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

#31PulpPosted 8/19/2014 4:19:59 PM
This week I spent $3.00 on a xblig called "Survivalist". Best 3 bucks ive ever spent and miles better than anything I have bought from EA/Ubi in the last few years.

I dont care what the big publishers do or what happens to this greedy industry....there will always be cool games to play.
---
INTEL 533MHZ PIII 512k/133, ALL-IN-Wonder 128 Pro AGP, 128MB SDRAM, Sound Blaster 32AWE, 47GB Elite SCSI, Win98
#32eastofeastside(Topic Creator)Posted 8/19/2014 5:36:15 PM
Lord_Serpentor posted...
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.


The argument that digital services will allow publishers to exploit consumers just doesn't hold up to basic economics. There will be many alternative ways for years for a consumer to play the latest Madden or Assassins Creed. Microeconomics dictates pricing, digital services does not represent any form of monopoly.

Taking the middle man out of the industry is a good thing for consumers and publishers a like. The dollars that Gamestop grabs out of used game sales doesn't contribute one dime to making Call of Duty or Battlefield any better.