They will all take a go at it definitely. But I don't think any of those will be able to survive or fund their game productions that way to the point where individual sales cease to exist. Not even google managed to do it.
-
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.
Stadia, Subscriptions, And The Death Of Game Ownership (The Jimquisition)
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
In fact, the internet has cause expression, and the sources from which that expression comes from, has widened dramatically. And TBH, what you were replying to, was someone talking about wanting to preserve the future of some equivalent of the next Crash racing game LOL
Yup, when people slam Youtube, it always raises a flag, because millions there are being given a chance to express themselves that wasn't possible 30 years ago when we has 4 TV networks and like 5 movie studios. A live concert is the best way to hear music, but that's also the most expensive and the most limited by how many people can experience it at any given time.
Last edited:
Does everyone remember the online passes on some games last gen? Of course publishers would love to see a digital and subscription only future, that way they can control release dates better and get more revenue.
What I don't agree with is all this fear mongering that one day all that will be available is subscriptions. That's why I take issue with anyone telling me that I shouldn't support subscriptions. Excuse me, it's my fucking money not yours and things like Game Pass have been huge to me.
I love the convenience and easy access to try games that I probably wouldn't have considered before.
What I don't agree with is all this fear mongering that one day all that will be available is subscriptions. That's why I take issue with anyone telling me that I shouldn't support subscriptions. Excuse me, it's my fucking money not yours and things like Game Pass have been huge to me.
I love the convenience and easy access to try games that I probably wouldn't have considered before.
We had this same scare mongering about digital games. Still hasn't killed retail after two generations of console and handheld.
As Stadia doesn't allow me to modify files, use cheat engine, use trainers, Stadia can fuck off.
I am the one deciding how Im gonna play my singleplayer games, not Google.
And the notion that I have to rely on my Internet connection to play my singleplayer games is terrible. Anything can happen to my connection. ISP goes down, something happens to my router, too many devices streaming/downloading/browsing something and so on.
Currently, I can take my laptop and play some games on a plane. With Stadia, I cannot do that. Either because there is no Internet on the plane or because the plane wifi is shit.
I am the one deciding how Im gonna play my singleplayer games, not Google.
And the notion that I have to rely on my Internet connection to play my singleplayer games is terrible. Anything can happen to my connection. ISP goes down, something happens to my router, too many devices streaming/downloading/browsing something and so on.
Currently, I can take my laptop and play some games on a plane. With Stadia, I cannot do that. Either because there is no Internet on the plane or because the plane wifi is shit.
Such a boring take. For so many reasons - ownership never existed - software is licensed and not sold - and Stadia does not change that equation.
Sometimes things go away a long time after you buy them. It happens in other industries all the time. It's not a huge deal for the overwhelming majority of people.
That that same reality is coming to video games is not some calamity.
Sometimes things go away a long time after you buy them. It happens in other industries all the time. It's not a huge deal for the overwhelming majority of people.
That that same reality is coming to video games is not some calamity.
So you're agreeing with him because you're invested in console warz? Because Google and MS aren't investing in cloud and subscription services just because they hate Sony games.
Your post also makes no sense when you consider that Sony has Two subscription services. PS+ and PS Now.
In essence, you're saying Sony hates Sony games and hates seeing themselves dominant.
Facepalm.
What I meant was, the consumers that buy an Xbox, want their physical games to be physical. Having to connect every 24 hours doesn't mesh with our value of physical. People wanted "digital sharing" that worked exactly how physical sharing works. At least with Stadia, they are upfront that they are selling a strictly cloud service. It's not for people who want some local control. The 2013 Xbox presentation was the worst of both worlds.
GamePass, EA Access and Uplay+ are not "cloud only" services. And I think that's another misunderstanding, again, from people that have never used these services.
My main issue with streaming is preservation. If a game is exclusive to a streaming service (which some of them will be) then there's no way for anyone outside of the dev studio/platform holder to get a copy of it. If that platform shuts down or the game is removed for whatever reason, the only way people might still be able to play it is if it gets leaked. And even then, it was made to run on those streaming servers, not normal PCs, and I don't know if we'll ever get such things as Stadia emulators. So yeah, like Jim says, there's a chance that all that'll be left of some games will be Let's Play videos and that's a scary thought.
