Why people complain about subscription so hard?

[Aleupo]

I play on/off and own all but the latest 3 dlcs and i think it's a good model for new players as they'll very likely be turned off by the dlc list when interested in this game. 5€ per month for all content is fair imo, i am even thinking about subscribing myself because buying the missing dlc will cost me more than a 6 month subscription, or i can just hop in for a month and explore the new content.

[DirishDevil]

I may be old school but i like to own my games

[Aleupo]

Me too but i think it's an interesting option that shouldn't trigger review bombing.

[Sunderbraze]

If the subscription was happening in isolation, it wouldn't be as bad of a thing. The problem in my eyes is that it's a trend. Paradox has rolled it out for four of their other major games as far as I know, and they're showing no signs of stopping.

Consider that Paradox is not a privately-owned company, but a publicly-traded one.

I'll share something I posted on their little FAQ section about the subscription, where they completely dodged the question of "Who asked for this?" and gave a non-answer.

The real answer is, these people asked for this: https://www.paradoxinteractive.com/investors/ownership-structure

Specifically, there is a concept in stock trading called a "recurring revenue bundle" or simply a "rundle" which often takes the form of a subscription. When a company offers a "rundle" their stock will trade at a higher price, completely regardless of what actual product or service is being offered, simply because there are so many rubes sign up for things that drain their bank accounts on a monthly basis and forget about them.

Expect to see more rundles from Paradox. Whether it comes in the form of current games adding "DLC subscriptions" like this, or new games with a much more egregious model, who knows. Time will tell. Personally, I have no faith that any publicly-traded company in the video game industry will ever stop pushing their way into recurrent-spending monetization models. They have a direct financial incentive from both top-down and bottom-up. So, why do I dislike seeing more subscriptions? It's a sign of things to come.

[Athmet]

Originally posted by Sunderbraze:

If the subscription was happening in isolation, it wouldn't be as bad of a thing. The problem in my eyes is that it's a trend. Paradox has rolled it out for four of their other major games as far as I know, and they're showing no signs of stopping.

Consider that Paradox is not a privately-owned company, but a publicly-traded one.

I'll share something I posted on their little FAQ section about the subscription, where they completely dodged the question of "Who asked for this?" and gave a non-answer.

The real answer is, these people asked for this: https://www.paradoxinteractive.com/investors/ownership-structure

Specifically, there is a concept in stock trading called a "recurring revenue bundle" or simply a "rundle" which often takes the form of a subscription. When a company offers a "rundle" their stock will trade at a higher price, completely regardless of what actual product or service is being offered, simply because there are so many rubes sign up for things that drain their bank accounts on a monthly basis and forget about them.

Expect to see more rundles from Paradox. Whether it comes in the form of current games adding "DLC subscriptions" like this, or new games with a much more egregious model, who knows. Time will tell. Personally, I have no faith that any publicly-traded company in the video game industry will ever stop pushing their way into recurrent-spending monetization models. They have a direct financial incentive from both top-down and bottom-up. So, why do I dislike seeing more subscriptions? It's a sign of things to come.

I would call that issue systemic in the way that is affects every business under the current capitalistic model.

If gamers want to vent frustration about that sytem, why not. But if they want to change it, they will need to do a lot more than posting thread and complaints on a video gaming forum.

However, gamers have that mentality where they want to blame all the worlds problems on some single enemy they can fight.

[nilfiry]

People complaining about it are just butt hurt kids who have just come out into the world for the very first time and don't know how the real world works.

Lets not talk about the business side of the subscription model yet. Lets just talk about how developers/publishers have been shafting their gamers for ages by selling you a game at full price, enhance it several months later, and then sell you the same [improved] game again at full price with no free upgrades for people who already bought the game the first time.

Lets talk about how people are perfectly happy paying full price for a game just to play it ASAP when it comes out despite know for a fact that there will likely be a price drop or sale later down the line. This is more or less closest to what is happening here: people are pissed off because they paid full price for a game that they could have gotten on sale if only they had waited a decade. lol

And lastly, the subscription model. Everything is going that route, and we all saw it and continue to see it coming. The stats prove that people that people like their subscriptions. My advice is to keep this in mind going forward and vote with your wallet.

