EA is ‘building a Netflix for video games’

[rob mafia]

lolwut?

netflix is garbage (and has been for 2 years or so). prime's not very good, either - but at least they have the hbo niche and a bizarre movie selection. hulu is the best for tv shows, hands down. none of the big 3 are better than mediocre for movies, at this point. hell, last i saw... comcast's godawful streaming service had a comparable movie selection. and comcast's streaming service was (probably still is) atrocious.

why even mention hbo now? half the ISPs/devices (ie: comcast/ps4) can't even access it and the best of the hbo library is already on amazon, anyway.

not really sure how this is supposed to be relevant to streaming games, though. again, movies/music aren't crippled by a little latency like games are...

 

[Madmick]

lolwut?

netflix is garbage (and has been for 2 years or so).

Its library is vast and possesses much of the most highly rated (by the people on IMDb) and most critically acclaimed content on the market-- much of it exclusive. Prices have gone up, and yet subscriptions have gone up. People don't pay for garbage. They throw it out. Objectively, your opinion is wrong.

prime's not very good, either - but at least they have the hbo niche and a bizarre movie selection.

First, Prime doesn't just do streaming TV/movies, you're thinking in one dimension, and second, they're taking over the awards season along with Netflix and other premium pay-to-view networks. Same deal as Netflix above: prices go up, membership goes up. Your personal opinion is noted, but insignificant when weighed against the market's.

why even mention hbo now? half the ISPs/devices (ie: comcast/ps4) can't even access it and the best of the hbo library is already on amazon, anyway.

Amazon that wasn't "very good, either" two sentences ago? Intredasting. Also, Comcast and the PS4 are "half the ISPs/devices"? You're not the center of the world, snowflake. Furthermore, it doesn't matter to me if you procure this content from Amazon, HBO Now, or HBO Go. The point is HBO has a strict paywall, always has had a strict paywall, and its content has always reigned supreme.

hulu is the best for tv shows, hands down. none of the big 3 are better than mediocre for movies, at this point. hell, last i saw... comcast's godawful streaming service had a comparable movie selection. and comcast's streaming service was (probably still is) atrocious.

Problem is that Hulu implements the Freemium strategy (via the Hulu/Plus split) which is why despite its TV content it is the most miserable service. The ads are intolerable on the free version, and the fact that they even exist on the paid service ($7.99) is a black eye, and nearly worthy of relegation to the lesser tier. The only thing that saves it is the $11.99 ad-free service. It serves as perhaps the most stark warning to zero-down invitations. This is specifically why I mentioned it in both columns. It's the true center of my argument, and I was only waiting to spring this on Glide, but you decided to walk into the trap:

Hulu's 'Limited Commercials' not so
MANHATTAN BEACH, Calif. - What does limited commercials mean to you? A few spots at the beginning and middle?

As I discovered when I recently re-signed up for the Hulu TV subscription service, "limited" means just as annoying and frequent as the ads we see on broadcast TV, but with a twist: we're paying for this service.

Hulu, the "cutting the cord" streaming offering of current NBC, ABC and Fox episodes, complete seasons of past favorites, originals and movies, competes with Netflix, and has 12 million subscribers to nearly 50 million U.S. Netflix customers.

Might I respectfully note to management that the gap between Hulu and Netflix could be easily narrowed with a more consumer friendly presentation?

Hulu has two offers: $7.99 per month with limited commercials, and $11.99 per month that is ad free. (Netflix, which doesn't have the same current TV show catalog as Hulu, and is stronger in movies, documentaries and originals, starts at $7.99 monthly and is ad-free.)

Limited sounds cool, right? Save $4 monthly, or $44 annually, and put up with a few commercials. How bad could it be?

Really, really bad. As I noted, worse than watching network TV. (A master plot by Hulu to get people to switch to the ad-free option? That's what I thought, but Hulu says the majority of its subscribers opt for the ads.)

In signing up for ad-free, I expected to find three to five spots in the beginning, and another handful in the middle. That to me was the definition of "limited."

But instead, at least on episode 2, season 5 of Nashville, there were 15 commercials, spread out at the beginning, and across five act breaks. (Hulu says that at nine minutes per hour, it has about two-thirds of the average 16-minute commercial load for broadcast TV.)

But it gets worse. Hulu actually raised the volume at every act break, making the spots even more obnoxious than they have to be. (Hulu says this was a bug that is being addressed.)

