SuperData: Players who pay for subscriptions spend 45% more on games
- Thread starter patapon
- Start date
That's definitely interesting. I was wondering how that would work out for something like Origin Access Premier, as I cancelled my BFV pre-order knowing that I'd get it for just $15 a month instead, and do the same for Anthem as well.
What about all the people that would have potentially spent $60 on Sea of Thieves, but didn't due to getting it free for 14 days or whatever through that Game Pass trial? I see a lot of people using these subscriptions as a means of demoing games for free or cheap.
Also interesting that PS Now has such a large cut. I didn't realize people actually used that service. Microsoft could have charged for their Xbox 360 / Original Xbox emulator too. I wonder if they're regretting not doing that.
What about all the people that would have potentially spent $60 on Sea of Thieves, but didn't due to getting it free for 14 days or whatever through that Game Pass trial? I see a lot of people using these subscriptions as a means of demoing games for free or cheap.
Also interesting that PS Now has such a large cut. I didn't realize people actually used that service. Microsoft could have charged for their Xbox 360 / Original Xbox emulator too. I wonder if they're regretting not doing that.
Note that this doesn't indicate a causal relationship. The simplest explanation is that those willing to add video games to their monthly subscription, are just those that are more committed to the hobby and or, those with more available income.
It doesn't mean that these players are spending more, or less because of these subscriptions. It doesn't answer that question.
It doesn't mean that these players are spending more, or less because of these subscriptions. It doesn't answer that question.
Subscriptions are pretty unappealing to more frugal gamers so it makes sense that those who are willing to subscribe tend to spend more in general.
Even if subscriptions weren't commonly offered, those same people would very likely be bigger spenders.
That said, it definitely seems like subscriptions and microtransactions tend to increase overall spending but the 45% number isn't a good measure of that.
Even if subscriptions weren't commonly offered, those same people would very likely be bigger spenders.
That said, it definitely seems like subscriptions and microtransactions tend to increase overall spending but the 45% number isn't a good measure of that.
Is that 45% more on top of subs, or 45% more because the sub model gets more money out of the consumer than just buying games would?
I find it astounding to me that PS Now is taking that big of a cut. I know ERA is not entirely representative of the wider gaming population but it is not really talked about here anywhere near Xbox game pass. I have no experience with Now as it is not available where I am but I imagine it is recently a more attractive service now that you can download titles
PS Now is not an emulator, it's a streaming service. I think just starting a game with no waiting to download with a selection of 650+ games is pretty attractive.
I don't have any of those gaming related subscriptions, but I think I spend far more buying retail games for my Switch and PS4 as well as digital games for my PC than I would on any of those subscriptions. The subscriptions are just entirely unappealing to me, but if you look at the casual market and the games they prefer then the above probably holds true.
PSNow numbers are really impressive, especially when Sony hasn't really pushed the service hard or made a big deal about it like Microsoft have with GamePass.
It's clearly making money and it does have a big selection of games, so I can see Sony improving it even more for PS5 with plenty of PS1, PS2 classics and maybe PSP / Vita games too. They already started by adding the Download Game feature.
It's clearly making money and it does have a big selection of games, so I can see Sony improving it even more for PS5 with plenty of PS1, PS2 classics and maybe PSP / Vita games too. They already started by adding the Download Game feature.
Costing a whole lot more than other services will help with that chart too
"more on games" used interchangeably with "more for games" in the first few sentences is bad.
Last edited:
Same here.
For instance, I'll probably buy BFV after joining Origin Access Premier just to play it early.
I'm sure you're reading it correctly. I mean, if we go back to common sense ground, companies forcing subscriptions doesn't mean that I as a consumer will use it, and definitely not turn into a cash burning machine.
All it did for me was never getting an Xbox for online gaming, never play WoW after the beta, selling my Splatoon 2 cause it's unplayable offline.
Good job, greedy companies.
At first I was kind of surprised at the slice of pie that PS Now has, but when you think about it it makes sense. Not only does it cost the most out of the lot, it's also been around the longest and it's on the largest platform for this gen (along with PC).
If this was sourced via NPD or GSK I'd be happier about it as being worthwhile discussing but it's Superdata so ehhhh
Honestly have a very hard time believing that PS Now figure considering how it's barely established outside of the US and, you know, the quality and price of the service.
I don't know if it sucked or not, I just got the feeling that no one seemed to care or subscribe to it. The lack of a quality PS4 catalog to me could be part of that reason I felt that way.
Do you have access to data to base this on, or just feels from Internet forums?
Data on what, that it's not as established outside the US ?
I don't have numbers obviously, but the fact that betas in Europe started years after, went on for ages, and the service finally settled in some EU countries (not even all of them) quite recently would be a good start
45% more for games and twice as much in DLC, so does that mean they actually buy fewer games? And does the spending include the subscription cost, which I assume would already push them over the median of spending? (Fewer games makes sense given that they get them with the subscription, but they're also getting games that are more heavily monetized)
I meant offering, bad wording on my part. I don't know about the latency and other technical things since I never used it outside of beta a couple of years ago.
Very surprised that PSNow is that big. I hear way more about GamePass. I feel like most of the time I hear about PSNow it's not necessarily glowing endorsements, and everybody who uses GamePass seems to love it.
Oh, there's actually alotta shit on PSnow and you can download PS2 games to the console (because preservation).
It's significantly older and is on a much larger platform.
GP has done quite well for itself so far, but that fact shouldn't be a surprise.
I can't imagine EA Access is still ahead of Game Pass? Where is Superdata getting this data? It's not like Microsoft, Sony or EA has been releasing subscriber numbers or breaking down their revenues in this area.
I cant see how they'd get any data from microsoft, seems like a tiny sample and they've just multiplied everything by 1000.
SuperData does market research, so its information is gathered through extrapolation from the people that participate (like Nieison, who bought SuperData a few months ago).
It's an estimate, but not horrifically off-base.
Yeah the download thing is a great first step in making the service more enticing.
I mean if PS Now really had over 52% market share I guess I understand why Sony are taking their sweet time making it better, but it's still crazy to me.
Gamepass share is great for a service that isn't even 18 months old
I guess I'm just not understanding where it's bad tbh is it the game selection not including PS4 titles? The streaming works well and there's like 700 games on there.
Without context its pretty hard to take anything of substance away from it's findings
Personally I dislike the model because I'd rather just pay for what I want to use/play, and not endlessly pay for access to something, even if I have access to thousands of games, because I don't have the time or the will to play the 1000s of games I'm being charged to gain access to
It's clearly something that works for and appeals to a lot of people though, and if you have a gaming sub or two and play a few GaaS titles you're happy to keep funding post launch you will probably be spending more than someone who just plays offline without a sub
In how many countries is PS Now even available?
I get the feeling they just based this on how many systems are sold.
I get the feeling they just based this on how many systems are sold.