Ubisoft won't attempt an unlimited gaming service until EA proves it can work

#21EnclavePosted 8/20/2014 11:31:43 AM
staticxtreme5 posted...
If that thought horrifies you I would hate to see what you think about a real, hard hitting life issue. So what if you can't play a game from today 15 years down the road? Is it really that big a deal?


Yes, it is a big deal. It's lost art, culture and history. You may not think that's a big deal but that doesn't change the fact that it is a big deal.

Imagine if all of a sudden all copies of Lord of the Rings in the world instantly vanished or we lost all copies of Citizen Kane? That'd be a significant loss to humanity.

We should never happily give up on our art and culture just because some corporation wants to get rid of it so they can increase their quarterly profits in the future.
---
The commercial says that Church isn't for perfect people, I guess that's why I'm an atheist.
#22regsantotomasPosted 8/20/2014 11:36:02 AM
Enclave posted...
staticxtreme5 posted...
If that thought horrifies you I would hate to see what you think about a real, hard hitting life issue. So what if you can't play a game from today 15 years down the road? Is it really that big a deal?


Yes, it is a big deal. It's lost art, culture and history. You may not think that's a big deal but that doesn't change the fact that it is a big deal.

Imagine if all of a sudden all copies of Lord of the Rings in the world instantly vanished or we lost all copies of Citizen Kane? That'd be a significant loss to humanity.

We should never happily give up on our art and culture just because some corporation wants to get rid of it so they can increase their quarterly profits in the future.


I think that that is a bit of a stretch.

With games being archived digitally; the possibility of them being lost to the ether is highly unlikely. These aren't films that are going to corrode.

What I would like to see is a better avenue with which to access these archived titles; specifically games from previous generations that may not be available on store shelves. Subscription seems to be a potentially good avenue in that direction. Corporations can make profits and people can continue to have access to games that they would have otherwise not have access to.

Right now, all we have are grey market solutions especially when it comes to arcade ROMs and older console titles where cartridges may not be a viable or even affordable option.
---
If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything - Mark Twain
#23grampamurkedPosted 8/20/2014 11:41:41 AM
Jiggy101011 posted...
grampamurked posted...
I don't like where this is headed. I don't want to pay a fee to play games I would rather own.


Do you hate Gamefly and Redbox too? What about Netflix? Do you hate paying a monthly subscription fee to watch movies and TV shows that you don't own?


Your post couldn't be less relevant. I have none of that.
---
Xbox GT: Grampa Murked U Steam ID: grampamurkedu PSN ID: GRAMPAMURKEDU
#24eastofeastsidePosted 8/20/2014 11:42:47 AM
I hate choice.

I wish I lived in a communist country where I could stand in line all day for my precious disc game and a potato.
#25EnclavePosted 8/20/2014 11:43:12 AM
It's really not a stretch at all. There are instances of games that we can no longer play due to being tied to online services and those services being shut down.

The more publishers and developers tie games to online infrastructures the more risk there is of this. The Xbone itself was the poster child of this. Had Microsofts initial plans gone through? Inevitably one day they would shut down the systems access to Live, after that point it would be 24 hours before every Xbone in the world would become unable to play games.

That would have been an entire generation of Xbox games that would be lost until emulation of the Xbone was sorted.

This is a future I never want to see happen. PS Now if it replaces the PS5 one day? Just as guilty of this, though even worse in that it would not even allow emulation to possibly save the day one day.

I do not want gaming culture and history to be held hostage by people who's financials would benefit from making old content no longer playable.
---
The commercial says that Church isn't for perfect people, I guess that's why I'm an atheist.
#26grampamurkedPosted 8/20/2014 11:43:47 AM
eastofeastside posted...
I hate choice.

I wish I lived in a communist country where I could stand in line all day for my precious disc game and a potato.


Move then
---
Xbox GT: Grampa Murked U Steam ID: grampamurkedu PSN ID: GRAMPAMURKEDU
#27regsantotomasPosted 8/20/2014 11:52:19 AM
Enclave posted...
I do not want gaming culture and history to be held hostage by people who's financials would benefit from making old content no longer playable.


With all due respect, I think this is the fallacy in your argument. It would absolutely behoove them to keep these games available in some manner. Why would making them unplayable be financially beneficial in any way?

I just don't see why this can't be mutually beneficial for all parties. Yes, even if corporations are making profits.
---
If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything - Mark Twain
#28EnclavePosted 8/20/2014 12:01:56 PM
regsantotomas posted...
Enclave posted...
I do not want gaming culture and history to be held hostage by people who's financials would benefit from making old content no longer playable.


With all due respect, I think this is the fallacy in your argument. It would absolutely behoove them to keep these games available in some manner. Why would making them unplayable be financially beneficial in any way?

I just don't see why this can't be mutually beneficial for all parties. Yes, even if corporations are making profits.


If games become unplayable at some point that forces the communities of those games to move on to other games, newer games, games that companies can still make profit off of instead of having these gamers not buying into a new game. Just look at those old Halo games that you can no longer play online multiplayer with. Microsoft decided it was no longer in their own best interests to keep the Halo 2 servers up, so they shut them down. Halo 2 still had a viable community but Microsoft wanted them to move on to newer Halo titles, titles that would make them more money. Hell, I am certain that people on the 360 would to this day still be playing Halo 2 multiplayer if the servers were never shut down.

Honestly man, it's not a fallacy if it's actually happened.
---
The commercial says that Church isn't for perfect people, I guess that's why I'm an atheist.
#29scoobydoobydontPosted 8/20/2014 12:05:38 PM
regsantotomas posted...
Enclave posted...
I do not want gaming culture and history to be held hostage by people who's financials would benefit from making old content no longer playable.


With all due respect, I think this is the fallacy in your argument. It would absolutely behoove them to keep these games available in some manner. Why would making them unplayable be financially beneficial in any way?

I just don't see why this can't be mutually beneficial for all parties. Yes, even if corporations are making profits.


If you have 3 old AssCreeds in your Ubi vault, you will think twice about buying a fourth even with you Ubi Access discount. It isn't a fallacy, it's common sense. It's the same reason EA retires game servers with active MP communities... to get them to move on to newer versions. It absolutely will not work differently long term for EA Access, or Ubi Access, and none of these companies deserve the benefit of the doubt. They've earned nothing but suspicion and doubt.
---
http://i.imgur.com/8LUhEFG.jpg
#30regsantotomasPosted 8/20/2014 12:09:17 PM
Enclave posted...


If games become unplayable at some point that forces the communities of those games to move on to other games, newer games, games that companies can still make profit off of instead of having these gamers not buying into a new game. Just look at those old Halo games that you can no longer play online multiplayer with. Microsoft decided it was no longer in their own best interests to keep the Halo 2 servers up, so they shut them down. Halo 2 still had a viable community but Microsoft wanted them to move on to newer Halo titles, titles that would make them more money. Hell, I am certain that people on the 360 would to this day still be playing Halo 2 multiplayer if the servers were never shut down.

Honestly man, it's not a fallacy if it's actually happened.


First of all, good discussion.

Support for multiplayer servers is a different animal altogether IMO. I mean, did you expect that support for online multiplayer would continue ad infinitum? Certainly, we can debate when would have been a good time to pull the plug.
---
If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything - Mark Twain