NoMoreTrolls
Banned
Not like this. Not like this.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Ubisoft interested in EA Access like program, thinks it's good for publisher brands
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
You act like it was out of the kindness of their hearts and did something only because they knew gamers would love it.
Like Oracle bought Sun because they wanted to give back to the community after all these years!
If we are playing the "what if" game
What if, the console space becomes so unattractive for risk vs reward they all just say fuck it and start their own services on Android or Apple gaming boxes and divert other resources strictly to mobile gaming?
fun eh?
Bl4ckSunsh1n3
Member
The difference, though, is that you're being facetious and unrealistic in order to divert attention from the obvious point I'm raising that in the end this isn't done for the good of the consumer.
In economics when you lower the price demand tends to increase. Due to Access' low cost it should increase interest and demand...not lead to a crash.
NoMoreTrolls
Banned
Shh, no argumentative skills, only hyperbole now.
That's on them to fix, if they can't budget for shit, there's nothing the market can do to correct that.
And they're already all flooding the mobile platforms anyway.
I'm not trying to be.
What you say is valid, the post I did is not likely but not impossible
The conversation is what is on the table now and keeps diverting to the dark future as if we will all stand by helplessly
MS doing that to XBLG is an exception that doesn't look part of a trend, and even then they had no problem doing that for the past 5-6 years, not even after Sony's "it only does everything" campaign where PS3 was the most used console for Netlix, it was only when their new console was getting humped badly 8 months into the console's life.
No, it's not nice seeing it.
What you're seeing is a war which was predicted since a long time ago. EA/Ubi and the big publishers don't want to lose their dominant position in what's their business. Distributing.
The point of going digital is to say FUCK OFF to publishers and dealers and have a more direct path between the producer and the consumer.
That brings the profit up and the price down for both in a win-win scenario.
If we allow the big publishers to establish their rules, then it's over. You'll accept paying more to a higher number of intermediaries as we do now, and we will lose a fantastic oportunity to redefine the business as we know it.
Sir Blaming
Member
You know what is depressing? People are going to accept this shit, and then it will take off. Sooner or later it will be a mandatory shit if you want to play your game that you paid for full price. Praying that I am wrong.
And then we will all be here, whining and arguing about who is the most shittest company like we always do.
And then we will all be here, whining and arguing about who is the most shittest company like we always do.
DarthWalden
Banned
Putting dlc behind a pay wall is the exact opposite of what they are trying to do here by giving more people access to dlc. I just don't see that happening...
In a worst case scenario all I can see is some preorder exclusive type dlc that doesn't effect the game much.
It would be suicide of them to lock behind a pay wall anything that effects the quality of the game or restricts players access to dlc.
What I like:
Sony and Microsoft sitting as platform curators, able to sit between us and the publishers to bring the best wealth of titles and deals available.
What I don't like:
Sony and Microsoft bypassed and curated offerings killed off, publishers sitting and charging for each and every service, gradually tying in caveats to draw you away from the competitors or to ensure that you must pay the most money to get the maximum possible value.
Sony and Microsoft sitting as platform curators, able to sit between us and the publishers to bring the best wealth of titles and deals available.
What I don't like:
Sony and Microsoft bypassed and curated offerings killed off, publishers sitting and charging for each and every service, gradually tying in caveats to draw you away from the competitors or to ensure that you must pay the most money to get the maximum possible value.
sephiroth7x
Member
It begins...
what is this opportunity and who leads it?
Almost everything that tries to deviate from the standard model that has been in place since the NES is met with outcries
Again, I do not care about EA. I am interested in seeing the industry evolve and stay viable.
Bl4ckSunsh1n3
Member
Just like Sony would have been committing suicide to charge us for multiplayer?
I don't see the industry evolving into something viable if people somehow get tricked into monthly subscriptions to EA/Ubi only games It is really really dangerous for everyone apart of EA/Ubi.
EA/UBI/Activision are a big part of the console industry like it or not
It comes down to allowing someone to try to innovate (and trust in consumers to see shit and call it out like the XB1) or we put our faith in Nintendo/MS or Sony to have our best interest at heart which they do not
CosmicQueso
Member
The only reason Sony has blocked this is because they have crunched the numbers and think they'll make less in the long term.
