Support NeoGAF

[DenchDeckard]

Has Disney and all those recently out their prices up. I've always heard about Netflix putting their prices up but not heard about the others?

When did Netflix last increase prices, and does it just follow inflation etc?

 

[remember_spinal]

Has Disney and all those recently out their prices up. I've always heard about Netflix putting their prices up but not heard about the others?

When did Netflix last increase prices, and does it just follow inflation etc?

They all recently did price increases, disney + almost double

https://www.fiercevideo.com/video/netflix-raises-prices-new-and-existing-us-customers


https://www.tomsguide.com/deals/disney-plus-price-is-increasing-heres-how-to-avoid-it

https://www.fastcompany.com/90834251/streaming-prices-hbo-max-price-hike

And they’ll probably all do another price increase this year.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Of course but the acquisition would make it more difficult for them. They won't have the subscriber numbers to do it effectively especially if they can't secure content. They have tried with PSNow and are trying again with PS+ Premium.

For some back of the envelope calculations as to how much MS would need to raise the price of gamepass to pay for its CoD sales:

CoD usually sells about 30M on all platforms. If we generously assume half of those are on xbox and they all sell at $70. That means gamepass would only need to increase its price by (15M*$70)/(25M*12) = $3.50 per month increase to pay for ALL lost sales of COD on the platform. Increasing the price by $7 per month would be what is financially required to remove all sales on every platform. Of course this is an estimate and the split wouldn't be 50/50, not all sales would be at $70 and subscriber numbers may even be higher than 25M, meaning an even lower price increase required in reality than $3.5 per month. This isn't even mentioning the possible boost to mtx.

Now though compare that to a competing service where game sales are likely higher and the subscriber numbers significantly lower. It becomes more difficult to secure that content with your lower subscribers and much lower subscription price.

They never really went as aggressively to capture market share with PSnow for it to be put down as a failed attempt imo

That being said, yes I can see what you mean that MS could benefit from the deal by marginally increasing the price.

It doesn’t seem like much of a concern for consumers though. More a difficult period for Sony to navigate to maintain market share.

 

[Jigsaah]

Ok, hold 'em to it.

Been paying monthly since Gamepass came out after my transition period ended.

I'm gonna go to the staggered model of subscribing only when they's something I wanna play on there.

Sad part is, there's usually something I wanna play, but let's not worry about that.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

Ah yes, the same old house is falling rhetoric when it comes to game pass and price. People been saying they are going to increase the price for how long? And have they? If it is so inevitable, how come it never seems to happen everytime someone says it will?

Even a stopped clock is right a couple times a day. Say something enough times and eventually they'll get to scream "I knew it! See?!"

People think that Activision is an Xbox purchase. It definitely isn't. Xbox couldn't buy it without Microsoft's backing. Microsoft wouldn't throw $70bn in to make Xbox stronger. The funds have been cleared to improve Microsoft's revenue and standing as a whole. That's why Xbox can confidently say it won't cause Gamepass to be more expensive. Because Xbox don't have to pay for Activision. They don't need to earn the investment back.

 

[Three]

They never really went as aggressively to capture market share with PSnow for it to be put down as a failed attempt imo

That being said, yes I can see what you mean that MS could benefit from the deal by marginally increasing the price.

It doesn’t seem like much of a concern for consumers though. More a difficult period for Sony to navigate to maintain market share.

The price increase would be to consumers though even though $3.50 extra per month isn't that much. If there is no competition however they can slowly increase it every other year by $1-$2 and people will pay it just like they did for netflix. You boil the frog slowly.

I think the reason they didn’t capture marketshare with PSNow was because it would have cost revenue but they are trying now with good content but limited subscriber increase on PS+ Extra/Premium.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

The price increase would be to consumers though even though $3.50 extra per month isn't that much. If there is no competition however they can slowly increase it every other year by $1-$2 and people will pay it just like they did for netflix. You boil the frog slowly.

And those people are free to leave the service at any time just like with Netflix.

If people don’t want to cancel the service if the price goes up a few dollars that’s not really a concern. More a sign that they’re fine to pay it or don’t care.

I see what you’re saying, I think we just disagree on what a negative outcome looks like, for the market and consumers.

 

[Three]

And those people are free to leave the service at any time just like with Netflix.

If people don’t want to cancel the service if the price goes up a few dollars that’s not really a concern. More a sign that they’re fine to pay it or don’t care.

I see what you’re saying, I think we just disagree on what a negative outcome looks like, for the market and consumers.

