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.

[–] 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.

load more comments (6 replies)