Microsoft made an interesting announcement today: Xbox Game Pass. The service, which is similar in principle to EA Access, will see you paying $9.99 per month in order to access a rotating selection of 100 games. You'll be able to download this software to your console and play it in its entirety for the duration that it remains available, and you'll even have the option to own the full game at a 20 per cent discount.
There are some caveats laid out thus far: you'll need an Xbox Live Gold account as well to take advantage of multiplayer, more or less upping the annual fee to around $170 in total. Moreover, while publishers like 2K Games and SEGA are on board, there are some notable absentees – including the aforementioned Electronic Arts, as well as Activision and Ubisoft. A new membership screen being added to the Xbox One operating system suggests that other companies may attempt to go it alone.
And this was part of Sony's reasoning behind its decision to block EA Access; at the time of the service's inception, the platform holder insinuated that it doesn't want players to have to subscribe to multiple programs beyond its own PlayStation Plus. But the reception to Microsoft's announcement has been largely positive, and the price does seem reasonable – even though it's not yet clear what the initial lineup of games will comprise.
We'd guess that the bulk of the offering will be Xbox 360 backward compatible releases, with a helping of native Xbox One titles sprinkled in; Halo 5 is one of the games shown front and centre in the announcement imagery, for example – but we'll be surprised if many recent high-profile third-party games are included as part of the subscription. We'll need to wait and see the actual selection that the Redmond manufacturer has in mind.
Either way, it does raise the question as to whether Sony should do something similar. This feels like an expanded version of the Instant Game Collection to us, the PlayStation Plus-based initiative that saw a pool of 10 or so titles available to members at any given time on the PlayStation 3. Obviously the premium platform has changed a lot over the past few years, and we've felt for a long time that it's in need of a revision again.
This is another instance where decisions last-gen are coming back to haunt the Japanese giant, though. Because of the complex nature of the CELL, it will never be able to offer PS3 backward compatibility on the PS4, and that will likely hinder the value proposition of any Xbox Game Pass-esque service it could offer of its own. PlayStation Now obviously still exists, but it's more of a future proofing project as far as we're concerned – though Microsoft's announcement does call into question the value proposition of that service as well.
Of course for as neat as the idea is, there's no guarantee that a rotating selection of games will be worth subscribing to. We're in a unique position here at Push Square where we're able to play practically everything when it's new, so a library of old games that you have to pay to access doesn't sound all that enticing to us. For people who play less or even those new to console gaming, though, the appeal is obviously there.
It's an interesting one, and it's certainly nice to see Microsoft raising questions as opposed to mimicking old PlayStation initiatives years late. It'll be interesting to see how Sony responds to this: it can't really pledge the same value without backward compatibility, and the ship on that seems to have sailed long ago. From our perspective, we reckon the manufacturer's best response would be to reinvent PlayStation Plus, perhaps bringing back that Instant Game Collection model of old.
Whatever happens, though, this move by Microsoft brings the inevitable digital future that little bit closer. And you can bet that whatever Sony does to respond, it'll have the same consequence. GameStop's shares are already down in light of this news, and they're only going to keep dropping as digital purchases become increasingly ingrained.
What do you think of this Xbox Game Pass announcement? Is it something you'd personally subscribe to? Do you think Sony should offer something similar, and how would it work? Subscribe to the comments section below and let us know.
[source bit.ly]
Comments 47
I do like this kind of model, but I understand it isn't for everybody. But it's the way things are going and it's interesting to see companies figure out what sticks and what doesn't.
It sounds great on paper, but its not in practice.
£170 Is 4 and a bit brand new, hyped to bits current games. If you throw in EA access for £50 and as a playstation gamer psplus for £60. That equates to £280 a year if you own both consoles even before you buy a new game. That's pretty steep.
I for one dont want to play on a bunch of older games unless its one of a small bunch I missed the previous year, thats not what most of us are about. Its a mix of new and older stuff occasionally. More poignantly all this is going to do is water down Games with gold on the vanilla subscription, and no one wants that do they?
