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

[Seanspeed]

View attachment 10892

I never really understand what to take from these 'player numbers' stats when it comes to providing these games on a service on Day 1 where people can try them out without having to spend any extra money. I mean, this is exactly one of the selling points of Gamepass/PS Plus or whatever - that people are free to basically 'demo' games without any commitment. It means that even if somebody only plays for an hour and then deletes and moves on, that still counts as a 'player', despite that person clearly not liking the game.

Tell me about player retention. And I'd also be super interested in seeing retention differences between Gamepass subscribers and those who actually purchased the game. Obviously one will be higher, but I'd still like to see how big the actual difference is.

 

[Nesh]

I don't trust MS's numbers. MS is very famous for cooking the interpretation of reported numbers

For example Halo Infinite by Oct 4 2022 (2 years after release) sold 2 million. They are very secretive with units sold until today. 20+million might include people who downloaded it and tried it at least once through Game pass. It is a meaningless number.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Not meaningless, since player engagement matters, but I understand the point that these are "people who tried the game" numbers and not "played the game 20+ hours" numbers.

Sony would dream to have these player engagement numbers though. 35 million people have tried Sea of Thieves! That's massive.

MS is still supporting most of these games with new content so the engagement has to be enough to justify it.

 

[Nisaaru]

Halo Infinite Achievements

Full list of all 144 Halo Infinite achievements worth 2,020 gamerscore. It takes around 80-100 hours to unlock all of the achievements in the base game.

www.trueachievements.com

Look at the achievement distribution and compare that to other top games. It gives you a far more realistic impression of how many people tried it on release, how long they tried and the influx of new players over time.

 

[Nesh]

Not meaningless, since player engagement matters, but I understand the point that these are "people who tried the game" numbers and not "played the game 20+ hours" numbers.

Sony would dream to have these player engagement numbers though. 35 million people have tried Sea of Thieves! That's massive.

MS is still supporting most of these games with new content so the engagement has to be enough to justify it.

Friendly observation. This isn't something you do just here, this is something you tend to do a lot with your posts and replies to others in multiple threads. I m not sure if it's deliberate but you aren't answering directly or properly to the arguments brought to you. You almost come across as camouflaged trolling. Otherwise you either don't understand the arguments or you are unconsciously or consciously trying to not see what doesn't come across as convenient as you wish.

For example @Seanspeed and I pointed you already that these numbers may include anyone who just run it once and never even bothered again. This is not true or meaningful engagement.

Your response was completely ignoring this and just using generalizations like "massive engagement wow impressive". Then you came with a generic assumption that the fact that MS providing content validates these inflated numbers as true engagement whereas we all know smaller but adequate numbers can still facilitate support for updated content.

If you want to contribute properly to the discussion I suggest you explain directly and on point without generalizations and assumptions that ignore the arguments pointed earlier.

 

[see colon]

For example @Seanspeed and I pointed you already that these numbers may include anyone who just run it once and never even bothered again. This is not true or meaningful engagement.

While I understand this argument, because comparing these numbers to sales is a false equivalency, I also understand and accept that I'm an owner of 2000+ games on Steam and haven't played most of them. What these numbers indicate is a level of engagement that exceeds what 60% of my Steam library will ever enjoy, and I paid money for them. And while my 60% number might be an estimate and higher than the average, it's still true that in the inverse. Sales don't equal engagement, just as engagement doesn't equal sales. But engagement does equal revenue when that engagement is gatekept behind a sale or subscription. And revenue capture is the endgame for companies, right?

 

[Nesh]

While I understand this argument, because comparing these numbers to sales is a false equivalency, I also understand and accept that I'm an owner of 2000+ games on Steam and haven't played most of them. What these numbers indicate is a level of engagement that exceeds what 60% of my Steam library will ever enjoy, and I paid money for them. And while my 60% number might be an estimate and higher than the average, it's still true that in the inverse. Sales don't equal engagement, just as engagement doesn't equal sales. But engagement does equal revenue when that engagement is gatekept behind a sale or subscription. And revenue capture is the endgame for companies, right?

Well depends what you are measuring.
Engagement is a subcategory of interest to either buy or subscribe. Interest to buy or subscribe may not necessarily equal to engagement, but an intention. Such as your case. But engagement always equals buy or subscribe if there is a paywall in order to do so.

You paid for these games and that has real value in a company's bank account. That's measurable and a meaningful number for a business.

And that's exactly why these numbers put by MS are meaningless, because they aren't defining what they mean. If they equal engagement then they likely reflect interest to subscribe to access these games which has an effect on paid subscriptions. But it is impossible to measure how much is interest in the games or if it's simply curiosity with no real interest in the product offering. The number includes a mix of subscribers who joined because the specific titles motivated them to pay, and subscribers who likely did not get motivated to join by these specific titles but other titles. Therefore a portion of it (let's say the 20 million under Halo) may not have had any effect in the subscription numbers.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Friendly observation. This isn't something you do just here, this is something you tend to do a lot with your posts and replies to others in multiple threads. I m not sure if it's deliberate but you aren't answering directly or properly to the arguments brought to you. You almost come across as camouflaged trolling. Otherwise you either don't understand the arguments or you are unconsciously or consciously trying to not see what doesn't come across as convenient as you wish.

