Nope, you are confusing stuff. And avoiding additional cost isn't the same as saving. You can't say that you were expending 1k a month with your bills but now you are saving a lot of money by expending 1.5k but with more services. That is the opposite of saving.

We had demos for that and game try outs. Plus there's always the refund option on Steam and other services. And before you could trade games in to get most your cost back. First month after release trade in prices were always pretty high. That option is now also nearly killed.

It's nice to try out new things for 'free', yet you're in a curated limited pool which will shrink over time as more streaming services pop up and gain popularity. The same that happened to Netflix. So while trying out new games, you're limiting yourself to what's available on the streaming service.

Another thing against streaming, the disappearance of demos and trial play periods.

Considering DLC price per play time is a travesty compared to base game, even worse talking about MTX, your argument is very flawed. Even more when you try to then use the full price of the game and DLC for that "saving". Please explain to me how I paying a full game 10 bucks for 60-100h of gameplay then buying a DLC for additional 10h for 20 bucks get judged the way you do.

While I can see the convenience of it, I prefer to have ownership of my games and to be able to play them whenever I want without having to pay a monthly fee forever.

I find it disheartening that the entire crux of this argument and the divide between being on one side or the other is whether or not a person cares about monetary value or literally everything else.

Like, the ONLY argument that's pro-subscription is that it's 'cheaper' or 'a better value' or 'gives you more bang for your buck', without considering any other factors. Like, don't get me wrong, I GET it, I understand why this is such a good value, and I do see why you might like it for kids or people who don't really care all that much about ownership, but there are so many other factors to think about for true gamers, collectors, trophy hunters, etc. It's kinda sad that so many are arguing for the services as though the value proposition is all that matters, devaluing the arguments of those who don't find that a factor at all.

Like, money isn't a factor to me at all. I mean, I don't have much money (I'm certifiably poor as fuck), but video Games and my pets are basically all I spend money on outside of bills so I don't care much about the value. What I DO care about is the freedom of ownership, the physical collection, the filled shelves, the ever-expanding need for external hard drives to hold it all, and not having to stream or redownload stuff (I know GamePass doesn't do streaming, but PSNow does and I have 0 interest in it).

My point is, it really is or should be a 50/50 debate based on what matters to you, but reading this thread gives me some weird impression there's more malice and aggression just below the surface than there really should be. like it's a fight just waiting to break out, not a discussion.

It's a digital service, so any argument regarding collectors and ownership goes right out the window. Whether I buy Outriders digitally through GamePass or digitally through the MS store, all I collect is an icon in my library, and the only ownership I have is a digital license which can be revoked or rendered irrelevant any time MS/Square deems it. I don't know what a "true gamer" is, lol.

Why not buy it physically.... It's still possible, for now. The argument is that subscription services are further eroding physical ownership. It's the heart of the argument. It's eroding it further due to the shift to gaas. Why make a complete game when you can make a base version, release it on GP, see if there's interest, then start selling DLC for it.

Physical games, you own the game, can play it offline until the hardware breaks down.
Digital games, you own a license, you have the right to play the game until the publisher revokes that right but so far that rarely happens.
Game pass, you own nothing, games can leave the service at any time, you have no rights. You can buy add-ons for the games but they stop working when the base game leaves the service.

You don't need a sub service to kill off physical media, the progression of technology will do that for us. Before GamePass was a thing, digital sales were climbing and climbing. The PC market has been dominated by digital for a long time now. Consoles are going that route. Next time you're in Walmart or Target or Best Buy, check out the tiny tiny music CD sections. Games will hit that mark eventually.

The difference between GamePass and physical or buying a digital copy is that I don't expect to be able to play the game forever. I'm aware it can go away. When I buy DLC for a GamePass game, I know if the game leaves the service, I'll have to buy it or lose access to that DLC. It's part of the package.

Regarding chopping up games to sell in chunks, that's another thing that started long before GamePass. And GamePass doesn't make it easier to do this or anything, GamePass games are all available outside of the service. Why would MS allow publishers to put incomplete games on their service? Doesn't make sense.

@Bolded No, it just makes it monetarily necessary. People spending $120 a year on Gamepass can't replace the revenue from people buying their own games at $60 each. That revenue has to come from somewhere, so if Gamepass winds up completely changing the industry you can expect GaaS and MTX to be pretty much be all there is.

"Why would MS allow publishers to put incomplete games on their service? Doesn't make sense."

MS releases incomplete games themselves. Look at the sorry state that SoT launched in. Look at how much Gears 5 is a GaaS mess. Look at grounded, which is still in early access. Of course they're going to allow other publishers to put incomplete games on the service.

Ok, my true gamer card isn't laminated or anything, but here's why I love GP....

1. Before GP, I never really had a massive backlog of games, cus unlike some other self proclaimed "true gamers," I would actually play any new games I bought. Unless I ended up being severely disappointed by them, I would finish them, and then there was nothing new to play until I spent my next 60 bucks on whatever else. With GP, I will ALWAYS have something new to play. Instead of looking at my completed games, wondering what I feel most like re-playing, I can just keep trying new stuff all the time. That's awesome. My "backlog" is GP.

2. If I wanna achievement hunt, which I do rather enjoy from time to time, well....what could be better than access to hundreds of games to do so in? So far this year, I've gotten 100% on 23 games, and 22 of them were GP titles, the other - Control - was technically on GP too, but I wanted the Ultimate Edition, so I bought that one.

3. I like playing games from a broad spectrum of genres. GP encapsulates them all pretty well. Despite what some arguments might have you believe, the service isn't in fact filled simply with GaaS titles, designed to take all your money via MXTs. I haven't exactly counted it out, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority of games on the service are in fact regular single player games.

4. Because there's no extra barrier to entry for any of the titles on GP, I end up trying games I otherwise wouldn't. I'm only buying a game outright, if I'm damn certain that I'm really going to like it. With a service like GP, I subscribe so long as there are enough games I feel I would want to outright buy to justify the price, but then anything beyond that it's simply open for me to fuck around with and see if I actually might end up loving something that I otherwise would have shied away from.

5. Naturally, I do often really come to like various games I'm only playing because they're on GP, because...well, I just like video games....but while I can look at some and say ok, moving forward I'll probably buy new entries of such and such now, I can't afford to do that for literally everything I like. That's where the value comes in. GP means, I don't have to.

Also, I just have to say...that "malice and aggression" you feel you perceive in the argument about this....it really mostly comes from one side, and it's not the people who are enjoying GP. We're not telling you that you're not a real gamer unless you enjoy a subscription service, or that there's anything wrong with you wanting own physical editions of all your games, or whatever it may be. It's pretty much just the "other side" feeling threatened by the growing popularity of a service like GP, and what they feel it MIGHT mean to their gaming habits in the future. 

Fortunately for you, MS has made absolutely no show of any intention to remove anyone's ability to keep purchasing games regularly, outside of GP, and they've even been more committed than anyone to make sure your old games keep being playable with various improvements. Individual devs also have so far had nothing but positive things to say about GP, and what it means for their ability to make games, so that's all good. And of course Sony is adamant that the GP model simply wouldn't work for them, so unless they're lying, you'll always have that safe haven of a non subscription dominated environment.