Support NeoGAF

[Amiga]

Fortza 5, gears 5, halo infinite, soon be starfield and more are AAA games being produced under the gamepass model...

We hear about them but don't play them. Several years and big XBox 1st party releases are sparse because of GP.

 

[GHG]

I'd rather save time not bothering to play stuff that isn't worthy of my time at all based on my tastes, but that's just me.

Time saved = money saved = a more fulfilling appreciation for my hobby

 

[Ev1L AuRoN]

I'm also needed to thank them for the amazing support they bring to the PC. Now I can do all my gaming on a single platform and don't feel left out of some content.

 

[feynoob]

"People who talk about quality dont have a clue about the industry. "
And got colored from metacritics fancy stupid words.

Those metacritic are destroying alot of people's view point.
In order to get high score, you need more reviewers giving high score to your game. If 2-4 of them gives you bad review, your score goes down.
That type of system doesn't determine the state of the game, especially with how people have different views.
We have seen publishers abuse it, case in point cyberpunk 2077, where they only sent them the good version, and gamers believed them.

I wish we can judge games based on how good they are.

 

[feynoob]

I'd rather save time not bothering to play stuff that isn't worthy of my time at all based on my tastes, but that's just me.

Time saved = money saved = a more fulfilling appreciation for my hobby

I think that is a narrow minded thinking. But that is your choice, and there is nothing wrong with it.

 

[GHG]

I think that is a narrow minded thinking. But that is your choice, and there is nothing wrong with it.

Nope. I have a personally curated libabry of well over 1000 games that I actually own. I've also been playing games long enough to know what I like and what level of quality I look for in a game in order for it to be acceptable for me to play.

I don't need a company to tell me what I should and shouldn't be playing via a model that strips me of ownership rights in a hobby I actually care about.

I have enough stuff that I own that I'm happy to play (or even replay) instead of having to resort to playing a bunch of (mostly) mediocre stuff via a subscription service.

I guess it's fine for people who don't have money but then there's an argument to be made about whether someone who doesn't even have enough money to be able to purchase a couple of games for themselves a month should be spending all their time playing videogames or not. It's almost (we'll, not almost, they actually are from a phycological standpoint) as if all of these gaming and TV subscription services are designed to keep people poor and indefinitely reliant on the services in order to keep on consuming content.

 

[64bitmodels]

I don't need a company to tell me what I should and shouldn't be playing via a model that strips me of ownership rights in a hobby I actually care about.

you aren't stripped of ownership by using a subscription model. You can still buy games. I bought games when I was subbed to gamepass. That's not being stripped of ownership, just having options.

I guess it's fine for people who don't have money but then there's an argument to be made about whether someone who doesn't even have enough money to be able to purchase a couple of games for themselves a month should be spending all their time playing videogames or not.

I'm sorry, but I really don't think gaming should be only an upper middle class hobby just because people can't seem to afford 70 dollar video games.

It's almost (we'll, not almost, they actually are from a phycological standpoint) as if all of these gaming and TV subscription services are designed to keep people poor and indefinitely reliant on the services in order to keep on consuming content.

again... there are options. People subscribed to them in the first place because the alternative is spending a crapton of money on ONE single game. And you're not FORCED to be subscribed to them. I cancelled my Netflix, Hulu, etc subscriptions a long ass while ago. Hell, i did the same for gamepass, actually, It's not something that's forced on you, like you seem to imply.

 

[feynoob]

I don't need a company to tell me what I should and shouldn't be playing via a model that strips me of ownership rights in a hobby I actually care about.

That is your mistake man. No one is stripping your ownership rights.
You can buy the game if you want to. No one is stopping you from that.
Any game on any subscription service can be bought, if you want to.

I have enough stuff that I own that I'm happy to play (or even replay) instead of having to resort to playing a bunch of (mostly) mediocre stuff via a subscription service.

