This isn't really surprising. LucasArts has been gasping for breath for years now (how many CEOs have they burned through in the last few years?) and after Disney spent tons of money acquiring the Lucas empire, they were bound to cut away some of the fat. Frankly, this could be a good thing, if Disney is smart enough to license the different Lucas properties to decent devs and publishers, which they seem more than willing to do, according to more complete articles on this story.
@dlCHIEF58 Same with Epix. Even if I had a cable subscription (I cut the cord years ago), the only provider in my area does not offer Epix at all, so this new app is completely useless to me and anyone else in my entire region as long as Epix refuses to offer a stand alone subscription option.
Stupid. When are these content providers going to realize that by restricting this to existing service subscribers they are limiting their customer base severely? There are plenty of people who would be more than willing to pay a nominal monthly fee for access strictly through the PS3 or the website but who are not willing to shell out hundreds of dollars a month for a cable or satellite subscription on top of an Epix subscription. Hasn't the overwhelming success Netflix taught them anything? The public prefers a la carte options, not the over-priced grouped packages cable and satellite offer. There are no technical or other limitations preventing them from doing this, just short-sightedness and ignorance.
@RossRichard That's not entirely true. Yes, they wanted games on the various Playstations to be more exclusive (the Playstation was supposed to be the best gaming experience, even for cross platform titles), but with the PS3 the main idea was that devs would over time learn to develop for the Cell and we would see a steady improvement in game quality over the 10 year life of the console, similar to how the PS2 saw a steady increase in quality until games like God of War and Shadow of the Colossus reached its limits. Unfortunately, they made the Cell too difficult to code on and at the same time it was held back by cross platform games that were programmed for the lowest common denominator instead of specifically for the Cell. To this day, we still haven't seen a game that takes full advantage of all the available power in the Cell and I doubt we ever will.
@saint311 And that's the problem. They want every AAA game they make to be like that, so its either buy into the so-called F2P model or give up mainstream gaming as a hobby. Hopefully the decent indie devs, most of whom are better than EA and Ubi anyway, never buy into the F2P model, otherwise I'll only be playing my old stuff from now on.
@saint311 "i get the F2P model, believe me. It'd still save me $$"
I don't think you do get it. We are not talking about the traditional F2P model anymore, we are talking a complete replacement of normal in-game functions with microtransactions. This is not Dead Space 3, where you can still play the entire game without touching the microtransactions, this is Dead Space 3 with every single resource and piece of equipment only being available via microtransaction. You can obtain the game without paying a dime, but in order to play the game, you are going to have to pay and pay and pay and pay again.
@Getesh There are no fines associated with the ESRB, it is not a government service at all, just an industry sponsored voluntary ratings body. Stores that sell games are not bound to it in any way and while some retailers may have internal policies that include fines against an employee caught selling a M-rated game to a minor, the ESRB itself does not have anything resembling that kind of authority.
@saint311 "I dunno man, if all games were mandatory F2P, I'd love that. Save me a ton of $"
Until you try to actually beat the game or compete effectively in multiplayer, then you are going to have to shell out some cash and keep shelling it out.
When they say "free to play" imagine this: a massive in-depth RPG like Skyrim, except the only way you can upgrade your equipment is to spend real-world money on in-game items. Or a popular multiplayer game like Battlefield, except the only way to get new guns or more ammo is to spend real money. That is the world that EA and Ubisoft want. Free sounds great, except its not actually free, they just say that to market it better.
@saint311 "No one is forcing you to use microtransactions."
If they are going to make the majority of games microtransaction-based, yes they are forcing it on anyone who wants to continue this hobby. Free to play does not mean you can play and enjoy the entire game for free, it just means you can try the game for free, but if you really want to play it to its fullest, you gotta pay. Don't try to argue that it won't be like that at all, F2P is not profitable unless they build in some drive to pay and keep paying.
cogadh's comments