3 ms·
Smart idea, don't know how it will affect the quality of games moving forward as it seems that titles that would sell for lets say $40 a piece will now be inclu
by muse900 10y ago
Smart idea, don't know how it will affect the quality of games moving forward as it seems that titles that would sell for lets say $40 a piece will now be included in a bundle and probably get a fee out of that $10 a month.
On the other hand yes subscription/rent is the way to move forward. You lease a car, you subscribe to netflix, prime, hbo, now you subscribe to gaming libraries etc at some point will happen with food if its not there yet.
- evanextreme 10y agoI doubt it will, as this seems to be more of a "vault" system, similar to the already existing EA Access. How that works, is that they will release the game full price just as always, and after sales slow down they will add it to the vault. This seems to be more of a classic Netflix scenario rather than a modern one, where this is a way to make money after sales slow down.
- Retric 10y agoThe most reasonable solution is for games to get a cut per hour someone played them. This would tend to push replay-ability on the upside, grinding on the down side. However, expect Halo 27 to be sold for full price then DLC and only after that get added to the game pass.
- Namrog84 10y ago[removed my comment]
- Retric 10y agoI think this is somewhat balanced by the full price on new games. Getting instant access to a large catalog of old games is mostly about replaying them. In other words, people will not be download that gem to replay it because they already got their three hours from it. Honestly though I can't think of a game that world be worth 60$ for 3 hours, but I can think of lot's of games that cost 60$ but did not hold my interest for 3 hours.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]