That is just arrogance man.
I get that you have the ability to buy games, but why do you think of this notion?
Mostly mediocre games?
Sorry man, you are not Gordon Ramsay. You don't know how good the games are. Only those, which you yourself played that is only good for you.

You are making the wrong assumption that what you don't like is mediocre and not good enough. That is straight up wrong.
You don't need high quality to enjoy games. That is a narrow minded person. A simple game like vampire survivor is enjoyable and worth your time. It's not Ragnarok level of details and gameplay, but the fun and thrill is there.

I guess it's fine for people who don't have money but then there's an argument to be made about whether someone who doesn't even have enough money to be able to purchase a couple of games for themselves a month should be spending all their time playing videogames or not. It's almost (we'll, not almost, they actually are from a phycological standpoint) as if all of these gaming and TV subscription services are designed to keep people poor and indefinitely reliant on the services in order to keep on consuming content.

What do you thinks games are for?
They are meant to be played.
If you have both these services, you are only spending 1 month worth of game. That is relatively cheap in the long run, as your library is being added a lot of games.

What you really need to ask yourself is how much would I have to pay to play video games?
If a game on sale cost 20$, that means you have to buy 14 games that year, which would put you around $280 That is the poor way of buying games.
Each service cost $120(PS+) and 180$ (gamepass) a year. A poor person is spending more money, instead of subscribing to a service like this. Combining both services is beneficial to that person.

You are making people spend a lot of money on few games and denying them the opportunity to play a lot of games, by spending few money.
It's not our right to tell people that these games are garbage and shouldn't waste their time there. We don't share the same views as them. What you consider as garbage, might be a treasure to them.
Life is not the same for everyone. Games are distraction to some of us, while it's a hobby to others.

 

[GHG]

you aren't stripped of ownership by using a subscription model. You can still buy games. I bought games when I was subbed to gamepass. That's not being stripped of ownership, just having options.

I'm not disputing the fact that it's an option.

I'm sorry, but I really don't think gaming should be only an upper middle class hobby just because people can't seem to afford 70 dollar video games.

Games being 70 dollars does not make gaming an "upper middle class" hobby. Hundered of millions of working to middle class people around the world spend more than 70 dollars every single week down at their local pub/bar/club on alcohol and cigarettes. I repeat, every week.

Gaming does not even necessitate you spend 70 dollars every week based on the amount of time it takes to finish most games combined with the average amount of free time most working adults have.

I'm sorry to say it, if a working adult cannot afford 70 dollars every couple of weeks then they are broke and possibly should be reevaluating how they are deciding to spend their free time.

again... there are options. People subscribed to them in the first place because the alternative is spending a crapton of money on ONE single game. And you're not FORCED to be subscribed to them. I cancelled my Netflix, Hulu, etc subscriptions a long ass while ago. Hell, i did the same for gamepass, actually, It's not something that's forced on you, like you seem to imply.

Again, not disputing this and never have.

Edit: feynoob this post applies to you as well.

 

[64bitmodels]

I'm not disputing the fact that it's an option.

My dude, you're typing like this

I don't need a company to tell me what I should and shouldn't be playing via a model that strips me of ownership rights in a hobby I actually care about.

Acting like you're basically forced to subscribe to these services and forced to play these specific games. Your wording makes it sound like it was never an option at all. 'strips me of ownership rights' is a thing that subscriptions never even do to you, it implies that you cannot own any games at all and you MUST play the games that are shown via subscription services. For the games inside the service yes you don't actually own them, but that doesn't mean you're 'stripped of ownership rights', that makes you sound like you're being punished or some shit. Maybe you were never disputing that but why the hell would you make it sound like you're forbidden from owning games whenever you subscribe to gamepass?

Games being 70 dollars does not make gaming an "upper middle class" hobby. Hundered of millions of working to middle class people around the world spend more than 70 dollars every single week down at their local pub/bar/club on alcohol and cigarettes. I repeat, every week.

Gaming does not even necessitate you spend 70 dollars every week based on the amount of time it takes to finish most games combined with the average amount of free time most working adults have.

