By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Ubisoft interested in EA Access like program, thinks it's good for publisher brands

Landguy on 21 August 2014
kupomogli said:
Landguy said:

I Sub to Netflix.  I also sub to Amazon.

Lots of the same content on each.  Also, lots of different content.

THis isn't about preferences.  This is about reality.  Content creators get screwed by closed systems.  The money goes to a middle man(Sony/M$).  I would rather that the content creator gets the $$$.

Don't let M$ and Sony fool you, they want you to think that it is better for you.  In reality, it is better for them.  It locks you into their system.  In 5-10 years, you will have invested so much money into their system, you will have a hard time walking away even if there is a better system out there.  

Also, in 5-10 years, there will not be a need for a specefic console brand.  You will just buy the content and use whatever hardware you want.  That is why Sony is against this.  They are playing the long term value, not the short term.  They were doing that with the PS3 and the cell processor, but it didn't go the way they wanted.  Now, with development being done on the X86 platform, they will have no control long term without controlling the interface.  M$ wants this too, that is why they wanted the DRM.  Their system has been a dissapointment for them, so they have to do whatever to keep people in the Xbox universe(better to give up some things than give it all up).

Even if EA Access, Ubisoft Upay, etc, sells you a service, it'll still be on Microsoft and Sony's system.  They're still going to have to pay the same percentages of revenue each access sale, or each sale from the access program.  The service is basically a subscription to let the player play demos and select older games from the companies backlog. 

This concept is actually really good for gamers, but if all publishers start doing it, it's actually really bad  for  the industry, including those publishers that are taking advantage of the concept.  You've got gamers that pay for EA Access and Ubisoft Upay for $60 a year, they've got games all year long to play and no reason to purchase newer titles.  That's not including everyone, but there are probably a lot of people who may not bother with anything else if they're satisfied with content being added as time progresses.  Dragon Age Inquisition?  No reason for me to buy it when it'll be on EA Access.  Ubisoft Unity?  I'll wait until it comes to Upay.  Sales may be lost to both bigger published games as well as smaller niche developers who may have received from sales from people who want to focus on owning just these access programs.        

In short though.  The EA Access program is a great service for gamers, but if all publishers start to do it, it'll give less incentive for people to buy new games and overall hurt the industry.

*edit*

Or like other people have been saying.  In game content could start being locked behind this paywall, maybe even online.  So let's say you have PS+ or XBL Gold to play online and it works for other games, but if you want to play the EA or Ubisoft games online, you have to pay for their service.  If you only play EA and Ubisoft games you no longer need PS+, so that works, but to someone who actually plays a lot of games, then it's not a good thing at all.

I know that EA or whoever will still pay Sony or M$ for a share of the sub service.  But, I still believe that down the line they will allow that service to work as a universal subscription to their "EA network".  Kind of like mini versions of Steam.

We seem to agree in most part.  If someone is a gaming fanatic, these systems would be somewhat punitive.  But, if I get to pick what works for me, the a la cart idea would be the best.  If someone wants to be pig, they will have to pay for it. 

As far as content being behind a paywall goes, I think that peoples fears will come true.  I think that most content will be behind paywalls at some point.  The difference is that if you are a big fan of a game or franchise, you will see value in the access program for that game.  If you don't see the value, then you won't buy it.



It is near the end of the end....

Around the Network
LudicrousSpeed on 21 August 2014
steverhcp02 said:

You have to subscribe to either mid or high tiered cable packages before premium channels are available to be bought. You dont just "get" HBO Go or Showtime Anywhere or Watch ESPN. You must already have an active subscription via a cable provider. I cant just buy a la cart channels. Do you know how cable television works? You must initially buy a package to even have access to premium channels. You cant just download HBO Go without logging into your uverse or comcast account. Again it is value masked behind subscription.


