Every time TheGamer has written about Netflix Games, it has mourned its unreached potential. My colleague Eric Switzer, an avowed defender of the service, wrote a piece just two weeks ago about how Netflix’s library of games, which you can access for free as long as you have a Netflix subscription, 168澳🤡洲幸运5开奖网:has only been getting more and more sta🧜cked, sending its value through the roof.
While there are things to criticise about the service, like its 168澳洲幸运5开奖网:egregious use of filler games, the most shocking thing about it is that nobody uses it. Nobody even knows about it. I wrote here about how refusing to pr🧜omote its foray into the games industry will doom it to obsoles⛦cence, and since that was published, not much has changed. Instead of choosing to shout about the initiative from the rooftops, Netflix seems to have chosen to do something much stranger.
that “people familiar with discussions” said that the company is discussing ways to bring in more money through its games, with notable ideas including adding ads, in-app purchases, and charging premiums for certain games. Reportedly, ads would only appear in the ad-supported tier. It’s also unclear how it would use in-app purchases in its games, but presumably,🌃 it would only include these in games it publishes as opposed to licensed games like , , and .
Netflix has brought some of my favourite games to mobil🅰e,🦋 and has more ports in the works.
It’s a very stupid id🍎ea, overall, considering a major part of the service’s value proposition is that you can play these games for free, without ads, and without paying anything on top of your existing subscription. It’s a negative that the majority of Netflix’s games are relatively generic games made to fit into a specific genre, but even those can still be appealing to people and draw in users because they don’t force players to watch an extraordinary number of ads or pay to play. I’d 🏅rather play an ad-less match-3 game on Netflix games than an equivalent off the App Store that forces me to skip ads every other level.
If Netflix wanted to start pushing ads on its user base for profitability – which, I cannot reiterate this strongly enough, defeats the whole purpose of the service – shouldn’t it at least have a user base first? That just seems like good, logical business sense. , it seems like less than one percent of Netflix subscribers globally play a game every day, and that’s partly because Netflix is inexplicably quiet about its game offerings, despite actively building up its library. Adding features that will annoy its already tiny user base and take away from its value is just going to drive future potential users away from using it at all. That means no new users, and those affect﷽ed by the changes will have a reason to stop using the platform at a𝓡ll.
Again, it’s a stupid plan.
It would at least have made business sense if, before doing all this, the company actually established itself as a competitor in the game streaming business. Right now, it occupies an extraordinary niche of being the only video game streaming service to be (kind of) free, offer mobile ports of critically praised games, and not have ads. If it made this known, as I’ve said a thousand times, people would use it. There’s no downside! But instead of putting money into marketing this excellent product and then capitalising on its u𒅌ser base, it’s considering just 🔯throwing the whole thing away by driving away existing users. What are we doing here? The whole thing makes no sense. Netflix gaming has so much value, but apparently not for much longer.
Yearly Reminder That Netflix Ga🌺mes Is Absolutely Stacked
Netflix Games gets bett🐻er and 𒆙better every year, even if barely anyone is using it.