I'm talking about this question I asked you after you said years ago we got DLC for free instead of having to pay for it...
You answered with some nonsense about Assassins Creed having day one DLC these days.
Just admit you're wrong if you are, don't pathetically try to change the subject.
Because Nintendo isn't worth more than any of those publishers.
I can only congratulate Sony's masterful PR for having so many gamers believe they can do no wrong and that it's all for the players.
now we get DLC exclusively for the publishers subscription service.
After 17 pages and we still get posts like this.
I can only congratulate Sony's masterful PR for having so many gamers believe they can do no wrong and that it's all for the players.
Nintendo could do a sub on their own system. This isn't an Xbox exclusive idea. They have the deepest and most valuable catalog to toy with any business model they want.I'd love a ninty sub on xbox. all of us would I bet. whether this makes financial sense for nintendo though, its something i dont know.
but I'd insta-buy that sub for sure
That one console maker is "standing up to this" to protect their own paywall. You do realize that, right?
I'm trying to explain to you the DLC at launch, are free contents in the whole game some years ago, then company like Ubisoft put them behind a wallpay (or capcom). I though was clear. Or I have to explain to you how they develop the 'extra' DLC at launch?
I agree with you. I was responding to the notion that Activision is the last big publisher not on this model. No disputing Nintendo quality.Nintendo. The one publisher with no subscriptions, no nickel and dime DLC, beautifully made games of the highest reviewed quality of the gen with a fantastic console that is cheaper than the other two and that no one wants to buy.
After about a million posts about EA Access I still find it funny that when taking Sony into the conversation we're constantly reminded that Sony is in it for itself and doesn't give a fuck about us.
... yet the argument is that we shouldn't make assumptions about other companies intentions because they are good guy EA(Ubisoft) because as it stands now - it's a good "deal". Go figure.
Well you were talking about season passes with me dude, not day one DLC. Let me know next time you want to change the subject mid discussion.
I edit my post because my english syntax it's not perfect, just to be precise, don't be paranoic.Edit: And stop talking to me in a patronizing tone when you can't even follow the discussion we where having. Editing your posts constantly to say something else is pretty shit mate.
What the... I give to you an example. AN EXAMPLE. You reply to me just talking of semantic indeed to discuss to the whole matter. Could at least say what's wrong in my though?
After 17 pages and we still get posts like this.
I can only congratulate Sony's masterful PR for having so many gamers believe they can do no wrong and that it's all for the players.
It seems you can't get your thoughts across properly due to a language barrier issue, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I'll just leave this discussion alone.
its not an xbox exclusive idea, but as we see it seems to be an xbox exclusive implementation.Nintendo could do a sub on their own system. This isn't an Xbox exclusive idea. They have the deepest and most valuable catalog to toy with any business model they want.
It's a win for the consumer because the consumer gets easy and cheap access to what is likely to be a great back catalogue of games.
I can't for a second understand why anyone thinks Sony is doing this to save those industry.
This is one of those situations that is a win-win for both the consumer and the publisher. thats the reason all these other publishers are lining up and saying "hey this is a great idea?".
EA has found a way to monetize games that would normally be removed from retail shops and/or be eaten up by the trade in market. In the process they are opening up new markets for selling there DLC. In addition to that they are incentivizing digital purchases (eliminating resales) and most importantly they are increasing there brand awareness. People who sign up for this are going to pay extra special attention to what EA releases because they know they get things like early access, the discount, and access to these games in possibly a year. I think the key here for EA is that the consumer doesn't own the game and only has access to it with a valid subscription.
It's a win for the consumer because the consumer gets easy and cheap access to what is likely to be a great back catalogue of games.
EA will be retarded to fuck this up and try to gouge customers and if they are stupid enough to do that then there will be three other publishers handing over a collection of year old games for a yearly subscription.
If you think they are going to put there dlc behind this paywall I think you must be retarded... That is there bread and butter pretty much and it would be suicide to restrict the markets access to this. The intent is to increase how many people have access to buy this... That would be similar to Going into Walmart and buying Destiny only to discover you need a monthly/yearly subscription to purchase games.
I think did EA is going to screw people over like they generally do its going to be in the early access program... 6 hour "trial" of a full game is far too generous IMO and I can see that being more restricted and/or removed entirely in the future.
