Subscription Based Games

[[1DoD] Dodge]

I do hope that this doesn’t become the norm, or even more popular than it has been for the past few decades. Though if it does start to pop up I very much hope that people don’t buy into that type of predatory business. Have some self respect please. Anybody have any interesting information on this topic to share? Opinions?

[Seraphita]

As in... MMOs? You subscribe to pay monthly. You think MMOS will let you play for free with all the updates they do on their games? Sure, if you want to play a F2P, you can. But then, you will deal with invasive micro-transactions. It's been the norm for a long time...

[[1DoD] Dodge]

Originally posted by Seraphita:

As in... MMOs? You subscribe to pay monthly. You think MMOS will let you play for free with all the updates they do on their games? Sure, if you want to play a F2P, you can. But then, you will deal with invasive micro-transactions. It's been the norm for a long time...

I disagree with the predatory micro-transactions too, but MMOs originally started their subscription thing due to the amount of money it cost to have servers open to that number of players and the constant flow of content. Many of them are 20 years running with constant active content and a dedicated playerbase, so I understand. However, Ubisoft and Rockstar have both made recent claims about their interest and possible intentions on subscription based games… Those two companies make almost entirely singleplayer/co-op or small player count multiplayer games. They cannot justify this beyond “you don’t have to pay for it after you’re done playing it” but I’d much rather just buy my game and “own” it, despite arguments there… Regardless. The practice is predatory and pathetic, obvious attempts to squeeze every dollar possible while pumping out low quality products with high quality graphics.

[Seraphita]

So here's my take based on what you said. I am all for mmos keeping their sub. I mean, I also played runescape at a decent price of like 6 or 7 dollars per month. But I'm not very in with the whole "If you just want to play a single player game, you play monthly."

This last part would ♥♥♥♥ up gaming as we know it and gaming is already fragile as it is with all the cursed dlcs breaking games apart that you have to pay extra for. Greed is what lead gaming to what it is nowadays. It "could" get worse. I pray it doesn't but it could.

[[1DoD] Dodge]

Originally posted by Seraphita:

So here's my take based on what you said. I am all for mmos keeping their sub. I mean, I also played runescape at a decent price of like 6 or 7 dollars per month. But I'm not very in with the whole "If you just want to play a single player game, you play monthly."

This last part would ♥♥♥♥ up gaming as we know it and gaming is already fragile as it is with all the cursed dlcs breaking games apart that you have to pay extra for. Greed is what lead gaming to what it is nowadays. It "could" get worse. I pray it doesn't but it could.

That is a very concise and accurate way of stating my overly dramatic paragraph. Yes, I agree with that entirely. I feel as though gaming has gone from the passion of creating something enjoyable while also making a profit to being entirely lifeless and profiteering.

[Seraphita]

Originally posted by 1DoD Dodge:

That is a very concise and accurate way of stating my overly dramatic paragraph. Yes, I agree with that entirely. I feel as though gaming has gone from the passion of creating something enjoyable while also making a profit to being entirely lifeless and profiteering.

Unfortunately, nothing we will be able to do if it gets to that. Sure, there are ways to fight it but dang would that be unfortunate if we really get to the point that games are no longer games but cash flows. Owning games is what made gaming good. This is dying.

[Chika Ogiue]

Originally posted by Seraphita:

Owning games is what made gaming good.

Technically though, you never owned a game. The same way you've never owned a book, a cd of music, or a film. All of these have operated on the same model; that you pay for the right to use them. The forming of second hand markets around physical goods simply game people the incorrect perception that they owned these forms of creative works.

As far as payment models go for accessing these works, they will only be used for as long as they prove viable -- that is popular. If you don't want access to single player experiences being on a subscription based entry model, don't buy any kind of subscription that leverages such single player content. That includes Game Pass and the various other subscription models put out by publishers for their libraries.

MMOs at least have a meaningful reason for monthly subscriptions: the costs related to running and maintaining an online environment as the backend for the experience they offered.

[Seraphita]

My friend buys gamepass. But that's not exactly a bad thing. At least it's not buying for one game monthly. Gamepass is having access to SO MANY games and they keep adding more (While removing old ones) Granted, you don't own them but pay for experience.

Gamepass is one thing I can kinda be fine with. I've enjoyed many games there and it was well worth the price paid. You pay to rent games but we used to do that in blockbuster. The good old days, except it's digital. As long as Gamepass does not become greedy.

What I don't want is release one game but if you want to keep playing it, you need to pay some monthly charge. Of course I understand that not everyone would want gamepass as some people want to own games. I would not force this option on other people.

[BJWyler]

Originally posted by 1DoD Dodge:

Originally posted by Seraphita:

As in... MMOs? You subscribe to pay monthly. You think MMOS will let you play for free with all the updates they do on their games? Sure, if you want to play a F2P, you can. But then, you will deal with invasive micro-transactions. It's been the norm for a long time...

