Adding a bit more to the discussion on whether game subscription can be “the future”, it looks like despite the heavy push made in the past decade, subscriptions only make up 10% of total video game spending in the US.
Link: https://nitter.net/MatPiscatella/status/1747660051269988522
What a lukewarm take. A quick glance to the subscription video-on-demand market should be fairly informative to the future of video game subscription services.
Right now they’re still in the honeymoon phase, that is to say the “offer better value to capture a market” phase, of enshitification.
Not at all surprising he’s getting pushback.
Not really.
Video on demand works because the content is short and you need a large variety in a pay period as a consumer.
I don’t just watch one show or movie in a month, it’s several. So bundling makes sense.
It’s also fairly commoditized. I will watch what movies are available on Netflix, not like I’m extremely committed to watch a single given movie as long as the general selection is good. Maybe there’s one or two films a year I care about seeing that specific film before it rotates into a subscription service I subscribe to (and if not, meh).
For video games, it’s maybe one title a month that I really care about playing and then I only have time for that one game. But I only really care about setting aside time for that game and a lot of the other options out there you couldn’t pay me to play.
They are very different markets and a subscription model isn’t necessarily the future or even what’s most profitable for a company to offer (as Sony was recently acknowledging).
a subscription model isn’t necessarily the future or even what’s most profitable for a company to offer (as Sony was recently acknowledging).
It’s worth remembering that the goal of subscription services like gamepass is not to be the most profitable avenue. The goal is marketshare.
Microsoft lost, and Microsoft lost hard. Reportedly, the CEO wanted to exit gaming entirely after the Xbox One. They didn’t based solely on the new business plan, which was to disrupt the market. Kill the existing model by offering super low-cost subscriptions (paid for by Azure and Office 365) and become the new encumbant of a new industry where you can jack up the prices and lower the cos(and quality) over a decade trying to chase profitability.
Subscriptions are not about revenue generation as every subscription model out there lowers revenue massively. It’s about holding a larger share of the market so you can make money in other ways.
I think you’re confusing the advantages and strategies of having a subscription and the advantages and strategies of having a loss leader.
Not all subscriptions are designed to be loss leaders, and most of the benefits you see in GamePass (lower or even negative revenue in exchange for increased market share) is seen over and over with loss leaders that aren’t subscriptions.
Yes, I agree that Microsoft has adjusted strategy from a focus on winning console wars to increasing software gatekeeping across PC and now apparently even competitor consoles. And that GamePass plays a large part in that.
But it would be a mistake to assume that subscriptions in games are all going to have the same goals and focus as Microsoft with GamePass.
I would argue that there are three kinds of game subscriptions right now
- gamepass, paid for by azure/office. goal to turn the industry into a subscription service based industry like everything else has been converted into
- trying-to-keep-up-with-gamepass: this is ps+ (extra|premium), it exists as a failing effort to keep up with gamepass. it has to make money and thus users don’t see value in it. it either costs too much or doesn’t provide enough for the cost
- fifa subscription
the last one has existed for a long time and doesn’t really factor into the discussions people are having today. it’s not really relevant. the other two are both a factor of each other and relevant to what we are talking about.
Great take, I wish more would see the music industry like this as well.
I used to pay for Spotify premium then realized that I hardly added more than a handful of new things to my “library” each month. I switched to budgeting the same monthly funds towards building a local library from direct purchases and bandcamp.
It really depends on your level of consumption of new content whether a subscription service makes sense.
I’m not sure there ever was a honeymoon phase for game subscriptions. They generally still push you to buy dlc/season passes. They still segment stuff into pre-order bonuses that you don’t get in a subscription. You already have titles leaving the service.
I did have a honeymoon phase with gamepass. Now it’s just a thing that keeps charging the monthly fee in the background but also reminds me of the list of games I’d like to try that it has each time I open it up to consider cancelling.
They’ve figured out how to make money from me having a backlog, I just realized. I might have to open it again and compare the amount I’d pay for x months vs the expected sales price to just buy all of those games where x is how many months it’ll take to clear my backlog. I don’t even have to open it to see that I should cancel, because x might be infinite. Hell, I could even just cancel it with the intent of starting back up if I manage to clear my Steam backlog if I want to lie to myself about eventually getting through my backlog.
🏴☠️🏴☠️game subscriptions only offer one path for consumers. 🏴☠️🏴☠️
Time to get back in the boat.
For single player games, or multiplayer games where there’s not a bigger progression system, yes, I 100% agree.
But sometimes this is necessary, like with an MMO. You’re paying for access to unlimited server time for that period (typically month or year).
I can pay a subscription for Netflix-style block access, or I can buy individual games I want. I don’t really understand this comment.
It’s 2024 and you can’t buy any individual movie or TV show you want, you have to buy access to literal Netflix or others as a subscription. Op is saying games are heading towards that.
