By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - What is your opinion on gaming subscription services?

 

My opinion is best summed up as:

Subscribed to at least one and like it 36 36.36%
 
Subscribed to at least one and not a fan 6 6.06%
 
Thinking about subscribing 6 6.06%
 
Was a subscriber and lapsed 4 4.04%
 
Will subscribe for big games and then drop 4 4.04%
 
Zero interest at all 28 28.28%
 
None of the current subs ... 8 8.08%
 
Other 7 7.07%
 
Total:99
Cerebralbore101 said:
Conina said:

We can close most VGC-threads now indefinitely... or close the whole site.

Nobody of us has the complete data to ANY topic, so what's the point in discussing? It doesn't tell us much of anything.

There's a difference between having 90% of the data and only having 60% or less of the data.

Ah, and you're now the arbiter of who has exactly how much, and how relevant data are you? VGC data on gaming platforms as a whole....90%....MS data on how users behave on their own platform....60%

Excellent.

And that's ignoring too, that you completely missed the point. The exact figures aren't even that important. The point is, one can easily use a service like GamePass to play considerably more games than someone who's buying all their games outright (physical or otherwise). When you say that those people are less serious gamers than you, even though, for all you know, they may well be spending as much, if not considerably more time, playing as many or more games...well...you look like a clown.

Last time I checked, being a gamer is about...you know...playing games.

Last edited by Angelus - on 01 May 2021

Around the Network
Angelus said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

There's a difference between having 90% of the data and only having 60% or less of the data.

Ah, and you're now the arbiter of who has exactly how much, and how relevant data are you? VGC data on gaming platforms as a whole....90%....MS data on how users behave on their own platform....60%

Excellent.

MS data on how gamers as a whole behave 60% or less. And even that's being overwhelmingly generous. People game on PS4, PS5, PC (which includes the Steam, EGS, and GoG Stores) Switch, Retro Consoles, XB1, and Series. Do you seriously think that data derived from a fraction of all that has any meaning whatsoever? Sony and Nintendo both report their numbers on a yearly basis. Vgchartz has proven to be mostly in line with those numbers.

 The point is, one can easily use a service like GamePass to play considerably more games than someone who's buying all their games outright (physical or otherwise). When you say that those people are less serious gamers than you, even though, for all you know, they may well be spending as much, if not considerably more time, playing as many or more games...well...you look like a clown.

Last time I checked, being a gamer is about...you know...playing games.

Oh no, I agree. It's completely possible for somebody with Gamepass to spend more time playing games than someone that doesn't play gamepass. And gaming is about playing games. Acting as if MS's extremely limited data set means anything is where I took issue with what you said. The rest of that conversation is fine, and I generally agree with you on it.

^My comments in bold. Thanks.



Conina said:
SvennoJ said:

For example Japanese devs a few years back for more niche games figured an XBox port was not worth the risk because it might not sell on the platform.  But by putting their games on gamepass, the risk is bypassed as they get an upfront payment from MS

How is this any different from the previous 'money hat' way, where certain devs get paid a certain amount up front to put their game on the console?

You really don't see a difference of paying/accepting money to keep a game / dlc away from other platforms and paying/accepting money to offer a game on additional platforms?

You can't be that naive to think that the same won't happen with subscription services, if it doesn't already between ps now, gamepass, stadia, ps+, xbl gold, and what else we have already.

Plus many games that received money up front still released on other platforms / just received money to be on an additional platform. It is the same.



If someone did a survey of drinking habits in Vermont and Ireland, and then used that data to conclude that Europeans drink more than Americans would that be an accurate conclusion? Obviously not. Massively incomplete data sets don't tell us much of anything. Thanks.

And now I'm off to the gym. I'll be playing MHR all day, so no time for forum shenanigens until tomorrow.



Cerebralbore101 said:

If someone did a survey of drinking habits in Vermont and Ireland, and then used that data to conclude that Europeans drink more than Americans would that be an accurate conclusion? Obviously not. Massively incomplete data sets don't tell us much of anything. Thanks.

