Support NeoGAF

[bishoptl]

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

Good post, man.

 

[Exploratory]

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.

Before I can take anything you say seriously please explain how 5 dollars for a month of EA Access doesn't have value. It literally pays for itself if you purchase a game in the same month. And if you don't that's 5 dollars for, possibly, hundreds of hours of gaming.

Anyone who says there no value here is objectively wrong. Its not based on opinion its just simple math.

 

[Dang0]

As long as this is just another option, and its priced appropriately, I'm fine with stuff like this. Give people options.

 

[Poodle Cannon]

As long as this is just another option, and its priced appropriately, I'm fine with stuff like this. Give people options.

I'm in the same boat.

 

[SneakyStephan]

Before I can take anything you say seriously please explain how 5 dollars for a month of EA Access doesn't have value. It literally pays for itself if you purchase a game in the same month. And if you don't that's 5 dollars for, possibly, hundreds of hours of gaming.

Anyone who says there no value here is objectively wrong. Its not based on opinion its just simple math.

The value for EA on the other hand is settling the consumer into a subscription service for their IPS.
Them giving you some games to rent is a tiny sacrifice to get a foot in that door. Can't bake a cake without breaking a few eggs.

The question is, how cheap do you come as a consumer? How easily are you placated with a few treats while you're being taken to the vet to be spaded?

We're being clicker trained, only a matter of time until they leave out the treats that come with the tricks and clicks.

You're pretty at peace with not getting demos, paying for multiplayer (remember what a good idea you thought AOL was?), not being able to read a review until after a game is out and paying for community splitting multiplayer map packs, are you not?
It's funny how that just kind of creeps up on you and eventually feels natural.

These publishers have become way more proficient at easing consumers into these things than they are at making games.

 

[CambriaRising]

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

This about sums it up.

 

[Pakkidis]

As long as this is just another option, and its priced appropriately, I'm fine with stuff like this. Give people options.

The problem is that slowly slowly, this stops being an option and becomes the only way to play games.

Demo's use to be free, now their being slowly locked away behind EA Access to give the appearance of perceived value.

I fully expect games to go up in price however if you have one of these plans, the price will be lower, again giving you the appearance that your getting a bargain when in reality you are probably going to be paying more in the long run.

 

[block tower]

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.

pretty much. i cringe at how much love some people on Gaf have for these companies and people who work at them. ive come to realize some really do think Spencer, Herb, Ysop, Cerny and Gaben are their friends.

 

[BlvckFox]

Dat Yoshida insight doe.

 

[HocusPocus]

I'm interested.

 

[MikeE21286]

I agree that it is good for publisher brands

This won't stop here. Sony is going to be pressured by all pubs now. They might as well open the doors rather than shut down and give Xbox de facto exclusivity to the services.

 

[CosmicQueso]

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

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

Online passes were one component... in any case it doesn't matter.

Multiplayer paywalls... yep. It's called PS+ and Games with Gold now. People love it, apparently.

Microtransactions - the entire booming mobile business is based on this model, and World of Tanks on Xbox 360 is generating tremendous revenue. People seem pretty happy with it.

Day One DLC - That is pretty crap.

Retailer exclusive content - Retailers think that getting exclusive content makes games sell better in their stores, probably because their sales results prove it to them. So, if a retailer was going to buy 100,000 units without the content, but if you include a skin they'll buy 150,000... I don't like it but I understand it.

 

[Linearskillz]

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

The consumers have proven time and again that they are unable to make decisions to their own benefit (not just in gaming but everywhere). It only takes a few whales to poison the pool for everyone else.

Amir0x hit the nail on the head with his post.

 

[block tower]

Online passes were one component... in any case it doesn't matter.

Multiplayer paywalls... yep. It's called PS+ and Games with Gold now. People love it, apparently.

Microtransactions - the entire booming mobile business is based on this model, and World of Tanks on Xbox 360 is generating tremendous revenue. People seem pretty happy with it.

Day One DLC - That is pretty crap.

Retailer exclusive content - Retailers think that getting exclusive content makes games sell better in their stores, probably because their sales results prove it to them. So, if a retailer was going to buy 100,000 units without the content, but if you include a skin they'll buy 150,000... I don't like it but I understand it.

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

I blame Microsoft. They let the fox into the henhouse.

How I feel. It's the first domino to fall, and many more will follow.