Unlike the cable TV experience with a DVR, you can't skip or fast-forward through ads.

not really sure how this is supposed to be relevant to streaming games, though. again, movies/music aren't crippled by a little latency like games are...

The connection was literally drawn in my post: the central theme of that post. If you're "not sure how this is supposed to be relevant to gaming", then your reading comprehension is severely wanting.

You nitpick these services, but don't offer a single counterargument to put one of the lesser services above it, or in the same tier alongside it. It's comparative. You never explained how PlutoTV is better than $12/mo Hulu, or ABC/NBC/CBS themselves are better than $12/mo Hulu. Free TV models either have pitiful libraries or demand payment in some other form (i.e. endure commercial advertisements).

Conversely, anyone reading this can again see the danger of the zero-down salesman's invitation. Not only is basic Hulu unwatchable, but $8/mo Hulu actually has more ads than free TV. The thing is that in videogames, particularly if we look to mobile gaming which is transforming the global gaming market, there is no $12/mo option. We get stuck paying $8/mo just to spend more time watching ads for content we can see freely with fewer ads elsewhere.

 

[Swing]

Speaking of Prime, if Amazon tossed games into that deal somehow it'd be stellar. I haven't popped for Kindle Unlimited, but I do make use of my free monthly book through the lending library; and I at least skim through the other books that are available to Prime members for free.

Hell, package me something that lets me stream games/movies and gives me access to a ton of books, and I would be willing to pay an amount that approaches a monthly cable subscription.

 

[Cantalope]

I won't subscribe. EA sucks ass.

 

[rob mafia]

Its library is vast and possesses much of the most highly rated (by the people on IMDb) and most critically acclaimed content on the market-- much of it exclusive. Prices have gone up, and yet subscriptions have gone up. People don't pay for garbage. They throw it out. Objectively, your opinion is wrong.

lolz @ "objectively."

and leave it to you to think that paying more for less is a positive. hahaha. of course, you do.

First, Prime doesn't just do streaming TV/movies, you're thinking in one dimension, and second, they're taking over the awards season along with Netflix and other premium pay-to-view networks. Same deal as Netflix above: prices go up, membership goes up. Your personal opinion is noted, but insignificant when weighed against the market's.

...you're the one that irrelevantly made this about movies/tv and one post later, you're already trying to move your own goalpost? gold.

Amazon that wasn't "very good, either" two sentences ago? Intredasting. Also, Comcast and the PS4 are "half the ISPs/devices"? You're not the center of the world, snowflake.

it's funny that you mention that, since i typed "ie: comcast/ps4." i guess you don't know what ie means. which isn't surprising, since you also apparently jumped to the conclusions that they're the only isp and device affected...

The connection was literally drawn in my post: the central theme of that post. If you're "not sure how this is supposed to be relevant to gaming", then your reading comprehension is severely wanting.

this isn't even irony, anymore. this is full-blown hypocrisy.

You nitpick these services, but don't offer a single counterargument to put one of the lesser services above it,

see the last 2 snippets YOU said.

the point was pretty clear (since you seem to need help finding it: a) latency makes this hilariously moot for gaming, b) all of the major streaming services are kind of mediocre and on the same relative tier as for as content goes
STILL waiting to hear how i'm supposed to be playing a game via stream against/with other streaming players while having the obvious logistical issues of latency. like i said on page 1, videos/music aren't crippled when the latency goes to 100 ms. unlike, well, you know. maybe not you, personally...


edit: it's funny how you continually seem to focus on the standpoint of a company's profit instead of the quality of the game/service/etc. from the blizzard shit to all the forbes copypasta to this... it's kind of funny how almost all the posts in this forum are from a gamer's standpoint and then yours are about some hypothetical profit machine.

 

[SSgt Dickweed]

What happens when Activision, Ubisoft and Bethesda all want 10 bucks a month for there own sub fee. And already paying for Game Pass and Sonys and Nintendos (obviously coming) rental service.

Its gonna be subscriptions all over the place.

If I were to buy 5 games a year priced at 25 bucks, and in my case it's usually Ubisoft, a 10 bucks a month sub wouldn't add any more cost. And they might slash their prices for annual and renewing annual subscription. Plus, they likely will give a lot of freebies. This would work for me, but only for Ubisoft.

If all the developers/publishers will work together (unlikely), for 10 bucks a month, I'll be all for it.

