Did you read the article?????
I'm not the one saying this, every industry expert, analyst, and worker from the Devs up the CEOs is saying the same thing. Seriously did you read the article?
Ofcourse I've read the article. It's features the opinions of a few analysts and insiders I disagree with. There have been articles from CEOs analysts and insiders who have the complete opposite opinion. What makes this article gospel? What's your basis for saying everyone in the industry shares this opinion?
You can't train consumers to expect things on subscription for an entire industry and still expect them to pay premium prices for a single piece of content. Once that expectation is set industry wide that will affect consumer behavior. You keep trying to reference 1 platform holder with one service that's been out a very short time, which even in that time we have seen both the growth of new sub services and consumers saying they are more hesitate to but full price games.. tUnless you're argument is that all these publisher executives are wrong and have no idea what their talking about....
Consumers aren't trained to
expect things on a sub for this entire industry. This is Hyperbole. That might be true of music industry, where virtually every release hits the subs, but in the gaming industry, the vast majority of games released
never appear on a sub. most of those that do, appear after their prime and only for a short time. A game making appearance on a sub is the exception, not the rule.
We've seen the growth of new sub services being accompanied by sales growth, and we have anecdotes about more people being hesitant to buy contrasted with data that says more purchases are actually occurring. I respect the opinion of these dissenting executives, but I think those who objectively look at the numbers are coming to different, and imo more accurate predictions and conclusions
- But game makers speaking with Business Insider tell a different story: "What happened with the other industries is big checks were written for a while until the platforms didn't need the content creators anymore," one game publishing executive said.
My response here would be, how likely is it that all platform holders stop needing the content creators? Nintendo doesnt
really need 3rd party, but Steam, Xbox, Sony, Epic and all of the smaller platforms certainly do. Out of these, only Epic, Sony and Xbox make their own games, and none could ever make enough games on their own to sustain a subscription service AND offset losing royalties from 3rd parties .
These 3rd party royalties are the lions share of their revenue. This is very much
unlike Netflix, who gets all of their revenue from the subscriptions.
This particular publishing executive is comparing apples to oranges. With TV streaming, the platform holders create so much of their own content they don't need to pay content creators and they can live off of subscription fees. Within the games industry, the platform holders not only rely on third parties for content but they live off the 30% royalty tax on 3rd party sales revenue - the subscription fee revenues will never never be able to offset losing those royalties.
Your talking about two drastically different business models and irrationally speculating that they are beholden to the same trends despite literally all of the evidence suggesting otherwise.
Platforms like Microsoft's Xbox Game Pass need that content to draw in subscribers, but the long-term effect could be dire for the industry: People stop buying games directly, and start paying for subscription services instead. "It's an offer you can't refuse," another studio executive told Business Insider. "If you destroy the system of purchasing and replace it with a subscription model, then the subscription model is all that's left. It's just Netflix and Blockbuster; instead of renting per video, you're paying for subscription services."
- These subscription services could mean the end of the traditional direct-to-consumer sales of individual games, where the sales trajectory over time looks like a downhill slope with a (hopefully) long, tapered decline. "We just adjust to the new paradigm," that studio executive said. "We have to make sure we have our profit margins up front. If we do a Game Pass game, we have to build our margins into that.
To this I say, the paradigm shows no sign of shifting.
People generally haven't stopped buying games directly:
Steam is massively more popular than Gamepass PC, EA Access and Uplay subs. People that use these subs still buy stuff.
Gamepass has existed for 3 years, and games that show up on the service are still getting a sales boost. Sequels that launch on the service are still outselling predecessors that didn't launch on the service. Xbox store is still the primary revenue driver. MS will never have a financial incentive to replace their store revenues with a complete reliance on sub fees.
Theres literally no indication that platform holders must adopt subscription services in order to compete - most are doing fine without one. And of those that do have a service, there's no indication that subscribers generally value ownership any less or that platform holders value sales revenue any less.
He/She is right that IF the paradigm shifted they'd have to adjust. But I see no reason to believe it will shift. A lot of consumers still see value in ownership even if that comes accompanied with the option to access some games via sub. Publishers and platform holders have intentionally designed these programs so that subscribers will still see value in buying stuff - because sales are where the profits are. This is VERY different from the music and movie industries where publishers know that if you aren't subscribing you're getting your music for free (illegally)
.