Devolver Digital worried about subscription services like PS Plus, Game Pass and Apple Arcade

[plow]

Interesting to see a different take on these Services

"The world of subscription is a worry. And we're active in these areas, so we can't stand on the sidelines and just complain about these things. Game Pass, PlayStation Plus, and Apple Arcade, they are things we are participating in," he explained. "You do wonder if it's going to lead to a situation where there is so much content that you kind of fall off the edge. That's the one that keeps us up at night. That and Donald Trump, and Boris Johnson."

Click to shrink...

Full Article here.

At first sight this take contradicts Microsoft Survey that painted a better light on this issue by saying that about 40% Game Pass Users are playing more Games.

We are on the early stages of these Services so it all can change. But i thought it's interesting to have an Contra opinion of someone whos IN the Industry.


Devolve me if old

Edit: Thanks, Mod

 

[StreamedHams]

Devolver might be the best new publisher this decade (them of Anna Purna) I never realized it, but I buy a LOT of their games which usually combined great art direction, unique mechanics and bonkers stories.

I'm not sure how subscriptions will affect them, but their titles are often on sale with deep discounts.
On the plus side, a larger base awareness can only get more people playing their games.

 

[Herb Alpert]

Tbh, I wouldn't put too much faith in a Microsoft survey saying that their service is awesome...
So far, these have to be attractive to get people, but how will this turn out when everyone will be subbed ? Game pass is losing money for now, cause ms is ok to eat up the losses, but that won't last forever.
These services will probably favor gaas games in the future, a lot of formats will have to disappear cause it won't be economically viable for them.

That's just my opinion, I'm no specialist at all, mind you.

 

[Jade1962]

I don't know why we keep pretending games will eventually be different from what streaming did to music and movie sales. Get enough quality games on a cheap enough subscription and individual game sales will eventually drop. Then you are left with a few companies as gate keepers deciding which games get to enter the castle.

 

[GhostTrick]

I think that kind of service has a positive on multiplayer titles. Because they get more populated and generate a good word of mouth. People either subscribe or buy the game since you cant suscribe anymore.

But for solo games ? Nah. Especially on day one. It means people get to play it and get done with it during the day one hype.

 

[Hamster Plugin]

Devolver Digital is one of the three publishers I have on a personal "do not buy their games" list because I have Game Pass and their games seem to be very likely to go on it. I already played three of their games on GP and I won't be buying any more Devolver games until my GP ends or they release no new content there for at least a year.

The other two are Focus Home Interactive and 505 Games. Already decided to not buy A Plague Tale: Innocence on Steam because of high Game Pass risk.

 

[skeezx]

they have reason to be uneasy. i'd imagine there's going to be (if there isn't already) quite the downtick on people's tolerance to throw $15 on games like Ruiner, My Friend Pedro ect

see where it goes though

 

[MickZan]

Devolver Digital is one of the three publishers I have on a personal "do not buy their games" list because I have Game Pass and their games seem to be very likely to go on it. I already played three of their games on GP and I won't be buying any more Devolver games until my GP ends or they release no new content there for at least a year.

The other two are Focus Home Interactive and 505 Games. Already decided to not buy A Plague Tale: Innocence on Steam because of high Game Pass risk.

Click to shrink...

This is it. If i would be a Game Pass subscriber i would not buy any AA-game or indie. I'd just play what i on there.

 

[RestEerie]

At first sight this take contradicts Microsoft Survey that painted a better light on this issue by saying that about 40% Game Pass Users are playing more Games.

Click to shrink...

quantity over quality...

i.e. people play more games but they spent less time in each games.......

So in absolute overall numbers, it may satisfy the platform holders but for smaller publishers and indie devs, that definitely will seems worrying.

 

[Deleted member 52190]

This is it. If i would be a Game Pass subscriber i would not buy any AA-game or indie. I'd just play what i on there.

Click to shrink...

I only buy AAA titles at this point because, im prety sure, at some point all this indie titles will be on a sub service.

