-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Stadia, Subscriptions, And The Death Of Game Ownership (The Jimquisition)
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
He brings up "fee to pay", but consoles already are like this. You pay money for a game, then you must pay a subscription to Sony/MS/Nintendo to allow your game to access the internet.
Stadia Pro isn't as restrictive as Xbox Gold or PS Plus are (its real issue is the whole streaming aspect) so I don't really see a reason to complain. Most people's internet can't even do 4K and will be fine with the free 1080p.
Stadia Pro isn't as restrictive as Xbox Gold or PS Plus are (its real issue is the whole streaming aspect) so I don't really see a reason to complain. Most people's internet can't even do 4K and will be fine with the free 1080p.
Except Google isn't doing that. Google is asking for a fee for a higher resolution, performant stream. While charging for online is dumb as hell, that isn't what Google is doing.
Also if I want to play Assassins Creed on either Xbox or PlayStation I don't have to pay anything more than the game. On Stadia that is not the case. Single player games are the exception here and although Microsoft is going to try their hardest to push their subscription model (which also involves ownership issues) I think your comparison is faulty.
He is right, if this keeps going the way it is video games are going to end up worse off than streaming tv/movies with two dozen different services.
Worse too it's no secret that game publishers would love to end ownership, both physical and "digital" in favor of subscriptions.
Worse too it's no secret that game publishers would love to end ownership, both physical and "digital" in favor of subscriptions.
I'm agreeing with you here. Stadia Pro isn't something you really need to complain about. I had edited that post a few times to clarify that - you may have caught an old version of it.
Real issue with Stadia is that you don't get any kind of local version like a PC version, it's exclusively streaming on Google. This is where Microsoft can have an advantage if you are able to buy a game and have it playable on both XCloud AND your own Xbox console.
Your Assassin's Creed example actually has a problem: Assassin's Creed Origins has an online feature where you are able to "avenge" dead players, you'll miss out on that feature without PS Plus or Live Gold. It's just a small non-important thing but it's a great example of companies coming up with interesting online features and non-subs missing out on them. Nobody's going to pay $60/year to enable minor stuff like this in Assassin's Creed, but people will miss out on cool features like messages in Dark Souls and Bloodborne.
When I can no longer own hardware and some software, or am required to be online is the day I stop gaming. I have enough old games to keep me going for the rest of my life.
That being said, I don't see any of those things happening. There will be plenty of streaming options, but they will never fully take over.
That being said, I don't see any of those things happening. There will be plenty of streaming options, but they will never fully take over.
EA is already punishing you with a later release date if you choose to buy their game instead of subscribing. Expecting something like this from Uplay+ as well because Ubisoft already does this punishment with standard vs deluxe editions and Uplay+ will have deluxe editions.
Eventually they'll make subscription exclusive games.
Give up ownership so you can play games on the platform-holder's terms isnt a great bargain imo. Removing the ever-decreasing hardware costs in exchange for any control of content you pay for makes exclusively streaming a nonstarter for me, and I would probably only embrace streaming as a supplement/compliment to the current local-rendering we do
Subscription models will leave you with nothing after you stop paying, meaning paying for years means zilch the minute you stop paying. Relying on the sunk-cost fallacy will only carry these services so far.
Subscription models will leave you with nothing after you stop paying, meaning paying for years means zilch the minute you stop paying. Relying on the sunk-cost fallacy will only carry these services so far.
That bubble will probably burst. People don't have unlimited money and there isn't an unlimited customer base, not that many services can survive if they only provide a subscription service. This is probably a transitory phase, I'm more curious about how these new developments will stabilise in a few years.
And I think its bad long term tor gaming. In the HD era there's been plenty of talk about how developers/console manufactures are in competition not only with each other, but other forms of entertainment for the consumer dollar.
With everything going 'as a service' bleeding the consumer dry, I don't know if they want to directly compete on that monthly bill against Netflix, etc.
The problem is that I like to own things.
I have already a problem with the fact that the conditions of my survival as a sentient human being are mostly blocked behind a paywall... But, if they start to take away my entairnement from me, then I am going to have a problem !
I have already a problem with the fact that the conditions of my survival as a sentient human being are mostly blocked behind a paywall... But, if they start to take away my entairnement from me, then I am going to have a problem !
These models are also terrible for game quality. They encourage quantity over quality, and encourage GaaS/bloated games over tight single player games. Notice how poor in quality MS and EA's output is these days.
I don't mind not owning games. I'm a PC/Switch player so the only physical games I buy are Nintendo and I don't think they'll get rid of physical soon. How many times have people joked about buying games during a Steam sale never to play them? I'm sure a lot of people could make a pretty decent PC upgrade with all the money they spent on games they never touched. With a subscription, I could play multiple games for less than the cost of one and if I go a few months without playing any games I can just cancel the subscription and come back later.
As others have said, the worrying thing is mods might start to go away. MS is working to make Game Pass games moddable but people like Ubisoft and EA will probably avoid that. Far into the future they may even get rid of downloading games and the only way to play a game will be to stream it.
As others have said, the worrying thing is mods might start to go away. MS is working to make Game Pass games moddable but people like Ubisoft and EA will probably avoid that. Far into the future they may even get rid of downloading games and the only way to play a game will be to stream it.
I'm already incredibly risk-averse on digital software in general, so subscription services and Stadia are terrifying.
Gimme them discs and cartridges until the day I die.
Gimme them discs and cartridges until the day I die.
The most interesting part to me is the loss of cultural library - this has been an issue since the very early twentieth century though, when culture became less about personal expression and intellectual exchange and almost entirely about commodity.
Today, culture is entirely commodified - it's rare that anyone embarks on any kind of creative or expressive pursuit solely for the sake exploring expression or creativity.
Today, culture is entirely commodified - it's rare that anyone embarks on any kind of creative or expressive pursuit solely for the sake exploring expression or creativity.
This right here. I may go pc only for a good portion of next gen and jump in cheap for exclusives towards the end. If I'm going all digital because I have no choice, I'm going a route that is most beneficial for me
Haven't had the opportunity to watch yet so everything I'm typing is from what I've gathered from this thread:
"Fee to pay" is literally no different than consoles. You pay a fee of hundreds of dollars so that you can have to opportunity to pay another $60 per year to get use the damn thing, plus another $60 per title you want to play. All you're doing with streaming is swapping out a huge upfront fee for a smaller fee you can cancel at any time. With base stadia there isn't even the base fee I'm pretty sure. Consoles will always be way more expensive.
On game ownership: I play on PC, and unless the game is on GOG I'm already used to not owning the software I buy. Game ownership died when physical games started coming with Steam codes. Valve can say "fuck you I'm out" at any time and there goes thousands of dollars. Denuvo can go under and there goes all those games that use it.
On types of games being made: if you think a market that exclusively caters towards 30yr old white males is "quality over quantity", you're mistaken. So many types of games don't get made because gaming is expensive and only the wealthy get to indulge. An affordable gaming solution would lead to developers being able to make experiences that aren't the same generic white male power fantasies we get year over year.
"Fee to pay" is literally no different than consoles. You pay a fee of hundreds of dollars so that you can have to opportunity to pay another $60 per year to get use the damn thing, plus another $60 per title you want to play. All you're doing with streaming is swapping out a huge upfront fee for a smaller fee you can cancel at any time. With base stadia there isn't even the base fee I'm pretty sure. Consoles will always be way more expensive.
On game ownership: I play on PC, and unless the game is on GOG I'm already used to not owning the software I buy. Game ownership died when physical games started coming with Steam codes. Valve can say "fuck you I'm out" at any time and there goes thousands of dollars. Denuvo can go under and there goes all those games that use it.
On types of games being made: if you think a market that exclusively caters towards 30yr old white males is "quality over quantity", you're mistaken. So many types of games don't get made because gaming is expensive and only the wealthy get to indulge. An affordable gaming solution would lead to developers being able to make experiences that aren't the same generic white male power fantasies we get year over year.
You have never "owned" games. Just the right to play them. Subscriptions/Streaming/etc don't change that.
Only difference is that you don't need to have physical media in order to prove your right to play.
Only difference is that you don't need to have physical media in order to prove your right to play.
Basically this. I pay for Game Pass for PC and Netflix among a few services, but if push came to shove and one of them had to go, Game Pass would be gone in a flash. I'm not sure I could ever justify to my girlfriend that we should cancel the Netflix subscription that we both enjoy so that I can play games on my PC, especially when I have a boatload of Steam games that I could play to ride out any cashflow issues.
It's asinine to think that all these gaming subs can exist alongside each other, let alone with all the other subscriptions out there. It just seems doomed to fail if you ask me.
I totally agree with him, I think this future will kill single player games and we will end up with more poor quality fluff that is padded out to extend the amount of time you stream the game.
