Square Enix eyes its own subscription service

Square Enix is the latest AAA games studio that wants to launch its own subscription service.

[phoenixwing]

Saw this coming a mile away i just had comments today about how square enix would be next on the subscription craze

[fiveby9]

As long as I can still just buy individual titles and play them on my PC or console then I guess I don't care. But if the content is only available via a subscription I guess I'll likely never play it. The subscription model is not my preferred method to play games.

[Cmv38]

Sony tried to protect us from this lol. I won't be surprised in 5 years especially with the heavy push from streaming of at least 10 separate companies with their own service.

[phoenixwing]

Yeah its definitely feeling like sony didnt want consumers dealing with a subscrption nightmare

[DaDrunkenJester]

How did Sony protect us from this when they were the first with a subscription based streaming program?

[fiveby9]

Well Sony didn't allow EA to supply their own subscription service on their platform at the time.

[darthv72]

@five, I think Sony kept EA off the PSN because the selection of games wasnt up to snuff for what they were charging.

Square, on the other hand... they have some pretty lucrative RPG's and other titles that exceed what EA was offering. So it's more a matter of value for that sub than anything else.

@shadow, those who arent interested in owning tend to rent. That is where the streaming side comes into play just like those who stream music and movies/tv. there will always be those who want to own and for them, they can still buy their content.

[ApocalypseShadow]

I said this many times in the threads over and over of the fracturing of the market where every publisher now has a service. And instead of getting one for one price, now, if you want to follow your favorite games, you may have to pay more out of pocket with all these subscriptions.

Some of these gamers don't listen. They didn't listen about horse armor, they didn't listen about paying for Xbox live, they didn't listen about paying for worthless micro transactions and dlc that should be a part of the game already.

And now, you even got knuckleheads thinking a streaming service is going to benefit them when it means a loss of game ownership, no trading, no lending, etc.

Either there's influencers out there pushing this nonsense to create change in the industry or they actually believe the nonsense they're spewing which is going to hurt us all.

Edit:Darth, you're one of the defenders of all this nonsense. I bet you were defending EA access like it was ambrosia.

[quent]

Like they protect you by making you pay to play you're games online ?

[chiefJohn117]

No one is forcing you. It's called options

[indysurfn]

The problem is what does Square have? Most people that like them enough to subscribe like turn based JRPG's. Square is slow going 'back to their roots'! At least EA has shooters to satisfy shooter fans. They know their audience. Square is still 20 years later trying to convert their audience. While other companies are taking over....cough FALCOM cough.

[rainslacker]

A lot of people saw this coming a mile away. Ever since EA did it, people were saying how every publisher would go this route, and eventually, you'd have way too many services competing for attention.

It benefits the larger publishers which have more to offer, but smaller pubs won't be able to compete because their content is too niche, or there isn't enough of it, so they'll be at the mercy of bigger services to pay them for the content.

I don't really mind the services themselves, so long as they don't become the norm for game distribution, while traditional models go by the wayside.

But, I think the more that come, the more the market is going to be oversaturated, and possibly implode in on itself.

[phoenixwing]

@rainslacker

I agree with everything you said. I don't buy services i buy games up front.

[Blu3_Berry]

I guess this is the new bandwagon everyone will be jumping on. The only subscription service that seems very good so far is game-pass. I don't see other publishers doing nearly as good.

[SamPao]

Because they unify everything like on a console. Its not publisher bound. Same with gold, ps+ and PSNow. You get a lot from a lot of sources. But if every publisher starts doing this...instead of platforms... I really hope it backfires 10fold. So we can have everything in one place again. Or a few places...
I understand why they would do it though...

[rainslacker]

Subs like this tend to better for the consumer when they combine content from different sources. The more fractured the market for these services get, the less value they become for the customer, as there is more chance for publishers to not agree to other services to promote their own. As of now, we're looking at EA, Ubi, and now maybe Square who won't put their prime content on Game Pass if they'd prefer to have their own. if MS feels that this is somehow holding back their own service, they could end up refusing to allow these services on their console, further fracturing the market.

