For a long time, I have this idea how Microsoft should structure and price the Game Pass. I am thinking of making it modular with a cheap entry price, and then having basically DLCs to enable certain services. This would also allow Microsoft to add in new services without restructuring everything again or screwing up the names.
The below list is just an idea how it could be structure and priced, I’m not saying this has to be exactly like that. What do you think?
--- Base ---
$7,99 Game Pass
(pc and console, includes console multiplayer,
50+ games dynamic library)
--- DLCs ---
+ $4,99 Plus Expansion
(full set 500+ games, including EA Play and Ubisoft+)
+ $9,99 Day 1 Ultimate
(including all first party games except Call of Duty,
plus day 1 premium games from third parties,
additional benefits, perks and rewards)
+ $1,99 Cloud Streaming S
(for supported titles of all your own games,
plus all Game Pass games)
+ $3,99 Cloud Streaming X
(like S but higher quality streaming, shorter wait times)
Personally, I think GamePass is a terrible idea.
The money developers get for GamePass “sales” isn’t enough to keep them in business, look at Tango Gameworks, who did Hi-Fi Rush. Great game, well received, lots of players.
Studio closed 4 months later.
If someone like Tango can’t survive on a game like Hi-Fi Rush, it doesn’t speak well for the business model.
So what you end up with are fewer games and lower quality games, it’s a race to the bottom.
Also, the push to digital only reduces the footprint in stores, so when people go to buy consoles, all they see are a bunch of old games, or (worse) no games at all, as we see in the Xbox section in Target and Walmart recently.
So GamePass encourages fewer games, lower quality games, a reduced footprint at retail, and ultimately, lower sales.
It also undermines the Stop Killing Games movement because you’re not sold a product. You’re sold a service which means any game that exists solely for game pass (which eventually will happen if game pass becomes the predominant way to access games) doesn’t need an EOL plan for game preservation.
It will also create the streaming service problem, where instead of having the games you want to play in one place you will have 3/4 gamepass-like services that each have their own exclusive library so instead of X amount a month you’ll be paying 3x amount to access different services.
It also further normalizes not owning any games so you’ll end up being dependent on the services like gamepass. Which also makes it easier to control the price of the service down the line because what are you going to do, go play your non-existent library of games?
Overall I think Gamepass becoming successful would be a net negative for gaming and as such I’m completely against gamepass and all similar subscription services that might pop up.
These are good points to have in mind. I personally don’t even subscribe to Game Pass and even if i would, then only for couple of months at a time at most. I rather want to have a license to “own” the games (I know the issues with owning a license rather than specific copy of it). I just had fun of thoughts how to structure this business in a better way for the gamer (and probably for the company too?), as they definetely not backing up from a streaming service like Pass system.
To be honest, I don’t think the indie gaming scene will ever fully transition to his model even in the worst case scenario.
The market is basically large enough that it can support a niche being independent in terms of channel fulfilment and avoidance of console style exclusivety.
Not to mention video games are arguably much more competitive than movies or streaming shows. Often people look to a specific production with shows and movies, with games, new franchises can often build upon and expand upon existing gameplay models.
Not that I think the subscription model is good, but it is clear that there is a segment of the market that prefers this delivery approach.
Tango might have been fine if they were an independent developer, not owned by Microsoft who shut the studio down. Their shutdown likely had nothing to do with their sales, and everything to do with messing with margins for stockholders to see a line going up more.
I think Game Pass is a model where more games is beneficial for Microsoft, and diversity and short games that can be created easier. That’s because Game Pass wants to have a flood of games coming to keep subscription. I wouldn’t say that necessarily equates to lower quality. The risk is lower for each game, so they can experiment.
In the end I think Game Pass harms more than its useful, but I do not see this black and white, as it has its pros and cons. Overall I do not like subscription services where you pay for years and if you stop playing, you stop getting access. If you had purchased games, then after years you would have a library you can visit and play over and over again, without paying for access. But it has its pros too, as one can play ton of games in short period of time, especially if you like shorter small games.