Support NeoGAF

[IbizaPocholo]

Take-Two CEO "Highly Skeptical" of Gaming Subscription Business Model Viability

Earlier today, Take-Two Interactive CEO, Strauss Zelnick, talked about his thoughts on the gaming subscription business model.

twinfinite.net

During the Q&A section of the call, Zelnick responded to the following question, “…just curious if your stance on the subscription model has changed at all.”

For those unfamiliar, Zelnick has come out in the past talking about his lack of faith in the subscription model when it comes to gaming. And yet again, he stuck to his guns Zelnick stated the following:

We’re highly skeptical that subscriptions will be the only way or the primary way that interactive entertainment is distributed. And that’s because the way people consume it and the price point for owning a title. Which is very reasonable, very very low per our basis.

Zelnick continued by talking about how Take-Two supports other subscription services with their own titles, but they don’t see it as the right course of action for their company.

I think it’s unlikely that subscriptions supplant frontline video game sales as a primary business model. Subscriptions can play a role in delivering catalog.

It’s abundantly clear that at the very top of Take-Two, there’s absolutely no desire to go in the direction of EA, Microsoft, or Sony by offering subscription services for their catalog of titles.

At the same time, this should not serve as any indication that Take-Two is planning on removing their games from other subscription services. Zelnick finished his answer to the question by saying the following.

We’ve supported numerous subscription offerings with catalog titles and I imagine we’ll continue to do so. At the end of the day, the consumer will decide and we’ll be where the consumer is.

 

[Krisprolls]

I agree with him. This hobby isn't that expensive if you think about it. Time is the limit, more than money. You lack time to play more games because of life /wife / children / job, more than you lack money to buy games.

So why would you choose to play only the games your subscription allows on that limited time and not simply buy the best games you want to play at the moment you want to play them ? It's not that costly anyway, you may do what you want.

I think subscription models make more sense for casual gamers than for enthusiasts. The latter will always want to choose the game they want to play.

 

[DarkMage619]

I agree with him. This hobby isn't that expensive if you think about it. Time is the limit, more than money. You lack time to play more games because of life /wife / children / job, more than you lack money to buy games.

So why would choose to play only the games your subscription allows on that limited time and not simply buy the best games you want to play at the moment you want to play them ? It's not that costly anyway, you may do what you want.

I think subscription models make more sense for casual gamers than for enthusiasts. The latter will always want to choose the game they want to play and own them.

People like options and subscription services get people to try games they otherwise might not have. If owning the game is a desire I know at least MS gives you the option to buy the game for a discount so even that isn't a reason to not try it out.

 

[mrqs]

It is extremely expensive to a lot of people. Here in Brazil a single game can cost 1/3 of a minimum wage, it's insane. Xbox Series S + GamePass will fly out the shelves here.

It certainly won't be the primary way to consume games, but a heck of a popular one.

 

[ReBurn]

Subscriptions probably can't completely replace normal releases for games. It'll probably have to be like movies where they release for purchase to recoup the investment and then when they become part of the back catalog they'll go to subscription services for ongoing recurring revenue. Just like movies need to hit the theater to recoup the investment then go to Amazon prime or Netflix for streaming when their theatrical run ends.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I agree with him. This hobby isn't that expensive if you think about it. Time is the limit, more than money. You lack time to play more games because of life /wife / children / job, more than you lack money to buy games.

So why would choose to play only the games your subscription allows on that limited time and not simply buy the best games you want to play at the moment you want to play them ? It's not that costly anyway, you may do what you want.

I think subscription models make more sense for casual gamers than for enthusiasts. The latter will always want to choose the game they want to play.

Because for a couple hundred dollars per year you can play 100s of games. Or for the same price you can pigeon hole yourself across three $60 games.

Not everyone cares about buying the latest game.

It's like Netflix, why pay $10-15/mth for a ton of old movies and shows when you go on Amazon and buy BR and tv show boxsets. Depends on the person. Most people now do NF. How many people are spending tons of money buying DVDs and BR like it's 10-20 years ago?

 

[KyoZz]

Personal opinion:
People still buy the games they love, that's all.

 

[Krisprolls]

Because for a couple hundred dollars per year you can play 100s of games. Or for the same price you can pigeon hole yourself across three $60 games.

Not everyone cares about buying the latest game.

It's like Netflix, why pay $10-15/mth for a ton of old movies and shows when you go on Amazon and buy BR and tv show boxsets. Depends on the person. Most people now do NF. How many people are spending tons of money buying DVDs and BR like it's 10-20 years ago?

But that's my point, you can't play hundreds of games because you don't have the time to do so. So in the limited time you have, why not simply play the game you want ? It's not that much of a problem you maybe paid more, since it's mostly cheap.

Agreed on Netflix, but as Zelnick said, you don't consume games like you consume movies.

