When Microsoft announced the Xbox Game Pass, the Internet erupted in the usual predictable outrage they usually do when Microsoft dares to innovate. Gamers and so-called Gaming Journalists collectively lamented the new program, arguing that Microsoft was out to milk the consumer, beyond the fact that they already charge $10 a month for Xbox Live Gold. EA Access had this same fate when it was announced as an exclusive to Xbox One.
Let’s look at the gaming market right now. Microsoft and Sony, and most recently Nintendo with the launch of the Switch have dominated the market, over and above the PC gaming scene in the eyes of consumers. However, due to the fact that games haven’t been keeping pace with inflation, being sold relative to the price they were back in the 1980s, gamers have been inundated with DLC and season passes as a measure to increase the publisher, and in turn the developers’ ROI. This hasn’t always played too well with consumers, but in general, they accepted this practice.
But for many, the cost of having the ‘full’ experience have become somewhat of an overburden, with some gamers declaring that gaming has become a money making scheme out to get them. Package this with the advent of subscription services, their cries have become even louder, demanding that companies refrain from giving subscribers benefits, like on EA Access, the ability to play a demo of a game a week early.
For these people, anything that does not benefit them is wrong and anything that makes games accessible to people who might not be able to afford the latest releases means that gaming has become too ‘casual’ and that gaming companies should wilfully exclude certain populations from, let’s be honest, a hobby. Beyond that, gaming companies already struggle to keep themselves in the black, opting to create subpar or indie type games because AAA experiences have become too expensive, or too risky for them in the current market.
Yes, some in the hardcore gamer base do buy every game that launches, but when a console with nearly 60 million consoles sold, manages to only sell around 5 million copies of its biggest blockbuster of the year, it rings true that these gamers really do not help the situation by demanding that these companies limit their ability to make money.
Subscription services, like EA Access and Xbox Game Pass, have become the new standard at how game publishers will keep their revenue flowing in, for the most part. Let me explain in the simplest of terms. Let’s say Microsoft releases Halo 6 in 2019, and it manages to sell around 10 million copies during that year, this means that Microsoft and 343i did pretty well. However, by that time Xbox will be sitting at around 50 to 60 million consoles sold, not to mention the PC market where the game will be sold as well. After the initial sales spike, the game will trail off and the number of copies sold will plummet, only to be saved by the occasional sale on Xbox Live.
With the subscription model, Microsoft could offer the game after sales have hit its bottom, on the subscription service and reach a wider audience, those who could not afford the additional cost of purchasing a game they might not know or couldn’t risk purchasing since most gamers do have a limited budget, and this affects their purchasing decisions. By charging around $10 a month, these gamers can play a wide array of games, and even get access to big exclusive games on the service, and this, in turn, makes the new Halo game make money again, increasing the gamer base and ensuring that if there were to be a sequel, they might sell more copies within the first month if the fanbase grows.
But the most ardent of ‘real gamers’ will argue that this will dilute the value of franchises they know and love and might have the opposite effect of making everyone just ‘wait it out’ until it’s on the subscription service. For that, I call pure nonsense. EA Access is currently on Xbox One, and EA still managed to sell 41% of the total of units shipped on Xbox One in the first week (UK sales figures), this while having a 2:1 disparity between all the consoles.
This proves that EA Access while being a very good deal has negligible effects on the sales of software since gamers have serious FOMO (fear of missing out), and have to have the latest game, even if they don’t play it much. The subscription just offers people who didn’t want to fork out an obscene amount of money for a rather mediocre game, a way to play it without really spending any money.
Gaming is a hobby being practised by many people of different strokes. The so-called ‘real gamer’ elitism is basically busting open a disgusting sewer pipe and leaking all over one of the best and most exciting markets right now. Just because you might be able to 100% all your achievements, doesn’t mean that if someone doesn’t, that they don’t deserve to play those games or, in the case of certain Xbox fans, be labelled a fraud. Beyond that, just because not all people can afford every title the day they launch, and would rather opt for a more affordable way to keep their hobby going, does not mean they’re not real gamers.
Subscription services are here to help grow the business we all know and love. You should celebrate the increasing accessibility to amazing games, not try to build a wall around it like a petty child.
Dreyer was a regular ICXM contributor between 2016–2017, publishing 139 articles across opinion pieces, game reviews, Windows and PC, and Xbox news. Their work focused on hands-on reviews, platform commentary, and breaking-news reporting during the Xbox One X launch year and Microsoft’s wider Play Anywhere / UWP gaming initiative. They post on X as @dreyer_smit.