I dont have a problem with gamepass but based on my needs, I rather buy the games I want to play whenever I want to instead of someone else dictating what I should play. dont have unlimited time to play plus before gamepass, I already had a backlog of more than 1,000 games that I bought everytime I saw a potential game on sale. besides, most games drop prices in a couple of months after launch anyway. deadloop is at $30 right now. in other words gamepass is not for me.

For a lot of people it is though. Subscribing to a service for many means they feel urged to make use of it to validate spending money on it. For some subscriptions mean the freedom to try everything. For others, subscriptions feel more restrictive.

Gamepass not being a bit profitable subscription service is actually a good thing. If it is as lucrative as Netflix, you can expect more competing services to pop up, leading to fragmentation and stuff going behind different pay walls. Yet as long as you can simply still buy everything without having to wait years (unlike what happened to tv) then it's all fine. Luckily Stadia fell flat on its ass with exclusive streaming games. Little horror scenario averted where Google bought Zenimax and locked future Skyrim etc behind Google Stadia.

For me it is due to limited time plus the huge backlog waiting for me.  I dont have time to beat games in 2 days anymore and if I pay for gamepass, I am gonna feel the pressure to play games mostly on gamepass to get the mosst out of it even though most games on gamepass either I have it or dont care for it.  if I spend time playing games I already bought , I would feel money is coming out of my account for no reason.  I already do that with nextflix.

How many companies do you know has the capability to actually do something on the scale of GP.  Think about it this way, MS owns the software and hardware and server farms around the world.  They have invested billions on those server farms and continue to invest more.  MS is a software/service company now unlike what they were before and thus GP fits right into what they do best.  The cost for MS to do something along this line is way cheaper then lets say Sony who would have to purchase space for their service including putting their hardware around the world, upkeep etc.  Think about it this way, even Google and Apple use MS servers to host some of their products, that should tell you something about the global reach and capability of MS in the service space.

I mean, bigger budget doesn't automatically translate into a better game, and vice versa; I mean, I really doubt that BoTW budget was bigger than that of The Order 1886 or Days Gone, for example. But anyways, since this is your main concern, let me try to put your mind at ease:

These are the last four weeks of sales on Steam. I don't think you need me to point out that the data heavily suggests that a lot of people prefer to buy their games, despite them being on Game Pass. So yeah, I think Starfield, Skyrim 6, HB2, Perfect Dark, Fable, Indiana Jones, etc., will be fine.

Unless suddenly every game ever is on Game Pass, this simply isn't true. 

Many of the games that I want to play aren't on Game Pass, including what I'm playing right now.  That means that if I were to truly focus on whatever experience I seek at that moment, I would be paying for (and not using) Game Pass while still buying and playing games from elsewhere.

It's also isn't totally accurate to say that you don't have a "backlog" with Game Pass.  It's just that your "backlog" is the selection of titles that Game Pass offers, which you don't own but are paying for access to with a subscription.  At least, that's how many people seem to be treating it, judging from the "I only played it because it was available on Game Pass" comments I've read.

Err this is the topic of the thread? This is my opinion. It has nothing to do about not enjoying the service. This is a ridiculous response.

I have no concerns about MS dropping the service, didn't say that. Its about maintaining quality, not dropping the service.

Again its not a worry, its a response to a thread and an opinion on the long term sustainability on quality.

They have to pay the developer to make the game, there is a trade off when said game does not get direct compensation based on its quality. How do you not think of this? 

Sony has the capability to offer this right now, but they don't. It may not be to the extent at which MS is doing it with the streaming infrastructure etc. but they can offer a version of it. They choose not to for now. Its for obvious reasons.

So let me get this straight based on the responses here:

MS is the only company that can offer this service due to 'infrastructure', and gamepass (GaaS) is an obvious path to take to ensure the best gaming content for the industry? And if you disagree you are a fool?

That's not even what Zyro says in the video.

I see logical discourse has left the thread I will see my way out.