In this job, there are clear and obvious trends that dominate the discussion, sometimes for years at a time. I’ve been running Push Square for well over a decade now, and I’m lucky enough to have reported on many of the defining moments that have engaged enthusiasts: there was the battle for motion controls, spurred by the Nintendo Wii’s success which resulted in competitors like the PS Move; there was the raging debate over crossplay, with Sony painted as the obstacle preventing publishers from adopting the now quite common feature; and, more recently, there’s been subscriptions.
Heading into this generation there were very clear lines drawn in the sand: PlayStation’s market position was under threat if it refused to offer its first-party games day one with PS Plus. Sony, to its credit, was consistent from the start, arguing that it wouldn’t adopt this strategy and didn’t see it as particularly sustainable – at least in the current climate. It argued that by transforming its business model in such a seismic way, there could be an impact on the quality of its PS Studios games, which have generally been regarded among some of the best available on any platform.
Many argued that this was a mistake, and that strong competition from rivals like Xbox Game Pass would eat its lunch. In its defence, PlayStation did respond last year by making some long overdue adjustments to PS Plus and PS Now, combining them and creating a couple of additional tiers offering perks for those willing to pay extra. The result has been somewhat successful, raising the revenue of Sony’s subscription services, without having a marked effect on the number of active members. In fact, PS Plus has been hovering around 50 million users for many years now.
And the longer the generation runs, the more I’m beginning to believe subscriptions may not represent the seismic cultural shift for gaming consumption that has been touted. In addition to PS Plus hitting a ceiling, a recent Circana report of the US gaming market noted that subscription growth is slowing. It’s important to understand what this means: it doesn’t mean the graph has stopped going up entirely, just that it’s beginning to plateau. We’ve seen a similar thing in other mediums like movies and music, most famously with Netflix, which has also hit a ceiling of late.
But increasingly I’m becoming conscious of the fact that gaming is not like movies and music, and the prospective audience is much smaller than in those rival entertainment mediums. A lot of the conversation regarding the merits of Xbox Game Pass and PS Plus has been piloted by enthusiasts, the type of players who beat multiple games per month – but this just does not represent the mainstream at all. We know, for example, that on the PS4 the software attach rate was around 9.6 games per console – and that was accurate as of 2019, just a year before the PS5’s launch and at the tail end of the generation.
Gaming is a much more active hobby than movies or music, where the commitment is much smaller. A film takes, on average, two hours to watch; a full-length album about 45 minutes to listen to. And, crucially, you can combine these things with other activities: l listen to music and podcasts while I’m at the gym, and I’ll sometimes watch television shows while I’m doom scrolling on my phone. Neither of these things are possible with games, where the vast majority of releases demand your entire attention — usually for tens if not hundreds of hours.
Why does this matter? Well, because I can listen to hundreds of songs with my Spotify subscription in a month, making it better value for money than owning the CDs and records outright – but I’m lucky if I finish a dozen games a year. And it should be underlined that, while I do have vanishing spare time, I still very much represent the hardcore: I am an enthusiast who spends as much of my free time as possible playing games. If even I can’t find value in a limitless library of software, then spare a thought for the more mainstream consumer.
The reality is that, in most cases, gamers have a couple of favourite franchises that they love and play all year round. In a lot of circumstances, it should be underlined that many of these titles are actually free to play: Fortnite, Apex Legends, and Call of Duty: Warzone 2.0 are among the biggest games on the planet, and don’t require any kind of subscription to enjoy. (Unless you pod out for their in-game subscriptions, which is another topic entirely.) Then you consider the big games that people paid to play this year: Hogwarts Legacy, Resident Evil 4, and even today’s Star Wars Jedi: Survivor – none of which are on subscriptions anyway.
This dynamic could potentially change as bigger releases launch into subscriptions, but again it raises the question of whether it’s worth paying monthly for a catalogue you’re unlikely to ever fully explore. I personally think PS Plus Extra is an outstanding value, and there are releases I want to play on it, but I just haven’t found the opportunity to get to them yet. There are other games taking up my time! And as I’ve reiterated multiple times in this article: I’m the enthusiast, the type that plays dozens of titles per year. The vast, vast majority of consumers aren’t doing that – and seemingly don’t see value in it either.
It’s why, now the dust’s started to settle, I don’t think the future of gaming is in subscriptions after all. It’s clear they appeal to a specific demographic, and I don’t think any of them will be going away – but the beginning of this generation was defined by discussion about how disruptive they’re likely to be. I think, as Microsoft refuses to share an update on Xbox Game Pass’ subscribers and PS Plus continues to push against a very obvious ceiling, we’re slowly beginning to see that they’re establishing themselves as a lucrative supplementary option – and not, as had been argued vehemently up until recently, the primary form of content consumption.
What do you think the future holds for subscriptions? Do you believe they will eventually overtake traditional purchasing models, or do you agree the model is better suited to more passive forms of media like movies and music? Pay your monthly fee in the comments section below.
Do you believe subscriptions are the future of gaming? (3,102 votes)
- Yes, we'll all consume games on a subscription one day soon
- It's possible, but there's a long way to go yet
- No, gaming is fundamentally different to movies and music
- I haven't got a clue
Comments 193
I couldn't agree more with Sammy on this one. Like he says, at the start of this generation all you ever heard was how Game Pass was changing everything and how Sony simply had to catch up.
But a few years later, and it feels like the general 'noise' around subscriptions has really dropped off. I also agree that they're probably not going anywhere, but the plateaued numbers definitely suggest that there's a 'limit' to their audience.
I wonder what the next big 'innovation' will be!
Good piece, Sammy. "Gaming is a much more active hobby than movies or music, where the commitment is much smaller" is the main reason why I second your sentiment.
Something I've been ruminating on for a while, but recent financial reports and some data convinced me to write this! Interested to hear your thoughts...
Yes I agree with that settlement and piece.
I do like the Subscription model myself, admittedly I don't play most of the games on there but it's just kind of nice knowing they're there if I need them.
One thing I will say though, speaking as someone who's lucky enough to own all 3 of the Current big name consoles, having 3 separate subscription services on the go, can work out quite expensive.
If for example I only had a PS5 as then it's pretty much a no brainer and represents tremendous value for money.
I managed to get a years worth of Premium for around £64 when it was on sale for black Friday with an Amazon loophole.
I definitely fall into the enthusiast camp - I have all the current gen consoles (and a Steam Deck) and I've got PS Plus Premium and Gamepass, and when I first got GP I really thought it was amazing. But as time has gone on I've realised it doesn't matter if I have unlimited games, I haven't got unlimited time, and all the subs are doing is growing my pile of shame. I've come to accept that I only have time for games I really want to play, and in those instances I'll want to play them when they first release. I have 30 odd games installed, Jedi Survivor arrived today and I know which one I'll be playing over the weekend
Great article. I see subscription services as a compliment to my game library rather than a replacement for it. New additions to PS plus each month is something to look forward to and have only been getting better and better over the last 6 months.
I can absolutely live with first party games not being added day one because usually the quality of them warrants the day one purchase but if I’m on the fence I know that chances are they will be added eventually.
I think the moment’s gone already. They waited too long and now the big streaming service divide and fatigue has hit gaming way sooner than it hit other forms of media. Alongside a cost of living crisis, people just cannot afford another strain on monthly bills, buying one game when you can afford it is easier to reconcile.
You make strong point. My only desire is that it fails marvelously. I've enjoyed cutting a giant swath of my subs out this year. Only keeping the essentials.
I’m old school, I only have a few digital games( like 2 or 3), so everything else is physical. So for me, personally, subscription is a non-starter, but for the right person it’s just the ticket.
Time will tell, maybe that’s why Sony released two versions of PS5, to test the waters?
I agree, it's different. Also, the length of a game or the MP makes subscriptions an odd choice. It's easier to watch a movie or series before it drops off a subscription than a game. I can always go beat the game I bought, not so with a subscription, and with something like RDR2 or Persona, that really matters.
Games also cost more to buy, meaning you get a lot more out of a single purchase for a game than other mediums. If you add Bethesda and Activitions games to gamepass, that's a lot of money lost in purchases, that has to be made up through more subscriptions. If most of those people bought COD anyway, how much extra content are you offering for twice the price of a COD title in a year?
I don't think it's sustainable. Something has to give in how games are made or the price of the subscription. I can spend a lot of money in a month on games, or I can spend little to nothing. It all depends. It's easy to adjust too.
Plus, TV series were either hard to catch, or insanely expensive to buy compared to a game. There were lots of problems that streaming solved for TV and music. None of those problems exist in games. None of them. They're easy to buy, most drop in price, and you don't need too many to occupy you.
What is this? Sammy finally finding the light? Good for him.
I agree completely. In fact, I didn't renew my sub because I just buy the few games I want (and have time) to play each year. The sub only added value to my imagination (maybe one day I'll play this or that!)
@Jaz007 This is an often overlooked point. TV Streaming solved a myriad of problems that just don't exist in games; and the few problems that game streaming does solve, are overshadowed by the new problems it creates in their place.
The problem is time, gamepass is awesome but I hadn't time to play all the game I like in the subs, and there's always constant fear that the game I played will leaving the subscription soon.
In the end I sold my xbox series x and back to ps5, sure it psplus isn't as good as gamepass, but I prefer buying the game I like (physical) day one and there's always the option to buy other games digitally at discounted price if we are patient.
Funny you say this... I've recently decided to cancel my PS extra subscription. It has games I want to play; but I don't have the bandwidth to play even 10% of them. I much prefer to buy the games I want and play them at my own pace. In the year I've had the subscription, I've only played one game (Returnal). I could have just spent $70 outright and saved myself money!
Weirdly, I've ended up enjoying the NSO subscription more, as a convenient way to play retro games. Initially NSO didn't appeal, but as the systems included and their respective collections have grown, it's really improved for me.
I own a fairly decent retro collection and mostly own the games I wanted to obtain physically, but the convenience of an official retro game emulation subscription, and the nature of those games being more pick up and play, has seen me get good value out of the subscription on the Switch.
I'd still prefer if the option to 'buy' retro games digitally was there though, and that counts for PlayStation too... Ridge Racer as a premium game only, behind an expensive subscription, is a shame.
With PlayStation, I barely played the PS Plus games I recieved, I tend to buy the modern games I want to play.
I completely agree. If you didn't see in the news earlier this week, Hi-Fi Rush, one of the best games to release this year, was substantially impacted financially because it was a Day 1 game on Game Pass. Games are fundamentally different than movies and music. Though music, tv shows, and movies take time and a lot of money to create, it doesn't even come close to the amount of time and money it costs to create a video game. The whole industry would implode if the future of gaming becomes subscription services.
However, I do think that the future of gaming will start to trend in the direction of smaller games made by smaller production studios, and THAT is a future that I very much look forward to.
