Talking Point: Could Microsoft's Xbox Game Pass Model Work on PS4?

I have both consoles ps plus and gold. I just cant see any value in the game pass. You would be better off saving the money for the big sales and buy games to own.

So, let me get this straight, for $120 a year you get access to all first party Microsoft titles from the day they release?

But if you're paying $120 a year for 2 first party titles, that still means you're paying $60 per game

This is just MS clutching at straws now. It's easy for them to promise all first party titles will be available simply because they're not making that many.
Sony are turning out several large releases per year, and they're selling. People don't mind paying for quality, AS we've seen by the success of Horizon, Bloodborne, Uncharted etc. If Sony were to do this, it would only dilute that quality.
Plus they've got a captive audience of 70 million plus console owners, why bother matching a desperate strategy?

No no no no no and no

They do this , then activision, bethesda, ubisoft etc will have to make a version.
Ea will expand access

I'm not subscribing to every man and his dog to play games.

Just leave me alone and let me own them

I think it's the future, but it's not really the future I'd like to see. My worries is that it will create a spiral of lower quality first party games (or just shorter games). If people aren't going to buy your game and instead, pay a $9.99 fee, how is that $9.99 split up between the studios? AAA games aren't cheap to make.

Makes sense for older titles though. PS Now is a great value if it works well for you. I'd rather see PS Now offered as a digital service rather than streaming service for PS4 games though.

EDIT: almost forgot.. it won't matter anyways. Monster Hunter World is 3rd party so everyone has to buy it anyways. This other stuff is a bit pointless after Friday.

Question is...what Microsoft games? xD

Game Pass isn't quite like its made out to be. I know that you could download and play any one of their 100+ titles every month and now including games like Sea of Thieves and State of Decay. However they don't remain 'permanently' yours to play indefinitely. There are several factors that could stop you playing - most obviously the status of your Game Pass subscription BUT also whether or not those games are 'currently' still on Game Pass. If they get swapped out, which they can be after a month, you either have a choice to buy or stop playing. The price to buy is at a 'discount' - I believe its 20% for the game and you will also get 10% off any DLC too.

A game like God of War may not work for Game Pass. You could download it on day 1, spend the month playing it to completion and then when its swapped out, there is 'little' incentive to buy.

A game like Sea of Thieves though, could get you hooked and be more enticed to buy at the end of its 'Game Pass' run. It, being a 'service' MMO game with the ability to craft missions, treasure hunts etc as well as play community built missions etc means that there is no chance of 'finishing' the game within a month or two, more incentive to purchase to keep playing.

Its the same with any MP game too - even if you buy for the campaign, most games offer a MP mode to play for at least a year. If you get hooked on that, then there is another incentive to buy to keep playing.

As I said, with Sony more focused on the SP campaigns, a lot that could be completed in a month, then there is 'little' reason to buy once the game is removed so would more likely lose sales. MS's games 'could' increase sales because people get 'hooked' on the games and want to keep playing - seeing that 20% discount also seems like a bargain...

Game Pass doesn't keep adding titles but swapping them out. Its a bit like Netflix say offering a Box Set but after watching two episodes, removing that Box Set and offering you the chance to buy the complete set for 20% less (digital pricing). Of course there maybe some films that you can watch in their entirety that month or some Box Sets that don't grab you enough to warrant buying.

Its like borrowing a book from a library and at the end of the week having to return it or paying 80% to keep it...

@get2sammyb well xbox seems be a year they started swapping out now. But the list is underwhelming to say the least. Bulked out with 360 titles

I like the idea. I would never have thought that I'd stop buying DVDs and CDs until Netflix and Spotify. I see this becoming a popular option. Isn't this already a thing with Playstation Now (minus current gen games)?

@Shepherd_Tallon What are your views on DVD stores like Blockbuster disappearing. I see this as an unfortunate, but unavoidable, step "forward".

@Octane You are paying $120 a year or £96 for access to over a 100 games every month. Those games are swapped out and, any that do, are then not playable BUT you can buy at a 20% discount. You are not paying $120 a year for a few games that you can keep indefinitely. Its like borrowing from a Library and then either paying 80% to keep or returning it.

