Yes, and I'd rather it all be on Netflix. Which is the point. This is a step backwards.
-
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
Yes, and I'd rather it all be on Netflix. Which is the point. This is a step backwards.
There are two sides to this:
1. The people who see EA Access as a good value (which if you buy a lot of EA published game, it really is) and would like Ubisoft and other major publishers to follow suit.
2. The people wary of EA and major publishers who believe that if people buy into this then eventually the publishers will make it where you can only get their games on their specific Access program.
And really both sides carry weight, EA Access is a good value for the customer, but its hard to deny that EA hasn't had the most trust worthy background and its healthy to have skepticism. Really I'm on the fence, I can see how people would want the service, but I just don't want the publishers to start fencing off content.
1. The people who see EA Access as a good value (which if you buy a lot of EA published game, it really is) and would like Ubisoft and other major publishers to follow suit.
2. The people wary of EA and major publishers who believe that if people buy into this then eventually the publishers will make it where you can only get their games on their specific Access program.
And really both sides carry weight, EA Access is a good value for the customer, but its hard to deny that EA hasn't had the most trust worthy background and its healthy to have skepticism. Really I'm on the fence, I can see how people would want the service, but I just don't want the publishers to start fencing off content.
KinoTheMystic
Neo Member
Why did EA offer a subscription plan for $30 for all of the Vault games if they can cancel EA Access and continue selling their games for $30-60 each?
SEGAvangelist
Gold Member
Yeah. It's perfect for Ubisoft games as those games tank in value rather quickly. They also put out a ton of games and the digital only games like Child of Light and Valiant Hearts will likely show up. I don't feel like paying $19.99 for those titles, but in a vault, hell yeah.
Yes, but I get to keep those and make each individual purchasing decision. If people can't see what a slippery slope this is then we're done for. This isn't entirely unlike the situation we have with PS+/XBL Gold.
Initial value -> Additional value through exclusion -> Forced Participation
Right, if this fails.
If it doesn't fail, they'll take this as far as they possibly can before there's nothing left to take and lots of people bail.
Because the games in the vault will be selling next to fucking nothing at this point.
BlackBuzzard
Banned
Im glad Sony took away people's choice so we can hopefully see this whole thing die a horrible death.
Are people really thinking Ubi and Activision are gonna put full retail games that have been out less then a year. Do you just life in a dreamland?
People are going on about all the value but none of you know when you are getting new games for the vault. Because hey EA has been very silent about that, hmm i wonder why...
Are people really thinking Ubi and Activision are gonna put full retail games that have been out less then a year. Do you just life in a dreamland?
People are going on about all the value but none of you know when you are getting new games for the vault. Because hey EA has been very silent about that, hmm i wonder why...
CosmicQueso
Member
Sure... but subscriber numbers are strong and growing, and people are shifting quickly to watching content on these services rather than buying DVDs. The market has embraced this model.
If you don't like this model for games, that's cool. There are early adopters that will be the guinea pigs. And either it'll work or it won't. Evidence from other entertainment categories show that this kind of thing has appeal.
Guys I want to pay 7.99 a month and get every piece of content i want. Why won't these money making corporations make this happen?
/s
SEGAvangelist
Gold Member
What exactly do you need these subs for? You can go along buying the games as you normally would. If the publishers start locking major things behind the subs, then I'll start worrying.
Impeccable
Member
I can see the value in EA Access at the moment but how anyone expects them to maintain value over years and years is beyond me. Will continue to watch the world burn from over here.
I can sadly see that happening.
Linearskillz
Member
Can't wait for them to "add value" to these services by gating content off from the main game. Not only will you need to have pre-ordered for a particular platform from a particular retailer and bought the season pass, you'll also need to have whatever extra subscription fee there is on top of that! Yayyyy...
I miss the days where everyone who bought a game got the same thing. Seems that's the exception rather than the rule now though.
I miss the days where everyone who bought a game got the same thing. Seems that's the exception rather than the rule now though.
The Jackdog
Member
This to me is again a case of "money should keep it in check".
If EA Access continues to be a good value people will keep buying it.
If Ubisoft throws their hat into the ring with a horrid deal and no one buys it, great news!
