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)
All of these points only apply to cases where a game has completely closed off full-purchase options, in favor of rental-only models. As of yet, I have not seen that model exist; only constant cries of “but someday…!” in regards to Game Pass.
I used to subscribe to it, and left for other criticisms I had of it and Microsoft. But to make clear to GP’s all-time critics: It is very clear to me that Game Pass is a rental model. I am not upset at losing access to said games when the time ends. I believe the same could be said about GP’s other users. I think most of us would view any attempt to actually reach a “rental-only system” as a negative. Heck, even Xbox themselves would likely view it negatively, since the success of game pass came conjoined with a rise in spending on permanent licenses to games. They’d be throwing away free money.
The moment such a “rent-only” measure occurs, even if it’s just for one major game, many people would likely move away to services where we can choose how long we keep our games. If such a service didn’t exist due to some massive market hand, an indie developer would make it, and people would go there.
While it’s reasonable to see an option like “Rent your games!” and reply “No thanks, I don’t like renting my games”, the conclusion of “This needs to be outlawed because someday all game developers worldwide will make us rent all our games and ownership will be banned which is anticonsumer” is asinine overreach that undermines your credibility.
Then it’s great I didn’t say anything about it needing to be outlawed. I simply pointed out the negatives of what will happen if game pass like services become THE way to play games. I’m not really worried about it at the moment because it’s Microslop, they’re incapable of not fucking it up before it’s too late.
But I would be very worried if other big publishers picked up the same model because that implies there’s a big enough market to make the switch and that would put us on the wrong path. I guarantee the likes of EA and T2 are definitely keeping an eye on how game pass is performing and if it was doing exceptionally well we’d be seeing more of them. Kind of like in the early 2010s you saw the likes of EA and Ubisoft create their own storefronts because they saw what a cash cow Steam was. That’s why I don’t use game pass and I don’t recommend game pass and I let people know of the anti-consumer outcomes of using game pass. Because what we do today can impact what we’ll be doing in the future.
I’ll apologize for the overreach on the subject of legality. But I do think treating it as an imminent danger, like it’s locking off options, is an overreach.
We DO see more game passes currently. There’s EA+, Ubisoft+ (often bundled in other services), PlayStation Plus, Nintendo Online, and even some other niches like Indie Pass.
Right now, a variety of consumers see the ads for these, and accept or reject the offer/pricing based on their circumstances. There doesn’t appear to be a direct “danger” of these models swallowing all digital consumption. The most common outcry I’ve seen is “Don’t rent these things! When the rental period is up, you have to give it back!” To me, that just insults the intelligence of people who are agreeing to these terms, which is definitely not everyone since not everyone likes renting. I will volunteer that I pay for PS+, knowing I don’t own its games.
I similarly don’t see an advantage to the supposed “making the switch” in which a publisher announces “Our next suite of games will be rental only and disallow purchase”. That would just be poor PR for that publisher and lose them customers to competitors.
To be clear, we have NEVER seen that and the fear written out by you and others suggests it will ALWAYS be the case. You are suggesting the potential for a 100% industry shift-over. The closest thing we’ve seen is live service games, and the clear preference there is through voluntary spending like Fallout 76’s vault pass; not lockout systems that kick people out of play wholesale for missing a payment. Even acknowledging how greedy corporations are, they don’t really have a strong reason to consider such lockouts.