Is MS counter to Sony's Timed Exclusives going to be getting games on Game Pass ASAP (Day 1 or close to Day 1)?

[jbug617]

inspired by Grubb's tweet


We know Sony has been making Timed Exclusive deals with big 3rd Party (Bethesda and SE)

MS hasn't been able to get a huge 3rd Party on Day 1 but they did get some big names within a couple of months from their original release (Metro Exodus, DMCV and MHW). What if Xbox decides to go bigger with a start of a new generation.

Xbox getting games on Game Pass doesn't stop devs from releasing the game everywhere else. It just makes Game Pass (and Xbox) more appealing.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

My money matters more than playing a game earlier so yeah

 

[crimzonflame]

Huge waste of money.

 

[AndyMc1888]

Probably cost less than full exclusivity too while having the same marketing effect?

 

[Wereroku]

I can't imagine how much it would cost to get AAA third parties on gamepass day one. I think they will just do their own exclusives like we have already seen.

 

[Daebo]

This absolutely the way to go. Gets rid of shitty timed exclusives, and helps out the developers more.

 

[UraMallas]

For me it is.

It's basically win-win-win-win:
1) Xbox players get it free in GP
2) Playstation players don't NOT get it
3) Publisher gets a big chunk of money for going into GP and gets to still sell on all platforms
4) Microsoft gets value added to further their GP service and gets the goodwill from their customers

What's not to like?

 

[TameLucas]

This one is actually good for consumers, while timed exclusivity isn't.

I'm not sure how it would work for Microsoft, but I'd love this as Xbox player.

 

[Deleted member 62280]

Huge waste of money.

Click to shrink...

Absolutely not. In this situation MS wins, the Pub wins, and most of all the Consumer wins.

 

[Eeyore]

I wonder how much that would cost to get big third party games on gamepass day 1. Is it equivalent to a timed exclusive in terms of cost? No clue.

I think timed exclusives are dumb because you're essentially paying for a game to not appear on platforms. Hate that shit.

 

[Knight613]

I'm going to say Microsoft would have to spend way more money to get games on GP Day 1 than Sony would in getting timed exclusives.

That said, Microsoft is also getting timed exclusives so there's something Jeff seems to be ignoring.

 

[SCUMMbag]

For me it is.

It's basically win-win-win-win. Xbox players get it free in GP, Playstation players don't NOT get it, Publisher gets a big chunk of money for going into GP, Publisher gets to still sell on all platforms.

What's not to like?

Click to shrink...

Yup! It sounds like the perfect way to money-hat tbh

 

[jon bones]

For me it is.

It's basically win-win-win-win. Xbox players get it free in GP, Playstation players don't NOT get it, Publisher gets a big chunk of money for going into GP and gets to still sell on all platforms, Microsoft gets value added to further their GP service and gets the goodwill from their customers.

What's not to like?

Click to shrink...

Really does seem like the Only Good Moneyhat

 

[TaterTots]

I don't think they will. They'd rather purchase studios to pump out titles for them. It's why the WB games deal kind of makes sense. Even without the i.p. Those are talented studios.

 

[R dott B]

Well that's a interesting strategy

 

[Prine]

MS should absolutely do it. And cannot be seen as anti consumer, would take an Olympian level of mental gymnastics in order to frame it that way.

 

[Daebo]

This one is actually good for consumers, while timed exclusivity isn't.

I'm not sure how it would work for Microsoft, but I'd love this as Xbox player.

Click to shrink...

I'd imagine it would be a short lived GP game, say three months, and then folks who like it and not beat it will buy it. So then MS will get their 30% cut.

Win, win, win

 

[Deleted member 11626]

Huge waste of money.

Click to shrink...

For who? If they want Game Pass subscribers, then getting the title on it during the release window will do just that. People already on Xbox won't spend $60 on every new release when they can just sub to Game Pass...and paying full price is going to feel awfully silly for people yet to get on Xbox. Mine is in my home solely because of Game Pass, and it has saved me from spending full price on other platforms.

 

[dep9000]

I'm going to say Microsoft would have to spend way more money to get games on GP Day 1 than Sony would in getting timed exclusives.