Also don't like the fact that streaming service can pull a game when ever they feel, people get upset when servers get shut down for old games now and where outraged when P.T demo was pulled.
Also don't like the fact that streaming service can pull a game when ever they feel, people get upset when servers get shut down for old games now and where outraged when P.T demo was pulled.
User Banned (1 Day): Platform warring over a series of posts
I agree with him alot and what's sad about it is part of what fueling this is
1. People are tired of seeing Sony dominant in the industry and subconsciously know that as along as the system stays as its currently structured Sony will probably be dominant.
2. These people actually want to play Sony games but for some reason (pride, vanity, or egotism maybe) they dont want to buy a Sony system. I see alot of that here another places.
1. People are tired of seeing Sony dominant in the industry and subconsciously know that as along as the system stays as its currently structured Sony will probably be dominant.
2. These people actually want to play Sony games but for some reason (pride, vanity, or egotism maybe) they dont want to buy a Sony system. I see alot of that here another places.
End of thread. And ironically, the people who thinks this will kill single player games, are the main ones trashing every little thing with every new single player game that isn't made by Platinum or FromSoftware.
Why? It's not "all these subs"...people will pick and choose like they do with movies, books, music, etc. Subscriptions servicing across the board are becoming more popular, not less. It gives great flexibility and choice for one cheap price. No service out there is more than $15.
These type of topics are tough here because it's obvious that so many people here aren't the "head of household" when making these purchasing decisions. $15 is less than $60 and that makes it affordable.
Some of these concerns are legitimate. But genuinely: why do so many people care about always-online requirements? Judging by forum reactions, you'd believe 9/10 posters here are deployed to the middle of a desert or live in a cabin in the woods with no internet.
Like, my console is at home and there's always internet at home - how is it an issue for it to be required? Internet service is down for like 10 hours a year, if that.
Like, my console is at home and there's always internet at home - how is it an issue for it to be required? Internet service is down for like 10 hours a year, if that.
There's been talk that the increasingly splintered video streaming market is pushing people back toward piracy and/or has ironically reinvented the purpose for cable.
Some of us still don't bother with paid online in console games.
Always online isn't an issue for most people until you want to play a game 10 years from now.
Which is a legit concern. If when a game is depreciated there was a requirement for an update that would allow it to be played offline, sure. But until then, any game that requires an internet connection to play, won't work in 10 years.
I thought for sure this week's episode was going to be the long teased one about the real damage of lootboxes, but this episode was pretty good too as this is a subject i've been concerned about for a awhile now. This is exactly why I don't buy games digitally unless I absolutely have to. For current and last-gen games I won't buy them on PC because there's no guarantee Valve won't remove them(well that and I don't have the kind of money needed to upgrade my PC and I don't like DRM like Denuvo but I digress). There's other reasons to buy physical copies of games: you can trade them in at Gamestop or sell them online for store credit/cash, if a game is bad you can get your money back if you return it to GS with the receipt in a week. Can't do either of those things with digital games, if you buy a game and it's shit you're fucked(even Steam has that bullshit two-hour window) there's pretty much no getting your money back after that. So i'm willing to use a little gas if it means getting a physical copy and me feeling like I actually own the game as opposed to paying a license for it. Hell I had to search through my download history on my 360 to re-download a game I bought before it got delisted(TMNT Out of the Shadows).
This is also why I don't like games being multiplayer-focused or MP-only like with R6-Siege, cause one day those servers WILL shut down and then that game will be little more then a fancy paperweight. We've already seen that happen with Chromehounds, Warhawk, Shadowrun 2007(oh I would've loved to have been at the pitch meeting for that one- "Hey, let's take a classic RPG series and turn it into a third-rate Unreal Tournament knock-off! That totally won't piss off fans of the franchise at all!"), SOCOM Confrontation(whose poor reception I blame for killing the franchise and Zipper Interactive as a whole as it's poor reception, lack of content, numerous glitches and bad netcode led to people staying away from SOCOM 4 out of fear) and MAG. We also see that with games where people insist the MP is better then the campaign like with the first Homefront, by the time I played that game the servers were long dead so I couldn't say for sure if the MP was ever really any good at all(I never liked MP much anyways) for sure(same deal with the first Darkness game, I forgot that game even had MP until TotalBiscuit brought it up in one of his video essays)
Stadia sounds like a fucking joke and a terrible rip-off, why anyone would waste money on that dreck is beyond me.