Now anyone who thinks that Sony is worried about multiple publisher jumping is absolutely right but if anyone thinks Sony is looking out for anybody but there own interests is completely delusional. More cheap options to purchase games is never a bad thing for the consumer here. If this takes off and more publishers get added into the fray it is going to completely diminish the value of PS+ as there will be more competition for the consumer to pick and less games for Sony to pick from for there IGC. PS+ will be limited to indie and Sony published games which will extremely limit its value. This will also destroy any hopes Sony has of capitalizing on PS+ if company's like EA, Ubisoft, and Activision are offering monthly rentals of there next gen catalogue games for 5$ then what hope does PS+ stand offering singular last gen games at 5$/week.
Ubisoft and Activision are probably upset they didn't think of this first.
Ok, I'm done. You are right. Whatever you said.
Edit:
But I though my english it's perfectly understandable although the syntax; I hate when people use this excuse to have the reason. It's pathetic.
Where does the back catalogue come from if there is no back catalogue to offer?
Really? Because I can probably pull 100 quotes from this thread alone of people thanking Sony for blocking this program.
I don't even know what the hell are you talking about. Where did I ever mentioned the end of physical things?What the...? When did the echo chamber turn against this idea? There's a lot of this sentiment in the thread.
Are many people also afraid that Netflix will spell the end of DVDs, iTunes and Spotify will spell the end of physical audio (THE HORROR), etc.?
And I thought it wasn't.I thought and still think this is a good idea and value.
I don't have changed the subject. Season passes give free dlc (or give dlc behind payment without season passes). I simply used those subject how example. I repeat to you, what's wrong in my example?I trying to explain to you before the DLC, PASSES ecc ecc... those things not existed because the whole game gave those contents for free. Then, not all, but some companies, like Ubisoft use those practices without any limits. Just imagine to give to Ubisoft even a subscription what they could to do. It's clear what I mean?Oh ok, it's pathetic that you're changing the subject from SEASON PASSES to DAY 1 DLC. Go back and read my posts, where do I even bring up Day 1 DLC, you suddenly bring it up when I ask you about "free DLC years ago". Don't be a shit head because I can't understand your gibberish.
This is one of those situations that is a win-win for both the consumer and the publisher.
Nobody is saying that, they all care only about profit.In this case Sony's best way to achieve this is to remove the choice from us.
Understandable but shouldn't be fucking applauded
Once again what does the Sims 4 or even NHL 15 missing features have to do with their subs? Do people take a shit on World of Warcraft because Blizzard screwed up with Diablo 3?
As to the other points, I said that because most people seem to be praising Sony for not being ok with this and making the choice for you. I get that you want more for less but truth be told, EA, UBI or anyone else for that matter isn't obligated to offer their games with GwG or PS+.
One of three things can happen:
1) Sony continues to hold out and EA/Ubisoft make quite a bit of their content exclusive on Microsoft platforms.
2) These services don't sell as well as they hope and it crashes and is forgotten about.
3) Sony caves in allows it on their console and I slowly back away from my favorite hobby.
If you think they are going to put there dlc behind this paywall I think you must be retarded...
I don't have change the subject. Season passes give free dlc (behind paywall with passes). I use those subject how example. I repeat to you, what's wrong in my example?I trying to explain to you before the DLC, PASSES ecc ecc... those things not existed because the whole game has those contents for free. Then, not all, but some companies, like Ubisoft use those practices without any limits. Just imagine to give to Ubisoft even a subscription what they could to do. It's clear what I mean?
What's bad about season passes? I'm getting DLC I was going to get anyway at a cheaper price? Oh no the horror!
You have pay to an extra campaign, missions, when probably tens years ago you woudln't have to pay for those. But you are free to spent how many money you want.
Tell me of all these games years ago that gave away free campaigns? I remember buying plenty of expansion packs back then (same as what DLC is these days really), the most I got was free maps for multiplayer games.
The first AC has not a single DLC from what I remember. But when Ubi has discovered the DLC, the hell has begun. They put thousand of DLC just the first day of the launch. Ubisoft is not exactly equilibrate when we are talking of DLC. Give them the subscription, let's see what will happen.
Hi my future self ;D have good laugh
OOOK. I just to repeat to you, for the last time, season passes, dlc I'm not discussing here of what exactly are those, it's not the matter of the thread. I'm not sure why you continue to discuss of those. I have explained to you, I have used season passes & dlc how example of what a company can to do if you give them too much tools to gain more money. This is why I haven't replied to your question, it's not that the matter of the discussion.Well you seem to have a clear misunderstanding of what a season pass does, season passes give you access to all upcoming (not day 1) DLC in the future, how is that locking content behind a paywall? You're paying either way to get the DLC. At no point in time have expansion packs been free for games, that is what you said to me though .