I think subscriptions are around to stay, but I think PS+ is probably the longer term way of running one. I'm fairly patient usually, and I wasn't sure if I'd like Forbidden West or not. It landed in the sub, I tried it, I turned it off. No harm done, but I'm glad I got to kill the curiosity without having to outright buy it. I have zero problem buying games I really, really want. A sub can kinda fill the gaps in-between, but even then, my backlog of purchased games is still just too large and I'm not using PC Game Pass or PS+ currently, even tho I'm subbed to both.
Great piece Sammy. Totally agree with what you’ve said. I used to use boomerang rentals 4 game at a time service and even that was too much to play let alone 100’s of games. Ultimately I prefer to dine at an a la cart restaurant rather than an all you can eat buffet.
@get2sammyb 👍
Good article. I'd agree it's not a replacement. I actually think they've found a way to get us to pay for the opportunity to play games we wouldn't have bought otherwise, whilst still paying individually for the games we want. Which is definitely good for them but, as you mention, it's hard to get around to actually playing these subscription games so I'm not sure it's great for us but I guess if you have the money it's a nice supplement anyway.
There’s a place for games pass. But that is going to depend on what it’s true cost becomes, when Microsoft stop subsidising/loopholes etc.
Problem for me is subscription rapidly wain in value, I’ve had games pass 8 months, but now I’ve played what I wanted that was on there prior to me joining, it’s a case of waiting for what comes on. (I’m stacked for a while so I’m on it no matter)
But honestly I can see myself dropping in and out for a month when a few games drop that I want.
Also I think infrastructure just isn’t in place yet. Cloud/subscription will be totally different in 10ths. Maybe MS will go more Sony/EA route with a delay to day 1, or perhaps Sony will follow Microsoft.
Currently i am subscribed to the basic PS Plus package - mainly for the cloud saves tbh. I never really get have time to play the games in the instant game collection. Whilst Extra represents fab value i simply havent been able to justify upgrading to that tier due to my existing backlog, which ive been adding to through the likes of RE4, Like a Dragon Ishin, Hogwarts Legacy, Burning Shores etc.
So long as i am still buying new releases, i cant justify subbing to plus extra or premium as i just wouldnt make the most from my sub.
I just dont see it as the future, particularly as it feels like game pass is Microsoft's way of excusing the launch of incomplete games into the market
I've been saying this on repeat for years now to anyone who'll listen.
I completely agree with all of this, Sammy.
Subs are an excellent supplementary service. That's all they're ever going to be in gaming though. At least that's all they'll ever be as things currently stand.
Movies and music are far more disposable than games. That's why they've been taken over by subs like Spotify and Netflix.
Games are a just bigger time investment.
Been saying it for years.
Solid article and analysis Sammy! Definitely some interesting insights and things to consider about the subject.
I don't think it's where games will head entirely; but I think it will always be an amazing option.
Movies still sell (albeit not as much) despite streaming services existing. Heck, DVD's still sell and streaming is at least 1080p!
Businesses are smart enough to know that gating the entire experience behind a subscription service isn't a be-all solution. Even Netflix releases "buyable" versions of its shows!
To me PS+ Extra provides the bread and butter of my gaming diet, but the meat of it comes from purchases, and I don't see that changing
@ShogunRok With Game Pass I was 50/50. On one hand you had a decent game library and day 1 games.
Yet the majority of time these games came with Day 1 glitches & bugs and the majority of the games being added were indie games and not really big hitters.
Yes you have Starfield, Redfall etc, but those were far & wide, but everyone goes on like you get Day 1 releases every week
I’ve let my PS Plus subscription expire last year, after purchasing 2 years worth when I bought my PS5 at launch, and I don’t miss it one bit. Like Sammy says, there is no time to play all those games! Yes, I have a huge backlog of physical games to play (unopened, even), but those games aren’t going to disappear when I stop paying for a subscription, so I can at least get to them eventually. At this point, I have zero interest in a subscription service. It will certainly work for some folks, and others, like me, can enjoy their one off purchases. There is definitely room for both!
@get2sammyb
Depends on the game, I multitask a lot while playing video games. Yes, some games are practically movies that demand your ears be paying attention to everything going on, but thats not even the majority of games.
The games I sink my time on the most are ones with plenty of side activities that I can do just for fun and entertainment, without need to focus on dialog. I very often will lose myself on a game like Skyrim, Assassins Creed Valhalla, Fallout, or Ghost of Tsushima while listening to podcasts, audio books, even sometimes watching the news on my phone or some other TV show.
I guess the point is: yea, the video game is not something most people do in the treadmill as they do with music, but that is because the video game IS the treadmill equivalent in such scenario.
BTW, this is heavily relative, I know some people that do indeed play their Switch on the treadmill, or keep a TV and a controller in front of their treadmill to play games while they walk.
Edit:
All this said, if I play 3 day one triple A games on a subscription service, I saved money. I don't need to play a lot of games to make that deal worth my time. At the same time, I have cancelled all my video streaming services because I find myself rarely having the time to watch more than one show a year, though...
@zupertramp Thanks for the typo spot, will edit that!
Everyone wants me to subscribe to everything.
Movies, TV, gaming, Online content, news websites, food, delivery, alcohol, clothing…..
It’s unsustainable.
People will soon long to actually own things again. They will realise they are giving away money and getting nothing in return. It’s how to make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
It’s just taking people a while to realise subscription models are taking huge amounts of money out of circulation. The rich stock pile money.
There are very few jobs for normal people in these subscription models.
We need to move away from them asap.
@crazykcarter Even if there are new games being added every month, I still think it only appeals to a subset of enthusiasts who would want to buy those games anyway.
The reality is not everyone wants to play everything.
I find that I mainly use PlayStation extra/premium and game pass just to play games that I already own physically to avoid having to get up and find them and poke them into the system.
I believe that a subscription future is inevitable, one that works across multiple devices, not just your console. Mobile, console, pc, streaming all under 1 subscription.
It may not be in the next year or two, but it is inevitable. My son and daughter do not think physical media is important, most of the services they use are subscription, they have been brought up in a world full of them. I was not. There is an entire generation that holds no value to physical media, they are the future, not old people like me.
Only time will tell if it happens, but I would much prefer a subscription future over a live service future, as that seems to be the choice at the minute with most publishers pushing one or the other
I believe game subscription services will grow but I disagree on the idea that it will takeover and replace conventional purchasing of games. The idea that rental is just better than purchase for games is something that just doesn't work the same as other forms of media. My biggest reason for this has always been that the demand for subscription commitment was singularly about Sony. This energy has never been heavily focused on either Nintendo or Steam. Those two purchase only models are untouched by a need to change. Which to me shows that there was never that much confidence in the takeover theory in the first place.
I reap my own share of benefits of PS Premium these days, but I can still concur - at least as far as rotational subs go. A library to amass and generally access anytime you have an active sub (PS+ Essential, GWG, NSO) is one thing, but indeed, we only have so much time to cover a game backlog like a sub catalogue - and if it's unpleasant to part with eventually tagged-out licenses for an album you've looped for months, imagine the feeling of parting with a game you never got a chance to play because you were busy with several others in the same lineup. Or even beyond it - we recently got Horizon Forbidden West on Extra, but will it still be there to engage by the time I'm finished with Zero Dawn? And back to the catalogue, will I beat FFXV fast enough for its DLC eps to still be available? Some will chuckle that this may encourage actually tending to backlogs, but backlogs usually don't worry someone like myself with full awareness of being interested in way more games than his lifetime can possibly accommodate anyway. Just like with other Fiction media, part of the gaming hobby's functionality and appeal lies in the ability to meet a given mood, play what you feel like playing. Backlogs are only stressful when they become a second job of sorts, and FWP as it unarguably is, the FOMO factor of sub catalogue rotations can only fan the flames of it. Is it fun to be motivated for one game but play another just because it's leaving the lineup soon? Just buying the latter certainly feels like less headache. Which, of course, is why publishers offer and pull licenses in the first place - it basically works as a longer version of "free weekends" for them, meant to hook once indifferent or hesitant customers on a started playthrough. But that's a long run win for them; will it be one for the sub over a similar term? Or will many subscribers really come to ponder just spending the sub money on sale splurges to gradually tie the same games to their accounts more stably?
I think it could get there eventually but we’re still a long way off. If Xbox was the leading platform, MS would really push it and probably get us there sooner. Thankfully they aren’t because I like how things are now.
I tend to drift in and out of subs when I feel I will get the most value, it’s nice to have them there but they certainly aren’t the future just yet. I’ve just resubbed to GP as my wife is eager to jump back in to Powerwash, then there’s Redfall and Starfield coming, so using the gold conversion it works out much better value for a year than owning the three outright. Next year may be different but it’s nice to have the option.
Excellent to see Hail to the Thief snuck in there @get2sammyb 👍
@Tharsman You could say that you didn't save money unless you were really going to buy those 3 AAA games if they weren't on a subscription. Which in my experience is rarely the case. Maybe it's true for you, though.
I'm playing Riders Republic right now since it's on PS+ but I wouldn't have bought and played it if it wasn't on PS+. So did I really save any money?
As a suplimentary service for the enthusiast, subs are good, but as per the article, they will never be the main draw for the masses.
This is becoming pretty obvious as ps romps away in sales from xbox, despite the value proposition of game pass. MS backed the wrong stratagey as its clear a great service with day1 releases is not enough to capture hardware sales.
Im a very committed gamer, was already an adult when the first video games appeared, 20 years as a AAA dev and have owned just about everything since the Atari vcs. I subbed to PS now when it started and have had game pass for years. But even I cant possibly get full use from these services, so its easy to understand why so many less comitted people are simply not interested in a monthly comitment.
Nice piece Sammy.
I don't have time to finish what I do have so game subscriptions aren't a thing for me; I do subscribe to too many tv/movie services though.
I have a short attention span and having 100 games to play anytime would mean I'd just skip and jump around a bunch and never finish anything. I like the idea of it in theory but I don't think it would work for me.
I don't disagree in many aspects, but I can't say it hasn't been convenient. Xbox Game Pass is tied to my phone contract, not every game I want to play is there, but the selection is good enough to keep me from buying games. Games are 60 now for 1 game. If I want to play 12 games, that's 720. Sure, I could wait for a sale or buy used, or I could just not pay extra since I have a subscription. In today's economy, I buy 1 game, maximum 2 a year.
The only issue is see with subscriptions is the sustainable cost for the developers. It's a bargain for me, but a trash deal for them. Everything else is subjective, just like ROI (Return on Investment). If I don't see value in spending 720 quid a year, chances are I'm not doing it, especially if it's a game I play once and never again.
I believe there is a future for it, but there's a long way to go.
Interesting article. Before even reading it I was ready to say the opposite b/c I think the opposite is true, but the article makes a really good point about people not having enough time to play all of these subscription games, which is something I’ve never really thought about before. But then I thought “ok boomer” even though Sammy is about 2 generations removed from the boomers, b/c the article is written by a guy in his 30s and as a father of a 20 & 18 year old the future looks different than the present.
