Xbox's New Gaming Subscription Is Just What the Struggling Console Needed

In this generation of console wars, the Xbox One has lagged behind the PS4 in both sales and consumer mindshare. In fact, a January report from games intelligence firm SuperData pegged Microsoft has selling half the number of consoles as Sony. To be frank, Microsoft is getting its ass kicked.

Which is why Microsoft’s new Xbox Game Pass is exactly the sort of thing the console needs. Think of the service as Spotify or Netflix, but for the Xbox One. When it launches later this spring, the $10 a month Xbox Game Pass subscription will give subscribers unlimited access to over 100 Xbox 360 and Xbox One games.

[chrisx]

more work is needed to be done I.e Better exclusives and new IPs

[S2Killinit]

Agree. What they need is games.

[darthv72]

I agree the struggling console needs more "new" games but I won't shun it for having an option of more affordable games as well.

[dumahim]

New games, not just new ways to access older games.
Even though I won't be using this, it's still sounds reasonable for those who do want access to older stuff on the cheap.

[ASBO-5]

to bad M$ has no games

[Stormswrath4]

Agree as well. I don't think a subscription for games I've already played is gonna save a system i bought to play new stuff.

[Number-Nine]

they need better exclusives

[moegooner88]

I don't understand why MS keeps circumventing this. It will always come down to exclusives at the end of the day to set the console apart from the others. The sooner they get this, the better. Three gens and only three major exclusive franchises to show for them...

[dirkdady]

There is a factor of economies of scale in play here - Microsoft need a lot of subs to make his plan worthwhile to the publishers. However if they can't get it then they lose steam and those that paid for the service won't ultimately reap the full benefit of the service.

[trooper_]

This service isn't going to sell consoles. More exclusives will.

[343_Guilty_Spark]

most sales come from multiplats

[stuna1]

I can understand people being hyped for this, but at the time does Microsoft really need another subscription service!? They aren't delivering on past promises! Yet they expect gamers to pay another fee, this is not an incentive to attract more gamers to the platform. This is technically a means to try to pacify those already on the platform.

Exclusives are the standout characteristic of all consoles, without them there's no differentiating quality that separates it from the next console. Buying a subscription to rent a game on a monthly basis is not a substitution for 1st party quality Ip's!

Exclusives is what Microsoft is lacking, this is a issue that needs to be tackled first before adding another service that in essence is just another means to overlook the true issue.

[AngelicIceDiamond]

"Buying a subscription to rent a game on a monthly basis is not a substitution for 1st party quality Ip's!"

Clearly I dunno what the writer is talking about its a new subscription based service obviously this doesn't take away from the real issue which is great new games.

[kstuffs]

It's optional. You are not expected to pay unless you want to subscribe kinda like PS Now but not streaming. Second this service is not mutually exclusive to new games.

[uth11]

When everyone else is playing Zelda, Horizon etc. MS gives you... Old games. Don't see how that is what Xbox needed

[AngelicIceDiamond]

Or Halo Wars 2.

@Grub Halo Wars 2 is a new game.

[GrubsterBeater]

You're proving his point...

[yeahright2]

Halo wars 2 for xbox.
on switch you have the entire launch line up.
on playstation you have yakuza 0, horizon zero dawn, near automata, nioh, ...
If you're an xbox gamer I REALLY hope you like RTS.

[_LarZen_]

It's still focusing on old games and multiplatform titles that runs and looks better on other options. It's a cool service but the main focus need to be on NEW IP's. Just look at Q1 for PlayStation. It's awesome. I worry that if Microsoft dont have some incredible new games coming in the launch window of Scorpio that nothing is gonna change...

[thisismyaccount]

- EA access $30
- Xbox Live Pass $120 to rent old games with some newer ones, you can already get for cheap as $15 - 25 ... with an option to BUY your rented games.
- Live Gold $60
=======
$210 every year to play older 360 games and some select few 2 year old xbox one titles ..... "ONE DOES NOT OWN" .

