Yearly Xbox Live Gold Subscriptions Removed From The Microsoft Store

Not happy about this. i've only got game pass at the moment as it was cheap. Buggered if I'm paying full price for it as I rarely download the games.

I was actually for the first time going to buy a year's worth of gold on Tuesday because I could afford it for once but saw it wasn't there.

Gold and Lockhart are two mysteries at the moment.

Yeah, I think it's obvious what direction MS is going.

It makes sense to focus on Game Pass and it will include xCloud. The only question is online, will it be free or included in Game Pass? Stay tuned.

I'm not paying a monthly sub unless it's less than £5.

This better be more along the lines of offering a family sub that let's you put 5-6 people on one at a discounted price.

Because ultimately, I already pay a lot of money for xbl gold in my house and I already tolerated the yearly increase, any other type of gouging will be met with me just cancelling everything.

I guess that online will be included in Game Pass for Xbox and Game Pass Ultimate will be the premium option with online, Game Pass for both Xbox and Windows and xCloud.

@Captain_Chao5 maybe they are making online features free and just the game pass stuff at the higher price? ^^ Trying to be hopeful.

I'd rather have actual free games with Gold than "free trials" with Game Pass.

PlayStation Now or whatever it's called is not the example Microsoft should follow. Neither is Nintendo Switch Online, as much of a fan as I could be. All three major players should go the Gold route.

I’m calling it:
Free multiplayer gameplay
Games With Gold program moves under Game Pass Ultimate

@JON22 you likely still can buy digital codes from the likes of Amazon, at least for now.

@BlueOcean didnt they just announce xCloud is explosively a Ultimate feature starting September?

@Tharsman Right. I updated my comment. Of course, I think that they'll respect our Games with Gold collection. Microsoft is not Nintendo.

@BlueOcean i don’t care for it but I know many do, and kinda hope they will actually continue Games With Gold under Ultimate, maybe rebranded, but continue to add games to it.

@Tharsman I don't think that offering different games each month (with the subsequent complaints about the selection) makes sense with Game Pass.

Sounds like to me that xbox is going to be making multiplayer free very soon.. Can't wait to hear more about this, Probably at the july 23rd showcase..

@BlueOcean offering games that stay in your library forever, even if the publisher pulls the title, makes some sense. At least for consumers, I’m sure it will become harder and harder to find titles for such a program.

Obviously adding first party games to that will no longer make sense.

@roe Even Nintendo charges for their (rubbish) online but, on the other hand, it might do wonders for Series X adoption to give online for free. I think that online will be included with the standard Game Pass.

If this is how it's going to be going forward, then that's VERY bad news.
I don't like or care for GamePass, at ALL. I'm not the Netflix type, so I don't like my options in games to be disposable and/or temporary either.

Even though I don't like Netflix, I'll grant that there at least the model fits, but for games it absolutely doesn't, in my humble opinion. I already see that in the weekly "these titles will be removed from GamePass" articles. It's stupid, ridiculous, and I want none of it. And don't even get me started on how this forces me to play games in a limited time span, instead of whenever I would want to, as it should be...

It might even kill any interest I now still have in Series X, because I'm never going to take a subscription to GamePass, if that'll be the only option going forward, so NOT good on you, Phil. Not good...

Its going to be difficult for them to charge for online with such a big focus on PC and Xcloud next generation so I suspect you won't even need a subscription for that. It would also explain the offers of converting Gold into Gamepass for very little money

So it looks like 1 of 2 outcomes:

1. Online multiplayer becomes free and Gold is removed. If you want to play online then you only need a Microsoft Account but if you want a games subscription there's still Game Pass and Game Pass Ultimate.

2. Online multiplayer is added to Game Pass for console and Gold is removed. If you want to play online you need Game Pass for console which also gives you access to the Game Pass library on console or Game Pass Ultimate which includes those, xCloud and Game Pass for PC.

I really hope it's point 1. In addition to the obvious reasons there's also the situation of Xbox 360. Point 2 would suggest Microsoft's shutting down the Xbox 360 servers.

Hmm, I like my games with gold each month.... Looks likely this will end 🤔
Could this mean some games with gold which you expected to be yours for the duration of the subscription e.g Xbox One games obtained via the gold subscription, these could go into the gamepass games catalogue and then subsequently be removed from the service??
(Sorry if I'm asking a dumb question...)

@Grumblevolcano @roe @Bmartin001 @Tharsman

Genuine question, but having MP go free didn't even occur to me. And I've been sat here talking to my Fiancee trying to think this one out, but what makes you guys think MS would do this?

