FH5: Hot Wheels DLC -- Why isn't Xbox releasing DLCs on Gamepass day one?

[Bernd Lauert]

Good point but then, doesn't it go against the primary goal of Xbox, which is to increase GamePass subscription base?

If the primary goal is to increase Gamepass subs by using first-party content (hence the acquisition, first-party software growth, and GP day-one releases), why waste a first-party studio's time and resources on a DLC that won't contribute to that goal?

Had they saved the DLC resources and started working on Forza Horizon 6 instead to release it on Gamepass day one (6-10 months earlier than whatever the release date would be now in the future), that'd be much more in line with the business's overall goals.

That's the thing, the primary goal isn't to increase Gamepass subscriptions. The primary goal is to make more money by capturing new audiences and monetizing those audiences as best as you can. They capture new audiences with Gamepass by offering good first and third party content. They monetize those audiences by selling the MTX and DLC.

Btw, Playstation does the same thing but with a different approach. They capture audiences with their first party games and then monetize them with CoD, FIFA, GTA, Fortnite and other MTX heavy games. The approach is slowly changing though, Jimbo has a more Microsoft-esque vision for Playstation.

 

[DonFerrari]

Why do people think MS is emphasizing GamePass subs over everything else to such a large degree? Their games are all available at retail and digitally outside of the service and they are still strong pillars for them.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

@thicc_girls_are_teh_best thoughts on the topic?

I was reading through the thread catching up on what everyone else was saying, but I do have something on the topic. Some other people've said that MS (at least for their own 1P games) seems to be treating GamePass as a pseudo-F2P model, where they basically have the "base" game in GamePass but the additional DLC being stuff you have to buy separately. That sounds like an accurate read on the way they're going about the model, but if that's how MS views it, they have some big problems.

First is that actual F2P games are fully F2P. If MS wants to treat GamePass as a pseudo-F2P model, they have to answer why they're charging $10/mo - $15/mo on accessing the games, if they then plan to not include DLC which has to be purchased separately. You don't have to pay for F2P games to play multiplayer online, even on Xbox, so what is the $10/mo getting you? A catalog of 3P games? Okay, but what if those 3P games only include the base versions and no extra DLC as well?

Also if you look at it from that POV, it'd be MS shifting somewhat on what the main hook for GamePass was meant to be. From having all 1P games Day 1, to cheaply having access to a lot of 3P games (most of them legacy, outside of some of the indies). Some could say they're still keeping that marketing hook , "all 1P games Day 1", except we've already seen that isn't necessarily true, either. Forza Horizon 5 was available for early purchase ahead of going into GamePass. It was by a few days, but what if MS does that with future 1P games and extends the window between the game up for purchase and then going into GamePass? That could be another means of them to monetize their content outside of GamePass.

One other thing, I think them making the FH5 DLC something outside of GamePass has some massive implications for some stuff even I thought they would do once they got ABK. Everyone thinking the COD games will be in GamePass Day 1 need to drop that idea immediately; there is simply too much money to be made through upfront sales for MS to jeopardize cutting into ANY of that by having those games in GamePass Day 1 or within the year of their release. Now, I thought they would work around that by including DLC content in with GamePass subs, but there's too much money in that, too, so that isn't going to happen, either, especially considering the FH5 DLC skipping GamePass.

I guess the one thing they could do, is make it so where COD DLC and MTX items come with a discount if you have an active GamePass sub. That way, they can still encourage new GamePass subs (and convince current ones to stay), without cutting into sales revenue for the game, DLC, or MTX. Maybe you get a 15% discount on all purchasable DLC/MTX items and Season passes for COD if you have a GamePass subscription. I can definitely see MS doing that. However, them actually putting that DLC/MTX in for free as perks of a GamePass sub? Not happening whatsoever, what they're doing with the Hot Wheels FH5 DLC is enough to convince me of that.

 

[Yurinka]

Well, I think MS deserves to make some money for their work and that they must charge you somewhere because they are a company and not a charity.

If they highly reduce their game sales by including them day one on game pass, and they have $1 deals/free trials for new accounts to get GP so they must get revenue from somewhere else, and only remains the digital add-ons.

