But they wont....why would they kill requirements that earn them money for less revenue for an optional service? They are the ones who pioneered mandatory online and made it so that everyone else could do it after all.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
If MS kills XBL Gold requirement for Multiplayer and focuses on Gamepass, then they will "win" next gen.
- Thread starter HadesHotgun
- Start date
OP
OP
Sure, but I directly address the significance of monthly average users and why that's what matters going forward. That doesn't actually change the significance of regional success so winning will be about engagement more than units sold, but MS will still likely find the greatest impact in NA and the UK, and it will still come at the expense of Sony.
It's whether they think Gold is a hinderance to more expensive Game pass subs in much greater numbers.
There is probably a point they'll combine Gold into Gamepass and see what the numbers are like then go from there or they may even know before then that dropping gold for game pass is the right idea to maximise user growth and better subscription profits with just a higher priced game pass.
I know people say they won't give up a sub but there might be a cross over at some point that means have 100 million + user base and 70 million game pass subscribers is better than 100 million + 10 million game pass and 40 million gold subs.
They'll know and it probably has to happen to reach greater heights. Of course they could easily just still make Xbox console users pay and nobody else, windows, mobile don't pay etc.
There is probably a point they'll combine Gold into Gamepass and see what the numbers are like then go from there or they may even know before then that dropping gold for game pass is the right idea to maximise user growth and better subscription profits with just a higher priced game pass.
I know people say they won't give up a sub but there might be a cross over at some point that means have 100 million + user base and 70 million game pass subscribers is better than 100 million + 10 million game pass and 40 million gold subs.
They'll know and it probably has to happen to reach greater heights. Of course they could easily just still make Xbox console users pay and nobody else, windows, mobile don't pay etc.
In the short term yes, but if it really does cause a big enough change in consumers buying habits or a shift away from Playstation they'll relent.
I think MS would likely reverse the decision to drop the paywall from Gold fairly quickly if they attempted it though.
They should at least bundle gold and gamepass. Maybe 6 months of gamepass and a year of gold for $99. Only losing $20 and you can set them up to auto renew together. Like the auto renewal of Gamepass in 6 months subsidizes some money off a gold auto renewal the next year.
Gold isn't going anywhere but they've definitely got some room to make it all more appealing.
Gold isn't going anywhere but they've definitely got some room to make it all more appealing.
Do you need PS+ to play multiplayer games on ps now (streaming)?
It's not available in my country until a few weeks from now.
I guess you would with downloading ps now games.
In any case, online paywalls are stupid as hell even if it doesn't really affect me.
It's even more stupid if it's not included in ps now / game pass.
They can still keep PS+ just for the games / rebates though, that's why I'm subscribed to it.
Well it does actually affect me when I think about it, I pay the nintendo fee so my daughter can play minecraft with her friends on the switch. Got a family sub for it which I wouldn't pay just for the NES games.
It's not available in my country until a few weeks from now.
I guess you would with downloading ps now games.
In any case, online paywalls are stupid as hell even if it doesn't really affect me.
It's even more stupid if it's not included in ps now / game pass.
They can still keep PS+ just for the games / rebates though, that's why I'm subscribed to it.
Well it does actually affect me when I think about it, I pay the nintendo fee so my daughter can play minecraft with her friends on the switch. Got a family sub for it which I wouldn't pay just for the NES games.
Doing a price comparison, I never stopped to think that PS Now might be more expensive than Gamepass because it does not require the user to have PS + to play online.
No, the PS Now subscription alone already allows you to play online, but I'm not sure if it only allows the games that are available in the service or if it also works with the other games that you have on your account/in disc.
No, the PS Now subscription alone already allows you to play online, but I'm not sure if it only allows the games that are available in the service or if it also works with the other games that you have on your account/in disc.
Last edited:
MS will "win" or have a better shot at winning if they don't sell their console (which was weaker spec wise) for more than the competition, and have more exclusives.
They need to sell a ton more in Europe too. I don't think any of the things you're suggesting will cause a mass exodus from Sony to MS.