 

[Glio]

There are quite a few indies games that I planned to buy on Switch but between gifts from Epic Store and Gamepass, I ended up playing paying practically nothing.

I understand their concern.

 

[Windu]

Idk, I think having too much gaming content was already a problem. Like a million games get added to Steam every day. I guess more of that content is accessible, and people are more likely to play the content that they already have access to. But eh, I don't see it as a new problem. The cream will always rise to the crop imo, and especially with subscriptions, people won't continue to play games they don't enjoy if their entry cost is low. So more chances for games people enjoy to get exposure.

I guess the new norm might be for the smaller titles is that instead of people waiting for a game to be $10 during a sale, they might wait for it to hit a subscription service.

 

[shark97]

I don't know why we keep pretending games will eventually be different from what streaming did to music and movie sales. Get enough quality games on a cheap enough subscription and individual game sales will eventually drop. Then you are left with a few companies as gate keepers deciding which games get to enter the castle.

Click to shrink...

i think of streaming in terms of stadia and the like though. You arent actually streaming on game pass.

 

[cw_sasuke]

They should be - people expecting to get all these games for "free" - will be problematic for them.

There are quite a few indies games that I planned to buy on Switch but between gifts from Epic Store and Gamepass, I ended up playing paying practically nothing.

I understand their concern.

Click to shrink...

This as well - a bunch of games i would have bought on Switch, but i cant justify it when they are "free" on other services.

 

[Rendering...]

People who are privileged to have a steady income are already drowning in content, probably. The dreaded backlog is a common feature among enthusiasts. It doesn't really seem to deter people from buying and playing games that interest them.

Anecdotally, I play and ultimately buy more stuff than I ever would have without Game Pass. Demos have always had a similar effect on me.

Anyway, the data will show us the effects of subscription services eventually. Visibility and word of mouth are two ways that games -- especially smaller ones -- could benefit here. I'm hopeful that these services will be a net positive for players and developers.

I do have one reservation: developers may preemptively count on microtransactions to compensate for their anticipated losses. I'd hate to see game design impacted by more intrusive sales tactics.

 

[pswii60]

Humble has been chucking out Devolver games for a long time, surprised that service didn't get a mention given their prominence on PC. That and Steam sales where you've been able to buy many of their games for next to nothing.

I don't think the "too many games" thing is anything new, but it doesn't stop most people still wanting to buy the latest hotness because they want to play something fresh, something they're excited for or just general launch FOMO.

 

[Coyote Zamora]

This is it. If i would be a Game Pass subscriber i would not buy any AA-game or indie. I'd just play what i on there.

Click to shrink...

This is me. I'll buy a couple of games a year but everything else is a gamepass game

 

[ryushe]

As a publisher/developer, I get it.

There are at least half a dozen games that came out this year that I'm interested in and most likely would've bought at least a couple but am now waiting for each of them to hit GamePass.

And this race to the bottom is only going to get worse next-gen..

 

[wrowa]

Yeah, I worry whether subscription services might start a race to the bottom, especially for indies. Why pay $20 for the newest game by Devolver (to stay on topic) when there are dozens of other comparable games available on the subscription service you are subscribed to? Sure, these other games might not be as good, but what does that matter when the difference is spending $20 or getting it for "free"?

Services like Apple Play or GamePass might be paying a good amount for titles to be included in their services, but you gotta wonder what the situation is long term. What happens when in the future people accept subscription services as the new normal, are less inclined to actually buy games and these subscription providers decide that, you know what, they'd rather pay the smaller devs and publishers much less?

 

[MilesQ]

quantity over quality...

i.e. people play more games but they spent less time in each games.......

So in absolute overall numbers, it may satisfy the platform holders but for smaller publishers and indie devs, that definitely will seems worrying.

Click to shrink...

That's only a concern if developers/publishers were paid for each download or for how long the game is played, neither if which is true for games on GP.

 

[Trickytoon]

I do see their point but I wouldn't have played as many of their (and other publishers) games if it wasnt for subscription services like Gamepass.

