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

[–] 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.