That said, Microsoft is also getting timed exclusives so there's something Jeff seems to be ignoring.

Click to shrink...

Why not both? Would be a killer combo

 

[Rat King]

Getting games day one or close to launch on gamepass has to be way more expensive than a timed deal.

 

[Ricelord]

thats one way to burn alot of cash quick.

 

[Raider34]

They should just Buy the content make it second party Publish it themselves like Netflix does with movies. Timed exclusive is a waste of money

 

[Ploid 6.0]

Like Netflix I'd expect the cost of that to go up and up if they do that. Depending on the game I'd probably sub for cheap while the game I want to play (single player story focused, one play through type of game) is on there and force myself to finish it and fast. Right now I can't even finish games I want to play so I don't know if that plan would go through.

It would be like asking WB to launch Batman, or Sony Venom 2, and Morbius on Netflix day and date with Theaters (if there was no virus this year. Now that probably wouldn't be a bad idea since people shouldn't go to theaters).

 

[Lord Fanny]

Getting a lot of major third parties day and date with Game Pass feels like a big ask to me. I know MS has the closest thing to 'unlimited funds' as you can realistically have, but still, I imagine the big dogs like EA, Activision and Ubisoft that this would really matter to would ask some high damn prices for the amount of potential income they'd lose doing that.

 

[rokkerkory]

It's driving more towards GP, it's a good strategy.

 

[Witness]

It doesn't hurt consumers so this is a great idea.

 

[Daebo]

It's not like every game would be put into GP like that. You pick and choose. 20 million (that's what dmc5 got?) To put on GP for 3 to 6 months, and then whatever sales on top. MS has data to show games do get bought on service. It's a win for everybody and games could still be released on PS as well.

 

[Lothars]

Getting games day one or close to launch on gamepass has to be way more expensive than a timed deal.

Click to shrink...

Yup and it's ignoring the fact the ms is also doing time exclusives.

 

[Daebo]

Yup and it's ignoring the fact the ms is also doing time exclusives.

Click to shrink...

On indie games. Not games from Bethesda, capcom, SE.

 

[LilScooby77]

This would be nuts.

 

[TitlePending]

That's great and will definitely add value to GP. I would likely buy Lockhart and subscribe on one-month basis and try to get through 2-3 games during that time.

Surely not reasonable for RPGs, but totally doable for FPS campaigns and non-open world adventure games.

 

[Uzupedro]

That would probably be quite expensive, but if they can do that it would be a good solution I think. Although they are already doing moneyhatting, so I don't see why they are going to change their strategy overnight in this "fight".

 

[jroc74]

I'm confused.

If game A is a timed exclusive, how is 3rd party games on GP day 1 a counter?

It can't be the same game with the timed exclusivity deal.

Any games that did this will still be available on PlayStation. That's not a counter IMO.

 

[Deleted member 51306]

For me it is.

It's basically win-win-win-win:
1) Xbox players get it free in GP
2) Playstation players don't NOT get it
3) Publisher gets a big chunk of money for going into GP and gets to still sell on all platforms
4) Microsoft gets value added to further their GP service and gets the goodwill from their customers

What's not to like?

Click to shrink...

This is a much better option than timed exclusives. Everyone wins

 

[Deleted member 12352]

More likely they'll just buy timed exclusives as well.

 

[Jiraiya]

I'm betting Microsoft wants their studios to have the kind of output where they don't need to spend that kind of money on 3rd party deals.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

I can't imagine how much it would cost to get AAA third parties on gamepass day one. I think they will just do their own exclusives like we have already seen.

Click to shrink...

Timed and full exclusives would be way more expensive than a Game Pass launch.

You can still buy a game that launches on game Pass. Anywhere.

 

[kadotsu]

I feel like this doesn't make sense at the beginning of a generation where you have an audience that is eager to build a library of new stuff. Acquisition of content would be very expensive and Mixer has shown that MS has limits for burning cash. I feel like that money would be better spent on getting subsidies for new subscribers and classic exclusive deals.

 

[Iso]

I'm not sure I understand why people think a game pass deal would cost more for Microsoft than a timed exclusive deal. With a timed exclusive, you are completely removing avenues of revenue for a duration of time. With game pass, not only would you still be able to launch on all platforms at the same time, but you're also still 'purchasable' on game pass platforms and would receive 'free' marketing from Microsoft, who would want to promote their service.

