PlayStation and Xbox Subscription Services Silently Killing Indie Innovation

As game membership services continue to transform the way people enjoy entertainment, more and more industry professionals are raising concerns. Platforms like PlayStation Plus, Xbox Game Pass, and others have changed the way gamers acquire games, but a downside is starting to emerge. More and more people are worried that this new model could slowly stifle imagination and new ideas, especially for small companies and independent or indie game developers that lack the power of big publishers.

Former Sony Interactive Entertainment executive Shuhei Yoshida, a well-known and respected figure in the gaming world, recently expressed major concerns in an interview at Gamescom, which was released by Game Developer. Yoshida agreed that while subscription services make games easier to access and more accessible to players, their rapid growth could have unexpected effects that could alter the future of game creation in unsettling ways.

It comes down to who is in charge of the gates. By their very nature, subscription services only offer a carefully chosen set of games. Yoshida called this the creation of "walled gardens," where access to potentially huge crowds is limited to certain titles. 

For the lucky coders who are included, this is helpful; however, the method creates a filter that isn't very effective. Many independent companies may not be able to use these services at all, making it hard for them to reach new people in a market where subscription models are the norm.

It's even more of a problem when you think about how this affects the economy. Every sale is important for small teams. Most of the time, subscription-based income comes from one-time deals, usage-based payments, or license agreements. 

These business models might not always be good for independent artists or last. If more people subscribe to games instead of buying them outright, smaller companies or indie games may struggle to generate sufficient revenue or may be forced to compromise their creativity to align with the platforms' algorithm-driven genre preferences and suggestions.

Yoshida worried that platform owners would have a lot of power over what kinds of games are made if payments became the main way people play games. If the people who run these services prioritize games with microtransactions, live service features, or high engagement numbers, then experimental, niche, or story-driven projects might be overlooked or even turned down directly. Over time, this could lead to the business becoming too similar, where only the safest or most profitable ideas are allowed to move forward.

There's also the issue of taking artistic risks. Independent producers are often what keep the business alive with new ideas. Since these teams don't have big financial safety nets, they take big risks on ideas that haven't been tried before. There were a lot of games like Hollow Knight, Undertale, and Celeste that came about because people were willing to try new things. 

But in a business based on subscriptions where metrics are more important than worth, there is less room for artistic development. If risky games are less likely to be in subscription libraries or get a lot of players, makers may feel like they have to make games that follow trends instead of being original.

Yoshida also discussed how Sony and Microsoft employ different methods. Sony has decided to take a more careful approach to adding paid services. When a new PlayStation-exclusive game first comes out, it's usually sold at full price. 

It's not until months or even years later that it's added to PlayStation Plus Extra or Premium. This plan gives creators a good chance to recoup their investment during the crucial first few weeks of sales. Once that time closes, adding the game to a subscription service gives it a second chance, which could bring it back to life and boost sales of titles and downloadable content.

Microsoft's Game Pass plan, on the other hand, includes all first-party games on the first day they come out. Players are definitely interested in this method, but it could hurt traditional sales, especially for independent and third-party producers who can't give up money for early exposure. Microsoft often pays developers to be part of Game Pass, but the terms aren't always the same, and not all deals provide small or indie game studios with the long-term financial security they need to remain open.

The huge popularity of Game Pass—it has over 34 million users as of 2024—has completely changed how gamers buy things. People no longer think about buying individual games but rather about paying a flat monthly fee to access vast libraries of games. 

As a customer, it's easy to see why this would be appealing: why pay $70 for a single title when you can get dozens of them right away for a lot less money? But this change also means that fewer people are buying games at full price. This is especially true for independent games that depend on early sales and word-of-mouth to do well.

Aside from money, there is also the issue of who owns the games. Access that is similar to renting is slowly replacing physical collections and digital books that users actually own. Users can't get a title that was part of a membership service after it ends unless they buy it directly. This breaks down the long-held belief that games are ongoing goods by turning them into short-lived experiences that are completely controlled by platform owners.

The problem isn't just an idea. Some producers are already worried about falling sales and being harder to find. Sometimes, companies' games were quickly forgotten if they didn't get a lot of buzz right away or lost the favor of the system. There are numerous independent books available, and if getting seen relies on being in a membership service, then only books that meet the service's requirements will be selected.

The game group as a whole has to find a balance. There's no doubt that subscription services are very helpful for players, especially when it comes to cost and ease of access. Also, they help some writers get noticed in ways they might not have been able to do otherwise. However, if the model takes over too much, it could alter the creative foundation of the entire business without anyone noticing.

To keep game development diverse, both large and small companies of indie games need to be able to succeed. Maintaining ways for games to do well without payments is important, especially in the early stages of a game's release. It also aims for subscription deals to be clear and fair, ensuring they are beneficial for the industry in the long run rather than merely increasing short-term subscribers.

Gaming will likely feature a mix of different business models in the future, with both one-time sales and recurring payments coexisting. However, for that balance to work, it's essential to consider when and how games are added to these services, as well as whether the current systems support artistic freedom, long-term economic viability, and a diverse range of creative expression.

No longer is it a question of whether or not paid services will stay a part of games? They're going to stay. Now, the real worry is what kind of game world they are creating and whether there is still room for the next big surprise to emerge from a small team of indie games with a big idea and nothing to lose.