@get2sammyb Personally I don't know how long some games remain on Game Pass as I don't subscribe or really pay much attention. I do know though that on the first of every month, they usually swap quite a few and replace with different titles. How this will work with games releasing mid/end of month, maybe they will stay for a month and a bit. I can see MS removing 'NEW' games relatively quickly so that people are encouraged to buy rather than given too much time to have their 'fill' of the game. It wouldn't make sense to keep them up for 2-3months.

Could it work? Yes.
Will Sony do it? No.

Streaming games is the future, but that future is a LONG way away. If I had to guesstimate I'd say we have at least 2 console generations left.

As long as Sony need to shift consoles they're going to keep making the games they do really well- Single Player games.

Sony and Nintendo are setting record braking paces with their respective consoles as Microsoft flounders by the wayside. They are going to keep doing them & Microsoft can try to change the industry once more (DRM, anyone?), when the consumer just isn't ready yet.

Just to comment on what everyone is saying about games being removed from Xbox Game Pass.

The only games to be removed from the service are MGS V: TPP and WWE 2K16, which is happening at the end of this month. 2K16 is being replaced with 2K17, and Microsoft told subscribers that The Phantom Pain would be removed on the 31st as soon as it was added.

Removing games from Xbox Games Pass isn't something that happens regularly. Sure, they can do it, but it's very rare.

For Xbox gamers, I think the value is a little hollow. Having all these games - most of them old - sounds great on paper, but when you consider how many the average gamer would actually have time to play is the value that great? Especially compared to buying the few games you do want brand new for £20 from Amazon?

Sony have considerably more first party titles than Microsoft, and so while value would definitely be there for the consumer, I don't know what benefit is there for Sony. As you say they're still primarily focused on single player experiences.

This idea of basically renting games makes sense as an option for some people. I prefer to own my games outright. I also believe it further erodes our consumer rights in the digital age. If it was to become the norm, I would be concerned at the idea of being locked into myriad subscription services just to play my games. Particularly given the overwhelming majority of what I play it still single-player.

@Shepherd_Tallon Game Pass is EXCELLENT for those that don't have a lot of money to buy games every month and for families with Kids. Its also great for those who maybe buying an Xbox for the first time - don't need to spend £100+ on a few games to play on it from day1, just spend £8 and have access to over 100games to play straight away. Also great for those that are more 'casual' that may of bought the console for its 4k HDR capability and subscribe to play a few games as and when they want without being pressured into buying 'games' they may not play much - just to play 'something'

It also offers a lot of games that maybe you wouldn't buy but can download and play the 'full' game - not a tiny demo - and then decide to buy at a 'cheaper' price to keep permanently or maybe not bother with at all if it doesn't grab you - either way, you save. Of course you may not always get 'value' for that £8 - maybe some months the games don't appeal or the games you bought at 20% off haven't saved the price of the Subscription but its still 'generally' beneficial to a lot of 'sectors'.

Cheers Microsoft Ive been calling this since you got into the industry. You want your windows swizz mirrored on every gamers screen in the land, I begrudge paying for the same wordprocessor and spreadsheet Ive been using for years, paying a ridiculous amount for in the process. You wanted Halo, Gears, Forza, Fable to be your Excel, Word, Powerpoint, Access - it hasnt worked as gaming is not the same industry and anyone thinking its anything else is a moron.

Glad someone has noticed this will drag quality down rather than up. Well said @nathanuc

(Tbf I wouldnt mind paying a small amount for my hotmail / outlook stuff as its my favourite email system and microsoft have done great work for business in general. But seriously back off our games)

GUYS GOD OF WAR RELEASE DATE CONFIRMED...sorry I had to

I get the point. It is a threat to single player games. With a subscription model, they'll want to monetize individual games with microtansactions, which suits multiplayer games best. It looks like a great deal now, but in the long run could severely hurt the industry.

