this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2024
263 points (98.5% liked)

Games

32549 readers
1909 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Adding a bit more to the discussion on whether game subscription can be "the future", it looks like despite the heavy push made in the past decade, subscriptions only make up 10% of total video game spending in the US.

Link: https://nitter.net/MatPiscatella/status/1747660051269988522

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago (11 children)

Ok...someone help me out here, because I must be reading this wrong.

In the first tweet, Mat says "the idea that subs will become dominant is unsupported by data." Ok, so subs are not helping the industry.

But then in the second tweet, he says "Subs have been more additive than cannibalistic"--so wait, they're actually good for the industry?--and they offer more choice, and fearmongering is unnecessary?

Am I reading this wrong?

[–] TheEntity@kbin.social 24 points 10 months ago (1 children)

He means that the subscribers don't stop buying games elsewhere. They do both instead of migrating from one model to the other.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Ok, that's exactly what I thought it meant. So why isn't that good for the industry? Doesn't that mean that they're double-dipping?

[–] TheEntity@kbin.social 18 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It is. But the industry would rather have all of us subscribing because that's a constant profit and they love constant profit. They'd rather have 100% subscribing and 0% buying than 10% subscribing and 100% buying.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think I'm getting it now. He was saying "don't worry" to consumers, not video game companies.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think he's saying that neither extreme is right. Subscriptions aren't going to take over the entire market but they will likely continue to play a role going forward.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

So my current understanding of this is that he's telling us, as consumers, not to worry because subscriptions are not taking over the industry like the industry wants it to. It's working for them, but it's not taking over.

load more comments (9 replies)