I just looked up one of Netflix’s star movies, Nimona, and yes, I can still buy blu-rays of it.
All mediums have had exceptions where the license holder is a fickle, or ineffective, ass at selling; rare books, games with soundtrack licensing complications, unloved movies. They’re generally exceptions by individual work, not from having signed on to the Great Netflix Prison.
Generally, where there’s demand, they still let you become its permanent owner. (In the topic of anime, they even overcharge for it because it’s such an uncommon choice made by super-fans as a prestige item)
where there’s demand, they still let you become its permanent owner. (
this is not true. in-fact it is seen as a marketing tool for the subscription services. market-forces do not naturally lead to the outcome you are describing.
it is also not the “exception” that something isn’t available, it’s an exception when a subscription service does release a purchasable option.
Indeed it’s getting more and more common that not only will shows/movies be unavailable for purchase, but deleted from the subscriptions too.
Ok…someone help me out here, because I must be reading this wrong.
In the first tweet, Mat says “the idea that subs will become dominant is unsupported by data.” Ok, so subs are not helping the industry.
But then in the second tweet, he says “Subs have been more additive than cannibalistic”–so wait, they’re actually good for the industry?–and they offer more choice, and fearmongering is unnecessary?
Am I reading this wrong?
Consider the french fry.
When McDonald’s started asking “would you like fries with that?” their sales and profits exploded. That really happened.
Now let’s get theoretical. Imagine you were a potato farmer, and your friend was a cattle farmer. You both have an interest in selling as much of your product for the highest price possible.
You might try to promote potatoes, because that’s good for you. “French fries are going to become the main course, and burgers are going to become obsolete.” Well, no, that’s not supported by the data. That doesn’t mean that fries aren’t good for McDonald’s. Sales for both went up. People buying french fries didn’t buy fewer burgers. The effect was additive, not canibalistic.
Of course, does that mean that either is “good” for the industry? Does that mean it’s “good” for consumers? Is it fearmongering to point out the health risks of eating fried potatoes and ground beef every day, or how bad factory feeding people is for the economy?
Subscription gaming isn’t going to replace traditional games. But it has become a significant part of the industry. If that’s good or bad depends on your perspective.
Golly that was really well put. thanks, friend
Thank you. That’s perfect.
Something not being dominant does not mean that it is cannibalistic or bad for the industry… it just means that it isnt the dominant form of income for them.
“the idea that subs will become dominant is unsupported by data.” Ok, so subs are not helping the industry.
I’m not really sure how you’re reaching the conclusion that subs not becoming dominant means they’re somehow not helping the industry.
Subs becoming dominant… is this why Nintendo called it the “switch”?
Top reply to it is:
Not to mention it’s an oxymoron to say that subs will be dominant
All I want is a way to rent PC games before I buy them. Gamepass kinda works for that, but I REALLY don’t want yet another subscription service. I suppose I could buy them from Steam and request a refund if I don’t like it, but I hate paying that kind of money up front and downloading a 100 GB game just to turn around and refund it.
PS+ set forward a theme of letting people have game trials - you can download and play for a few hours before needing to buy. I think they want that tied to some kind of invested subscription setup just so that people wouldn’t abuse the system.
It’s easier to avoid abuse if every game has demos coded to end after level 1, but as many old analyses have shown, that takes a huge amount of developer resources.
The issue of downloading 100 GB is something that some publishers have tried to solve with cloud gaming. If you’re only mildly interested in a Game Pass game, you can play it on cloud, and then if you enjoyed your first session, download it locally for the next one.
the idea that subs will become dominate is unsupported by data
wise words
Gotta love when people start making shit up in order to do a ‘gotcha’. Especially when they usually don’t read any additional materials to back up their incompetent viewpoints.
I am personally against subscription models and prefer to pay for a product but I’m not going to just ignore the benefit that sub models have provided to the industry.
Don’t worry we won’t have have to worry about subs being dominant. Oh wait you meant subscriptions
Ok but jokes aside in some cases a subscription is necessary. Probably a bad example but Netflix needs to operate servers that I can get behind if it’s reasonably priced
However games and services that offer a subscription that don’t need it, unless I REALLY like it, I think it’s plain bad
And frankly I’m kind of a hypocrite here paying for planetsides “premium” service even though they could keep the lights on without it
I kinda went off on a rant but even it only makes 10% (which to me is definitely a big number but seems smaller than it is) of sales it kind of sends a message that this a way to extract more money from people like me that go “hmm well I like the game I guess I’ll pay $120 or more a year for this yes this a sane financial decision”
TLDR: subscription bad but I’m personally using one :(
![Veteran Videogame Analyst: Subscription growth has flattened [in video games]](https://files.catbox.moe/k1njrt.png){kind=link}