Support NeoGAF

[Llyrwenne]

To all those unequivocally defending and / or supporting this development;

Please stop pretending that this subscription is 'just' an option. Please stop pretending that this will not affect anything. By only looking at the short-term value of the single program that is out now and ignoring the threats that expansions of these publisher-programs are likely to pose, you are contributing to something that is very likely to make gaming more expensive and less consumer-friendly than it already is on its way to becoming. Giving these publishers their own little bubbles where they can regulate their own prices, content and offerings has no place on closed platforms like Xbox or Playstation as they will fundamentally undermine the integrity of said closed platforms. We have absolutely no reason at all to trust these companies on not cutting up content and barring it behind their subscriptions. And you won't get newly released games from them for free, like some are pretending will happen. Enabling these companies to do whatever they want in a part of a closed system is not a good idea people.

"But let us try it out for ourselves!" they say. No. You as a person might be smart enough to pull out when they start doing the shitty stuff, but people are dumb and stupid and you know it. And these companies are going to do the shitty stuff. And people will continue to support them. By enabling these programs to exist based solely on the initial value you see in the only offer that is as of yet out there, you are inevitably setting these programs up to succeed, even when they start doing the shitty stuff. Can we all just please realize that?

Maybe I'm wrong - maybe these companies are just going to offer something that represents great value for most people without cutting content or moving previously generally accessible offers, features and content behind the subscription wall -, but looking at the companies behind these programs, what shitty things they have done in the past and what shitty things they are still doing today, I am not comfortable at all with letting them do their thing and 'seeing what happens', and neither should you.

 

[StoOgE]

What about my rights?!

Don't care. Playing Madden.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

This has the potential to damage small publishers, indies, B titles...

How would it damage those groups?

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Don't care. Playing Madden.

How does it feel to be killing gaming as we know it?

 

[TomShoe]

Don't care. Playing Madden.

"'It is scarcely possible that the eyes of contemporaries should discover in the public felicity the latent causes of decay and corruption. This long peace, and the uniform government of the Romans, introduced a slow and secret poison into the vitals of the empire. The minds of men were gradually reduced to the same level, the fire of genius was extinguished, and even the military spirit evaporated.' Now that no one buys our votes, the public has long since cast off its cares; the people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions and all else, now meddles no more and longs eagerly for just two things----Bread and Circuses!"

- Juvenal

 

[Vlade]

Don't care. Playing Madden.

/tagquote

 

[EdgeXL]

To all those unequivocally defending and / or supporting this development;

Please stop pretending that this subscription is 'just' an option. Please stop pretending that this will not affect anything. By only looking at the short-term value of the single program that is out now and ignoring the threats that expansions of these publisher-programs are likely to pose, you are contributing to something that is very likely to make gaming more expensive and less consumer-friendly than it already is on its way to becoming. Giving these publishers their own little bubbles where they can regulate their own prices, content and offerings has no place on closed platforms like Xbox or Playstation as they will fundamentally undermine the integrity of said closed platforms. We have absolutely no reason at all to trust these companies on not cutting up content and barring it behind their subscriptions. And you won't get newly released games from them for free, like some are pretending will happen. Enabling these companies to do whatever they want in a part of a closed system is not a good idea people.

"But let us try it out for ourselves!" they say. No. You as a person might be smart enough to pull out when they start doing the shitty stuff, but people are dumb and stupid and you know it. And these companies are going to do the shitty stuff. And people will continue to support them. By enabling these programs to exist based solely on the initial value you see in the only offer that is as of yet out there, you are inevitably setting these programs up to succeed, even when they start doing the shitty stuff. Can we all just please realize that?

Maybe I'm wrong - maybe these companies are just going to offer something that represents great value for most people without cutting content or moving previously generally accessible offers, features and content behind the subscription wall -, but looking at the companies behind these programs, what shitty things they have done in the past and what shitty things they are still doing today, I am not comfortable at all with letting them do their thing and 'seeing what happens', and neither should you.

Integrity... of a closed platform? Wow... just wow.

I am all in favor of more options to the customer. Today I can go to the store and buy a movie on DVD or Blu-ray. I can rent it from Redbox. I can buy a digital copy from Amazon, iTunes, Google Play, from Disney, from Sony, I can rent these movies digitally or I can subscribe to Netflix, Hulu or any of dozens of options.

