• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

In a move of desperation, which company will be the first to release a game exclusively onto their subscription service without an option to purchase?

Which company will be first to make a game exclusive to their sub service at the time of release?


  • Total voters
    258
nosMrM8.jpg
Didn't sub prices go up? So therefore really subscriptions went down as it would take less members to reach same level of spending?
 

StereoVsn

Member
I don’t see EA limiting one of their big titles to sub services. They depend on as wide distribution as possible for those sweet MTX revenues. It makes 0 sense for them to go sub route.

Nintendo has already talked about, but I am going to assume the conversation is about putting a big “pillar” title on sub only. So big 3D Zelda or Mario and I don’t see Nintendo doing that.

Doubt Sony would go that route either.

Maybe Take 2… which won’t do it either for GTA VI or Basketball. Latter needs as many purchasers as possible (see EA) and GTA they will also want to distribute, grab that $1+ nil of sales and then get people onto their GTA online.

So, we have MS. And I can see them doing a swing with next gen title like say mainline Gears, Halo or a Bethesda game. Basically have GamePass only release. Danger is of course folks will sub, play through within a month and bail.
 

StereoVsn

Member
Those in the know voted Ubisoft. Microsoft will never be in a "desperate" money situation.
Well, yeah, MS as a whole obviously can carry Xbox for the next 20 years and not break a sweat. However, say a division President, who wants a career defining moment, and whose bonus depends on Xbox performance, might give it a good old swing out of the Park on the hope it will drive more subs.

It’s a mystery who is that man, certainly. 😉
 

StereoVsn

Member
Worth pointing out that spending in general has slowed to a crawl coming out of Covid lockdown.
People started going outside, spend money at other places, traveling, etc…

Say you are going to Italy and spending crazy money on a vacation there. Well, you might pull back on your gaming habits.
 

Loomy

Thinks Microaggressions are Real
People started going outside, spend money at other places, traveling, etc…

Say you are going to Italy and spending crazy money on a vacation there. Well, you might pull back on your gaming habits.
That is exactly what happened. Partly why the tech industry is in such a mess right now. Everyone (CEOs) assumed the spending and time spent online would carry through once everything opened back up, and they all over-hired. Turns out people like going outside.
 
I voted other with Netflix in mind. But if we are talking big AAA, no one would want to do it unless the feel they have to. If we look far enough, let's say 20 years or more in the future, I think that all would have tried it by then. And there is maybe a case where doing so would be the only way to have your game available to customers?
Like if China make selling games that can be played offline impossible for whatever reason?
And if they continue to have 2 process for accepting games, one for the game and one for the monetisation of the game, maybe having a service like Gamepass be the way to put games in chinese hands?
 

Heimdall_Xtreme

Jim Ryan Fanclub's #1 Member
I doubt that will happen, Stadia did something similar with Gylt, I can't stand it much and the company is begging for someone to buy its game 😂
 
Contrarian option: the entire entertainment industry will realize that streaming is not a viable business plan before video games get to the point where they are exclusive to subscriptions.
 

MacReady13

Member
Microsoft all the way. I mean really, if you buy a Samsung tv and have no intention of buying a PC/Console, you technically cannot buy the game. And with the way Microsoft wants their future direction to go, this is what they hope all us gamers will do- buy their shithouse subscription service and never own any of the games on the rental service.
 
In recent weeks there have been clear comments and signals suggesting gaming subscription service adoption has stagnated, which will no doubt be a worry to the executives who are dreaming of an all subscription future.

We've had Tom Warren state the following regarding Gamepass:

fuce8ES.jpg



PS Plus growth has slowed:



Nintendo's growth was only 2 million users Yoy (36 million to 38 million) :



Ubisoft's director of Subscriptions is hoping for customers attitudes and habits to change.



Mat from NPD had the following to say earlier this year (commentary on subscriptions across the industry in general):

nosMrM8.jpg



I stated a few years back that subscription service growth is not linear and tends to be front loaded. During that front loaded period it's easy for companies to get carried away and believe in their own hype (thinking growth will continue that way for the foreseeable future). We've already seen some top level executives take the decision to no longer have their bonuses tied to gaming subscription growth, the next stage is that we will begin to see which companies have overstretched themselves over the last couple of years.

If these companies want their sub services to continue to grow then they will need to make some changes. There have been talks of cheaper ad based tiers for some of these services, but ultimately it is content that drives subscription adoption and we've seen "subscription only" content become prevalent across a number of entertainment mediums.

So the question is, who jumps first and takes the inevitable drastic (and desperate) move to make a game exclusive to subscribers of their service at the time of release?

And secondary to that, what do you anticipate the market's reaction to be?
Nintendo was the first and second and third to do that.
 

MadViking

Member
Sony is already doing it with many of their Premium games. Not only PS3 games which could be somewhat justified, but PS1 and PS2 even if you bought them previously.
 

mdkirby

Member
Personally I think a better question is who will be the first to do a “streaming only game”, which would also inevitably also be a subscription only game. This would mean it is playable anywhere (with decent internet) and is not shackled by weak hardware. If the seriesS and Microsoft’s belief that ‘generations’ are a thing of the past remains an albatross around their neck, and the neck of third party devs, and third party games continue to sell 80/20 to ps5 over Xbox it feels like the only way around not losing increasingly more games to Sony in exclusive deals would be streaming only.
 

SodaZA

Member
Its between M$ and Ubishaft
Sony and EA maybe down the line if they see it working for those 2

But they won't be brave enough to be the first
 

PeteBull

Member
Voted other and here im gonna specify- for publishers restricting their game to one specific market has to have really big benefit, otherwise they will absolutely not do it coz the more budget game had/the more potential sales on other market it would make- the bigger potential loss restricting that game is- aka- never ever gonna happen- ever, simple as that :)
 

tommib

Member
Sony is already doing it with many of their Premium games. Not only PS3 games which could be somewhat justified, but PS1 and PS2 even if you bought them previously.
We’re talking about new, exclusive games, not games you can buy on your local CEX.
 

tommib

Member
Why? I don't see anything like this in the original post.
Let’s read the op again:

So the question is, who jumps first and takes the inevitable drastic (and desperate) move to make a game exclusive to subscribers of their service at the time of release?

A game exclusive to subscribers AT THE TIME OF RELEASE, meaning a game you can’t buy anywhere else when it is released, like you have on Apple Arcade. Everything on PlayStation Plus Premium can be bought in some way or another. Worst case scenario would be on eBay for 100 USD. Or for free via emulation on pc.
 
Last edited:

geary

Member
So the question is, who jumps first and takes the inevitable drastic (and desperate) move to make a game exclusive to subscribers of their service at the time of release?
What a leading question....Who do GAF thinks is the most "desperate" publisher in the last years, where their strategy involves some subscription model.... Wonder who???Hard to pinpoint it...
 

ZoukGalaxy

Member
Experiment

cat smoking GIF by sheepfilms


Microsoft would sell its mother if they had one and if it would increase profits and even not desperate
 
Last edited:

GHG

Member
Im not referring to classic games that have been (or are) available to purchase at the time of release.

The question is regarding games that are brand new to the market.

I will update the OP to make this clear. Classic games should be disregarded.

What a leading question....Who do GAF thinks is the most "desperate" publisher in the last years, where their strategy involves some subscription model.... Wonder who???Hard to pinpoint it...

Considering the amount and breadth of information presented in the OP you might need to ask yourself how you've come to that conclusion.
 

Calverz

Banned
PlayStation. We already know digital adoption for PlayStation is still lagging and the vast majority of users are still subscribing to the basic psn. We also know PlayStation are desperate to get a successful GAAS game as part of their library. We also know that they are worried their pillars are outdated. All the blocks are moving into place for them.
 

Madjaba

Member
Clearly the only two that could need that kind of strategy re Microsoft and Ubi.

Microsoft for obvious reasons including switching more and more on a subscription based economic model.
Ubi because they need to grow their attachement rate drastically.

Nintendo is in the clear because of their fanbase.
EA is on thin ice but FIFA is printing money for them.
Sony could be in danger if they maintain their focus on GaaS and Marvel this Marvel that.
 
Last edited:

kungfuian

Member
It seems more likely we will see timed exclusives before we see full exclusives. I could easily see Microsoft, for example, releasing games with a 'play it first on game pass' tactic, to incentivize subs. With purchase options for non subscribers available after some random amount of time. For example subscribers getting to play the next COD a month early.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GHG

GHG

Member
It seems more likely we will see timed exclusives before we see full exclusives. I could easily see Microsoft, for example, releasing games with a 'play it first on game pass' tactic, to incentivize subs. With purchase options for non subscribers available after some random amount of time. For example subscribers getting to play the next COD a month early.

I actually think what you described is the most likely scenario (maybe up to 3 months of being exclusive to a sub service under the guise of "early access" and then being available to purchase later).
 

Astray

Member
Definitely Ubisoft.

Microsoft seems like it's slowly realizing the limitations of Gamepass as it is rn and is adapting accordingly thru various moves.

Sony is only really doing sub services to counter Microsoft.

EA always had a 3 month barrier before a game goes on Play.

