Subscriptions make much more sense if they are actually providing a continual service, such as MMOs or newsgroups. They stop making sense when you have to pay retail for the software, then also must subscribe for it to work. Companies that do that are having it both ways by selling you the product and then still charging you rent on it.
The only software that needs to be updated regularly is stuff that needs to be secure; locally running self-contained games and other software do not. So, I absolutely should be able to buy once and then be entitled to updates for at least some period of time, then be able to opt into renewals or not based on my needs.
You can’t sell me a hammer, charge me every time I swing it, and take a percentage of the profits of the thing I built with it, but that is exactly what many software companies are being allowed to do. The fact that the product is not tangible makes that fact less obvious, but still just as true. Getting paid forever for work you did once is a societal ill.
Another thing for me is that i’m so used to playing early access games that start small and buggy and grow into behemoths of amazing content that i kinda want that experience with every game.
There is a joy to being along for the ride, plus it makes you replay titles over the long haul. Terraria always comes to mind and my nerds are running through Valheim for this exact reason (the mist lands are rough).
Digital distribution seems to have had some really negative affects both on game development, and consumerist mindset. Don’t get me wrong, it’s also probably been a huge boon for indie studios, but my point remains.
Live service has broken people’s brains.
phone apps too, buy once update forever doesn’t make sense, just like subscriptions don’t make sense at the other end of the spectrum
Subscriptions make much more sense if they are actually providing a continual service, such as MMOs or newsgroups. They stop making sense when you have to pay retail for the software, then also must subscribe for it to work. Companies that do that are having it both ways by selling you the product and then still charging you rent on it.
The only software that needs to be updated regularly is stuff that needs to be secure; locally running self-contained games and other software do not. So, I absolutely should be able to buy once and then be entitled to updates for at least some period of time, then be able to opt into renewals or not based on my needs.
You can’t sell me a hammer, charge me every time I swing it, and take a percentage of the profits of the thing I built with it, but that is exactly what many software companies are being allowed to do. The fact that the product is not tangible makes that fact less obvious, but still just as true. Getting paid forever for work you did once is a societal ill.
Another thing for me is that i’m so used to playing early access games that start small and buggy and grow into behemoths of amazing content that i kinda want that experience with every game.
There is a joy to being along for the ride, plus it makes you replay titles over the long haul. Terraria always comes to mind and my nerds are running through Valheim for this exact reason (the mist lands are rough).
Digital distribution seems to have had some really negative affects both on game development, and consumerist mindset. Don’t get me wrong, it’s also probably been a huge boon for indie studios, but my point remains.
Patches are also a tool to keep a game in the news cycle in more recent times.
So much comes out every single week. It’s quite a lot of noise.
I think it also doesn’t help that these games released unfinished and unpolished.
I don’t remember any significant issues on PEAK’s release?
It had issues with some AMD cards where it’d crash on loading the second zone.
It seems a lot of people dont remember a lot of buggy games these days.
The most profitable game ever was a buggy unplayable mess upon launch. GTAO.
It was very very buggy.