Smaller subscription deals and the underperformance of certain titles have had a severe impact on Devolver and TinyBuild, says stockbroking firm Goodbody.
Both companies floated at the peak of the games business in 2021 and have seen their share prices plummet over the past two years. Devolver has seen its share price drop 92% since its peak in January 2022, while TinyBuild’s has fallen 95%
“We have seen from Devolver and TinyBuild that subscription is under pressure at the moment,” says Patrick O’Donnell, technology and video gaming analyst at Goodbody.
"The cheques coming from Sony and Microsoft are just not as big as they were. And that creates problems if you’re concentrated on that side of the market.
“TinyBuild, of all of them, was most exposed. Devolver was exposed, but not quite as much.”
Whoa, subscription models hurt smaller games? Whoever could have seen this coming?
Glances at spotify.
No-one could have predicted this!
Why did a lot of indie devs flock to gamepass’s defense then?
Likely because when the big games weren’t part of it yet, they were getting good payouts.
But as soon as you throw in one elephant into the pool, let alone a dozen, the rest of the swimmers are gonna have a lot less water to swim in.
I have gamepass but I also use to be a regular Destiny player. A single time sink like Destiny can leave very little time for anything else. Since I stopped playing Destiny I have been playing a lot more indie games.
Cause a lot of indie devs are also idiots when it comes to business decisions. Many (especially solo devs) didn’t get into the industry to make boatloads of money; they are often creative types who are passionate about their work.
Probably same reason they defended being bought off by epic for exclusivity, short term stability at the cost of long term survivability.
Indie devs are probably gonna get their bread now and think about the future later. They don’t know if they can get a single game out.
Did those devs already have a deal in place? Were they hoping to get a good deal in the future?
What were those devs saying when they defended Gamepass?
A lot of gaming sites asked developers whose games were on GamePass what they thought of it, and the answer was predictable. Like, nobody is going to ill talk the provider of the service their game is on.
Other developers didn’t speak ill of it because of the fear of burning bridges, I suppose.
The Game Bakers (Furi, Haven) talked about their difficult relationship with GP on Vice (LINK).
Basically, the problem with a subscription service such as GP is that it cannibalizes other games’ sales outside the service itself. And since you are not guaranteed to land on GP, developing a game Xbox may be more of a gamble than it is on other platforms. I fear this may become the norm as more subscription services are rolled out and start encroaching the market.
There’s also the problem with founding. Furi sold 78% of its copies through PS+, yet only one third of its budget was paid by Sony for the deal. Developers have to decide whether they need less money immediately, or potentially more money down the line; but for indie developers, sometimes there is no choice: they either accept the deal, or shut down because they don’t have the founding to complete their next game.
I really like the Vice article I linked because it’s one of the very few who tried to analyze the situation impartially, with data backing it up. Most of the other industry journalists at the time were like “GP is the future! Gamers spend less and everyone gains more money!!1!”, parroting Spencer’s bullshit.
I always wondered if thats really true for smaller musicians . I mean you get bigger share of subscription money without label and you should come out on top over cd eventualy if pepole are listening to your music. The only diffrence being that you get your money over time instead of an imidieate boost. I get this feeling its just the case of more music being made than ever before.
Also how does revenue sharing works in case of games. In case of music its pretty easy but in case of games i am not sure how that works.
In the case of both, how fair it is, depends on payment model. At least spotify is grossly unfair, to the point that there is an entire industry around bot farming plays to drain money from the payment pool.
As for game subscriptions, I’ve not looked into it much, but I know Apple’s service at least is based on hours played, which has resulted in some games on the service attempting to stretch out their playtime using things like mandatory grinding to progress in their games. With this model, developers can literally shoot themselves in the foot financially, by allowing the player to sprint. It’s stupid.
Games can’t be reduced to that simple a value. You can get the same amount of hours out of God of War as you can Binding of Isaac, but their production and purchase costs, are not, and should not, be the same.
Hmm yeach ive heard that spotify aproach is kinda shitty and allows music boosting by bots. But at least tidal as far as i know is fair in that regard. basing the revenue based on hours played im game is fairly shitty. Actually Given the games specific i wonder what would actually be fair ( actually i know what would be fair. Microsoft buying the games that you downloaded straight up and paying the current price,but i really doubt it would be sustainable ).
Unfortunately, basically no game on these services, will ever get what a customer paying full price would net them.
The same goes for music. There’s simply less money to go around in the subscription model.
Hmm with the game i agree but with the music i basicaly buy a full cd every month. And i doubt pepole were buying a cd every month. The only controversy to me here is the revenue sharing model which seems to be shitty on some of the platforms( like Spotify wich i would probably ditch for tidal if not for the amazing discver weekly )
Right but that has the same problem as video game pricing. Ten bucks is a lot less than it used to be.
And do you listen to just one album a month? I don’t think so.