I do wonder if this is an attempt to combat that though. With a monthly bundle costing more they have a lot more bargaining power to negotiate for bigger games, games don't look like they're being given away for nothing, companies know they're getting a fixed amount per sale, no risk of cannibalising sales when being included in a bundle as people don't know they'll be getting that particular game until it's too late to buy it, could mean a shift. Plus HB have brand recognition which could help with their game selection.
They're going to want to make this work to have a steady income stream from subscriptions so I think they'll be making this worthwhile. If they can't then it'll fail immediately.
That speaks to a larger problem with bundling culture, I think.
After years of major titles going on sale for deep discounts after being out for a year, indie games that are immediately funneled into cheap bundles almost as soon as they're released, multiple sites doing the bundle deals and tons of spares being circulated through grey market sellers, I have a feeling that the market is completely saturated and there is no hope of dialing it back. We need
less bundle sites, because all it's doing is creating ennui among prospective buyers and trying to tap into a player base (collectors) that is increasingly maxed out in terms of their library.
I'd argue that most of us on this board and in general tend to look at bundles from very linear terms. I've conditioned myself to look at a bundle and think, "Is this worth the 0.50 or so I'm paying on average for each title?" or "How do I subsidize this?"
If I knew that I was going to be getting eight or more games every month from that deal, and if I could purchase it after the contents have been revealed (even at a higher price, like Groupees does), I'd be much more interested.
As it stands right now, it's basically a glorified honey trap.
