Shawn Layden: "Subscription Services Turn Developers Into “Wage Slaves” and Are “Bad for the Business”"

ReasonBeing

ReasonBeing

Member
Former PlayStation boss, Shawn Layden, shares why he thinks Xbox Game Pass and similar subscription models hurt AAA game development, calling them "bad for the business" and turning devs into "wage slaves."

Former PlayStation Worldwide Studios chairman Shawn Layden has shared some strong views on subscription models like Xbox Game Pass, warning that they could hurt the long-term health of the AAA games industry.

Speaking to GamesIndustry.biz, Layden said he's not a fan of the "Netflix of gaming" approach when it comes to big-budget releases, claiming that putting these games on subscription services from day one is "bad for the business."

"I'm not a big supporter of the 'Netflix of gaming' idea," says Layden. "I think it is a danger. The problem with gaming is all we have is launch. That's it. No one wants to pay money to come into the studio and watch people code," he said, pointing out that unlike music artists who can tour or sell merchandise, game developers have no extra revenue streams once a game ships. "I mean, look what happened to music. In the popular mind, music costs nothing. Music should be free. Spotify, what is that? It's 15 bucks a month or something, but virtually no one buys music anymore."

Former PlayStation Boss Thinks Subscription Models Are a Problem

Layden compared the situation to what happened in the music industry. With streaming services offering vast libraries for a low monthly fee, consumers quickly began to see music as something that should cost almost nothing. He fears the same could happen with games, especially when major AAA titles are given away as part of a subscription on release day.
While he acknowledged that smaller indie games could benefit from the visibility a subscription deal brings, Layden believes AAA games risk losing profitability and creative ambition if this becomes the norm.

"You can't unring the bell," he said about publishers committing to day-one subscription launches.

He also raised concerns about how these deals change the nature of game development itself. Under this model, studios often receive a flat fee from the platform holder instead of selling copies directly to players.

"They're not creating value, putting it in the marketplace, hoping it explodes, and profit sharing, and overages, and all that nice stuff. It's just, 'You pay me X dollars an hour, I built you a game, here, go put it on your servers,'" Layden explained. "I don't think it's really inspiring for game developers."

He went as far as to call this arrangement turning developers into "wage slaves."

Layden also pushed back on the ongoing debate about whether Game Pass is profitable for Microsoft, saying that's the wrong question to ask. For him, the real issue is whether it's healthy for the developer and sustainable for the industry as a whole.

"There's a lot of debates going on. Is Game Pass profitable? Is Game Pass not profitable? What does that mean? That's really not the right question to ask anyway," he said.

"You can do all kinds of financial jiggery-pokery for any sort of corporate service to make it look profitable if you wanted to. You take enough costs out and say that's off the balance sheet and, oh look, it's profitable now. The real issue for me on things like Game Pass is, is it healthy for the developer?"
Click to expand...

While it is clear that subscription gaming services change how gamers purchase games, is the claim that developing under such a model "does not inspire developers" really valid? Is guaranteed payment bad for business when development costs are so high that one failure can shut a studio down? Is there no benefit to having confirmed payment for a completed product? When working under this model, motivation to create a compelling game seems likely to come from future distribution deals or the chance to create a hit that could become a franchise and perhaps be sold directly to customers later. To me, it seems mistaken to say that having payment secured for a delivered product eliminates pride, drive, and the pursuit of excellence. There is some truth that pressure from direct customer sales can push teams to achieve greatness, but I do not believe it is the only place where creativity and quality appear. Maybe I am misrepresenting Shawn, but that does feel like his argument.

From my view, there are pros and cons regardless of the distribution method. The potential upside is greater when you sell directly to customers, but the financial risk is also higher if the game does not succeed. Take Titanfall 2 as an example. Despite being an excellent game, it released at the same time as other major titles and struggled as a result. In cases like that, the studio might have been better off on a subscription platform where they could also earn additional income through microtransactions. As always, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

I know many agree with Shawn. Where do you think my argument fails? What important factors am I not taking into consideration?


Edit: clarified that I was referring to Titanfall 2

Edit edit: it's clear that some are giving me reactions based on the headline and completely skipped my OP. I have "fire" reactions from some who are staunchly against sub-services, which I find amusing.

thegamepost.com

Former PlayStation CEO Says Xbox Game Pass and Other Subscription Services Turn Developers Into "Wage Slaves" and Are "Bad for the Business"

Former PlayStation boss, Shawn Layden, shares why he thinks Xbox Game Pass and similar subscription models hurt AAA game development, calling them “bad for the business” and turning devs into “wage slaves.”
thegamepost.com thegamepost.com
 
Last edited:
A subscription model, by nature, transforms a well-crafted product into "content", automatically reducing its value. That mindset quickly sets in and creators "adapt" their works to that, which brings down quality.

This not theoretical, but unfortunately post-factum.
 
