![]() ![]() As far as distribution, I think digital makes a lot of sense for games because of how many games are incomplete, even on disc, and how many updates there are. For gaming, one major reason they want this subscription model is it lets them find yet more ways to monetize games with digital "items" and such. And I know it's not considered "owning" it, but they are happy to make it seem like it up front. There have been cases of things being removed from people's libraries despite being purchased. Things are delisted without notice in many cases. Digital distribution has had many problems in its short existence. Tremblay states that Ubisoft sees "a tremendous opportunity for growth" in this respect, though he adds that he can "understand the gamers' perspective" with the current ownership model.Īs people embrace that model, they will see that these games will exist, the service will continue, and you'll be able to access them when you feel like. So it's about feeling comfortable with not owning your game. You don't lose what you've built in the game or your engagement with the game. If you resume your game at another time, your progress file is still there. ![]() As gamers grow comfortable in that aspect… you don't lose your progress. That's a transformation that's been a bit slower to happen. They got comfortable not owning their CD collection or DVD collection. That's the consumer shift that needs to happen. One of the things we saw is that gamers are used to, a little bit like DVD, having and owning their games. Tremblay's argument, as voiced to, is that streaming is now commonplace in other sectors of the entertainment industry (particularly film, TV and music) and, unusually, gaming has not followed that trajectory quite so quickly:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |