GuinGuin
Banned
Exactly. Subscriptions especially subsidized discounted subscriptions are just one step away from free to play games and all the pitfalls those have. I just want to have fun and enjoy a game not be nickel and dimed.
-
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.
MS, Sony and Nintendo each launch an All Games Included Sub Plan, what price will you pay?
- Thread starter StreetsofBeige
- Start date
- Poll
Exactly. Subscriptions especially subsidized discounted subscriptions are just one step away from free to play games and all the pitfalls those have. I just want to have fun and enjoy a game not be nickel and dimed.
Zeroing
Banned
Same thing happened with Adobe suite when become a subscription. We designers are trapped into that service and more and more people are seeking other software… that is way better.
DaGwaphics
Member
I'll stick with $15 because that realistically covers all revenue that would traditionally be earned by game sales. Even if you figure an average attach rate of 14 with everything at $70, that still only works out to $980 or $11.66/mo. over 84 months. With all the software that is sold on sale, you could probably match every penny of revenue at less than $7/mo.
The stumbling block is how does the money get divided out to developers, so that hits get a larger share while failures get less. That's the real issue with this hypothetical scenario, more than the total money collected.
The stumbling block is how does the money get divided out to developers, so that hits get a larger share while failures get less. That's the real issue with this hypothetical scenario, more than the total money collected.
Last edited:
ANIMAL1975
Member
If you against my Gamepass, you against me and my beloved Microsoft corporation.
You thinking is stupid and you write dumb shit.
GuinGuin
Banned
That's the worst math I've ever seen. You think people only buy 14 games over 7 years?
iamvin22
Industry Verified
Pretty much this.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
I was one of the guys who chose the $25/mth choice. When my GP is over in 2022, if MS clamps down on special prices, I'll keep it going at normal price which is almost $20 cdn//mth.
At $25/mth US, that's about $30/mth cdn which I'd do. Add tax, and that's around $400/yr cdn. Worth doing. I also split home sharing with a buddy, so it'll be half that which makes it a no brainer.
I always did EA Access to which is $30/yr. So paying full pop for GP price also includes a bit of EA Access already.
At $25/mth US, that's about $30/mth cdn which I'd do. Add tax, and that's around $400/yr cdn. Worth doing. I also split home sharing with a buddy, so it'll be half that which makes it a no brainer.
I always did EA Access to which is $30/yr. So paying full pop for GP price also includes a bit of EA Access already.
Last edited:
LordBlodgett
Member
I would pay up to $45 a month for that, but I also spend more on gaming than most of my other hobbies. I am mostly a patient gamer, paying no more than $15-20 per game, but I still spend around $400 a year on games or subscriptions (Gamepass Ultimate), not including hardware. I would actually pay a premium to have access to all games that show up on those three platforms day one though. I would likely just take out of my other entertainment budgets both money and time wise.
LordBlodgett
Member
This is the exact opposite of me. I have always felt like I had to justify purchasing a game by playing through it, even if I wasn't having fun. I sometimes stopped gaming for months because I wasn't enjoying it. Since getting Gamepass I play way more because it has changed how I think about games. Now if I am not enjoying a game I stop playing and play something else. I have probably tried over 100 games on Gamepass and only finished maybe 15 of them, while some I jump in and out of whenever I feel like playing that type of game. The amount of time I spend playing games has rocketed, while time spent on passive entertainment like movies or TV has gone down significantly. This change in mindset has also transferred to my backlog, no guilt is huge for me.....
gooner4life_uk
Member
First party games only?
£1 pm Xbox
£8 pm Nintendo
£15 pm PlayStation as they make the best games.
£1 pm Xbox
£8 pm Nintendo
£15 pm PlayStation as they make the best games.
DaGwaphics
Member
That's the worst math I've ever seen. You think people only buy 14 games over 7 years?
That's real math. The total number of software titles sold divided by the number of consoles sold is your attach rate. That stands typically at about 11 - 12 games per console, though the PS4 looks like it will land at about 14.
Do some research.
