Why are Neogafs acting like Ubisoft mirroring EA Access is the death of gaming?

#21googlerPosted 8/19/2014 2:02:24 PM
Horridhal posted...
Because it very well might be if it becomes a successful practice.


If it's successful then why would it be dead?
#22googlerPosted 8/19/2014 2:06:05 PM
I wouldn't actually mind if ubisoft did because I don't really want to pay full price for most of their games and once in done with them they aren't the type of games I really ever go back to
#23HorridhalPosted 8/19/2014 2:06:35 PM
googler posted...
Horridhal posted...
Because it very well might be if it becomes a successful practice.


If it's successful then why would it be dead?


ITP : We ignore all context to try and troll semantics. Cute, but ultimately ineffective.
---
I'm not the nicest person you'll meet.
Have a real point please.
#24Lord_SerpentorPosted 8/19/2014 2:07:47 PM
eastofeastside posted...
Horridhal posted...
eastofeastside posted...
Horridhal posted...
Because it very well might be if it becomes a successful practice.


Explain please. I don't get it?


If it becomes successful then gaming becomes a subscription based activity where publishers are able to force you into their service to be able to play a game you like.

Those same publishers would control the pricing and benefits of their service. Do you really trust publishers like EA to do the right thing with it?


Wouldn't service competition work in consumers price interests?

Can gaming as service not be viewed as the inevitable direction gaming distribution is going to evolve to rather than a threat to the old model?


Not in this case, each company can charge whatever they want as long as subscription numbers are high enough, it's not really competition since EA is offering EA games and Ubisoft would be offering Ubisoft games. Same way they all charge the same 60 dollars for their big releases.

as far as gaming as a service being the inevitable direction for distribution well first it was digital to take out the middle man of the physical retailers and costs associated with printing discs. Now that isn't good enough? Now we have to accept that we have to pay a subscription cost to then gain access to buying games?

It comes down to the publishers are always looking for ways to take more money beyond the 60 dollars for the game, every time something like this happens you really have to look and say is it really good for the gamer in the long run? Sure EA access is cool if you really like EA games then you get a discount on the digital stuff, and early access to games and the vault and if it expands to PC or Xbox 360 where the vault can expand it becomes a better deal, all for 5 dollars. Then when Ubisoft does it, it's another 5 dollars, then Activision another 5 dollars, Capcom, Konami, Square Enix, etc etc.

We already have to pay for Xbox Live and PS+ to get access to multiplier, at some point the numbers start to drop off and the publishers look for ways to guarantee you'll pay that monthly fee to them, so then suddenly they start releasing exclusive content to members and so forth. It's a slippery slope and once EA was allowed to do this on Xbox One the flood gates were opened, if MS had said no along with Sony then it would probably would have started on PC and fewer publishers would probably concern themselves with it until it broke the console barrier.

The publishers and the console makers should have to prove to us these are good ideas we should not be blindly defending them and praising them for allowing us the opportunity to spend more money.
---
Official CAGN Moon Knight
PSN: LordSerpentor XBL:Serpentor10
#25PS4isallihavePosted 8/19/2014 2:12:30 PM
Because GAF is the biggest circlejerk on the net. First few posts set the tone and the rest of the sheep just parrot the hatred and it turns into a 20+ page thread filled with bile.
#26iamdanthamanPosted 8/19/2014 2:47:44 PM
Horridhal posted...

I don't defend PSNow as a service either, to be honest. The difference is, though, that PSNow is entirely games from previous generations, EA access isn't.


Yeah, and how long do you think that will last? I would guess that in no less than one year, Sony will announce PS4 games coming to PSNow, and all their fans will eat it right up, just like everything else Sony does. Not that Xbox fans are really much better, but you get the point.
---
All your base are belong to us
#27phineasfoolPosted 8/19/2014 2:52:32 PM
Crystyn_7B posted...
Laylow12 posted...
Oh man. Here we go. EA led the DLC charge and "season pass" and now they've started this wonderful service. They will be nominated for the worst company in America again next year.

UbiSoft will reveal their "service" within a month or two.

.


I don't know exactly what you mean with "EA led", it was Rockstar with L.A Noire that started Season Passes and Bethesda with the Horse Armor DLC that started DLC (bad ones at that).

EA introduced online passes and others followed.


THQ was actually the first to have online passes with UFC 2010. Even Sony had a game with an online pass before EA. EA was just the first to announce them.
---
XBLive - phineasfool
NNID - phineasfool
#28scoobydoobydontPosted 8/19/2014 2:55:23 PM
Horse armor wasn't the first dlc either. There was dlc on Dreamcast and the first Xbox.
---
http://i.imgur.com/8LUhEFG.jpg
#29phineasfoolPosted 8/19/2014 2:56:36 PM
scoobydoobydont posted...
Horse armor wasn't the first dlc either. There was dlc on Dreamcast and the first Xbox.


Not to mention all the stuff on PC years before.
---
XBLive - phineasfool
NNID - phineasfool
#30Crystyn_7BPosted 8/19/2014 3:00:02 PM
phineasfool posted...
scoobydoobydont posted...
Horse armor wasn't the first dlc either. There was dlc on Dreamcast and the first Xbox.


Not to mention all the stuff on PC years before.


Well consider myself corrected then.
---
GT:Schreckstoff PSN: JudasInHell
Destiny Clan: Inquisition (http://www.bungie.net/en/Clan/Detail/164812)