-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
NPD analyst Mat Piscatella: The risk of subscription is in the potential devaluation of content
- Thread starter stormfire
- Start date
It's the GEARS 5 debate: retail and digital sales were way down, but number of players were way up. Engagement will become even more important, as close to all revenue needs to come from consumer spending other than upfront payment. The subscription fee for being on it will most likely not cover more than a fraction of typical full game sales.
For subscription service owners, there is, additionally, the income to be made from subscriptions, and questions surrounding that are: how long do people sub for? Do they use your subscription service as a cheap way to play the occasional game or do they stay subscribed? This again ties into engagement, of course. If you can't bind them long term, then you lose the advantage of the subscription service income model and are basically giving away your games for cheaper prices.
For subscription service owners, there is, additionally, the income to be made from subscriptions, and questions surrounding that are: how long do people sub for? Do they use your subscription service as a cheap way to play the occasional game or do they stay subscribed? This again ties into engagement, of course. If you can't bind them long term, then you lose the advantage of the subscription service income model and are basically giving away your games for cheaper prices.
but also that could happen naturally anyway due to fortnite or whatever. If X person isn't going to play an indie game because of whatever reason, but may check it out on a sub service, at least they are getting paid that way
It will be the inevitable outcome imo. Also remember we're in the seduction phase, they're willing to lose money for now to attract more people.
I don't feel like there's much margin left for subscriptions to take and free to play games are still doing this work on consoles while subscription services seem to be re-valuing games on phones after free to play almost completely devalued them.
And in this race, we all lose. But hey at least it will be cheap
I feel like the problem is no one can get invested in multiple service model ecosystems. Time becomes the constraint then. I can play Final Fantasy XIV as my subscription/optional store consistent whale spend. I am invested in that economy. Then I play a bunch of single player games in between. There's no way I can get into another live service.
In such a case, publishers and devs would lose a lot of money off of me having a subscription model, unless the cost of a subscription was equivalent to my current physical spending habits (approx 1 game a month). But if that were the case, it would price out most people and the subscription service wouldn't take off.
It's just not sustainable. It isn't the same thing as TV and music.
In such a case, publishers and devs would lose a lot of money off of me having a subscription model, unless the cost of a subscription was equivalent to my current physical spending habits (approx 1 game a month). But if that were the case, it would price out most people and the subscription service wouldn't take off.
It's just not sustainable. It isn't the same thing as TV and music.
Way up? Gears 3 sold more than 3 million 1st week. Gears 5 had a lower number of players with 1$ Subscribtions. Besides, engagement doesn't look that great at all. It's only the 26th most played game on Xbox in the US.
He's absolutely right of course, but this is the video game industry and it has absolutely no concept of long-term planning whatsoever.
This is the industry that happily destroyed its consumer's sense of value with the mobile gaming sector. An industry that happily threw a middle finger towards Satoru Iwata when he warned everyone about what was about to happen from what they were doing and offered an olive branch as an out from that timeline.
This is their bed that they've made. Now they have to lie in it. I have no sympathy for the publishers responsible for this (May God have mercy on the poor indie developers that are gonna get completely annihilated by these services though).
This is the industry that happily destroyed its consumer's sense of value with the mobile gaming sector. An industry that happily threw a middle finger towards Satoru Iwata when he warned everyone about what was about to happen from what they were doing and offered an olive branch as an out from that timeline.
This is their bed that they've made. Now they have to lie in it. I have no sympathy for the publishers responsible for this (May God have mercy on the poor indie developers that are gonna get completely annihilated by these services though).
But we (consumers) actually win for a while, which is why it's so appealing/dangerous.
Yeah it definitely gives me a more casual approach to some games. Like the new NFS, I played for 3 hours and moved on. I was like "yeah I guess it's fine for a sub game, but I'm not fussed."
I wonder if that will just make devs of mediocre trash more complacent.
I wonder if that will just make devs of mediocre trash more complacent.
True enough. People saying "I dont even buy games anymore thanks to Game Pass" is exactly what MS wants for the next 3 years while they build up the sub numbers. Makes it 1000x harder to cancel the sub if you havent bought any games in 3 years
Game subscriptions allow you to play more and pay less, eventually something will have to give. I've spent maybe $400 total on games software this year (including an Amazon Prime sub) and have played around 50 games for the first time, that's simply not sustainable in the long run
In what ways do I lose if I have more options to choose from and I can afford to play video games I wouldn't be playing otherwise. Is it worth it to pay 70 bucks if I only play 3h a month? Well, sure it's worth 8 bucks for dozens of games to play.
"Oh but you do not own the game" No I don't. If I feel like I'll be playing a ton of it I can always buy it and with a discount.
Do we lose because devs will have less money or do cheaper games? I doubt that will be the case. If 8/bucks a month isn't sustainable when these services start hitting like 20M subscribers, they will rise the price.
This we all lose thing is ridiculous. I do not hear anyone complaining about Netflix anymore. Because it's. So. Damn. Convenient.
Specially when cinemas charge you 10 bucks to watch a movie. Similar case here. I pay when I want to play, and I do not when I don't, still have the option to buy full price
Some people really believe that extra cheap GP with lots of constant deals and 3rd party games will exist forever
AAA game prices drop like rocks after release. Indies and AA games are frequently available at huge discounts in humble bundles or steam sales. Many games are available for cheap on grey market key sites. The content is already pretty devalued to me. I rarely pay $60 for a game these days.
