PS Plus, Xbox Game Pass Spending Has Completely Plateaued in USA

Game Pass plateaued since Microsoft didn't buy enough studios.

It's no surprise. Gamepass had a big drop in content and quality earlier this year (much improved recently). Combined with the price increase, duds such as Redfall and the best games of the year Street Fighter 6, Diablo 4, Baldurs Gate 3, Dead Space remake, FF16 all falling outside of the subscription models.

Now M$ is charging for early access so one of the unique selling points of gamepass is void. The subscription model has taken a big fat self inflicted wound. I'm subbed until early next year and would happily let it lapse.

This year I won't be renewing any of my gaming subscriptions as I barely have time to play the games I buy, let alone what each of those offer. Looking at the next couple of months alone there is Starfield, Cyberpunk dlc, Spider-Man, Mario, Sonic, Alan Wake 2, Forza, whilst on Steam I'm yet to get round to System Shock and Turbo Overkill.

Gaming subscriptions can be a great option but I doubt I'll use any of them again

I have both but if one had to go I'd chose to get rid of my Game Pass.

I'm not just saying this because this is a Playstation Fan website but day one exclusives aside on game pass (and let's be honest there aren't that many), the games offered under PS plus extra subscriptions are far more appealing.

Just my opinion obviously, others may have the opposite view, all depends on your gaming preferences

Gaming subscriptions especially with Day 1 releases are just not feasible. Microsoft's peak revenue for Gamepass was just $400 million per month and it has been going down since then. That is just revenue and not profit. You get profit after subtracting all the costs from the revenue. When you subtract all the costs from that $400 million including servers, money paid to developers for putting their games on the service, electricity, employee salaries, rent, interest, marketing, etc., you will most likely be left with nothing.

You just cannot fund AAA gaming with subscription services where a single game can cost up to $200 million. As a result, everything on subscriptions like Gamepass is either old, indies, or mtx-infested live service games. It goes without saying that Starfield is an exception since it was in development long before being bought by MS. Eventually, the customers get tired of the shovelware and start quitting.

Yeah I can genuinely live without game pass.

@OneWingedAngel - A very quick search shows multiple sources stating MS are pulling in $3+ billion yearly from Game Pass. Those are figures from 2021/2.

Not a fanboy, but not a fan of gamepass either, boy!

Good, I prefer the old way of buying games rather than subscribing, it only good for playing old (but good) games and some indies. I don't think microsoft all of our games should be in gamepass mentality is healthy for gaming industry.

This article is praising PS+ for “getting things right” but the vast majority of those PS+ subscribers are subbing for online play, not for the game service.

Think about that for a moment.

Personally, I’ve always disliked paying for online play on consoles. It should be free. But clearly it makes money for them (and PushSquare can use those sub numbers in their fight against Game Pass).

@Jamesblob actually, you cannot get the full enjoyment from your PlayStation without PS+ as online play is locked behind a paywall.

@Czar_Khastik don't they have more then Sony now?

@themcnoisy I've played some fantastic games on game pass this year! They had one bad game redfall

@wiiware it's healthy for my bank balance

I might be in the minor here but I think I'm spending significantly less on sales now psplus premium exists.

Anything outside of "I absolutely have to play this" has to be incredibly deeply discounted for me to pick it up, otherwise I'll just wait.

I agree that the issue is time. I would like to spend a lot more time playing games but there are only so many hours in the day. I consider myself quite a heavy gamer for my age group, but even then I still only play 6-7 games a year, sometimes less.

@LordAinsley

I'm exactly the same, unless it's something I really really REALLY want to play day one I'll just wait as I'm fairly confident that it will eventually come to either PS plus or Gamepass.

The only way for them to grow its to gate keep and strong arm customers into buying in. That's m soft strategy, and I hate it. Gaming will die if the future is streaming and subscription services.

And people say Jim Ryan doesn’t know what he’s doing?

Seems to be very astute imo.

@Powerplay94 - Why shouldn't Starfield tap into that market? Hogwarts Legacy, Diablo 4, every EA game, Baldur's Gate 3 and pretty much every modern AAA all have this 'early access' nonsense. It's an industry norm nowadays.

I'm the type of person who buys very few games a year. I prefer to play my favourites over and over.
PS Plus has introduced me to more games that I enjoy than ever before, making it more likely that I will buy from you in future, not less.

I’ve got 3 months left on Plus (Extra) and I’ll likely let it lapse for the first time in maybe 13 years or so. I just don’t have much time to game these days and, when I do, I spend 90% in VR, so unless they start adding VR games to the service is doesn’t really work out cost effective for me. Especially as, when games are added to the service, they usually start going on repeated sales on PSN too, meaning I’d still benefit from the service when buying games (to own) after they are added Plus.

