It varies by location. But for me on brazil at least every single subscription doubled in price. PC Game Pass was 36 BRL, it is now 70. Ultimate was 60 BRL, now it’s 120. I cannot justify this shit.
This link has a pretty good comparison between the new and old gamepass features/prices. The cheapest tier is actually better than it used to be, but it looks like the more expensive ones are getting bundled with shit most people won’t want just so they can justify increasing the price.
There are four tiers to the gamepass: Core, Standard, PC, and Ultimate. The first two were exclusive to Xbox, the PC version was obviously exclusive to PCs, and Ultimate was available for both. All tiers aside from the PC gamepass are now being bundled with xbox’s cloud gaming, with higher tiers having shorter wait times and better quality.
This is all US pricing, so take it with a grain of salt considering the OP said their prices doubled:
Core, now called Essential, is a $10 tier that will now have double the games (from 25+ to 50+) and is newly available on PC as well with no price increase.
The $15 Standard tier, now called Premium, is likewise not seeing a price increase and will now be available on PC. However, it looks like Call of Duty will no longer be included in this tier, which I imagine is one of the biggest sellers of gamepass.
The previously $12 PC tier is increasing in price to $16.50. Looks like the only new “benefit” is it will come with Ubisoft+ classic (40+ games) now. Still exclusive to PC.
Then there’s the previously $20 Ultimate tier. It’s price is increasing to $30 a month, and it’s the one everyone’s upset about. The only new benefits are cloud gaming, Ubisoft+ classic, and a Fortnite subscription.
Jfc I just downgraded back to Premium. We were paying for Ultimate but never used it. What a great way to force users to look at their subbed to. It’s pretty fucking awful to pull this shit with no real announcement.
For years I’ve been warning whoever would listen that XboxGP, much like any other content subscription service owned by a public company would inevitably lead to a massive consumer squeeze. Fortunately it happened before MS managed to metastasise into a monopoly in gaming too. Good riddance.
Saddest Sony generation with a weak exclusive line up due pivoting towards failed gaas instead of single player exclusives. PS4 backwards compatibility ended up being the most noteworthy thing about the PS5.
Exclusives are cancer to gamers, and lock people into ecosystems. All games should be available on all appropriate platforms, for greater consumer choice.
I would say it’s no coincidence we’ve seen a drought of good singleplayer games around the same time as a drought of console exclusives.
Technology-wise, there’s no “reason” to buy any particular console. They’re all PCs. So, console makers have to invent that reason; and little things like a screenshot button, or family features, don’t pull people into the store. Exclusive games do.
And one key thing is, those exclusive games can’t be F2P microtransactions-laden casinos or live-service games. No one is spending $500 just to play something free; they’ll try to install that on a device they have. The exclusives have to be full, complete, well-voice-acted, well-written masterpieces respected by the gaming public - making anyone without that console envious.
But couldn’t devs just sell those games without making them exclusive? Perhaps not. Look at the credits for the latest God of War and you get a sense of how much they’re spending to make those types of games.
Yes, the game alone is still profitable. But A) It’s paying for a dozen failures Sony has also put out - no-name experiments they greenlit, and B) It might not be as profitable as many other reliable industries investors could put their money into. Why not just buy an index fund?
Thankfully, the equation works out better for indie studios; their games aren’t so massive as to need to account for millions in costs. So we’ll keep getting those. But big-budget singleplayer arrangements aren’t as likely when they’re not pushing some bigger product like a game console.
80 CUs is 7900xt, 4080 level. Would be surprising in APU.
I just got a 7840hs mini pc with 780m igpu, and oculink for future. Very happy with it as I can play beyond all reason in 1200p high settings compared to 1650s that did 1080p in low settings. 60 fps with amd chill, and mostly under 80C, with few peaks around 85C.
The 890m, AI370 are $700usd more, and under 25% improved gpu. 2x or 3x the 890m gpu performance can be acquired for $700 oculink solution.
80CU APU, is going to be priced higher than AI 395’s 40 CU APU, which is already priced shockingly high. The next Xbox being a full PC can justify pricing, but usual gaming console pricing model is break even based on selling locked in games (razor blades) at high prices. 395 use case has mostly been to have a very large ram LLM at relatively slow speed. APUs for relatively portable mini pc mid range GPU tasks with external GPU enhancement for “desktop scenario” seems like a sweet spot, or laptop with mobile gpu for more combined portable performance per $, seems like it would always have an edge over “bleeding edge APU” for most people.
wccftech.com
Aktywne