Overall, the game pass is a good deal for consumers especially with the state of play of Microsoft games. It completely fits in with their current mantra of moving over to providing services. I could even see them heading out of hardware and licensing the xbox brand to other manufacturers.

That said, as the articles have stated, this makes business sense for service based games - i.e. games that continually pushes out content to keep you paying that £7.99 a month. Otherwise, say there were 4 major exclusives you wanted to play, you could start and stop your membership to play those.

Xbox value membership but Sony has a larger source of titles on their Store and make more money that way. At the end of the day it comes down to software. If it is must have software, people will buy it. How many PC owners have a PS4 or Switch to get the exclusives they can't get on PC?

@get2sammyb I would pay 20.99 for God of War lol I don't want to be rude, but MS has got no games to do this kind of subscription, imo (sorry to get off topic at my second post but the hype was too big!)

If I'm understanding this correctly, why not have both options. Buy the game outright or the Netflix monthly option. I wouldn't want to be forced if it does happen. Sometimes I just want to own something without complications of it disappearing for whatever reason.

I get that it's newer games than PS Plus usually gets, but to be honest I'm quite happy with the PS Plus anyways. Anything I really want I buy, otherwise I'll wait for a discount or Plus.

As it relates to movies, Netflix is great for TV series and movies you just want to watch on the spurt of the moment, but the great movies you want to watch over and over, you buy on BD/DVD. I would say the same for games. A service to play random games is okay, but I think the classic games you want to own. But that’s my opinion from an enthusiast. The casual probably doesn’t care to own their copy of God of War or The Last of Us.

For me, having access to hundreds of games is the last thing I want. I have limited time and money, plus other systems, so I choose my games and when I buy them wisely.

I really can't see Sony adopting this method. Why would they upset the apple cart when they are doing so well.

@Shepherd_Tallon The option to own outright certainly isn't removed - all games are offered at 20% discount for upto 30days after they leave the Game Pass Library. You don't have to buy digitally either to keep your progress - you could buy a Physical copy and carry on where you left off if you prefer. Obviously you can't keep playing indefinitely but you don't lose anything progress either or 'forced' into buying the game from the MS store.

Granted there are a lot of 'older gen' games too but as many here will state, a good game is a good game regardless of whether its 1080p, 1440p, 4k or even 720p....

I'd also add that too much choice or lack of ownership puts me off. If I buy a game outright, I've invested money in a game, I'm more likely to want to get my money's worth. If it's a rental service like Netflix I'm less likely to bother. In theory it sounds okay but my back catalogue of games is big enough anyways for something like this to interest me.

Can anyone elaborate on what this games subscription service means? Does a subscriber get to play any and all games on the store when they pay a fixed subscription rate? And when they stop subscribing, do they lose access to play all the games? What about save data, like if someone does not resubscribe, their saved data will be erased after a while? So basically no one gets to own games at all? Then what about physical copies on disc, are these the only games players truly own and all digital-only games must require a subscription to play?

Great analysis in the article. I would subscribe to a "PS Pass", but I would play single player and local multiplayer games through it. Really don't care for online and "service" games.

I can't imagine this games subscription service if implemented, in combination with the existing PS Plus subscription, would be attractive to people who have never owned a console to want to actually buy a console. As we can see over the past years, console and PC gaming are getting a smaller proportion of players compared to mobile gaming which has increasingly become more popular. Even though they have outrageous P2W microtransactions, vast majority are still free which is why mobile gaming is so popular (also people having shorter attention spans which I mentioned in another article). If consoles have these monetary barriers to entry and get more expensive over time, consoles will just lose out to both PC and Mobile gaming especially. Steam is free cloud save, no subscription to play online, and gaming computers are becoming cheaper too.

