I think stuff like PS+ is awesome. It gives Sony a way to showcase or prop up games the audience often misses for one reason or another, and gives the creators another means of revenue/exposure after the game's time is 'done'. It's a clever way to feature someone's work in a fashion that benefits everyone.
This, however, I think is more likely to just undermine EA's own sales. Based on the lineup they're stating today, we can safely assume that some new EA games will be available on the service, and the biggest stuff will be available on it some time later. Also it's specifically their lineup, not the market in general, so I can look at their release schedule and conclude that a good chunk of it will be offered on EA Access at some point.
It looks like they're using this to get more people buying DLC. Not a bad thing by itself, but what happens if I buy Premium for Battlefield 4 while on this service? If I cancel EA Access, do I lose access to the game despite dropping $50 on content for it? If so, why would I put myself in that position? That's not comfortable, and there's a good chance I'd regret my purchases. Valve gave a talk about regret, and lots of detail on their free to play model.
They avoid this kind of weird middle ground between fully retail boxed copies and fully free to play by just making sure you never (or at least, as little as possible) feel spurned by your purchasing decisions, and making what you buy benefit everyone around you.
But wait...don't you lose access to games you get free with PS+ if you end the subscription too?
So if you buy DLC for those games wouldn't you still lose that money if you ended your subscription unless you bought the game full out.
I never buy DLC for PS+ games, and honestly I'd never really thought about that until now.
Other than that, I mentioned PS+ because it covers the entire Playstation ecosystem. There is always stuff on it I haven't heard of or would have otherwise ignored. With EA's offering, it's too narrow. A handful of their new stuff will be available on it, and (presumably) their heavy hitters with lots of DLC. I assume they're experimenting with this, seeing if subscribed access to BF4 leads to a significant conversion to Premium, but I doubt they're thinking too much about buyer's remorse. If they are they clearly aren't valuing it enough, given the way they've chosen to announce all this.
I get what you're saying and you do raise a good point.
I think a good deal of it will be how they handle that stuff.
Though personally, I feel when it comes to the purchase of DLC there has to be some mindfulness on the part of the consumer. But I also know that idea of personal responsibility won't stop people from getting angry about it.
Probably that you won't lose any save data if you let your subscription lapse.
+1
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
You know, I thought about this more and I honestly don't think I like the precedent it sets. I'd much rather have a console company be the gatekeeper ala PS NOW than have independent publishers doing it. What happens when Activision, Ubisoft and the others start this? Paying $100 or more? I mean this can open up huge advantages in certain multiplayer games by giving people 5 days early access. Not cool. Unless their back catalog grows, you can already get the games offered for the price. The discount itself barely covers the cost so the only value add in my mind is the early access and that seems like it is just asking for trouble down the line.
I do like them finally "fighting back" against Gamestop and the horrible practices of used games, but that's more endemic of a bigger problem really.
Well if you're in the preview program you'll find a code in your inbox, just downloaded mine.
For 30 bucks a year I'll probably join up. I wish they'd give us a firm "1 game per month/quarter" or something so we sort of know what we're getting, I really have no desire to buy any 60 dollar game digitally so the 10% coupon is useless to me.
So apparently Sony were offered this but turned it down.
I'm actually quite surprised by the warm welcome people seem to be giving this. In my opinion it's got Trojan horse all over it. From a business perspective, why would EA give you access to their titles (inc new releases apparently) for $30 a year? That's half the cost of a single game at retail. It doesn't seem sustainable so I'm wary that at some point there's going to be a catch. And of course, there's the precedent this sets for other publishers to set up their own subscription service.
How is this a Trojan horse? Pay $5, get a month's access to four big games. Pay $30, get a year's access to four big games. As long as you purchase the subscription based on what you will get rather than what you might get I don't see anything bad about this.
I don't particularly care about any of the free titles and I've got enough free games from Games with Gold and PS+ to keep me occupied for years, but this seems like a great deal for anyone more interested.
Because does EA seem like the sort of company that would be happy to give you four big games for just $30? Why would they do that, bearing in mind that EA's digital titles on PSN and Xbox stores were the most expensive of all titles available?
