-
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.
Phil Spencer: “The only concern I see from consumers about Game Pass is is it sustainable...Game Pass is doing very well for us and developers”
- Thread starter Proven
- Start date
Anyway, I continue to dislike subscriptions. I will always purchase the individual games I want.
This reads like he thinks it's a problem, and what he's saying is others are worried it will be but he personally doesn't see that as the service has been immensely successful for both MS and Developers.
OP
OP
I definitely could have worded it better but there's only so much to fit in a title lol
Phil told me it's so that you personally would be upset, pretty rude of him I think.
At these prices, no its not.
I feel like this with Ps plus in the PS3 days. Remember that on gaf?
I feel like this with Ps plus in the PS3 days. Remember that on gaf?
GP makes money and is very sustainable. Companies love subscriptions. All the concern trolling around GP is so transparent lol, just enjoy your games.
God bless you, I've played quite a few great games on Game Pass already. Not worried about their numbers at all. I hope it's sustainable for my own benefit, but yeah, more interested in enjoying it.
Currently playing Darksiders 3, and it'll probably end up being my new GOTY 2018. It's fantastic, definitely recommend it.
Currently playing Darksiders 3, and it'll probably end up being my new GOTY 2018. It's fantastic, definitely recommend it.
User warned: Inflammatory drive-by posting.
Too bad that PlayStation fanboy from last night got banned, I was hoping to see him here 😂
PS Plus was different, because it immediately went to shit as soon as Sony forced it on everyone. Xbox can't do that with game pass, the entire point of the service is the games.
For how many games are on the service, I can't even begin to fathom how it is doing well for both MS and devs. It's so cheap someone has to be losing a ton of money, whether it be MS or the devs. The payouts to the devs must be great for so many third-party games to straight up launch on it, or be added to it sometimes only a few months after release.
Unless for MS "doing very well" simply means they have a ton more active users since the service launched.
Unless for MS "doing very well" simply means they have a ton more active users since the service launched.
It seems like most "AAA" games are already doing this. Hardly any of the games I play on Game Pass do.
Not that this is a wrong take, but I find it hilarious that it doesn't matter what the guy says, this line invariably follows in every thread. It's almost comical at this point.
Games aren't exclusive to Gamepass. They're also sold at retail, and most are multiplatform releases on PlayStation consoles too.
Doesn't make sense to think games will be designed around a fraction of their player base.
I love how the average user here spends more time searching for numbers and demanding for data instead of playing games, they are not even shareholders or data analyst but they need their god damn numbers for "reasons".
Gamepass gave me path of exile, Witcher 3, and goose game this week.
why
why
It's the first thing that comes to my mind whenever an executive does PR :P
I mean...that doesn't really answer the question? Like, I get that *right now* everyone loves it, but, that doesn't mean it's permanently sustainable.
How about wait and see if that happens and then vote with your wallet?
At the moment, MS, developers, and gamers are all doing well with it and it hasn't become a microtransaction pit.
I'm sure they have financial analysts who have built models to determine how it all works out for MS. If Spencer isn't worried I don't see why you or anyone else here should be.
That only works for their own games, though. Since they're there from day one. Most other games enter Game Pass long past their significant sales windows.
If Darksiders 4 comes out full of microtransactions thinking about their Game Pass debut a year after release, they're not gonna find that much success.
I'd also be interested in knowing people's experiences with this, buying DLC for games they don't really own. Do people really do this? To me, it discourages me from buying any DLC at all, actually.
I was sure I'd get Darksiders 3 with the season pass once it was cheap enough, but then it came out on Game Pass, I had my 1 dollar subscription, and suddenly I don't give a shit anymore. I'm just gonna play the main game and have fun. I'm not spending any money on a game I paid $1.
Because the numbers would make the conversation more interesting to discuss.
It's alright boosting numbers when you sell your product for 1$ for 3 months. I have zero interest in staying subscribed for full price. Many will be the same.
Real numbers when it isn't on offer will be the pudding. Because right now it must be losing money considering how badly gears 5 sold since most plays it on game pass.
I don't care as long as i get to play more games at a low price but i do think microsoft is eating a loss here not the developers
Sigh...the fact that people are still using words like "unsustainable" and "subsidized/loss leader" means that they have zero clue on how a major business works. GamePass by every measure has been highly successful and people here are trying to tell Phil Spencer "no it's not" based on some idea they got in pre-school on how to run a lemonade stand.
It's been explained many times why so many companies are moving to subscription services and why they are highly profitable...but hey, it can't be true because Microsoft isn't creating some MAU metric for you to consume...that you wouldn't understand anyway...
Because if you don't understand how it is profitable and successful now, there is no "number" that will be of any difference to your opinion. You are just going to use it to further your argument that it isn't successful, because there is no way to equate subscription revenue vs. physical sales revenue in a way that would make sense to people that really that Microsoft is taking a loss somewhere.
It's been explained many times why so many companies are moving to subscription services and why they are highly profitable...but hey, it can't be true because Microsoft isn't creating some MAU metric for you to consume...that you wouldn't understand anyway...
Because if you don't understand how it is profitable and successful now, there is no "number" that will be of any difference to your opinion. You are just going to use it to further your argument that it isn't successful, because there is no way to equate subscription revenue vs. physical sales revenue in a way that would make sense to people that really that Microsoft is taking a loss somewhere.
See, it's post like this. It's literally been explained hundreds of times...subscription services all operate the same. But hey, it can't be doing well because reasons.
Last edited:
Games with MP will inevitably have MTX, see Gears 5 and Halo Infinite.
But other XGS titles launching day one don't have MTX, see Gears Tactis, Ori 2, AoE4, Hellblade 2, Physhonauts and Wasteland 3.
Great to hear.
Don't be a douche bag just because people aren't clear.
Because it often feels too good to be true. It's not unreasonable to ask questions given how much of a seachange it is given how we've been buying and playing games for the last 50 years.
Don't be a douche bag just because people aren't clear.
Because knowing one party is doing better than others is more important than people playing games?
A reasonable concern, but one that has nothing to do with Gamepass.
Sony and Nintendo don't seem to have these elements in their games.
Halo 5, Forza Horizon 4 & Gears 5 all have microtransactions though.
I'm talking about exclusives, the microtransactions in Gears 5 feel a little greedy considering the game cost 60 to begin with, it's like they're treating the paid content as if it were a free game.
Well Game Pass supposedly pays by how long people play a game right? So it makes sense if devs focus on battle passes or microtransactions, it just wouldn't be what i'd want.
EGS + Game Pass PC is literal heaven for Europoors like me. I pay virtually zero money and get a shitload of good games.
I remember feeling the same way about PlayStation Plus and we all know how that worked out.
(It worked out)
(It worked out)
That's not what the average user does....lol.
And yes of you aren't transparent about the numbers people gonna have question. If Nintendo comes out today and pronounces that they are the No. 1 console manufacturers without backing the data up people will wonder how they got to that statements.
The ones that should care about numbers are Microsoft, developers and investors, the consumer should give 0 fucks about how a service is being paid and if it's sustainable.
Demanding numbers to make "conversation more interesting" will always result in console warring and you already know that.
Ah yes, why would I need numbers in a thread about how well gamepass is doing.
Why not just talk about the games in the service and how awesome it is to see recent and new titles show up on the service? We ain't business folks here... Probably lol