I'm sorry to say it, if a working adult cannot afford 70 dollars every couple of weeks then they are broke and possibly should be reevaluating how they are deciding to spend their free time.

Look man i hate to sound like a twitter user but... Source???? I've never gone to a bar and i'm nowhere near old enough to enter one, and i doubt beer and cigs are as expensive as 70 fucking dollars
And 70 dollars is a tall order, especially for people in third world countries where that could be a large chunk of their payroll (spoiler alert there are quite a few people from third world countries on GAF). Inflation is fucking everything over and people hardly have enough money for rent and groceries, let alone fully priced expensive video games. For these people subscription services do work well.

 

[SHA]

Those metacritic are destroying alot of people's view point.
In order to get high score, you need more reviewers giving high score to your game. If 2-4 of them gives you bad review, your score goes down.
That type of system doesn't determine the state of the game, especially with how people have different views.
We have seen publishers abuse it, case in point cyberpunk 2077, where they only sent them the good version, and gamers believed them.

I wish we can judge games based on how good they are.

They think they aren't entitled of their own opinion like it doesn't count as industry experts, they lied to them, anyone could judge a game based on his own skills and view point.

 

[feynoob]

I'm not disputing the fact that it's an option.



Games being 70 dollars does not make gaming an "upper middle class" hobby. Hundered of millions of working to middle class people around the world spend more than 70 dollars every single week down at their local pub/bar/club on alcohol and cigarettes. I repeat, every week.

Gaming does not even necessitate you spend 70 dollars every week based on the amount of time it takes to finish most games combined with the average amount of free time most working adults have.

I'm sorry to say it, if a working adult cannot afford 70 dollars every couple of weeks then they are broke and possibly should be reevaluating how they are deciding to spend their free time.



Again, not disputing this and never have.

Edit: feynoob this post applies to you as well.

So you are saying "poor people should stop being poor"?
You are better than this man.

Also $70 isn't the issue. The issue is the number of games. You have the option to spend $700 for 10 day1 games, or $350 at $35 that price.

But because there are a lot of games that releases every year, there is a limit to how much you can spend on them. That is the point here. Not everyone can afford all those games, unless you have that extra money.

These services allows to enjoy those extra games without having to spend that much money.

For me, all my Xbox games is being covered by gamepass. This means my money is going to PS day1 games if I like them. With PS+(extra), it allows me to increase my Nintendo library games, or my steam.

That is the option I am getting as a gamer, while I save money.

I can't manage all those without those subscription. The money needed for those games too much for me, which means less options for me.

 

[GHG]

My dude, you're typing like this

Am I or am I not talking about myself?

Acting like you're basically forced to subscribe to these services and forced to play these specific games. Your wording makes it sound like it was never an option at all. 'strips me of ownership rights' is a thing that subscriptions never even do to you, it implies that you cannot own any games at all and you MUST play the games that are shown via subscription services. For the games inside the service yes you don't actually own them, but that doesn't mean you're 'stripped of ownership rights', that makes you sound like you're being punished or some shit. Maybe you were never disputing that but why the hell would you make it sound like you're forbidden from owning games whenever you subscribe to gamepass?

If you indefinitely subscribe to these services and don't buy anything outside of that (which is literally what some people do) then the moment you unsubscribe you have nothing. That is a fact. Some people will also buy games outside of the service but for those who don't are indeed stripped of ownership rights and that's the who point of the business model because they want to keep people subscribed forever in an ideal world.

Look man i hate to sound like a twitter user but... Source???? I've never gone to a bar and i'm nowhere near old enough to enter one, and i doubt beer and cigs are as expensive as 70 fucking dollars
And 70 dollars is a tall order, especially for people in third world countries where that could be a large chunk of their payroll (spoiler alert there are quite a few people from third world countries on GAF). Inflation is fucking everything over and people hardly have enough money for rent and groceries, let alone fully priced expensive video games. For these people subscription services do work well.

