Top
110°

Will Ubisoft Go for its Own Access Plan?

Hardcore Gamer: This kind of business model could be a brilliant move for Ubisoft.

Read Full Story >>
hardcoregamer.com
The story is too old to be commented.
ValKilmer723d ago

Oh man, that'd be so awesome. And because of competition, we'd see Ubi and EA trying to one up each other with better values.

iamnsuperman723d ago (Edited 723d ago )

No it won't be. Remember that catch about how we pay to play online. Also how Sony had to compete with Live (monetarily) so they decided to create Plus. Also remember how popular it became that it forced Microsoft's hand (making games with gold). Well all the progress will go in an instant. Why the hell would Ubisoft or EA put their games on Plus or Games with Gold when they are competing for their own subscription based service. Our, in a way forced, payment will lower in value. We still need to pay for this access but we will get less important/smaller games.

It isn't awesome. It is removing value from something we already pay for

mhunterjr723d ago (Edited 723d ago )

Publishers pulling content from PS+ and xbox live could drive the cost of those services down, or push Sony and MS to find other ways to make the service more worthwhile ( cheaper 1st party titles, roll in extra services like Xbox music, etc). Not to mention gamers would be spending less, over all, on software as they'd have access to more 'free' games at any given time.

Exari723d ago

@iamnsuperman well said. thats why i think its better that sony rejected ea access because it can reduce the value of ps+, and also not many people are willing to pay $80 ($50 + $30) for services...

but if ea access means no more ea games on ps+ then thats a different story.

Raven722723d ago (Edited 723d ago )

@mhunterjr

It wouldn't drive the costs of those services down. Just as EA Access is not going to affect the cost of Xbox Live. Just as the introduction of PS+ didn't cause Microsoft to drop the price of its service. Microsoft just added their own free games perk and then Sony made their service mandatory out of financial necessity.

They would keep the costs the same and argue that their own first-party titles and third-party games outside of big publishers like EA and Ubisoft are enough to justify the cost because, like it or not, we either pay them or we don't play online. The free games are just a bonus to take the edge off.

Also, considering that you need XBL, and would have needed PS+, in order to get EA Access that means that in the event that people are not satisfied with the pricing because they feel that 80 to 90 dollars a year is not worth it, the console owner will discontinue EA Access before they drop the price on their own plan. Third-party publishers rely on the compliance of the console manufacturers to pull this off. If they don't then those third-parties are boned.

The ball is firmly in the court of the console manufacturer. The price on their own service won't drop. Programs like EA Access on X1 or PS4 are just you paying more for what you were already getting just to guarantee a perk with that particular publisher instead of playing the waiting game.

@Exari

I wouldn't worry about that. Sony denied EA Access and they're getting Crysis 3 for free on PS3 next month. The PS4 is too much in charge at this point for EA to afford to get into a pissing contest with Sony. They won't risk alienating themselves from the lead platform. Their investors would be calling for heads to roll like they nearly did with Titanfall.

MasterCornholio723d ago (Edited 723d ago )

"Why the hell would Ubisoft or EA put their games on Plus or Games with Gold when they are competing for their own subscription based service. Our, in a way forced, payment will lower in value."

That is trurly terrifying. I wouldn't be surprised if that was EAs and Microsoft's (they will get a slice of the sub from publishers) plan all along. Imagine having to pay for additional subscription services just to gain access to "free" games from other publishers. Instead of costing 50\60$ a year it could end up costing you close to 100$ a year.

I hope it isn't true but this is EA we are talking about so there's a high chance that there's a snag with the service.

@Raven

"Sony denied EA Access and they're getting Crysis 3 for free on PS3 next month."

That's how it should be. I downloaded games from all types of studios and publishers with plus and it would suck if I had to subscribe to additional services to get them. All I'm saying is that I hope that EA access doesn't take away EA games from Microsoft's Games with Gold program.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 723d ago
Kingthrash360723d ago

My problem is the complete lack of games overall. I understand gwg and PS+ because they have the ability to offer more games from different devs not just 4 to 6 a year. PS+ and gwg offers a minimum of 24 games a year...plus sales of up to 75% off...not 10%. I just don't see it. I'll pass.

Bigpappy723d ago

@ValKilmer : I am with you on this one. I think the competition will lead to new ways to create value to the gamers. Because they are all optional, gamers will pick and choose what works for them. Its like choosing among Ebay, Amazon and GameStop. All choices with different deals. In the long run, I you are a gamer who plays a lot of games, you will have a huge saving with theses deals. People who don't have a lot of time to indulge may not see the benefits as much and with op for the traditional straight buy.

cemelc723d ago (Edited 723d ago )

I dont understand most of you, take psn and live as steam, why would valve put the Ubi or EA access in their store? that would just be bad for them.

They wouldnt be selling games just subscriptions making steam/psn/live useless.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 723d ago
TimeSkipLuffy723d ago (Edited 723d ago )

If all the big publishers are going to do their own subscription I hope no one is going to complain if PS+ and GfG only consists of indies and company owned titles ...

ValKilmer723d ago

Personally, that's all I ever wanted in PS+.

kingdip90723d ago

Yeah I had not played many indies until recently and I picked up papo & yo.

Amazing game, got me right in the feels. Better than any AAA I have played in a long while

mhunterjr723d ago (Edited 723d ago )

If it meant that I got more AAA for 'free' through these subscriptions and indies got even more exposure I'd be all for it..

Seriously, if every publisher had a service Identical to EA's. I'd probably only buy 2 full games a year, and I'd fulfill the rest of my gaming needs, with free GwG indies and with $5 bucks a month to whoever has the better Vault at the time. I'd be saving a TON of money.

TimeSkipLuffy723d ago

This depends on how many games you will get. If is giving 4 games for a year... you would pay $30 (yearly sub) to get access to 4 games that might leave at some point (they already mentioned that the games won't stay there forever).

With GwG or PS+ you will have access to them as long as you're a member. The games won't be removed. You can always re-download them.

If they add games on a regular basis and do not remove them or if you can re download them if you had them before I think it could be a cool addon. But currently there are too many IFs...

danny818723d ago

id rather get psNow rather than any other publisher. Unless psNow wont actually offer and EA or Ubi games, if thats the case then we are in trouble and wont be getting either services

Steptoe723d ago

Could you imagine their vault? Assassins 1 2 3 . Happy climbing.

STK026723d ago

If EA's access plan is successful enough, you can be sure Ubisoft will be quick to join them.

Show all comments (24)
The story is too old to be commented.