Subscription Growth Has Flattened claims games industry analyst

[Lakados]

The box stores know a new updated switch is coming very soon, when it does they know that sales of physical games for the old switch will drop off a cliff when it does, so they are currently motivated to reduce their inventories of them now before they are stuck with them taking up inventory space.

 

[GoldenTiger]

The box stores know a new updated switch is coming very soon, when it does they know that sales of physical games for the old switch will drop off a cliff when it does, so they are currently motivated to reduce their inventories of them now before they are stuck with them taking up inventory space.

Who said the switch 2 won't be backward compatible?

 

[Lakados]

Who said the switch 2 won't be backward compatible?

Oh, it will have the slot for it, but I bet the big popular ones get an updated release with something for the new device like they did for many of the Wii-U/Switch titles.
But if you are Walmart, Amazon, or Best Buy, and you have 10's of thousands of these cartridges lying around do you want to risk being sitting on those knowing that a year from now they probably are going to have a remaster for the new device?

 

[DukenukemX]

Oh, it will have the slot for it, but I bet the big popular ones get an updated release with something for the new device like they did for many of the Wii-U/Switch titles.
But if you are Walmart, Amazon, or Best Buy, and you have 10's of thousands of these cartridges lying around do you want to risk being sitting on those knowing that a year from now they probably are going to have a remaster for the new device?

I think it's more like game old then prices go down. Yes they have warehouses full of them, and that's why prices are going down, because demand is going down. BestBuy, WallMart, and etc aren't thinking about a Wii2 or a Remaster release. They just want it gone before demand further drops. The problem with a digital only store is that who sets prices? Armenius is right to say it's a $70 game, because that's the price set by Nintendo. The market value is not $70, but bellow $60. This is technofeudalism, where the free market is no longer a factor. The only reason something like a gaming subscription seems like a good deal, is because digital stores have fixed prices. Unless games are sold on multiple stores, games won't degrade in price as they used to. Especially when there's a subscription option which does give you the option to buy the game, but at the price they set. Starfield has no business being $70, but you can play it on Game Pass. Imagine being the guy that was on Game Pass for 3 months, and now realizes Starfield is bad. He lost $30, but if he likes the game and wants to buy it then he has now spent $100, which is not a bad idea because Starfield isn't a quick game to finish. Either way a person who's doing subscription to play a game will lose more money than just buying the game, or better yet pirating it. Especially Starfield because there's just so much misinformation about it. It's just another Fallout 76.


View: https://youtu.be/kjyeCdd-dl8?si=vVUadtJOliuzrmU4

 

[Lakados]

I think it's more like game old then prices go down. Yes they have warehouses full of them, and that's why prices are going down, because demand is going down. BestBuy, WallMart, and etc aren't thinking about a Wii2 or a Remaster release. They just want it gone before demand further drops. The problem with a digital only store is that who sets prices? Armenius is right to say it's a $70 game, because that's the price set by Nintendo. The market value is not $70, but bellow $60. This is technofeudalism, where the free market is no longer a factor. The only reason something like a gaming subscription seems like a good deal, is because digital stores have fixed prices. Unless games are sold on multiple stores, games won't degrade in price as they used to. Especially when there's a subscription option which does give you the option to buy the game, but at the price they set. Starfield has no business being $70, but you can play it on Game Pass. Imagine being the guy that was on Game Pass for 3 months, and now realizes Starfield is bad. He lost $30, but if he likes the game and wants to buy it then he has now spent $100, which is not a bad idea because Starfield isn't a quick game to finish. Either way a person who's doing subscription to play a game will lose more money than just buying the game, or better yet pirating it. Especially Starfield because there's just so much misinformation about it. It's just another Fallout 76.


View: https://youtu.be/kjyeCdd-dl8?si=vVUadtJOliuzrmU4

I mean I certainly don’t occasionally sign up for EA’s Origin Play because it also includes a game pass sub from time to time so I can try a half dozen games my friends are going mental for while only costing $50 cad for a few months so I don’t buy 4 of them to realize I really don’t like 3 of them… because that certainly hasn’t happened to me before… Or worse have them convince me to go all in on a pair of games that it turns out I love for them to abandon them 3 weeks later.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

View: https://youtu.be/kjyeCdd-dl8?si=vVUadtJOliuzrmU4

Wow, what an epic fail.

I stopped paying attention to Fallout 76 when I heard it was going to be multiplayer. I'm glad I did.

 

[Armenius]

My link is to the game shipped by Amazon. The game is technically $70 off the digital store, but the physical copy lost value faster. You'd obviously want to buy the physical copy. I don't understand where the sellers rating looked bad. 98% positive looks pretty good to me.
View attachment 631248
View attachment 631249

When I clicked on your link yesterday it picked the seller in my screenshots. I would definitely trust one with a 98% rating more than the one with 70%.

Not promoting Wally World, but...
View attachment 631277

It's not Walmart, it's another third-party seller. All major retailers do marketplace shenanigans, so you need to check who you're actually buying from.

 

[M76]

Starfield has no business being $70, but you can play it on Game Pass. Imagine being the guy that was on Game Pass for 3 months, and now realizes Starfield is bad. He lost $30,

If it takes 3 months for someone to realize that a game is "bad" then there is something wrong with them. If you kept playing it for 3 months then it stands to reason that you got some enjoyment out of it, so calling it a total loss is really dishonest.
I see so many sinking hundreds of hours into Starfield only for then to give it a not recommended review. It makes no sense to me. If you enjoyed it enough to play it that much then WTF do you want to steer others clear of it?

but if he likes the game and wants to buy it then he has now spent $100,

That's a more reasonable take, but even here it seems like they should've realized by the end of the first month that they need to buy the game and not continue the subscription path.

Either way a person who's doing subscription to play a game will lose more money than just buying the game,

Most games are not Starfield and can be wrapped up within 20-30 hours at most. And if you never intend to revisit the game any time soon you are saving on it, not loosing.

I think subscription has plenty of drawbacks so there is no need to pretend as if the few advantages it has didn't exist.

or better yet pirating it.

Obviously if someone pirates a game then it costs no money, I don't even know why is that brought up in the comparison.

Especially Starfield because there's just so much misinformation about it. It's just another Fallout 76.