Here you go:

How much do you spend on a night out?

Sarah, 30, says she could have paid for a holiday with the money she blew on one expensive night out.

www.bbc.com

So you are saying "poor people should stop being poor"?
You are better than this man.

No, I'm contesting the fallacy that a potential $70 every couple of weeks means gaming is an "expensive" hobby that risks excluding anyone who is not at least upper middle class.

Most working adults if they budget accordingly can in fact afford $70 for their games. Anyone who disputes this is talking out of their arse or are themselves in a dire financial situation that they are unwilling to acknowledge.

Also, you can only ever play one thing at a time, if an individual is strict with themselves and only ever buys another game once they are done playing what they already have then the situation you describe juggling games across various platforms doesn't occur.

 

[adamsapple]

 

[64bitmodels]

Here you go:

How much do you spend on a night out?

Sarah, 30, says she could have paid for a holiday with the money she blew on one expensive night out.

www.bbc.com

jesus christ. now I know to never be an alcoholic when I grow up. this is actually kind of insightful into this stuff, I thought people only spent like 40$ at most drinking at these types of areas. I can imagine it's only gotten worse since then

 

[GHG]

jesus christ. now I know to never be an alcoholic when I grow up. this is actually kind of insightful into this stuff, I thought people only spent like 40$ at most drinking at these types of areas. I can imagine it's only gotten worse since then

It also typically gets worse during hard financial times since people flock to escapism.

 

[feynoob]

No, I'm contesting the fallacy that a potential $70 every couple of weeks means gaming is an "expensive" hobby that risks excluding anyone who is not at least upper middle class.

Most working adults if they budget accordingly can in fact afford $70 for their games. Anyone who disputes this is talking out of their arse or are themselves in a dire financial situation that they are unwilling to acknowledge.

What happens after these people manage to spend those 70$ couple of games?
What about the rest of the year? What about those other games they like that they don't have money now, since they spent their money buying other games?

If you sit-down and budget your games, you will see that you can't afford to buy all those games that you want.
That is the key point that you have to understand.

Too many games, less money.

 

[Fredrik]

If you indefinitely subscribe to these services and don't buy anything outside of that (which is literally what some people do) then the moment you unsubscribe you have nothing.

I don’t see the problem. If you still want to play a game after you’ve cancelled your subscription then you can buy it just like you planned to before you started subscribing, the price has most likely dropped too. You can also plan the purchase and buy the game before you cancel the sub and get a bonus discount. And your install, saves, achievements etc are still there. There is literally no downsides. Play now, buy it later, or never.

 

[ReBurn]

No, I'm contesting the fallacy that a potential $70 every couple of weeks means gaming is an "expensive" hobby that risks excluding anyone who is not at least upper middle class.

This is how you know you're privileged.

 

[adamsapple]

I guess it's fine for people who don't have money but then there's an argument to be made about whether someone who doesn't even have enough money to be able to purchase a couple of games for themselves a month should be spending all their time playing videogames or not. It's almost (we'll, not almost, they actually are from a phycological standpoint) as if all of these gaming and TV subscription services are designed to keep people poor and indefinitely reliant on the services in order to keep on consuming content.

I don't understand this part, there are plenty of people on GAF, myself included, who maintains both a sub and also buys games that interest them at retail on launch if they're not on a sub service.

This correlation of sub service being only viable if you're poor makes little sense. The sub service simply affords people more avenues to broaden their horizon and they can also buy what they want at retail.

It's a choice, not a necessity. Y'all making this assertion come off like pompous asses, no offense

 

[DaGwaphics]

Obviously OP is Sony pony through and through. First name basis with Jim and all.

Nevertheless, the subs are great for cheap ass bastards for sure. GP and PS+ Extra are an amazing way to play a lot of great games, especially if you weren't someone that was jumping on most games at full price anyway (where's my $20 crew at).

