Subscription Growth Has Flattened claims games industry analyst

[Marees]

On January 17th, Mat Piscatella — Executive Director & Video Game Industry Analyst at Circana (NPD) and Formerly of Activision and Warner Bros Games — claimed that:

Subscription growth has flattened, and sub services on console and PC platforms accounts for only 10% of total video game content spending in the US.

In other news:
Microsoft has not shared Game Pass subscription numbers in two years, since January 2022

Even a Game Pass release like Starfield did big numbers on Steam, even if a Game Pass sub could have gotten players a non-Steam PC version.

we’ll have to see what that does to strategies all across the industry if this continues.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulta...r-xbox-game-pass-and-ps-plus/?sh=52ce601b6d2f

 

[M76]

People are not happy not owning games, even though technically they already don't own always online games.

 

[Armenius]

Steam is such a small number of people playing Microsoft games that I ignore it. Starfield peaked at over 12 million total players, and Steam peaked at 330,000 concurrent players. It always makes me laugh when a post pops up declaring a game is dead and they use Steam's numbers as their source.

Just as a data point, I never buy Microsoft games on Steam. I always buy them off the Microsoft Store.

 

[M76]

Just as a data point, I never buy Microsoft games on Steam. I always buy them off the Microsoft Store.

Why would you do that? MS store is probably the worst when it comes to how much control you have over your games. I would not wish it on my worst enemies. I literally had to ask for support just to find and install a game I knew I had on there.
It is not terrible, it is worse than terrible. And MS published games like starfield work fine on steam and they don't even need an additional launcher like ubisoft games.

Starfield peaked at over 12 million total players, and Steam peaked at 330,000 concurrent players.

Also concurrent players and total players are not comparable. that 330.000 peak can easily mean millions of people owning the game on steam.

 

[Armenius]

Why would you do that? MS store is probably the worst when it comes to how much control you have over your games. I would not wish it on my worst enemies. I literally had to ask for support just to find and install a game I knew I had on there.
It is not terrible, it is worse than terrible. And MS published games like starfield work fine on steam and they don't even need an additional launcher like ubisoft games.

I prefer to eliminate the middle man as much as I can. That means purchasing Microsoft games from Microsoft, EA games from EA, etc.

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.

Why would you do that? MS store is probably the worst when it comes to how much control you have over your games. I would not wish it on my worst enemies. I literally had to ask for support just to find and install a game I knew I had on there.
It is not terrible, it is worse than terrible. And MS published games like starfield work fine on steam and they don't even need an additional launcher like ubisoft games.


Also concurrent players and total players are not comparable. that 330.000 peak can easily mean millions of people owning the game on steam.

True. We don't have data on the number of owners on Steam. Reliable estimates put it at 1.5-2.0 million people owning the game on Steam. The rest are split between console, Microsoft Store, and Game Pass.

 

[Twisted Kidney]

But... The growth is supposed to be infinite..?

 

[DukenukemX]

Let me see if I can fix that for them.

 

[Lakados]

Let me see if I can fix that for them.
View attachment 630065

How many times have I made that mistake….

 

[M76]

How many times have I made that mistake….

I've had worse. I cancelled a membership subscription and they still charged me. And support outright refused to refund me. That was the last time that ocmpany saw any money from me. I used to spend around $1000 a year there. Spent 0 since that happened.

 

[Darunion]

Let me see if I can fix that for them.

Id be fine if you just randomly posted that in threads from time to time. Best financial advice ever!

 

[Lakados]

I've had worse. I cancelled a membership subscription and they still charged me. And support outright refused to refund me. That was the last time that ocmpany saw any money from me. I used to spend around $1000 a year there. Spent 0 since that happened.

Oh god yes, the I canceled this on the website, but they sent me a confirmation email that I had to accept to verify that I was canceling my subscription but I didn't see that one in my junk mail so they didn't cancel my subscription.
Or the issues with Visa auto-renew where even if your card expires it will carry over to the new card and if they have you registered for that, but you have canceled your account but it didn't pull it from the visa auto-renew Visa will still process the transaction and feed it through the other direction.... Yeah, in the attempt to keep scammers from using stolen cards, or add convenience for people who get new cards but forget to update accounts they have in some cases made it a hell of a lot harder to legitimately cancel some things.

 

[Dan_D]

How many times have I made that mistake….

So many......

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I imagine they have already enrolled those who think subscription for games is a good idea. Growth now is going to be more difficult as they actually have to convince people who are steadfastly against the idea.

I'm certainly never going to do it, and if they release titles I want but can't buy outright on Steam, I'm not above playing "community editions" as a form of protest.

I already have Steam and GoG. Those are the only two places I buy games.

I will not create an account, install a store/launcher/client from anyone else ever.

(In fact, I decided in 2017 that I was already too exposed online, and that I would never again create a new account for, or install a new app on my phone for anything. Thus far I'm holding strong. I don't even have a Microsoft account, and I don't want one.)

And I will never ever subscribe to something that should be a purchase.

I'm not going to subscribe to heated seats in my car.

I'm not going to subscribe to online features for my car. (if online services come free for life with a $5 smart lightbulb, they had better come for free with any purchase of a $50,000 car)

I am also never going to subscribe to any games service.

