Like unless they plan on porting game they really don't have that big of a library to work with.
This is something that will get better over the course of years.
But that said, if they really wanted to sell the concept, they should have also launched it on the 360 as well with an example of what the XBO library might look like some day (50+ games with DLC discounts).
Either way, I see myself doing this on day one just because I know I will be buying a few EA games this year and I can justify 12 bucks in a year to play a handful of titles I may have otherwise not played.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart 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. 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 do fear the possible precedent it might cause. If it turns out to work, what's stopping other companies from rolling out their own personal subscription service for their libraries? Get ready for Activision Access, Ubisoft Access, Konami, Capcom, Square-Enix, ect ect. Eventually it's not much of a deal if you're getting nickle and dimed from 5 different subscriptions at once. And that's in addition to Plus and Live's own "required" fee.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
+5
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
Yeah. That's true and that's why I think Sony may have rejected the idea.
Like on one hand I do think companies have the right to have their own service, but man does it bloat things.
+1
Options
Dusdais ashamed of this postSLC, UTRegistered Userregular
Well. We have the reason why it's XBone only. Sony shot the service down on their consoles, basically telling EA 'PS+ or nothing'.
Reminds me a lot of how EA handled the early days of Xbox Live, when they refused to support it unless Microsoft let them host their own accounts/services within it. Or when they left Steam to focus on Origin. Why participate in PS+ with their own titles, when they can launch their own subscription service, right?
EA is pretty dead set on wholly owning it's distribution in the future, to an extent I've long considered baffling.
Yeah. That's true and that's why I think Sony may have rejected the idea.
Like on one hand I do think companies have the right to have their own service, but man does it bloat things.
Sony's decision is clearly to protect PS+ and the perception of the value of PS+.
And because like @The Wolfman said, they don't want to let in the Trojan Horse and have every other company do a "Me Too!" if EA's subscription is successful.
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
And that's why I said I'd rather this service remain with the console company because if this EA deal does work get ready for walled off content on a level you've never seen.
+2
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Yeah. That's true and that's why I think Sony may have rejected the idea.
Like on one hand I do think companies have the right to have their own service, but man does it bloat things.
I dunno - this doesn't look like Origin to me - this is piggybacking off of xbox live and adds a bunch of free or less expensive content for a monthly or annual purchase.
If EA is willing to put newer and nicer games into their service for 30 bucks a year, AND I get my games with live gold pool... this just means even more games I am getting to play.
Plus cheaper mass effect and dragon age and Mirrors Edge and Battlefront and Madden.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
At this point last year's Madden can be had for 13 bucks on Amazon. Same for Battlefront. FIFA, oddly enough, is still at $35.
I'm all for optimism, but EA's going to have to get more aggressive and put more games up there that aren't already dirt-cheap. And, come to think of it, aren't geared toward playing for an eternity.
cloudeagle on
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Options
Dusdais ashamed of this postSLC, UTRegistered Userregular
edited July 2014
Out of curiosity I compiled a list of games EA has put on PS+ over the years. 210 games have been made available on PS3, PS4, and Vita since the service started, by the way.
Plants vs. Zombies (PS3, September 6th, 2011)
Shift 2: Unleashed (PS3, April 3rd, 2012)
NFL Blitz (PS3, October 2nd, 2012)
NBA Jam: On Fire Edition (PS3, December 31st, 2012)
Plants vs. Zombies (Vita, February 26th, 2013)
Battlefield 3 (PS3, July 2nd, 2013)
Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath HD (Vita, November 19th, 2013)
Dead Space 3 (PS3, July 1st, 2014)
Crysis 3 (PS3, August 5th, 2014)
Add Crysis 3 to the list, it's out on PS+ in August.
They really needed to make EA Access compatible with 360 to really make a splash, since there 8 years of content to pull from.
That said, I really think this is just EA cashing in on the used games market, here's a huge segment of the population who just wants "the football game" and will gladly spend 12 bucks for last years version of Madden from the bargain bin at GameStop because it's way cheaper than this years. EA sees none of that money so putting it up for 5 bucks a month with a bunch of other games that aren't selling finally gets them in that sweet "used" game profit.
