I think it just means that people who consume a lot of games are more likely to invest in Game Pass in general. They were already playing 40% more games before Game Pass, now they're still doing it. Not that meaningful of a statistic other than to say people who play a lot of games find a way to pay less to continue to play a lot of games.
Those consumers who are more likely to get into GamePass were paying 40% more than the average.
It's not "all consumers" but it's in comparison to the average.
So, If Game Pass users are playing more games in Game Pass and outside, it's more than likely that they were always playing more than the average at the same rate before Game Pass. It's not "consumers" playing more, it's the subset that use Game Pass play more than on average.
And, gangsta, you definitely play more games than the average user. Before and after Game Pass. The average gamer doesn't play as much as people think. Let alone as many games.
I have not signed up for GP just yet. I almost did but my Live sub is up for renewal in November so I may take advantage of the deals around that time.
In the mean time though, I was accepted to the xCloud beta and I got to play Gears 5 last night using my Galaxy S6 and it was rather impressive. I had a few instances of my wifi being taxed but otherwise it worked. I had not played Gear 5 prior but it is on the beta as is Halo 5, Killer instinct (I have those) and Sea of Thieves. That one i'm going to try next.
If it werent for the beta, I prob would have joined GP recently, but now I dont have to in order to play SoT and Gears 5. Gears is one I'm planning on getting anyways though (steelbook edition) but just hadn't gotten to it.
Lol that makes zero sense. My doctor said drink more water. I been drink 40% more since. Nope I was already drinking 40% more before the doctor told me 😆.
Their statement: "GAME PASS USERS are playing 40% MORE GAMES including outside Game Pass"
This statistic is comparing overall gamers with Game Pass Users.
Game Pass Users are a subset of overall gamers.
There are millions more users than there are Game Pass Users.
So, let's say 10 people represent all gamers.
Aaron - Plays 1 game a month Brienne - Plays 2 games a month Chad - Plays 3 games a month Derrick - Plays 4 games a month Evelyn - Plays 5 games a month Frank - Plays 6 games a month Gerard - Plays 7 games a month Hilda - Plays 8 games a month Irene - Plays 9 games a month Joel - Plays 10 games a month
Average games they play a month: 5.5 games per month
Now, let's say 20% of those gamers sign up for Game Pass.
What you think is happening:
Aaron and Brienne sign up. Aaron and Brienne are now playing 7.7 games per month (40% more than the gamer set of 5.5 games per month). They essentially went from the lowest tier to the upper tier, even though the typical reasons they don't play many games is tied to time and not finances, or even sole interest in a few games (such as F2P Battle Royale games).
What is more than likely happening:
Irene and Evelyn sign up. Their average is 7.7 together now, but they already come from having an average number of games equal to 7 games per month. They increase this to 0.7 more games per month. Both already played a ton of games, but because one played so many it brought the average up when you put just them in a subset and then compare it to overall gamers.
---
If you don't understand it now, then you just won't. But people seem to ignore that the subset of Game Pass Users are being compared against the main set of gamers, it is not saying they play 40% more games now but that the average of that subset is higher than the average of the entirety of the set.
Admittedly these figures are way more complicated and more diverse, but I hope you at least understand the statistics of it being represented. There is no direct correlation unless you account for how much they played games individually prior to Game Pass.
To put it in terms of your really poor "water drinking example" your doctor would never tell you to drink "40% more water" without knowing how much you drank before. They would say, instead, to drink 8 cups of water a day. If you told them you already drink that much, they wouldn't suddenly tell you to drink 40% more. Nor would they make any calculations based on percentages without knowing the definitive number before hand. But we don't know that definitive baseline number beforehand, we only get a percentage from Microsoft. Percentages based on subsets are rarely truly indicative of what they're trying to sell, but people just don't understand it.
As always, MS trying to play with the way they interpret the numbers to make it fit their narrative, it's not that the type of people that play 40% more games also have Gamepass, is that the people that have Gamepass plays 40% more games.
There is just a few selected titles that don't age with time ,ms just plays it right, most gamers move on to newer games after they beat the older ones, that's just a fact ,on regards of supporting these games ,they can make profit from services, sales isn't just the only way anymore.
Aren't they referring to this though: "Well, they have a lot of free games to play -- but actually they're way more engaged outside the subscription. They go out to stores and buy more games than they did before they joined."
I think it's referring to engaging your more involved gamer, like you said. But it's specifically talking about a gamer who, through MS's own monitoring, is seen to be playing 40% more than before through GP games and retail.
It kind of describes me. Prior to 2018, my Xb wasn't really my primary console. With the X and GP, things shifted last year and I'm playing more on it overall.
It’s stating that people that have subscribed to gamepass are playing 40% more games then they were playing before subscribing to gamepass, not that gamepass people play 40% more then those that aren’t.
Also subscribers are playing 30% more genres then they played before they subbed. That myself i have found to be true. I’m trying tonnes of games and genres i never would have without something like gamepass
***"They were already playing 40% more games before Game Pass, now they're still doing it"***
Nothing in the article supports this statement.
The very first paragraph of the article:
"Subscribers to Xbox Game Pass are buying more titles and trying a wider variety of genres than they did before joining."
Agostino Simonetta also shared this
"subscribers are playing 40% more games -- including titles outside the Game Pass catalogue"
The article goes on to say...
"People that join the subscription are way more engaged," said Simonetta. "Well, they have a lot of free games to play -- but actually they're way more engaged outside the subscription. They go out to stores and buy more games than they did before they joined."
