Support NeoGAF

[brownfedora]

Yes, because with all competition eliminated, surely Sony will maintain the status quo and not allow the next Playstation to cost $800 and have the CEO tell people they need two jobs.

It's called the PS2-era. Look it up.

 

[ClearData]

Yes, because with all competition eliminated, surely Sony will maintain the status quo and not allow the next Playstation to cost $800 and have the CEO tell people they need two jobs.

Realistically, what will happen if this takes off is Sony will allow this on their console as well, because otherwise they're leaving money on the table. That's why you now have to have PS+ to play online.



Sure, and PS+ will then cost $200 per year. Enjoy!

Has Netflix made Amazon Prime or Hulu or HBO GO go out of business? Does it cost $300? I don't see why Sony doing it first prevents Microsoft or Nintendo from making competing offerings that could be cheaper or better somehow.

 

[Sean*O]

Pretty much the only thing that will stop all of these greedy publishers is if Sony dominates and continues to shun use of these different subscription services on their platform. How ironic is that.

 

[Haunted]

because I want to?

I like being able to switch between games at a moments notice. I also don't have to worry about my system deciding it doesn't want to read discs anymore. I also don't need games taking up space that would be better suited for something else.

I don't understand why gamers feel the need to tell other gamers how to spend their money.

Because people supporting anti-consumer practices and spending money on shitty services makes the industry go in a worse direction for everyone else (also see: DLC, P2W, mobile and FB skinner boxes).

 

[DOWN]

And now any good games that Sony was buying for PS+ are going to head to publisher vaults unless Sony pays up with higher PS+ fees or deals with games that no one wants so they lose subscribers.

 

[Impeccable]

I can't comprehend how so many people are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to companies and how so many people are extremely short sighted. Like, I know I read some things on here sometimes and I go "oh you!" but this is one of the few times where I'm genuinely surprised by the lack of forward thought in all of this.

 

[boredandlazy]

i think that, as jim sterling points out, the possibility that they'll increase the value of these things by putting stuff that used to be free behind them is a bad thing

i don't think there's reasons not to be sceptical, but on the other hand the attitudes that a) this will inevitably lead to the death of the industry, lets bail out now, and b) that thank god sony have our best interests at heart and are trying to stop it, are both kind of ridiculous (i am not saying you agree with the sony one, just in general)

My comments have nothing directly to do with Sony so bringing them up as a counterpoint is a little superfluous. Howver if you really want to be really harsh I guess you could almost say Sony contributed to this downward spiral by starting up PS+. It showed that people were willing to pay a subscription fee for games, although I fear the newer business models proposed by EA etc. will end up going much further than that.

 

[FleetFeet]

As opposed to spending hundreds of dollars each year on video games?

No, just on top of the hundreds of dollars we spend on video games currently... you don't honestly think they will give that source of revenue up, do you?

 

[NickFire]

It's pretty alarmist when it's an entirely optional service that won't ever replace traditional methods of buying games.

The traditional method of buying games is already almost dead on consoles. How many complete and modern games have you purchased from a store without having to spend another penny to obtain all of the content, or to play it against others online if its multiplayer? Sure there will be a few, but not many.

And of course, traditionally you can buy a game and then resell it once finished. How well do you think the resale market will hold up if these systems become widespread?

 

[Kinyou]

Well I hope Sony and MS reduce the price of PS+ and XBLG (or in my wildest dreams go back to being free to play online) once every publisher has their own subscription program and we lose all the "free games" with our platform sub services.

The price of PS+ and XBL gold didn't increase with the IGC and Games with gold, so it also isn't going to drop when those services are going away. That's at least my logic.

 

[IAmRandom31]

Pandora's Box be opened indeed.

This time next year will have all major publishers on this sort of program.

 

[iceatcs]

Hmmmm

I was under the impression people got PS+ and Live Gold for multiplayer not to get "free" games.

I was worried about Sony might removing the free games because the new PS4 multiplayer lock. But hey, they haven't, thanks god.

I'm pretty sure lot of PS3/Vita users got plus because of free games like me, a prefect example.

 

[espher]

I would pay for Harmonix Access.

That's about it.

 

[brownfedora]

A massive competitor in the market swiftly vanishing would be GREAT for the industry. That's incredible growth for sure.

The PS2's domination was great for gamers. Developers could take more risks because they could target a gigantic installed base. I want that again.

Not to mention we stop these ridiculous subscription programs dead in their tracks.

 

[killatopak]

There is a simple solution to this.

Buy a PS4. I hope the market delivers a deathblow to Xbone this holiday season and we can rid ourselves of Microsoft's anti-consumer shenanigans.

First it was E3 2013. Then moneyhatting TR2. Now this. The best thing for console gaming all around is for Xbone to die a swift death.

