Business aspects of Subscription Game Libraries [Xbox GamePass, PSNow]

[AzBat]

I'm pretty sure Microsoft doesn't care too terribly about the substance of your engagement. They just need you to use their services & their hardware & software & not the other other guy. It increases their metrics & keeps you from using a competitor. The more you use it the more likely you are going to stick around. They can show those metrics to whomever they are trying to do business with that Rewards use has increased traffic with Bing, GamePass, whatever. It's all about engagement & they just need you in the door.

Tommy McClain

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I'm pretty sure Microsoft doesn't care too terribly about the substance of your engagement. They just need you to use their services & their hardware & software & not the other other guy.

Yeah.. no. Microsoft do not make money because you don't use Google. Using Microsoft services that you are not actively paying $$$ for means Microsoft are paying money to run those services with no income.

The profitability model, as long established by Google, is that by engaging in services that collect user's genuine data / preferences which is valuable because it is directly monetizable by connecting users with an interest in something with collaborative third parties who make money from those interested users - usually by sales but sometimes by combining their data with data they have already obtained.

To be clear, Microsoft do not make money if people randomly click links provided through Microsoft services like Bing. It's not magic, money does not magically flow into Microsoft because you use their serves. It costs Microsoft a shit-ton of money to keeping these services running. There are data/clicks and there is valuable (leading to sales) data/clicks. If you're just shoving clicks into Microsoft services that you don't pay for, you are not helping Microsoft.

The is true for any 'free' services. They aren't 'free', they have established a profitable model of using the data you provide by using services into actual model but it only works when the data is genuine.

 

[goonergaz]

human botting folks not script botting. Maybe I should have called it auto-pilot, where's your' just cruising through bad answers.

Yea I think they would figure out script botting, but they have to have a yield for people putting in shit values just to get it over with.

Be interesting to see how they get away with banning people - do the t&cs state ‘tho shall only answer questions with thought’!?

As it is often I don’t know the answers so it’s all pot luck.

Yeah.. no. Microsoft do not make money because you don't use Google. Using Microsoft services that you are not actively paying $$$ for means Microsoft are paying money to run those services with no income.

The profitability model, as long established by Google, is that by engaging in services that collect user's genuine data / preferences which is valuable because it is directly monetizable by connecting users with an interest in something with collaborative third parties who make money from those interested users - usually by sales but sometimes by combining their data with data they have already obtained.

To be clear, Microsoft do not make money if people randomly click links provided through Microsoft services like Bing. It's not magic, money does not magically flow into Microsoft because you use their serves. It costs Microsoft a shit-ton of money to keeping these services running. There are data/clicks and there is valuable (leading to sales) data/clicks. If you're just shoving clicks into Microsoft services that you don't pay for, you are not helping Microsoft.

The is true for any 'free' services. They aren't 'free', they have established a profitable model of using the data you provide by using services into actual model but it only works when the data is genuine.

Seems we’re mad and MS are in dire straits making money for nothin’ ‘cos their clicks aren’t free.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I think where some people are coming from is, yes this is true if the engagement is genuine. I.e. clicking on links through Bing that you are genuinely interested in is valuable to Microsoft because these clicks are more likely to eventually become sales. When clicks = sales, Microsoft can charge more for ads and promoted links. When people are just clicking links for "Microsoft points" with no intention of buying or engaging then this dilutes the value of clicks to Microsoft.

This applies to any model where a "free" service is provided combined with "incentives" to use that service. It's built into the calculations for profitability.

Some people using Bing don't generate a profit for MS. Just like my usage of Safeway (grocery store chain) coupons likely generates a loss for Safeway. Just today I used a digital offer from them for 5 dollars off any purchase of 5 dollars or more. I spent a total of 5.99 USD which was 0.99 USD out of my pocket. But the whole thing is built upon the fact that while there will be some users that generate a deficit, there are enough users overall that generate a profit that the whole becomes profitable.

It's the same for any model that involves giving away (or discounting) a product or service in order to drive more people to buy some product or use some service. There's always going to be people that "game" the system, it's expected and accounted for.

I have no doubt that, for example, goonergaz probably generates a net loss for MS, although it might be less of a loss than he thinks it is. But, again, that's expected and accounted for (assuming the people working for MS are competent ... which isn't always a given ).

It's not much different from advertising. A company "gives away" hundreds of millions of USD (to an advertising agency) in the hopes that it drives engagement (purchases, rentals, service contracts, whatever...) with whatever they are advertising.

