Sapphire Dreams
Member
This has so many ways it can go wrong. Especially coming from Ubisoft.
-
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
The Illiterati
Member
Not what I said. I said I won't argue the same points everyone else already has.
I get 6 games a month across multiple platforms. EA access will net you 2-3 games a year. Do the math.
It's as much a matter of at what point an outside publisher, like EA would be in this case, decides that a given game isn't making them much money anymore and it's time to cash in by putting it free on PS+ as anything, you'd have seen it eventually. Now they throw it in the vault instead.
I own Killzone, so personally I'm not broken up about them not putting it on PS+. But I believe we'll see it there in the future, if the PS3 and Vita versions of PS+ are any indication.
Zatoichi's Cane
Member
I think this is just the beginning. The prices, policies have to be consumer friendly for the program to take hold. Once they establish themselves and the program they'll make it practically mandatory for you to subscribe in order to get content. Also, the price will not remain $30, it makes no sense to offer this many current games at $30. Just wait....
DOWN
Banned
It affects Games with Gold too. And it's a problem for the consumer because the crowding of subscriptions lowers the value of the unified subscriptions by Sony and Microsoft.
Subscriptions for every publisher, plus needing to subscribe for online play on each console adds up and means they are all pushing the two most essential subscription values down, being the Live and PSN subscriptions that are a must for online play at all.
And how does it sound when DLC packs and expansions come exclusively to publisher subscriptions? A map pack for a favorite game is delayed two weeks if you don't subscribe? It gives the publisher a ton of power.
I'm sure everyone realizes it takes very little imagination to "predict" that publishers like Activision and Ubisoft would be interested in trying out something along the lines of EA Access, right?
Looking forward to seeing what they come up with!
StrikeFirst117
Banned
^This is exactly what I am expecting to happen, I'm not subscribing to any of this crap, I don't support every company having their own subscription service.
CosmicQueso
Member
Okay, and when those changes are made the value proposition will have changed and then I have to make a new purchase decision, whether or not to renew. If I don't renew, what have I lost? Nothing. I paid $30, got a year of a service that I'm already pretty satisfied with, and then I go back to buying games the way I always have. Same with PS+ or XBLA or whatever.
As to the "practically mandatory in order to get content"... that's pure FUD. There's no evidence that EA is going to do that, and it goes against any rational look at the business.
Origin is different. By selling PC games direct they save paying Valve a cut of revenues. On consoles, they're still cutting royalty checks, so there would be absolutely no incentive to limit the customer base.
Sorry, must have misunderstood "Anyone arguing for them is not worth my time". Apologies.
PR can work wonders. Of course they're not going to allow this. They have decided it is competitive to their own service, which is what they're protecting.
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
xValentine
Member
Can't wait for Bethesda and Rockstar to jump into this crazy ride.
Canis lupus
Member
Fuck, it happens. Every little publisher is gonna do it now. Evolution towards games as a service, end of the industry as we know it.
This, or gaming is dead to me.
JordanN
Banned
The subscription service would work better if it acted like TV.
All the publishers fall under one belt, you pay for packages that give you access to different publishers.
What would be stupid is if you had to pay for the same service twice (i.e, imagine paying for EA access on Xbox and again on Playstation).
I guess we need a one console future for subscriptions to really take off.
All the publishers fall under one belt, you pay for packages that give you access to different publishers.
What would be stupid is if you had to pay for the same service twice (i.e, imagine paying for EA access on Xbox and again on Playstation).
I guess we need a one console future for subscriptions to really take off.
backflip10019
Member
See, I don't understand this sort of comment because if you look at EA Access and PS Now solely as games-as-a-service platforms, EA Access is by and large a better deal. I can pay $5 and play 4 games (with more promised) as much as I want for a month on EA Access, but PS Now games can cost up to $5 for 4 hours each. I understand that Sony's offering is still in beta, and they're testing these prices, but it seems insane to me that people can defend Sony and PS Now while condemning EA and (potentially) Ubisoft.
