Square Enix eyes its own subscription service

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

Read Full Story >>
phoenixwing1856d ago

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

fiveby91856d ago

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.

Cmv381856d ago

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.

phoenixwing1856d ago

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

DaDrunkenJester1856d ago

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

fiveby91856d ago

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

darthv721856d ago (Edited 1856d ago )

@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.

ApocalypseShadow1856d ago (Edited 1856d ago )

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.

quent1856d ago

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

chiefJohn1171856d ago (Edited 1856d ago )

No one is forcing you. It's called options

indysurfn1855d ago

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.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1855d ago
rainslacker1856d ago

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.

phoenixwing1856d ago (Edited 1856d ago )


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

Blu3_Berry1856d ago

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.

SamPao1856d ago (Edited 1856d ago )

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...

rainslacker1856d ago

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.

Shikoku1856d ago

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 Kim1856d ago

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

1856d ago Replies(1)
spambot08151856d ago

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