News Microsoft raises Xbox Game Pass prices — changes also include overhauled tiers, and the new bottom tier can no longer play Day 1 games

[Admin]

Microsoft announced the abolition of the Xbox Game Pass for Console to be replaced by a future Standard tier and a price increase of $5 for Game Pass, an ultimate total of $19.99 per month, instead of its current $14.99.

Microsoft raises Xbox Game Pass prices — changes also include overhauled tiers, and the new bottom tier can no longer play Day 1 games : Read more

 

[klatte42]

How did this get published? Was it written on a phone? Some parts don’t make sense, just as English, and it’s almost completely unreadable otherwise if you aren’t knee deep in knowledge about Xbox gaming offers. What ever happened to a paragraph or two of introduction and editors reading it thoroughly before publishing?

 

[TheyCallMeContra]

How did this get published? Was it written on a phone? Some parts don’t make sense, just as English, and it’s almost completely unreadable otherwise if you aren’t knee deep in knowledge about Xbox gaming offers. What ever happened to a paragraph or two of introduction and editors reading it thoroughly before publishing?

What parts don't make sense, exactly? Also idk why you would read this article if you have no idea what Xbox Game Pass or Xbox Live are, or why you expect me to waste newsroom time establishing basics that should be understood by anyone who would consider reading a story about Xbox subscription pricing.

I think you just don't know how to read, TBQH. I can also verify it was edited before publishing, because I wrote it and it's a fair bit different than my original draft- but certainly not so altered that it's violating the English language or whatever you're trying to imply here.

 

[thestryker]

What parts don't make sense, exactly? Also idk why you would read this article if you have no idea what Xbox Game Pass or Xbox Live are, or why you expect me to waste newsroom time establishing basics that should be understood by anyone who would consider reading a story about Xbox subscription pricing.

I think you just don't know how to read, TBQH. I can also verify it was edited before publishing, because I wrote it and it's a fair bit different than my original draft- but certainly not so altered that it's violating the English language or whatever you're trying to imply here.

Let's see what I noticed while skimming the article... there might be more that I missed this was just the obvious bits.

starting with the first paragraph:

Some of the language itself is a bit odd like this:

Suppose the Xbox Game Pass' Day 1 release model has seemed unsustainable to you. In that case, you aren't the only one

I know what's trying to be said, but it doesn't really make sense. Perhaps that second sentence should have started "If that's the case"

Microsoft announced the abolition of the Xbox Game Pass for Console to be replaced by a future Standard tier and a price increase of $5 for Game Pass, an ultimate total of $19.99 per month, instead of its current $14.99.

This probably should have read something like "price increase of $5 for Game Pass Ultimate bringing it to $19.99"

These figures assume you're reading this from the United States, but Microsoft has a dedicated PDF for Game Pass users from other countries who want to see the exact price change for their currencies.

Mentions a PDF for people in other countries but no direct link to it and no indication the link on the word "announced" in the prior sentence has that information (it's also cute that there's a tagged Microsoft local site link right before that one making it even easier to miss).

Then further in the article:

As of September 18, 2024, the maximum subscription extension limit for Game Pass for Console will be 13 months, past which (~November 2025) users will likely be required to switch.

This is just a guess on the part of the author. There's already precedent for the 13 month extension period though as some countries are already limited to that with subscription services below Ultimate.

Finally, Xbox Game Pass Standard is set to be introduced as a new entry-level tier replacing Xbox Game Pass for consoles. Xbox Game Pass Standard will cost $14.99 and include Xbox Live Gold membership. But most pressingly for those using Xbox Game Pass for cheap access to Day One Xbox games, this membership tier will no longer include Day One games, only back catalog titles.

This notably skips a part of the information:

Some games available with Xbox Game Pass Ultimate on day one will not be immediately available with Xbox Game Pass Standard and may be added to the library at a future date. This could be up to 12 months or more and will vary by title.​

Confusingly, on the note of Xbox Live Gold, it seems that Microsoft is now renaming it Game Pass Core, even though it is still just for online multiplayer. Additionally, the month-to-month pricing of Game Pass Core will remain in line with current Live Gold pricing at $9.99. Still, the annual bundle pricing has increased from $74.99 to $54.99, eliminating many savings from buying it in a yearly package.

