We listen to music on Spotify or Apple Music, watch TV shows on Netflix and Disney+, and store files in the cloud, paying for it with an automatic payment every month. Subscriptions have become an integral part of our digital lives. They cover everything from antivirus and food delivery to medical services. It would seem that the subscription model has long proven its convenience and efficiency. But is it ready to completely change the gaming industry?
But as soon as the topic of video games comes up, the general consensus disappears. Opinions are instantly polarized, and discussions flare up with renewed vigor. What prevents game subscriptions from taking root in gaming as easily as in music or movies? What are the advantages and pitfalls of this approach, and how can its rapid spread change the face of the entire gaming industry?
The idea of subscription games is not so new. As early as the 1980s, there were bold attempts to implement it. One of the first examples was the GameLine service for the Atari 2600, which allowed you to download games via a telephone line – long before the Internet was available in homes. This technology was undoubtedly ahead of its time, but the price was also appropriate: $60 for a modem, $15 monthly subscription fee, and another $1 for each game, which could be stored for only a week. To get the most out of the service, you had to pay about $19 a month, which, adjusted for inflation, is about $74 in today’s money. Although a direct comparison with the current market conditions is incorrect, the figure is quite revealing. Especially for those who now complain that game subscriptions are becoming “too expensive.” It turns out that gaming has never been a cheap pleasure – it was just less often mentioned before 😉
In the early 2000s, the concept of games as a service was not yet widespread. The basic business model remained simple: a player buys a boxed version of a game and that’s the end of the deal. However, it was multiplayer online games, in particular MMORPGs, that were the first to break this rule. The most striking example was World of Warcraft by Blizzard Entertainment, a game that not only gained millions of subscribers but also radically changed the financial model of the company itself. A monthly fee for access to the game world opened a new path – a stable income and the ability to constantly update content.
The success of WoW inspired others: Final Fantasy XI, RuneScape, and later Xbox Live Gold (2002) and PlayStation Plus (2010) proved that players were willing to pay not only for the game, but also for the experience, service, and community. These services became the bridge to today’s platforms like Xbox Game Pass or PlayStation Plus Extra, where players are offered dozens of games for a fixed monthly fee.
Despite the success of MMORPGs, in the 2000s, the West was in no hurry to imitate this model on a large scale. Instead, the first active experiments with monetization of games as services were launched by Chinese and South Korean companies, including Tencent and other giants of the Asian market. They quickly saw subscriptions, micropayments, and “donations” as a source of recurring revenue. Outside of Asia, however, this model was perceived with skepticism, often as aggressive and unfair. Many gamers still remember jokes about “donated” Chinese or Korean MMORPGs, where money could buy a tangible advantage in the game, and sometimes just become an invincible top player.
Xbox Live and PlayStation Plus were a real step towards the “games as a service” and gaming subscription models. These paid services provided access to online modes on consoles, as well as additional bonuses such as free games or cloud saves. This was not without criticism: PC owners rightly wondered why they had to pay for multiplayer. By the way, Microsoft was the first to introduce online access fees in video games, a move that later became the norm for the console market.
The success of Xbox Live and PlayStation Plus has shown that not only MMORPG fans are willing to pay monthly, but also a wider, more casual audience. Many people bought PlayStation 3 as a Blu-ray player, and only then as a game console. But this did not prevent platform holders from turning such users into paying customers. And it was then that it became clear that the future of the industry lies in regular payments for access, services, and content.
In 2017, the world saw Xbox Game Pass, a service that combined the passion of millions of players for games as services with Microsoft’s desire to make the Xbox audience loyal to regular payments for access to a large library of games. The idea was so revolutionary and unconventional that it forced the entire market to rethink its approaches. It was Game Pass that ushered in a new era of subscription gaming – an era that, along with its opportunities, brought many controversial and provocative issues.
Game Pass’s main selling point was the promise to add all new games from Microsoft’s internal studios on the day of release. After the grandiose acquisitions of ZeniMax Media and Activision Blizzard, this offer has become so attractive that even the most ardent skeptics have to take it into account. Players no longer need to pay more than $70 for the new Forza Horizon, Halo, Starfield, The Elder Scrolls VI, or even Call of Duty, which is especially interesting given the aggressive monetization of the latter. This is an offer that is hard to refuse.
While Microsoft was actively expanding Game Pass, Sony watched the success of its competitor for a long time, not rushing to respond. After the confident victory in the PlayStation 4 generation, the company saw no point in radical changes – their model, based on the sale of premium single-player exclusives at full price, worked flawlessly. But it became impossible to ignore the growing trend, so PlayStation Plus underwent significant changes to retain its audience.
In 2022, Sony rebranded PlayStation Plus, merging it with the PS Now cloud service and dividing it into three tiers: Essential, Extra, and Premium. It was a clear response to Game Pass, but with the main difference being that Sony was not ready to sacrifice sales of its biggest hits, which are still selling like hotcakes. After all, why lose billions on single-player blockbusters if people are already willing to buy them? Although it’s worth noting that later on, these hits are gradually appearing… 😉
Shall we mention Nintendo as well? As always, it plays by its own rules. Instead of chasing blockbusters, the company offers the most affordable and, at the same time, the most specific service – Nintendo Switch Online. For $20 per year, users get online access to games like Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and access to retro libraries of NES, SNES, Game Boy, and others. Add in limited Game Trials and it becomes clear that this is not a competitor to Game Pass or PS Plus, but no one really expected it from Nintendo.
What about developers? It all depends on the conditions. For indie studios, getting into Game Pass often becomes a real jackpot – Microsoft can pay for all development upfront, relieving financial pressure. In return, large publishers receive license fees, but risk losing profits from direct sales. This is a constant balance, and everyone solves it in their own way.
However, there is also no shortage of criticism, and it comes mostly from industry veterans. The main criticisms concern three things: the devaluation of games, when projects lose their individuality in a sea of content and players quit after the first few minutes; the loss of direct connection with the audience, as subscriptions put an intermediary platform between the developer and the player; and the threat of “gatekeeping,” when only those approved by the corporation will have access to the market, which hinders experimentation and creativity.
We should also mention in passing such areas as dreams of games “outside the hardware” with full cloud rendering, niche startups for gamers, and ambitious attempts by Apple and Google to grab a piece of the market that seemed infinitely promising at the time. All this is a separate story, full of interviews, patents, and failed services that disappeared faster than they appeared. But let’s not dive into archeology for too long – it’s time to get to the main point.
The world of subscription games is both a paradise and a minefield. On the one hand, you open Game Pass or PS Plus, and there are dozens of hits, a sea of content, and a bottomless pit of “I’ll play later.” On the other hand, there’s an indie developer sitting in a dark corner somewhere, worrying about whether their game will ever get a turn in this digital queue of icons.
The model works, but not without controversy and discussion. For some, it gives them the freedom to create without financial pressure, while for others it gives them a headache and the fear of being swallowed by an algorithm. Subscriptions have already changed the industry, but whether they will become the only future is an open question. Especially if we remember how quickly players can unsubscribe as soon as they find no entertainment for the evening.
One thing is for sure: subscription gaming is no longer an experiment. It is a full-fledged part of the industry that can become a new standard or follow the fate of 3D TVs. In the meantime, choose a subscription, download something, and don’t forget: you may not have time to complete any of the games. But you will have a choice, there are still a thousand games in the queue…