That's quite ironic to drop a misinformation bomb like that right after stating that there is a lot of misinformation about it
Starfield is nothing like F76. Nobody wanted F76, and it was a barely functioning mess at release, arguably through it's entire life cycle. Starfield is a working game that is no worse than Fallout 4 or Skyrim, but people set their expectations so high that it could not hope to match even if it was developed by a less lazy and more competent studio than Bethesda.

 

[jfreund]

When I clicked on your link yesterday it picked the seller in my screenshots. I would definitely trust one with a 98% rating more than the one with 70%.

It's not Walmart, it's another third-party seller. All major retailers do marketplace shenanigans, so you need to check who you're actually buying from.

View attachment 631407

If I get what I paid for, for the price I agreed to pay, I don't give 2 shits if it's a third party seller.

I bought TotK as a Christmas present and got it for about $55. You can buy it today for about $55. Just another reason physical media is better than digital only or subscriptions.

 

[DukenukemX]

I mean I certainly don’t occasionally sign up for EA’s Origin Play because it also includes a game pass sub from time to time so I can try a half dozen games my friends are going mental for while only costing $50 cad for a few months so I don’t buy 4 of them to realize I really don’t like 3 of them… because that certainly hasn’t happened to me before… Or worse have them convince me to go all in on a pair of games that it turns out I love for them to abandon them 3 weeks later.

This is more of a problem with the game industries lack of demos and return policies. Spending $50 or more for a video game that you may hate, and then unable to get back your money is a kick in the dick. I've had many friends try to get me into other games. They want me to play Palworld and I'm not sure if that game is worth my time. They want me to play Path of Exile and insist I buy the inventory slots. This is why I'm afraid to get into multiplayer games because if they don't charge a fortune, they will push you to get something simple like inventory, and in the end I might just hate it.

If it takes 3 months for someone to realize that a game is "bad" then there is something wrong with them. If you kept playing it for 3 months then it stands to reason that you got some enjoyment out of it, so calling it a total loss is really dishonest.

It's happened to me many times. Hollow Knight starts off slow and not interesting but at 1/4 through the game the appeal really kicks in. Some games are just not good until you're really deep into it, but this can also work against you since you maybe playing a game that you're waiting to get good and it never does. Many Starfield fans think the game gets good at 12 hours in. I could easily see a situation where a player keeps going only to find that the game never got good.

I see so many sinking hundreds of hours into Starfield only for then to give it a not recommended review. It makes no sense to me. If you enjoyed it enough to play it that much then WTF do you want to steer others clear of it?

I've had moments where I play games and save up ammo for the last big boss, and a lot of games don't have one. Control is one such game where I didn't realize until I finished the game that there was no end game boss. I just ran around killing trash mobs to kill more trash mobs. I was holding out hope that at some point the game gets good, and the game ends. I know that people get upset that I don't want to pay money for these games, but I also lost time I spent that I could be playing a good game.

Most games are not Starfield and can be wrapped up within 20-30 hours at most. And if you never intend to revisit the game any time soon you are saving on it, not loosing.

The games I played in 2023 where mostly 20-30 hour games at least. Go play ToTK and Baldur's Gate 3, because those games took me months to finish. It's not like this is a recent gaming trend, as a lot of games are like this.

Obviously if someone pirates a game then it costs no money, I don't even know why is that brought up in the comparison.

Like streaming services where the cost is going up and the selection is going down, the obvious solution is piracy.

That's quite ironic to drop a misinformation bomb like that right after stating that there is a lot of misinformation about it
Starfield is nothing like F76. Nobody wanted F76, and it was a barely functioning mess at release, arguably through it's entire life cycle. Starfield is a working game that is no worse than Fallout 4 or Skyrim, but people set their expectations so high that it could not hope to match even if it was developed by a less lazy and more competent studio than Bethesda.

Starfield has bugs too, but F76 wasn't just the bugs. Both games are boring and that's the problem. Baldur's Gate 3 had a lot of bugs and everyone loves it.

 

[1_rick]

This is more of a problem with the game industries lack of demos and return policies.

This is where watching gameplay videos can be helpful sometimes.

 

[DukenukemX]

This is where watching gameplay videos can be helpful sometimes.

It does but at some point you gotta sit down and try the game yourself. This also has the double edge sword of that since you've seen what the game has to offer you no longer have interest in it. Games that are mainly story driven are not something I'd play, but instead watch.

 

[M76]

This is more of a problem with the game industries lack of demos and return policies. Spending $50 or more for a video game that you may hate, and then unable to get back your money is a kick in the dick. I've had many friends try to get me into other games. They want me to play Palworld and I'm not sure if that game is worth my time. They want me to play Path of Exile and insist I buy the inventory slots. This is why I'm afraid to get into multiplayer games because if they don't charge a fortune, they will push you to get something simple like inventory, and in the end I might just hate it.

Demos are no longer common precisely for this reason, they want you to gamble your money.

It's happened to me many times. Hollow Knight starts off slow and not interesting but at 1/4 through the game the appeal really kicks in. Some games are just not good until you're really deep into it, but this can also work against you since you maybe playing a game that you're waiting to get good and it never does. Many Starfield fans think the game gets good at 12 hours in. I could easily see a situation where a player keeps going only to find that the game never got good.

C'mon 12 hours or even 1/4 is not 3 months.

I've had moments where I play games and save up ammo for the last big boss, and a lot of games don't have one. Control is one such game where I didn't realize until I finished the game that there was no end game boss. I just ran around killing trash mobs to kill more trash mobs. I was holding out hope that at some point the game gets good, and the game ends. I know that people get upset that I don't want to pay money for these games, but I also lost time I spent that I could be playing a good game.

If I find a game bad I stop playing it, it needs to be at least good enough to make me want to continue. I'm not interested in the sunken cost fallacy, my time is more valuable than whatever a game cost, so I'm not going to waste it on a game I don't enjoy playing.

The games I played in 2023 where mostly 20-30 hour games at least. Go play ToTK and Baldur's Gate 3, because those games took me months to finish. It's not like this is a recent gaming trend, as a lot of games are like this.

30 hour games are easily doable in a month. I finished AC Valhalla in 1 month (64h) and I still had time left over to try Watchdogs legion before my subscription ran out.

