Sorry to come back into this thread, but I've seen the replayability viewpoint before and I don't agree with it at all, if a game has a level of quality it will be replayable because of the experience, aside from branching paths (of which there a lot more games doing that these days) how do you design a game to be replayable other than make it really damn good? I'm just not sure how Super Mario World, one of the greatest games of all time is more replayable than a current game aside from it being really well done? It's a linear experience, but because of the enjoyment it brings people want to go back and play it. I can't imagine people having the same feeling and desire to replay Road Runner's Death Valley Rally.
I think this argument comes up because there's a lot of short games these days that are self-contained pieces designed to be played in a few hours, but those games may largely be constrained my development factors, and with the amount of games out there it's only a segment of what is available.
The replayability seems more like a time issue to me. With so many games released each week, who really has time? When people want to play x game it means I have to finish this one and not go back to it. I could imagine if I was 16 again with no worries and responsibilities I'd want to replay Greedfall again, it has a lot of interesting stuff going on and narrative choices, but now I'm 40 and I just want to play Persona 5 because, despite my dislike of JRPGs, it has me hooked. After that it'll be Danganronpa 3, then Pentiment, then Hollow Knight, then ... And the list goes on. My stepson is 20, I've lost count of how many times he's played Arkham City and AC: Origins, as recently as last year. But he's now taking on some responsibilities and finding other interests, so how likely is he to play them again in the coming years? Not much I'd imagine.
And I also think having subscription services affects replayability, wanting to maximise the value generally would result in wanting to play as many different games as possible, not replaying one, because then the play is buy the game.
We now have the option, put the money down for a game, or a game service. That will naturally affect how people play games or replay them, or people will chose the one that's suits them. I think things feel more ephemeral because it's all digital, buying a physical game (as you say, Switch aside) is pointless, you've just spent £30-70 and you've now got something that's worth £10 and is so mass produced it'll be worth £1 or nothing in a year, you just bought something that takes up space and doesn't even have the full game on the disc. When you buy a digital game, who knows if that service will exist in 5 years? It's a tenuous license.
For me the subscription model suits me at the moment because it matches how I want to play games and it ultimately costs me less, which is a growing factor for everyone I guess.
I'm all ready for Hellblade 2 and Starfield.