@Ashyne Game Pass offers a selection of around 100+ games - both old XB360 BC titles and New XB1 games - not the entire store. The subscriber gets to download and play any/all of the Game Pass catalogue for as long as they stay subscribed AND the game remains in the Game Pass Library. If either the Subscription runs out OR the game leaves the game pass library, you can no longer play that game at all until you buy a copy outright. MS will give you a 30 day window to buy that game with a 20% discount on the main game (as well as a 10% discount on DLC but you MUST own your own copy to play the DLC if your subscription ends or the game leaves the library - the DLC is yours regardless but must have a valid game to play) digitally but you can also buy Physical copies if you want. Your save and progress is stored indefinitely in the cloud and you can pick up where you left off at any time - whether thats a month, a year or more.
You 'never' get to own ANY game pass title unless you buy it outright (or if MS offer the 360 BC game as a GwG as they are permanently yours). If you opt to buy Digitally, taking advantage of the 20% discount, the game is permanently yours - like buying any game on the store.

Its like a library in essence. Whilst the games and your subscription are active, you can play any game in the game pass library until either runs out. At that point, you can choose to buy your own copy (like buying ANY game now) and carry on where you left off or leave it entirely. A year or so later, if you choose, you can buy a copy and play it again from the point you left off - your save, progress, achievements etc are all unaffected. The only difference is that you are essentially borrowing a full game and able to play that until either your subscription ends or the game is removed from the library. At that point - like borrowing games from a friend, library etc, if you want to keep playing, then you need to buy your own copy.

@BAMozzy So it is exactly like the Free Games section for the PS Plus but with many more games. Thanks for explaining.

@Ashyne Not at all. There are similarities except with the free games you get, you can keep playing as long as you keep up your PS+ subscription. Access to Game Pass games is more limited as your access can end on the 1st of every month when MS swap games out. If te game you want to play does get swapped out, regardless of whether you are still subscribed or not, your access will be terminated until you buy your own copy. If you choose to buy your own copy, you get a 30day window after its left game pass to buy digitally with 20% off - although you could buy physical if you prefer.

The similarities are that you get to download and play the full game (not a demo) and as long as you subscribe, access remains but unlike PS+, it also can stop working when the game is removed from game pass.

You also need Gold if you want to play any of these online.

Its more like borrowing a game from a friend and then afer a while your friend wants it back so you have to buy your own copy to continue playing exactly where you left off, the last checkpoint/save etc. Unlike borrowing from a friend, you are charged £8 a month but given a choice of over 100 games (you could download all if you want, no limits) but at some point, you effectively have to return it and either buy your own or just not play it again.

It could be a canny bit of business for MS. Get a lot of people interested and playing Sea of Thieves etc and then remove it so all those people then have to buy or let their characters etc lie dormant. MS are no doubt hoping that people get hooked on the game, enjoy playing with friends etc and then force them to buy to keep playing.

The netflix/Amazon arms race has undoubtedly improved quality of tv being made at the minute. Wonder if streaming games services would have the same impact for games or we would just get a ton of pants fps games 🤔

There should be a fourth option. 'I don't care' . The issue and only issue I have is that this will eventually be linked to online gaming access as it is for ps plus, I don't want another sub to pay for on a monthly basis that far exceeds the cost of ps plus, unless they offer a separate much cheaper option for online gaming only pass. Other than that I dont care, I'll happily abuse any monthly pass to play through a bunch of exclusives and then cancel.

@R1spam amazon is pretty poor, some of their best stuff isn't even made by amazon, they're way way wsy behind netflix right now.

@Bad-MuthaAdebisi fair point, I watch far more on netflix

Ive got enough bills thank you. Plus i like a lot if different games. If i have to pay a sub to each one then screw it, i guess im done being a gamer

I've been saying since 2013 this is Xboxes future and I hope Sony or Nintendo don't do it.

I hope all take different approaches at least for the foreseeable future, MS with the Netflix like model, Sony with a more traditional model and Nintendo with a hybrid/gaming on the go.

Surely that is good for gaming than 3 boxes basically doing the same thing but one plays Halo, one plays Zelda and one plays Uncharted.

@mookysam the thing is they're adding new games the same day as retail. I wasn't going to buy Crackdown 3 day one for £40 but I'll sub for a month for £8 and have go.