I would love to see this same universe of options for games. I absolutely support your right to access your games in whatever legal method you feel is best for you. However, it seems you want to deny me the same courtesy and imply that I am not smart enough to see your doom & gloom scenario. Very classy.

 

[CosmicQueso]

By enabling these programs to exist based solely on the initial value you see in the only offer that is as of yet out there, you are inevitably setting these programs up to succeed, even when they start doing the shitty stuff. Can we all just please realize that?

I want them to succeed based on the initial value. If they start doing shitty stuff I won't re-subscribe.

So nope, sorry, I can't realize what you want me to.

"'It is scarcely possible that the eyes of contemporaries should discover in the public felicity the latent causes of decay and corruption. This long peace, and the uniform government of the Romans, introduced a slow and secret poison into the vitals of the empire. The minds of men were gradually reduced to the same level, the fire of genius was extinguished, and even the military spirit evaporated.' Now that no one buys our votes, the public has long since cast off its cares; the people that once bestowed commands, consulships, legions and all else, now meddles no more and longs eagerly for just two things----Bread and Circuses!"

- Juvenal

#1 - Amazing.

#2 - This already happened a long, long time ago. Maybe with the invention of television?

 

[TheRealTalker]

lol deja vu

Everyone knew this was going to happen

Ea, then Activision, now Ubisoft

 

[lemon_fresh]

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.

Which publisher tried to push online passes? Which publisher was tied to MS's DRM scandal? Which publisher is known for being horrendously anti-consumer and was voted worst in America because of it?

How much more evidence do you need?

 

[MrGreencastle]

I'm in. If the price is right, and the games are good, then this will be much better than Sports titles :/

 

[ProfessorMoran]

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.

There are right now only like 4 games in the vault.

There.

 

[EdgeXL]

Which publisher tried to push online passes? Which publisher was tied to MS's DRM scandal? Which publisher is known for being horrendously anti-consumer and was voted worst in America because of it?

How much more evidence do you need?

Interesting you mention online passes. Sony was the first and only console maker to use online passes and Sony was the first to be widely successful at tying games to a subscription service just to boot them up.

The slippery slope has already been traversed, friends.

 

[robertsan21]

I hate this idea! I will never buy a subscription! Sony stand firm, you will get even more players coming to the ps4 once this backfires! Fuck MS, fuck EA and everyone supporting shit like this!

This is in the same level as that drm and no used games shit MS tried to pull IMO!

I hate the idea of having to buy a sub for every publisher!

 

[TyrantII]

So, EA and Ubi were all for DRM? What about Activision?

Why do I feel that since DRMing physical games crashed and became toxic, publishers involved are scrambling to find other ways to hit their projections under that beast? Seemingly they dropped online passes because of the hastle and knowing a major manufacturer was giving them complete lockdown. Now were headed right back there under a different name And in the guise of "services".

 

[UberTag]

It's interesting that games seem to be heading for a subscription model, but if every publisher is going to have its own service, and I have to sign up for them all, I can't really see the model taking off.

I'll just sign up for none of them and buy 99 cent games on my smartphone like the rest of my peers.

Individual GAMES should have subscription-like services.
There should be a Call of Duty subscription.
A Battlefield subscription.
A FIFA subscription.
A Grand Theft Auto subscription.

Milk the idiots who live and die solely by these games to the exclusion of everything else. Milk them for all their worth.
Hell, I'm getting milked on Tapped Out by EA right now because I'm a Simpsons junkie. That makes sense.

Nobody wants to pay for a subscription to an entire publisher's suite of products.
You want to know why?
It's because 90-95 percent of what each and every publisher puts out is garbage.

 

[JesseEwiak]

To all those unequivocally defending and / or supporting this development;

Please stop pretending that this subscription is 'just' an option. Please stop pretending that this will not affect anything. By only looking at the short-term value of the single program that is out now and ignoring the threats that expansions of these publisher-programs are likely to pose, you are contributing to something that is very likely to make gaming more expensive and less consumer-friendly than it already is on its way to becoming. Giving these publishers their own little bubbles where they can regulate their own prices, content and offerings has no place on closed platforms like Xbox or Playstation as they will fundamentally undermine the integrity of said closed platforms. We have absolutely no reason at all to trust these companies on not cutting up content and barring it behind their subscriptions. And you won't get newly released games from them for free, like some are pretending will happen. Enabling these companies to do whatever they want in a part of a closed system is not a good idea people.