Yes, they do, because they like money. If you weren't going to buy the games at full price/launch day, this is probably the kind of deal you'd wait for. So they get to make money still, you get to enjoy their titles for a month. What catch is there? The discounts are just a bonus really since most of the games discounted have already been way cheaper (PvZ GW launched at $40 and I have seen it go for half that, 10% off isn't much of a deal).
I guess I just like liking things until I have a reason not to. Of course there's plenty of time for them to fuck this up, but it sounds good on paper.
0
Psychotic OneThe Lord of No PantsParts UnknownRegistered Userregular
I haven't redeemed my code for it yet but I have the 3 games I'd play from the initial offering. For 30 dollars a year though? Kinda like a premium add-on to Games with Gold. Plus the discount on titles seems kinda enticing. If for DA: I and if they ever get around to it, Dead Space 4. Wonder if the discount will also apply to season passes and DLC.
So apparently Sony were offered this but turned it down.
I'm actually quite surprised by the warm welcome people seem to be giving this. In my opinion it's got Trojan horse all over it. From a business perspective, why would EA give you access to their titles (inc new releases apparently) for $30 a year? That's half the cost of a single game at retail. It doesn't seem sustainable so I'm wary that at some point there's going to be a catch. And of course, there's the precedent this sets for other publishers to set up their own subscription service.
It's actually a really smart deal because they are only going to be modeling this on how successful PSN+ was I bet. It gets people playing EA games, EA give away stuff that is largely falling well into the tail of its sales (and where used game sales/deals would be eating into it anyway) and they are putting things up for "free" that are MP centric like BF4, where you pretty much need to buy all the DLC (for the price of a full game practically once it's all out, that won't be on sale or available used from Gamestop).
This is an incredibly smart decision in a lot of ways and the $30 asking price is the equivalent of legal highway robbery in terms of value. Especially if EA aren't pulling bullshit on the games they have there not being removed or rotated in/out.
Because does EA seem like the sort of company that would be happy to give you four big games for just $30? Why would they do that, bearing in mind that EA's digital titles on PSN and Xbox stores were the most expensive of all titles available?
I am firmly in the "this really, really probably isn't as good as it seems" camp. Hmm, buy this game for $60, or subscribe for a year for $30 and play multiple games including the $60 one I no longer have to buy?
If it's not making EA more money than they are making now then there's a catch or other type of hook they haven't mentioned yet. Pretty much period.
Because does EA seem like the sort of company that would be happy to give you four big games for just $30? Why would they do that, bearing in mind that EA's digital titles on PSN and Xbox stores were the most expensive of all titles available?
4 big games that are like a year old.
Its not as big a deal as you would think.
Plus I imagine most of the people buying these games now are buying used copies, so EA manages to actually get some money for them this way.
+2
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited July 2014
Said it a few times already but most of the games they are putting up for free right now are well over a year old. And given how fast games devalue over time(especially when it comes to yearly sports titles) they probably aren't losing much on anything.
Like I don't know what they're going to do in the future but while I think its a pretty decent deal, I also don't think its OMGAMAZING! to the point that I have to craft some theory on how its a trap.
That said, if I was to put a theory up. I think the bigger thing to look at isn't the access to old games, but the digital sales. EA has been trying to cut into used game sells for a while and I'm sure this is just another part of it.
I am firmly in the "this really, really probably isn't as good as it seems" camp. Hmm, buy this game for $60, or subscribe for a year for $30 and play multiple games including the $60 one I no longer have to buy?
If it's not making EA more money than they are making now then there's a catch or other type of hook they haven't mentioned yet. Pretty much period.
The hook is the typical one for deals like this; they're hoping people are too stupid or forgetful to make it work correctly for them.
The best way to look at this is that they'd rather get $30 from people playing old games than $0 from people who buy used at Gamestop. It's sure as hell a better deal for the player than the Online Pass system from last gen.