Also, for those "old timers" that like to own their games, we have not owned our games for ages. We may own the disc/cartridge but not the software on them. We can arguably say we used to own a copy of the game (and not THE game itself), but EULAs have explicitly stated that we merely paid for a "license to play the game" for well over a decade.

[Aleupo]

I just look at this from a personal level and with new players in mind, i think it's pretty cool that you can trial the full game for a month for 10€ which you could only experience by buying everything before, will also help with deciding which dlc you really need for your preferences. I won't do it on a new game but with games that ask such a price for the complete experience, it's something i'll consider.

[Ericus1]

Paradox wants to divorce their revenue stream from the quality of work they produce. That is reason #1 for the subscription model. If they make garbage content, then consumers who own the game simply don't buy it and lose nothing. But subscribers are given no choice - Paradox already has their money, and if they want to continue to play they have to continue to pay. The more players they can shift to subscriptions the more divorced quality becomes from revenue stream.

They also recognized that their terrible DLC model has created an incredibly intimidating barrier to new customers, and rather than address it in a consumer-friendly way - by say continuously reducing price permanently on older content that costs them virtually nothing or folding it into the base game, they instead offer a "subscription" that traps consumers with poor financial literacy, i.e. mainly children and poor people, into a sunk-cost mentality. This is compounded by the fact that this same group are the ones that often cannot afford the large lump sum to make the smarter financial choice to buy outright. That is reason #2 for the subscription model.

That is why people complain about the subscription model. It is insidiously anti-consumer and predatory.

[Aleupo]

I mean it's clearly cheaper to subscribe than to buy everything as it will give you years of access, likely longer than you will play this, imo the dlc model is way more predatory in this case of game, you buy a couple of dlc and you always end up buying everything, regardless if it makes sense or not. For example my playtime does not justify the money i spend at all, subscribing for a month here and there would have been very much cheaper for me.

[Astrallight]

Originally posted by Aleupo:

I play on/off and own all but the latest 3 dlcs and i think it's a good model for new players as they'll very likely be turned off by the dlc list when interested in this game. 5€ per month for all content is fair imo, i am even thinking about subscribing myself because buying the missing dlc will cost me more than a 6 month subscription, or i can just hop in for a month and explore the new content.

Cause new players dont understand what us veterans have done to own every game just so they can get it for only 10$ a month. Thats just showing how much they actually care about thier most loyal players.

Originally posted by nilfiry:

People complaining about it are just butt hurt kids who have just come out into the world for the very first time and don't know how the real world works.

Now say that again after you payed for every X-pack just for some random new player to be able to play the full game for 1/50 of what you payed to own this game.


But surely your post just proves you would care less about your most loyal players. Most games dont even give thier loyal players the recognition they deserve. They change thier goal to milk new players and you support the idea with your low effort post.

Out with the old in with the new.

[Aleupo]

Come on, you got years of exclusive access for your money, jealousy towards new players is kinda off, i mean what do you want, a vet icon or something?

[Athmet]

Originally posted by Ericus1:

Paradox wants to divorce their revenue stream from the quality of work they produce. That is reason #1 for the subscription model. If they make garbage content, then consumers who own the game simply don't buy it and lose nothing. But subscribers are given no choice - Paradox already has their money, and if they want to continue to play they have to continue to pay. The more players they can shift to subscriptions the more divorced quality becomes from revenue stream.

They also recognized that their terrible DLC model has created an incredibly intimidating barrier to new customers, and rather than address it in a consumer-friendly way - by say continuously reducing price permanently on older content that costs them virtually nothing or folding it into the base game, they instead offer a "subscription" that traps consumers with poor financial literacy, i.e. mainly children and poor people, into a sunk-cost mentality. This is compounded by the fact that this same group are the ones that often cannot afford the large lump sum to make the smarter financial choice to buy outright. That is reason #2 for the subscription model.

That is why people complain about the subscription model. It is insidiously anti-consumer and predatory.

