• 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.

chris 1515

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,074
Barcelona Spain
I post it in the next gen thread but It think this is thread worthy.

I hope it will not turn to console war because the devs told there is 13 services most of them unannounced probably one by Sony. This is a general industry trend out of probably Nintendo.

I always suspect subscription services can be a danger for pure single player AAA games with people stopping to buy games and waiting they will be available on a subscription services but I was not thinking the business model can impact negatively Indies.







 
Last edited by a moderator:

modiz

Member
Oct 8, 2018
17,844
Yea they should definitely pay upfront rather than per hour, the results seem really bad for indie devs.
I wasnt even aware of this but that is really dumb.
 

Hektor

Community Resettler
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,884
Deutschland
" they want to pay us "per number of hours" that their users play our games, compared to how many hours their users are playing games overall. "

If that's true, that's going to disincentive the creation of anything but gaas and multiplayer titles.
 

Alandring

Banned
Feb 2, 2018
1,841
Switzerland
I don't believe in that narrative. Subscriptions will allow people to try more games and it will help indie games. All good games (Indies, AA and AAA) will have benefits from that.
 

SirFritz

Member
Jan 22, 2018
2,082
Part of the reason I don't support music subscription services like spotify is the really low amount of money they pay creators. Like barely enough to live on pay. Would be sad if the same thing happened to games.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,841
I think PS+ and Live Gold, as mandatory services on their respective consoles, are already hurting indie devs. I have already seen myself avoiding buying indie games on PS4 due to the risk of them showing up on PS+ (which I am forced to have to play online) and then having wasted money on the game before it went free. Hell, this has happened with AAA games like Metal Gear Solid 5 already: I bought it and it went on PS+ a month later. Fucked up hard there.

Game pass and others are part of a nasty video game industry trend of games getting devalued. We're looking at games getting rapid discounts even when subscription services are not involved. Not just indies, but big AAA productions as well. Now the indie developer selling their $15 game has to compete with a month-old AAA game on sale for $30.

When a game fails, the solution should not be to put it 50% off and throw it into Game Pass. It's a very shortsighted move that makes people spend less money on games. A lot of people got screwed buying Life is Strange 2, having bought it before it went to Game Pass before episode 2 even came out.
 

Min

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,073
Prepare for the bot farms of perpetually running streaming services of selected games to increase revenue for the developers.
 

modiz

Member
Oct 8, 2018
17,844
I don't believe in that narrative. Subscriptions will allow people to try more games and it will help indie games. All good games (Indies, AA and AAA) will have benefits from that.
I wont be surprised if most people will just end up trying the game and dont spend nearly enough time in them.


In fact, this type of payment seems to mainly support GaaS games or huge open world games, which is really dumb as those games succeed anyway.
 

THEVOID

Prophet of Regret
Member
Oct 27, 2017
22,861
Actually, it's a bad analogy with Netflix. That has been a boom for indie film and TV in general.

The same will happen with games.
 

Deleted member 46948

Account closed at user request
Banned
Aug 22, 2018
8,852
Part of the reason I don't support music subscription services like spotify is the really low amount of money they pay creators. Like barely enough to live on pay. Would be sad if the same thing happened to games.

On the other hand, a lot of people listen to old music on Spotify, music that is pretty much unavailable to buy anymore, and were it not for Spotify and Apple Music, they'd just download mp3s of it off YouTube (which would amount to the creators getting nothing at all).
 

ZhugeEX

Senior Analyst at Niko Partners
Verified
Oct 24, 2017
3,099
I'm going to include a quote from Take Two's CEO that I think is worth reading-

Ultimately subscriptions are set to be additive in the gaming space, as opposed to all encompassing.

Take Two earnings conference call said:
Streaming is a distribution technology, subscription is a business model. They are completely different animals. We could have a subscription program right now. You could do it with physical disks, after all thats how Netflix started with physical disks. So there is nothing magical about new technology with regard to a subscription business model.

Will that business model develop? It will develop if it's really good for consumers and it's really good for people to create products. That -- it has to be good for both. And remember, people consume video games differently than they consume linear programming. So the average American household consumes about five hours of linear programming what we used to call television programming, but fruit to all sources, a day about 150 hours a month. And currently they consume about an hour and 20 minutes of interactive entertainment programming a day, so about 45 hours a month, very big difference. And of course, the biggest differences with regard to linear programming, you're very unlikely to watch something twice. So in a given month, at five hours a day, you could be watching 75, 100, or depending on the length, it maybe more than that different products.