PlayStation plus is vastly inferior to Xbox gold, the quality of games is dire, limited almost entirely to indie games and games that no one really wants, when you compare to gold, yes gold games are old, but they're good ones in nearly 70% of the selection.
Ps plus just isn't fit for purpose and needs re designing
I do think one of the huge challenges Microsoft has at the moment from my perspective is all of the "best" things that it's doing revolves around library stuff. This seems like an extension of that.
I mean, while it's cool, I'm surprised backward compatibility is such a big deal in Xbox land. One of the biggest announcements they've had this year is that you can now play GTA4 on an Xbox One which is... Great, I guess. But I kinda feel like if that's defining your console, you've got a problem.
This is why I never, ever get rid of my old consoles, and rarely sell my physical copies of games. It's a lot cheaper to hook up consoles than shell out money to rent old games.
That being said....if i had to pick one set of services over another, i'd go with Game Pass and EA Access. Streaming just isn't there yet, and PSNow didn't work very well for me when I tried it.
@smelly_ferrett This seems extremely subjective to me. I don't know how anyone could possibly put something like Project CARS on a pedestal and not, say, LittleBigPlanet 3.
@RedMageLanakyn While I agree the value proposition for PlayStation Now is poor, I think the bigger problem is how often it gets misinterpreted.
It's been billed as Sony's "answer" to backwards compatibility, and now it has to front up against this. The reality is that it's not really either — it's a forward-thinking initiative that's preparing for a time when consoles are extinct.
I suppose the big headache they have is ensuring its relevant in the here and now while they wait for that moment to come, and they've done a terrible job in that department so far.
@get2sammyb Yeah I don't look at it like BC either. I honestly don't see that big of a deal with BC, but then again I've been hoarding games and consoles for 20+ years so it's never really been an issue for me
I can see how for someone that missed the PS3 completely and is limited in shelf space could find value in PSNow. There are some real gems that haven't been remastered for PS4 that are worth the entry fee...as long as your Internet is capable.
The only real positive to X1's BC is that I can consolidate all my 360/X1 games on the same shelf, and once Lost Odyssey and Blue Dragon landed, i finally packed away my 360.
@RedMageLanakyn I think it's a great thing they're doing; it's a lovely bonus. I completely agree. It's just... When that's defining your device, you've got a problem.
But it's just my read on things. I know others think differently, and I accept that.
MS have plenty of money to throw around, I don't really care as I already rent physical anyway. Its much better than the pathetic PS Now service though.
It may catch on but I think we're at a weird point where so so many gamers have become attached to just a few games or less they continually play and every now and then they'll buy something shiny and new.
Problem is a lot of young'uns would prefer to watch Netflix or play some trash on their phone... most of the time.
I mean...yes and no. 50 euros plus and then 120 for another service is too much I think...maybe with some modifications I would think it would be acceptable, but like this no not at all
So essentially Xbox live has become a lot more expensive and it's why I hate the idea that you have to subscribe to everything. Plus this is another move to stop preowned by having people just buy for the licence as opposed to full ownership. It's why something needs to be in place before the so called digital future because if not it would hand far too much power to the publishers who are already trying to nickle and dime consumers as it is.
I think it's funny how on here everybody says - "Oh poo, who wants to play old games?" while on Nintendo Life it's all "Oh no, VC won't be ready at the Switch launch, I need my old games!"
I like the $9.99/mo rental model. I don't know how rentals work in the UK/EU but in the US we have Gamefly for $16/mo for discs in the mail or Redbox for $3 a day discs out of the vending machine. So for $9.99 I'd say the price looks pretty good for 100 games. Nintendo is going to start charging for online for Switch and they'll have a game or 2 each month on rotation. Nobody knows how much it will be yet, but 100 > 1 or 2.
I also like that these download rather than stream. Not a fan of streaming games.
