By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What is your opinion on gaming subscription services?

 

My opinion is best summed up as:

Subscribed to at least one and like it 35 35.71%
 
Subscribed to at least one and not a fan 6 6.12%
 
Thinking about subscribing 6 6.12%
 
Was a subscriber and lapsed 4 4.08%
 
Will subscribe for big games and then drop 4 4.08%
 
Zero interest at all 28 28.57%
 
None of the current subs ... 8 8.16%
 
Other 7 7.14%
 
Total:98
Cerebralbore101 said:

If someone did a survey of drinking habits in Vermont and Ireland, and then used that data to conclude that Europeans drink more than Americans would that be an accurate conclusion? Obviously not. Massively incomplete data sets don't tell us much of anything. Thanks.

And now I'm off to the gym. I'll be playing MHR all day, so no time for forum shenanigens until tomorrow.

Okay, that’s all the time I’ve got. I got to get back to playing Call of Duty: Warzone on my PC.



Around the Network
Cerebralbore101 said:
Angelus said:

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.

Cerebralbore101 said:
Conina said:

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.

Cerebralbore101 said:

If someone did a survey of drinking habits in Vermont and Ireland, and then used that data to conclude that Europeans drink more than Americans would that be an accurate conclusion? Obviously not. Massively incomplete data sets don't tell us much of anything. Thanks.

And now I'm off to the gym. I'll be playing MHR all day, so no time for forum shenanigens until tomorrow.

Microsoft never claimed to have all of the data of every single person's purchasing habits on every single device, nobody would believe they have that data, they aren't speculating on limited data, they're posting facts about their own ecosystem, folk in the Xbox ecosystem spend and play more via Game Pass, they have the only relevant data needed, data from their own ecosystem.

It's not incomplete data, that's just...they're talking about their own ecosystem dude. If Sony talks about their ecosystem do they also need to know all of Xbox's financials to be allowed to do so? No, they don't give a shit, they aren't making money off Xbox players

Why are you talking about entirely different countries? a good comparison would be a country talking about something specific to only it, which benefits its own citizens and causes them to try/spend more over a traditional method.

More to the point, how the heck is Microsoft meant to make data for it unless Game Pass is also on Playstation, Nintendo?

"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."

How will they know all these stats, what stats will they be using? There's no Game Pass on these consoles to say folk play more games, more genres, spend more than those who aren't subbed to the service, what service? It doesn't exist there So of course they are talking about their ecosystem and everyone knows that when they mention those numbers, they still tell us something, that Xbox players spend more, play more, try more games via Game Pass.



Ryuu96 said:

Microsoft never claimed to have all of the data of every single person's purchasing habits on every single device, nobody would believe they have that data, they aren't speculating on limited data, they're posting facts about their own ecosystem, folk in the Xbox ecosystem spend and play more via Game Pass, they have the only relevant data needed, data from their own ecosystem.

It's not incomplete data, that's just...they're talking about their own ecosystem dude. If Sony talks about their ecosystem do they also need to know all of Xbox's financials to be allowed to do so? No, they don't give a shit, they aren't making money off Xbox players

Why are you talking about entirely different countries? a good comparison would be a country talking about something specific to only it, which benefits its own citizens and causes them to try/spend more over a traditional method.

More to the point, how the heck is Microsoft meant to make data for it unless Game Pass is also on Playstation, Nintendo?

"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."

How will they know all these stats, what stats will they be using? There's no Game Pass on these consoles to say folk play more games, more genres, spend more than those who aren't subbed to the service, what service? It doesn't exist there So of course they are talking about their ecosystem and everyone knows that when they mention those numbers, they still tell us something, that Xbox players spend more, play more, try more games via Game Pass.

All those stats say is that those that spend more time playing games, play more games and spend more on games, are more likely to subscribe to gamepass. Which makes perfect sense. As a metric on the effect of game pass, it says nothing. For all we know they could be spending less than before subscribing to gamepass, just on average still more than those that don't subscribe.