Like streaming services where the cost is going up and the selection is going down, the obvious solution is piracy.

If the service is bad then the solution is piracy, if the product itself is bad, then the solution is to not touch it. A bad game is still bad regardless of how I got it.

Starfield has bugs too, but F76 wasn't just the bugs. Both games are boring and that's the problem. Baldur's Gate 3 had a lot of bugs and everyone loves it.

Starfield was about as buggy as Skyrim was. F76 was on a whole other level.

People like to latch on things and either make it satan or their darling for no apparent reason. BG3 got the darling treatment while games like ME:A, CP2077, Starfield got painted as unimaginably bad at their launches. It's as if something either needs to be a 10/10 or a 1/10, nothing in between.

This is why I don't give a rats ass about the internet consensus about certain games, I go by gut feeling and if a game feels right I buy it. Sure sometimes I misjudge, but had I listened to second hand opinions it would be worse.

 

[Lakados]

Demos are no longer common precisely for this reason, they want you to gamble your money.

Nah, it's honestly because it is too hard to ship a demo that you can't very easily hack into the full version.
And it makes hacking the game much much easier.

 

[KazeoHin]

remember, it's all about growth. And not just growth, but rate of growth. and the growth rate of the rate of growth. If your current rate of growth hasn't grown faster than your rate of growth grew last year, you're failing.

 

[NightReaver]

Nah, it's honestly because it is too hard to ship a demo that you can't very easily hack into the full version.
And it makes hacking the game much much easier.

Guess I'll just pirate a copy then to use as a demo....almost all of them are available day one anyways.

 

[Shoganai]

Guess I'll just pirate a copy then to use as a demo....almost all of them are available day one anyways.

It's very annoying that games rarely have demos anymore.

 

[Mr. Bluntman]

Game files are no longer locked down like they were in the days of UWP. You can choose where to install games, move your games, browse and edit files just like Steam. The Xbox app is just as quick and easy to use as Steam these days. The only frustrating thing is that the store doesn't have a cart for some reason.

This. In my year and a half or so of having Game pass I've found the XBox app to be mostly easy to use and on par with Steam speed-wise as well. It's better than at launch, for sure.

 

[DukenukemX]

Demos are no longer common precisely for this reason, they want you to gamble your money.

With return policies that everyone has, it kinda is a gamble.

C'mon 12 hours or even 1/4 is not 3 months.

It's not 12 hours a day. Some people only play for 2-3 hours at a time, and not everyday. Also that 12 hours is what the community feels is needed to get to the good part of Starfield. They are most likely being optimistic in that number. I bet that a lot of people just stopped playing Starfield for another game and plan to return at a later date. Do you have a Steam backlog of games that you plan to return to, and never did? I know I do.

If I find a game bad I stop playing it, it needs to be at least good enough to make me want to continue. I'm not interested in the sunken cost fallacy, my time is more valuable than whatever a game cost, so I'm not going to waste it on a game I don't enjoy playing.

At $70 you will play a game that's bad. After a few hours in, you can't return it.

30 hour games are easily doable in a month. I finished AC Valhalla in 1 month (64h) and I still had time left over to try Watchdogs legion before my subscription ran out.

It really depends on the person. It also depends on the game. AC Odyssey let you pay money to gain experience faster. Imagine that situation with a subscription service.

If the service is bad then the solution is piracy, if the product itself is bad, then the solution is to not touch it. A bad game is still bad regardless of how I got it.

Yea but you won't find out which game is bad unless it's the kind of game like Forspoken. This is why nobody takes game journalists seriously. You said it yourself, they want you to take a gamble. This is why some game marketing budgets are as big as the game development costs, because they know that once they have your money, you ain't getting it back. If you try to fight the charge with your credit card company, then if you have an account linked to their store like Steam or EA then they can revoke your account.

View: https://youtu.be/lG2dXobAXLI?si=aH6C7a8MTWGfV9cM

People like to latch on things and either make it satan or their darling for no apparent reason. BG3 got the darling treatment while games like ME:A, CP2077, Starfield got painted as unimaginably bad at their launches. It's as if something either needs to be a 10/10 or a 1/10, nothing in between.

Gaming has been around for over 40 years, so if your game isn't a 10/10 then you're wasting everyone's time and money. There are so many timeless classics that if your game doesn't improve on that in anyway, then you deserve to lose money. Look at Suicide Squad vs Batman Arkham Knight. BG3 didn't get any special treatment. Why did people demonize games like Mass Effect Andromeda, CP2077, and Starfield? Because there's better games to play. You're better off playing Mass Effect 1-3 than Andromeda. Better off playing Witcher 3 than CP2077. Better off playing Fallout New Vegas than Starfield. You have decades of gaming history to contend with, and if you can't match or beat what your predecessors did years ago on limited hardware, then you deserve to go bankrupt. Mediocre isn't good enough anymore. Mediocre was Sonic Spinball and Bubsy 3D. Mediocre is every game based on a franchise that's been made with a few exceptions. If you want $70 then you better pull out a Baldur's Gate 3 level of quality, and BG3 is only $60.

View: https://youtu.be/hFFisqYXdGI?si=BIJRTLNRq53FlMFH

This is why I don't give a rats ass about the internet consensus about certain games, I go by gut feeling and if a game feels right I buy it. Sure sometimes I misjudge, but had I listened to second hand opinions it would be worse.

This is why I like to try before I buy. A subscription business model would just create more mediocre or even bad games, just like cable TV. That's why everyone cut the cord, because there was nothing to watch. Why was there nothing to watch? Because the content was just vomited out as fast as possible to keep people paying. At $70 a game, you won't see services like Game Pass stay at $10 for very long. That price is just meant to get people in and then gradually increase prices as more people get in. As bad as Forspoken was received, it actually did sell well. Square Enix did make money, but they did lose $2 Billion in market value. It's odd when companies made money and that was a problem because investors didn't see growth. As long as games sell well enough at $60 or $70, then subscription services won't go anywhere. You won't find Forspoken on Game Pass, probably for this reason. They would have made less money if the game was on Game Pass, because people would have tried it and then quit. They're better off gambling your money then trying to tie their game on a subscription service. At least not for another year or two when the game has lost peoples interest and it's in the bargain section of some online store. Then you may find it on Game Pass, except if you never seen or heard of a review of Forspoken then you're about to play a bad game. The only way to make these subscription services even remotely work is to jack up the prices and put all their games on them.

