Game Biz Squeezing Revenue From On-Demand Digital Subscriptions

Thanks to Yahoo/The Hollywood Reporter for its article discussing the digital distribution of older mainstream video games, in a continuation of a previously discussed story about digital 'gaming on demand' subscription services. Yoav Tzruya of content aggregator Exent points out some major ISP advantages: "Users who subscribe to games on demand services are 75% less likely to switch to other broadband providers", and claims (though the article also mentions "on Yahoo, the Top 10 games on demand titles are invariably popular 'hardcore' games") that: "We approach a different set of gamers who don't go into the stores that sell games. More than 50% of the games on demand customers are women, and we have quite a few who are 25-plus years old. We are approaching different decision makers and different budgets."

this really isn't that bad of a deal

[fireduck]

looking through the games they have available at yahoo or atariondemand.com, there's definitely a few I wouldn't mind playing. and the price is right. $15 a month is cheaper than the cable bill, a movie for 2, the cell phone bill. plus it's far cheaper than a new game, and a bit cheaper than any of the "hot" used games available and on par or maybe 2x the price of a bargain bin game. so for the price of 2 bargain bin games, you get access to 70+ games per month. that ain't bad. sure you don't own them, but if you were really interested in the game, you probably would have bought it when it was released...

Re:this really isn't that bad of a deal

[MBraynard]

made me laugh.

Re:this really isn't that bad of a deal

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying that... we should be happy to pay $15 a month for games we're not interested in? ;)

Error in article

[PalmerEldritch42]

I actually did RTFA and it has an error. It states that the address for Comcast subscribers (like me) to go to http://www.comcast.com/gamesondemand. That page doesn't exist. The correct address is:

http://www.comcast.net/gamesondemand/ [comcast.net]

A new inroad

[DrWho520]

I personally do most of my gaming on my Dreamcast, my Gamcube or my X Box. Since I do not play a great deal of games on the computer, I wondered if I was missing out, but all the games I have on console kept me busy enough to quell any stong curiousity.

This would be a really good way to experience some of those games. It would also be a great way for independent developers to place a game before a crowd and possibly drum up some support. That is a whole lot cheaper than Phantom as well.

Re:A new inroad

[barcodeplane]

The Phantom. Ha. If similar things such as these game on demand programs continue I think the Phantom will have no chance. I mean computers are cheap now so most people can afford them. Computers tend to be a family thing (as they end up in family rooms, they're basically the next tv, etc.) Consoles are cheap and very user friendly but for the type of gaming (sit and play for a bit) the Phantom may not fair quite as well. At least I think so.

Good deal for consumers, but how about publishers?

[killbill!]

I'm not sure publishers will be joining in droves. Yes, this system does extend the commercial lifespan of games, but do they really want it?

Need For Speed: Porsche 2000 runs perfectly on all the (windows) computers I have at home. And it's better than both NFS: Hot Pursuit 2 and NFS: Underground. If I can get it easily online, why would I need to buy NFS: Underground?

Game companies that are living off the "Update roster, add minor upgrade, repackage. Rinse, repeat next year" business model will hate this. Those companies want short product cycles so consumers have to pay the full price every year. No wonder EA is the only major company missing on the Exent service...

Re:Good deal for consumers, but how about publishe

[cowscows]

You don't think they'd rather charge $10 per month, and then just add a constant dribble of new content into the game? Sure, major upgrades to the graphics engine or physics engine or whatever would be a bit harder to coordinate, but not impossible. So you pay $10 per month, which doesn't sound bad, you're getting new content each month, which seems pretty cool, and you're ending up paying $120/year, which makes the company happy.

The only potential issue I see here is that I imagine many of the repeat buye

Silly Statistics

[JavaLord]

I think we've proven to the publishers that games on demand (don't) cannibalize anything," says Exent's Tzruya. "We approach a different set of gamers who don't go into the stores that sell games. More than 50% of the games on demand customers are women, and we have quite a few who are 25-plus years old. We are approaching different decision makers and different budgets.

Oh no, here come the bunk statistics about women and video games again. Just because 50% of your on demand downloads come from women, doesn't mean that women don't want to "Go into stores that sell games". Gamestop isn't a porn store or anything. The more logical conclusion I can draw from more women buying games on demand is that the genre of the games available to download are more to their liking. I think an over 25 women is more likely to play snood or a tetris variation for $10 than to go to a video game store and drop $40 on farcry.

demographic FUD

[BortQ]

If you look at any real demographic information about online gamers you will see that the vast majority are over 25 years of age. And a lot are women. This service isn't 'different' because they have these things, they are exactly normal.