Not if you like to own your games instead of having temporary access to it.

Because its a bullshit tactic to make more money off gamers.  And there are other companies out there that have more than 1 game in the series , available on gamepass. I didn't know it was written in contract somewhere that there is a 1 game policy at a time.

 You suggesting it was co incidentall of the timing of the sequel coming to gamepass just as the other was leaving?

But as I mentioned earlier, I had the game already installed on my system, and it wouldn't let me play the game.  Where does it say on gamepass that you can no longer play a game that has been installed but that has left gamepass to download?

How's being able to play a $60 game day one for the price of a $10 subscribtion (the game in question is easily finishable in a month) not good value?

If you instead bought it for $60, you would need to complete it 6 times in order to get the same value out of it. How likely is that? I doubt you played through every game in your collection multiple times. In fact most people don't. They complete their games once and maybe come back to play certain favourites once or twice more.

I replay games I enjoy all the time, often many years later. That's the beauty of actually owning a game, I can play it whenever I want, I don't have to pay a monthly fee just for temporary access that can be revoked on a whim.

If you just want to play a game while you can and never go back to it, then yeah, I can see the appeal, but it's just not a good deal for those of us who want to play what we want when we want it, on our own terms.

uhhh common sense? Otherwise what is stopping people from stockpiling all the games they wanna play? The standards people have for this subscription service is insane 

I don't mind if people don't like subscription services because they prefer to own their games (although you could always use Game Pass to test some games out that you may be interested in and then use the 20% discount to buy them) but that clearly isn't the OP's complaints which don't make much sense.

Why are you blaming Microsoft only in your OP? Why are you suggesting they're doing it to make more cash? They don't even own Plague Tale IP, it's a multiplatform title. How do you know that it wasn't Asobo who wanted the game out of Game Pass before the sequel? It benefits Microsoft more to keep the prequel in, Lol.

But ultimately, it's still your fault, A Plague Tale: Innocence has been in Game Pass for years, you get a 20% discount to buy it and they give you a heads up when it's leaving, do your research and you won't have these problems or suck it up and buy the prequel which people have been doing since the creation of gaming hardware, buying their games, Lol. 3rd party titles don't stay in forever, like every subscription service on the planet.

It's common sense.

It took you over 3 years to play Innocence, 6 days after Requiem released judging by your OP date, I'm sure you can wait a little longer for it to become dirt cheap or re-enter Game Pass, especially if you already made the decision to play Requiem before Innocence. This feels like complaining for the sake of complaining.

I'm not really sure I even agree that it's a poor tactic from the dev. Obviously they want more money: games are a business and it constantly surprises me when gamers don't really seem to acknowledge that. Like, it sucks sure. But it's their game product and they should be able to do with it as they please. 

As for the game being installed on your system; I'm pretty confident, as a non gamepass user, that this is how it's always worked. it doesn't function like XBLA Gold or even PS+ (where you need a running subscription to keep playing a game you you collected). But maybe I'm mistaken. 

it sucks and I get that. But it is what it is. 

While you're free to do that, you're missing out on fantastic games that you'll never be able to play as time is obviously limited and the more games you buy the more you'd have to replay.

Also you could still profit from Game Pass. Pay the subcribtion fee for a month, play and finish a newly added game, let the subscription run out, buy the game in a few years for $10 or less. That way you can experience it day one, while still being the owner of it at some point so that you're able to replay it. That's $20 (1 month sub + $10 for owning it) compared to buying the game day one for $60 or buying it in 6-12 months for ~$30.

Sounds like the better deal to me. Also that's just for one game. If you're able to finish more Game Pass games to your liking within that 1 month subscription period, the cost per game will drop lower than the $20 I mentioned earlier.

When it is not on the service anymore? When you have a GP title downloaded it will have GP symbol on the cover. When it leaves, it's not there anymore. It's more of a commonsense thing than anything else. Xbox can't delete games from you're hard so it's on the consumer to be aware. 

3rd parties decide when a Game leaves a service so maybe write any angry letter to them or something. 

I feel like you are taking zero accountability for this issue. Maybe use this as a lesson for next time. Play the games you want to play sooner rather than later if they are on Game Pass.  

Gamepass don't prevent you from buying game elsewhere.

Like other here I played Innocence through Gamepass but still did grab it free on the Epic store. there's Many game on Gamepass I also grab very cheap on steam/epic for replay purpose once they leave gamepass.

That's the beauty of Gamepass in your situation, you still can do all you did before but you can skip the initial release price and/or skip the wait for the game to be discounted before buying it (for day 1 release) and instead buy the game at a discount when it leave or when it's heavily discounted elsewhere. Bonus to that if you didn't like the game or see no replay value your not stuck with it in a backlog.

There's absolutly no string attach to gamepass or psnow.