![Veteran Videogame Analyst: Subscription growth has flattened [in video games]](https://files.catbox.moe/k1njrt.png){kind=link}
Adding a bit more to the discussion on whether game subscription can be “the future”, it looks like despite the heavy push made in the past decade, subscriptions only make up 10% of total video game spending in the US.
Link: https://nitter.net/MatPiscatella/status/1747660051269988522
Ok…someone help me out here, because I must be reading this wrong.
In the first tweet, Mat says “the idea that subs will become dominant is unsupported by data.” Ok, so subs are not helping the industry.
But then in the second tweet, he says “Subs have been more additive than cannibalistic”–so wait, they’re actually good for the industry?–and they offer more choice, and fearmongering is unnecessary?
Am I reading this wrong?
Consider the french fry.
When McDonald’s started asking “would you like fries with that?” their sales and profits exploded. That really happened.
Now let’s get theoretical. Imagine you were a potato farmer, and your friend was a cattle farmer. You both have an interest in selling as much of your product for the highest price possible.
You might try to promote potatoes, because that’s good for you. “French fries are going to become the main course, and burgers are going to become obsolete.” Well, no, that’s not supported by the data. That doesn’t mean that fries aren’t good for McDonald’s. Sales for both went up. People buying french fries didn’t buy fewer burgers. The effect was additive, not canibalistic.
Of course, does that mean that either is “good” for the industry? Does that mean it’s “good” for consumers? Is it fearmongering to point out the health risks of eating fried potatoes and ground beef every day, or how bad factory feeding people is for the economy?
Subscription gaming isn’t going to replace traditional games. But it has become a significant part of the industry. If that’s good or bad depends on your perspective.
Golly that was really well put. thanks, friend
Thank you. That’s perfect.
He means that the subscribers don’t stop buying games elsewhere. They do both instead of migrating from one model to the other.
Ok, that’s exactly what I thought it meant. So why isn’t that good for the industry? Doesn’t that mean that they’re double-dipping?
It is. But the industry would rather have all of us subscribing because that’s a constant profit and they love constant profit. They’d rather have 100% subscribing and 0% buying than 10% subscribing and 100% buying.
I think I’m getting it now. He was saying “don’t worry” to consumers, not video game companies.
I think he’s saying that neither extreme is right. Subscriptions aren’t going to take over the entire market but they will likely continue to play a role going forward.
So my current understanding of this is that he’s telling us, as consumers, not to worry because subscriptions are not taking over the industry like the industry wants it to. It’s working for them, but it’s not taking over.
Something not being dominant does not mean that it is cannibalistic or bad for the industry… it just means that it isnt the dominant form of income for them.
I’m not really sure how you’re reaching the conclusion that subs not becoming dominant means they’re somehow not helping the industry.