Not everyone plays on PC because not everyone can afford to spend thousands of dollars on a top-of-the-line gaming rig that can play all the latest and greatest games. I sure as hell can't, all my consoles were bought used hence why I could afford them.
All the games I own on Steam are either PC exclusive or sixth-generation titles.
Something else Jim didn't bring up is games can get patched and changed so that the initial release version you had is now very different, we're seeing that with games that use a lot of licensed music like the GTA series as both San Andreas and IV got patched to remove certain songs because Rockstar lost the license to them. So now you have to play those games unpatched or with mods on PC to keep those songs.
This is also why I don't like games being multiplayer-focused or MP-only like with R6-Siege, cause one day those servers WILL shut down and then that game will be little more then a fancy paperweight. We've already seen that happen with Chromehounds, Warhawk, Shadowrun 2007(oh I would've loved to have been at the pitch meeting for that one- "Hey, let's take a classic RPG series and turn it into a third-rate Unreal Tournament knock-off! That totally won't piss off fans of the franchise at all!"), SOCOM Confrontation(whose poor reception I blame for killing the franchise and Zipper Interactive as a whole as it's poor reception, lack of content, numerous glitches and bad netcode led to people staying away from SOCOM 4 out of fear) and MAG. We also see that with games where people insist the MP is better then the campaign like with the first Homefront, by the time I played that game the servers were long dead so I couldn't say for sure if the MP was ever really any good at all(I never liked MP much anyways) for sure(same deal with the first Darkness game, I forgot that game even had MP until TotalBiscuit brought it up in one of his video essays)
I see plenty of reasons to complain, as there's many people like myself who only care about single-player and don't pay for Xbox Gold or PS Plus(I find it cheaper to buy 14 day free trials of Gold on Ebay so I can play Destiny 2, those only cost a couple of bucks as opposed to 60 dollars a month for Gold).
Stadia sounds like a fucking joke and a terrible rip-off, why anyone would waste money on that dreck is beyond me.
That's absolute nonsense, there is a HUGE "difference", Stadia is a fucking rip-off and a joke. A console payment is one-time only, Stadia charges you nonstop for everything and in the long will cost you more in 6 months then buying a new console would and with far less benefits. So no consoles won't be more expensive, not in the long run anyways. Plus you can play offline with consoles, if you have crappy internet Stadia is absolutely worthless, my internet is the best I can get in this area and it still has issues with online-games like Destiny 2, so there's no way in hell I trust Stadia to be stable enough. I tried PS Now once and it was such a bad experience I vowed to never try it again.
Not everyone plays on PC because not everyone can afford to spend thousands of dollars on a top-of-the-line gaming rig that can play all the latest and greatest games. I sure as hell can't, all my consoles were bought used hence why I could afford them.
All the games I own on Steam are either PC exclusive or sixth-generation titles.
Wrong, a game company can't come into your house and take away a physical copy of a game, but they can take away a digital copy. Hell iTunes pulled that crap with some movies that people bought and got a lot of crap for it, now that iTunes is on it's way out, what happens to people's libraries of music, movies and TV Shows?
Something else Jim didn't bring up is games can get patched and changed so that the initial release version you had is now very different, we're seeing that with games that use a lot of licensed music like the GTA series as both San Andreas and IV got patched to remove certain songs because Rockstar lost the license to them. So now you have to play those games unpatched or with mods on PC to keep those songs.
Not really, most of the games on my Steam library are ones I bought when they were on sale really cheap. Plus a lot of people simply don't want to go through the hassle of upgrading a PC, it's far too intimidating for me, a person with autism who is already computer illiterate in a number of areas, i'm way too paranoid about accidentally screwing something up building a PC. It was easier for me to just buy one on Ebay. Plus a lot of people only use their PCs for work and they prefer to play games on console as a way to keep work and fun seperate from one another. My mom is on a computer all day where she works and when she gets home she doesn't even want to look at a computer, let alone play games on one.
Unfortunately a lot of people can't afford to go PC only because they don't have enough money to upgrade their PC to the point where they can play next-gen games.
I think MS's output as been decent(i'll defend Crackdown 3 on my deathbed), EA's has been spottier but that new Star Wars game looks pretty good.
Overblown my ass, anything with Google in charge is something that's cause for concern these days.
Nonsense, Jim has plenty of praise for single-player titles not made by those two companies, and if every game company wants their own service those 15 dollars will add up quite a bit.
