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

Forums - Sales - Gamepass Numbers

 

How many subscribers does MS need for other companies to follow?

20 million 6 13.33%
 
30 million 4 8.89%
 
40 million 6 13.33%
 
50 million 13 28.89%
 
60 million 2 4.44%
 
70 million 1 2.22%
 
80 million 0 0%
 
90 million 1 2.22%
 
150 million + 12 26.67%
 
Total:45
Ashadelo on 13 October 2021
smroadkill15 said:
eva01beserk said:

I sure thse 2 games just exude quality and has to be why they dint even chart upon release and where mentioned for the wekend they launched. Now youre gona tell me ori is also AAA hundred million dev cost franchise. 

To be fair, if you are satisfied with those types of games then for you gamepass might actually be worth it. I myself wont bother with a game that can be played on my phone and thus think paying $120 a year for that level of quality is not worth it. 

Now these games must be in the charts to matter when they are day 1 on Game Pass, sure add another criteria to your list lol. I never claimed Ori was AAA, but it speaks volumes that you can't see the difference from the other 2 games. 

You're right, all Game Pass titles are mobile now. I thought I was playing Scarlet Nexus, but turned out to be Clash of Clans. How could we ever get by without your knowledge of gaming to grace us. 

Love how this thread has so many experts on Game Pass when it is evident by these, "experts" posts they have never played nor done their research on what gamepass actually is. Never once has any of these Sony fanboys mentioned RockStars use of Gamepass. Rockstar has had GTAV multiple times up on gamepass for only 3 to 4 months and then removes it from GP. Every single time they have done this GTAV has seen a boost in sales and many people have claimed they are abusing GP to boost the sales of GTA.

Why hasnt this been mentioned in this thread? Oh right... because you cant have gamepass helping push sales of 3rd party games now can we? Can't have any positive news concerning Xbox on VGChartz...

If Microsoft ever buys a massive 3rd party publisher, like Sega, Capcom, Konami, Square-Enix this thread would turn into a sea of tears since this Microsoft Gamepass thread its filled with Sony fanboys 



我是广州人

Around the Network
Machiavellian on 13 October 2021
src said:
Machiavellian said:

Totally disagree.  Gamepass was started because MS realized very simply that games are more important than hardware.  Better yet, a game service that can supply games to those billion of devices out in the wild is a much better investment than just a single game console.  The fact that you believe that GP is some way thought out as a way to keep the Xbox competitive with Sony and Nintendo really shows like most gamers how very narrow focus you are on these petty console wars.  There is something you have to understand about short term and long term investment.  Its the very reason why MS is taking their time building out their infrastructure for Xcloud. 

Some investment are not done to turn a profit out the gates but to build marketshare.   It does not matter how much money GP needs to generate to be successful if the whole company is behind making it successful.  Its the unique position that MS is in because as they continue to build out their service which still makes them money.  If you are someone who is concerned about losing money when you have a 5 to 10 year plan then you probably would never run a company.  Let me ask you a simple question, how did Netflix change from a company that just streamed movies and TV shows to producing their own content.  It actually now to the point where Netflix own content is actually worth the monthly service than it is the TV shows and movies they stream.  The main point is that you do not understand the model.  The model is not the same as the traditional game model that has existed for decades.  Also the fact that the whole company is behind the effort suggest that MS understands that in order to get to Netflix level, you have either go whole hog or go home.  This is why there is no real traction with PSNow.  Sony could do exactly what MS is doing and continue to build out PSNow as a service that can be on billion of devices but they are treating PSnow as more of a afterthought.  Sony is not willing to put full commitment in PSNow which limits the scope and reach of the service.

Not at all, as gaming itself requires real time computation on increasingly higher end hardware. It fundamentally means gaming is nothing like movies or music for streaming, as it is tied to hardware specs. If not, then you would need to stream from a server, in which case latency is a physical issue.

