The problem is how do you decide how that money gets split among the developers?

With many games and third party developers, generally the publisher makes their money back and then developers start getting some sort of royaly from each game (and there are many variations on that). So if EA were take $100 from you to play their backlog, how do you decide who gets the money?

Should that be counted as a sell for all those major games listed? What about the smaller ones? What about the ones I never play? How much of that subscription fee goes to EA and gets split among the chosen developers?

It seems like something like that would only screw the developers.

The problem is how do you decide how that money gets split among the developers?

With many games and third party developers, generally the publisher makes their money back and then developers start getting some sort of royaly from each game (and there are many variations on that). So if EA were take $100 from you to play their backlog, how do you decide who gets the money?

Should that be counted as a sell for all those major games listed? What about the smaller ones? What about the ones I never play? How much of that subscription fee goes to EA and gets split among the chosen developers?

It seems like something like that would only screw the developers.

Well how does Netflix deal out the cash? The subscription provied pays them a license (maybe based on usage?)

But having said that, I don't really see what EA would actually get from that sort of money. It is less than 2 games and for hardcore gamers, it is going to be a complete steal, I just have to buy 1 EA game along with my FIFA each year to save myself some money which I have already done in the form of Mass Effect

I just don't see the financial gain for anyone from this deal

It could be interresting for them because I bought only one game from Capcom this gen. This means that no matter what they did I gave them only 60$ in 5 years because I had to buy every single games they produce but didn't feel like paying for them at all. Has there been a subscription I would've paid maybe 1 year or 2-3 years for playing all of their games. Then I would've gave what 4 times as much as I did just because I get the impression they'll release a good game in a year time. It doesn't matter how much they produce if people end up only buying Resident Evil. Why not make a subscription then... 

Yes, but why would you get a subsciption then? I wouldn't subscribe to any studio which almost never released games, or if I did, I would subscribe to them towards the end of the gen (having survived on EA, Ubi and Sony until then) and play through all their old games

It's another way of getting your games. You have to realise that digital download is coming fast ans there's going to be different ways to get your games. I think this would be a good way to play games without having to buy them. I would get the 6months deal around christmast and that's it. Anyway I wouldn't pay at all to many devs so if I had the chance to play games I'm not willing to buy and doing so gives them money then why not?

Ideally, I would stick my head in the sand and keep playing single player games without any sort of social or online element...

But the problem is that if you get a 6 month subscription, that is less than the cost of the game based on the pricing of the OP. This means that to make it worth their while, they need to keep you playing for at least that long which means more MP focused games, more epsiodic and fragmented (through DLC etc) and just generally worse for the consumer

Hmm... I get what you mean... this needs to be worked out.

Don't forget one thing though, paying a subscription fee to have access to every publisher games would be enticing to many people way more than having to pay 60$ a piece. Like I said I bought only one gaame from Capcom this gen so I gave them not much in 7 years. If they had a subscription that allowed me to play all their games I would've taken it for multiple years yes thus giving them more money.

Let's say all you play a year is COD from Activision. You buy their game every year then you spend 60$ a year for that game giving Activision 60$/years. Activision still spends tons of money to produce other games but the only way for them to get money from these games is if they sell them but people are too busy buying COD.

Think about Xbox Live. They get 1B every year with the service. More people would subscribe if they could play full version of MS games, in the end more people would indirectly pay for these games than if they only had to be bought separately.

But Activision don't want to get $60 per year from CoD, they want $60 + like $30 from Elite, so if they are making this amount from CoD alone, why spend so much money making other games?

You say you haven't spent much money on Capcom, but if you feel that way, you are not going to subscribe to them. People like THQ and the like are going to suffer since they have fewer released per year, so a subscription model is going to hurt them not benefit them

The benefits to the publishers don't come from more people playing their games, it comes from people buying more DLC from them, as everything else will be included, so this is just going to be even worse for gamers....

DLCs could remain the same and people should still pay to get them. Activision doesn't make only CODs they also make other games. But those who only spend their 60$ on COD never spend on those other games. With a subscription they could play these games and maybe buy them thus giving them more money that otherwise wouldn't have anyway.