No, it's more an approach on how games would be developed and designed if subscription services would become the normal. We already know that the rise of subs, to include streaming, has impacted both video and music development, thus games would be no different.
Games that can be easily consumed within a subscription window would likely die off unless there's sustained proof that they can make more money being on a sub platform than standalone. Non-subsidized, to be clear, as "free money" goes away when market share dominance is reached.
Larger titles will either build to create gameloops that last longer than the sub window (thus forcing a purchase convert), create subscription limited versions (see Godfall on PSN+ this month), or vastly increase monetization schemes further (NFTs, ahoy!).
So if you're thinking it just from your pocket book stand point, yea, I guess it can be a good deal. For now. But in the long run, big picture, it's not great to absolutely awful.
These companies never do anything that's a "good deal" to you and I. They are legally required to hold the interest of shareholders as the highest regard, and the require continuous growth. Forever. They wouldn't be making and pushing subs if there wasn't some way to extract more gaming dollars from either more people (which has saturation limits) or more from people who do game (which has less limits).
So, no, I don't think CAGs should be for subs. Short sighted completely.
