I agree that dev to user is best, and I agree that the current greenlight processes for game publishers are pretty busted, no arguments there. I also have bigger issues with the sub model he's not even mentioning.

In fairness, though, I think for majors with that busted greenlight process the sub model does enable some games to get made that wouldn't otherwise. Some games just don't work at full price and just can't stack up to the major productions but they do get checked out in a sub. For smaller games and devs the sub money can guarantee survival.

But that doesn't take away that a subscription-dominated market is poorer, the preservation issues or any of the other problems with that being the primary thrust. Tech guys tend to be all-in on things and think they should be THE way because more money is more optimal and if they dominate then that's more money. In reality for a content ecosystem to thrive a multi-window ecosystem is probably best. Also, I want to buy games I can own, and the less they let me do that the more I want it, so... there's that.

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I have no problem with subscriptions as they are right now, my issue is a potential future where I am not given the opportunity outright buy the games I want to play.

[–] IWantToFuckSpez@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Game subscriptions will never stay as they are right now. Microsoft is basically burning money with GamePass they aren’t making a penny. Currently they are wining and dining the devs with big checks, but once MS has cornered the market they won’t be handing out these big bags of cash anymore. And they will definitely raise their prices. It’s big tech disruption tactics 101. Undercut the competition and go into the red until the competition throws in the towel then lower cost and increase the prices.

[–] Ashtear@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I always tell people concerned about this sort of thing to look at how cable TV still exists long after obsolescence. The content delivery system won't dry up before the content you want does (at least not in your lifetime).

[–] sneezycat@sopuli.xyz 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Yeah, but much of the cable content is lost to time. That's why we have stories like that of Marion Stokes, who collected tapes at her home and preserved hundreds of thousands of hours of news footage.

[–] vrek@programming.dev 3 points 10 months ago

For when things go bad look at early episodes of doctor who... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_missing_episodes

[–] Ashtear@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Sure, and the amount of lost PBS footage alone due to draconian copyright restrictions borders on criminal.

The point isn't on the quality of the distribution method. Even if it was, preservation efforts for games that qualify for the concept of game ownership are far more advanced. The point is that when an entertainment industry gets this big, it takes the deaths of multiple generations for the market to dry up.

[–] neo@feddit.de 1 points 10 months ago

Are there examples for a games that wouldn't exist without subscription services?

Small games can sell for smaller money and get successful without subscriptions, too (like Vampire Survivors, Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice and many more).

I don't think subscription services will pay good money to small productions. I mean look at Spotify's or Twitch' payouts. Only the big dogs get fed and the smaller ones have no choice.