@Powerplay94
I'm sure those awful marketing people will call it something like 'Day One -5' or some other cynical way of justification.

Subscription fatigue - there it is. Every man and his dog has tried to get on the subscription band wagon, too many of them now and all the content is now completely diluted by 'fodder'.
You just need to watch any recent episode of Dragons Den (AKA Shark Tank to our US friends) and all the pitches their usually mention subscription to the customers.

Who knows what the answer is but once plateaued, that means no more new subs so new money can only be made by increasing the price, as seen recently by both Netflix and Disney+.

@Shigurui
Cause Microsoft has said play it day one on gamepass not day five.
Microsoft is lying and people praise them for it.

@Kienda well you need gamepass or gold at Xbox to play online also.
Yet you only bash Sony for it when Microsoft started it and still doing it.

@Toot1st after Activision-Blizzard Microsoft will own almost double of studios then Sony has.

Anyone who remembers the Great PSN Hack knows why you now pay for PSN.

I've found gaming subscription services transformative for how I engage with games. Having access to a wide variety of titles and experiences to dip in and try, combined with folks who are on the same service having a common library is great. I would not have bought titles like tchia, stray, venba, immortality or pentiment day 1 but with a subscription model I can play them and know that the devs have been funded. You can also not feal cheated if you play a game that just doesnt work for you, as you can just stop and play something else. Whether it works for giant AAA title sustainability or profit remains to be seen but as a consumer, there can be benefits.

The problem with subscription services is that there are just so many of them now. One on its own, sure it's just £10 a month or whatever, but then you add prime, a couple of TV subs, a music one, Microsoft office, an mmo and whatever else and before you know it you're spending £100 a month on them.
A subscription service has to be pretty special to make people's personal limits nowadays I think.

If I didn't need a PS+ sub to play online games like ESO, I wouldn't bother.
Also, backing up game saves is useful but, unlike the superior OS PS4, I still can't back them up to a USB stick on The Tub o' Lard...

@Kienda I'm totally with you in this. Free online multiplayer was why I picked up a ps3, rather than an xbox all those years ago. The only reason I got plus, was so I could continue to play games online with my friends, with the bonus games an extra. Now, I'm thinking ps extra isn't such a bad idea, with a good range of games, but with all the premium new releases, if I could play online without ps plus, I'd happily cancel my subscription.

In fairness to Microsoft, @Marquez, removal of the £1/$1 Game Pass entry point right before the release of Starfield is a sensible one. It means that they can maximise their income from people that will literally buy one or two months worth of GP just to play Starfield.

Starfield will have likely have cost multiple 100s of millions to develop. If one million people signed up at £1/$1 for a single month to play it, that's just an extra one million in revenue. Even if 50% of people that would have paid the £1/$1 fee, now decide not to do so, and so give Starfield a miss, that stills leaves the other 50% paying around £10/$10 instead, which will bring in five million in revenue. I'm obviously using simple numbers, but likely as not, removing the £1/$1 offer will benefit Microsoft, not harm them. If these people were only going to stick around for a month or two, it's better to get ten times the amount from them now that you otherwise would...

I've just renewed game pass for starfield after 2 years,ive been playing some of the games on there ,and only atomic heart has kept my interest for longer than 20 min ,I did clean the whole van in power washer ,but good grief,my head was pounding after the constant noise of the pressure washer,so delete.

A simple Google search found Microsofts Q4 2023 results said Games Pass was up 5% & game sales was up 1% over the same period last year.

@Neverwild - How are they lying? The game will be playable on day one of it entering the Game Pass service. The 5 day early access period is for those that purchased the Premium Edition or the Premium Edition upgrade. The Forza series has done the exact same thing for years.

Remember when Jack Tretton stood on a stage in front of the world and said every PS4 game will have a demo? That was a lie.

@Shigurui
Since they are saying play day one on gamepass.
If people can play it 5 days before then it is not day one.

No I dont remember that, do you have link to a video that show that since trying to search but cant find anything on that.

I feel like it’s time for people to vote with wallets again.

I was teasing the idea of getting a Series X and GamePass but I honest-to-god can't find any titles on there worth playing.

Halo? Couldn't even finish the 2nd one because I lost interest. Gears? 4th one was boring as could be which was a downer because I loved the OG trilogy. Forza? GT7 has VR support. Couldn't care any less about Starfield or Bethesda in general, ABK hasn't made a game that's had my interest since Sekiro, and if combat in Hellblade 2 is anything like the first one, it's going to be very mid.

Anything else one there I either a) already own or b) is available on PS so no need to buy another console.

People underestimate how the vast majority of gamers are not on places like here or Reddit. They casually play games.

There is a reason Fifa & COD are almost always the best selling games of the year. People want to play what they know when they have some free time and those 2 are as recognizable as they come to gamers and non gamers.

It did, @Marquez. The prices went up on the 6th of July...

