“Netflix for games” has proven to be far from the ideal solution.

  • warm@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 days ago

    People dont want a subscription to play games, it only made sense as an extension of Xbox Live. Outside of that it was mainly used as a way to demo some games for a month, or play that one game for $1.

    Just buying games has way more value overall.

    • thingsiplay@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Day 1 AAA games were its biggest value in my opinion, because those are the most expensive games. I forgot the exact old prices, but I think on PC it was 12 and on console 15 Euros. Paying 180 Euros per year to “lend” them is still cheaper then buying one AAA game each or just every second month. I’m not the biggest fan of subscription. When I stop paying, then I loose access to those games. Yes, that’s the point of it, but that is also the problem I have. When the point of as service is a problem, then we have a problem. Therefore I purchase games rather (especially on PC). But that’s not the value for everyone else. Game Pass genuinely had its value, even if you subscribe for a few months in a row.

      • warm@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yeah, I get it.

        But we just dont want to set a precedent either.

        How long until games are exclusive to game pass? You know thats the path they want to take. We gotta reject the service before it takes over and screws everyone.

        You are locked in and they can just change the price whenever they want.

        More subscription services will pop up, fragmenting the space, like the video streaming of today. Now you have to pay for multiple subs to play games you want to.

        The ones who hate it are the ones who see what it will become.