And no, this isn't for gamers who buy everything they want, it's for people who pick up maybe 1 or 2 games a year - what's the attach rate to X1 anyway? - and will see "$10 for 100 games" and jump on it. Maybe people will only stay a month or to, like I do w/ Gamefly and Amazon Prime but I think MS will make more money than they loose. Anybody pay attention to Netflix, almost all old stuff, $9.99 per month, their doing pretty good these days.
So, is "Gold" required to rent games, or just to play them online? That makes a difference on the price. Anybody know the Gold install base? I'm guessing MS doesn't share that number but some analysts must guess.
And here comes the this would be good to play PS3 games on PS4 comments from people who don't understand how the PS3 and PS4 work.
@adf86 I've just realised its a Trojan horse. They give away 48 full ownership games a year anyway with gwg. They will offer 'over 100 a year' on this new service for 250% of the price, deduct games from gwg and use it as an entree point into the new xbox subscription were they cant pull the license of games from you if you don't pay up.
This is Microsoft after all the masters of subscription based ripoffs cough microsoft office cough.
@rjejr its a paid service on top of a paid service. Its what? $15 a month all in. I think we all play old games, but as @adf86 posts above xbox live is in essence hiking the price astronomically via good marketing. EA access have again made a service which sounds a great proposition initially, until as I've found on my sons xbox - he only plays 3 of the games and they are all old and could be bought at retail for £40 right now.
@rjejr Gold isn't required to rent, just for the MP aspect. I believe EA Access requires Gold, though.
@get2sammyb Oh I agree, the X1 has some definite identity issues. I'm a sucker for the Forza games, the 360 JRPGs, and the occasional co op Gears and Halo when friends stop over. But honestly, it needs more than that if they plan on surviving. I hate to say it but even the Switch looks to have a better lineup this year than X1.
Nope, nobody really cares about backwards compatibility apart from the vocal minority with serious golden age nostalgia goggles problems. If you really love a game then go buy it on the old console.
This is approximately the first good idea that Microsoft has had in this whole gen. Yeah, Sony needs to respond to it in some way.
I'd be willing to pay for that if it meant getting to play PSOne and PS2 classics on my PS4 without having to stream them.
@smelly_ferrett I dont need old games. I already own the ones i want. I rather take the indies and the good sales. I rather play a good new indie then a ancient game. And tot begin fair there are many high quality indies which are more fun then the boring COD, FIFA games.
I don't have PS+ and I would like to have this service
paying 9.98€ per month is a great value for me and everybody else
I can't afford to buy brand new games, so I need to wait for a huge price cut, this option is great for people like me.
I hope Sony will do the same
PS1, PS2 and PS4 games
@themcnoisy EA Access is £20/year and the other prices you quote would be the $ prices not £ so you're a bit out on the amount, but I get your point.
Personally I would say I wasn't bothered about the services being offered if I thought it wouldn't lead to something else (worse) down the road. With online play tied to subscriptions on consoles now I can only suspiciously eye these new initiatives as embryonic plans to change the ways we consume games and, ultimately, maximise a companies profits to our detriment.
What is Xbox???
£8 a month (£96 a year) for what is essentially Netflix for Xbox/Win10 gamers. 100 or so XB1/XB360 games a month you can download and play. If you like the game, you get a 20% discount to buy it permanently. The selection will change frequently - not all will be switched out every month but some will. No streaming games but actually download and play them. Certainly sounds better than PSNow but still not for me...
It sounds great at first glance, and I think makes good PR at a time when the Xbox brand is struggling, but I'm not sure the value is really there considering how old most of the games are. Looking at the picture, I have played many of them and still own them on disc. It is essentially an extension of the Games With Gold service, but costs considerably more. I would rather spend the money on new games!
Just leave us have EA Access Sony 😭
Yeah keep rubbing in our faces that you get everything free and early
@RedMageLanakyn Thanks. I guess it depends on what games are on offer that people want to see if it's worth it for $10 w/o Gold. If anybody who gets an X1 skips on Gold, I would think the majority would have it based on the seemingly, to me, online game focus.
Am I the only one who thinks BC is sometimes a huge deal? I know that it is not possible to play PS3 games on PS4 but why no PS1 or PS2 emulation via disk or digital? They started PS2 but abandoned it. I always revisit old games like Castlevania and Final Fantasy while also play new games. I don't see why we cannot have both. In fact it is a selling point, all I have in the Wii U are VC games and some other Toad game, and this with the terrible emulation it provides. No VC in Switch is no buy. It also helped me to buy the Vita: PSP and PS1 games with new Vita games, what more could I ask.
As for this Xbox Game Pass this 20% discount looks tempting. To tell the truth I have never held an xbox controller and I have no idea what exclusives it has.
For some bizzare reason PSNow (along with Video and the old Comics and Mobile) are not available where I live.
As I've always said, doesn't hurt to put something like this out there and let the market decide. But it is shocking to me to see how positively the Xbox community is reacting to this despite the fact we're talking about mostly old games and there is f**k all in the way of new, good exclusives for the Xbox One. If I was an Xbox-only gamer I'd be up MS' ass about that at the moment. F**k charging me more to try and force the all-digital future, give me new, exclusive experiences. All the time and resources spent on this bs could be better put to use building up its selection of new, first-party games. In fairness, this is better than PS Now but, that isn't really saying much, and this still isn't anything I think people should be getting all hyped up about. I guess that's what happens, however, when you don't have much in the way of new games. PlayStation gamers are getting an embarrassment of riches right now, Nintendo gamers have a new system to look forward to with a serious Game of the Year contender there for day one, all Xbox gamers have had to this point in 2017 is Halo Wars 2...
@rjejr I let my Gold sub lapse in late January,, mainly due to the lack of online games I was playing, and of course the inevitable March Trinity of Horizon/Zelda/Andromeda.
Just give us full backward compability for ps4 games when ps5 arrives, I don't like this games as service business.
Nah I want them to keep doing their own thing
It sounds like a good idea if the selection is worth it, but the best way for me to use a service like this is essentially as a paid demo service. I keep the games I buy unless I don't like them, as well as my systems, so it's not a more convenient option for me. I'm sure there's plenty who'll get a lot from stuff like this, but I'm not the kind of gamer this appeals to.
ummm I know this isn't have been said but this is just PSNOW but with XB1 games rather than PS3
It would be interesting if they redesigned the instant game collection as an answer to this... Of course backward compatibility is out of question with how different ps3 and ps4 are.
There are just too many subscriptions floating around these days to my mind. This deal is ok if the library remains good but when you add Gold into it, it adds up. If people are buying gold then they are probably regular gamers not dip in and out gamers. However, regular gamers are probably more interested in newer releases or spotting price drops in games etc. So it won't interest them much and drop in gamers won't necessarily be tied to two different subscription models to play.
PS Now is not there for comparison. It is really targeted at PC gamers or those who want a cheap streaming games and is where Sony want gaming to go in the future.
If a similar service was released for PS I wouldn't subscribe as I prefer controlling my own game library. I might be interested in PS Plus changing to something similar and offering some rentals, to me that would be more valuable.
@rjejr Because most of us don't sell our old consoles and games to buy new consoles and games, if people cannot see thay are being rip-off by places like Game what can you do.
Wasn't it the same people slagging of PS Now that is now over the moon about this? And before anyone says but PS Now is crap, no your Internet speeds are crap you cannot blame any company for that. Considering its well documented places like BT you are paying for Internet speeds you don't get, thats your stupidity if you don't look into that.
Still have my PS3, personally not interested in these expensive services or backwards compatibility. I'd much rather have remasters such as the upcoming FF7 & Crash Bandicoot if we're bringing back old games. Or at least add some trophy support to an old PSone classic to give us a challenge to aim for.
I think Sony is watching very closely. they got something up there sleeves.
Ovs they have #PSNOW which gives you access to 300 games . They just discontinued services on old devices..now i wonder what they got planned for all that extra power they have just saved......
