Support NeoGAF

[JesseEwiak]

And with that the trifecta of EA, Activision and Ubisoft is complete.



You're going to have to list these "many" games because I'm only seeing Ubisoft out of the three that does those types of games and even then not too often given that AssAss is an annual title.

Well, I'm not going to get in the argument that ya' know, many indy developers started at AAA studios and thus, learned many of the tricks of the trade while making big games, but do you honestly think for example, Mirror's Edge is getting greenlit if Battlefield and The Sims aren't making EA gobs of cash?

 

[ProfessorMoran]

So to underline anti-consumer practices we stop the consumer from making their own mind up?

It's a closed platform for a reason, you have a right to control what's being sold on your platform and how the mechanism works, so it doesn't become a wild West type free for all, why not have EA approach valve to put EA access on steam then?

 

[Dunlop]

Wasn't EA the first to start online passes too?

Pretty sure Sony was

 

[LookAtMeGo]

The PC is looking sexier by the day. Stay strong soony.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

Maybe EA and possibly Ubisoft won't screw this up.

 

[Xion_Stellar]

This can easily get out of hand....

They will begin "adding value" to this service by taking from those who are not subscribed.
Stuff that use to be free or didn't require a subscription to access will be locked behind the paywall.

Demos?-Access Subscribers only
Betas or Alphas?-Access Subscribers only
Early Game Access?-Access Subscribers only
Exclusive DLC?-Access Subscribers only
Early DLC Access?-Access Subscribers only
Locked game areas or Modes?-Access Subscribers only

No promise that you will always have access to your content (GWG are free and permanent and PS let's you re download old or removed content from your download list and I won't bother to bring up Steam into this). Heck they can bring back Online DRM and say you can only access your content while online or the service needs to do a periodic online check (time frame to be determine by publisher) to function.

I know it sounds all doom and gloom but I'm not willing to give publishers the benefit of the doubt.

 

[The Illiterati]

Add me to the echoes of called it. And mostly the same people who didn't understand why all of Microsoft's policies were anti-consumer are here again, showing their complete lack of understanding.

What's that famous repeated phrase often attributed to P.T. Barnum?

 

[RedNumberFive]

Maybe EA and possibly Ubisoft won't screw this up.

Since when have we given them the benefit of the doubt?

 

[evildose]

If Microsoft had stood up EA Access and these other programs, I'd be all for them. But the fact is that Microsoft has taken an anti-consumer stand at almost every turn over the last 18 months.

How can it be considered anti-consumer? Giving people the option to use a service is pro consumer as opposed to denying consumers the choice yet continue to push your own version. I feel that my $30.00 was well spent on EA access. I'm not sure if I'll subscride to a Ubi one due to the fact that I don't play a whole lot of their games.
I would definitely prefer a gameflix type of service where it's all unified for a great price but I don't see that happening.

 

[cripterion]

Add me to the echoes of called it. And mostly the same people who didn't understand why all of Microsoft's policies were anti-consumer are here again, showing their complete lack of understanding.

What's that famous repeated phrase often attributed to P.T. Barnum?

I take you don't have and refuse to get PS+ since you find subscriptions anti consumer?

 

[daniels]

I am sure companies that continuously fucked over consumers in the past.... for years will now be level headed and fair with a subscription program.
They surley will not lock away stuff that you used to get to add some perceived non "value" to their "good deal" subscribtion progam.
I am also sure the alarmist are all wrong again just as they were with dlc.
And just like dlc and microtransactions this obvioulsy will not affect and change anything in the future for the worse.
No matter what you think happens tomorrow, no matter that these companies have a precedent of anti consumer behaviour, no matter that past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour.
No all of this wont happen i am sure of it. -_-

 

[Miles Quaritch]

If I was an EA investor the first question I would ask is when they are going to monetise the service properly and charge for online gaming. To not do so is leaving money on the table like Sony last generation.