The future is subscriptions, it just is. First, gaming will go all digital, like probably 95% of it is now when you include smartphones. Steamdeck and others to follow will move that along. Steam is a thing. So no more physical in a console gen or 2 - see PS5 2.0 and who knows, maybe Switch 2 is a PSPgo.🤷🏻♂️
So now you have all digital gaming, and people are like - Why am I paying $70 for a base game plus $30 for dlc for digital stuff that I feel like I don’t even own? And then games get so big, and consoles so expensive, and tvs start having the ability to cloud game, and people are like - Wait, why am I paying full price for a cloud game that I can only play when the servers are up!?!? and then we all only rent our games.
Sorry physical lovers and people who like to own stuff, that is the future of gaming. And pretty much everything else. People under 25 don’t want to own anything now, they aren’t going to start. It’s a rental future. Sad but true.
They have a place I think, but they aren't going to be the only way to play anytime soon if ever. It's the same as vr and streaming like that, why does something have to 'take over' or be 'the future' to be considered a success?
They can potentially all exist alongside each other, I don't think any of them are going to remove the way we currently consume games.
@Ephexis83 You've definitely got a point, there was a real push by Microsoft a few years ago to focus on the value of Game Pass. And while it undoubtedly is good value, I think all of the points everyone's raised in this comments section are pretty much bang on. People only have limited time, the games can be hit and miss, more casual players simply aren't invested...
So Microsoft has had to rely on setting the narrative for years now — and it has worked to an extent. But like you say, the reality is that heavy hitting exclusives aren't dropping on these subs week after week, and it feels like the interest / general belief in subscriptions has started to fall off.
I think gaming subscriptions are great for a very, very tiny subset of the playerbase that plays a lot of shorter games.
But the reality is that there are very people like that.
The bigger problem is that the writing has been on the wall for a while now that subscription services just aren't profitable. They require constant growth and need to constantly be in customer acquisition mode. Once the streaming service eventually raises the price to what it needs to be, people no longer find the services good value.
@ShogunRok True, but game pass is useful for something like RoG Ally. Game pass will never be a replacement for a Playstation console.
https://www.theverge.com/23700094/asus-rog-ally-price-amd-z1-extreme
@XenonKnight Again, though, while that's a great use case, how many people are actually going to own something like a RoG Ally? It's another extreme enthusiast item.
I never thought they were lol.
Gamers are attracted to games for different reasons. The hobby is consumed differently. Much less potential customers.
@get2sammyb Steam deck sold 3million. Microsoft will be pushing the RoG Ally as a portable to play game pass on the go. Had I known the RoG Ally was coming out I wouldn't have gotten a Xbox Series X. The Xbox series X was the last Xbox I will ever buy, there's no need for xbox 5 when a when RoG Ally 2 can play all Microsoft 1st party games.
I think it all comes down to at what point (if at all) regulators stop Microsoft's neverending acquisition spree. If Activision is blocked and the same happens for other acquisitions Microsoft tries to make, I think the tried and true model of buying games will be the future. If however regulators let Microsoft do whatever then Microsoft will force Game Pass to be the future.
@Tharsman
Only games I can multitask on is Gran Turismo 7 and Advance Wars. I listened to all of Metallica’s new album while playing some races the other day. And I can multitask in Advance Wars fighting the CPU since it’s a turn based game.
Otherwise I got to devote all my attention to it.
Considering I’ll have a kid in November I’m gonna have to change up my current lifestyle completely. I’ll be relying on my Switch (lunch break at work sessions since I pack my own lunch everyday) a lot more to get gaming fixes once my little mini-me is here.
Which is why I’m trying to play everything big I want to play this year now. Go ahead and get it done. I’ve honestly been considering selling my PS5. I just don’t see how I’ll be able to justify owning it with the lack of time I’ll have. I’m definitely canceling PS Plus once he gets here. I already struggle to find time for the games on there (currently playing Kena) but after November I won’t be able to justify the expense with the lack of time.
Yes, games are different, no, everyone will obviously play games on a sub service in the future
This is ultimately how I started to feel after trying Game Pass for a little while towards the end of last generation. Sure it's enticing to see just a massive collection of games I could play...but then I started to realize most of what I did want to play wasn't offered on the service.
That's when it hit me. At most I could see these things being supplemental, not a primary way of consuming games. My time is more limited than it used to be as well so I would rather just pay an upfront cost for something I really want to play over settling for something the service offers.
Plus the most enticing thing about Game Pass to me was the day one exclusives...until I began to realize that Xbox at most put out 1 maybe 2 (or none like last year) exclusives a year...and many of them didn't appeal to me. And Sony doesn't offer that at all (I understand why) so yeah. Subscription services just don't work for me with gaming.
As a rule of thumb - if microsoft is pushing something as the next big thing, it isn't.
Subscriptions services should be the norm for live service games that aren't F2P to stop the talk of game discs becoming coasters.
I went to purchase Devil May Cry 5 Special Edition last night for $20 (thank you golden week sale article!), and saw that it was included with plus extra. For $30 I could've upgraded my sub until 1/29 next year. Checked out the catalog again and saw some ones I'd like to get to, but then double checked my backlog. Over 15 great games that I will play, with a few open world. I don't know how long it will take to get through, but it's well beyond 1/29/24. Plus Final Fantasy, Diablo, and essential free games every once in a while. Decided to just buy DMC and skip the sub upgrade.
I agree and this past year has shown the downsides of Gamepass. Its interesting how MS refuse to share the number of subs they actually have and its because the number isn't as high as they want you to believe. I like Gamepass i like it a lot and sub each month to it but i feel big changes are coming to it changes players won't like.
I've never liked the idea of Netflix gaming. Demo's are great. Old school Blockbuster or Redbox game rentals are still good, especially if you're just not sure or it's a very short game. I have a personal dislike of monthly subscriptions. Recently I managed to get down to only one, specifically for the kids and zero gaming subs. The console tax is just too high. NSO with its 2 tier overprice for games I already have. PS+ with its weird 3 tier system and stupid low back compatibility list has zero value to me. Game Pass has a ton of value, but it recently lost the long term gain with Gold losing 360 games (which are yours forever). I realize Gold and GP are technically separate, until Xbox started auto-converting gold subs into GamePass. Even still, even if I just went Gold and have it converted, it still has low value. I already own everything I want to play. And owning them removes the subscription compulsion that comes with the monthly payment. I have a Steamdeck now. That removes most issues for online play when the mood strikes me.
Definitely not the future. It's been said all along they aren't cost effective. It's why you see Netflix cancelling a chunk of their shows after a single season. The hidden costs add up. It's the same for Gamepass and PS+.
Microsoft can afford to throw money at something like GP. It's literally all they have this gen. At least until they release some actual first party titles.
Sony on the other hand can't maintain it without the subs continuing to come in and rise up the numbers. They were right to keep first party titles off it. They've played a blinder with Forbidden West. Had it's time as a proper release then it's been put on plus in time for it's DLC. I think that's gonna be where Sony head with plus in the future if it sticks around.
@OrtadragoonX I guess it depends on what aspects of a game make you play it.
For me, I enjoy the story in an Assassins Creed game, but 90% of the time I am engaging with the open world activities that don't demand much attention.
At the end of the day, for me, a game is that, a game. By that I mean that I'm not there for the story (although again, I do enjoy the stories) but for the gameplay. I guess that's why I enjoy the "ubisoft formula" open world games with a huge map and tons of icons for things to do. Go to dot one, climb a tower, go to the next dot, clear a camp of enemies, go to the next one, explore a cave, etc.
I agree with this article.
I have a Game Pass Ultimate that I don't use much, I only try some game from time to time.
I still love to buy digital games and re-dowload them when needed.
Anyway the subscription model could save you some money if you try a game and discover it is not for your taste.
On my PS5 I have a PS Plus Essential.
The subscriptions are great to try games you wouldn't bought or maybe games in your backlog that with luck they show up in your subscription. But they are an extra they never will replace buying games.
I think of extra like a 1 game a year price inversion to play some games in return but still buy games I want.
Fantastic write up, Sammy. This pretty sums up most of my thoughts as well.
If you look at the comments over on PureXbox the majority of People complaining about the AB deal being opposed are just sore they will have to pay for Call of Duty instead of getting it 'for free' in their existing sub.
PlayStation doesn't need to compete with Game Pass, because what they're doing already is working. I'll buy maybe 2-3 games (2022 was Elden Ring, Forbidden West & Ragnarok) at full price each year, but otherwise my backlog is big enough that I can wait for anything I'm interested in to go on sale. Thankfully Sony isn't Nintendo and is pretty generous about putting big name titles on sale after 6-12 months on the market. And if I find myself with a bunch of AAA titles I'm really interested in, I subscribe to GameFly for a month or two which is significantly cheaper than buying them all at $60-70. I'm sure what I described wouldn't work for everyone, but for me it's perfect.
The only reason subs exist in the first place is Microsoft, and the only reason they can do them is their deep pockets. And the only reason M$ set them up is that they thought with such an amazing deal gamers would come flocking over to them. They were wrong. As been mentioned in the article, having access to hundreds of games but little time to play them is pointless and a waste of money.
Spotify, the biggest music subscription service has never made a profit. It’s been kept afloat by investors. Subscription models are not the future.
@RadioHedgeFund I really don't see how this kind of business model is sustainable when Call of Duty is supported by about six or seven studios as well. I know the game has a lot of microtransactions, but that's surely to sustain the long-tail live service aspect!
Anyway, that's a discussion for another day I suppose!
Obviously no surprise people want free* games, but as I said in the article, there's really only so many you can feasibly play. Would people who play Call of Duty as their primary game every year switch to a monthly subscription instead of just buying the game on launch day? I'm not sure that's cost effective!
I think, like too much of the industry that tries to paint console with the same brush as mobile while those of us here know that makes no sense at all, it's two separate markets, and the suits don't get it, I think you're painting multiple markets with one broad brush.
When these conversations start coming up we start binning subscriptions and streaming into one big box they don't both belong in. GeForce Now is streaming with a subscription fee for streaming, but it is not a game subscription. Game Pass PC/console, and PS Plus Extra is a game subscription but not a streaming subscription. Game Pass Ultimate and PS Plus Premium are both streaming and game subscriptions. Which one are we talking about? Streaming will fail? Seems like it's a growth area, though some of that growth is in areas of basically subscribing to a PC/console access but still buying games individually. Are we talking about gaming subscriptions to try many games even if you already bought the PC/console to play them on? I mean Game Fly has been doing that since forever, and Blockbuster in a different form since then, that's like saying radio is dead while radio rolls on.
First we have to figure out if the argument here is against game subscriptions, streaming subscription/console-rental, or combos specifically. Or if all the of the above we're invalidating tons of different avenues of the industry. We can't argue that a vague amalgamation of multiple distribution models "aren't the future."