"But let us try it out for ourselves!" they say. No. You as a person might be smart enough to pull out when they start doing the shitty stuff, but people are dumb and stupid and you know it. And these companies are going to do the shitty stuff. And people will continue to support them. By enabling these programs to exist based solely on the initial value you see in the only offer that is as of yet out there, you are inevitably setting these programs up to succeed, even when they start doing the shitty stuff. Can we all just please realize that?

Maybe I'm wrong - maybe these companies are just going to offer something that represents great value for most people without cutting content or moving previously generally accessible offers, features and content behind the subscription wall -, but looking at the companies behind these programs, what shitty things they have done in the past and what shitty things they are still doing today, I am not comfortable at all with letting them do their thing and 'seeing what happens', and neither should you.

I don't care if it's a good value long-term. If it helps me now, fuck you now.

 

[CREMSteve]

I want no part of this business practice.

 

[Noobcraft]

I'll just sign up for none of them and buy 99 cent games on my smartphone like the rest of my peers.

Individual GAMES should have subscription-like services.
There should be a Call of Duty subscription.
A Battlefield subscription.
A FIFA subscription.
A Grand Theft Auto subscription.

Nobody wants to pay for a subscription to an entire publisher's suite of products.
You want to know why?
It's because 90-95 percent of what each and every publisher puts out is garbage.

There already is a Call of Duty subscription. It's $60 USD/year

 

[Dunlop]

There are right now only like 4 games in the vault.

There.

One of the sticking points for EA access is Sony is blocking it due to a conflict with PS Now

Take ANY 4 games from Playstation Now and give me the total cost for renting them for a year

How much would it cost to rent those 4 EA games anywhere for a year?

As people who signed up knew in advance what the 4 games currently are, what is the problem?

Which publisher tried to push online passes?

Sony was quite the cheerleader
https://support.us.playstation.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2496/~/playstation-online-pass

This whole mentality that one corporation is trying to protect us from another is bizarre

 

[Vlade]

I'll just sign up for none of them and buy 99 cent games on my smartphone like the rest of my peers.

Individual GAMES should have subscription-like services.
There should be a Call of Duty subscription.
A Battlefield subscription.
A FIFA subscription.
A Grand Theft Auto subscription.

Milk the idiots who live and die solely by these games to the exclusion of everything else. Milk them for all their worth.
Hell, I'm getting milked on Tapped Out by EA right now because I'm a Simpsons junkie. That makes sense.

Nobody wants to pay for a subscription to an entire publisher's suite of products.
You want to know why?
It's because 90-95 percent of what each and every publisher puts out is garbage.

I agree.

 

[ebullientprism]

I hate this idea! I will never buy a subscription! Sony stand firm, you will get even more players coming to the ps4 once this backfires! Fuck MS, fuck EA and everyone supporting shit like this!

This is in the same level as that drm and no used games shit MS tried to pull IMO!

I hate the idea of having to buy a sub for every publisher!

I am hoping this is sarcasm(??). Although in this thread, its hard to say.

 

[Ason]

Giving these publishers their own little bubbles where they can regulate their own prices, content and offerings has no place on closed platforms like Xbox or Playstation as they will fundamentally undermine the integrity of said closed platforms.

The 10% discount is off the price in the regular MS store, so it's not their "own little bubble" where they can crank up their prices as they please.

And you won't get newly released games from them for free, like some are pretending will happen

Who are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone mention you will get newly released games in the Vault.

And to be fair, PS+, like many people compare to, won't give away newly released games from these companies for free either.

 

[block tower]

To all those unequivocally defending and / or supporting this development;

Please stop pretending that this subscription is 'just' an option. Please stop pretending that this will not affect anything. By only looking at the short-term value of the single program that is out now and ignoring the threats that expansions of these publisher-programs are likely to pose, you are contributing to something that is very likely to make gaming more expensive and less consumer-friendly than it already is on its way to becoming. Giving these publishers their own little bubbles where they can regulate their own prices, content and offerings has no place on closed platforms like Xbox or Playstation as they will fundamentally undermine the integrity of said closed platforms. We have absolutely no reason at all to trust these companies on not cutting up content and barring it behind their subscriptions. And you won't get newly released games from them for free, like some are pretending will happen. Enabling these companies to do whatever they want in a part of a closed system is not a good idea people.

