Quantcast
EA Access is a system seller.

Forums - Gaming Discussion - EA Access is a system seller.

Jazz2K said:
DonFerrari said:
Jazz2K said:


Yeah the OP is a stretch I agree but the reasoning behind their purchase made me think other people will think the same way. 

Isn't Sony releasing a similar product where you can play Playstation games after you subscribe? But you still have to pay for every games and for a limited time... if this is better for you then good, I think subscriptions will help publishers get more recognition and gamers will be able to acces more games than by buying them separately.

Well, some users love anedoctal evidence... And IF I were a big EA fan and had no prefference towards any of the 3 manufacturers I could see this program being a good value for me and deciding for MS because of it. That may be a small number of people, but there certainly enough to rise sales... Now about people who already plan on getting an X1 this can make they decide faster (well I can buy MCC, TF and have this 5 "free games" for 500...) so that is enough games to jump in.

But regarding the risks of all pubs doing it and how they can start making the program less interesting with time we can't deny the existence... Just hope things don't get too crazy.


I fully understand how bad this could get if publishers decide to make the program less interesting. Like they could lock some content in games for those who did not subscribe and release the locked content like 1 year later. But that practice is already happening, subs have nothing to do with it. Just like releasing a game exclusively to EAA members. That again, no need to look specificaly at subs. Then again, what prevents either Sony or MS to penalize gamers for not subscribing to XBLG or PS+/Now? You already have to pay to play online. I don't see all the doom and gloom around this... except for last gen when only MS had you pay for online play and have access to apps etc.


Well if you understand the risks and know EA common pratices you can see how this could gradually get ugly. And they already mentioned DLC exclusive to EA access haven't they? Yes EA could do several bad things without recurring to EA access, but EA access serves as another instance for bad things...

Regarding GwG and PS+ at least for Sony I'm sure if you downloaded it until you have PS+ (and even if you stay without it for some years and them get it again) the game will always be replayable and redownloadable (not sure if they can take it out of their servers), MS I don't know much, the only thing I saw they change was that before the game was yours to keep even when leaving GwG and now it is just while subscribing (not sure if when renewing after a time off you get access to the older games you had in the previous sub).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network

On the vault circling... if they can keep 10 quality games (and reasonably new) no one will complain... take out FIFA 14 and put 15 next year. Take Peggle and put Plant vs Zombie, etc...

But we know from history that is easier for them to take out value with time than to add, of course they will disguise it or at least take out value of other things to put there and fake added value.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Bf4 is officially available for free (pc) on battlelog.com for a month. Not to long ago they gave away bf3 on pc for free. Bf4 is also still in a pretty bad state.



EVERY GAMERS WORST NIGHTMARE...THE TANGLING CABLES MONSTER!

            

       Coffee is for closers!

TheSting said:
Captain_Tom said:
Jazz2K said:
Captain_Tom said:
Jazz2K said:
Captain_Tom said:


LOL it is a massive rip off.  They rotate the games out every month, and then you can no longer play them(Even if you have downloaded them).  Also they offer some pretty insultingly old games...

@bolded: Source? 

Playstation Prop... so you really think they'll offer every new games at release for 30$/year? Are you that... hmm... optimistic?


-Apparently EA "says" they aren't going to eliminate games, but in the contract you agree to it says they have the power to do this, Sony and Games for Gold do not.

-New games?  LOL get used to really old ones.

-Do you really want to pay $30 on top of $60 a year?  Most of the games you wanna play can be OWNED for less money.

Speculation... you don't know at all... you have no sources and yes go read the TOS of both XBLG and PSN+/Now and they state they can deal with the games they put however they want.

So old games are instantly undesirable? Like I have time and ability to play every games at release.

TheSting said:
Useless Jazz. Sony told them it wasnt good value(lol at that bullshit) so, a lot will roll with and defend that no matter what.

You are totaly right haha spending a lot of energy for nothing. Should've known better. 

Um, no.  They are just dirt cheap already.  There is a reason Sony didn't allow EA access:  these games would have appeared on PS+ and games for gold.  However now you get "The Choice" of paying $30 for them instead getting them for free.  Congratulations!


More negative guessing lol. Congratulations

Dude it isn't guessing, it is common sense.  It's just like Origin:  Now you can't get EA games easily on Steam.



EA Access is a system seller, IMO.

Fixed

Is the gutted version of NHL 15 on EA access a full version, also?