On the same token I think it's a safe bet that the past is also not the future of the industry. You guys wrote that article the other day about the costs of game development complete with quotes from CDPR about their 300M costs. The economy of video games is coming up against a wall where costs far eclipse what can be recovered from the relatively stagnant size of the games market, yet there's a massive oversupply of games that the majority of the market could never justify spending money on vast swaths of. This has to be reconciled. That means game devs need to cut cost and scope dramatically....will people be happy with uglier games that look like PS3/PS4 games because that's where the budget stops? Honestly, probably yes if they're good games, but the companies don't seem to believe so. Raising prices of games forever to squeeze more margin out of a relatively static market that rarely grows much will hit a cap at some point. If the plan is to just keep pushing game prices, $80, $90, $150....at some point the market contracts for the same reasons subscriptions are said to be an economic problem in some comments, people don't have infinite money to try everything. Does the industry just collapse and contract, we relive the Atari apocalypse and are left with a dozen studios that all make $200 games vying for that one game every 3 years purchase? I don't see that outcome either.
Streaming/Subscription proposes an alternate model that can try to solve that dilemma. If that turns out not to be a workable solution either.....something is going to have to give somewhere.
As we write off subscriptions as the future of gaming, are we failing to look at Apple Arcade, a subscription service, from the company that right now, is single handedly by far, the #1 player in the video game market by revenue, and by a very wide margin? Excluding Tencent and their gatcha mtx empire, of course.
I mean I always maintained I dislike playing games with a countdown, pushing me to hurry, kills the fun because it's now a chore to finish it before it's taken off.
Just speaking personally, I need to pay for a game these days to make the necessary commitment to actually get through it. I’d frankly rather spend £40-£70 and use that as motivation to get all the value I can out of it. I’m really not bothered about the “ownership” argument, though.
I don’t think there isn’t a market for it, it’s just not really for me. I could probably change my mindset if cloud gaming really took off.
They may or may not be "the future" for playerbases at large, but on a personal note I get an insane amount of value out of my Extra subscription. I end up amortizing the price of a year-long subscription several times over in just a month or two, and that's not an exaggeration. The amount of games I'm completing (not just 'beating') at no additional cost and the money I'm consequently saving by not purchasing all of them is seriously significant.
I guess all that is to say that if game subscriptions are meant to end someday, I'll certainly keep squeezing this one dry for as long as it lasts.
While this sort of thing is generally great for the average consumer, I think gaming is mostly aimed at "gamers" that's where most of the money is made. Gamers buy lots of games, and they require us to buy them to make profits. While subscriptions is generally a great idea, games in general cost so much to make, eventually this is going to catch up and make it very hard to keep up with making a competitive game in this market. I think Netflix is a good representation of this, while you can get the odd great show, not every show is amazing and Netflix has noticed a decline in subscriptions during certain points. For me, I usually only keep one sub running when I know there is something I actually want to watch. I used to do the same with Gamepass. But games cost so much more to develop than a TV show. So yes. Agreed. For this industry to survive correctly, we need high quality games, that we are actually willing to part cash with.
The problem will come once the masses start to get wise and just pick and choose the months they subscribe depending on if a new game releases on there that they want to play and then just subscribe for the month and then cancel the sub again until something else comes along. You could then have millions of people all playing through a game at a fraction of the price it would cost them to buy it. I've already seen people say they have cancelled their game pass subs and will just sign up again for Redfall or Starfield and cancel once they are done with those.
@get2sammyb you pretty much summarised my thoughts in the article. 👏🏻 One thing that Xbox might do now is push cloud even more.
True - they might be hitting the ceiling. However, a proper cloud solution that works would bring many more players. People who never got to play big AAA games, simply because they just do not want to invest in console. Even for some casual gamers it might look silly, but really - paying at least 300 for playing 1-2 games is lot for some.
Therefore, I believe Xbox's only way to push forward will be via cloud. Which - in my view - is still pretty shi**y solution to play games.
GamePass exists out of Microsoft's desperation, let's not kid ourselves otherwise. You all saw the initial idea of the Xbox One and that was the result of arrogance coming from success of the Xbox 360. Had that not backfired GamePass wouldn't exist. They're not the "friendly" pro-consumer company that some think they are hiding behind Phil's grin. And yesterday, threatening the UK for not getting their way not only shows their true colours, but they're desperation.
It's their last desperate attempt to stay in gaming. They can't compete with Sony in console sales, PlayStation has built a reputation for 29 years of first party IP's that gave them a name everybody knows.
If the Xbox One hasn't backfired do you honestly think GamePass would have been born?
It's eerie that Phil hasn't said anything about GamePass subscriber counts in, a year, I think? Since the 25-ish million number. And at the start of this gen he was boasting much more often. There were hints that the number had plateaued so in my mind it hasn't been the runaway success they thought it would.
And that's why ABK is so important to them. Without something huge like CoD that can bring in recurring players it's likely already reached its peak since not much else seems to be pulling in subscribers.
And yet, digital game sales, despite price increases remains as healthy as ever.
So while it will likely exist, it won't replace conventional methods, in my mind anyway.
But the elephant in the room. GamePass may appear to be good value to some NOW. But we're seeing publishers wanting their own revenue slice of that pie from the likes of EA, Ubisoft, and Sony. If other publishers end up creating their own services and choose to potentially ignore GamePass it won't grow. But the industry will become inflated with subscription services. And I doubt that will go well because who will want say, 10 gaming subscriptions recurring every month for 10£/$? I do think thay may end up reinforcing conventional methods due to the expense and time constraints of many into singular games throughout the year.
Maybe I'm being cynical, or overthinking it. But I doubt it will replace conventional gaming if multiple services are born out of Microsoft's attempt to stay relevant.
Interesting discussion. I like the comparison to other media and fully agree with others comments the big thing holding back gam subscriptions is time. I have 1000 games to play but there just isn't the time in the day to play them all. I think subscriptions are here to stay but as a compliment to the overall package. I use Spotify as my on the go music listening service and it's great for choice and flexibility. However I physically buy records of my favourite artists (1 because I like them and 2 to support them directly). I see subscriptions for gaming as the same. I buy each and every game that I want to buy based on personal choice and critical reception. For me PS Plus essential is great as I can play online and get a fee goodies included. I still have my PS1,2,3,4 and PSP and all the games. Therefore I have literally no need to subscribe any further because I have what I need. I would imagine a good deal of the core fan base is in a similar position.
@get2sammyb it’s also in its infancy period. Some people years ago probably wrote articles about digital downloads wouldn’t be the future, many are already claiming cloud won’t be the future. Gamers don’t like advancements in tech nearly as much as one would think. most gamers would still have us driving to a store to buy a piece of plastic with only 200MB of data on it, only to say they buy that so they can trade the game in. Well if you aren’t keeping your games after you beat them, why wouldn’t some see value in playing it for a month on a subscription for a few dollars and be done. Gamepass just launched in 40 more countries and last quarter brought in almost 1 billion dollars in revenue and this is again still in its infancy stage. I bet movie theaters thought Netflix would be a fad. The truth of it is it is only there as an option not a replacement to psychical and digital sales. My opinion of what would be a better article would be is do we still need a paid service for cloud saves, 2 games a month and the ability to play online multiplayer.
So i am a former ps+ essential subber but i upped it to the extra tier. I was not sure if i was going to keep it but i decided it was really good value for me so i renewed my sub. There are a fair few games i'll play in between awaiting the big titles to release so as a gaming nut it hits that sweet spot for me. I used to be of the mindset that if online multiplayer went free again i'd drop my sub in a heartbeat but to be honest i'm not too sure anymore. Good article sammy 👍
Im on PS Premium and funny enough will likely re-up it come November when time to renew. But the reality is that I rarely ever play PS+ games on it other than PS1/2 classics. And even then i've only played the Syphon Filter game and Hot Shots Golf. It's not that there's not a great selection of games. Quite the opposite, it's just that the games that I actually buy end up taking priority. Something about buying my games makes me want to play them more.
The last game I played on plus was DMC5:SE. I usually just redeem the monthly games and go back to what I was playing. Sometimes I'll download a game on Premium with the intent to play it soon after I finish the current game im playing only to not play it and play another game that I actually bought whether it's new or in my backlog.
It’s never been viable sorry. And I’ve said it a million times, GP was born out of nothing but desperation on MS part. Does anyone really think if MS were competing on sales with Sony that they’d be letting people play brand new games for next to nothing? Not a chance!
@GADG3Tx87 Throwing the whole subscription and/or streaming market behind "it exists because MS is desperate" doesn't really hold up, though. PS Now existed years before Game Pass, and Sony was buying OnLive and Gaikai for that very reason in what was the PS3 era. The streaming/subscription future was in Sony's plans before anybody heard the words "Game Pass." That was back when PS had forward thinking leadership, though. Sure early PS Now was janky as heck and absurdly priced. But they were early pioneers in the space, and were laughed at for the attempt, same as PSP Go long before mobile gaming happened and is all digital.
Now you're onto something of a pattern: Sony dove into subscription when PS3 was failing. MS dove into subscription when X1 was failing. But then we also hit a common truth: For a gaming platform that's not the leading platform, subscriptions seem to be a common place they all go to try to close the gap.
@Kevw2006 Avoiding above average churn is the job of the content curators on a subscription service. If they're doing effective work, people will not churn like that because there will always be something they're interested in just around the corner and staying around is "only $15 more...." Some of that is expected churn calculated into their predictions. Some of that is GP not being as effective as they should be in that curation to keep people from churning (which is kind of the point of ABK), though their Q3 sub earnings surpassed their predictions even without major content dropping, so it's safe to say their churn is lower than they predicted, which is a good sign for the industry at large considering the lack of compelling content in that time still retaining and expanding subscribers. PS Plus doesn't seem to be as dynamic, but some of that is probably because plus is not making a really strong run at cloud and doesn't have an on ramp from the huge mobile device market, and doesn't stream PS5 games (yet) to even PC, so Plus is mostly only selling to a subset of the existing ps customer base that is also interested in subscriptions, not really looking to expand their reach beyond their console market too far (for now.)
It's an extension of Reggie Fils Aime's response to questions about Nintendo dealing with used games in the post "this is how you share on PS4" X1 fiasco and he said something about they try to create games people don't want to sell. If you keep people hooked on it with "just a little longer, just for this one thing", you keep the money in your pocket.
@NEStalgia
I didn't consider that 🤔. PS3's rocky years. I mean it picked up and became a success in the end narrowly beating the Xbox 360. But in its early years PSNow wasn't the same model as GamePass. If you think back it was individual renting of titles and streaming only at first. Poorly at that.
It only became a subscription model after GamePass became a thing. And gradually until it became what it is now.
If you remember, Sony were adamant for years that a subscription model wasn't a viable or sustainable solution.