Game Pass Core replaced Xbox Live Gold last year and the difference between them is Gold gave 2 games a month and Core has its own catalog of games hence the "Game Pass" in the name. Of course the highlighted obvious mistake.

Basically the article is a mess and clearly wasn't checked by anyone before publishing. I'd like to think it wasn't just sloppily tossed through AI, but...

 

[lagunareturns]

The writing is not making perfect sense because it was written by AI, it is using words that is correct but not in the way normal person writes or speaks

 

[Joseph_138]

I'm glad I dumped my Game Pass membership several months ago. When they did away with the free monthly games, I wasn't getting enough value for the money.

 

[Heat_Fan89]

This is NO surprise to me at all. I saw the writing on the wall with Microsoft pulling back on their XBOX Rewards program. Their Rewards program allowed you to earn points really, really fast and you could use that to buy games or more importantly to buy XBOX Game Pass monthly subscriptions. Microsoft reduced the spigot to a very low level.

I could earn enough Rewards points in a month to buy 3 months of Game Pass Ultimate. Now it takes a lot of effort to earn a 1 month subscription. Many fear it will take two months of Rewards points to earn just 1 month of a Game Pass Ultimate subscription.

This was right around the time that the Activision deal was first made to the public. Microsoft has to recoup that somehow and that somehow is by raising prices and pulling back on the Rewards points people use to get free XBOX Game Pass subscriptions.

Also you can now only stack 13 months of Game Pass subs. It used to be up to 36 months. So expect even more price hikes in the future. Several gaming sites have said that Game Pass subscriptions have flatlined and Microsoft may in fact be losing subscribers.

The price hikes probably won't help reversing those trends. So much for Phil Spencer's 2 billion XBOX Game Pass subscribers.

 

[cknobman]

I'm glad I dumped my Game Pass membership several months ago. When they did away with the free monthly games, I wasn't getting enough value for the money.

Same here.
I was tired of paying every month to have access to play the same game.
Its too expensive and I dont play enough to make the cost enough of a value to justify it.

Besides, I'm done with Microsoft for the most part.
The company is just not what I once thought it was.
And 100% not trustworthy anymore.

Last step for me is getting all my crap off OneDrive and out of their cloud.
This winter is project "build my own NAS".

 

[TheyCallMeContra]

Let's see what I noticed while skimming the article... there might be more that I missed this was just the obvious bits.

starting with the first paragraph:

Some of the language itself is a bit odd like this:

I know what's trying to be said, but it doesn't really make sense. Perhaps that second sentence should have started "If that's the case"

This probably should have read something like "price increase of $5 for Game Pass Ultimate bringing it to $19.99"

Mentions a PDF for people in other countries but no direct link to it and no indication the link on the word "announced" in the prior sentence has that information (it's also cute that there's a tagged Microsoft local site link right before that one making it even easier to miss).

Then further in the article:

This is just a guess on the part of the author. There's already precedent for the 13 month extension period though as some countries are already limited to that with subscription services below Ultimate.

This notably skips a part of the information:

Some games available with Xbox Game Pass Ultimate on day one will not be immediately available with Xbox Game Pass Standard and may be added to the library at a future date. This could be up to 12 months or more and will vary by title.​

Game Pass Core replaced Xbox Live Gold last year and the difference between them is Gold gave 2 games a month and Core has its own catalog of games hence the "Game Pass" in the name. Of course the highlighted obvious mistake.

Basically the article is a mess and clearly wasn't checked by anyone before publishing. I'd like to think it wasn't just sloppily tossed through AI, but...