 

[M76]

Nah, it's honestly because it is too hard to ship a demo that you can't very easily hack into the full version.
And it makes hacking the game much much easier.

You actually believe that excuse fed to you by the publishers? Except for a fully seamless open world game, shipping a demo that only contains a few maps is a non-issue.

And why would it be easier to hack a demo compared to the full game? Unless the devs mess up and accidentally release an unprotected exe. Which can happen just as easily when pushing out a patch mind you, so it has nothing to do with there being a demo or not.

 

[Flogger23m]

Gaming has been around for over 40 years, so if your game isn't a 10/10 then you're wasting everyone's time and money. There are so many timeless classics that if your game doesn't improve on that in anyway, then you deserve to lose money.

Not everything is a 10/10. A 6-9 game is still fun. Even some 5 games are enjoyable enough.

Why did people demonize games like Mass Effect Andromeda, CP2077, and Starfield? Because there's better games to play. You're better off playing Mass Effect 1-3 than Andromeda. Better off playing Witcher 3 than CP2077. Better off playing Fallout New Vegas than Starfield.

I already played those games. I'd rather play something new. Yes, they might not be as good, but I would get more enjoyment playing a 7/10 game than I would a 9/10 game for the 3-4th time. I also think Cyberpunk was better than Witcher 3 in terms of being fun. I will even say the story is better. Witcher 3 had some good lore building but was long winded and the main story plot progression wasn't well written.

If you want $70 then you better pull out a Baldur's Gate 3 level of quality, and BG3 is only $60.

I haven't played it, but gameplay videos look janky. Odd, un-smooth clipping into cutscenes from the gameplay looks awful. That and the gameplay looks boring. It doesn't look that high quality to me. Of course people can enjoy it. Remember, a lot of people bought and enjoyed Goat Simulator which is a low quality joke of a game. Turns out people enjoy different things.

 

[M76]

It's not 12 hours a day. Some people only play for 2-3 hours at a time, and not everyday. Also that 12 hours is what the community feels is needed to get to the good part of Starfield. They are most likely being optimistic in that number. I bet that a lot of people just stopped playing Starfield for another game and plan to return at a later date. Do you have a Steam backlog of games that you plan to return to, and never did? I know I do.

Your point that I was arguing against was that it takes 3 months to decide if a game is bad. Even if you play only 30 minutes a day, a month is more than enough to decide if you want to buy a game or not. Even 12 hours is a huge exaggeration, you can almost finish many AAA games in that. It usually takes me less than 1 hour to decide, but never more than 2 hours.

At $70 you will play a game that's bad. After a few hours in, you can't return it.

That's why I don't buy games unless I'm extremely confident that I'll like them. Still hasn't bought BG3, because I'm not convinced it is as good as everyone makes it out to be. A demo could help me decide, but no demo, no purchase from me.

It really depends on the person. It also depends on the game. AC Odyssey let you pay money to gain experience faster. Imagine that situation with a subscription service.

And it's absolutely unacceptable, you are literally paying extra at that point for normal progression in game. It's a protection scam. "It would be a real shame if we made the game worse for you, so you better pay up!"

Yea but you won't find out which game is bad unless it's the kind of game like Forspoken. This is why nobody takes game journalists seriously. You said it yourself, they want you to take a gamble. This is why some game marketing budgets are as big as the game development costs, because they know that once they have your money, you ain't getting it back. If you try to fight the charge with your credit card company, then if you have an account linked to their store like Steam or EA then they can revoke your account.

This is why I don't buy games that I'm not convinced will be good. I can't be bothered to pirate games anymore, if I'm not sure about it and there is no demo, I simply ignore it until it gets cheap as dirt. Or in some cases ignore it entirely.

Gaming has been around for over 40 years, so if your game isn't a 10/10 then you're wasting everyone's time and money.

I can count on one hand the number of games that I consider 10/10 games, I can't even imagine only ever playing those few games. Sometimes I even consider 4/10 games worth playing if they have something to offer. I think anything above 7/10 is a must have if they fall into a genre or theme I'm interested in.

There are so many timeless classics that if your game doesn't improve on that in anyway, then you deserve to lose money.

There are no timeless classics in gaming, games get outdated. There are games I remember fondly, but if they came out today I'd not touch them. Even remasters fail to make me want to play old outdated games again.

Look at Suicide Squad vs Batman Arkham Knight.

It looks like the Saints Row reboot all over again, that's certianly a game I would not buy.

BG3 didn't get any special treatment.

I beg to differ, it got special treatment because it was made by the underdogs, not a big studio. But I reserve final judgement until I actually play it. Maybe it is really so much better than everything else, but I doubt it, hence why I'm waiting for it to get cheap.

Why did people demonize games like Mass Effect Andromeda, CP2077, and Starfield?

Because the internet talking heads convinced them to not use their better judgement just listen to them that they are bad, mkay? You can't ignore the effect influencers have, I see people daily parroting second hand opinions like it is their own. Even those who actually end up playing the games get into a spiral of conformation bias after seeing the games being torn apart and misrepresented by dishonest grifters.

Because there's better games to play.

I wish there were better games to play, but I don't know of any games that would give me a better space RPG / exploration experience than Starfield. What is there, Star Citizen? That's a joke.

You're better off playing Mass Effect 1-3 than Andromeda. Better off playing Witcher 3 than CP2077. Better off playing Fallout New Vegas than Starfield.

What if I already played ME 1-3? Why shouldn't I play Andromeda? I played ME 1-3 dozens of times, I wanted a new experience not repeating the same old for the nth time. And ME:A gave me that new experience. It is certainly not as good as the other 3, but I didn't regret pre-ordering ME:A for one minute. I enjoyed that game very much, it was one of the better relases of 2017. All the talk about it being terrible was FUD. No, not fear uncertainty and doubt, but fucking disinformation.

A tried playing the Witcher 3, and I didn't like that game for many reasons. Not everyone likes the same things. While I liked New Vegas, it is not a replacement for Starfield. Entirely different experiences, I would not have wanted to miss either.

