Game subscriptions are simply game demo/trials with a monthly cost. That's really all they are, since you don't own the game, can't keep it, and don't get to chose which games are on the service.

The reason I said you're not a 'true' gamer if you use them is because...well, it was a poor choice of words. I've never been the gatekeeping type. what I was trying to get at was that it's hard to call yourself a serious gamer if you don't own any games. Everyone who plays games is a gamer, but there are clearly different levels of dedication from the casual to the hardcore, and while there's no absolute formula to decide which is which, I think we can all agree that people who don't buy/own games or keep their games are on the casual end of the spectrum.

Again, doesn't make anyone a real or fake gamer, it doesn't mean your choices are any less valid, but you can't deny you're on the more casual side of the spectrum if you do most of your gaming on a game subscription service instead of on games you've bought. This is not a negative thing, even though some people will see it as an insult, but that's how I see it.

And yes, there are other factors. Factors like how big your TV is, how expensive your PC rig is, how many hours you put in, how many games/genres you play, how you buy your games (Digital vs physical), participation in conventions/cosplay, how many games/consoles you have, if you play professionally/stream, collect paraphernalia, etc. There are so, SO many factors at play that tend to tilt you more towards hardcore or casual, and I'd argue that getting your games through gamepass or PSNow or any other subscription model like that definitely tilts you more towards casual.

And I can't reiterate enough, this doesn't make you less of a gamer, nor does it mean you're having less fun than hardcore gamers (Seriously, in my experience, I find hardcore gamers to be more insufferable than filthy casuals, but that's just me.)

And of course different people have different criteria for how they perceive it in general. I personally feel you're more on the hardcore/serious side if you play a wider variety of games and genres, but it could EASILY be argued that the most hardcore of us ONLY play LoL or Starcraft or whatever. My point is, that's my opinion. And this is a subjective discussion so it is a matter of opinion. I personally feel that subs make you more casual. Buying makes you more serious. You might feel different. I promise not everything is meant as a jab or an insult, I literally chose one wrong word (True rather than serious/hardcore). Replace my instance of 'true gamer' with 'hardcore gamer' and then you'll probably see it wasn't meant as an insult or derogatory at all.

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

How is this any different from the previous 'money hat' way, where certain devs get paid a certain amount up front to put their game on the console?

According to MS, GP subs spend 20% more time playing games, play 30% more games, 40% more genres, and spend around 20% more on gaming overall than users who aren't subbed to the service.

Microsoft doesn't have all the data here. They know they don't, but they don't care and are willing to speculate based on their limited data for the purposes of marketing bullshit.

If somebody owns a Switch, a PS4, and an XB1 MS doesn't have a way of tracking their playtime on the other two consoles. Same goes for how much they spend. Especially since if someone buys a used XB1 game to put on their shelf for later, MS has no way of knowing they spent money on that game until they put the disk into their system. And even after that MS has no way of knowing how much money the person paid for that used disk. If someone has a PC and an XB1 MS has no way of tracking their playtime on that PC, outside of MS Studio's own games. Same goes for how much they spend on PC games.

Edit: MS doesn't get that there's an entire world of gaming outside their ecosystem where people play and spend money on games. Their marketing department is like a fish-scientist concluding that 70% of land animals die via drowning, because he's unable to properly survey causes of death on land.

Of course Microsoft is comparing Xbox gamers with subscription and Xbox gamers without subscription.

This should be obvious without saying.

Yeah it should be. It should also be obvious that incomplete data doesn't tell us much of anything. Yet MS' marketing department, and Xbox fans repeatedly post it as if the data isn't massively incomplete.

We can close most VGC-threads now indefinitely... or close the whole site.

Nobody of us has the complete data to ANY topic, so what's the point in discussing? It doesn't tell us much of anything.

There's a difference between having 90% of the data and only having 60% or less of the data.

Ah, and you're now the arbiter of who has exactly how much, and how relevant data are you? VGC data on gaming platforms as a whole....90%....MS data on how users behave on their own platform....60%

Excellent.

MS data on how gamers as a whole behave 60% or less. And even that's being overwhelmingly generous. People game on PS4, PS5, PC (which includes the Steam, EGS, and GoG Stores) Switch, Retro Consoles, XB1, and Series. Do you seriously think that data derived from a fraction of all that has any meaning whatsoever? Sony and Nintendo both report their numbers on a yearly basis. Vgchartz has proven to be mostly in line with those numbers.

 The point is, one can easily use a service like GamePass to play considerably more games than someone who's buying all their games outright (physical or otherwise). When you say that those people are less serious gamers than you, even though, for all you know, they may well be spending as much, if not considerably more time, playing as many or more games...well...you look like a clown.

Last time I checked, being a gamer is about...you know...playing games.

Oh no, I agree. It's completely possible for somebody with Gamepass to spend more time playing games than someone that doesn't play gamepass. And gaming is about playing games. Acting as if MS's extremely limited data set means anything is where I took issue with what you said. The rest of that conversation is fine, and I generally agree with you on it.

You really don't see a difference of paying/accepting money to keep a game / dlc away from other platforms and paying/accepting money to offer a game on additional platforms?