That's just it, I'm not trying to be nice or mean or cruel or callous or compassionate. I'm just trying to explain in most every post of mine why things are the way they are and why some people seem to perceive things differently. I'm not trying to 'let you down easily' or anything, I just go by what I feel, what I observe, and what I think is the most logical explanation. My post up there was very simple: Gamepass is a great deal, but it doesn't seem to be enough to get people to buy an Xbox. It's the most delicious icing on a pretty tiny little mediocre cake.
If the Xbox brand had more games, then Gamepass would be outstanding; however, without that initial buy-in incentive, gamers don't get the most benefit out of the service. Same with Backwards compatibility, that sort of shit is AWESOME and I wish Sony was doing it better, but the reality is that people don't buy new consoles for old games and it seems a stunningly large amount of people still prefer to buy or own their games. Goopy has some points, even if he's a little off from time to time.
In order to get the most out of Gamepass and Backwards compatibility and more powerful hardware (The three things Xbox does best), you need those exclusive games. Without that incentive as the core driving force behind the console, those other sweet-assed features are delicious toppings on a lacklustre meal.
That's why I keep saying none of that matters. That's why I keep saying Xbox has no games. That's why I personally feel Microsoft would be better going third party. Nintendo and Sony both have huge lineups of legacy franchises and new IPs that sell well, are beloved, and run the gamut from every genre and age group, but Microsoft is very pointedly an 'American' system, focused on shooters and racers. They do those games fairly well (Forza is the best racing game franchise out there; Halo, though not my thing, is probably the most iconic shooter of all time, etc), but it's basically all they do. Targetting a niche demographic is fine when you're not a console manufacturer, but Microsoft needs to broaden its horizons and try new things. Not just make promises, but actually follow through.
That's also why I'd be super keen on the idea of GamePass on PS5 (or if I bite the bullet and upgrade, PC, since it almost certainly won't ever come to PS5): Microsoft has a few good games and the deal is outstanding, it's just not enough to make me want an Xbox.
As for twitter and stuff...well, you're on the internet. IT doesn't matter what side of any debate you're on you're likely to find the most vile and hateful rhetoric.
That’s all fair to say. That said I think GP is worth it even if you don’t count 1st party. Plenty of 3rd party gems are on it. Even ones you’d think everybody has played were up in the charts like RDR2, GTA5, Witcher 3. Gems for me included Kingdom Come, Metro Trilogy, Wolfenstein 1/2, Rage 2, LOTR Mordor/Shadow of War, Outer Worlds.
The day 1 exclusive perk is the icing on the cake imo. Saving money on some of the best 3rd party content in the generation (provided you are willing to wait a year after they release) is reason alone to get Xbox. From a purely financial savings point of view.
What about people like me who HAVE all of those games? Sometimes on multiple consoles? I think about it and look back, and I recently picked up The Witcher III WIld Hunt with all its DLC on PS4 for like I think 20 bucks. Given how long the game takes to complete and how much content is there, that alone is worth, what, 3-5 months worth of gameplay? Same with Red Dead Redemption 2. If I mainline that game, I'm looking at 6+ months worth of my time and I got that digitally for a measly 50 bucks (Canadian, remember.) GamePass is a good deal and I'll never say otherwise, but have you considered the reality that a lot of people already HAVE a lot of the games that are on it?
If you're just getting into videogaming and have never collected games or regularly sell your games, then there's no deal better. but for people like me, people with hundreds of games (maybe thousands in total) both physically and digitally already, the chances of something coming out on the system that I don't already have but want is pretty slim. Furthermore, Xbox Live and PSN both have 'free' games that you keep for as long as you have their services and I've accumulated dozens of games at least on PSN that I'll have for as long as I have PSN.
In fact, the more I actually think about it, the clearer it is to me (and clearly to others) that really the only reason to buy gamepass is, once again, Microsoft's first party titles. Honestly, I went into this post ready to be apologetic and compassionate about the service, but the more I think about it the more it sounds like smoke and mirrors. again, the deal IS good, but that doesn't mean the value is the same to everyone. it'd be nice to pick it up and play on my PC or something, but with how many games I already own physically and digitally as well as all the stuff I have on PSN and Switch and Steam...95% of the stuff on GamePass is stuff I already have, don't want, or will never play again. The only games I'd personally get GamePass for are, ironically, stuff like Sea of Thieves. Stuff I'd NEVER buy for myself because I think it's a pretty bad game, but would still be fun to play with my brother and our group of friends. I'd pick up the Halo games for the same reason, I don't like Halo but I'd LOVE to play co-op with my buddies.
and dammit, I think I just flip-flopped again as I think about that. GamePAss is less about having games of your own and more about communal games everyone owns. If everyone has Sea of Thieves...then what harm is it to boot it up and play coop? Even if you don't like Halo or Forza, you can still play it with your buddies if the opportunity comes up. If you wanna play TitanFall but didn't want to buy a whole game just for the online mode (Well, then I'd recommend titanFall 2, but you get the point), then download it on GamePAss and have a go at it!
See? This is why this debate isn't dead yet. I do agree that all three major companies have vastly different goals, but at the same time, like...if that's the case then why does Microsoft need its own console?
I'm rambling. I keep going in circles, but that's where it seems like this is all ending up. It seems a lot of people have reiterated the same thing over and over again, but I'll say it myself. Sony is the traditional console manufacturer with dozens of high fidelity games. Switch emphasizes couch multiplayer and family games as well as portability, and Microsoft cares more about its services. the thing is, if that's the case, making a console just sounds like a drain on Microsoft's funds. The 'service based goods' business model is at odds with their stake in the console market, don't you think?