See I said to you
You replied with
Then I said :
and you replied with some shit about Day 1 DLC.
Do you see where you went off talking about season passes and onto Day 1 DLC and where the confusion came from? This would have been easier if you just went back and read what you'd written, then admitted you'd gone off topic instead of blaming me for misunderstanding you.
Smh.or the Wii U being an expensive, underpowered, slow selling piece of shit affecting the quality of the games Nintendo was putting out for it.
Talk of locking entire games and season passes behind this is the point where the fear has got to you a little too much, how many people subscribe to PS+/XBLG (which is considered very successful)? What percentage of the total user base? These publishers aren't completely insane, they know how to make money and cutting off 50%+ of their audience behind a paywall is not a good way to make money, if half your potential customers would simply look elsewhere when a barrier appears then it doesn't make good business sense to help them do that.
People may not like the idea of subscriptions but it's a completely hypocritical stance to have if you already subscribe to PS+/XBLG, you either don't subscribe to any and make the point that it's all bad, or you accept subscriptions are now fair game and don't act as if people are just now causing the destruction of the industry. They're all offering games as part of it, Sony just happens to have the power to lock large chunks of games (online) behind the service too which "adds value". Should we suggest that if EA/Ubi locks their online multiplayer behind a paywall it would be of much better value too?
Other than "because EA is evil", Why? It makes zero sense from a business standpoint...
Other than "because EA is evil", Why? It makes zero sense from a business standpoint...
OOOK. I just to repeat to you, for the last time, season passes, dlc I'm not discussing here of what exactly are those, it's not the matter of the thread. I'm not sure why you continue to discuss of those. I have explained to you, I have used season passes & dlc how example of what a company can to do if you give them too much tools to gain more money. This is why I haven't replied to your question, it's not that the matter of the discussion.
I'm getting an Xbone this weekend and will definitely sign up for ea access.
When ea fuck it up, I'll end my subscription. If they don't, I'll keep it going. No negatives so far imo
If you want the reason, I give to you the reason. I have not interested to annoy you. I tried to discuss to you, but you seem a bit obsessed to the semantic of the words. Without offence.Lol whatever guy, you've got excuses for everything. Bring up season passes, suddenly it's Day 1 DLC, now you're just generally talking about everything. Don't bother replying next time if you're not going to follow the discussion through and just try to change the topic.
That one console maker is "standing up to this" to protect their own paywall. You do realize that, right?
It makes perfect business sense to try to get people to subscribe to your thing, Ubisoft had a Uplay exclusive preorder bonus version of Watchdogs ffs.
Other than the fact this is completely false.
If you want the reason, I give to you the reason. I have not interested to irritate you. I tried to discuss to you, but you seem a bit obsessed to the semantic of the words. Without offence.
You have pay to an extra campaign, missions, when probably tens years ago you woudln't have to pay for those. But you are free to spent how many money you want..
What? You're just making shit up now guy so stop it. Where was I obsessing over the semantics of words? You said:
I asked you to clarify and you replied talking about something entirely different. Not really hard to understand where the confusion was.
Talk of locking entire games and season passes behind this is the point where the fear has got to you a little too much, how many people subscribe to PS+/XBLG (which is considered very successful)? What percentage of the total user base? These publishers aren't completely insane, they know how to make money and cutting off 50%+ of their audience behind a paywall is not a good way to make money, if half your potential customers would simply look elsewhere when a barrier appears then it doesn't make good business sense to help them do that.
People may not like the idea of subscriptions but it's a completely hypocritical stance to have if you already subscribe to PS+/XBLG, you either don't subscribe to any and make the point that it's all bad, or you accept subscriptions are now fair game and don't act as if people are just now causing the destruction of the industry. They're all offering games as part of it, Sony just happens to have the power to lock large chunks of games (online) behind the service too which "adds value". Should we suggest that if EA/Ubi locks their online multiplayer behind a paywall it would be of much better value too?
Smh. That's a retailer preorder bonus. Completely different from locking dlc behind a pay wall.
Can you explain me exactly with some simple words what exactly you want to hear to me? Without to be offensive, if you can.
Just a simple apology for changing the subject mid discussion then calling me paranoid because I pointed out you were drastically editing your posts and then calling me pathetic for saying I couldn't understand your English.