Everyone here purchases more I'm sure, but for each of us there is two or three people that purchase less than the average. Thus, the average. LOL
Edit: Keep in mind that I don't think a service like this would work. There would be no credible way to determine the value of each game if everything is day one. The way GP is structured is a lot easier to visualize, with most games being older coming in (cheaper to add, plus you know their value to players based on sales history) with primarily only first-party being day and date with a few notable third-party gets here and there.
Last edited:
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
Real talk.
If the service did have every game on day one, and no game ever left the service, then I'd pay at least £100 per month for it.
It would be incredible value to have thousands of games in my library for just the cost of a £100 pm. Hell, if they locked my library to the service then they would have me paying for life! I'd be cool with that, just as long as no game leaves the service.
If the service did have every game on day one, and no game ever left the service, then I'd pay at least £100 per month for it.
It would be incredible value to have thousands of games in my library for just the cost of a £100 pm. Hell, if they locked my library to the service then they would have me paying for life! I'd be cool with that, just as long as no game leaves the service.
S0ULZB0URNE
Member
The majority have spoken.
GuinGuin
Banned
But that's oversimplified. People who buys hundreds of games are the ones who would see value in paying for a sub so you would lose a huge amount from them. People who only buy 5 games over the lifetime of the console wouldn't see the value and therefore wouldn't subscribe. More lost money.
FIREKNIGHT2029
Member
No thanks. I like owning my games not renting them.
GeorgPrime
Banned
The people expect all companies to do something like this with 15 dollar per month? You think they all do it for free and the developers dont want money as well?
You have to atleast pay 60 Dollar per month to make them even think about it. I mean you get all games for free.
You have to atleast pay 60 Dollar per month to make them even think about it. I mean you get all games for free.
Last edited:
GreatnessRD
Member
Gaming is already ruined, but I agree with your overall sentiment.
Pull n Pray
Banned
You should have used the GPU offer. It comes with EA Play.
Pull n Pray
Banned
You can still purchase Office.
ZywyPL
Banned
You think people only buy 14 games over 7 years?
Going by what many people here say and their obsession with exclusives, one would have thought people really do spend 500$ on a gaming console to play just 4-5 games during the entire generation...
kikii
Member
EA play 24€ year ,never paid that either just sometimes 3,90€ per month when i feel so, and GPU 3months for 1€ on PC sounds nice which i had already 2018, but i literally dont find any games which would make me to pay even that and after that 3 months 15€ per month for renting, is not okee
DaGwaphics
Member
Agreed. An absolute all-you-can-eat sub with everything day one would only work if it was a forced option. The subscription would need to be the only option available, with all individual sales completely removed.
Pull n Pray
Banned
There is no reason to believe that games in a subscription service will have more micro-transactions. With Apple Arcade, we see the opposite.
MTX?
I assume by "exponentially" you just mean "a lot". But I don't know how much you would consider a lot. I also don't know what you mean by "locked in". If they raise the price to the point where it is no longer a good value in your view, then you can cancel it. You seem to think that the more people who join the service, the more they will increase the price. But that's not how it works. If the service is exclusively subscribed to by people who use the service to reduce their yearly spending on games, then the price will need to increase. But the goal of a $15 per month service is to attract people who spend less than $180 per year on games. And world wide, there are lot a more gamers who spend less than $180 than there are gamers who spend more than $180. So for example, let's say a person buys one game each year at $70, and buys 4 games each year after they go on sale for $20. So he's spending $150 per year on games, and playing 5 games per year. Then he joins a $15 per month game service and stops buying games altogether. So let's say now he is spending $180 per yer and playing 15 games per year. This is a win for everyone. It is a win for the gamer because even though he is spending a little more, he gets to play more games and is getting better value. But it's a win for the gaming industry as well because he is spending more.
GuinGuin
Banned
Apple Arcade games are tiny cheap to make indie mobile games not $100 million plus AAA games. Poor comparison.
Pull n Pray
Banned
But it is at least something. You have no evidence at all to support the opposite thesis.
twerkouting
Banned
They'll lose my money and my time; I ain't doing games as service.
"But Music and Movies do subs"
Neither of those forms of media offer the degree of interaction and time investment that games offer. I'll plop down my $60 to guarantee the game works on my schedule and my terms every time even well after whatever console or digital store front has decided to stop offering the software, thanks.