If you want to seriously talk about investment, then you would directly compare Xbox to Playstation, its number 1 competitor that is dominating it. Ignoring competitors is horrible advice. Even MS knows this, as the leaked court docs show them contracting Goldman Sachs and/or internal analysts to model Playstation's business.

Again the Netflix comparison makes little sense.

  1. movies/tv shows are easy to stream on any device. Gaming is not, requires hardware or very low latency.
  2. movies/tv shows had very little on demand options. Gaming does not. Gaming is on demand by default and already has $20B+ platforms for that. Xbox is last place here.
  3. The biggest and most lucrative games are already F2P on every platform under the sun. Gamepass is doing nothing here as an offering.
  4. The console business is hugely reliant on hardware. Xbox is not a PC platform, Steam dominates that. Xbox's software sold, in game user spend, accessories sold, sub numbers all depend on how well their console sells. Netflix did not have this problem, rather like Spotify, transitioning is less of an issue.
  5. Gamers prefer ownership of games rather than renting.
  6. Netflix had 60-100%+ revenue growths and still has 20-30%+ revenue growths. Xbox does not and Gamepass is having little revenue effect, or if it is its being cancelled out by other losses.

After reading your reply, I see where the problem is in your thinking.  Lets be clear about something first, GP is a game service that allow gamers to play games on a subscription basis.  Most of your points do not make any sense because you are comparing the service to F2P games or talking about console hardware and other things.  You seem to be trapped in the old console war or Sony vs MS which is clouding your viewpoint as you filter everything based on that world view.  

It does not seem like you are paying attention as to the aim of GP.  The Xbox hardware is just one piece of hardware that can use the service.  You do know that there is a PC side to GP.  Also with the new browser extension MS now have the ability to stream games onto any hardware that can run a browser.  That includes Android and Apple hardware.  The reasons why your points make absolutely no sense is because you are looking at GP today and totally ignoring the future plans for the service.  MS has even stated their next step is a dongle for GP and it would not be a stretch if GP can be run as an app on smart TVs soon.

The fact that you seem to tie GP as only being delivered based on MS console shows you have no clue the aim of the service.  This is the reason I am not comparing Sony vs MS or Playstation vs Xbox because GP is not part of any of those things.  Its a game service which MS is looking to put on any device that can play games.

Lol, gamers prefer ownership over renting, just like in the past, people enjoyed ownership of music, TV shows and movies over renting and streaming but look at those industries today.  The new gamers today, do not care about what you care about.  Also, why do you have this impression that you cannot purchase a game just because its on GP.  Nothing stops you from owning a game if anything, GP lets you try before you buy.

TO your last point, so what.  Unless you have a crystal ball, you really have no clue on the growth of GP, or where it will be 5 to 10 years from now.  So that point is worthless.

Last edited by Machiavellian - on 13 October 2021

SvennoJ on 13 October 2021
Machiavellian said:
SvennoJ said:

What do you think a sustainable price is subscription wise? Considering Microsoft 365 starts at 9.99 per user per month for just a couple web app versions.

The worries are that the continued undervaluing of games, in order to acquire more subs, will hurt the industry in the long run. It's a race to the bottom which is never good.

Either the sub price goes up, or the service grows to hundreds of millions of people. There is still a big cost to running xCloud, yet the higher the user base, the more optimized it can be. And there will be plenty 'low cost' people that run all on their own hardware.

However if it grows that huge, the next worry is, how will it change gaming. Just like retaining users to a subscription service, games will want to retain their players to get a bigger piece of the subscription money pie. Which might mean more grinding and/or pay to win which ftp games are plagued with. Plus if it grows that huge, competition will want a piece of the pie as well with the risk games get locked behind different subscription services just as what happened to tv.

Yes, the model can be sustainable. Atm, the way it is laid out at the current pricing, it is not. So what is needed subscription number vs price wise to get to a healthy sustainable model that puts out regular new content.

I do not know what the price is because I do not have the numbers that MS has.  Why would I make a incomplete assessment like I see most people doing when we have absolutely no ideal on the numbers.  Even now you are making an assumption based on nothing because you have no clue the internal structure of GP.  You are looking at the surface and trying to come to some type of conclusion but in reality its all just guessing.  A guess on limited information is not an educated guess, its just an opinion thrown out in to the wild.