Outside of Hotline Miami and Olli Olli their games don't appeal to me enough to be day one or even sale purchases, so if they get a cut of my subscription irrespective of whether I play one of their games or not isn't this additional revenue, however small?

 

[Joco]

They aren't wrong. I can see indie games being decimated by subscription services in the long run as consumers wait for anything not on a subscription service to make its way over, otherwise they won't buy it.

 

[skeezx]

I do see their point but I wouldn't have played as many of their (and other publishers) games if it wasnt for subscription services like Gamepass.

Outside of Hotline Miami and Olli Olli their games don't appeal to me enough to be day one or even sale purchases, so if they get a cut of my subscription irrespective of whether I play one of their games or not isn't this additional revenue, however small?

Click to shrink...

unlikely MS will keep shoveling this kind of money at publishers once "enough" people are subscribed. bigger players like Devolver are probably in the clear but the more smaller/in between studios and publishers not so much

 

[VX1]

As a publisher/developer, I get it.

There are at least half a dozen games that came out this year that I'm interested in and most likely would've bought at least a couple but am now waiting for each of them to hit GamePass.

And this race to the bottom is only going to get worse next-gen..

Click to shrink...

Indeed.The interesting point is expectation that sub.services like Game Pass will revive AA/smaller games.That might work for platform/subscription holder like MS but i don't see how it can possibly work for 3rd parties when people will just wait for their game to end on subscription service instead of buying them...very tricky situation.

 

[SinCityAssassin]

Humble has been chucking out Devolver games for a long time, surprised that service didn't get a mention given their prominence on PC. That and Steam sales where you've been able to buy many of their games for next to nothing.

Click to shrink...

I mean they still get money out of it and some of it goes to charity. That's entirely different from "services will encourage people to not actually buy our games."

 

[Deleted member 8593]

Just like with music streaming, indie developers are gonna have to tour more and sell merch to make any money.


Erm...

 

[goonergaz]

Said all this when Xbox live started...thin end of the wedge, and now we pay for so much more.

 

[RingRang]

At first sight this take contradicts Microsoft Survey that painted a better light on this issue by saying that about 40% Game Pass Users are playing more Games.

Click to shrink...

People playing more games and smaller publishers making money with subscription services taking over are two totally different subjects.

 

[Deleted member 31873]

Why are they worried about PlayStation Plus? We hardly get any games on that service any more. Or did they mean to say PlayStation Now?

 

[RingRang]

They aren't wrong. I can see indie games being decimated by subscription services in the long run as consumers wait for anything not on a subscription service to make its way over, otherwise they won't buy it.

Click to shrink...

These services can also reframe customers sense of value over time. We already see people who strangely think $60 is too much to ask for a modern video game made by 200 people. Imagine what people might start thinking when they have access to 200 games for $10 a month.

 

[Hamster Plugin]

Why are they worried about PlayStation Plus? We hardly get any games on that service any more. Or did they mean to say PlayStation Now?

Click to shrink...

PS Plus can still be a factor in game purchase decisions. Because PS Plus is required just to use the PS4's internet, most people see PS Plus as a mandatory subscription to play a PS4 so they might as well extract the maximum value out of it and not buy any games likely to end up as one of the monthly games.

 

[thevid]

Why are they worried about PlayStation Plus? We hardly get any games on that service any more. Or did they mean to say PlayStation Now?

Click to shrink...

People deciding to put off purchasing games because they think it will one day be a PS+ game.

 

[Deleted member 31873]

PS Plus can still be a factor in game purchase decisions. Because PS Plus is required just to use the PS4's internet, most people see PS Plus as a mandatory subscription to play a PS4 so they might as well extract the maximum value out of it and not buy any games likely to end up as one of the monthly games.

Click to shrink...

People deciding to put off purchasing games because they think it will one day be a PS+ game.

Click to shrink...

Well, I'm not saying it isn't a factor at all, but the likelihood of games appearing on PS+ dropped significantly when it went from six down to two games per month.

