What does subscription based (digital only) content mean for the future of entertainment?

[duckbutta]

Just means I won't be buying any game until the GOY version comes out

 

[Atsym Sknyfs]

Well yeah,as I said in my first post Microsoft would have to be getting a steady cheque from the subs to be able to do that (or any company).

And yeah I'm just equating ratings (tv) to sales (games)

We read all the time about games selling 2-5 million and that not being enough

So if a studio could release games and not have to worry about sales because they have enough subs than that's a win for gamers and studios.

It's the same way a lot of creatives are flocking to Netflix en masse because theirs little to no pressure and they get creative freedom..imagining a situation like that for game studios is

That would be a great thing for the industry. Because I can't say it enough the current model for AAA games is not sustainable.

Sony has PS Now .and PS+.. that could be the subscription platform somehow... instead of the old games platform its used for now


but truthfully besides the yearly sports game what game can work subscription based?

 

[AlainLocke]

People can't afford to shell out 60 bucks plus pay for dlc plus pay for microstransactions plus pay for access to go online...

I am personally priced out of playing most video games, I refuse to pay for the shyt...like it's a waste of money, I can be doing other shyt...

Also other products...such as Adobe Cloud and etc...

People can't afford it and want it and instead pirating...people now can pay 50 bucks a month...

Corporations are legally required to maximize how much money they can get from their customers...

Wages haven't risen at all to match productivity of workers...so your entertainment options are limited as fukk

So corporations are basically raping you blind in profit...to the point nobody really can afford to drop 60 bucks on a game, 60 bucks on online access than however many dollars on fukking MTX just to have access to the enjoyable parts of the game...

So instead of raping you with no lube...they'll just rape you with lube...

So the base game can be 40 bucks, you pay 10 bucks a month, then you have MTX you can buy and then you can pay 60 to access online play....and then pay 20 bucks a year to play the motherfukker as an activation fee...on top of the monthly fee...

Games that get dropped every year like Assassin's Creed, COD and sports games would eat...

 

[Cladyclad]

Why would I buy your game for 60$ if I can rent it for 10$? Or free trial?

MS exclusives prices can’t retail for 60$ going forward

 

[Kamikaze Revy]

Why would I buy your game for 60$ if I can rent it for 10$? Or free trial?

MS exclusives prices can’t retail for 60$ going forward

Because in the long run, ownership > renting

 

[Kamikaze Revy]

Okay, from that perspective, I also think he is wrong about being raped financially. I actually think streaming lowers the costs associated with putting out a project. You don't need to have a record company behind you to be popular. Streaming has democratized "making music." Anybody can put a project up to be streamed. Hell, my Max B: LOAL compilation is on most streaming services. What makes that crazy is, I literally made that shyt in my apartment in Phoenix. Like me, a random person, can do shyt and it can end up on mainstream streaming services. That's pretty crazy to me

Yes and no. Let me try to narrow down to my main concern. And all of this is obviously up for debate because it really depends on where you personally see value and what you are willing to sacrifice for convenience.
Before the internet, the only way you were able to get your hands on a game/movie/Music...(lets just call it “content” moving forward) was by going out and paying retail. Companies were crystal clear on what they would be making per unit. This allowed budgets to be structured a certain way to create content with a certain quality they thought necessary to achieve a certain number in sales. Now, looking at the music industry; the asset was the music, so the budgets were behind making sure the music was of a certain quality. Now, the music is essentially worthless. The money just isn’t there anymore, all of it shifted to generating money from the advertising. The music isn’t the real asset now, it’s the vehicle that drives the consumers towards the real money maker. So what does that mean for indie artists? It’s less attractive in the financial sense to make music. There’s definitely more potential than ever to get noticed due to the internet, but the internet itself is double edged. Even with incredible content, you can have a real “flash in the pan” moment.
Regarding money; these streaming giants refuse to answer a key question and it isn’t a coincidence that they all avoid it; “how much is 1 stream worth?” Right now they dictate the payout with no real pricing structure other than “trust me, you got a bunch of streams so here $200”.
I see this whole streaming/subscription issue from a financial perspective. If these companies don’t sort out how to compensate properly entertainment and art will suffer, because the money just won’t exist for creatives to create.

 

[Kamikaze Revy]

People can't afford to shell out 60 bucks plus pay for dlc plus pay for microstransactions plus pay for access to go online..

They can, and they have been breaking records consistently in sales. The market dictates the price, not companies.
But, people will certainly prefer to pay a much smaller amount up front, more in the long run, and overlook the negatives in lieu of convenience.

 

[Ciggavelli]

Yes and no. Let me try to narrow down to my main concern. And all of this is obviously up for debate because it really depends on where you personally see value and what you are willing to sacrifice for convenience.
Before the internet, the only way you were able to get your hands on a game/movie/Music...(lets just call it “content” moving forward) was by going out and paying retail. Companies were crystal clear on what they would be making per unit. This allowed budgets to be structured a certain way to create content with a certain quality they thought necessary to achieve a certain number in sales. Now, looking at the music industry; the asset was the music, so the budgets were behind making sure the music was of a certain quality. Now, the music is essentially worthless. The money just isn’t there anymore, all of it shifted to generating money from the advertising. The music isn’t the real asset now, it’s the vehicle that drives the consumers towards the real money maker. So what does that mean for indie artists? It’s less attractive in the financial sense to make music. There’s definitely more potential than ever to get noticed due to the internet, but the internet itself is double edged. Even with incredible content, you can have a real “flash in the pan” moment.
Regarding money; these streaming giants refuse to answer a key question and it isn’t a coincidence that they all avoid it; “how much is 1 stream worth?” Right now they dictate the payout with no real pricing structure other than “trust me, you got a bunch of streams so here $200”.
I see this whole streaming/subscription issue from a financial perspective. If these companies don’t sort out how to compensate properly entertainment and art will suffer, because the money just won’t exist for creatives to create.

