> it's hard to see how that is an economic win

I _think_ the thinking is that not everyone is going to buy more than a couple full priced new releases per year (in general). $80 or whatever is just too much for most people to drop on a game they "might" like. On the other hand, most people would have few reservations being perpetually subscribed to a service that lets them play every new game "for free" (so long as they keep rolling in on a monthly basis). Theoretically, the subscription money would exceed what they'd normally collect from the average person buying the usual 2 or 3 full priced games per year.

Where I think it breaks down is quite a number of gamers are hopelessly addicted to playing all the latest games, all day every day. MS is surely losing money when those guys substitute buying physical games for a subscription.