I also know a lot of people who only care about the ability to play online, who don't even bother to claim the games on PS+. I remember showing Alienation to a bunch of friends and they were all excited about buying it, so I told them they should already have it since it was on PS+ six months earlier, but none of them had bothered to claim it, so they all ended up having to pay for it anyway.

 

[Kerberosorthos]

The same happend years ago with Mutliplayer games. During the X360/Ps3 games it felt like there is only COD. Nowadays we have plenty of very succesful MP games around.

Similar will probably happen to subscribtion once they are overloaded with games. Everything will settle over time.

 

[ArmGunar]

Why are they worried about PlayStation Plus? We hardly get any games on that service any more. Or did they mean to say PlayStation Now?

Click to shrink...

I think they did a mistake and meant PS Now

There is no reason to worry about PS+ or Live Gold, they are paid upfront and people still buy games, in the case of PS4, there have never been so many games purchased

 

[legend166]

I don't know why we keep pretending games will eventually be different from what streaming did to music and movie sales. Get enough quality games on a cheap enough subscription and individual game sales will eventually drop. Then you are left with a few companies as gate keepers deciding which games get to enter the castle.

Click to shrink...

The economics of each industry are really different though. Spotify was a response to the fundamental shift in the music industry that was brought about via piracy. That hasn't happened anywhere near the same extent, especially on consoles where piracy is basically now really a minor annoyance more than anything. An individual song is also more disposable in the sense it lasts a few minutes and you're done. In addition, musicians still have other streams of revenue available such as live performances.

I'm just not convinced that subscription services, especially for new games is an economically viable way forward for the industry. I can see it as a way to bring value to a legacy catalogue, but the video game industry, especially on the AAA western publisher side of things has spent the last two decades telling consumer that anything even sliightly old is worthless and to look at the shiny new thing.

If you're a publisher like Devolver and you're used to selling your games for $20 a pop and getting a couple mil in revenue on average per title, is that going to be replicated on a subscription service where the platform holder knows that your titles probably aren't going to drive subscriptions so why pony up lots of money? Consumers are basically being taught your titles are worth it because why pay $20 for a Devolver title when you can pay $10 a month and get Gears of War and whatever other big budget first party game that the platform holder has no problem using as a loss leader?

 

[Garegga]

There are too many games. This has nothing to do with subscription services.
Just look at eshop games every week - that's insanity.

 

[Buff Beefbroth]

Honestly, with the rate and volume at which new games (indie or otherwise) are released, most of them wouldn't be getting my money anyway. I imagine this is the same for a lot of people.

At least with Game Pass, they're getting some indirect portion of my cash.

 

[RossC]

I wonder how much big free to play titles like Fortnite and Apex affect things.

Maybe not too much crossover between those and the typical Devolver audience but i'd imagine it still has some impact.

 

[Ravage]

Why are they worried about PlayStation Plus? We hardly get any games on that service any more. Or did they mean to say PlayStation Now?

Click to shrink...

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but isn't PS Plus the service that pioneered game-library-as-a-service? Even if it isn't, it's still gonna be mentioned as there's nearly 40M subs receiving 2 games per month.

Btw I absolutely agree that these subscriptions are racing to the bottom at an unsustainable rate and indies will be the ones who feels the impact first.

 

[Paz]

Deals to be on some of these services can be real good, maybe even enough to entirely eliminate your development risk, but I do worry about the long term impact we're creating by teaching people they don't need to buy our games.

We really only just wrestled some control away from the big players a little bit due to digital distribution, these services could hand that power right back over.

 

[Deleted member 31873]

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but isn't PS Plus the service that pioneered game-library-as-a-service? Even if it isn't, it's still gonna be mentioned as there's nearly 40M subs receiving 2 games per month.

Click to shrink...

Correct, and it's why I got a PS+ subscription to begin with way back in 2012. PS+ got way more games back then than we do today; it's really declined over the years. Looking at the wiki page for IGC and seeing how much we used to get is depressing.

 

[dex3108]

Giving people things for free and dirty cheap is always a mistake. Subscription services are not the only issue. Humble Bundle changed how people look at indie games too. Epic is not helping with giving 2 indie games for free each week. Add to that market saturation, issues with visibility and too much indie developers you get disaster.