Count me in the group who doesn't see a ton of value. 10% off pre-orders is pretty common at different retailers(often including the PSN) and the back catalog is a bunch of games that will be available for $7 at Gamestop in about a month. Plus Peggle.
I guess if you plan on buying 5 or 6 EA games at launch every year or a bunch of DLC then there is some value, but then you have probably already purchased all of the library of free games.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Count me in the group who doesn't see a ton of value. 10% off pre-orders is pretty common at different retailers(often including the PSN) and the back catalog is a bunch of games that will be available for $7 at Gamestop in about a month. Plus Peggle.
I guess if you plan on buying 5 or 6 EA games at launch every year or a bunch of DLC then there is some value, but then you have probably already purchased all of the library of free games.
All you gotta do is buy 2-3 EA games a year, then you are paying less than 20 bucks a year to eventually play the ones you missed when they are no longer "new."
And it is comically easy to justify 2-3 EA games at launch if you are used to buying new games. For me, this year, it will be Dragon Age, Battlefront and Mirror's Edge (not 2014 mind you, just a year from when the service starts), and maybe a sports game if they are solid this year.
And that 12-18 bucks left over will let me try out all the sports games I decided to skip, Battlefield 4 which might actually be playable now, PvZ, and whatever else they decide to throw in there.
It seems fair enough this year.
Next year, it will be Mass Effect 4 and whatever else we don't know about yet. And the back catalog will (conceivably) only get better.
I mean, it could go horribly wrong and the service could flop and it could be terrible... but I will be out (less than) 30 bucks at worst, because at least I would have gotten the discounts on the games I plan to buy this year.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
10% off full games and all DLC is not in any way a bad deal. Assume a 60 buck game and a 30 buck season pass (seems about right?), you just spent 30/year to save 9 bucks on one game. Buy a couple games? Profit. Plus the old free stuff, and the ability to try things before you buy 'em.
0
Options
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
Count me in the group who doesn't see a ton of value. 10% off pre-orders is pretty common at different retailers(often including the PSN) and the back catalog is a bunch of games that will be available for $7 at Gamestop in about a month. Plus Peggle.
I guess if you plan on buying 5 or 6 EA games at launch every year or a bunch of DLC then there is some value, but then you have probably already purchased all of the library of free games.
All you gotta do is buy 2-3 EA games a year, then you are paying less than 20 bucks a year to eventually play the ones you missed when they are no longer "new."
And it is comically easy to justify 2-3 EA games at launch if you are used to buying new games. For me, this year, it will be Dragon Age, Battlefront and Mirror's Edge (not 2014 mind you, just a year from when the service starts), and maybe a sports game if they are solid this year.
And that 12-18 bucks left over will let me try out all the sports games I decided to skip, Battlefield 4 which might actually be playable now, PvZ, and whatever else they decide to throw in there.
It seems fair enough this year.
Next year, it will be Mass Effect 4 and whatever else we don't know about yet. And the back catalog will (conceivably) only get better.
I mean, it could go horribly wrong and the service could flop and it could be terrible... but I will be out (less than) 30 bucks at worst, because at least I would have gotten the discounts on the games I plan to buy this year.
But those 2-3 games could generally be had for the same price if you shop around. Right now you can order Madden 15 and get a $25 Dell gift card for instance. Or $20 in K-Mart bucks. Almost every big game can be ordered for $55 straight up at Newegg. So you're paying $30 for the convenience of getting it at launch without having to look around for the best place to get it, a demo a week beforehand, and games that could be had on the used market for dirt cheap in a couple weeks. Not to mention it's only digital games which you don't have the option of trading in down the line(which I don't do anyways, but it's nice to have the option).
I'm looking to get probably Madden and Dragon Age from EA in the near future. And I might even hold off on Dragon Age for a while unless I've got some extra cash burning a hole in my pocket. I have no interest in the library of games they're offering since it is all stuff that if you wanted to play it you would have already. Football fan? You've played Madden. Soccer fan? You've played Fifa. Just about everyone else might play them 1-2 times before moving on. Battlefield and Peggle are the best deals.
But when you compare that $30 to what Netflix gives you for $30. Or for what PS+ gives you for $30. Not close.