Also, it's the same as publishers buying up timed exclusivity of DLC and it's just as shit.

If I'm wrong nothing changes and we all get on with our lives, if you are wrong then we end up with multiple subscription fees to play games online in addition to the existing ones. Its a risk I would rather not take.

An investor probably wouldn't be so eager to lock online play behind yet another subscription when they know it could potentially damage a billion dollar IP. That's simply not worth the risk, I think you know this, but you're choosing to be overly alarmist.

No, what happens is that people vote with their wallets. These services can't exist if only 100 people are subscribing, they need tens of thousands, possibly millions to subscribe for it to be worthwhile and while they might reach that point in a few years, they won't have the monopoly that will allow them to enact the kinds of policy you seem think they will.

 

[Vanderlyle]

Bring it on, if this service had launched before watch dogs I could have saved myself 60 dollars as I'd just have waited. I'm guessing this wouldn't be available on Sony consoles either?

Considering EA only charge 2.50 a month and have a bigger stable of games than UBI, they'd have to charge around 1.50 a month to make it competitive.

 

[Eggbok]

Pretty sure Sony was

I mean't on console though, should have specified. I looked it up and Sony did it to combat piracy on PSP, EA had the whole 'Project 10 Dollar" thing on console. Then everyone else joined in the fun.

Hopefully content doesn't end up getting locked behind these services. It would really suck.

 

[DarthWalden]

Bring it on, if this service had launched before watch dogs I could have saved myself 60 dollars as I'd just have waited. I'm guessing this wouldn't be available on Sony consoles either?

Considering EA only charge 2.50 a month and have a bigger stable of games than UBI, they'd have to charge around 1.50 a month to make it competitive.

Can you imagine how many people wouldn't have bought watchdogs if they were able to trial the full game for 6 hours?

 

[KinoTheMystic]

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

Okay then, maybe I should word it better since you probably dont know the details about EA Access. $30 for all the game in the Vault. There.

 

[djkeem]

I don't see a problem with sony blocking out these services. Playstation is a closed platform for a reason.
If you want to pay for multiple subscriptions or just want true software pricing competition then you build a PC.

 

[House Of Glass]

Add me to the echoes of called it. And mostly the same people who didn't understand why all of Microsoft's policies were anti-consumer are here again, showing their complete lack of understanding.

What's that famous repeated phrase often attributed to P.T. Barnum?

It's funny so many see it like this because all is see is Sony refusing this service so they can continue justifying the price for their service. Microsoft's paywall doesn't survive on free games, Sony's does. Now you tell me who's anti consumer ?

Is Microsoft ati consumer for giving us options ? Or is Sony ati consumer for only offering Sony's brand service ?

 

[Amentallica]

I can see Microsoft embracing all of these publishers having their own subscription services on their device, to then strip away games with gold and simply continue charging for online.

 

[block tower]

Are you purchasing all of this (or other) DLC even though in your eyes it is a poor offering?

nope. only bought the Oblivion Shivering Iles expansion pack. for Fallout 3 i knew kids in high school who had all the DLC for Fallout 3 on the DLC only disk. so i barrowed it an installed it for free. never bought the Fallout New Vegas or Skyrim DLC.


i rarely buy DLC. the only DLC i bought last gen was TES Oblivion Shivering Iles expansion pack, all the Halo 3 DLC, and all the Halo 4 DLC. in the last 8 years of owning an Xbox360 i only bought around $230 worth of DLC. so i'd hardly say i support the practice given i bought and played a ton of games over the last 8 years and never bought the extra content offered, for the exception of TES Oblivion, Halo 3 and Halo 4.

 

[Steel]

Sony doesn't have any inherent right to be the exclusive provider of free games. If EA Access or AciPlus or UbiFree is a better value, good for them.

Single publisher subs by definition are worse values than PS plus. PS Plus offers games from every publisher on the system, EA and Ubi are stuck handing out what they make, and I wouldn't call their offerings diverse(EA's a bit more diverse, but the really big hits are generally the type of thing you buy before they hit a free service, not after).

