The concept of owning a video game has evolved dramatically in recent years, transitioning from physical cartridges as well as discs, to eventually digital copies stored on hard drives. However, a game-changing concept is threatening the idea of ownership itself.
Leading the way in reshaping the gaming landscape are video game subscription services such as Xbox Game Pass and PlayStation Plus, which offer access to a growing library of games.
While not a new concept in and out of gaming, it wasn’t until a few years ago that Microsoft and Sony really doubled down on their offerings. Microsoft, in particular, recently made the Game Pass central to its strategy, prompting a response from Sony, and eventually, others started following suit.
This rising trend raises questions about the nature of game ownership and its impact on the industry, especially in light of recent developments, like Ubisoft’s stance on the subject and the opposition shown by the likes of Larian Studios’ CEO, among others.
Video game subscription services are no different from Spotify and Netflix. PS Plus and Game Pass, among others, are services offering a wide range of games for a fixed monthly fee, challenging the traditional notions of ownership. For starters, gamers no longer own a title indefinitely. Instead, they have access as long as they maintain their subscription.
However, unlike music and video streaming subscription services, gaming subscriptions only make up a small fraction of annual video game spending in major markets. In fact, the year-on-year spending on video game subscriptions stalled as of May 2023. This proves that, while they have attracted both players and developers, not everyone in the industry is convinced yet.
Swen Vincke, CEO of Larian Studios, in particularly, publicly rejected subscription models for their games, emphasizing the importance of direct sales from developers to players. He argues that subscription models, driven by profit maximization, could lead to a narrow selection of games dictated by the preferences of service providers, potentially stifling creativity and diversity in game development.
Samuel Deats, the director of Netflix’s Castlevania series, an animated adaptation of the iconic video game franchises of the same name, agrees. He claims that the video game industry is blessed and it shouldn’t let go of its direct-to-consumer nature.
Both Vincke and Deats raise an important concern about the long-term impact of subscription services, including a huge decrease in ownership and even the potential reduction in the variety of game offerings. This model could potentially lead to a situation where only blockbuster titles receive attention, sidelining smaller, niche games. The music and movie industries have already seen a decline in physical sales, eclipsed by subscription services. The gaming industry might follow a similar trajectory, though traditional game purchases are unlikely to disappear entirely.
Additionally, while beneficial for customer acquisition, this model may eventually shift its focus away from nurturing diverse, creative content. We can observe this in the TV and movie industry, where the most popular subscriptions only initially support a wide range of content but later focusing on more mainstream titles with higher profit potential. This meant that the less popular and blockbuster-like projects got canceled midway despite drawing decent ratings. To be fair, Netflix is starting to realize that this was a massive mistake, to some extent.
If we assume that video game subscriptions will undergo a similar trajectory, it will eventually prioritize popular gaming franchises over innovative, independent games. In fact, this is already happening.
Ultimately, while subscription-based gaming offers convenience and accessibility, their long-term effects on video game diversity, developer autonomy, and consumer choice are yet to be fully understood. Thus, the concerns about the future of game ownership, creative freedom, and market diversity are warranted if expected.