That's not a terrible value for $5/month or $30/year. Even if you found all 4 games for $10 each that's still more than a year of the subscription, plus they will keep adding them. Personally, I am not hopping in until they add a couple more titles. But I do think this is will be a crazy good value... eventually. Judging their intial offering is like poo-pooing PSN plus/Xbox GwG during their first month too. Both those services have gotten better with time.
I'd sign up for this, if it came to PS4. Sadly Sony doesn't think it's a good fit for the Playstation platform. I can't say I agree. I guess they want all the subscription goodness to be about PS+.
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.
Obviously the *free* games will be older. Only added to the service once they've sold through at retail and digital storefronts. Day 1 purchasers likely won't be dissuaded by the eventuality of a game coming out on EA Access a year after release - like I'm a Battlefield fan myself, I've played over 800 hours of BF4 since its release last year, and waiting on a game like that, one I really want to play, because it's likely coming to EA Access for free a year later, that is just not something I'd be able or willing do.
I'm pretty sure EA is banking on the psychology of *Reciprocity* too. By doing good by their customers with EA Access, customers are more likely to do good by EA, and buy their shit when it hits the market.
It's also noteworthy that it's likely setting the stage for the inevitable streaming future. EA Access will likely become EA's streaming platform. Streaming games is likely how the gaming market will be able to expand beyond gaming's core audience. Sure - there will always be a need for dedicated absolutely latency free localized hardware, but Joe Blow might likely be happy with playing some recent iteration of Madden streaming directly to his TV via EA Accesss - which maybe came bundled in a premium dataplan by his cable provider, together with HBO and whatnot.
0
Options
Psychotic OneThe Lord of No PantsParts UnknownRegistered Userregular
Yeah I could see them waiting 3-6 months before adding them to the vault. They wont avoid the Trendsetter and early adopter purchases. But once sales drop off and the used game market starts picking up steam is probably the type of people who will buy in. There are people who buy old Madden games for 10 bucks simply because they don't want to play full price. 30 a year for last gen madden + all the other games in the vault would be the selling point of this service.
It's not "Here we go", it's the entire point of doing this and what makes it so god damn smart of EA. Give away old games for cheap, especially mp ones, but continue to charge for DLC. They cut out the used market, get money on old games that aren't moving much anymore and potentially gain more direct profit through people buying DLC to actually play BF4 with their friends.
If you don't think this is the entire plan you're being incredibly silly or very optimistic.
$5 a month for a few horrible games, on only one system - no thanks.
Battlefield 4 was FUBAR on release but now it's really great and there is nothing horrible about it, well if you like mp. The single player is beyond dreadful.
Yeah I could see them waiting 3-6 months before adding them to the vault. They wont avoid the Trendsetter and early adopter purchases. But once sales drop off, they have a bunch of paid DLC and the used game market starts picking up steam is probably the type of people who will buy in. There are people who buy old Madden games for 10 bucks simply because they don't want to play full price. 30 a year for last gen madden + all the other games in the vault would be the selling point of this service.
I think what I added is an absolutely essential point looking at the initial games.
I consider this a game rental service, and I don't buy DLC for rentals (that's mental :P )
If the rental is annual and renewable tho, and more and more games spill into it further increasing the value...
I dunno. I will probably buy DLC for some of these games because fuck it, I am paying for hours of entertainment and not a physical thing.
And they have promised that save games and DLC and such is waiting for you when you renew your sub, so....
I could spend 5 bucks some 4-5 years down the road and play through all the DLC I bought on those games plus a bunch of other games for a month? It seems completely fair to me.
I see services like this having a tipping point a few years in where people on the outside will see that for 30 bucks they get access to 40+ games for an entire year with discounts on new titles and DLC and stuff and they will be all over it.
this is the way of the future.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I have bought DLC for PS+ games actually, but I also have 3 years of it at this point (and it's still sailing immensely high over the amount I would have paid for the games I have vs. how much the subscription cost, which will shrink down to very little by the end of that time).
I am not sure how much I like the idea of paying multiple subscriptions though. I hadn't considered what if activision and other publishers start to follow. Could feel like being double/triple charged. Does this actually require Gold to work or does it require both it and gold?