The article also states that Gamepass subscribers are playing 30% more genres than they did before joining the service and that games featured on GP are seeing an average 6x increase in usage across the board. In addition to this and another key takeaway is that games featured on GP are seeing increased sales even outside the Xbox ecosystem, indicating that games included with GP are driving sales on other platforms too.
"the Afterparty team the other day said after seeing their game go on Game Pass day and date, suddenly they were seeing a lot of sales on other platforms. No More Robots said when Descenders went into Game Pass from Xbox Game Preview, they saw a positive impact on other platforms."
Not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that Gamepass subscribers were playing 0% more games than they did prior to joining, as that is essentially what you have stated in your comment above.
I understand the theory behind false equivalence, I know it exists and I know how it can be used.
My issue is that although false equivalence could be at play in the reporting of this data, it is simply speculation on your part when you state that it is. There is nothing within the data presented in the article that supports what you have written. Further to this, looking at the data referenced in the article there is compelling evidence to suggest that not only is the above statement speculative it may also be incorrect.
I think it is entirely reasonable to assume that someone that suddenly has access to an additonal 150 titles via GP would play 40% more games and 30% more genres than they had done previously, I am not making a statement on this because that would also be speculation.
Regardless, it is still purely speculative when you state a 0% increase in games being played because you are assuming false equivalence.
***Further to this, looking at the data referenced in the article there is compelling evidence to suggest that not only is the above statement speculative it may also be incorrect.***
There is no data presented... Just statements based on their interpretation of the data.
***Regardless, it is still purely speculative when you state a 0% increase in games being played because you are assuming false equivalence.***
I never said that. In fact, in my example I showed an increase, just not the 40% amount.
Where in the article did they say the gamers in game pass played more games before?
From the article:
"People that join the subscription are way more engaged," said Simonetta. "Well, they have a lot of free games to play -- but actually they're way more engaged outside the subscription. They go out to stores and buy more games than they did before they joined."
The gamers in gamepass are playing 40% more games then they did before subscribing to gamepass and they are purchasing more games then they did before buying gamepass. They also said that gamers in gamepass are also playing 30% more genres when they subscribe to gamepass.
Loving it. I've said what I needed to say, but people really are easily sold by twisting statistics to suit an outcome. I mean, I didn't even mention how much they play of these supposed more games (inferred by assuming people suddenly had more time to play games when school just started), how much focus is still on latest releases, and the like (inferred by them still spending money outside of Game Pass at a supposedly higher rate).
I'm glad people are happy with Game Pass, though. I mean, I'm getting The Outer Worlds for just having an XBL sub. But, don't just accept figures being thrown at you. Read between the lines. You can still believe in a product while doing that. I know I do.
I don't think it's for people who can't afford games. That's like saying Netflix is for people who can't afford movies. It's more of a convenience thing, at least for me.
Netflix sort of is, I mean I can afford to buy movies but it would be fairly reckless for those of us with families to provide for to go out and buy every single movie we have an interest in watching and seeing as rental places like Blockbusters are gone and we've lost our cheap movie night solutions. This is especially true of TV shows.
I don't really need Gamepass nor have the time with existing games to get enough value from it but I'd have loved something like this when I was a young teenager, I probably spent nearly the same amount each month back on game rentals as I couldn't afford to buy new releases.
Well @ThinkThink. Im a college kid that can't afford to buy many games anymore like I could when I was younger. So yes, Gamepass really does help out. I've saved 100's on games I was going to buy (Forza, Gears, Just Cause 4), and then on top of that I was able to try a couple $100's worth of games that new I could not afford to just buy and hope they were good enough and worth the very little amount of money I have to spend on games today. So yeeah, gamepass kinda IS for people that wanna save long run and can't afford all the games...especially in a world where the average price in CAD for a new game is like $89-99 not including if you wanna buy the season pass etc. I pass over the sports games for this reason they are just too much money.
You do realize this statistic is for those that signed up for a dollar right? And 100% they are going to try and find any game that they like. Could it boost of a use of game that may have not before gamepass? Yes... But any demo could do and has done that as well. Regardless.. does it boost sales of a game? Does it get great support from consumers that could make a game grow? How well does a game on gamepass support microtransactions and dlc? What is that like for a consumer who only has limited time to access certain games? Ie those purchases fall off unless they then buy the game. If someone comes across said game that they do like, they would most likely purchase those games and no longer use gamepass no?
See, the % Kong’s, Microsoft, do things to get said articles to spin their direction.
If I were to sign up, 100% games would be tried... but what is the life and is it worth the monthly fee for what is basically a paid for demo? Microsoft could do a hell of a lot more for developers by supporting free demos and let gamers choose and give data to Microsoft for what gamers are looking for. Ie info for new ips.
To this point.. Microsoft’s own output does not justify a monthly fee. In the life of this console gen, and even into last gen... Microsoft has made more consoles than new AAA ips.
@Rude-ro...I had the same thoughts before I signed up when it came to dlc and micro on gamepass but guess what? I got Forza Horizon 4 and all the dlc and the new Gears platinum edition and guess how much that cost me? Only the $30 for the season pass and VIP content from Forza Horizon 4 versus $240 for both games at full pop + buying the season content for each. So yeah, the monthly fee easily offset this not to mention I have about 10 games from gamepass that I was able to play including the 2 I just mentioned without having to shell out a dime for the base game itself.
Gamepass is a life saver when you're a part time worker on a more than full time college workload.
I think it just means that people who consume a lot of games are more likely to invest in Game Pass in general. They were already playing 40% more games before Game Pass, now they're still doing it. Not that meaningful of a statistic other than to say people who play a lot of games find a way to pay less to continue to play a lot of games.
Gamepass is really suitable for people who can't really afford games. If gamepass came out when I was a teen I would have been doomed for sure.