Wiped said:
irstupid said:
BMaker11 said:
irstupid said:
To those saying it is bad for the industry is this works out.
Why?
Lets name some big Publishers, or has already been said Ubisoft, EA, Activision, ect.
Lets say there is 4 companies doing this. That's ONLY $120. The price of ONLY 2 games.
For that price I get the entire BACKLOG of all that companies games. Hell I'd be fine not owning a new game ever. Just pay my $120 a year and play whatever huge catalog of games is available for free.
Sounds like an awesome idea imo. I mean hell I pay like $120 a year for Netflix. This would basically be like Netflix for video games. Obviously not the new releases, but I can wait 6 months. |
It's funny how in the 4 years since PS+'s inception, PS gamers have been saying "it pays for itself" with giving out IGC games and Xbox gamers have said "it's not worth it"....now you get a similar service by way of paying a subscription and getting tons of games, and you all love it, it's "worth it", it totally pays for itself because the games cover the price, and you like "renting" games now (you all used to hate "renting" games, as you'd rather own them...until the rules of XBone GwG and now EA Access have come out).
Sheesh
|
I don't have PS+ or Gold. Have never had either. Never paid for online gaming ever, besides MMO's on PC. So I could be wrong on how they work. But here is how I believe it is.
If i buy PS+ today my catalog of FREE games is ZERO. I have no free games. Now each month I have it they will start giving me free games (whatever game they decide, not me) and that goes into my catalog of games. If i quit PS+ for a while and come back my catalog is still there of games, but again I get NONE of the games that were given out while I was away.
Same scenerio roughly for Gold Games on XBOX.
So YOU guys who keep saying how many free games you got and how great a deal it is ect. It's for a long term person. For me who would be joining TODAY. I have nothing and am waiting. I don't get Uncharterd 2 or whatever Uncharted/s were given away fro free. I can't instantly start playing Infamous for free.
Now this EA Access thing sounds like as soon as I sign up I have INSTANT access to the entire Vault that EVERYONE else has. Doesn't matter if I have been a member for 3 years or 3 minutes. I get access to the same games as everyone else. If I leave for a while and come back I get access again to the ENTIRE vault. No missing anything.
now sure these games will be older. Say Fifa 14, when Fifa 15 is out, or Madden 2015 when the football season is over, ect. (just used sports games for reference, there are other genres) But for just $5 in one month I get to basically rent EVERY SINGLE game EA has made except their brand new games. That sounds like a great deal. Hell if I have friends over I quickly buy the $5 thing and bam we can play any sports game we want. No needing to go to redbox or something and deciding what game we shoudl rent.
This is things PS+ and Gold as far as I know don't have. Instant Access to all that EVERYONE else has. People who have been PS+ members for many years now of course think its the second coming becuase they have like 100 free games and there has to be some that are good. Meanwhile me joining Today has NOTHING.
|
WRONG
PS+ has something called 'The Instant Game Collection'. That means that when you join, you IMMEDIATELY get to download all of the games in that collection, as well as the monthly games. Montly games come and go, but the instant game collection remains. Off the top of my head at the moment it's got Uncharted Vita and Sly 4 in it I think.
Anyway, to those supporting EA Access - it's a terrible idea. And I say this as a PS+ subscriber and fan. Why? Because where does it end? First EA, then Ubisoft, Activision, Capcom... before you know it, you're spending half or even 75% of your yearly gaming budget on subscriptions and not buying any new games. In ten or 15 years down the line, and all your subs have long since lapsed, what have you got? Nothing. A subscription service like PS+ is fine as an addition but when every games company wants to do it, it's too much.
The real casualty will be smaller games. How are new IPs and big new games supposed to break through when people are just playing whatever EA (or whoever) decide you should play in your subscription? Noone will go to the store and take a chance on a new title, they'll just play what they're given.
I don't like this current industry direction which removes all notions of ownership, either.
|
the more I hear about this PS+ actually works, it sounds like the two are more and more alike.
And I already said before but I'd be totally game for paying each BIG publisher $30 a year for their catalog of games like Netflix. I mean hell the price of 3 games PLUS TAX is like $200. That would be like 7 different publishers you are subscribed to.
Pretty sure I would much rather have whatever giant catalog having subscriptions to 7 different publishers would offer me versus have 3 games NEW. Especially how pathetic new games are content wise. If you aren't a multiplayer fanatic there is like zero reason to ever buy new.
1. DLC comes out really quick that practically doubles the game (unless multiplayer dlc)
2. Most games drop price to like 50% in like 2 months, if even that long. It's rediculous how quickly prices drop on big name games.
So would I hate spending $100-$200 in subscriptions and getting full access to all sports games, all assassins creed games, battlefield, dragon age, ect. ect. ect. You can bet your ass i would. I would save a shit ton of money if they did it this way.
Only ones that I see as not liking this are the people who want the next FPS game on day 1 so they can start doing whatever it is that they love doing for 1000's of online matches.