Subscriptions don't make ownership go away. Lack of consumer demand to own things would.
Popular Youtubers continue to rant about how megacorporation are ruining the economics of gaming without understanding basic economics. Corporations only care about profit. Why would they then refuse to sell you something with an established business model, established market that they've invested lots of time and money to establish in which consumers are still willing to support? When consumer demand to own discs is so low that there's no longer a profitable reason to print them, it'll stop.
Until then, to each their own. I don't want to be preached to for supporting subscriptions if ownership means jack shit to me. I own things when it financially makes sense. If you like to collect things, I totally respect that. But why can't this respect go both ways? Why do we rant against consumers who are willing to support different things due to different values?
Popular Youtubers continue to rant about how megacorporation are ruining the economics of gaming without understanding basic economics. Corporations only care about profit. Why would they then refuse to sell you something with an established business model, established market that they've invested lots of time and money to establish in which consumers are still willing to support? When consumer demand to own discs is so low that there's no longer a profitable reason to print them, it'll stop.
Until then, to each their own. I don't want to be preached to for supporting subscriptions if ownership means jack shit to me. I own things when it financially makes sense. If you like to collect things, I totally respect that. But why can't this respect go both ways? Why do we rant against consumers who are willing to support different things due to different values?
Yes, Microsoft's first party issues started only when GamePass in June 2017. They were churning out single player games before then.
/s
MS bought multiple game studios and is committed to funding them...all because of GamePass. Yet obviously that will herald a drop in quality from the halcyon days of Recore.
What are you talking about? Corporations make bets all the time on things that fail to return on investment. I can name dozens of examples of this.
This is silly, seeing the situation at hand. Countless games are now digital only, and retail stores are literally shrinking their physical game sections more and more each day. I swear, some of the examples being presented in here are ludicrous at best.
Maybe I'm just getting older and out of the collector mindset. But if a subscription service is cheaper and more convenient, and the only difference is that I won't leave behind a house full of plastic junk that my kids will have to deal with, that seems... pretty okay.
Yup...and I'll say this: people are showing a lack of understanding of basic economics. How does ADDING a new revenue stream, and a cheaper way of showing your game to more people in the same period of time, taking away from the money a dev/publisher has. How are subscriptions hurting devs...it's the opposite?
Keep in mind...in 2019, we still have people that pay $15 to see standard screen movies for one time in crowded theaters with expensive food and drink that you can only watch once. BUT BUT WHY WOULD SOMEONE PAY $15 FOR THAT...when you can own a physical copy for the same price and play on better equipment?
People value entertainment differently, and that changes based on technology and consumption patterns.
And that's what's crazy...people really believe, that if you buy this game and get your fill for $60, and I buy a $15 sub for one month and get my fill of one or more games in that month, then the $60 one-time purchaser is somehow a better consumer or a better person and not a shill or something lol
That's why I've also been bringing up demographics into these discussions. Black musicians struggled really, really hard to get noticed until the Radio became an affordable way for white teenagers to listen to music away from their parents. The cultural impact of affordable media has been such an important part in empowering disenfranchised people to get their voice out there.
You're so right about YouTube. Along with Netflix and etc., they have all played such an important roles in helping Directors of Colour, LGBT+ directors, etc., get themselves and their message out there. It doesn't matter that they're "worse experiences" than going to the theater. They've each played important roles in helping build LGBT+ communities and allies. I'm waiting for that to happen to games. I'm waiting for it to finally be viable for a developer to make a game about what it's like to be a PoC in America. I'm waiting for a single AAA developer to finally decide it's okay to have a woman of colour as their main character, let alone a trans main character. And they can't because the people who would appreciate those games have lower disposable income and console prices are standing in the way.
Of course he repeated, he won't say that the stuff that he wants to sell is a financial risk. And if this is an add-on, I wonder why indie devs are so scared about these services. Well, in two-three years we'll see how this is gonna be.
