• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Companies should stop being anti-consumer with subscription services (gamepass/spartacus)

fart town usa

Gold Member
every time i see gamepass posts i think the same thing, always reads like an ad :messenger_tears_of_joy:
Seriously. It'd be like getting into an argument over Netflix and Hulu. lol.

Angry Harrison Ford GIF
 

TidusYuna

Member
In general, Digital games and gaas are anti-consumer because they take ownership away from the consumer. You don't truly own your games anymore if you purchase digital or gaas. The hook is the deal is good because you are able to play so many games at a cheaper subscription price but you never actually own any of these games, you are renting them. You are saving money for these companies because they no longer have to produce physical media and that is why these companies would prefer an all digital and gaas industry. Because they would own the rights to these games even after you purchase them.

So if you are a gamer who only uses gaas because you believe you are saving, at the end of the generation, lets say you are either subscribed to either gamepass or spartacus and lets assume both cost $15 dollars a month. Lets assume you are a gamer subscribed to one of these services for the entirety of the 9th generation and you don't purchase physical media. Lets assume this generation lasts 8 years. $15 for 12 months meaning you are paying $180 a year. $180 a year for 8 years(assuming this generations lasts 8 years) would bring you out to spending $1440 for the generation with nothing to really show for it. & you have to keep spending money in order to access those games you previously played because you never truly own them. & many of those third party games and Indie games will have been removed from these subscription services. Meaning some of those games you can no longer access if you wanted to go back to them without purchasing them.

Meanwhile, physical media collectors still own their physical games. Not only that, 95% of these games will have gone up in value and can be resold for profit. Meaning you can get back every dollar you spent the previous generation and more. The value of physical games tends to go up the older they get.

For example, looking through my backlog of physical games. I have a brand new copy of Dragon Quest VIII for the 3ds. When I originally purchased it, I got it around $30 dollars. The launch retail price was $40. This game currently sales for $100 and up used (opened) and $150 and up brand new (sealed). Castlevania Order of Ecclessia cost me $30 dollars on the DS new. It now goes for $100 dollars and up used and $200 and up brand new. Attack on Titan 2: The Final Battle cost me $30 dollars New. It now goes for $170 and up used and $350 and up brand new. You get the idea.

So while everyone is claiming they are "Saving" on gaas, in the end, physical collectors are the ones who are really saving their money. I can sell 1/4 of the games I have purchased over my years as being a gamer and get back every dollar I spent on gaming and still keep 75% of my collection. Now currently, I have no intention of selling games in my collection. But as a physical collector, the point is that option is available to me. My purchases have value that will only appreciate over time(increase in value.) & because the gaming Industry is currently being dominated by digital gaming and possibly gaas in the future, the value of physical media is going to go up even more when these companies decide to hit the switch and no longer produce physical media because of the popularity of digital gaming and gaas models.

Now I'm not going to tell anyone else how to spend their money, if you see digital media and gaas as a better value, knock your selves out. I do purchase digital games when that is the only option available for the game. But just understand that the consumer is not truly saving when it comes to digital and gaas, these companies are the ones who are saving by taking away your ownership.
 
Last edited:

LordBlodgett

Gold Member
Give me more subscription services, not less!

More competition means better deals and games as companies compete for my time and money

TV/Movie streaming has been incredibly good for the industry and the consumer both. No more bloated cable bills, no more ridiculous cable/satellite packages filled with tons of crap, no more commercials, no more DVR, no more contracts with huge termination fees. Subscribe or cancel as you wish, with more content than ever before, all at low prices.....bring on the game subscription services!
 

LordBlodgett

Gold Member
In general, Digital games and gaas are anti-consumer because they take ownership away from the consumer. You don't truly own your games anymore if you purchase digital or gaas. The hook is the deal is good because you are able to play so many games at a cheaper subscription price but you never actually own any of these games, you are renting them. You are saving money for these companies because they no longer have to produce physical media and that is why these companies would prefer an all digital and gaas industry. Because they would own the rights to these games even after you purchase them.

So if you are a gamer who only uses gaas because you believe you are saving, at the end of the generation, lets say you are either subscribed to either gamepass or spartacus and lets assume both cost $15 dollars a month. Lets assume you are a gamer subscribed to one of these services for the entirety of the 9th generation and you don't purchase physical media. Lets assume this generation lasts 8 years. $15 for 12 months meaning you are paying $180 a year. $180 a year for 8 years(assuming this generations lasts 8 years) would bring you out to spending $1440 for the generation with nothing to really show for it. & you have to keep spending money in order to access those games you previously played because you never truly own them. & many of those third party games and Indie games will have been removed from these subscription services. Meaning some of those games you can no longer access if you wanted to go back to them without purchasing them.