And now I'm off to the gym. I'll be playing MHR all day, so no time for forum shenanigens until tomorrow.

Holy crap, they’re comparing people only on their own ecosystem. They aren’t extrapolating that out across the entire industry. You’d have to be either incredibly naive or incredibly biased to even think that was the case LOL



Around the Network
LudicrousSpeed said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

If someone did a survey of drinking habits in Vermont and Ireland, and then used that data to conclude that Europeans drink more than Americans would that be an accurate conclusion? Obviously not. Massively incomplete data sets don't tell us much of anything. Thanks.

And now I'm off to the gym. I'll be playing MHR all day, so no time for forum shenanigens until tomorrow.

Holy crap, they’re comparing people only on their own ecosystem. They aren’t extrapolating that out across the entire industry. You’d have to be either incredibly naive or incredibly biased to even think that was the case LOL

I think it is pretty obvious which one it is, this thread has far too many biased "opinions" bounded about as facts. It's truly quite sad certain people are so obsessed with companies.



I have been "subscribed" to game pass on two occasions, played a ton of games and and loved the service. The thing is, I have never actually paid the full amount for it.

I got free a one month subscription when I bought my Xbox One S. I then took advantage of a three months for $1 deal about half a year later. In those four months I played pretty much every game I was interested in.

I now qualify for a "1 month for $1" deal on game pass ultimate, which I am saving for when the next MS blockbuster hits. I do wonder how many people have done something similar. Gears 5, Rare Replay, Halo Wars 2 and Halo 5 are all games I would have bought if they weren't available on game pass.



SvennoJ said:
Conina said:

You really don't see a difference of paying/accepting money to keep a game / dlc away from other platforms and paying/accepting money to offer a game on additional platforms?

You can't be that naive to think that the same won't happen with subscription services, if it doesn't already between ps now, gamepass, stadia, ps+, xbl gold, and what else we have already.

Are or were there any GamePass games exclusive or timed exclusive for that subscription model or were they also available to buy in the Xbox marketplace?

Are or were there any PSnow games exclusive or timed exclusive for that subscription model or were they also available to buy in the PS Store?

Are or were there any XBL Gold games exclusive or timed exclusive for that subscription model or were they also available to buy in the Xbox marketplace?

Are or were there any PS+ games exclusive or timed exclusive for that subscription model or were they also available to buy in the PS Store?

Are or were there any PC games exclusive or timed exclusive for a PC subscription model or were they also available to buy?

Has any developer team claimed that they weren't allowed to release their game on another platform due to their PC or console subscription contract?

No? Then at this point the subscription moneyhatting allegation is pure FUD.

If we'll cross that bridge, we can discuss changed opinions about gaming subscriptions again.

P. S.: Funnily enough, it is "good guy" Nintendo who offers time-limited access to certain games on Switch only via subscription and doesn't give us the option to buy the NES- and SNES-collections on Switch instead of renting them.

Last edited by Conina - on 01 May 2021

Conina said:
SvennoJ said:

You can't be that naive to think that the same won't happen with subscription services, if it doesn't already between ps now, gamepass, stadia, ps+, xbl gold, and what else we have already.

Are or were there any GamePass games exclusive or timed exclusive for that subscription model or were they also available to buy in the Xbox marketplace?

Same eco system.

Are or were there any PSnow games exclusive or timed exclusive for that subscription model or were they also available to buy in the PS Store?

Yes (although that's more a technical issue, bc)

Are or were there any XBL Gold games exclusive or timed exclusive for that subscription model or were they also available to buy in the Xbox marketplace?

Same eco system

Are or were there any PS+ games exclusive or timed exclusive for that subscription model or were they also available to buy in the PS Store?

Same eco system

Are or were there any PC games exclusive or timed exclusive for a PC subscription model or were they also available to buy?

Yes

Has any developer team claimed that they weren't allowed to release their game on another platform due to their PC or console subscription contract?