And the guy really said buying used games LOL...which are even more overpriced than the new games? From another corporation with exploitative pricing practices? And many indie games aren't getting the physical releases but can afford to shine now because of digital releases. You have very specific people that want to restrict consumer choice to areas that only they approve of lol...in what world is a used copy of Kingdom Hearts 3 going to be even close to $15 right now?
But why would it be a risk? It makes no sense in any way...it literally defies any business sense. And what indies are so scared? Why would indies be affected by this, who are already not selling many physical copies? The indie games on GamePass are getting much more visibility than they were before.
GamePass single-handedly saved Microsoft's publishing this gen...there is no wait and see. It's successful. Consumers want it because it's dramatically cheaper, just like one month of Netflix is cheaper than owning every show and movie you'd watch during that month.
Last edited:
Plus week after week we have thread after thread that GameStop, the most important accessible way of buying said used games, is dying and on its way out. While used games will of course stick around, availability and accessibility is thinning. Especially since so many gamers seem to want to keep said physical games in their position forever.
It's almost as if you can buy/trade with other people on the internet directly and/or resell the item yourself to recoup after you're done.
Ahh so when you said used games, what you didn't mean buying/interacting with any established company like Amazon/GameStop, but that people are supposed to create some Facebook of game trading and mail games back and forth on some trust system ala Gamefly in their free time...that will still be cheaper than Amazon/GameStop, or a $15/sub. Because that what people that buy used games have the time and connections to do.
Right. You showed me!
I know more people buying vinyl than ever, and I imagine we will probably see a similar phenomenon happen with boxed versions of digital games as collectors items akin to what super rare games does. I think there will always be an avenue for physical, it's just not going to be racks of nothing special boxes with a disc inside like we have had.
Then some will simply take up needlecraft or underwater basket weaving, or something.
It depends where you're located, but most people won't sit close enough to the TV anyway to see a worthwhile difference.
.......
eBay has been a thing for ~20 years.
The BST thread is right over there.
What is this thread.
I'm not a big fan of EVERYTHING IS A SUBSCRIPTION NOW
but I am ALL for a digital future. Physical games suck. I have a few physical due to good deals on amazon but always hate having to do the whole disc swap bullshit.
I do wish they could make digital versions of
trading/reselling.
To me, its all about attaching a certain "license" to the game that you can transfer between people.
but I am ALL for a digital future. Physical games suck. I have a few physical due to good deals on amazon but always hate having to do the whole disc swap bullshit.
I do wish they could make digital versions of
trading/reselling.
To me, its all about attaching a certain "license" to the game that you can transfer between people.
Because you can literally have 5 launch indie games for the price of one? Tell me why people are going to buy an indie game that isn't on GP? This will just force indie devs to accept offers from GP or other sub-services (because honestly, MS is not going to be the only to try to secure third-party content for their sub) to have some revenue that could be better if people were buying the game.
Also, I don't remember any numbers of active GP users to say if it's successful. And also, I want to see if users will stay in the service when these $1 promos end. GP is still in the investment stage. It'll be successful when starts to generate revenue for MS.
So while this is obviously going to be different by region: within 40km of me there's only one person selling KH3 and that's for $40. So not only do I pay much more than $15, they also paid a net $50 (this is Ontario, Canada). If I hassle it down for me that's an even worse deal for them. I can only hope and pray that by the time I'm done with it the game is still worth at least $25 to somebody nearby. But by that point it'll probably have had a PSN sale for $12 or something, so I'll have to match that.
For American numbers, I know for a fact that God of War 2018 dropped from $60 to $40 really fast. The moment they dropped that price, you were not able to sell your used copy for $45 to break even with subs. Is holding the flimsy, nearly empty box worth for a few months that difference in money? If you plan on reselling to make gaming more affordable than subs, you either have to cycle the games really quickly or buy exclusively Nintendo (since they hold value). And if you're really considering the whole cycle thing... just get the sub.
I feel like Limited Run is filling that niche. That being said, my point still stands, and I feel is extremely valid, regardless of limited avenues of availability.
