Ubisoft may unveil 'Ubisoft Pass' game subscription service at E3 2019

EA might not put exclusives in yet, but that early access trial pisses me off. Everyone should get game demos, not just subscribers. I'm really suprised it took Ubisoft this long to do their own.

I was thinking of this "get the game late unless you pay" scheme. The definition of pay2win for a multiplayer game is pay a certain money to get an advantage over others.
So isn't paying to get the game before others not a sort of pay2win?

EA might not put exclusives in yet, but that early access trial pisses me off. Everyone should get game demos, not just subscribers. I'm really suprised it took Ubisoft this long to do their own. They have enough games.

Either the app is messing up or these servers are having issues today. I can bearly post messages, or edit them apparently.

Yes, for me it didn't work the entire evening (European time). Just couldn't post.
I guess it's another reason why all digital/streaming only service is not great. :p

I love streaming services, I want every company to completely do away with game sales and solely do streaming. Given the amount of games I play it works out significantly cheaper for me. I am the target market though, I have three Video streaming services already along with two game streaming services.

Honestly I have mixed feelings on game subscriber services, but I have 3 video services AND a cable streaming service subscription (DTV Now). I don't really consider Xcloud the same unless it turns out we can't play our entire existing library. As far as music, I would say I don't subscribe to any, but technically I have Sirius XM that I pay for and can stream.

Yeah, surprisingly music is one thing I don't stream, I used to have a JB Hifi streaming account (it's a local chain in Australia that sells cd's/movies/TV's/etc) which I liked because you got a 20% off voucher every month (up to $20) which was good for grabbing a game for cheap or whatever. But I stopped subscribing to it. I'd say I'm not big on music streaming because a lot of the music I listen to is local artists and I support the band by buying their CD's rather than streaming. And agreed on xCloud being different, at least, as far as we know.

@Sin Ogaris
Then we have a totally opposite vision.
The reason why I don't want this to do well is I think some of these publishers are just waiting to take full control. So, little success will just push them to do this streaming-only. I don't know why you would want a streaming-only future.
Don't you think it's better that gamers have choice? Those who prefer buying games, physical or digital can buy games, those like you who prefer streaming-only stream their game.
Why do you want publishers to do away with game sales? A move that will only benefit them and mean that gamers lose a lot.

Simply put, progress. that being said it did just dawn on me that I screwed up and should have said "do away with game sales and move entirely to subscriptions" So replace every instance of streaming in my previous post with subscriptions as I am well aware that the World simply does not have the infrastructure currently to provide streaming everywhere. Brick and Mortar retail is dying, it is exorbitantly expensive to maintain over running online, It's high expenses for a lower return. On the consumer side of things convenience is a major factor, time is a very important commodity and to be able to add a game to my library and have it start downloading while I am at work so it's ready to play when I get home is a major convenience. Now let's look at the monetary side of things. A Game in the US is what, $50-60? Let's say Ubisoft charge $10 a month for their service so that's the equivalent of 2, maybe 3 blockbuster releases. If you find that you would play 2, maybe 3, of Ubisoft's new releases a year then you are getting your moneys worth, even if you don't think you would play that many, these services don't have a lock in contract. You can subscribe for a month and cancel the month after. This is actually more beneficial for gamers as it provides a more flexible means of paying for the product. And if a game you sign up for you realise is a POS and you hate it you haven't paid 60 bucks and then having to go to the effort of selling the game again, you have paid 10 bucks and have the rest of the month to have a look at any other titles that might be of interest in the subscription.

But is it really progress?
Progress is something that move things forward for the better. If it's an improvement or progress for users is actually debatable. Some will say it is some will not.
When we moved from floppy disk to CD there was a real improvement that really benefited users. Not only was there a much bigger capacity but it was also more resistant.
Same thing with the evolution from DVD to blu ray. It was about putting HD content on a disk. Personally I don't think renting is an improvement from buying and owning. But these are two different ways of consuming media. But when you say you want subscription-only and the death of buying/selling games, it reminds me of the discussions I used to have when the XB dgital-only came out.
The argument is not subscription vs games sales. Here is choice of subscription or game sales vs subscription.
However much you think subscription is better it'll will always be less of an advantage for gamers then the possibility of having the choice of either one. I feel, a current renting subscription service like game pass is actually very restrictive. You are paying 10 bucks per month ($15/month to play online) to rent a limited amount of games. Mostly old arcade games . You are dependent on MS for the content and it's MS who decides what you play.
Thinking of a world where all major publishers have their own service. And many of these service are a mot cheaper if you have long subscription. It could soon be horrible to keep track about what you want to play and when. Publishers will have full control about the content. Next year you wouldn't be able to play a game again if they decide it's not in the service. Also I'll bring again the argument about these type of service always focus on quantity over quality.