It literally will not happen. I'll completely stop playing games before I do that.

How many times have I made that mistake….

Once.

Columbia House ca. 1994? (Can't remember)

I was young and stupid and didn't even realize I was signing up for a subscription. I was just trying to buy a CD collection as a gift for someone.

I canceled and reported the charges as fraud.

 

[Shoganai]

I've had worse. I cancelled a membership subscription and they still charged me. And support outright refused to refund me. That was the last time that ocmpany saw any money from me. I used to spend around $1000 a year there. Spent 0 since that happened.

I use Privacy.com (virtual credit cards) now for all my subscriptions so that doesn't ever happen again. It's happened way too many times and it's infuriating.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

People are not happy not owning games, even though technically they already don't own always online games.

There are exceptions. GOG effectively allows you to own games if you actually spend the time to download the install files and archive them yourself. All DRM free.

I actually try to buy all my games on GOG now. And only if it's not available on GOG will I buy on Steam. And no one else. EA, Ubisoft, Epic, they can all keep their gamestores and their games that I'll never buy or play. (I admit to "collecting" free games on Epic, but I'll never drop a dime there. And I like their store/app so little that during sales I'm willing to "buy the game again" on GOG if it's a game I really like/want rather than use EGS terrible launcher - Though GOG's EGS integration allows me to skip EGS).

On January 17th, Mat Piscatella — Executive Director & Video Game Industry Analyst at Circana (NPD) and Formerly of Activision and Warner Bros Games — claimed that:

Subscription growth has flattened, and sub services on console and PC platforms accounts for only 10% of total video game content spending in the US.

In other news:
Microsoft has not shared Game Pass subscription numbers in two years, since January 2022

Even a Game Pass release like Starfield did big numbers on Steam, even if a Game Pass sub could have gotten players a non-Steam PC version.

we’ll have to see what that does to strategies all across the industry if this continues.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulta...r-xbox-game-pass-and-ps-plus/?sh=52ce601b6d2f

I'll just say what more or less has already been said: video games are just an entirely different market than movies/TV and music.
There are many reasons for this, but in short the way subs are setup right now isn't beneficial enough to end users. And the only way that it can be setup as being profitable for companies is to charge a rate that it's doubtful people in the PC community will swallow.

I think Apple Arcade has been successful because it is as low cost as it is and can easily be tossed in as a "freebie" on top of all the other Apple One subscriptions. But Ubisoft wanting to charge $20 a month, and only give subs access to Ubisoft games? In what world does that make sense? Any PC gamer with sense in their heads would either rather just buy the game at launch for $60 and not have to mess around with a sub, or literally wait until the game goes on sale for <$20 and still actually "own the game" which would only "cost a single month".

And this is of course not talking about things like inevitable Steam sales or bundles, etc. There are tons of PC gamers with 500+ games they have racked up that they've never played just due to bundles or picking up something they had an interest in for <$5. There is no sub model that a game service can offer that will beat that pricing level.

Maybe if it is $20 a month for access to literally ever game library from every company. But that will never happen. Even Microsoft's game pass isn't big enough for me to want to want to pay monthly into. And a good chunk of the reason why is that basically every game from Activision-Blizzard at this point is for people with ADD and has micro-transactions or other predatory monetization. And every other studio they've purchased is mostly not producing games I'm even interested in (or dying on the vine... I used to love Obsidian, but they aren't the same anymore...). I can accept that "I'm unusual" because I'm very selective with what I play, but at this point most older Millennials and certainly Gen-X don't have 40 hours to devote every week to their gaming hobby. In other words getting access to more trash isn't actually value.

If these companies are releasing multiple bangers a month that are fun, have no predatory monetization, have depth, great stories, look great, play great etc, then they can demand those kinds of subscription prices. But let's be real: Ubisoft isn't anywhere close to developing that. And no other single dev is either. And also if they were developing at that level, then they wouldn't even care about a sub model, they would be able to demand high prices for their titles.

tl;dr - To me it's almost an admission that their games just aren't worth it. They need to have a monetization scheme to make more money rather than simply make more quality games.

 

[Shoganai]

There are exceptions. GOG effectively allows you to own games if you actually spend the time to download the install files and archive them yourself. All DRM free.

I actually try to buy all my games on GOG now. And only if it's not available on GOG will I buy on Steam. And no one else. EA, Ubisoft, Epic, they can all keep their gamestores and their games that I'll never buy or play. (I admit to "collecting" free games on Epic, but I'll never drop a dime there. And I like their store/app so little that during sales I'm willing to "buy the game again" on GOG if it's a game I really like/want rather than use EGS terrible launcher - Though GOG's EGS integration allows me to skip EGS).


I'll just say what more or less has already been said: video games are just an entirely different market than movies/TV and music.
There are many reasons for this, but in short the way subs are setup right now isn't beneficial enough to end users. And the only way that it can be setup as being profitable for companies is to charge a rate that it's doubtful people in the PC community will swallow.

