Soldato
- Joined
- 12 May 2011
- Posts
- 6,325
- Location
- Southampton
I read on PC Gamer that Anthem had joined EA Origin Access and thought that the article was the epitome of what I don't like about modern gaming: Here's a game that's designed to churn money as a service for a large publisher ahead of actually being fun, with absolute contempt for gamers, which you can now pay £4 a month to play, but never own, with the potential for additional content coming, which usually isn't free so you'll need to buy that along with your subscription, but you can also play a whole bunch of other games, but not from another publisher; you'll need another £4 a month for that, with another whole loads of strings attached.
However I then did some maths:
Buying individual games:
I have bought 310 games over the last 10 years on Steam, Origin etc. I rarely buy full price, more like £15. Let's say all my games cost £20 to cover the new occasional new release but also the Steam sale splurges. Over 10 years I have spent £6,200 on games (bloody hell).
For the subscription option:
£20 a year for Origin The Basic One
£15 a month(!) for Uplay Whatever
£4 a month for Xbox Game Pass
Say 2 games at £20 each that I want to play that aren't on the lists.
This comes to £288 a year; If we say £300 a year to cover price increases at some point over that 10 years, it comes out to £3,000 for 10 years gaming.
Subscription gaming costs £48% of the cost of buying individual games. What does the extra £3,200 get you?
Buying:
Subscription:
I really wanted to hate subscription gaming; I like the idea of owning things, but I'm not sure I like it enough to pay double. It might be different if I was guaranteed that I could keep my bought games forever, i.e. physical media. But you don't have that with digital, DRM-based purchases.
I should say I recently got EA Basic (which was the same price for a year as BF V, the game I wanted to play) and Microsoft Game Pass (my friend convinced me to get it) and there are some cool games I want to try like but it is more of a side-gaming thing rather than how I feel I should buy my main games. If I was just starting out with no collection, I might consider subscription gaming. But I have amassed quite a large library over the years.
But then why are game companies pushing it if costs significantly less money? Do twice the number of people really buy subscription services to make up for the half the cost for the consumer? I suppose it takes the risk of "getting a sale" as they're guaranteed income for a month / year which can be allocated to games for the service (like Netflix)...
However I then did some maths:
Buying individual games:
I have bought 310 games over the last 10 years on Steam, Origin etc. I rarely buy full price, more like £15. Let's say all my games cost £20 to cover the new occasional new release but also the Steam sale splurges. Over 10 years I have spent £6,200 on games (bloody hell).
For the subscription option:
£20 a year for Origin The Basic One
£15 a month(!) for Uplay Whatever
£4 a month for Xbox Game Pass
Say 2 games at £20 each that I want to play that aren't on the lists.
This comes to £288 a year; If we say £300 a year to cover price increases at some point over that 10 years, it comes out to £3,000 for 10 years gaming.
Subscription gaming costs £48% of the cost of buying individual games. What does the extra £3,200 get you?
Buying:
- I can not spend a penny once the 10 years are up and I still have 310 games to play any time I want, forever...
- ...But Steam will, one day, turn off and access might be lost to your 310 games. Low-ish Risk.
- The game list is fixed and I can go back and play friggin Alpha Protocol 8 years after launch if I want and it is still in my library.
Subscription:
- This cost doesn't cover all of the games I might want to buy. I don't really know how much coverage could be achieved, but it is unlikely I would be able to go subscription only. Considering I don't really buy new releases it might be I only achieve 60% of the 310 games. I would need to spend say £10 each (on the basis the games not on the lists would be older, obscure games) so £124 extra, over 10 years...
- e.g. Out of the 136 Game Pass I want to play 26; Origin Access 22 (different games);
- I would however definitely have access to a much, much wider range of games, say 2000, but will only want to play the 310 of them that I would have bought outright. However, I might find an extra 50 that I like that I wouldn't have tried if I was buying them outright. There is Added Value here.
- After 10 years I lose access to my games unless I keep spending money. The service might stop if EA go bust, or it could migrates to the Xbox Two/720/Dreamcast 2. Higher Risk compared to Steam going dark. I would still have the 40% I bought though...
- Games could disappear off the list. I notice Battlefield 1 has quietly disappeared off the Origin Basic list? Also e.g. Mafia 1, San Andreas disappearing and reappearing without the soundtrack or songs removed).
I really wanted to hate subscription gaming; I like the idea of owning things, but I'm not sure I like it enough to pay double. It might be different if I was guaranteed that I could keep my bought games forever, i.e. physical media. But you don't have that with digital, DRM-based purchases.
I should say I recently got EA Basic (which was the same price for a year as BF V, the game I wanted to play) and Microsoft Game Pass (my friend convinced me to get it) and there are some cool games I want to try like but it is more of a side-gaming thing rather than how I feel I should buy my main games. If I was just starting out with no collection, I might consider subscription gaming. But I have amassed quite a large library over the years.
But then why are game companies pushing it if costs significantly less money? Do twice the number of people really buy subscription services to make up for the half the cost for the consumer? I suppose it takes the risk of "getting a sale" as they're guaranteed income for a month / year which can be allocated to games for the service (like Netflix)...