They need to sell a ton more in Europe too. I don't think any of the things you're suggesting will cause a mass exodus from Sony to MS.
Possible I guess, but if PS3 and PC didn't change others, I doubt Xbox will either. Especially with Nintendo doing it too now. I think the online paywalls would only die if consoles do at this point.
1. I don't think most people care about the online fees that much. They'd rather not pay them, but it's not the issue broke ass people in forums make it out to be.
2. Even if I'm wrong about one, it's not going to change the fact that most counties outside North America and a couple spots in Europe are hugely PlayStation dominated and saw even the 360 not do great. They have a huge challenge in upping worldwide appeal
2. Even if I'm wrong about one, it's not going to change the fact that most counties outside North America and a couple spots in Europe are hugely PlayStation dominated and saw even the 360 not do great. They have a huge challenge in upping worldwide appeal
Nah, the PSNow sub covers online for PSNow games.
https://blog.us.playstation.com/2018/09/20/playstation-now-adds-downloading-of-ps4-ps2-games/
Gamepass will never make up for the lost revenue, even with a bigger userbase. Actually once Gamepass hits a critical mass it will start canabilizing day one purchases of their first party games. They just can't recoup both, the lost revenue of day one purchases and the lost revenue of gold suscribers with Gamepass. That's just not feasible.
What a strategy though I think even that would not work in some parts of Europe.
OP
OP
That's a really good point that I hadn't considered and I don't have a good answer for it. But I think that ultimately the long term fate of legacy games tied to subscriptions is really precarious for MS and Sony alike and that will have to be addressed by both at some point. I'm not sure how they will manage it if there are any substantial changes to those services in the future, which I imagine is inevitable.
I appreciate that you wrote all that OP, but to "keep it real", if you give me gamepass for free on the PC right now I will probably spend a few hours on Forza and forget about it. Now try selling me a box costing $500 to use gamepass.
I'm drawn in by games, not free online.
I'm drawn in by games, not free online.
This is the part of the thread where I come in and remind ppl PSNow doesn't need P...
Ah, beaten, lol.
Yeah OP, Sony already thought about your premise. Don't know of it'll help Sony win next gen. But I wish they would advertise the good things they do with their services more.
Here's hoping Sony keeps PSNow and F2P games not needing Plus.
Will MS do the same? Balls in their court. Since they still require Gold for F2P games, I doubt it.
I cannot imagine Microsoft giving up all of that revenue they get from Gold. That said, if MS were to drop the Gold requirement the internet drama would be glorious.
Oh darling. You are so wrong in this. Imagine this,
A. 50 people buy your product with subscription
B. 500 people buying your another product with no subscription
Question: which one is giving you more revenue? In case A you get less customers but they are monthly members who pay every month, while in B you have many customers but it is just one hit buy and go only
A. 50 people buy your product with subscription
B. 500 people buying your another product with no subscription
Question: which one is giving you more revenue? In case A you get less customers but they are monthly members who pay every month, while in B you have many customers but it is just one hit buy and go only
No way they would cut off that much revenue to their networking teams just so they can ask people to only pay for game pass. They can't get all the revenue out of one subscription at variable (low) prices monthly.
Even if they did remove gold from the multiplayer requirement they would not win next gen. In fact, it would be more difficult.
Even if they did remove gold from the multiplayer requirement they would not win next gen. In fact, it would be more difficult.
This is already the case with PSNow, PS+ dont require for play online, even (especially) for Install PS4 Games.
I honestly don't know what is up with this sentiment of wanting a corporation to win. It's like some here take pleasure or pride in the accomplishment of corporate entities, whose market performance yields no net benefit to their everyday existence. Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft "winning" next generation should in no way, shape or form affect your decision as to which platform you choose to play on. We play games for entertainment and we do not play hardware specs or userbase size. Frankly, the core idea/sentiment of this thread is rooted in nothing more than unabashed fanboyism.
Why would MS give up that revenue? I would love free online again, but it ain't happening.
Hear hear.
Hear hear.
And in the Japanese market too. I'm firm believe many people won't take it.
I think there will be all in one for Xbox users, game pass, gold and stream for better deal than separate pack.