Not to mention, I doubt it was Sony's plan to replace conventional gaming sales with a service. Rather a companion to it. I think MS however, are counting on it.
I certainly dislike the attitude of some Xbox and now Playstation players, which is basically "I have a subscription service and everything must come to it, I won't buy anything anymore". Sadly there are probably many Series S owners who technically own nothing. If you want to deprive yourself of some great experiences that might never come to any sub, then sure I guess. I just don't really understand that. PS+ Extra is a great supplementary service, but I still buy games if they're interesting enough for me. Worrying about "should I buy this game because it might come to Extra" just seems too paralyzing, so better not to even care.
sammy makes the best articles , one of the few grounded mods here 👏👏
I still stand by say I hope not because either the prices of the subs will have to rise or quality will have to take a hit.
I prefer traditional games with traditional experiences at a traditional price.
I paid 70$ for Mortal Kombat 2 back in the 90s. I have no issue with games being 70$ or higher, BUT, like then, I only buy them if I really think they are worth it. I’d give 100$ for the newest GoW, but I wouldn’t give 50$ for that newest Saints Row.
@GADG3Tx87 I remember an interview with...was it Andy House or was it Kaz at the time? Can't remember who. But I think their original idea with Gaikai (before they rolled it out as Now) was to target the Japanese market specifically on PC. I think even then at least in Japan (when Japan mattered) they were seeing attrition into PC beginning (which has now exploded), and saw the ripe environment in Japan for streaming, and thought to start moving PS into the PC arena in Japan via streaming. Eventually it grew into also becoming their BC solution for PS3, and then into being a GP competitor (sort of.) So in a sense the original idea really was to somewhat replace the console model with streaming, even if it was Japan-only, PC-only at the time. It was far ahead of its time, even for JP I think, but those guys running the show back then were always too many steps ahead of the curve for their own good I think. Not a bad thing, but not always a success.
Great article, and my own situation definitely supports this view. I don't play enough games for subscriptions to be worth it. I have time to play 1-2 games a month, and I want to choose those games, not have them chosen for me. The only reason I subscribe to PS Plus Essential is so I can play multiplayer in Elden Ring. If not for that, I would cancel it.
I think of subs as aking to the NBA's G-League. It's a place where devs can get some dollars back when their game doesn't meet sales expectations, a launch pad for service games, and a second chance at life for aged AAA games that otherwise would have already hit terminal velocity of their sales. We will see how MS feels about first party day 1 releases after Starfield. My guess is that they'll see a huge increase in subs, mark it as a success, and then come back a year later after everyone has canceled the sub and wonder what in the world they were thinking. For instance, it might be heretical, but I'll be playing Starfield through GP without ever buying an Xbox. Now they've missed out on my dollars in the console purchase, too.
@NEStalgia
Yeah it was Kaz at the helm then before he retired. I didn't like Andrew House at first but seeing what's going on these days he'd be a step up from Jim Ryan. Andrew House took over right at the start of the PS4 and did it's introduction showcase.
Personally, the best CEO PlayStation ever had. Jack Tretton in my opinion.
When Gaikai was first talked about I hated the idea. Still do, but I do remember renting Resident Evil 5 on it for a month at 7.99. and that was just for that one individual game. I didn't have access to any others. And it was only streamed.
That wasn't on the PS3 though, that was on PS4. (When I did it I mean)
I’ve been harping for years that Game Pass just won’t be viable in the long run. Either there’ll be fever games or the price will have to go up, drastically.
And I think Sony hit quite a sweet spot with Extra.
But where it may matter more in the coming years is when cloud gaming gets going more. It’s inevitable but Sony is sort of stuck in a limbo there. Maybe this rumoured cloud handheld is their chance to get back in the game for it.
I lucked into a long Extra upgrade thanks to the loophole with PS Now when it started, and I imagined I'd be all over it, an embarrassment of riches presented to me for 'free'. All those hours I'd be tucking into the stuff on Extra....
Turns out since then that I've spent more time on the games I own than those on Extra, and that goes for games I've played loads and some off the backlog.
I just don't like that feeling that what comes and goes from the sub library is out of my control...it bothers me far more than I thought it would, and it also affects the way I play the games on there too.
So I do get this article. If Extra disappeared tomorrow I wouldn't really miss it, which logically sounds crazy, but it's how it is for me at least.
@Gaia093 I think people like you and I are in the super minority of gamers. Ive played 130-140 games since subbing to gamepass for 15 months.
Most people don't play games like us. Which is what Sammy was alluding too. Which is crazy thinking a product is bespoke to us!
Gaming has always been relatively cheap, compared to say cars or adventure training. I used to spend around £40 a month on gaming, even when trading games (total guess could be more if you factor in controllers etc) now I add £10 credit here and there 6-7 times a year for games i want and find a deal for gamepass. It's saving me around £250 a year all things considered. You then have Microsoft rewards which is around £125 in vouchers if you have the patience. I'm literally swamped in games and outside of work, family and the gym is what I do. If I can't keep up, who can?
@nomither6 Have to disagree bro. ShogunRok, Quintuply, SimonFitzy, JohnCal and Liam are right up there. All are big gamers and boss writers. Sammys alright rofl 🤣
@themcnoisy you know what’s funny ? you just listed them all in the correct order too so we actually agree! 😂😂 sammy shogun & quin are top 3 😂
@nomither6 @themcnoisy You two have me picturing the PS staff on collectable trading cards the way you're talking. "Aww, man, you have a ShogunRok? I'll trade you one of my mint condition Sammy's for your ShogunRok!"
@GADG3Tx87 Kaz was really the secret sauce of PS, I think. Tretton was amazing, but he, and then Layden only ran SCEA, not the whole of SCE. Kaz ran both at different times, and then Sony Corp itself. House took over from Kaz when he moved up. Those guys plus of course Shu have all been really fantastic and instrumental, but when you think of it Kaz being there was the constant the glued the whole thing together. Once he retired, a bean counter replaced him at the top, and Jim moved up at SIE....meh. From PS to the movie studios, Kaz was a product guy in the trenches. It makes such a huge difference.
@NEStalgia
Shu Yoshida has been on my mind a lot actually. I can see a day fast approaching towards his retirement. And when that day comes it's one more of the old guard still passionate about the brand and gaming in general at it's good old fashioned values we'll lose. He (to my knowledge) is working closely with indie developers now and less involved with bigger events at PlayStation.
He's done a lot of good over the years and I put him up there near the realm of the late Satoro Iwata. Absolutely miss that guy.
Subscriptions have their place, but they're not going to replace traditional game releases, and I don't necessarily know that making a subscription service the entirety of your brand identity is necessarily a good idea.
I do think Game Pass subs will pick up if/when Microsoft ever decides to start releasing exciting games, though. At the moment, it's a low-cost sub for indies and older AAA titles, which isn't a terrible thing, but also not fundamentally game-changing for most people.
Funny how the media-worm has started to turn since I changed my push square avatar to flyingjimryan! 😎
I think multiple ways to play games can co-exist for the many play types. That includes mobile player, PC players, big screen recliner players, how many hours of play, backlog size, and how many different games are played per year.
What do I want? I still want physical copies of large file AAA games, and with it playable without a mandatory download. None of that the disc is just a key noise.
For game subs like Plus I enjoy the supplement of games for the price. Streaming is nice especially to get a taste before downloading if that is optional. I also want dlc and game capture which are not available with streaming, dlc is only available if already included in both streaming and download. Fallout 3 and New Vegas are only half a game without the dlc.
Like mentioned by others there is only so much time, more games does not equal more time. Plus like netfix is scrolling through lots of no's to find a yes, and if there were more yes's then there is no more hours in a day to play/watch.
Overall I see a future of all digital, download and streaming. Physical may only exist for a small niche market. Gaming will go the same path that music and video took. The only question then will be how many subs will we need, how much the cost, and how many will be downloadable. Will purchase of an individual game still exist for those that want guaranteed availability for replays.
Great article, I really enjoyed reading it. I think you guys are doing a great job and I also really enjoy the polls you put out there.
@GADG3Tx87 +1, I actually bought cult of the lamb purely to get the Shu digital bobblehead. He's truly a legend. Him, Kaz, Iwata, Miyamoto, despite his faults even Yves... These guys are part of the games and the experience, not just businessmen peddling goods to bolster share price. I too worry about the day he retires... And Nintendo just isn't Nintendo without Iwata, either. When Miyamito retires (assuming he's not a very lifelike robot, which with his intending energy of a5 year old, he may well be ) I think the soul of that company retires with him.
@FenIsMightier You beat me. You honest to goodness beat me. I never thought anyone would beat my multipart post length but here it is! 😂
You will own nothing and be happy
It depends on what you are considering "the future."
These services will continue to grow and be a part of the equation but won't be how all games are released.
Not sure why you ever thought it was. I still haven't touched those 2 other crappy temporary game tier Plus subs.
Oh wait, "the GAME PASS style Plus subs that Sony copied"........... and that I ironically want nothing to do with, just like Xbox in general the past 2 decades.
Well said, Sammy. I do think subscription services provide great value for a lot of gamers, and will have a place for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, they are not exactly friendly to many publishers, at least at current price points.
What makes the most sense to me is a Netflix-style library of older titles that can be downloaded / streamed and which are always available to enjoy, rather than the current "rotation" of games that come and go.
@get2sammyb Been saying this for the past few years now, Netflix of gaming is not actually that desirable. It's not how I consume the medium, and the majority of the user base represents me, as I've grown less and less of an enthusiast as family/life eat up much more of my free time than my teenage years when I could easily beat 10-15 titles a year.
To me, Gamepass is just MS trying to use their enormous funds to see if something sticks. If it fails, it is literally a drop in the bucket for a company of that size. If you study the market, it never made much sense as a disruptor.
I think the next innovation in gaming will be development. The time to get ideas into playable entertainment is too long. If I could play GOW:R on my Ipad without any lag and a Dualsense, that might be disruptive. Games as big as TLOU2 getting done in 2 years because of advanced tools and AI, that's disruptive. A catalog of games on a sub? Nah...
Well i'm not huge fan of subscriptions but they are better for the consumer over 80-90€ AAA games. These prices are just absurb
I thoroughly enjoyed this read - I found it to be an intelligent opinion piece and that compelled me to check the author. After I saw the name I thought: Some day. Some time. Over the rainbow and back again, it will be the name "Liam" I encounter hanging over a piece of intelligent writing, hovering like a beacon of light. But it is not this day.
I’m on the fence here. Although a completely different form of medium, I was SO against Spotify and music streaming when it first started making waves. I owned so much music physically and digitally and felt there was no way on earth that subscription services could ever replace that, but how wrong I was. I absolutely love Spotify and its convenience, and it doesn’t appear to be going anywhere soon.