To me PSN plus and Gold are different since they offer a much wider range of sales, free games, and of course, stable online play w/ voice support. This EA plan I can see being a one or two year thing for me, atleast until Battlefront hits. Whereas, as long as I have an Xbone, I will always have Gold.
DLC is an investment in the game, I usually regret buying DLC for games I have sold. To me a game has to be pretty good to get me to buy it's DLC, which means I probably bought that game new anyway. There's plenty of EA titles I will get to try I would never have bothered with with the service, I think that's the value of this (plus I can sell my BF4 and use that to put towards a year of it).
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
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.
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?
The reason for companies to offer this is that it is guaranteed income. Offering a discount to gain guaranteed income is Business 101.
By having people subscribe to this program, not only does EA get a small amount of revenue, but they can also use that data to accurately predict consumer behaviour. If you're subscribed to EA's program, the chances you'll buy an EA game are near on 100%. That means that when predicting sales for that game, they can take the EA subscriber base as a guaranteed base of sales. That's incredibly valuable to a company, and more than worth trading a bit of profit margin on each sale to gain.
Dhalphir on
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Is the NBA Live game in the bundle the one that got really bad reviews?
Yes. NBA live is awful. NBA 2k has been the definitive basketball game on consoles for a long time now and that doesn't look to be changing anytime soon.
0
Options
Niceguyeddie616All you feed me is PUFFINS!I need NOURISHMENT!Registered Userregular
Is it just me? Or is the games industry headed towards a future of subscription plans rather than purchased games? It's almost like it's becoming...Cable!
Reading up more on EA Access, and despite my first post in this thread it actually seems like a decent deal if you play their yearly sports games. However, let's not forget who we're dealing with here. This IS still EA. Electronic "we are gonna take away your copy of Dragon Age because you badmouthed us on our message boards" Arts.
I would be wary of any kind of deal they wanna make, because I feel like they'll try to screw you eventually.
0
Options
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
It seems like a patchwork future and I'd prefer to not be forced into 7 different services from publishers. Yeah, I reallllllly don't want your future man.
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Well, you aren't being forced into anything because you can still buy all of the games individually, you don't need and are not entitled to early access to stuff so that's just kind of a bonus for subscribers...
Like, if there is value for you, pay the sub. If not, keep doing your thing.
This is better than bundling all of these eventual services into one uber-bill that costs more than is reasonable. flexibility to the consumer and all.
Isn't this almost EXACTLY what people are asking for from cable nowadays? ala carte programming where you pay for the channels you want and skip the ones you don't with the option to buy seasons of individual shows you want to watch without having to buy in to the whole channel?
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Considering physical media is still the primary form of consumption for most gamers thanks to our lovely internet infrastructure, ISPs, etc, personally not seeing how this program is a bad/evil precedent. Will you be required to subscribe in order to make any digital purchases of EA products? I didn't see that stated anywhere. I do see that if you subscribe you can get a 10% discount on select EA digital products though.
But yea, have they stated that in order to buy a digital copy of say... Madden 15' you need to subscribe?
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Considering physical media is still the primary form of consumption for most gamers thanks to our lovely internet infrastructure, ISPs, etc, personally not seeing how this program is a bad/evil precedent. Will you be required to subscribe in order to make any digital purchases of EA products? I didn't see that stated anywhere. I do see that if you subscribe you can get a 10% discount on select EA digital products though.
But yea, have they stated that in order to buy a digital copy of say... Madden 15' you need to subscribe?
nope.
In fact, what they have gone on record saying is that they will never remove a game from the service. I question this statement a little bit, as I don't see why Madden 25 will remain on the service once madden 17 or 18 is out and they want to put 15/16 on there... but if they choose to keep the whole library up there that's kind of awesome.
I think the worst thing that could happen to traditional physical media folks is that once a game ends up on the service they might stop any future printings of the physical disk.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Well you can still buy Madden NFL 12 on the Xbox Live Marketplace, so maybe?
I doubt that a game would get put into the "vault" until it's several months old... possibly longer? There simply isn't that large of a back catalog on the One for the program to show us how far back they'll go. Also, I don't think there's any real reason to drop the title from the service, as a game that old would likely be bought second hand physical over full-price digital in most cases. At least with the subs they get that money, plus DLC side purchases. Short of a GOTY package they wouldn't reprint those games new anyway, but idk.
