GRcade

rinks wrote:With the speed of the U-turn, I’m cynically thinking they never intended changing the price, and this was all to give them even more goodwill.

That could be a possibility... but it makes me even more mad. Some folk are literally saying "Well done for listening, Microsoft!". Oh, yeah, well done for being dicks, getting found out and then backing off .

I saw the backlash growing fast yesterday and I knew Microsoft would reverse it but figured it would take until Monday to deliberate, I guess it couldn't risk a weekend of critical opinion pieces. Phil Spencer as head of Xbox absolutely had to personally apologise - and he did.

It was definitely a move to push more people into paying for a Game Pass subscription. I can understand what MS was trying to do but it was clumsily done by making the price rise so drastic, $5 dollars a year over say six years, and grandfathering in longterm subscribers would have worked out better. But it now raises the legitimate question on whether MS just wanted rapid growth for Game Pass or needs it to prove its longterm viability?

How many 'good learning opportunities' do Microsoft need?

It was a dick move by MS and they should not be congratulated for changing their minds. Of course Venom uses this to concern troll over Gamepass’ viability which is bizarre.

If anything it suggests to me that MS see gamepass as the future.

I suspect its the model they have always wanted re games in the long term.

As I said on the other thread, it kind of locks you in and it's really hard to see why you'd leave it once you're in, which is presumably why they're trying to nudge people towards it. If indeed that's what their plan really was, rather than it all just being a bit of a bungle.

I've got my son's new Xbox series x and I want to set it up before giving it too him. He's not supposed to be having it until February. However if I start setting it up, downloading stuff, linking his account to it etc. Will he be able to tell when he is using his Xbox one that there is now a series x linked to his account?

Photek wrote:It was a dick move by MS and they should not be congratulated for changing their minds. Of course Venom uses this to concern troll over Gamepass’ viability which is bizarre.

He is right. They were always going to up the price of Game Pass when they meet their subscriber target, it’s how all subscription models work, not just Microsoft’s.

Normally the service provider increases it a fraction but now we know that Microsoft is happy to jack prices up 100%

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:I've got my son's new Xbox series x and I want to set it up before giving it too him. He's not supposed to be having it until February. However if I start setting it up, downloading stuff, linking his account to it etc. Will he be able to tell when he is using his Xbox one that there is now a series x linked to his account?

If he uses the Game Pass app to remote install games then he’ll see the new console through that yes.

Not sure about seeing anything on the actual old console though

Edit, if you grab any new games then won’t they show in his Games & Apps section on the old console too?

BID0 wrote:

Photek wrote:It was a dick move by MS and they should not be congratulated for changing their minds. Of course Venom uses this to concern troll over Gamepass’ viability which is bizarre.

He is right. They were always going to up the price of Game Pass when they meet their subscriber target, it’s how all subscription models work, not just Microsoft’s.

Normally the service provider increases it a fraction but now we know that Microsoft is happy to jack prices up 100%

That’s not what I’m talking about, the concern trolling was suggesting Gamepass needs a price increase to remain viable.

BID0 wrote:

Photek wrote:It was a dick move by MS and they should not be congratulated for changing their minds. Of course Venom uses this to concern troll over Gamepass’ viability which is bizarre.

He is right. They were always going to up the price of Game Pass when they meet their subscriber target, it’s how all subscription models work, not just Microsoft’s.

Normally the service provider increases it a fraction but now we know that Microsoft is happy to jack prices up 100%

This wasn't about the price of Gamepass, it was about the price of Gold, which went up by less than 50% not 100%, and was then reversed.

Not saying they wouldn't put the price up by as much as they could get away with on either Gold or GP, or that any other company wouldn't.

Increasing prices isn't unique to subscription models either, you do it on physical stuff too. Unless I've misunderstood.

Abacus wrote:

BID0 wrote:

Photek wrote:It was a dick move by MS and they should not be congratulated for changing their minds. Of course Venom uses this to concern troll over Gamepass’ viability which is bizarre.

He is right. They were always going to up the price of Game Pass when they meet their subscriber target, it’s how all subscription models work, not just Microsoft’s.