You have decades of gaming history to contend with, and if you can't match or beat what your predecessors did years ago on limited hardware, then you deserve to go bankrupt. Mediocre isn't good enough anymore. Mediocre was Sonic Spinball and Bubsy 3D. Mediocre is every game based on a franchise that's been made with a few exceptions. If you want $70 then you better pull out a Baldur's Gate 3 level of quality, and BG3 is only $60.

I agree that you shouldn't do worse than what's already been done, but how do you define worse? The only game even remotely similar to Starfield is Outer Worlds, and I think Starfield is much better than that. Maybe in some minor details it falls short, but the overall experience? Far superior in Starfield.

This is why I like to try before I buy. A subscription business model would just create more mediocre or even bad games, just like cable TV. That's why everyone cut the cord, because there was nothing to watch. Why was there nothing to watch? Because the content was just vomited out as fast as possible to keep people paying. At $70 a game, you won't see services like Game Pass stay at $10 for very long. That price is just meant to get people in and then gradually increase prices as more people get in. As bad as Forspoken was received, it actually did sell well. Square Enix did make money, but they did lose $2 Billion in market value. It's odd when companies made money and that was a problem because investors didn't see growth. As long as games sell well enough at $60 or $70, then subscription services won't go anywhere. You won't find Forspoken on Game Pass, probably for this reason. They would have made less money if the game was on Game Pass, because people would have tried it and then quit. They're better off gambling your money then trying to tie their game on a subscription service. At least not for another year or two when the game has lost peoples interest and it's in the bargain section of some online store. Then you may find it on Game Pass, except if you never seen or heard of a review of Forspoken then you're about to play a bad game. The only way to make these subscription services even remotely work is to jack up the prices and put all their games on them.

The irony is that I think there were much better quality TV series in the network TV era (2000-2015). Now with streaming it really seems like they are just mass producing content to vomit onto the screen to prevent you cancelling. The difference is that with cable you got access to many different channels. With streaming you pay for each channel individually. I told it years ago, the only way streaming can thrive if it becomes an unified service where you get access to the library of all of them in a single subscription.

But gaming is not comparable to TV. Forspoken is not on games pass probably because MS didn't want to pay SQuenix for trash. Where did you get that it sold well anyway? Last I heard it was a dismal failure that probably lost them tens of millions.

 

[Lakados]

You actually believe that excuse fed to you by the publishers? Except for a fully seamless open world game, shipping a demo that only contains a few maps is a non-issue.

And why would it be easier to hack a demo compared to the full game? Unless the devs mess up and accidentally release an unprotected exe. Which can happen just as easily when pushing out a patch mind you, so it has nothing to do with there being a demo or not.

The demo is the full engine, it has to be, the only difference is a modified exe and assets. As the demo is free by its nature it’s essentially 2/3’rds of the work done. Wasn’t uncommon to take a demo back in the day change out a few dat files and boom full version.

 

[Prince Valiant]

I agree with M76, there's nothing stopping them from injecting DRM into the demo.

 

[Darunion]

But if demos will decrease sales, why would they spend extra money to do so? I miss demos i really do but i understand. And with so many games being broken and needing zero-day patches, that means the demo would need a level of maintaining it as well? Was probably easier when it fit on a floppy disk.

 

[Ranulfo]

I went to cancel my paramount+ sub last week only to see it was extended for free for another two months. They must be desperate to keep numbers up and maybe that I've not watched much on there.

 

[Shoganai]

I went to cancel my paramount+ sub last week only to see it was extended for free for another two months. They must be desperate to keep numbers up and maybe that I've not watched much on there.

A lot of streaming services are doing this. I've cancelled a few lately and they offered me drastically reduced prices (like $1.99 a month for 3 months).

 

[UnknownSouljer]

A lot of streaming services are doing this. I've cancelled a few lately and they offered me drastically reduced prices (like $1.99 a month for 3 months).

I think there is some level of knowledge that the infinite gains of steaming services and subscriber counts are just not attainable.

Times are tight. A streaming service with dubious utility is obviously the first to get cut.

 

[GoldenTiger]

And why would it be easier to hack a demo compared to the full game?

It gives them a head start for cheats for multiplayer.

 

[sharknice]

A lot of streaming services are doing this. I've cancelled a few lately and they offered me drastically reduced prices (like $1.99 a month for 3 months).

That's a classic tactic used by a lot of different companies. Cable companies, satellite radio, etc, all do it too.

Once the infrastructure is already built providing you the service costs them almost nothing. So if they can get you to pay anything at all it's worth it to them.

 

[Shoganai]

That's a classic tactic used by a lot of different companies. Cable companies, satellite radio, etc, all do it too.

Once the infrastructure is already built providing you the service costs them almost nothing. So if they can get you to pay anything at all it's worth it to them.

Yeah. They're getting 0 dollars for having terrible content.

 

[Ranulfo]

A lot of streaming services are doing this. I've cancelled a few lately and they offered me drastically reduced prices (like $1.99 a month for 3 months).

Yeah, I've heard of that for some people with Paramount+. That now makes like 6 free months out of 9 for me.

 

[DukenukemX]

Your point that I was arguing against was that it takes 3 months to decide if a game is bad. Even if you play only 30 minutes a day, a month is more than enough to decide if you want to buy a game or not. Even 12 hours is a huge exaggeration, you can almost finish many AAA games in that. It usually takes me less than 1 hour to decide, but never more than 2 hours.

A month is more than enough time but they don't give you a month, but like a few hours at best. One hour isn't enough personally, but again it really depends on the game. Games should have a 30 day return policy like any other purchase you make online. You can buy TOTK from Amazon on a cartridge and still return it 29 days later. If people wanted to beat a game within 3 hours, that's some determination there.

This is why I don't buy games that I'm not convinced will be good. I can't be bothered to pirate games anymore, if I'm not sure about it and there is no demo, I simply ignore it until it gets cheap as dirt. Or in some cases ignore it entirely.

Just cause a game can be pirated, doesn't mean you should play it. Most games belong in the void for a reason.

I can count on one hand the number of games that I consider 10/10 games, I can't even imagine only ever playing those few games. Sometimes I even consider 4/10 games worth playing if they have something to offer. I think anything above 7/10 is a must have if they fall into a genre or theme I'm interested in.