Kocolino67
Member
We need another monalisagaming.jpg update
Hmhm, while I can see why people either like or dislike the subscription model, personally I can't support that. But they already lost me when they stopped to support modding and community content and added DLC maps instead. Hence, I almost never buy DLC (Left Behind, cough cough) and a preorder bonus is also a thing that doesn't concern me at all. However, this subscription thing now reminds me somehow of the net-neutrality issue. And this is something that really concerns me. So, yes, I am concerned. But gaming will continue and we will adapt to this new situation. Like every single time.
You're confused. EA Access isn't competing with PS Now. It's competing with PS+ and Games with Gold.
Yep.
Here here
Petrae
Member
PlayStation Plus proved to publishers that consumers are willing to pay for temporary licenses, so it makes sense from a business standpoint to start your own subscription service and see how much more direct revenue you can get rather than let another service get the money.
Whether multiple services per publisher may or may not work, there's nothing wrong with rolling them out and gauging reaction to them. Right now, EA Access is the litmus test. If it's successful, the sub train will keep rolling.
It sucks when fellow consumers don't share the same views on certain business decisions; we've seen a lot of that over the last few years. That said, the base of gaming consumers has swelled to a much larger number than this message board can represent. If a large enough number of consumers supports subs-- as they did for paying to play online, as they did with DLC, as they did with preordering, as they did with Season Passes-- we're either going to have to adapt to this new gaming industry or reject it in favor of different entertainment.
You're looking at it wrong, the system is more akin to PS+ than it is psnow which is essentially Sony's solution to their lack of backwards compatibility.
No. I was responding to a prior post that said the traditional method of purchasing games wont be affected, by pointing out that the traditional method is already on its way to death due to paying to play multiplayer components, and paying for dlc if you want a complete game. I suppose pointing it out in the form of a question skewed the message.
Also, someone else pointed out Nintendo still sells complete games. That is a valid point, but Nintendo's good-will is not going to save us from games as a service on non-Nintendo platforms.
I'm just talking about PS4 as EA is only available for Xb1
So it is aprox 12 completely random games vs 2-3 (not sure how you got this figure as the EA vault already has 4, so others would need to copy) games that I willingly subscribed to because games of that publisher interest me
I would take option 2 over the surprise bag if given the choice
Iced_Eagle
Member
Same.
People are welcome to not pay for EA Access and continue to buy games for $60 a pop like they always have. I don't see that changing. However, by offering their back catalog, and a couple of extra bonuses (such as discounts on content I want to purchase), that is enticing to me and I don't mind giving them money to have access to that.
For example, I already own BF4 and Peggle 2. However, I would never go out and buy Madden or Fifa. I really don't mind paying $30 for both so I can play them every now and then, and the discount for Dragon Age will be welcome as I will want to play that day one instead of waiting for it to come to the vault. It will be interesting to watch how fast the vault grows.
It's going to be interesting to see what other publishers do. I obviously won't subscribe to all of them and only the ones that have games worth playing, but it's still a neat idea.
If this gives lower exposure games more of a spotlight I guess that's cool... I wouldn't have ever played Peggle 2 if it wasn't included in the ea access vault, and I'm glad I got the opportunity to play the full game along with FIFA 14. With games retailing at $60 it isn't hard to spend over $300/year on games (just 5 AAA games), so a breadth of subscription services could potentially make things cheaper for me as long as prices are reasonable. $30 for a year of ea access was a good value for me, and so far it has been a good compliment to my PS+ & xbl subs.
Dash Kappei
Not actually that important
Geez, thanks a lot Microsoft.
And to think that after years of ransoming multiplayer off their customers and pay walls up the wazoo, they had the best off all the subs with Live on 360 and its fantastic version of GWG... then they obviously decided to follow Sony on the "only yours to play as long as you're subscribed" for the Xbone (and viceversa Sony started charging for online mp on PS4 while at the same time significantly reducing the value of PS+'s download titles selection) and now this EA Access clusterfuck, paving the way for all sorts of horrible subs-infected "games as services" scenarios.