Yes, it is progress. I'm not talking about how the system is now, I'm talking about how it could be. You say that it's about choice, but wouldn't you rather choose to pay $100 a year for a 'Developer's ENTIRE available catalogue (for that system) than pick and choose games? The system I envisage is you pay a subscription to whoever and you get access to all their content for that device, not cherry picking the good stuff. People can still pick and choose who they want to support and give their money to and it works out significantly cheaper for the consumer, which is good for them especially with the growing cost of basically everything. You mention Game Pass currently as being restrictive and you are right, it doesn't provide access to everything, but that's not the fault of Microsoft or Game Pass itself, it's the fault of Publishers not providing their content to the service (and I completely understand this from a business point of view, so I don't blame them for that). However if those publishers also provided their own subscription services then you could suddenly have access to their games at a more manageable fee than $50 a pop. Also you say the argument isn't "subscription vs game sales but subscription vs game sales + subscription" however you vehemently stated that you want subscription services to fail, here's the direct quote, "I hope these services will all fail or will never replace traditional gaming." So actually, yes this discussion is about subscription vs game sales. Here's another scenario as to why subscription is more beneficial for the consumer. A popular company releases a product, they've had a good track record so they get a bunch of preorders, lots of people buying outright on the first day, get a good couple of million sales, they're sitting pretty. But the game turns out to be a mess, review embargo meant people couldn't know about the quality before release, developers have done away with demo's basically altogether so no means to test the product prior. Suddenly all these people are out of luck, they can sell at a loss, but this means literally nothing to the publisher because they got their 60 bucks already. Now, flip that around and have a subscription service, some people might join the service solely to play that one game, they find out it's arse, they cancel their subscription, they're out 10 bucks and some of their ISP's data allowance. However, and this is the more important scenario, people who are already ongoing subscribers to the service get the new game and find out it's terrible. They have already had their fun with the developers past titles so they think, "you know what, this game doesn't deserve my money" so they cancel their subscription. That is a much bigger wake up call because that actually tells the Publisher/Developer they are going to receive less future income. This is getting kinda long but I'll just quickly jot down, you don't own the games you buy. You only own a license to play it, that license can be forfeit at the developers discretion, this information is literally in the TaC's you agree to when you load said game up. So just because you have a game on disc doesn't mean you can play it forever, especially given that many games provide online connectivity. This is not something I expect to happen in the next five years, physical media exists and it will continue to exist for a long time. However I am looking forward to the days when video games on discs and consoles for that matter, but that's a whole separate discussion, become a thing of the past. As an aside I'm well aware neither of us are going to change one another's minds, or are unlikely to, but I see this as more about educating others to each side of the coin.

