That’s really only music streaming isn’t it? And music generally operates differently from other media. It’s certainly not how film streaming services generally work. Netflix famously doesn’t even tell the makers or licensors of shows how many people watched them.
I thought that was the case for video streaming too but maybe I’m wrong.
This is actually far worse. Currently, gamers buy far more than they can consume. This means that even if they’re spending most of their time in one game, the money spreads around to other games, allowing them to survive/thrive. Developers don’t focus on this fact, but this implies that the current model is actually very friendly to developers relative to the need for their supplied good.
What we’re headed towards is an iphone-like model, where the winners take all the money and very little is left over for the games that don’t dominate the majority of people’s time.
Even if time played doesn’t directly correlate to revenue, it will be reflected in the next negotiation for the price of the game. No service wants to spend money on games nobody plays.
Is there any data that this is not the exception rather than the norm? There’s a lot of vocallness about backlogs and stockpiling games but I haven’t seen any evidence if that’s where the majority is. Anecdotally I know many more people that are much more selective on their game purchases (and usually focus on one game for a time before moving on) than I know people that are backlog hoarders like me.
I only have anecdotal evidence, but everyone I know on Steam (and GOG) has backlogs, simply because video games take a long time to consume, and Steam sales repeatedly tempt us to buy more games. The whole industry is built on generating enough hype to make you abandon what you’re currently playing and trying out the next game.
This is a pretty simple math problem. Offering people more game access, for less money = less money to game developers. Streaming, by nature, shovels money into fewer and fewer hands, at the cost of content creators. The same thing that happened to music is now going to happen to games.
Streaming is a race to the bottom, and you can already start to see the effects of it.
And those are…?
I’m not taking a position on whether game subs will or will not lead to less overall revenue, but as I said above I’d really be wary about generalising from music streaming. Music just is not the same as other media and never has been, business model wise. Film and TV streaming have demonstrably not led to less money in fewer hands - quite the opposite, though whether that is sustainable is another question. And it seems weird to be more worried about the potential impact on games from subs rather than, say, the demonstrable impact from the App Store.
New twitter just for the PC version of Game Pass:
It’s more people and more games if it becomes popular enough. So no it’s not just a “race to the bottom”. You nor anyone else knows how this plays out.
TV streaming is very different. You can’t just have an indie director produce a show out of nothing, as you can for indie games. You have to have the backing of a giant studio, like Netflix or Amazon. In fact, what you see in TV streaming is differentiation of content – each streaming service taking/making its own content. That model could take off on PC as well. Each streaming service could become a publisher for its own content, which would be exclusive to that service. Basically what Epic is trying to do. Except with a store, exclusivity has little meaning other than getting you mentally used to seeing it as a legitimate store. It’s not worth it for Epic to subsidize content beyond its store’s establishment. A streaming service is different – every exclusive game is an incentive to keep paying the monthly cost. Games are even more effective at this than TV shows, as a single game can take months or years to finish. So I can definitely imagine a future where all PC games are mutually exclusive services provided on different streaming platforms, much like the video streaming platforms of today. Few true Indies would thrive in this future, and the money for investment in games would come from services competing against each other. That’s a very different future from one where streaming services don’t differentiate themselves with exclusive games and all have similar services.
Multiple services giving away games for free at decreasing intervals to compete, for starters.
Does it not seem likely that a proliferation of separate ‘stores’ incentivises some meta-app to organise and integrate everything? Regardless of the economics of the new world order it seems to suggest a whole lot of futzing around :/
That’s what we’re already seeing, surely, first on consoles and increasingly on PC too. What we’re not seeing, though, is games going exclusive to streaming and not being sold on a standalone basis. At least I’m not aware of any.
Right. But in order to mirror the video streaming world, PC games would need to do that. I think first streaming has to dominate over game ownership. Customer ownership was always minor in the TV world (somewhat less so for movies), allowing streaming services to take over very easily. This isn’t the case in the video games industry, so while I think there’s a good chance the value proposition of streaming will eventually dominate, it’s hard to know which scenario it’ll evolve into (music industry or video streaming industry, or something slightly different). It’s also possible gamers are too entrenched in their old ways to give up some sense of ownership, but there’s always a new generation of gamers who don’t know the old way of doing things.
What seems certain to me is that currently, gamers consume in excess of their needs, creating the infamous backlogs. While they often do that due to good deals, that’s still throwing money around at companies that wouldn’t normally get it were gamers to only spend money on the games they were actually playing. Anything disrupting this pattern is unlikely to be able to substitute for this excess consumption, and that includes streaming. Even adding DLC purchases to the mix doesn’t substitute for it, essentially dumping all money into the few winning games being played (see Fortnite).
I think it’s hard to have this conversation without data, because everyone is just throwing around anectdotes.
Epic has released estimated stats about how many people play Fortnite that have never installed steam. Those people are not hoarding games yet they are spending a lot on the singular game they are playing. The same concept seems to have been true for a lot of mobile games and MOBAs. I highly doubt that all those people still playing Counter-Strike on a daily basis are building up massive backlogs, because if they cared about other games they wouldn’t still be playing counter-strike.
I do not think it’s fair to assume that the majority of gamers (both in direct quantity and gross revenue) are game hoarders with massive backlogs.
Edit: Furthermore, even people with backlogs, If their steam account has 300+ unplayed steam games and they are still buying games how do you figure that game pass is going to stop that? They already have fundamentally unlimited games (more then they could play in their lifetime unless they only dedicate 1 hour to each) so why haven’t they stopped buying games already?
Um…those aren’t “effects,” those are the current situation. You suggested negative things are already happening because of the “race to the bottom,” but when asked what those are you just cite more of the “race to the bottom.” Just offering games for free doesn’t sound like such a bad thing to me unless it’s causing some bad result, for consumers or producers of content.
I wouldn’t jump to conclusions about subscription services like Game Pass necessarily being bad or a weaker position for dev studios. It will vary a lot case by case.
For instance, take Phoenix Point by Snapshot.
When they signed their exclusivity deal with Epic they said they took in enough money to keep the studio operating for years even if every backer refunded. Phoenix Point will launch on Game Pass (Xbox and PC) at release.
So Phoenix Point’s revenue includes:
- Initial backer funding
- Exclusivity deal with Epic
- Ongonig backer-adjacent purchases on their site
- Preorders on the Epic store
- The Game Pass deal with Microsoft
- Orders of the game post release
So theoretically the Game Pass revenue from Microsoft should be cream on the top at this point. One assumes something similar with Metro Exodus.
Again this will all vary a lot game by game as some studios may have less alternate funding sources. That said, subscription services like Game Pass are one tool among many for revenue generation right now. Thinking beyond that it isn’t all about revenue. Services like Game Pass are good for discovery (even a form of marketing) or providing a larger playerbase for multiplayer-only games. Microsoft does a fairly reasonable job of highlighting and featuring the titles that are new to the service; the apps have several discovery-focused UI designs, and they offer a reward system for trying out and playing different games on the service in a rotating fashion.
It’s another way for games to make money. It used to be just physical copies store was only option. Then came digital with the internet, and now a new option with subscriptions. We have more games coming out large and small than ever before yet some people always want to pull the “sky is falling!” card out every time something new comes along.