SvennoJ said:
IcaroRibeiro said:
Are you are aware what you feel about devs is absolutely meaningless? Seems like you are pissed on someone's else behalf who are actually profiting quite a bit with subscription model If you are butthurt over subscriptions, that's your right, but no point pretending your concern is someone's else concern, let alone devs concern This model is good for devs because more people have access to their games. Do you know why mobile gaming is the biggest game industry despite resorting mostly on shovelwhare? Because it's accessible, they are selling for billions rather than millions. Accessibility means more customers and subscription model implies a stable influx of cash, things companies never had. With subscription you know almost exaclty how much money you will make in the next months and then plan accordingly. No more concern predicting sales to estimate your revenues for months to come. The devs who are negatively affected by this are the ones who makes niche games for a loyal fanbase who buys everything of a specific franchise right on its release at full price, but never truly break a "main audience" and ends having abysmal legs, seems the case for many Japanese games. Good thing is subscriptions are not stopping sellers anytime soon, those games will still be sold as long makes sense for companies to sell them, so even those devs can rest knowing their digital ventures will still be perfectly viable |
And how many AAA games and innovative games has mobile gaming produced? That's a really bad comparison unless you want console gaming to end up as shovelware focused on wasting your time or paying to keep playing.
How will subscription models distribute the income? Time played? That would be a terrible metric steering games to the f2p mobile model where you either grind or pay. As well as how many games played from a publishers, which would promote chopping up games, smaller games, saturating the market with what mobile has become. A rating system might work a bit better, however I doubt any 'niche' games will be better off with a subscription model than they are currently. |
Most likely the same way as movies, contract distribution fees for some months/years. I get your concern, but the unspoken truth is: If we only had traditional sales to back up AAA blockbusters current games having smaller budgets, smaller content and smaller scope would have been already the standard.
Instead games are becoming bigger and more expensive probably due to companies making up the loses with services, DLC and in games purchases. You can easily grab a The Sims 4 for what now? 5 USD? It's almost symbolic fee at this point
A game being "free" in Game Pass allow those kind of games to sells DLC and MTX to an even more extensive crowd, I doubt they will really bother. First they will have a fixed income from a contract, their game will be aviable to millions right after its release and they will be able make the hell out DLC and in-game purchases, absolutely dream coming true for AAA studios if you ask me
That's another concern: The expansion of games as a service, but games as a service is not really something that seems to bother devs, it's something that bothers people who mostly like game as finished products. But I guess if you like the concept of game as products you should avoid even buying DLCs and in game purchases, regardless of subscription services or not