In the case of the video game business, people may play the same title for the entire month. Maybe they played two or three titles, but they're not engaging with 75 or 100 titles. So you have to ask yourself whether a subscription model really applies to a video game consumer versus the possibility of engaging with a free-to-play title and paying as you go or engaging with a title for which you pay, for example, like NBA 2K19, where you pay a meaningful price in the U.S. about $60 in retail, little bit more outside of the U.S., but you might play that game for a year. We have people engaged for a year. And it's a terrific deal if you stay engaged for that long.

The jury is out on subscription models. We ultimately want to be where the consumer is. Subscription models do make sense, could be an opportunity for us, but they need to make sense for everyone involved.
 

impact

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
5,380
Tampa
People can "try" the game, but mostly won't even play for one hour.
Seems like that's the fault of the developer. If people are trying your game and still don't give a shit for more than an hour... If the game was good people would keep playing is all.

At what point do you take blame for people not wanting to play your games?
 

Tebunker

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,844
I guess all we can hope for then, is that A: The companies that do pay up front, like XBox and Playstation continue to do so, and B: It doesn't become like Netflix where is gets harder and harder to get in the door and get paid up front as well. So yeah a lot of conversations still need to be had about this.

I don't believe in that narrative. Subscriptions will allow people to try more games and it will help indie games. All good games (Indies, AA and AAA) will have benefits from that.
At some point, with the specific model the twitter thread mentions, no more "good" indie games will get made and on a sub service if the expectation is they won't get paid up front for work done and have to hope they get enough engagement to get paid.

And people will be so conditioned to using a subscription service they won't pay full price for a game outside of it.

This is definitely something worth discussing.


I'm going to include a quote from Take Two's CEO that I think is worth reading-

This is definitely worth reading, I think it points to the original tweet thread, a discussion on the potential business models needs to happen, it needs to be transparent and like TT said, it needs to benefit everyone. Gamepass works because they pay upfront for games on the service and because they limit the games total in the service. Not sure a full ala carte system will work where everything is on it.
 

Horp

Member
Nov 16, 2017
3,712
Stop being so cheap, people. Buy games. Dont wait for humble bundle, steam deep sale or gamepass. Buy the game.
 

gofreak

Member
Oct 26, 2017
7,736
I highly doubt Sony has a third (unannounced) subscription service. PSNow and PS+ are their subs - PSNow is their gamepass analog. I've no idea how Now works with regard to payment. I always kind of assumed it was based on user time, which could be good or bad depending.
 

Dreamwriter

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,461
I don't believe in that narrative. Subscriptions will allow people to try more games and it will help indie games. All good games (Indies, AA and AAA) will have benefits from that.
"try" more games. OK...let's say I try an indie game and play it for 20 minutes. Then never again, because the game didn't have an immediate hook and there are hundreds of other games on the streaming service. How did being able to try that game help the indie developer? If I had bought the game for $10, the developer would have gotten a huge amount of money compared to that streaming amount, and I would have been incentivized to play longer anyway to find the value in the game.

Here's the real kicker - even AAA games won't get hardly any money from these services, because of how cheap they are. Xbox Game Pass is $10 a month - this means the most money a developer could possibly get is $10 in a month from my subscription, and that only if Microsoft gave them the entire amount without taking a cut (unlikely). That game would have to be the exclusive game a user played for 6 months to make up the original $60 purchase price.
 

impact

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
5,380
Tampa
Stop being so cheap, people. Buy games. Dont wait for humble bundle, steam deep sale or gamepass. Buy the game.
Have you seen the percentage of people living paycheck to paycheck? Ain't nobody got money for that.

GamePass and cdkeys save my poor ass from not having shit to play.
 

tyfon

Member
Nov 2, 2017
3,680
Norway
Not only will it suck for the indies that makes short but good games, but I'm really worried it will be an excuse to put out poor quality single player games from the big ones.
Right now SP games have to be good to sell, if they are on a subscription service one will make the excuse that "it's free anyway" when the quality is crap. It's been an excuse already for the state of games like State of Decay 2.
The fact that they also want to pay "pr hour" played means that everyone will make games that are designed to keep you playing which sucks big time for "play and move on" people like me.

Hopefully there will be enough with my opinion that we will still get quality single player games and I think one way to make sure they can co-exist with the subscription services is to adopt the movie model where a movie is first released to theatres and then streaming a bit later.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,841
Stop being so cheap, people. Buy games. Dont wait for humble bundle, steam deep sale or gamepass. Buy the game.
No.