This could be said for anything though, no? If game prices go up just don't buy the games, if console prices go up just don't buy the console, if electricity prices go up just don't use electricity. You are free to do that but you obviously WANT a product/service and the competitive landscape determines your options. Exclusivity or vendor lockin to a service also limits your options.

 

[intheinbetween]

MS are increasing prices of their solutions by next month (inflation, dollar fluctuation, etc..), so it shouldn't be a surprise them increasing Game Pass prices as well.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

This could be said for anything though, no? If game prices go up just don't buy the games, if console prices go up just don't buy the console, if electricity prices go up just don't use electricity. You are free to do that but you obviously WANT a product/service and the competitive landscape determines your options. Exclusivity to a service also limits your options.

Utilities are a bit different to games consoles.

MS can’t buy exclusivity on creativity and development talent / ability.

Someone can’t just up and create a new energy source.

 

[Three]

Utilities are a bit different to games consoles.

MS can’t buy exclusivity on creativity and development talent / ability.

Someone can’t just up and create a new energy source.

You kind of can, there are several types of energy sources, it's the competitiveness of providers providing the exact same thing regardless of the source of energy that's important. But yeah, utility bills are more essential than games. They also have less vendor lockin than games too. Was making a point about wanting a product or service. Meaning if somebody wants to game then that competitive landscape to switch is worse than utility providers. They will just pay the increased price.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

You kind of can, there are several types of energy sources, it's the competitiveness of providers providing the exact same thing regardless of the source of energy that's important. But yeah, utility bills are more essential than games. They also have less vendor lockin than games too. Was making a point about wanting a product or service. Meaning if somebody wants to game then that competitive landscape to switch is worse than utility providers. They will just pay the increased price.

If they’ll ‘just pay the increased price’ for entertainment available elsewhere then that’s on them.

 

[Three]

If they’ll ‘just pay the increased price’ for entertainment available elsewhere then that’s on them.

Ok, so if tomorrow gamepass put its price up by $3.50 would you switch to PS+ Extra or Amazon Luna?

You might need to spend $500 for another console, you might lose your saves and paid mtx that don't transfer over and the game you play, eg CoD, may not even be available on it.

This is vendor lock-in. Making switching prohibitively costly or time consuming.

 

[systemr123]

If you don't think Microsoft spending 70 billion dollars and picking up substantial operating costs wouldn't cause them to increase the price of GamePass, I have a bridge to sell you.

At 30 million subscribers (assuming they're all paying full price) paying 10 dollars a month is 300 million dollars per month or 3.6 billion per year. If CoD can increase that amount by say 10 million subscribers AND you raise the price to say 15 dollars per month, that gives you 45 million subscribers at 15 dollars per month or 600 million dollars per month or 7.2 billion dollars per year.

That's an increase of 3.6 billion dollars per year.

Now let's get a bit more aggressive and say 15 million more subscribers to gamepass due to CoD, now we're talking about 45 million subscribers at 15 dollars per month. That's 675 million dollars per month or 8.1 billion per year. That's an increase of 4.5 billion dollars per year.

That doesn't even include revenue from Steam and PlayStation and B2P on Xbox.

Microsoft probably believes that they can pay off the Activision buy within the 10 years they've promised to keep CoD on other platforms and on the other end of the 10 years, you simply have the largest publisher paid off as well as a larger percentage of market share and a sustainable streaming service, but it's entirely tied to increasing the price of GamePass.

Sounds like a nice story but it almost certainly means there’ll be 30 million more gamepass subscribers than sold consoles

 

[systemr123]

MS are increasing prices of their solutions by next month (inflation, dollar fluctuation, etc..), so it shouldn't be a surprise them increasing Game Pass prices as well.

Yes if they’re smart they’ll just jack up the gamepass prices before the merger gets approved just so they can mention the merger had nothing to do with it

 

[Schmendrick]

"yet"

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Ok, so if tomorrow gamepass put its price up by $3.50 would you switch to PS+ Extra or Amazon Luna?

You might need to spend $500 for another console, you might lose your saves and paid mtx that don't transfer over and the game you play, eg CoD, may not even be available on it.

This is vendor lock-in. Making switching prohibitively costly or time consuming.

If there is an alternative that I think is better value for me, then yes I will change. If it’s not this gen then the next. I have done between MS / Sony when it comes to online services and will continue to do so. I also encourage others to do the same. It makes for better competition.

I don’t understand the fear around this deal. I feel as though I have more faith in Sony than even the most diehard fans on here. This deal will not destroy Sony or the market. Sony will prevail at some point, it will just mean they have to do more to entice customers. Then the onus will be back on MS or whoever else enters the market.