 

[StoOgE]

I'm enjoying EA access.

Bring on more publishers.

 

[House Of Glass]

I'm enjoying EA access.

Bring on more publishers.

Yes sirrrr!

 

[Jarlaxle]

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?

Totally agree with you. I do what's best for me.

 

[Officerrob]

I'm enjoying EA access.

Bring on more publishers.

As am I.

 

[twobear]

I'm enjoying EA access.

Bring on more publishers.

i can't believe you're so content to deliberately destroy everything i hold dear

you monster

 

[Miles Quaritch]

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?

YOU'RE KILLING GAMING.

YOU MONSTER!!!!!

 

[7DollarHagane]

I'd rather have one service that goes through the console provider like PlayStation plus.

This is the new season pass now that people are realizing those are bull crap too?

Can't wait until what used to be exclusive retailer dlc becomes "EA Pass exclusive dlc".

 

[Vanderlyle]

Can you imagine how many people wouldn't have bought watchdogs if they were able to trial the full game for 6 hours?

Hahaha holy crap. They'd have to leave the whole early access part out I think.

 

[The Illiterati]

I take you don't have and refuse to get PS+ since you find subscriptions anti consumer?

I love PS+. I don't find subscriptions anti-consumer, I find publisher focused subscriptions a terrible idea. But this has been reiterated a million times in this thread by many others. Anyone arguing for them is not worth my time.

 

[CosmicQueso]

Single publisher subs by definition are worse values than PS plus. PS Plus offers games from every publisher on the system, EA and Ubi are stuck handing out what they make, and I wouldn't call their offering diverse(EA's a bit more diverse, but the really big hits are generally the type of thing you buy before they hit a free service, not after).

Worse, by definition?

I enjoy PS+, and I enjoy trying games I would otherwise never touch. But that doesn't make that service "by definition" better than an EA or Ubi, where I know what I'm going to get and generally like what is offered.

If you have no interest... well that's understandable. But it isn't a defined fact that one service is better than some other service to all people all the time.

I love PS+. I don't find subscriptions anti-consumer, I find publisher focused subscriptions a terrible idea. But this has been reiterated a million times in this thread by many others. Anyone arguing for them is not worth my time.

Loves PS+, subscriptions not anti-consumer, anyone who buys EA Access is scum, unworthy or human interaction. Makes sense!

 

[Ason]

Don't like this. I don't like having multiple publishers each with their own subscription service. I'm already paying for PS+, don't want to have to shell out more for each individual publisher's stuff...

Well, good thing you don't have to, no one is forcing you.

If you find value in their service, go for it, otherwise don't bite.

 

[Dunlop]

I'd rather have one service that goes through the console provider like PlayStation plus.

This is the new season pass now that people are realizing those are bull crap too?

Can't wait until what used to be exclusive retailer dlc becomes "EA Pass exclusive dlc".

I'm seeing the dlc argument a lot, I'm not sure the percentage of people that buy it (never have) but it can't be that high.Why would they lock it behind a paywall?

 

[Mortemis]

While I'd rather not pay yet another subscription and will probably never subscribe to any, I don't see what's so bad about these. I'll start worrying when they start locking things like "dlc subscriber exclusive". Though, I rarely ever buy dlc anyways, so idk if I'll ever be outraged.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

I'm enjoying EA access.

Bring on more publishers.

This guy is obviously Peter Moore.

 

[PhatSaqs]

I'd rather have one service that goes through the console provider like PlayStation plus.

In a perfect consumer controller world this (one stop shop solution) would definitely be ideal. But these pubs with large catalogs are greedy man. They'll all want their share so it's impossible to keep whats about to happen from happening IMO.

 

[cripterion]

I love PS+. I don't find subscriptions anti-consumer, I find publisher focused subscriptions a terrible idea. But this has been reiterated a million times in this thread by many others. Anyone arguing for them is not worth my time.