Instead, publishers should stop devaluing their games so much. I, as a consumer, am looking for the best possible deal. This is why Nintendo continues to sell copies of Zelda BOTW at full price. They will never put it on sale. People buy the game for $60, knowing that they have no chance to get it for cheaper even if they wait for a year.

Battlefield V full price buyers got turbo-fucked when the game went for $30 a week from release. Thanks EA, not gonna buy Anthem for full price now. It'll be on sale fast. Short-sighted idiots.
 

Tebunker

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,844
Seems like that's the fault of the developer. If people are trying your game and still don't give a shit for more than an hour... If the game was good people would keep playing is all.

At what point do you take blame for people not wanting to play your games?
Ah yes the meritocracy approach, of course I can think of 100's of times I started a game and played for an hour or two, something came up, life got in the way or a million other things happened like I wanted to play a bigger title but wanted to quickly see if there was something here etc. And then never went back. It isn't an uncommon occurrence and when you have 100's of games to choose from you are going to miss out. The Cream doesn't always rise to the top when you are deluged by hundreds and hundreds of gallons at a time.
 

THEVOID

Prophet of Regret
Member
Oct 27, 2017
22,861
"try" more games. OK...let's say I try an indie game and play it for 20 minutes. Then never again, because the game didn't have an immediate hook and there are hundreds of other games on the streaming service. How did being able to try that game help the indie developer? If I had bought the game for $10, the developer would have gotten a huge amount of money compared to that streaming amount, and I would have been incentivized to play longer anyway to find the value in the game.

Here's the real kicker - even AAA games won't get hardly any money from these services, because of how cheap they are. Xbox Game Pass is $10 a month - this means the most money a developer could possibly get is $10 in a month from my subscription, and that only if Microsoft gave them the entire amount without taking a cut (unlikely). That game would have to be the exclusive game a user played for 6 months to make up the original $60 purchase price.

You're math is wrong in regards to subs, and I suck at math. Devs don't get an actual cut of 10 bucks. LOL! It's a pool of movie as the service as a whole. You think that Netflix only offers a movie the 12 bucks a month?
 
OP
OP
chris 1515

chris 1515

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,074
Barcelona Spain
I highly doubt Sony has a third (unannounced) subscription service. PSNow and PS+ are their subs - PSNow is their gamepass analog. I've no idea how Now works with regard to payment. I always kind of assumed it was based on user time, which could be good or bad depending.

PSNow is not only a subscription model but a streaming services too. I am not interested by the streaming part at all. I hope they will change the service and give the option to only use the download part of the service.
 

WhtR88t

Member
May 14, 2018
4,587
I'm assuming part of Game Passes eventual business model is to try and further monetize games through DLC and micro transactions. Sure, the base game is free, but if you want the DLC or anything extra you have to pay.

Right now, we're living the dream of "full" free games, but once games start being designed around the subscription model, the "free" part of the game is going to get you in the door so then hopefully you spend more money on extras and upgrades.
 

Horp

Member
Nov 16, 2017
3,712
Have you seen the percentage of people living paycheck to paycheck? Ain't nobody got money for that.

GamePass and cdkeys save my poor ass from not having shit to play.
But then you're not really cheap, you simply dont have the money. But those that do have the money, and dont mind blowing hundreds of bucks on drinks at the bar every weekend but can't pay for a game.. bah. I.e some of my friends.
 

Ringten

Member
Nov 15, 2017
6,195
Not only will it suck for the indies that makes short but good games, but I'm really worried it will be an excuse to put out poor quality single player games from the big ones.
Right now SP games have to be good to sell, if they are on a subscription service one will make the excuse that "it's free anyway" when the quality is crap. It's been an excuse already for the state of games like State of Decay 2.
The fact that they also want to pay "pr hour" played means that everyone will make games that are designed to keep you playing which sucks big time for "play and move on" people like me.

Hopefully there will be enough with my opinion that we will still get quality single player games and I think one way to make sure they can co-exist with the subscription services is to adopt the movie model where a movie is first released to theatres and then streaming a bit later.

This right here.

Subscription model alone gives corporation too much power. Afraid of games being GaaS.. unfinished, slowly updated troughout the year, and micro transactions infested.
 

Santar

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,004
Norway
Well that and the fact that you'd no longer own your games anymore. (I know you "technically" don't own games now either)
It truly is a potentially scary future for those of us that really care about video games and the preservation of them.
Sadly most people don't give a shit as long as they get to play the latest big games.
 

