-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
-Core Xbox Game Studios are set for cutbacks next:
The initiative for sure.
Yep, Game Pass is finished.
hemo memo
You can't die before your death
I wouldn’t call it “competing subscription service”. PS+ is an awful value for a limited selection and free monthly games that you probably already played/own. As opposite to Gamepass massive collection of games to choose from. From a consumer point of view (Which how I think as I don’t have shares in Microsoft or Sony) Gamepass only compete with itself.
Laptop1991
Member
If MS want's to make money off of COD, then it shouldn't be on Gamepass, it isn't rocket science, COD fans will buy it and buy the MTX they put in it in high numbers as usual.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Where is this industry going?
I know microsoft have completely fumbled for like 10 years now, but we are in a situation where you can't do anything but a "guaranteed" successful game...then if those games don't land you're basically dead.
How can we have an industry where you can't afford to take the slightest of risks in the AA or AAA space.
I know microsoft have completely fumbled for like 10 years now, but we are in a situation where you can't do anything but a "guaranteed" successful game...then if those games don't land you're basically dead.
How can we have an industry where you can't afford to take the slightest of risks in the AA or AAA space.
Gamepass is more expensive than PS+. Not the other way round.
Killjoy-NL
Gold Member
Competing with itself and still losing.
Banjo64
cumsessed
The price either needs to raise exponentially e.g £24.99 per month or I can see them just putting out a blog post saying Game Pass is being discontinued within a couple of months (Core aside).
It’s never worked, the loss leading stage is over for the MS board. Even £24.99 per month may not be enough when a game like Starfield should have sold 10m on consoles at £69.99 a piece.
It’s never worked, the loss leading stage is over for the MS board. Even £24.99 per month may not be enough when a game like Starfield should have sold 10m on consoles at £69.99 a piece.
Fess
Member
Yeah the upside for me was always to get more cheap games and getting to try CoD for the first time since the 360 without buying it, but since then my sub has ended and they increased the price before I even got to taste any of it, and now they’re talking about increasing the price more. Good luck.
Dr.Morris79
Member
Cutbacks? Cutbacks from what?
They bearly have any fucking games to 'cut back' for for fucks sake
Halo's a sham. Forza motorsport released with fuck all content, it doesnt even have ingame statistics. Starfield is dog shit, etc etc
Fucking clown world company.
hemo memo
You can't die before your death
Not from a consumer point of view.
Killjoy-NL
Gold Member
Clearly it is, because Xbox is struggling with getting and keeping subs.
midnightAI
Member
I actually thought that part of the court ruling during the acquisition was that it was understood it wouldn't go directly to Gamepass. Oh well, guess I misheard or something.
midnightAI
Member
Well, depends if you like Tango Gameworks and Arkane Austin games.
hemo memo
You can't die before your death
Weird as i’ve never seen someone complain about Gamepass other than console warriors who never actually tried it.
Killjoy-NL
Gold Member
And I've never heard a woman complain about living in Iran.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
There is a middle-ground that I believe they will explore first before abandoning Game Pass completely, i.e., making it more like PS Plus and EA Play Pro.
Games won't launch day one on Game Pass and will instead join the sub after 12 months or, more likely, "sometime later after release." (keeping it vague like PlayStation will be much more beneficial).
And if that doesn't work, they may just go 'fuck it, we're abandoning GP.' But I think the chances of that happening are quite low, as Microsoft as a company likes subscriptions.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
It's a strategic move to not offer even older COD on Game Pass.
- They don't want Game Pass subscribers to become comfortable with the fact that COD will be available on Game Pass. They don't want to establish that association.
- They still want to sell those old COD games for as long as they can.
- If people start playing older COD games, they are less likely to buy newer COD games -- unless the new ones are also offered on GP. Older CODs are much better than the recent diarrhea anyway.
xrnzaaas
Member
That seems to be Microsoft's problem as a whole. They want the money from Game Pass AND from copies sold traditional way. After they've spent so much money on ABK it's only natural to expect all of their IP's to show up in Game Pass. If they start selecting "premium" brands staying away from the service some subscribers are going to be pissed.
Kerotan
Member
Forza to playstation is needed.
As for COD if they bring it day 1 they'll need to up the price of GP.
Kerotan
Member
Many people might just opt to play the F2P version anyway.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Nah. They bought a massive asset with cash on hand. The money's gone and they've got the income from Activision coming in already. There's no paying back to be done. Nadella isn't looking at the Xbox balance sheet starting at -$70bn. It doesn't work like that.