I think Apple Arcade has been successful because it is as low cost as it is and can easily be tossed in as a "freebie" on top of all the other Apple One subscriptions. But Ubisoft wanting to charge $20 a month, and only give subs access to Ubisoft games? In what world does that make sense? Any PC gamer with sense in their heads would either rather just buy the game at launch for $60 and not have to mess around with a sub, or literally wait until the game goes on sale for <$20 and still actually "own the game" which would only "cost a single month".

And this is of course not talking about things like inevitable Steam sales or bundles, etc. There are tons of PC gamers with 500+ games they have racked up that they've never played just due to bundles or picking up something they had an interest in for <$5. There is no sub model that a game service can offer that will beat that pricing level.

Maybe if it is $20 a month for access to literally ever game library from every company. But that will never happen. Even Microsoft's game pass isn't big enough for me to want to want to pay monthly into. And a good chunk of the reason why is that basically every game from Activision-Blizzard at this point is for people with ADD and has micro-transactions or other predatory monetization. And every other studio they've purchased is mostly not producing games I'm even interested in (or dying on the vine... I used to love Obsidian, but they aren't the same anymore...). I can accept that "I'm unusual" because I'm very selective with what I play, but at this point most older Millennials and certainly Gen-X don't have 40 hours to devote every week to their gaming hobby. In other words getting access to more trash isn't actually value.

If these companies are releasing multiple bangers a month that are fun, have no predatory monetization, have depth, great stories, look great, play great etc, then they can demand those kinds of subscription prices. But let's be real: Ubisoft isn't anywhere close to developing that. And no other single dev is either. And also if they were developing at that level, then they wouldn't even care about a sub model, they would be able to demand high prices for their titles.

tl;dr - To me it's almost an admission that their games just aren't worth it. They need to have a monetization scheme to make more money rather than simply make more quality games.

Good to know that GOG does that.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Good to know that GOG does that.

I think CDPR have shown that other stores are viable other than Steam. But they have to offer their own value propositions that Steam does not.

 

[M76]

Oh god yes, the I canceled this on the website, but they sent me a confirmation email that I had to accept to verify that I was canceling my subscription but I didn't see that one in my junk mail so they didn't cancel my subscription.
Or the issues with Visa auto-renew where even if your card expires it will carry over to the new card and if they have you registered for that, but you have canceled your account but it didn't pull it from the visa auto-renew Visa will still process the transaction and feed it through the other direction.... Yeah, in the attempt to keep scammers from using stolen cards, or add convenience for people who get new cards but forget to update accounts they have in some cases made it a hell of a lot harder to legitimately cancel some things.

I cancelled on their site, they said I should've cancelled at the payment processor. Not so coincidentally after this incident they changed the text on their cancellation site to say that you need to cancel at the payment processor, basically admitting fault in action, but they still refused to refund me. That is why I left them never to return.

 

[M76]

There are exceptions. GOG effectively allows you to own games if you actually spend the time to download the install files and archive them yourself. All DRM free.

Not all games are DRM free on GOG to my knowledge. CDPR's own games are, but buying games on GOG is not an automatic guarantee that it will be DRM free. I'm not inherently against DRM as long as it allows for modding and doesn't affect performance noticeably. Anyway I wasn't referring to DRM in my post, but games that refuse to work without connecting to a server, like the Crew that Ubisoft just announced they are shutting down.

I actually try to buy all my games on GOG now. And only if it's not available on GOG will I buy on Steam. And no one else. EA, Ubisoft, Epic, they can all keep their gamestores and their games that I'll never buy or play. (I admit to "collecting" free games on Epic, but I'll never drop a dime there. And I like their store/app so little that during sales I'm willing to "buy the game again" on GOG if it's a game I really like/want rather than use EGS terrible launcher - Though GOG's EGS integration allows me to skip EGS).

I only buy games on GOG that I can't find on steam or are cheaper on GOG. But I don't even give the time of day to free games on EGS. If a game was interesting enough to spend my time on it, then I'd have bought it already.
As for Ubisoft I'll grant their wish in the future, and only use subscription to play their games, seeing that I don't own them even if I buy them. I already did that with Assassin's Creed Valhalla, finished it in one month, then cancelled. It's their loss.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

Not all games are DRM free on GOG to my knowledge. CDPR's own games are, but buying games on GOG is not an automatic guarantee that it will be DRM free. I'm not inherently against DRM as long as it allows for modding and doesn't affect performance noticeably.

It's literally their whole shtick:
https://www.gog.com/en/news/bgog_2022_update_2b_our_commitment_to_drmfree_gaming
"GOG was built on trust, which is at the very core of our identity. It is evidenced by our 30-day refund policy or releasing games DRM-free, among other things.
....
Making sure you can play games purchased on GOG offline, make backup copies, and install them as many times as you need is even more relevant now, as things like game preservation become an important topic for the whole industry."

https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/List_of_DRM-free_games_on_GOG.com
"Total number of DRM-free games: 4,416 out of 4,443 games in total." (Odd that 30~ games aren't included? I'm not going to bother digging through to figure out why).

https://www.cgmagonline.com/interviews/drm-free-gaming-future-with-gog/
"Urszula Jach-Jaki: All games on GOG are DRM-free, without exception. This means three things. First, you can always play the single-player content offline. Second, games you bought and downloaded can never be taken from you or altered against your will. Lastly, our GOG GALAXY client, an easy way to download and update games as well as play multiplayer modes, is, and will remain, optional for accessing single-player offline mode."
&
Urszula Jach-Jaki: ...While we understood that going that way will pose its own set of challenges, throughout the years of evangelizing DRM-free, we’ve managed to establish good relationships with many developers and publishers, even those who at first were against our approach. They already know us, trust us, and see that taking the DRM-free route is not a risk but an opportunity.

Anyway I wasn't referring to DRM in my post, but games that refuse to work without connecting to a server, like the Crew that Ubisoft just announced they are shutting down.

That's fair. I do feel that "always online" and closed servers are a form of DRM though.

If Ubisoft allowed their games on other platforms, technically GOG would always preserve the offline component (as noted above) while also being DRM free (which requires the publishers and devs to be on board, as per the interview above). Both things that Ubisoft themselves more or less would never allow.

I only buy games on GOG that I can't find on steam or are cheaper on GOG. But I don't even give the time of day to free games on EGS. If a game was interesting enough to spend my time on it, then I'd have bought it already.

I've been using "isthereanydeal" for a while and have been tracking this stuff.
Generally speaking, I've noticed if it goes on sale on Steam it also goes on sale on GoG.

The "tough" part is that because everything is DRM free on GoG, their selection is more limited. That hasn't affected me too much because the games I play are selective and I guess for whatever reasons my wishes and these particular publishers all agree on the same stuff. More or less anything I want on Steam is on GoG at this point. I have to work pretty hard to find something that I want to play that isn't on GoG but is on Steam.

As for Ubisoft I'll grant their wish in the future, and only use subscription to play their games, seeing that I don't own them even if I buy them. I already did that with Assassin's Creed Valhalla, finished it in one month, then cancelled. It's their loss.

Same. Except there hasn't been anything that they've even made in 10 years that I've even wanted to play. Even Avatar is more of a benchmark than a game.

I think the last stuff from Ubisoft that was great was Prince of Persia: Sands of Time for GCN. And maybe some old Splinter Cell Games. Assassin's Creed 1-3. Since then it's all been milking and downhill. I'm not interested in Assassins Creed 37 and Far Cry 14 or again anything else they've released.

 

[Carlyle2020]

They seem to struggle more than i read in the news. After 4 years of beeing bullied to register there for some game they sent me the first ever email that i am eligable for beta testing a new multiplayer game if just click on that NDA button... yeah right.

 

[M76]

It's literally their whole shtick:

I know it is their shtick, GOG is full of old dos games, even if those had some sort of DRM originally it has been disabled for GOG. But many modern games have content that is only unlockable by connecting to a server. It is up to interpretation whether you consider that DRM free.

That's fair. I do feel that "always online" and closed servers are a form of DRM though.

It can double as DRM this is why publishers like ubisoft are so eager to use it, even if they could probably make the game work offline with little effort.

I've been using "isthereanydeal" for a while and have been tracking this stuff.
Generally speaking, I've noticed if it goes on sale on Steam it also goes on sale on GoG.

I usually go through key sellers those are always cheaper than direct from gog or steam, unless a game is sold out. Which happened to be the case with Phantom Liberty, it sold out so fast that I missed it. So I ended up waiting for the holiday sale on GOG to finally get it.

The "tough" part is that because everything is DRM free on GoG, their selection is more limited. That hasn't affected me too much because the games I play are selective and I guess for whatever reasons my wishes and these particular publishers all agree on the same stuff. More or less anything I want on Steam is on GoG at this point. I have to work pretty hard to find something that I want to play that isn't on GoG but is on Steam.

I play very few games usually, the only rule I have is never buy from EGS.

Same. Except there hasn't been anything that they've even made in 10 years that I've even wanted to play. Even Avatar is more of a benchmark than a game.

I think the last stuff from Ubisoft that was great was Prince of Persia: Sands of Time for GCN. And maybe some old Splinter Cell Games. Assassin's Creed 1-3. Since then it's all been milking and downhill. I'm not interested in Assassins Creed 37 and Far Cry 14 or again anything else they've released.

I loved the splinter cell games, even the later ones, but they haven't made anything in that IP since 2013. I never liked AC to begin with, I only played Odyssey and Valhalla because they were so different to AC. I have zero interest in Mirage which was supposed to go back to the roots of the series.

 

[Prince Valiant]

But... The growth is supposed to be infinite..?

Guess the shareholders are going to have to face reality sometime .

I know it is their shtick, GOG is full of old dos games, even if those had some sort of DRM originally it has been disabled for GOG. But many modern games have content that is only unlockable by connecting to a server. It is up to interpretation whether you consider that DRM free.

It can double as DRM this is why publishers like ubisoft are so eager to use it, even if they could probably make the game work offline with little effort.


I usually go through key sellers those are always cheaper than direct from gog or steam, unless a game is sold out. Which happened to be the case with Phantom Liberty, it sold out so fast that I missed it. So I ended up waiting for the holiday sale on GOG to finally get it.

I play very few games usually, the only rule I have is never buy from EGS.

