In a way, that’s correct. If they want subs to go up, then first they don’t squander what they already have.
It’d be a the mistake to treat the audience as monolithic; monthly subscribers come in many varieties, each with their own behaviors, or antics, if we won’t call them strategies.
Of course, Humble is giving a reward to the aficionados: long-time subscribers, those who won’t pause or unsubscribe (for the most part!), are seemingly getting more bang for their buck; but at the same time in-roads are being made for segments the that were previously under-served (and thus under-performing).
Even though the price of admission is, on average, going up, I still think that, all else being equal (well that’s an if), it’s OK for the price to increase, in exchange for the bundle’s content being known in advance.
If the content doesn’t make enough economic sense for a given user, then they’ll be free to pause or unsubscribe. They’d do the same if the headliners didn’t have enough pull, anyway. So, now they might not be missing games that they would have wanted otherwise.
Those who’d rather be selective, will spend more on the individual bundle, but get a chance to pick up games that they might otherwise have missed. Potentially, it’s a win-win situation.
Those who stay around get a little treat for sticking with Humble. In that perspective, I have to wonder if that extra game will indeed prove to be enough of a reward for being so loyal?