I like starting Netflix and be surprised by something, and probably I could feel the same on games as a casual gamer. But as an enthusiast, I feel strongly the will to play the best games or at least the ones I want, maybe not only the ones I want, but mostly the ones I want and the ones I chose.

For example, right now I want to play Demon's Souls remake and Cyberpunk. It doesn't interest me you tell me I can play something else on my sub. I want to play those 2 games, not anything else right now.

It doesn't mean they're new by the way, I may play them 3 months later or at half the price. But I won't choose a game because it's in a sub, I just choose it because I want THAT game. I'd be frustrated otherwise.

Then you have the problem you can't own game in a sub model, and the fact the provider can always remove games you like after some time. I like to be free to play the game I like when I want.

 

[Krisprolls]

People like options and subscription services get people to try games they otherwise might not have. If owning the game is a desire I know at least MS gives you the option to buy the game for a discount so even that isn't a reason to not try it out.

Oh yes, and gamepass is definitely great, I'm a PC subscriber by the way. But as I explained, it will probably never be the center of my hobby, unless it always has the game I want to play in the sub obviously. I want to be free to play what I want when I want. Usually, sub models don't allow that.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

But that's my point, you can't play hundreds of games because you don't have the time to do so. So in the limited time you have, why not simply play the game you want ? Who cares how much you paid, since it's mostly cheap.

Agreed on Netflix, but as Zelnick said, you don't consume games like you consume movies.

I like starting Netflix and be surprised by something, and probably I could feel the same on games as a casual gamer. But as an enthusiast, I feel strongly the will to play the best games or at least the ones I want, maybe not only the ones I want, but mostly the ones I want and the ones I chose.

For example, right now I want to play Demon's Souls and Cyberpunk. It doesn't interest me you tell me I can play something else on my sub. I want to play those 2 games, not anything else right now.

It doesn't mean they're new by the way, I may play them 3 months later or at half the price. But I won't choose a game because it's in a sub, I just choose it because I want THAT game. I'd be frustrated otherwise.

Just because there's 100s of games doesn't mean someone is going to play all of them. NF probably has 10,000 shows and movies. But across sub plans, people have choice to pick what they want across a large selection of content.

And if there's something you really want to watch or play but is nowhere on the sub list, then sure, go on Amazon and buy the BR movie or game for $20 or $60. Not every piece of content is on a sub plan.

Nobody is stopping you from buying games Sony warrior.

Krisprolls
Terrified of Xbox so makes fun of them

 

[Slings and Arrows]

He can be sceptical, but it's the future. Streaming is coming and subs are the trojan horse to make it happen.

 

[Cert.in.Death]

The man talks sense. And he counts money better than anyone.

 

[Krisprolls]

Just because there's 100s of games doesn't mean someone is going to play all of them. NF probably has 10,000 shows and movies. But across sub plans, people have choice to pick what they want across a large selection of content.

And if there's something you really want to watch or play but is nowhere on the sub list, then sure, go on Amazon and buy the BR movie or game for $20 or $60. Not every piece of content is on a sub plan.

Nobody is stopping you from buying games Sony warrior.

Krisprolls
Terrified of Xbox so makes fun of them

Ah ah, I'm a Gamepass subscriber actually, I'm not against sub models. I play both on PC and PS4. I'm ok with my tag, no offense taken.

I just agree with Zelnik that they'll never replace other models completely.

People like me won't ever think "oh Cyberpunk's released and I'd like to play that, but no I'll play game X on gamepass instead and I'll spare 20 bucks." We don't care that much about money, we want to play the games we love without waiting.

I'll just buy Cyberpunk, I'll just buy the games I want to play. Unless it's really really expensive, like $500. Not happening.

 

[Aidah]

Personally not a fan of subscriptions in general. Whenever I try one I end up barely using it. Like the previous post said, more money than time is one of the reasons. Not really looking for quantity or a mostly random list. I generally know what I really want and have nothing against paying full price for it at launch. Even more so when I consider the possible negative impact a sub model could have on game design and monetization.

The only content subscription I have, gaming or otherwise, is Game Pass Ultimate. However, that's mainly because I bought a couple of years when it was super cheap, I don't use it much. I have no plans to renew at regular price once it's up, at most I'll sub for a month for $10 on PC whenever a 1st party game I actually want releases.

 

[Roni]

If I were putting out one original game every 6 years and updating rosters for everything else annually I wouldn't see much value in it either.

 

[bender]

Personal opinion:
People still buy the games they love, that's all.

 

[Jon Neu]

Kind of misleading thread title.

He doesn't says he doesn't believe in the viability of the gaming subscription, he simply says that it's not going to be the primary source of income. And I don't think anybody is disputing that.

But like it or not, gaming subscription has come to stay.

