The only way it works is if it's a large company making deals with other companies.

If Sega had a subscription service, I wouldn't use it, I'm a huge Sonic fan and I like Persona sure, but.... most of their other IPs get the Banjo Kazooie treatment: IE: They just stand around, pose for merchandise, say "Hey remember when?", while starring in exactly zero games.

Since I already own most of the Sonic games (I don't have Sega Super Stars because I'm saving up for surgery and that seems more important than some loop de loops, sides I never finished Frontiers or Origins), all their other games are so old that if they're not on some kind of pre-existing collection or re-release, they're incredibly easy to emulate.. meaning I'd probably just fire up dolphin instead of pay a subscription fee on the off chance that MAYBE they have Billy Hatcher, Sonic Heroes, and Shadow The Hedgehog, three titles that the average consumer doesn't care about.

I can say this about any company really - Imagine Capcom did this, most of their old games are re-released in collections and the IPs that I really care about are Dead Rising (Dead IP and I already own them all on Steam), Resident Evil (Most of the games are old and easy to emulate whereas the newer games are mostly watered down remakes), Devil May Cry (already own them all on Steam), Mega Man (IP on life support and All of them are on Steam except for Legends and a few of the spinoffs), and Darkstalkers (Dead IP, already on Steam in multiple collections)... so I wouldn't buy a subscription, and the casual gamer doesn't have any real reason to want only Capcom games.

Microsoft's gamepass makes sense because it's a low price for a LOT of games, many of which aren't even owned by Microsoft, and you can play them on platforms that aren't the original platform (Wanna play the Rare Replay? This is the only way! Think they even have Enchanted Arms which... has no Steam Port... since it was released at a time when PC Gaming was dead due to the industry being afraid of pirates)

AND I STILL DON'T USE IT, BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE RELIABLY PURCHASABLE OR EMULATABLE! AND THAT'S EASIER THAN MAINTAINING A SUBSCRIPTION FEE ON THE OFF CHANCE THAT I'LL FINALLY GO BACK AND FINISH DOOM 2016 SOMEDAY!

breathes

And that's not even getting into the fact that video games are an investment, I'm pouring energy into actually finishing them, I'm going back to older ones to see if I can do it better this time or find something missed, and after a long enough session even though I'm having fun, I'm actually tired because what I've done took effort on my part and if it was difficult it might even have triggered some kind of stress signal in my brain...

Meanwhile, a MOVIE based subscription service makes sense, because I'm probably just going to throw something on and kick back, there's no investment on my part outside of what I'm paying....

I think in general, people forget this, Video Games demand something of the player. Movies do not.

A movie isn't going to suddenly stop the story in order to challenge what you know about the film, then go "Sorry buddy, if you wanna watch the rest of the movie you'll have to do better than that", a video game? Well I guess you can look up the ending on Youtube... but that's called giving up (Or acknowledging that the final stage is pure unbalanced bullshit that wasn't properly tested... looking at you Freedom Planet and Manual Samuel... yeah even the Indie Scene has this problem...)

Of course a lot of modern games ARE movies, so what's the point in actually playing Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed when you can save yourself the endless glitchfest and dull gameplay by just watching a Let's Play lol, so maybe that's why executives are getting confused...