On one hand, XBL Gold was such a big money maker, my instinct is that no company would willingly give that up, yet folding that in to game pass sounds plausible and anti-consumer. On the other hand, Xbox have been so pro-consumer lately, and having free MP when Nintendo and Sony are just in to their MP subscription models that going full circle and offering it free would be a huge selling point for the consoles (and I'd personally benefit a great deal from that.)

@BANJO I think that you'll be able to play your Xbox One Games with Gold collection with any subscription.

@Richnj Including online with Game Pass (£7.99/month) is not anti-consumer if you consider that Sony and Nintendo charge for online too and also for cloud saves which are free on Xbox. Gold is cheaper, yes (e.g., £17.99/3 months), but they might announce a discount for one-year subscriptions when Gold is phased out. I wish online was free like on PC but the three of them decided the opposite.

I hope online is free. I don't need game pass. I just buy f1 each year and one Ea sports game. Free sea of thieves would be awesome

@BlueOcean I currently pay £4 a month. Forcing me to pay £8 a month for a bundled service, where I'm not interested in half that service, is anti-consumer.

It's like telling me I can't get an Internet package for £35, I can only get a TV and Internet package for £70.

Edit: and if Sony and Nintendo keep their current models, then not only am I being told I need TV with my Internet, but other companies are offering an Internet only package for £35, and one even offers Internet only for cheaper.

@BlueOcean I hope so 🙂, I surpose we will just have to wait and see, no doubt all will be revealed..

@Richnj Microsoft is one of the most pro consumer companies. So let's not go off the deep end just yet.

@sixrings MS as a whole aren't all that pro-consumer. Xbox have been doing a lot of things pro-consumer since Spencer took over, but they are still the only platform holder to drench their major 1st party titles in microtransactions.

My point is that while Xbox's approach to gen transition is the best approach I've ever seen, and I'm going to praise them for that, but I'm not naive, we have a 50/50 shot at either another pro-consumer move, or an utterly generation destroying one like the "online only, buy a 360" move, and I'm going to be critical at that.

@Richnj Microsoft making MP free, then bundling the gold games into game pass, gives them a huge competitive advantage.

Sony is unlikely to be in a position to afford making MP free since PSNow is extremely underwhelming, and MS is in a position to grow Game Pass, having those that pay just for the games move over to Game Pass Ultimate instead. No change would be needed since Game Pass Ultimate already offers all Gold Live features.

This would make “free monthly games” more expensive, but free multiplayer would be huge counter balance.

@Tharsman So essentially, rather than split focus between two sub models, drop XBL gold, and pour all subscription focus in to building game pass since it is in the best position (as xbl Gold was during the 360 days). And having gold being the thing that makes the most sense to sacrifice, and let that go free?

This to me makes the most sense.

@Richnj You're anticipating hypothetical situations in a negative way and comparing one-year prices with monthly prices and saying that Microsoft is anti-consumer when Microsoft is the most consumer-friendly of the three. We both are speculating but you're expecting the worst. Don't expect online to be free on Xbox and paid on Nintendo and Sony but don't expect Gold's substitute to be the worst deal ever. Wait and see.

@BlueOcean

1) You were the one that gave me the monthly cost. I very much can use that monthly cost vs the equivalent monthly cost I currently pay. I'm comparing them on equal footing, it's not like I compared the the yearly for one and monthly for another.

2) I didn't say MS was anti-consumer. I said that bundling two services and charging more for that, rather than give the consumer the ability to pick and choose the services they want to have and pay for, is anti-consumer.

3) Whether MS is the most pro-consumer depends on how you judge them. All three have very anti-consumer moments, as well as pro-consumer moments. I'll judge each individual action on its own merits, rather than judge an entire company by the totality of its actions. And praise and critique accordingly.

4) I didn't expect XBL to be free. See above. I initially assumed that both game pass and gold would be folded together, until others assumed otherwise. At which point I tried to hear out the reasons why they thought MS would make gold free. I was just open to hearing the arguments for that scenario.

5) Lastly, I can react negatively towards hypotheticals. You gave me a scenario of replacing gold with just game pass at £8 a month, and I don't need to experience it to know this would be a bad deal for me. I've tried game pass, it's not for me, it's not something I need or would use. Doubling the price would effectively double my bills without doubling the value.

