By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
EricHiggin said:
DonFerrari said:

Almost all subscription services I can think of are platform agnostic and you pay for the subs itself. This is an odd and unwanted precedent.

It makes me think of CAA. You pay for a membership, a sub basically, they provide you with a service, and they don't care what type of vehicle you have. They offer different packages though so you can save if you don't travel as much or pay more if you do. It's a little surprising that EA being third party doesn't have a cross platform sub for a higher price. From a profit perspective it makes sense, because they are likely to make more money charging per platform, and the platforms themselves likely would make more profit by having it all locked to each platform. That doesn't really explain the lack of outrage though. I don't see this to be to much different than what happened with Fortnite, and yet no one really seems to care. I just find it quite odd that 'anti consumer' doesn't seem to apply at all times.

I can understand that Netflix and EA Access are different type of service, and that is less likely for someone to have numerous different consoles than Netflix enabled products. So perhaps very few are worried that they will need more than one sub. Still it is strange that no outrage have been done.

But considering gamepass still have low sub number, EA Access also probably have low, it don't really affect many.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."