Xbox Game Pass now get Xbox Exclusives on Day of Release that will stay permanently.

I have such a massive backlog that another pile of games i am paying monthly to not play doesn't sound appealing, especially as i'm only really interested in forza horizon 4, with the substantial caveat of no lootbox shite.

Fantastic news. I already think the service represents great value for money, especially as there are quite a few games on there that I'd have probably bought anyway (I was just looking at getting Fable Anniversary and Rime for instance, which will be added next week).

I'm a tiny bit sceptical however. This will represent the first time new exclusives are on the service. Will they stay as long as, say, Sunset Overdrive has? Will they be there for just a month or two, encouraging a purchase later down the line, anyway?

Also, will these games be heavily docked so that the best way to play would be to buy the full price version? Maybe in the future, important DLC will be left out of the GamePass version, again encouraging a retail purchase / purchase of an expansion pass which you'll later need the game to play anyway?

Will the price now be going up?

If the answer to all of these questions is no then bravo Microsoft.

A lot of people have been questioning whether or not this is financially viable for Microsoft. I'm guessing that they're hoping that the low cost coupled with the idea that you don't have to buy any more games means that they will have a lot of subscribers. Assuming that Sea Of Thieves, Crackdown 3 and State Of Decay 2 weren't going to be mega sellers anyway, this will probably work out better for them. When Halo 6 rolls around it might be a different story, but we'll see.

Personally I don't think they will be taking games out after a few months. Those games will have dropped in price by then anyway so the extra revenue would be reduced, not to mention there will be the option to buy pre-owned which means MS will see no money at all. It just makes more sense to leave them there, offer even more value as the service goes on to future subscribers.

more heat than light wrote:

rinks wrote:But how long do they stay in Game Pass?

I'd be surprised if they took them out to be honest. You'll always get the odd grumble-arse going 'but what happens in ten years time when the servers are all down, how will we play the game then?'. But to be totally honest, those people are banana splits.

There's a whole article on Eurogamer right now full of such banana splits.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018- ... n-they-die


Miserable, grumbling banana splits just looking for something, anything to complain about when it comes to gaming aside this is an absolutely stellar move from MS.

I believe the revenue difference selling games digitally is €/$24 that doesnt have to go to the retailer. They probably did the numbers and realised a subscription model will be more beneficial. It comes with more benefits though, the player base should be bigger and I think they may get a deal to bring another publisher on board.

It’s a kick to the nuts for retailers though.

Photek wrote:
It’s a kick to the nuts for retailers though.

I imagine the board at GAME are shitting themselves right now.

Gemini73 wrote:Miserable, grumbling banana splits just looking for something, anything to complain about when it comes to gaming aside this is an absolutely stellar move from MS.

Can't tell if you are being serious or not.

If you can't see what the advantage is of not being tied to a service like this to play games in years to come, then I suggest you are fooling yourself.

Not to say that this is bad, just that being tied to a service like this for your gaming isn't all upside.

Photek wrote:I believe the revenue difference selling games digitally is €/$24 that doesnt have to go to the retailer.

If that's the case then why are digital games so bloody expensive? Surely it would make more sense for them to knock a tenner off and keep all of the profits for themselves.

HSH28 wrote:

Gemini73 wrote:Miserable, grumbling banana splits just looking for something, anything to complain about when it comes to gaming aside this is an absolutely stellar move from MS.

If you can't see what the advantage is of not being tied to a service like this to play games in years to come, then I suggest you are fooling yourself.

Or, and this might come as a shock Hugo, maybe I'm just not all that bothered in how my games are delivered in years to come? The truth is, I'm not, and simply because gaming isn't the be all and end all. It's a hobby, one that I enjoy, but it could all end tomorrow and I'd be like "Oh, that's a bit gooseberry fool, but never mind. I had fun while it lasted" before moving on with my life.

Now you might take that as me being snarky, high and mighty even, but it's really not. For some how are games are/will be delivered years from now is very important, and that's cool too. You have to admit though, a proportion of the games community will grumble and moan about absolutely anything.

Pachter had a video up on Game trailers years ago where he said the revenue spilt for a third party game is 70/30 in favour of the publisher if the game is sold digitally and 60-20-20 if it's sold at retail with 60% to the publisher, 20% to the platform holder and 20% to the retailer. So around $12 goes to the retailer.

I can’t see this service coming to PC as it has a lot of 360 and Xbox games not on PC in it.

Gemini73 wrote:Or, and this might come as a shock Hugo, maybe I'm just not all that bothered in how my games are delivered in years to come? The truth is, I'm not, and simply because gaming isn't the be all and end all. It's a hobby, one that I enjoy, but it could all end tomorrow and I'd be like "Oh, that's a bit gooseberry fool, but never mind. I had fun while it lasted" before moving on with my life.

