From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

I think the article below exaggerates and is shamelessy entitled, but
Game Pass is getting a price hike. Up from $20/mo to $30/mo for Ultimate.
Lots of people are canceling even.

I've always said MS was selling this service at a loss to get signups, so
they could realize their SaaS goals and get rid of people owning games.
Even then, I think $30 is a fraction of the price they really need to be charging. They're probably still not making much of a profit on that.

I believe the lower-tier plan is staying $15. There's even a budget plan
at $10.

But it's clear that loss leading signups has not been a decisive
strategy, so it's time to start squeezing the customers they have.
Similar things are happening in streaming. The whole thing is 3. ???, 4. PROFIT! Or maybe it's 3. $$$?

Here's the article:

https://www.polygon.com/game-pass-era-best-deal-over/

There are also rumbles that Microsoft is backing out the hardware market,
ie: XBox. They've done this over and over, so the rumor sticks. The
clickbait tells us that a lack of exclusive titles means that they have
jumped the shark.

https://www.cbr.com/end-of-an-era-for-xbox-and-microsoft/

What do you see in the bottom of *your* cup of tea?
--
Zag

West of House
There is a small mailbox here.

read leaflet

"WELCOME TO USENET!

USENET is a game of adventure, danger,
and low cunning. In it you will
explore some of the most amazing
territory ever seen by mortals. No
computer should be without it!"
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 10/2/2025 7:24 AM, Zaghadka wrote:

I think the article below exaggerates and is shamelessy entitled, but
Game Pass is getting a price hike. Up from $20/mo to $30/mo for Ultimate. Lots of people are canceling even.

I've always said MS was selling this service at a loss to get signups, so they could realize their SaaS goals and get rid of people owning games.
Even then, I think $30 is a fraction of the price they really need to be charging. They're probably still not making much of a profit on that.

$20 too much, let alone $30. It was only $12 when I tried it in sep
last year.

Most people aren't going to have the time to play that much that it
makes any sense vs. buying a game, except maybe for kids off for the
summer. Or for rich people too lazy to bother actually buying games.
At least until games really start charging $80, still not worth $30 though.

The only real use I found for it was basically using it (and PS+) is for playing a number of games to see if I like them, then buying them on the
PC.

I believe the lower-tier plan is staying $15. There's even a budget plan
at $10.

Ah, that matters some. I guess I'd have to see what's on the particular
plan.

There are also rumbles that Microsoft is backing out the hardware market,
ie: XBox. They've done this over and over, so the rumor sticks. The
clickbait tells us that a lack of exclusive titles means that they have jumped the shark.

Even less reason for it then.
--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 19:54:05 -0700, Justisaur <[email protected]>
wrote:

The only real use I found for it was basically using it (and PS+) is for >playing a number of games to see if I like them, then buying them on the
PC.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's a common use-case scenario. Studies
have shown that GamePass users play more games, but spend less time
playing each game. Which sounds a lot like people just demoing games
they think might be interesting. Whether they then jump to other
marketplaces to play the games they actually like (because that's
where their friends are, or because the other service has better
features, or whatever) isnt' clear... but I could well imagine that to
be the case.

I don't like subscription services like GamePass myself, mostly
because I always tend to be a bit behind the curve when it comes to
playing new games. And too often by the time I get around to actually
wanting to play a game, it's already disappeared. Of course, this
doesn't only happen on subscription services* but it's more common.
Plus, you have to maintain a paid subscription to have access. It's an
extra level of pressure to the hobby that I just find unpleasant.

But I'm also not a person who really plays demos either. I don't like
playing abridged versions of games. I want the full experience from
the start. If I'm going to take the dive and actually play a game, I'm
more likely to play it to the end than anything else. Nor would I want
to restart a game on another platform. (Not that's a necessary step on GamePass, of course, but like I said, apparently that's how some
people do it). So GamePass really offers me no benefit.

But I can see how it might be worth the price to others.







* One of the reason I hoard (erm, 'collect') classic games is because
so many of them vanished from store shelves before I could buy them
back when we still got games in brick-n-mortar shoppes. I'm not
letting that happen again!



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Thu, 2 Oct 2025 19:54:05 -0700, Justisaur <[email protected]>
wrote:

Even less reason for it then.

Even Lina Khan, the former head of the USAmerican trade commission, is
snarking at this, with a very polite, "I told you so!".*

"Microsoft�s acquisition of Activision has been followed
by significant price hikes and layoffs, harming both gamers
and developers," Khan wrote on X. "As we�ve seen across
sectors, increasing market consolidation and increasing
prices often go hand-in-hand."

Her administration actually sued to block the deal, but it went
through even before the lawsuit was settled. She, of course, wasn't
the only one to worry about this --as she points out, increased prices
are very common following mega-mergers like this-- but considering she
was fighting against it, I think she deserves her moment of snark a
bit more than the rest of us.

