CEO Satya Nadella stated in the latest earnings call that Microsoft's goal with Game Pass is to have a Netflix for games. He also feels very good of Mixer's unique value proposition.
Interesting idea, though I think they can probably feel Nintendo coming up behind them.
Not sure what your comment had to do with the article. Anyway I like the idea of Xbox Game Pass and I could see my self getting it in the future. I think I'm just waiting for a couple more games to get on the service since I own quite a few of the ones currently on it.
I'm waiting on Xbox games to appear..than I'm sold
I hope this bombs, no matter what company is doing it. Streaming games is something I never want to become a standard. The more stuff like this fails, the better as far as I am concerned.
This isn't streaming. This is download games. It is pretty much xbox's EA access, which is pretty great.
you seem to be confusing this with psnow. psnow is streaming, game pass is downloading.
Not Streaming. This is not PSnow. You download the games to your hard drive. You also get a discount if you wish to permanently purchase the game in the event you want to cancel the subscription.
@all Well then that is not as bad. I tool the whole "netflix of gaming" comment to heart. I still prefer physical over digital, but as long as the games are not outright streamed, it is not a big deal. Sorry for my confusion on the topic.
Nintendo has been "coming up behind" everyone for the past 30 years. The glory days of the "NES monopoly" are long over. Nintendo will be coming up behind for a long, long time, as they have dinosaurs running that company into the dirt.
Having top U.S. sales in September, projections to pass Xbox for No. 2 in total system sales, the best selling handhelds every generation, countless games above a 90 average, successful mobile games, and yet they're being run into the dirt? They're not gunning for Microsoft directly but that doesn't mean they're suddenly in dier need of help.
But they need modern games for it to take off, already own 5 year old games
ReCore is 5 years old?
Nah, ReCore is just a hilarious failure, like Quantum Break, and pretty much any other trash MS has shoveled out the past few years. You think MS dumped QB and KI on Steam because sales were roaring and they were smashing successes? No different than EA dumping their failed games, and yearly schlock on their trashy Access dumping ground. Why this needed to be explained to you? I have no idea.
Or like Rigs, The Order, No Mans sky, Knack and Knack 2 and other failures on another system... Why not follow your statement of how all games Microsoft releases are trash with the old "Xbox has no games" schtick? It's even more cool when contradiction occur in the same breath. Do you need this explained to you or is it clear?
@datriax he didn't ask for an explanation though, he simply made a rhetorical question asking if ReCore is old because it isn't.
Netflix never had new movies when it started.
Netflix had thousands of movies when it started.
When Netflix was founded in 1997 they also rented DVDs. If you started a Netflix style business today with zero original programming you would be flushing your money down the toilet. Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, all of them are offering original programming for a reason. Its necessary to attract viewers. When CBS announced Star Trek Discovery, it set a record for single day sign ups of new subscribers. Original programming matters. Any smart business knows this. Trying to compare Netflix and how it functioned in the beginning with how a company in late 2017 needs to set up their operations is laughable. Anyone that wants to run their business model like something people did 20 years ago, good luck. This includes game companies. If MS wants to do this too then they should just include a free VHS rental.
@morganfell "Original programming matters. Any smart business knows this. Trying to compare Netflix and how it functioned in the beginning with how a company in late 2017 needs to set up their operations is laughable. Anyone that wants to run their business model like something people did 20 years ago, good luck. This includes game companies. If MS wants to do this too then they should just include a free VHS rental." It's 9.99 per month, anyone expecting first run games is not being reasonable. HBO costs more than that.
Prepare to be pwned: Netflix is $9.99 a month. https://www.digitaltrends.c... That's just the Marvel shows. It doesn't include all the other original programming, US dibs programming, first run movies, and original movies cost. You were slammed and slammed effing hard. Have fun living in 1997.
@morganfell "Netflix is $9.99 a month." I'm looking, so tell me where the latest Pirates Dead Man Tell No Tales, Cult of Chucky, Baby Driver and Spiderman Homecoming? I think someone here just doesn't get it.