Woah..

 

[HighResTomato]

Ubisoft has always copied EA's strategy and even gone beyond EA with the milking of games, making everything a "franchise".

 

[cripterion]

Exactly, this absolutely doesn't affect anything outside of these subscriptions. It's completely optional. So everyone calm down and just get back to playing your Madden 15 demo, release is soon so it should be out any day now, like it has been for the past decade.


OH WAIT

To be honest, demos are a thing of the past. It's all about early paid access and "betas" now.

 

[twobear]

My comments have nothing directly to do with Sony so bringing them up as a counterpoint is a little superfluous. Howver if you really want to be really harsh I guess you could almost say Sony contributed to this downward spiral by starting up PS+. It showed that people were willing to pay a subscription fee for games, although I fear the newer business models proposed by EA etc. will end up going much further than that.

yeah i did say that i wasn't saying the sony one applied to you, i just find it a pretty baffling sentiment in general

 

[Kinyou]

The PS2's domination was great for gamers. Developers could take more risks because they could target a gigantic installed base. I want that again.

Not to mention we stop these ridiculous subscription programs dead in their tracks.

Yeah, Sony would never offer something like a subscription program...

 

[Jomjom]

The price of PS+ and XBL gold didn't increase with the IGC and Games with gold, so it also isn't going to drop when those services are going away. That's at least my logic.

I know, but I've gotten used to the increased value of the services to the point where I'm conditioned to feel that the ~$2.50 a month that I pay includes free games of varying quality. If that was taken away or we only got the non-big-name indie games, it wouldn't feel worth it, even if that $2.50 only got me online play before and nothing else.

For Playstation only owners, they've never had a situation where they were only paying for online and nothing else. Paying a monthly fee for PS-only owners has always been about free games with online play as a side benefit.

 

[Syntsui]

And this is bad news because: ______________________


??????????

 

[boredandlazy]

Guess then EA isn't locking demos behind a paywall considering how those trial versions are also 50GB

Which trial versions are you referring to? If you're referring to the one hour trials on PS+ again that's a massive false equivalence. That was a new service introduced by Sony as a value add to their already existing subscription. Very different to gating off something that was previously free like demos.

 

[brownfedora]

Yeah, Sony would never offer something like a subscription program...

There's nothing wrong with a subscription program. I have a problem with 5-10 different subscription upsells that allow devs to nickel and dime gamers to death.

 

[Neuromancer]

Sony has innovative fresh new bargains like stream an old game for 6 months for $70. They're really not part of the solution at this point.

I don't see PS Now taking away from selection of PS+, the way EA Access almost certainly will. If it does then I'll have a problem, but until then I don't really care what Now prices are (plus it's still in beta including pricing.)

 

[Savantcore]

I bought a year's worth of EA access. I've been heartily enjoying FIFA, Battlefield and Peggle for a price less than how much it would cost to purchase them all individually. It would be even better if I liked Madden, and I have another 12 months of content to look forward to. I think it's a good service.

 

[Cheech]

It's called the PS2-era. Look it up.

I've owned all of Sony's consoles and have been playing games since the early 80s. I have no idea what point you're trying to make, but rest assured that the next Playstation will be an uncompetitive piece of shit if they have no competition. We will all go back to playing games on our PCs.

Has Netflix made Amazon Prime or Hulu or HBO GO go out of business? Does it cost $300? I don't see why Sony doing it first prevents Microsoft or Nintendo from making competing offerings that could be cheaper or better somehow.

None of those services are redundant with the other, though, because you can only put so much content on the service while keeping the price reasonable.

If you add stuff like BF4, Madden, FIFA, and Peggle 2 to PS+ today and multiplied that across Ubisoft and Activision, PS+ would cost way more than it does today. All you get on PS4 PS+ today are shitty indie games that have been available for a buck and out for a long time on other platforms.

All I ask is think this stuff through a little bit before flying off the handle. When you take the retail price of the stuff you get with EA Access into account, $30 is objectively a hell of a deal. When it's no longer a hell of a deal, people will bail and the market will self correct.

The PS2's domination was great for gamers. Developers could take more risks because they could target a gigantic installed base. I want that again.

Not to mention we stop these ridiculous subscription programs dead in their tracks.

Oh. OK. Well, I have bad news for you, as this is never going to occur again in your lifetime. People are, by and large, playing games on iOS and Android devices. An enormous chunk of the market, at least 50%, that supported the PS2 has vaporized.

 

[Kinyou]

Which trial versions are you referring to? If you're referring to the one hour trials on PS+ again that's a massive false equivalence. That was a new service introduced by Sony as a value add to their already existing subscription. Very different to gating off something that was previously free like demos.

I'm referring to those trial versions you get through EA access which you described as demos behind a paywall.