After dropping $120 and if you want to keep playing Halo Collection but not keep up the subs... gotta buy it most likely at retail price. $120 for 1 year sub or few months let say 3x month $30 and then you buy Halo MCC for add. $50 ... in other words : SUB for 1 month ($10 and play the crap out of the 100 titles, decide at the end of the month which title you wanna keep) ... if ya sub for too long, buyin the games after few months rentals would be a dumb decision. (that´s the catch22).

#no thank you.

[kstuffs]

EA Access = optional
Game Pass = optional
I know it's hard to understand that YOU make the decision if it's worth it or value added for YOU. I guess you just like Sony making the the decisions for you. We all know EA Access is not value added according to Big Brother but hey sign up on our PS Now to stream PS3 games for just $20/month.

[thisismyaccount]

ps now costs 10 bucks if not mistaken and it was as low as 7.50 ($99 sub) ;) cheaper than xbox pass with 4x times as many games.

My point was that, while those 2 are optional (to you) .... right now .. with the next generation they´re probably not anymore. It was about the worst case scenario where every publisher will have their own service.

Ubisoft U Play ~$10 ea/month
Activiosn ~$10 ea/month
EA access ~$10 ea/month
Sony ~$10 ea/month
Microsoft ~$10 ea/month
GoG like service from the W3 makers ~$10 ea/month

... sorry ... while those are optional (to you), one day they will stop being optional. For 10 bucks Xbox Game Pass, do people really believe MS will be adding Forza 7 or Halo 6?! to the service. Imagine you had to pay Valve for steam access .... yikes!

Did we miss anything from EA Access on the PS4?! Lol... nothing, except for XB1 gamers playing the games like 3 days earlier. I got physical copies of Dead Space 1 and 2 .. same with the ME games and Dragon Origins on the PC. EA access is what like 2 years old? Hasnt changed one bit since it went online ... more older games one can re-re-re-re-re-re-play for the 5th time. Mass Effect aint that good to be replayed for a 5th time ... no game is.

For it to be profitable with newer games they have to increase cost from 20 to 40 ea/year Bet with you that the numbers of games avaib. in EA access wont change much in the next few years ... for one EA does not have a big portfolio and secondly ... they need that day 1 revenue, they´re not getting back if everyone only had to drop $20 ea/year ... they´d rather have you buy Battlefront 2 at full $60 than letting you play it for "free"..

They´re only optional, if you have no interest in them.

[Phoenix76]

While i personally think that this is a really really good offering for xbox user's as a service, im also wondering how much this is going cost MS in the long run. £10 for access to 100 games per month. so that just 10p per lisence per game to the consumer. How much has MS had to pay both publishers and devs for a single lisence ??

serious question, am not trolling.

[PhoenixUp]

Who cares how much it costs Microsoft?

As a consumer we should only care how much it will cost on our end Phoenix

[jznrpg]

This will definitely not gwt me to buy Xbox, I pay enough subs in life, I just want games worth buying the box in the first place

[ziggurcat]

I think this is actually a really good idea, and I might just subscribe to the service. I might have missed it, but what's the length of time you have to finish a game if you don't outright purchase?

[corroios]

Not really. What they should be doing is buying or creating new studios to deliver games that gamers want to buy and can only play on their console/pc.

This is just another service that wont make any impact on the console war.

I know many wish that... but the reality is that games that are systems sellers are what makes the diference. Not services....

[Rude-ro]

I disagree. Although another great feature added... people do not buy a new console for old games... they want something new.
If anyone noticed... Microsoft, after the catch phrase last E3 "we only talk about games that will be available soon"... they sure do talk about everything else for as long or longer than announced or teased games on other platforms.

This would be fine if the consumers had faith in Microsofts abilities of being a gaming company and their ability to make awesome new gaming experiences... but they haven't for a long time.

Hopefully they change but everything points to no and their "most powerful console" seems to only want to attract third party developers so that they can go back to third party exclusive deals.

[feraldrgn]

Although it looks like a good service, it's not new games, or new interesting IPs, it's just another way of accessing past games.

[King_Lothric]

The same was said about EA Access and it did no difference. What Microsoft needs is to make new exclusive games for its console. They have focused more on old games and continue to milk the same old tiresome franchises.

[kstuffs]

Obviously the service is still going so money is good.