I loved the splinter cell games, even the later ones, but they haven't made anything in that IP since 2013. I never liked AC to begin with, I only played Odyssey and Valhalla because they were so different to AC. I have zero interest in Mirage which was supposed to go back to the roots of the series.

Correct. They've also pulled online modes from some games and replaced it with Galaxy. I think they backtracked on SW Battlefront II but AVP is still galaxy only as far as I know.

 

[LurkerLito]

I know it is their shtick, GOG is full of old dos games, even if those had some sort of DRM originally it has been disabled for GOG. But many modern games have content that is only unlockable by connecting to a server. It is up to interpretation whether you consider that DRM free.

It can double as DRM this is why publishers like ubisoft are so eager to use it, even if they could probably make the game work offline with little effort.

Yeah the definition of DRM-Free is kind of tricky these days because of the online component. As far as I am concerned most games on GoG are DRM-Free there are only a couple I know of that are locked behind server side DRM. For me if I can play all content single player with no connection to the internet and complete the game then it's DRM-Free. Only a few titles on GoG don't fulfill that requirement. IIRC I own one of them and that is No Man's Sky. It requires you to connect via GoG Galaxy in order to get certain quests. If you don't it'll just say there are no quests. Interesting fact is that when this quest system was introduced, it was generating random quests in single player with no internet connection required. Then one day they patched it so that it didn't make them locally anymore and only grabbed them online from the NMS servers. The other one I know but don't own that has server side locked content is Absolver. It's a fighting game I own on steam but you go around and learn moves but there are some moves you can't learn unless you connect to their servers at least once to learn them then they are unlocked.

 

[LukeTbk]

I'll just say what more or less has already been said: video games are just an entirely different market than movies/TV and music.

They will have very similar challenge for movies-tv ott streaming subscription too. D+ look like it could have already peaked in subscription count, Netflix growth slowed down a lot, the amount of people they lose yearly is giant, some have like a 4% a month lost rate.

One possible difference would be that it could be easier for Netflix to charge way less in developing market than in western one, the audience less willing to VPN their tv and so on that gamers would maybe, making world expansion easier. A good gamepass plan could be expensive enough to be worth it to try to pay the Vietnam and other market rate.

One other big one is smartphone-smarthtv vs desktop, people pay for music to be on their smartphone, on a desktop with free youtube competition a couple of click away not really, Spotify is still free with ads outside mobile. Your point about Apple game having a better chance make sense, same would go for Netflix-Amazon prime, if it is for tablet-smarttv gaming and bundled with something else it could be more natural,. A bit like Wordle and other game bundled with the NYtimes subscription.

On those closed platform, free alternative can be less obvious to access and people are more ready to pay.

 

[DukenukemX]

One possible difference would be that it could be easier for Netflix to charge way less in developing market than in western one, the audience less willing to VPN their tv and so on that gamers would maybe, making world expansion easier. A good gamepass plan could be expensive enough to be worth it to try to pay the Vietnam and other market rate.

Keep in mind that in Argentina the price of World of Warcraft's subscription was cheap, and many gamers took advantage of this. While many other methods were tried to stop players from using Argentina for a cheap subscription like requiring a credit card from Argentina, ultimately they just increased the price. It's not just players taking advantage of the fact the game costs $4 instead of $15, but botters mostly. Games are on an entirely different level of problems compared to movies and music.

One other big one is smarthphone, people pay for music to be on their smarthphone, on a desktop with free youtube competition a couple of click away not really, spotify is still free with ads outside mobile.

People who pay for these services for smartphones are people who don't have SD card slots and sideloading. Also keep in mind that if you're on a car trip or just happen to live in an area with poor signal quality, you may lose your data very frequently. At which point it becomes essential to load your phones SD Card with music and movies. It's also less of a hassle to just sign in and find the movie you want to watch, where as instead you could just run VLC and just play your movie. Key word here is hassle, as running a Plex or something similar would gain you far more convenience if you needed something similar. How many times have I installed Disney+, Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Video, and HBO? Just installing Plex or Jellyfin would get me access to everything I wanted, without poor image quality.

Your point about Apple game haivng a better chance make sense, same would go for Netflix-Amazon prime, if it is for tablet-smarttv gaming and bundled with something else it could be more natural,. A bit like wordle and other game bundled with the NYtimes subscription.

On those closed platform, free alternative can be less obvious to access and people are more ready to pay.

Makes sense for Apple since they prevent their users from doing it any other way. Look at the whole situation where Apple is allowing sideloading, but they charge per application and need to review it. If it isn't the limited sideloading, then it's the limited storage. If you didn't buy an iOS device with large amounts of internal storage then good luck.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I think CDPR have shown that other stores are viable other than Steam. But they have to offer their own value propositions that Steam does not.

Yeah, it's difficult. The "I have all of my purchases in one store launcher, and don't really want to have active store accounts with my credit card or other financial information spread all over the place" convenience is a difficult barrier to entry to overcome.

As much as I hate them for it, In a way it makes sense that EPIC used bribery and timed exclusives to try to overcome it.

GOG tried a different approach, integrating other store compatibility layers into the GOG launcher, but this only solves half the problem, the convenience one, not the "financial accounts" part.