I disagree with the predatory micro-transactions too, but MMOs originally started their subscription thing due to the amount of money it cost to have servers open to that number of players and the constant flow of content. Many of them are 20 years running with constant active content and a dedicated playerbase, so I understand. However, Ubisoft and Rockstar have both made recent claims about their interest and possible intentions on subscription based games… Those two companies make almost entirely singleplayer/co-op or small player count multiplayer games. They cannot justify this beyond “you don’t have to pay for it after you’re done playing it” but I’d much rather just buy my game and “own” it, despite arguments there… Regardless. The practice is predatory and pathetic, obvious attempts to squeeze every dollar possible while pumping out low quality products with high quality graphics.

Well, this is what results from piracy, people complaining about DRM, people demanding low cost or free games, and people trading games on the second hand/used market.

These gaming companies are not charities. They have employees that need to be paid to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. Making games is not a cheap venture. It never ceases to amaze me how unique the gaming community is in not wanting to pay for a product and complaining dawn to dusk, and all through the night about how expensive a non-essential luxury hobby is.

No one is entitled to video games. And truth be told, it has never been cheaper to be a gamer than it is in this day and age. Absolutely there can, and needs, to be some improvements to standards in the industry, but the improvements needed in the community far outspan what the industry needs. For years, gamers have done nothing but rally against Games as a Service, all the while performing actions that all but guarantee that is where the industry will have to go in order to remain solvent. The last thing I want to see is GaaS become the predominate model in the industry, but it seems the rest of the gaming community refuses to change its habits to prevent that from happening,

[[1DoD] Dodge]

Originally posted by Chika Ogiue:

Originally posted by Seraphita:

Owning games is what made gaming good.

Technically though, you never owned a game. The same way you've never owned a book, a cd of music, or a film. All of these have operated on the same model; that you pay for the right to use them. The forming of second hand markets around physical goods simply game people the incorrect perception that they owned these forms of creative works.

As far as payment models go for accessing these works, they will only be used for as long as they prove viable -- that is popular. If you don't want access to single player experiences being on a subscription based entry model, don't buy any kind of subscription that leverages such single player content. That includes Game Pass and the various other subscription models put out by publishers for their libraries.

MMOs at least have a meaningful reason for monthly subscriptions: the costs related to running and maintaining an online environment as the backend for the experience they offered.

I also directly disagree with this practice. You should be buying a copy to the product, not just a license to use the product. This actively allows companies to shut down a service to a game that completely disables your ability to use the product in any way, including offline play.

[[1DoD] Dodge]

Originally posted by BJWyler:

Originally posted by 1DoD Dodge:

I disagree with the predatory micro-transactions too, but MMOs originally started their subscription thing due to the amount of money it cost to have servers open to that number of players and the constant flow of content. Many of them are 20 years running with constant active content and a dedicated playerbase, so I understand. However, Ubisoft and Rockstar have both made recent claims about their interest and possible intentions on subscription based games… Those two companies make almost entirely singleplayer/co-op or small player count multiplayer games. They cannot justify this beyond “you don’t have to pay for it after you’re done playing it” but I’d much rather just buy my game and “own” it, despite arguments there… Regardless. The practice is predatory and pathetic, obvious attempts to squeeze every dollar possible while pumping out low quality products with high quality graphics.

Well, this is what results from piracy, people complaining about DRM, people demanding low cost or free games, and people trading games on the second hand/used market.

These gaming companies are not charities. They have employees that need to be paid to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. Making games is not a cheap venture. It never ceases to amaze me how unique the gaming community is in not wanting to pay for a product and complaining dawn to dusk, and all through the night about how expensive a non-essential luxury hobby is.

No one is entitled to video games. And truth be told, it has never been cheaper to be a gamer than it is in this day and age. Absolutely there can, and needs, to be some improvements to standards in the industry, but the improvements needed in the community far outspan what the industry needs. For years, For years, gamers have done nothing but rally against Games as a Service, all the while performing actions that all but guarantee that is where the industry will have to go in order to remain solvent. The last thing I want to see is GaaS become the predominate model in the industry, but it seems the rest of the gaming community refuses to change its habits to prevent that from happening,

Sir, the majority of video game companies are nearly money printers nowadays, they are not hurting for money, they just want to squeeze as much as they can out of everything.

[[1DoD] Dodge]

Originally posted by Seraphita:

My friend buys gamepass. But that's not exactly a bad thing. At least it's not buying for one game monthly. Gamepass is having access to SO MANY games and they keep adding more (While removing old ones) Granted, you don't own them but pay for experience.