The classic Madden Demo is dead, like so many other publishers killed their demos as well.

 

[DOWN]

And this is bad news because: ______________________


??????????

Because publishers offering their own game vaults conflicts with Sony's aim to give good games for no extra cost with PS+. Why should EA and Ubisoft give Sony a fair price on games all the PS+ users want when they could instead put it in their subscription vaults? Thus, either PS+ is going to cost more in order to cover what it takes to get any worthwhile games into PS+, or Sony will have to forfeit subscribers by either tossing away the free games entirely or just accepting crappy ones after the publisher has already hand-picked the best ones for their vault.

 

[boredandlazy]

yeah i did say that i wasn't saying the sony one applied to you, i just find it a pretty baffling sentiment in general

I'm sure there are people who fit the bill in regards to what you describe. Just like how there are probably some people on the pro side for all this who are only that way because their preferred company is the one pushing it.
But I'd like to think most people have legitimately thought this through.

 

[Shiina]

And people are saying Japanese gaming is going down the shitter

 

[Buzzbrad]

I would like to see how this pans out.

 

[Savantcore]

Because publishers offering their own game vaults conflicts with Sony's aim to give good games for no extra cost with PS+. Why should EA and Ubisoft give Sony a fair price on games all the PS+ users want when they could instead put it in their subscription vaults? Thus, either PS+ is going to cost more in order to cover what it takes to get any worthwhile games into PS+, or Sony will have to forfeit subscribers by either tossing away the free games entirely or just accepting crappy ones after the publisher has already hand-picked the best ones for their vault.

Seems like a problem for Sony, not the consumer.

 

[RedNumberFive]

And this is bad news because: ______________________


??????????

The poor choices made by short-sighted gamers have a detrimental effect on the rest of us? We've already seen it time and again with horse armor, day one DLC, on-disc DLC, online passes etc.

 

[Kinyou]

I know, but I've gotten used to the increased value of the services to the point where I'm conditioned to feel that the ~$2.50 a month that I pay includes free games of varying quality. If that was taken away or we only got the non-big-name indie games, it wouldn't feel worth it, even if that $2.50 only got me online play before and nothing else.

For Playstation only owners, they've never had a situation where they were only paying for online and nothing else. Paying a monthly fee for PS-only owners has always been about free games with online play as a side benefit.

It would definitely be nice and fair of them to do, but I honestly just don't see MS or Sony reacting like that. Perhaps if there's a big decline in subscriptions.

 

[boredandlazy]

I'm referring to those trial versions you get through EA access which you described as demos behind a paywall.

The classic Madden Demo is dead, like so many other publishers killed their demos as well.

Coincidence that the idea of the free demo died at the exact same time that a service requiring a subscription started? Are you trying to prove my point for me?

 

[Tertullian]

Instead of saying everything’s in one place, we can say "Okay, try these channels: EA, Ubi, Activision."

What more needs to be said? The endgame is fragmentation, bundling, manipulating you into paying for things you don't want.

Want to just download that one song? Hah; album only. Want to just watch that one TV show? Please; pay $110/month for cable.

Want only that one game? Lol no, buy our package deal containing everything we offer or you ain't getting shit.*

*Well okay, you can buy the game without the subscription service if you really want to. But it will be months later and missing a bunch of crucial subscription-exclusive DLC.

 

[DarthWalden]

The poor choices made by short-sighted gamers have a detrimental effect on the rest of us? We've already seen it time and again with horse armor, day one DLC, on-disc DLC, online passes etc.

Shouldn't a more appropriate comparison be PS+ and what terrible things it's provided?

 

[n00bsauce87]

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?

Spoiler

/s

Apples and oranges comment.

Until HBO sells HBOGo subs w/o the need of a qualifying cable subscription, it's not the same.

or in another sense

Until NBC Universial Studios releases an internet app/sub to watch all of their programming for $7.99, it's not the same.

Netflix is to PS+ as EA is to HBO or NBC Universal Studios

 

[brownfedora]

I've owned all of Sony's consoles and have been playing games since the early 80s. I have no idea what point you're trying to make, but rest assured that the next Playstation will be an uncompetitive piece of shit if they have no competition. We will all go back to playing games on our PCs.

Competition is awesome at the beginning of a generation. It becomes a nuisance later on, especially in a market where development costs are so large.

Sony will have competition next-gen, if not from Microsoft then from Oculus, Apple, Google, etc. We don't need to worry about competition. What we need to worry about is stopping these anti-consumer practices from taking hold.

I'm actually sympathetic to the developers that are doing this. They have these massive costs and a fractured base. They need to generate revenue however they can. I just think we can make the market more efficient for them by having one platform. Devs can make money doing what they do best - MAKING GAMES - and leave the business model innovation to platform holders.

