Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Submissions have to be related to games
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No excessive self-promotion
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
Adding a bit more to the discussion on whether game subscription can be "the future", it looks like despite the heavy push made in the past decade, subscriptions only make up 10% of total video game spending in the US.
Link: https://nitter.net/MatPiscatella/status/1747660051269988522
What a lukewarm take. A quick glance to the subscription video-on-demand market should be fairly informative to the future of video game subscription services.
Right now they're still in the honeymoon phase, that is to say the "offer better value to capture a market" phase, of enshitification.
Not at all surprising he's getting pushback.
I mean... yeah. Turns out that having models and looking at the actual data and analyzing the market tends to land on lukewarm takes. The hot takes are for the press and the trolls.
FWIW, I don't have visibility on subscription growth at all, so I'll have to take his word for it, but none of that sounds unreasonable.... except maybe for the fact that the hype may make people make bad moves and double down in ways that are harmful. A degree of fearmongering can be useful, if only as a deterrent.
I think there are plenty of valid criticisms of the subscription model, and the reasons for those criticisms are the same as many of the reasons growth has flat lined. Labeling criticism as fear mongering seems like overly reductive spin, especially when this analyst doesn't seem to be interested in addressing those criticisms.
It's like saying "data shows very few people die annually from eating tide pods, therefore maybe we shouldn't be so scared of eating tide pods." Like, no, it's because nearly everyone realises it's a very bad idea that nobody dies from it.
You've crunched the numbers correctly, but have drawn the exact wrong conclusion.
Any time I see someone use the term "fear mongering" sincerely, I add a general heaping of salt to whatever they are saying. It's often an attempt to turn the topic to the "evil motives" of the "other side" before the original debate is settled.
If there's nothing to fear, that can be said without accusing anyone who thinks there is something to fear of trying to generate it for selfish reasons. In fact, I'd think that showing someone is fear mongering will be a greater burden than showing any particular thing they say is untrue, let alone a deliberate lie. But it gets thrown around so much lately as if it's an argument on its own.
There are valid criticisms, for sure. I was not in the original thread, though, so I don't know how willing to address those he is, but it's a valid point that it's not an all or nothing proposition. You can point out that subs aren't overtaking the market in gaming without implying that they should.
I'd be more interesting in debating whether subs are additive or not. I do know of anecdotal mentions of stunted sales on sub-forward releases, but I'd love to see more data about it (and what that means about revenue eventually, too).
But none of that influences the concerns on preservation one way or the other.
Honestly, I don't think you're right about the reasons growth has flatlined. I think the sub model just doesn't fit gaming best. The content just doesn't work well with the rotating carrousel of new and new-ish games most subscriptions have. I think Nintendo could be onto something, in the way Netflix was early on, in that you may be more willing to pay a fee to just have access to every single game before a certain point and from the beginning of time, but nobody is gonna figure that one out anytime soon.