Gamepass is one thing I can kinda be fine with. I've enjoyed many games there and it was well worth the price paid. You pay to rent games but we used to do that in blockbuster. The good old days, except it's digital. As long as Gamepass does not become greedy.

What I don't want is release one game but if you want to keep playing it, you need to pay some monthly charge. Of course I understand that not everyone would want gamepass as some people want to own games. I would not force this option on other people.

That is essentially getting a vast collection of games for an extremely cheap price at the side effect that you don’t get to keep them. That’s a fair trade off, you are getting a bonus out of it with a negative effect. You can also choose to buy those games outright if you choose to. I can agree with this practice and I don’t believe it to be predatory.

[Seraphita]

Originally posted by 1DoD Dodge:

That is essentially getting a vast collection of games for an extremely cheap price at the side effect that you don’t get to keep them. That’s a fair trade off, you are getting a bonus out of it with a negative effect. You can also choose to buy those games outright if you choose to. I can agree with this practice and I don’t believe it to be predatory.

Yeah. And not only that, you're given a sale on every games you want to purchase. If someone was to buy many, they'd pay their gamepass back. I love how they do this and really do hope that they keep it like this. I played games like Monster hunter Rise for free.

The problem is if rockstar starts doing their bs on other games. Imagine playing a single player game and you can purchase special currency with real money. This would be a notch worse than cursed dlcs. Gaming could be heading toward pretty dark times. o.o

[BJWyler]

Originally posted by 1DoD Dodge:

Originally posted by BJWyler:

Well, this is what results from piracy, people complaining about DRM, people demanding low cost or free games, and people trading games on the second hand/used market.

These gaming companies are not charities. They have employees that need to be paid to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. Making games is not a cheap venture. It never ceases to amaze me how unique the gaming community is in not wanting to pay for a product and complaining dawn to dusk, and all through the night about how expensive a non-essential luxury hobby is.

No one is entitled to video games. And truth be told, it has never been cheaper to be a gamer than it is in this day and age. Absolutely there can, and needs, to be some improvements to standards in the industry, but the improvements needed in the community far outspan what the industry needs. For years, For years, gamers have done nothing but rally against Games as a Service, all the while performing actions that all but guarantee that is where the industry will have to go in order to remain solvent. The last thing I want to see is GaaS become the predominate model in the industry, but it seems the rest of the gaming community refuses to change its habits to prevent that from happening,

Sir, the majority of video game companies are nearly money printers nowadays, they are not hurting for money, they just want to squeeze as much as they can out of everything.

Do you have the detailed financials on all these companies to indicate that all members of the company are jumping in and rolling around in piles of money while they are on break, or are you just pulling the typical game community nonsense out of your .... thin air as per usual for the gaming community?

[AmsterdamHeavy]

Originally posted by 1DoD Dodge:

Originally posted by BJWyler:

Well, this is what results from piracy, people complaining about DRM, people demanding low cost or free games, and people trading games on the second hand/used market.

These gaming companies are not charities. They have employees that need to be paid to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads. Making games is not a cheap venture. It never ceases to amaze me how unique the gaming community is in not wanting to pay for a product and complaining dawn to dusk, and all through the night about how expensive a non-essential luxury hobby is.

No one is entitled to video games. And truth be told, it has never been cheaper to be a gamer than it is in this day and age. Absolutely there can, and needs, to be some improvements to standards in the industry, but the improvements needed in the community far outspan what the industry needs. For years, For years, gamers have done nothing but rally against Games as a Service, all the while performing actions that all but guarantee that is where the industry will have to go in order to remain solvent. The last thing I want to see is GaaS become the predominate model in the industry, but it seems the rest of the gaming community refuses to change its habits to prevent that from happening,

Sir, the majority of video game companies are nearly money printers nowadays, they are not hurting for money, they just want to squeeze as much as they can out of everything.

My casual observation is that there is a subgroup of "gamers" that seems to think that any company pulling anything more than a 1% margin are "greedy" and "rolling in money".

Gaming is one of the cheapest forms of entertainment and its cheaper than it has ever been for the consumer.

40-45 years ago people were paying $55 for 4kb carts. $55 then is SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive than $55 today.

[ReBoot]

Originally posted by BJWyler:

Originally posted by 1DoD Dodge:

Sir, the majority of video game companies are nearly money printers nowadays, they are not hurting for money, they just want to squeeze as much as they can out of everything.

Do you have the detailed financials on all these companies to indicate that all members of the company are jumping in and rolling around in piles of money while they are on break, or are you just pulling the typical game community nonsense out of your .... thin air as per usual for the gaming community?

It's not about "all members", it's about execs & shareholders. With shares "value" being public knowledge, one can indeed truthfully state that those companies are essentiallly money-printing machines. That one year where ActiBlizz fired 800 people, for example, their record gains were open, for everyone to see.