As for Bing, MS doesn't care if someone starts out just randomly searching for just random things. For example, I started by just doing searches for 10 different colors a day. At some point I noticed that the search results were generally just as good as Google (sometimes Google has better search results, sometimes Bing has better search results) and they were doing some things better than Google (which Google has since copied ... a good thing!) that I started to do actual searches with it.

This was way less of a hassle than trying to remember to do daily searches of X things (at first it was just 10, then it was 30 after a couple of years) for the maximum earnable points. So I just started to use Bing for actual searches.

Now I regularly use Bing. Along with Google and Duckduckgo (when neither Google nor Bing return good results).

Basically, MS just wants someone to use Bing, even if it's robotic usage that is useless for advertising metrics. Because they know that some X number of the Y people using it robotically will likely eventually actually start using it as a search engine for real searches. Obviously some Z number of the Y people will continue to just use it robotically for the points ... but also some number of those will stop even doing that as it becomes too tiresome for the points earned (has happened with a couple of my friends).

Regards,
SB

 

[iroboto]

Be interesting to see how they get away with banning people - do the t&cs state ‘tho shall only answer questions with thought’!?

As it is often I don’t know the answers so it’s all pot luck.

me 2. I try to guess most of my answers, I think the expectation is that you bing them, but most of the time I don't.

 

[BRiT]

SubReddit MicrosoftRewards for the "This or That" cheat sheets.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

This applies to any model where a "free" service is provided combined with "incentives" to use that service. It's built into the calculations for profitability.

It absolutely does. Google's entire business is getting you to use their services mostly for free so that they can create data model for you as a non-attributable individual and monetise that by making ads on pages you visit more relevant. More relevant ads means you are seeing things you are interested in and therefore more likely to buy, hence why Google' CTR is the best in the business.

As for Bing, MS doesn't care if someone starts out just randomly searching for just random things. For example, I started by just doing searches for 10 different colors a day. At some point I noticed that the search results were generally just as good as Google (sometimes Google has better search results, sometimes Bing has better search results) and they were doing some things better than Google (which Google has since copied ... a good thing!) that I started to do actual searches with it.

Microsoft's goal with Bing, as is Google's with Google search, is knowing what the user is interested in makes their non-attributable profile better. With gaming, Microsoft have a massive advantage because they obviously already know what you play but it's abut everything else. Hence what things you search for and what links you click steer that profile so you get put in the right ad-groups and later ads served with hopefully lead to purchases or other eventual monetizable engagement. The more Microsoft-services drive actual sales, the higher their CTR and the more Microsoft can charge advertisers. It's that simple.

I'd wager most people search for random things they are not interested in but generally this is background noise to things you genuinely are and will be filtered out. Of course, if people are just randomly clicking clicks every day for ten minutes, you're likely skewing the ad groups. E.g. one of your random searches is for a mountain bike. You have no interested in buying one but because you searched you get some more bike links tomorrow. Now you're just randomly clicking links and you get more and irrelevant suggestions going forward. Microsoft's CTR drops and they get to charge advertisers less.

It's this simple.

 

[see colon]

I would imagine it's pretty easy to filter out searches if you don't click on any results.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I would imagine it's pretty easy to filter out searches if you don't click on any results.

It sounded like people were just clicking any old links. Ergo lies the problem, whoever is serving results or content doesn't have a bloody clue what the user is genuinely interested in so they serve less relevant content and as a result Microsoft get paid less for ads and other promoted content because users are not seeing genuinely interested things that they may buy with a referral from Microsoft.

The ad/promoted content business is pretty simple in concept, it's only the implementation that is complex.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

It sounded like people were just clicking any old links. Ergo lies the problem, whoever is serving results or content doesn't have a bloody clue what the user is genuinely interested in so they serve less relevant content and as a result Microsoft get paid less for ads and other promoted content because users are not seeing genuinely interested things that they may buy with a referral from Microsoft.

The ad/promoted content business is pretty simple in concept, it's only the implementation that is complex.

For Bing Rewards (MS rewards), clicks aren't required for get points for X number of searches. I imagine this is deliberate in order for MS to help filter out people that are "gaming the system" so that their click rate in terms of advertising remain relatively unaffected by people who are just farming for points.

Obviously the whole point of incentivizing the use of Bing search with the knowledge that the people who start to do Bing searches purely due to that incentivization are unlikely to be using it for actual searches is that eventually, those people will either get tired of the relatively meagre rewards from the searches (it doesn't get you a lot of points relative to the other activities) or incorporate actual real Bing searches into their daily browsing (where it's no longer a chore for meager points, but is now just a free reward for something you'd be doing anyway).