For new games, the trials lets you play a week before release, and then requires you to buy the game to play it post-launch.
At this point, it's hard for me to not dismiss the dread regarding this program as being an "It's EA, so it must be EVIL" kinda thing...
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
0
Options
CrayonSleeps in the wrong bed.TejasRegistered Userregular
And what happens when all publishers do this? What happens when competitive multiplayer games have early access? I mean, you can say we're not forced into it but that's kind of a fallacious sentiment once this becomes the norm.
0
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
I find it odd that they aren't doing this with Origin.
I find it odd that they aren't doing this with Origin.
They're trying to get a piece of the millions spent on used console games with this service. There aren't a pile of PC copies of Madden in the used bin at GameStop.
People would decide for themselves whether they would save money and subscribe or not, wouldn't they? The math doesn't seem difficult. If buyers can manage not to buy every bundle that rolls out on the PC side then they ought to be able to figure this out, too.
And what happens when all publishers do this? What happens when competitive multiplayer games have early access? I mean, you can say we're not forced into it but that's kind of a fallacious sentiment once this becomes the norm.
Kind of a slippery slope there, but with preorder multiplayer betas (or just open betas) becoming even more of an expectation now I can't see early access to a competitive multiplayer game being a major issue even with progression saving from the trial. If we're being generous it's seven days, though the article says "nearly a week," so it stands to reason that it'd be less than that. A competitive player that can get gear/progression gap to the point of unfairness with that much of a head start is probably going to be the kind of competitive player that would gear/progression gap other players from a shared Day One access anyway, so IDK.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
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?
Yes. This is also now true on the Games w/ Gold on Xbox One, though not on the Xbox 360. Once you own something on that, you own it so long as it's available for anyone, regardless of how your service.
Posts
This is something that will get better over the course of years.
But that said, if they really wanted to sell the concept, they should have also launched it on the 360 as well with an example of what the XBO library might look like some day (50+ games with DLC discounts).
Either way, I see myself doing this on day one just because I know I will be buying a few EA games this year and I can justify 12 bucks in a year to play a handful of titles I may have otherwise not played.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
(Article)
// Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //
Like on one hand I do think companies have the right to have their own service, but man does it bloat things.
EA is pretty dead set on wholly owning it's distribution in the future, to an extent I've long considered baffling.
Sony's decision is clearly to protect PS+ and the perception of the value of PS+.
And because like @The Wolfman said, they don't want to let in the Trojan Horse and have every other company do a "Me Too!" if EA's subscription is successful.
// Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //
I dunno - this doesn't look like Origin to me - this is piggybacking off of xbox live and adds a bunch of free or less expensive content for a monthly or annual purchase.
If EA is willing to put newer and nicer games into their service for 30 bucks a year, AND I get my games with live gold pool... this just means even more games I am getting to play.
Plus cheaper mass effect and dragon age and Mirrors Edge and Battlefront and Madden.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I'm all for optimism, but EA's going to have to get more aggressive and put more games up there that aren't already dirt-cheap. And, come to think of it, aren't geared toward playing for an eternity.
Plants vs. Zombies (PS3, September 6th, 2011)
Shift 2: Unleashed (PS3, April 3rd, 2012)
NFL Blitz (PS3, October 2nd, 2012)
NBA Jam: On Fire Edition (PS3, December 31st, 2012)
Plants vs. Zombies (Vita, February 26th, 2013)
Battlefield 3 (PS3, July 2nd, 2013)
Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath HD (Vita, November 19th, 2013)
Dead Space 3 (PS3, July 1st, 2014)
Crysis 3 (PS3, August 5th, 2014)
They really needed to make EA Access compatible with 360 to really make a splash, since there 8 years of content to pull from.
That said, I really think this is just EA cashing in on the used games market, here's a huge segment of the population who just wants "the football game" and will gladly spend 12 bucks for last years version of Madden from the bargain bin at GameStop because it's way cheaper than this years. EA sees none of that money so putting it up for 5 bucks a month with a bunch of other games that aren't selling finally gets them in that sweet "used" game profit.
