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

#31SigmaLongshotPosted 8/20/2014 12:31:28 PM
staticxtreme5 posted...
Enclave posted...
SigmaLongshot posted...
Subscription-based services are really the future of media consumption.

Instead of buying physical CDs, people now, by majority, buy music digitally or purchase a media streaming program.

Instead of buying physical BluRays, people are now choosing to purchase video streaming subscriptions.

With the bandwidth available, there's no reason why a streaming gaming service can't follow suit of the rest of the media sector.


I mean, legitimately, people are changing very quickly. The rate of consumption of media is so incredibly quick now - when I was a kid you'd save up for a VHS/Betamax (and yes, I've always been a multi-"console" owner ;D ), then watch it over and over again. Now, I can hardly finish a single episode of a show on Netflix without switching out or bringing up a second internet panel to trawl through superfluous nonsense.

We just consume things at such an astounding rate that the sense of ownership of everything we have is diminishing - which is why a rental subscription is logically a sane and sensible step for the industry.


It's only the future if we let it be the future.

I personally don't relish the thought of a future where I don't own my games. I also don't relish the future where once a company decides that a game is no longer profitable enough to justify the bandwidth costs that they will just remove it altogether.

I still bust out my NES occasionally and it horrifies me that there may come a day where I won't be able to bust out an old console of mine to play games on because some publisher wanted to push me towards a newer product instead of still enjoying an older one.



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?


Though Enclave and I are often in unison with our opinions, I kinda have this mindset.

It's only relevant if nostalgia is strong enough. I will never have a huge urge to play, say, Ryse, or Azurik, or A Dog's Life again all the way through if it means busting out an old console and making the night DEVOTED to it - but if it's staring me in the face, "play now" on my subscription library, sure, I'll give it another go!

Like, if someone said, "want to come over and play Robotnik's Mean Bean Machine?!" I'd be fairly tepid about it - I'd probably not be fussed. But after a few drinks, open up Game Netflix and it's there, you can be sure I'd rock that!
---
XB1/XB360/Wii U: TotoMimo
Old PS3/PSVita: SigmaLongshot (Stay tuned for PS4 tag!)
#32Jiggy101011Posted 8/20/2014 12:52:22 PM
Enclave posted...
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.


Thats not why the Halo 2 servers got turned off.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/02/05/news-microsoft-shutting-down-original-xbox-live-servers.aspx
---
Gamertag: F1RE v2 PSN ID: F1REx
Currently Playing: Gears of War 3, Titanfall, Halo 4
#33Jiggy101011Posted 8/20/2014 1:20:06 PM
As the owner of over 80 360 games, 30 ps3 games, and a whole bunch of genesis/n64/dreamcast/ps2/original xbox games I have to say I am all for a Game Netflix type program.

If the pricing is correct I think many people would take advantage of it. As someone else said in this topic we consume games at such an alarming rate now. I recently have been going back on my 360 games and trying to wrap up some multiplayer achievements and almost every game I play the servers are still up but no one is playing them. However if Ubisoft were to say "we are shutting down the servers for the Assassins Creed games up to 4" there would be a huge uproar from the gaming community.
---
Gamertag: F1RE v2 PSN ID: F1REx
Currently Playing: Gears of War 3, Titanfall, Halo 4
#34regsantotomasPosted 8/20/2014 1:37:32 PM
scoobydoobydont posted...


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.


Ultimately, that decision befalls you as the consumer whether you want to have continuous access by purchasing the game outright or using it via the subscription model.

Again, I don't see where it is that these companies must continue to support these servers ad infinitum.

I have no specific trust or distrust of these companies. At the end of the day, I know that they must meet their bottom line. I have no illusions that they are somehow my friend. That being said, I have to weigh each solution on a case by case basis. And the case that this is harmful to me as a consumer hasn't been made IMO.
---
If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything - Mark Twain
#35duericPosted 8/20/2014 1:39:20 PM
Pretty soon people will be spending more money to play old games than they do for new ones without even realizing it.
---
"It's like people using the internet have never heard of the internet." - SadHillShowdown Gamefaqs member
#36EnclavePosted 8/20/2014 1:45:31 PM(edited)
regsantotomas posted...
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.


To this day I can still play Quake 3 Arena or Jedi Knight II multiplayer.

If they're willing to pull the plug on multiplayer for a game that still has a strong online community (Halo 2) just to try to force people into buying a newer game? They'll be willing to do so with whole games. Hell, the fact that they are trying to integrate online components into games so much is worrying since this gives them the perfect excuse to shut the servers down and thus make the games neigh unplayable one day.

I would not be taking this position if I haven't seen similar things happen in both consoles and on the PC in the past. This WILL happen, it's only a matter of time be it by a company doing it intentionally or a company shutting down.

Jiggy101011 posted...
Thats not why the Halo 2 servers got turned off.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/02/05/news-microsoft-shutting-down-original-xbox-live-servers.aspx


Suuure that's not why it was shut down. They shut down those servers to give you a bigger friend list, not at all to try to encourage more people into moving on, nope. All about that friend list. Do you honestly not blatantly see through the PR BS there?
---
The commercial says that Church isn't for perfect people, I guess that's why I'm an atheist.
#37lilj812Posted 8/20/2014 1:50:04 PM
regsantotomas posted...
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.


We see an increase in games need internet for single player as well. If you need internet to access a single player game, those servers can be taken down and then you lose the game completely.

Offline ownership is true ownership.
---
"Worlds best heel"
"I really don't understand the irrational hatred a lot of people have for IE. It's not a bad browser." El Pollo Diablo87
#38regsantotomasPosted 8/20/2014 1:53:25 PM
Offline ownership is true ownership


Not really. You own the license to the software but that is ultimately where it ends.

True that the ability to play offline could increase the longevity to play said software assuming your hardware holds up. Even then, the permanency of your ability to play your game dies with your device.
---
If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything - Mark Twain
#39Jiggy101011Posted 8/20/2014 2:16:23 PM
Enclave posted...
regsantotomas posted...
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.


To this day I can still play Quake 3 Arena or Jedi Knight II multiplayer.

If they're willing to pull the plug on multiplayer for a game that still has a strong online community (Halo 2) just to try to force people into buying a newer game? They'll be willing to do so with whole games. Hell, the fact that they are trying to integrate online components into games so much is worrying since this gives them the perfect excuse to shut the servers down and thus make the games neigh unplayable one day.

I would not be taking this position if I haven't seen similar things happen in both consoles and on the PC in the past. This WILL happen, it's only a matter of time be it by a company doing it intentionally or a company shutting down.

Jiggy101011 posted...
Thats not why the Halo 2 servers got turned off.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/02/05/news-microsoft-shutting-down-original-xbox-live-servers.aspx


Suuure that's not why it was shut down. They shut down those servers to give you a bigger friend list, not at all to try to encourage more people into moving on, nope. All about that friend list. Do you honestly not blatantly see through the PR BS there?


So you believe they wanted people to move on to Halo 3 so they shut down the servers on Halo 2 on purpose?
---
Gamertag: F1RE v2 PSN ID: F1REx
Currently Playing: Gears of War 3, Titanfall, Halo 4
#40SigmaLongshotPosted 8/20/2014 2:22:02 PM
It basically boils down to the concept of experience versus ownership of experience, which is an argument that has no legitimate end in this generation :D
---
XB1/XB360/Wii U: TotoMimo
Old PS3/PSVita: SigmaLongshot (Stay tuned for PS4 tag!)