My pattern when I started this.

• Make sure I did the minimum searches on Bing for the maximum points (this was when 1 search = 1 point) and you could earn 15 points a day.
• At 2 searches = 1 point, it became too much of a chore and some days I didn't get full points or any points and you could earn 15 points a day.
• Compared search results to Google. Started using Bing as my general search engine, full points everyday.

Or you can (with today's promotion) spend 30 USD in the MS store and earn 3000 points. For reference a 5 USD Amazon gift card is 5250 points. Or do 1 of multiple activities worth 10-15 points each per day. So, search is a relatively minor way to make points but if you actually do searches with it, it's just free points instead of a chore.

Regards,
SB

 

[AzBat]

Actually you can get up to 270 points daily just using Bing on Desktop(150) & Mobile(100) & or using Microsoft Edge(20). There are other ways to get points using Bing like Daily Sets(polls, quizzes, etc) that net you less than a 100 points a day. There a bonus points if you keep the streak going. But yes, if you take maximum advantage of all Microsoft Rewards(using Games Pass Quests or the Microsoft Rewards app on Xbox) you'll get more points from those other activities than Bing searches.

Tommy McClain

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Actually you can get up to 270 points daily just using Bing on Desktop(150) & Mobile(100) & or using Microsoft Edge(20). There are other ways to get points using Bing like Daily Sets(polls, quizzes, etc) that net you less than a 100 points a day. There a bonus points if you keep the streak going. But yes, if you take maximum advantage of all Microsoft Rewards(using Games Pass Quests or the Microsoft Rewards app on Xbox) you'll get more points from those other activities than Bing searches.

Tommy McClain

Oh yeah, that's right, a few years ago when they revamped Bing Reward points they redid the points calculations. It takes more points to redeem rewards (~10x more, 5 USD gift cards were between 490 - 525 points back before the change), but you also earn more max points when searching. I'd forgotten about that since I no longer keep track of searches and how many points I get from searching.

Regards,
SB

 

[manux]

Netflix is wanting to become a player in gaming market. This is interesting in many ways.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1395738618552111105

We earn consumer screen time, both mobile and television, away from a very broad set of competitors,” Netflix said in the letter. “We compete with (and lose to) Fortnite more than HBO . . . There are thousands of competitors in this highly-fragmented market vying to entertain consumers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/01/18/netflix-fortnite-is-bigger-rival-than-hbo/

 

[BRiT]

Can't wait for @iroboto to chime in about Bridgerton: The Game ...

 

[iroboto]

Can't wait for @iroboto to chime in about Bridgerton: The Game ...

They need to join as many audience members together.

Lewis Hamilton will now play the Duke of Hastings.

multiple story lines and endings. Loads of stuff that makes GoT S1 look like PG13.

 

[JPT]

Came across this :

Netflix on games
Interesting discussion in the Netflix quarterly call on their approach to games. Putting AAA console games in the cloud and streaming them doesn't seem to work (Stadia) - creating IP and mechanics that are native to the form and to the business model might work better. Link

 

[Jupiter]

You don't buy the games, you just rent them. If you cancel the subscription you can no longer play the games. The companies want you to be a customer for life. They call it customer loyalty but in reality it's dependence. You are subject to the whims of the corporations. While connections like clubs, family ties, etc. are becoming less and less the companies want to be something like the family substitute. I generally don't think much of the division of players. Imagine being able to buy one game only at Walmart, the next only at Amazon, etc. If every publisher wants a subscription instead of a game purchase gaming will be a lot more expensive.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Meh. Not going to happen. It's either good value or it isn't. GP is great value right now. The only way Netflix gaming is going to be good value is if they can exceed what MS is offering with 30 seasoned dev teams. I really doubt it. Not any time soon anyway.

 

[BoardBonobo]

The CMA report from the ActiBlizzard merger says that an internal MS report stated adding a game to Gamespass is, effectivley, tanking the sales of the game, which is the exact opposite of what Phil Spencer was saying. Putting your game in a subscription is like stuffing in down the back of the sofa, to be lost amongst all the other fluff down there. Lost in gamespass and not selling outside. Doesn't bode well for MS's own first party games if this is the result.

So many juicy items coming out of this whole legal process.

And MS have replied in a statement to Kotaku which is basically not denying it's bad news for the game.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

"Tanking" is too strong a word. Sales are down a redacted percentage. Unless you have the missing figure of how larger a percentage, we can only say GP subs are negatively impacting title sales to some degree.