LudicrousSpeed on 20 August 2014
| steverhcp02 said: What if I told you you could purchase seasons of shows on you favorite channels without having to pay over a hundred dollars a month for 1300 channels and channels you only watch once a week? Do you people like having 15 cooking channels when you watch maybe 4-6 channels regularly across all 1300? Like a full season of 8 episodes or 8 hours of programming for $10. Or if it were HBO/Showtime/Starz you could buy just those channels for $10 a month and have access to all the on demand movies, documentaries, catalog of shows? Sound good? Well thats what we have now with videogames. We buy in with the hardware and we can pick and choose our "shows" (games) from any publisher (channel) as we please. People that praise this fall into two categories to me: Those who need to convince themselves this is good in light of console wars and EA Access on Xbox One, and those who can't see passed the bridge of their nose anything further than a month down the line. You will be sold a product as a bonus that slowly turns to an essential product and then the price will increase as more "value" is added that wont even pertain to you. The same as cable TV providers offer 3 packages full of shit you never use. If other publishers follow suit and the market falls for it expect to be subsidizing terrible games just to access the few you play from these publishers. |
@ the bolded, that's exactly what EA Access is. We have the ability with cable television to only buy certain channels like HBO or Showtime. Or even if we aren't subscribers, we can digitally buy seasons of shows we want.
Is HBO Go bad for consumers? Has it killed the industry? Your post reads like you prefer customers having more choice and freedom on how they buy content. EA Access doesn't affect any of that. It's actually the exact opposite of what you're implying is wrong with cable.
