People with Xbox Game Pass don't play more games than PS5 owners says analyst
When it was first unveiled, Xbox Game Pass was seen as Microsoft's secret weapon; the key selling point for all Xbox consoles. But in the years that have followed it's become clear that video game subscriptions in general are not the draw that many imagined – that, in fact, relatively few people want a 'Netflix of gaming'.
Game Pass in particular has regularly missed growth targets, with even the inclusion of Call Of Duty doing little to boost subscriber numbers.
Many also believed Game Pass has done more harm than good to the health of the industry at large. Microsoft, despite previous claims to the contrary, admitted in 2023 that the service has led to less traditional game sales and last month, a couple of industry figures decried the service as an 'unsustainable' business model.
A new report from Emmanuel Rosier, director of market intelligence at analytic firm Newzoo, has also examined the influence of Game Pass and found that it has little to no effect on people's playing habits.
Rosier appeared on the Game Wise podcast to discuss industry trends based on Newzoo's research and one detail he shared was the difference in player behaviour between Xbox owners and PlayStation owners… where he found there wasn't really any.
'Despite all the efforts done by Microsoft with Game Pass and the acquisition of many studios and the release of very high quality games in Game Pass, we struggled to find a significant, different behaviour compared to players on PlayStation,' said Rosier.
Sign up to the GameCentral newsletter for a unique take on the week in gaming, alongside the latest reviews and more. Delivered to your inbox every Saturday morning.
What he means by this is that even with access to Game Pass' huge library of games, Xbox owners aren't playing more games or even spending more time playing games than PlayStation owners; something Rosier admitted to being surprised by.
Rosier also reiterated how Game Pass is cannibalising game sales, as evidenced by how Call Of Duty: Black Ops 6, which was a day one Game Pass launch, sold less Xbox copies compared to previous Call Of Duty games.
He did note that Newzoo compiled its data based on games that a player had spent at least two hours on, which Rosier argued shows that Game Pass subscribers tend to only try new games for a brief time and then give up on them.
'There is so much offering in the Game Pass that if you don't really… if you're not getting hooked in the game very quickly, you just download another one…,' said Rosier.
One thing Newzoo hasn't been able to measure is the completion rate of games on Game Pass, which would be interesting to know since it would show how many people actually stuck with games they did have an interest in.
None of this behaviour is thought to be unique to Game Pass, but since it has a much larger library than PS Plus, and the promise of day one first party games, it's all the more notable that relatively few people are taking advantage of it.
This is especially problematic for Xbox because they must now be unsure exactly how much to prioritise it, although they've certainly made a big deal about getting it working not just on consoles but on PC, mobile devices through cloud streaming, Amazon Fire sticks, and the upcoming ROG Xbox Ally handhelds. More Trending
Microsoft's pivot to multiplatform releases seems to imply that they realise Game Pass has not worked out as a killer app. Since now some of its biggest Xbox games can be played on PlayStation 5 and Nintendo Switch, without any need for a Game Pass subscription.
Even Xbox boss Phil Spencer, the man credited with spearheading Game Pass' creation, seems to have lost some enthusiasm for the service, labelling it as 'just another option' in an interview earlier this year.
It's a far cry from his bold proclamation that Microsoft would quit the gaming business if Game Pass subscribers didn't reach 110 million by 2030. It almost certainly won't but this wouldn't be the first time Spencer said something that he didn't follow through on.
Not only is Microsoft the biggest games publisher in the world, now that it owns Call Of Duty, but Spencer recently told Xbox employees the business is thriving, with 'more players, games, and gaming hours than ever before'… as hundreds of those employees were unceremoniously let go.
Email gamecentral@metro.co.uk, leave a comment below, follow us on Twitter.
To submit Inbox letters and Reader's Features more easily, without the need to send an email, just use our Submit Stuff page here.
For more stories like this, check our Gaming page.
