Lol again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Abilities are not locked behind Amiibo. You can get those same abilities in game within the first five to ten hours of playing. Is it so hard for you to believe that I bought the Amiibo because I wanted something nice for my gaming shelf? I don't give two shits about whatever they unlock.

P.S. I never once said that Grounded had MTX or paid expansions in it. All I said that Grounded was released in an unfinished state. Believe it or not, I'm actually looking forward to Grounded. I've said so before, to quite a few Xbox superfans. Way to ignore my rebuttal completely, and then go on to strawman me. :D

How can you get the Fringed Loafers in Splatoon 2 without paying for a worthless toy?

Also idc if you never explicitly said Grounded has paid MTX or expansions, you replied about it in the context of that conversation. If I am asking why MS would allow publishers to release incomplete games on their service so that they can nickel and dime consumers, why else would you reply pointing to SoT or Gears or Grounded?

While you’re thinking on that, explain to me how a game like Grounded, marketed and released as early access for free, is comparable to a publisher purposely chopping a game up so they can sell it to us piece by piece. Because now you’re admitting it has no paid expansions, so it’s inclusion is bizarre.

You asked why MS would allow publishers to release incomplete games. I pointed out that SoT, Gears 5, and Grounded were all released incomplete. If MS releases it's own games as incomplete you can bet that it will let publishers do the same.

Lol I never said Grounded had any paid expansions or MTX, and I never said it was comparable to a publisher purposefully chopping up a game to sell it piece by piece. Keep punching that strawman.

Why don't you engage with what I actually said, instead of what your bias infested brain wants to hear? I said that if Gamepass takes over the industry, then MTX and GaaS will be all that's left, because developers won't be able to make enough money off $10 a month in Gamepass revenue.

P.S. You can get fringed loafers in Splatoon 2 by scanning a friend's Amiibo. ;)

P.P.S. How long would it take for somebody to grind for all the skins in Gears 5? What percentage of Gears 5 cosmetics can be bought with real life money? What is the exchange ratio from Iron to Shrute Bucks to Dollars? You're so adamant that Gears 5 isn't a MTX infested joke, but refuse to answer these questions. Why not explain how MTX works in Gears 5? Lay out all the purchasable skins, and how much they cost in real world money.

If Grounded has no paid expansions or MTX, then what does it have to do with publishers releasing incomplete games onto GamePass for the sole purpose of roping people in to make more money? It's not rocket science.

I honestly can't tell if you're just joking or what. So Splatoon 2 is fine even though there is content you can never unlock unless you go out and buy a toy, some of them being impossible to find without spending more than Splatoon 2 itself costs. Meanwhile Gears 5 even though it has a full campaign, full horde mode, and fully featured MP is "incomplete" because it has some cosmetic skins LOL. Honestly, if you're being serious, what does one say to such stupid logic? And to top it off you have the nerve to talk about bias. Where on the doll did Gears 5 touch you?

Also, regarding devs and GamePass, why do they need to recoup money from GamePass subscribers? You seem even more confused as to how GamePass works than how MTX and GaaS works. MS pays the devs for the games to be on GamePass, there's nothing to recoup. Also, if these publishers are purposely gimping their games to milk us for money, how will they ever sell those games outside of the service? Since, you know, every GamePass game is available outside the service.

It has to do with you claiming that MS won't allow unfinished games to be published. You said that MS wouldn't allow publishers to release incomplete games. I rebutted your claim by listed three games belonging to MS that were released incomplete. That is the extent of the claim, and the rebuttal. You might as well say that "The sun never comes up so you can't kill a vampire with sunlight." Then when someone informs you that the sun does indeed rise every morning, you will go into some wild tangent claiming that the person rebutting you said that vampires exist.

5% of the content, and it isn't locked behind buying anything. You just need to scan the Amiibo. This is the third time you've claimed that you need to buy the Amiibo to get the content. And the third time I've rebutted you. Gears 5 has cosmetic skins that cost $10 each. I'll ask a third time. How much money would it take to buy every skin in Gears 5? How much grinding would it take?

I was talking about how if Gamepass takes over the industry they will need to recoup money somehow. See my initial post in this thread. If everybody just subscribes to Gamepass then there isn't enough money to pay for development of games. If there are 3 million people playing a game for basically free on Gamepass, and nobody buying the game then where does the money to develop the game come from? Imagine a future in which nobody buys games, and just subs to services. $10 a month per person isn't going to replace $60 a game per person. They will have to replace the money somehow.

Lol, if I'm confused about how MTX and GaaS works, then PCgamer, Eurogamer, and WindowsCentral must be confused too. All three outlets have called Gears 5 a Live Service game. In fact there's even more outlets that have called Gears 5 a live service game. It's pretty much unanimous that Gears 5 is a GaaS or Live Service model game. Only you and a few other Xbox fans are in denial of the facts.

I asked why MS would allow games to be released on the service that are incomplete in the context that they are chopped up to be sold in pieces. None of the three games you replied with fit that criteria. One is an early access game, and the other two are just live service games that you are obsessed with shitting on, even though you freely admit to spending hundreds of hours on Nintendo live service games.

It would cost you $0 to buy every skin in Gears 5, just like you don't have to buy those $60 Amiibos off Amazon to unlock all the content in Splatoon. Saying "oh well uh just scan a friends Amiibo" is about the weakest cop out I have ever seen on this forum. I could just as easily say if you want a $10 skin in Gears, have a friend pay for it. Wow that was easy, no wonder you rely on nonsense so much in your arguments.

