You think they will stop doing day and date for big AAA games like Starfield eventually?
Microsoft considered stopping "Day One" titles on Game Pass
- Thread starter John Elden Ring
- Start date
They already have. Early access on paid copies of forza horizon 5.
A heartbreak is coming for all the xbox players who've gotten used to freebies, this day one deal was gonna end one end and looks like the heads at xbox know that too. Either they move it to a higher 30$ sub or just remove it completely, that is to be seen what path they choose.
The gold to ultimate coversion method is really gonna hurt them when people have it still going on for years on end, they can't keep on giving games away for almost free.
The gold to ultimate coversion method is really gonna hurt them when people have it still going on for years on end, they can't keep on giving games away for almost free.
Early access seems to be the way forward for xbox to cover the losses until they straight up stop including games day one on gp. First start with 1 week early access, then a couple weeks and then straight up a month. The stupid freeloaders would still get happy for day one access, i mean what voice they are going to raise when they've gotten gp for so cheap with gold to ultimate conversion.
Starfield is next in line. It's coming out 5 days after release on GP.
Yeah, that's accurate, it is coming to gamepass 5 days after launch. It isn't day and date.
D
Deleted member 417
Guest
They should have never started and yes, they will have to stop day and date AAA games on gamepass if the service is to not only thrive, but survive.
On top of that, offering DLC on gamepass while selling the base game would be a much, much wiser decision. Doubly so if they offered season passes with gamepass (at a higher tier). Rolling COD, overwatch, diablo season passes into one gamepass sub would generate mad revenue
Man I wonder how Xbox fans, who have gotten so used to playing these games for cheap are going to react to this. Lol
Oh, I forgot, Sony is perfect and everything they do is optimal, there is no room for improvement.
Yeah, this is the thing that pisses me off about @Yurinka - They say something, we all argue against it, then they come back with remarks as if they always defended a different position.
We said that MS wanted to monopolise the market, Yurinka kept arguing that no, it's not a monopoly, it's not that they want to control, it's just that they want to compete
Now we have documents that show that their goal was / is to basically starve PS out of content (like we've been saying) to achieve total market domination and basically drive PS out while preventing other competitors from entering (creating a monopoly), and suddenly Yurinka "switches sides".
To include all their games day one on GP is basically a financial suicide, makes sense someone asked to stop doing it.
I only explained with the related market numbers (console install bases, related console software revenue of each company, market share, CoD sales, MAU etc) that MS has no monopoly at all and that by acquiring ABK wouldn't give MS a monopoly at all. I shown with factual data that these are baseless claims.
Also explained that the acquisition would help MS to close a bit the gap they have with Sony, to be more competitive, but still behind Sony. So that if ABK acquisition would have completed there would be a closer competition between Sony and MS instead of the opposite.
As an example, remember Sony has like twice the console userbase, and it's mostly because of the 80% vs 20% market share in Europe that the MS guy did show in a Pac-Man like graph. And in Japan maybe the difference is bigger. To get CoD wouldn't put MS ahead of MS, because -like myself- around 90% of the PS monthly active users don't buy CoD.
I only show or explain the market data and numbers, which doesn't imply I like them. I personally think stronger competitors help both sides to improve, but I wouldn't like to see MS getting stronger by removing big games from PS.
I also think that game subs are good for players to rent a ton of content for little money and are positive in the case of including old games there to get extra revenue, but I think that the 'day one on GP' thing is a cancer for the industry in case it would grow too much and would replace the current focus bought games model, because it would cause the death of most platform holders, publishers and devs.
Not true, I never cheered for them to acquire more publishers.
I only explained with the related market numbers (console install bases, related console software revenue of each company, market share, CoD sales, MAU etc) that MS has no monopoly at all and that by acquiring ABK wouldn't give MS a monopoly at all. I shown with factual data that these are baseless claims.
Also explained that the acquisition would help MS to close a bit the gap they have with Sony, to be more competitive, but still behind Sony. So that if ABK acquisition would have completed there would be a closer competition between Sony and MS instead of the opposite.
As an example, remember Sony has like twice the console userbase, and it's mostly because of the 80% vs 20% market share in Europe that the MS guy did show in a Pac-Man like graph. And in Japan maybe the difference is bigger. To get CoD wouldn't put MS ahead of MS, because -like myself- around 90% of the PS monthly active users don't buy CoD.
I only show or explain the market data and numbers, which doesn't imply I like them. I personally think stronger competitors help both sides to improve, but I wouldn't like to see MS getting stronger by removing big games from PS.
I also think that game subs are good for players to rent a ton of content for little money and are positive in the case of including old games there to get extra revenue, but I think that the 'day one on GP' thing is a cancer for the industry in case it would grow too much and would replace the current focus bought games model, because it would cause the death of most platform holders, publishers and devs.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 417
Guest
Positively, because the media will frame it as such. Though it is positive because if 3, $15 a month season passes are rolled into one $20 a month sub, it saves money for everyone.
Yeah but they will be paying $70 for games now if that happens. After they clowned PS fans for doing so. They were saying “Ha you ponies have to pay $70 for your games while we play them on gamepass for 15 a month“. I agree that gamepass can still be good value if they add what you propose, but there’s going to be a lot of coping. Lol.
Increase the early access window, let content dry out, remove the loopholes to get it cheaper, lower budget for their games, push more microtransactions, DLC and live games. All pretty much already happening for some time.
There won't be a backlash to this, the fanboys are already used to waiting