• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Former Sony Gaming Head Decries Impact of Game Subscription Services As "Risky" for Developers

C

Cpt.Jank

Staff
Staff member
Joined
Aug 30, 2024
Messages
159 (0.57/day)
Shuhei Yoshida, the former head of Sony Entertainment, has decried the outsized impact of game subscription services, essentially saying that they had the potential to stifle innovation and put too much emphasis on AAA and first-party games and make it even more difficult for indie developers to break into the scene. In an interview with Game Developer, Yoshida shared his concerns about the rise of subscription services, adding that Sony's approach was less harmful than Xbox Game Pass, specifically because Sony wasn't trying to launch AAA titles straight to the subscription model like Xbox is.

Yoshida's implication is that Sony's model of allowing games to have a traditional release before going to PlayStation Plus is likely a healthier approach than the day-one AAA launches that became popular on Xbox Game Pass. His concerns boil down to the aforementioned issues with innovation, saying that "what [type] of games can be created will be dictated by the owner of the subscription services," and adding that "the big companies dictate what games can be created, I don't think that will advance the industry," however he also takes issue with the financial side of things, implying that, if gamers have day-one access to games on subscription services, they won't want to pay up-front for games. This last point has implications for innovation as much as his former thought, because if game developers depend on subscription services for launches, it might make them more averse to trying new things. These comments seem all the more relevant in a modern gaming landscape, where indie developers seem to be largely responsible for pushing the envelope. You simply need to look at the popularity of games like Hades, Terraria, or the roguelike and survival-craft genre in general for evidence of such.


I believe the way Sony approached [subscriptions] is healthier. You know, not to overpromise and to allow people to spend money to buy the new games... After a couple of years there won't be many people willing to buy those games at that initial price, so they'll be added to the subscription service and there'll be more people to try [those products] in time for the next game in the franchise to come out.
Click to expand...

Yoshida didn't have only negativity for Microsoft, though, as he praised the company's backwards compatibility when it comes to Xbox 360 and Xbox One games on Game Pass.

They must have put a lot of engineering effort in to achieve what they have done.
Click to expand...

View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source
 
I'm not a huge fan of subscription services either, but If Sony wants more direct game sales they should consider improving their store's horrible refund policy. Steam, GOG, Epic, and even Xbox, all have significantly better refund policies.
 
I legitimately don't understand how Gamepass achieves profitability (or even comes close to the current model of digital purchases) without substantially reducing development cost and time for games (and churning out content slop like Netflix et al streaming services), substantially raising prices, enshitification of services rendered (to reduce server costs), locked in annual subscriptions, etc.

It's going to be one of those traps where enough people sign up and then the rug gets pulled out from underneath.
 
GodisanAtheist said:
I legitimately don't understand how Gamepass achieves profitability (or even comes close to the current model of digital purchases) without substantially reducing development cost and time for games (and churning out content slop like Netflix et al streaming services), substantially raising prices, enshitification of services rendered (to reduce server costs), locked in annual subscriptions, etc.

It's going to be one of those traps where enough people sign up and then the rug gets pulled out from underneath.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that they just got existing IPs and put them under gamepass, I didn't know some AAA games went straight there. Maybe M$ just foots the bill for the development or something? Either way yeah it's a bait-and-switch so people lose physical ownership of their games.
 
GodisanAtheist said:
I legitimately don't understand how Gamepass achieves profitability (or even comes close to the current model of digital purchases) without substantially reducing development cost and time for games (and churning out content slop like Netflix et al streaming services), substantially raising prices, enshitification of services rendered (to reduce server costs), locked in annual subscriptions, etc.

It's going to be one of those traps where enough people sign up and then the rug gets pulled out from underneath.
Click to expand...
Here's the secret: they dont, not without infinite growth eventually resulting in literal billions of subscriptions. The only reason it has lasted this long is it has been backed by a multi trillion dollar corpo that created Embrace, Expand, Extinguish.

Look at the new DOOM. 3 million players, but less than 1 million copies sold. If those other 2 million didnt specifically open a new account to sub for DOOM, the actual amount of money the developer gets will be an absolute pittance. Especially for a single player game, where most players will be done with it after a single month.

Ultimately, in addition to locking people into a "you'll own nothing and be happy" garden, its also a great system for systemically choking out all studios not bankrolled by mega corpos that might have had a sleeper hit or minor success in the form of 1-2 million sales, more than enough to sustain a small studio but nowhere near enough for the bloated entertainment giants of today.
 
The author forgot about PC games. Console, although a substantial market, is not a good place to try new things. There's a narroow type of games one can play. It was a primary reason to sell my PS3 and never buy another console.

Regarding the article. Origin and EA showed recently what happens when profit is the sole driver of game development. There are so many things to consider in life, that game industry could shrink to a fifth of its size and I would not care.
 
i don't like subscriptions, but i love freedom more, if people like them, and they do, so they should exist. I honestly don't see the relationship that the Sony's exec is talking about. Make better games, offer better value, forget about what others are doing. Consumers will by your products if you do so.

Nintendo uses old hardware, games are expensive, don't do sales, is one the most anti consumer company in gaming, and they are doing fine. People love quality.
 
GodisanAtheist said:
I legitimately don't understand how Gamepass achieves profitability (or even comes close to the current model of digital purchases) without substantially reducing development cost and time for games (and churning out content slop like Netflix et al streaming services), substantially raising prices, enshitification of services rendered (to reduce server costs), locked in annual subscriptions, etc.

It's going to be one of those traps where enough people sign up and then the rug gets pulled out from underneath.
Click to expand...
Bear in mind most 3rd party publisher games arent permanent, its like netflix, they give you something, and something else is taken away. This can still lead to game sales despite the person playing it on game pass first. Too many jrpgs were getting pulled so I dont pay for game pass anymore.
 
The man is correct. MS has created a self destructive monster for gamers and you should escape while you still can. Do not give them your money and nuke their gaming division.

Similar things apply to other gaming on demand. It is all part of corporate control over content, but, MS is the worst atm. Lets make it crystal clear. None of us want this. Creative space and freedom must be guarded, its the only way gaming can remain interesting and worth doing.

The alternative is that gaming will devolve into a gacha casino where you own and control nothing.
 
GodisanAtheist said:
GOG's Achilles heel is it's limited inventory.
Click to expand...
Not been there lately have you.. It's not that limited. I currently have more games than I have time to play. Anyone claiming GOG is "limited" hasn't taken a good look.
GodisanAtheist said:
cause the publisher won't commit to a DRM free experience.
Click to expand...
And moron publishers will continue being morons. That's what else is great about GOG, it filters out the riff-raff d-bag publishers by default.
 
lexluthermiester said:
Not been there lately have you.. It's not that limited. I currently have more games than I have time to play. Anyone claiming GOG is "limited" hasn't taken a good look.

And moron publishers will continue being morons. That's what else is great about GOG, it filters out the riff-raff d-bag publishers by default.
Click to expand...
..... So it has a limited inventory.

I dont think there is a direct relation between presence of drm and poor games.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top