I can totally understand that MS is seeing them dollar signs when you hear 8 billion mobile phone users. But as a gamer, I'm just not interested in streaming games. If you think GamePass is the best thing ever, then good for you. I tried it, played Gears and then cancelled the subscription because 99% of the games on there are either old and can be bought in the bargain bin for a couple of $, or are just not worth installing.

I don't mind is MS is looking into the far, far future and who knows, maybe one day we will all be streaming games. My problem is that this comment from Phil Spencer and the way they have been talking about Gamepass, make it sound like it's already Gamepass and Cloudgaming first and their Series X second. 

And yes, maybe Nintendo was forced to adjust and they will likely never release a traditional home console ever again. But the difference is that Nintendo is still invested in making great games for their console. Sure, they released some mobile games as well, but just like Sony is doing with PS Now or PSVR, it's just something they do on the side and it isn't hurting their output of quality games.

With MS it's different as they're currently making games that are designed to reach as many players as possible with Gamepass. Now, the Series X has a gpu that's the equivalent of a RTX2080, but how many Gamepass users on pc do you think have that kind of hardware? Also, what do you think MS will do to make sure all those pc gamers can still play the latest Halo, Gears or Forza on there as well as on the X1? My point is that having their games on as many platforms as possible defeats the whole point of a console, which is to squeeze every bit of performance out of the thing to get the best graphics possible on screen.

Your comment alone proves why gamepass hurt MS studios quality output. If you your self claim that you have played over 20 games this year alone and you spend on it somewhere betwen $12(cuz the $1 per month is still widely available) - $120(if actually spend full price). Thats a possible loss of a few hundred bucks loss revenue. Add to that what you said about playing games you other wise would never even try, are now getting a cut off that gamepass sub. So now the big games that draw attention to the sub like gears or halo have to share with games that even if people dint even play but downloaded just to add the the list. So less money in total, and the little that there is has to be shared even among the games that are not played. So why on earth would MS invest big in titles that will make a lot less money than they used to?

There is something to be said about big 1st party games getting you through the door then make the money on other ips sold on the console. Thats the entire point of exclusives and why they tend to be so good. But that strategie does not work if you loose more in making those games than what third partys can rake in. So it stands to reason that MS will invest very little in thouse new studios cuz they dont expect big revenue. Also makes sense since all theese studios they bought are super tiny, some have like 30 people. 

Your comment alone proves why gamepass hurt MS studios quality output. If you your self claim that you have played over 20 games this year alone and you spend on it somewhere betwen $12(cuz the $1 per month is still widely available) - $120(if actually spend full price). Thats a possible loss of a few hundred bucks loss revenue. Add to that what you said about playing games you other wise would never even try, are now getting a cut off that gamepass sub. So now the big games that draw attention to the sub like gears or halo have to share with games that even if people dint even play but downloaded just to add the the list. So less money in total, and the little that there is has to be shared even among the games that are not played. So why on earth would MS invest big in titles that will make a lot less money than they used to?

There is something to be said about big 1st party games getting you through the door then make the money on other ips sold on the console. Thats the entire point of exclusives and why they tend to be so good. But that strategie does not work if you loose more in making those games than what third partys can rake in. So it stands to reason that MS will invest very little in thouse new studios cuz they dont expect big revenue. Also makes sense since all theese studios they bought are super tiny, some have like 30 people. 

Yeah, all those old bargain bin games with low ratings like

• Dirt Rally 2.0
• Doom 2016
• Final Fantasy XV
• Forza Horizon 4
• Gears of War 4
• Gears 5
• GTA 5
• Halo 5
• Hellblade
• Hollow Knight
• Just Cause 4
• Life is Strange 2
• Metro Exodus
• Metal Gear Solid 5
• Mutant Year Zero
• Ori 2
• RAGE 2
• Sea of Thieves
• Shadow of the Tomb Raider
• Subnautica
• The Outer Worlds
• The Witcher 3
• Wolfenstein 2
• Wolfenstein: Youngblood

I disagree. We don’t know the revenue model for us playing GP games. It’s very simple in that the games I played I wouldn’t have bought....that’s revenue that the dev wouldn’t have got otherwise. 