"But let us try it out for ourselves!" they say. No. You as a person might be smart enough to pull out when they start doing the shitty stuff, but people are dumb and stupid and you know it. And these companies are going to do the shitty stuff. And people will continue to support them. By enabling these programs to exist based solely on the initial value you see in the only offer that is as of yet out there, you are inevitably setting these programs up to succeed, even when they start doing the shitty stuff. Can we all just please realize that?

Maybe I'm wrong - maybe these companies are just going to offer something that represents great value for most people without cutting content or moving previously generally accessible offers, features and content behind the subscription wall -, but looking at the companies behind these programs, what shitty things they have done in the past and what shitty things they are still doing today, I am not comfortable at all with letting them do their thing and 'seeing what happens', and neither should you.

thank you.

 

[NegativeCero]

This can only end poorly for consumers. God damn it.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

I really hope Ubisoft and other publishers do something similar to EA Access. It's a fantastic program so far, and he couldn't be anymore right about this. I would've never tried Peggle 2 otherwise.

“Often, people are only interested in one brand from a publisher, so they don’t look for other brands. When you buy into something like Access, you can try other things for free and discover other things you like. It’s a way to make sure gamers can get more info on what we do and the diversity of our portfolio.”

I really see no legitimate reason to not like EA Access based on what's on offer for the price you're getting it for. The only other reason I can see for why there'd be any hate at all for the overall offering, not just one isolated aspect of it, is to in some roundabout way try to justify Sony's actions of not at least allowing 10 million+ PS4 owners an opportunity to make up their own minds on whether or not they were interested.

This can only end poorly for consumers. God damn it.

Choice and competition is bad for consumers, why?

 

[Llyrwenne]

Integrity... of a closed platform? Wow... just wow.

Maybe this is because English is not my first language, but would you care to explain how that is somehow a ridiculous or impossible statement?

I am all in favor of more options to the customer. Today I can go to the store and buy a movie on DVD or Blu-ray. I can rent it from Redbox. I can buy a digital copy from Amazon, iTunes, Google Play, from Disney, from Sony, I can rent these movies digitally or I can subscribe to Netflix, Hulu or any of dozens of options.

I would love to see this same universe of options for games. I absolutely support your right to access your games in whatever legal method you feel is best for you.

Oh, options are great, but not all the time in any form in any situation in any medium on any platform. This 'option' has the real potential to impact gaming in a negative way. You personally might see value in this initial offer, and I respect that, but at the same time, I would like you to take a step back and look at the bigger picture of the companies that are behind it, what these companies have done in the past and are doing in the present, and how the expansion of these programs might impact gaming as a whole. The attitude of all new options being unequivocally good and supporting them based solely on initial face-value, without regarding the background of companies behind them or possible long-term changes that might come from them is something that I, in a way, find somewhat concerning.

However, it seems you want to deny me the same courtesy and imply that I am not smart enough to see your doom & gloom scenario. Very classy.

That is simply not true. I do not want to outright deny you an option or make you out to be dumb, I just want people to take a step back and look at this specific case in the context of the companies driving it and what it might mean for the future before unequivocally pledging support based on initial face-value. If these programs take off and change and evolve, it might impact some aspects of gaming, and that might not be wholly positive.

I want them to succeed based on the initial value. If they start doing shitty stuff I won't re-subscribe.

So nope, sorry, I can't realize what you want me to.

The following quote preceded the statement you are replying to;

You as a person might be smart enough to pull out when they start doing the shitty stuff, but people are dumb and stupid and you know it. And these companies are going to do the shitty stuff. And people will continue to support them.

 

[alexandros]

Eh, I don't mind it. It's basically a season pass for the publisher's catalog.

 

[PanicFreak]

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.

Microsoft once had a policy where no third party could use their own servers on Xbox Live. They also developed sports games.

EA withheld all of its EA Sports titles from Xbox Live until those two things stopped. What makes you think they will continue putting games on PS+ if EA Access is successful?

 

[Vanderlyle]

I hate this idea! I will never buy a subscription! Sony stand firm, you will get even more players coming to the ps4 once this backfires! Fuck MS, fuck EA and everyone supporting shit like this!

This is in the same level as that drm and no used games shit MS tried to pull IMO!

I hate the idea of having to buy a sub for every publisher!

I'm going to tell you something that might blow your mind here so read it slowly.

You don't HAVE to buy any subscription. Don't want access to libraries of older games for a couple of dollars a month? Cool, don't buy it.