Of course it has. But there is no rhyme or reason on what the price and quality of what you buy there will be fair or consistent. It has a whole other set of negatives and inconveniences. For a person interested in a sub service, asking someone to go to ebay isn't really proving your point. You are presenting a $15/sub as "solely evil" and every other option as better. With no logic other than how you consume games is right and everyone else is wrong. And yeah...Kingdom Hearts 3 still isn't cheaper on ebay than $15 right now.
And I said it like that in response to what the other guy said about affordability and accessibility...you were clearly referring to GameStop, because ebay would actually be a worse argument for you. To say an alternative to $15/sub, for people that want one, should be starting a buying and selling business across ebay and on message boards is disingenuous. It can take a year or more for a new game to fall below $15 used.
This is literally the argument used against every sub/rental service since the beginning of time. The movie industries tried to block VHS rentals and recorders because they thought no one would buy movies. What you are saying is the opposite of how consumer economics work, and how subscription revenue is received. Why would Beyonce put material on Netflix instead of selling directly? Why would Taylor Swift allow her music on Spotify?
I mean, you literally said that GamePass hasn't generate revenue. I can't explain how this works because you are against the understanding of the very basics of why these services are so financially successful in the first place.
Stop thinking MS has some piggy bank that says "well this amount goes to Crackdown 3 and that amount goes to Halo"...no offense but that is simplistic grade school business thinking. Revenue is revenue. The only other thing is the metrics they have about who plays what games in GamePass...but it's obvious you believe that all of EAs and Microsoft's explanations and financials for this is a lie. Microsoft has literally been as transparent as possible that GamePass essentially financed the revival of their publishing efforts.
Like...in 2019...someone just said that GamePass is "still in the investment stage". Wow!
Last edited:
Of course. Wasn't saying otherwise. Maybe I'm not articulating this correctly.
My point is why does a successful subscription service mean taking away ownership? Offering the expensive alternative of ownership is an additional revenue stream. The pipeline for it has been laid. The subscription and purchases will feed off each other and increase mindshare for each other. Not a 0 sum gain.
Usually small games That are digital only. And while retail stores are shrinking their physical section, it still exists and still remains a thriving business.
On the console side, full game digital splits aren't even touching 50% at this point !
So, no. It's an apt example.
Fucking nuts seeing people chomping at the bit to not own the shit they pay for. Feels like I'm taking crazy pills over here.
Jim made the argument in the video but yes, he is assuming that subscription models will eventually replace physical and digital games as the dominant way to sell games. If that does, in fact, happen then his point is clear.
From now on, I'm letting you articulate for me.
People have been trained with this mindset that if someone likes what I don't like, it somehow diminishes what I like. There's no amount of logic that can deal with an emotional response.
There's no replacing...and that's why I say Jim doesn't understand economics. Both can exist. If physical and digital games die, it's because consumers don't want to support them. We see no signs of that now. HBO sells physical discs of GoT when it has nothing to do with their core business model...because it makes money.
With Game Pass, we don't even have antidotal trending data to support this might happen anytime soon.
Yeah no. As if 1080p wasn't bad enough, it's also STEREO. This is the biggest kick in the balls. I've been gaming in 5.1 since the original Xbox days and I'm not about to get anything which limits me to a fucking STEREO sound stream. What is this, the 1980s?
They allow because is where the money is. But these services aren't good for indies too. And also, games are a little bit different. You don't design music/movies to fit the subscription style, unlike games.
How is not in the investment stage? They literally gave months of GP Ultimate for $1 and I still can get free months for $1 if I'm a new user. That's an investment.
But hypothetically streaming can become the dominant way to distribute games. You do realize this?
He/she is right. Buying a game on physical media has always been about buying a license to play that game. This has nothing to do with buying into some corporate stuff, its just the way its always been, but most people dont really think about it (for good reasons). I cant recall any games that were sold that also gave away the rights to the game. In that case, it must be public domain because there cant be thousands upon thousands of individual owners. Piracy wouldnt exist either if this was the case, because then all copies of the game would be legal if the owner wanted to share it freely. So this part isolated doesnt change anything regardless how the game is being distributed.