> "Old" players have no incentive to start subscribing now unless they have not already bought all the DLC. But for the "old" players who bought all the DLC it is cheaper to keep buying the DLC as they come out.

> Your premise therefore is a bit wrong since it would mean the new players become the majority of the player base for Stellaris.... Unless you are projecting yourself in like 8 years in the future ? By then, Stellaris 2 will be out and no more sub for Stellaris 2.

> Regarding the "predatory" and how to protect the "weak" people: mate, just go and vote laws that will protect consumers then if you believe subscription is that bad. Why would you be angry with a business to do something that is entirely legal in the current system and bring them a lot of profit ?? Where do you live ?

[nilfiry]

Originally posted by Astrallight:

Now say that again after you payed for every X-pack just for some random new player to be able to play the full game for 1/50 of what you payed to own this game.

But surely your post just proves you would care less about your most loyal players. Most games dont even give thier loyal players the recognition they deserve. They change thier goal to milk new players and you support the idea with your low effort post.

You call my post low effort, but you clearly did not read it, so now I have to repeat a point I already addressed.

How is that any different from buying full price to play on release vs someone paying 50-90% off to play 6 months later? Yet, I don't see people make a big deal about price drops. Games get rereleased with all off the paid DLC that a previous release had all the time. You are upset about a practice that has been going on for ages! When are you going to learn instead of just being upset about it every time it happens?

Don't get me wrong. I don't like it either, but for me, I already got my money's worth for what I paid. New people coming in with a massive discount? Lucky them, but I wasn't planning on waiting 8 years to see if a game that I wanted to play is going to have a price drop.

[Ericus1]

That's just inanely ridiculous. You can raise consumer financial literacy by drawing their attention to predatory business models without having to implement laws or having to "vote for it".

And it will always be cheaper in the long run to buy outright than rent-to-play and end up with nothing if you ever stop. A year at $10 a month would get nearly the entire game and actual quality DLC on sale. That's not "8 years in the future". But once someone starts the subscription, they are likely to never switch even after they've paid the lump sum cost many times over.

This is not something that is up for debate. There are well-documented studies that explicitly show that consumer behavior and why businesses directly try and exploit it.

[Athmet]

Originally posted by Ericus1:

That's just inanely ridiculous. You can raise consumer financial literacy by drawing their attention to predatory business models without having to implement laws or having to "vote for it".

And it will always be cheaper in the long run to buy outright than rent-to-play and end up with nothing if you ever stop. A year at $10 a month would get nearly the entire game and actual quality DLC on sale. That's not "8 years in the future". But once someone starts the subscription, they are likely to never switch even after they've paid the lump sum cost many times over.

This is not something that is up for debate. There are well-documented studies that explicitly show that consumer behavior and why businesses directly try and exploit it.

I am not trying to deny that fact. I am simply stating that if you want to do something about it, you will need the law to help.

Do you really believe the "weak" people that get exploited by subscriptions are the people who come on Steam forum to read those thread ?? You really believe this ??

If you were really that concerned about those people well being you would really try to make the difference by fighting for laws that would protect those individuals. And who knows, maybe you actually are. But I have seen so many gamers like you who actually simply keep going with the system (who would want to vote for laws that start telling business how they should do business) and still complain about it on Steam forums.

And, please, do feel free to keep making such post and threads on Steam forums as much as you want. Do not make me believe you really think it is changing anything.

[Geoff]

Originally posted by Aleupo:

I play on/off and own all but the latest 3 dlcs and i think it's a good model for new players as they'll very likely be turned off by the dlc list when interested in this game. 5€ per month for all content is fair imo, i am even thinking about subscribing myself because buying the missing dlc will cost me more than a 6 month subscription, or i can just hop in for a month and explore the new content.

It's a predatory business model that may serve some people particularly well, but is generally most profitable when it is most predatory - i.e., when it takes advantage of consumer inattention or inability to navigate the usually difficult cancellation process.

To the extent it allows monetization of a zombie customer base, it also provides negative incentives to the game's developers to keep the title in a state of reasonable repair - something that the current dev team is already failing at in a pretty spectacular way.