Quest+ is not like netflix for games

[StainedPupil]

I'd like to hear the community on this in hope Meta also see this. Seen a lot of site comparing Quest+ to Netflix, it's not.

I'll give my opinion with my 20+ years in analysing the game industry. It's an opinion and is as good as any. I think this service was not designed by a game industry veteran.

First off, I think Quest+ model is outdated by a decade. It's based like Columbia House model back in the 90s where you paid a monthly fee to recieve a bunch of music tapes you did not know until recieved.

Game industry tried to adopt (and mostly failed) such model. Quest+ is currently offering games so I'm basing this as a gaming subscription. Playstation + started as a mandatory service to play online and threw a bunch of monthly games to add value to an already pi***d player base.

Now from the flaws this model brings that ultimately make it fail.

Flaw #1 : Biggest users are penalized. Biggest users will buy many games, at launch or during sales, to build their library. Most likely, games proposer in Quest+ will already be in their library or will not interest them.

Moderate users will definitely end up having a few months with 1 or even 2 games already in their library as well (let's admit it, those are quite old games so far).

Flaw #2 : Varying value over time (mostly lost of value).

Giving only 2 games per month gives subscribers time to get over them. As an example : Fisherman's Tale is a 2h game. At the end of the month, keeping a subscription mostly depends on the 2 new games for next month. While unsubscribed, users might buy a game they lost access while it's on sale, reducing the value to resubscribe to regain access to old games.

Flaw #3 : Less value for newcomers.

Since game are given on a monthly basis, new subscribers have no access to previously given games. The first month of subscription only depends on the current given games.

Flaw #4 : Sales and Quest+ games

There's 2 issues here. First is easy to fix - An owned game cannot be bought during the subscription (and big sales) to keep them in case a user plans to unsubscribe. The subscription needs to come to an end before being able to buy the game and thus miss some sales.

The 2nd issue is that given games currently seems to be old games that was also on sale a few days/weeks before being put on the service. Over time, people might feel that they gamble on what game to get in big sales, hoping the game won't become part of the subscription a few days later.

Flaw # 5 : Confusion between ownership and licence to use. In the current model, it looks like the games are given each month. If you are a subscriber, you get 2 games. You won't get previous games, and people will end up with different library depending on when they subscribed. Also, yearly subscribers blindly paid upfront for 24 games they can't know and will loose if they don't renew at the end of the year. After a

Solution : Get on par with current subscription services like Viveport, Xbox Gamepass, PsNow and Even Google Play Pass - Access to ## games while subscribed (OR even HumbleBundle monthly - Own the game after subscription.)

Fix 1 : Biggest users will want to hop in to get instant access to a bigger library. They might skip some games because of many factor, but still wish they could try as many of them as possible.

It is more acceptable if you know what games are currently available and willingly subscribe knowing what games they already own. It's an easier pill for medium user if they own 15 out of 50 games instead of discovering you already own 1 or 2 of the newly offered game.

Fix #2 : Stabilise value over time

Services like this make a game rotation monthly or quaterly. Metrics they capture let the service know what games are popular, what games are not played, and they can adjust accordingly to add games to make the overall experience better. A good tactic seen in the past is adding a game where multiplayer is suffering from low player count, helping the game get a second life.

Fix 3 : Equal value for newcomers

No matter when someone subscribe, they all have access to the same games at the same time.

Fix 4 : Since you pay for a service, games comes and go over time, like Netflix movies and series get pushed out the platform. People are more enclined to buy games in those model because they want to own them if they ever leave the service.

Fix 5 : People are used to this kind of service. You pay to have access to a serie of games. Once you stop paying, you stop playing. No confusion on getting games every month but not really owning them.

Now i'd like to hear you out on this.

Thanks all.

[Griffonaus]

I didn't bother as either the games provided I already have, are games I have and no longer play, or games I don't have and have bad reviews, or are games I don't have and have no interest in.  I cannot justify paying for a gamble for something that is hit and miss or completely irrelevant.  Companies need to rethink their business model if they think people are happy to throw money for a gamble on receiving no goods or services in return.