Would you want subscription based sports games?

The Crypto Guy

Registered User
Jun 26, 2017
26,065
32,812
So i'll pay about 60-70 a year for a subscription for minor updates throughout the season instead of buying the new game in the store each year with those same minor updates. Sounds....meh
 

The Nuge

Some say…
Jan 26, 2011
27,335
7,242
British Columbia
So i'll pay about 60-70 a year for a subscription for minor updates throughout the season instead of buying the new game in the store each year with those same minor updates. Sounds....meh

And then lose the game if you decide not to renew... I don't see how this is an improvement
 

NameInUse

Registered User
Sep 27, 2017
67
63
Considering the current business model has people paying $70 per year for what amounts to a DLC's worth of upgrades, this will at least make it obvious to people that they are being screwed. As it stands, I only buy one of EA's sports games once every 5 years or so, so this will just encourage me to stop completely.
 
Sep 19, 2008
372,084
23,944
I'll be the contrarian and say I'm all for it depending on how the model is designed (too lazy to read the link). I myself buy FIFA every year and just trade it in. If I can keep playing FIFA and pay a fee for updates to the game sure
 

aleshemsky83

Registered User
Apr 8, 2008
17,797
424
Definitely not. I played madden 09 till they shut the servers off. Ive never had any interest in yearly sports titles and I have no comprehension how they actually sell from year to year. To me that's proof that the general consumer is clueless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Haggard

RandV

It's a wolf v2.0
Jul 29, 2003
26,831
4,924
Vancouver
Visit site
The last time I played a sports game for an extended length of time was NHL 2K5, so I've been out of it for a long time. But I always thought a new model would be beneficial, but there's no way that EA would hurt their cash cow and make it more consumer friendly. If they're going to change it then it's going to be a business decision where they believe they'll make more money out of it, whether or not it's better for the customer as well is a secondary concern.
 

Knave

Registered User
Mar 6, 2007
21,627
2,226
Ottawa
And then lose the game if you decide not to renew... I don't see how this is an improvement

It's an improvement for the bottom line of the companies. The future seems to be a) subscription or b) free with micro-transactions unless you have the desire and time to grind the living shit out of the game.

The first thing that comes to mind for me isn't even game related - it's Microsoft Office suite. It's a subscription now, right? Yeah. I miss it coming free or priced in with the new computer I got.
 

Ceremony

blahem
Jun 8, 2012
113,012
15,084
I'd love to say I think this would only work if you still had a base game to play if your subscription ran out, just with no updates or online capabilities. I've no doubt that wouldn't be the case and you'd need to pay the same price to keep playing every year, so what's a decent idea will be implemented with all the cynicism and exploitation you'd expect from EA.
 

Natey

GOATS
Aug 2, 2005
62,295
8,430
Definitely not. I played madden 09 till they shut the servers off. Ive never had any interest in yearly sports titles and I have no comprehension how they actually sell from year to year. To me that's proof that the general consumer is clueless.
You could say the same about most games. You can't say but the story!!! Because they gave story modes now too.
 

Big McLargehuge

Fragile Traveler
May 9, 2002
72,188
7,741
S. Pasadena, CA
I mean...maybe? Whatever direction the sports game market is heading towards, I don't like it. Anything that would at least get me to not pay $60 for what is effectively just a roster update that I barely play past the first two months anymore (I do not touch online components, which means EA doesn't give a shit about me) would at least get me to spend less on something that I'm barely getting anything out of anymore.

At the very least it would get me to stop abandoning franchises months ahead of time because of not wanting to 'waste' time on a franchise mode a few months before a new version comes out and I have to start over again.
 

aleshemsky83

Registered User
Apr 8, 2008
17,797
424
You could say the same about most games. You can't say but the story!!! Because they gave story modes now too.
I don't really see how you could say the same about most games. Sports titles are almost literally the exact same game year to year with roster updates. Not sort of the same game, almost identical. What non sports game does that? Maybe Assassin's Creed or Far Cry but I never picked those up yearly either so I feel I'm pretty consistent. In fact I played the first AC and got bored out of my mind and never played another one.

I've played the story modes for NBA, if that's what floats your boat by all means splurge.
 

Natey

GOATS
Aug 2, 2005
62,295
8,430
I don't really see how you could say the same about most games. Sports titles are almost literally the exact same game year to year with roster updates. Not sort of the same game, almost identical. What non sports game does that? Maybe Assassin's Creed or Far Cry but I never picked those up yearly either so I feel I'm pretty consistent. In fact I played the first AC and got bored out of my mind and never played another one.

I've played the story modes for NBA, if that's what floats your boat by all means splurge.
What games are you a fan of? I don't see all that much difference in most games that continue a series.

Uncharted is my favourite series of all time but really besides refinining gameplay and changing a story/cinematics.. what did they do? Last of Us might be my favourite game ever and it's just Uncharted with a new skin and a very light crafting element.