Around the Network

A friend of mine decided to get xbox one now instead of PS4 (he'll get that at a later date) because of this as well. I would have payed $30 for all those games but I already some and waiting for more to be available in the vault before subscribing. When you think about it, if there is even one game you like, it already worth it since it's just $30 a year and you get access to a selection of games.



eva01beserk said:

They started it with consoles and MS started charging for it, but thats not the poin. Its that as soon as one did it, it took almost no time for the others to do it to including sony and nintendo. PC's used to have expansion wich where a lot more meninfull and actually added content unstead of removing it and selling it to you separatly.

But they already locked the madded early acces behind it. And its not going to start with entire games, it wwill be like dlc, or exclusive content. Its like the deal with origin and nintendo, when they refused nintendo dint see another EA game on the console. Another thing was when EA and steam had the same issue but steam caved so now they haveorigin integrated. So it has already happened.


Can't really compare the console market and PC market in this regard. The PC market doesn't have to worry about used games or rentals and it comes packed with DRM. Were you a fan of the Xbone as revealed, or did you hate everything about it? Unless you are a fan of always online, no used games, and DRM, then don't compare the PC and console market.

Also, the proliferation of DLC was an infinitely more natural than anything you can try to predict might maybe someday possibly happen with EA Access.

And what did EA "lock" with Madden? The game had a 6 hour time trial, which requires an EA Access subscription. Why would they allow anyone to play a 6 hour time trial? People made a big stink about no demo, but guess what? Madden 25 didn't have one either. Also, NHL and FIFA both get the time trials and demos.

Still waiting on a logical explanation as to why EA would handcuff and neuter their own sales by making games and DLC exclusive to EA Access.



DonFerrari said:
Jazz2K said:


I fully understand how bad this could get if publishers decide to make the program less interesting. Like they could lock some content in games for those who did not subscribe and release the locked content like 1 year later. But that practice is already happening, subs have nothing to do with it. Just like releasing a game exclusively to EAA members. That again, no need to look specificaly at subs. Then again, what prevents either Sony or MS to penalize gamers for not subscribing to XBLG or PS+/Now? You already have to pay to play online. I don't see all the doom and gloom around this... except for last gen when only MS had you pay for online play and have access to apps etc.


Well if you understand the risks and know EA common pratices you can see how this could gradually get ugly. And they already mentioned DLC exclusive to EA access haven't they? Yes EA could do several bad things without recurring to EA access, but EA access serves as another instance for bad things...

Regarding GwG and PS+ at least for Sony I'm sure if you downloaded it until you have PS+ (and even if you stay without it for some years and them get it again) the game will always be replayable and redownloadable (not sure if they can take it out of their servers), MS I don't know much, the only thing I saw they change was that before the game was yours to keep even when leaving GwG and now it is just while subscribing (not sure if when renewing after a time off you get access to the older games you had in the previous sub).


Everything has a risk but are we gonna stop doing anything because of some people's hate for a service/company? They don't know anything anyway just speculations. GWG on 360 was yours to keep once you downloaded them. GWG on X1 took Sony's approach and I personnaly hate that. But you can also redownload the games if you resub to XBLG once you unsubscribed. 

The thing is people just want to say it's bad for the sake of bashing EA or MS and have no arguments. "It could get ugly" yeah so is XBLG, PSN and especially PS Now but do we see people hate on this constantly? No, some see value in this, see the post of Superryo, another anecdoctal but in EAA's favor. I said it already, right now this service is good. If it ends up bad then people will just leave it's not like there are no other options.



LudicrousSpeed said:
eva01beserk said:

They started it with consoles and MS started charging for it, but thats not the poin. Its that as soon as one did it, it took almost no time for the others to do it to including sony and nintendo. PC's used to have expansion wich where a lot more meninfull and actually added content unstead of removing it and selling it to you separatly.

But they already locked the madded early acces behind it. And its not going to start with entire games, it wwill be like dlc, or exclusive content. Its like the deal with origin and nintendo, when they refused nintendo dint see another EA game on the console. Another thing was when EA and steam had the same issue but steam caved so now they haveorigin integrated. So it has already happened.


Can't really compare the console market and PC market in this regard. The PC market doesn't have to worry about used games or rentals and it comes packed with DRM. Were you a fan of the Xbone as revealed, or did you hate everything about it? Unless you are a fan of always online, no used games, and DRM, then don't compare the PC and console market.