I don't agree.

For example @Seanspeed and I pointed you already that these numbers may include anyone who just run it once and never even bothered again. This is not true or meaningful engagement.

Your response was completely ignoring this and just using generalizations like "massive engagement wow impressive". Then you came with a generic assumption that the fact that MS providing content validates these inflated numbers as true engagement whereas we all know smaller but adequate numbers can still facilitate support for updated content.

Not at all. You didn't read my post if you think that. I bolded it for you now.

If you want to contribute properly to the discussion I suggest you explain directly and on point without generalizations and assumptions that ignore the arguments pointed earlier.

I didn't.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Therefore a portion of it (let's say the 20 million under Halo) may not have had any effect in the subscription numbers.

Yet, likely did. In the absence of hard data I still think it's more likely that MS having gamers try their games in the 10s of millions of players is an indicator that they've succeeded in enticing people to stay subscribed to GamePass, it's just not proof of such.

 

[Deleted member 2197]

Recently Microsoft stated they were removing the JRPG classic Ni No Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch from GamePass. They updated the notice recently to state it would not be removed this month.
IMO it seems a big disadvantage not knowing when a game may be removed from GP and being under the hammer to constantly play games you find interesting. GP breaks up that "cadence" of starting and playing a game based on a gamers own timetable and seems geared towards encouraging frequent online gameplay then would otherwise be the case. I don't see the benefit to the subscriber not knowing what your game library will look like tomorrow (like dangling a carrot on a string not knowing when it will disappear). A subscriber could still purchase the games he wants to play but that questions the benefits of GP vs actual game ownership.

Who decides to keep or remove a game from GamePass, publishers or GP management?

 

[cheapchips]

Who decides to keep or remove a game from GamePass, publishers or GP management?

They sign specific deals per game, so when titles drop off the service it's due to those deals concluding.

Games have reappeared on the service, but can't recall another instance of a title getting an eleventh hour 'extension' like Ni No Kuni.

 

[see colon]

I don't see the benefit to the subscriber not knowing what your game library will look like tomorrow

There is always 30 days notice before a game is removed from the service. And I would encourage anyone who finds a game they like on Gamepass to purchase a game if they want to play it forever. That's what I do. Sometimes I do it when I see the game is leaving the service, because there is usually a sale. But sometimes, I just enjoy the game enough to not want to worry about it. Somewhat recently, I have been playing Back 4 Blood. I say somewhat recently, because I've been playing it regularly since it launched, day 1, one Gamepass. I bought the season pass. Then I bought the base game, because I enjoy playing it with my old Left 4 Dead friends, I wanted to support the studio, and.. It's an Xbox Play Anywhere title, so an Xbox and Windows store purchase makes the game available on both. And then, because I'm a bit irrational, I bought the game and DLC on Steam, and started playing it there so I could work on getting achievements again.

This is a long winded way to say, there is nothing preventing anyone from purchasing games that are on Gamepass, besides the normal barriers of cost. But even if you don't, games aren't removed from the service without notice overnight. There is always a notice that a game is getting removed. And the option to permanently add a game to your library via a purchase isn't removed. In fact, I would encourage people to do so when they find a game they enjoy.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Recently Microsoft stated they were removing the JRPG classic Ni No Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch from GamePass. They updated the notice recently to state it would not be removed this month.
IMO it seems a big disadvantage not knowing when a game may be removed from GP and being under the hammer to constantly play games you find interesting. GP breaks up that "cadence" of starting and playing a game based on a gamers own timetable and seems geared towards encouraging frequent online gameplay then would otherwise be the case. I don't see the benefit to the subscriber not knowing what your game library will look like tomorrow (like dangling a carrot on a string not knowing when it will disappear). A subscriber could still purchase the games he wants to play but that questions the benefits of GP vs actual game ownership.

Who decides to keep or remove a game from GamePass, publishers or GP management?

I'll explain what I think the logic behind it is using my own experience as a 5 year GP user: There's way more good games on there than you can reasonably finish. That's generally a good thing, but sometimes you will be partially finished about 3 games that you intend to finish (for me right now that's Persona 3, Lies of P, Shredders) and then one of these games (in this case Shredders) gets announced that it's leaving the service 15 or 30 days from now. That usually encourages me to complete it in the remaining time (A Plague Tale for me), but if I don't and I really like the game (ie. Alan Wake and The Witcher 3 a couple years ago) I'll end up buying the game so I can finish it. It encourages sales, which helps devs. If they give you 3 month warning about games leaving then people will probably end up buying less games.