This doesn't mean I automatically hate MS for this idea that users of this forum proposed. It doesn't automatically mean I'm going to hate what MS have in store. I'm discussing people have proposed. If you want to propose a hypothetical where game pass and gold are folded in to one service yet it only costs the same as what gold currently costs, I'll react positively towards that.

@mousieone That would be good (for me). I'd not considered that option. I guess I am suspicious of MS doing anything for free.

@Captain_Chao5 well a couple of things, unlike NSO, you don’t need live for Gamepass, they aren’t tied together. Like it really only effects multiplayer games. Really, people that don’t play multiplayer aren’t using this service. Gamepass effects both groups. Then there is Games with Gold. I don’t know if online multiplayer will be free If Gold goes away, but there is a chance and on a way makes sense.

@Tharsman Games with Gold don’t stay in your library forever at least not on Xb1, they don’t work after your gold subs ends. It’s like a mini Gamepass. It’s says as much in the fine print

So now Game Pass is anti-consumer. Yikes! 😲

Maybe they are just getting rid of the 12 month option so people chop and change to Gamepass as the max term on those is 3 months. If they got rid of Gold they would have to compensate those with 3 years stacked membership and I can't see them transferring that to Gamepass. Maybe I am wrong and I better stack up some Gold membership ready for the transfer!

@gingataisen If you're referring to me, then you've either misunderstood or strawmanned my argument.

It's not the game pass that is anti-consumer, the concept of ditching gold and putting all of its features in to the game pass is anti-consumer.

It's all down to how much choice and freedom you give to your customers. Giving customers the choice of when to upgrade to next gen, and the ability to keep their games library is pro-consumer. Removing the choice your customers have when picking and choosing which online services they want and need, is anti-consumer. Simple.

With it being included with Gamepass Ultimate it was inevitably going to disappear. I know there’s a lot of people who use Gold but not Gamepass but that’s just how it is with Microsoft.

@Richnj

Calling Microsoft anti-consumer for having micro transactions in their 1st party games is not fair in my opinion.

Xbox 1st party games also offer multiplayer & still charge $60 for the game. Sony’s games are all single player, one & done titles. And they still charge $60.

A gamer can play Halo, Gears, Forza, Sea Of Thieves, etc. for hundreds of hours for the same price as Sony charges for one of their 15-20 hour (if that) single player games. So Microsoft offering micro transactions isn’t bad when put in the right context.....in my opinion.

And as far as Nintendo goes......really?!! Don’t they charge you a monthly fee to play a Mario Kart game on your phone?!! And their online service on Switch is a complete joke. C’mon man. 🙄😂

@KelticDevil And that's what the gold charge is for. To pay for servers and the continued online support of games. And this isn't touching on how a game like Halo 5 was meant to have made half a billion in its launch period.

Microtransactions themselves are an extra charge on top of the base game, gold, and season passes/deluxe editions.

In theory, I'm not against microtransactions, but most implementations of them are in the most anti-consumer fashion. Like bloating the in game unlockables, worsening the grind to unlock, and adding in out of place game modes that are designed primarily with microtransactions in mind (think Warzone and Blitz). All of which detract from the main game modes, splitting communities and refocusing dev time to these modes to maximise profits.

There's a reason Halo 5 has a worse unlock system than Halo 3 and Reach, and hundreds of forgettable armours and weapon skins. To facilitate a microtransaction economy.

As far as defending and criticising each company, as I said above, I'm doing so on an individual basis. Nintendo, when it comes to refusing to use microtransactions is commendable, and I'll praise that, and when it comes to their online strategy, if we could go back a few years to the Nintendo site, we'd see I was one of the first and most vocal critic of the way they've handled that. In the same fashion I've been very vocally praising MS for the next gen transition strategy, because I see it as very pro-consumer. I'm just going to praise and critique everyone on individual basis.

@Richnj

No worries, man. You can have your opinion & I can have mine. 👍🏻

I just think that if Sony had any studios that offer up a good multiplayer game (or even mode, at this point), they would be doing the same thing. Instead they offer up 15 hour games that sit on your shelf after you are done. But they still charge the same $60.

To each their own. 👍🏻

Sea of Thieves only has cosmetic DLC and most of it is free. You can play that game every week and still have fun and it's not expensive and it's also included in Game Pass as any first-party game.

@Grot I agree.

@Cabonic
As any sensible person should. Very good.

@Richnj
Like you said, given how pro-consumer they've been as of late, I think waiting for an official announcement before we lead the pitchfork and torch mob into the town square is warranted, yes?