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

Perfectly said. This will not end well, period.

I personally think that if things like this start rolling out, I could see a collapse in the industry sooner than later.

 

[EdgeXL]

The value for EA on the other hand is settling the consumer into a subscription service for their IPS.
Them giving you some games to rent is a tiny sacrifice to get a foot in that door. Can't bake a cake without breaking a few eggs.

The question is, how cheap do you come as a consumer? How easily are you placated with a few treats while you're being taken to the vet to be spaded?

We're being clicker trained, only a matter of time until they leave out the treats that come with the tricks and clicks.

You're pretty at peace with not getting demos, paying for multiplayer (remember what a good idea you thought AOL was?), not being able to read a review until after a game is out and paying for community splitting multiplayer map packs, are you not?
It's funny how that just kind of creeps up on you and eventually feels natural.

These publishers have become way more proficient at easing consumers into these things than they are at making games.

Do you realize that most of your argument can also be applied to PlayStation Plus, Games with Gold, Gamefly or outside of gaming- Netflix?

 

[icespide]

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

excellent post. you're on a roll lately my friend

 

[uuaschbaer]

Burn Jim, he's a witch.

 

[maltrain]

Other then EA, Ubisoft, and Activision what other publishers are big enough to be able to create a program like EA Access?

Square-Enix
Bethesda
Rockstar

 

[JaggedSac]

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.

You stahp

 

[p3tran]

so,

Dear Ubisoft's CEO

it is interesting to read your thoughts. it is proper that you know mine.

in order to get another subscription (on top of EA access and the two must-haves)
your deal MUST be sweeter than EA's

so there's your target, and there you go.

thanks

 

[CosmicQueso]

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).

This was a huge point about STEAM a few years back. People were hesitant to hop on board because if Valve ever shut down or was sold people could lose access to all of the games they'd purchased.

It could still happen, and boy if that day ever comes (I guess it will have to, eventually) it will be a really, really bad day. Really bad. Crushing bad.

But if EA turns this thing off by saying "yeah, we're shutting this service down X months from now" it's not quite the same thing. As long as I'm refunded a prorated portion of my sub fee for the service I'll be missing, I can't see too big a problem. It wouldn't be like Steam closing its doors.

Am I foolish and complacent? Maybe. But it's $30, I'm playing games I wouldn't otherwise buy, and I'm guessing I'll get to try more. I can still go buy Madden on a disc. Just don't see these issues impacting this service at this time.

 

[SneakyStephan]

Do you realize that most of your argument can also be applied to PlayStation Plus, Games with Gold, Gamefly or outside of gaming- Netflix?

Yes I do!
In fact the moment ps+ was announced I made a post on gaf saying it was the foot in the door to enable them to charge for mp once people got used to subscribing (maybe you can find that post somewhere in my post history if you want to)

Now yearly ps+ games have gone, 'replaced' with the ps4 games (skillfully convincing people they get the same value, as long as they have a ps4 at least (and until the ps3 ones get phased out in a few years), and hey "as long as I get mine" pops up again ) and online fees are in, as well as basic features like being able to keep your saves (not cloud save, no just keep them , ON YOUR VITA) are behind the subscription.

The reactions then almost make this feel like a déjà vu. (This time, you'll get to enjoy nested subscription services (It's like those Matryoshka dolls but for companies!, or like nested parentheses, but evil ))
In hindsight the reactions from back then are highly entertaining. Oh how innocent people were.

No comment on netflix we don't have that shit here I know nothing about it, same goes for gamefly (isn't gamefly a rental service with a 3rd party company paying publishers/devs to let them rent out their games? I really don't know)

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

so,

Dear Ubisoft's CEO

it is interesting to read your thoughts. it is proper that you know mine.

in order to get another subscription (on top of EA access and the two must-haves)
your deal MUST be sweeter than EA's

so there's your target, and there you go.

thanks

Ubisoft CEO: "Thank you for sending us your thoughts, unfortunately your demands are unacceptable, we'll just lock Assassins Creed behind Ubisoft access to increase subscriptions, thanks."

 

[Vlade]

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

How about we all discuss it and try to have informed consumers? We all can't be wilfully ignorant. Novel idea to you it seems.

 

[Scum]

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

Nicely put.
It practices like these that will eventually doom the industry.

 

[Nanashrew]

Just like Jim Sterling said in one of his videos. I never doubted Ubisoft would try this though because of course they would.