 

[TheGhost]

Just put out good games that cause word of mouth? We have enough services in movies to show this won't be a problem.

 

[skeezx]

There are too many games. This has nothing to do with subscription services.
Just look at eshop games every week - that's insanity.

Click to shrink...

wouldn't go as far to say subs aren't a factor but you have a point, we're kinda at critical mass here. most indie hits of the early 2010s would hardly turn a few heads now

 

[Brivs]

Their points are valid, but discovery is the issue all developers today — there is too much content, not enough curation, and people simply don't have the time or money or interest to play it all.

In 10 years of experience, we can say that the #1 way — in fact, the only remotely guaranteed way — to convince someone to buy your game if it's new to them is if a platform holder curates and features it. All the good reviews or Twitch streams in the world don't mean much, but a big box on a store's home page goes a long way.

With subscription, we're definitely back to having big gatekeepers again, and that definitely poses risks for both devs and publishers like Devolver, because customers are no longer yours — they're Apple's or Microsoft's. And what that means long-term is difficult to see.

However, that also means a tiny studio like ours can potentially convince just a handful of people — be they at Apple, Xbox, etc. — that our game is worth that big box feature (even if it's weird or not AAA or not part of the "cool kids" clique), because begging tens or hundreds of thousands of customers to buy your game certainly doesn't work.

Subscription, if anything, is a model that proves our content is way less valuable and in-demand than it once was. If I'm being positive, I'd say these services stand a better chance at surfacing games to subscribers better than Steam's awful algorithms, but I could very well be wrong.

 

[Ukumio]

Maybe I don't really understand the issue but I don't see the difference. If I go into the Xbox Store or Game Pass, doesn't matter which, there will always be games I've never heard of. At least with Game Pass I'm more likely to look at or try a game I haven't heard of whereas if I saw a game I hadn't heard of in the store I'd be much likely to even look further into it.

 

[Pickleslips]

Streaming is fucked for creators across the board. Look at Spotify and artists. Welcome to the future if rich companies and broke creators

 

[Deleted member 13798]

I've always had these exact concerns in the back of my mind since this approach started taking off for gaming. It's absolutely going to end up negatively impacting smaller developers in the long-haul, I don't really see what argument can be made around that, it's an inevitability from how the structure is set up.

I'm also not sure how people playing more games or a variety of games translates into people actually buying new things they didn't previously try. The old numbers already showed that a lot of people didn't actually complete most of the bigger games that they bought, so I can't imagine that just because you try a new indie game for an hour because of a subscription service means that you're suddenly supporting that developer, genre, or smaller publisher.

I don't know why we keep pretending games will eventually be different from what streaming did to music and movie sales. Get enough quality games on a cheap enough subscription and individual game sales will eventually drop. Then you are left with a few companies as gate keepers deciding which games get to enter the castle.

Click to shrink...

Yep.

 

[Deleted member 13798]

The same happend years ago with Mutliplayer games. During the X360/Ps3 games it felt like there is only COD. Nowadays we have plenty of very succesful MP games around.

Similar will probably happen to subscribtion once they are overloaded with games. Everything will settle over time.

Click to shrink...

That's different though, there were plenty of multiplayer games during that era, in fact some people might say there were way too many because every game had a tacked-on multiplayer mode. The problem wasn't that everything was Call of Duty on its own, the problem was that Call of Duty was so profitable and successful that everything else was mandated to be like CoD.

I think you are correct in that there are more multiplayer games today in terms of basic variety, but there's usually one game that's dominating a particular genre or subgenre still. Thankfully the quality of those particular multiplayer games has gone up rather than they're just being a quantity problem.

It's hard to say whether or not things will balance out with the subscription issue. There is both a constant flow of new games coming out, with a wide variety of budgets and a wide variety of quality, it's just natural that somethings are going to struggle more, and a model like this can be helpful in the short term but may not make much of a difference for the smaller developers are publishers in the long run in a positive way.