 

[ToadMan]

Subscriptions probably can't completely replace normal releases for games. It'll probably have to be like movies where they release for purchase to recoup the investment and then when they become part of the back catalog they'll go to subscription services for ongoing recurring revenue. Just like movies need to hit the theater to recoup the investment then go to Amazon prime or Netflix for streaming when their theatrical run ends.

Yep. I actually think Sony might go this route with some or all of the subscription services on PC.

There’s good money to made for content producers by the streaming service providers.

 

[M1chl]

Yeah well this does not take into account, that many people buying games after they are removed from GamePass because many of us did not have the time to finish them. Not the mention DLCs are not included.

Well sometimes they are but very rarely, I recon only time it happend was with FFXV...

 

[Bryank75]

People like options and subscription services get people to try games they otherwise might not have. If owning the game is a desire I know at least MS gives you the option to buy the game for a discount so even that isn't a reason to not try it out.

Demo's used to do this for free...

 

[Hudo]

Yeah...can someone ask him what the fuck is up with the NBA2K games?

 

[Black_Stride]

Demo's used to do this for free...

And Demo rarely translated into sales, companies didnt stop making demos because of subscription services it literally was because they didnt translate into sales and were a waste of resources.

Whereas Gamepass actually do translate.

Ill find the source for you because im sure you want it.

The man talks sense. And he counts money better than anyone.

You say that almost as if anyone....and i mean anyone is disputing his point?

EA Play, Gamepass, PSNow none of these services.....and I mean none of them have exclusive titles.
SO literally no one believes its a viable sole or primary business model but it certainly is a fair way to generate some extra revenue.

You arent going to see a Only on Gamepass titles or Only on "Take2Cashgrab" title....basically he is saying look its fine to bring in some money but it isnt viable as a sole method of earning.

Netflix produced shows are only available through a subscription, you cant VOD buy a season of a netflix show sans subscription so people who dont want to subscribe effectively just never watch this shit.
In gaming that isnt the case and he is saying he doesnt believe such a thing would work.
You can subscribe to whatever and play game X or you can straight up buy game X.

Nobody is against him in this.

 

[Plantoid]

It doesn't seem viable because he doesn't own 22 studios

Game sub won't kill 60$ games... I'm on gamepass, but I will buy cyberpunk...

It's just really good deal, specially knowing all first party will be there day 1

It's simple math: 2 AAA day one games per year equals 120$ in value... Anything more than that it's a win

 

[Cert.in.Death]

And Demo rarely translated into sales, companies didnt stop making demos because of subscription services it literally was because they didnt translate into sales and were a waste of resources.

Whereas Gamepass actually do translate.

Ill find the source for you because im sure you want it.



You say that almost as if anyone....and i mean anyone is disputing his point?

EA Play, Gamepass, PSNow none of these services.....and I mean none of them have exclusive titles.
SO literally no one believes its a viable sole or primary business model but it certainly is a fair way to generate some extra revenue.

You arent going to see a Only on Gamepass titles or Only on "Take2Cashgrab" title....basically he is saying look its fine to bring in some money but it isnt viable as a sole method of earning.

Netflix produced shows are only available through a subscription, you cant VOD buy a season of a netflix show sans subscription so people who dont want to subscribe effectively just never watch this shit.
In gaming that isnt the case and he is saying he doesnt believe such a thing would work.
You can subscribe to whatever and play game X or you can straight up buy game X.

Nobody is against him in this.

And Demo rarely translated into sales, companies didnt stop making demos because of subscription services it literally was because they didnt translate into sales and were a waste of resources.

Whereas Gamepass actually do translate.

Ill find the source for you because im sure you want it.



You say that almost as if anyone....and i mean anyone is disputing his point?

EA Play, Gamepass, PSNow none of these services.....and I mean none of them have exclusive titles.
SO literally no one believes its a viable sole or primary business model but it certainly is a fair way to generate some extra revenue.

You arent going to see a Only on Gamepass titles or Only on "Take2Cashgrab" title....basically he is saying look its fine to bring in some money but it isnt viable as a sole method of earning.

Netflix produced shows are only available through a subscription, you cant VOD buy a season of a netflix show sans subscription so people who dont want to subscribe effectively just never watch this shit.
In gaming that isnt the case and he is saying he doesnt believe such a thing would work.
You can subscribe to whatever and play game X or you can straight up buy game X.

Nobody is against him in this.

It doesn’t have to be exclusive for the business model to be supplanted. For example, Halo Infinite, available for purchase or subscription on day 1. With game sales heavily frontloaded, MS is moving money out of one revenue channel and into another. The gamble is whether they can keep subs during non-release months to make up for the sales they’re forfeiting otherwise.

In all honesty, I don’t believe MS cares to make money right away. They want to disrupt the market and push users to adopt PaaS to the detriment of their competitors. The rub? The games are what matter most, and they haven’t been the industry staple on that front for the better part of a decade.