 

[Dunlop]

Nicely put.
It practices like these that will eventually doom the industry.

Maybe, but it also can not stay in status or it will be doomed anyways

What's the solution?

 

[lemon_fresh]

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.

That may be so, but my point was that there is more than enough evidence that EA has ulterior motives, and they are not consumer friendly, as opposed to the person who said opposite.

 

[Chris_C]

Ugh. As long as I can still buy my games individually on a disc.

You'll be able to do that, but as we've already seen from EA, the current free benefits you enjoy (demo's, betas) will be locked away behind a wall to "add value" to their subscription service.

 

[MormaPope]

Games as a service, provided by publishers instead of a fair and existing marketplace. This will definitely be the norm this gen. When? I have no clue. When it comes to game publishers like EA and Ubisoft, they're going to go in hard if this takes off at all.

If a franchise is more successful through the subscription method, say goodbye to that game taking up retail space.

 

[Dark Rider]

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

Thank you. I completely agree and wish people will start to think about the industry future and these practices giving it cancer like disease that will lead to it's death (

Spoiler

well crash

)

I agree that it is good for publisher brands

This won't stop here. Sony is going to be pressured by all pubs now. They might as well open the doors rather than shut down and give Xbox de facto exclusivity to the services.

If MS want to tarnish their reputation further then let them
Sony does not have to follow (did the start of this generation not teach anyone anything about doing the right thing in gaming can pay off big?)

 

[Infinite Xero]

And so it begins.

Give up Sony and just allow we the consumers to decide whether we want the subscription service.

 

[twobear]

The moralising tone on this forum is becoming increasingly grating. I think I need a hiatus.

 

[Dunlop]

If MS want to tarnish their reputation further then let them

Sorry I respect MS more than Sony in this regard.

They may be acting out of desperation but are giving their customers a choice.

Sony is protecting their bottom line (again within their right to do)

 

[CosmicQueso]

That may be so, but my point was that there is more than enough evidence that EA has ulterior motives, and they are not consumer friendly, as opposed to the person who said opposite.

These are all companies. Sony, MS, EA, all of them. They are companies with the primary and sole purpose of earning for their shareholders. "Ulterior motives". My goodness.

The willingness by some to just bend over and take things without thinking about the possible rammifications in the future is just as grating.

Yeah, deciding that $30 to play some games should absolutely be associated with "bending over and taking it". Not that someone has made a purchase decision for some video games. No, it's more like being bent over and having something put in one's posterior. Completely appropriate analogy.

 

[licktheenvelope]

yah... looking around at the last couple years I don't think pubs should be copying EA...

 

[boredandlazy]

The moralising tone on this forum is becoming increasingly grating. I think I need a hiatus.

The willingness by some to just bend over and take things without thinking about the possible future ramifications can be just as grating.

 

[Final Boss]

Publishers dream, own nothing and be forever paying them

 

[Dunlop]

The willingness by some to just bend over and take things without thinking about the possible future ramifications can be just as grating.

And other to not think about the future ramifications of an industry that is static while competition for that gaming dollar grows exponentially around them is equally grating.

This odd mentality of wanting everything bigger and better but you dare not change anything mentality is puzzling.

If gaming as a service fails it should be on it's own merits, not because Sony "protected" us.

however if it works and stays optional then publishers gain the additional revenue streams to keep console development attractive and people who are interested in those services benefit

 

[licktheenvelope]

And other to not think about the future ramifications of an industry that is static while competition for that gaming dollar grows exponentially around them is equally grating.

This odd mentality of wanting everything bigger and better but you dare not change anything mentality is puzzling.

If gaming as a service fails it should be on it's own merits, not because Sony "protected" us.

however if it works and stays optional then publishers gain the additional revenue streams to keep console development attractive and people who are interested in those services benefit

I hope you aren't referring to EA because they are doing a pretty good job of shunning people from their AAA offerings right now (and for the last few years)...

 

[Dunlop]

I hope you aren't referring to EA because they are doing a pretty good job of shunning people from their AAA offerings right now (and for the last few years)...

I'm referring to what they are trying to do,

I don't care about the drama people associate with them, Never had a problem with EA and once I do I would no longer buy from them just like any other company gaming or otherwise

 

[orochi91]

Other publishers will want in on this, which means IGC through PS+ will no loner be a prominent selling point.