I wouldn't pay for this kind of subscription because I'm not big on the whole 'games as a service' thing. However, I'm not naive to where the industry is headed. It's a shame but I really do believe PS4 and Xbox One could be the last of the 'traditional' home consoles we see from Sony and MS. The reaction to Xbox Game Pass says it all, the mainstream is on board, that's where the $ is so that's where companies are going to go.

Even Nintendo is getting in on the online service fee, adding more subs is fine as long as they end up creating an online only sub.

It's wrong to compare, you can pile up Xbox exclusives and they won't get the same sales and just one PS4 exclusive, sea of thieves looks great and I'll get it but it's not going to be a big seller, neither is crackdown or state of decay, do we really think they'd be pulling this stunt if Halo 6 was 3 months away?

@masofdas But would you buy it a few weeks or months later for half the price online and actually own the disc? All their first party games drop in price quite rapidly.

well if that's the future of console gaming then i'll stop gaming on consoles

@mookysam I doubt I would even buy them but don't forget Game Pass 200+ games on it for the £8 a month and I've got Xbox gaming friends and something like Sea of Thieves they might get day one and if I get 6 months later, I may have missed the boat for playing online with them.

As someone who doesn't buy digital versions of big AAA titles and why the original unveiling and plans for Xbox One wouldn't have been for me as I wouldn't and won't pay £50 for a digital copy of Halo 6 for instance.

But with people banging on for years that gaming is going digital only etc the model xbox is doing is a way around people like me.

I think lot's would be willing to pay £8 a month for digital only then £50 per download.

I'm beginning to think microsoft is bad influence for the gaming industry. First they're normalize paying to play online (xbox live), which sony and nintendo follow, then timed exclusive dlc for big games like cod and others, and then subscription for 3rd party (ea access), now they want to make subscription model for games, making single player only games hard to exist?

F them, they're not in this market to make games, they're only it for the sweet sweet 30% cut of every 3rd party developer and promoting their sh*tty windows store. Every corporation like money (of course), but while sony and nintendo actually tried to make new games, to make new successful ip, to expand the audience for games, all microsoft do this gen is making the same game again and again, cancelling their new interesting games, and inserting lootbox in to every 1st party games they have.

The original xbox and xbox 360 era is great, why they're like this now

@get2sammyb
Halo 5 sold about 5m units at £40 ago = £200m and let's say Halo 6 sold the same amount that's 5m people.

If half of Xbox One installbase subbed to Game Pass that's about 17.5m people sure that's only £175m but how many stay subbing and how many continue playing Halo 6, buy DLC etc

@get2sammyb The quickest a game has been swapped out was 3 months. ( Phantom Pain). So far that and WWE 16 have been swapped out. All 1st party content is still there since launch.

Game Pass and EA Access are amazing value. I have both and easily get my monies worth out of them. You can quite often get Game Pass discounted for £1 a month. I've got it several times for that price.

I recently got 12 months of Gold and 12 months of EA Access for £45. Absolute bargain.

If they stuck them on the PS4 I would subscribe in an instant.

What about us 90% in the US that can barely stream Netflix and Hulu in standard definition without constant buffering? The vast majority of Americans would be squeezed out of their hobby just because of where they live...

Microsoft still trying to ruin console gaming because they are losing, that's why I want Microsoft to leave console gaming asap, let another company be part of the big three.

Also, Xbox fake exclusives (all their games are also on pc) look lame, how someone can be excited with GaaS? But hey, Phil Spencer is the savior, right?

No dont want it.PlayStation is fine.no need for service based games.god of war for the win.word up son

It’s a great move from Microsoft. I can see MP focused games like Destiny, CoD, Overwatch and games like AC, or taletale games or maybe indie games might benefit with this model. But Microsoft needs to pump in more of their own games to make it matter and valuable which they have but still not enough. Sony should keep on going with their business, it works. But they’ll surely watch this Xbox Game Pass closely. Let’s wait and see.

@JaxxDuffer best comment ever.sony aint following to that nonsense.word up son

@PS_Nation i agree.microsoft is horrible.i wish sega was still doing console.word up son

MS does not care about making great games for the systems I think Sony see gaming in a better way really.
I hope at E3 they try to show something great that MS Studios is making because in the games department they are a joke IMO.