@General_Disarray
ABK didnt make Sekiro, its a FromSoftware game. They just published it.

This is not surprising especially for Microsoft.
They had weak 2023 in terms of Game Pass content and even Redfall bomed. But I think that Starfield will move Game Pass needle into the right place.
Sony was riding on new service last year but even that ended up and content is not that great.

@Neverwild same difference, point being ABK isn't doing a thing that interests me.

@Marquez I expect that Microsoft will be doing that with every big first party release. Disabling trial version to FOMO people into subscribing for full price.
They can have 10,99€ instead of 1€ from people who want to sub, play Starfield and then unsub which is win for them.
So I expect them do that even next year with games like Hellblade 2, Avowed etc.

I’ve never used gamepass but I was subbed to PS+ Extra for a while. The thought of having a huge library of games to play is nice but I hardly played any of them. I don’t have any gaming subs now. The only online game I play is Fortnite and you don’t need PS+ for that.

I think subscrition fatigue is real and the result of so many coming online and the fact that it is the definition of luxury when it comes to any economic downturn.

It is also hard, imo, to get consistent growth in that market. Only so many can and will consistently subscribe. Plus you need constant fresh content which means development or licensing costs to attract that content to your platform just to maintain your subscriber base, let alone grow it.

I think, as a gamer, Gamepass is great. I have Ultimate and use it a lot on PC, console and cloud. I just don't see how it is currently profitable. Hence why MS is trying to buy exclusive content via studio acquisitions. It makes people have to come to you.

@General_Disarray There are around 320 games on GP Ultimate. Today Sea of Stars, then Starfield, lies of P, forza Motorsport, cities Skylines 2, the next payday and persona strikers. There are a ton of backlogged games on the service. It's actually insane value as a new customer. I've had coming up 18 months of amazing gaming!

The issue is the biggest and best retail games dont come to the service. So you will have to buy them anyway. In many ways browsing the remaining games, is like cable or sky back in the day. Rolling through a list of channels and not being in the mood to start something up. Luckily the back end of this year is full of belters. I would happily buy cities skyline 2 and forza so it makes sense. But after that - I can always let my sub lapse, buy retail games for a bit, the resub when enough new games are on the service 6-12 months later.

@Shigurui because false advertising. 'Day 1 on Gamepass' is now actually day 6. If you or I let that continue it will soon be 2 weeks early access, 1 month early access, 6 months early access. That's how it works. Death by a thousand cuts.

My bad, @Marquez, I was thinking about the date they increased the prices of their subscriptions. That said, it still makes no odds; people wanting to play Starfield will be unlikely to be capable of properly completing the game in a month, let alone 14 days.

To be fair to Microsoft, people would have been unhappy whenever they made these changes as it hits them in the pocket, no matter whether they are long time subscribers or new subs.

In some ways, getting rid of the monthly subs is actually fairer on those that are long time subscribers. Those that have extended subscriptions are paying full price for the content, and are the ones that are keeping the service running, and so it could be viewed as a little galling to see people accessing that same content for just £1/$1 and then leaving the service straight after.

Can the change be seen as a little cynical? Absolutely, by those that wish to see it that way, anyway. However, as I said, making a game like Starfield will have cost a small fortune, and Microsoft is a business, not a charity, and so they need to recoup as much of that money as possible. There was never going to be a good time, from the consumer perspective, to make these changes, but from a business perspective, the timing was pretty much spot on...

I subscribed to GP for a year then let it lapse as it's just not worth the money for me. There could be a billion games on there but I can only play a limited number of hours. Luckily I now have GP as part of my phone contract so not as bad. Same issue with PS Plus subscription. I let that expire without realising they auto subbed me another year. Won't be making that mistake again!
I don't really see this subscription model getting to the levels MS and Sony think they will - and probably not the sort of levels that justify the amount these studios are costing to buy up

While I like the idea of having a huge catalogue of games, the reality is that I have a relatively limited amount of time to play, and I don't really rush. Aside from a two month break to play Ragnarok, I've been on my first Elden Ring play through since September of last year. I only put about 2-3 hours in per week on average and have a huge back catalogue as it is.

@themcnoisy "There are around 320 games on GP Ultimate. Today Sea of Stars, then Starfield, lies of P, forza Motorsport, cities Skylines 2, the next payday and persona strikers."

I claimed Sea of Stars through PS+, Lies of P I can just purchase for less than the cost of buying a new console and GPU, and Forza Motorsport and particularly Starfield are of no interest to me.

The idea of it having value to new customers, as always is entirely subjective. I looked through the entire GamePass collection and not one title grabbed my interest. I've already got tons of titles claimed through PS+ and that I've purchased filling up my backlog, I've already got a lot to work through.

