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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - EA Access On Xbox One Is a "Game-Changer," Microsoft Says

Not a game changer, but a good deal for those that are interested.



Around the Network

Uhhh......Yeah..... I wouldn't consider it a "game-changer", but I do think it's a great deal!



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

EA is steadily losing ground to Activision and Ubisoft, and they're well on the way to destroying the BF brand with BF4's technical issues and the 'slap the BF brand on a crap game Hardline' routine. How many EA fails can they survive before they self destruct?

As for this subscription thing, eh. Multiple subscriptions isn't going to take off imho.



Will people be calling this a great deal when they're paying $200 per year for 6 or 7 publisher subscriptions? PS Now starts to look a lot better when compared to paying $30 per year per publisher as opposed to only EA.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

binary solo said:
Will people be calling this a great deal when they're paying $200 per year for 6 or 7 publisher subscriptions? PS Now starts to look a lot better when compared to paying $30 per year per publisher as opposed to only EA.

But, why would anyone subscribe to 6 or 7 publishers? Sure, there could be 6, 7 or 10 subscriptions, but it's highly unlikely that people would see that much value in all of them.

I see value in EA, I buy and play their sports games every year, they have some goid games outside sports (Peggle, BF, Dragon Age, Mass Effect and many many more). This subscription is good for me.

I wouldn't see value in Activision's offer, they really don't attract me much.

Ubisoft, maybe I would subscribe to 3 months at a time to play a few games I'm interested in.

Square Enix, nothing for me but Tomb Raider, no subscription for me..

Etc, etc...

Different people have different tastes, and those subscriptions would cater to them personally. So, for $30 you get games you like, instead of current $50 for PS+ or $60 for XBL Gold for a promenade of games you have a fleeting interest in.

It would be great if all publishers did this, giving us plenty of choices to pick from, and then picking thise we see value in.



Around the Network
binary solo said:
Will people be calling this a great deal when they're paying $200 per year for 6 or 7 publisher subscriptions? PS Now starts to look a lot better when compared to paying $30 per year per publisher as opposed to only EA.


Well, if you normally buy even just one game from each of those publishers then you're looking at $360-400. So yeah, wow, $200 is a fucking steal. Then add in all the other games you get to play, yowza.

But MS must be mistaken. This apparently isn't even a value.



I thought EA was scum?? When did this change?



binary solo said:
Will people be calling this a great deal when they're paying $200 per year for 6 or 7 publisher subscriptions? PS Now starts to look a lot better when compared to paying $30 per year per publisher as opposed to only EA.

I'm buying almost all major games from Activision/Ubisoft/EA already. It will save me money at the end. 
Just with EA, without counting their Vault (which will allow me to play games I would not buy otherwise) and their Eearly Access; I planning to save money. Save goes if Activision/Ubisoft offer the same thing.

So why would'nt be a good deal? It is very easy to do the math and see that this is actually a great deal...

Also 200$ for 6 or 7 publishers? I think you missed the point here, it is not all publishers who will do that, you need enough games to make it appealing and second nothing is forcing you to subscribe... So only people who will save money at the end will do. And looking at the reception of EA Access it looks like there is a lot...