JWeinCom said:

Hate to break it to you, but however you're buying games, the deck is stacked against small developers. Retail is way worse in that regard than subscription services, because you have to physically manufacture them, ship them out, and convince retailers to stock them. And if you're making a smaller kind of game that you can't charge full price for, your margins become razor thin once those costs come into play. There is a reason that most indie games do not have a physical version at all, and if they do, it usually only comes after the digital version has launched successfully. And there's a reason why indie games really weren't even a thing until gaming went digital. So, if that's your argument for why subscription services are a bad thing, then it's not very strong. 

If the term true gamer sucks, then why not use the term collector, since that's what we're talking about. And like with Runa, if you like collecting games then, yeah, you probably shouldn't get gamepass. But that's just personal preference. If subscription services become the predominate form of gaming and physical games go byebye, then that just means not enough people care about collecting. That's just the way the world works. A lot of things I like aren't made anymore because they just weren't popular enough to be profitable. That's a bad thing for you, but not necessarily a bad thing for the industry. 

I said it many many years ago, the shift to digital is a slippery slope, and now with the rise of subscription services we're halfway down the slide. Digital was/is great for indies, however they also devalued the A game developers who have pretty much all disappeared, closed down. It's either blockbuster or low budget nowadays. And while there certainly are many gems among indie games, there is also a ton of half baked ideas.

But yep, for collectors that like complete games, times are getting tougher. Whether it's a bad thing for the industry, depends where you are in the industry. It's not a great place to be to begin with. What effect the loss of retail will have, I don't know. When I worked as a developer it was extremely satisfying to see the stuff I worked on on store shelves, all over the world. Very rewarding. Engagement numbers, not so much. It was also a real break, finished product launched, pause and recoup. I'm glad I'm out of the industry as nowadays there are no more breaks. Code to release day on the day one patch, then straight on to the next update. Anyway that's up to the people working in the industry.

Subscriptions are simply not for me. Not a problem I guess as I have plenty to keep me entertained. Today my youngest dug out the WiiU to play Super Mario 3D world. Still great.






"All those stats say is that those that spend more time playing games, play more games and spend more on games, are more likely to subscribe to gamepass."

Almost sounds like they're real true authentic legit gamers.



Lol not that again. Ok, collectors on one side admiring their shiny boxes and collectibles while real true authentic legit gamers actually spend their time playing games!

Btw how does MS know what I spend on physical games and art books :p "Spend around 20% more on digital games/dlc/mtx" it is. Who would have thought, those that care less about collecting physical items, spend more on digital licenses.



Around the Network
Ryuu96 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

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.

Cerebralbore101 said:

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.

Cerebralbore101 said:

If someone did a survey of drinking habits in Vermont and Ireland, and then used that data to conclude that Europeans drink more than Americans would that be an accurate conclusion? Obviously not. Massively incomplete data sets don't tell us much of anything. Thanks.

And now I'm off to the gym. I'll be playing MHR all day, so no time for forum shenanigens until tomorrow.

Microsoft never claimed to have all of the data of every single person's purchasing habits on every single device, nobody would believe they have that data, they aren't speculating on limited data, they're posting facts about their own ecosystem, folk in the Xbox ecosystem spend and play more via Game Pass, they have the only relevant data needed, data from their own ecosystem.

It's not incomplete data, that's just...they're talking about their own ecosystem dude. If Sony talks about their ecosystem do they also need to know all of Xbox's financials to be allowed to do so? No, they don't give a shit, they aren't making money off Xbox players

Why are you talking about entirely different countries? a good comparison would be a country talking about something specific to only it, which benefits its own citizens and causes them to try/spend more over a traditional method.

More to the point, how the heck is Microsoft meant to make data for it unless Game Pass is also on Playstation, Nintendo?

"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."

How will they know all these stats, what stats will they be using? There's no Game Pass on these consoles to say folk play more games, more genres, spend more than those who aren't subbed to the service, what service? It doesn't exist there So of course they are talking about their ecosystem and everyone knows that when they mention those numbers, they still tell us something, that Xbox players spend more, play more, try more games via Game Pass.