Last edited:
ShaiKhulud1989
Gold Member
From The Verge
Sadly for GP and Phil it is clear that MS Gaming financials are managed from the Big Baldy's HQ for months now. And HQ is so rich because it will never burn billions of free net profit on a service that is stalling for years now.
If that would've been Phil's decision to make, I think some basic form of CoD would've come to GP day one.
Sadly for GP and Phil it is clear that MS Gaming financials are managed from the Big Baldy's HQ for months now. And HQ is so rich because it will never burn billions of free net profit on a service that is stalling for years now.
BbMajor7th
Member
Remember when people were cheering on the acquisition of ABK because it meant getting their entire back and future catalog for the price of a GP subscription? That sure was some good crack, but the come-down's been a bitch.
Last edited:
ozz ex machina
Member
I'm all for getting more shit on gamepass. But I'd say if cod remains annual release schedule. Put each "new cod" on gamepass 9 months after release. Surely no cod purchaser is going to be willing to wait 9 months for gamepass. Then it just captures people like me who stopped buying cod a few years ago but could get hooked back in if they manage to make a not shit one.
Last edited:
Rocco Schiavone
Member
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25438498/FireVapor_Canvas_JPG_e97eac7b7fa59195c6d9_1900x1080.jpg)
Inside Microsoft’s Xbox turmoil
Xbox employees are bracing for what follows more layoffs.www.theverge.com
Also:
-Hellblade 2 being considered for PS5
-Core Xbox Game Studios are set for cutbacks next
Physiognomonics
Member
You won't love the inevitable gamepass price increase if they put COD in it.
willothedog
Member
Wouldn't you also need to pay for Core to play online?
baphomet
Member
Are you talking without game pass?
Yes, but then most people don't play COD on Xbox, so they'd buy it elsewhere.
Last edited:
Haint
Member
Nope, Ultimate is $17/mo, $120/year. PS Premium is $18/mo, $160/year. Even PS Extra at $130/year is more than annualized Ultimate, and PS Essential at $80 is more than Xbox Core at $60. PS is more expensive across the board.
Last edited:
There is no annual ultimate AFAIK unless you're talking about the gold conversion trick or key sites.
diffusionx
Gold Member
Obviously Hellblade 2 will be coming out for PS5
COD on GamePass highlights the conundrum of GamePass. If you are one of those who only plays the COD campaign (they exist) or multiplayer for a month or two then drops it, then yea, GamePass makes sense, you spend $20 or $30 instead of $70, but that's bad for MS. But if COD is your primary game, it makes way more sense to just spend the $70 and buy the game outright. Feels like MS loses either way.
COD on GamePass highlights the conundrum of GamePass. If you are one of those who only plays the COD campaign (they exist) or multiplayer for a month or two then drops it, then yea, GamePass makes sense, you spend $20 or $30 instead of $70, but that's bad for MS. But if COD is your primary game, it makes way more sense to just spend the $70 and buy the game outright. Feels like MS loses either way.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Eh, your math is very flawed here. Like the annual PS+ discounts, you can get GPU much cheaper by using official methods like Gold conversion (or even cheaper with Rewards).
But even at your hypothetical full price, let's say: $20 x 12 = $240
Using this year's 1P publisher games as reference: CoD ($70), Avowed ($70), Indiana Jones ($70), Flight Sim '24 ($70), Hellblade ($40), Towerborne (let's say $40 conservatively), Ara: History Untold (again, conservative $40) = $330.
And we're not even including the dozen(s) of day 1 third party games that launched / will launch.
Yep, there's multiple official ways to get GPU for cheap, don't even need to rely on third party resellers. Folks who are paying the full monthly price are kinda putting more money on the table then they need to.
Very heavily rumored that some, if not all, the older CoD catalog will be announced for GP at the showcase or the CoD event immediately after.
Last edited:
Haint
Member
It's not a "trick", annual Gamepass Core cards covert to 6 months of Ultimate.
Last edited:
Gamer_By_Proxy
Member
No one pays full price for PS+. It's 20% off like 3-4 times a year. And that's official sales without even going to CDkeys.
DonkeyPunchJr
World’s Biggest Weeb
- be Microsoft
- use CoD to try and save Gamepass
- end up ruining both CoD and Gamepass
- use CoD to try and save Gamepass
- end up ruining both CoD and Gamepass
Risky games can be made all day.
