| TheSting said: So? They can always offer 1st party. He is still guessing |
Yes but only first party. Guessing or not, it's how it will work. In 2012 MS published 10 games and of those 6 were Kinect. So that is 10 games that in 2013 GwG could have offered (if it existed) as they wouldn't put new games on there (they only published 3 games in 2013), many might not even be able to play the Kinect ones so maybe 4 games? Even then MS might not want to do that as the games are only a year old so could still be selling.
The idea is that Sony and MS will approach a publisher and offer them money in exchange for say per download of their game, a game potentially not making money anymore (or at least limited) and this also gives the potential for added sales of DLC and other things. Publisher gets income, Sony get Income and consumer gets value. EA Access is trying to remove the middle man (Sony and MS) and for them to make it more appealing they will remove games that would have been on GwG and PS+, so they get majority of the money, charging extra and MS and Sony still charge the same, bad for the consumer.
If all publishers did this, sure it will be great value for you if you see value in one package but you are still paying for Gold and PS+ and getting less from it as well as paying other companies as well.
It's like if ABC decided that all their content on Netflix shouldn't be there anymore, they then setup their own service charging just slightly less (£3 a month). Sure they make more money but the content is divided, people won't want to sign on to Netflix (£6 a month) and ABC's new feature when at one point all they did was sign up to 1 of them and got everything for less than the 2 combined (£9 a month).
Hmm, pie.