Choices are wonderful things. I'm loving EA access and would welcome a really cheap way to get my hands on old ubi games too. Sony will cave in and accept these services on their platforms if this takes off.

 

[CosmicQueso]

Choice and competition is bad for consumers, why?

Some actually think a monopolistic console environment with only one manufacturer would be good for consumers.

I just wish there was one solid reason that exists today which would explain why I shouldn't like this. So far, I'm hearing a lot about Trust, which I get, and that someday in the future I will be forced to do this or excluded from content if I don't, or that content will be held back, none of which make any rational sense for a company to do. Some people like ownership, I also get that, but these programs don't change anything about ownership. It is pure Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt right now. But hey, every consumer has a right to buy whatever they want and not buy whatever they don't want.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

To all those unequivocally defending and / or supporting this development;

Please stop pretending that this subscription is 'just' an option. Please stop pretending that this will not affect anything. By only looking at the short-term value of the single program that is out now and ignoring the threats that expansions of these publisher-programs are likely to pose, you are contributing to something that is very likely to make gaming more expensive and less consumer-friendly than it already is on its way to becoming. Giving these publishers their own little bubbles where they can regulate their own prices, content and offerings has no place on closed platforms like Xbox or Playstation as they will fundamentally undermine the integrity of said closed platforms. We have absolutely no reason at all to trust these companies on not cutting up content and barring it behind their subscriptions. And you won't get newly released games from them for free, like some are pretending will happen. Enabling these companies to do whatever they want in a part of a closed system is not a good idea people.

"But let us try it out for ourselves!" they say. No. You as a person might be smart enough to pull out when they start doing the shitty stuff, but people are dumb and stupid and you know it. And these companies are going to do the shitty stuff. And people will continue to support them. By enabling these programs to exist based solely on the initial value you see in the only offer that is as of yet out there, you are inevitably setting these programs up to succeed, even when they start doing the shitty stuff. Can we all just please realize that?

Maybe I'm wrong - maybe these companies are just going to offer something that represents great value for most people without cutting content or moving previously generally accessible offers, features and content behind the subscription wall -, but looking at the companies behind these programs, what shitty things they have done in the past and what shitty things they are still doing today, I am not comfortable at all with letting them do their thing and 'seeing what happens', and neither should you.

Couldn't disagree with this more strongly. It takes a lot to somehow find what EA Access is doing, in its totality, as bad either for the consumer or gaming in general.

Some actually think a monopolistic console environment with only one manufacturer would be good for consumers.

I just wish there was one solid reason that exists today which would explain why I shouldn't like this. So far, I'm hearing a lot about Trust, which I get, and that someday in the future I will be forced to do this or excluded from content if I don't, or that content will be held back, none of which make any rational sense for a company to do. Some people like ownership, I also get that, but these programs don't change anything about ownership. It is pure Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt right now. But hey, every consumer has a right to buy whatever they want and not buy whatever they don't want.

Well said. It isn't like I'm willing to allow EA to setup some type of camera in my shower or anything, but I will distrust and unsubscribe from EA Access when I feel it's no longer a very good value for me. Until then there really isn't many legitimate arguments that can be made to discount the entirety of the program. The best argument against EA Access is an argument against the games in the vault itself and you having an unwillingness to pay to gain access to any of them, even for just $5 a month. Outside of that I don't see a strong argument against the model and what it could mean for gaming if priced right, there's good games, and if there are fair terms.

 

[jrDev]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=872462

From this thread...

I expect Ubisoft to announce a similar program any minute now.

Lmao!

 

[Amir0x]

I think every company should allow gamers to choose whether or not to access these services, but to me it's a void that is set to collapse the last tenuous bit of grasp we have to fight back against unscrupulous companies.

This last gen, gamers of all stripes - fans of Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft - continually complained about the decline of respect publishers/developers had toward the very people who kept these business open. Respect is one thing, but it translated into real world actions in which various policies and games were made that slowly but surely painted a damning picture of an industry which feels that nickle-and-diming is the name of the game, that withholding content from launch day release just so they can charge $14.99 for 2 hours of extra content a month down the line and squeeze gamers dry over their knee like a pool-side towel is now thought by these pubs/devs to be appropriate behavior.

