Nielsen's SuperData reported that gamers who pay for subscriptions spend about 45 percent more for games than non-subscribers.
Well... this certainly sheds some light on why all the other companies want to get in on the streaming thing.
Thought this would be kind of common sense. I used to play WOW, and after the $40 cost for the expansions, at $15 a month, I was still playing about $180 a year for it. Since I'd go some months with barely playing the game, I spent a lot more on it than I would have if it was just a regular game. But overall, I probably got $15 a month of use out of it collectively.
"that gamers who pay for subscriptions spend about 45 percent more for games than non-subscribers." Another reason why subscription based models are scummy AF. There is no way you can defend GAAS. It benefits corporations, and gamers come second.
I think you may have misinterpreted the title. They’re not paying 45% extra than other people for the exact same product (eg you said “spend 45% more for games”). They’re actually spending 45% more money within the games that they get via the subscription (DLC, microtransactions, etc) It basically means that people who get their game via subscription service will spend more in-game than those who buy their games outright
That... is incredibly stupid. Why in the heck would you spend money for in-game content in a game you don't own?
Yet another example of how these services are more like pay walls to F2P style paradigms. Even if they're with AAA games, they're still using ideas that festered on the mobile market. @Shadow because they don't care about owning that extra content either.
@ShadowWolf712 Should ask Blizzard and every other MMO developer
The way I see this is: People with more money, spend more money. It's clear to me that the majority of people who pay subscriptions are probably people who have the money to support their hobby.
Yes, but that is counter to this notion that the people who sign up for it are doing it because it's a good deal to save money. Like, "For only $10 a month, you get all these games, so the poor people can play it". Which was a thing for Game Pass. Apparently everyone is poor though, because there is only rich or poor to some people when they make their arguments.
I have heard these arguments before too. I guess for some it could be true but I think someone who doesn't have a big budget for gaming would prefer to buy the games they want instead of paying for a subscription hoping that the games they like will be on or go in there. The people who don't have a big budget for gaming would rather sub for one month to play the game they want, for example, Forza Horizon 4 on Game Pass, then cancel when they're done with it. Whereas people with more money than sense, would not unsubscribe (which is what MS etc. want). I can't say about PSnow but it is double the price of Game Pass and is on PC too, I know Game Pass is too but the availability of the games is limited. And the games on PSnow are not so recent compared to Game Pass. Side Question, with PSnow on PC does that mean that you can play Red Dead Redemption 1 on PC?
I think for gaming on a budget, it's not a bad deal at all. Kind of depends on how you play your games, and if you when you want them. Since the day one stuff is only applicable to MS games, that benefit would only be applicable if that's what you most care about. PSNow is only double the price with the monthly recurring sub. The yearly sub is only $99, and not sure what it costs through Game pass. If RDR is on PSNow, then yeah, you'd be able to play it streamed through Game Pass. Any game available on PSNow can be played on any device which can use PSNow.
No one's talking about the implications of this, and just focusing on Sony market share instead lol (impressive regardless). If people who pay for subscriptions spend more on games, that means everyone's going to want to push towards subscription models.
It's a tricky thing. 1. Subscribers paying more on average doesn't mean that they pay more in gross for content. You have a market of 500k subscribers, but a market if 20m non-subscribers. If 10% of non-subscribers buy content compared to 45% of subscribers, it's still more gross sales for non-subscribers. 2. They definitely want to encourage more people to buy,but they are also entering a more competitive market by removing single-sales points for their games. In subscription models, you're now competing for time and not for a sale. With 400-600 other games up for the player to play, you have to ensure the players play your games and not those others with their one-fee-entry to them all. Whereas single-point sales market heavily to get you to buy the game and get more profit and a greater chance you will actively play it. 3. Expanding the subscription model is not likely easy to do as you're moving people from one thing to another and those who are likely to spend more on DLC with subscriptions might already be there. That doesn't mean growing the business to more users will grow the market, but it could in fact result in shrinking the sales of DLC down to be more in line with the single-sales market.
I tried the xbox pass. For 10$ a month the amount of games you get to play is superb. And you get to play new releases as well first party only it seems for now. Not a bad idea but there are implications if too many game studios go subscribe only option. Market will eventually crash.
PS Now is more expensive that why the 52%, will be interest to see income vs subscribers to see who pay more for less
No, PSNow was on sale for all Q3 which is when the data was collected. 3 months for $30 so $10 a month https://www.gamespot.com/ar... which is more or less the same as GamePass’ $11.99 https://www.xbox.com/en-CA/... . The 1 year for $100 PSNow deal makes it just over $8 a month. Both services offer free trials. EA Access is $4.99 a month afaik, but being EA centric it’s a smaller selection that will appeal to fewer gamers. Can’t fault em for that price or %.
Nothing to do with the price fgs.
Again could lead to a future I don't like if so back to PS2 for me
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.