Subscriptions, AI and the End of Big Gaming Tech?

For years, some of the biggest technology companies have found a way to make consumers pay repeatedly for products they once bought outright, writes Iyke Bede

From video games to office software and creative applications, subscriptions have become a major part of how these companies make money.  But artificial intelligence is beginning to challenge that arrangement, and the gaming industry is among those facing the consequences.

The recent progress in PlayStation 5 emulation is one example. Developers are now working on ways to reproduce the PS5 environment on ordinary computers, allowing some games originally designed for Sony’s console to run on Windows and other operating systems. Projects such as SharpEmu and KytyPS5 have made considerable progress, with a growing number of titles reaching gameplay.

This development matters because reproducing a modern console is no small undertaking. It requires developers to understand how the hardware and software work and then build something that can perform similar functions. AI-assisted coding and reverse engineering are now helping developers tackle some of these challenges.

For African developers, the challenge will be to take advantage of this new technology without becoming its casualties.

Although the available emulators are still experimental, the progress points to a future in which access to games may no longer be tied as closely to the consoles and platforms on which they were originally released.

There is also a bigger issue here. The gaming industry has increasingly moved towards digital distribution and subscriptions. PlayStation Plus, for instance, gives subscribers access to a catalogue of games, while digital purchases have become an important part of the PlayStation Store’s business. Sony has also announced plans to stop producing physical discs for new PlayStation games from January 2028.

This leaves consumers increasingly dependent on the companies that control these platforms. Even when someone pays for a digital game, the purchase generally comes with a licence to use the product rather than the same ownership rights associated with a physical copy. The company still controls the distribution and the conditions under which the product can be accessed.

But gaming is not the only industry experiencing this disruption. Software developer Brandon Thomas has attracted attention for using Anthropic’s Claude AI to develop free, open-source alternatives to products from Adobe and Microsoft. His ArtCraft project includes applications modelled on Photoshop, Illustrator and Premiere Pro, while a newer collection offers alternatives to Microsoft Word, Excel and PowerPoint.

The applications are still being developed and cannot yet replace the original products in every respect. Nevertheless, the speed at which one developer has produced alternatives to software from some of the world’s biggest technology companies is worth considering.

It also raises the question of piracy. AI can help people understand software, reproduce its functions and develop alternatives. The same capabilities can potentially be used to bypass restrictions, crack software and make unauthorised copies available to people who would otherwise have to pay. The distinction between building a legitimate alternative and facilitating piracy is important, but the technology can make both activities easier.

Regulation has not kept pace with this development. On September 29, US President Donald Trump hosted technology executives at the White House, where he backed a voluntary arrangement under which major AI companies would police their own development and safety practices. His preference for self-regulation over stricter government controls has raised concerns about how much oversight an industry developing at this speed should have.

The concerns are not limited to software piracy. Anthropic researcher Evan Hubinger recently said he believed there was more than a 10 per cent chance that AI could kill all humans within the next decade. While this is his assessment of a potential existential risk, it illustrates the seriousness of the concerns being expressed by people working within the industry itself.

For Africa, these developments carry their own implications. The continent’s independent gaming industry is still trying to establish itself, with developers struggling to secure funding, reach international audiences and build sustainable businesses.

AI could make game development cheaper and give smaller studios access to tools that were previously available mainly to well-funded companies. However, if the same technology makes it easier to reproduce games and distribute unauthorised copies, independent developers could find it even harder to earn from their work.

Competition is another problem. As more people use AI to develop games, the market could become crowded with inexpensive alternatives, making it harder for African studios to attract attention and recover their investments.

The technology companies that built their businesses around controlling access to software and digital entertainment are now facing a challenge from the very technology they helped advance. Whether this will mark the end of their dominance remains to be seen.