I hope Sony holds strong on their position, it's obviously 'cause they see it as detrimental for their business but as long as I'm on the same page (detrimental to me and my hobby in the long run)...
This has the potential to damage small publishers, indies, B titles...
And to think that after years of ransoming multiplayer off their customers and pay walls up the wazoo, they had the best off all the subs with Live on 360 and its fantastic version of GWG... then they obviously decided to follow Sony on the "only yours to play as long as you're subscribed" for the Xbone (and viceversa Sony started charging for online mp on PS4 while at the same time significantly reducing the value of PS+'s download titles selection) and now this EA Access clusterfuck, paving the way for all sorts of horrible subs-infected "games as services" scenarios.
I hope Sony holds strong on their position, it's obviously 'cause they see it as detrimental for their business but as long as I'm on the same page (detrimental to me and my hobby in the long run)...
This has the potential to damage small publishers, indies, B titles...
rokkerkory
Member
FWIW - Subscription services makes great sense to folks like me... don't wanna buy buncha games but want to play games when they have time. Kinda like Netflix.
Will likely get PS+ when I get a PS4 and at least try out EA Access when I get X1.
Will likely get PS+ when I get a PS4 and at least try out EA Access when I get X1.
Scully Scully Scoo
Member
ubisoft has greater variety in games + dont make annual sports games so it wouldnt be as bad as ea but i would prefer if ubi just kept giving out games on ps+/xbl
Azure Phoenix
Member
It doesn't surprise me. The big publishers want you in their ecosystem, consuming their content, engaging with their IPs, all strictly regulated by them. It's pretty much one of the next stepping stones from pre-ordering, why would you need to market the next Creed game to a customer when you already have their money every year and simply need to put out a functional product to fulfil your end of the deal?
Exploratory
Banned
What about my rights?!
Tertullian
Member
The entire point is that often times, you can't get just one channel. And soon, if EA Access takes off in a big way, you won't be able to get just one game.
Or maybe you will, but it will be later, or less fully featured, or otherwise less and less attractive, until you've been manipulated into subscribing and paying for stuff you don't want.
maniac-kun
Member
I hope the crash comes soon. When people have enough of those money grabs.
figadapaura
Member
No thanks. This is bad.
Sony pls.
Sony pls.
block tower
Member
ive only supported three games worth of DLC. and Halo had a prior history or releasing map packs with Halo 2. so even before DLC became a thing, Halo players knew Halo 3 would have map packs, so to me buying the Halo 3 and Halo 4 map packs aren't supporting DLC, its supporting the format that Halo used to release more maps. same with TES Oblivion, the Shivering Iles was an expansuon pack, it was practically a standalone game. expansion packs had long been a PC thing for developers to add new content w/o having to release a new game. so again, buying the Shivering Iles expansion pack was not really supporting the modern format for DLC. but i agree in for a penny, in for a pound.
CosmicQueso
Member
Do you consider Steam games "owned"? Is it that you don't like digital content or the idea that once you stop subscribing you lose access to the games?
What the...? When did the echo chamber turn against this idea? There's a lot of this sentiment in the thread.
Are many people also afraid that Netflix will spell the end of DVDs, iTunes and Spotify will spell the end of physical audio (THE HORROR), etc.?
I thought and still think this is a good idea and value. Offering a subscription service to enjoy publishers' old games isn't going to destroy the gaming ecosystem. The best part: nobody will ever force you or anyone else to buy it.
JesseEwiak
Member
And by then, 90% of all video games will be purchased via mobile anyway.
coughlanio
Member
Sony...redeemed?
Stallion Dan
Member
I like that Sony is keeping this off of Playstation, as it means more chance of EA (and whoever follows) games being on PS+ instead.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
Sony will save us at the end of the day, they always do.
JesseEwiak
Member
It might be. It might not be. But I want a choice, not Sony to be my Dad.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
EDIT: Wrong thread.