By Jon Scarr
Every now and then, an industry conversation lands right where business trends and everyday gaming meet. Microsoft recently shared that Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 became its biggest third party Game Pass launch of 2025. It was an interesting backdrop for the completion data that followed. Shortly after, a senior games analyst at Omdia shared completion rate data for the game across Xbox, PlayStation, and Steam.
In the comments under that post, an entertainment lawyer bluntly claimed that subscriptions “devalue games.” It was the perfect collision of viewpoints. One person was digging into player behaviour and another was suggesting the entire subscription model cheapens what we play.
I noticed this debate because it hit something familiar. When I was younger, you might buy one or two games a year and rent anything else you wanted to play. You learned their quirks and finished them because you had no pile of alternatives sitting in a library. Today, I can open Game Pass, PlayStation Plus, or a cloud library and bounce between several titles in one sitting. I have fired up a new game, poked at it for twenty minutes, and then jumped to something else because it cost me nothing to try.
So, do game subscriptions devalue games? Or do they simply change how we value time and commitment? The Omdia data hints at something deeper. Let us break down the numbers, look at how subscription access affects behaviour, and explore whether “devaluation” is the issue. It might be our relationship with finishing games that is shifting in ways we do not fully recognize.
What Sparked This Debate
The debate kicked off because of a simple chart showing something familiar but uncomfortable. The Omdia analyst shared completion data for Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 across Steam, PlayStation, and Xbox subscription access. Xbox subscription access showed a sharper early drop, while Steam and PlayStation trailed more gradually. Once players reached the first milestone, though, the curves behaved almost the same.
This was not someone shouting opinions. It was data charting how people play. Underneath the chart, a lawyer jumped in saying subscriptions devalue games. That comment echoed the wider sentiment you see online. Some believe that if you can bounce from one game to the next without paying beyond your subscription, games lose meaning.
What made this fascinating is that the analyst did not confirm or deny that idea. They noted that completion behaviour converges once someone commits. The drop-off difference sits at the start.
Seeing these viewpoints collide reminded me of conversations with friends. One person says subscriptions cheapen effort because everything feels disposable. Another argues subscriptions help more people discover new genres and studios. The truth likely sits somewhere between, and the data gives us something to dig into.
What the Data Suggests About How We Play
The completion curves did not suggest that one platform respects games more than another. They hinted that access changes behaviour. The sharper early fall on subscription access looked like the “I will try it because it is included” mentality in visual form.
Steam and PlayStation dipped slower, which may reflect the investment mindset. If you paid for a game, even on sale, you stick with it longer. You want to justify the purchase. Once players in all groups cleared the opening section, their completion pace looked nearly identical. That suggests commitment, not business model, drives whether someone finishes a game.
The analyst pointed out that completion data can reveal audience fit, onboarding strength, and friction points. In a world where millions can try something instantly, a steep early drop says more about how many sampled than how many stuck with it. Subscriptions bring more sampling, which makes early drop-offs look harsher.
 |
| Omdia data comparing Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 completion curves across platforms shows Xbox Game Pass access drops faster early, while Steam and PlayStation progress more gradually before converging. |
Why Subscriptions Change Player Behaviour
Subscriptions shift how we approach games because they soften consequences. When you bought only a few games a year, you squeezed every drop out of them. Today, if something does not click in the first half hour, you can close it and jump into something else.
Choice overload plays a part too. Game Pass, PlayStation Plus, and cloud libraries often feel like buffets. You scroll, download, try a bit, and jump away because curiosity is stronger than commitment. I have said I will return to a dozen games sitting half installed. They stare back each time I open my library.
Subscriptions also give you access to genres you may never buy outright. I have tried strategy titles, smaller indie adventures, and quirky rhythm games I would not have paid full price for. Some became favourites.So when someone says subscriptions devalue games, I think the issue is not the games. We treat time differently when trying something costs nothing.
Does This Actually Devalue Games?
The claim that subscriptions devalue games sounds dramatic, but the data paints a more layered picture. Games are not becoming cheaper in terms of effort or meaning. What shifts is how willing we are to walk away. When you do not feel financial pressure, your attachment becomes lighter.
In a way, subscriptions highlight the real value of a game. If someone keeps playing past that early drop, it means the game earned their time. That is arguably a stronger signal than sales alone.
It also challenges the idea that buying a game automatically means we value it more. Backlogs tell a different story. If ownership does not guarantee connection, maybe subscriptions do not destroy value. They simply expose where connection happens.
The real risk is design shifting toward retention hooks instead of creative direction. If subscription performance affects funding, studios might prioritise early engagement spikes over slower builds. That is where caution is needed.
Where Subscriptions Help Games and Gamers
For all the concerns around disposable play, subscriptions open doors that did not exist before. When you only bought one or two games a year, your taste stayed narrow. Subscriptions flip that. You can try a strategy game, a narrative indie, or something experimental without worrying about wasting money. I have discovered smaller games this way that I never would have bought outright, and a few impressed me more than big releases.
Subscriptions also surface studios that would struggle for attention. A launch spot on Game Pass or PlayStation Plus puts an indie game beside heavyweight releases. Someone scrolling for God of War might stumble into a quirky tactical experience or a one person project instead. For creators without marketing budgets, that kind of visibility matters.
For gamers on tighter budgets, subscriptions keep gaming accessible. Someone might try a racing game, bounce off, then months later land on a creative indie adventure they would have ignored in a store. Without the subscription, they never would have tried it.
So while early drop offs look harsh on charts, the model gives more chances for connection. The game does not lose value. It competes in a space where time matters more than price tags, and in that space a small indie game can stand beside the giants.
The Bigger Industry Question
If subscriptions do not devalue games, they might reshape how games are made. That is where the real debate lives. If early drop-offs become a key performance marker, studios may chase fast hooks, shorter intros, or big opening moments just to keep people from bailing. We have seen this in mobile and free to play design before. Now subscription ecosystems risk nudging premium titles in similar directions.
On the other hand, subscriptions can also give developers breathing room. Some studios talk about how subscription deals let them build something risky or slower paced because upfront funding was secure. Instead of competing for box sales on day one, their game gets exposure and a built in audience. That stability can be healthy for creativity if handled well.
The question is which of these forces grows stronger. Will subscription data turn artistic choice into metrics driven pacing? Or will these services let more varied games find homes?
The Omdia chart gives us a clue. Once someone gets past the opening section, completion behaviour converges. That suggests good ideas still travel on their own once someone commits. The danger is what happens before that point. Design might shift to win the first thirty minutes instead of building toward something richer.
Subscriptions are not devaluing games. They are reshaping incentives. The industry now has to figure out how to balance data, discovery, and creative identity.
Do Game Subscriptions Devalue Games?
After looking at the data and thinking about how we actually game today, the answer feels clearer. Subscriptions do not make games worth less. They change how we treat our time. We bounce off things faster because nothing stops us. We try more because curiosity costs nothing. We stick around only when a game pulls us in, not because our wallet tells us we have to.
From that angle, completion charts feel less like disrespect and more like interest at work. The game that keeps you past that first hour clearly clicked. The one you sampled for a few minutes did not, and that is fine. When anyone can jump into anything instantly, discovery and drop off live side by side.
The tricky part is how studios react. If subscription stats push for faster hooks, we might lose some slow burns. If subscription deals give teams breathing room, maybe we get more weird and bold ideas. That balance will decide what kind of games we see next.
For me, subscriptions helped me try genres and studios I never paid attention to when I only bought a couple games a year. They also made me quit things faster. That mix feels like the heart of this whole debate.
Do you jump from game to game more now than before? Have subscriptions helped you find something you never would have bought? Does time feel easier to toss away when you can scroll a whole library? I would love to hear where you land.