Putting them on a subscription service day one is more risky. Especially as a platform holder.
its worth pointing out that Microsoft is a tech company. not a purely gaming company. there was a covid boost to all tech companies resulting in a spending spree. we are currently in a downturn. a downturn made worse because there is no growth. in order to generate increased profit and keep share prices high every single tech company is cutting their workforce. this is what you are seeing here. If you aren't in AI you are in danger at every tech company in america.
Haint
Member
Sounds like you've haven't bought Plus in a few years. Sony's fairly rare "sales" are now limited to new or lapsed customers only, and key shops no longer sell meaningfully discounted cards. They killed all that when they hiked prices, almost everyone's paying full price unless they're letting it lapse for multiple months as they wait for the next holiday sale. Meanwhile Gamepass Core cards also go on sales for $50 and less, making 1 year of Ultimate $100 or less.
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
To anyone still hanging onto their Xbox....
I imagine a Series X would still make a really good emulator box, maybe even for PS3.
So, there is that. Although a very niche appeal I guess.
The problem is if any of those subs only want the campaign and never touch the MP or buy MTX, then they'll play for the single month and then drop their subscription. That could be a churn rate in the millions. Basically there'd be no point reporting the subscription growth because you'd have to report negative numbers later.
Kind of like Wii U's launch month to that following January.
Either they:
1: Use COD as the first "trail" game with like some 4-hour trail for the campaign & limited MP for GP subs. Then start doing it with all other 1P games, or...
2: Use GP as a way to tie in MTX/add-on perks for COD players, discounts on upgrades etc. Like what they did with the Riot Games stuff on PC Game Pass. Then start doing it with all other 1P games too.
Those seem like the only two options. At least then they wouldn't have to raise the price, though, and I think both options would be preferable to them raising the price again.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Wasn't that just technical parity, not content parity? I remember the CMA saying they didn't have a problem with partial foreclosure on PlayStation consoles, i.e some exclusive content for Xbox platforms.
And if the CMA had no issue with that, I'm sure the EC and CADE don't, either. The FTC AFAIK haven't actually approved the ABK deal yet; in fact they're in appeals process and I imagine these recent studio closures will just give them more fuel to use against MS fully completing the ABK acquisition.
Like others already said, if GP were such good value it'd be doing much better in the market. It isn't, so it isn't.
Nintendo seems to be perfectly fine and know exactly what they're doing. Sony/SIE have been making some dumb moves the past year IMO, but they seem to still have a generally solid idea of what direction they're going in, and they might (finally) be making some sensible changes going forward.
Microsoft Gaming/Xbox are the only ones who truly lost their way with their console, and completely lost their way with their management. But that's not an "industry" problem.
Well technically they already don't launch in GP Day 1; Starfield was available six days before going into GP, FH5 came out a few days before going into GP too.
But otherwise, I agree "Day 1" won't be the case going forward. What they might do (what they should do) is just take a page from Sony and EA's playbook, and add in 4-5 hour "demo trails" for new releases Day 1 to the service. That way they can still say they're offering the games Day 1, but not in a way that actually hurts game sales (well unless the game just sucks and the trail/demo exposes it o.0).
In fact maybe them doing that would motivate Sony to do more actual Day 1 trails for their own 1P releases; granted they have gotten demos for exclusives like Stellar Blade and Rebirth, but why didn't they do a closed beta test of Helldivers 2 for PS+ players? And what about the other 3P games, a lot of them don't have Trails even now and almost none have them Day 1. Same goes for 1P releases.
As of right now though SIE probably have no incentive to do better with the Trails.
Good, let them. They were gullible enough to be hoodwinked into an unsustainable pitch, something they knew was too good to be true to last forever.
Orbital2060
Member
Time to double down and do the impossible: Call of Duty day 1 on game pass, baby! 
Last edited:
Little Chicken
Gold Member
Just add a CoD tier for an extra $5.
Orbital2060
Member
You dont chicken out now. When you finally got what you wanted. You said first party day 1 on game pass. So lets do first party day 1 on game pass.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
You dont chicken out now. When you finally got what you wanted. You said first party day 1 on game pass. So lets do first party day 1 on game pass.
I think they will do CoD on GP day 1, unless it's blocked by the Sony marketing deal still.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
They won't.
COD is one of the few games Xbox gamers actually buy Day 1, in reasonably large numbers (though less than PlayStation gamers, obviously).
MS are probably terrified of heavy churn from players who sub for a month to play the campaign, then drop the sub after that. It could very well see MS getting less than 1/3rd of the normal price from those customers if they just bought the game as usual.
Higher ups don't want Day 1 Game Pass for COD and Phil can't win against them (thank goodness).