EA Access is a system seller.

[DonFerrari]

Jazz2K said:

DonFerrari said:

Jazz2K said:

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.

Nothing prevents both Sony and/or MS from doing what some of you think EA "will" do with EAA. What exactly prevents them from releasing games or DLC exclusive to those who sub to PS+ or XBLG? Nothing, did they do it yet? When it happens they'll lose people, the same would happen if EA does something like that.

I think you should start to know what exactly is EAA and stop speculating about what it "I don't know the service but I'll still say it's bad". EAA gives you acces to games that are in the vault not that they give you 5 games for 30$ a year. There was 4 games at the start, now there are 5 and before you have been subscribed for 1 full year there will be more. If you don't see value in EA's games then I see no reason to subs. On the other hand Sony and MS offer 2 games per consoles every months (yes that means 4 games for Xbox and 6 for PS because they support one more console). They offer two random games, it doesn't mean these games are any good. It doesn't mean you know what games you are going to get. And once the month is over you can't get those games anymore unless you buy them. It's a plus imo because you pay for online but lets not act like they have to give us 2 games every months. Sony did this to start convincing their fanbase to pay for online, they kept bashing MS for charging for online so what would prevent these fans from bashing Sony for doing the same? Exactly.

I prefer publishers to show what they have to offer and give discounts than console makers giving random games. Imo this gives games more life than sitting on shelves or in the waiting of maybe being given away by console makers. Imo this will allow MS to focus on other things than securing Peggle2 to be given away. To each his own though. I wouldn't defend then opinion saying it doesn't appeal to them. But stating things like it's bad for industry and it's better to have PS+ or XBLG... ehh.

On the DLC yes, nothing prevent Sony or MS from doing it (but just for the games they publish, and sincerely if I had to bet the chances of Sony doingg it before EA is like 1 to 100 and MS certainly even being closer to wanting full DRM is less likely to implement it, even more when most of their games that have DLC are already needing Gold acc because of MP). And if you don't see EA doing anti-consumer measures like this or the ones in Origin, some of their games you had to create a acc to Origin to play some of the content, the only difference is that was free at the time, not much would be necessary to make it just on EAA. And yes, Sony and MS have locked content for people not on PS+ or Gold, meaning MP.

On the value side.. don't say I don't know what I'm talking and them say I said things I never said. The games in the vault are also random when entering and not sure if they are good (this is the same as in GwG and PS+) I just discussed the number of games one get on PS+, GwG and EAA and how much you pay (and didn't put the MP as part of that because I still think it should be free... and I would never sign to + just to get MP, I subbed just for the games). But if you can't see why Sony giving 72 games a year for 50, thinks EAA having 5 games for 30 as less valuable then there is nothing we can discuss than your intention to defend it to death. And the 6 games Sony offered that month will be available for as long as you have the sign if you just checked the download box (you don't have to really download the game), so I don't know from where you took that once the month is over you have to buy the games (even when saying the games are shit, so who would want to buy them, right?).

Console maker Sony, offer free games and discounts of all types for the games they publish and for third party, so your prefference here seems strange.

And you point here was to say it is a system seller, because your 2 friends bought because of it, that is great, but I don't remember the scale moving much (OR ANY) in favour of MS after EAA announcement and implementation. X1 sales still bellow WiiU and really really far from PS4. But as I said you can say anything is a system seller if 1 person or more bought because of it. So yeas EAA is fantastic value and a system Seller because it sold 2 systems for your friends and everyone who disagree with you must be defending Sony (so I guess there is like 3:1 fans of Sony agaisnt MS in the real world).