Will game streaming finally kill single-game purchases?

Ah, this old nugget of a debate. As Game Pass and PS Plus gain steam, some worry that AAA studios will lose money in streaming.TL;DR not entirely, but that won't stop some in the industry from stressing about it.

[gangsta_red]

These comparisons are always a bit strange to me. They always seem to take the worse examples of each and apply them to GP.

Spotify for instance, with the exec saying it killed people wanting to buy CDs. Spotify came way after the unnecessary need to buy CDs, Apple's iPod was already making waves of owning digital music. Even before that Napster was the big thing that was going to destroy the music industry.

There's always been a level of technical progression when it comes to music, from vinyl, 8 track, cassettes, CD and so on. The same can be applied to all media, games included.

Developers and publishers will adapt with the times as they always have.

[ApocalypseShadow]

An article... Puff Piece... to say, "get with the times" as a reaction to Ed Fries. There's nothing new to be said as we beat this dead horse. Technological advancement is only good when it benefits the consumer. But advancement can be abused to hurt the consumer. Ignoring this is a fools errand.

It's not streaming that's the problem. Digital is not the problem. Or even a subscription if it's only an option. It's when you have no other choice and it becomes the standard. That's the PROBLEM.

Gamers like myself said for years that if gamers pay for online, and we know where it started, that it would spread to everyone. And it did. There's no longer a choice in the matter. Pay or don't play online. Unless it's F2P games. So, I don't play online. Giving me games wasn't worth it when I was playing the ones I actually bought more. Giving me discounts meant nothing if games sales happen every fricken week. And flash sales monthly. Playing more single player games meant online was meaningless if I only did it every now and then.

That other company made online a priority. Then made PAYING for it a priority. Then made paying MORE for it a priority. Made paying for online to play F2P games a priority. Now, subscriptions are their priority. Stacked one subscription on top of the other. Almost forced their base to move over to it with a price hike that was caught. As they test to see what they can get away with, other companies are looking at it and thinking they can do it too. Just like micro transactions. Just like DLC. "What can we get away with?" Anyone not acknowledging that is ignorant.

If paying to play games becomes the standard, on an internet with known latency, where you can't hold a fighting competition with it, where you don't own a thing physically, where games might possibly release first on a service before being offered for sale to regular customers, or extra content exclusive first to subscribers, or items only given to subscribers, where prices of the subscription is guaranteed to go up, where digital prices are slow to come down, where games get delisted and lost forever, where games get changed because someone got offended, where older games lose songs compared to their original, physical release, where you're waiting for the next good game but still paying monthly, where subscriptions will, yes, WILL affect game creation, hurt some developers who don't get the big checks the big boys do... I could keep going... Because you don't see third parties rushing to put their games on these services. Not without a fat check. Developers made something to sell something. Subscriptions make their games worth nothing of value. Player numbers mean nothing if you're not getting paid.

That's when I get off the train permanently if these things become standard. I'll settle down with the games I have that are offline and single player. Or local multiplayer where that's more fun anyway as you play and laugh and eat and drink.

[gangsta_red]

"It's when you have no other choice and it becomes the standard."

Even with the fall of record stores there's still ways to purchase physical music, even with the rise of streaming movies, there's still ways to own movies. It's actually easier to own these through online stores like Amazon. One could argue that it's killed the retail shopping mall scene, but that's another discussion for another time.

I would argue that no matter who did it first, this is where the industry was headed. If it wasn't, the competition could have easily came out ahead to be the hero and offered free online, no different tier sub service, offered free cloud saves, not locking emulation behind a pay wall, not implementing (and almost getting away with) online passes to stop used game purchases and so on. But they didn't because this was going to be the way. We see each company pretty much mirroring each other pretty closely with minor differences.

"If paying to play games becomes the standard, on an internet with known latency, where you can't hold a fighting competition with it, where you don't own a thing physically, where games ....."