As far as Ms 1st party go, I’ll be playing games I also wouldn’t have bought like Wasteland 3 and Psychonauts 2. Games like Halo and Forza make their money through multiplayer. Gamers keep coming back and ultimately their subscription ends up bringing more money then a mere $60.

In the end GP is a choice. There will always be people that buy outright. If I as a gamer get immense value out of it and MS sees it as a successful venture overall...then you really have nothing to complain about. 

Why do they make a lot less money than they used to? It's like people forget that all of these GamePass titles are also there day one at retail. GamePass isn't meant to replace anything, it's merely an optional service. Just like xCloud. Papa Phil can go out of his way to repeatedly say all digital is not the future, that there will always be a place for dedicated hardware and physical media, and that streaming will always be inferior to local gaming and is just a convenience, and people will still swear up and down that MS is investing into an all GamePass future where you can only stream titles lol.

Not to mention people who claim MS will just fill GamePass up with small, throwaway filler type titles with little investment can never really explain how MS is then supposed to sell hardware for that service or even the service itself. Hey, here's a service full of cheap games. Please buy our $400-500 console and pay us $15 a month for it. Seems logical I guess.

See my previous coment for the first part.

And the second part. Can you list all the games coming out this year from MS? I have seen the list xbox fans like to throw around to prov  they have more games than sony. And just tell me the quality of thouse games. All of them are indy to AA aside from halo infinity. 

It makes sense to take a loss on hardware as then you make more selling software, but taking a loss in software as well is just ridiculous. MS will produce 80-90% of its content as minor games to give away for free. 

I don't think Phil doing anything particularly wrong. Consoles are crucial for reaching many gamers primarily in the west. Therefore we have the Series X, a console they're hyping on power and maybe we'll see Lockhart as well. On top of that MS, is hyping other things like xCloud.

You speak as if Game Pass is separate from Xbox consoles and also suggest quality has gone down since its inception. I primarily see Game Pass as a service to get people more engaged with ALL 1st party content, whether its on Xbox or PC. It also requires an increase of quantity and quality in content produced to encourage more subscriptions. MS's output quality has actually increased and they acquired some notable studios likely to make sure that continues. I feel you have to ignore everything MS has been doing to maintain your narrative.

In your last paragraph you ignore obvious arguments.

1st party content seems to only be promised on X1 for 2020-2021. Therefore the latest AAA games being able to "reach as many players as possible" or "having their games on as many platforms as possible" may end there... unless xCloud is an option. With xCloud their games technically become accessible to even more people than ever.

I don't know if Series X is at par with a RTX 2080, but a PC wouldn't require a GPU equivalent to Series X to run the same games. Especially if you play with lowered graphics settings, lower resolution, 30 fps, etc. For example, you could play Gears 5 on a PC right now with less GPU power than a X1.

Hence, PC users could still play Series X content with a fraction of the GPU power at lower graphics settings. Which is kinda the idea of the Lockhart console. Also, xCloud allows people to access Series X content without having the needed specs to actually run that content. In theory maybe X1 users will always have access to Series X content via xCloud.

So you admit big games makes less money and now have to make up in multiplayer micro transactions. Games like god of war and spiderman make plenty of money on their own $60 purchase while a the same time bring people in to the platform. Games that nickle and dime you tend to turn people away. 

Yes its an option. An option that deprives big devs of resources and prioritizes little devs who otherwise would be ignored by the vast mayority of gamers. Most people dont have infine resources, so they tend to buy games they really want and thouse tend to be big flashy ones that grave their attention. Now thouse big ones have to share the pot with the little ones, ands its a smaller pot to begin with.