Ms 1st party games only included in this pass? Cuz i dont see big 3rd party publishers will allow their games to be in this pass.

Hell no

Microsoft is desperate

I chose “yes” but I have to comment it. I think when PS4 comes with free 1 month game pass, that would be great for newcomers. So it seems great for me as some type of demo disc. As for ps now- There should be also alternative in form of downloadable games (of course without PS3 games). So Sony needs to widen its PS4 games support, support downloading next to streaming and set price that if you have ps plus , you can have ps now for only 9.99£/month. That would seem attractive to me enough.

I don't mean to be all doom and gloom and, if that's what the future holds, that's what the future holds... BUT, the way gaming is "evolving", it is clearly pushing me out of the picture. I guess in a few years time I'll be solely devoted to my enormous backlog instead of entering this rate race of subscription models, season passes, dlc, online only games etc.

It's the concept that displeases me you see: the "usefulness" and "worthiness" of a game based solely on it's userbase, revenue potential and monetization opportunities. As soon as it is not profitable anymore, it is unplayable (servers pulled out and/or main features inacessible) or it disappears from existence.

How will it be possible to preserve gaming history this way, if all games eventually disappear in the ether? If all plataforms embrace this model, in a relatively short time (think NES days until today) a whole library of a given system can be totally unsalvageable except for the ones the companies understand they can make a profit out of it again by remastering/re-releasing etc.

Maybe that's not important for people anymore, and that's fine. But, for me, memory, preservation, a sense of safeguarding intelectual properties is a huge deal.

@NathanUC You will get less games and more of the same. Halo 23, Forza 33, Gears of War 42.

can see microsoft introducing a 2 tier system gold and silver for new games and slightly older games...like premier and 1st division kind of thing..im not keen on this to be honest..its one thing to pay for psn plus and then to be charged again to play the game..id rather just buy the damn thing...stops them relegating the game a few months down the road to obscurity and then holding you to some form of light ransom to buy the game or lose ya progress..nope....its a bad idea......

so the future is a subscription subservience to amazon prime, netflix, playstation plus, ps now, xbox live, xbox game pass, EA Access, battle.net, UPlay, and on and on... i think i'll pass.

outside of its NA/UK base, the xbox is struggling to be anything more than a gaming footnote.. MS seem to be throwing out anything they can think of. a €500+ console that they can now market as 'the worlds most powerful console' has done bugger all to reverse the sales pounding they take every week. might as well try and give away their first party games for next to nothing. it wants xbox to be its gaming version of office 365. and it'll be aware that it's not a model sony can follow with its current portfolio of games in the pipeline, not without committing financial suicide.

eventually i think the games as a service will implode on itself.. much like MMOs the industry will not be able to sustain a large number of platforms. how many went chasing WoW's gold and failed miserably, or ended up free to play?. it's already getting that way with FPS, if it's not Call of Duty, or the BattleField franchise, it's incredibly difficult to make significant inroads into the market. it's little surprise really that sony doesn't have any studios working on FPS games at present. last gen it had killzone, resistance, mag.. even games designed around a service model like destiny are struggling - start trying to charge people a monthly fee and you'll find the clamour for more and better content is much louder than the ability to deliver it.

i'd much prefer to pay my £40 for a boxed copy. it's mine, and i can choose when i want to play, and what i want to do with it. (lend it, sell it, donate it... ). horizon zero dawn could easily be completed within a month - imagine if the 3m people that bought it in the first month only payed (a fraction of) £8, instead of the £40-£50 retail price. the prospect of a sequel (or any other game from guerrilla games) would be seriously diminished, and that's not good for the health of the industry either.

@Octane no one's saying that you need to be subscribed for a whole year. you could just pay the $10 for a month when a new game comes out, play it for a month and be done with it. which is what i'll be doing.