I do think the same could happen for games, which in some sense is sad. In a world where Cloud technology actually works well, that is when I see gaming subscriptions really excelling. That’s a long way away but I think it’s written in the stars, although I hope I’m wrong.
At the current price of games, subscriptions are the right choice in 2 situations:
1. Like this article says, we are playing few games in a month, but there are so many games out there that will not get a chance just because we will not pay for them to try the or because we will not install a demo just to try them, or we don't google them to see what they are about. So many companies (usually small) will not get a chance to make some money so they may die. Not every game is the best. Also new companies may not make the first game a AAA... So subscription is a way to make some money. Also if you like a game and got the money you can buy it to help the producer.
2. There are still many poor country's where people only play a few fames and where even the subscription may be high price. So in those country's to buy a single 80 Euros/Dolars game is to much. But to pay 100 Euro for a subscription whit hundreds of games for a year makes alot of sense.
I think this article is written from the point of those that have money and ar buying more then 5 games a year at over 50Euro each. But for the rest where I think is the majority of Playstation console users 1 game over 50 Euro a year may be a lot. So Sony more that Microsoft because of the larger availability may see this in their charts. There are still many which see PSPlus extra as to much to pay, but adding games takes that away.
There was a moment, I thought I'd up my sub to extra, but then I realised I have enough backlog to keep me for a year of playing. And also I don't want additional little axiety that I could miss on a game which is good, but could leave the service soon, or my sub running out etc.
Basically, why would I rent a catalogue of games if I don't have time for them?
Heavy discounted sales represent better value for money, than a sub, because game stays in your library.
To sum it up: ownership is better than renting. Edit: for the games, at least.
I've said from the start that Gamepass is a fun gimmick. No more and no less. But you hardly gain any profit that way. If you see that a Horizon Forbidden west already costs 100 million to make. How do you ever want to earn that back with a gamepass ps plus model?
Cloud is likely to be an Entry point for Gamers - it doesn't require the investment of Hardware and can be accessed basically anywhere - like Netflix or Disney+. That means that 'more' gamers can play 'Premium' games that require powerful Hardware to run..
Dedicated and/or eSport gamers would not want the associated 'downsides' of Cloud - increased Latency/Lag, compression artefacts etc and would rather 'buy' hardware to offer the 'best' PQ, Performance and/or the option to tweak settings etc.
Its like Music/Film - maybe the 'bulk' of people will use Streaming for their games, like they do for Music/Film, but there will always be a group that prefer the Quality offered by the best Hardware delivering the 'best' sound/PQ that you can't get via Streaming. They may prefer the sound of Vinyl running through their Hi-Fi with real Valve amps for example, the quality of Blurays through their Home Cinema set-up...
There will be gamers that want the 'very' best - not settle for the 'entry' level experience just because its 'more' affordable in general...
@dimi
Just search or wait a while. I've never bought a game for €80 before. And no one is obliged to buy a game upon release. It is still your own choice.
In gamings current form I can understand why people are debating it. Just like people thought that iTunes & Netflix wouldn't take off. Only time will tell if it's the future. But one advantage of subscription & cloud gaming is in the future it will make gaming more accessible like music & movies currently are. Look how mobile gaming sky rocketed when you lower the barrier. Microsoft celebrated at having 120 million active users up from 40 million in 2016 also.
@TommyNL If a game costs $100m to make and you have 25m+ Subscribers paying $10+ a month, that's $250m a month coming in to pay for that game.
A game like Horizon:FW was made over 5yrs - an average of $20m per year (Salaries, overheads etc) or $1.67m a month - considering you have $250m coming in from 'subs' alone (not including money coming in from Sales and all the other income sources), its a 'small' fraction of the 'cost'.
If you say it costs around $2-2.5m a month per Studio to make a game, you can literally fund 100 studios with the Subscription. $250m coming in from Subscribers and that being used to pay ALL the Studios making games so by the time it releases, its already 'paid' for, already funded with no need to sell to recoup those costs. Of course with MS, they need some of that Sub money to pay 3rd Parties to put their games in Subscriptions too so they can't run a 100 studios in reality - but that's the principal.
You are getting people to 'pay' for those games to be 'made' by Subscribing so you get them when they are 'released'. That 25m in Game Pass would give MS $3bn a year and if 'games' are costing 100m to make, that's technically 30 games a year paid for in advance so that when they release, any sales are 'pure' profit - they don't need to sell 5m to recoup their costs...
A different business model - service based, which is what MS have switched to, but Sony are a Sales based business and Subs affect Sales, won't get the Sales figures or be the 'best' selling games - even if it means not being the most played games. 10m sales vs 25m players in your game. Not saying one is better than another, just a 'different' business model and approach to how games can be funded in a Sub model versus Sales
This was a great read, @get2sammyb! One thing you said really stuck with me: “I am an enthusiast who spends as much of my free time as possible playing games. If even I can’t find value in a limitless library of software, then spare a thought for the more mainstream consumer.” This is so spot on.
Edit: I have a question for you. What if—hypothetically—the industry started putting out more games that had shorter (10-15hr) main storylines? Would that make the subscription service a more viable business model? Speaking for myself, I would love to see shorter games anyway. It seems games just keep getting longer and longer. I don’t necessarily think that’s a good trend. I’d much rather play a polished 10hr game than sink 40hrs into a game with a lot of bloat. Sometimes less is more.
@BAMozzy
Yes that makes sense. Only there are not 25 million users who pay € 10 per month. Not by a long shot. And that 100 million is only 1 game, right? You simply don't get any profit from such a service, I think.
@TommyNL Microsoft just announced they made nearly $1billion in a quarter on subscriptions alone. Add additional sales on top, Battle Pass's, skins, etc.
Unfortunately far too late for this.
Everyone who adopted and encouraged subscriptions from the beginning and throughout have helped cause the situation we’re now in.
If PS adopted a GamePass structure, the industry would be doomed. GamePass is the death of gaming, just people still don’t want to admit it
I think how it works now is just fine. You can play some new games paying their full price or some random and mainly 1-2 year old games using a subscription. Combining both ways is a win win for both sides I believe.
It also makes owning more than one console more manageable also. As you can buy games for your preferred main console & take out a subscription for the other. So if your main console is a PlayStation you could buy a series S & Games Pass for the bulk of Xbox exclusives while giving you more money to spend on PlayStation games.
If it is gonna end up being the future of gaming, it would be on consoles because no way PC players will accept it as the norm. The big selling point having your games on PC is being able to alter them. With streaming, you lose all control.
But even then, I do not think console players want this either.
@TommyNL The majority are paying $10 as they stopped the $1 intro for a Month deal and those on Xbox Consoles are more likely to pay $15 a month for Game Pass Ultimate as that also includes 'Gold' which is necessary for Online gaming. I expect there are some who get Game Pass for less than $10, but I think that's offset by GPU subs etc so I went for an 'average' of $10 to keep math's a bit easier for illustrative purposes.
As I said, Horizon cost 100m over the course of 'years' - an average of just 20m a year over 5yrs or an average of less than 2m a month. If that is 'average' and you are bringing in 200m a month from 25m+ subscribers (less than $10 a month per person) that's still a 100x more money coming in than you are paying out to that studio to make that game.
If it brings in $2.4bn a year, ($200m a month), that's still enough to pay for 24 H:FW a year if they cost 100m each to make. And that's ALL without considering any additional income from all those 'Sales' of games, accessories, hardware etc coming in from non-Game Pass subscribers and of course all the sales of games not in Game Pass - which MS also get a 'cut' of too.
Its just a different way of funding games - its not invest in product over 5yrs, put it out to Sell to recuperate the investment. Subs can pay for those games to be developed so that when they release, they can access them free. All others still have to buy and if you want to 'keep' a game, regardless of Subscription, you still have to 'buy' anyway - but the point is, if you have 200m coming in a month, that's 2 AAA games fully 'paid' for every month without considering any other income source...
I am identifying myslef with this idea. I am enthusiast as well but i have other hobbies and last year i finished 7 games which non of the was big one world game. This year it will be more probably but not by much. Since i don't have a time to play anythong i choose games i want to play the most and they are not in subscription services.
@ShogunRok most of the people most vocal online about the “value” of GPU don’t pay 10.99 a month. They use the upgrade exploit and pay £3.50 or use points and get it free. (Which is way way to much like hard work) I have GPU at £3.5 but no way I pay 10 quid. Same with top PS tier. I stacked cheap subs before and got the upgrade for a few years. I won’t be paying 10 quid plus a month. I’ll buy what I want to play after that.
@BAMozzy what no?!
Games pass/ps has 400+ games. That £10 per month per person is split across those games. The whole 25m x£10 is used to pay for all these games plus the costs of running the service.
The income doesn’t just go on Sony/MS own games, they have to pay for all the third party on there that’s not free.
For my personal experience, subscriptions are only worth it if you have them on console, and by that I mean streaming subscriptions are going nowhere and is why gamepass has halted. Gamepass will only grow when they sell more and more consoles (or on PC).
I say this because I use gamepass on mobile and the experience hasn't been the best, to a pint I just can't be bothered with it anymore. First of all the resolution being set at 720p on mobile is not good enough, games look blurry at times and it's hard to see things in the distance making playing shooters like Battlefield 2042 and Call of duty unplayable.
Then there's the fact touch screen controls are damn awful and no one wants to play console games like that it's awkward as hell, so you have to attach a controller which means all these people trying gamepass on mobile have to spend £45+ just to try it properly or even more on proper accessories like the backbone one or kishi. But even then when using a normal controller via Bluetooth there is input lag which is not great for online games, same will happen when it comes to TV streaming. Pair that with Bluetooth headphones which I've tried three different pairs and all of them have audio delay, playing gamepass on mobile is just not good enough unless you spend £100 on a backbone one.
This is why gamepass has stopped growing even though its on mobile/TV with a possible billion players, same would happen if playstation made a mobile streaming app as well, the only people interested in these subscriptions are those with consoles/PC so they can download their games and have a proper experience playing console games without lag and audio delay and awkward controls.
I can imagine genre or publisher specific subscriptions working. Eg I think I would pay for a Wholesome Games subscription.
@PsBoxSwitchOwner What you are forgetting is a LOT of the games are 'OLD' games that have already been sold and/or recuperated their costs. You don't get 400+ 'NEW' games into a service every month and MS isn't paying the FULL cost of Game to put it in Game Pass - apart from their OWN games.
As I showed, you have 'enough' money coming in to keep your Studio's open and working on Games. H:FW for example took 5yrs to make which works out at less than 2m a month to make that game. If you have 30 studios, all costing around 2m a month to keep open and salaries paid, that's '60m' a month out of your 200m coming in every month - that's still a 'huge' chunk of change left over to pay 3rd Parties to put their games into Game Pass.
Once they are added, the 'next' month for example is funding continued development (another 60m) and whatever 'new' games come to the service. The OLD games are 'paid' for already to get them on the service in the first place. They aren't continuing to pay to keep HI, FH5, MSFS, HFR etc in Game Pass for example.
