Sure, it has its uses. So do the subscriptions from Ubisoft or EA, though.
All I’m saying is that the digital distribution outlets that people like and have a good reputation (Game Pass, Steam) still have all the downsides that people love to get mad about in the alternatives they dislike. That doesn’t mean you should refuse to use the ones you like, but you should probably keep an eye on the effects it has on the art form and the industry.
I do see that since it’s Ubisoft, they could still push for games on the subscription service but in reality I could see the games being loaded up with micro transactions.
Or it could turn into a convoluted game demo service, where you can play a portion of a game then they hit you with a pay wall, and since you’ve already played X% of a game they could view it as more likely to buy.
OK, but that’s not how reality works, you’re making up offenses that nobody has committed because you’ve decided a particular brand is “bad” while ignoring actual offenses from brands you like and so have decided are “good”.
So no, I’m gonna have to say your hypotheticals don’t make their offerings any worse (or better) than Microsoft’s or Valve’s. Now, the pricing and lack of content? Yeah, we can talk about those. But those don’t have anything to do with preservation concerns, lack of ownership or content churn, which are all legit issues with all digital distribution and subscriptions.
Sure, it has its uses. So do the subscriptions from Ubisoft or EA, though.
All I’m saying is that the digital distribution outlets that people like and have a good reputation (Game Pass, Steam) still have all the downsides that people love to get mad about in the alternatives they dislike. That doesn’t mean you should refuse to use the ones you like, but you should probably keep an eye on the effects it has on the art form and the industry.
I do see that since it’s Ubisoft, they could still push for games on the subscription service but in reality I could see the games being loaded up with micro transactions.
Or it could turn into a convoluted game demo service, where you can play a portion of a game then they hit you with a pay wall, and since you’ve already played X% of a game they could view it as more likely to buy.
OK, but that’s not how reality works, you’re making up offenses that nobody has committed because you’ve decided a particular brand is “bad” while ignoring actual offenses from brands you like and so have decided are “good”.
So no, I’m gonna have to say your hypotheticals don’t make their offerings any worse (or better) than Microsoft’s or Valve’s. Now, the pricing and lack of content? Yeah, we can talk about those. But those don’t have anything to do with preservation concerns, lack of ownership or content churn, which are all legit issues with all digital distribution and subscriptions.