Subscription services are very good at making a library look full. Rows of tiles, constant updates, new additions, leaving-soon reminders, curated collections, featured releases, and enough menu movement to make the service feel alive. From the outside, that looks like value. The player opens the app and sees hundreds of games waiting for them.
The problem is that a full library is not the same thing as a meaningful one. Players do not stay subscribed because content technically exists. They stay subscribed because the service contains games they actively want to play, talk about, return to, and feel they would miss if they left. That difference matters, and it sits at the centre of the latest criticism aimed at Xbox Game Pass.
Thomas Mahler, developer of Ori and the Blind Forest, recently criticised the Game Pass model, arguing that the service could have worked if the catalogue had been strong enough to make players happily pay every month. His harsher point was that Xbox needed to understand what players actually want, rather than pushing out mediocre content like a factory. It is a brutal criticism, but it points to a deeper design problem: content volume does not create player desire by itself.
The Content Factory Trap
The danger of any subscription model is that it can slowly change the question being asked. Instead of asking, “Is this game worth playing?”, the platform begins asking, “Does this help fill the service?” That shift sounds small, but it changes the entire incentive structure. Games become part of a pipeline, and the platform starts needing constant output to justify its monthly cost.
That is where the content factory trap appears. A service needs regular drops. The catalogue needs to feel active. There needs to be something new enough to keep players from cancelling. But players are not stupid. They can tell the difference between a game that exists to create value and a game that exists to fill a slot.
A game does not become desirable because it appears in a subscription menu. Placement helps discovery, but discovery is only the first step. The game still has to earn attention, create curiosity, build momentum, and give players a reason to choose it over everything else competing for their time. A subscription can lower the barrier to entry, but it cannot manufacture meaning.
Catalogue Thinking vs Player Thinking
| Catalogue Thinking | Player Thinking |
|---|---|
| How many games are available? | What do I actually want to play? |
| Is the service regularly updated? | Is anything here exciting right now? |
| Does the library look full? | Does the library feel valuable? |
| Can we increase content volume? | Can we create genuine desire? |
| Are players exposed to more games? | Are players emotionally invested? |
This is why subscription services can look healthy from a distance while still feeling weak to players. A spreadsheet can count the number of games added. It cannot measure whether players care.
Insider Tip: Content volume is easy to display. Player desire is much harder to create.
Why Incentives Shape Quality
The core issue is not whether Game Pass is good or bad as an idea. The issue is what the model rewards. A traditional premium release has a simple commercial pressure: make something players want badly enough to buy. That does not guarantee quality, obviously, but it creates a direct relationship between player desire and commercial success.
Subscription models can blur that relationship. If the platform pays for availability, fills the library, and measures engagement across a broad catalogue, the individual game can become less tied to direct purchase intent. That may be useful for discovery, especially for smaller games, but it can also weaken the pressure to make each title feel essential. The danger is not that developers stop caring. The danger is that the system around them starts rewarding presence over impact.
This is what makes Mahler’s criticism land. If developers are not strongly incentivised to create must-play games, a subscription service risks drifting toward content supply rather than creative urgency. Players may try more games, but they may also abandon more games. They may sample constantly without forming attachment. Eventually, the service becomes less like an event and more like a fridge full of leftovers you keep opening while saying, “There’s nothing to eat.”
What The Model Rewards
| If The Model Rewards… | The Likely Outcome |
|---|---|
| Constant supply | More games, weaker attachment |
| Library size | Volume over distinctiveness |
| Low-friction access | More sampling, less commitment |
| Platform retention | Games judged by service value |
| Must-play quality | Stronger player urgency |
The best version of a subscription service rewards discovery without reducing games to filler. The worst version turns games into a monthly content obligation.
Insider Tip: The business model does not just sell the game. It shapes what kind of game the business thinks it needs.
A Full Library Is Not The Same As A Strong Identity
One of the underrated problems with Game Pass is identity. When a platform offers everything, it can become difficult to understand what it stands for. Is it a premium first-party showcase? An indie discovery platform? A rotating rental library? A cloud gaming service? A value bundle? A replacement for ownership? The answer can be “all of the above”, but that answer creates its own problem.
Players need a clear reason to return. Netflix had this problem. Streaming services have this problem. The more everything becomes available everywhere, the harder it becomes for any single service to feel essential. At some point, the player stops asking what is included and starts asking why they are still paying.
For Xbox, that question becomes even more difficult because Game Pass has been tied to several competing strategies at once. It supports first-party releases, catalogue depth, cloud access, console value, PC growth, and player retention. Those are not bad goals individually, but together they can pull the service in too many directions. When a platform tries to solve every problem at once, it often loses the clarity needed to solve the most important one.
Library Size vs Platform Identity
| Library Size | Platform Identity |
|---|---|
| Makes the service look bigger | Makes the service feel clearer |
| Helps with perceived value | Helps with emotional value |
| Supports discovery | Supports loyalty |
| Can become generic | Creates distinction |
| Answers “how much?” | Answers “why this?” |
A large library can attract attention, but identity is what keeps people attached. Players need to know why this service matters compared to every other way they could spend their money and time.
Insider Tip: A platform without a clear identity becomes easier to cancel because players do not know what they are losing.
The Design Lesson For Developers
There is a lesson here for game designers beyond Xbox. Games cannot be treated as interchangeable units of content. They are not tiles. They are not catalogue inventory. They are not engagement objects to be arranged inside a platform strategy. They are experiences built around desire, identity, curiosity, emotion, mastery, and meaning.
This matters because the language of platforms can quietly reshape the language of design. Once games are discussed mostly as content, the player experience becomes easier to flatten. A horror game, a puzzle game, an immersive sim, and an emotional narrative adventure all become “offerings”. The unique reason each one should exist gets buried under the need to keep the machine moving.
Great games resist that flattening. They create a reason to care that cannot be replaced by simply adding more games beside them. They give players stories to tell, problems to solve, skills to master, worlds to understand, and identities to inhabit. A service can help players find those games, but it cannot replace the need for those games to matter.
Insider Tip: If your game only has value because it is available, it does not have enough value yet.
Final Thoughts
The criticism of Game Pass is not really about whether subscriptions can work. It is about whether a subscription can create enough meaningful value to justify itself month after month. That value cannot come from volume alone. It has to come from games players genuinely want to play.
A full catalogue might get players through the door, but desire is what keeps them there. If the service becomes a factory, the games become filler. If the games become filler, the subscription becomes optional. And once a subscription becomes optional, players start doing the one thing every service fears: they check their bank statement and remember they can cancel.
Game Pass may still have a future, but its biggest challenge is not simply price, content, or access. It is meaning. Players need a reason to care. Developers need incentives to create work that matters. Platforms need to remember that discovery is not the same as desire.
Because content fills a service… Great games sell it.
Please like, share, and comment if you enjoyed this article AND…
Need help applying these concepts to your game? Most games don’t fail because of bad ideas. They fail because the systems don’t work together to evoke immersion.
> Work with me:
https://thedesignlab.blog/services/
> Or go deeper into this framework:
Register for my upcoming book – Immersive Design Framework – below and get a second book, now, free!
Grab Myles’ FREE ebook now and find 15 indispensable design patterns that will equip you to craft exceptional Web3 gaming experiences. We’ll also notify you when his new book on immersive design is out!