1. Even if we were to incorrectly assume that they only meant within their own ecosystem they would still have a deeply flawed dataset. Their ecosystem includes PC. Microsoft does not have a way to track all sales of games on Steam, GoG, EGS, or any of other multitude of stores on PC. Microsoft can only track purchases made through the Windows Store, or purchases of games they themselves have developed. Example: If I buy Halo MCC on PC via steam, MS knows I spent that money, because it's their game. If I buy a 3rd party game through the windows store MS once again knows I spent that money, because it's their store. But if I buy a non-MS game on Steam, GoG, EGS, or any other PC storefront MS has no way of knowing I bought that game. 

2.  Xbox Exec Sarah Bond said, " Game Pass subscribers spend 20% more time playing games, play 30% more games, play 40% more genres and, crucially, spend about 20% more on gaming overall." Overall means to take everything into account. 

Of course someone could argue that she meant overall as in all types purchases made in Xbox's storefront (including MTX, XBL Subscriptions, and DLC packs). Had she simply said overall, or overall revenue and not gaming overall then that interpretation would make sense. But of course that isn't what gaming overall means. If I were to ask you how much money was spent in 2020 on gaming overall you wouldn't come back to me with only money spent on Xbox games. You would come back to me with information on how much money was spent on gaming including Mobile, Switch, PC, Xbox, Sony, and browser games at the very least. 

It's obvious here that when she said "gaming overall" she meant the entirety of gaming. Either that or she doesn't know the meaning of the words that she is using. And if she didn't mean "gaming overall", but instead meant "Xbox ecosystem revenue overall" then that's on her for failing to properly communicate. 

SvennoJ said:

All those stats say is that those that spend more time playing games, play more games and spend more on games, are more likely to subscribe to gamepass. Which makes perfect sense. As a metric on the effect of game pass, it says nothing. For all we know they could be spending less than before subscribing to gamepass, just on average still more than those that don't subscribe.

Exactly. Not only is Microsoft attempting to use a deeply flawed dataset to drive it's own narrative. Microsoft and it's fans are committing the Questionable Cause Fallacy. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Questionable-Cause 

It's like saying 95% of fish die in water, therefore water kills fish. 

Or put more simply "correlation does not imply causation".




Holy shit he’s going to die on this hill LOL



Cerebralbore101 said:
Ryuu96 said:

Microsoft never claimed to have all of the data of every single person's purchasing habits on every single device, nobody would believe they have that data, they aren't speculating on limited data, they're posting facts about their own ecosystem, folk in the Xbox ecosystem spend and play more via Game Pass, they have the only relevant data needed, data from their own ecosystem.

It's not incomplete data, that's just...they're talking about their own ecosystem dude.

1. Even if we were to incorrectly assume that they only meant within their own ecosystem they would still have a deeply flawed dataset. Their ecosystem includes PC. Microsoft does not have a way to track all sales of games on Steam, GoG, EGS, or any of other multitude of stores on PC. Microsoft can only track purchases made through the Windows Store, or purchases of games they themselves have developed. Example: If I buy Halo MCC on PC via steam, MS knows I spent that money, because it's their game. If I buy a 3rd party game through the windows store MS once again knows I spent that money, because it's their store. But if I buy a non-MS game on Steam, GoG, EGS, or any other PC storefront MS has no way of knowing I bought that game. 

Are you still trying to prove their data is wrong by coming up with your own strange definition, what their ecosystem is?

Microsoft's gaming ecosystem is NOT all Xbox consoles + the whole PC platform... Microsoft's gaming ecosystem is all Xbox consoles + a part of the PC platform (the Windows store). They never claimed to track all sales of the other PC stores.

Or shall we also define Sony's gaming ecosystem is all PlayStation consoles + the whole PC platform, because PSnow is available on PCs?



Cerebralbore101 said:
Ryuu96 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

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.

