It's data about player commitment to games they didn't directly purchased.
It's not useful data though. You need a control group and accurate numbers. To derive any conclusion from your question you would need accurate numbers on commitment to not only games played through "subscription models", but also accurate numbers on each players history with games purchased through traditional means. I question the ability for 95% of people asked, to be able to provide accurate numbers in either category. What good are the numbers if they aren't true representation of reality.
We would then have to figure out a way to take into account inflated number of games played on subscription services. Personally, I find myself sampling games I would never normally play if it required payment up front. Sometimes for a few minutes, sometimes a few hours. I would imagine that's the case with most people. Now, should that inflated game count be used to determine ones "commitment" towards the games a player do find engaging? I really don't think it should.
There are good questions to be asked to get a picture of the impact of these, somewhat new, distribution methods. I just don't think this one provides any meaningful answers in its current form.
Edit: I would like to clarify that when I speak of personally sampling games on "subscription" platforms, I'm taking ps plus, xbox gold, gamepass, Nintendo online, and stadia pro into account.
Edit edit: if your question is, do people feel a higher sense of urgency to invest time into a product they purchased outright vs acquired through indirect means, I would say probably yes. I just don't know how one could quantify that.