Xbox Game Pass has lost 4 million subscribers since its price hike backfired

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 2,010   +58
Staff
Bottom line: Xbox's subscription experiment is hitting a wall. The company's ambitious push to turn Game Pass into a must-have, Netflix-style service for gaming appears to be stalling, and the numbers are moving in the wrong direction. Game Pass now has 30 million subscribers, down by roughly 4 million from the 34 million fully paid users Microsoft reported in early 2024. That figure also falls well short of the company's internal targets, revealed during the FTC's review of the Activision Blizzard acquisition. Microsoft's goal was 77 million subscribers by July 2026 and 100 million paid members by 2030.

Microsoft no longer provides regular updates on Game Pass subscriber totals, but the latest figure illustrates just how much growth has slowed for what the company once pitched as a flagship service spanning console, PC, and the cloud.

The downturn began after a risky price increase centered on premium content. In 2025, Microsoft raised the price of Game Pass Ultimate by nearly 50 percent and reworked the structure of its other tiers. The move was widely seen as the cost of giving subscribers day-one access to new Call of Duty titles through the service, on top of first-party releases and a large catalog spanning console, PC, and the cloud.

That bet backfired. Xbox chief strategy officer Matthew Ball later said the changes meant that "we shed millions of subscribers over the span of a few months." For a subscription service that depends on steady recurring revenue and engagement, that kind of churn is more than a temporary setback. It suggested that even heavy users who value day-one access and cloud flexibility were unwilling to follow the price all the way up.

Under the hood, Game Pass is built around a mix of local installs, cloud streaming, and cross-platform entitlements designed to let the Xbox ecosystem follow players from device to device. Ultimate is the tier where all of those features come together, bundling a large game library, cloud access on supported devices, and day-one access to Microsoft's first-party titles.

When the price jumped, it raised a fundamental question for subscribers: was the bundle, even with day-one Call of Duty access, still worth more than simply buying a few games outright each year?

By April, new Xbox CEO Asha Sharma moved to soften the blow. Microsoft cut Game Pass prices and backed away from the Call of Duty promise. New Call of Duty titles no longer arrive on Game Pass at launch; instead, they are added roughly a year after release.

That shift returns Game Pass to its original role as a broad-access service – a way to tap into a large game catalog across multiple devices – rather than a guaranteed first stop for one of the industry's biggest franchises on release day.

Sharma has made it clear internally that Game Pass is not performing as planned. In a memo this week announcing 3,200 job cuts in the Xbox division, she wrote that the service "did not grow at the pace we expected" and cited its performance as one reason for the reset. Earlier internal memos from Sharma had already identified Game Pass pricing and declining membership as problems.

The slowdown feeds into a broader debate that has been running for years in the games industry: can a subscription model truly support the cost of blockbuster game development? Sony has called the model "value destructive," arguing that putting expensive new games into a subscription service on day one undermines their long-term value. Other developers that have worked with Game Pass have disputed that view, saying the service can benefit their games.

Sony's own subscription product, PlayStation Plus, takes a more cautious approach. It relies primarily on tiers that provide access to a catalog of games, with major first-party titles rarely available on day one. Instead, PS Plus is designed to monetize older and catalog titles while preserving launch windows and full-price sales for major new releases.

For Microsoft, Game Pass remains central to its vision of how players will access Xbox games across devices and over time. But the recent retrenchment – price cuts, changes to the handling of marquee titles, and internal layoffs – shows that the technology and the vision are not enough on their own.

Permalink to story:

 
How exactly did the price hike "backfire", when they raised prices by 50% and lost less than 12% of their subscribers? That's a clear 34% increase in revenue, and, with lower support costs, an even larger increase in net profits.
 
They haven't added anything good to game pass in a while. There's just nothing there of interest to an avid gamer. To a new gamer it would be a good deal, but for most of us it's just a big pile of cheap games, and Microsoft's weak first party line up.

Gamepass probably would have succeeded if Microsoft didn't have so many major flops.
 
How exactly did the price hike "backfire", when they raised prices by 50% and lost less than 12% of their subscribers? That's a clear 34% increase in revenue, and, with lower support costs, an even larger increase in net profits.
Maybe you should read the story:
That bet backfired. Xbox chief strategy officer Matthew Ball later said the changes meant that "we shed millions of subscribers over the span of a few months."
Losing millions of subscribers over the span of a few months is nothing to brag about. We'll see if the trend continues.
 
Maybe you should read the story:
Maybe you should read posts before replying to them, as I implicitly referenced the loss of four million subscribers in my figures. Do you need to see the math?

Losing millions of subscribers over the span of a few months is nothing to brag about. We'll see if the trend continues.
It's been nearly a year since the price hike. Anyone leaving over higher prices is already gone.
 
Maybe you should read posts before replying to them, as I implicitly referenced the loss of four million subscribers in my figures. Do you need to see the math?
Xbox chief strategy officer said it was a failure. Take it up with him if you disagree.


It's been nearly a year since the price hike. Anyone leaving over higher prices is already gone.
That's not how this works. It was easy to tack up a year+ of subscription at a low price for a long time. The continued loss of subscribers has been from these people running out their subs, and we do not have an indication that this is slowing down.
 
Maybe you should read posts before replying to them, as I implicitly referenced the loss of four million subscribers in my figures. Do you need to see the math?


It's been nearly a year since the price hike. Anyone leaving over higher prices is already gone.
When your main goal is growth then the opposite of that is bad. Lossing subscribers is not growth
 
When your main goal is growth then the opposite of that is bad. Lossing subscribers is not growth
In what fantasy world do you believe Microsoft -- or any company -- raises prices to gain customers? At the time, Microsoft specifically said the goal was to "offset the higher costs of game development."
 
In what fantasy world do you believe Microsoft -- or any company -- raises prices to gain customers? At the time, Microsoft specifically said the goal was to "offset the higher costs of game development."
They also predicted that that would be with over twice as many subscribers as they have now. The price increase was to cover costs based on them have 77m users right now, not 30m
 
Maybe you should read posts before replying to them, as I implicitly referenced the loss of four million subscribers in my figures. Do you need to see the math?


It's been nearly a year since the price hike. Anyone leaving over higher prices is already gone.
Revenue don't mean **** if you're not hitting your mark....especially if you're more than half down from your goal of 77mil, losing 4mil subs makes it even worse.

Shareholders frown when goals aren't met, especially at such a large discrepancy as this.
 
How exactly did the price hike "backfire", when they raised prices by 50% and lost less than 12% of their subscribers? That's a clear 34% increase in revenue, and, with lower support costs, an even larger increase in net profits.
I suspect there's a long term play here with growth required in order to claim it is sustainable, get more developers/publishes on board, etc. A lot of developers have complained that they don't make much money from GamePass, far less than individual sales of games. So I think there's a minimum mass Microsoft is targeting in order to offset that, and a higher revenue on fewer subscribers doesn't get them there.
 
It's a fair point; you chaps have convinced me. The price hike backfired.
Now if only someone could convince the streaming services, that'd be great.

Problem there is they have the cheaper ad-supported tiers they can rely on, but I think the market is also just different. I don't know if this is true broadly, but anecdotally, I generally know what kinds of games I like to play, and can tell if I would like to play something just by going over the store page and reading a few reviews. It's harder to get that same "would I like this" prediction about a show, so I wouldn't want to pay a-la carte for it like I do with games.
 
Back