PS4 games on demand ? try before you pay service on ps4 games? watch this space
to be fair if sony just add PS2, PS1 and some select forst party PS4 games to PS Now they would have a service almost like this, in fact to me it would be a better one
they already have a system in place just need update it but still allow us to use some of the PS4 features such as live streaming, DVR and screenshots
I've been saying for ages PS+ could do with a revamp.
Time to get rid of PS3 and Vita games to allow a better budget for PS4.
As far as optional subscriptions services, I won't join anymore after PS+. Would rather just buy my games as and when I want them so I'm sort of glad Sony didn't go ahead with EA Access...
Considering Sony bought Gaikai for a big chunk of change, I imagine they are paying attention to the Xbox Game Pass.
PSNow is expensive, updated very slowly (if at all), and the stream latency makes them unplayable. You're better off buying a cheap PS3 with the games you want to play.
I know quite a few people (online and irl) that would pay $10 for a month of the Xbox Game Pass just to play through games they missed. Meanwhile, PSNow is $20 a month....
I don't see this as the future as you still have to download the games and in reality they will only be putting games on there that are no longer selling. PS Now clearly has a different end game that we aren't fully aware of yet.
For the subscription this wouldn't be for me, I barely have time to play new games that are coming out let alone spending money to play those that I probably ignored for a reason
Sounds okay on paper, but while I don't imagine necessary liking and playing 100 games every month, the rotation makes it sound more limiting than IGC. So there are one or two games I've really wanted to play for a while now, and I go at them, and I want the full experience and every nook and cranny and those taunting trophies when possible... wait, what do you mean the games are gone because it's NewMonth 1st already? This is especially topical with my love for JRPGs - last gen had plenty of titles I'm interested in, but I don't remember an RPG I have ever finished in under a month. The least I'd inquire such a service about is whether the rotation repeats games now and then (which I reckon may be an eventual no-brainer as any game library is finite), but even then, it could mean a "month in, two months out" playthrough - yikes, games with story logs suddenly seem 20% cooler at once!
Nintendo's announced analogue left me looking forward more to VC in general than to the monthly offerings for similar reasons, although later reports claimed that Reggie was misinterpreted and one month, akin to IGC, is merely the deadline to add the offered game to one's account. But yeah, no matter how many people are eager to remind that "PS+ free games aren't free!", Sony's continuous rent appeals to me more, allowing to play those games at MY pace. But then again, it's all empty talk on my side since I don't have an XBone and don't picture myself buying one anytime soon since it's an exclusively TV-tied experience. Even though there are XB360 exclusives like Infinite Undiscovery and Lost Odyssey that I's really like to play (tried the former for a bit on rented time, and it looks as fun as I have come to expect from tri-Ace).
With IGC, I used to be interested in PS Now (assuming it WOULD eventually hit the region I'm using) and fancied a subscription feature that would allow to pick up just one or two games from PS3 Gaikai-run catalogue (or access the PS3 titles already associated with the account as PS Store purchases/IGC offerings) at a given time. I wouldn't even mind paying extra for this. But... it all became pointless for me the moment PS Now ditched Vita support, too. So now I don't even know what to want from PS+ which I originally subscribed to for the very needful Vita save cloud first and foremost. The ability to choose games from a catalogue, too? Sounds like a convincing perk to add, but complainers wouldn't shut up - if Sony can't compel publishers to dish out their battlefields and watchdogs so soon now, I doubt it'll go any smoother with a catalogue system. AAAs flocked to the service at the time PS3 had been freshly hacked and it was in BOTH Sony's AND third parties' best interest to keep the crowds untempted to raise a Jolly Roger on their systems. Nowadays, this stuff apparently has to be quite old and no longer sell too well even at big discounts. Although I wonder how safe it is to point out such simple things lest some bright fanbrain should interpret the message as "PS4 should be hacked for IGC to start offering tons of AAAs again!". :V
@get2sammyb Whereas Sony has Nioh and Horizon defining its platform...just this year. I'd rather look forward to new games than dwell on past ones. The PS4 library is becoming ridiculous with exclusives with even more in the coming years.
However, I do see the value in this for certain gamers.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...