"You say that it's about choice, but wouldn't you rather choose to pay $100 a year for a 'Developer's ENTIRE available catalogue (for that system) than pick and choose games?"
I would rather own the games than rent them. It's that simple. I don't want to move from service to service to rent games. I'd rather buy a game now, knowing fully well that I'll be able to play 5 years from now and don't hope & depend on others. The choice for customers is really simple:
- You prefer renting. Fine rent your games.
- I prefer to buy them. Fine, I'll just buy them. With your vision, I am force to rent games even though I don't want to do it. I have no choice. The argument that it'll be significantly cheaper is again arguable. It all depends on how you play games. If you just move from game to game quickly and don't care about playing a game again in the future then why not.
But for me, it's not. I like my game library. I like to play games I want to play whenever I want. I don't want to be in constant pressure to play games to make my subscription "worth it". "However if those publishers also provided their own subscription services then you could suddenly have access to their games at a more manageable fee than $50 a pop."
If each publisher have their own $10-15/month service you'll need to either
1) have to have each subscription for a year and the cumulative cost of these would be just much more than if you would have just bought the few games you want to play.
or
2) juggle subscriptions moving from one to another and restricting yourself to 1 or 2 months period to play the game.
And in both the case you'll be left with an empty library at the end of one year. "Also you say the argument isn't "subscription vs game sales but subscription vs game sales + subscription" however you vehemently stated that you want subscription services to fail, here's the direct quote, "I hope these services will all fail or will never replace traditional gaming." So actually, yes this discussion is about subscription vs game sales."
Yes and I also told why I want it to fail. The reason why I want it to fail is because any type of slight success will just encourage publishers to go 100% subscription.
When game pass first came in, Ive said that it's good option for gamers as long as it doesn't become the norm and replace traditional ways of playing.
Do you know how MS will trash their own Office 2019 when trying to promote Office 365 subscriptions?
That's because they have all the advantage. It's obvious that they are just dying for an 100% subscription model.
The reasoning is simple. A customers buying an office 2019 won't need to buy the next office or the one after that. He'll still be able to use that office 2019 for years without the need to give MS any more money.
A customer using office 365 just keeps to paying MS money again and again. When he stops paying he ends up with nothing. Ideally I would say both system exist but sales of games still do much better than renting service. That's why I want it to fail... "Here's another scenario..."
About your scenario, I've always talked against preordering games. Preorders makes little sense unless it's something like a collectors edition or if you know that 1) the game will most probably be good and 2) there will be problems with stock.
But that again in that example it shows that with services devs won't be accountable for the quality of the product they make. Meaning the finality is just adding a game in a service. That could be seen in some of the recent releases by MS. How many times people just said "It's ok, it's only 10 bucks on game pass"? That's another down side of having this type of service.
Normally when a game depends on sales, devs knows that quality is very important for it to be a success. If the focus is not on quality but just to get a game into the service then we would see more unfinished games like SoT.
Even a game like Forza is on game pass at launch but what subs get is a game with slow progression. If you want better progression you have to pay more to be a VIP member.
We will tend to see more games that are build or designed for this service. Focus will no longer be make a good game and that's it. But more make a game that will make people try to come back again and again. About owning a license, yes but I rather own a license then not own anything. There is just one of my previous game that I can't play anymore. And that's AOE Online. A sort of game as a service that MS cancelled after few years. I can play any other games that I bought.
The thing about online only games is that I never consider them games that we buy. Games like Titanfall or SoT are just games that people rent no matter what. The thing is that I understand that there are people who who prefer to rent games and I'm sure you understand that you know that are people who prefer buying games and even physical games. What I don't understand is why you would want the death of buying/selling games if others want it? I explained my reason as to why I'm against renting system but I still can't understand why you would want to remove the option to buy games. What do you think it'll bring to you and to gaming?

I'll just respond to the final paragraph because the rest of it is just going to be cyclical. "What do you think it'll bring to you and to gaming?"
For two reasons, it works out cheaper for the consumer and will provide more profit to the developer/publisher IF the game is worth playing. I like supporting companies that provide things I enjoy. However I am also well aware that time has value. So even if I really enjoy a game, if I pay full price for it and it lasts for 5 hours I'll feel cheated, because time holds value. Whereas if I am really enjoying a game and am willing to throw hundreds or thousands of hours into it, then I'm more than happy to pay more for that. A subscription based system allows this flexibility. And again, no contract terms, so a subscription can be cancelled whenever, and this can be done through the Xbox, you don't need to go to websites, or call anyone, or do anything, other than click a button. If you are willing to go to the effort of travelling to your local store to buy the latest games, or view the latest sale, I'm sure you have the time to go to a different section of a dashboard to look at your subscriptions. Again, this is not a now thing, I'm expecting this shift quite far in the future.

I'm guessing you understood my point of view but I'm sorry I just can't seem to understand yours.
I mean your two points are :
1) Games will be cheaper for gamers and 2) Devs/publisher will get more money. For 1) again you are not considering that owning a game or a license to a game is not the same as renting. Renting will always be cheaper.
But you don't say why do you think not having sales means that games through subscriptions will be cheaper.
Take game pass for example. Do you think it'll be cheaper if we take out the ability to buy games?
I really doubt it. If anything I think the subscription cost will just rise because subscriptions will not need to compete with the sales market and the used games market.
For 2) I don't true that is. Removing the whole sales market just remove potentially loads of money for game makers. So far we don't know how much money devs actually makes so it's really difficult to have a fair opinion. Sure the bigger publishers will make money, but what about indie studios? If the only way to play games is to rent them, I for one would probably game a lot less.