Yeah they're really hurting without those 3 movies considering the crap ton of other offerings: http://fortune.com/2017/10/... "Netflix shares continued their climb north of $200 on Monday after the streaming service reported third-quarter earnings that beat Wall Street’s expectations in terms of revenue and subscriber growth. The company’s stock was up roughly 1.5% in after-hours trading after it already closed Monday at an all-time high of $202.68. Netflix posted third-quarter results that included $2.99 billion in revenue, up more than 30% from the same period last year, along with 5.3 million net subscriber additions to bring the company’s total number of streaming members to over 109 million. In July, Netflix predicted it would add 4.4 million subscribers in the three-month period that ended in September. Monday marked the first time that Netflix stock ever finished the day trading above $200, and those shares have been on the rise since the company said earlier this month that it will raise prices for its members for the first time since 2015. The fact that Netflix beat Wall Street’s expectations for its third-quarter revenue and subscriber growth is a positive sign for investors who may be wary of a potential backlash to the company’s latest price hike, though the effects of those pricier subscriptions will likely not be evident until the end of the current quarter. Once again, Netflix saw most of its subscriber growth overseas, as has been the case for more than a year, going back to the company’s rollout to more than 130 new countries in January 2016. In the most recent quarter, Netflix added a net total of 4.45 million international members, a 39% increase year-over-year, compared to 850,000 new subscribers in the U.S. The latter figure was lower than the domestic subscriber growth Netflix posted in each of the previous three quarters, though the 850,000 net additions did more than double the 370,000 total Netflix put up for the same quarter in 2016. Get Data Sheet, Fortune’s technology newsletter. Netflix has now reported several straight quarters of exceptional subscriber growth, the number Wall Street most often seems to use as the metric for judging the company’s success. But, as Netflix also continues to operate with negative cash flow (-$465 million in the third quarter, compared to -$506 million in the same period last year), the company’s high-spending ways will remain under scrutiny. Netflix pumps a lot of money into its content budget, with the company saying it has a whopping $17 billion committed to spending on streaming content “over the next several years.” Netflix is spending more than $6 billion on its own original TV and film programming this year alone, and content chief Ted Sarandos recently said that number would likely hit $7 billion next year. However, on Monday, Netflix said it could spend as much as $8 billion on original content in 2017."
@morganfell "Yeah they're really hurting without those 3 movies considering the crap ton of other offerings:" You can respond as much as you want, the fact is Netflix does not receive first run videos from major publishers. New movies cost about 5 or 6 dollars to rent, so again to ask game pass to somehow offer first run games for $9.99 is not very realistic. Where is the new Asassins Creed on Playstation Now, a service that costs double per month? What year will Netflix get the new Blade Runner? So don't bother buddy, you just don't get it.
Keep end mind that it is up to the publisher whether they join game pass. No publisher/dev would put a newer game on it. It is clear this is geared towards people who haven't played a lot of older games. Its still a really good deal.
Of course. Cheap and optional is always good.
Netflix also started as a backlog of older movies and tv shows. It's only a couple of years ago that they started creating their own shows and getting newer shows.
A publisher could be enticed to put on a first run game if the price is right, but this would be on MS to try and attract viewers. But in the real world, the cost would be so high that I can't see MS doing that. Even with their own IP's, they'd be giving up a lot of revenue to simply get subs in. I can see it as a short term promotional thing to get people to try the service, but not a long term way to run the business. The big games just cost too much to produce, and they'd have to have extremely high subscription rates to bring back that money. I'd imagine most games on the service are going to be at least a year old. If not more. It's probably worth just looking at PS+ or GWG to see about what to expect in the bigger picture. A few high end reasonably recent games, along with a lot of indies and older games to fill out the gaps. Original content in the nature of netflix with their original programming are going to be unlikely. However, MS did say something about some episodic gaming content, which would have lower budgets, and if it's compelling enough, it could be enough of a draw to warrant $10/month.
I don't see Wonder Woman or Spider-man Homecoming on Netflix, do you?
lol i was just playing AC: Origin on my xbox... it came out today.
Sounds very promising.
So, given MS' comical rate of blunders lately, this is sure to fail. Sounds good. Take your subscription based bulls**t, and shove it straight up your a** Nadella.
It's an optional subscription service that allows you to download and play a variety of full game titles from a fairly large catalog of games for a pretty reasonable monthly fee. If you don't like gaming it's cool. As for the comical blunders, I'm looking forward to their latest mistake in less than 2 weeks that is going to do 4K gaming better than any other console available. I'm also going to enjoy playing some of my OG Xbox games on it with enhancements for free. Wacky Microsoft and their string of comical errors.
As unlikely as it is just now, i'd like to see them put a big title in there to see gamers reaction to the service. I'm thinking forza horizon 3.
It'd have to better than FH3
It's very highly rated, and published by ms. Fits the bill.
Xbox Game pass is a fantastic addition. To new and existing gamers.
Given microsoft's success of late? This is obviously sure to fail, and that's great. Thanks, but I'd rather just keep my games in my possession, not yours. Now kindly f##k off.
"Rather" That implies it's one or the other. Crazy as it sounds you have to give a credit card number for the subscription. You can't pay for it with your existing game discs or even Trident Squares.
Its called GameFly
GameFly is expensive, plus you have to deal with shipping.