Both Microsoft and Activision, incidentally, promised everyone lower
prices and no significant layoffs if the merger was allowed in the
lead-up to the merger. Sadly, these were merely press-pleasing
sound-bites rather than anything legally binding.







* she tells it here https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/as-microsoft-lays-off-thousands-and-jacks-up-game-pass-prices-former-ftc-chair-says-i-told-you-so-the-activision-blizzard-buyout-is-harming-both-gamers-and-developers/
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Another aside:

GamePass isn't very good for developers either... not even the ones
running it. Microsoft/Activision reported that it lost $300 million in
sales because people just played it as part of a GamePass
subscription.* While the values are perhaps more extreme, this sort of
news isn't uncommon; other publishers have reported similar problems.
What they make licensing the game to Microsoft/Game Pass rarely
matches what they'd make if they'd just sold the game directly.

That Microsoft is willing to let go $300 million tells you how
important GamePass is to their future strategy, though. They're dead
set on making all software service-based, and will happily take a loss
today in hopes of capturing the market tomorrow.








* reported here https://kotaku.com/report-call-of-duty-black-ops-6-on-game-pass-cost-microsoft-300-million-in-lost-sales-2000631659


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Tue, 07 Oct 2025 12:57:35 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

Another aside:

GamePass isn't very good for developers either... not even the ones
running it. Microsoft/Activision reported that it lost $300 million in
sales because people just played it as part of a GamePass
subscription.* While the values are perhaps more extreme, this sort of
news isn't uncommon; other publishers have reported similar problems.
What they make licensing the game to Microsoft/Game Pass rarely
matches what they'd make if they'd just sold the game directly.

That Microsoft is willing to let go $300 million tells you how
important GamePass is to their future strategy, though. They're dead
set on making all software service-based, and will happily take a loss
today in hopes of capturing the market tomorrow.

1. Operate your SaaS gaming site at a loss.
2. ???
3. PROFIT!!

We are at "???" and I don't think Microsoft knows what that is yet, so
they increased prices.

Interesting article. It sounds like GamePass is becoming less and less of
a deal, just like Lando got in Cloud City.
--
Zag

Give me the liberty to know, to think, to believe,
and to utter freely according to conscience, above
all other liberties. ~John Milton
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On 10/7/2025 9:57 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

Another aside:

GamePass isn't very good for developers either... not even the ones
running it. Microsoft/Activision reported that it lost $300 million in
sales because people just played it as part of a GamePass
subscription.* While the values are perhaps more extreme, this sort of
news isn't uncommon; other publishers have reported similar problems.
What they make licensing the game to Microsoft/Game Pass rarely
matches what they'd make if they'd just sold the game directly.

That Microsoft is willing to let go $300 million tells you how
important GamePass is to their future strategy, though. They're dead
set on making all software service-based, and will happily take a loss
today in hopes of capturing the market tomorrow.

Well of course they are! Afterall they have a captive W11 "client"
base. I would not put it past them to at some point here "update" W11
so that would be the ONLY way you can use any software.
--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Tue, 7 Oct 2025 17:46:19 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<[email protected]> wrote:

On 10/7/2025 9:57 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

Another aside:

GamePass isn't very good for developers either... not even the ones
running it. Microsoft/Activision reported that it lost $300 million in
sales because people just played it as part of a GamePass
subscription.* While the values are perhaps more extreme, this sort of
news isn't uncommon; other publishers have reported similar problems.
What they make licensing the game to Microsoft/Game Pass rarely
matches what they'd make if they'd just sold the game directly.

That Microsoft is willing to let go $300 million tells you how
important GamePass is to their future strategy, though. They're dead
set on making all software service-based, and will happily take a loss
today in hopes of capturing the market tomorrow.

Well of course they are! Afterall they have a captive W11 "client"
base. I would not put it past them to at some point here "update" W11
so that would be the ONLY way you can use any software.

Recent legal rulings would make it quite hard for Microsoft to try and
limit their OS to running only Microsoft-approved software. Not to say
they wouldn't try, but they'd face immediate judicial challenges, and
while they'd of course try to delay any ruling for as long as they
could, I doubt it would be long enough to transition the world
entirely to a Microsoft-only app-base.

Not that Microsoft really cares about Windows, except as a platform to
promote their various software-as-a-service dreams.

But it isn't an idle threat either. It is a big reason why Valve
created SteamOS and SteamDecks, after all: they were posititioning
themselves as an alternative should Microsoft try to lock down the OS
to only using approved apps from the Microsoft app-store. "Go ahead,
try that," Valve said. "But all the good games will still be on
Steam."

Microsoft was the first to blink then. I think they'd do so again.