If Ubisoft throws their hat into the ring with a horrid deal and EVERYONE buys it, uhoh.
I think the easy message to take here is "People wouldnt of continued to make horse armor if no one bought the horse armor."
If EA Access continues to be a good value people will keep buying it.
If Ubisoft throws their hat into the ring with a horrid deal and no one buys it, great news!
If Ubisoft throws their hat into the ring with a horrid deal and EVERYONE buys it, uhoh.
I think the easy message to take here is "People wouldnt of continued to make horse armor if no one bought the horse armor."
KinoTheMystic
Neo Member
You get a %10 discount when buying new games from EA. It'll probably take a year for DA to end up on it. Once the Vault has about 20+ games, that $30 value will be well worth it.
DarthWalden
Banned
SURE, Maybe
I'd personally rather see how each program plays out though and decide on an individual basis whether it's worth paying for rather then just shutting them down from the get go based on worst case scenario assumptions.
...and I hope they do. EA access is awesome and I hope Ubi and Activison follow suit.
block tower
Member
well.. these publishers wouldn't try business practices like this if people weren't stupid enough to pay for them. but by all means keept telling me how these things are "good deals" lol.
Fact of the matter is the people who voices concern over this type of services are a minority. This thing will take off just as DLCs and Preorder Bonuses took off. Majority of consumers are idiots who just accept what PR tells them to. The people who are concerned are just gonna get drag along because MAJORITY RULES.
Because at it's core, it's really convenient. Simplicity and speed. Click click, click click, play.
But if you make it a ten-way tassle between all the different publishers, and people have to jump through a dozen hoops to get to their content...
Shouldn't you be asking if we would rather BUY each game for $30~60 (Who pays full price these days? Most games come with a $20 gift card from dell at launch and free shipping) or RENT a portion of Ubisoft games for around $30~/year?
I don't mind that they are offering services. I mind that they are likely going to phase out physical purchases (all purchases?) in the future. They hold the right to add and remove games from the services. You are essentially paying for netflix for games, but only for a single publisher. The only things these services are directly competing with is other rental services and PS Now.
However PS Now can run on non-consoles in the future (TV's, PC's, Tablets) which targets additional markets than the Ubi/Ea services likely will. I just don't want to see everything become a service... (hello Office 360) and prevent people from playing games in the future 10-20 years after launch. Being able to play NES/SNES etc. many, many years later is great, and I don't want to see this age (which already loses a decent portion of games due to DLC that will disappear in the future when DLC is no longer offered) lose full games in the future.
moltonasty
Member
I look forward to reading "EA Access and Microsoft's Destruction of the Video Game Industry" in 10 years. Or maybe I'll just watch the documentary
DeejayKnight
Member
Damnit.
Hyperbole! We're not talking about all content, just the old catalog titles that are going to be included with these subscriptions.
R3TRODYCE
Member
Indeed my good man!
PseudoViper
Member
This just keeps getting interesting...
Wait, who didn't see that coming? Ubisoft is very much into copying whatever EA does.
How about this?
3. The people who see why it could be perceived as a good value now but know this will end up being sucky for all gamers involved when every publisher has its own service like this. It's one thing when it's one or two that have a variety of stuff like Netflix does or even PS+ or Live Gold. It's another when to play a game from a specific publisher or get the extra benefits from it you have to pay for their service and the same for some other publisher to get the extras and whatnot you have to pay for their service. In the end that will only end well for people who are really loyal only to one publisher and don't have a lot of different games they like from different publishers.
How about this?
3. The people who see why it could be perceived as a good value now but know this will end up being sucky for all gamers involved when every publisher has its own service like this. It's one thing when it's one or two that have a variety of stuff like Netflix does or even PS+ or Live Gold. It's another when to play a game from a specific publisher or get the extra benefits from it you have to pay for their service and the same for some other publisher to get the extras and whatnot you have to pay for their service. In the end that will only end well for people who are really loyal only to one publisher and don't have a lot of different games they like from different publishers.
You mean when 15 of these 20 games are sports games from 2014,2015 and 2016?