The sheer number of deceptions and damning behavior practiced by Ubisoft, Activision and EA made up a non-trivial percentage of GAF'a discussion about these companies. No, it's not in the past. Even now, we complain at a near daily basis about the negative things they do. EA is currently mired in The Sims 4 controversy. Earlier the spent a ton of money being underhanded as shit in the Machinima Ad Buy scandal, and this isn't something that is remotely tiny. It was them trying to trick gamers who were interested in titles into believing someone's viewpoints were legitimate instead of paid for. We have companies that put pressure on game websites when they review high profile games too negatively (Jeff Gerstmann). We have companies that release horse armor. Companies that release a version of a certain game so fucking borderline unplayable at times that it's a miracle anyone ever purchased a game from them again on the platform (Bethesda).

If people are excited about these services, I feel it's just as important to present the other side of the coin. This is when the coin lands on the side that exposes a basic, stark truth: that if you were mugged, you wouldn't immediately after a few weeks later give the mugger whatever new money you had accumulated since then to invest in stocks. Likewise, if you are continually mistreated by game companies - and I don't see what the argument at this point would be against this, considering how often the biggest companies are mired in controversy, getting sued for demonstrably underhanded nonsense, having their horrific workplace practices exposed, being voted worst companies, etc - that we should be very cognizant that we about to actually subscribe to a longterm service these companies may offer in the future. Trust these very same companies who, like the mugger, continue to gouge us whenever they get a chance. With them, we'll be giving them complete control ever after to our access to the games (banned from service, weeks of trying to get it resolved since it was for something you did not do. online servers are down, lose access after a period of time until it's fixed. Time to update, servers are down for two days as the process is worked through. Company shuts down, all games you ever had access to evaporate. Once we start moving from Netflix-style access to the type of service dominating where you buy games digital forever, we're one step away from the day some big controversy explodes because one of these companies finally decided to exit the arena and with them shut down all services that gave you access).

For me, this is too dangerous a precedent to set, when a huge percentage of the actions from most major publishers last gen were moves to somehow diminish the quality of our overall experiences or the value we once gained from thenm

 

[draetenth]

Disappointed, but not very surprised by this news.

 

[hateradio]

I feel like this is just going to end up being more of a waste of money than anything else.


Steam, save us.

 

[Llyrwenne]

Couldn't disagree with this more strongly. It takes a lot to somehow find what EA Access is doing, in its totality, as bad either for the consumer or gaming in general.

But you are missing the point. I'm not arguing that the current form that EA Access exists in is wholly bad for gaming or the consumer ( even though I myself do not necessarily see the value in it ), I'm arguing that opening the door to any and all programs of similar nature based solely on the initial face value of this one existing program should not be looked upon as an unequivocally good thing, especially considering the companies behind said programs. EA Access might look great at face value now, but we're talking about EA here. But again; if you like that face value, I'm not stopping you. I'm just asking you to consider the fact that EA Access will change and evolve over its lifetime and with the rise of similar programs, this might end up affecting gaming as a whole in an unfavorable way.

 

[twobear]

But you are missing the point. I'm not arguing that the current form that EA Access exists in is wholly bad for gaming or the consumer ( even though I myself do not necessarily see the value in it ), I'm arguing that opening the door to any and all programs of similar nature based solely on the initial face value of this one existing program should not be looked upon as an unequivocally good thing, especially considering the companies behind said programs. EA Access might look great at face value now, but we're talking about EA here. But again; if you like that face value, I'm not stopping you. I'm just asking you to consider the fact that EA Access will change and evolve over its lifetime and with the rise of similar programs, this might end up affecting gaming as a whole in an unfavorable way.

Literally nobody denies that it could affect gaming in a bad way.

The issue is that a very large angry mob is treating these potentially bad things that could happen as though they're horrible things that already have happened. They've even started pointing fingers and denouncing people who are willing to try the service before they start flinging their poo.

 

[SneakyStephan]

I think every company should allow gamers to choose whether or not to access these services, but to me it's a void that is set to collapse the last tenuous bit of grasp we have to fight back against unscrupulous companies.

This last gen, gamers of all stripes - fans of Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft - continually complained about the decline of respect publishers/developers had toward the very people who kept these business open. Respect is one thing, but it translated into real world actions in which various policies and games were made that slowly but surely painted a damning picture of an industry which feels that nickle-and-diming is the name of the game, that withholding content from launch day release just so they can charge $14.99 for 2 hours of extra content a month down the line and squeeze gamers dry over their knee like a oool-side towel is now thought by these pubs/devs to be appropriate behavior.