Buying an Xbox and a subscription to GamePass has no value to me at this point if the only purpose it serves it so inflate my backlog and lighten my wallet.

You all realize that Game Pass is an option, right?

There is nothing saying you have to get Game Pass to own an Xbox. I wouldn't even have Game Pass Ultimate if it wasn't free for me. I also don't have PS+.

I do pay for Nintendo Switch Online, but it's only $20 for the year and my precious Breath of the Wild/Tears of the Kingdom progress is nice and secure. I also periodically do a month of PS+ (like once per year) just so I can backup my PlayStation save data. Really, though, Cloud saves should be free on all platforms.

Games can still be bought just like normal. If you don't think Game Pass is worth it than just don't pay for it. Same goes for PS+.

And if you don't like the games that Microsoft offers, then stick with PlayStation. Pretty simple if you ask me. There is nothing wrong with people's choices and preferences.

@General_Disarray @themcnoisy

I too pondered on getting a Series X to go with my PS5, and after some thought, I went the other way to @General_Disarray and went ahead with the purchase, along with 3 years of GPU.

Three is some overlap between GPU and PS+ Premium, but there is also a lot that isn't on both. I too don't like Halo or Gears, but as well as Forza's, I've downloaded so far Pentiment, Vampire Survivors, Lego Star Wars Skywalker, Psychonauts 2, Monster Train and of course Starfield. There are many more indie and AA that I'd have to buy on PS or simply won't be on it.

Cities Skylines 2 is on it day 1, as is Steamworld build. I'm sure there's more, but you get the point.

As well as that, it just avoids the FOMO tbh, which is worth a lot to me

Finally, I have to say that as someone who was never particularly bothered by the styling of the PS5, that once I got my series X, you realise just how ugly, incongruous and weird it is!

Very happy to have both, basically.

Sometimes I truly feel like the odd(old)man out, I bought my Series X solely with the intention of buying all my games. I think I subbed both PS and Gamepass for a few months, downloaded 1gb of games and except for Forza and Halo I didn't play hardly anything. Having that Netflix buffet of games didn't make me want to play them anymore then if I had bought them, in fact it made them easy to skip because meh not like I own then anyways.

@General_Disarray i would say the bulk of games are on both gamepass and ps now though

@Toot1st Just wait 1 year on new games, you'll save a lot from huge psn discount. And psplus essential is pretty good too since the games you claim didn't got out of the service like the upper tier.

@carlos82 Yeah, most of serious gamer backlog is huge, I'm still playing elden ring with ff 16 already waiting, but armored core 6, spider-man 2, mario rpg remake, and mario wonder already approaching 😂

@Shigurui
"MS are pulling in $3+ billion yearly from Game Pass."

Sure they may have pulled in $2.9 billion REVENUE by January 2021 but as I pointed out you need to subtract the costs to determine the actual profit. Revenue by itself means nothing. What if the cost of running Gamepass is $4 billion per year? They would lose $1 billion annually. Even if the cost is 2.8 billion, they would be making barely $200 million annually which is barely enough to fund one AAA game.

This is the predicament for all subscription models. They require consistent growth, or at least a large enough plateau to maintain a certain level of quality output and service. When this isn't the case, adjustments start to appear in different forms. With gamepass, for the first time we're seeing a major release drop almost a week early for an added cost, and my theory on that is they were concerned about recouping costs/turning a healthy profit on its development.

One of the bigger problems with this model is the ability to dip in for a month to play a big release and then immediately cancel. A lot of people doing that won't pay full price when they can purchase cheap keys from different online sellers, and long term subs will use years of cheap conversion or yearly plans to save on cost as well.

Here in the UK, using a reputable site like shopto costs £8.85 for a month of ultimate. You would need 8 million subscribers at that price point to match 1 million sales at £70 for a new release. When you're talking about a single game costing hundreds of millions to develop, which Starfield likely did, then you can see the problems that could potentially arise going forward if growth doesn't significantly ramp up.

@Pranwell congrats on finding value in it? Don't see why you needed to include me in your conversation.

@Neverwild I’m not only bashing Sony on this issue. I said no console (inc Nintendo and Xbox) should have paid for multiplayer, but people are conflating two separate things.

Game Pass is a game subscription service. It is the video game equivalent to Netflix for films or Spotify for music.

PS+ is primarily a payment for online multiplayer.

The majority of PS+ subscribers will only subscribe to play online. The additionally games are bonus. But the majority of Call of Duty and FIFA players aren’t bothered about the other games, they just need PS+ to play online.

Conversely the majority of Game Pass subscribers are doing it for the games primarily. The multiplayer element is a bonus.

If they want online play only they will get Xbox Live. Game Pass only for the games or Game Pass Ultimate to combine the two.

Now, if we want to talk subscription services as a whole, there are pros and cons to subscriptions for gaming. You can grab a single month subscription and try out 50 games to decide which to buy, for example.

