this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
45 points (77.8% liked)

Games

32594 readers
1381 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

And what about when Microsoft ups the price on their subscription, which is clearly their strategy as gamepass doesn't appear to be profitable?

At least if you'd spent that 120€ on 2-3 games you'd be able to keep them forever.

That 120€ subscription could easily become 200€, 250€, or more. Something people may feel compelled to pay for if MS continues buying up the industry and decides to make games exclusive, which is something they're already doing to some extent.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't think giving MS a disproportionate amount of power over the market is a good thing.

[–] ChronosWing@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago (8 children)

We can "what if" all day long, the fact remains that at the moment it is a very good deal. Last numbers anyone had as far as money goes is that MS was banking 50+mil a month on gamepass subs alone and that was last year. That number should be much higher now considering the amounts of high profile releases on the platform as of late.

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

It's not a crazy what if, it's a tried and tested, proven business strategy.

Currently Microsoft is losing money on gamepass. That's why they lump it in with other services in their financials, so you can't see the losses. The pricing as it stands is nowhere near sustainable

I never said it's not currently a good deal. Those are words that you're trying to shove into my mouth.

It's a good deal now because they're having the price low while they capture the market.

[–] Pantoffel@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yes, I totally agree with what you said.

They currently try to buy out the digital gaming space of the internet, sell it for cheap and later on up the price. That's what big corporations usually do nowadays. Same with X, Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc. It's a big issues that we as consumers and later on citizens of our planet face.

However, currently it is a sweet deal for me. And the argument that I'd own the game otherwise doesn't count for me as I would most probably never replay it. So what's the use of owning it if it's just collecting dust in the shelf?

The argument of whose property the item is is different for me for movies, series, and audiobooks. I'm surprised that this scheme was not yet applied for books / e-books. Or am I wrong?

[–] ChronosWing@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago

It is applied to ebooks. Tons of subscription services for ebooks, the biggest being Amazon Prime and Scribd.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)