95% of games aren't very original or borrow greatly from a predecessor. And maybe some sports game rarely change, but even a ton of little animations being refined or added are huge for a simulation.
 

aleshemsky83

Registered User
Apr 8, 2008
17,797
424
What games are you a fan of? I don't see all that much difference in most games that continue a series.

Uncharted is my favourite series of all time but really besides refinining gameplay and changing a story/cinematics.. what did they do? Last of Us might be my favourite game ever and it's just Uncharted with a new skin and a very light crafting element.

95% of games aren't very original or borrow greatly from a predecessor. And maybe some sports game rarely change, but even a ton of little animations being refined or added are huge for a simulation.
You're talking extremely broad gameplay elements. Every first person shooter or 3rd person platformer plays differently and offers their own twists or upgrades, they are not the exact same game with the names changed.

Even if I accept your logic, that every game is just as much of a reskin as sports games are -- a huge stretch but whatever -- I don't buy these titles every year so I don't see the contradiction.

In fact a company like Nintendo is known for releasing only one or two Zelda or Mario game per console generation. Even if I accepted that every single one of those games are the reskins, they aren't released every year.

Even Uncharted isn't released every year, in fact there was almost a 6 year gap between 3 and 4.

To answer your question, I like enjoy most of the big releases, I like far cry, I like uncharted, I like madden, I don't feel any need to buy them every year though.
 
Last edited:

Natey

GOATS
Aug 2, 2005
62,295
8,430
How you can say Uncharted is any different is beyond me. And it's my favourite game series ever.

I wish sports games were on 2 or 3 year cycles and updated throughout, especially since they all have mircotransactions models now.

Just thought taking a shot at people's intelligence if they buy every game is a little ridiculous considering the state of most games.
 

Belieber

The Nuge is huge
Jun 23, 2016
1,534
499
vancouver
I bought NHL every year, those games in 2009,10,11,12,13 were all amazing on PS3. Nowadays I do not buy ANY, none, they're trash games.

Madden is better but I find the replay value isn't what it used to be. So i no longer buy that.

MLB the Show and NBA 2k are at a completely different level compared to EA games, they are getting my money. EA has been so lazy it's killed them.

If they do this and I buy a game for $70 I should get that game forever if I don't want to continue paying for updates. I'm not renting a game for $70.
 

CBJx614

Registered User
May 25, 2012
14,846
6,450
C-137
FWIW I would Imagine prices would come down significantly if they don't have to produce any hard copies.
 

x Tame Impala

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Aug 24, 2011
27,435
11,781
Where's the advantage for me as a consumer in this?

I currently pay $60-$70 a year for a new NHL game (except for this year which is the first year since 08). Why would I commit to a yearly subscription for the same price?

It also seems like a great way for EA to do less with my money. This yearly sub would make sense if it was $40-$50 a year
 

Hammettf2b

oldmanyellsatcloud.jpg
Jul 9, 2012
22,489
4,612
So California
Where's the advantage for me as a consumer in this?

I currently pay $60-$70 a year for a new NHL game (except for this year which is the first year since 08). Why would I commit to a yearly subscription for the same price?

It also seems like a great way for EA to do less with my money. This yearly sub would make sense if it was $40-$50 a year
I guess the theory is, if the game is mainly just a roster update anyways, the companies can take a year off of releasing a game and will have more time to develop new features as well as refine the gameplay.
 

x Tame Impala

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Aug 24, 2011
27,435
11,781
I guess the theory is, if the game is mainly just a roster update anyways, the companies can take a year off of releasing a game and will have more time to develop new features as well as refine the gameplay.

In theory, sure. But EA hasn't done much to make me trust that these "new features" would be anything worthwhile.

They can have me buy yearly releases with marginal improvements or they can come out with a new game every 2-3 years and with major improvements and have me buy that.

What that article talked about made it seem like it would be the worst of both for the consumer. No thanks.
 

Hammettf2b

oldmanyellsatcloud.jpg
Jul 9, 2012
22,489
4,612
So California
In theory, sure. But EA hasn't done much to make me trust that these "new features" would be anything worthwhile.

They can have me buy yearly releases with marginal improvements or they can come out with a new game every 2-3 years and with major improvements and have me buy that.

What that article talked about made it seem like it would be the worst of both for the consumer. No thanks.
I honestly would welcome the change. I wouldn't be losing out either way since the only sports game i've bought recently is MLB The Show.
 

ArGarBarGar

What do we want!? Unfair!
Sep 8, 2008
44,017
11,677
I honestly would welcome the change. I wouldn't be losing out either way since the only sports game i've bought recently is MLB The Show.
You would be losing out if you ever felt inclined to buy the new edition. After that and you don't want to subscribe, would you be okay with completely losing out on the ability to play that game? Or would you be willing to spend hundreds of dollars to keep a game "live" over a multiple year span?

I don't know when I will buy another NHL game (maybe 18 once there is a sale since there were custom teams added), but when I do, I will not be willing to play it on a subscription based package.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->