ReasonBeing said:
While it is clear that subscription gaming services change how gamers purchase games, is the claim that developing under such a model does not inspire developers really valid? Is guaranteed payment bad for business when development costs are so high that one failure can shut a studio down? Is there no benefit to having confirmed payment for a completed product? When working under this model, motivation to create a compelling game seems likely to come from future distribution deals or the chance to create a hit that could become a franchise and perhaps be sold directly to customers later. To me, it seems mistaken to say that having payment secured for a delivered product eliminates pride, drive, and the pursuit of excellence. There is some truth that pressure from direct customer sales can push teams to achieve greatness, but I do not believe it is the only place where creativity and quality appear. Maybe I am misrepresenting Shawn, but that does feel like his argument.

From my view, many things in life have pros and cons depending on the distribution method. The potential upside is greater when you sell directly to customers, but the financial risk is also higher if the game does not succeed. Take Titanfall as an example. Despite being an excellent game, it released at the same time as other major titles and struggled as a result. In cases like that, the studio might have been better off on a subscription platform where they could also earn additional income through microtransactions. As always, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

I know many agree with Shawn. Where do you think my argument fails? What important factors am I not taking into consideration?



thegamepost.com

Former PlayStation CEO Says Xbox Game Pass and Other Subscription Services Turn Developers Into "Wage Slaves" and Are "Bad for the Business"

Former PlayStation boss, Shawn Layden, shares why he thinks Xbox Game Pass and similar subscription models hurt AAA game development, calling them “bad for the business” and turning devs into “wage slaves.”
thegamepost.com thegamepost.com
Click to expand...
michael scofield fox GIF by Prison Break
 
Angry_Megalodon said:
A subscription model, by nature, transforms a well-crafted product into "content", automatically reducing its value. That mindset quickly sets in and creators "adapt" their works to that, which brings down quality.

This not theoretical, but unfortunately post-factum.
Click to expand...
I feel like your overstating your position and the premise by definition is theoretical. Example: We don't have access to a universe in which Doom The Dark Ages was developed strictly for a platform that was direct to consumer. How does one determine what would have been of higher quality if this game wasn't slated to release on GamePass day one. In this other universe, it could have been pushed out the door in an earlier state, due to financial pressures, which would "bring down the quality". Point being, the only thing one can do is speculate.
 
I disagree with Shawn. The idea that games only have launch is silly. Almost every major IP sells a ton of merchandise, and there are other ways, such as microtransactions or early access, to bring in more revenue. What's bad for businesses is spending 5+ years on a games that offer very little value. This was fine in the 360/PS3 era when there was a huge gap in quality between indie XBLA/PSN games like Braid and games like Assassin's Creed but times have changed. Not only have indie games increased in quality over the years, but so have free-to-play games. Subscription services aren't the problem; competition is the problem.
 
Det said:
Yes, look at the wonder that shitflix has become... An avalanche of shitty movies that no one wants to see, where you spend more time choosing what to watch than actually watching it.
Click to expand...


Precisely, I watched this video the other day and he's on point. This is the consequence of the "content" philosophy.

 
The subscription is not completely 'guaranteed money'. If you make shitty expansions, people will unsubscribe and your game will die. Example, current state of FF XIV.
 
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo said:
care to elaborate?
Click to expand...
He is the strategic gaming advisor for Tencent and their bread and butter for gaming profits is investing and making money off massive F2P games like Fortnite, Roblox, and Arcane Studio games.

If cheap subscription services provide people with cheap access to non free to play games, that's less time and money spent on the predatory games Tencent is trying to foster.

So, subscription services for single player games cuts into the "play for free but get hooked and spend endless money" gambling simulators Tencent is invested in like they're SMERSH from 007.
 
Last edited:
Det said:
Yes, look at the wonder that shitflix has become... An avalanche of shitty movies that no one wants to see, where you spend more time choosing what to watch than actually watching it.
Click to expand...
Well you aren't wrong that Netflix puts out some slop. Being a teenager in the early 2000's, I was exposed to a television platform that consisted of 632 different channels that were full of shitty movies and shows that no one wanted to see. Quantitatively, there are a similar amount of television shows that are worth watching today, as there was before streaming was a thing. At least that's my perspective. I feel like our short memories do us a disservice in allowing us to believe that traditional television wasn't smack full of dreadful 'content' before the streaming platforms took over.

I will concede that there are less movies coming out that I am interested in, but this also could be a function of me getting older and developing a more specific taste.
 
Last edited:
Nothing at all about subscriptions leads to worse quality or less artistic choices. If anything it is the opposite. You have a safer base of support to count on where you can experiment with more niche and unusual content. Just look at MS vs Sony this gen. Dude's a liar. Sounds threatened by GP. They've been dominating this whole year. Even PS+ has a pretty good month this month. People like the product.
 
Last edited:
Sinfulgore said:
I disagree with Shawn. The idea that games only have launch is silly. Almost every major IP sells a ton of merchandise, and there are other ways, such as microtransactions or early access, to bring in more revenue. What's bad for businesses is spending 5+ years on a games that offer very little value. This was fine in the 360/PS3 era when there was a huge gap in quality between indie XBLA/PSN games like Braid and games like Assassin's Creed but times have changed. Not only have indie games increased in quality over the years, but so have free-to-play games. Subscription services aren't the problem; competition is the problem.
Click to expand...

cBSZQwS.jpeg
 
Scrawnton said:
He is the strategic gaming advisor for Tencent and their bread and butter for gaming profits is investing and making money off massive F2P games like Fortnite, Roblox, and Arcane Studio games.