 

[nocsi]

You think a physical games library for any system that isn’t the Switch has any value in 2022?
Your physical games are a bunch of obsolete data as soon as the first patch lands, which is often on the very day of release. When the game is actually on the disc and that piece of plastic you attribute some value to isn’t just a glorified installer, that is.
Most people don’t replay games anyway, so the value of a game you’ve payed for in full is hardly more than that of a game you’ve played through a subscription service and will never play again.
Owning games has no value anymore.

My physical games are obsolete? Almost all my games I’ve purchased have increased in value. I don’t buy sports games, I buy JRPGs. Here’s a recent sampling

Feel free to prove to me my games are worthless

 

[cireza]

My physical games are obsolete? Almost all my games I’ve purchased have increased in value. I don’t buy sports games, I buy JRPGs. Here’s a recent sampling

This picture shows listed games. Not that they are actually selling at that price.

 

[nocsi]

This picture shows listed games. Not that they are actually selling at that price.

Buy PlayStation 4 Blue Reflection | eStarland.com |

Buy PlayStation 4 Blue Reflection or get the best trade-in value for PlayStation 4, games, accessories and gaming consoles at eStarland.com

www.estarland.com

I can trade in blue reflection to estarland for $100. So the market rate is more. And yes it will sell for that much. The used game market is actually like that

 

[cireza]

Buy PlayStation 4 Blue Reflection | eStarland.com |

Buy PlayStation 4 Blue Reflection or get the best trade-in value for PlayStation 4, games, accessories and gaming consoles at eStarland.com

www.estarland.com

I can trade in blue reflection to estarland for $100. So the market rate is more. And yes it will sell for that much. The used game market is actually like that

I don't know about this site. What I do know however is that there are a ton of games listed at absurd prices on eBay and not a single sale for said games. So the value has absolutely no meaning. A product's value is what people are willing to pay for it, not the prices put by sellers in listings.

 

[SHA]

So you are saying "poor people should stop being poor"?
You are better than this man.

Also $70 isn't the issue. The issue is the number of games. You have the option to spend $700 for 10 day1 games, or $350 at $35 that price.

But because there are a lot of games that releases every year, there is a limit to how much you can spend on them. That is the point here. Not everyone can afford all those games, unless you have that extra money.

These services allows to enjoy those extra games without having to spend that much money.

For me, all my Xbox games is being covered by gamepass. This means my money is going to PS day1 games if I like them. With PS+(extra), it allows me to increase my Nintendo library games, or my steam.

That is the option I am getting as a gamer, while I save money.

I can't manage all those without those subscription. The money needed for those games too much for me, which means less options for me.

The service isn't perfect, it won't always gives you what you wanted, if you get picky to what you play based on what you really interested naturally it becomes the superior way when you buy them cause you could get lost in the service playing countless hrs without really getting what you wanted, there are many other games you don't hear about them much and they aren't bad but rely on first time experience, you could ruin the experience playing catchup to catch with the other games of the service, it's not the best way to play for these types of games, unless you justify playing each one of them a month, which is hardly the case, it's not worth the money cause you can't really consume them in a single month.

 

[nocsi]

I don't know about this site. What I do know however is that there are a ton of games listed at absurd prices on eBay and not a single sale for said games. So the value has absolutely no meaning. A product's value is what people are willing to pay for it, not the prices put by sellers in listings.

Estarland is a company in Herndon Virginia that I can ship games out to and they’ll instantly credit me. You’re just arguing random stuff about eBay instead of trying to dispute the value of my games. Maybe it’s a hard pill to swallow that certain games can skyrocket in value

 

[cireza]

Estarland is a company in Herndon Virginia that I can ship games out to and they’ll instantly credit me. You’re just arguing random stuff about eBay instead of trying to dispute the value of my games. Maybe it’s a hard pill to swallow that certain games can skyrocket in value

My comment was that listed games are not representative of the value of your games, as you were showing with your picture. That's all.
Great for you if they are worth more money than when you bought them. I own Snatcher on SEGA-CD. I am certainly not going to say its value is whatever fixed price listings are asking for.