Don't forget that NOT every game comes to Game Pass so they are still earning income from Sales of games, Accessories etc too - just like Sony. They still get their cut from ALL games sold too.
Of the 450+ games in a service, you only need to look at how many new games come each month. Most are 'small' budget and/or OLD games that have been available to buy, already recuperated most/all of the investment costs for the Publisher and the Service represents a chance to increase their Profit margin and bring in players who may spend money on MTX, DLC etc - players that wouldn't have bought/played so its still 'extra' income to help increase profits for 3rd Parties...
For some, it maybe the fact that having 20m playing actually benefits them far more than 3m who paid $70 to play - especially for Online matchmaking and the lowest ping/latency...
@JaxxDuffer Games Pass came after PlayStation Now though 😵
Even with little to no first party titles last year from Microsoft. Content & services grew 3% year over year which was due to Games Pass growth.
@Jaz007 you say it's unsustainable. But thats why Microsoft is doing deals with everyone under the sun as they'll get money off licencing, sales on there platforms & others, battle passes, dlc etc. Microsoft has deals with comic firms like Dark Horse for Sea of Thieves etc. Paramount TV has Halo.
Let’s hope not. Convincing people to pay for quantity gives far more scope for quality to drop and, like many, I simply don’t have time to play a high number of games anyway
as long as both are available i think its great i like buying games digitally and on disc and i like ps+ extra
as long as all options are available im happy
As a big physical-only person, seeing all this appreciation for physical games in the comments section brings a tear of joy to my eye.
Digital may take over as the main vehicle for consuming games eventually... but I don't ever see streaming being the only way to play. More of a side hustle than the main attraction so to speak.
The attach rate of 9.6 for the PS4 is some kind of record I think, it was normally much lower even than that! Crazy thought for those of us that buy hundreds of physical games every year.
As cool as subscriptions can be, I like to buy games on sale so I can play them at my pace. Xbox sorta does it right bc they own so many studios…sticking with GamePass for at least the end of the year. Not sure if I continue after that. If u are selective and patient, you can own some great games very inexpensively. Tht said, I do like that u can try out games that you normally might not have tried before…
Just do something with Blue-Ray Discs. Make the media carrier eco-friendly and not plastic.
I love to buy and own physical copies but just look at those... Disk is plastic and the whole package is also. Make them eco.
@BAMozzy you have no idea what they are paying per game. Most months there are around 10 new games added, so that’s at least 100 a year added. The day 1s will come at a pretty significant cost, this year alone that’s included monster hunter (traditionally a good seller) wo long, atomic heart. They are going to eat into any revenue.
I will stick to pay as you go for my games.
Just like taxes, it’s simple and easy.
I thought it was a great idea initially, but I can’t believe how much having a GamePass subscription has caused stress around my gaming habits. I found that most of the time I just “dabbled” with many games on GamePass and that took away from the joy of really getting into the meat of a game.
So I changed my habits. Unfortunately I still have a years worth of GamePass, but I stopped engaging with it. Now I only buy games when I’m really excited to play it the moment I get home AND can give considerable time to it in the coming weeks.
This has brought me a lot more joy. The only downside is there are a lot of games that have released this year that I REALLY want to play, but I have to be patient.
Personally, I was never going to go the subscription route for games. I’d rather pick them up on sale and accumulate a backlog that I can play at my leisure than pay for ANOTHER subscription, worrying if that game that I want to play will disappear one day (spoiler alert: it will).
@PsBoxSwitchOwner I know I don't know what they are paying '3rd' party Publishers - but the majority of 'new' games added are 'indies', low budget games made by 'small' studios with far less overheads and wages.
I can guarantee they are NOT paying the FULL cost of a AAA budget 3rd Party Game, not paying 100m 'per' game.
As I said, the money coming in is enough to keep open 100+ studios, each making games for Game Pass. If they had '30' studios, each requiring ~2m a month to keep making games, then you still have a LOT of money coming in. Even if they paid 5m per game, that's still a LOT of games that month they could add. Every Month, they have around $250m coming in from just subscriptions. 25 studios at $2m a month is 50m allowing $200m a month to pay Publishers to put their games in Game Pass. They aren't paying the 'full' cost, so every sale is 'pure' profit. They will get some of their money back from sales from all those 'non-subscribers' and other platforms too so its not paying the FULL 100m it cost EA, Ubisoft etc to make those games.
Anyway, the point is that Game Pass can bring in enough revenue to put their OWN games in day/date so that they don't 'need' to sell a single copy to be 'profitable'. That's without considering ALL those who would still rather 'buy' so will still get Sales revenue too, as well as all the 3rd Party non-game pass games they Sell (30% goes to MS), as well as all the DLC/MTX extras in games (£30 to 'upgrade' to the Bite Back edition of Redfall, DLC packs in FH5, Season Passes/MTX in Sea of Thieves/Halo etc all bring in 'revenue' too. Its not 'Subs' or 'Sales'.
Games take time and so you don't 'need' $100m up front to make H:FW, over time, it ended up costing $100m about $2m a month on average. Probably around 2m a month to make Spider-Man 2, 2m a month to make God of War etc So if you have 30 studios, you 'need' $60m a month coming in so that when it releases, its already 'paid' for. If you don't, then you need to sell 'enough' copies to recuperate that investment.
250m a 'month' or 3bn a year (If HFW cost 100m, 3bn would buy you 30 HFWs EVERY year) yet you'll be lucky to get more than 5 AAA games so that still leaves another '25' they could 'buy' outright, or maybe 100+ smaller and/or 3rd Party games that you are paying a fraction of the cost (meaning they can sell far less and still be 'profitable' and get that 'money' up front - not wait for sales revenue to start coming in to set them up well for their next project)
If they don't want to put their games in GP or MS think its not worth the 'cost' the 3rd Party expects, its not in Game Pass. It has to work for 'both'. With 25 studios costing about ~$2m a month to keep making games, that's $50m a month - yet have ~$250m a month coming in so have $200m to pay for 'indies' and maybe 1 or 2 'new AAA' 3rd Party games that month - that's still a LOT of money to cover 'Game Pass' costs. Some months they may not add 3rd Party games because their 'own' are ready too...
I don't believe in subscription model for ANYTHING, let alone gaming.
It results in having people keep paying with decreasing emotional connection. It's to the detriment of meaningful engagement, ultimately, a meaningful life.
I almost prefer the Essential games. At least if you keep the sub up on that, you don't have that fuzziness that they could disappear at any random time.
I've struggled with that aspect of the Extra library a lot more than I thought I would.
I fully agree @get2sammyb
I think that maybe Xbox see the future of gaming as subs and cloud though, but with monumental yearly sub fees, nothing like the kind of thing they offer today. Which is why they want to be the only real go to for those things 👹💰💲💵
For me, digital is the next real era we are in, and it's taken a very, very long time to get there. I myself never thought I'd stop using disks, but here I am having bought games I own on Disk, digitally as well, and not really using a disk to play a game for a few years now, really. But there are still a lot of people yet to convert, probably more than have not, and having a strong competitive online market place is hopefully the real drive behind the scenes now to get those people there. Plus you can provide streaming and subs in this area, or let people download and own in this way too, so it's all wrapped up in one neat digital gaming segment.
I definitely still like subs as a supplement to regular gaming, and for independent games and online games they are absolutely perfect and can help developers get great success from releasing to the masses, rather than just people who take a gamble, which can only help those developers in their future projects!
@get2sammyb you summed it up quite well, videogames and music/movies are entirely different entertainment mediums and are consumed in a very different way
@SgtTruth there is no comparison between them. PS plus offers a ***** ton more decent stuff than GP
I think Sony's words were correct - that it is just another small part of a product life cycle for devs/publishers. So it can exist to serve devs who want this phase introduced into their product life cycle, but otherwise it isn't something that can replace the traditional methods.
I very much treat it that way myself as a consumer, so far as the high end gaming is concerned. I don't know about the lower end, cheaper games though, especially on smartphones; there's a whole different balance there between the lower production cost and non-committal consumer behavior. So it may or may not be more viable, I'm not sure.
Pretty much. Most of us already have huge backlogs of things we'd like to play. What is the point of adding more to it with games you are even less likely to play? At best these are glorified demo services where you can try out a game for curiosity sake.
I totally agree as I've been saying this from day one. Now, the big question is: what is Microsoft going to do? They've gone too deep down that path, and are now seemingly realizing the mistake they made. The change of tone has been remarkable as of late.
The obvious approach would be to gradually reverse course. The problema is that a few decisions they made are really hard to turn around, with the main one being day 1 releases. And there's the whole ABK deal, a ridiculous $69 billion bet on the subscription model.
On the other hand, they clearly can't compete head-to-head with Sony. Not without profound changes in the Xbox division.
At the end of the day, it's funny how the narrative has completely shifted from the start of this generation to now.
I do think it can work, just not at a price $19.99 a month.
Getting small indie games to fill the library is nice, but, if we want to get those juicy AAA is just not going to happen consistently or quality wise. Unless, they can water down a AAA game.
@SgtTruth my sub is for playing online and also the chance that games I think about picking up but don’t may come to tbe service. I always buy the big exclusives as I think devs deserve a fair price for their work ygm
@Sakai I grew up in the days of VHS, cassettes & record players... those were the days when the newest film had to be bought 9 month after the release at the cinema
The future of gaming is cloud and mobile, Micro transactions online service games and NFT's.. no consoles or single player games in 15 years..
Lol at these part time accountants in the comments trying to prove Gamepass isn’t a loss-leader in same way I lol at those part time market regulator’s in comments sections passed trying to prove the deal being accepted was a formality. They all talk with so much conviction… but have absolutely zero knowledge or experience to back their nonsense up with 🥸
@Sakai "Mobile, console, pc, streaming all under 1 subscription." your funny bro, there's like 10 different streaming options for movies and series alone but you seem to think will have one for everything, keep dreaming bro
@Ephexis83 oh yes. Do you remember how long it was before Jurassic Park came to tv after it’s cinema premier?? About 3 years? 😭😭😭😭
@LordBakemono gamepass ultimate already exists and works on PC, mobile streaming and console. And in the future, I think more companies will follow this model of a unified subscription that works across various devices. I don't have to dream, it's already here lol
Single player games forever.word up son
So it’s like VR then? Not the future people claimed it to be, but will likely still have a niche in the market.
@nessisonett I agree with you! The cost of living and the cost of gaming is up their. I do see ps extra paying for its self just by playing 2 games because buying 1 game forn$75 is nearly the price of extra just $25 shy. Because of the cost of games you can't really afford too try anything different or take a chance on a new franchise that you stick with what franchises you know are going to be great. I think the gaming industry as a whole has shot its self in the foot with the close to a $100 mark up for a game. Because now you have to pick what you know best if that's your entrance off and on for a month to month.