IMHO, I think we need regulation to preserve competition in the market. A Volcker Rule for video games. You may develop/publish OR you may retail, but not both. You must offer you product to any legitimate digital retailer who wishes to sell it at the same B2B price, and let the best retailer/launcher win.

Also, using a industry standard binary blob installation format allowing users to move their purchases between stores at will would also be a benefit, as it breaks down the lockdown/barrier to entry.

Of course, this will never happen due to monied interests fighting it, but it would be the perfect solution.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I know it is their shtick, GOG is full of old dos games, even if those had some sort of DRM originally it has been disabled for GOG.

I literally don't understand what you're trying to say here, because I covered this in my response.

What I was defining was whether or not their entire catalog was DRM free or not. You said this statement:

Not all games are DRM free on GOG to my knowledge. CDPR's own games are, but buying games on GOG is not an automatic guarantee that it will be DRM free.

I just unequivocally showed that their entire library regardless of dev is DRM free. Yes, we could talk about online components, but even in CDPR's statements regarding this, installs must always be preserved, and all single player content must always be preserved. Those are the terms that devs/publishers must accept to be on GoG. Hence why showing those statements were important.

But many modern games have content that is only unlockable by connecting to a server. It is up to interpretation whether you consider that DRM free.

I said the same thing. Sure it depends on whether you count online mechanics as "DRM". But in terms of things on GoG, only the multiplayer portion of whatever game can ever be gated and nothing else.

Perhaps said better you need to define: "unlockable by connecting to a server" content. The only things that can tied to DRM in this way is essentially multiplayer play (as in actual servers necessary to play the game online with other people). As all the single player portion(s), DLC included, etc has to be accessible via GoG's installers.

In summary: GoG "won't save you" if xyz dev decided to turn their multiplayer servers off. But in terms of any other content inside of the game, there can't be some "online unlock DRM check" under GoG's systems/rules. That effectively eliminates "always online" forms of DRM.

To extrapolate on this, there are no games like CoD, R6, Overwatch, Fortnite, etc etc, on GoG. Likely because those terms go against those types of games. And those particular devs would never open up their "walls" to GoG. I think in general there aren't many titles that have multiplayer components period on GoG, again likely because of all of GoG's rules.

 

[tangoseal]

"You will own nothing and be happy" - Klaus Schwab

 

[DukenukemX]

As much as I hate them for it, In a way it makes sense that EPIC used bribery and timed exclusives to try to overcome it.

The key to overcoming this is to have good single player games. Something Epic gave up long ago. What do you see Microsoft and Sony do to get customers on their platform? Good single player games. Nintendo is no stranger to this, as that's all they ever do with some exceptions.

IMHO, I think we need regulation to preserve competition in the market. A Volcker Rule for video games. You may develop/publish OR you may retail, but not both. You must offer you product to any legitimate digital retailer who wishes to sell it at the same B2B price, and let the best retailer/launcher win.

I agree, as the platform itself should be why consumers shop there and not exclusives. Unfortunately for Epic, they fail at this as well. Steam has more support, and better deals most of the time.

Also, using a industry standard binary blob installation format allowing users to move their purchases between stores at will would also be a benefit, as it breaks down the lockdown/barrier to entry.

I'd rather they just open source their code like John Carmack has done, successfully. It's not like game engine code isn't something anyone can't do. Given enough time the community will make a game engine for popular games just so they can play it on their favorite platform. It's not like source code isn't constantly leaked for games, and it's not like piracy doesn't exist for every game that exists.

Of course, this will never happen due to monied interests fighting it, but it would be the perfect solution.

It won't happen because it's always with the shareholders. I have more interest in Indie developers than AAA for this reason.

 

[M76]

I literally don't understand what you're trying to say here, because I covered this in my response.

What I'm saying is that the ratio of DRM free games is so high because the majority of games on GOG are old DOS games that either never had DRM or was removed.

I just unequivocally showed that their entire library regardless of dev is DRM free. Yes, we could talk about online components, but even in CDPR's statements regarding this, installs must always be preserved, and all single player content must always be preserved. Those are the terms that devs/publishers must accept to be on GoG. Hence why showing those statements were important.

And I said there are games where not all single player content is unlockable without logging into an online server. There are topics documenting these games on GOG forums. That's why I said it is up to interpretation whether you consider a game DRM free if you can play it offline, but some content won't be available.

I said the same thing. Sure it depends on whether you count online mechanics as "DRM". But in terms of things on GoG, only the multiplayer portion of whatever game can ever be gated and nothing else.

Perhaps said better you need to define: "unlockable by connecting to a server" content. The only things that can tied to DRM in this way is essentially multiplayer play (as in actual servers necessary to play the game online with other people). As all the single player portion(s), DLC included, etc has to be accessible via GoG's installers.

The findings here seem to differ.

In summary: GoG "won't save you" if xyz dev decided to turn their multiplayer servers off. But in terms of any other content inside of the game, there can't be some "online unlock DRM check" under GoG's systems/rules. That effectively eliminates "always online" forms of DRM.

To extrapolate on this, there are no games like CoD, R6, Overwatch, Fortnite, etc etc, on GoG. Likely because those terms go against those types of games. And those particular devs would never open up their "walls" to GoG. I think in general there aren't many titles that have multiplayer components period on GoG, again likely because of all of GoG's rules.

I never said they are not better than others in this regard, I just have a different interpretation on DRM-Free than them. Free means free, not partially DRM free, without access to some "bonus" content.

 

[M76]

"You will own nothing and be happy" - Klaus Schwab

This saying definitely not originates from Schwab.

Not owning anything and being happy was referring to a system where you pay less for stuff, because you only pay for usage, not for ownership. But the modern corporate and banking elite perverted the message. They want to deny you ownership on the products you bought at full price. If you have a Tesla car or an Apple phone or an unrootable Android phone you don't own it despite having been made to pay full price for them.

It was meant to work like a checkout system. You do not need to own things that you only use once every month for a few hours. Every expensive tool and equipment I have is a waste of resources while they are sitting idly. How much better it would be if I didn't have to buy any of it, and just have access to the newest current version when I need it? I don't have to store it 364 days of the year, don't have to worry about maintenance, don't have to worry about it becoming obsolete. And it's better for sustainability as well as instead of having to manufacture one for every possible person who might need it, it is enough to make as many of the tool as many people might use one simultaneously. Instead of hardware stores we should have hiring, where you take the stuff, pay a deposit, and then return it as soon as you are done using it, and get your deposit back minus some modest hiring fee.

This is what "you won't own anything and be happy" was originally supposed to look like. Not a forced change, but a choice where you don't even want to own stuff that you don't need all the time.

But the biggest perversion of the concept is with digital goods, as those are infinitely replicable at no cost, so there is absolutely no reason to not own a digital product you bought.

 

[Prince Valiant]

What I'm saying is that the ratio of DRM free games is so high because the majority of games on GOG are old DOS games that either never had DRM or was removed.

And I said there are games where not all single player content is unlockable without logging into an online server. There are topics documenting these games on GOG forums. That's why I said it is up to interpretation whether you consider a game DRM free if you can play it offline, but some content won't be available.

The findings here seem to differ.

I never said they are not better than others in this regard, I just have a different interpretation on DRM-Free than them. Free means free, not partially DRM free, without access to some "bonus" content.

Part of I quit buying from GOG, too many compromises on their supposed values.

It was meant to work like a checkout system. You do not need to own things that you only use once every month for a few hours. Every expensive tool and equipment I have is a waste of resources while they are sitting idly. How much better it would be if I didn't have to buy any of it, and just have access to the newest current version when I need it? I don't have to store it 364 days of the year, don't have to worry about maintenance, don't have to worry about it becoming obsolete. And it's better for sustainability as well as instead of having to manufacture one for every possible person who might need it, it is enough to make as many of the tool as many people might use one simultaneously. Instead of hardware stores we should have hiring, where you take the stuff, pay a deposit, and then return it as soon as you are done using it, and get your deposit back minus some modest hiring fee.

Rental already exists and it's not worth it unless you need the equipment once for a short period of time.

 

[DukenukemX]

This saying definitely not originates from Schwab.

Not owning anything and being happy was referring to a system where you pay less for stuff, because you only pay for usage, not for ownership. But the modern corporate and banking elite perverted the message. They want to deny you ownership on the products you bought at full price. If you have a Tesla car or an Apple phone or an unrootable Android phone you don't own it despite having been made to pay full price for them.

It was meant to work like a checkout system. You do not need to own things that you only use once every month for a few hours. Every expensive tool and equipment I have is a waste of resources while they are sitting idly. How much better it would be if I didn't have to buy any of it, and just have access to the newest current version when I need it? I don't have to store it 364 days of the year, don't have to worry about maintenance, don't have to worry about it becoming obsolete. And it's better for sustainability as well as instead of having to manufacture one for every possible person who might need it, it is enough to make as many of the tool as many people might use one simultaneously. Instead of hardware stores we should have hiring, where you take the stuff, pay a deposit, and then return it as soon as you are done using it, and get your deposit back minus some modest hiring fee.

This is what "you won't own anything and be happy" was originally supposed to look like. Not a forced change, but a choice where you don't even want to own stuff that you don't need all the time.

But the biggest perversion of the concept is with digital goods, as those are infinitely replicable at no cost, so there is absolutely no reason to not own a digital product you bought.

The reason you hear this "not owning and like it" concept is being tossed around is because there are limits to inflation. There's only so much you can inflate prices before you hit a brick wall. Gaming for example was $50 for a while, until it was $60 for even longer. Sony and Microsoft have both tried to standardize $70 games, but that's not working out too well. Some of the best games of 2023 were no more than $60. Baldur's Gate 3 is $60. Zelda Tears of the Kingdom is $60 on a cartridge. Nintendo you spoil us. Hi-Fi Rush is $30. Pizza Tower $20. The games that costed $70 were the worst games of 2023. Diablo IV is $70. Redfall is $70. Mortal Kombat 1 $70. Forspoken is still $70. This is after it's been acknowledged by the gaming community that these games are shit, but still want their $70. 2023 must have been a terrible year for the gaming industry because we've had a lot of certified bangers that are $60 or less and in reality you probably don't have enough time to sit down and even think about buying games like Forspoken. If only there was a way to get people to pay for these overpriced shovelware games with a monthly reoccurring fee where people often forget to cancel their payments?