Maybe it's just worst case scenario on my thinking, but I'm not really seeing how all these publishers can have services that are successful, and it's more likely only the bigger ones with the more mainstream content will survive.

[Shikoku]

I'm not paying for 3-4 different subscription service on top of the 3 I already pay for so these publishers aren't going to get the kind of money they think they will

[Shane Kim]

And then we have movie subscription as well. Do they think we sh*t out money?

[Shikoku]

Exactly

[spambot0815]

not interested, i prefer pay per product over pay per time.

[masterfox]

They sure are trying hard messed up the gaming industry.

[akaFullMetal]

Everyone is jumping on the services now. I do wonder though if this continues, game pass will lose games or not have access to the games they are getting now from third party? We'll have to see in the next couple years.

[sprinterboy]

Give it 5 years and we'll have all the studios subscription based at this rate

[TheHateTheyGive]

this is going to hurt microsofts game pass because their 1st party efforts have been lackluster at best.

[lelo2play]

Thank you EA.

[ShadowWolf712]

Ahh, the sound of a bubble preparing to burst...

[zodiac909]

This will encourage less and less quality games on the market, kinda like the mobile games market..once the normies buy into it and keep it afloat, it's a wrap for those of us who enjoy quality experiences.

[WelkinCole]

SaaS model has been good for the enterprise application sector because there were applications that would cost 100's of thousands if not millions to buy upfront and then just as much or in many cases cost more to manage and maintain.

SaaS managed the risks better for everyone. Small to medium companies/org could finally be able to use enterprise software on a more manageable monthly sub that helps them spread the cost over time while the same time software companies are able to get penetration into new markets that traditionally could not afford their services. Win win for everyone

With gaming. Its not the same thing. Games don't cost hundreds of thousands and cost to ownership is much better deal for gamers. Point is unlike the enterprise software market there was never any real big barrier to cost of ownership in the console gaming industry.

You hardly or never hear gamers complain that console gaming is too expensive directly rather indirectly with cut content sold as extra DLC and other nickle and dime practices like lootboxes, season passes. GaaS is just an extension of what publishers have been doing with DLC, lootboxes etc.

It is pure corporate greed that is a solution to a non problem that tries to rebalance the power between corporate and customers/gamers in the corporate favor.

At this rate. Our kids and kids kids will look back at this time and think how crazy it was to be able to buy a full game out right and own it and be able to use it whenever we want and for how long we want. Sad really.

[Nodoze]

Here we go, now everyone has a service. It is ridiculous. All they want is a revenue stream.

[Kaedro]

Not gonna pay 10 dollars a month to play one good game every one or two years. I love FF and KH but SE takes a long time to launch videogames. A subscription service would make no sense IMO.

[optimus]

i think it's hilarious that people are getting upset about having OPTIONS. 😄.... how many music streaming services do we currently have? i'd venture to say roughly, about 15. how many movie/tv services do we have, probably around 20 or more (legit ones anyway)....
how many people actually subscribes to every single one of them? I'm betting less than 5%....so how is gaming going to be any different?...it's not, get over yourselves.🙄.... player 1 will buy the latest game outright for $60 and finish it in a week or 2...

player 2 decides to subscribe to the service wherever the latest game is available on for $10-$20 and finish it in 1 week or 2 saving themselves some money and play some other games they never got around to playing all in a months time and cancels their subscription. no harm, no foul...

not to mention, they don't feel ripped off when the latest game ends up being not as good as they thought but they're ok with it cause they spent less than $20 to play it.

[Teflon02]

If I can buy my games still on steam, ps and ninty consoles I'm fine with it. But it's not for me definitely

[quent]

This is getting rediculious

[AK91]

Oh no.

[ShellB]

Now we need THQ to jump in.