 

[The_Mike]

Seems almost inevitable. Get WoW players to stay in the ecosystem for other games. Get non-WoW players on Game Pass to try it and eventually buy gold.

Mostly though it's good for the PR line. Instant X million people to add to the total GP count.

Won't happen.

ESO is playable on game pass, but only on Xbox. Eso is not on pc GP.

Additionally, wow is subscription only. I just don't believe they would bundle wow with GP.

They would potentially lose out on an extra month of sub.

I doubt they will increase the price, but I am certain they will close all the conversion loopholes

That's also what I'm thinking. I do believe they know people wouldn't pay more for the service than they already do.

I got two friends who play warzone religiously and buy the annual games just to get the guns or upgrades or whatever, theres nothign i can do to convince them to play anything else. One went out and got a ps5 two months after it came out and he hasn’t played one single other game on it. Its basically the call of duty 5 for him

I really don’t get the appeal. I wish i did, it would save me a lot of money to play one game year round

And this is the type of gamer Gaf downplays.

The average gamer is fifa and cod only, which is why cod people will move to where they can play the game. And there are many gamers like this.

Why did they move from x360 to ps4 then?

Because these people don't have any sort of brand loyalty. They go where their friends go, or which console is the most popular.

 

[kyussman]

Surely a lot of people will be jumping on GamePass to play Starfield......I'd be putting the price up before then.

 

[bluecowboys]

Yeh sure, as if MS would even twitch if the deal doesn’t go through lol. Remember their browser monopoly and other things before?

They got a fine, they sort of fixed the issues with the monopoly and I gues not a single person lost their job.

This deal not going through wouldn’t even hit MS in the slightest when you see how big MS is. They will also never pull out their products even if they wanted to, there’s too much money and reputation at stake. It’s not like there are no alternatives for MS software nowadays so if they’d pull out they lose their market until the end times.

CMA: We are against monopolies and for protecting the customer. Therefore we are blocking this deal to hurt the under dog and banning MS in the process. Even though it will create even more monopolies and less choices for our customers. Aren't we just great.

MS can make more money from this deal going through than dealing with the UK as their economy is getting worse. Not to mention switching from MS products to other products isn't as simple as you think. It will take a while for companies to switch technology stacks to the point they will lose a lot of money.

 

[AV]

Won't happen.

ESO is playable on game pass, but only on Xbox. Eso is not on pc GP.

Additionally, wow is subscription only. I just don't believe they would bundle wow with GP.

They would potentially lose out on an extra month of sub.

ESO's a very different beast, I wouldn't use it as a comparison point. A lot more of that game is currently F2P than WoW is.

The losses they'd incur would be the people who subscribe to both WoW and GP Ultimate at full price, which is going to be a fairly thin overlap. You roll those subscriptions together and suddenly the WoW players who lose interest and unsubscribe are suddenly tempted to keep paying to access every other game on the service. It's the same thing every expansion with my Discord, everyone pays for the expansion and the first month, some carry on into month 2 and by month 3 it's a handful left still playing. You tell those people they could be playing Hi-Fi Rush, Starfield, Forza, hundreds of other games AND keep playing WoW occasionally for the same price as before? Maybe a different story. Maybe they just never let it drop.

We'll see, but I think it'll happen and they'll just charge for access to the latest expansion + continue to sell gold and collectibles.

 

[systemr123]

CMA: We are against monopolies and for protecting the customer. Therefore we are blocking this deal to hurt the under dog and banning MS in the process. Even though it will create even more monopolies and less choices for our customers. Aren't we just great.

MS can make more money from this deal going through than dealing with the UK as their economy is getting worse. Not to mention switching from MS products to other products isn't as simple as you think. It will take a while for the companies to switch technology stacks to the point they will lose a lot of money.

You take it way too far in your mind. Blocking the deal has nothing to do with banning MS. MS will be 100% fine doing what they always do, and no one will even get to start thinking banning MS. They didn't do anything wrong here, and if it's decided that the merger will not be going through it won't go through. MS will go on with their business as usual, CMA will go on with their business as usual, Europe or whatever other countries will go on with their business as usual.

It might be crap for the Xbox brand itself though, not securing more exclusives which aren't exclusives (rolls eyes). It's quite funny it's all about COD as well, like, what about all the other Activision/Blizzard games staying under the radar? What about Diablo 4, what about their other games? Will they remain available for other consoles? I think not, and we all know this already, so it's not strange to think/know that MS somewhere in the near future will make their primary COD product exclusive as well.

