Would be totally alright if they did this. There's a ton of Ubisoft games I like to buy, so why not!
https://www.trueachievements.com/gamercards/SliferCynDelta.png%5B/IMG%5D">https://www.trueachievements.com/gamer/SliferCynDelta"><img src="https://www.trueachievements.com/gamercards/SliferCynDelta.png
| Goatseye said: I'm excited about this. Imagine you pay $10 bucks for a month of Fifa, Madden, Ass Creed, Watch Dogs,Dragon Age, Child of Light, etc... and you won't even need a Xbox Live sub. Plus if you need you can always get the sub for $32 on Amazon, eBay or Newegg on sale. My dream would be for publishers to get on board with Access and me paying $90 to play EA,Ubi and Take Two titles for a whole year. |
Too bad that is not how it would be and of course you would need to pay for Live to get this service.
Landguy said:
Why would you need to buy into so many subscriptions? Over time, you would only sub to the ones that make sense for you. The XBlive and PS+ model was never going to last. THe publishers lose out on those deals. Just like makers of movies and tv shows. THey have no way to make extra money in the digital world that way. So, they need a format that allows them to make money on their content. THe only way that the XBL or PS+ would work long term is if they provided a XBL+ or PS++ type of service. It would allow publishers to get some extra $$$ for their game being selected or used(similar to PSNow). That will be the future anyway. THe publishers just don't want a bigger chunk of the pie to go to Sony/M$ instead of themselves. |
How about making games that are good enough for people to want to buy at $60? The PSN+ / games with gold thing should just be a bit of gravy on already profitable game sales. Or it's a way to get a bit more exposure for an underperforming game.
It's a pity that the more publishers that pick up this model the fewer that will allow games to be played through PSNow. I can see them playing hard ball with Sony and Sony losing. sony won't be able to make PSNow work with only first parties and indies, and publishers can afford to play a waiting game as long as they bring the access service to PC.
I don't like the TV analogy because it isn't the same at all. PSNow is the direct comparison, not plus, and with PSNow there is no partitioning like there is with TV, all games are available to everyone. With TV you have basic packages where you only get standard channels and premium packages where you get additional channels. Thebindividual publisher access model doesn't work like that. If PSNow was the basic package and publisher channels were incorporated into PSNow as premium channels then we'd have an analogous situation.
I think that a unified system like that is more palatable than each publisher being a walled garden. But the pricing for basic access and premium channels on top, as well as what content goes in a basic package would be hard to balance out in terms of value for the gamer and revenue for business.
“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."
Jimi Hendrix
GoldenGamer said:
|
So I am required to get XBL to access games in EA Vault?
Euphoria14 said:
|
I don't see them putting one full game for one console and half a game on another.
Plus you are assuming they will do this with no proof
| Slade6alpha said: Would be totally alright if they did this. There's a ton of Ubisoft games I like to buy, so why not! |
It's no surprise that MS fans support services that rip gamers off.Smh.
Goatseye said:
So I am required to get XBL to access games in EA Vault? |
You will be if they keep adding services.It's the MS way.Then DRM will be back in place.
Azerth said:
Plus you are assuming they will do this with no proof |
You can sit here all you want and believe they won't stretch this as far as they can.
Placing content behind a sub is a good to sell subs. Due to so many being willing to pay extra to access their multiplayer portions of their video games we all now get to pay to access a portion of our games. Don't pay, don't play. Placing online behind this paywall is how MS/Sony get people to pay for Live/Plus. The wouldn't sell as many subs without holding online play ransom.
Just a week ago people thought early access got you a game 5 days before everyone else.
Just a week ago people thought you wouldn't be seeing Ubi/Acti/SE talking about having their own service until sometime in 2015.
They aren't looking out for you. They are looking into how much $$$ they can pull from you on top of your initial game purchases. It's called business, and that business tells them to do whatever it takes to increase subscription signups.
iPhone = Great gaming device. Don't agree? Who cares, because you're wrong.
Currently playing:
Final Fantasy VI (iOS), Final Fantasy: Record Keeper (iOS) & Dragon Quest V (iOS)
| GoldenGamer said: You will be if they keep adding services.It's the MS way.Then DRM will be back in place. |
Show me facts to back up your claims.
Microsoft, once again, paving the way for a more consumer-friendly environment.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