Assuming EA gets back on the "good SP content" train at some point, $30/year to play most stuff in exchange for waiting a year-ish doesn't seem that bad. Now that they have the service, it seems like something that is primed to talk about at E3 every year - "oh, and now we're adding (big AAA game from last fall) to EA Access for free!".
When is this even going to launch? Because the next iterations of Fifa and Madden come out in about 2 months. What good is a free copy when everybody jumps ship to the new one and the multiplayer dries up?
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
When is this even going to launch? Because the next iterations of Fifa and Madden come out in about 2 months. What good is a free copy when everybody jumps ship to the new one and the multiplayer dries up?
I can still get matches in FIFA 13 on 360. It isn't the critical mass that stays with the current version, but there are still people to play against if MP is your thing, and I'd imagine it would be even better once the "free" ones are out. The sports games also have pretty robust SP modes where being a year behind isn't a huge deal.
This seems like the bizarro version of PlayStation Now. Whereas that has a good selection and stupid prices, this has good prices and stupid selection.
I mean, it might be fine for people who don't mind playing last year's sports n' shooties, but as it stands right now it's not looking great.
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
mojojoeoA block off the park, living the dream.Registered Userregular
edited July 2014
GUYS its a trap.
The money isnt in the games- its in the dlc- the premium upgrades, the battlepacks. this is all base games.... games you wont own.
This path leads to even more cut content and dlc. its the free to playish model.....
Be very very careful.....
mojojoeo on
Chief Wiggum: "Ladies, please. All our founding fathers, astronauts, and World Series heroes have been either drunk or on cocaine."
+4
ShogunHair long; money long; me and broke wizards we don't get alongRegistered Userregular
it doesnt seem right to sell people DLC for games they don't own. I could see them doing something where if you pay a bit more per month we'll give you access to these DLCs or expansions as well.
it doesnt seem right to sell people DLC for games they don't own. I could see them doing something where if you pay a bit more per month we'll give you access to these DLCs or expansions as well.
Eh, I dunno. I think DLC is evil, but if we grant that DLC is okay normally, then selling people DLC for a rented game doesn't seem any worse than a rental car company charging you extra if you want a GPS in your car or a car with heated seats or something.
"We evaluated the EA Access subscription offering and decided that it does not bring the kind of value PlayStation customers have come to expect," a Sony representative said to Game Informer. "PlayStation Plus memberships are up more than 200% since the launch of PlayStation 4, which shows that gamers are looking for memberships that offer a multitude of services, across various devices, for one low price. We don't think asking our fans to pay an additional $5 a month for this EA-specific program represents good value to the PlayStation gamer."
I mean, shouldn't you offer them a choice, atleast? Also, lol @ them making PSN plus pretty much mandatory and then saying "our subscriptions have doubled!"
"We evaluated the EA Access subscription offering and decided that it does not bring the kind of value PlayStation customers have come to expect," a Sony representative said to Game Informer. "PlayStation Plus memberships are up more than 200% since the launch of PlayStation 4, which shows that gamers are looking for memberships that offer a multitude of services, across various devices, for one low price. We don't think asking our fans to pay an additional $5 a month for this EA-specific program represents good value to the PlayStation gamer."
I mean, shouldn't you offer them a choice, atleast? Also, lol @ them making PSN plus pretty much mandatory and then saying "our subscriptions have doubled!"
Translation from PR-speak:
This crap will compete with PlayStation Plus/Now. We want all the rental monies.
"We evaluated the EA Access subscription offering and decided that it does not bring the kind of value PlayStation customers have come to expect," a Sony representative said to Game Informer. "PlayStation Plus memberships are up more than 200% since the launch of PlayStation 4, which shows that gamers are looking for memberships that offer a multitude of services, across various devices, for one low price. We don't think asking our fans to pay an additional $5 a month for this EA-specific program represents good value to the PlayStation gamer."
I mean, shouldn't you offer them a choice, atleast? Also, lol @ them making PSN plus pretty much mandatory and then saying "our subscriptions have doubled!"
They're also about to launch their own old game streaming service, so they don't have any incentive to get onboard.
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
I wonder how does this work though.
Doesn't EA have to give a cut to MS/Sony either way since they're still selling or their platform?