Here is what I do know because I work in software development and have worked for MS and IBM at points in my career.  MS has business analyst who's job it is to crunch the numbers.  MS is a software company that changed their business to a subscription service when their new CEO came on board.  At the end of the day, MS knows exactly what they need to do to sustain the GP service.  There are all kinds of sub models that they can employ and cost to the consumer will only go up depending on what the market can take.  The key is that MS must continue to provide the games that keep the subs going which is the primary issue in any sub or retention rates will drop.

As for the fears you have, I actually believe its not realistic.  A service must have a diversity of games.  Diversity is what get you to big numbers and retain customers not just providing to one segment of users.  So no, I do not believe it means more grinding games or pay to win, I believe it will do the absolute opposite. The thing is, the gaming scene has already changed.  Your fears is a day late and a dollar short because subscription services just like TV and movie content subscription services are here to stay.

At the moment you still have no clue if GP is sustainable at its current price because you do not know how much it generate compared to how much is used to sustain the service.  You do not know the gameplan of MS and what their aim is as far as GP is now and what they want to reach in subs.  You do not know how long MS is willing to wait to reach a certain level of subs or what MS views as positive growth in the service.  Really, none of us have a clue what MS plan is with GP besides that they want to make it the game service of choice. Why make a conclusion when you really have no clue on the numbers.

My conclusion that it's not sustainable in its current form and subscription numbers, is that MS has said themselves that it is not profitable yet. I've not heard of that being different now. At some point the service will have to get in the black to become sustainable.

And you are correct, I have no idea what the game plan is and uncertainty is what generates fear and doubt.

Anyway, do you have any idea what a realistic monthly cost will be or target number of subs? Or are you just as much in the dark as everyone else.

Btw my fears aren't a day late, they've been there since digital downloads became a thing and I've seen what subscription services have done to tv. (Which I watch far less nowadays, quality has gone down hill imo)



kirby007 on 13 October 2021

i mean xbox has been in the red for 20 years, dont know why MS hasn't dropped it completely yet



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

Machiavellian on 13 October 2021
SvennoJ said:
Machiavellian said:

I do not know what the price is because I do not have the numbers that MS has.  Why would I make a incomplete assessment like I see most people doing when we have absolutely no ideal on the numbers.  Even now you are making an assumption based on nothing because you have no clue the internal structure of GP.  You are looking at the surface and trying to come to some type of conclusion but in reality its all just guessing.  A guess on limited information is not an educated guess, its just an opinion thrown out in to the wild.

Here is what I do know because I work in software development and have worked for MS and IBM at points in my career.  MS has business analyst who's job it is to crunch the numbers.  MS is a software company that changed their business to a subscription service when their new CEO came on board.  At the end of the day, MS knows exactly what they need to do to sustain the GP service.  There are all kinds of sub models that they can employ and cost to the consumer will only go up depending on what the market can take.  The key is that MS must continue to provide the games that keep the subs going which is the primary issue in any sub or retention rates will drop.

As for the fears you have, I actually believe its not realistic.  A service must have a diversity of games.  Diversity is what get you to big numbers and retain customers not just providing to one segment of users.  So no, I do not believe it means more grinding games or pay to win, I believe it will do the absolute opposite. The thing is, the gaming scene has already changed.  Your fears is a day late and a dollar short because subscription services just like TV and movie content subscription services are here to stay.

At the moment you still have no clue if GP is sustainable at its current price because you do not know how much it generate compared to how much is used to sustain the service.  You do not know the gameplan of MS and what their aim is as far as GP is now and what they want to reach in subs.  You do not know how long MS is willing to wait to reach a certain level of subs or what MS views as positive growth in the service.  Really, none of us have a clue what MS plan is with GP besides that they want to make it the game service of choice. Why make a conclusion when you really have no clue on the numbers.

