GDC State of the Industry: One-fourth of devs are concerned such services will devalue games, another fourth aren't worried at all.
INDIE Live Expo, Japan’s premiere online digital showcase series , will debut never-before-seen games & content updates across more than 100 titles on May 25th.
"The best games of the year and the creative teams behind them were in the spotlight at the grand award ceremony of the German Computer Game Award 2024." - German Computer Game Awards.
Seven months after its infamous launch, the Van Gogh Museum is restocking its popular Pokémon collaboration items -- and selling out fast.
Doesn't really matter what developers think, this decision will be made by publishers. Not to say developers don't know stuff, only publishers do what is best for them and their profit margins and not necessarily for their games or their developers. I mean, not like publishers don't put ridiculous goals in contracts with developers to prevent them from getting bonuses just because of one factor when they likely hit it out of the ballpark on every other factor.
Basically, some developers don't believe a subscription can work for them on its own. Unless they're getting paid upfront to cover the cost of their game. It also may lead to the bigger developers getting most of the cut and the little guys getting less. Which would not be beneficial to the smaller companies.
Just look at it this way, EA, Rockstar, Sony, Activision, Ubisoft, etc know that putting their games in someone else's service at launch or their own service, is not going to cover the cost of big games. Not without a large amount of subscribers or a huge check. Or you would be seeing them do that now. These companies sell their games first. Then, when they made what they are going to make on their products from the sale, micro transactions, dlc, etc. Then you will see them possibly put their games in a service to make more profits on an old game.
Clear examples are Sony putting games in PS Now or Plus AFTER those games have sold at retail and digital. EA doesn't put their new games in Origin and Access until AFTER their games have sold. Capcom and Rockstar didn't do it until after their games sold then took a big paycheck for more profits. Only one company is doing theirs at launch. Which is to increase the amount of subscribers. But without numbers to verify, we have to go on their WORD that it's successful. But as we have seen, their games at retail have sold less. Only their WORD that they have sold more. We know gamers played more. But no numbers they sold more.
I look at it this way, if I had a restaurant with a buffet for a dollar,and I'm serving expensive gourmet dishes alongside burgers and tacos, I will get lots of customers to come in to eat. But would I have enough customers to cover the expensive dishes?
Well this can go two ways:
Either the devs will release a bare bones shallow experience expecting the rest of the game to be filled using revenue generated from the subscriptions
OR devs release solid games that are only made better and expanded on, made only possible by the subscription model.
I don't see many devs taking the second approach honestly, though this will be at the will of the publishers and not the devs.
Gaming will be devalued, just like music.
Survey breakdown re. games in production:
45% pay-to-download model
43% ftp model
8% Apple Arcade/GamePass type of offering
6%. subscription ie. WoW
FTP appears to have gained the most traction, but as one respondent says, "I feel the f2p ad-based strategy is driving the mobile market into a crappy one, full of clickbaity small experiences.”