Which will likely force Sony to lower PS+ prices.

Sounds good.

Fuck Sony for charging for online.

 

[Dark Rider]

They may be acting out of desperation but are giving their customers a choice.

desperation for? their bottom line right?
yes giving their customers the choice to suffocate the industry to death (killing both these people beloved hobby AND their business long term)
Sorry I can't respect that

Sony is protecting their bottom line (again within their right to do)

I'm sure they like to protect their bottom line but at least they publicly acknowledge that it's a bad practice and an ominous precedent for the gaming industry.

 

[shem935]

And other to not think about the future ramifications of an industry that is static while competition for that gaming dollar grows exponentially around them is equally grating.

This odd mentality of wanting everything bigger and better but you dare not change anything mentality is puzzling.

If gaming as a service fails it should be on it's own merits, not because Sony "protected" us.

however if it works and stays optional then publishers gain the additional revenue streams to keep console development attractive and people who are interested in those services benefit

The ramifications of an industry that has grown bloated and entirely focused on AAAA development and big bets are none of my concern. I never asked for giant games that cost upwards of 60 million dollars to make. Publishers seemed fine greenlighting sequel after sequel, with budgets spiraling out of control but once they realized that spending that much money was a huge risk suddenly content is removed from the game for me to pay for.

Games ship broken. Endless amounts of micro-transactions litter AAA games. They are wringing us dry for money as it is and now we are supposed to subscribe to their services that give us some of their old games when their new games are just actually their old games is silly. Yes they give discounts but those discounts are what digital versions should cost. A digital game sold makes a pub so much more money per sale. No retailer cut, no disc, no box, just the bytes on your hard drive. And now with these subscriptions they can render the bytes on your hard drive non functional once you lose your sub.

And games as a service, outside of MMO's and stuff like PSNOW and other streaming services like it, have no leg to stand on. The yearly assassin's creed is not a service. It is a product I buy for entertainment. Games as a service mean you don't own them and they can take away their service at any time. This makes sense for MMO's as they require investments from the pub to keep the game running at a base level. Not for AAA games that will be obsolete when the next game comes out a year from then.

 

[icespide]

desperation for? their bottom line right?
yes giving their customers the choice to suffocate the industry to death (killing both these people beloved hobby AND their business long term)
Sorry I can't respect that



I'm sure they like to protect their bottom line but at least they publicly acknowledge that it's a bad practice and an ominous precedent for the gaming industry.

um when did they publicly acknowledge that?

 

[Dark Rider]

um when did they publicly acknowledge that?

they said it's not good value for their customers
check out the thread about why Sony refused to allow EA access on their network

 

[Bold One]

Looks like Sony was rigth all along

 

[icespide]

they said it's not good value for their customers
check out the thread about why Sony refused to allow EA access on their network

yeah that's completely different than "a bad practice and an ominous precedent for the gaming industry"

 

[Dunlop]

The ramifications of an industry that has grown bloated and entirely focused on AAAA development and big bets are none of my concern. I never asked for giant games that cost upwards of 60 million dollars to make. Publishers seemed fine greenlighting sequel after sequel, with budgets spiraling out of control but once they realized that spending that much money was a huge risk suddenly content is removed from the game for me to pay for.

Games ship broken. Endless amounts of micro-transactions litter AAA games. They are wringing us dry for money as it is and now we are supposed to subscribe to their services that give us some of their old games when their new games are just actually their old games is silly. Yes they give discounts but those discounts are what digital versions should cost. A digital game sold makes a pub so much more money per sale. No retailer cut, no disc, no box, just the bytes on your hard drive. And now with these subscriptions they can render the bytes on your hard drive non functional once you lose your sub.

And games as a service, outside of MMO's and stuff like PSNOW and other streaming services like it, have no leg to stand on. The yearly assassin's creed is not a service. It is a product I buy for entertainment. Games as a service mean you don't own them and they can take away their service at any time. This makes sense for MMO's as they require investments from the pub to keep the game running at a base level. Not for AAA games that will be obsolete when the next game comes out a year from then.

Very good points, but it is the reality of the industry and what gamers expect. So wait for a inevitable crash or allow them to find another (optional) revenue source.

As of this point you can still physically buy all your media and even own it digitally. You can ignore all of these services (except PS+ if you play online) so there is no impact on your current habits.