My conclusion that it's not sustainable in its current form and subscription numbers, is that MS has said themselves that it is not profitable yet. I've not heard of that being different now. At some point the service will have to get in the black to become sustainable.

And you are correct, I have no idea what the game plan is and uncertainty is what generates fear and doubt.

Anyway, do you have any idea what a realistic monthly cost will be or target number of subs? Or are you just as much in the dark as everyone else.

Btw my fears aren't a day late, they've been there since digital downloads became a thing and I've seen what subscription services have done to tv. (Which I watch far less nowadays, quality has gone down hill imo)

This part we all can agree on that GP at this current date does not pay for itself, what we do not know is what do MS feel is a decent rate of subs each year to get out of the red.  Only big companies like MS could even afford to do something on this level because they have the software, money and infrastructure to make it a reality.  The goal is to get as many subs as possible, that would suggest keeping the price at a level for easy adoption while pumping out a diverse amount of content to keep the rate of adoption strong.  

I still do not have the numbers to make any educated guess.  This is why I am not making any.  I am not making any guess on the direction of the content, the quality or the amount because we are still way to early in the development of the service.  Currently the developers who are under MS has gone on record saying that nothing has changed, they are in control of what they want to do so I would just take their word for it.  I am sure if MS want to have games like the ones you describe, they can purchase studios that are good at making those types of games.  Currently that does not seem to be their direction.

I stopped watching TV way before subs started and I highly doubt from my experience subs has anything to do with the quality going down.  Not sure why the 2 would be related to be honest.  TV shows from the network do not go directly to subs and if so the networks still make a killing in advertisements etc.  Instead a sub is just another delivery method and if quality has gone down its because of bad quality on those shows.



Around the Network
SvennoJ on 13 October 2021
Machiavellian said:

This part we all can agree on that GP at this current date does not pay for itself, what we do not know is what do MS feel is a decent rate of subs each year to get out of the red.  Only big companies like MS could even afford to do something on this level because they have the software, money and infrastructure to make it a reality.  The goal is to get as many subs as possible, that would suggest keeping the price at a level for easy adoption while pumping out a diverse amount of content to keep the rate of adoption strong.  

I still do not have the numbers to make any educated guess.  This is why I am not making any.  I am not making any guess on the direction of the content, the quality or the amount because we are still way to early in the development of the service.  Currently the developers who are under MS has gone on record saying that nothing has changed, they are in control of what they want to do so I would just take their word for it.  I am sure if MS want to have games like the ones you describe, they can purchase studios that are good at making those types of games.  Currently that does not seem to be their direction.

I stopped watching TV way before subs started and I highly doubt from my experience subs has anything to do with the quality going down.  Not sure why the 2 would be related to be honest.  TV shows from the network do not go directly to subs and if so the networks still make a killing in advertisements etc.  Instead a sub is just another delivery method and if quality has gone down its because of bad quality on those shows.

Fragmentation is my guess (TV quality going down). And maybe also pampering to a global audience instead of more focused on local tv market? It's not just another delivery method, it's a fragmented delivery method. Which tbh already started when cable providers began with different packages, add-on channels etc.

I grew up with 2 national tv channels, plus access to another 12 or so foreign ones. The big thing back then was the overview channel, 16 boxes on one screen where you can instantly see what's on. One scrambled, the porn channel, which required a decoder. I wouldn't even know where to begin to count how much choice there is nowadays.

Hopefully gaming stands the times better!



Ashadelo on 14 October 2021
kirby007 said:

i mean xbox has been in the red for 20 years, dont know why MS hasn't dropped it completely yet

Why are you allowed to post?



我是广州人

ironmanDX on 14 October 2021

Hmm, GamePass was discribed as "not very profitable" by aaron Greenburg over a year ago at this point.


"We always laugh [when we hear that]. Please don't worry about us," Greenberg said about people expressing concerns that Microsoft is losing money on Xbox Game Pass. "Microsoft is going to be alright. We're gonna make it--I think we're gonna be OK." (for those.... concerned)
In the short-term, yeah, [Xbox Game Pass] is not a big profit play. But we think long-term it works out good for everybody."
These were comments made when gamepass had around 10 million subs. They're either triple that amount or close to it. It is sustainable. Safe to assume it might already be.