I see what you're saying. However, people that want to make music, are gonna make music. For those people, streaming is amazing. It takes the money away from the art. Like, I'm sure you've noticed that hip-hop is not about blowing money on marketing anymore. It's like....bam....here's my album. shyt, the Migos just released Culture 2, and that shyt had no "late 90s era" marketing at all. The game has changed.

 

[DPresidential]

I worry that games will focus on that model, and only be multiplayer, episodic, etc

It's crazy because I'd love this.

I hardly finished 100 hour games and other long single player games.

I'd love smaller bites at a time into single player and a continuous healthy multiplayer scene.

I understand why brehs who are big single player gamers would be hesitant, though.

 

[O³ (O cubed)]

Once a server or service is no longer profitable what happens to your game? I have a ps2, I can jump into my San Andreas from 2005 without a company presence or interference without hassle.

The PS4 in my opinion is bad for that. Want to play San Andreas again, pay £20. Even though I paid £40 fourteen years ago.

Anyway I think that games as a service is wrong. As OP pointed out, its getting to the that you have to have multiple subscriptions just to enjoy content. I have both Xbox live and PS plus and personally I think that both have their drawbacks. I am not going to add another subscription to access a library. If I want a game I'll buy it. If I feel that the game is overpriced but I want to play it, I'll wait a few months. The price will go down. Wait a year probably and get the game of the year edition with all the dlc.

Another problem for me is that digital pricing is for the most part BS. A quick example is that I recently bought Shadow of War silver edition with steel cover for £29. The digital equivalent is £55 on psn. That is bullshyt.

Then I look at music streaming services with a side eye too. I'd rather own to music I listen to. Do I want Spotify to use my data to make a profile of me because what I listen to? Do they have the rights to stream the artists that I like


I could easily write a more detailed reply but it would go on and on. I prefer owning my own stuff. All of this streaming and renting is leading to a road where the negatives for the consumer outweighs the positives.

 

[Kings County]

i do believe the next gen ps and xbox are gonna be digital only, they lose money when people resell games
i know they wanna move towards that bad but some people have trash internet in certain parts of us

 

[MeachTheMonster]

Yes and no. Let me try to narrow down to my main concern. And all of this is obviously up for debate because it really depends on where you personally see value and what you are willing to sacrifice for convenience.
Before the internet, the only way you were able to get your hands on a game/movie/Music...(lets just call it “content” moving forward) was by going out and paying retail. Companies were crystal clear on what they would be making per unit. This allowed budgets to be structured a certain way to create content with a certain quality they thought necessary to achieve a certain number in sales. Now, looking at the music industry; the asset was the music, so the budgets were behind making sure the music was of a certain quality. Now, the music is essentially worthless. The money just isn’t there anymore, all of it shifted to generating money from the advertising. The music isn’t the real asset now, it’s the vehicle that drives the consumers towards the real money maker. So what does that mean for indie artists? It’s less attractive in the financial sense to make music. There’s definitely more potential than ever to get noticed due to the internet, but the internet itself is double edged. Even with incredible content, you can have a real “flash in the pan” moment.
Regarding money; these streaming giants refuse to answer a key question and it isn’t a coincidence that they all avoid it; “how much is 1 stream worth?” Right now they dictate the payout with no real pricing structure other than “trust me, you got a bunch of streams so here $200”.
I see this whole streaming/subscription issue from a financial perspective. If these companies don’t sort out how to compensate properly entertainment and art will suffer, because the money just won’t exist for creatives to create.

Thing is, it's not streaming fault that profit has moved. People stopped spending money on music. Streaming services are a response to a change in how people consume media, not the reason people are consuming it that way. Without streaming services the artists would be getting zero money for people downloading/streaming their music.

I agree streaming services should be more forthcoming with numbers and compensation, but on the flip side, their secrecy is why the shyt works.

Drake and his fans paying for my access to listen to Killer Mike. If Apple Music was transparent with numbers then Killer mike probably doesn't even deserve to be on there.

And I'm hoping this same kinda idea will work for game streaming. I hope all the Halo players will help fund another Sunset overdrive.

 

[winb83]

Once a server or service is no longer profitable what happens to your game? I have a ps2, I can jump into my San Andreas from 2005 without a company presence or interference without hassle.

This is why I'm not interested in gaming going with this model. I buy all my games and will continue to do so until you no longer can. Gaming as a service is an unappealing idea to me. They're gonna shut down the Wii's online service in 2 months or so. If you went all digital ow do you access that stuff?

Video media as a service is very appealing. I sub to Hulu, Netflix, Crunchyroll via VRV, Rooster Teeth (soon to cancel because VRV covers this) and Amazon Prime. Most of the recent stuff I want to stream I can whenever I want especially since I have all the premium channels through cable. I have zero interest in buying video media.

 

[GoldenGlove]

Developers will be able to cut their traditional marketing and advertising costs once cryptocurrency is implemented within the industry.



Google 'Refereum' and research what they are setting out to do and imagine how big that shyt will be



Refereum

 

[Easy-E]

Yes

Dragon Age 4 (if Bioware isn't killed off by then) will be a case study

NBA 2K is basically a subscription

I played 16 and 17 and heard 18 is absolutely ridiculous with micro-transactions