I guess if you plan on buying 5 or 6 EA games at launch every year or a bunch of DLC then there is some value, but then you have probably already purchased all of the library of free games.
All you gotta do is buy 2-3 EA games a year, then you are paying less than 20 bucks a year to eventually play the ones you missed when they are no longer "new."
And it is comically easy to justify 2-3 EA games at launch if you are used to buying new games. For me, this year, it will be Dragon Age, Battlefront and Mirror's Edge (not 2014 mind you, just a year from when the service starts), and maybe a sports game if they are solid this year.
And that 12-18 bucks left over will let me try out all the sports games I decided to skip, Battlefield 4 which might actually be playable now, PvZ, and whatever else they decide to throw in there.
It seems fair enough this year.
Next year, it will be Mass Effect 4 and whatever else we don't know about yet. And the back catalog will (conceivably) only get better.
I mean, it could go horribly wrong and the service could flop and it could be terrible... but I will be out (less than) 30 bucks at worst, because at least I would have gotten the discounts on the games I plan to buy this year.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
But those 2-3 games could generally be had for the same price if you shop around. Right now you can order Madden 15 and get a $25 Dell gift card for instance. Or $20 in K-Mart bucks. Almost every big game can be ordered for $55 straight up at Newegg. So you're paying $30 for the convenience of getting it at launch without having to look around for the best place to get it, a demo a week beforehand, and games that could be had on the used market for dirt cheap in a couple weeks. Not to mention it's only digital games which you don't have the option of trading in down the line(which I don't do anyways, but it's nice to have the option).
I'm looking to get probably Madden and Dragon Age from EA in the near future. And I might even hold off on Dragon Age for a while unless I've got some extra cash burning a hole in my pocket. I have no interest in the library of games they're offering since it is all stuff that if you wanted to play it you would have already. Football fan? You've played Madden. Soccer fan? You've played Fifa. Just about everyone else might play them 1-2 times before moving on. Battlefield and Peggle are the best deals.
But when you compare that $30 to what Netflix gives you for $30. Or for what PS+ gives you for $30. Not close.
Obviously the *free* games will be older. Only added to the service once they've sold through at retail and digital storefronts. Day 1 purchasers likely won't be dissuaded by the eventuality of a game coming out on EA Access a year after release - like I'm a Battlefield fan myself, I've played over 800 hours of BF4 since its release last year, and waiting on a game like that, one I really want to play, because it's likely coming to EA Access for free a year later, that is just not something I'd be able or willing do.
I'm pretty sure EA is banking on the psychology of *Reciprocity* too. By doing good by their customers with EA Access, customers are more likely to do good by EA, and buy their shit when it hits the market.
It's also noteworthy that it's likely setting the stage for the inevitable streaming future. EA Access will likely become EA's streaming platform. Streaming games is likely how the gaming market will be able to expand beyond gaming's core audience. Sure - there will always be a need for dedicated absolutely latency free localized hardware, but Joe Blow might likely be happy with playing some recent iteration of Madden streaming directly to his TV via EA Accesss - which maybe came bundled in a premium dataplan by his cable provider, together with HBO and whatnot.
It's not "Here we go", it's the entire point of doing this and what makes it so god damn smart of EA. Give away old games for cheap, especially mp ones, but continue to charge for DLC. They cut out the used market, get money on old games that aren't moving much anymore and potentially gain more direct profit through people buying DLC to actually play BF4 with their friends.
If you don't think this is the entire plan you're being incredibly silly or very optimistic.
Battlefield 4 was FUBAR on release but now it's really great and there is nothing horrible about it, well if you like mp. The single player is beyond dreadful.
I think what I added is an absolutely essential point looking at the initial games.
If the rental is annual and renewable tho, and more and more games spill into it further increasing the value...
I dunno. I will probably buy DLC for some of these games because fuck it, I am paying for hours of entertainment and not a physical thing.
And they have promised that save games and DLC and such is waiting for you when you renew your sub, so....
I could spend 5 bucks some 4-5 years down the road and play through all the DLC I bought on those games plus a bunch of other games for a month? It seems completely fair to me.