 

[nocsi]

My comment was that listed games are not representative of the value of your games, as you were showing with your picture. That's all.
Great for you if they are worth more money than when you bought them. I own Snatcher on SEGA-CD. I am certainly not going to say its value is whatever fixed price listings are asking for.

Here, I’ve sorted by completed listings. Feel free to look at dates. Listings are considered complete on eBay when someone buys it.

 

[nial]

Thanks to them I have been playing on retro consoles and Wii U more than ever, so that's a big win for me as well. Thank you Jimbo and Phil, you are the best.

wii u shills get out

 

[nial]

You think a physical games library for any system that isn’t the Switch has any value in 2022?

The Switch? The console that often has AAA games installing a large amount of content into internal memory before you can even play?

 

[ReBurn]

The Switch? The console that often has AAA games installing a large amount of content into internal memory before you can even play?

Not as often as PlayStation and Xbox that install 100% of content you want to play to internal memory. What kind of weird argument even is this?

 

[nial]

Not as often as PlayStation and Xbox that install 100% of content you want to play to internal memory

100%? I can surely say that's not as often as you think, not even close.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

i wouldn't have judged since i used to and still sometimes play roblox.... but there's no reason that kid shouldn't be all about VR. you gotta make him use that quest 2 more

He plays a ton of gorilla tag and pop one on the Quest 2. I was being a it hyperbolic about Roblox because it’s free.

 

[Ghost of Caelid]

We hear about them but don't play them. Several years and big XBox 1st party releases are sparse because of GP.

That’s a very simplistic way of looking at it. It’s sparse because Xbox bought their major studios recently while Sony has had their since the early 2010s. Xbone had no exclusives and gamepass wasn’t on the console for most of its life.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

I do not understand how grown adults have so much free time and so little money that subscription services make sense. I actually play through maybe 4 full-length new release games per year because there aren't actually that many games released in a given year that are compelling enough to warrant devoting the time to. If the choice is playing some trash on Gamepass or going out drinking with friends I'll choose the latter.

Not everyone lives your exact life. People do things different than you. What’s hard to understand? What a clown post lol.

 

[Vitter.]

Im in the same boat as you but a little bit different. Im not a fan of subscription services because I don't trust that the games I want to play will always be available. But I want to thank Sony for always having a lot of sales in the ps store. Purchased Doom Eternal for a measley $9.99, Metal Gear solid V for $3.99 was a steal in my opinion. Also getting Horizon Forbidden West for 39.99 3 months after it released I thought was a steal also.

why not just buy it if they remove it, play it all you want while it's on services... not like you lose progress.

 

[adamsapple]

Estarland is a company in Herndon Virginia that I can ship games out to and they’ll instantly credit me. You’re just arguing random stuff about eBay instead of trying to dispute the value of my games. Maybe it’s a hard pill to swallow that certain games can skyrocket in value

I use estarland all the time too, my man !

 

[ThatOneGrunt]

Yup game prices get so cheap. I laugh when someone brags they got to play a huge game that took them two months to play for "free", when in reality they paid $30 to rent the game.

Meanwhile, the same game is on sale to buy and own for $8.

Where are $70 games showing up for $8 dollars in two months?

 

[nocsi]

I use estarland all the time too, my man !

Great place, definitely visit their storefront if you ever get the chance

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

then you're either blind or you gotta broaden your horizons because a shitton of GAFers have found a lot of great games in the year 2022 alone. also.... i've yet to see how gamepass has 'trash' or is 'fodder' when Gamepass has some genuinely really good games on it, the value is great for people who have just gotten into gaming. Unless you're willing to say that older elder scrolls games, doom games, indie RPGs, etc are all 'fodder' and trash, in that case you have terrible taste

yes. a lot of the games on gamepass are not shit.

look i am not trying to convince you to subscribe to gamepass or PS plus or any of that shit, but you can't walk in here acting like you have 0 fucking idea why anyone cares about subscription services when there's a whole thread dedicated to gamepass and multiple games that I & many other people have bought and enjoyed thanks to experience from the service. It doesn't make you sound any different from the dipshit @Captain Toad who walked in here and called everyone who subbed to them stupid and poor.