MORE: Microsoft kills another Xbox exclusive but Hideo Kojima's OD is still alive
MORE: Next gen Xbox will be 20% faster than PS6 suggests leaked specs
MORE: Extremely rare Xbox game is being sold for over £1,000 – do you own a copy?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Metro
2 hours ago
- Metro
There's no reason to make a PS6 or a next gen Xbox - Reader's Feature
A reader feels a new generation of video games consoles is currently unnecessary, unless the new hardware and games are shown to do some different. The advent of a new console generation is an exciting and unpredictable time. Faster processors, beefier graphics cards and more teraflops than anybody knows what to do with. But with the recent PlayStation 6 rumours swirling, I can't help but wonder…do we really need that next leap right now? Technology is an ever-evolving thing and with it, so expand its capabilities. When a new console generation was released there was always a lot of fervour about what was new. Just think about some of the general leaps. 2D to 3D, SD to HD, long loading screens to near seamless worlds. But what can the PlayStation 6 and the Xbox (whatever it will be called, I mean who can guess at this point?) provide us? Just because they will be exponentially more powerful than their older brothers doesn't mean they'll offer anything truly new, problems we've already seen with the PlayStation 5 and the Xbox Series X. They both delivered iteration rather than revolution. I mean yes, they did give us practically zero load times, depending on the game, and we do have games running at native 4K, but what, if anything, did they give us over the previous gens? An example of this is the Nintendo Switch 2. Nintendo, known for their out-there designs like the N64 controller, and unique and engaging play systems (Wii motion controls), have just taken what was good about the Switch and plopped it into a bigger, sexier design and made it more powerful. Is this wrong? I'd say no, I think it's a great system, but it is missing some of that Nintendo charm and magic that they are known for. Sign up to the GameCentral newsletter for a unique take on the week in gaming, alongside the latest reviews and more. Delivered to your inbox every Saturday morning. So why is this going to matter to gamers? Don't we all want something new? To which the answer is usually yes. I mean for example, Sony once again released a PS5 Pro model, which can run a lot more games at 4K and a steady 60 frames per second, while toying with some ray-tracing. Most people don't need this, but for those who like to push boundaries, this is a great system. But my goodness, does this come at a cost! The cheapest PlayStation 5 is £430, while the Pro comes in at £690. That's a £260 difference, and amazingly, neither of those prices includes disc drives. If you want one of those, then that's another £70. So, can we possibly imagine how much a new console generation can start at? It's a little concerning. These companies know what they're doing, for the most part, and can potentially bring us some exciting and amazing surprises. More power is great, and I hope that the new generation can be a locked 4K 60fps gaming machine straight off the bat. But I do hope that outside of shinier and smoother graphics, we get these systems being used more creatively. Gaming is a creative space; let's keep it that way. More Trending If the PlayStation 6 is coming, I hope it's something more than just a PlayStation 5 in a nicer suit. I want to see something that surprises us, something that makes it feel like it's a true generational leap forward, something worth getting excited about. Otherwise, we're just buying the same console in a sharper tux. By reader Mike Wilson The reader's features do not necessarily represent the views of GameCentral or Metro. You can submit your own 500 to 600-word reader feature at any time, which if used will be published in the next appropriate weekend slot. Just contact us at gamecentral@ or use our Submit Stuff page and you won't need to send an email. MORE: I know what the gimmick for the next Zelda game could be - Reader's Feature MORE: Here's the one reason why I'm not buying Battlefield 6 - Reader's Feature MORE: Top 5 video game developers that have wasted their talents - Reader's Feature
Metro
a day ago
- Metro
Here's the one reason why I'm not buying Battlefield 6 - Reader's Feature
A reader explains why he's taking a stance against EA and the way they are developing Battlefield 6 and criticises Activision for using similar methods. As I write, Battlefield 6 is two months away from release. This is the do or die release for EA's long-running rival to Call Of Duty. With the latter franchise going through an identity crisis (I'd like to meet the person who thought putting Beavis and Butthead into Black Ops 6 as operators was a good idea) now is the chance to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, following the disaster that was Battlefield 2042. So far, things seems to be going okay. The reveal trailer and in-depth dive has received mostly positive feedback from fans. And with the open beta now up and running, EA may very well have a much-needed win on their hands, following the flops of Dragon Age: The Veilguard and EA Sports FC 25. But I cannot in good faith support Battlefield 6 for one main reason: because the development of this entry has put my favourite game series on hold indefinitely, and I fear what's happened here may become a recurring trend in game development if it is not raised. In February, EA announced the formation of Battlefield Studios to oversee development of Battlefield. Those four developers in question are series creators DICE, Ripple Effect (formerly DICE LA), Motive Studio, and Criterion Games – who are currently in charge of Need for Speed. Or were. Because Need For Speed is on hold, with all of Criterion working on Battlefield. Now, you may call me biased for holding this opinion, considering I adore Need For Speed, but I am not happy with this decision from EA. It is not the job of any studio to have to come in and help out another developer with whatever it is they are working on, certainly not at the expense of their own projects in development. I understand that in some cases, developers may need a helping hand, and I am not opposed to the idea of two studios collaborating on a project. Criterion had some help from DICE when they made Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit in 2010, and they themselves co-developed Need For Speed: Rivals in 2013, whilst Ghost Games (who would take over ownership of Need for Speed shortly afterwards) was still being built. But permanently reducing a developer to nothing more than a support studio is where I draw the line, because I cannot understand why anyone would endorse the idea of abandoning IPs that create rich new worlds to explore (such as Dead Space, remember that?) and provide customers with a diverse line-up from a publisher, in favour of offering only a few titles that have at least half a dozen studios working on permanently. Sign up to the GameCentral newsletter for a unique take on the week in gaming, alongside the latest reviews and more. Delivered to your inbox every Saturday morning. This is the approach Activision has taken when it comes to Call Of Duty and as a result developers like High Moon Studios and Raven Software have been downsized and placed in support roles, with neither studio having released a game as a main developer for more than a decade now. Such talent, such passion, that could have gone into building new worlds and franchises, is instead relegated to designing new skins and guns for Warzone (don't get me started on the new American Dad! bundle). Do I want the four studios working on Battlefield 6 to immediately start work on a new Need For Speed once the game releases? No, because that isn't fair either. Let DICE work on Battlefield, let Motive work on their Iron Man game (which is still being made in conjunction with Battlefield, so why is that, EA?), and let Criterion work on Need For Speed. Let these teams work on their specific franchises and give them the manpower and time they need to make it good without pulling other studios off their own projects. If EA and Activision refuse to see that having multiple studios work on only a few franchises is a bad practice, then eventually they will find out the cold reality sooner or later. Black Ops 6 has been in decline for a while now, and Black Ops 7 has only served to sour the mood. And with EA targeting a minimum of 100 million players for Battlefield 6, you realise that these publishers' reliance on big hits for every entry is a risky strategy. What may work for Rockstar Games (who actually take their time with their projects, even if all of their studios are, from now on, working together on every new release) doesn't always translate into an effective corporate strategy elsewhere. So as Battlefield 6's release comes closer with every passing day, let me summarise my thoughts. I do not care whether this game succeeds or fails. I am not betting on how well this game performs in the hope that EA will greenlight a new Need For Speed game. I simply believe that their decision to focus on fewer franchises in the hope they will keep the company afloat will cause more problems than it is worth. More Trending Apex Legends and The Sims are getting long in the tooth, and the new Skate reboot has had mixed feedback so far, leaving Battlefield 6 to do the heavy lifting. EA CEO Andrew Wilson might like to think all looks bright for EA going into the future, but in reality, the executives are the ones actually having to navigate a battlefield just to keep their jobs. Certainly, I won't be shedding tears if they depart. By reader G W The reader's features do not necessarily represent the views of GameCentral or Metro. You can submit your own 500 to 600-word reader feature at any time, which if used will be published in the next appropriate weekend slot. Just contact us at gamecentral@ or use our Submit Stuff page and you won't need to send an email. MORE: Top 5 video game developers that have wasted their talents - Reader's Feature MORE: Road Rash Is the best Sega Mega Drive racing game – Reader's Feature MORE: Why is Nintendo trying to make the Switch 2 seem so unexciting? - Reader's Feature
Top Gear
a day ago
- Top Gear
Battlefield 6 will 'boot stomp' Call of Duty this year, says former Activision-Blizzard boss
Gaming 'The real win here is CoD won't be lazy anymore, and we'll all get better FPS games for it' Skip 1 photos in the image carousel and continue reading Battlefield 6 has been inviting many excited virtual soldiers aboard its hype train lately, having leaked earlier in July before going public with an official reveal trailer and two open betas. It's too early to tell whether this is Battlefield back to its former glory after a muted response to 2021's Battlefield 2042 – or is it? Former Activision-Blizzard president Mike Ybarra doesn't seem to think so. He recently tweeted that Battlefield 6 will 'boot stomp' Call of Duty this year. Advertisement - Page continues below ' CoD has gone downhill for years since then,' Ybarra added. 'It's a mess.' It's not unusual to hear somebody badmouthing CoD on social media, but when the criticism comes from the former head of the publisher who creates the games, the words carry a bit more weight. Ybarra had been with Activision-Blizzard since 2019, and announced that he was leaving in January 2024, shortly after Microsoft's blockbuster acquisition of the company. During his time there, Activision-Blizzard released five Call of Duty titles. You might like Ybarra's assertion is that the series hasn't faced serious competition elsewhere lately, and that's made the likes of Soap and Captain Price complacent. A truly good Battlefield title might light a fire under the numerous studios who develop CoD titles and, in time, raise the bar for the whole military shooter genre. Or, as Ybarra puts it: ' CoD will get better because BF will be great. You're blind if you don't see that. Bitter? No, glad I'm not part of the end of Xbox. Upset they can't lead teams to make good games? Yes. Because they layoff all those people for leaderships mishaps.' Advertisement - Page continues below As Ybarra extends his kill-streak against Activision-Blizzard's PR, it's worth reflecting that we don't actually know whether Battlefield 6 will be great, nor do we know what Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 will be like this year. In fact the only certainty is that TG will spend no small part of this autumn getting absolutely taken apart by children with prodigious twitch-aim skills and maxed out mic volume in both titles. Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter. Look out for your regular round-up of news, reviews and offers in your inbox. Get all the latest news, reviews and exclusives, direct to your inbox.