Because not everyone has good internet, especially not in the US. Plus there are lots of countries with even worse internet. Also because Always-online DRM is worming it's way into single-player games where it has no place at all like with the last two Hitman games, seriously what possible reason is there to force me to be online to be able to do challenges and unlock items in those games? That's just bad game design. That's also why i'm concerned about Ghost Recon Breakpoint as Ubisoft confirmed on Twitter that that game is going to have Always-Online DRM for no good reason despite being a primarily single-player focused game. It just feels like a stupid way to try and stop piracy that only ends up punishing legitimate consumers.
Last edited:
It never happened for music and I don't see it happening for games, online only games being an exception we've already had for years.
Ok, yeah, if you're counting Stadia, then absolutely. But I don't think Uplay+ exclusive games are in the cards anytime soon. They'd be alienating a huge portion of the player base.
I have no online on PS4 and Switch and everything is fine.
And I am not even sure I ever paid a game $60.
And I own most of my games too.
I'm driving to a huge tournament/convention in 3 days.
Online dependencies for offline tournaments with a decent chunk of money on the line are a farce.
And I still play my NES every once in a while, so I'd rather not be dependent on anyone maintaining their servers for another three decades.
Pride, vanity, egotism... How about "The PS4 is hundreds of dollars"?
I'm not sure why you brought up ITunes when we were talking about games. In the case of video games they can't walk in your house and take them. Once you download them you can play them indefinitely.
Because it ties into the death of ownership of physical media? It's not like it's completely irrelevant to the video since Jim also brought up movie subscription services like HBO Now.
It was a big thing that people got annoyed when they found out iTunes was removing films from their library they had already paid for, Amazon did that for certain movies as well. If those companies can do that for films and TV shows, you can be damn sure Google won't be above doing that for games as well.
You can't play games indefinitely if they get taken down, Justin had comments in the video that he paid for one of the Marvel vs Capcom games but can no longer play it.
Hell with PT if you downloaded the game but deleted it, you can't ever reinstall it again because of Konami being asshats.
Agreed, plus like Jim has mentioned multiple times these companies can't be bothered to keep their servers running, yet they demand we always be online. If these companies expect use to always be online, we should expect them to always be online as well.
When streaming becomes my only option years from now, I'll be donning the Jolly Roger for sure. I already dislike having digital games, streaming is just not a fucking option for me. If I spend $60 on a game I want to own it, I don't just want access to it on Activision/EA/Ubisoft's terms.
I just don't understand why the "ownership concerns aren't a big deal" crowd still persists when the real-life incidents of delisting and end-of-life service terminations have been lived and documented many times over at this point.
What talk by who? Any cursory scan of the internet will show that piracy has fallen off a cliff. Even people that don't have a Hulu/Netflix/Amazon can share account information, and many services in encourage this. Again, sounds like assumptions from people that don't actually pay the bills in their house. That doesn't even include Crunchyroll, HBO and the like.
Ok, not sure what that means. Some people still listen to the radio but that's not where most people get their music nowadays.
Companies and consumers have found a sweet spot with the services provided and the cost per month. It's great for heavy consumption in short spurts, or a wide variety of piecemeal consumption over time. It's really a win-win on both sides...this is people that aren't interested in this, trying to tell people that are interested in this on how they won't be interested in it...LOL
People are assuming negatives that haven't come close to happening with any other type of subscription service. Why wouldn't we want more choices at more price points? Anything else comes across like the threads with people having so much of a problem with people buying all digital.
I wasn't talk about Jim, I was talking about people here, regarding single player games.
"Every game company" isn't making a subscription service the same way every network/film studio isn't making a Netflix or every record label/media company is making a Pandora or Spotify. A person that has Netflix/Amazon/Hulu and HBO is still spending less than a full cable package. Consumers are loudly screaming in favor of subscription services, for the reasons I mentioned, and very few are going to have more than one a month. Even so, EA/Ubi/Xbox/Sony/Google is still about the same amount per month as a game, maybe a bit more depending on the package.
Subscription services work because the people that enjoy them are spending DRAMATICALLY less per month than what they would be if they bought the physical hardcopy of the entertainment they consumed. People aren't paying for EA Access for months and months solely to play Madden.
But now you are blurring digital purchases into this, which is what I talked about above. But what has that really affected? Last I checked, you can still stream Gone With The Wind but it's harder to find physical. There is zero evidence that companies are saying "let's only make this available via stream subscription". People value different things and at the end of the day this is consumable entertainment.
Last edited: