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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Hating Game Pass Makes You Look Foolish

chakkra said:

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.

Interesting charts. But, how popular is Xbox on PC? Does it make up a sizeable percentage of the overall Gamepass user numbers? If Gamepass PC is a minority, then sales being strong on Steam aren't surprising. 

Likewise, what are sales like on Xbox consoles themselves? 

I'm not suggesting that these game can't sell well despite being on gamepass, or that their budgets will be affected negatively. But I do think that without more context into gamepass, it's userbase, and the relation between sales and user numbers, it's difficult to get an accurate picture of how different elements are related to one another.



Around the Network
padib said:

The good news is that with gamepass you no longer need to spend on or worry about  a backlog. You can focus on enjoy whatever experience you seek at that moment.

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.



smroadkill15 said:
Shinobi-san said:

Big budget games have been few and far between for the last couple of years. I would imagine that MS has plans to ramp this up given the recent developer studio purchases. Once that starts to ramp up and Xbox starts to develop games on the same level of Sony it would be interesting to see how they balance that out. If the payoff is as obvious as some are making it out to be why are others not following?

Edit: Also the question of sustainability is not akin to 'burning cash'

Why worry about its sustainability instead of enjoying the service for what it offers? It's such a silly thing to worry about when this is MS after all. They are clearly very dedicated to the growth of Game Pass and there is zero indication of them dropping the service any time soon. Especially after a huge purchase like Zenimax/Bethesda, it only reinforces their long-term commitment. 

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.



Intel Core i7 3770K [3.5GHz]|MSI Big Bang Z77 Mpower|Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1866 2 x 4GB|MSI GeForce GTX 560 ti Twin Frozr 2|OCZ Vertex 4 128GB|Corsair HX750|Cooler Master CM 690II Advanced|

zero129 said:
Shinobi-san said:

Big budget games have been few and far between for the last couple of years. I would imagine that MS has plans to ramp this up given the recent developer studio purchases. Once that starts to ramp up and Xbox starts to develop games on the same level of Sony it would be interesting to see how they balance that out. If the payoff is as obvious as some are making it out to be why are others not following?

Edit: Also the question of sustainability is not akin to 'burning cash'

What?.. Ok first of all the games they will release on Gamepass clearly do well and sell well on Steam and console too. They also dont have to pay anyone any royalties for their own "Big" games when they put them on the service. If by the time every Xbone owner and XBSX owners just switched to Gamepass or Gamepass Ultimate for their games this would be even more profitable for MS as look how many subs that is. Pretty much like smroadkill15 said to you, why even worry about this?.

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? 



Intel Core i7 3770K [3.5GHz]|MSI Big Bang Z77 Mpower|Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1866 2 x 4GB|MSI GeForce GTX 560 ti Twin Frozr 2|OCZ Vertex 4 128GB|Corsair HX750|Cooler Master CM 690II Advanced|

Machiavellian said:
Shinobi-san said:

Big budget games have been few and far between for the last couple of years. I would imagine that MS has plans to ramp this up given the recent developer studio purchases. Once that starts to ramp up and Xbox starts to develop games on the same level of Sony it would be interesting to see how they balance that out. If the payoff is as obvious as some are making it out to be why are others not following?

Edit: Also the question of sustainability is not akin to 'burning cash'

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.

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.



Intel Core i7 3770K [3.5GHz]|MSI Big Bang Z77 Mpower|Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1866 2 x 4GB|MSI GeForce GTX 560 ti Twin Frozr 2|OCZ Vertex 4 128GB|Corsair HX750|Cooler Master CM 690II Advanced|

Around the Network

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.



Intel Core i7 3770K [3.5GHz]|MSI Big Bang Z77 Mpower|Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1866 2 x 4GB|MSI GeForce GTX 560 ti Twin Frozr 2|OCZ Vertex 4 128GB|Corsair HX750|Cooler Master CM 690II Advanced|

Who said MS was the only company that could do it, or that it’s the best path forward to “ensure quality content” or whatever? lol

He clearly said MS is in a unique position because of investments they have already made. Sure Sony can offer a similar service but they wouldn’t be in the position MS is in. Hell, doesn’t Sony have a deal to use Azure?

Idk what you’re talking about in regards to GamePass being most obvious path to ensure the best gaming content possible. But your worries about budget and quality are not based on reality. We sure haven’t seen any drop in budgets or quality yet. And people always ignore the fact that MS and third party companies sell these games outside of GamePass. So not only is that a path for them to make more money in the traditional way but it also means they have to release quality stuff if they want it to sell.



pokoko said:
padib said:

The good news is that with gamepass you no longer need to spend on or worry about  a backlog. You can focus on enjoy whatever experience you seek at that moment.

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.

You know that I understand this, given my first post.
"[...]

it comes at the cost of higher corporate control and lower consumer control of ownership and availability as is the issue with Netflix. But from a monetary point of view it's pretty clear that MS is raking in the cash."

Given that I know this clearly, I understand that the backlog is not perfect, but if you are focusing on your current experiences, then the idea of a backlog becomes obsolete to a certain degree, since anyway he has 1000 games to play and will never have time to play all of them. Gamepass allows him not to have to worry about that, and he can purchase only those games that he must play (on the platform of his choice). It will save him lots of money, and also lots of headspace.

Yes I absolutely agree with your second paragraph and that was to be understood from my post but of course we are here to talk and verbalize our opinions.

My post was not inaccurate it was true, but there are subtleties I didn't feel compelled to explain. Thanks for clarifying what I already agreed with you about, it's good for people to read.



padib said:
pokoko said:

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.

You know that I understand this, given my first post.
"[...]

it comes at the cost of higher corporate control and lower consumer control of ownership and availability as is the issue with Netflix. But from a monetary point of view it's pretty clear that MS is raking in the cash."

Given that I know this clearly, I understand that the backlog is not perfect, but if you are focusing on your current experiences, then the idea of a backlog becomes obsolete to a certain degree, since anyway he has 1000 games to play and will never have time to play all of them. Gamepass allows him not to have to worry about that, and he can purchase only those games that he must play (on the platform of his choice). It will save him lots of money, and also lots of headspace.

Yes I absolutely agree with your second paragraph and that was to be understood from my post but of course we are here to talk and verbalize our opinions.

My post was not inaccurate it was true, but there are subtleties I didn't feel compelled to explain. Thanks for clarifying what I already agreed with you about, it's good for people to read.

This is a great post padib just like your last one and what you say is true.

I also have a massive backlog on steam of like 800 games that i still need to finish. And that's only on PC without including all the snes,mega drive, saturn PS1+2+3 and GC+wii 3ds ds N64 etc etc games that i still want to finish at some point. But that still in no way takes away my interest or enjoyment of the games i have been playing on gamepass. Sometimes when you have such a huge backlog its nice to be able to play new games on a sub service like gamepass without the need of buying them new games and just adding them to the backlog (And lets face it guys with a huge backlog thats what happens). It means im finishing newer games sooner and can get back to an older game on my downtime.

I still don't know why people think it has to be one or the other. Gamepass is actually helping with my backlog as it means im not adding as many games to it and if i dont finish a game on gamepass i dont feel bad about it or a need to as its not part of my backlog and its not like its costing me anything to move onto another game on gamepass and if its a game i really enjoy thats not from ms and has a chance of leaving i can just buy it and add it to my backlog to finish when i feel like it cause clearly i didn't feel like it while it was on gamepass.



Shinobi-san said:
Machiavellian said:

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.

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.

The big difference between MS and Sony is scope but it also is more an advantage for MS because of the position they are in.  I can assure you that the cost for Sony to run PS Now is way more than  for MS to run GP.  MS does not consider GP tied to the Xbox hardware but instead have a far more aggressive goal which is to put GP on every device that can play games. PS Now is treated like an add on with no real push, GP is treated within MS as another global service like Office and the rest of their suit, the whole company is behind GP success not just the xbox game division.

Now can Sony attempt to go this route, yes but it would cost them way more than they are willing to invest but then by the time if they every would think to do so, it probably would be to late.