But Ubisoft.. They clearly think of themselves as "risk-takers" (despite their games not being risky in the least), and their situation can easilu get desperate enough to make them try something like this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GHG

Hudo

Gold Member
As people have already pointed out: Apple are doing this already (Apple Arcade). And Nintendo are doing this with their retro-stuff.

I can see Ubisoft trying this and failing (because they are retards). I can also see Microsoft doing a "exclusively on GamePass" push, to be more aggressive in that respect.
 

Mr Hyde

Member
If we're talking new games I feel Microsoft will be the first to test the waters. Game pass is the corner stone of their business model, they put it front and center in their ads with day 1 releases, and since Xbox users are already heavily skewed towards both digital downloads and subscribing to GP, making games exclusive to the sub service won't put off fans as much as it would if it were Sony or Ninty doing it.
 

StereoVsn

Member
Sony is already doing it with many of their Premium games. Not only PS3 games which could be somewhat justified, but PS1 and PS2 even if you bought them previously.
I think for PS1 & 2 games it depends if you bought the “classic” on PS3 or the PS4 updated version. If you bought the latter you can play the games and don’t have to rebuy.

For PS3 titles you can’t locally play them since there is no BC so have to stream or download to a PS3. Don’t think there is a game exclusive to the sub thet you can’t buy, but of course I could be wrong there.
 

Heisenberg007

Gold Journalism
I think Kojima's Overdose could be that big first title.

It'll make its way to nearly every platform and screen - PS, Mobile, Netflix, Nintendo, etc. - but I reckon for a while it'll be a subscription exclusive.
 

Godot25

Banned
And why on earth would anybody do that?

It's pretty clear that in current market there is huge portion of players who does not want to subscribe to gaming service. So making game "exclusive" would be shooting yourself to the foot.

Maybe in future when subscriptions will be more widely adopted? But not in current climate.
 

yurinka

Member
I'd say none of them because it doesn't make business sense and would be a suicide for that game unless it's a very, very small project, as happened with F-Zero99 or Tetris99.

Even if subscriptions revenue is growing a bit, it represents a small portion of the total revenue. Addons revenue is growing faster and represents the biggest chunk followed by game sames revenue. Subscriptions revenue is the third one.

You may think: it would be good for Microsoft to put there some of their AAA GaaS to get extra revenue for their sub and also give the game a larger audience to milk it via addons/IAP/DLCs/passes. But the reality is that if they are ready to lose most game sales revenue for that game, it would be better to make that game F2P and multiplatform, because by doing that they'd reach a way bigger audience.

In all cases, the subscribed users represent a small portion of the total userbase, even for a specific platform/console.

I honestly think Ubisoft might be the most likely.
Why they would do it when they sell over 20M copies of their main games and their sub should have only a few million subs? It wouldn't be worth it for them.
 
Last edited:

simpatico

Member
The price is debatable, but it's definitely getting a physical release.

Q0vF2pI.gif
Why? At this point physical releases are to encourage impulse buying. I don’t think Rockstar wants to give let GameStop sell 5 million copies of a game they didn’t make with no portion of the sale going back to Take2.
 

Putonahappyface

Gold Member
Why? At this point physical releases are to encourage impulse buying. I don’t think Rockstar wants to give let GameStop sell 5 million copies of a game they didn’t make with no portion of the sale going back to Take2.
Why? Because I don't buy digital media and I'm not annomily.
 
Last edited:

diffusionx

Gold Member
Game subscription services have a fundamental flaw that movie/TV does not, and it is the fact that people like to plah games for long periods of time. Really if you think about it, the services only really favor the hardcore types that post on forums like this, people that want to play/try a LOT of different games. But you know, if you love Age of Empires, it makes NO sense to subscribe to GamePass when you can just buy Age of Empires and play it all you want.

So, what does this mean, well, it means that if a company really does want to push a subscription service for some reason, it does make more sense to release a game exclusively on to that service.
 

GHG

Member
And why on earth would anybody do that?

It's pretty clear that in current market there is huge portion of players who does not want to subscribe to gaming service. So making game "exclusive" would be shooting yourself to the foot.

Maybe in future when subscriptions will be more widely adopted? But not in current climate.

There's a chicken and egg problem for those who want to drive further subscription adoption.

How do you create a scenario that reignites subscription growth after a long period of stagnation?
 

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
Im not referring to classic games that have been (or are) available to purchase at the time of release.

The question is regarding games that are brand new to the market.

I will update the OP to make this clear. Classic games should be disregarded.

Why should Classic games be disregarded if they’re no longer available for purchase in retail stores, or digital storefronts - but made available to subscribers?

It’s no different than Nintendo putting N64 games on their subscription service, but not letting you buy them for Switch.
 
Top Bottom