Also, what kind of Adderall-addled mind even has time to play and enjoy every game under the sun a sub would offer? Who'd want to?
"But Music and Movies do subs"
Neither of those forms of media offer the degree of interaction and time investment that games offer. I'll plop down my $60 to guarantee the game works on my schedule and my terms every time even well after whatever console or digital store front has decided to stop offering the software, thanks.
Also, what kind of Adderall-addled mind even has time to play and enjoy every game under the sun a sub would offer? Who'd want to?
Last edited:
twerkouting
Banned
Just devil's advocating: you don't "own" them but you definitely own when and how you use them if you've bought them outright.
GuinGuin
Banned
Huh? If you've bight them outright you're not using the subscription.
MMachine99
Banned
The numbers are right but its still dumbass math to use those numbers. Why the hell would you use an average when its more like 80% of people buy 6 games over 2 years and 20% of people buy 30 games.
You're essentially calculating a scenario where every single person on the entire console is going to sign up for the subscription service, when in reality it'll be those 20% of heavy buyers.
This will cause you to lose out on massive revenue that wont be made up by trying to get an "average" of 11 dollars a month.
DaGwaphics
Member
It would be up to the subscription service to figure out how to best sell that service to individuals. They could go with a high priced service knowing that whales were the only target, or they could go for mass market with a price they felt could draw in enough users to make a smaller price work. Or a console could be released that had no individual game sales, just a catalog of games available and a monthly charge for access. The high priced route would realistically be the most difficult to balance revenue with.
The issue with any of these is how is it decided who gets paid what for each game and how badly does that force devs to build towards whatever that criteria may be.
A more curated service, like GP, just makes more sense with devs maintaining a lot more control.
Last edited:
yurinka
Member
A single subscription as the main business model would kill most videogame companies so no, thanks.
For the publishers and devs subscriptions are ok when they don't negatively affect game+dlc sales (which is their main revenue source), so are a good idea as something secondary to put there old games that already completed their sales cycle after several price cuts and discounts, because they generate some small extra revenue, that is better than nothing.
To put the games there day one is ok if the platform holder moneyhats them with a fair deal paying enough money upfront, which isn't the case for most subscriptions and games. And there's only a few games selected for that every month, while there are dozens of released games for each platform every month. They wouldn't be able to moneyhat everybody. All these games not selected for not being the cool kid in the class would die.
So no, the current system is better because it allows to have more companies and more game released, and more types of games.
A subscription ruling the market it's an awful idea for both the devs and the players, it only benefits the platform holder. At least on console, looking at the tie ration, on average people buys a game or two per year. So almost nobody would pay an expensive subscripition.
Devs have 0% control in a curated service like GP, because MS is the gate keeper and decide who are the few games released there that month and how much do they pay these devs. All the other 99% of games who aren't selected would dissapear and their companies would die if somehting like GP rules the market.
Even worse if MS decides to pay the devs included in GP in the same way subscriptions like Spotify pay their artists: for download or playtime. That would focus the revenue even more on a few companies, would kill the small and mid sized ones and would change the games to be more like in mobile, basically super simple games full of mind tricks to keep you coming back and grinding for as much as possible, and constantly trying to make you pay microtransactions because they don't get money with the acquisition of the game.
The best for the devs would be to sell the games keeping a very low revenue share for the platform holder as the main revenue source, with opitonal DLC and microtransactions. And as very secondary, subscriptions where they can put the game to generate some extra revenue when the game is pretty old and doesn't generate money anymore from sales/dlc/mtx.
For the publishers and devs subscriptions are ok when they don't negatively affect game+dlc sales (which is their main revenue source), so are a good idea as something secondary to put there old games that already completed their sales cycle after several price cuts and discounts, because they generate some small extra revenue, that is better than nothing.
To put the games there day one is ok if the platform holder moneyhats them with a fair deal paying enough money upfront, which isn't the case for most subscriptions and games. And there's only a few games selected for that every month, while there are dozens of released games for each platform every month. They wouldn't be able to moneyhat everybody. All these games not selected for not being the cool kid in the class would die.
So no, the current system is better because it allows to have more companies and more game released, and more types of games.
