For a long time, I have this idea how Microsoft should structure and price the Game Pass. I am thinking of making it modular with a cheap entry price, and then having basically DLCs to enable certain services. This would also allow Microsoft to add in new services without restructuring everything again or screwing up the names.
The below list is just an idea how it could be structure and priced, I’m not saying this has to be exactly like that. What do you think?
--- Base ---
$7,99 Game Pass
(pc and console, includes console multiplayer,
50+ games dynamic library)
--- DLCs ---
+ $4,99 Plus Expansion
(full set 500+ games, including EA Play and Ubisoft+)
+ $9,99 Day 1 Ultimate
(including all first party games except Call of Duty,
plus day 1 premium games from third parties,
additional benefits, perks and rewards)
+ $1,99 Cloud Streaming S
(for supported titles of all your own games,
plus all Game Pass games)
+ $3,99 Cloud Streaming X
(like S but higher quality streaming, shorter wait times)
Interesting idea, I’m not sure if I’m on board with that concept.
How does it work, 2 games to download / play at max per months or at the same time? Am I allowed to download and play another game, if I delete the current one? If not, then short games, indie titles or if I don’t like the game would ruin Game Pass for that month. Or if I am allowed to play different games, when deleting the current one, what point does the limitation have? In example I want to keep games and play them later, while trying out different other games. That’s the whole idea of Game Pass. Limiting the access is against the spirit of it to me.
It would be a hard limit of 2 games/month you could play, without paying more. This is a hard shift in model, but I think it makes it sustainable long term for developers to make their games part of it while allowing the price to be reasonable. Previously game pass was subsidized by Microsoft trying to grow their subscription base, so devs got big payouts to list their games. Publishers/devs aren’t making much if anything from being on game pass, especially indie titles that might only have 20 hours or less of gameplay. With cloud saves you could easily not lose progress if you took a month off from a game to try something else
This model creates a pathway that a developer could get $1-2 per install per month (or more for new/premium tier games) which would be reasonable income after initial launch sales. The vast majority of gamers also don’t play a lot of different games, so those that want more can pay for it while a lower price is available for the majority. There’s also the classic games tier that isn’t restricted as most the games aren’t really that valuable, but it’s a separate add on to keep the main price low.
For games as a subscription to work, it has to balance perceived value for consumers and developers. The unlimited model isn’t sustainable without a price point that makes buying games outright more attractive. I think a better scenario is allowing the subscription to create a funnel to direct sales, which I think this solution does.
(Don’t get me wrong, I have fun discussing with you. Ideas like these are the reason why I opened up this post, just to see what others would suggest. I just do not agree with your suggestion.)
I’m not buying into this model yet (meaning I don’t think its a good idea or would work well). Just because if you are stuck at 2 games per months, then why even bother with a Game Pass at all? And especially this sort of limits are very frustrating, so I do not think it would work. If I were, I would get rid of Game Pass, because it does more harm than have positive effects.
As for the sustainability of the model, I think an unlimited games access can work if done right. Look at Sony with Playstation Plus models. The actual problem for Xbox Game Pass is, that it offers too much and therefore has to increase its price, while players cannot make use of all values, nor most care. That’s why I think a modular system like I suggest would work best. Its just important to make it not like limited too much, so people don’t get frustrated and cancel or get overwhelmed by too many options.
If I’m locked to 2 games only per months, and lets say I choose a AAA game and do not like it, and then try a cheaper indie game and like it. It take too much of the freedom and reason why people buy into Game Pass at all. Instead I could have purchased the indie game for the price I am paying this month. Now I have to wait an entire months to try a new game. Plenty of time to think about it and to cancel the subscription, rather than an activate once and forget option.
This is basically a rental model. The 2 game limit is just for the cheapest option, you could always pay more for more. If you want a reasonable quality catalog at a sub $10 price there needs to be some level of restrictions. If you want complete freedom it’s going to come at increased cost or a worse catalog.
I noticed. Had the rental in my head while discussing. I am not entirely against a rental model, but then it has to be marketed as such and not a mixture of “bad Game Pass” deal with a rental in its heart. The problem with this is, that each game cannot be treated equally. This is from gamers perspective (games are not equally long, exciting or special, whatever) and from Microsofts perspective (deals have different value per game). I wouldn’t be against a model that completely commits to the rental idea.
Another thing to be careful is, to not make changes where the users and people “feel” as if they got a worse deal than before. These updates do not exist in a vacuum. Regardless of how it works, if it looks like they suddenly loose access to all games, its a problem.
Something major is going to have to change at some point though with game pass. This year is probably the last time we see a day one release of a major title. Cutting CoD is to test the waters for future cuts.