I bet this is why there hasn't been anything from EA on Games With Gold.
The biggest and most important thing is that they keep adding to the catalog, and that they keep their word about not removing games from the system.
If those things hold true, along with the 6 bucks off brand new games...
I generally buy 2-3 EA games a year. So that 30 bucks becomes 12-18 bucks. For a year of what may become a really good back catalog.
This seems like a very positive move; I will probably sign up before Dragon Age: Inquisition to get the discount on that one.
Which is cool but-
Me3 was 60 bucks plus - 50 in dlc.
battlefield was 60 bucks plus 50 for dlc - and micro trans.
DA2 ultimate is 39,99 right now, the dlc is over 40$ as of right now.
madden 25 has micro trans (i think? card packs/ bonus stuff?)
its not the full games...
and this doesn't foster an environment where ea would cut that crap out- this fosters them cutting even more. Selling you more micro trans.
Cheap pay as you go to hook you. then what? the give you a half a game and sell you the other half back. Or in the case of BF make natural unlocks a slog and micro transactions a super fast option.
Chief Wiggum: "Ladies, please. All our founding fathers, astronauts, and World Series heroes have been either drunk or on cocaine."
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
Oh...here we go.
+1
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I bet this is why there hasn't been anything from EA on Games With Gold.
The biggest and most important thing is that they keep adding to the catalog, and that they keep their word about not removing games from the system.
If those things hold true, along with the 6 bucks off brand new games...
I generally buy 2-3 EA games a year. So that 30 bucks becomes 12-18 bucks. For a year of what may become a really good back catalog.
This seems like a very positive move; I will probably sign up before Dragon Age: Inquisition to get the discount on that one.
Which is cool but-
Me3 was 60 bucks plus - 50 in dlc.
battlefield was 60 bucks plus 50 for dlc - and micro trans.
DA2 ultimate is 39,99 right now, the dlc is over 40$ as of right now.
madden 25 has micro trans (i think? card packs/ bonus stuff?)
its not the full games...
and this doesn't foster an environment where ea would cut that crap out- this fosters them cutting even more. Selling you more micro trans.
Cheap pay as you go to hook you. then what? the give you a half a game and sell you the other half back. Or in the case of BF make natural unlocks a slog and micro transactions a super fast option.
And I played the hell out of Mass Effect 3 and got none of the DLC and felt like I got my money's worth.
Each person is going to have different experiences and different expectations, sure, but I think it is unfair to point to the existence of expansion packs and DLC as proof that a game isn't complete out of the box or cannot be enjoyed without four GBAs, a home with an electric bill and three hookers, especially when you are getting that game along with eventually dozens of others for the price of a couple bucks a month.
This new model still has you buying these games on release day for 60 bucks (well, 54 with the discount), then eventually putting them on the subscription service once the market dries up / becomes saturated.
I do not think they are going to put effort into fucking up their new release cycle by making the games unattractive at retail OR patching 6-12 month old games up to add microtransactions when they aren't generating much money any more and they are focused on the next 60 dollar thing.
This is EA, after having lost the ability to undercut the used game market due to the PR catastrofuck that was the xbox one reveal, trying again to make money off their old properties at the expense of gamestop.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I bet this is why there hasn't been anything from EA on Games With Gold.
The biggest and most important thing is that they keep adding to the catalog, and that they keep their word about not removing games from the system.
If those things hold true, along with the 6 bucks off brand new games...
I generally buy 2-3 EA games a year. So that 30 bucks becomes 12-18 bucks. For a year of what may become a really good back catalog.
This seems like a very positive move; I will probably sign up before Dragon Age: Inquisition to get the discount on that one.
Which is cool but-
Me3 was 60 bucks plus - 50 in dlc.
battlefield was 60 bucks plus 50 for dlc - and micro trans.
DA2 ultimate is 39,99 right now, the dlc is over 40$ as of right now.
madden 25 has micro trans (i think? card packs/ bonus stuff?)
its not the full games...
and this doesn't foster an environment where ea would cut that crap out- this fosters them cutting even more. Selling you more micro trans.