This means you'll have to pay for DLC, microtransactions and season passes, which won't be included in GP and that most big active MS IPs that still aren't GaaS will move to GaaS.

It's a bold move, but the percent of game revenue that comes from digital add-ons (particularly from a few top F2P/GaaS) in the game industry and now even in consoles keeps growing and is already very big. So who knows, if they adapt well their games to GaaS and manage to get way more people in GP it may work in the very long term.

The problem is that F2P/GaaS games typically require a lot of play time, and if players keep getting frequently new games on GP their attention and play time on each specific game goes down because it spreads on many games. And the players who pay for DLC/MTX in games are the most engaged ones, so I'm skeptical that a ton of GaaS could be pretty successful specially when getting way lower revenue from game sales.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

The problem is that F2P/GaaS games typically require a lot of play time, and if players keep getting frequently new games on GP their attenton and play time on each specific game goes down because it spreads on many games. And the players who pay for DLC/MTX in games are the most engaged ones, so I'm skeptical that a ton of GaaS could be pretty successful specially when getting way lower revenue from game sales.

That's an interesting point; with the upfront cost factor removed from having everything in GamePass on Day 1 (or just about), that removes an element which normally acts as an incentive for people to maximize their time investment with a product, so they can get their money's worth out of it. Now that product is GamePass, and it's filled with lots of games. The fact some get rotated out somewhat helps with adding that "kick", but it only relates to 3P content so it's a non-factor really in this topic.

The same risk presents itself with other services like PS+, but to nowhere near the same degree. For one it's just a handful of smaller 3P games that get put into it Day 1 over the course of a year, so there's not a lot of Day 1 releases competing for that type of attention in it. Secondly, none of those games are Sony's own 1P titles. That could change in the future, but probably only for much smaller AA-style partnered/codeveloped releases, or F2P games (which wouldn't be gated behind PS+ since they're F2P).

All of their games still predominantly rely on the traditional model, and "phase out" to other models down the line. The approach works.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

All of their games still predominantly rely on the traditional model, and "phase out" to other models down the line. The approach works.

I doesn't work well enough, at least in Jimbo's opinion. Otherwise he wouldn't pivot to GaaS.

It works for Nintendo.

 

[Yurinka]

That's an interesting point; with the upfront cost factor removed from having everything in GamePass on Day 1 (or just about), that removes an element which normally acts as an incentive for people to maximize their time investment with a product, so they can get their money's worth out of it. Now that product is GamePass, and it's filled with lots of games. The fact some get rotated out somewhat helps with adding that "kick", but it only relates to 3P content so it's a non-factor really in this topic.

The same risk presents itself with other services like PS+, but to nowhere near the same degree. For one it's just a handful of smaller 3P games that get put into it Day 1 over the course of a year, so there's not a lot of Day 1 releases competing for that type of attention in it. Secondly, none of those games are Sony's own 1P titles. That could change in the future, but probably only for much smaller AA-style partnered/codeveloped releases, or F2P games (which wouldn't be gated behind PS+ since they're F2P).

All of their games still predominantly rely on the traditional model, and "phase out" to other models down the line. The approach works.

The main difference is that with the PS+ model the games have their sales (+DLC/MTX/season passes) period before being introduced in the service, so once they are included there they already had a 'healthy'/'solid' business made. Once that normal business cycle is complete, they add it in PS+ to provide it a bump with a "2nd youth" with money from the sub (+DLC/MTX/season passes), a secondary extra revenue.

So doesn't really matter if it gets a lot of attention in the service, of if due to rotations gets removed from there. The game already made the business it needed before entering the service. In the case of 1st parties it also may get ported to PC after their sales cycle in console is done as another secondary extra bump.

With the GP model, the games not only depend too much on making money while in the service: the offer for the players to choose from is way smaller than in the sales focused model. The attention gets focused mostly on the few games included every month in the service, while in the sales model there are hundreds of games released every month so it's easier to find games from a niche that appeal to you. Which also means that with the sales focused model more devs can have a business compared to what would happen if the GP model would dominate the market.