this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
137 points (97.9% liked)

Games

32504 readers
1504 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Smaller subscription deals and the underperformance of certain titles have had a severe impact on Devolver and TinyBuild, says stockbroking firm Goodbody.

Both companies floated at the peak of the games business in 2021 and have seen their share prices plummet over the past two years. Devolver has seen its share price drop 92% since its peak in January 2022, while TinyBuild's has fallen 95%

"We have seen from Devolver and TinyBuild that subscription is under pressure at the moment," says Patrick O'Donnell, technology and video gaming analyst at Goodbody.

"The cheques coming from Sony and Microsoft are just not as big as they were. And that creates problems if you're concentrated on that side of the market.

"TinyBuild, of all of them, was most exposed. Devolver was exposed, but not quite as much."

top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 99 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Whoa, subscription models hurt smaller games? Whoever could have seen this coming?

Glances at spotify.

No-one could have predicted this!

[–] BB69@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Why did a lot of indie devs flock to gamepass’s defense then?

[–] ShakeThatYam@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago

Cause a lot of indie devs are also idiots when it comes to business decisions. Many (especially solo devs) didn't get into the industry to make boatloads of money; they are often creative types who are passionate about their work.

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Likely because when the big games weren't part of it yet, they were getting good payouts.

But as soon as you throw in one elephant into the pool, let alone a dozen, the rest of the swimmers are gonna have a lot less water to swim in.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I have gamepass but I also use to be a regular Destiny player. A single time sink like Destiny can leave very little time for anything else. Since I stopped playing Destiny I have been playing a lot more indie games.

[–] Zorque@kbin.social 20 points 1 year ago

Probably same reason they defended being bought off by epic for exclusivity, short term stability at the cost of long term survivability.

[–] TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Indie devs are probably gonna get their bread now and think about the future later. They don't know if they can get a single game out.

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Did those devs already have a deal in place? Were they hoping to get a good deal in the future?

What were those devs saying when they defended Gamepass?

[–] Neato@kbin.social 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They are in a no-win situation. If they aren't making enough from subscriptions they can pull their games, but then they lose a massive amount of marketing and visibility. Much like Spotify and other streaming services, smaller artists just aren't making much from these. And with the way that contracts and subscription fatigue works, it's unlikely a competitor is going to be able to offer better deals while also attracting sufficient customers.

[–] pory@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The win comes later once gamepass gets netflix'd. It'll only go on like this for so long before there's UbiPass and EAccess and Sony Prime and so on and so forth. Then a few years after that, when the services finally get pushed back against and die, everyone who just kept buying games on steam/gog/itch/whatever (or pirating) just keeps on not paying sub fees. Like nothing ever happened.

[–] learningduck@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

My impression of this comment read like us vs them (subscribers vs buyers) to me which I don't think realistic. They aren't mutually exclusive.

There are games that may be too short or don't have much repeatability that people better off renting than buying.

[–] pory@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Subscriptions and those that use them are a worse deal for indie devs, and it only becomes an even worse deal as big name publishers put their new AAA games in the subscription and demand a proportionate slice of the pie.

My opinion / analysis of the situation is that it's only going to get worse for non-AAA and non-backed indies as "$180 a year gets me aaaaallll thiiiiiis, why would I spend a whole month's of gamepass on your one game" becomes more and more common.

Furthermore, there was never a world where Netflix stayed as "$15/mo for everything". Other corps want their own Netflixes. So they pull their content and put out another subscription. There's no world where MS Gamepass stays the only subscription-based game service in town, and when users are paying for three gamepasses, they're even less likely to buy a cool game that's lacking AAA polish for $10.

However, unlike movies and TV, no game has really become exclusive to Gamepass (some tried with Stadia, which thankfully died). There are shows that were exclusive to HBO Max that cannot be legally acquired anymore. Players that want some degree of ownership of their games can buy them on Steam/Epic, or if they want full ownership of their games they can buy them DRM-Free like on GOG. Those guys can keep on doing that through the rise of the "wow it's genuinely a good deal" gamepass, the "more corporations want their own gamepass" phase, the "prices go up and quality goes down now that we've got an audience" phase, and the "service is going away forever" phase.

It's game buyers that'll keep indie games alive. Subscription models are a poisoned treat that benefit indie games right now but are already shifting to be a huge blow to the indie game scene.

[–] learningduck@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

A well thought out answer.

I see your points, which I mostly agree. I think at one point, but there are also Indies games that may hardly see any penny without the exposition of the subscription as well. There are games like Chain of Echoes that I bought after playing it on GP just because I like it so much that I want to support the devs and wouldn't have buy it in the first place had it not included with GP, but this may be a rare case or just a matter of releasing a demo.

Rockstar had their games on GP for a short period then pull them from the platform repeatedly for a while, I guess they intended for people to use GP to demo their game. Not sure how that work out for them.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, no.

This we will own nothing and be happy for it is exactly what got the world into it's current mess and it really makes to many investor groups salvate at the thought of it.

He has a point where eventually these companies that have merged and want to run their own subscription is gonna kill this and people's wallet for most of the money to go to the major players and devs anyways.

I'm sure Epic would love to have a subscription bundle and it would absolutely dry up money for indie studios unless they have private cash flow

[–] hh93@lemm.ee 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Capitalism only working well for the top dogs while the rest has to fight for the crumbs? Unheard of...

[–] MolochAlter@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

That's simply the Pareto distribution in action, or sturgeon's law.

Most games aren't that good and will not make a lot of money.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Alternatively, small publishers that haven't had a hit in a while are suffering.

[–] OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah i see some defense of the studios in the comments but Devolver hasn't released something I've heard of since the first Good Neighbor outside of potion craft and I only know that one because an off-handed recommendation from a friend l. Not to say I'm some penultimate opinion on games, but if your stuff doesn't make waves I'm assuming you won't get money.

Like, everyone wants a Stardew Valley, but only 1/10000000 indie games will receive that kind of love and only 1/100000 indie games would even deserve it. Some are legitimately awesome and present unique gameplay you can't find anywhere else, and the rest, is shit. It's poorly designed or implemented, it's dated, or it's another super generic RPG Maker level of game and those were NOT going to sell well anyway.

I dont know what the alternative is, but what it is now is shit.

[–] TotallyTerry@lemm.ee 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Devolver has their hands on a ton of indie games. I'm surprised you haven't heard of Loop Hero, Deaths Door, Trek to Yomi, or Cult of the Lamb. Out of the Indie studios, they seem like the most likely to be able to push pass this.

[–] systemglitch@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

*push past this

Turns out I didn't scroll down long enough. I felt like it had been 5 minutes of flying through and didn't get that far.

Yeah, if they're not getting paid well for those hits, then absolutely that's horse shit for them.

All they gotta do is make a cult of the lamb 2 and they'll be rich

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 13 points 1 year ago

The problem is publicly traded game companies.

[–] EMPig@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I believe in Volvy. He will handle this.