-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Ubisoft interested in EA Access like program, thinks it's good for publisher brands
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
When Sony started PS+ it was only going to end this way.
I would probably get a Ubisoft subscription as well. Having 4 (MS, EA, Sony, Ubi) would mean I would rarely be buying games.
I would probably get a Ubisoft subscription as well. Having 4 (MS, EA, Sony, Ubi) would mean I would rarely be buying games.
True to a certain extend but honestly not really that comparable, but ok i go with it.
Is "look they are just as bad!!" really a good argument for you???
well, thats not what EA did to get my sub.
Pseudo judo
Member
Your points are full of conjecture and laden with false assumption and bias.
You created this imaginary gamer who seems to buy into everything that ruins gaming and now everyone who see value in EA Access gets painted with that same brush. It's not a healthy start to informative debate.
Alx
Member
Many of us were already going full digital anyway. That kind of offer is obviously targeting that crowd.
That's what they'll do to keep it further down the line though.
Enjoy your carrot whilst it lasts.
Yeah and that situation won't improve if Ubisoft had their own service, add onto that you'd need PS+ to play whatever Ubisoft game online anyway and you'd end up paying extra for something you may have already got in the first place, don't forget FarCry 2 & 3, Assassins Creed 3 and Rayman Origins all made it on PS+ at one point in time.
well, enjoy your fears, too.
A fear caused by past actions and repeating them to the point it feels inevitable what's going to happen.
Christ this is crazy. I mean it's too late, there is no going back now. The fact that so many are defending it goes to show that EA has already got what they wanted.
EA just took a massive shit and fed it to everyone telling them its chocolate. Get used to the taste guys, the rest of the publishers WILL be serving it up real soon.
EA just took a massive shit and fed it to everyone telling them its chocolate. Get used to the taste guys, the rest of the publishers WILL be serving it up real soon.
What do you mean? When have they offered a service and then after a while locked a bunch of features behind it?
Uplay on consoles.
Because..
It's essentially Netflix for games yet people are acting like it's a scam or something.
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.
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.
toddhunter
Member
Look at it this way:
If these subscription services are successful, do you think the quality of games will increase or decrease?
Or to put it another way. "People" will subscribe to get their yearly Fifa, AC and COD. Since EA, Ubisoft and Activision already have their money, why would they bother to even think about making other games?
Why would they make games at all beyond the bare minimum required to satisfy their subscribers?
They wont.
This is a bit of a leap, what evidence do you have that the quality of games would decline because they have loads of subscriptions? What suggests they'd stop releasing games at normal prices for people to just buy if they want? So many assumptions are being made and people just assume the worst on here, it's pretty sad.
Exactly, you'd have to have a Paramount subscription, Lionsgate subscription, Warner Brothers subscription, Disney subscription, etc.
This isn't really a Netflix at all because the publisher is controlling all of their content. You don't get to dabble in a little of this or a little of that.
Stallion Dan
Member
EA Access will not be successful on PS systems, as it will not be on them. EA can try squeeze extra money out a PS EA game by putting it on plus, or they do nothing and get nothing.
EA can try and hold out and refuse games for PS+ but it isn't much of a threat when EA Access was gonna deny those games to PS+ anyway.
Not having other subs on the systems will make PS+ better. Meanwhile, I wouldn't hold my breath for EA Access games heading to Games with Gold. Ditto for other publishers who try this.
toddhunter
Member
Because the last 10 years or so?
Sure it is pessimistic. But what part of publishers having your money in advance do you think will result in higher quality?
It is like preorder bonuses and review embargos x 10000000000000
CecilRousso
Member
People caring about a subject on an internet forum? Bastards!
People care because they look at the bigger picture. Not just what services offer today, but what the publishers want with them. They're not doing these programs as a favor to the customers.
I would argue that this is already happening with Madden, CoD and AC (Not sure about FIFA), games released yearly for $59.99, with the complaints we hear every year about these games not changing much.
Pseudo judo
Member
Wha? Ubisoft is a corporation. The goal is to make more money, always more. This potential service is just another revenue stream for them.
What about the last 10 years? The games I play these days are massively improved over the majority of games I played 10 years ago.
Well them having more money hopefully only means they can put more money into games development.
Pre-order bonuses are hardly a thing over here (UK), buy the game on release and you get the pre-order bonus, usually no need to pre-order at all. And can you just not wait a few days after a game releases for reviews if there are none before release? A review embargo means nothing to me other than I have wait a day or two more to read a review.
You mean just like how the lack of competition has drastically improved cell phone carriers and ISPs in the US?
In a market where consumers think it's acceptable to lock online gaming behind a paywall I shudder to think what else could be achieved. It's voluntary right up until they start locking important features behind it.
what are you talking about? because you are certainly NOT talking about EA access for sure.
now, is there some other subscription I have missed that does that, or are we talking pure fantasy here?
It's like that thread we had last week. "Season passes are out of hand". As if somehow the overpricing and under-delivery was a completely unforeseen disaster that had just been sprung on the market.
At this point, these threads where people are defending the inevitable disaster that will be unleashed upong them are like watching lemmings slowly marching toward the cliff.
"I just pay for the stuff I like! I'll jump out again when it goes too far! Vote with your wallets!" Fast forward a few years and it's gone too far, everyone's doing it so there's no alternative and the whales are making it too profitable for the market to ever course correct again.
The thread "Publisher subscriptions have gone too far" will be with us in due course.