I have been listening to a lot of John Campea's vlogs where he always talk about movie ticket subscription services. I hope this model can be replicated for video game rentals coz that would be awesome imo. More games for less the price.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

What happens when Activision, Ubisoft and Bethesda all want 10 bucks a month for there own sub fee. And already paying for Game Pass and Sonys and Nintendos (obviously coming) rental service.

Its gonna be subscriptions all over the place.

I will continue to play mostly indie games for $10.

 

[Hyperglide]

If I were to buy 5 games a year priced at 25 bucks, and in my case it's usually Ubisoft, a 10 bucks a month sub wouldn't add any more cost. And they might slash their prices for annual and renewing annual subscription. Plus, they likely will give a lot of freebies. This would work for me, but only for Ubisoft.

If all the developers/publishers will work together (unlikely), for 10 bucks a month, I'll be all for it.

I have been listening to a lot of John Campea's vlogs where he always talk about movie ticket subscription services. I hope this model can be replicated for video game rentals coz that would be awesome imo. More games for less the price.

John Campea.

 

[SSgt Dickweed]

John Campea.

You hate Canadians?

 

[Madmick]

lolz @ "objectively."

edit: it's funny how you continually seem to focus on the standpoint of a company's profit instead of the quality of the game/service/etc. from the blizzard shit to all the forbes copypasta to this... it's kind of funny how almost all the posts in this forum are from a gamer's standpoint and then yours are about some hypothetical profit machine.

I offered an objective metric, and you could not respond. This was predicated on customer satisfaction, indicated by the market's willingness to pay more in greater numbers: a measurement of popularity, not profit. You need to work on your literacy. Your basic reading comprehension skills are failing you.

Concession accepted.

it's funny that you mention that, since i typed "ie: comcast/ps4." i guess you don't know what ie means. which isn't surprising, since you also apparently jumped to the conclusions that they're the only isp and device affected...

And yet you name none others here. Name every device and ISP, globally, that cannot run HBO Now. I'll then list the major devices and ISPs that can.

Concession accepted in advance, my egoistic snowflake.

see the last 2 snippets YOU said.

the point was pretty clear (since you seem to need help finding it: a) latency makes this hilariously moot for gaming, b) all of the major streaming services are kind of mediocre and on the same relative tier as for as content goes
STILL waiting to hear how i'm supposed to be playing a game via stream against/with other streaming players while having the obvious logistical issues of latency. like i said on page 1, videos/music aren't crippled when the latency goes to 100 ms. unlike, well, you know. maybe not you, personally...

The point about present technical roadblocks was previously acknowledged, and addressed. It wasn't touched on at all in this debate over paywalls and the quality of streaming services. This response doesn't even attempt to address the point. I demanded an explanation for why the free-up-front services are superior to the paywall services, and this was your response.

Concession accepted. That's a wrap.

 

[Madmick]

If I were to buy 5 games a year priced at 25 bucks, and in my case it's usually Ubisoft, a 10 bucks a month sub wouldn't add any more cost. And they might slash their prices for annual and renewing annual subscription. Plus, they likely will give a lot of freebies. This would work for me, but only for Ubisoft.

If all the developers/publishers will work together (unlikely), for 10 bucks a month, I'll be all for it.

I have been listening to a lot of John Campea's vlogs where he always talk about movie ticket subscription services. I hope this model can be replicated for video game rentals coz that would be awesome imo. More games for less the price.

This guy gets it!

All those companies care about is stable revenue. If the know they have all these subscriptions, and that money is in the bank, the suits will get off their back, and they can focus on the quality of the games, rather than implementing incredibly expensive marketing campaigns that become more important than the content, or shady & unnecessary microtransaction models, due to the need for sales or to monetize a "free" game, and they'll be willing to take more risks with content because they won't have to fear destroying the sales of a franchise that is their money-tree.

 

[rob mafia]

I offered an objective metric, and you could not respond. This was predicated on customer satisfaction, indicated by the market's willingness to pay more in greater numbers: a measurement of popularity, not profit. You need to work on your literacy. Your basic reading comprehension skills are failing you.

Concession accepted.

hypocrisy level: full.


edit: it's hilarious how all of us can talk about game/service quality except the mod. who just can't think about anything other than how much money the company is making. every thread is diablow 3 ('of course it was good! it sold x units! forbes!') all over again.