Good for you, then enjoy what you like and let other people do the same even if it differs from your opinion. Like I said, these aren't forced in you so shouldn't be a problem to anyone. Besides, you got good guy Sony protecting you from it.

 

[AndyD]

So what games do you guys see as being included in these services if they were to start this fall?

We know EA will have FIFA and Madden 14, and BF4.

Ubisoft would likely include AC4, Rayman, Just Dance.

Activision would have what? COD?

 

[Jackbooted]

nope. only bought the Oblivion Shivering Iles expansion pack. for Fallout 3 i knew kids in high school who had all the DLC for Fallout 3 on the DLC only disk. so i barrowed it an installed it for free. never bought the Fallout New Vegas or Skyrim DLC.


i rarely buy DLC. the only DLC i bought last gen was TES Oblivion Shivering Iles expansion pack, all the Halo 3 DLC, and all the Halo 4 DLC. in the last 8 years of owning an Xbox360 i only bought around $230 worth of DLC. so i'd hardly say i support the practice given i bought and played a ton of games over the last 8 years and never bought the extra content offered, for the exception of TES Oblivion, Halo 3 and Halo 4.

I bought the Fallout 3 DLC and had a good time with it. I guess its value is in the eye of the purchaser and I suppose I (like many others - even yourself in a limited way) support the practice of releasing DLC after a game is released. In for a penny, in for a pound.

 

[Steel]

Worse, by definition?

I enjoy PS+, and I enjoy trying games I would otherwise never touch. But that doesn't make that service "by definition" better than an EA or Ubi, where I know what I'm going to get and generally like what is offered.

If you have no interest... well that's understandable. But it isn't a defined fact that one service is better than some other service to all people all the time.



Loves PS+, subscriptions not anti-consumer, anyone who buys EA Access is scum, unworthy or human interaction. Makes sense!

Don't apply one view to everyone. I've never said people buying EA Access are scum. However, single publisher subs make PS+ subscriptions have less value but don't necessarily add value. Before a single publisher sub, you'd see the same games that are in, say, EA's Vault on PS+ OR games with Gold. It's not hard to understand really, instead of getting what you'd get with some sub or another, now you're gonna get less with that one sub and purchase another for the same value. If these single publisher sub's never existed in the first place, it would be better for the consumer, they add anything substantial that wasn't there already, they instead separate it. Which is obviously a profitable way to do business for the individual publisher.

Edit: Just noticed that last piece wasn't directed toward me, so you may ignore the first two sentences.

 

[Steroyd]

Well, I'm not going to get in the argument that ya' know, many indy developers started at AAA studios and thus, learned many of the tricks of the trade while making big games, but do you honestly think for example, Mirror's Edge is getting greenlit if Battlefield and The Sims aren't making EA gobs of cash?

And I'm asking how often do they go into this type of venture given how much bank their annualised franchises give them, the first Mirror's Edge came out 6 years ago.

Besides Dice is the company behind Battlefield and Mirror's Edge, so that example isn't quite there with Ubisoft's UbiArt program.

 

[Vlade]

Yeah, I think it's actually a pretty good option for its target audience.

I don't really get the hate toward season passes or DLC either, which tend to get a lot of backlash.

Season passes are paying for a promise, just like subscriptions.

DLC is allowing me to pay whatever I am willing to for a product, which doesnt go away with a sub model.

subs are like the worst of every world, only now you are charged just to get in the door.

I find the structure terrible.

I would love to pay a fee for access to games, but that isn't how these things work.

 

[Wickerbasket]

I wouldn't have an issue with it if all the publishers would get together and offer their games on one service. I'm not paying multiple subscriptions to multiple publishers though; they can get fucked if they think that's happening.

 

[Nirolak]

Season passes are paying for a promise, just like subscriptions.