It'd be hard for me to count the amount of games I consider a 10/10 on both my hands. Just on the Super Nintendo you have Super Mario RPG, Donkey Kong Country 1,2, & 3, Super Metroid, Zelda Link to the Past, Mega Man X, X2, &X3, and Secret of Mana. I'm not even counting games that existed on both the Genesis and SNES like Earthworm Jim which I still think is a 10/10 classic. I also haven't played Earthbound or Final Fantasy 3 or 6 depending on what part of the world you're from. I can list you games from the Genesis, NES, PS1, PS2, and etc as well. Generations of 10/10 games that I doubt most people haven played. You know they're good if they're remade like Super Mario RPG and Secret of Mana were remade. Resident Evil 2 from PS1 and Saturn were remade with a lot of praise. Dead Space Remaster was given a lot of applause. DuckTales from the 8-bit NES was Remastered, and has influenced many games. I'm gonna need a lot of fingers if I start listing games that are 10/10.


View: https://youtu.be/vVvpkNMnWcs?si=OQJmKHV-nEQI43Ht

There are no timeless classics in gaming, games get outdated. There are games I remember fondly, but if they came out today I'd not touch them. Even remasters fail to make me want to play old outdated games again.

No such thing. People loved Resident Evil 2 Remaster. People loved Resident Evil 4, Dead Space, Demon Souls Remasters and you think games get outdated? Castlevania and Metroid have spawned a series of games called Metroidvania to try to capture that game design feel. Games that successfully capture this are like Hollow Knight. Earthbound is indirectly responsible for Undertale, which Toby Fox the creator was working on Earthbound rom hacks before he made Undertale. Sonic games from the past are responsible for Sonia Mania which again is made from a group of rom hackers. Even Baldur's Gate 3 is no different from previous Baldur's Gate titles, just now with better graphics. The problem is that people have found memories of older games that were amazing for their graphics instead of their gameplay. Shenmue for example was a technical masterpiece and probably responsible for modern games having QTE, but nobody likes QTE and Shenmue was boring once you look past the graphics. Remember MDK and MDK2 where people couldn't shutup about it? Yep, game sucks.

It looks like the Saints Row reboot all over again, that's certianly a game I would not buy.

It's a modern game problem, as in live service game model problems. He does mention Suicide Squad in this video too.

View: https://youtu.be/q_9Jh74nEaI?si=2Sw7lzOdjn6knO8o

I beg to differ, it got special treatment because it was made by the underdogs, not a big studio. But I reserve final judgement until I actually play it. Maybe it is really so much better than everything else, but I doubt it, hence why I'm waiting for it to get cheap.

How does being an underdog give it special treatment? That's like 99% of Indie games.

Because the internet talking heads convinced them to not use their better judgement just listen to them that they are bad, mkay? You can't ignore the effect influencers have, I see people daily parroting second hand opinions like it is their own. Even those who actually end up playing the games get into a spiral of conformation bias after seeing the games being torn apart and misrepresented by dishonest grifters.

You don't need influencers to see the problem these games had. You wanna see how Andromeda handled facial animations compared to a game that came out nearly a decade before? It's the same problem that Starfield has.

I wish there were better games to play, but I don't know of any games that would give me a better space RPG / exploration experience than Starfield. What is there, Star Citizen? That's a joke.

Mas Effect 1, 2, & 3. Dead Space 1&2 but not 3.

What if I already played ME 1-3?

I want to play these games again just because I haven't in a long time.

Why shouldn't I play Andromeda?

You do what you want.

A tried playing the Witcher 3, and I didn't like that game for many reasons. Not everyone likes the same things. While I liked New Vegas, it is not a replacement for Starfield. Entirely different experiences, I would not have wanted to miss either.

I'm not even sure it's possible to hate Wicher 3 but to each their own.

I agree that you shouldn't do worse than what's already been done, but how do you define worse? The only game even remotely similar to Starfield is Outer Worlds, and I think Starfield is much better than that. Maybe in some minor details it falls short, but the overall experience? Far superior in Starfield.

If you must have a space open world rpg then I guess Starfield. When I play a game I want good gameplay, I want to see fucked up things, and I like a good story. If I'm playing a space rpg then it better have a kick ass story with worlds I can visit that has aliens that pushes the boundary of the human imagination. Or at least by Mass Effect style and give them tits.

A lot of streaming services are doing this. I've cancelled a few lately and they offered me drastically reduced prices (like $1.99 a month for 3 months).

Streaming services depend on you forgetting you have a subscription, so they will extend it for free. Amazon does the same thing too, and it works because I forget. Speaking of which...

 

[Flogger23m]

What if I already played ME 1-3? Why shouldn't I play Andromeda? I played ME 1-3 dozens of times, I wanted a new experience not repeating the same old for the nth time. And ME:A gave me that new experience. It is certainly not as good as the other 3...

This is what some people don't get. Replaying great games is fine, but I typically look for a new experience when I want to play a game.

 

[Shoganai]

Streaming services depend on you forgetting you have a subscription, so they will extend it for free. Amazon does the same thing too, and it works because I forget. Speaking of which...

That sounds exactly like Planet Fitness. Unfortunately for streaming/subscription services, I'm very OCD with where my money is going. I also use Privacy.com for all my subscriptions and I only put enough on each virtual card for that month. So I always get an email reminder that I haven't renewed a subscription yet when the funds for the virtual card run out. It also keeps me from getting charged again for services I've canceled, which has happened a million times.

 

[M76]

The demo is the full engine, it has to be, the only difference is a modified exe and assets. As the demo is free by its nature it’s essentially 2/3’rds of the work done.

Of course it is the full engine. What else it would be? But if the demo doesn't have all the content from the full game nobody can "unlock" it into a full version. Demos are usually a fraction of the size of the full game, so they can't have everything by definition.

Wasn’t uncommon to take a demo back in the day change out a few dat files and boom full version.

That's the exaggeration of the century. I know of maybe a couple of instances where time limited demos were unlocked into full games, nothing more. Those were only a thing for a short period. And they are worthless anyway. A demo should be representative of the core experience. The first 1-2 hours of a game mostly only contains the tutorials and world building, which is ill suited as a demo.