But the only benefit to paying for online multiplayer is to line the shareholder’s pockets of multi-billion-dollar corporations.

If you want to defend that, fine. But don’t pretend I’m only calling out Sony. I love all three consoles and want them to be better for us gamers.

@Kienda "But the only benefit to paying for online multiplayer is to line the shareholder’s pockets of multi-billion-dollar corporations."

There's a bit more to it than that. Online services require huge infrastructure to operate and maintain which all incurs costs. Servers, security, staffing, maintenance etc. They covered those costs up until roughly 14 years ago when the company went through a period of significant financial losses in different markets. Everything was restructured shortly after. Providing this service at a cost to the consumer was a necessary change that needed to happen.

@General_Disarray I know, right?

Shame on me for putting forward an alternative point of view, and my own positive experience, for those who may be making the same decision.

Can't post anything on here without triggering a ThinSkin, apparently.

@OneWingedAngel I think you might need to check your math again. $3bn a year works out at $250m a month and divided by $15 works out at just over 16.6 million subscribers. Now what they haven't mentioned is how much game pass is consulting them to run in game development and adding third party games to the library.

I never could tell if subscription services were fated to an early demise or if they'd end up becoming a mainstay for most platforms. At the end of the day, I just can't envision either of them surviving, especially if there's a serious, obstinate reticence to adopt day one releases. At this point, I kinda hope they just die off entirely.

@Pranwell no, that's not what I'm getting at. I see no point in you tagging me in your comment. It's irrelevant to me as I don't care how others spend their money.

Your last comment comes off as projection and I made absolutely no judgements of your character, you were the one triggered.

I have both. GP to me has a ton of great games and indies. I love the Forza series and Bethesda games. PS Plus has been great for me as well as I missed the PS4 generation and I have been able to play HZD, HFW, Bloodborne, Demon's Souls (still playing), GOT. Still need to play a few more PS exclusives on the service. It seems both companies although competitors have different business models. Either way I have enjoyed this generation so far but a lot of that may be because I missed the last generation and am just catching up. After I am done playing the games I want on both services I may not continue to subscribe to one or both. I will probably just end up buying the ones I want.

@Intr1n5ic Of course servers cost money, but they charge because they can, not because they must.

PC gamers don’t pay for online gaming. In fact, it’s the same games that we are playing on PC and console but only one group has to pay. The servers don’t cost less because a PC is accessing it over a console. Mobile games don’t charge for online play. STEAM doesn’t charge a subscription to access online servers. In fact, all their first party games are online and free to play, so how are they making money? Oh yeah, it’s from the sales of games on their platform. That’s how it should be on console also.

Nintendo gamers didn’t pay for online throughout the Wii/WiiU/3DS generations and didn’t until the Switch, during a period of time when Nintendo has made some of the highest profits in its history.

The reason they started? Because they saw that consumers were suckers on console and would pay for a free service, just like they do on PlayStation and Xbox.

So yeah, convince yourself it’s for the improved service or because the costs are high, but you’re just fooling yourself. It is 99% about making money.

@OneWingedAngel i guess he meant this info. A quick Google search found it. Between August 2021 and March 2022, Xbox Game Pass went from 15 million to 18 million subscribers. So we can pinpoint a range $2.9 billion revenues generated from 15-18 million subscribers across both PC and consoles.

It will get worse with companies raising subscription fees. It is already happening in movie subscriptions. In the beginning, they want the growth in numbers. But when they hit the peak, they realised it was unsustainable and had to increase prices.
With 1$ trial scrapped and the loophole upgrade being closed, expect to see more gp subscribers going down (including me). Might take a couple of years as most upgraded to 3 years

@cragis0001
Yes, I found the related articles. Thanks. My math was wrong as well since I think assuming $15 as annual gamepass price instead of monthly.

@Kienda Sound stupid. When do you represent the majority of PS+ and GP subscribers? Speak for yourself. For one, PS Plus essential subscribers were at least given great games compared to GWG subscribers (which is going to be scrapped). Personally, I subscribed to PS plus since I bought PS4. The only online game I play is Killing Floor 2 (which I got it free from PS plus). Yes, I can speak for myself I don't subscribe just to play online.
Why u think everyone who subscribed to gp did so because of the games? I mean if someone only wants to play online but if it would only cost an extra 1$ to convert to ultimate, why wouldn't they do it? That promo is now closed, we will see what happens.

Good. I don't want a future where all entertainment is held ransom within subscriptions owned by a few mega corporations.

@mrbone I’m not speaking for anyone.

Also, I’m not bashing Sony. My PlayStation is my main console. PS+ is way better value than GWG (now Core) if looking at the “free” games alone. PS+ lowest tier is better than GP lowest tier.