Actually, some of the things you're pointing out were changes made by the editor of this piece, not me...I have a screenshot saved of the original draft in Notepad++ here:

So you see. It was human-written and human-reviewed before you ever got to see it. My original draft was phrased very differently in some key areas. But that's actually not what matters right now— I'm gonna unpack that real quick.

Final links on articles are determined by the editors, not me. We've been trying to slim down the total number of links per piece lately, though to be truthful I'd much prefer all my linking be left intact if I'm going to get comments accusing me of being a [expletive] robot for them not being present.

'Grats on the Game Pass Core pricing sentence error catch cause that's...present in both drafts in different forms, but the "12 month" figure is not a guess. It's taken directly from the source, I just threw a likely full cutoff month in there for convenience's sake.

Also @lagunareturns @Metal Messiah. and anyone else who wants to insist I'm lazy enough to [expletive] auto-generate my work needs to wake up to reality. I am thoroughly human, and very often stretching the limits of my deadlines for my articles. I've been doing this since Well before AI shortcuts were ever an option, too. Choke and/or slobber on it, and learn to provide constructive feedback if you actually want to encourage constructive discussion.

You do realize an AI would've just like. Generated a quick list and called it a day, right? You're identifying mistakes that only a human could make. It makes plenty of sense if you aren't a baby who expects everything to be written for your tastes specifically.

 

[klatte42]

Actually, some of the things you're pointing out were changes made by the editor of this piece, not me...I have a screenshot saved of the original draft in Notepad++ here:

So you see. It was human-written and human-reviewed before you ever got to see it. My original draft was phrased very differently in some key areas. But that's actually not what matters right now— I'm gonna unpack that real quick.

Final links on articles are determined by the editors, not me. We've been trying to slim down the total number of links per piece lately, though to be truthful I'd much prefer all my linking be left intact if I'm going to get comments accusing me of being a [expletive] robot for them not being present.

'Grats on the Game Pass Core pricing sentence error catch cause that's...present in both drafts in different forms, but the "12 month" figure is not a guess. It's taken directly from the source, I just threw a likely full cutoff month in there for convenience's sake.

Also @lagunareturns @Metal Messiah. and anyone else who wants to insist I'm lazy enough to [expletive] auto-generate my work needs to wake up to reality. I am thoroughly human, and very often stretching the limits of my deadlines for my articles. I've been doing this since Well before AI shortcuts were ever an option, too. Choke and/or slobber on it, and learn to provide constructive feedback if you actually want to encourage constructive discussion.

You do realize an AI would've just like. Generated a quick list and called it a day, right? You're identifying mistakes that only a human could make. It makes plenty of sense if you aren't a baby who expects everything to be written for your tastes specifically.

Your original version _is_ more understandable. Editing _should_ have improved it — that’s kind of the point of editing.

 

[thestryker]

I just threw a likely full cutoff month in there for convenience's sake.

I didn't highlight it in my quote, but that part is the guess, and Microsoft already has a 13 month cutoff for specific countries. So it's not necessarily some arbitrary figure indicating they're pushing everyone off.

Actually, some of the things you're pointing out were changes made by the editor of this piece, not me...I have a screenshot saved of the original draft in Notepad++ here:

So you see. It was human-written and human-reviewed before you ever got to see it. My original draft was phrased very differently in some key areas. But that's actually not what matters right now— I'm gonna unpack that real quick.

Then the editor shoved it through AI rather than doing their job. There is no way an actual person took that opening sentence you wrote (makes complete sense) and turned it into the nonsense that ended up in the article. Which leads me to believe they were cutting corners then didn't check to make sure the final product made sense.

Final links on articles are determined by the editors, not me. We've been trying to slim down the total number of links per piece lately, though to be truthful I'd much prefer all my linking be left intact if I'm going to get comments accusing me of being a [expletive] robot for them not being present.

Oh that was more a note than anything else because it's unhelpful to refer to something and then give the reader no indication of where to get it. Then on top of that there are two different embedded links right next to each other which makes it very easy to miss the relevant one. Even a source/more information link at the bottom of the article could resolve this.