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

Forums - Microsoft - EA Announces Subscription Service On Xbox One: EA Access

BenVTrigger said:
n-skyline said:
For that price you can't really complain about any bundle of games but the four listed are not exactly new, sports games with the latest iteration already announced are not very desirable either.
EA has a big catalogue with some good games but i'm assuming the first games are likely to be the most recent to make the service look more appealing, which makes me wonder how old the rest of the catalogue is likely to be when they add it, bearing in mind a lot of EA games have already been on PS+ and are likely to be on games with gold.
This definitely gives EA an opportunity to get something back from the second hand market though, for that price it should be competitive with the second hand market as well. I hope it works out for EA and Xbox


Its Xbox One only, so the games they add can't be too old, the console is less than 1 year old.

There is currently only a dozen EA games for the Xbox one so they must not be planning on adding a lot of more titles, either that or they are planning on adding recent titles in which case the service is certainly a steal. whatever the plan the pricing is a bargain so it will be interesting to see how the service develops.



Around the Network
mornelithe said:

I honestly don't care what they price PS Now at, because I'll never have a need for it...have my PS1-3 around the house, and I won't be getting rid of them anytime soon.  I still think PS Now is simply for people who don't want a standalone console at home, but have a laptop/PC/Smart TV/Phone etc...

Still, I compare them in this case, because Sony can look at that model and then work from there with regards to their pricing/service.  Yes, it's streaming versus downloading, but that doesn't mean they can't take the flat rate for just download/own and add a certain percentage to cover streaming costs.

I'm not disagreeing. However the Now vs EA Access comments could quickly build into a flame war.

I think its important to analyze the similarities / differences between the two than to simply say Sony's price should reflect EA's model. They are different.

As I've stated I do agree 100% that Sony needs to get the pricing down, but it likely won't ever be able to compete with the pricing of a direct download service as the inherint cost is much higher. Its especially costly to stream a game as the technology needs to be MUCH higher than streaming just video content. Input lag on a movie / show means nothing as you have zero direct control over the content, its just simply displayed. Gaming needs very high end infrastructure to stream as a heavy amount of input lag will litteraly make the service unusable.



Ka-pi96 said:
KLXVER said:

Many of their games are online focused though. Battlefields campaign are usually the weakest part of the game. Whats the point of having Fifa 14, 15 and 16 downloaded on your console? Who would play the single player on all three games?


Why are you making the cost of Gold out to be such a big deal? If people were going to buy these games individually they would still ned Gold to play them online, so how exactly is this any different? For anyone that wants atleast 2 EA games it is a saving however you look at it.


30$ for 10% off games and DLC is not a great deal unless you buy like 6 EA games a year...



KLXVER said:
sales2099 said:

Keep in mind most games are so old they don't have a active MP community.

Xbox Silver should suffice for the campaigns.

And seriously, your logic is just annoying. I certainly am not going to factor in PS Plus if Sony introduces a subscription model that's similar to this. It's seperate, and implied. And furthermore, if you are going to go that route, at least have the courtesy to specify that Live Gold throws in the free games......you talk like its gen 7 pre-free game giveway.


Many of their games are online focused though. Battlefields campaign are usually the weakest part of the game. Whats the point of having Fifa 14, 15 and 16 downloaded on your console? Who would play the single player on all three games?

Think you are not grasping the scope of this. EA's back catalogue is far........far more then Battlefield and yearly sports titles. To be able to play any of them at your leisure, most without Gold, is a amazing plus.

Again, Live Gold or PS Plus for multiplayer, is seperate, and implied.



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

sales2099 said:

Think you are not grasping the scope of this. EA's back catalogue is far........far more then Battlefield and yearly sports titles. To be able to play any of them at your leisure, most without Gold, is a amazing plus.

Again, Live Gold or PS Plus for multiplayer, is seperate, and implied.


What old games. Its just XB1 games...



Around the Network
KLXVER said:
sales2099 said:

Think you are not grasping the scope of this. EA's back catalogue is far........far more then Battlefield and yearly sports titles. To be able to play any of them at your leisure, most without Gold, is a amazing plus.

Again, Live Gold or PS Plus for multiplayer, is seperate, and implied.


What old games. Its just XB1 games...

Oh. Well this is awkward :P. Thought gen 7 games were going to be in too. Granted this news is only a few hours old so any misinterpretation this early is expected.

That said, this catalogue will only grow. And core gamers are allready subbing to Live Gold and PS Plus for multiplayer in general/free games, so yes, this should not be factored in to the pricing as it is seperate. Leave that tired gen 7 argument in gen 7 please.



Xbox: Best hardware, Game Pass best value, best BC, more 1st party genres and multiplayer titles. 

 

sales2099 said:
KLXVER said:
sales2099 said:

Think you are not grasping the scope of this. EA's back catalogue is far........far more then Battlefield and yearly sports titles. To be able to play any of them at your leisure, most without Gold, is a amazing plus.

Again, Live Gold or PS Plus for multiplayer, is seperate, and implied.


What old games. Its just XB1 games...

Oh. Well this is awkward :P. Thought gen 7 games were going to be in too. Granted this news is only a few hours old so any misinterpretation this early is expected.

That said, this catalogue will only grow. And core gamers are allready subbing to Live Gold and PS Plus for multiplayer in general/free games, so yes, this should not be factored in to the pricing as it is seperate. Leave that tired gen 7 argument in gen 7 please.


It might be good 3 years from now, but right now its not very good imo. Its EA, so I assume the bare minimum every time they talk about a deal.



Too many comparisons with PSNow imo, this seems like more of a reaction to games with gold and PS+. I would not be surprised if EA was given a list of how many times their games were downloaded on the instant games collection and games with gold and they seen a market for it.



One last thing from me

There's nothing wrong with not wanting / not being interested in this service. If you aren't someone who plays a lot of EA titles there's really very little reason to invest in EA Access. Any argument I've made about the quality of the service is in regards to people that enjoy EA franchises and like to play their games / get DLC for them. For that audience this sub is very cool and plenty worth it, but most likely not to someone that has no interest to their games.



Ka-pi96 said:
KLXVER said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Why are you making the cost of Gold out to be such a big deal? If people were going to buy these games individually they would still ned Gold to play them online, so how exactly is this any different? For anyone that wants atleast 2 EA games it is a saving however you look at it.


30$ for 10% off games and DLC is not a great deal unless you buy like 6 EA games a year...

The 10% off is just the icing on the cake, the vault games are the great deal.


If you love older sports titles, then I guess...