 

[Armenius]

Yeah, it's difficult. The "I have all of my purchases in one store launcher, and don't really want to have active store accounts with my credit card or other financial information spread all over the place" convenience is a difficult barrier to entry to overcome.

As much as I hate them for it, In a way it makes sense that EPIC used bribery and timed exclusives to try to overcome it.

GOG tried a different approach, integrating other store compatibility layers into the GOG launcher, but this only solves half the problem, the convenience one, not the "financial accounts" part.

IMHO, I think we need regulation to preserve competition in the market. A Volcker Rule for video games. You may develop/publish OR you may retail, but not both. You must offer you product to any legitimate digital retailer who wishes to sell it at the same B2B price, and let the best retailer/launcher win.

Also, using a industry standard binary blob installation format allowing users to move their purchases between stores at will would also be a benefit, as it breaks down the lockdown/barrier to entry.

Of course, this will never happen due to monied interests fighting it, but it would be the perfect solution.

I don't save my credit or debit cards on any storefront. I enter the details manually every time I make a purchase.

The reason you hear this "not owning and like it" concept is being tossed around is because there are limits to inflation. There's only so much you can inflate prices before you hit a brick wall. Gaming for example was $50 for a while, until it was $60 for even longer. Sony and Microsoft have both tried to standardize $70 games, but that's not working out too well. Some of the best games of 2023 were no more than $60. Baldur's Gate 3 is $60. Zelda Tears of the Kingdom is $60 on a cartridge. Nintendo you spoil us. Hi-Fi Rush is $30. Pizza Tower $20. The games that costed $70 were the worst games of 2023. Diablo IV is $70. Redfall is $70. Mortal Kombat 1 $70. Forspoken is still $70. This is after it's been acknowledged by the gaming community that these games are shit, but still want their $70. 2023 must have been a terrible year for the gaming industry because we've had a lot of certified bangers that are $60 or less and in reality you probably don't have enough time to sit down and even think about buying games like Forspoken. If only there was a way to get people to pay for these overpriced shovelware games with a monthly reoccurring fee where people often forget to cancel their payments?

Tears of the Kingdom is $70 and always has been.

https://www.ign.com/articles/ninten...reflects-its-full-deeply-immersive-experience

Your Amazon link is for a third-party seller, one that has bad reviews at that.

Scrolling down shows Amazon is selling it for $70, just like every other major retailer.

From Nintendo, themselves:

https://www.nintendo.com/us/store/products/the-legend-of-zelda-tears-of-the-kingdom-112383/

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I don't save my credit or debit cards on any storefront. I enter the details manually every time I make a purchase.

That doesn't mean it doesn't get stored ob their server anyway....

That, and other personally ide tifyong information that is used or sold to data brokers...

 

[vegeta535]

The reason you hear this "not owning and like it" concept is being tossed around is because there are limits to inflation. There's only so much you can inflate prices before you hit a brick wall. Gaming for example was $50 for a while, until it was $60 for even longer. Sony and Microsoft have both tried to standardize $70 games, but that's not working out too well. Some of the best games of 2023 were no more than $60. Baldur's Gate 3 is $60. Zelda Tears of the Kingdom is $60 on a cartridge. Nintendo you spoil us. Hi-Fi Rush is $30. Pizza Tower $20. The games that costed $70 were the worst games of 2023. Diablo IV is $70. Redfall is $70. Mortal Kombat 1 $70. Forspoken is still $70. This is after it's been acknowledged by the gaming community that these games are shit, but still want their $70. 2023 must have been a terrible year for the gaming industry because we've had a lot of certified bangers that are $60 or less and in reality you probably don't have enough time to sit down and even think about buying games like Forspoken. If only there was a way to get people to pay for these overpriced shovelware games with a monthly reoccurring fee where people often forget to cancel their payments?

Zelda TotK is a $70 game and you can expect all Nintendo big games to be $70 from now on too. Also Nintendo almost never lowers the prices on their games. BotW is still $60 after what almost 7 years?

 

[DukenukemX]

Tears of the Kingdom is $70 and always has been.

https://www.ign.com/articles/ninten...reflects-its-full-deeply-immersive-experience
View attachment 631133

Your Amazon link is for a third-party seller, one that has bad reviews at that.
View attachment 631135View attachment 631134

Scrolling down shows Amazon is selling it for $70, just like every other major retailer.
View attachment 631131

From Nintendo, themselves:

https://www.nintendo.com/us/store/products/the-legend-of-zelda-tears-of-the-kingdom-112383/
View attachment 631130

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.

 

[DukenukemX]

Zelda TotK is a $70 game and you can expect all Nintendo big games to be $70 from now on too. Also Nintendo almost never lowers the prices on their games. BotW is still $60 after what almost 7 years?

Nintendo has a reputation for this. BotW is $45 off Amazon new. Shipping and sold by Amazon. If the game isn't on physical media then prices will be kept up higher, artificially.
https://www.amazon.com/Legend-Zelda...525&sprefix=breath+of+the+wild,aps,312&sr=8-2

 

[jfreund]

Not promoting Wally World, but...