What will happen in reality is that the publishers will remove the paywalled features from the PS4 SKU and keep it all exclusive to Xbox. They won't be forced to compete, they'll just devalue Sony's product until they are forced to fold and give in.
fallen_dawn
Member
I imagine the argument would be that if they are getting a reliable revenue stream from their subscriptions, there is no incentive to innovate. Why risk tens-hundreds of millions of a new IP when your current rollout, plus the subscription, could possibly be a safer, more lucrative option? Personally, I don't really think that would happen - but eh.
My biggest gripe with this whole subscription is the inevitable walling off of services if you don't have it. We're already seeing it with demos, early play, etc. If these publishers hit their targets, there is a high likelihood of "Expansion 1 - Only with EA Acess", hell, if they were very successful, it may be required for some online features.
I'm fine with one or two subscriptions. At this stage - I do not want these to become the norm. If the publishers prove otherwise, and make these subscriptions outstanding value, with no consumer detriment, then I would consider. Right now though, no.
toddhunter
Member
Umm yes? So again, if the goal is to make money and not games, and you give them money for a bare minimum, why are they making other games again?
You realise this thread is about Ubisoft considering a service right?
The thing you forgot though is that Sony is ( and probably will be ) market leader for the next 5-7 years.
The reasoning that they will just fold very unlikely.
They will try to fight back by increasing value for PS+, if sales continue like they do now EA will probably fold before Sony does.
How will you be able to sustain a service if you don't add content? If they don't make more games the service will flop.
EA, Activision and Ubisoft cannot in my opinion lock games behind their services. There will always be games available to everyone. If the quality of the games declines because of the service, then these subpar games will kill the service because the people paying for the subscription will receive the same games. Or do you go so far and say that the games behind the service will have better quality?
Even if EA and the rest lock their games behind their services there are SO MANY MORE games we can try and play. I think it won't be too huge of a loss.
Yes I do! do you mind pointing me to the quotation where "giving them money in advance" is mentioned?
I guess you dont know, but neither in ea access we had to "give money in advance"
in fact the opposite happened:
<<- hey, mister gamer, I got for you this proposition: I have this vault here, with bf4, fifa14, madden 14 and peggle 2, I give you the vault keys for 30$/year.
and while we are at it, I promise I will add more and not remove from the vault,
and for it to be more enticing to you, I also throw in a 10% stackable discount on everything you may want to buy, along with an exclusive "preview the full game before it is released, without having to preorder/buy it" feature.
so you like it? if yes, I put an app for you to learn more and maybe even subscribe if that deal suits you>>
and the stuff the ubi dude says, I read them twice and still cant figure out where you got your "pay me now, service in future"
Guess that makes you "FIRST" on what I wanted to say initially here.
People also don't like having their favorite games being treated like cheap prostitutes.
Read above.
If that is what it takes to begin with, that is really, really, really, sad.
As Americans, we have no rights anymore.
You probably should reconsider that thought as this is EA we are talking about.
That is actually pretty horrific when you think about it.
If there is ever a good time to leave these 3 publishers, it may as well be now and I haven't felt this good in a long time...
*looks at Destiny poster*
-____________________________________________________-
Tiemen, block tower, Amir0x, Impeccable, and others: keep fighting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wauzrPn0cfg
AmaterasuOni
Banned
Unfortunately this. And I fear the third option the most.
Zok310
Banned
It's like DLC all over again. By the end of the gen we all will be paying for Live, Plus, and to most major 3rd party dev some kind of sub fee.
And just like DLC there will be forms and evolutions of these sub programs that are just going to screw people out of content.
I fore see PS+ and Games with Gold relegated to indies and 1st party games only if the 3rd party sub is successful.
But hey, at least we got to choose, right???
And just like DLC there will be forms and evolutions of these sub programs that are just going to screw people out of content.
I fore see PS+ and Games with Gold relegated to indies and 1st party games only if the 3rd party sub is successful.
But hey, at least we got to choose, right???
toddhunter
Member
If you really think the first iteration of EA access is where it ends and that EA will always give you the options you want in the future, I believe you are in for a rude shock.
Stallion Dan
Member
In PS+ case, more competition means less games for the service, which is bad for the gamer since most of them will be paying for PS+ for the multiplayer, to even make good use of EA Access you'd need PS+ too.
EA Access...no EA games for PS+.
Ubisoft Access...now no Ubisoft games
Activision...now none of these
Etc
How does this benefit PS+?
Any worthwhile feature that gets paywalled will just devalue the game on all systems, if they remove it from Sony system entirely they just damaging the biggest market for themselves, to Sony it makes no difference, other games will sell instead of EAs as gamers spend money on rival (to EA) products instead.
Sony system will not be devalued as the box product game is the same across both platforms. Pay the same, get the same for both systems still.
Any paywalled feature is effectively exclusive extremely high priced DLC.
Stare-Bear
Banned
Yay, more ways to lock dlc behind a paywall! I'm so glad at least one console maker is standing up to this.
cripterion
Member
I just find it hypocritical. If Sony can redeem themselves in the eyes of gamers why not others?
Which is why I'm only talking about PS+ on PS4. I use it as an example cause to some an UBI sub threatens that but in all honesty
1. Not every one is concerned cause not all people have a Playstation system.
2. I was proven wrong and some people actually purchased PS+ service for the monthly games and not for the multiplayer component so I'm sure some would see a value in having several of UBI titles behind a sub.
So all in all, I notice a lot of people that are totally against this seem more about protecting the value that they get with their PS+ than anything else.