Arkane founder warns Game Pass is "unsustainable" and could harm the gaming industry

Alfonso Maruccia

Posts: 1,847   +557
Staff
In context: From the perspective of many gamers, Game Pass offers an incredibly competitive service with multi-platform access to select games and other perks. However, according to Raphaël Colantonio, founder of Arkane Studios, the subscription service will eventually damage everyone in the industry.

Microsoft's Game Pass relies on a business model that Colantonio believes is unsustainable. He argues that Microsoft has been negatively affecting the gaming industry for over a decade. Colantonio, the French designer who founded Arkane Studios (Dishonored, Prey) and WolfEye Studios (Weird West), is convinced that Microsoft is pouring money into a subscription service that is both unprofitable and potentially damaging to the ecosystem.

Colantonio recently sparked a discussion on X, calling Game Pass the "elephant in the room" of the gaming industry. He claims that Microsoft has been subsidizing the service using its vast financial resources. Despite eight years of effort, the company is still trying to reach profitability. Microsoft continues to acquire studios and spend billions of dollars, betting that future subscription revenue will eventually justify this massive investment.

According to Colantonio, Game Pass cannot coexist with other business models in the industry.

He believes Microsoft will either dominate the market entirely or eventually abandon its strategy to convert every gamer into a paying subscriber. Michael Douse, Publishing Director at Larian Studios (Baldur's Gate III), has also noted that Game Pass impacts direct game sales, despite Microsoft's statements to the contrary.

Colantonio acknowledges that Game Pass can be a great deal for consumers, but argues that it only works because Microsoft is injecting billions of dollars to keep it attractive – at least for now.

Recently, Microsoft laid off thousands of employees from the Xbox division, and Executive Producer Matt Turnbull attempted to use the layoffs to promote the company's AI services.

Colantonio dismissed the justification of these layoffs as part of a shift toward AI investment, calling it a "bs excuse." He warned that if Microsoft succeeds in eliminating the competition, the quality of Game Pass will decline and subscription prices will rise. For now, the service remains affordable only because Microsoft is willing to subsidize it and in Microsoft's hope to kill the competition, Colantonio said.

Many gamers disagreed with Colantonio, taking Microsoft's side instead. Charging consumers $80 for unfinished games is much more unsustainable than the Game Pass subscription business, some argued. This kind of broken experiences belong to Game Pass, because today's AAA games tend to be low quality, games-as-a-service copycat services at launch filled with microtransactions to recoup costs or make a fast buck.

"Absolutely, what you describe is one of the 5 reasons the industry is in the shitter," Colantonio responded.

Permalink to story:

 
I like owning my games at least to the point where I could download, play and update them easy af, whenever I want. That why I "bought" on Steam every piece of software that I wanted.

Yet to new gamers or those who don't wanna expend too much or actually choose free what they want to play, I think the gamepass is great, specially the Microsoft one, that one for it's price has more content than the others and also has actually new games often.
 
Yeah, I think everyone has seen how streaming/subscription models play out with things like Netflix etc.

It always looks like a good deal early on thanks to that venture capital money/heavy subsidization but as soon as its time to actually become profitable then quality goes down, monthly cost goes up, pickins get slim, anything that isn't a blockbuster hit never gets renewed.

IMO Steam's business model is the sweet spot. It's all digital so theoretically things get cheaper (despite publisher's pushing back on the deep sales recently and keeping prices inflated) but its also just one time purchases instead of a steady monthly sub.

Gyms have done this forever and its wild that the consumers seem to keep falling for the subscription model trick over and over and over again.
 
Gamepass has been a loss leader for awhile. Spencer was getting uncomfortable at the flatlining of growth before. You need a constant flow of new titles to keep these sub services viable but the profit made from gamepass is way lower than actually selling copies of a game, you have to constantly be in the spotlight to make a comparable amount, but that is counterintuitive to what makes Gamepass money; having more titles to attract more buyers.

MS was really hoping that Gamepass would take over windows spending, but much like EGS, gamers used it enough to reap the benefits then cancel their sub and go back to Steam, then rinse and repeat when a series of expensive games they want to paly once comes out.
I like owning my games at least to the point where I could download, play and update them easy af, whenever I want. That why I "bought" on Steam every piece of software that I wanted.

Yet to new gamers or those who don't wanna expend too much or actually choose free what they want to play, I think the gamepass is great, specially the Microsoft one, that one for it's price has more content than the others and also has actually new games often.
Gamepass is great if you're one of those that HAS to play all the new releases. It's far cheaper then buying 2+ games a month.

But if you're more into indies or only buy 1-3 a year not so much.
 
The irony is Game Pass might be the best consumer deal and a ticking time bomb for the industry. Colantonio's not wrong to worry, but it's wild that the current defense of Game Pass is basically "at least it's not charging me $70 for a bug-filled mess."
 
Back