Cheap pay as you go to hook you. then what? the give you a half a game and sell you the other half back. Or in the case of BF make natural unlocks a slog and micro transactions a super fast option.
So just... don't buy the DLC or microtransactions? You act like they are giving you half a game but last time I checked my base copy of BF4 and PvZ work fine. Hell, the DLC for PVZ was free! I really doubt they are gonna start gutting their products to sell them to you twice.
Yeah I never buy DLC, for 30 bucks a year to have a library of games to pull from seems ok.
The problem is EA has no library on XBO yet. Here are what we could be seeing next:
UFC
NBA Live 14
Need For Speed
PvZ Garden Warfare
What else is there? They've come out and said Titanfall won't be a part of EA Access, nor is the DLC for Titanfall eligible for the 10% off coupon. So what are we looking at? Those 4 games and the 4 they have up now?
By the way, the service is live for those of you in the Preview Program, check your XBO messages, I got a code last night and downloaded the app. Ill probably sign up for a year because I don't have Madden and don't mind playing a year old version at all.
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
Yeah. That's what I'm looking at.
Like unless they plan on porting game they really don't have that big of a library to work with.
Posts
I get what you're saying and you do raise a good point.
I think a good deal of it will be how they handle that stuff.
Though personally, I feel when it comes to the purchase of DLC there has to be some mindfulness on the part of the consumer. But I also know that idea of personal responsibility won't stop people from getting angry about it.
I do like them finally "fighting back" against Gamestop and the horrible practices of used games, but that's more endemic of a bigger problem really.
For 30 bucks a year I'll probably join up. I wish they'd give us a firm "1 game per month/quarter" or something so we sort of know what we're getting, I really have no desire to buy any 60 dollar game digitally so the 10% coupon is useless to me.
I'm actually quite surprised by the warm welcome people seem to be giving this. In my opinion it's got Trojan horse all over it. From a business perspective, why would EA give you access to their titles (inc new releases apparently) for $30 a year? That's half the cost of a single game at retail. It doesn't seem sustainable so I'm wary that at some point there's going to be a catch. And of course, there's the precedent this sets for other publishers to set up their own subscription service.
I don't particularly care about any of the free titles and I've got enough free games from Games with Gold and PS+ to keep me occupied for years, but this seems like a great deal for anyone more interested.
I guess I just like liking things until I have a reason not to. Of course there's plenty of time for them to fuck this up, but it sounds good on paper.
It's actually a really smart deal because they are only going to be modeling this on how successful PSN+ was I bet. It gets people playing EA games, EA give away stuff that is largely falling well into the tail of its sales (and where used game sales/deals would be eating into it anyway) and they are putting things up for "free" that are MP centric like BF4, where you pretty much need to buy all the DLC (for the price of a full game practically once it's all out, that won't be on sale or available used from Gamestop).
This is an incredibly smart decision in a lot of ways and the $30 asking price is the equivalent of legal highway robbery in terms of value. Especially if EA aren't pulling bullshit on the games they have there not being removed or rotated in/out.
4 big games that are like a year old.
Its not as big a deal as you would think.
If it's not making EA more money than they are making now then there's a catch or other type of hook they haven't mentioned yet. Pretty much period.
Plus I imagine most of the people buying these games now are buying used copies, so EA manages to actually get some money for them this way.
Said it a few times already but most of the games they are putting up for free right now are well over a year old. And given how fast games devalue over time(especially when it comes to yearly sports titles) they probably aren't losing much on anything.
Like I don't know what they're going to do in the future but while I think its a pretty decent deal, I also don't think its OMGAMAZING! to the point that I have to craft some theory on how its a trap.
That said, if I was to put a theory up. I think the bigger thing to look at isn't the access to old games, but the digital sales. EA has been trying to cut into used game sells for a while and I'm sure this is just another part of it.
The hook is the typical one for deals like this; they're hoping people are too stupid or forgetful to make it work correctly for them.