If cheap subscription services provide people with cheap access to non free to play games, that's less time and money spent on the predatory games Tencent is trying to foster.

So, subscription services for single player games cuts into the "play for free but get hooked and spend endless money" gambling simulators Tencent is invested in like they're SMERSH from 007.
Click to expand...
clawsomegamer.com

Game Pass Isn’t Changing How Xbox Players Play But It’s Hurting Big Game Sales, New Study Claims

According to a new study by industry analytics firm Newzoo, the service might not be changing player habits at all… and could actually be cannibalizing major game sales.
clawsomegamer.com clawsomegamer.com

a15g5WNhuHjRT2dy.jpg


There is so much offering in Game Pass that if you're not getting hooked on the game very quickly, you just go on another one, and you try another one until you find the one where you will get hooked
You do get a lot of players coming in and trying your game on Game Pass, albeit much more in a 'sampling it' way, compared to actual players who spent $50+ on your game. They are more likely to try it for longer.
Shawn can be Zoolander as far as I'm concerned. But no one needs to listen to him to think in a certain way, reality speaks for itself
 
ecosse_011172 said:
Why would it be any different to the other media that's already went down the path with the same results? Hardly anyone buys movies, hardly anyone buys music, it's all been devalued with the message of "You don't have to buy this".
Click to expand...
Source? Wicked made $70mil in its first week on Digital. Physical movies may not be selling well, but digital on demand does great business.
 
Don't buy, subscribe so you can just stream
Your content like rent, you won't own a thing
Before long, all the songs the whole world sings'll
Be generated by latest of AI regimes
As all of our favorite artists erased by it scream
From the wayside, "Ay, whatever happened to human beings?"

From J. Cole's "Clouds"
 
"I'm not a big supporter of the 'Netflix of gaming' idea," says Layden. "I think it is a danger. The problem with gaming is all we have is launch. That's it. No one wants to pay money to come into the studio and watch people code," he said, pointing out that unlike music artists who can tour or sell merchandise, game developers have no extra revenue streams once a game ships. "I mean, look what happened to music. In the popular mind, music costs nothing. Music should be free. Spotify, what is that? It's 15 bucks a month or something, but virtually no one buys music anymore."
Click to expand...
Microtransactions is proof that this is a false statement. DLC to a lesser extent. People do buy music. The monetization and delivery has changed. The real problem is that people don't own music. I'd argue that the music industry is more profitable than it's ever been mainly due to these changes. Playlists alone means songs get more streams and more money than paying 20 bucks at a record store one time ever has.

"You can't unring the bell," he said about publishers committing to day-one subscription launches."
Click to expand...
You absolutely can unring the bell. Look up the term "enshitification".

He also raised concerns about how these deals change the nature of game development itself. Under this model, studios often receive a flat fee from the platform holder instead of selling copies directly to players.

"They're not creating value, putting it in the marketplace, hoping it explodes, and profit sharing, and overages, and all that nice stuff. It's just, 'You pay me X dollars an hour, I built you a game, here, go put it on your servers,'" Layden explained. "I don't think it's really inspiring for game developers."
Click to expand...
Yea, they are mitigating risk, stratifying it between developer and platform holder. Devs/Publishers will take more risks if the burden can be shared. Doesn't work for everybody, but for some it absolutely works.

This is why his dumbass works for Tencent now. Fuckin' clown.
 
Last edited:
Shawn has a moronic take with his reasoning here. In the premium sales model, without subscriptions, the people who actually make the games have always worked for a wage. AAA devs get paid while they're working whether the game releases or not. If the game doesn't hit those people still earned a salary. Studios still close if their $200 million game bombs, even without subscription services. Comparing them to musicians is just outright ignorant.

What he should be upset about is the time and cost required to make AAA games. The cost of failure is too high and they expect gamers to pay 15%-20% more than last gen on release day for games that need many patches. Subscription services didn't cause the economic woes of AAA. If they want people to pay what they're asking and not seek cheaper options they need to make sure their games are worth the asking price.
 
No offence, but I think we the customer should be having people stand up for us due to the absolute shite of console subscriptions, but then again, they make money off that and we don't matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

[Game Developer] Shuhei Yoshida warns subscription services could become 'dangerous' for developers
2
74
1K
POKEYCLYDE replied
Shawn Layden says PS6 will not be "fully discless"
2 3
114
7K
asdasdasdbb replied
Shawn Layden: Xbox's multiplatform can be successful but hurt FOMO for hardware
13
1K
Ebrietas replied
Shawn Layden equates Live Service with Toys to Life...
2
58
4K
Men_in_Boxes replied
Playstation + subscription required for live service on console?
2 3
133
2K
yurinka replied
Top Bottom