Also, the proliferation of DLC was an infinitely more natural than anything you can try to predict might maybe someday possibly happen with EA Access.

And what did EA "lock" with Madden? The game had a 6 hour time trial, which requires an EA Access subscription. Why would they allow anyone to play a 6 hour time trial? People made a big stink about no demo, but guess what? Madden 25 didn't have one either. Also, NHL and FIFA both get the time trials and demos.

Still waiting on a logical explanation as to why EA would handcuff and neuter their own sales by making games and DLC exclusive to EA Access.

You where the first to compare them. Look at your comment "It only "started with Dreamcast" if you're completely ignoring PC. Read your own link.". All I said was how it started on consoles on the dreamcast for free and MS quickly adopted it and started to charge for dlc.

Stp spining please. I dont care for madden, but what I hear from people tht do, madden always had a demo, that they chosd to not do one and instead go with early acces is the same thing. Its almost a demo, but less restrictive specially with this type of game. They could have giving everybody an early access just like they did before with the demo. They chosed to only give it to subscribers to pretend to add value to it, but what they did was remove value that you already got for free before.

Your still waiting for a logical explanation as to why xbox should not use EA access as a +1 on sony. You care for nothing logical, just something to use as x1 greater then ps4, even though it will hurt xbox fans fist when ea shows its ugly face again. DO you remember this It only "started with Dreamcast" if you're completely ignoring PC. Read your own link. Thats one of the first I think, but there are many more. So EA has already done it before, what makes you think they wont do it again for EA access. And do you remember this http://wiiudaily.com/2012/08/ea-origin-wii-u/ Removing all suport just because nintendo refused the origin integration on the wii u. Like I mentioned before, they did it to steam but steam did cave ulike nintendo, so they ended loosing all support from EA. So it has happened. MS cant deny EA, cuz if EA removes suport to the x1, the x1 will die right then and there, so they will have MS and xbox fans by the balls.



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

Jazz2K said:
DonFerrari said:
Jazz2K said:


I fully understand how bad this could get if publishers decide to make the program less interesting. Like they could lock some content in games for those who did not subscribe and release the locked content like 1 year later. But that practice is already happening, subs have nothing to do with it. Just like releasing a game exclusively to EAA members. That again, no need to look specificaly at subs. Then again, what prevents either Sony or MS to penalize gamers for not subscribing to XBLG or PS+/Now? You already have to pay to play online. I don't see all the doom and gloom around this... except for last gen when only MS had you pay for online play and have access to apps etc.


Well if you understand the risks and know EA common pratices you can see how this could gradually get ugly. And they already mentioned DLC exclusive to EA access haven't they? Yes EA could do several bad things without recurring to EA access, but EA access serves as another instance for bad things...

Regarding GwG and PS+ at least for Sony I'm sure if you downloaded it until you have PS+ (and even if you stay without it for some years and them get it again) the game will always be replayable and redownloadable (not sure if they can take it out of their servers), MS I don't know much, the only thing I saw they change was that before the game was yours to keep even when leaving GwG and now it is just while subscribing (not sure if when renewing after a time off you get access to the older games you had in the previous sub).


Everything has a risk but are we gonna stop doing anything because of some people's hate for a service/company? They don't know anything anyway just speculations. GWG on 360 was yours to keep once you downloaded them. GWG on X1 took Sony's approach and I personnaly hate that. But you can also redownload the games if you resub to XBLG once you unsubscribed. 

The thing is people just want to say it's bad for the sake of bashing EA or MS and have no arguments. "It could get ugly" yeah so is XBLG, PSN and especially PS Now but do we see people hate on this constantly? No, some see value in this, see the post of Superryo, another anecdoctal but in EAA's favor. I said it already, right now this service is good. If it ends up bad then people will just leave it's not like there are no other options.


So basically GwG and PS+ are basically the same model, the only difference being which have the games you preffer, and I don't see how it could get ugly, I just see how it could lose value if the games it offer start being worst.

On the so called value... EAA gives you right now 5 games for 30 dollars a year... PS+ give you 6 games a month for 50 dollars a year... GwG is 2 games or 1 per month for 60 dollars a year??? So this proves both Sony and MS take are more value packed than EAA right?

But on the risks... You can also perceive why people are more afraid of EA than Sony or MS service, EA have a thing for this (like Origin)... and let's not pretend that EAA get some flack from Sony fans because it is on MS console only, but don't pretend MS fans defend the service to the death basically because it is on X1.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994