Man, Game Pass is starting the year on fire, another game coming this month!

Well, I responded in the news comments, but I would not be surprised for this be included in GamePass at some point.

When you bring the 15$ vers 5$, you forget one thing, marketing and customer aquisition which is, by far, the most expensive part of any service like that out there. GamePass will guarantee revenues and player aquisition, at the end Ubisoft is probably making 1 or 2$ per customers (I'm making up numbers here just to illustrate) so a deal with GamePass can most likely be good for Ubisoft. Unless the adoption of Ubisoft+ on console is really that good, this can very likely be a good deal for Ubisoft knowing how GamePass is successful.

Will see in few months anyway, but I'm betting on it.

Damn Drinkbox I thought historically worked with PS. Guacamelee that is was a PS timed exclusive. Wasn't a big fan of Guac 2 (game pissed me off for some reason).

The cost for gaming subs is balancing subscription revenue with loss of $60 purchasers. Microsoft cannot offer enough money to ubisoft for it to be worth ubisoft giving every gamepass subscriber all of their games and DLC day one.

You are greatly overstating the cost of marketing if you think ubisoft make $1-$2 per $15 sub. That's insane lol.

Finished Ass Creed Odyssey.. Real time is 134 hours. 

That second DLC dragged a lot more than I would have liked. 

For those that played Valhalla, is the leveling system the same? 

No that's not insane, I think you are naive to believe that Ubisoft is going to make more than 1 or 2$ per sub/months (we are talking about profits here, not revenues...), even if Marketing is not 13$ (which is not what I said by the way), the total of all cost to put a game out there is probably close to that, and the margin cannot be higher than that :) You can disagree but I'm talking byexperience, I built 2 games (one is an online web browser RPG) and marketing and player aquisition is by far the most expensive; like crazy expensive... 

For instance I had a deal with GameForge (Big European publisher from Germany) and while the total cost of dev. of one game (2 years of dev, 3 devs working on it) was probably something close to half a million, the initial offering of GameForge for 2 months of marketing was 2 millions dollars and this coverred only the first 3 months, in exchange they would receive 0.80$ out of every 1$ we made... and this WAS a good deal, and with this 2 millions we aquired maybe 1500 players... It tooks way more to actually get where we are today (around 10000). 

This goes with game dev. too, whenever a game is being sold at 79$, at the end the dev. or even thge publisher makes only few dollars per games and the subscription model is not going to replace that, it is a complementary offering. They are still going to sell those 60$ games like before and this is just another revenue stream. Getting 1 or 2$ or more (whatever is the number) from GamePass Ultimate subscribers "is insane" indeed for them... And this without spending a dime in marketing.

By that same logic Microsoft would only be making $1-$2 from gamepass, so how could they afford to pay ubisoft $1-$2?

Don't think this will go anywhere so I will agree to disagree with you.

So you are really thinking that Microsoft Game Pass (who is basically a platform for OTHER publishers/developpers) to get an additional revenue stream is the same than what Ubisoft is doing? 

You do realize that what EA and the multitude of other developpers/publishers are doing by putting their game on GamePass is exactly what you think Ubisoft would be insane to do? It does not matter how much it cost for EA Play as a standalone, at the end, it is profitable for EA to put all their games (expect new ones before a certain delay) on GamePass... And you are arguing that it is a completly different story for Ubisoft.. Even if you are not even trying to understand everything I'm explaining from a business standpoint, you are just assuming stuff because Ubisoft is pricing their service at 15$ instead of 4$... When at the end, it is the same thing.

They can decide to maybe add some restriuctions to make the "standalone" version more attractive, but at the end, there is no world where doing that would not be profitable for them, same goes for Microsoft cause it will attract even more customers. That's simple math...

And the only thing you can actually argue is how much MORE or LESS money they would do if they are only offering the standalone version. And this is really guess at the point and will greatly depends on how successful it is. But they will make money either way...

I don't agree with your business conclusions or your ideas of how this all works like i said. Don't think this will go anywhere so I will agree to disagree with you.

Fair enough :)