That's a really big IF. I do agree that this is what Sony, MS and possibly Nintendo is working towards, no dedicated hardware and basically gamers having access to devices or PC. But I think this is so far down the road that when it probably does happen, speeds, latency, etc, etc will be a thing of the past. Just look how far we have come so far from the days of 56k dial up. I remember playing Madden online on Dreamcast and telling myself this will never take off. Shows how little foresight we actually have.

"Developers made something to sell something. Subscriptions make their games worth nothing of value"

And if their games don't sell in retail because they're being overshadowed by the big triple A release like a GTA, God of War or CoD, then what? This is the problem we're seeing now and why a lot of third party developers are getting bought and a lot of smaller developers are making deals to put their games on a sub service and day and date. Because they are getting paid to cover a substantial amount of dev cost upfront. So how is this big check they're given making there games nothing of value? It's a bigger crap shoot to release your game in the wild which is oversaturated by bigger names, at least having a sub service deal softens the blow in case they don't sell. Also, player numbers do mean a lot, if anything it means recognition, a lot more gamers will be on the look out for that company's next game, thanks to the exposure they got on a sub service.

"Player numbers mean nothing if you're not getting paid."

Why aren't they getting paid? If they're getting their recoup back from GP, then they should be getting a good number of sales from Playstation, it being the market leader with the highest install base, right? I see a lot of arguments or discussions here, the reason a game failed is because it was on GP even when the game was available on all platforms. Of course I also see that when the game succeeded it's because the game sold well on PS and has nothing to do with GP. You can't have it both ways.

"That's when I get off the train permanently if these things become standard."

I seriously doubt that, I heard this all before, "If sony does xyz i'll quit gaming" and then Sony always does and people just accept it, move on to the next outrage. If Sony makes a kick ass single player GoW behind a paywall, you'll pay for it and play it and have a good time doing it. We all will

[Obscure_Observer]

@gangsta_red

"I seriously doubt that, I heard this all before, "If sony does xyz i'll quit gaming" and then Sony always does and people just accept it, move on to the next outrage. If Sony makes a kick ass single player GoW behind a paywall, you'll pay for it and play it and have a good time doing it. We all will"

Perfect! We heard it all before and, the same people are still here. It´s always the same in different scenarios: "If Sony charge for online I´ll quit. If Sony goes multiplatform I´ll quit. If Sony goes hard on MTX I´ll quit. If Sony goes GaaS I´ll quit. If Sony focus on subscriptions I´ll quit."

And they never do, obviously.

Thing is that Sony doesn´t care about those people´s feelings. They will do what they have to do by saying "deal with it" and gamers will just accept and move on, then, they will come out with lame/laughable excuses like: "the other company did it, so my preferred company had no choice but to follow the trend".

Today Sony is putting every single feature behind a paywall like freaking demos and trials and those same people are still here playing victim. Smdh.

[darthv72]

@red... you had a good streak going until you said "playing Madden online on dreamcast". Everyone knows Madden wasn't on DC. Its why Sega had to make their own 2K line of sports games.

And yes both Sony and MS are like for like now. Id even say somewhat switching places with MS loosening up online restrictions and Sony moving more things behind the paywall.

@shadow, your words ring hollow when you speak how you'd leave gaming. Just like all the celebrities who said they'd leave the country over Trump. Yet... nobody left. And you wont either, even as more things are shifting to online required / subscription services.

Keep telling yourself that though, you have to have something to keep the fight in you alive.

[gangsta_red]

@Darth

You're right, it was more than likely 2K. it's been so long I forgot which of the two it was.

All I remember is playing on the Sega Channel over a dial up and having the worse experience.

[neutralgamer1992]

Gaming publishers will be too greed man. They already tried controlling the used market

Online passes
Single player games have MT
Companies generating billions from MT and less from actual game sales

Our online purchases became useless on Xbox series X few weeks ago. Couldn't play so a simple connection can cause user to lose ability to play

So I rather that choice be left up to us and not greed. Music industry is different and had way different piracy issues where as there is a healthy split between digital and physical

[PhoenixUp]

No way in hell

[Eidolon]

I will always prefer a direction display connection, and to this day still don't have reliable or low latency enough ISP to allow for a solid or enjoyable experience. I think a lot(some) of people claiming it's amazing are compromising for the novelty/convenience.