Hey how about Microsoft copy the Spotify model? Play as much as you want for free and just watch adverts every hour! Pay to remove adverts! However I could only afford and have enough time to play on one console so I'd rather choose the one with more exclusives and access to every multi-platform game. Hence ps4. £7.99 per month or £98 per year, does Microsoft have more than 3 decent exclusives to justify paying £100 bucks a year?! Hate being locked into subscriptions eg. Netflix, love film, now tv, sports, virgin, TV licensing, etc.

Personally I would sign up for this kind of service in a heartbeat. I see no value in owning games. Same reason I am happy to pay for spotify and amazon prime. I like the way Microsoft are moving forward.

Yeah this seems like a pr exercise to me. Im all for choice, but there are too many restrictions for me. I mean i have such a big backlog that by the time i get around to new releases they would probably have been removed from the service. And Sony have already shown with games like gravity rush 2 that if they dont do the business they will shut down servers after a short period of time, so can see games being rotated out quickly.

And ultimately microsoft are bleating about first party games, but wgen they only have a handful it suddenly seems much worse value. Tbh i also see this as only pushing 3rd parties to release games exclusively on ps4 or switch because they will be able to maximise profits on those consoles - should m$ try to force them to sign up for the streaming release option too

@manu0 I think that's what a lot of people will be doing. Which makes me wonder, one day publishers are complaining about the rise of costs in game development, saying they need micro-transactions and all those shenanigans, the next day they're offering their entire library, including new games, for $10 a month. What do you want!?

Love the idea and am already putting my free trial to use. People are acting like it'll only get three titles, but the library is pretty sweet right now. I think it's a smart way of subverting used sales while also providing a big convenience for gamers.

If they get 3rd parties to join in with new games, it'll be ridiculous.

@TheBraveFencer

Agreed the focus seems to be only on the first party games when people are talking about the service. There are over a 100 games on there right now. So espiecally if your new to the system there are a wealth of titles you can play and enjoy.

The only reason Microsoft is doing this is because they're failing in the traditional retail games market. If you look at Netflix or Apple music, it's degraded the value of how much a piece of content is worth. On a small library of content that people may have stopped caring about this is 'money for old rope', but for something that is still selling- why would a company give it away for less?

Plus just because XB may have 5 exclusives in a year that you get for the price, doesn't mean you'll want to play all of them.

@get2sammyb This is my worry with services like this (including PS Now). You could invest a lot of time into a game, not complete it and it gets removed from the services. You could have sunk, lets say 4 months in at £12.99 (Now Price) and when it gets removed you have to buy it to complete it. Nearly £52 spent! Might as well buy it! I think it would be similar for Game Pass

Sony has to many exclusives that are worth retail price to do this. MicroSoft has something up its sleeve micro-transactions or something to make up for the loss. The bulk is 360 games and i don't want to play PS3 games unless they are remasters.

With the way the industry is going I see moves like this as insidious ways companies can justify deeply integrating monetization in to their games. I already see people defending the bad/mediocre games loaned to them through the likes of Plus and Gold due to them being 'free' (even this very site repeatedly refers to each month's offerings as free), so it isn't a stretch to see the same thing happening with services like this as the games are 'free' and the have to make their money somewhere...

I'll stick with supporting developers/publishers who are making games without feeling the need to pollute them with microtransactions and leave schemes like this to fester with their target audience.

If that is the future of gaming, I guess I'll be one of those who only plays older games on older systems. It's not as if I'll have a shortage of good old games to buy and play.

I don't think Sony can afford to completely ignore the single-player games though, they still sell really well. Just not as well as certain and very specific always-online multiplayer games ... which is what a subscription-model is aimed at, in my eyes.

People get bored of multiplayer games as well. That's what the big mainstream is doing; they jump from multiplayer game to multiplayer game. Before it was Overwatch, right now it is Player Unknown, and on it goes.

Also, Microsoft has little to loose by following this model, they can't compete that well against the PlayStation and the Switch, whereas Sony has a great deal to loose.

Sony is making many great first-party games that I actually want or looking forward to that I want to continue to support those first-party studios. Single-player forever!

There will always be a demand for a hard copy...