The sheer number of deceptions and damning behavior practiced by Ubisoft, Activision and EA made up a non-trivial percentage of GAF'a discussion about these companies. No, it's not in the past. Even now, we complain at a near daily basis about the negative things they do. EA is currently mired in The Sims 4 controversy. Earlier the spent a ton of money being underhanded as shit in the Machinima Ad Buy scandal, and this isn't something that is remotely tiny. It was them trying to trick gamers who were interested in titles into believing someone's viewpoints were legitimate instead of paid for. We have companies that put pressure on game websites when they review high profile games too negatively (Jeff Gerstmann). We have companies that release horse armor. Companies that release a version of a certain game so fucking borderline unplayable at times that it's a miracle anyone ever purchased a game from them again on the platform (Bethesda).

If people are excited about these services, I feel it's just as important to present the other side of the coin. This is when the coin lands on the side that exposes a basic, stark truth: that if you were mugged, you wouldn't immediately after a few weeks later give the mugger whatever new money you had accumulated since then to invest in stocks. Likewise, if you are continually mistreated by game companies - and I don't see what the argument at this point would be against this, considering how often the biggest companies are mired in controversy, getting sued for demonstrably underhanded nonsense, having their horrific workplace practices exposed, being voted worst companies, etc - that we should be very cognizant that we about to actually subscribe to a longterm service these companies may offer in the future. Trust these very same companies who, like the mugger, continue to gouge us whenever they get a chance. With them, we'll be giving them complete control ever after to our access to the games (banned from service, weeks of trying to get it resolved since it was for something you did not do. online servers are down, lose access after a period of time until it's fixed. Time to update, servers are down for two days as the process is worked through. Company shuts down, all games you ever had access to evaporate. Once we start moving from Netflix-style access to the type of service dominating where you buy games digital forever, we're one step away from the day some big controversy explodes because one of these companies finally decided to exit the arena and with them shut down all services that gave you access).

For me, this is too dangerous a precedent to set, when a huge percentage of the actions from most major publishers last gen were moves to somehow diminish the quality of our overall experiences or the value we once gained from thenm

Well said
It makes me sad that there is nothing we can do to stop it, it's already too late.
The only thing we can hope for is the ea access is a miserable failure and that ubisoft and blizzard and activision give up on following suit.
People don't give a fuck, as long as I get mine + zero foresight equals enabling the current direction the industry is going in (and has been going in for a while now)

At least for now I have an open platform to retreat to, and I'm not interested in any IPs by any of the big publishers, all my gaming needs are filled by other smaller/independant devs.
So I too can say 'I'll get mine, you guys have fun with the future you're enabling'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSsOoer8-rw

 

[block tower]

Literally nobody denies that it could affect gaming in a bad way.

The issue is that a very large angry mob is treating these potentially bad things that could happen as though they're horrible things that already have happened. They've even started pointing fingers and denouncing people who are willing to try the service before they start flinging their poo.

so you want to wait and see? hmmmm makes sense...

 

[jem0208]

But you are missing the point. I'm not arguing that the current form that EA Access exists in is wholly bad for gaming or the consumer ( even though I myself do not necessarily see the value in it ), I'm arguing that opening the door to any and all programs of similar nature based solely on the initial face value of this one existing program should not be looked upon as an unequivocally good thing, especially considering the companies behind said programs. EA Access might look great at face value now, but we're talking about EA here. But again; if you like that face value, I'm not stopping you. I'm just asking you to consider the fact that EA Access will change and evolve over its lifetime and with the rise of similar programs, this might end up affecting gaming as a whole in an unfavorable way.

It could also end up affecting gaming in a very favourable way. I could see these subs eventually giving rise to a different style of subscription where you pay yearly and get access to every single title from the publisher. I would love Ubisoft to do something like this assuming it'd be cheaper than buying the games normally. I'm actually surprised something like this hasn't come out yet.

 

[twobear]

so you want to wait and see? hmmmm makes sense...

it's a shocking idea, i know

 

[CosmicQueso]

Well said
It makes me sad that there is nothing we can do to stop it, it's already too late.
The only thing we can hope for is the ea access is a miserable failure and that ubisoft and blizzard and activision give up on following suit.
People don't give a fuck, as long as I get mine + zero foresight equals enabling the current direction the industry is going in (and has been going in for a while now)

How's the view?

If the market does not find value in these programs, they'll go away. Just like Online Passes and Project Ten Dollar.

