Many game developers are not embracing a subscription future, unless you ask Ubisoft or...

[Daniel Sims]

The big picture: As the prominence of gaming subscription services grows, so does the anxiety over whether they'll monopolize the industry. Ubisoft recently expressed hope for this eventuality, but Baldur's Gate 3 developer Larian Studios opposes it. Meanwhile, industry analysis indicates that subscriptions and direct purchases will coexist for now.

Games industry analyst Mat Piscatella from Circana (formerly NPD) reports that the growth of video game subscription services has flattened. Based on the current data, he doubts that subscriptions will replace traditional game sales anytime soon, and harping on it doing so amounts to "fear mongering."

Piscatella notes that US subscription services on consoles and PCs only represent 10 percent of spending on gaming content. His analysis suggests that users are in no rush to abandon one-time purchases.

Subs have been more additive than cannibalistic, and offer players, devs and pubs more choice in how to play or how to go to market. Fear mongering on this topic is quite unnecessary.

– Mat Piscatella (@MatPiscatella) January 17, 2024

The observations contrast with hopes Ubisoft recently expressed upon announcing changes to its subscription service. The company's director of subscriptions, Philippe Tremblay, said Ubisoft wants consumers to transition to a wholly subscription-based model and give up on game ownership.

Tremblay equated the move to how consumers are now comfortable not owning music or movies, instead opting to subscribe to on-demand services like Spotify or Netflix. The data suggests that a similar shift isn't currently happening in video games.

Instead, Piscatella said that subscriptions have complemented rather than cannibalized game sales so far in that the two models might collectively offer companies and consumers more choices. The analyst's statement matches Ubisoft's observation that many players temporarily use subscriptions to trial games before buying them, somewhat like a replacement for rentals.

Whatever the future of games looks like, content will always be king. But it's going to be a lot harder to get good content if subscription becomes the dominant model and a select group gets to decide what goes to market and what not. Direct from developer to players is the way. https://t.co/wEUvd5adt0

– Swen Vincke @where? (@LarAtLarian) January 17, 2024

Piscatella sees no need to worry about the phasing out of game ownership. However, the founder and CEO of Baldur's Gate 3 developer Larian Studios, Swen Vincke, responded to Tremblay's comments with alarm.

In a series of tweets, Vincke warned that if subscriptions take over, the companies operating those services will determine what gets made, potentially stifling creativity. He said that today's problems with discoverability on digital distribution platforms could worsen if games become dependent on the cost-benefit analysis of subscription providers. Such a situation could be similar to how streaming services often cancel and remove programs to save money.

Also read: Microsoft might have considered leaving the gaming market if Game Pass didn't succeed

Vincke reiterated Larian's guarantee from December that Baldur's Gate 3 and the rest of the company's catalog won't come to subscription services for the foreseeable future. He hopes the decision can help preserve the traditional practice of buying games, even if some titles and developers might benefit from subscriptions.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/101553-npd-analyst-subscriptions-wont-dominate-gaming-anytime-soon.html

 

[Burty117]

I think games are safe from subscription services due to the medium itself.

A single song is usually around 3 minutes long.
A movie is usually around 2-3 hour long.
A game can be anywhere from 5 minutes to 1000+ hours.

If I’d bought a subscription at something like £10 a month, I would have paid more for Baldurs Gate 3 today than when I bought it outright, and it’s pretty much the only game I’ve played recently, with 200 odd hours in it with plenty more hours to go.

See, multiplayer games in-particular can have seriously long life spans with people spending thousands of hours in them, when Overwatch originally launched, I think for about 2 years it’s the only game I played, I paid £45 for it, so 5 months of a subscription at a push.

What I’m getting at is, unless all games become much shorter experiences (10 hours or less) and multiplayer games become much worse or removed completely, I don’t see subscription services ever taking over.

 

[Thanthan]

The thing about music and films as a point of comparison is that… people aren’t happy with subscriptions… especially not on the film front and people are starting to purchase them in increasing numbers again. Fragmentation of the streaming market is causing streaming to become less convenient than simply owning the movies you like. Want Disney? Gotta get +. Want ghibli? Netflix. Classic westerns? Paramount (I think? Maybe?), big budget series? HBO… now we’re 40USD deep, I watch 1, maybe two new movies a month (because let’s face it… a lot of content is getting rewatched rather than people, especially kids, exploring new content). And well if I just buy, I can choose those movies much more freely, so that I do.

 

[bviktor]

I'm not paying for any kind of subscription PRECISELY because I wouldn't own the content. And thus whenever the provider decides, I'm no longer able to watch the darned movie.

No thanks.

Same goes for game subs. Sometimes I play for weeks straight, then I stop for months. I don't want the provider to decide when and how long I'm allowed to play a certain title.

 

[RudyBob]

This type of entertainment is not the sort of thing I would subscribe to. It's fun but it's only hollow puff.

