undefined | Better HN

0 pointsAdmiralAsshat4y ago0 comments

I mean, isn't this basically how it used to work when the console manufacturers were also the game developers? Like Sega and Nintendo.

0 comments

MisterBastahrd4y ago

It's not really the same. For one, when those were the two juggernauts in the game cartridge era, they weren't really in the business of just scooping up a bunch of game studios, because financially it didn't make much sense.

What's different now is that Microsoft is focusing on becoming the Amazon Prime Video of video games. While you will still be able to buy the games outright, the games of the companies they're purchasing will be part of the monthly price gamers pay to play.

So for instance, because they own Zenimax, I can load up any of the Bethesda / id games and play as part of my subscription. And when Starfield and Elder Scrolls VI come out, they'll be part of that price too. Buying Activision brings Call of Duty, Overwatch, Warcraft, Starcraft, Diablo, and a host of other games under the same umbrella.

I guess they've decided that low monthly subscriptions paired with season passes for content is the way of the future for gaming.

nightski4y ago

It's definitely a compelling offering. I don't think one model has to win over the other though. There will be room for subs and there will be room for steam libraries where you own licenses as well in the future.

For me personally I have a hard time justifying game pass. I only complete 2-3 games a year at best and it's really expensive at that rate.

Talanes4y ago

> For me personally I have a hard time justifying game pass. I only complete 2-3 games a year at best and it's really expensive at that rate.

Weirdly, that's the exact reason that I can justify Game Pass. Though I imagine you mean that you only play 2-3 games thoroughly, where I play a much larger number of games through the year, but rarely for long enough to finish them.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse