I feel like this is a dissonance that needs to be addressed. It's a dissonance not just among fanboys, but actual well meaning members of the gaming community. Players, industry analysts, pundits, et al, have at various points expressed wariness towards the onset of services such as Game Pass, and the incredible value that they provide. As recently as last week, we had NPD's Mat Piscatella warn against the potential devaluation of games, and it is also a concern that has been raised against Game Pass multiple times by posters on this very forum.
I can absolutely get the argument, for what it's worth, of the psychological impacts of devaluation of video games as an entertainment medium, because we have seen it happen before with mobile games (which was something that the late Nintendo President Satoru Iwata warned against, but ended up being ignored on). But here's the thing: why is this argument only selectively being applied towards video game subscription services?
As an example, let us return to Microsoft's plan to kill used game sales back in 2013. This plan was rightly mauled by critics, industry pundits, and players, and is probably single handedly responsible for Microsoft's trials and tribulations this generation. To be extremely clear, I am not defending that intended plan to kill used game sales, because it was taking away choice and value from me as a customer, and I do not support that - and thankfully, at that time, neither did the rest of the industry, and we all raised our voices against it.
But... doesn't the devaluation argument apply to used games too? Because, surely, if I can get a used game three weeks after launch for half the price, the value of the game has been effectively eroded for me. Why, after all, would I want to spend $60 on a game new when I can just get it in a few days/weeks at a far lower price?
But the devaluation argument isn't applied there (or isn't viewed as an important enough extenuation). Which, I agree, used game sales give us value and choice as a customer, so fuck the devaluation argument. But that is also the case for subscription services. Services like Game Pass give me choice and value. Why is the devaluation argument mysteriously being applied to services like it, but not towards used games?
Subscription services have not devalued content in any other industry. People don't value movies or TV less because of Netflix, or music less because of Spotify. To me, the devaluation argument in this instance as applied by people on ResetEra appears to be a false strawman erected specifically to argue on lines drawn along brand loyalties, rather than having any actual merit in and of itself - because if subscription services like Game Pass are bad because of devaluation of content, then we should all be on board with banning used game sales too. Those also devalue content.
I can absolutely get the argument, for what it's worth, of the psychological impacts of devaluation of video games as an entertainment medium, because we have seen it happen before with mobile games (which was something that the late Nintendo President Satoru Iwata warned against, but ended up being ignored on). But here's the thing: why is this argument only selectively being applied towards video game subscription services?
As an example, let us return to Microsoft's plan to kill used game sales back in 2013. This plan was rightly mauled by critics, industry pundits, and players, and is probably single handedly responsible for Microsoft's trials and tribulations this generation. To be extremely clear, I am not defending that intended plan to kill used game sales, because it was taking away choice and value from me as a customer, and I do not support that - and thankfully, at that time, neither did the rest of the industry, and we all raised our voices against it.
But... doesn't the devaluation argument apply to used games too? Because, surely, if I can get a used game three weeks after launch for half the price, the value of the game has been effectively eroded for me. Why, after all, would I want to spend $60 on a game new when I can just get it in a few days/weeks at a far lower price?
But the devaluation argument isn't applied there (or isn't viewed as an important enough extenuation). Which, I agree, used game sales give us value and choice as a customer, so fuck the devaluation argument. But that is also the case for subscription services. Services like Game Pass give me choice and value. Why is the devaluation argument mysteriously being applied to services like it, but not towards used games?
Subscription services have not devalued content in any other industry. People don't value movies or TV less because of Netflix, or music less because of Spotify. To me, the devaluation argument in this instance as applied by people on ResetEra appears to be a false strawman erected specifically to argue on lines drawn along brand loyalties, rather than having any actual merit in and of itself - because if subscription services like Game Pass are bad because of devaluation of content, then we should all be on board with banning used game sales too. Those also devalue content.
