As I remember you always kept your games as long as you have a plus subscription.
yes, but there was a pool of games which had monthly updates rather than today where titles are only available fir one month
As I remember you always kept your games as long as you have a plus subscription.
I believe it was 6 games (instant games library) with a rotation each month (1 in and 1 out)yes, but there was a pool of games which had monthly updates rather than today where titles are only available fir one month
bah, Phil Spencer has said in an interview with IGN that he wants the service to come to Windows 10, too, so hopefully it will happen over time.We saw the same reactions from the EA Access announcement, and as far as I'm aware, that program is doing fairly well.
And here we go with MS PR and messaging again...
I believe it was 6 games (instant games library) with a rotation each month (1 in and 1 out)
If you were subscribed, your library grew that month (by 1 title), much as it is now.
So more or less, very close to what we have today's PS+/XBLG.
Still different from what's being offered with game pass. There's no intention to force rotation for game pass, much like Netflix has no intention of rotating its titles either. But when the publisher wants to pull their game out, inevitably it will exit.
So like I originally said then "So this is like an expanded version of the original PS Plus except games don't get removed?"
he also said that Xbox Game Pass has been in development for 2 or 3 yearsPhil had a few comments I found interesting on that podcast
A motivator was giving games another monetization window. Like movies that have various "windows" where they make money then drop off, like theatre release, DVD release etc. So I guess once games have dropped off the radar, they have the opportunity to make money again with this service. Which does hint more at old games.
He thought like Netflix now has content created specifically for it, one day he is hopeful you could see creative content debut directly on gamepass. he mentioned episodic content for example.
He has used PS Now, he thinks streaming makes the most sense with "non performant" hardware. EG, if you have a box that isn't powerful enough to play the games. However in the case of Xbox One, people have the power to play the games, so downloading them locally just makes more sense than streaming.
Thinking about this, I suppose the initial bandwidth download is higher for download, but over time streaming could catch up or surpass the BW used. So it's trading an upfront charge for spread out really. But you do get the advantage of less latency locally, that one is inarguable.
If by "like an expanded version" you mean that it's superficially similar but quite different. If you started PS+ a year later than someone else, you're first 6 titles might be completely different than the 6 they got. The standard library of 6 (which is guaranteed to change over time) versus a claimed 100 or more (which is likely to only change if a publisher no longer wants a title in there or when a title is added). PS+ grew each month as long as you subscribed but you lost it as soon you stopped. Xbox game pass may or may not grow each month and is not dependent on continually being subscribed. Buy PS+ for 2 months out of the year and at most you'd have gotten access to 12 titles. Buy Xbox Game Pass for 2 months and you'll presumably get access to over 100 different titles.
It's similar in the same way 7-Eleven is similar to Walmart. Kind of similar but not really.
Regards,
SB
You don't have to build up your library is the biggest difference. There's no penalty in coming into game pass late or advantages of coming in early. The payment model to developers would be different as well.Wow, talk about pedantic lol
Change 6 to 'over 100' and it's the same but games don't get removed - like I said.
Anyway, I'm sure someone will see value in this, it's just a shame they didn't include live access.
lol, oh, yea I guess that's a way to view it.Yeah, I get that - that's why I said no games removed
I wonder, just putting this out there - what would you pay monthly to have access to the whole library...as it stands you have Live & EA & now this (think it adds up to around $18 pm but feel free to correct me...so what would be a biting point for all games?
Yeah, I get that - that's why I said no games removed
I wonder, just putting this out there - what would you pay monthly to have access to the whole library...as it stands you have Live & EA & now this (think it adds up to around $18 pm but feel free to correct me...so what would be a biting point for all games?
It does not have to be an all inclusive unique price.Yeah, I get that - that's why I said no games removed
I wonder, just putting this out there - what would you pay monthly to have access to the whole library...as it stands you have Live & EA & now this (think it adds up to around $18 pm but feel free to correct me...so what would be a biting point for all games?
It does not have to be an all inclusive unique price.
A pricing by hours played can be envisioned.
For instance - you sign up and you have no ideea how many hours you will play under the gamepass subscription. If it is less than 10 hours, you will be charged $5. If it si between 10 and 30 hours, you could be charged $10. If it is between 30 and 100 hours - $15. And, above 100 hours played - $20. Something like this.
From https://www.gamespot.com/articles/all-the-xbox-game-pass-titles-right-now/1100-6448286/https://www.gamespot.com/articles/all-the-xbox-game-pass-titles-right-now/1100-6448286/:
How's that looking? Seems quite a mixed bag to me. As others have said, for an instant library of cheap games, not bad. For the core gamer though, doubt there's much on there that'll entice. I don't see it being an alternative to buying $60 games unless you're happy to wait. PS+ has shown that doesn't pay off so much these days, with a real lack of quality titles appearing. Probably more likely to see MS 1st/2nd party AAA titles make the list.