Do you seriously buy 5 EA games a year to breakeven with this discount?
retrogamer84
Member
Exactly, being able to go back and play classic games at will is something that is priceless for me. It really saddens me to think of a future with games being a service. I foolishly hoped that model had died with OnLive, but apparently not.
Savantcore
Unconfirmed Member
£100 a year for PS+/Games with Gold and whatever access programmes I buy into. That's a lot of games for my money, to be fair.
Petrae
Member
Why wouldn't publishers look to get a piece of the subscription pie when it's already proven that consumers are willing to pay a certain amount to rent/renew game licenses? Why let Sony and MS get more cash than you could make by doing it yourself?
The success of PS3-era PlayStation Plus really laid the groundwork for EA Access. There was precedent. Now, if EA Access works well, Ubisoft should consider its own program, and so on.
I don't have a problem with it. If I want to buy a game, I'll buy it and not wait for it to maybe hit a subscription service. If I find that pieces are stripped out to serve the sub service, I'll avoid the game. It's not up to me to tell others how they should or shouldn't spend their money; my only responsibility is an individual one and how my purchasing habits will adapt to changing market conditions.
The success of PS3-era PlayStation Plus really laid the groundwork for EA Access. There was precedent. Now, if EA Access works well, Ubisoft should consider its own program, and so on.
I don't have a problem with it. If I want to buy a game, I'll buy it and not wait for it to maybe hit a subscription service. If I find that pieces are stripped out to serve the sub service, I'll avoid the game. It's not up to me to tell others how they should or shouldn't spend their money; my only responsibility is an individual one and how my purchasing habits will adapt to changing market conditions.
The Jackdog
Member
FIFA, Madden, peggle, and battlefield.
Theres more than a few people who would pay 30 bucks for just those 4 games.
Smiles and Cries
Member
I did not think it would have taken this long for Ubisoft to comment on this path.
we are not going to escape this
we are not going to escape this
I just had a really awesome thought!
You know how they turn off servers for multiplayer games?
Imagine all the games!
Yeah, this is not going to end well.
I'm glad that Sony is blocking this from PSN for now. I'm really not interested in having to pay multiple yearly fees just to access specific publishers' digital storefronts or discounts. If publishers want to do their own subscription services with their own discounts and offers, then they can make their own box to do so.
I'm glad that Sony is blocking this from PSN for now. I'm really not interested in having to pay multiple yearly fees just to access specific publishers' digital storefronts or discounts. If publishers want to do their own subscription services with their own discounts and offers, then they can make their own box to do so.
The Last Wizard
Member
These subscriptions are also being used as a way to curb used games I assume, since with the discount it's only on the digital versions so yea you save 10% but lose the ability to trade your game in and get something else.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Keeping subscriptions would surely be the main driver behind them maintaining that value?
That kind of business model has been around much longer than OnLive though (i.e. SEGA Channel and GameTap).
SEGAvangelist
Gold Member
I'm sure it won't be 75%. Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Star Wars Battlefront, Mirror's Edge, the Battlefield games and whatever other Star Wars games come... should be a lot of non-sports games looking at EA's catalog.
So basically this whole thing is the AAA response to Sony's E3 upheaval.
"Fine, we'll just do it another way. Oh, hai, microsoft. You couldn't get everything you waaant with xbone, well don't worry about it, huhhh, we just do this now."
I don't think you know what those words mean
Here's the difference between Netflix, Live Gold, and PS+ vs. sub fees from specific publishers.
The first three give you a variety of stuff to choose from. The latter means anytime you want specials for a certain game you better make sure you have the sub fee for that publisher paid up. You like games and want the extra DLC or special features for games that aren't made by the same publisher? Now you gotta pay for each sub fee just to get those special features/extra DLC/extra game content.
See the issue here?
You will NEVER have all ubisoft games for $30... Maybe at $30 per month ? But at $30 per year, keep dreaming.
Furthermore, I'm convinced that those publishers want to get rid ASAP of Disc based games and those subscription services are their trojan's horses to achieve this goal
retrogamer84
Member
Oops I forgot about SEGA Channel, still don't like any of these services.
ComputerBlue
Member
Can't wait to start paying each individual publisher to play their games online.