In 2020, Microsoft announced that Game Pass Ultimate subscriptions would include unlimited access to its new Xbox Cloud Gaming service (then still known as Project xCloud). Now, that kind of streaming buffet service is coming to an end, as Microsoft announced strict new limits on how much streaming is included in its various Game Pass subscriptions.
Starting in November, Game Pass subscriptions will include the following monthly limits on game streaming time:
•Game Pass Ultimate ($23/month): 15 hours
•Game Pass Premium ($15/month): 10 hours
•Game Pass Essential ($10/month): 5 hours
Subscribers who use up their monthly streaming allotment will be able to buy additional time, Microsoft said, without sharing specific pricing or availability for that streaming time. Access to downloadable versions of games included in a Game Pass subscription remains unaffected.
Players who don’t subscribe to Game Pass will also be able to purchase timed access to streaming versions of “eligible games they own on supported devices,” Microsoft said. In June, Microsoft also began testing a free “stream with ads” option for players to access their cloud libraries at no additional cost.
Sony currently offers streamable versions of select PlayStation games—without time limits—only to subscribers of its top-tier, $20 per month PlayStation Plus Premium plan. Nvidia’s GeForce Now streaming PC games service currently limits the length of a user’s individual play sessions, ranging from one-hour sessions on the free ad-supported tier to eight-hour sessions on the $20 per month Ultimate tier. GeForce Now users can start as many sessions as they want in a day, however, and can purchase single-day passes for limited-time streaming access to over 2,000 streamable titles.
Who pays?
While Microsoft acknowledges that its new streaming limits will result in a “higher cost” for some customers, the company says the change will only impact “4% of Game Pass subscribers.” That ratio suggests that about 1.2 million of the estimated 30 million Xbox Game Pass subscribers are currently using streaming often enough to require additional payments under the new structure.
Drink up me hearties, yo ho.
The idea of a “time limit” on my gaming session and having to “buy more time,” turns me off streaming games services completely. They must forget Moonlight exists.
Think we’ll go full circle?
They’re gonna go “Okay okay okay, as much time as you want but…it’s $5 per continue / save.” XD
Edit: This is all so stupid, how they’re cutting themselves off at the knees and making the entire industry, and us, pay for it. I’m not supportive at all.
This was simply a joke that they’ll rip the 80’s arcade cabinet model and pat themselves on the back for it.
John Riccitiello, the former CEO of EA, brought up the idea of charging for reloads in Battlefield. His explanation of predatory microtransactions perfectly encapsulates Microsoft’s thinking here:
"When you are six hours into playing Battlefield and you run out of ammo in your clip, and we ask you for a dollar to reload.
"You’re really not very price sensitive at that point in time […] and so essentially when as it happening and the reason the play first, pay later model works so nicely is the consumer gets engaged in a property, they might spend 10, 20, 30, 50 hours in the game.
“And then when you’re deep into the game, they’re well invested in it. We’re not gouging, but we’re charging and at that point in time the commitment can be pretty high.”
Basically, if you cut off someone’s entertainment mid-session, they’ll be willing to pay a higher price to continue than they normally would.
According to the Behind the Bastards episode on Epstein, you can essentially blame Epstein for introducing Bobby Kotick and his ilk to microtransactions in games.
I remember that vividly. That is so disgusting. EA has been such a contentious company because they hold so many good licenses but they’ve also had some of the most predatory, scummy execs. Isn’t that the guy who went on to ruin the Unity engine? Lol
EA’s current position isn’t much better.
But yeah, that’s a huge reason I’m either buying / playing indie, or I’m waiting for a deep deep sale. Indie devs aren’t nearly as often scheming to pull one over on the folks who put food on their tables.
who gives a fuck… they lie, they cheat, they steal and rape… stop trusting companies to sell you a solution to a PROBLEM THEY CREATED
Hahaha 100%! Sorry I really did not mean to come off like I was supporting this stupid business model even in the very slightest.
