Over 1 million Game Pass subscribers will have to pay more for their heavy streaming use.

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.

  • MonkeMischief@lemmy.todayEnglish
    21·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • Quetzalcutlass@lemmy.worldEnglish
      17·
      3 days ago

      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.

      • Lemmayng@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        2 days ago

        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.

      • MonkeMischief@lemmy.todayEnglish
        2·
        2 days ago

        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.

    • Bluegrass_Addict@lemmy.caEnglish
      10·
      3 days ago

      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

      • MonkeMischief@lemmy.todayEnglish
        5·
        2 days ago

        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.”

      • MonkeMischief@lemmy.todayEnglish
        1·
        2 days ago

        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.