The media also over-estimated the impact of VR/Metaverse...
So hopefully, Game Pass doesn't decimate the game industry.
Nintendo once said people won't value games if they're cheap, I think that's true.
Streaming & Game Pass are creating disposable homogenized subpar 'content'.
@Mikey856 Jackie Brown was pretty bad too lol
The only reason Microsoft could do the subscription service is they had very few big titles to offer each Year. I got to a point that I was waiting to see the price Microsoft would charge once the deal with Actavision/Blizzard closed. Could they pump 5+ AAA games a year and charge way under the current cost of $69.99 for each game? Or will we end up with $300.+ subscription services?
I think Game Pass is Microsoft's future in gaming. Not necessarily Sony's. Two different business models, both of which can work. At least for me. Buy most titles on PS5 while using the Series X for Game Pass.
Subscriptions other than PS Plus Essential are not for me. I rather buy a game and play it at my own pace. Don't have the time to play that much like when I was single with no kids. Consoles are the only way I'll keep playing games for now. Who knows, maybe everything will change 10, 15 years from now
@crazykcarter absolutely. That $69b could fund 230 God of War Ragnarok level games.
I dip in and out of ps plus on my ps5 and gamepass on my steamdeck. Like you said, there's so many games I want to play on there at some point but obviously not enough or I would of already bought them... There's so many games I'd like to play but I only have the time for my favourites. I do like the fact that when a new release comes out on xbox though I can buy a subscription for that month without dropping £70 to only play around 10 hours or so like I did with Hogwarts Legacy on my PS5 Digital. Good game but I loose interest quick, I'll get back to it at some point!
I definitely agree that gaming shouldn't be going the subscription future route.
I am subbed to PS Plus Extra/Premium and rarely ever use the service.
Yes, the business argument for Gamepass was it would dramatically expand the playerbase. That just hasn't happened.
If anything the people who buy subscription services are even more enthusiast than the existing game audience as a whole. I could never imagine a grandparent who perhaps had a Wii but nothing else subscribing to gamepass.
I've found myself buying games that I could have subscribed for. Pay £10 on a sale for a game I'm definitely going to play and will always own feels better than subscribing for a few months and being under time pressure to complete it.
@Art_Vandelay the big worry I have about Microsoft is a bunch of the studios they bought will get shuttered when they change their minds.
This has happened before. They're good owners whilst they're interested, but corporate winds shift and when they do you get things like Ensemble Studios being shut down, despite making great games.
@Suur how is it sadly that some only buy a PlayStation & Xbox only for subscriptions? There still contributing. It may not be for you or I to rely solely on. But if it means these people continuesly pay monthly we all benefit.
@Art_Vandelay how have Microsoft made a mistake with there current strategy. They went from 40million active users in 2016 before Games Pass to 120 million now. From a company that PlayStation users laugh at for having no games that's not a bad figure of active users.
Have to disagree: i think the ps plus premium tier is the future. Streaming A games I would normally not invest money on is really awesome. I find games i would normally never buy. So it enriches my gaming life.
Personally I'm a big fan of Gamepass. Tried out some games that I probably wouldn't have otherwise because they were there and ended up loving them.
@PapaGlitch
Agreed.
EDIT (This reply ended up being longer than I expected)
TLDR: I simply do not have the free time to play everything I want. Subscription services just make it harder than ever to actually finish games. They are good for some, but not all. Publishers are starting their own services now and soon enough it'll end up just like streaming TV/Movies.
Consumers will need to pay for multiple services as publishers will see its better to not release their games on someone elses service when they can just create their own for all the profits.
Original Reply:
I'll be 42 this September and I simply don't have enough free time to play everything, even the games I want. My backlog is enormous and it's only been exacerbated with my purchase of the Steam Deck.
I recall hearing one of the IGN Podcast Beyond members (either Justin or Sam) bring up his solution. If a game doesn't grab him in the first 3 hours, then he shelves it as it's not worth the time investment. I agree, it shouldn't take even half that time to get invested in a game. He's also come to terms with the fact he'll never complete his backlog and that he just has to make a decision on the games in said backlog that he deems worthy of his ever shrinking free time.
I've taken the same approach since hearing that. There are tons of games in my backlog I just know I'll never be able to finish. So I've made the decision to pick and choose the ones that I really want to finish and I feel are worth my limited free time to try and finish. Everything else I just tell myself was a poor spending decision.
Services like GamePass and PS+ only make matters worse. I simply cannot play all these games, and even back in my teens and early 20's when I had endless amounts of free time I would find it extremely challenging to finish most games.
My cheap $1 upgraded GamePass subscription has run out as I was just charged about $45 a month ago for GamePass where I seem to be in the charged quarterly plan. I can honestly count on one hand, the amount of games I've played on GamePass since I took advantage of the $1 upgrade around 3 years ago. Maybe a couple more, but definitely no more than 10 games in all that time.
I'm going to let GamePass go after my quarter is up. I just don't use it enough to justify the price. Same with PS+ Premium that I used deals to extend for a fraction of the price. Not to mention that PS+ Premium is definitely not worth the asking price. PS+ Extra seems to be the sweet spot, but I'll likely go back to the basic plan when my pre-paid subscription eventually ends in a couple more years.
Also, as you said, these game subscription services add up the more consoles a person owns. Plus, publishers like EA and Ubisoft have their own subscription services. These services are going have the same outcome that Netflix had. Companies will ask themselves why they are putting their games on someone else's service when they can just create their own service. Then will be in the same predicament we and over saturated amount of streaming services like Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, etc.
Been saying this since the beginning of all the subscription models coming in. Most people don't have enough time to play all these games and having too much choice can be stifling when trying to chose a game. I've got a huge library of unplayed PS+ games, why would I want to pay more for hundreds of even more games I'll never have the time to play? I only have PS+ cause you need it for online, if I could, I'd drop it in a heartbeat.
The number of games to play has never been an issue for most people, it's the quality and innovation in gameplay and AI that needs to be addressed.
I’ve had GamePass since I picked up a Series S last year. Honestly, having it bundled with Xbox Live is the main reason I kept it, and my daughter played Disney Dreamlight a lot.
That said, I don’t think I’ve played any games to completion, and I still buy the games I really want.
I don’t even play online…
I’m probably going to quit.
200th comment! Yay.
I did not see any really serious arguments in the article. Microsoft, EA and Ubisoft are already adding new games to subscriptions. Sony adds in a year, and sooner or later they will start adding on the day of release, because sales of new products are falling. Subscriptions are just more suitable for the mass player.
I cancelled my subscription a few months back after being subscribed to Plus for ten years. I did so for a number of reasons. From a financial perspective, it was no longer justifiable. I also have such a backlog, that access to more games just isn't necessary. With limited time to play games, I cannot commit to a game that might be removed from the service in a few month's time, especially if it is lengthy. The PS Collection is leaving the service, but if there was the guarantee of games that were to stay on the service permanently, then this would be more appealing.
Games from previous generations were a draw for me, but again, with a healthy physical collection on PS3 and PS2, as well as a handy PS Classic, I don't need access to titles from those systems. Again, if their stay on the service is guaranteed, then it might prove a reason to ditch the old physical systems.
I also simply do not like the tiered system. Granted, it offers choice for the user, but given that I have not been following the service that closely, it just appears as confusing. I also believe that Sony should offer cloud save storage as standard, without locking it behind a subscription.
I've decided to cancel most of the few subscription services that I have. I agree that it doesn't suit games as much as it does for music and films/TV. The shift to a subscription for everything has become somewhat tedious and tiresome. We coped before these services were available and its perfectly easy to enjoy media without them.
When there’s stuff you want on a subscription, it’s worth paying for- games, tv, films, cheese of the month. When you’ve experienced all they’ve got and don’t want to do the same thing then it’s pointless. The problem with games subscriptions (and TV) is they only work financially to games companies when they can get the maximum amount of subscribers for the minimum amount of fresh content. And with slowing development both PS and XB are having enough trouble finding a new triple A game to sell for seventy quid every month, let alone giving it away in the price of a subscription.
I buy a lot of games i think to many to be honest. And the weird thing I'm swamped to many games make gaming a chore a second job and thats not good. You feel like you need to finish everything and with a subscription it's even more games. And with the more expensive subscriptions you even get a time limit sounds even more horrible.
100% agree. I play 3 driving sims, none of which are on GP or equivalent. My son (a 3 hour a day gamer) plays Fortnite and Fifa.
Again neither on GP or equivalent.
GP is good for sampling the odd thing, e.g. a Plague Tale, where you wouldn't otherwise buy it, but not in my cse for 95% of the household gaming.
@ThomasHL This is true, but what happens in the end is that most of the people from these studios end up in other studios; either existing or new. The studios vanish, but the talent remains. And I don't see demand for games shrinking anytime soon, so those people will be fine.
@cragis0001 You're taking a single specific metric and failing to look at the big picture. What good is that growth when it does not translate financially?
Put all this together and see the big picture. I gotta say it spells troubled times ahead, my friend.
@Art_Vandelay an Xbox console is only one way in which to play there games though. Unlike PlayStation. The PS5 is still the best place to play there's until later this year & next when newer titles hit PC also. So it's understandable PlayStations sales are skyrocketing unlike Xbox's 30% decline year over year.
First party day 1 is Games Pass's main selling point & last year was slim pickings hence a 3% increase in subscriptions which could have been a lot worse. Still nearly $1 billion last quarter though.
As for Xbox users not buying games. There are plenty that do. Add the games being sold on PC with some on Switch, PS5. There recent 10 year deals on other platforms bringing in money. As for 3rd party games they get plenty of choice. Normal sales via retailer/ Xbox store or do a deal with Microsoft that works for them to be put on Games Pass or all the above.
I understand why Microsoft wants ABK but can see positives if it doesn't go through as it forces them to improve & invest across the board, management being badly needed to get games out the door.
@get2sammyb Microsoft will be hoping those Call of Duty players stick around and try something else as it wouldn't be costing them anything extra which then lumps them in for another month.
Personally I don't like what the sub model has done to even Microsoft's first party games. Look at the way Forza Horizon, despite being playable 100% offline has morphed into an ongoing service title with constant updates to drive subscriptions.
I disagree. Game pass grew from little over a million to nearly 30 million subscribers after they made the change to release day one exclusives. Many gamers love the value it provides. Lets say you only pay for two full price games a year or just 4 discounted games. That would be equivalent to a whole year of game pass. Even less when you start to take into account the number deals workarounds to get the price lower. Over 250 games is released ever year. Even playing just a few of those titles will cover the price of the sub. Its a value proposition.
@PapaGlitch You are not meant to play everything on game pass. That's impossible. You have to pick your titles you want to complete. I feel its like a sweepstakes where the sponsor gives you one 5 minutes to get anything you want in the store. Some people will go for the high value AAA titles even if they are not interested in it just to say that tried it. Others will go for what they want.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...