Meanwhile, physical media collectors still own their physical games. Not only that, 95% of these games will have gone up in value and can be resold for profit. Meaning you can get back every dollar you spent the previous generation and more. The value of physical games tends to go up the older they get.

For example, looking through my backlog of physical games. I have a brand new copy of Dragon Quest VIII for the 3ds. When I originally purchased it, I got it around $30 dollars. The launch retail price was $40. This game currently sales for $100 and up used (opened) and $150 and up brand new (sealed). Castlevania Order of Ecclessia cost me $30 dollars on the DS new. It now goes for $100 dollars and up used and $200 and up brand new. Attack on Titan 2: The Final Battle cost me $30 dollars New. It now goes for $170 and up used and $350 and up brand new. You get the idea.

So while everyone is claiming they are "Saving" on gaas, in the end, physical collectors are the ones who are really saving their money. I can sell 1/4 of the games I have purchased over my years as being a gamer and get back every dollar I spent on gaming and still keep 75% of my collection. Now currently, I have no intention of selling games in my collection. But as a physical collector, the point is that option is available to me. My purchases have value that will only appreciate over time(increase in value.) & because the gaming Industry is currently being dominated by digital gaming and possibly gaas in the future, the value of physical media is going to go up even more when these companies decide to hit the switch and no longer produce physical media because of the popularity of digital gaming and gaas models.

Now I'm not going to tell anyone else how to spend their money, if you see digital media and gaas as a better value, knock your selves out. I do purchase digital games when that is the only option available for the game. But just understand that the consumer is not truly saving when it comes to digital and gaas, these companies are the ones who are saving by taking away your ownership.
How long do you have to wait for those physical games to be worth something decent?

If you are trying to tell me that the physical game you bought for $30 is now worth more than you paid them you are talking 15+ years or more, and even then probably just for certain well liked games in amazing condition on platforms where a digital copy does not exist. Go look at the ridiculously low prices for most Xbox One, 360, or PS4 games on Ebay and you'll see what I mean.

I play games for fun, not to collect. Same as TV or movies honestly
 

Fbh

Member
The premise of the thread I understood was that moving away from owning the console + the game disc with the data for the game was better than renting access to the game on a computer you don't own for a limited time over an also payed internet connection.

Though this may open the market for new players, those players by and large will be competing in the streaming format, which is covered above.

The premise of the thread is that OP considers various big publishers having their own subscription services to be anti consumer. Instead of Sony, MS, Ubisoft, Amazon, etc having their own service, he wants everyone to work with Microsoft and have Gamepass be the only subscription service available.

That might sound nice on paper but it's not something anyone should actually want. Competition is good for the consumer, having these big companies fighting for your time and money is one of the main factors fueling many of their "pro consumer" practices. Op is the only person I've seen basically arguing that letting a single company have a monopoly is somehow going to result in it being pro consumer.
 

TidusYuna

Member
How long do you have to wait for those physical games to be worth something decent?

If you are trying to tell me that the physical game you bought for $30 is now worth more than you paid them you are talking 15+ years or more, and even then probably just for certain well liked games in amazing condition on platforms where a digital copy does not exist. Go look at the ridiculously low prices for most Xbox One, 360, or PS4 games on Ebay and you'll see what I mean.

I play games for fun, not to collect. Same as TV or movies honestly

I hear ya. I play games for fun too, don't intend to sell. Any game I purchase I intend on playing at some point, just built up a large backlog mainly due to the fact time is more of the issue in gaming these days, for me anyways. There are just so many great games on all the platforms these days and not enough time to play them. Especially if you are a fan of RPGs. & the good thing about building a backlog is you always have something to play, so you save. You don't have to get every game day 1, i rarely buy games day one these days, unless it is something I really want to play or a company i want to support.

& you don't have to wait 15+ years for games to increase in value. One of the games i listed was Attack on Titan 2 final battle which came out in (2019), only 3 years ago. That game which was released july 4, 2019 is up to $170 used (open) and $350 brand new (sealed) these are ebay prices as well and digital versions are available. Another games that was re-released on 2019 on the PS4 was Trails of Cold Steel which i purchased for $30 that currently goes for $150-200 new, digital version is available. I did not purchase these game with the hopes of collecting money, I don't intend to sell my physical collection. The point i am making with physical purchases is my purchases have value. I can sell my physical purchases and get my money back. They are tangible. The value of these physical games will continue to rise.You cannot do that with money spent on digital games and years of paying a subscription. You cannot resale your digital games or gaas games because you don't truly own them. Like I said I'm not telling anyone how to spend their money. If you prefer digital or gaas models, it is your money, spend it how you see fit. But if you are truly into saving you money, then physical is the way to go.