I misunderstood what you were saying and thought you meant you have to get a bunch of other premium channels to get HBO. But what you're saying isn't really accurate. HBO Go has only been around as a website for what, 4 years? And as an app for around 3 years, yet we are already seeing big cable companies offering HBO oriented much smaller cable packages for people only interested in HBO Go. Same for some other premium movie networks. And HBO themselves are trying to find a way to get a website streaming service going that severs the cable ties completely. It's not as if there hasn't been significant progress there.

Furthermore there is nothing in the gaming industry with a stranglehold on pricing and content and packaging even remotely similar to the power the cable companies wield in cable television so at its core its a flawed comparison. I agree with the sense that cable companies inflate value by bundling a bunch of channels together. But that doesn't relate to EA Access.

If anything, it relates more to XBLG and PS+. Like cable packages, if I only want, say... the free games and discounts on XBLG/PS+, do I get a discounted rate or different package than those who use the online play and betas and time trials? No. If I only want say.. Dishonored for 360 free this month on XBLG, do I pay a lesser rate than those who download Dishonored and Motocross on 360, plus Crimson Dragon on Xbone? No, I pay the same rate. Much like HBO Go caters strictly to HBO fans, EA Access will cater only to the biggest EA fans.

steverhcp02 said:
This is what is going to happen if publishers create these access points. This is why sony not allowing EA Access is good. Its complete bullshit as to why they said they didnt want it, it had nothing to do with protecting value or consumers it was to maintain their PS+ value but nontheless what it is preventing is in gamers best interest regardless of their motive. 


In your opinion anyway. Backed up with no logical reasons as far as I have seen thus far. Doesn't seem like it will affect my best interests. I understand when multiple services are vying for my dollars, it's better for me as a consumer. This isn't a situation where multiple retailers can cut out sections of the same game, these are different games by different publishers. And it's not like they can hold content back for subscribers, that's cutting out too big a portion of their fanbase.

steverhcp02 said:

Yeah, you can digitally buy seasons, after they air. Thats like saying you can buy games only 8 months after they release.


Why would you be able to buy entire seasons BEFORE they air? That makes no sense. I cannot think of a single show I watch on cable right now that I cannot also, if I chose, purchase each episode a la carte off websites like Amazon or iTunes. Or eventually stream on services like Netflix or Hulu. Maybe your cable provider just sucks.

steverhcp02 said:

The problem is youre viewing EA Access in a vacuum as if it will and could only exist as it stands. The patriot act was supposed to make us safer and was necessary to collect intel and when people raised their voices about privacy rights it was brushed off and oopsie all the "tin foil hat wearers" were right. You need to step back and realize none of these companies care about you, me or anyone besides their bottom line and stop giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Sorry, not going to bother arguing potential maybe might someday probably by chance happen if maybe probably down the line eventually doomsday stuff. Reality is much better.

steverhcp02 said:

If you create a system of publisher driven access you will eliminate consumer choice. The same way as cable companies subsidize the 1200 channels no one watches to mask value for the 8-10 channels people want. The reason we pay $80-$100 a month for cable subscription is because the content providers know if we could only pay for ESPN, AMC, HBO or the few channels each consumer wants they wouldnt make money, the same as publishers are struggling now. So what they do is introduce a subscription service to eventually lock out games in the future unless you subscribe.....sure youll get access to dozens of games but youre not going to be able to simply buy the one or two games a year and be done with it. Youll need to subscribe to have access to buy those one or two games the same as we have to subscribe to 1400 channels to earn the right to pay $15 a month for HBO.


Another flawed cable television analogy. Even the biggest publishers like EA or Ubisoft do not have the power to lock out games behind a subscription like cable companies (for a short time more) can do with channels. Just not going to happen. You're wrong about the cable again, too. I am just again going to say you must have a small shitty cable company. Google this stuff.

steverhcp02 said:

Honestly if you cant see whats coming with this I dont know what else I can say.

Unfortunately my browser doesn't have the crystal ball plugin turned on. Nothing more to really say on this matter to you