 

[bluecowboys]

You take it way too far in your mind. Blocking the deal has nothing to do with banning MS. MS will be 100% fine doing what they always do, and no one will even get to start thinking banning MS. They didn't do anything wrong here, and if it's decided that the merger will not be going through it won't go through. MS will go on with their business as usual, CMA will go on with their business as usual, Europe or whatever other countries will go on with their business as usual.

It might be crap for the Xbox brand itself though, not securing more exclusives which aren't exclusives (rolls eyes). It's quite funny it's all about COD as well, like, what about all the other Activision/Blizzard games staying under the radar? What about Diablo 4, what about their other games? Will they remain available for other consoles? I think not, and we all know this already, so it's not strange to think/know that MS somewhere in the near future will make their primary COD product exclusive as well.

Exactly, that is why MS can use that as leverage to get this deal through. They will continue with the merger with or without UK as the CMA won't be able to block MS.

 

[systemr123]

Exactly, that is why MS can use that as leverage to get this deal through. They will continue with the merger with or without UK as the CMA won't be able to block MS.

Can you imagine what that will do to MS's reputation? They will use nothing as leverage since that's literally blackmailing and killing your own brand.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

You take it way too far in your mind. Blocking the deal has nothing to do with banning MS. MS will be 100% fine doing what they always do, and no one will even get to start thinking banning MS. They didn't do anything wrong here, and if it's decided that the merger will not be going through it won't go through. MS will go on with their business as usual, CMA will go on with their business as usual, Europe or whatever other countries will go on with their business as usual.

It might be crap for the Xbox brand itself though, not securing more exclusives which aren't exclusives (rolls eyes). It's quite funny it's all about COD as well, like, what about all the other Activision/Blizzard games staying under the radar? What about Diablo 4, what about their other games? Will they remain available for other consoles? I think not, and we all know this already, so it's not strange to think/know that MS somewhere in the near future will make their primary COD product exclusive as well.

Sony will be 100% fine if it goes through too. Apart from Diablo, Overwatch? What other Blizzard games would affect PS?

 

[bluecowboys]

Can you imagine what that will do to MS's reputation? They will use nothing as leverage since that's literally blackmailing and killing your own brand.

MS doesn't give a rats ass about reputation. It is already "bad" for a lot of people already lol. Companies use leverage all the time to get their way and nothing UK can do about it unless they want to kill off their economy that is already doing poorly.

 

[systemr123]

Sony will be 100% fine if it goes through too. Apart from Diablo, Overwatch? What other Blizzard games would affect PS?

Ah yes, all will be fine, but the issue is the precedence it sets. It says that you can just buy into your competition by creating a monopoly on the long term. Buying Acti/Blizzard by MS is a monopolistic practise and that is why the deal is a problem. If you say to MS: go ahead, it will encourage them and others to buy up all independent publishers, taking away choice for everyone. It's not about Sony, or Nintendo, it's way bigger than that.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Ah yes, all will be fine, but the issue is the precedence it sets. It says that you can just buy into your competition by creating a monopoly on the long term. Buying Acti/Blizzard by MS is a monopolistic practise and that is why the deal is a problem. If you say to MS: go ahead, it will encourage them and others to buy up all independent publishers, taking away choice for everyone. It's not about Sony, or Nintendo, it's way bigger than that.

It sets no precedent. Regulators don’t dissolve after this deal, they continue to exist to prevent actual uncompetitive outcomes. Not to protect market leader’s market share.

 

[systemr123]

It sets no precedent. Regulators don’t dissolve after this deal, they continue to exist to prevent actual uncompetitive outcomes. Not to protect market leader’s market share.

Yes, but it sets a precedent because they said ok to this one. So it's harder to say no to a next one, for no other reasons.

 

[Tommi84]

The following statement:

Microsoft insists Game Pass prices will not increase as a result of Activision merger

Needs to be read like this:

Game Pass prices will increase as a result of 'other reasons'

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Yes, but it sets a precedent because they said ok to this one. So it's harder to say no to a next one, for no other reasons.

No it doesn’t. Why would it be harder? If anything it would be easier to say no.

 

[systemr123]

No it doesn’t. Why would it be harder? If anything it would be easier to say no.