I was joking that they’d steal the old arcade quarter-muncher cabinet model and claim it was “new and innovative.”
The AAA execs are garbage human beings ruining the very recreation we escape to in order to forget about how their ilk are actively destroying the world over their compulsive greed.
GoG.com and Itch.io seem to be the only ethical digital distribution models left to us. Steam is so far benevolent enough to earn an “enjoy it while we have it.”
LOL geeze, sure feels like the Simpsons predicted future societal ills once again.
Sad that Waterworld went down as a flop. I think the campy adventure world building was really unique. Same with John Carter.
It’s weird they’re pulling this card this early. You fully expect it to be a thing at some point, but you also wouldn’t expect it to happen until you had no where else to go and couldn’t relatively easily just replace it with a local option.
Did they become so stupid they can’t even pull off enshittification properly anymore?
The moonlight argument only holds up if you have the hardware to run the game. With steaming I always assumed the appeal was for playing games that you couldn’t locally.
15 hours a month is ridiculous as the top tier.
I like game streaming, and have even considered not having a gaming PC anymore. Even if I came to a different conclusion.
15 hours is barely enough to cover 30 minutes daily.
I liked Stadia and was considering making it my next “console.” Even convinced some family members to join in.
The fact that it failed and they fully refunded everyone was probably the best case for us consumers. In hindsight, the fact that they could always change the rules or add a subscription to stand in the way of accessing my games, it was never going to work long term.
A PC in your house will always be the best option. Now just need to buy games on GOG and itch.io
I have a PC, and could imagine a world where I stream games to test them before committing to download huge packages. Or to play games without installing them on my system, either because they do not run on Linux. And even for Windows gamers this could be useful, to play games without installing malware, I mean invasive Anticheat systems. If I were a Windows player, I would prefer streaming and lag over installing malware to play online.
On console I don’t see much reason to stream. I mean you can literally play all games native that you could have streamed on the console (other then testing).
It’s nice to see Micrsoft commit to teaching their subscribers about the affordable convenience of piracy.
This will surely draw in new subscribers!
So instead I’ll just never spend another penny on my Xbox, which I have to say the series X is fucking underwhelming and a waste of money
Can you jailbreak the Series X? Put CachyOS or SteamOS on it and play your Steam Library?
That would be amazing.
the change will only impact “4% of Game Pass subscribers
… and 100% of xCloud gamers, who rely on this service. Probably 96% of Game Pass subscribers have a PC or console to play the games native, so they didn’t need to stream much anyway.
So, just over a week of gaming for $280?
ahahahahahaha
They’re following the GeForce Now model apparently.
ETA: I wonder if this is some backwards way of trying to get people to stop using their servers for whatever reason?
Still on the founders subscription to GeForce now, 60 dollars a year and I’ll keep it until I’m in the Earth, and tell my progeny to never let them revoke it.
Pass the logins on. I know steam says you can’t do that, but are they really gonna know, unless your steam account actually reaches 60+ years old. But that won’t be for another 40 years in most cases.
Yea how will they know if it’s my nephew or my brain in a cybernetic life support cube in 2066.
the company says the change will only impact “4% of Game Pass subscribers.”
I bet, they averaged the play times and that’s how they came up with that figure. I can believe that only a small percentage of their customers average more than 15h per month.
But you know how these things go.
You start playing a game that you really enjoy and suddenly you’re binging that for the whole weekend. That’s your 15h for the month gone.Or you’ve got your two-week vacation in a particular month and suddenly you’re playing multiple hours each day. Don’t even need math to figure out that 15h are not enough for 14 multi-h sessions.
There’s just going to be variations in playtime and now you’ll have to pay up for that.
Since its only for streaming games, not games you installed on your Xbox/pc, I could believe that it’s not a huge percentage of users.
When I had gamepass streaming was usually pointless as I could just play locally 90% of the time.
Not really the top users point.
We are scared that these bastards are going to kill local hardware
Is Asha trying to be my mom?!
Stream with AIDs? Advertising is a cancer to society. No thank you.