DLC is allowing me to pay whatever I am willing to for a product, which doesnt go away with a sub model.

subs are like the worst of every world, only now you are charged just to get in the door.

I find the structure terrible.

I would love to pay a fee for access to games, but that isn't how these things work.

...But you don't need to buy the season pass up front.

Here, you also essentially pay $30 to get four games immediately for a year, or $5 and play them all within a month then unsub.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

So what games do you guys see as being included in these services if they were to start this fall?

We know EA will have FIFA and Madden 14, and BF4.

Ubisoft would likely include AC4, Rayman, Just Dance.

Activision would have what? COD?

Yeah, that's the problem with Activision. They just don't have the catalog to do a service like this yet. Maybe in a couple of years. Ubisoft could do it now, though, with the games you mentioned, the digital downloads (in a few more months), Watch Dogs around ACU's launch, and even the shitty Kinect games. I would install the shitty fighting game just to see how shitty it really is.

 

[gogosox82]

I really don't like a sound of this. No one is going to sign for ps+, live, ea access, uplay access (or whatever they call it), and activision access. Most people will pay for one and that's it. So these companies won't get as much money as they think they will and services like ps+ will lose what makes them a good service to consumers. Its a lose/lose for everyone involved.

 

[serenewarfare]

I feel like we go through this same process every few years with some new concept. Concept comes along, doom and gloom is prognosticated, then great games continue to come out.

"Online Passes will ruin the industry!"

Online passes don't exist anymore. At least not publisher specific.

"DLC will ruin the industry!"

While there is a lot of DLC, it has far from ruined anything.

"Microtransactions will ruin the industry!"

More games have come out recently with microtransactions, but there are also a hell of a lot of great games coming out without them.

So yeah, sub services are, in my view, just like all the other things people have freaked out about and extrapolated to mean doom for the consumer over the years. They'll come and either stay or go. Either way, great games will continue to be made and played by everyone.

 

[Dunlop]

Don't apply one view to everyone. I've never said people buying EA Access are scum. However, single publisher subs make PS+ subscriptions have less value, before a single publisher sub, you'd see the same games that are in, say, EA's Vault on PS+ OR games with Gold. It's not hard to understand really, instead of getting what you'd get with some sub or another, now you're gonna get less with that one sub and purchase. If these single publisher sub's never existed in the first place, it would be better for the consumer, they add anything substantial that wasn't there already, they instead separate it. Which is obviously a profitable way to do business for the individual publisher.

Edit: Just noticed that last piece wasn't directed toward me, so you may ignore the first two sentences.

You have zero control right now on what Sony will offer each month with ps+
Competition would have probably forced them to pony up Killzone or Knack by now

 

[Slair]

If Activision jump on this can you imagine a subscriber hub in Destiny 2? Fuck :/

 

[CosmicQueso]

However, single publisher subs make PS+ subscriptions have less value, before a single publisher sub, you'd see the same games that are in, say, EA's Vault on PS+ OR games with Gold. It's not hard to understand really, instead of getting what you'd get with some sub or another, now you're gonna get less with that one sub and purchase.

There's no evidence that suggests that EA or Ubi would never participate in a PS+ or GwG program, even with these services. If Sony offers an amount of money to participate in a program, that will be evaluated and acted on as a business decision.

In any case, even if an EA game isn't in the program doesn't mean you lose anything as a PS+ subscriber, because a substitute title will take its place. There is no "loss" here. There was no set title release slate promised by PS+ which this program detracts from.

And as Dunlop said, competition is good. PS+ was designed to compete with XBLA. GwG was launched to compete with PS+. All of us subscribing to those services have benefited from the competition.

Edit: Just noticed that last piece wasn't directed toward me, so you may ignore the first two sentences.

Yep, was not directed at you lol. It's cool.

If Activision jump on this can you imagine a subscriber hub in Destiny 2? Fuck :/

After CoD Elite's failure, not sure if this is something they'd want to do.