Why would it be easier, one argument from MS in court e.g. would be: Yes but the last one was ok, so why is this not? Just to start with a millions of reasons why it will be harder to say no. A judge has to take a look at the evidence at hand of course, but the past decisions always play a part as well.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

Why would it be easier, one argument from MS in court e.g. would be: Yes but the last one was ok, so why is this not? Just to start with a millions of reasons why it will be harder to say no. A judge has to take a look at the evidence at hand of course, but the past decisions always play a part as well.

If MS said ‘the last one was ok’ then the regulator / judge would be able to see if it was or not!

It’s a slippery slope argument that doesn’t make sense.

 

[Lucifers Beard]

Sure, they’ll just blame it on inflation. They’re very careful with their words but I can’t see them keeping the price the same when dishing out games as popular as Call of Duty as part of the subscription.

 

[Lasha]

then read between the lines.

because of the merger.


what about other factors like economic pressures and "market conditions" that is the spin.

Prices are allowed to increase due to those measures.

I’m not so sure, I think Sony have lobbied the CMA quite successfully. The regulator seems keen to maintain the status quo regardless of MS proposed resolutions.

That being said, I think the CMA have got it wrong.

Reuters reported last week that Microsoft's licensing agreements will allow the deal to proceed without divesting cod in the EU. Other regulators already gave approval. The objections raised by regulators are all falling away. CMA's initial response showed a bizarre understanding of the market which appears to be in the process of being addressed. The FTC is suing with a political bent but it's likely to be nuked in court. It's definitely looking more and more likely.

 

[begotten]

I always imagined GPU would end up 24.99-29.99USD a month eventually.

They can't let people cockroach the $1 subs forever.

When their first party titles are releasing more frequently they will have a reason to gut those promotions and force more up-front yearly subscriptions.

 

[ToTTenTranz]

I think it's kind of funny how we got to the point where absolutely no one believes this kind of statement from Microsoft anymore.

So many talks about Sony harming their reputation with their position within this acquisition, with Microsoft and Activision executives trying to pull some "Hello Fellow Kids" memes on Twitter, yet in practical terms the opposite is happening.

 

[systemr123]

If MS said ‘the last one was ok’ then the regulator / judge would be able to see if it was or not!

It’s a slippery slope argument that doesn’t make sense.

Yes he’ll see last time it was ok so they will be more inclined to ok again. They can not undo the previous decision.

 

[CGNoire]

.....and just like that now Im worried that Game Pass Prices are gonna incease

 

[SteadyEvo]

If you paying full price it’s because you don’t care to shop around

 

[Elios83]

It won't increase because of the Activision merger but it can increase because of other factors right?

We all know where this is going, they already increased the price of games, they increased the hardware price in Japan, they're bundling two old Forza games that are free on Gamepass to justify a 50€ price increase in Europe.
Gamepass price will have to increase the moment the quantity and quality of their first party offering will get better and they won't be able to give away big productions like Starfield regularly.

 

[DragonNCM]

Till......COD is add to gamepass......

 

[lh032]

i dont think they will increase the gamepass for now, but i have a feeling they are going to shut down gold and force them to gamepass

 

[bluecowboys]

i dont think they will increase the gamepass for now, but i have a feeling they are going to shut down gold and force them to gamepass

Gold should be shut down anyways as most multiplayer games people play are free.

 

[John Wick]

No MS are so good to their fanbase they are going to reverse the price and lower it after acquiring ABK.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Sounds like a nice story but it almost certainly means there’ll be 30 million more gamepass subscribers than sold consoles

GamePass extends to PC. It would make sense for anyone who is a COD player on PC to adopt GamePass if they get COD for free on GamePass.

 

[TheGodfather07]

Price will go up. There's no question about it. When and by how much is the real question.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

My point is that this acquisition further increases their need to increase the price and it is silly to suggest otherwise.

What’s silly is to talk as if you have any authority on the matter. For all we know this is a Minecraft situation where they think they can see a bigger return on the money by purchasing something with it than by leaving it in a bank. Who knows what it means they “need” to do.

Like I said, we all know what is going to happen. They’re going to give the service a small increase sometime in the future, as we have all been predicting long before the ABK deal, as MS has has been talking about, and everyone here will cry LIAR PHIL

 

[AJUMP23]

It will increase because of inflation.

 

[mxbison]

and what do you think companies increase prices?


Inflation
Increased demand
Higher production costs
Changes in competition
Introduction of new features or upgrades

MS can literally rise GP prices due the merger BUT say is for another reason.

You forgot the #1 reason: more profit.

GamePass is a small part of Microsoft's business and they have a fuck ton of money so there isn't that much reason for them to raise the price.

They haven't even bothered stopping the cheap xbox live conversion trick.