You are confusing my argument. You listed me 10+ games. If you paid $2/mo for 3 years and got to own a game for it, that would be enough for a couple of them at most. I’m not saying old games are not worth playing. I’m saying that if you had to pick between buying all the games you like or paying for a subscription, most likely the subscription would be more affordable. Because ultimately you played more than a single game.
It can go however far you want. Even if you say you’ll play these games for the rest of your life, at $2/mo buying it only becomes more economically worthwhile if you entirely quit getting games entirely. I emphasize, economically. Now, if we take Game Pass, depending on where you live buying might be more worthwhile if you get 2 or less full-priced games a year. In my country Game Pass is cheaper than 2 games
To be fair nobody plays just one single game for 3 years (they play multiple)
rather than
To be fair nobody plays one game for 3 years (they are too old)
The former complements the following argument regarding how costly buying vs subscribing would be. The latter doesn’t work with the following paragraph that lists the unreliability of subscription libraries as a downside.
I never mentioned age. I mentioned games that are played for thousands of hours. Meaning that the value of those games far exceeds the value of the subscription. Furthermore, then the subscription ends (including when pulling games that are too old) and you are left without the game you have been sinking an incredible amount of time into just because some suits determined that not enough people play X game to warrant providing server space.
You really seem to want to argue with me but I don’t think you understood what I was saying to begin with. I’m not saying subscriptions are better, I’m saying they are more economical but unreliable, and I am saying that you, who listed 10+ great games you played a lot, didn’t get only a single one. It also doesn’t mean there won’t ever be any new game you like.
You know, 10 games × $60 > $2 × 12mo × 3y
Though Ubisoft is $18/mo and games are $70 now. Ubisoft Club is a bad deal but Game Pass is still ends up cheaper at $10/mo. But I digress,
You’re also not taking into account subscription price hikes, policies dictating what you can and can’t do with the software, media availability without internet, surveillance and data selling.
Netflix has doubled their fees in the last ten years while hemorrhaging beloved content to other streaming services.
Netflix and others dictate that you’re not allowed to siphon the shows and movies to watch later, at a time and place that may be inconvenient for the service (such as removing it).
Go anywhere without internet and suddenly all of your paid options don’t exist. That may be resolved one day by unlimited internet everywhere, but that leads into…
These streaming services will know where you are and what you’re doing all the time. Surveillance in general has only gotten worse, and watchdogs may be vigilant but it’s not blunting how much privacy is being stripped away from you on a regular basis.
The price you’re paying isn’t just dollars and it’s not locked in forever.
That said there are no guarantees they won’t raise prices.
Yup. You just want to argue and decided you’ll be doing it at me for whatever reason. This is literally on my first comment that you replied to.
You convinced yourself I’m advocating for subscription as The Future, rather than just conceding one point on economic grounds. Meanwhile in this thread you could find me arguing that DRM-free backups is the only true guaranteed way to own digital media.
You are confusing my argument. You listed me 10+ games. If you paid $2/mo for 3 years and got to own a game for it, that would be enough for a couple of them at most. I’m not saying old games are not worth playing. I’m saying that if you had to pick between buying all the games you like or paying for a subscription, most likely the subscription would be more affordable. Because ultimately you played more than a single game.
Where’s the confusion?
In your example, you are not playing only one game for 3 years without playing any other games.
Yes. I am explaining that the opposite value of that statement doesn’t go far enough.
It can go however far you want. Even if you say you’ll play these games for the rest of your life, at $2/mo buying it only becomes more economically worthwhile if you entirely quit getting games entirely. I emphasize, economically. Now, if we take Game Pass, depending on where you live buying might be more worthwhile if you get 2 or less full-priced games a year. In my country Game Pass is cheaper than 2 games
The confusion is that the implied conclusion is
rather than
The former complements the following argument regarding how costly buying vs subscribing would be. The latter doesn’t work with the following paragraph that lists the unreliability of subscription libraries as a downside.
I never mentioned age. I mentioned games that are played for thousands of hours. Meaning that the value of those games far exceeds the value of the subscription. Furthermore, then the subscription ends (including when pulling games that are too old) and you are left without the game you have been sinking an incredible amount of time into just because some suits determined that not enough people play X game to warrant providing server space.
You really seem to want to argue with me but I don’t think you understood what I was saying to begin with. I’m not saying subscriptions are better, I’m saying they are more economical but unreliable, and I am saying that you, who listed 10+ great games you played a lot, didn’t get only a single one. It also doesn’t mean there won’t ever be any new game you like.
You know, 10 games × $60 > $2 × 12mo × 3y
Though Ubisoft is $18/mo and games are $70 now. Ubisoft Club is a bad deal but Game Pass is still ends up cheaper at $10/mo. But I digress,
You’re also not taking into account subscription price hikes, policies dictating what you can and can’t do with the software, media availability without internet, surveillance and data selling.
Netflix has doubled their fees in the last ten years while hemorrhaging beloved content to other streaming services.
Netflix and others dictate that you’re not allowed to siphon the shows and movies to watch later, at a time and place that may be inconvenient for the service (such as removing it).
Go anywhere without internet and suddenly all of your paid options don’t exist. That may be resolved one day by unlimited internet everywhere, but that leads into…
These streaming services will know where you are and what you’re doing all the time. Surveillance in general has only gotten worse, and watchdogs may be vigilant but it’s not blunting how much privacy is being stripped away from you on a regular basis.
The price you’re paying isn’t just dollars and it’s not locked in forever.
Yup. You just want to argue and decided you’ll be doing it at me for whatever reason. This is literally on my first comment that you replied to.
You convinced yourself I’m advocating for subscription as The Future, rather than just conceding one point on economic grounds. Meanwhile in this thread you could find me arguing that DRM-free backups is the only true guaranteed way to own digital media.
deleted by creator