It's not that expensive, basically $10 per game out. Don't have to pay for shipping and usually they can get them there within a day or two. Love my gamefly.
good for those who like digital games but for some reason i like buying physical copies( i know i know old school haha)
Yeah same here. I only buy digital if I have too. I'm still pissed about marvel vs. capcom 2 being taken off of the ps store after I bought it.
I think the service is pretty cool, but I can't see value in it for me personally. I have too much of a backlog, and I too like buying my games for collection. Because of this, I will never be at a loss for games to play, and if something is important enough for me to play, I will already own it, making such a service redundant and wasteful. It's not much different with Netflix for me as well. I don't watch much TV, and prefer to own the movies I care about, so it's a redundant service. For those that find value in it though, I won't begrudge them liking the service. I'm willing to see if MS can make something of it, and hopefully something good can come from it. Sometimes things need to be tried to see what works.
Just invest some of the Gamepass revenue into more games and new studios..
I would actually use mixer more than Twitch but every time I go there to watch a stream there is NO sound!! Fix this issue MS!
Here's why Gaming as a Service won't work: Gamers (especially console gamers) are different than someone listening casually to music, or watching a two hour movie. A song is usually a background experience. Movies are watch and done. Games require return time investment over weeks and sometimes months. It's like renting a car opposed to buying one. Microsoft, once again trying to ruin gaming.
Ok slow it down a bit for those of us that think rationally. How will offering a streaming service "ruin gaming"? I see you referencing the car industry as a parallel to the games industry (which seems a little far-fetched, but ok), have car rentals "ruined driving" for you in some way? Maybe you just don't like to have options, but personally I think the game pass has the potential to be a very good one. I'll definitely keep an eye on the content and pricing.
I won't make assumptions about where you live, but there are lots of people that rent cars. They even have this thing called leasing cars.
I think that you nailed the brilliance of Games as a Service. It is not for core gamers that buy the games all the time. It is more for the casual gamers that buy a console but don't play enough to warrant buying $60 games. Think about it. If I play only 6 games in the subscription paid per year it paid for itself. Buy Xbox Live Gold and Games Pass and you get to own 48 games a year (2 xbox one and 2 xbox 360 games per month) and have access to the additional games in Games Pass. It is not hard to see value there.
I don't feel this kind of service is an attempt to ruin gaming. It's looking for a way to take another successful paradigm and apply it to gaming, which in turn can help the industry in general. Whether it does that or not remains to be seen. Ultimately, for a service like this to work, there has to be games to play on it, and those games have to be made. So long as games are made it helps the industry. If it comes to where games are only made for a service like this(not just having some content made exclusively for it but across the board), then maybe it'd be ruining gaming, but I'd expect it'd just be ruining it for some users, as by then, there would be a rather substantial market for such a service to support it, and the game industry would go on.
N4G WENT DOWN IN THE MIDDLE OF ME POSTING: Corrected Post: Here's why Gaming as a Service won't work: Gaming (especially console/PC gaming) is different than someone listening casually to music, or watching a two hour movie. Movies are watch and done until you (maybe) feel like watching it again. Songs are typically background entertainment. Games require return time investment over weeks and sometimes months. Kind of the comparison of someone who drives a lot renting a car instead of buying one. It just doesn't make sense. Microsoft, once again trying to ruin gaming. Back to the 'always online' requirement. More like Microsoft just wants to always be in control of how you play.
There is some truth to your description but it pertains more to PSNow than game pass. Game pass you can download the game you want (from the list) and keep it for as long as you want to play and then delete it when you are done. What you were describing about being online is more for the streaming side of things (like PSNow). i believe with game pass, once you have downloaded the game you can go offline during your subscription time and play at your liesure. Obviously if you want to download other games then you have to go online but that is less intrusive than a constant connection like other streaming services offer. Plus the quality of the game is not compromised by compression of the stream or QoS of the internet provider. Gaming as a service can work as long as you know the differences between full game downloads vs streamed games played on the fly.
Ideally, we wouldn't need to worry about money. We would all work doing something we love, be given anything we desire, and have self-control enough to not be greedy. (The Star Trek society.) That is an environment in which the 'as long as you pay a service charge you can digitally borrow any games' model would function. Unfortunately, in today's society we rely upon investing that helps solidify our financial stability. Together with saving, we all have peace-of-mind we have an equitable foundation. The reason we all are attracted to this lifestyle is because we know how unstable financial life can be. If everything turned to a 'Lifestyle as a Service' model as soon as one natural financial disaster would occur we'd find ourselves with nothing but the skin on our back. Probably a bigger philosophical/economical/socio logical conversation than can be had or done justice to in a N4G comments section, though.
That's right, they want to control how you play by giving you more options. Makes sense. Always online was BS because it took away the option for playing games offline. Please enlighten us on what option game pass is taking away.
Always online only pertains to Sony's PSNow streaming service. The 2013 reveal didn't require an "always online" connection. It offered gamers the ability to rip all games to the HDD giving them access to all their games without disc based DRM. There was an online check performed to verify your library since games could be accessed remotely. This check was periodic, I think once every 24 hours. The irony is I have all my consoles online 24/7 anyway.
"Microsoft, once again trying to ruin gaming. Back to the 'always online' requirement. More like Microsoft just wants to always be in control of how you play." Ruin gaming by offering an optional service? Back to 'always online' by... doing what? Letting you download games and play them locally? Out of Games Pass and PSNow, PSNow is the one that requires a constant connection, because you're streaming instead of downloading the game and playing it locally. I'd also argue that there's a lot of people who would just play games once and then put them down - single player games being a good example. If someone wanted to play Recore but didn't want to pay full retail price for it, they could pay $10, play it through, then that's done. Sounds pretty good to me
LOL. MS wants to be the Netflix of games, don't yo need games for that?
There are more than 100 games on game pass to choose from for $9.99 a month. If you are feeling frisky you can try all of them for 10 cents each. This is out of the close to 1500 available games for XBox ranging from OG Xbox, 360, Xbox One and of course the Indy shovel ware that makes up a large bulk of current gen libraries. LOL
Lol, downloading 105gb Halo 5 to he able to play it is NOTHING like Netflix. It's is the complete opposite to Netflix. Another Xbox myth/buzzword, debunked.
Netflix is not about whether it streams or requires downloading of massive files. Netflix is about the availability of a massive library of movies for a low price. Games as a Service is the same thing... And just so you know. in 1996 Megabytes of downloads were considered ridiculous and dumb. In 2006 Microsoft limited XBLA games to 50 megabytes fearing the download sizes. In 2017 we cringe at 105 GB downloads but within 5-10 years it will be like downloading 5 GB is today.
Bro dont Pretend that the entire world has 50mbps average internet speed with no data capping. Internet is good and great but there are many problems that arise like, terabyte HDD running out of space after downloading 7 massive games and need to buy another external drive if you want to keep the games and not redownload them, no guarantee that the servers will keep decades old game content unlike owning a physical copy. Bottomline, GaaS and MP future of gaming is not for everyone. I like SP games and physical copies thank you. But if things like these interests gamers like you then fine
Andrew is right, Gamepass is nothing like Netflix. The Netflix logo is red and Xbox uses green primarily. Not to mention games are nothing like movies (usually). The only think that makes Gamepass like Netflix is having multiple titles to choose from and a very reasonable price model. Other than that they are nothing alike. #xboxdebunked
mixer is freaking great....
I've always said their should be a Netflix type of gaming service and MS seems to be laying down the tracks for this. Using game pass now and o have played a lot more games I never got to thanks to this service. This and Gamefly and I pretty much got my gaming covered
It seems those that complain about game pass keep mistaking it for psnow (which complaints are more appropriat / valid).
People that complain about needing physical games and hate downloading games need to get into the future and stop living in the past along with horse drawn carriages and believing the world is flat! This is Microsoft seeing how Netflix is dominating the entire TV and now Movie industry and want to do the same with gaming. And when you look at what Microsoft are doing with the lack of games for Xbox the last year or so and the lack of exclusives you see they are actually doing what Netflix did. For those unaware, Netflix started the subscription service buying the licences to allow watching TV and Films, but the licence owners wanted far too much money which meant subscriptions would have to keep rising. Instead, they decided to cut the greedy studios out of the picture, remove their content when the licences expired and invested all the subscription money into creating their own content. This content had more freedom, better budgets and more support and is bringing the likes of House Of Cards, Stranger Things, and now we are seeing straight-to-Netflix movies that have big Hollywood budgets. The result..... Subscriptions are going through the roof, customers and critics are pleased and trending the new Netflix Original content and they now have Billions to invest in even more content. If Microsoft are working with the cheaper and indie developers to get their games on the Game Pass platform, raise subscriptions to a level that brings in huge revenue, and then re-invests that revenue into their own gaming content, this will lead to an all-you-can-eat gaming subscription service that will within 2 or 3 years start seeing better quality content that is not just old stuff, but original new AAA games that you can ONLY play on Game Pass, which means that not only do you keep subscribing, but you know that you can't get it anywhere else other than on Game Pass, purely because Microsoft have had it developed for their service, rather than buy up the rights to a developers multi-platform game that will cost huge amounts in royalties. It is a HUGE gamble, but it could be the biggest change to gaming we have ever seen, where 10 years from now the idea of actually BUYING a game seems so old fashioned when you can just pay $15 a month and get thousands of fantastic games and you just pick and choose what you play at night the same as we do with Netflix.