For me it was actually the devs and studios that pushed me to the subscription model, long before the sub model was even a thing. Prior to online gaming, games would regularly be 30, 40, 50+ hours of content. Once online multiplayer became a thing, single player experiences got increasingly shorter and if you wanted full "value" then you were forced into playing a handful of maps ad nauseum (AND a required online connection to do so of course). Studios started churning out sequels year after year that basically amounted to a DLC worth of content at best, for yet another $60. My opinion on this is, if they are going to continuously provide less content, then I'm going to pay accordingly as well.
I am with you completely on games such as SkyRim, Witcher, upcoming Cyberpunk, etc. I would never choose a sub model for those types of games and feel that they are fully deserving of the asking price. But we still have the same situation, where if I choose to purchase my game through EGS, Steam, etc and any one of them for some reason disappear, I am still out of my game all the same. There is only one solution really, and that is a physical copy of the software with zero keycode activation required. But we are looong past those days and they aren't coming back ever.
rtwjunkie also poiinted it out, but really you will change heart when the shit does hit the fan.
For subscription based services (on demand entertainment0 we already know that content is temporary. So you are guaranteed to:
A: drag a % of your salary to content providers every month
B: only get temporary satisfaction off it
C: know that there is no investment whatsoever because its gone the minute you transfer the money. Subject to change. You're literally
subjected to it. The service decides for you what you play
For normal distribution outlets that offer you a real copy;
A; you pay a fixed price for the product and no recurring fee
B: you
own it,
legally you have a
license that you own and promises game access and updates
C: the game can't leave the service without a legal course of action and you have every opportunity to keep it there by exercising consumer rights - or get a refund as what you paid for is no longer being offered as per the agreement you made on purchase.
These differences exist and are undeniable. Thinking they don't is just pulling wool over your eyes and nothing else. Its just a matter of time before the on-demand service will make a move you won't like. And then another... and another. And when you do feel 'forced' to leave it ("I can cancel anytime hahaha! " yeah... who's really laughing here?!) all the money that went into your 'access' is just quite simply gone. No save games, no nothing. Buy the game later and you'll start right over from scratch as if all you've ever done with games has been sucked into a black hole. Its just gone.
This immediately kills several business models within games... but it also kills certain
aspects of games that make them what they are. The most important one:
Persistence. Your progression is marked with all sorts of things and if you own the content, those things are saved locally. its a huge thing, as it makes or breaks the way certain games play. By having that offsite, games are also forced to implement a cloud save as standard and this in turn forces online where it would never be required.
A game such as Grim Dawn? Simply impossible to make when run through cloud services. Offline save scumming and edits? Good luck with that. Modding and having your perfect setup? Okay... interesting, and again... good luck running that consistently over cloud services.
So yeah... not a million years, I literally do not even want it for free. To each his own....
