upvote
> So if you put your new game that you would have sold for $60-80 dollars to me directly and it translates to three weeks of engagement on your $15-ish/month (depending on level) subscription, it's hard to see how that is an economic win. Put that game on Gamepass in a year or two, sure, that can make sense, but on release?

I think that's what I thought it would be, too. XboX has a really good track record of backwards compatibility. I can (and do, occasionally) play 360 games on my series X.

A model where people can buy the latest games, can not only keep them but play them forever on future consoles, and can have access to an increasingly vast back catalogue of older games, seems like a huge win. And maybe each full price new game gets them a bit of a discount on their next month's game pass, to make it slightly better value than the playstation equivalent full priced game.

But they didn't seem to want to do anything like that.

reply
> and can have access to an increasingly vast back catalogue of older games

By this I meant via a subscription.

reply
> it's hard to see how that is an economic win

I _think_ the thinking is that not everyone is going to buy more than a couple full priced new releases per year (in general). $80 or whatever is just too much for most people to drop on a game they "might" like. On the other hand, most people would have few reservations being perpetually subscribed to a service that lets them play every new game "for free" (so long as they keep rolling in on a monthly basis). Theoretically, the subscription money would exceed what they'd normally collect from the average person buying the usual 2 or 3 full priced games per year.

Where I think it breaks down is quite a number of gamers are hopelessly addicted to playing all the latest games, all day every day. MS is surely losing money when those guys substitute buying physical games for a subscription.

reply
I agree that's what they seem to have been thinking.

I don't entirely understand... well... from a rational perspective anyhow, of course companies are not entirely rational... why it didn't become clear that this was a silly idea and not working. It's easy to make Gamepass stop cannibalizing your main game sales. You don't need a big announcement, you don't need to advertise your plans. You don't need a huge internal political fight. You just... stop. You just stop putting your brand new AAA games on your cheap subscription service plan. You don't even have to remove the old ones, they turn into your old AAA games naturally in the fullness of time. Nobody has to lose face. It's easy. It's like falling off a log.

reply
The logic of day 1 releases, at least how it seemed to me, was that a % of those people who get gamepass just to play the game for cheaper would stick around. That’s potentially worth way more than 1x $60 (now $70-$80) sale. That didn’t happen I guess
reply
It’s funny how a strategy like this would work on me, but I am a busy adult who doesn’t really game.

Compare that to my nephews who have a lot of time for gaming, but they’re always fighting to scrounge up the money for another month of Nintendo online or Xbox online and go without it for at least half the year

reply
Yeah i game in waves so a monthly subscription just doesn’t appeal to me even if it averages out to a decent rate over time
reply