[TravsVoid]

The only thing that can cause this to happen is if the quality of the games stop being worth owning because of microtransactions, always online, and digital only (MAD). All three things effect the value in a games worth before we even consider the games gameplay or story and they are all on the uprise in games.

[piroh]

Its like "will the veggie burgers kill the mcdonalds?" type of a question

[Knightofelemia]

No because I am a collector I like the sense of ownership. I don't like being tied down to a subscription based service like Gamepass as an example and I won't buy digital unless I have to. Plus with the physical if the game is a pile of shit I can trade it in. If a company loses the license to a particular franchise. I can still play that game any time I want I know if you bought it digitally you can check you transaction history and redownload. Physical after a while drops faster in price because companies want to get rid of the title or its been out so long its just cheaper to buy physical over its digital cousin. I bought Death Stranding for $15 at a pawnshop on PSN it's still too pricey. Will I buy an all digital PS5 no will I buy the Series S no I like physical games. If other people want to go that route let them to me if games start going digital and streaming service only I am just going to stick with the older machines.

[Flawlessmic]

I beleive both playstation premium and gamepass are good for gaming provided businesses do what they can afford to offer with these services and it doesnt impact there ability to make true AAA games and the devs still make enough money to make these great games.

[Godmars290]

You're saying that in the post DLC age, where the true ending for Aura's Wrath was made DLC, as was a Prothean for Mass Effect 3.

Hell, you just have to look at mobile gaming to see how "business" effect games.

[Flawlessmic]

The 2 games u mentioned were never on there at launch, i dont beleive those services existed at that time lol

If ur point was we will see more imcomplete games that have dlc on the backend to make up for being on sub services then ok i get that but those 2 games were a bad example.

To be honest sonys one should do no harm as there isnt anything day and date on there so devs will still get there money from sales when they need it, and then will get a booster from sony once sales have died down to put it on the sub.

[Obscure_Observer]

@Flawlessmic

"To be honest sonys one should do no harm as there isnt anything day and date on there so devs will still get there money from sales when they need it, and then will get a booster from sony once sales have died down to put it on the sub."

And how exactly do you expect Sony to compete with Gamepass without day one games released on the new PS +?

How long till people realize they´re paying premium for old games when there´s fresh day one games on the competition´s service for cheap?

I believe Sony will do the same as MS and PAY for day one games released on their service. You just watch.

[Flawlessmic]

@obscure

I have gamepass mate and what sony has offered so far is better even without a sub service.

I want 1st and 3rd party aaa games and sony has ggiven that to me in the form of exclusives.

Xbox hasnt given me a reason to turn it on since forza and halo while this.

At the end of the day i want a reason to play the console.

Its all well and good to say hey gamepass has 1st party games day and date the problem is those releases are spread so far apart and they havent secured any big 3rd party exclusives so all im left with is indie games.

At this point in time gamepass is overrated give constant new games every few months that im happy to pay throughout the year rather than drip feed me big games on a service.

Ps premium isnt meant to compete with gp, and tbh sony back catalogue is so crazy good that i have no issues subbing to both gp and ps premium.

[shinoff2183]

Bo and it doesnt need to kill single game purchases. Thats a dumb thing to say.

[Elda]

At this point in time? The answer is no. None of these sub-services has day one releases of AAA exclusives or a variety of day one releases of AAA muti-plats. As of now...Sony sub-services has only old classic games while Gamepass has old classic games & the current games released are mostly Indies & low budget games with a current meh AAA multi-plat releasing here & there. As of now single player game purchases are here to stay.

[Inverno]

I don't understand why this continues being thought and asked. Ffs vinyls are popular again! DVDs are STILL being sold. Move on from this topic, physical releases won't be killed off by streaming. Nor will it kill off digital purchases. The option has been there for other forms of media and they still sell through those options.