Horp

Member
Nov 16, 2017
3,712
No.

Instead, publishers should stop devaluing their games so much. I, as a consumer, am looking for the best possible deal. This is why Nintendo continues to sell copies of Zelda BOTW at full price. They will never put it on sale. People buy the game for $60, knowing that they have no chance to get it for cheaper even if they wait for a year.

Battlefield V full price buyers got turbo-fucked when the game went for $30 a week from release. Thanks EA, not gonna buy Anthem for full price now. It'll be on sale fast. Short-sighted idiots.
Yeah fair enough, that too.
Gaas plague - need to have a huge following STAT.
 
Jun 26, 2018
3,829
I doubt we're ever really gonna go to full-on subscription model, big studios wouldn't really go for it for new releases, too much money lost I assume.
 

Lashley

<<Tag Here>>
Member
Oct 25, 2017
59,991
If Xbox and Sony are paying them upfront, then it'll be fine.

They'll dictate the norm of streaming going forward.
 

Ikuu

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,294
No.

Instead, publishers should stop devaluing their games so much. I, as a consumer, am looking for the best possible deal. This is why Nintendo continues to sell copies of Zelda BOTW at full price. They will never put it on sale. People buy the game for $60, knowing that they have no chance to get it for cheaper even if they wait for a year.

Battlefield V full price buyers got turbo-fucked when the game went for $30 a week from release. Thanks EA, not gonna buy Anthem for full price now. It'll be on sale fast. Short-sighted idiots.
Only in gaming would people celebrate something never going on sale.
 

ASaiyan

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,228
I mean, itch.io will always be a thing. Same way Bandcamp is still a thing for independent artists.

It really sucks that companies think "playtime ratio" is an acceptable payment model (probably, they are doing this because their subscription services are barely turning a profit themselves). But I don't think the sky is falling for indie games or anything.
Stop being so cheap, people. Buy games. Dont wait for humble bundle, steam deep sale or gamepass. Buy the game.
What a fucking out of touch post. Maybe you could buy the games for us yourself, with your piles of spare money?
 

THEVOID

Prophet of Regret
Member
Oct 27, 2017
22,861
This right here.

Subscription model alone gives corporation too much power. Afraid of games being GaaS.. unfinished, slowly updated troughout the year, and micro transactions infested.

We got that way before subs started. If people are willing to buy unfinished games in beta there's a market.
 

Screen Looker

Member
Nov 17, 2018
1,963
The Netflix model is to pay upfront. He's talking about the Spotify approach. Dev Studios would have better guarantees on income with a Netflix model.

Part of this being able to be done is the difference between hollywood and music and gaming in unionization and guarantees.

Now is the time for developers to refuse outright though. I don't think it's doom and gloom as he paints it though because those service won't completely take off without third party content anyway.

If they did grow the services without third parties, they would have to pay for that development anyway, which is again an upfront cost model as they pay for the development.

Just don't give in now under the guise of "experimentation" as that will become the norm and the fight to change it will be harder.
 

THEVOID

Prophet of Regret
Member
Oct 27, 2017
22,861
But then you're not really cheap, you simply dont have the money. But those that do have the money, and dont mind blowing hundreds of bucks on drinks at the bar every weekend but can't pay for a game.. bah. I.e some of my friends.

That's not fair at all. There's oodles of entertianment willing to take out money and tons of competition. You have to adapt to the market.
 

Starlatine

533.489 paid youtubers cant be wrong
Member
Oct 28, 2017
30,421
"x thing is bad because it can be used in a bad way" is a dumb argument that fits literally everything.
 

SuikerBrood

Member
Jan 21, 2018
15,490
I'm going to include a quote from Take Two's CEO that I think is worth reading-

Ultimately subscriptions are set to be additive in the gaming space, as opposed to all encompassing.

This is an interesting quote. I think the importance of subscriptions services will differ from publisher to publisher. And I also think it's easier to get third party software on your platform as a platform holder.

Wonder if we'll see more third party content on EA's service. I expect it.
 

Deleted member 6730

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
11,526
That sounds super scummy. I know Netflix and Spotify especially are really bad with paying out royalties but you should at least get paid upfront for something like that.
 

Astandahl

Member
Oct 28, 2017
9,011
I still like old school model. I'll keep buying the games i'm interested in.

Don't really care about this subs model like EA or Gamepass.