How? Couple ways:
Option 1) Competitive offerings allow more subscriptions. More subscriptions = more games in hands of consumers = cannibalization of digital game sales. Since Sony makes a % on every digital sale, they've calculated that they'll make less with the royalty on the $30 sub than they would on royalties of full games not sold due to cannibalization from the subscription service.
Option 2) Competitive subscription services provide more competition to PS+. Sony pays pubs/devs out of the PS+ fee base. If other services exist, Sony's PS+ offerings have to be as good or better or people would start to become unhappy. (Why am I only getting title X and title Y on PS+ when the EA people get game Z and A??). The payout demand from pubs and devs could then increase, which squeezes margins from PS+.
Option 3) Other services force some control and management of consumer offerings on PSN away from Sony. Promotions and offerings on PSN could be disrupted by promotions from other services.
There are a number of ways Sony could think they'd lose money by allowing competing services. And it is absolutely in their best interest to protect their revenue and profit streams. All of us can respect and appreciate that, right?
You're right to be wary as a consumer of the EA offering, and any other. But at least see through the PR spin from all companies too.
It's already happening. Plummeting console release counts and a huge uptick in mobile offerings is proof.
You'd better just move to the PC then... on console 1st party royalties will always be in the equation and elevate pricing. At least on the PC prices have indeed decreased. Some are arguing if that's really good or not, but for consumers, you can buy an absolute ton of games for very cheap.
Indeed.
It is voluntary, but if many people support it then it could be forced on others. Just read some of the posts to understand the view.
You defend this stuff but In a matter of two pages you start to move the goalposts... yep i am sure nothing will happen.
What did you expect, there were people defending the paywall on Live since day1 here,
heck we were told that nothing would happen with DLC or preorders either.
Uno Venova
Banned
We're already bargaining.
Lys Skygge
Member
I'm really worried what this means for the future of gaming....
Sentenza
Member
I won't hide I always find absolutely laughable people who dismiss being suspicious and prejudicial toward companies like EA or Ubisoft as "complete hysteria".
It's like they don't have any kind of historical memory whatsoever. I mean, how many times do you need to be slapped, over and over and over, before you can start to realize that giving them carte blanche in a "wait and see" approach is generally not a good idea?
It's like they don't have any kind of historical memory whatsoever. I mean, how many times do you need to be slapped, over and over and over, before you can start to realize that giving them carte blanche in a "wait and see" approach is generally not a good idea?
NoMoreTrolls
Banned
That was fast lol
Don't worry about it... you don't need those multiplayer maps anyway. And those extra story missions? Meh. And the Access perks for multiplayer aren't THAT imbalanced anyway.
So that may be a worst case scenario, but there's little that I would put past publishers these days.
phant0m
Member
This was their way to get back at PS+. Games for Gold just doesn't give the same value that the IGC does, and MS probably doesn't have much leftover margin since they already spend XBL sub money on other stuff.
I'm hoping Sony passes on the Ubi one as well.
There can't be a happy medium? Have cautious optimism?
Leatherworkstation
Banned
I'm now glad Sony decided against allowing EA Access, I can see what they mean. Hopefully the fact that one major console says no will curb the trend before it starts, I don't want 5 or more subscriptions to play games.
Teletraan1
Banned
I could see these being perceived as a good value for the first year. However the problem I have is that next year it greatly diminishes in value if you actually buy any vault games before they go in the vault. It seems to be designed to give you a taste of the soon to be put out to pasture games that they have fresh versions coming soon to entice you to buy into the new versions of the games. You would have to buy 5 games at the full retail price to equal the yearly sub with the discount given. If you buy 5 out of the 6-8 XB1 or console releases they offer per year that isn't going to leave much free stuff to gain from the vault. Personally I couldn't find 5 of just about any one publisher's games (Nintendo and Sony aside) that I would want to buy per year. I would think this type of service might be good for someone who otherwise wouldn't want these games day one and just pays $30 to get free older games or someone who buys everything a publisher puts out anyway. I don't feel any single publishers release schedule is beefy enough to support this type of service if and actually seems more enticing to just buy less games from them and just take the freebie games. That in itself sounds like a bad business plan. All this segmentation of everything is terrible.