Microsoft never claimed to have all of the data of every single person's purchasing habits on every single device, nobody would believe they have that data, they aren't speculating on limited data, they're posting facts about their own ecosystem, folk in the Xbox ecosystem spend and play more via Game Pass, they have the only relevant data needed, data from their own ecosystem.

It's not incomplete data, that's just...they're talking about their own ecosystem dude. If Sony talks about their ecosystem do they also need to know all of Xbox's financials to be allowed to do so? No, they don't give a shit, they aren't making money off Xbox players

Why are you talking about entirely different countries? a good comparison would be a country talking about something specific to only it, which benefits its own citizens and causes them to try/spend more over a traditional method.

More to the point, how the heck is Microsoft meant to make data for it unless Game Pass is also on Playstation, Nintendo?

"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."

How will they know all these stats, what stats will they be using? There's no Game Pass on these consoles to say folk play more games, more genres, spend more than those who aren't subbed to the service, what service? It doesn't exist there So of course they are talking about their ecosystem and everyone knows that when they mention those numbers, they still tell us something, that Xbox players spend more, play more, try more games via Game Pass.

1. Even if we were to incorrectly assume that they only meant within their own ecosystem they would still have a deeply flawed dataset. Their ecosystem includes PC. Microsoft does not have a way to track all sales of games on Steam, GoG, EGS, or any of other multitude of stores on PC. Microsoft can only track purchases made through the Windows Store, or purchases of games they themselves have developed. Example: If I buy Halo MCC on PC via steam, MS knows I spent that money, because it's their game. If I buy a 3rd party game through the windows store MS once again knows I spent that money, because it's their store. But if I buy a non-MS game on Steam, GoG, EGS, or any other PC storefront MS has no way of knowing I bought that game. 

2.  Xbox Exec Sarah Bond said, "Game Pass subscribers spend 20% more time playing games, play 30% more games, play 40% more genres and, crucially, spend about 20% more on gaming overall." Overall means to take everything into account. 

Of course someone could argue that she meant overall as in all types purchases made in Xbox's storefront (including MTX, XBL Subscriptions, and DLC packs). Had she simply said overall, or overall revenue and not gaming overall then that interpretation would make sense. But of course that isn't what gaming overall means. If I were to ask you how much money was spent in 2020 on gaming overall you wouldn't come back to me with only money spent on Xbox games. You would come back to me with information on how much money was spent on gaming including Mobile, Switch, PC, Xbox, Sony, and browser games at the very least. 

It's obvious here that when she said "gaming overall" she meant the entirety of gaming. Either that or she doesn't know the meaning of the words that she is using. And if she didn't mean "gaming overall", but instead meant "Xbox ecosystem revenue overall" then that's on her for failing to properly communicate. 

There's another option, you're seeing what you want to see, this is the first time I've ever seen this line of questioning, Lol.

Overall doesn't have to mean the entire industry when we're talking in the context of a specific ecosystem.

The bolded does make sense even in the "gaming overall" context, because they're talking about their own ecosystem. If you asked me it wouldn't be the same context because I don't work for any corporation, so of course I would give a comment on the overall industry, if you ask a company, why the hell are they going to mention numbers for Sony/Nintendo which they don't know? They're going to talk about their own ecosystem because that is what matters most to them.

Context matters, if folk can't understand context then that is on them. For something so obvious it is the first time I've seen someone suggest this and most fans assumed they were talking about their own ecosystem...Where are the folk suggesting that she meant the overall industry apart from you?



SvennoJ said:

All those stats say is that those that spend more time playing games, play more games and spend more on games, are more likely to subscribe to gamepass. Which makes perfect sense. As a metric on the effect of game pass, it says nothing. For all we know they could be spending less than before subscribing to gamepass, just on average still more than those that don't subscribe.

That's a valid point. GamePass is attracting gamers which spend much time on games... the more you play, the more value you get out of the subscription.

Casual gamers will waste most of its value, since they only play a few hours per month anyways.

That doesn't automatically mean that the GP-subscribers are spending more money than before.