I don't see how subscription services would be any worse as long as the developer gets a decent deal
I don't see how subscription services would be any worse as long as the developer gets a decent deal
I mean yes, that is a risk. Netflix, Prime Video, iPlayer and so forth all *somewhat* show signs of this. There are masses of content on these platforms that are largely ignored if they aren't marquee titles. Even many of their titles that were once considered marquee seem to lose value quickly, it is one of the reasons Netflix are quick to bring down the axe on non-starters now more than ever. Although their catch-22 is almost the opposite to games; it is their 'binge-able ' release model that is very difficult to sustain, but is almost now expected of them. When a company like company like SIE looks at particularly their shorter titles there is the perception change perhaps (warranted or not) that the game moves from 'Blockbuster' title with the price, marketing and sales to match; to something that players don't have as much of a stake in. It is easier to 'throwaway' content included in a subscription, at least, perception wise, than it is to throw away the blockbuster title you spent full-price money on. For some titles , of course the opposite happens and sometimes players engage with and invest their time into content they never would have before but there is a slippery slope wrt perception ('rushing out to the stores to get the game, digitally or physically) or playing for a couple of hours and churning once the new hotness arrives.
Netflix could produce 20 seasons TV shows for the cost of one AAA game. Gears 5 already has purchasable currency and ads for movies, it's only going to get worse
Last edited:
Costco did something interesting recently. Aside from the yearly COD installments which always sell well, they decided they are not going to carry physical games anymore. Instead they sell packs of $100 worth of PSN or XBL cards for $90, basically betting that people will either be going mostly-digital or mostly-subscription in the near future. Except that right now you can save more on subscriptions by seeking out other sales.
"You'll see. You'll all see 20 years from now when everything is streaming we'll see who had the last laugh."
I felt this a few times while I was subbed to GP. Sometimes I was less inclined to commit more time to certain games because a) there's so much constant content, and b) I had paid without an upfront cost so I had less motivation to see my moneys worth.
Though I am someone that has choice paralysis frequently with big open world games to the point where I can't be arsed playing them, so I know I'm speaking strictly for myself.
Then you slowly bring up the monthly price dollar by dollar. People will justify paying a dollar more if the increases are in small increments.
This is what I fear could happen to subscription services, if they are not properly managed.
Another possibility is that (to maintain "low" subscription fees) they'll offer fewer games and/or games that are smaller in scope, which could affect overall game development.
It's also possible that they might choose to do all of the above. They'll scale back game development and slowly jack up the price in the process.
A 12 hours long singe player game last gen was easily worth 60 bucks to people, now it's perceived as worth maybe half that price.
Content already devalued a lot this gen because of open world filler and endless GaaS.
With the raise of subscription services and creators paid based on play time prepare to be flooded with time wasting mechanics.
Content already devalued a lot this gen because of open world filler and endless GaaS.
With the raise of subscription services and creators paid based on play time prepare to be flooded with time wasting mechanics.
Can it change value perception? Sure. For some. Just like game rentals, Game Fly, the used game market and free to play games like Fortnite did. Just like GAAS games devalued single player.
We don't spend enough time talking about the positive impacts though...such as expanding the market, making a greater variety of genres accessible to a wider audience and an additional weight put towards single player experiences due to the need for new content consisterly.
We don't spend enough time talking about the positive impacts though...such as expanding the market, making a greater variety of genres accessible to a wider audience and an additional weight put towards single player experiences due to the need for new content consisterly.
They will maximize profit as best they can, and with Game Pass being the main focus and model they are re-structuring their output around, it's inevitable
There's a huge community talking right now about Death Stranding. People have bought it day one @$60 or more. Same thing happened with God of War, same thing happens with RDR2.
there is a very large population of the gaming market that still buys day one. To me it's similar to going to the movies on release/release window. It's a different feeling being part of the conversation about the game.
Ill let others worry about devaluation of games. Ill continue to enjoy the best subscription service that has ever existed in gaming. Game Pass rocks.
Of course.
In my opinion, this phenomenon has been happening since the very onset of digital-focused distribution methods, essentially across all forms of content.
In my opinion, this phenomenon has been happening since the very onset of digital-focused distribution methods, essentially across all forms of content.
Oh, I'd say it's already devalued. Why drop $60 on a single game when you can play hundreds for a couple bucks?
I paid £2 to play Forza Horizon 4 for a month, £2 to do the same with Crackdown 3 and another £2 to play Gears. MS first party games are already devalued for me personally. I have no intention of having a gamepass sub lasting longer than a month and it would be the same if Sony did this with their first party output.
Pretty much. Microsoft couldn't sell their games for 60 bucks if their life depended on it at this point.
Yes. With games, this really began to happen and take shape with the rise of Steam. But, it's the same across all forms of content creation I feel, not just the video game industry.
This kind of phenomenon is why Martin Scorsese has the thoughts he has about the modern contemporary film industry.
It's actually an incredibly bad problem IMHO, but most people frankly don't care and will just say I'm a hater/out-of-touch/old person/etc. etc., just like they do with all forms of critique such as this commenting on the state of commercial content and the general devaluation of content across the board.