And people give plenty of f-bombs. Some people just don't share your opinion.

 

[DrSlek]

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.

I suppose it comes down to how one views the industry. I personally see season passes as buying a promise of future items which may or may not be worth the money you pay up front....and I increasingly view DLC as (in the case of major publishers) content that has been cut from the game to sell seperately later.

But then again, I'm ridiculously cynical when it comes to the modern video game industry.

 

[SneakyStephan]

How's the view?

If the market does not find value in these programs, they'll go away. Just like Online Passes and Project Ten Dollar.

And people give plenty of f-bombs. Some people just don't share your opinion.

Just like online multiplayer paywalls, microtransactions, day one dlc, retailer exclusive content

Online passes and project ten dollars are the same thing btw.

 

[block tower]

it's a shocking idea, i know

your right, why avoid a disaster when you can just watch it pan out slowly and then discuss later on how "no one could've known". its beyond me how people in this thread are giving the benefit of the doubt to these publishers as if these companies have been trustworthy lol. they have shown time and time again what they do when you give an inch, they take a mile and a half. at least ill know who to blane when i can come back to this thread in a year after this publisher access asshattery starts affecting my gaming. thanks.

 

[Kill3r7]

Well said
It makes me sad that there is nothing we can do to stop it, it's already too late.
The only thing we can hope for is the ea access is a miserable failure and that ubisoft and blizzard and activision give up on following suit.
People don't give a fuck, as long as I get mine + zero foresight equals enabling the current direction the industry is going in (and has been going in for a while now)

It's post like this that make me scratch my head. Last I checked, we are consumers not currators. We are all free to spend our hard earned money any way we want. If the market deems such a service worthwhile than so be it. It is not my responsibily to watch out for an industry that continuously tries to screw me over.

 

[a916]

To all those unequivocally defending and / or supporting this development;

Please stop pretending that this subscription is 'just' an option. Please stop pretending that this will not affect anything. By only looking at the short-term value of the single program that is out now and ignoring the threats that expansions of these publisher-programs are likely to pose, you are contributing to something that is very likely to make gaming more expensive and less consumer-friendly than it already is on its way to becoming. Giving these publishers their own little bubbles where they can regulate their own prices, content and offerings has no place on closed platforms like Xbox or Playstation as they will fundamentally undermine the integrity of said closed platforms. We have absolutely no reason at all to trust these companies on not cutting up content and barring it behind their subscriptions. And you won't get newly released games from them for free, like some are pretending will happen. Enabling these companies to do whatever they want in a part of a closed system is not a good idea people.

"But let us try it out for ourselves!" they say. No. You as a person might be smart enough to pull out when they start doing the shitty stuff, but people are dumb and stupid and you know it. And these companies are going to do the shitty stuff. And people will continue to support them. By enabling these programs to exist based solely on the initial value you see in the only offer that is as of yet out there, you are inevitably setting these programs up to succeed, even when they start doing the shitty stuff. Can we all just please realize that?

Maybe I'm wrong - maybe these companies are just going to offer something that represents great value for most people without cutting content or moving previously generally accessible offers, features and content behind the subscription wall -, but looking at the companies behind these programs, what shitty things they have done in the past and what shitty things they are still doing today, I am not comfortable at all with letting them do their thing and 'seeing what happens', and neither should you.

Or... let the consumer speak for themselves and have their own opinions. Novel idea, I know...

 

[GeneralArrow]

Of course Ubisoft is like a mini EA, they actually think EA's business models are healthy and good for the industry and thus try to emulate them at every turn lol.

 

[SneakyStephan]

your right, why avoid a disaster when you can just watch it pan out slowly and then discuss later on how "no one could've known". its beyond me how people in this thread are giving the benefit of the doubt to these publishers as if these companies have been trustworthy lol. they have shown time and time again what they do when you give an inch, they take a mile and a half. at least ill know who to blane when i can come back to this thread in a year after this publisher access asshattery is starts affecting my gaming. thanks.

They're like, your friends man.
Larry is such a cool guy always willing to communicate with us, phil spencer is on our side and really turning MS around, cerny's tub is full of amaze, yoshp is really nice on twitter. Sure Peter Moore told us to go fuck ourselves with the rrod by saying 'thing's break' but that's a long time ago man, why jump to conclusions about these things, have some faith.
I feel like a connection to them, you know, after playing their games for so long, I would jump in a lake to save them and I'm sure they would do the same for me.