 

[Kingdizzi]

Are MS not doing any timed exclusives for Series X? Those games during their May event aren't permanent exclusives from what I can tell, unless I'm totally confused here.

The question to ask is if MS were in the same position as Sony, do people think they would turn down these timed exclusives offered by the likes of SE and Bethesda? I couldn't see MS saying no but since they are such a non-factor in the gaming space these days, 3rd parties ain't going to go to them compared to the likes of Sony.

 

[Bessy67]

Haven't we heard from multiple devs that their games actually sell better once they hit game pass? Granted it's mostly indies I think but still, it might not be that crazy expensive to get some 3rd parties to launch on game pass.

 

[Deleted member 51306]

I'm confused.

If game A is a timed exclusive, how is 3rd party games on GP day 1 a counter?

It can't be the same game with the timed exclusivity deal.

Any games that did this will still be available on PlayStation. That's not a counter IMO.

Click to shrink...

What OP is saying is instead of spending money on timed exclusivity use that money to get the title on gamepass at or near launch. It makes gamepass even more valuable then it already is which could draw more people in. Especially if game prices are going to climb.

 

[Scottoest]

I'm confused.

If game A is a timed exclusive, how is 3rd party games on GP day 1 a counter?

It can't be the same game with the timed exclusivity deal.

Any games that did this will still be available on PlayStation. That's not a counter IMO.

Click to shrink...

Because getting some big third-party games "for free" could potentially be bigger for selling someone your console, than getting some third-party games a bit earlier than the competition.

 

[Deleted member 62280]

Why would a game going to GP day one cost more than exclusivity? The GP game will still be multiplat, will still have the ability to be purchased (likely at a higher rate), and developers could remove it from the service after a time period. It's quite literally a win for all parties involved minus maybe Sony

 

[ShapeGSX]

Shadow of the Tomb Raider came to Game Pass after only 5 months. I could see it happening.

 

[test_account]

For who? If they want Game Pass subscribers, then getting the title on it during the release window will do just that. People already on Xbox won't spend $60 on every new release when they can just sub to Game Pass...and paying full price is going to feel awfully silly for people yet to get on Xbox. Mine is in my home solely because of Game Pass, and it has saved me from spending full price on other platforms.

Click to shrink...

Getting big budget titles on Game Pass (GP) on day one is likely going to be very costly, so it could be a waste of money for Microsoft. I mean, it will surely get more GP subscribers, but would it make up for what they're spending on getting such games on the service on day 1? I guess that it also depends on how much later a game is being released on Xbox though. If its e.g 1 year after the PS4 and/or PC version, then its probably easier to do such a deal (easier as in being cheaper).

 

[Altair]

It would certainly be the best instance of moneyhatting a game. It's not exclusive to any platform and is just significantly cheaper via GP. Encourages more people to invest in the Xbox/PC ecosystem for GP.

 

[Ploid 6.0]

It's not like every game would be put into GP like that. You pick and choose. 20 million (that's what dmc5 got?) To put on GP for 3 to 6 months, and then whatever sales on top. MS has data to show games do get bought on service. It's a win for everybody and games could still be released on PS as well.

Click to shrink...

DMC5 came to Game Pass 5 months after it launched on Xbox, it was also Xbox only. The OP seem to suggest Gamepass on launch. That would be incredibly expensive for one game.

If they do it, that's crazy and awesome, it would make subbing for the month of release a awesome deal depending on if it's a single player story driven game or a GAAS/multiplayer focused game. It would definitely perk up my ear to considering it though. I'd do it for Cyberpunk (PC), $15 or less one month rental then wait for the full DLC pack on sale for like $30 much later? Yep, fingers crossed.

 

[jroc74]

More likely they'll just buy timed exclusives as well.

Click to shrink...

And I thought they already did a few 3rd party games on GP day one already?

Now, if its a timed Xbox exclusive that's also on GP day one, that's different. And more like a counter to me.

 

[TechnicPuppet]

I'll take getting a game on Gamepass over stopping someone without an Xbox playing it every time.