Back in the 90s if a game didn't have a demo it might as well have not existed.

 

[M76]

A month is more than enough time but they don't give you a month, but like a few hours at best. One hour isn't enough personally, but again it really depends on the game. Games should have a 30 day return policy like any other purchase you make online. You can buy TOTK from Amazon on a cartridge and still return it 29 days later. If people wanted to beat a game within 3 hours, that's some determination there.

Do you not remember your own argument from a few days ago? You said with subscription it is possible someone might pay three months to play a game then realize it is bad. To which I said that if someone takes 3 months to realize they don't like a game then they have a problem.

Just cause a game can be pirated, doesn't mean you should play it. Most games belong in the void for a reason.

IDK what is your point. I said if I'm uncertain if a game is good then I'll not buy it unless there is a demo. How does this relate to pirating all games?

It'd be hard for me to count the amount of games I consider a 10/10 on both my hands. Just on the Super Nintendo you have Super Mario RPG, Donkey Kong Country 1,2, & 3, Super Metroid, Zelda Link to the Past, Mega Man X, X2, &X3, and Secret of Mana. I'm not even counting games that existed on both the Genesis and SNES like Earthworm Jim which I still think is a 10/10 classic. I also haven't played Earthbound or Final Fantasy 3 or 6 depending on what part of the world you're from. I can list you games from the Genesis, NES, PS1, PS2, and etc as well. Generations of 10/10 games that I doubt most people haven played. You know they're good if they're remade like Super Mario RPG and Secret of Mana were remade. Resident Evil 2 from PS1 and Saturn were remade with a lot of praise. Dead Space Remaster was given a lot of applause. DuckTales from the 8-bit NES was Remastered, and has influenced many games. I'm gonna need a lot of fingers if I start listing games that are 10/10.

Then your definition of a 10/10 is very different than mine. Your 10/10 is more in line with what I call 7/10.

No such thing. People loved Resident Evil 2 Remaster. People loved Resident Evil 4, Dead Space, Demon Souls Remasters and you think games get outdated?

Hold your horses there, the resident evil stuff are not remasters, they are full remakes. That's a whole different ballgame. I have no problem with full remakes that modernize old games so they have modern mechanics and QOL features.

Castlevania and Metroid have spawned a series of games called Metroidvania to try to capture that game design feel. Games that successfully capture this are like Hollow Knight. Earthbound is indirectly responsible for Undertale, which Toby Fox the creator was working on Earthbound rom hacks before he made Undertale. Sonic games from the past are responsible for Sonia Mania which again is made from a group of rom hackers. Even Baldur's Gate 3 is no different from previous Baldur's Gate titles, just now with better graphics. The problem is that people have found memories of older games that were amazing for their graphics instead of their gameplay. Shenmue for example was a technical masterpiece and probably responsible for modern games having QTE, but nobody likes QTE and Shenmue was boring once you look past the graphics. Remember MDK and MDK2 where people couldn't shutup about it? Yep, game sucks.

People don't shut up about a great many things, doesn't mean they are right though. Nostalgia can cloud anyone's vision. But a game from the 90s or early 2000s wouldn't hold up today as a new release. That's why you can't make young gamers play games that you think were 10/10 in 1993. This is why remakes exist in the first place, because games do get outdated.

It's a modern game problem, as in live service game model problems. He does mention Suicide Squad in this video too.

Saints Row wasn't live service, it was simply made by people who only have a superficial understanding of games, while also harboring disdain for gamers, trying to educate them with their DEI ideals.

How does being an underdog give it special treatment? That's like 99% of Indie games.

Underdog compared to AAA studios. People have a tendency to root for the little guy. Objectivity is often lost. I've seen videos posted of BG3 as praise that I can imagine being used as a negative had the public opinion been blowing the other direction. The exact same video, unchanged. It all depends on whether the speaker puts a negative or positive spin on it.

You don't need influencers to see the problem these games had. You wanna see how Andromeda handled facial animations compared to a game that came out nearly a decade before? It's the same problem that Starfield has.

You are perfectly demonstrating the problem. Cherry picked clips and gifs taking the worst examples and extrapolating them as if they were representative of the whole game.
When I played ME:A the facial animation issues were few and far between, I'd probably would have noticed even fewer had I not been conditioned already to be on the lookout for them by the online hysteria.
As if ME 1-3 didn't have any problems with animations. I still vividly remember characters turning their heads 180 degrees. Or the goofy ass run animation. What ME1-3 didn't have though is a bunch of eager memesters putting the worst moments into compilations, to be picked up by room temperature IQ streamers and broadcasted to millions of their braindead fans.

Today games live and die through perception, not just quality.

Mas Effect 1, 2, & 3. Dead Space 1&2 but not 3.

I want to play these games again just because I haven't in a long time.

If you think re-playing old games is on par with new experiences then why do you even care about new games? Couldn't you just re-play them ad infitum and be happy?

You do what you want.

Oh, geez thanks a lot for giving me the permission to play what I want

I'm not even sure it's possible to hate Wicher 3 but to each their own.

I could say the same: I'm not even sure why is Witcher 3 considered such a great game. Same goes for RDR2. I can only hope BG3 won't be the same type of overhyped game.

If you must have a space open world rpg then I guess Starfield. When I play a game I want good gameplay, I want to see fucked up things, and I like a good story. If I'm playing a space rpg then it better have a kick ass story with worlds I can visit that has aliens that pushes the boundary of the human imagination. Or at least by Mass Effect style and give them tits.

It's not that it must have that exactly, but if it exists and provides that unique experience I'll play it and enjoy it, even if it is far from perfect. There are already so few games that fit into genres I like, I'm not going to pass on a good game because it is not a 10/10 in every metric.

 

[DukenukemX]

Do you not remember your own argument from a few days ago? You said with subscription it is possible someone might pay three months to play a game then realize it is bad. To which I said that if someone takes 3 months to realize they don't like a game then they have a problem.

That argument still stands. That is the nature of gaming for the past 15 years. It may take you to the very end of the game to find out the game never gets good. This is why I hate it when people say you gotta progress far enough into the game to see the good part. Remember, people have lives so stuff may get in the way but in the mean time you still pay three months of subscription.

