I am interested in seeing if anyone want to take a subscription service they are part of, such as Game Pass, PS Now, or Antstream and compete at games on the service.  It can be as simple as top score after a few weeks, or high score, or other elements.  Idea is to pick games on the service that do not require everyone be online at the same time to play.  Either a game has a high score in it, or can take a screen shot.  One approach is winner of one week will pick the next game in the service to play.  Player is not to pick the same game twice so long as they won the last round.  Reason for the subscription service approach is that player will have access to all the content. 

For a service like Antstream, or where there isn't a weekly leaderboard (or periodic leaderboard) that resets, players can pick a game, and need to beat the current top score on it.  Players play until the current top score is beat, and then can go onto the next one.  Antstream streams retro arcade and console games.

Please let me know if this is of interest.

I am theoretically interested. I have Gamepass, and would consider getting PS Now. I say theoretically because my gaming time is pretty limited right now. I should not be depended on to compete every week.

Why would the service be required? say if a certain 3rd party game is on Gamepass but someone just owns it on the PC/PS4 what would be the reason for disallowing them from taking part? Am I missing something here, just that I do not really sub to a lot of things (Nintendo online network/PSN+) but I do own a metric ton of games so it's likely I would own games you are thinking of having competition in.

I'm mildly interested in some aspects of this idea.

The OP mentioned that the winner chooses the next game.  That would really only work if everyone is subbed to the same service.  

I will say that this subscription required aspect might make this unworkable.  Possibly, it limits the field of possible participants too much.  But, without it, the fundamentals of the idea would have to change.  It would just become something like random game tournaments.  That's problematic too, because the field of people interested in participating would then be limited to people that have X game.  

I'm thinking of an idea right now.....

OP, or whoever wants to head it up, chooses the game each week. He/she can choose a game that's available on the sub services, or not. But, it should be a fairly low cost game in any case. Then, anyone that wants to participate can get the game in whatever way and on whatever system they want. Maybe when we get to sale season games could be selected for a few weeks in advance, so that people can pick them up on sale.

This could still favor games available on the subscription services, but wouldn't rule out everyone else.

I'm skeptical that there will be enough active participants to keep this going long term. But, you never know.

Another idea would be to pick 4 games in advance, declare it a 4 week trial, and see how much participation there is. If there's a lot of interest, we try to keep it going. If not, then it ends after the trial.

I've done this once in the past on XBL with 80's arcade games, and it was fun. I think it will be difficult to organize. But I'm interested. IIRC, somebody else tried to do this about a year ago and it didn't take off.

‐---------

For the likes of Game Pass all you need is to own the games. The subscription service is just a list. For Switch, the only way to play the NES and SNES game on the Switch is to subscribe to BBC the online service. For Now and Antstream, they are streamed and cloud based so to have access to the same code, one needs to subscribe to their services.  

One could do smething similar with the Internet Archives Internet Arcade if they wanted.  Point is to compete using same code, preferably in a way that is easy to have scores recorded to be easy to record and verify and everyone has access to.

I would need enough on board to split the work. I do not want to fully do it alone.

_______

I tried to do this with XBOX live content service and Game Room. While I had decent success with Gane Room, to go with any low cost game in there did not work.  Also, having winner pick and setting terms if play was an incentive to keep playing that did not require buy in and paying out of money.  The reason to switch to a new game was to cause an eventual change in games. 

If one were to do a head to head fighting game challenge to cause players to pick a fighting game, one could have the defending champ keep picking the same fighting game until they got defeated.

I'm down for PS+ games.