Assuming EA gets back on the "good SP content" train at some point, $30/year to play most stuff in exchange for waiting a year-ish doesn't seem that bad. Now that they have the service, it seems like something that is primed to talk about at E3 every year - "oh, and now we're adding (big AAA game from last fall) to EA Access for free!".
"We have years of struggle ahead, mostly within ourselves." - Made in USA
Yes. They haven't made a good basketball game for 5 years now, I think.
I can still get matches in FIFA 13 on 360. It isn't the critical mass that stays with the current version, but there are still people to play against if MP is your thing, and I'd imagine it would be even better once the "free" ones are out. The sports games also have pretty robust SP modes where being a year behind isn't a huge deal.
I don't know where they'd add it. FIFA, Madden, and Battlefield already have them in the obvious places.
And I really doubt the cost/benefit would be there for them to patch old games to have something insane like an energy system.
I mean, it might be fine for people who don't mind playing last year's sports n' shooties, but as it stands right now it's not looking great.
The money isnt in the games- its in the dlc- the premium upgrades, the battlepacks. this is all base games.... games you wont own.
This path leads to even more cut content and dlc. its the free to playish model.....
Be very very careful.....
Shogun Streams Vidya
Translation from PR-speak:
They're also about to launch their own old game streaming service, so they don't have any incentive to get onboard.
Doesn't EA have to give a cut to MS/Sony either way since they're still selling or their platform?
Or is there some kind of loophole?
The biggest and most important thing is that they keep adding to the catalog, and that they keep their word about not removing games from the system.
If those things hold true, along with the 6 bucks off brand new games...
I generally buy 2-3 EA games a year. So that 30 bucks becomes 12-18 bucks. For a year of what may become a really good back catalog.
This seems like a very positive move; I will probably sign up before Dragon Age: Inquisition to get the discount on that one.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Which is cool but-
Me3 was 60 bucks plus - 50 in dlc.
battlefield was 60 bucks plus 50 for dlc - and micro trans.
DA2 ultimate is 39,99 right now, the dlc is over 40$ as of right now.
madden 25 has micro trans (i think? card packs/ bonus stuff?)
its not the full games...
and this doesn't foster an environment where ea would cut that crap out- this fosters them cutting even more. Selling you more micro trans.
Cheap pay as you go to hook you. then what? the give you a half a game and sell you the other half back. Or in the case of BF make natural unlocks a slog and micro transactions a super fast option.
And I played the hell out of Mass Effect 3 and got none of the DLC and felt like I got my money's worth.
Each person is going to have different experiences and different expectations, sure, but I think it is unfair to point to the existence of expansion packs and DLC as proof that a game isn't complete out of the box or cannot be enjoyed without four GBAs, a home with an electric bill and three hookers, especially when you are getting that game along with eventually dozens of others for the price of a couple bucks a month.
This new model still has you buying these games on release day for 60 bucks (well, 54 with the discount), then eventually putting them on the subscription service once the market dries up / becomes saturated.
I do not think they are going to put effort into fucking up their new release cycle by making the games unattractive at retail OR patching 6-12 month old games up to add microtransactions when they aren't generating much money any more and they are focused on the next 60 dollar thing.
This is EA, after having lost the ability to undercut the used game market due to the PR catastrofuck that was the xbox one reveal, trying again to make money off their old properties at the expense of gamestop.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
So just... don't buy the DLC or microtransactions? You act like they are giving you half a game but last time I checked my base copy of BF4 and PvZ work fine. Hell, the DLC for PVZ was free! I really doubt they are gonna start gutting their products to sell them to you twice.
The problem is EA has no library on XBO yet. Here are what we could be seeing next:
UFC
NBA Live 14
Need For Speed
PvZ Garden Warfare
What else is there? They've come out and said Titanfall won't be a part of EA Access, nor is the DLC for Titanfall eligible for the 10% off coupon. So what are we looking at? Those 4 games and the 4 they have up now?
By the way, the service is live for those of you in the Preview Program, check your XBO messages, I got a code last night and downloaded the app. Ill probably sign up for a year because I don't have Madden and don't mind playing a year old version at all.
Like unless they plan on porting game they really don't have that big of a library to work with.