this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
261 points (98.2% liked)

Games

32532 readers
757 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
quinten@lemmy.world
shitpostpolice@lemmy.world
Dremor@lemmy.world
Dremor@jlai.lu
261
Veteran Videogame Analyst: Subscription growth has flattened [in video games] (files.catbox.moe)
submitted 10 months ago by simple@lemm.ee to c/games@lemmy.world
55 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] echo64@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

a subscription model isn't necessarily the future or even what's most profitable for a company to offer (as Sony was recently acknowledging).

It's worth remembering that the goal of subscription services like gamepass is not to be the most profitable avenue. The goal is marketshare.

Microsoft lost, and Microsoft lost hard. Reportedly, the CEO wanted to exit gaming entirely after the Xbox One. They didn't based solely on the new business plan, which was to disrupt the market. Kill the existing model by offering super low-cost subscriptions (paid for by Azure and Office 365) and become the new encumbant of a new industry where you can jack up the prices and lower the cos(and quality) over a decade trying to chase profitability.

Subscriptions are not about revenue generation as every subscription model out there lowers revenue massively. It's about holding a larger share of the market so you can make money in other ways.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I think you're confusing the advantages and strategies of having a subscription and the advantages and strategies of having a loss leader.

Not all subscriptions are designed to be loss leaders, and most of the benefits you see in GamePass (lower or even negative revenue in exchange for increased market share) is seen over and over with loss leaders that aren't subscriptions.

Yes, I agree that Microsoft has adjusted strategy from a focus on winning console wars to increasing software gatekeeping across PC and now apparently even competitor consoles. And that GamePass plays a large part in that.

But it would be a mistake to assume that subscriptions in games are all going to have the same goals and focus as Microsoft with GamePass.

[–] echo64@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

I would argue that there are three kinds of game subscriptions right now

  • gamepass, paid for by azure/office. goal to turn the industry into a subscription service based industry like everything else has been converted into
  • trying-to-keep-up-with-gamepass: this is ps+ (extra|premium), it exists as a failing effort to keep up with gamepass. it has to make money and thus users don't see value in it. it either costs too much or doesn't provide enough for the cost
  • fifa subscription

the last one has existed for a long time and doesn't really factor into the discussions people are having today. it's not really relevant. the other two are both a factor of each other and relevant to what we are talking about.