However, I was just stating common knowledge. Most people subscribe to PS+ to access online multiplayer. The bonus is the additional games. There are a lot CoD/FIFA players out there on the sub that won’t play any other games.

Personally, I subscribe to Game Pass and PS+ for the games primarily as I don’t play many online games on console. So I am literally in the same boat as you.

I know we are in an online world of fanboyism here, but just because I said something negative against a company you like doesn’t mean I’m against Sony or attacking you.

@Kevw2006
You are right. I stand corrected. I forgot $15 was per month price and not annual. 2.9 billion revenue would require around 16.1 million subs as you pointed out. HOWEVER, that is the best-case scenario considering all the $1 subs, upgrades, and conversion shenanigans going on at the time. Very few were actually paying the full $15 for the whole year. Even the articles citing the $2.9 billion number don't know how MS calculated that number and what is included in it. Finally, it is just revenue and without knowing what is cost of operating gamepass, it is meaningless.

@Kienda yes but why those fifa and cod players you mentioned are only on Playstation, not on Xbox?

@Kienda "Of course servers cost money, but they charge because they can, not because they must."

Yes and no. Consoles provide a baked in service to access online gaming through their infrastructure. PC is different in that you have full control over how you connect to others. Any attempt to try and charge people for that isn't going to fly when you have complete system access that allows you to configure it yourself.

You're correct in stating that all three if them starting charging because they can, but now that it's been established, what's required to maintain it costs money. It's not just servers, it's everything that comes with that. There will be thousands of individuals employed to work on the backend of these services for each company. All of those moving parts incur operating costs, and as console owners these are unfortunately passed on to us if we want to use them.

I'm not defending it, it was certainly introduced to generate more income, but there's a lot more going on than just server costs.

@OneWingedAngel easily done 👍

I remember playing online for free with friends on my PS3 days. I think I never did again after that.

@OneWingedAngel I completely agree, $3bn is a theoretical amount. I see many people saying they use various exploits to stack game pass for much less than the normal monthly sub price so in reality the amount may be reasonably lower than that. It's likely why Microsoft are closing off many of those various exploits now.

@Pranwell thank you for including me in your comment. It's great to talk. Some people could learn a lesson from your proactive approach to encourage communication. I like it. Let the haters wallow in self angridisation.

And I agree the PS5 is ugly. Still a good console though. As for fomo having planet of lana, quake 2 and sea of stars around launch does help with all the online chatter.

Worth noting that if subscription services are not your thing, the cost of digital games can be far less on Xbox, driven by multiple competing traders selling keys. With game keys being locked down on Playstation, there's no competition and Sony can charge what they want. Seems a bit unfair.

@themcnoisy
Day 1 access on Gamepass.
'Early' access is 5 days earlier.

(Personally I'm not up for paying £25 to get early access. Early access = early bug finders and subsequent huge patch)

But it's certainly not "false advertising".

@GeeForce come on bro. 5 days early access isn't the same as playing a beta build. It's penny pinching, just how many bugs can you fix in T minus zero days? If a bug gets found on day 4 or 5 there is no way it will be buffed out in time for the 'real' launch. I hear what you are saying but it's typical of gaming and Microsoft inparticular. It's a ploy to make money off streamers and impulsive people. (I'm with you, I'm not paying the £25 or £5 a day for waiting)

So the actually launch is 5 days prior. Its false advertising in as much as Phil Spencer shouting 'day 1 on gamepass' at the big xbox conferences. That's a lie and a big one.

A verbal contract is legally binding in the UK.

@themcnoisy
Come on buddy, how much you want to bet there's a big patch drop between early access and standard access? They're finding bugs all the time, a 15gb patch dropped last night.

Verbal contract is indeed legally binding in the UK, but is this one and does it fufil the required caveats?

Edit: To add, I don't think it's a deliberate ploy to find bugs, more a side product of early access. I do agree it's a huge money making shenanigan. Just don't think any agreement has been broken on early access/day 1.

@GeeForce there will be a patch, of stuff they already know about and are working on.

Whats worse is, as you have alluded to, we can't do anything about it.

I seriously believe gamers would have a great case in court. But getting there? It's more likely we will have 2 weeks early access.

Just wait until next Wednesday when Starfield releases, Game Pass subscriptions will sky rocket.

@MaccaMUFC
Ha, was that pun deliberate?

We are still in the dark days of pay walled multiplayer and gaming as a service, these mega corporations need to understand we have too many subscriptions. I prefer owning my collection, not renting access to someone elses collection.

@Jamesblob I mean that’s how they all do it lol.

Hulu does it more than any other service, everyone, even Spotify. I don’t see why MS gets mocked.

@Netret0120 this… as you step back, you see more and more how tiny, and close knit the hardcore segment is.

@General_Disarray chill out.

@themcnoisy - How is it day 6? The game is available to GP subs on day one of it entering the service. Playing early is available to anyone that bought the Special Edition, just like dozens of other games available to preorder right now on the PSN store that offer early access with higher priced editions. You're choosing to see a limitation that doesn't exist, because Microsoft.

@Kienda first off i actually sub to ps extra for the service it provides me as i dont really play online multiplayer outside of d4 at the moment. I agree that online play should be free and there are a lot of f2p games that dont require a plus sub. Now back in the ps3 days online multiplayer was free but my god it could be very ropey. Call of duty could suffer hideous lag and fifa was just bloody awful with the p2p servers and rubber banding. So yeah bring back free online gaming and all the horrors that come with it and just to be clear i'm not saying the current system is perfect but its much,much better.

@Shigurui because Microsoft advertise starfield as day 1 on Gamepass. (6th sept) When in fact the game is available worldwide with no restrictions on the game or amount of early players on the 1st. So it’s released on the first and GP players get it 5 days later. No matter how MS and Bethesda spin it. (I have gp and will be playing it there)

Sony aren’t (currently and may well change) offering early access to a game that appears day 1 on PSPlus.

‘Sony, to its credit, has been smart with its alterations to PS Plus:’

Hey most factually incorrect statement of the year goes to Sammy!! Well done

My ps library is full of games with locked ps plus symbols due to game removals. The whole list is a bundle of store plus and extra it’s just a mess.

It’s seems to me they made little to no alterations imo, in an area that could have used an overhaul. Filter searching is ok but it doesn’t solve the locked games not removing.

Converting people who already paid for online services into subs was pretty easy as on the whole they are getting a better deal. Expanding that service is another thing entirely. We can see by the sales of Sea of Stars that people still like to own their games rather than perpetually renting them.

@PsBoxSwitchOwner

First Sony do not give their game on day on, and don’t say, lol…sea of stars because that a third party game 🤦‍♂️

Second other games have had early access, hogwarts and Diablo 4 both third party.

Did Microsoft plan this, most likely yes, possible originally or maybe after seeing the success of early access from hogwarts and Diablo 4.

is it a problem absolutely not, either pay for early access or play it on release date on gamepass.

I just purchased my second year of Plus Premium for PS4. For me the first year was a great value as I only purchased one game and that was used and yet to be played. The second year looks promising if some good games are added and games I want to play are not removed.

A 3rd year and beyond will be decided by price and the game catalogue. By then it could be like Netfilx which I dropped because the price went up and the value went down as the stuff I wanted to watch became less and less.

I only started Plus in 2016 to play GTA online on my PS4 and that was only because of new content and updates not releasing to the PS3. The "free" games I looked forward to receiving turned into about 2 or 3 per year I actually played. Cloud saves were not needed as I used a usb drive on both PS3 and PS4.

@11001100110zero get over it.

@Mince Content leaves streaming services. It's not a problem with only PS+ as every streaming service is guilty of it, including GamePass. It's how they work.

@GuttyYZ I'm in the same boat as you. I'm an adult, with all the responsibilities and time constraints that come with that. This means that, although I would happily spend more on gaming, I don't because I simply don't have the free time to play the games I own. My backlog is ridiculous and will only get bigger if I buy more.

@Shigurui well thanks for insulting my intelligence.

I game on xbox. Just because other companies offer early access doesn't mean xbox get a free pass. Especially when Phil Spencer loves his 'day 1 on gamepass' soundbite. As mentioned above its penny pinching off streamers and impulsive / inpatient people.

I'm not buying the early access so will start it 5 days after everyone else.

@Mince Diablo etc we’re not announced day 1 to a service. Starfield is and it’s day 5. But that doesn’t have the same ring

Just my take, and maybe I’m a moron, but so far the subscription service PS+ Extra has made financial sense to me, even though I also buy games too. I don’t even game nearly as many hours as most people on here and yet I played about 6 games from the Extra catalog last year. It’s not that many when you consider the catalog has 300, but still, if I’d have purchased those, I’d have spent… $120-150? The service more than paid for itself and I also have cloud saves, PSN sales, online gaming, etc.

I think people look at the catalog and think, “I’ll never play half of these games, so it’s a rip-off” but financially speaking all it takes is playing 2-3 games per year from the catalog to break even, depending on the game. (Figuring the average purchase price of a catalog game is around $20-30.). Granted, you don’t own the game, can’t lend it or sell it, and may not be able to replay it a couple years from now, but if you love the game that much, you can probably still pick it up really cheap in a couple years if you really, really want to replay it.

I still bought Hogwarts, Jedi Survivor, FF16 and will probably buy Spidey 2, FF7 Rebirth, etc. but for smaller or older titles it’s been nice to have. At some point I might change my tune but so far I’m content to keep subbing as long as I play a few titles per year.