 

[Impeccable]

Shouldn't a more appropriate comparison be PS+ and what terrible things it's provided?

All roads lead back to Sony.

 

[Jomjom]

It would definitely be nice and fair of them to do, but I honestly just don't see MS or Sony reacting like that. Perhaps if there's a big decline in subscriptions.

Yeah I would hope there would be a big decline. People usually aren't cool with value being taken away once they've gotten used to something. I know I wouldn't pay any more, especially if I started spending more on publisher subscription plans.

 

[Cheech]

The poor choices made by short-sighted gamers have a detrimental effect on the rest of us? We've already seen it time and again with horse armor, day one DLC, on-disc DLC, online passes etc.

Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to spend a dollar on anything. If the game gets too rich for your blood, you're free to check out at any time and spend your cash elsewhere.

Cheap indie games are everywhere. Go play those and support those developers instead.

 

[iceatcs]

What more needs to be said? The endgame is fragmentation, bundling, manipulating you into paying for things you don't want.

Want to just download that one song? Hah; album only. Want to just watch that one TV show? Please; pay $110/month for cable.

Want only that one game? Lol no, buy our package deal containing everything we offer or you ain't getting shit.*

*Well okay, you can buy the game without the subscription service if you really want to. But it will be months later and missing a bunch of crucial subscription-exclusive DLC.

Ouch $110/month for one channel? Damn US, first shit internet value and that.

 

[ClearData]

I've owned all of Sony's consoles and have been playing games since the early 80s. I have no idea what point you're trying to make, but rest assured that the next Playstation will be an uncompetitive piece of shit if they have no competition. We will all go back to playing games on our PCs.



None of those services are redundant with the other, though, because you can only put so much content on the service while keeping the price reasonable.

If you add stuff like BF4, Madden, FIFA, and Peggle 2 to PS+ today and multiplied that across Ubisoft and Activision, PS+ would cost way more than it does today. All you get on PS4 PS+ today are shitty indie games that have been available for a buck and out for a long time on other platforms.

All I ask is think this stuff through a little bit before flying off the handle. When you take the retail price of the stuff you get with EA Access into account, $30 is objectively a hell of a deal. When it's no longer a hell of a deal, people will bail and the market will self correct.

I think you are combining PS+ and PS Now when they are separate services.

All I am saying is if they are going to sell back cataloge games on a sub I'd rather it run through one subscription. I think the platform holders running it would be more convenient than 5 different programs. So PS Now, Xbox Prime, Nintendo On Demand whatever would be preferable to me. I don't see what evidence you have that proves this would be limited or overly expensive.

 

[JLeack]

The day exclusive content comes to these services is the first day I scream into my pillow. Having an option to subscribe but still having things they are now is fine. I just don't want it to affect regular digital or physical sales.

 

[House Of Glass]

There is a simple solution to this.

Buy a PS4. I hope the market delivers a deathblow to Xbone this holiday season and we can rid ourselves of Microsoft's anti-consumer shenanigans.

First it was E3 2013. Then moneyhatting TR2. Now this. The best thing for console gaming all around is for Xbone to die a swift death.

Disgusting post.

Everything Microsoft does is evil and everything Sony does is perfect right ?

Am I doing this right ?

Microsoft is at least giving people the option to join a service or not. Sony locking services out just comes off as trying to protect their own service. I'm not buying their whole comment about not a good enough value. More like...this might hurt our services.

 

[Kinyou]

Coincidence that the idea of the free demo died at the exact same time that a service requiring a subscription started? Are you trying to prove my point for me?

The idea of demos has long been dead. Compared to the early days a lot less games are getting one. EA would obviously like you to subscribe to their service now if you want to test the game, but it's also not like you're entitled to a free demo, or that EA has to deliver one.

And again, a trial is different from a demo.

 

[BlackBuzzard]

Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to spend a dollar on anything. If the game gets too rich for your blood, you're free to check out at any time and spend your cash elsewhere.

Cheap indie games are everywhere. Go play those and support those developers instead.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

I take offence that some people are blaming me (and others) for the situation.

If I think EA Access offers good value, I'll pay for it. Who are you to tell me otherwise?

 

[cripterion]

Because publishers offering their own game vaults conflicts with Sony's aim to give good games for no extra cost with PS+. Why should EA and Ubisoft give Sony a fair price on games all the PS+ users want when they could instead put it in their subscription vaults? Thus, either PS+ is going to cost more in order to cover what it takes to get any worthwhile games into PS+, or Sony will have to forfeit subscribers by either tossing away the free games entirely or just accepting crappy ones after the publisher has already hand-picked the best ones for their vault.

Not everyone owns a Sony system...

An Ubisoft subscription if priced accordingly would bring more value than the PS4 PS+ games, but that's just my opinion.