Didn't you just admit on the next page to being a high schooler lol

 

[SteadyEvo]

I agree. From this point forward I’m only buying games that appreciate in value aka Nintendo.

 

[Barakov]

 

[BusierDonkey]

In my own case rental services are great. I used to pop out every weekend as a kid to rent a game from the local Video Express for $7 in 1980s/1990s money. Now I have a way better selection than the Video Express ever did at my fingertips for about $7 a week in todays money. In my use-case I'm spending way less money on games I'll never play more than once and the games I anticipate returning to I can play on the service, many at launch. Then I can buy them with all the DLC included when they hit the bargain bin or have a GOTY release in two years. Then there's games I still buy at launch because I know I'll get my money out of them. Then there's Nintendo's games which I still buy physically. I know they hold their value since the Nintendo game collection in my home is worth several times it's original value.

I still own more games than I rent because I buy the games I like and I don't waste $80+ on the one-and-done cinematic games despite still getting to play them and I can spend the money I save on buying games that I like more. I also feel completely free to abandon games that I don't particularly like since I didn't dump $80 on them.

 

[Amiga]

That’s a very simplistic way of looking at it. It’s sparse because Xbox bought their major studios recently while Sony has had their since the early 2010s. Xbone had no exclusives and gamepass wasn’t on the console for most of its life.

XBox had 1st party studios for 20 years.

 

[Ghost of Caelid]

XBox had 1st party studios for 20 years.

They had like 5 until recently and even at their peak of the x360 they were still sparse with no gamepass to blame.

 

[Jim Ryan other Clone]

I'd rather save time not bothering to play stuff that isn't worthy of my time at all based on my tastes, but that's just me.

Time saved = money saved = a more fulfilling appreciation for my hobby

You are correct, but can you know if a game is not good without playing it? I saw gameplay trailers of Biomutant and i liked it, it is open world rpg and i love that kind of games but when i played it i couldn't tolerate it more that two hours.

I also saw many videos of demon souls and that game was something that i would never consider playing it. But after playing it, it's one of the games that i had most fun and engagement also is the reason i bought Elder Ring.

So the subscription services helped me save money and time with one game and introduced me to a awesome experience with another game.

 

[Jim Ryan other Clone]

I don't understand this part, there are plenty of people on GAF, myself included, who maintains both a sub and also buys games that interest them at retail on launch if they're not on a sub service.

This correlation of sub service being only viable if you're poor makes little sense. The sub service simply affords people more avenues to broaden their horizon and they can also buy what they want at retail.

It's a choice, not a necessity. Y'all making this assertion come off like pompous asses, no offense

I don't know where this idea comes that subscription services = poor. In that extend most Americans are poor because they have some kind of subscription and here all Germans are poor because they have ZDF mandatory subscription.

I guess if a German has a SKY tv subscription that includes Netflix and Eurosport possibly they are poor fuckers that beg on the streets. I have to check how that poor neighbor of mine bought that Volvo CX90, i want to be poor like him....

 

[coffinbirth]

Yup game prices get so cheap. I laugh when someone brags they got to play a huge game that took them two months to play for "free", when in reality they paid $30 to rent the game.

Meanwhile, the same game is on sale to buy and own for $8.

That makes complete sense considering that's the ONLY game they can play during that time. If only these ungodly subscription services allowed access to more than one game at a time! I guess that's asking too much considering it takes most people TWO MONTHS to finish a game.

 

[Mercador]

Got Gamepass in February. Since then, I purchased 3 games; Elden Ring, Xenoblade Chronicles 3 and Dwarf Fortress. Beofre that, I was generally purchase around a game at full price each month. So yeah, it saves me a lot of money. But at the same time, I don't appreciate gaming as much.