Welp, the Xbox version is dead in the water. What were they thinking?

[Skindef]

I hope they clarify that they actual mean "The Free Trial version" is what requires GamePass Core/Ultimate (still not a good look) after this beta test and NOT the actual Full Paid Client version. Otherwise double dipping is GG and a no go for me. I was all excited too since I recently upgraded to a Series X awaiting this beta only for them to exclude us now to just the new players. I've been here since Ps3 Beta days. What a defeat if this is all true. This feels off as you can play free games such as Rocket League & Apex Legends online with no GamePass. Really hoping this was just a misunderstanding for the Free Trial version.

[Sqwall]

If the PS version of FFXIV doesn't require PS+ then it probably doesn't need anything from Sony's backend to function.

Microsoft has had a history of wanting to stick their fingers into every pie they can find which likely includes requirements for SE to utilize part of the XBL net structure setup for their consoles just to have them connect to the game server. That was the biggest hurdle in getting FFXI on the 360 and I also believe part of the reason why they dropped that version later. I also recall Microsoft in the past refusing to allow titles on xbox consoles if the developers didn't put a minimum amount of achievements in the game which resulted in a fair amount of titles that could be used for gamer score fluffing because players could get all the achievements in them in a matter of an hour or 2.

The reason it took so long to get FFXI on 360 was because Microsoft didn't agree to the patching policy the POL was using. Sony had complete control over POL as a service and it's patching QA policies. Believe it or not, but every patch must be inspected for viruses and code that can potentially brick a console. It would be very bad business decision to allow a bad patch file to be downloaded on 20+ Million machines...and then Sony or Microsoft is left fixing the issue.

So Microsoft had I believe at the time a MORE stringent QA policy then Sony did during the PS2 days which led to the game never coming to OG XBOX until around 2006 after the 360 launched. By then POL was a dead program as Sony phased it out as PS3 was pretty much out by then. It was just a sign of the times and the biter rivalry between to large companies.

FFXIV was also not immune to this issue as it has also been stated that Microsoft wanted more control over patch QA process, and I believe it was SE this time that didn't agree for a long time about how they should implement there patches and updates. Not to mention cross platform play being another contributor. Honestly, I couldn't care at all if I played with a PC, XBOX or PS5 player on the other end. I wish these companies would just combine there networks so we can all just play together no matter what machine we play on.

I don't think anyone thought it could never work on XBOX because it wasn't powerful enough...but it was just bureaucracy behind the scenes that really was the main issue and microsoft being microsoft.

[dspguy]

Games that are inherently online-only should not require any other payment. If there is a game that has a single-player / local only option, that's one thing. But this game shouldn't have an added fee. The player is already paying that. Xbox simply shouldn't offer the game at all if they intend on tacking on an extra payment on top of it. But, that's capitalism. Players can let their voices be heard by not buying xboxes in the future.

[Mosha]

"To play on Xbox, you will need to link your Microsoft account and Square Enix account. You will not be able to unlink the accounts once linked. "

I am always a bit dubious and would not be surprise but does this imply that if you link account to MS and want to play on PC that you may need a gamepass also + 14 sub? feels a bit like the steam restriction potential issue. I would stick to PC/PS5/Mac using non steam I suppose.

So if i then cancel my xbox sub, just want to play on PC... will it simply remain agnostic of linking my 14 account is what I am wondering. I get linking PS5 it requires PSN etc but not if M$ make some money grabbing nuance.

The SE/Steam launcher is completely separate from any Microsoft services. So game pass will never be a requirement on PC. I don't think Microsoft wants to cause an easy anti-trust suit against them from the other PC storefronts

[Sqwall]

The SE/Steam launcher is completely separate from any Microsoft services. So game pass will never be a requirement on PC.

Yeah GamePass business model is pretty bad when you look at other alternatives. What blows my mind is how Microsoft can get away with putting their 1st party titles on gamepass...at NO extra cost?! As a business model...this is terrible. Microsoft is literally banking on the idea that people WANT to play these games, but the customer doesn't need to pay full price...in an industry where games are now $70....because math. If anything it's consumer friendly I guess...it's cheap if the game is terrible (Red Fall, Starfield).

But I HIGHLY doubt Microsoft is enjoying the numbers they are getting from GamePass...as i'm sure it brings in a truck load of revenue...I would like to see the balance sheet on what Microsoft is paying for. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they are spending WAY more then they want to which is eating into their profits. Microsoft should put there exclusives on other platforms and sell them for $70. That would generate a crap load of revenue to offset the loss of profits from GamePass.

[Mostly_Raxus]

they are bleeding money like every tech industry atm, look at how many people Microsoft just laid off from these fields, poor wow thought Microsoft was the savior come to liberate their game but first thing they did was fire a load of people and put a call of duty rep in charge. these companies are not who they were when they gained our trust, and they are cashing in on us not realizing that.

[CaptainLagbeard]

Not allowing existing players to participate in the test and requiring two monthly subscriptions is definitely going to drive away a good chuck of the potential audience...

[Skindef]

Only W I see coming out of this if somehow someway GamePass eats the monthly sub (huge doubt). No way I see a scenario where a Free Player thinks to themselves:

"You know what? Let's pay $59.99+ for the complete edition plus $9.99+ for GamePass plus $12.99+ for monthly sub plus $39.99+ for future expansions now."

[Mosha]

Yeah GamePass business model is pretty bad when you look at other alternatives. What blows my mind is how Microsoft can get away with putting their 1st party titles on gamepass...at NO extra cost?! As a business model...this is terrible. Microsoft is literally banking on the idea that people WANT to play these games, but the customer doesn't need to pay full price...in an industry where games are now $70....because math. If anything it's consumer friendly I guess...it's cheap if the game is terrible (Red Fall, Starfield).

But I HIGHLY doubt Microsoft is enjoying the numbers they are getting from GamePass...as i'm sure it brings in a truck load of revenue...I would like to see the balance sheet on what Microsoft is paying for. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they are spending WAY more then they want to which is eating into their profits. Microsoft should put there exclusives on other platforms and sell them for $70. That would generate a crap load of revenue to offset the loss of profits from GamePass.

Why would they charge extra for their games on their own platform that defeats the purpose of their business model.

By other platforms you mean just the PS5? What they are already considering doing from the reports I've read.

[Sqwall]

Why would they charge extra for their games on their own platform that defeats the purpose of their business model.

By other platforms you mean just the PS5? What they are already considering doing from the reports I've read.

I just fail to see from a profit stand point how that is a viable business model. If a games development was $200 million lets say...just a number here. And the average cost of GamePass is $10 a month and roughly 25 million subscribers. That seems kinda of limiting when they could be charging a reduced rate for GamePass holders....say like $40 for a triple AAA, $30 for AA, and $20 for Indie. This alone would be a huge boon for XBOX users and PC gamers.

GamePass Model:
25,000,000 * 10 = $250,000,000 Sales - $200,000,000 Cost of development = $50,000,000 Profit

GamePass Model w/ reduced prices for AAA games:
25,000,000 * 10 = $250,000,000 Sales - $200,000,000 Cost of development = $50,000,000 Profit
Let's say the game sells additional 3,000,000 Copies at $40 = $120,000,000 Profit
Let's say they also sell $1,000,000 on PS5 if they were to go multiplatform at $70 a unit =$70,000,000
$120,000,000 + $50,000,000 + $70,000,000 = $240,000,000 in one month

Old Model vs. New proposed model:
$50,000,000 - $240,000,000 = $190,000,000 sitting on the table because GamePass is to cheap and in my opinion hindering game development. If there is only a 3 billion cash flow each year...that REALLY limits the amount of titles they can develop at one time...and games take YEARS to make. GamePass is literally banking on the "wait and see, you'll like it when it comes out" subscription methodology. I don't know about you...but I would do what I do with streaming services....ditch them when i'm done with the show, and reup when it's back.

Microsoft needs to get better marketing and FIRE the budget managers they currently have....because GamePass isn't sustainable if they don't get 25million more subscribers in the next 3 years. Eventually those numbers will level out and growth will stagnate. If they are selling "premium games" then they need to market them as premium products and charge accordingly. Otherwise, you will have budgets hampering development, not creativity.

Sorry for the rant...but I deal with stuff like this everyday, and you have to understand what people are willing to pay and how to market something, while being fiscally responsible. You don't get rich selling poor quality items, you'll make a lot of money, but you have to think about the next item you need to sell.

Sony has been selling their AAA titles at $70 with NO reduced price. You pay the sticker price. This can be anti consumer initially, as you are helping your title underperform at launch. The die hard fans and people with disposable income will go ahead and pre-order. The next group that can only afford 4-5 games a year...they wait and maybe go a week or 2 later. And the really consumer savvy group will wait for a sale or reviews to come out. Crappy game...no thanks....not cheap enough so i'll wait for a sale at Christmas.

Microsoft has a GREAT opportunity here so boost the XBOX brand while taking care of their fans. "Sony has to pay $70 for exclusives, XBOX owners pay $40" is that fair? When it comes to brand....your competitor doesn't have to follow your rules, but you can offer them a choice...most times they take the deal, but the REAL thing XBOX should be thinking is how do we gain a customer?