I think the trillion dollar company will be ok. lmao.


Machiavellian on 14 October 2021
SvennoJ said:
Machiavellian said:

This part we all can agree on that GP at this current date does not pay for itself, what we do not know is what do MS feel is a decent rate of subs each year to get out of the red.  Only big companies like MS could even afford to do something on this level because they have the software, money and infrastructure to make it a reality.  The goal is to get as many subs as possible, that would suggest keeping the price at a level for easy adoption while pumping out a diverse amount of content to keep the rate of adoption strong.  

I still do not have the numbers to make any educated guess.  This is why I am not making any.  I am not making any guess on the direction of the content, the quality or the amount because we are still way to early in the development of the service.  Currently the developers who are under MS has gone on record saying that nothing has changed, they are in control of what they want to do so I would just take their word for it.  I am sure if MS want to have games like the ones you describe, they can purchase studios that are good at making those types of games.  Currently that does not seem to be their direction.

I stopped watching TV way before subs started and I highly doubt from my experience subs has anything to do with the quality going down.  Not sure why the 2 would be related to be honest.  TV shows from the network do not go directly to subs and if so the networks still make a killing in advertisements etc.  Instead a sub is just another delivery method and if quality has gone down its because of bad quality on those shows.

Fragmentation is my guess (TV quality going down). And maybe also pampering to a global audience instead of more focused on local tv market? It's not just another delivery method, it's a fragmented delivery method. Which tbh already started when cable providers began with different packages, add-on channels etc.

I grew up with 2 national tv channels, plus access to another 12 or so foreign ones. The big thing back then was the overview channel, 16 boxes on one screen where you can instantly see what's on. One scrambled, the porn channel, which required a decoder. I wouldn't even know where to begin to count how much choice there is nowadays.

Hopefully gaming stands the times better!

How so is the delivery fragmented that it would result in low quality of a show.  I just do not get your point.  If you say that the budgets are lower or people that write the show is getting paid less or that the actors are getting less money or something that actually would effect something like a TV show instead of how its consumed I can see where you are coming from.  You are basing everything on the delivery of how people consume a particular media on how they get it and coming to a conclusion.

I am not sure if any of that really means anything.  I grew up when TV were in black and white and you had 4 channels.  I have seen TV shows quality go up and down for decades and it definitely did not have anything to do with digital delivery.  Just like any creative media, it depends on the people making it more than anything else.



SvennoJ on 14 October 2021
Machiavellian said:

How so is the delivery fragmented that it would result in low quality of a show.  I just do not get your point.  If you say that the budgets are lower or people that write the show is getting paid less or that the actors are getting less money or something that actually would effect something like a TV show instead of how its consumed I can see where you are coming from.  You are basing everything on the delivery of how people consume a particular media on how they get it and coming to a conclusion.

I am not sure if any of that really means anything.  I grew up when TV were in black and white and you had 4 channels.  I have seen TV shows quality go up and down for decades and it definitely did not have anything to do with digital delivery.  Just like any creative media, it depends on the people making it more than anything else.

I'm thinking the budgets are lower while the target audience (world wide streaming) is bigger or more diverse. So shows can't focus on local issues since they have to pander to a world wide audience, while still having that smaller budget of a smaller audience. I don't see streaming producing Fawlty towers kind of stuff.

Creative media very much depends on the target audience. It's the same with games. The wider the target audience the more generic the games get. TV has always used local issues for content. I wonder if the original star trek can still be made in today's environment.

Streaming targets more of a global audience, while at the same time fragmenting the target audience by locking stuff to different streaming services. Anyway that's my theory why TV is starting to feel so generic nowadays. Watching foreign channels in the old days was like getting an insight in a different culture. Nowadays watching foreign content on Netflix it's the same content with a different skin.