 

[LetTheWookieWin]

The day games become subscription-only is the day I stop playing new titles. I have CDs and legacy content galore to fall back on, plus community mods and servers for classics like RtCW and WolfET.

 

[ZedRM]

@ Game Devs Worldwide,
Subscription business models are not acceptable! Many of us will NEVER use them. If you choose to, you loose out on our money, regardless of how "great" your game is. We will NEVER accept it!

 

[m4a4]

Boy, a lot of overreaction, with the hyperbole of never using them never ever ever.

Subscription services can be used to "demo" a game (or few) that you'd never buy otherwise (just as the article mentions), and buy the ones you want to keep playing afterwards.
It's not an either/or situation.

They have their place for some people, just like a console instead of a gaming PC

 

[ExReey]

I think games are safe from subscription services due to the medium itself.

A single song is usually around 3 minutes long.
A movie is usually around 2-3 hour long.
A game can be anywhere from 5 minutes to 1000+ hours.

If I’d bought a subscription at something like £10 a month, I would have paid more for Baldurs Gate 3 today than when I bought it outright, and it’s pretty much the only game I’ve played recently, with 200 odd hours in it with plenty more hours to go.

See, multiplayer games in-particular can have seriously long life spans with people spending thousands of hours in them, when Overwatch originally launched, I think for about 2 years it’s the only game I played, I paid £45 for it, so 5 months of a subscription at a push.

What I’m getting at is, unless all games become much shorter experiences (10 hours or less) and multiplayer games become much worse or removed completely, I don’t see subscription services ever taking over.

That's the point; if subscription services became dominant, 200 hour games like BG3 wouldnt get made anymore.

 

[mgilbert]

I think games are safe from subscription services due to the medium itself.

A single song is usually around 3 minutes long.
A movie is usually around 2-3 hour long.
A game can be anywhere from 5 minutes to 1000+ hours.

If I’d bought a subscription at something like £10 a month, I would have paid more for Baldurs Gate 3 today than when I bought it outright, and it’s pretty much the only game I’ve played recently, with 200 odd hours in it with plenty more hours to go.

See, multiplayer games in-particular can have seriously long life spans with people spending thousands of hours in them, when Overwatch originally launched, I think for about 2 years it’s the only game I played, I paid £45 for it, so 5 months of a subscription at a push.

What I’m getting at is, unless all games become much shorter experiences (10 hours or less) and multiplayer games become much worse or removed completely, I don’t see subscription services ever taking over.

Your rationale is backwards. Because games often last a hundred to hundreds of hours, taking months to complete, forcing subscriptions on everyone would make games way more profitable. It's inevitable. It won't be long before subscriptions are the only way to play a game. Almost all major software suppliers have gone that route, and game developers will follow.

 

[mgilbert]

I always wait months, if not years, for the games I want to play to drop in price. I never pay more than $10 to $15 for a game, and never will. I just bought Tiny Tina's Wonderlands and Far Cry 6 from Epic for far less than $15 each. Unfortunately, games will follow movies and software, and go almost exclusively subscription, and when they do, I'm done gaming. Because some games stay popular for years, and others take hundreds of hours to complete, having to have a subscription to play those games would be very profitable, and put an end to free and heavily discounted older games. There is no way this is not going to happen.

 

[fazy shah]

Ubisoft exe should get comfortable searching for a job.

 

[MasterAce]

The reality is that if you can’t login, you can’t play. You can’t download your games. That’s not ownership.

 

[ZedRM]

Boy, a lot of overreaction, with the hyperbole of never using them never ever ever.

It's not over-reaction. It's a statement of idealism and resolution.

Your rationale is backwards. Because games often last a hundred to hundreds of hours, taking months to complete, forcing subscriptions on everyone would make games way more profitable. It's inevitable. It won't be long before subscriptions are the only way to play a game. Almost all major software suppliers have gone that route, and game developers will follow.

Context is important. The title of the article says it all:

Many game developers are not embracing a subscription future

Yup, there it is. So @mgilbert what do you think? You think your statement has any merit whatsoever? (hint: it does not...)

The reality is that if you can’t login, you can’t play. You can’t download your games. That’s not ownership.

Exactly. DRM free is the only way to fly!!

 

[dangh]

I buy games on GoG nearly exclusively. If there are some titles not available there I either skip it or buy if this is something I do really like (Cities skylines 2 recently), but switch to GoG when possible. Subscription and GaaS is imo worst thing ever to happen, as this drives game developers to create type of games to bring most money to the publisher (length, dlc's, MT) instead of best experience to the gamers.

The reality is that if you can’t login, you can’t play. You can’t download your games. That’s not ownership.

No. You buying games in a wrong place. Switch to GoG.

Subscription services can be used to "demo" a game (or few) that you'd never buy otherwise (just as the article mentions), and buy the ones you want to keep playing afterwards.

First of all, I'm not going to pay monthly for a possible 'demo'.
Good developers still offer a proper demos.
I can 'demo' any game on Steam for 2 hours and it is still better and cheaper than subscription. (or a month on GoG).

 

[m4a4]

It's not over-reaction. It's a statement of idealism and resolution.

Nope. Overreaction. You're loudly "ignoring" a tool provided to you because you don't want to rationalize it being useful in any case. And you give no leeway.

First of all, I'm not going to pay monthly for a possible 'demo'.
Good developers still offer a proper demos.
I can 'demo' any game on Steam for 2 hours and it is still better and cheaper than subscription. (or a month on GoG).

Not everyone uses Steam (console users). Not all developers (as "good" as you want to believe) give demos. And people generally don't buy a game on Steam to try if they aren't all that interested in it (even if they can refund it).
How selfish do you have to be to think subscriptions are useless because they don't specifically apply to you?

 

[dangh]

Not everyone uses Steam (console users). Not all developers (as "good" as you want to believe) give demos. And people generally don't buy a game on Steam to try if they aren't all that interested in it (even if they can refund it).
How selfish do you have to be to think subscriptions are useless because they don't specifically apply to you?

Subscriptions ARE useless exactly because they specifically apply to me: gaas is actively losing quality of games in general, while increasing the cost of gaming via mt and dlc, and, in addition, subscriptions costs.
Because of that number of developers caring about quality games significantly drops and good games are more difficult to get. So yes, I am affected.
How selfish is of you to support declining quality of subscription oriented games only because some gamers being short-sighted and gullible? Big corpos loves subscription because it is just easy cash for not giving back the ownership. And people bad at calculations are just following that rhetoric. Unfortunately we all getting crap on after - easy to sit the trend looking at the recent Disney or Netflix offers, quality is just hitting the deep bottom.

 

[m4a4]

Subscriptions ARE useless

And there we are. You've ended this particular convo because you can't even admit some use. I never said that all subscriptions are worth it (or beneficial) for all cases. How childish to continue with your strawman arguments.

PS. Disney and Netflix quality has to do with the general decline of Hollywood writing in general, not because of some magical subscription structure (considering theatrical movies are also trending towards bad quality even with their inflated budgets).
Remember when you had to subscribe to cable with their channel bundles if you wanted something better than the free option?
Oops, another inconvenient fact. Remember, correlation does not equal causation.....

 

[amghwk]

Boy, a lot of overreaction, with the hyperbole of never using them never ever ever.

Subscription services can be used to "demo" a game (or few) that you'd never buy otherwise (just as the article mentions), and buy the ones you want to keep playing afterwards.
It's not an either/or situation.

They have their place for some people, just like a console instead of a gaming PC

So, you're paying for the "demo" and the full game...

 

[m4a4]

So, you're paying for the "demo" and the full game...

Are you trying to imply that subscription services only have one game?

Like, what's your point?

 

[amghwk]

Are you trying to imply that subscription services only have one game?

Like, what's your point?

The point is, according to your thinking, you're still paying, for the "demos", even if you are not going to buy them. No matter the number of games.

 

[m4a4]

The point is, according to your thinking, you're still paying, for the "demos", even if you are not going to buy them. No matter the number of games.

Ok. You play a game on sub for a few hours that you were curious about, you decide you don't like it. You have now paid less than full price. And you can still play other games to see if you like them (for the rest of the sub duration).

Try again. You have not made any intelligent argument against "subs can be useful".

 

[amghwk]

Ok. You play a game on sub for a few hours that you were curious about, you decide you don't like it. You have now paid less than full price. And you can still play other games to see if you like them (for the rest of the sub duration).

Try again. You have not made any intelligent argument against "subs can be useful".

Likewise, your argument doesn't make sense either. **Shrugs**. Well, it's you who are subscribing. Anyway, to each his own. Enjoy your demos.

 

[Gezzer]

"If I’d bought a subscription at something like £10 a month, I would have paid more for Baldurs Gate 3 today than when I bought it outright"

Which is the whole idea. Increase profits with less effort/cost. Little wonder that it's someone from Ubisoft promoting the idea? Not at all IMHO. I'm pretty certain that all the big publishers are salivating over the idea of subscription gaming. I'm also not surprised developers are pushing back. With the idea, the only ones that win are the publishers. And we'll see the video game equivalente of reality TV pretty soon after it becomes the dominate delivery vehicle IMHO.

 

[Gezzer]

Ok. You play a game on sub for a few hours that you were curious about, you decide you don't like it. You have now paid less than full price. And you can still play other games to see if you like them (for the rest of the sub duration).

Try again. You have not made any intelligent argument against "subs can be useful".

Your usage concept would only make sense if publishers were constantly releasing a lot of games on the service. It's the achilles heel of all streaming services. Without a constant supply of new product, people quickly realize that it's not economical to stay subscribed and drop the service. So you soon end up with a gaming version of reality TV (mobile games?). And games that take years (sometimes 6 years plus) to develop simply won't be viable with the new model. I vote for obvious quality over weeding through 90-95% garbage to find a few gems.