Yes

No? Then at this point the subscription moneyhatting allegation is pure FUD.

If we'll cross that bridge, we can discuss changed opinions about gaming subscriptions again.

P. S.: Funnily enough, it is "good guy" Nintendo who offers time-limited access to certain games on Switch only via subscription and doesn't give us the option to buy the NES- and SNES-collections on Switch instead of renting them.

If you think putting games on subscription services won't come with strings attach, then I don't know what to say.



SvennoJ said:
JWeinCom said:

No, but judging people who can't is sitting on a high horse (think they mixed the metaphors a bit). 

My dad has season football tickets to the Jets. So I get to be a true Jets fan, or at least he does. Not everyone can afford that. To say they aren't true fans or supporters is kind of elitist.

As for how dumping money into a subscription helps, the same way for any other service. People aren't putting their games on Gamepass/PSNow for free. Microsoft/Sony are paying them. It is possible that they have incentives based on number of downloads/playtime. But regardless, Microsoft knows how many downloads they have, and likely have a rough idea of how much the game is played, information which I can almost guarantee would be shared with publishers. So, if tons of people are playing Nier Automata on Gamepass, Microsoft will want Replicant on their service, and Square would be in a position to bargain for a higher price. 

This isn't like... some strange and new thing. This is a similar business model as Cable TV. If Microsoft knows why people are signing up for Gamepass, the folks responsible can get more money. Don't know the exact details, but if you can't see how a dev can possibly benefit from Gamepass/PSNow, that's either a failure of imagination, or a dogmatic attempt to justify disliking something that you dislike for completely different reasons.

I'm just looking at parallels with the music, movie and tv industry. Spotify doesn't reward artists based on how much their music is streamed. Plus there have been complaints from indie developers that they don't get a fair share from games with gold / ps+ either. Just as with music, it's great for the popular guys, the ones MS/Sony will want to keep. The rest don't really have any leg to stand on when people have plenty to play through subscription services.

My own experience with TV and movies has only declined since streaming became popular. It seems every show I like gets cancelled sooner rather than later, I guess my tastes are bad lol. Or gets poached by a competing service ugh. Extras for movies are declining since they aren't on streaming services anyway.

The other thing is, MS is subsidizing the subscription service atm, who knows what the developer reward scheme will be once the users are locked in. It's a walled garden inside a walled garden. There's always PC anyway, just sucks that collecting physical games is pretty much gone from PC.

And that's what I meant with 'true gamer' (term sucks I agree). It's not the amount you pay, but to me collecting is part of it. And collecting digital / subscription services, nah. The second hand market was great for collecting games, sad to see it going away. Tbh I jumped on buying Returnal because of it having a physical edition. If it was only available digitally I would never have bought it before getting the hardware to run it on. I've bought a lot of physical editions of games I already had digitally, after they finally released a physical edition.

To sum up, to me, game subscription services are a continuation of the erosion of ownership, furthering the decline of physical games and continuation of the move to episodic content, dlc, mtx.

Hate to break it to you, but however you're buying games, the deck is stacked against small developers. Retail is way worse in that regard than subscription services, because you have to physically manufacture them, ship them out, and convince retailers to stock them. And if you're making a smaller kind of game that you can't charge full price for, your margins become razor thin once those costs come into play. There is a reason that most indie games do not have a physical version at all, and if they do, it usually only comes after the digital version has launched successfully. And there's a reason why indie games really weren't even a thing until gaming went digital. So, if that's your argument for why subscription services are a bad thing, then it's not very strong. 

If the term true gamer sucks, then why not use the term collector, since that's what we're talking about. And like with Runa, if you like collecting games then, yeah, you probably shouldn't get gamepass. But that's just personal preference. If subscription services become the predominate form of gaming and physical games go byebye, then that just means not enough people care about collecting. That's just the way the world works. A lot of things I like aren't made anymore because they just weren't popular enough to be profitable. That's a bad thing for you, but not necessarily a bad thing for the industry.