Sentenza
Member
Sure, if you feel that way. I don't. Many others don't, either.
And I don't think any "cautiously optimistic" person has any right to try to mock anyone for being skeptic and prejudicial, considering of what companies we are talking about right here.
NoMoreTrolls
Banned
100% agreed. One is entitled to his or her opinion, but a dash of skepticism never hurt anybody when dealing with a multi billion dollar industry that's modeling a new product after the 2 time worst company in America winner's latest offering.
I agree..on both sides
This is a discussion board and would be boring as shit if we all agreed with each other
shiftplusone
Member
The console wars are already fucking stupid, I can't wait to see people arguing over who's subscription service is the best and why everyone who chooses the a competitor subscription are "the gayest idiots"
Activision vs 2k on top of MS vs Sony?
It's going to be an awful time.
as long as I can still overpay for their bad games once I'll feel safe, though.
Activision vs 2k on top of MS vs Sony?
It's going to be an awful time.
as long as I can still overpay for their bad games once I'll feel safe, though.
Well, this is certainly disappointing. I have zero interest in subscribing to half a dozen different services just to play games and I'm sure EA will find some way to force us down that shitastic road. Thanks EA & MS.
ProfessorMoran
Member
Staying viable has nothing to do with this, because this does not address the problem of rising costs and the consumers being split into multiple userbases resulting in one game having to be made for a fuckton of different systems with different specs, large publishers like EA need to figure out instead of just spending a massive amount of dollars on marketing and production value, how to innovate on games to offer more gameplay value, not that they have to make the next Minecraft but it's about taking risks and stepping outside the box, right now they're banging their heads against the same wall and what they're doing is trying to lock down money ahead of time, the user of the service is not just paying for the games he or she wants but is now paying for stuff that he or she might never buy.
There's no happy medium here, once the Pandora's box is open there's no putting the genie back into the bottle. We're looking at multiple publishers each with their own subscription service, some might think it's a good thing but we're essentially looking at an oligopoly of publishers making smaller publishers and independent published games less viable, this might already be inevitable.
CosmicQueso
Member
Holy leap of logic.
That's because the Xbox One is dying on its arse and they want to reach feature/price parity with Sony before it's too late and the platform is irrelevant. They aren't trying to achieve the same thing as EA.
You talk about adding value, but what value can you add that's not either giving people something they already had for free but dressing it up nice or giving people stuff they didn't really want but saying "LOOK!!! FREE STUFF!!!"?
EA aren't going to outright fuck you over. They'll dress it up all nice. They'll make it look like you're getting a ton of content for free, but it's only to upsell the premium stuff alongside it. You'll have NFS car packs where they give you a car for free, but you can get the rest for a huge discount over what non-subscribers are paying as well as Access-exclusive content. That's not so bad right? Except that that DLC is tied to your sub and if you cancel you lose your paid content as well as the free stuff. Want it back? Better get your credit card out then.
There's no such thing as a free lunch and trust me, these companies are not in the business of giving their stuff away for free.
CosmicQueso
Member
Stop spreading misinformation. The games are tied to your sub, but the DLC is not. I bought Peggle 2 DLC for my owned copy of Peggle 2. If I cancel my sub, I don't lose that DLC.
CosmicQueso
Member
There is no exclusive access content, either.
cripterion
Member
Yoshida wants PS+ to sell, he doesn't give a flying fuck about you or where gaming is headed as long as they are on top.
Gamestop does it too and no one seems to give a flying fuck in the end. I mean Gamestop doesn't even exist around here.
But like you said, everyone wants to sell their own thing, so basically it's a dog eat dog out there so no one should be mad if other subs like EA access pop up.
Ahem
Granted the thread wasn't long, but only because everyone was in an unanimous agreement that it was shit. lol.
knightfolk
Member
I think it would be nice if a group of smaller pubs got together and formed a pack of sorts in order to get in on this subscription base model.