I can live without either, since I like owning my games, not renting them. Also, Xbox doesn't charge for backing one's saves onto the cloud, unlike Sony and Nintendo. Especially handy when going between two or more devices.

Might want to wait a couple weeks before making this statement. Starfield is a bigger game than either service has ever seen. I imagine gamepass subs will increase dramatically for at least a few months.

ABK could have a substantial impact on gamepass as well.

Many people use PS Plus only to have access to online gaming. I stick with single-player games but enjoy playing GTA Online when I just want a break from other games, from platinuming a game, or during slow periods during gaming seasons when there aren't any new games that pique my interest.

@themcnoisy - I didn't insult your intelligence, I know you're not that stupid. You know full well that the standard edition which is the GP version, doesn't release until September 6th.

By your logic I should be complaining to ShopTo for delaying the delivery of my standard physical copy by 5 days. The fact of the matter, regardless of paid early access, is that the actual release date is September 6th and no amount of mental gymnastics will change that.

@PsBoxSwitchOwner - See above paragraph.

@mrbone I was only talking about PS+ being more for online play because I think most Xbox Game Pass subscribers aren’t in it only for the multiplayer. I think they are doing it for the games.

This is what I was saying before.

PS+ and Game Pass are different. They’re not a like for like comparison.

You have to compare Xbox Live Gold to PS+ to get to the fact they are paying for online play primarily and free games secondary.

Game Pass and the higher tiers of PS+ are the comparison. And I think most would just have the base of PS+ and the top tier of Game Pass.

@Intr1n5ic well I would agree that I have probably simplified the costs and there is more going on behind the scenes.

It just irks me that multi-billion-dollar corporations say things like, “we are all in this together” as they blame inflation and things for raising prices, while at the same time making record profits.

Meanwhile we normal people are having less and less money. The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, but the rich pretending they are suffering alongside us.

It’s also the reason I oppose paying for online multiplayer. I pay it, obviously, but I’ve managed to stack GPU and PS+ and make it about 30% of the original price using VPNs and every trick in the book. Now both Sony and Microsoft have cracked down on it I likely won’t be renewing readily unless I can find better deals than there are currently. Especially as I can play the same multiplayer games on PC for free.

@Shigurui but that's less than $400 million monthly like the article states. Unless you mean that's their annual profit. Which would still be unhealthy financially. It would take them around 20 years to break even on the Activision buyout at your stated pace. I really don't see how they can sustain this model....

@Kienda That's why I told u to speak for yourself. You, no expert, are talking for the majority here. What makes you think people wouldn't pay an extra 1$ to upgrade from gold to GP? MS allows that 1$ upgrade until recently.

@SaviorNot - If/when the Acti deal goes ahead they instantly break even by adding a company value of $69 billion to their overall portfolio, it's not an outgoing cost they suddenly lose or need to recoup overnight.

As for their GP model being unsustainable, the truth is only they know the actual numbers and GP has been around for 6 years now so MS clearly believe it is sustainable and profitable.

@Shigurui I don't want to get into an argument with you, I know you are a good guy and decent person. But I'm massively pro consumer when it comes to gaming.

A proper use of Early access is a game part way through development. It helps fund the game, pick up bugs and creates a ground swell of fans. Wherever that's worth it or not is up to the individual.

Star Citizens early access is just a paid early launch. And guess what? It's happening to forza motorsport with increased xp buffs alongside early access and a couple of exclusive cars. Wonderful. I love forza and that leaves me cold.

So that's why I'm against it.

1) it's clearly not day 1 on gamepass
2) it creates an expectation that other early access games will be of a similar standard
3) it encourages developers to add xp boosters and other such shenanigans into the early bird package

I’m unsure how they think the price hike will resolve it.

@themcnoisy - It's all good mate. I fully get where you're coming from with actual early access and this recent push of buy X edition to play Y days early. It stinks.

I remember the outrage of Square Enix trying it on with the 'Augment your Pre-Order' nonsense with Deus Ex Mankind Divided and really believed that practice would die on the vine back then. Unfortunately people are idiots and enjoy being parted from their cash to play something a few days early.

That said we'll have to agree to disagree on Starfield's release date. It was announced to be on September 6th a good while ago and that's the date it enters GP regardless of so called early access. Take it easy mate and we'll both hopefully enjoy the game, late or otherwise!

@PsBoxSwitchOwner fair point, though it’s still day one asked on release date, I get it’s a gimmick but it’s on a few days, and it’s obviously just a sales tactic. If people have no patience then they can buy it if they do then they get it on a service simple as.

That said I fell to the hype for Hogwarts legacy early access and the game wasn’t even that good 🤦‍♂️

@Shigurui thanks bro. I can't wait to hurtle amongst the stars. We'll I can, like 5 days rofl 🤣

@General_Disarray over what?