Then your definition of a 10/10 is very different than mine. Your 10/10 is more in line with what I call 7/10.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion?

Hold your horses there, the resident evil stuff are not remasters, they are full remakes. That's a whole different ballgame. I have no problem with full remakes that modernize old games so they have modern mechanics and QOL features.

I played Resident Evil 2 Remake and it played mostly like RE2 from the 90's. I say mostly because the 90's version didn't have a knife that could break, which was annoying since my strategy for RE2 was saving bullets by stabbing things. That's not QOL when Breath of the Wild weapon mechanics that nobody likes are introduced into a classic. Also the graphics are better because PS1 hardware is no longer a limiting factor and you don't have a 3D model walking into a 2D background. Resident Evil 4 though was a fully 3D game, which makes it more of a remaster than a Remake. Dead Space had enough changes and additions to the game that it can be considered a Remake. Whatever the case is, it's clear that these games didn't age at all, just the graphics.

People don't shut up about a great many things, doesn't mean they are right though. Nostalgia can cloud anyone's vision. But a game from the 90s or early 2000s wouldn't hold up today as a new release. That's why you can't make young gamers play games that you think were 10/10 in 1993. This is why remakes exist in the first place, because games do get outdated.

Let me tell you about a game called Pizza Tower. This was one of the best games of 2023, and it's gameplay is based around the Wario Land of games from Nintendo. Graphics are what you'd expect from a game like this, and it was super popular. I've never played a single Wario Land game and I still loved it. Same goes for Undertale which is a game that you'll still find in popular media to this day. Undertale is based on Earthbound, and if you look into the game you'll find that it kinda acts like an unofficial continuation of Earthbound. Shovel Knight, Hollow Knight, Celeste, and etc were popular games based on that 90's game design. Even Mario Odyssey is basically Mario 64 with better graphics. The problem I see is that you see things that are old = outdated when that's not how things work in games.

View: https://youtu.be/NS6bEk2TSOs?si=RYv0jTF-EEMDIx4a

Underdog compared to AAA studios. People have a tendency to root for the little guy. Objectivity is often lost. I've seen videos posted of BG3 as praise that I can imagine being used as a negative had the public opinion been blowing the other direction. The exact same video, unchanged. It all depends on whether the speaker puts a negative or positive spin on it.

I've heard both sides for and against BG3 and it's more about how a AAA studio who's tied to their shareholders could never make a game like BG3. Noodle here explains this, but very poorly and was criticized for it. Modern games must have micro-transactions and live services in order to maximize profits for their shareholders, where Larian Studios is not and therefore has more freedom to create games as they please.

View: https://youtu.be/2f4N08TGtB4?si=n3g597uP4FGrFvzE

You are perfectly demonstrating the problem. Cherry picked clips and gifs taking the worst examples and extrapolating them as if they were representative of the whole game.

You mean like this?

When I played ME:A the facial animation issues were few and far between, I'd probably would have noticed even fewer had I not been conditioned already to be on the lookout for them by the online hysteria.

Then lets go by regular peoples reviews or does that not count as well? I didn't play the game because I avoid bad games, but lets see what people had to say.

• Too many boring side quests.
• Main quest feels short.
• The original crew is missing.
• Tedious boring gameplay.
• Doesn't live up to Mass Effect Trilogy.

Today games live and die through perception, not just quality.

Most people don't have anyway of trying a game for free to see if they'd like it. If they keep jacking up the price of games, then people keep using more perception to see if the game is good or bad. Palworld for example is only $30 and that's allowing the game to beat the pants off everyone else, and that's still an early access game.

If you think re-playing old games is on par with new experiences then why do you even care about new games? Couldn't you just re-play them ad infitum and be happy?

You say this after Resident Evil 2, 4, Demon Souls, and Dead Space Remakes? Even World of Warcraft classic has become a money maker for Blizzard for this reason. Sometimes people want to go back and play games they knew was good, instead of deal with new games that could be bad. Obviously I want good new games, but not the shovelware they put out and expect me to pay $60 $70 for.

It's not that it must have that exactly, but if it exists and provides that unique experience I'll play it and enjoy it, even if it is far from perfect. There are already so few games that fit into genres I like, I'm not going to pass on a good game because it is not a 10/10 in every metric.

If that's how you feel then I can see what a subscription service makes sense for you. It clearly doesn't for a lot of people as subscription growth has flattened. The point I'm trying to make is that a subscription model only feeds into bad game design, much like how streaming services started to feed into bad movies and TV shows. If your standards are low, like 7/10 low then you can expect a lot more games like that with subscription. I don't have all the time in the world to play every 7/10 game, which is why I favor quality over quantity. 2023 was an exceptional year as we've had some quality AAA games, which is rare nowadays. I feel that quality games is something I'd expect from Indie developers since again they are not held to shareholders needs of micro-transactions and live service. As Yahtzee Croshaw put it, this game model will eventually stop working if it already hasn't, and will destroy parts of the gaming industry. A subscription model seems like a last ditch effort to try and appease shareholders because their other gaming business models aren't working. If you can't make people pay $70 for these micro-transaction live service games, then lets feed them the slop we made for a monthly fee. To make sure you keep paying, they'll put one or two new games worth $70 every so often, much like Streaming services who also put one or two good pieces of content.

 

[Flogger23m]

Resident Evil 4 though was a fully 3D game, which makes it more of a remaster than a Remake.

If almost everything is remade, which is the case for the RE2/3/4 Remakes, then it is a "remake". Remastering is more or less taking a game and updating it a bit. Updating textures, adding some minor new features, tweaking the graphics a bit if possible on the old engine, and maybe adding a bit of cut content. But it is still based off the original game build.

A Remake is more or less made from the ground up. It is essentially rebuilding the entire game from scratch. This is also why story/gameplay might be changed a bit.

 

[Marees]

Microsoft mulling Starfield release on PS5 (& PS5 pro?)

According to our sources, Microsoft senior leadership have reportedly debated the various pros and cons of releasing more of their exclusive software elsewhere, and internally, not everyone is necessarily happy with the decision, but recouping the potential money “left on the table” by releasing elsewhere has arguably won out.

https://xboxera.com/2024/02/04/exclusive-microsoft-plans-starfield-launch-for-playstation-5/