As an Android user from 2009, I agree.
Those were some rough times, lol
I think they're going to win the US next gen either way.
GamePass is such a delicious idea and their dedication to BC and crossplay means a lot.
GamePass is such a delicious idea and their dedication to BC and crossplay means a lot.
Yes, I also think Xbox will be more profitable if it drops the Xbox Live Gold requirement for multiplayer. Not because Xbox consoles will win the boring console war, but because Xbox could potentially earn more from the cut of the ever evolving "live service" game genre(or Game as a Service, GAAS).
If you haven't notice, most lucrative GAAS has important online componet. Money printing machines like NBA 2k, FIFA, Overwatch, GTAV all rely on their online component to make additional money. And Microsoft gets 30% cut for each additional purchase. As GAAS continue to grow, the revenue from micro-transaction might(or have) suprass the revenue from Xbox Live Gold. The only thing prevents the further growth will indeed be Xbox Live Gold. So I will argue that there's a very strong business incentive for Xbox to drop Xbox Live Gold.
If you haven't notice, most lucrative GAAS has important online componet. Money printing machines like NBA 2k, FIFA, Overwatch, GTAV all rely on their online component to make additional money. And Microsoft gets 30% cut for each additional purchase. As GAAS continue to grow, the revenue from micro-transaction might(or have) suprass the revenue from Xbox Live Gold. The only thing prevents the further growth will indeed be Xbox Live Gold. So I will argue that there's a very strong business incentive for Xbox to drop Xbox Live Gold.
This threads are always made on fanboy wishes from both sides.
I think it's more likely they merge the two services and raise the monthly price by a dollar or two.
I think I would also prefer that approach. It'd be great for games if everyone on Xbox had game pass - Like Netflix shows get huge because everyone has it, it'd be cool to see the same effect for game pass titles, especially ones that might otherwise be overlooked or launch in a crowded window.
I think I would also prefer that approach. It'd be great for games if everyone on Xbox had game pass - Like Netflix shows get huge because everyone has it, it'd be cool to see the same effect for game pass titles, especially ones that might otherwise be overlooked or launch in a crowded window.
You're precisely correct in my opinion.
Now this is something I could envision happening someday.
Even with PSNow allowing full access to online play without a PSPlus subcription, what is being discussed is the prospect of Microsoft "throwing away" or dissolving one of their two service-based gaming revenue streams -- which Sony still currently has. PS+ is raking in quite a bit revenue for Sony, according to reports.
We'll see what happens. Crazier things have transpired within the gaming industry. Anything's possible.
Microsoft's entire plan is trying to get more money from their smaller userbase, not making stuff free that people were willing to pay for.
It's a weird position they are in where they went out of their way to release all their games on pc, but still charge only console users to play online. Obviously there's no way to charge pc games for online or they would have done it, so logically they should do away with all online charges, make it equal on both.
But PS3 beat 360 eventually. It had greater worldwide appeal and caught up after starting a year late but still lost to Wii. Xbox brand has never won a generation.
But why give up all that revenue when they can do what they did this gen (minus the mistakes), sell 50 million XBX2s (at near break even price) while still making money off Live?
Live is not an issue, its just PS and Nintendo make better games than MS, thats the real issue imo.
Live is not an issue, its just PS and Nintendo make better games than MS, thats the real issue imo.
That's true, but by Sony not requiring Plus for PSNow, they are giving ppl the option to not use Plus at all and go all in on PSNow.
As PSNow library grows and come to more countries, it becomes more interesting to see if ppl start making that choice.
But Plus is more than online MP. I know I also use it for the free games and discounts. Same as Gold. Since a rarely play online, the online part is an after thought for me. I'm the minority, I know...lol
Interesting times ahead for sure tho.
I agree, but I have also said I think Sony should do the same.
But what rwallly made me stop here was this:
Is that true? That's terrible.
But what rwallly made me stop here was this:
Is that true? That's terrible.
I said this awhile ago. Drop the Gold, offer free multiplayer, and focus on Game Pas on PC and Xbox but raise the price to $12.99 per month or $99 per year.