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.
Whoa, subscription models hurt smaller games? Whoever could have seen this coming?
Glances at spotify.
No-one could have predicted this!
I always wondered if thats really true for smaller musicians . I mean you get bigger share of subscription money without label and you should come out on top over cd eventualy if pepole are listening to your music. The only diffrence being that you get your money over time instead of an imidieate boost. I get this feeling its just the case of more music being made than ever before.
Also how does revenue sharing works in case of games. In case of music its pretty easy but in case of games i am not sure how that works.
In the case of both, how fair it is, depends on payment model. At least spotify is grossly unfair, to the point that there is an entire industry around bot farming plays to drain money from the payment pool.
As for game subscriptions, I've not looked into it much, but I know Apple's service at least is based on hours played, which has resulted in some games on the service attempting to stretch out their playtime using things like mandatory grinding to progress in their games. With this model, developers can literally shoot themselves in the foot financially, by allowing the player to sprint. It's stupid.
Games can't be reduced to that simple a value. You can get the same amount of hours out of God of War as you can Binding of Isaac, but their production and purchase costs, are not, and should not, be the same.
Hmm yeach ive heard that spotify aproach is kinda shitty and allows music boosting by bots. But at least tidal as far as i know is fair in that regard. basing the revenue based on hours played im game is fairly shitty. Actually Given the games specific i wonder what would actually be fair ( actually i know what would be fair. Microsoft buying the games that you downloaded straight up and paying the current price,but i really doubt it would be sustainable ).
Unfortunately, basically no game on these services, will ever get what a customer paying full price would net them.
The same goes for music. There's simply less money to go around in the subscription model.
Hmm with the game i agree but with the music i basicaly buy a full cd every month. And i doubt pepole were buying a cd every month. The only controversy to me here is the revenue sharing model which seems to be shitty on some of the platforms( like Spotify wich i would probably ditch for tidal if not for the amazing discver weekly )
Right but that has the same problem as video game pricing. Ten bucks is a lot less than it used to be.
And do you listen to just one album a month? I don't think so.
They are in a no-win situation. If they aren't making enough from subscriptions they can pull their games, but then they lose a massive amount of marketing and visibility. Much like Spotify and other streaming services, smaller artists just aren't making much from these. And with the way that contracts and subscription fatigue works, it's unlikely a competitor is going to be able to offer better deals while also attracting sufficient customers.
The win comes later once gamepass gets netflix'd. It'll only go on like this for so long before there's UbiPass and EAccess and Sony Prime and so on and so forth. Then a few years after that, when the services finally get pushed back against and die, everyone who just kept buying games on steam/gog/itch/whatever (or pirating) just keeps on not paying sub fees. Like nothing ever happened.
My impression of this comment read like us vs them (subscribers vs buyers) to me which I don't think realistic. They aren't mutually exclusive.
There are games that may be too short or don't have much repeatability that people better off renting than buying.
Subscriptions and those that use them are a worse deal for indie devs, and it only becomes an even worse deal as big name publishers put their new AAA games in the subscription and demand a proportionate slice of the pie.
My opinion / analysis of the situation is that it's only going to get worse for non-AAA and non-backed indies as "$180 a year gets me aaaaallll thiiiiiis, why would I spend a whole month's of gamepass on your one game" becomes more and more common.
Furthermore, there was never a world where Netflix stayed as "$15/mo for everything". Other corps want their own Netflixes. So they pull their content and put out another subscription. There's no world where MS Gamepass stays the only subscription-based game service in town, and when users are paying for three gamepasses, they're even less likely to buy a cool game that's lacking AAA polish for $10.
However, unlike movies and TV, no game has really become exclusive to Gamepass (some tried with Stadia, which thankfully died). There are shows that were exclusive to HBO Max that cannot be legally acquired anymore. Players that want some degree of ownership of their games can buy them on Steam/Epic, or if they want full ownership of their games they can buy them DRM-Free like on GOG. Those guys can keep on doing that through the rise of the "wow it's genuinely a good deal" gamepass, the "more corporations want their own gamepass" phase, the "prices go up and quality goes down now that we've got an audience" phase, and the "service is going away forever" phase.
I think the games generaly wont go into subscription only simply beacuse of how much time they take. You speak as if 180$ is a good deal but a lot of pepole do not play enough to justify spending 180$ on gamepass ( of course if you play online on consoles the equation works a little diffrent beacuse of their shitty practice of paid online but thats another matter ). Its not music that is consumed repetivly in massive amounts or to a lesser extent tv and film industry. Games take an awful lot of time amd many of the best ones are free to play already( Path of Exile )
i say $180 a year because it sounds like less of a "good deal". More people are willing to write off "$15 a month" than they are "$180 a year".
Capitalism only working well for the top dogs while the rest has to fight for the crumbs? Unheard of...
Alternatively, small publishers that haven't had a hit in a while are suffering.
The problem is publicly traded game companies.
I believe in Volvy. He will handle this.