Some people like my brother don't care - "NEXT!" You have to remember that less than 25% of people actually complete games, which was a stat from 10 years ago, so it doesn't really matter. My brother's attitude is "If it was so great I would have kept playing it over the last year that it was on the service. I'll just play the next cool game."

The one thing you can count on: MS games never leave the service. Sometimes that can be interesting in that I tend to play non-MS games first so I don't miss out on them. I like Starfield and have about 40 hours into it, but I dropped it to finish A Plague Tale Requiem because I can come back to Starfield any time I want. There are exceptions like Ori and Hellblade that I couldn't put down and they got finished right away. The more studios MS has that put out good games, the more value GP will have.

I will say this to the GP naysayers: At the very least it's a great try before you buy service if you play 5+ games a year. If you don't, and all you care about is 1 or 2 blockbuster games like Baldur's Gate 3 and Hogwarts last year, then it has less value, especially if you aren't patient. For instance, I believe Cyberpunk 2077, Elden Ring, and Alan Wake 2 will eventually end up on GP. I'm patient and can wait.

What's Remedy going to do when MS walks up and says: "Listen, your game didn't sell as well as you'd hoped. How does $50 million for a year on GP sound + $3 for every user that plays it to 25%+ completion (maybe another $15 million)?"

 

[Malo]

One aspect I found very frustrating with GP is the general inability to transfer game progress/saves to Steam. I might actually use GP as a try-before-buy platform if not for that issue. I understand that MS ideally would like you to make the purchase on their store, so I can't see much support from MS/publisher on ensuring compatibility between platforms, but honestly that's one of the big drivers for me not wanting to throw GP $15 a few times a year.

I'm sure some games you can transfer save data easily, but in the several that I've tried, it's been practically impossible based on forum and reddit threads.

 

[see colon]

One aspect I found very frustrating with GP is the general inability to transfer game progress/saves to Steam. I might actually use GP as a try-before-buy platform if not for that issue. I understand that MS ideally would like you to make the purchase on their store, so I can't see much support from MS/publisher on ensuring compatibility between platforms, but honestly that's one of the big drivers for me not wanting to throw GP $15 a few times a year.

I'm sure some games you can transfer save data easily, but in the several that I've tried, it's been practically impossible based on forum and reddit threads.

Yeah, that's game dependent. For me, though, the biggest issue has been crossplay. Since I mainly play on PC, there have been some recent games that don't have crossplay between the Xbox and Steam versions, meaning if I play a game like Darktide, I'm playing with Xbox and other PC Gamepass users with no connectivity with my Steam friends.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

These issues are probably why it isn't doing as well on PC as it is on Xbox.

But it's a must have if you're an Xbox user that likes variety - AC Valhalla, Resident Evil 2, Palworld, Madden 24, RE 3, Persona 3 Reload, Tales of Arise, Control, and Diablo IV is ridiculously good value for 3 months of GP.

 

[Nesh]

They sign specific deals per game, so when titles drop off the service it's due to those deals concluding.

Games have reappeared on the service, but can't recall another instance of a title getting an eleventh hour 'extension' like Ni No Kuni.

It would have been nice if games actually had the removal date noted so people would know what to expect. Maybe the games removal dates aren't set in stone and are kept in accordance to expected engagement

 

[Johnny Awesome]

It would be nice for gamers but bad for MS and devs. GP is already an amazing enough value without big advance warnings.

 

[BRiT]

It would be nice for gamers but bad for MS and devs. GP is already an amazing enough value without big advance warnings.

Easy rule for third party games is to assume 1 year after being added with exception of huge games like GTA, and recently NBA2K, which will be shorter. Any time the game is in the service beyond 1 year is a pure bonus.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

There is always 30 days notice before a game is removed from the service. And I would encourage anyone who finds a game they like on Gamepass to purchase a game if they want to play it forever. That's what I do. Sometimes I do it when I see the game is leaving the service, because there is usually a sale. But sometimes, I just enjoy the game enough to not want to worry about it. Somewhat recently, I have been playing Back 4 Blood. I say somewhat recently, because I've been playing it regularly since it launched, day 1, one Gamepass. I bought the season pass. Then I bought the base game, because I enjoy playing it with my old Left 4 Dead friends, I wanted to support the studio, and.. It's an Xbox Play Anywhere title, so an Xbox and Windows store purchase makes the game available on both. And then, because I'm a bit irrational, I bought the game and DLC on Steam, and started playing it there so I could work on getting achievements again.

This is a long winded way to say, there is nothing preventing anyone from purchasing games that are on Gamepass, besides the normal barriers of cost. But even if you don't, games aren't removed from the service without notice overnight. There is always a notice that a game is getting removed. And the option to permanently add a game to your library via a purchase isn't removed. In fact, I would encourage people to do so when they find a game they enjoy.

And just to add to this, when a game is about to drop off of Game Pass, MS will often offer a good discount to GP members if they buy it before it leaves.

Regards,
SB