The prices do depend on the game. So 1st party games from Microsoft and Sony don't go up as quickly, depends on the game really. But they do go up. Nintendo 1st party games tend to go up much faster than Sony and Microsoft. But again, the industry is shifting. Unfortunately physical gaming are being produced less, that isn't just covid related. These companies are trying to shift towards digital and gaas. So yea, even those cheap games on ebay are going to rise in value when they hit the switch on everyone. It is the value of games in the future that are going to decrease due to being digital and gaas.
 
Last edited:

LordBlodgett

Gold Member
I'm a little shocked by those prices! I guess that's what I get for ignoring the physical market for the last few years 😆

Anyways, to each their own. I don't dislike physical or collecting, its just not the way I consume anymore. I still am of the mindset that subscription services are a good thing, and Gamepass has been excellent for me, but I also understand it doesn't make a ton of sense for some
 

Roni

Member
The premise of the thread is that OP considers various big publishers having their own subscription services to be anti consumer. Instead of Sony, MS, Ubisoft, Amazon, etc having their own service, he wants everyone to work with Microsoft and have Gamepass be the only subscription service available.

That might sound nice on paper but it's not something anyone should actually want. Competition is good for the consumer, having these big companies fighting for your time and money is one of the main factors fueling many of their "pro consumer" practices. Op is the only person I've seen basically arguing that letting a single company have a monopoly is somehow going to result in it being pro consumer.
you're right, I remember now, I was pointing out shit was actually way worse than he assumes so worrying about this is pointless. so high I had to go back to op lol
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Fbh

Swift_Star

Member
Gamepass in its current state is a subscription that values your money a lot.

Microsoft first party titles day one, and a big catalogue of third party games. Some are even there day one.

Sony now wants their own subscription, which is understandable given the success with game pass, but this will hurt these subscription based services.

Just like are seeing both Microsoft and Sony acquiring companies to the left and right, we will now see the same that happened into TV streaming series.

Netflix had everything at the beginning. Then hbo and Disney wanted to make their own services to gain 100 percent revenue.

I am pretty certain, that Microsoft and Sony will not only pay for day one third party games on their services, but probably also pay third party games to be exclusive on their services.

If Sony just accepted game pass on their platform and got a cut of the sub, purchases etc.

These companies should stop ruining this for the gamers. It's anti consuming and I am sick of it.
Maybe MS should accept PS+ on their systems, how about that?
 

gypsygib

Member
I literally don't know why people are freaking out about Game pass and Spartacus.
Both services are OPTIONAL! You can still chug along and buy individual games if you want. Nobody is forcing you to subscribe.
I think Gamepass is a great value. But with companies consolidating all the AAA talent in the industry to create a Duopoly, in the end consumers will have no control and likely no real ownership. There's just so much more money in subs.

Competing 3rd parties are the balancing factor in the industry. The majority of game sales are from 3rd parties and Sony and MS both win if everyone needs a MS and Sony subscription to play their "first party games" which would be the majority of AAA games in the industry. But if this is the way things are going, I can definitely think of worse companies establishing control.
 
If Sony delivers awesome value for 15 bucks I'll subscribe to their service, too. Bring it on.
So almost $400 a year and you're still tied to only whatever these two companies put on their service?

I'm not saying there aren't good games I want to play on GamePass. And I'm not saying there wouldn't be lots of good games on whatever Spartacus ends up being. But, I can guarantee it won't be everything - I'll still have to buy games on both PS5 and Series X. And that's not even accounting for Switch.

And if we are paying $400 a year for two subscriptions, will we still call games we play on those services "free"?
 

dotnotbot

Member
So almost $400 a year and you're still tied to only whatever these two companies put on their service?

I'm not saying there aren't good games I want to play on GamePass. And I'm not saying there wouldn't be lots of good games on whatever Spartacus ends up being. But, I can guarantee it won't be everything - I'll still have to buy games on both PS5 and Series X. And that's not even accounting for Switch.

And if we are paying $400 a year for two subscriptions, will we still call games we play on those services "free"?