--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

Dimensional Traveler <[email protected]> wrote at 00:46 this Wednesday (GMT):

On 10/7/2025 9:57 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

Another aside:

GamePass isn't very good for developers either... not even the ones
running it. Microsoft/Activision reported that it lost $300 million in
sales because people just played it as part of a GamePass
subscription.* While the values are perhaps more extreme, this sort of
news isn't uncommon; other publishers have reported similar problems.
What they make licensing the game to Microsoft/Game Pass rarely
matches what they'd make if they'd just sold the game directly.

That Microsoft is willing to let go $300 million tells you how
important GamePass is to their future strategy, though. They're dead
set on making all software service-based, and will happily take a loss
today in hopes of capturing the market tomorrow.

Well of course they are! Afterall they have a captive W11 "client"
base. I would not put it past them to at some point here "update" W11
so that would be the ONLY way you can use any software.

Isn't that what the S line of devices tried to do back in the W8/W10
era?
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 19:10:03 -0000 (UTC), in
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, candycanearter07 wrote:

Dimensional Traveler <[email protected]> wrote at 00:46 this Wednesday (GMT): >> On 10/7/2025 9:57 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

Another aside:

GamePass isn't very good for developers either... not even the ones
running it. Microsoft/Activision reported that it lost $300 million in
sales because people just played it as part of a GamePass
subscription.* While the values are perhaps more extreme, this sort of
news isn't uncommon; other publishers have reported similar problems.
What they make licensing the game to Microsoft/Game Pass rarely
matches what they'd make if they'd just sold the game directly.

That Microsoft is willing to let go $300 million tells you how
important GamePass is to their future strategy, though. They're dead
set on making all software service-based, and will happily take a loss
today in hopes of capturing the market tomorrow.

Well of course they are! Afterall they have a captive W11 "client"
base. I would not put it past them to at some point here "update" W11
so that would be the ONLY way you can use any software.

Isn't that what the S line of devices tried to do back in the W8/W10
era?

Yup. That's right. People hated it. Most purchases were made by people
who didn't even know what they were getting, IMO.

As long as win32 backwards compatibility is a thing, Microsoft will not
succeed in locking down systems to the Store. Maybe if they allow
sideloading "at your own risk." But enterprises will get that feature by default.

Once win32 is gone? Who knows? But win32 is Windows' bread-and-butter, so
I doubt it will ever be gone unless they scrap the NT model entirely.

I hope for a turnkey Wine enabled Linux distro if that ever happens.
SteamOS expanded to include business apps would be good, and someone can
easily fork it.
--
Zag

Give me the liberty to know, to think, to believe,
and to utter freely according to conscience, above
all other liberties. ~John Milton
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action

(reposting... but not because of NNTP server hiccoughs.
No, I'm testing stereoscopic mode, that's why there are
two of everything ;-)

On Fri, 17 Oct 2025 13:37:59 -0500, Zaghadka <[email protected]>
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 19:10:03 -0000 (UTC), in
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, candycanearter07 wrote:

Dimensional Traveler <[email protected]> wrote at 00:46 this Wednesday (GMT): >>> On 10/7/2025 9:57 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

Another aside:

GamePass isn't very good for developers either... not even the ones
running it. Microsoft/Activision reported that it lost $300 million in >>>> sales because people just played it as part of a GamePass
subscription.* While the values are perhaps more extreme, this sort of >>>> news isn't uncommon; other publishers have reported similar problems.
What they make licensing the game to Microsoft/Game Pass rarely
matches what they'd make if they'd just sold the game directly.

That Microsoft is willing to let go $300 million tells you how
important GamePass is to their future strategy, though. They're dead
set on making all software service-based, and will happily take a loss >>>> today in hopes of capturing the market tomorrow.

Well of course they are! Afterall they have a captive W11 "client"
base. I would not put it past them to at some point here "update" W11
so that would be the ONLY way you can use any software.

Isn't that what the S line of devices tried to do back in the W8/W10
era?

Yup. That's right. People hated it. Most purchases were made by people
who didn't even know what they were getting, IMO.

As long as win32 backwards compatibility is a thing, Microsoft will not >succeed in locking down systems to the Store. Maybe if they allow
sideloading "at your own risk." But enterprises will get that feature by >default.

Too, recent legal decisions in the US and Europe mean that even if
Microsoft _wants_ to make a platform that only runs its own approved
software, they probably won't be allowed to do that.

But really, Microsoft increasingly doesn't care if you're running
Windows, or Mac, or Linux, or Android... just so long as you're using
one of their services. Windows' primary advantage is that they can
push you towards those services as default (much like ChromeOS pushes
you towards Google/Gmail/GoogleDrive/GoogleDocs). But once services
like Office365 become ubiquitous, they'll happily serve it up to any
OS.

In fact, as Intel's dominance fades (and ARM's grows), and as the NT
codebase ages, it becomes increasingly likely Microsoft will move away
from Win32. They're adding Linux subsystems into NT already. ;-)






(hello from the past. One day I'll see modern posts again).


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2