Normally the service provider increases it a fraction but now we know that Microsoft is happy to jack prices up 100%

This wasn't about the price of Gamepass, it was about the price of Gold, which went up by less than 50% not 100%, and was then reversed.

Not saying they wouldn't put the price up by as much as they could get away with on either Gold or GP, or that any other company wouldn't.

Increasing prices isn't unique to subscription models either, you do it on physical stuff too. Unless I've misunderstood.

It was a 100% increase in other parts of the world. We got lucky with our 50% hike, as Rinks said... we just had a price rise. So with the previous one and this one on top ours was about 100% too. They will do the same with Game Pass once it's met its subscription target.

BID0 wrote:

Abacus wrote:

BID0 wrote:

Photek wrote:It was a dick move by MS and they should not be congratulated for changing their minds. Of course Venom uses this to concern troll over Gamepass’ viability which is bizarre.

He is right. They were always going to up the price of Game Pass when they meet their subscriber target, it’s how all subscription models work, not just Microsoft’s.

Normally the service provider increases it a fraction but now we know that Microsoft is happy to jack prices up 100%

This wasn't about the price of Gamepass, it was about the price of Gold, which went up by less than 50% not 100%, and was then reversed.

Not saying they wouldn't put the price up by as much as they could get away with on either Gold or GP, or that any other company wouldn't.

Increasing prices isn't unique to subscription models either, you do it on physical stuff too. Unless I've misunderstood.

It was a 100% increase in other parts of the world. We got lucky with our 50% hike, as Rinks said... we just had a price rise. So with the previous one and this one on top ours was about 100% too. They will do the same with Game Pass once it's met its subscription target.

Ah right, I see what you're saying re the percentages then.

No doubt they will try and increase the price of Gamepass at some point too, I guess that's the model for all these companies in the long run. Either way, all prices go up eventually. I guess the thing is whether it remains worth paying when it does, which is a statement of the obvious admittedly.

If the aim really was just to push people on to Gamepass from Gold, then I suppose if you're the kind of gamer who only buys a couple of games a year and avidly plays their online mode, then it's easy to see why you'd be disgruntled with the standalone Gold increase, rather than being pushed / nudged into Gamepass which might have loads of stuff you don't want or will use.

That said, there's a lot going for the corporate bungle theory. I still remember Kinnect being mandatory. And vista. And the Zune.

Venom wrote:I saw the backlash growing fast yesterday and I knew Microsoft would reverse it but figured it would take until Monday to deliberate, I guess it couldn't risk a weekend of critical opinion pieces. Phil Spencer as head of Xbox absolutely had to personally apologise - and he did.

It was definitely a move to push more people into paying for a Game Pass subscription. I can understand what MS was trying to do but it was clumsily done by making the price rise so drastic, $5 dollars a year over say six years, and grandfathering in longterm subscribers would have worked out better. But it now raises the legitimate question on whether MS just wanted rapid growth for Game Pass or needs it to prove its longterm viability?

Photek wrote:It was a dick move by MS and they should not be congratulated for changing their minds. Of course Venom uses this to concern troll over Gamepass’ viability which is bizarre.

Photek wrote:

BID0 wrote:

Photek wrote:It was a dick move by MS and they should not be congratulated for changing their minds. Of course Venom uses this to concern troll over Gamepass’ viability which is bizarre.

He is right. They were always going to up the price of Game Pass when they meet their subscriber target, it’s how all subscription models work, not just Microsoft’s.

Normally the service provider increases it a fraction but now we know that Microsoft is happy to jack prices up 100%

That’s not what I’m talking about, the concern trolling was suggesting Gamepass needs a price increase to remain viable.

Photek, mate. Why are you taking criticism of Microsoft as a personal attack on you? It's not.

There is a wider discussion on what is the future of gaming products; subscription services, or individually sold games or a mixture of the two? It’s something I’ve been researching to make a video. I’ve been looking at Spotify who is market leader in the music streaming market, however it is not making a profit. I have been informed (but not corroborated yet) that it takes less data to stream an hour of music than it does to stream an hour of 4K gaming. Whilst Microsoft, Google and Sony haven’t revealed the financial mechanics of their streaming services, so the reason I highlight Spotify is we can use it to give insights as to whether the Game Pass model is viable and profitable in the long term. Game Pass has less market share of gaming than Spotify does of music, and potentially it is more expensive to run the servers. Additionally the commission paid per music artist is likely far lower on Spotify than received by publishers for games on Game Pass. So Microsoft raising the price of Xbox Live to move people onto Game Pass is a legitimate question because it is related to the business model above, regardless of whether you are aware or not of all that.


You have the right to disagree with me or anyone here. But just because your feelings were hurt because you feel protective of this multi-billion dollar American company don't feel victimised on behalf of them. A different opinion from you doesn't mean trolling. And by you incorrectly calling me a name it just means you're not being civil.


https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/ ... -ethically
https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspecu ... n-trouble/

Xbox controller that we got with X has just died. Every button except the xbox button and the left thumbstick just aren't responding. Tried a hardset and a cable. Nothing.

Finiarél wrote:Xbox controller that we got with X has just died. Every button except the xbox button and the left thumbstick just aren't responding. Tried a hardset and a cable. Nothing.

Does it flash as if its trying to connect?

Venom wrote:You have the right to disagree with me or anyone here. But just because your feelings were hurt because you feel protective of this multi-billion dollar American company don't feel victimised on behalf of them. A different opinion from you doesn't mean trolling. And by you incorrectly calling me a name it just means you're not being civil.

First off, as you quoted, I have no 'allegiance' to any company as I already called them a dick, secondly, of course at some stage Gamepass will up it's price as every subscription service does. Your spotify comparison is bizarre, first off it's a different medium and secondly, Gamepass is not a predominantly streaming service, thirdly they use Google's Cloud service so have to pay them a fee, then there's the simple fact that overall Xbox is still making MS a profit which you just handily ignore for 'some reason' and when did I call you a name?

https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/27/21537015/microsoft-q1-2021-earnings-revenue-cloud-services-surface-gaming-xbox

We're years into Gamepass now and it's subscription dwarfs its competitors model several times over, it's viability is not in question. Of course everything has the potential to fail but looking at all the evidence from it's subscriber base, to the investment and backing behind it, it's not likely it to fail. This is why your tenuous spotify reasoning that it will seems like you are reaching, but why you think/want this is the real question.

I’d like to also add that while they are making F2Play games actually FTP and not require Gold, they should have done this years ago and it’s ridiculous that it’s still ‘months’ away.

twitter.com/wcgamingtweets/status/1354178626313474048

twitter.com/skynews/status/1354192375187439618

twitter.com/tomwarren/status/1354176890706259969

Venom wrote:...to give insights as to whether the Game Pass model is viable and profitable in the long term.

It’s a head scratcher....

Microsoft make almost as much money as Atari now .

Peter Crisp wrote:Microsoft make almost as much money as Atari now .

They’ve made enough profit to buy Bethesda in a quarter.

Don't rise to it, from what I see as an outsider, this is unnecessary needling. But perhaps I don't have the context, it's just how it comes across.

Venom wrote: Photek, mate. Why are you taking criticism of Microsoft as a personal attack on you? It's not.

The use of mate is interesting here. I thought he was coming up with a complaint about your irrelevant reference to Gamepass. You seem more interested in being inflammatory and winding someone up.

Venom wrote:There is a wider discussion...

I.e. I operate on a different plane which you're too thick to understand, carry on.

Venom wrote: So Microsoft raising the price of Xbox Live to move people onto Game Pass is a legitimate question because it is related to the business model above, regardless of whether you are aware or not of all that.

Whether you are aware of it are not... This sounds again patronising and like a debate you are having in your own head. Or else purely to get a rise.

Venom wrote: You have the right to disagree with me or anyone here. But just because your feelings were hurt because you feel protective of this multi-billion dollar American company don't feel victimised on behalf of them. A different opinion from you doesn't mean trolling. And by you incorrectly calling me a name it just means you're not being civil.

You are here being so obviously attempting to wind someone up about hurt feelings etc that I really think this is rude.

Photek, really don't respond.