Now you might take that as me being snarky, high and mighty even, but it's really not. For some how are games are/will be delivered years from now is very important, and that's cool too. You have to admit though, a proportion of the games community will grumble and moan about absolutely anything.

You can see that there could be legitimate issues some people might have with a service like this though.

I don't think pointing those out is particularly an issue.

bear wrote:Pachter had a video up on Game trailers years ago where he said the revenue spilt for a third party game is 70/30 in favour of the publisher if the game is sold digitally and 60-20-20 if it's sold at retail with 60% to the publisher, 20% to the platform holder and 20% to the retailer. So around $12 goes to the retailer.

Kotaku did an article.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/kotaku.com/5479698/what-your-60-really-buys/amp

$15 to retailer + $4 on distribution + $7 returns = $26 that digital games don’t have taken off.

And games are now $65-$70 so margins may have increased.

Look at the source of that information. Onlive, the failed game streaming service.

I'll trust Pachter over that.

bear wrote:Look at the source of that information. Onlive, the failed game streaming service.

I'll trust Pachter over that.

I wouldn’t trust Pachter over anything, he’s a hack.

Woah, massive news.

First let me get the obligatory joke out the way: Microsoft has so few exclusive games that this means in 2018 only games!

As an Xbox owner who wouldn't subscribe for $100/£100 per year? A library of last gen and some current gen games as well as MS exclusives, it really is a great deal. But why would Microsoft potentially slash their retail & digital sales profits to do this? I can only speculate: This gen has been very hard for Microsoft, loss of marketshare means loss of Live subscriptions and the loss of that share of 3rd party games, with no quick fix on the horizon. If consumers think Xbox Game Pass has high value then Microsoft gets $100 per year out of them. They are less likely to switch to another console or give up their Xbox console. MS also strengthen brand loyalty so they have a built-in audience for their next console.

However this reminds me of the old 16-bit days where magazines were giving away full games with each issue. Games publishers complained to them that it was affecting revenue so the mags stopped the freebies. Now this is not exactly the same but I'm sure many industry analysts are thinking about the repercussions e.g. does it mean gamers will have less to spend on third party games? Also it will likely lessen retail sales of exclusive games? This years batch of exclusives were never destined to hit no 1 but Halo 6 in 2019 surely would be. So if retailers see that Halo 6 sells significantly less then Halo 5, will they think that Xbox console is less worthy of shelf space.

Who knows? But when I get my XBO X I'm pretty sure I will subscribe to Game Pass.

I really don't think MS are making a loss, subscription services seem a great way of providing constant revenue for producers and giving a big pile of content to consumers, content that has become worthless at retail because everyone is only interesting in the latest release. Obviously they will miss out on the initial sales but presumably there is now a considerable amount of data that shows that it's healthier you have a constant income rather than big spikes and troughs throughout the year.

Just enjoy the good times until it goes to gooseberry fool and everyone wants their own subscription service.

Hime wrote:I really don't think MS are making a loss, subscription services seem a great way of providing constant revenue for producers and giving a big pile of content to consumers, content that has become worthless at retail because everyone is only interesting in the latest release. Obviously they will miss out on the initial sales but presumably there is now a considerable amount of data that shows that it's healthier you have a constant income rather than big spikes and troughs throughout the year.

Just enjoy the good times until it goes to gooseberry fool and everyone wants their own subscription service.

I think Nintendo fans would be rather happy with a similar service with all Nintendo games on it as it would certainly be good value at a similar price.

HSH28 wrote:

Gemini73 wrote:Or, and this might come as a shock Hugo, maybe I'm just not all that bothered in how my games are delivered in years to come? The truth is, I'm not, and simply because gaming isn't the be all and end all. It's a hobby, one that I enjoy, but it could all end tomorrow and I'd be like "Oh, that's a bit gooseberry fool, but never mind. I had fun while it lasted" before moving on with my life.

Now you might take that as me being snarky, high and mighty even, but it's really not. For some how are games are/will be delivered years from now is very important, and that's cool too. You have to admit though, a proportion of the games community will grumble and moan about absolutely anything.

You can see that there could be legitimate issues some people might have with a service like this though.

Absolutely, and of course it'll be more of an issue for some than it is for others and I respect that. Personally it's just not an issue for me. What will be will be.

I don't think pointing those out is particularly an issue.

No, of course not.

I also don't get the point of worrying about what will happen in 10 years.
In 10 years we'll be playing some awesome version of augmented reality and all old games will be available via some amazing retro subscription.
The games now aren't going to just vanish and someone somewhere will archive them and some people will pay to use the service and they'll live on.

I'm not attached to my games or gear at all (I realised this when I got burgled and they took my entire 15 year collection of games and machines and I found out I didn't particularly care. I was more annoyed for my mum and her jewellery going missing and my dad's camera he'd been given for being at work for 30 years) and don't really care what happens to it in the future.