I see services like this having a tipping point a few years in where people on the outside will see that for 30 bucks they get access to 40+ games for an entire year with discounts on new titles and DLC and stuff and they will be all over it.
this is the way of the future.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I am not sure how much I like the idea of paying multiple subscriptions though. I hadn't considered what if activision and other publishers start to follow. Could feel like being double/triple charged. Does this actually require Gold to work or does it require both it and gold?
No apps are locked behind Gold since June.
DLC is an investment in the game, I usually regret buying DLC for games I have sold. To me a game has to be pretty good to get me to buy it's DLC, which means I probably bought that game new anyway. There's plenty of EA titles I will get to try I would never have bothered with with the service, I think that's the value of this (plus I can sell my BF4 and use that to put towards a year of it).
The reason for companies to offer this is that it is guaranteed income. Offering a discount to gain guaranteed income is Business 101.
By having people subscribe to this program, not only does EA get a small amount of revenue, but they can also use that data to accurately predict consumer behaviour. If you're subscribed to EA's program, the chances you'll buy an EA game are near on 100%. That means that when predicting sales for that game, they can take the EA subscriber base as a guaranteed base of sales. That's incredibly valuable to a company, and more than worth trading a bit of profit margin on each sale to gain.
Yes. NBA live is awful. NBA 2k has been the definitive basketball game on consoles for a long time now and that doesn't look to be changing anytime soon.
Reading up more on EA Access, and despite my first post in this thread it actually seems like a decent deal if you play their yearly sports games. However, let's not forget who we're dealing with here. This IS still EA. Electronic "we are gonna take away your copy of Dragon Age because you badmouthed us on our message boards" Arts.
I would be wary of any kind of deal they wanna make, because I feel like they'll try to screw you eventually.
Like, if there is value for you, pay the sub. If not, keep doing your thing.
This is better than bundling all of these eventual services into one uber-bill that costs more than is reasonable. flexibility to the consumer and all.
Isn't this almost EXACTLY what people are asking for from cable nowadays? ala carte programming where you pay for the channels you want and skip the ones you don't with the option to buy seasons of individual shows you want to watch without having to buy in to the whole channel?
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
But yea, have they stated that in order to buy a digital copy of say... Madden 15' you need to subscribe?
nope.
In fact, what they have gone on record saying is that they will never remove a game from the service. I question this statement a little bit, as I don't see why Madden 25 will remain on the service once madden 17 or 18 is out and they want to put 15/16 on there... but if they choose to keep the whole library up there that's kind of awesome.
I think the worst thing that could happen to traditional physical media folks is that once a game ends up on the service they might stop any future printings of the physical disk.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I doubt that a game would get put into the "vault" until it's several months old... possibly longer? There simply isn't that large of a back catalog on the One for the program to show us how far back they'll go. Also, I don't think there's any real reason to drop the title from the service, as a game that old would likely be bought second hand physical over full-price digital in most cases. At least with the subs they get that money, plus DLC side purchases. Short of a GOTY package they wouldn't reprint those games new anyway, but idk.
For new games, the trials lets you play a week before release, and then requires you to buy the game to play it post-launch.
At this point, it's hard for me to not dismiss the dread regarding this program as being an "It's EA, so it must be EVIL" kinda thing...
They're trying to get a piece of the millions spent on used console games with this service. There aren't a pile of PC copies of Madden in the used bin at GameStop.
People would decide for themselves whether they would save money and subscribe or not, wouldn't they? The math doesn't seem difficult. If buyers can manage not to buy every bundle that rolls out on the PC side then they ought to be able to figure this out, too.
Kind of a slippery slope there, but with preorder multiplayer betas (or just open betas) becoming even more of an expectation now I can't see early access to a competitive multiplayer game being a major issue even with progression saving from the trial. If we're being generous it's seven days, though the article says "nearly a week," so it stands to reason that it'd be less than that. A competitive player that can get gear/progression gap to the point of unfairness with that much of a head start is probably going to be the kind of competitive player that would gear/progression gap other players from a shared Day One access anyway, so IDK.
Yes. This is also now true on the Games w/ Gold on Xbox One, though not on the Xbox 360. Once you own something on that, you own it so long as it's available for anyone, regardless of how your service.