The difference however is that if you have a game on physical media, theres usually no system in place that prevents people from playing that game whenever they want, and sell/trade/give it to someone else (some PC games of relatively new age are like that (requires e.g Steam activation)). Thats the good reasons why people usually dont give this any thought. This part will naturally change if theres no physical media. Then its indeed harder to do sell it further on etc..
EDIT: If the arguement was that nothing changes, then thats not right, indeed. I'm not sure that this is what he/she ment however. Although maybe in the context of the thread, maybe it looked like that.
Last edited:
When you buy a game you own your copy of the game and you are allowed to do with it as you please except for things that violate the rights of the copyright holder(s). In other words, when I purchase a copy of Super Mario Bros video game I'm not buying the IP of Super Mario Bros from Nintendo but I am buying a copy of the game .
Yeah...and it may expose the mainstream to more than military shooters, Battle Royal, sports games and GTA. Becoming the new dominant way people consumer games doesn't mean publishers will want to prevent you from buying a copy at a much higher margin.
Exactly. For the assets themself (code, models, textures, music etc.), this has always been about owning a license.
I have both GamePass Ultimate and PS Plus (and Nintendo online but that was free through Prime).
However, I would drop both in a heartbeat if I needed to and I will buy games that I plan to replay on Steam or physical/digital on PS4/Switch.
However, I would drop both in a heartbeat if I needed to and I will buy games that I plan to replay on Steam or physical/digital on PS4/Switch.
The main thing that needs to be preserved is the code being installed to run a game. If that remains intact, there is a possibility of us being able to at least preserve the game for accessibility
The minute we convert to full stream, then its over. You've lost any semblance of actually "owning" a product. Your game is truly a service now..
The minute we convert to full stream, then its over. You've lost any semblance of actually "owning" a product. Your game is truly a service now..
You're being disingenuous in your wording. "Aren't even touching 50%": PS4 digital sales had risen to over 43% as of last March (per Sony), with the momentum continuing in that direction over time. We're seeing more and more bigger games, particularly those from Japan, coming Westward as digital only experiences. Please don't try to misrepresent the direction we're going in.
So what? Amazon gives Prime away for free! Spotify gives away 3 months for $1. They can afford to do that because it works, because it brings in so much more money.
It's hard to go forward discussing this because you simply don't know how consumer business works. Like what does one have to do with the other? Nothing is designed for any business model...you keep going back to that "a bank for Halo and a bank for Stardew Valley" mentality.
This is the Donald Trump society we live in, people will really believe anything with no evidence solely because it fits a narrative, or especially, it fits a narrative for someone they look up to. Literally your whole post here makes no sense and is full of stuff you are making up. Do you really believe that if Phil Spencer says "hey we are putting your release day one on GamePass" that they wouldn't fall all over themselves to accept?
These same devs get money from the revenue these passes bring in, and it's only here that people don't understand that droves of people are already using these services...GamePass isn't even close to new! If you think an indie game on GamePass, would earn less than launching just a as a full game with no GamePass...then I don't know what to tell you. You don't know how revenue even at a lemonade stand works.
I don't understand the concern.
Games are not the same as television. Television channels have been packaged into subscriptions for the longest, so the "every network / studio having their own individual subscription package" hell we find ourselves in isn't surprising. A closer comparison would be film, where there has been a sizable pivot towards digital - but there's still the capability to purchase physical copies of films even though subscription models exist within the industry.
I mean you have services like Netflix who don't put their creations for sale individually, but I seriously doubt the games industry is ever going to get away from selling games for $60. They're not going to willingly turn down money.
Games are not the same as television. Television channels have been packaged into subscriptions for the longest, so the "every network / studio having their own individual subscription package" hell we find ourselves in isn't surprising. A closer comparison would be film, where there has been a sizable pivot towards digital - but there's still the capability to purchase physical copies of films even though subscription models exist within the industry.
I mean you have services like Netflix who don't put their creations for sale individually, but I seriously doubt the games industry is ever going to get away from selling games for $60. They're not going to willingly turn down money.