different compared to acquisition of Publishers and properties. All ZeniMax games are part of Xbox , not every Marvel character is part of PlayStation.
I for one think that there are people that want the market to work in ways that are impossible. One where competition to their platform of choice is never a viable option for them to choose.
Microsoft is doing something right if four months later people are still complaining that they want to play Bethesda titles, but do not/can not/will not invest in the Xbox ecosystem. These, Microsoft has no business worrying about.
Sony acquired Insomniac, and one of the properties they got was Sunset Overdrive. What are they supposed to do? Apologize?
You buy developers and/or publishers for talent, IP and tech. The more, the merrier.
Oh. I thought you couldn't understand the situation, and that it was being explained to you.
I'm slightly at a loss as to what the correct response should have been to "but I only want one console" other than "yes, this has happened before, you'll either have to get another console or not play that game"
"but I only want one console" - what did you think the right response to that is?
- Status