That's the greatest trick of subscription services - they'll convince you it's "just" 5, 10 or 20 $ monthly - sounds like a pocket change and most people fall for it, they're too dumb to count and sum up how much money they spend overall in a year for merely borrowing the content and playing/watching like 10% at most of what's available.

Now I'm not saying that it wouldn't be worth it for some people, but I know that a lot of them just type in the credit card details and forget it, spending a lot of money even while they're not using the service.
 
Last edited:
That's the greatest trick of subscription services - they'll convince you it's "just" 5, 10 or 20 $ monthly - sounds like a pocket change and most people fall for it, they're too dumb to count and sum up how much money they spend overall in a year for merely borrowing the content and playing/watching like 10% at most of what's available.

Now I'm not saying that it wouldn't be worth it for some people, but I know that a lot of them just type in the credit card details and forget it, spending a lot of money even while they're not using the service.

They wouldn’t be spending billions on it and taking so many losses if they didn’t think that eventually they could get more money out of you than you were paying before at 60 dollars a game.

People are just naive and love the immediate gratification of “free shit”
 

Nico_D

Member
Anti consumer seems to be one of those twitter things people throw around when they don't like something.

Game pass or anything isn't forced on you. It is optional. Hence it is not anti consumer.
 

Godot25

Member
I think Gamepass is a great value. But with companies consolidating all the AAA talent in the industry to create a Duopoly, in the end consumers will have no control and likely no real ownership. There's just so much more money in subs.

Competing 3rd parties are the balancing factor in the industry. The majority of game sales are from 3rd parties and Sony and MS both win if everyone needs a MS and Sony subscription to play their "first party games" which would be the majority of AAA games in the industry. But if this is the way things are going, I can definitely think of worse companies establishing control.
Gafers were telling me that subscription isn't that lucrative, because Microsoft can't make their first-party games Day One in Game Pass without drop in budget and quality. And suddenly now "there is so much money in subs?"

Game industry is literally imune to monopoly or duopoly. It does not require 100 million game budget to be successful. Fucking Valheim was made by 4 people and game sold more then many AAA games on market. And especially now is pretty easy for experienced devs to spun off and create their own studio and find funding. Mumbauer (from Sony VASG) and few other were fed up and created That's No Moon, Blizzard veterans created Frost Giant and Dreamhaven, former COD devs created Deviation, Jade Raymond created Haven etc.
Also you have big companies that will never be part of Microsoft/Sony, like Tencent, Netease and of course you have big publishers on the market right now like Take-Two, EA etc.

So I really think that these consolidation "worries" is just panic that people are spreading. When Sony buys someone, Xbox fans are "worried" When Microsoft buys someone, SOny fans are "worried" But their primary worry is that they won't see games from XYZ company on their platform of choice.
 
Last edited:

NinjaBoiX

Member
The only reason gamepass is great for it's users right now is that they're taking a "loss" in order to become the next Spotify or Netflix with a 100 million concurrent subscriber base. You're asking for the impossible.
Nah, that’s not true. I mean, I’ve just secured my Gamepass Ultimate until February 2025 for £3.22 a month, but I know that price is nowhere near sustainable.

It needs to be more like £15-20 a month, and I think I’d be happy to pay that with a broader library.
 

ReBurn

Gold Member
So almost $400 a year and you're still tied to only whatever these two companies put on their service?

I'm not saying there aren't good games I want to play on GamePass. And I'm not saying there wouldn't be lots of good games on whatever Spartacus ends up being. But, I can guarantee it won't be everything - I'll still have to buy games on both PS5 and Series X. And that's not even accounting for Switch.

And if we are paying $400 a year for two subscriptions, will we still call games we play on those services "free"?
I don't understand your response. I wouldn't be committed to $400 per year. I'd be committed to at most a month at a time. If there's nothing on the service I want to play I can cancel and pay nothing to play nothing on the subscription service. Then I can just buy something to play. Even if I do pay $400 per year is it worse to subscribe and do that than it is to pay $400 or more per year to buy copies of games just to play them once, maybe never finish them, and never play them again?
 

K2D

Member
Nah, that’s not true. I mean, I’ve just secured my Gamepass Ultimate until February 2025 for £3.22 a month, but I know that price is nowhere near sustainable.

It needs to be more like £15-20 a month, and I think I’d be happy to pay that with a broader library.
But hey, I'm talking as a guy who buys all his games. On sale, sure (9 out of 10) but my back log has been ay high since forever, so..

I'll conceit that having a subscription was gold during the early days of last console generation.

THis iz Anti-kons00mer!!1
Broken record, hah. Funny.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom