Phil Spencer has elaborated in a new interview why he came up with Game Pass for Microsoft.
Introduced in 2017, Game Pass is a subscription service that expands what was available in games compared to what came before it. Phil himself came up with the idea of introducing a rental game service, after he took over as head of Xbox. Phil’s idea always involved cloud gaming from the start, as it fell in line with Microsoft’s new focus on cloud based services.
Game Pass allows you to play a dynamic library of games, from multiple publishers, and with no limits to what games you can play. Microsoft allows you to pay for different features at different tiers, including online play, playing on PC, and playing games on the cloud.
Microsoft brought Game Pass to another level when they brought the highly anticipated Sea of Thieves, Rare’s first original IP in years, to the service on the same day it launched. Many games are now offered on same day release on Game Pass and retail launch.
So, in the Second Request podcast, Phil elaborated on his reasoning for coming up with Game Pass, including why games release on it the same day as launch.
Phil first explains that the business model for TV shows and movies is different from video games, but it also offers consumers many options. Between theatrical release, home video, and streaming, movie and show watchers have their choice of how the watch what they want, and under what terms.
Video games were going under diametrically opposed directions, and neither were necessarily favorable to gamers. Either you had to buy games at full price, which more and more consumers were resistant to, or you played free-to-play games. There would be a large number of consumers who would not favor either model, either because it’s beyond their means, or it opens them up to predatory business practices.
In Phil’s own words:
“We thought, there is an opportunity here to create a tier in the middle. Our case here is $ 10 a month using US pricing. And we said, we’re going to put our full AAA games in there on the day that they launch. And for customers who want to use the subscription as a way to build their library, it’s their choice.”
Phil further elaborated it isn’t entirely accurate to compare them to Netflix, because Game Pass doesn’t take away your ability to buy games that are under it.
As of this moment, not everyone is quite fond of Game Pass, but it’s hard to argue that Phil’s assertions aren’t true. As of right now, there are 25 million subscribers to Game Pass. There really are developers, like Josh Sawyer, who says Game Pass opened up opportunities for games like his own narrative game Pentiment to be produced. The service may pick up steam once again next year, when Microsoft’s next major AAA games, Redfall and Starfield, release to the service.
You can read Phil’s full comments below.
I agree with you that the diversity in business models that creators can use to build games is something that as an industry we should embrace and defend. Just like if you think about video entertainment.
The business model on broadcast television is different than it is on a subscription, different than it is when I go to the movies. And the fact that all of these exist is a good thing on the creative side. Because you have creators that have a specific point of view in terms of what they’re trying to deliver.
And as a consumer, if I feel like I want to go to a two hour movie via the cinema, I can go do that. If I want to subscribe to Netflix or Disney Plus, I can do that in my house. And if I want to sit down and watch YouTube or NBC I can do that. The business model supports the way that I want to engage in the content and frankly the creators who build this different content.
I don’t want one business model to become dominant in gaming. I think we’ve seen in certain markets, like music, because it’s been interesting to watch the evolution of the music market. And I want gaming to be viable under multiple business models.
That’s one of the reasons why we created Game Pass originally. You saw a lot of games, large games, going free-to-play, because the top will funnel the ability to track somebody when there’s no upfront cost. When there’s zero friction to attacting a new customer, it’s pretty appealing.
And if your only other option is a $ 70 retail game, that’s a huge gap for many people on the planet. They will either spend $ 70 on a game, and there are games that are less expensive, or have to play a free-to-play game.
We thought, there is an opportunity here to create a tier in the middle. Our case here is $ 10 a month using US pricing. And we said, we’re going to put our full AAA games in there on the day that they launch. And for customers who want to use the subscription as a way to build their library, it’s their choice.
We don’t put games exclusively in the subscription, so when people try to compare it to Netflix or something, I cringe a little bit. Every game that’s available on our subscription is also available to buy. And you as a player, you get to make the decision on how you want to play and build your library of games.
I think free-to-play has a role. There are certain creative opportunities that are there for game builders, that are really only possible on free-to-play. But I don’t think the only option can be a $ 70 retail game. I think having a multitude of business models and price points in the middle, especially when you think about the global players out there, and different financial economic situations that different players are in. It’s a healthy thing for our industry.
And I also think in terms of the predatory business models and the actions within games, that is something the industry has to stay on top of. We work with regulators when they have questions about those different business models. We want gaming to continue to grow and be a healthy place for everybody to play, and there’s always learning for us.
Source: Second Request