[franwex]

How did Elden Ring turn out?
Fine?
Well there’s your answer. As long as studios make games that people want to play, they will always sell.

[rippermcrip]

These comparisons to music and video streaming are always stupid because gaming is an interactive experience and there is no way streaming will ever create a great experience with the data flow going both ways in real time.

[Magog]

Not for me. I'll quit gaming first.

[Unknown_Gamer5794]

Hopefully not. I for one will fight such a future, and will make my exit if it should ever come to pass.

[-Hermit-]

No. People passionate about gaming are so obsessed with looking for negatives about everything. Apparenlty, everything has been ruined in gaming for years now, but those people still play games every day and have it better than ever. Gaming has never been more accessible. They have so many options, but any time anything new comes along, they think its going to ruin things.

[Crows90]

Ps Plus has always had steam. Its been the best service for online multiplayer for a long time. First it was free and then it got free games and then it was pay walled (thanks microsoft).

Gamepass is losing steam due to lack of big games on the service. And I mean big indie or triple a games. It has good games but not much has been added for people like myself who have practically played all of them...at least the worthwhile ones.

And yes everybody loses with streaming.

[Petebloodyonion]

There's always the next doom and gloom for the industry...
Let's see:
gaming was supposed to die after 1983
Gaming was just for kids.
Gaming was too violent.
Nobody will want to play the game on CD because it can only do FMV
BIG companies like Sony, Panasonic, and Phillips will ruin the industry cause they know nothing of gaming.
Piracy will make companies go bankrupt (just look at Sega).
The second-hand market will kill the market
Single-player games are dead
and now subscription services...

Should I go on

[Hofstaderman]

No

[FlameWater]

Streaming only benefits the game developer, a way to lock out and control the level of enjoyment a player can have.

[Yi-Long]

I’d worry more about pricing your games at 70-80 bucks and keeping those prices high for a longer time being the thing that will ‘kill’ (lessen) single game purchases.

Ghost of Tsushima has been out for almost 2 years, got very good reviews but not ‘outstanding’, but even in today’s new ‘Days of Play’ ‘sale’, it’s still 80(!) euro.

It seems like more and more they want games to ge considered a ‘luxury’ these days, to be enjoyed by the few who can afford them, instead of being available to mass-market, and perhaps they’re doing this to push everyone towards subscription services.

Not sure what the effect will be, long-term. Speaking for me personally, it just means I’ll skip more games, buy less games, and I guess I’ll have to be a bit more patient for the few games I’ll still be interested in.

[warriorcase]

No

[Yppupdam]

The LAST thing I would want is to be at the mercy of the network traffic to play my games. My answer to the question is NO!! I want nothing to do with streaming and latency, I didn't pay 1500.00 for my LG OLED tv to deal with various states of poor resolution during heavy network traffic, and I didn't buy a ps5 AND XSX to be a prisoner to video and input lag.

[darkrider]

What big pile of..... "gamepass and ps plus are much better options then spending hundreds of dollar on single games in a year".... Hell no. Are just an option. I get the games that I want to play and they are mine. No corporation decides what I'm playing or what is good... I wish that I spent hundreds and hundreds on games each year, but the reality is that quality games are fewer and fewer each year. I don't need to rent amazing goty quality titles... But anyone with half a brain understand that this kind of opinions and many more "news" like this will appear in the next week's. Tryng to stop the damage of the last week's about services....

[gold_drake]

finally?

that would not a good thing at this very moment. streaming games is a nightmare.

so no.

[Wintersun616]

This question is not worth discussion.

[Sokol]

Not for a while but eventually all physical media will be replaced by instantaneous high bandwidth streaming.
Movies, games etc.
It will take some time for the infrastructure to support that load but unfortunately it's the way future in this me

[ChasterMies]

Elden ring sold 13 million so far, Make it and people will buy it.

[repsahj]

It depends. If it succeeds big time, it will hurt single game purchases for sure.

[ChiefofLoliPolice]

Nope.