By the way I love the "it's not locked behind anything.... you just have to scan an overpriced and very rare toy!" Here let me try the nonsensical angle again... The Gears skins aren't locked behind anything, you just have to enter your debit card information and buy them! Oh wow what a rush. Is this what cocaine feels like?

Also, I haven't even mentioned Animal Crossing yet. Another game where toys you buy unlocks in game content. But in this one you can also track down trading cards like you're a kid in the 60's buying baseball cards, and these cards unlock content too. Or you can link your AC mobile account and some of the MTX focused unlocks in AC mobile can be unlocked on Switch. What a totally complete game! You aren't a huge hypocrite at all, friend. Spending $30 on some plastic toys so you can access content locked in the game you paid for is TOTALLY different than buying a new skin made for a game or playing the game to unlock it.

Oh, so your point stipulates on an alternate reality where retail no longer exists, digital purchases outside of GamePass no longer exist, I assume PlayStation and Nintendo no longer exist because they sure as fuuuuuuuck won't allow GamePass on their systems (maybe Nintendo, with restrictions), and also I guess Steam doesn't exist because why wouldn't people just flock to PC? So in this make believe world where GamePass takes over the industry and "everybody just subscribes to GamePass" then yeah I guess you're right, developers won't make much money outside of the service and why would MS have to pay them much of anything if GamePass is literally the only way to get new games.

Of course, this scenario will never ever happen so why waste time speculating on it?

Uh, what? Where did I claim Gears 5 isn't a live service/GaaS type game? In your thread about GaaS titles I literally call Gears 5 a GaaS done right. Of course it's a live service game. Kiddo, saying that you are clueless when it comes to how GaaS type games work, doesn't mean Gears isn't a GaaS style game. Good lord.

@Bold

How the hell does using a service like gamepass make you "not a true gamer" like this implies?  This is not a matter of value or if the person would get the full value because they only play a few games a year, I just want to know exactly what the implication is here.  Because I play 90% of my games to main content completion be it from gamepass or retail, and this makes no sense to me.

Also for Trophy/Achievement hunters, one could argue that gamepass is a godsend for them.  I know a few people that has had their Achievement Score skyrocket because of gamepass, just because there is that many more games to get Achievements from.  So this is counter to your example.

Again, I agree that it should be a 50/50 split.  Services are not for everyone, and not everyone is going to see the full value if they do not play games as much as others.  I just don't see why you would use those two examples as factors that would deter someone from gamepass in any way, shape, or form.

I guess true gamer is a trigger term nowadays. In the ancient times, true supporters are those that support their passion by collecting stuff and visiting matches/performances/concerts. Using a service like gamepass is like watching soccer/concerts/movies on tv. That doesn't make you a true supporter.

What are the consequences of subscription services for collectors (leaving true gamer term out of it). Prices will go up (already to $70) for actually owning a game while collecting complete games becomes more difficult due to the shift to gaas. The shift to digital already eroded the extras, as well as achievements/trophies replacing meaningful things to unlock. Like artwork and making of videos.

The nickel and diming in the games industry is only further accelerated by streaming services. Digital downloads need to be small and the same as physical editions, prices needed to be low, just the bare bones game.

The arguments pro subscription services seem to be these

- Access to more content to try out
I have no issue with that but it's a small minority that will actually convert that try out into a purchase.

- MTX and DLC sales compensate for the loss of initial salve revenue
I have a big issue with that as MTX and DLC are already a big negative on current games.

- Steady income for developers, can take more risk
Erm no, steady income does not stimulate innovation

- Smaller games have more chance to get noticed
Some, maybe, those that conform to / are let on the service. The rest get an even smaller chance?

^My comments in bold. Thanks.

That does not reflect what is actually happening though.  People who prefer to buy games still buy them, gamepass just allows them to play more games to bridge the gap between releases and try stuff that they could be interested in without the need to drop even more money on an expensive hobby.  I did not pass on Nier Replicant under the, to be honest likely, chance that the game could go to gamepass.  Nor did I pass on pre ordering RE8 just because RE7 is on there, giving hope that one day the same could happen for 8.  Furthermore people were suprised at how well Outriders sold on XBox, despite being a day 1 gamepass game.

For the most part, those that use gamepass for the sole purpose of being their only way to play games are the same people that would wait for a big discount before buying a game anyway.  The difference here is that instead of only getting a small portion of what could have been a full price purchase, the developers have already been compensated to satisfaction by MS to get the game on the service in the first place.  Used in tandem with what does get sold through at full price, profits can be higher than if they left it off the service.  For all the controversy the Days Gone director caused by saying, "buy the game at fing full price", clearly people who wait for discounts are not good for devs when their profits are hinged on full price purchases.  With an upfront payment from MS for gamepass, yes there is less risk.

And this also applies to more games coming to XBox as well.  For example Japanese devs a few years back for more niche games figured an XBox port was not worth the risk because it might not sell on the platform.  But by putting their games on gamepass, the risk is bypassed as they get an upfront payment from MS, more people are willing to try the game, and the game is now available for those who do want to buy it to do so.  Saying that lowering risk is not a factor is just plain wrong in cases like this.

As for DLC and MTX, that is why raising games to 70 dollars is an even bigger problem than saving with gamepass.  DLC and MTX plaguing full retail games has been an ongoing problem for year.  They will never stop, and publishers will only push them harder with or without services.  They said it was because prices for games do not go up with inflation.  Now lets say that is true, the problem is that even WITH game prices being increased MTX and DLC will still be pushed just as hard regardless of services.  The only thing the price hike does is take more money out of the pockets of consumers.  And if the solution is wait till the price drops, that is no better than just playing it on gamepass if you are so concerned about devs making money without DLC.