A subscription ruling the market it's an awful idea for both the devs and the players, it only benefits the platform holder. At least on console, looking at the tie ration, on average people buys a game or two per year. So almost nobody would pay an expensive subscripition.
Devs have 0% control in a curated service like GP, because MS is the gate keeper and decide who are the few games released there that month and how much do they pay these devs. All the other 99% of games who aren't selected would dissapear and their companies would die if somehting like GP rules the market.
Even worse if MS decides to pay the devs included in GP in the same way subscriptions like Spotify pay their artists: for download or playtime. That would focus the revenue even more on a few companies, would kill the small and mid sized ones and would change the games to be more like in mobile, basically super simple games full of mind tricks to keep you coming back and grinding for as much as possible, and constantly trying to make you pay microtransactions because they don't get money with the acquisition of the game.
The best for the devs would be to sell the games keeping a very low revenue share for the platform holder as the main revenue source, with opitonal DLC and microtransactions. And as very secondary, subscriptions where they can put the game to generate some extra revenue when the game is pretty old and doesn't generate money anymore from sales/dlc/mtx.
Last edited:
ResilientBanana
Member
I love the subscriptions, it's opened me up to plenty of new games and I wish Nintendo as well as Sony had an offering that competed with Microsoft.
InterMusketeer
Member
In theory I'd pay 15 to 20 bucks a month for the ability to play all Switch games. I think that would be a great value to the customer. I'm ignoring what that'd mean for developers and the future of the industry though. That's quite complex and probably not a pretty picture.
DaGwaphics
Member
Publishers are in total control with GP, third-party games certainly aren't going on there without their okay. LOL They control at what point in the cycle they choose to make their software available whether that be day one, mid, or late cycle. It's also their decision whether the deal offered by GP/MS is worthwhile, they can always walk. I'm sure there have been scenarios already where agreements just never came together (we'd just never know about that).
It's nothing like a Spotify situation where there is an arranged revenue share and everything goes on there regardless of what revenue the service brings in.
Rhazer Fusion
Member
Correct if I am wrong, but aren’t video games generally more expensive to create than movies and definitely music? I would imagine that games have to sell more and higher numbers to break even and to make profit. Movies and music all seem to have more options to make money to my knowledge. I wonder how much will GTA6 really make compared to GTA5 on a subscription service realistically?
Last edited:
DaGwaphics
Member
From the figures that get released, individually they cost about the same as a film with a decent budget. The biggest difference between a Movie/TV sub and a gaming sub is the amount of content that is required each year to keep the service competitive (a lot less content needed on the gaming side). GTA makes so much from in-game currency, I'm honestly surprised they don't just go F2P and try and maximize that from the beginning.
yurinka
Member
Publishers aren't in control with GP, they can't decide if they put their game on GP for themselves, they need MS approval. Microsoft is the gatekeeper deciding who enters and who doesn't, and since there isn't a standard deal today it can be good but tomorrow for the next game can be crap.
With selling games instead the publishes only need to pass the logical certification process (which is also obviously required for GP) and publish games, so dozens or hundreds of games could be released every week for sale but only a handful of games get added every month to GP. And their deal is a fixed one (30% revenue share for the platform, the same one that is standard pretty much everywhere), so it would be very rare that MS would increase it if some day achieves a dominant market position (in fact, considering they have a pretty small market share in consoles and also have GP it would be great to drop it from 30% to 12 or 15% in Xbox to make more appealing for dev & publishers to release games on Xbox).
DaGwaphics
Member
Uhh, yeah, I guess third-party publishers aren't in charge of how MS spends its money. LOL
But, they do control the terms under which their games are on the service, which is the only level of control that is required. If a publisher thinks GP is a bad deal for them they aren't required to participate.
zaanan
Banned
This is absolutely the endgame.
ZywyPL
Banned
yurinka
Member
MS pays devs to put their games on GP to compensate the damage it does to their main revenue source: to sell games, because obviously someone who has a game on GP won't buy it.
GP, like any other service or platform has some terms and conditions for the games they have there. If the dev/publisher agrees to enter has to accept them. Obviously they can reject it if it's a bad deal for them and have better options.
Similar threads
- Poll