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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - EA Access is a system seller.

Chromeo on 06 September 2014

It's certainly not a bad option, but I wouldn't really classify it as a "system seller".



Around the Network
Jazz2K on 06 September 2014
eva01beserk said:
Jazz2K said:


The same as when companies like either MS or Sony makes eclusive DLC for multiplat games, isolating those who can't affort or have no interest in the other console... Huh? They would be stupid to do this though and I hope when/if they do people will be vocal. 

You know I hope you really dislike every kind of subscription based models since you seem to really think subs offer only bad services. 

Then you admit that was a bad practice. That should have never been allowed to happen. Now fate gave us a chance to prevent another evil from rising, we need to stop them now before its to late.

Locking content that users already paid for is bad pratice yes. Whoever does it should get called for.

 

 

eva01beserk said:

Then your just admiting that you only like it because you think it will help the x1. We sould not think like that. Thats like sighning a deal with the devil, its all sunshine and raimbows now, but in the future we will all have to pay for it just because people like you cling to desperation and pushed something that will affect us all. I also want all 3 to succed because gen 6 was awfull and 7 when everithing was equall was the best. But this is not the way to move. It will help the x1 sure, but the total amount of gamers will move away from consoles gaming because of it.

How the hell did you come to that conclusion? I like competition a lot and especially when we get choices. EAA is another way to get games and I like it. Seems some other people like the idea too. I don't care if Square Enix, Activision and Ubisoft start doing the same really. As long as we get to have a choice in how we get our games. If you leave that to only one provider be sure they'll find all sorts of way to screw you hard. 



Captain_Tom on 06 September 2014
Jazz2K said:
Captain_Tom said:
Jazz2K said:
Captain_Tom said:


LOL it is a massive rip off.  They rotate the games out every month, and then you can no longer play them(Even if you have downloaded them).  Also they offer some pretty insultingly old games...

@bolded: Source? 

Playstation Prop... so you really think they'll offer every new games at release for 30$/year? Are you that... hmm... optimistic?


-Apparently EA "says" they aren't going to eliminate games, but in the contract you agree to it says they have the power to do this, Sony and Games for Gold do not.

-New games?  LOL get used to really old ones.

-Do you really want to pay $30 on top of $60 a year?  Most of the games you wanna play can be OWNED for less money.

Speculation... you don't know at all... you have no sources and yes go read the TOS of both XBLG and PSN+/Now and they state they can deal with the games they put however they want.

So old games are instantly undesirable? Like I have time and ability to play every games at release.

TheSting said:
Useless Jazz. Sony told them it wasnt good value(lol at that bullshit) so, a lot will roll with and defend that no matter what.

You are totaly right haha spending a lot of energy for nothing. Should've known better. 

Um, no.  They are just dirt cheap already.  There is a reason Sony didn't allow EA access:  these games would have appeared on PS+ and games for gold.  However now you get "The Choice" of paying $30 for them instead getting them for free.  Congratulations!



TheSting on 06 September 2014
Captain_Tom said:
Jazz2K said:
Captain_Tom said:
Jazz2K said:
Captain_Tom said:


LOL it is a massive rip off.  They rotate the games out every month, and then you can no longer play them(Even if you have downloaded them).  Also they offer some pretty insultingly old games...

@bolded: Source? 

Playstation Prop... so you really think they'll offer every new games at release for 30$/year? Are you that... hmm... optimistic?


-Apparently EA "says" they aren't going to eliminate games, but in the contract you agree to it says they have the power to do this, Sony and Games for Gold do not.

-New games?  LOL get used to really old ones.

-Do you really want to pay $30 on top of $60 a year?  Most of the games you wanna play can be OWNED for less money.

Speculation... you don't know at all... you have no sources and yes go read the TOS of both XBLG and PSN+/Now and they state they can deal with the games they put however they want.

So old games are instantly undesirable? Like I have time and ability to play every games at release.

TheSting said:
Useless Jazz. Sony told them it wasnt good value(lol at that bullshit) so, a lot will roll with and defend that no matter what.

You are totaly right haha spending a lot of energy for nothing. Should've known better. 

Um, no.  They are just dirt cheap already.  There is a reason Sony didn't allow EA access:  these games would have appeared on PS+ and games for gold.  However now you get "The Choice" of paying $30 for them instead getting them for free.  Congratulations!


More negative guessing lol. Congratulations



Zackasaurus-rex on 06 September 2014

Your anecdotal friends are stupid. We can only hope that kind of poor decision-making remains an anecdote.



http://voteforbernie.org

Around the Network
Saeko on 06 September 2014

may be a system seller for some, but for me its more like i wont buy xboxone at all because of this. i don't wanna pay more service for get demo, and more company doing this.



Ronster316 on 06 September 2014

NFS rivals tipped it for me, have signed up and could not be happier.

£20 a year for NFS: Rivals, Fifa 14, Battlefield 4 and MORE to come......... no brainer really.



Ronster316 on 06 September 2014

Dirt cheap already? WHAT?

Now let me see.......... cheapest ciopy of Fifa 14 BEFORE p&p....... £22

NFS: Rivals....... again, £22

Battlefield 4 £21

S



Ronster316 on 06 September 2014

These games are dirt cheap already? WHAT?

Now let me see........ all based off the CHEAPEST second hand copy available on Amazon before P&P.

Fifa 14......... £22
NFS: Rivals..... £22
Battlefield 4..... £21

So those 3 games ALONE would cost me 65 sterling, but my subsription is only £20, those who don't see value in this are either jealous, or will never own an xbox one anyway, and will continue to downplay anything Microsoft do until their passing day.

Sad really.



The Fury on 06 September 2014
TheSting said:
Captain_Tom said:

Um, no.  They are just dirt cheap already.  There is a reason Sony didn't allow EA access:  these games would have appeared on PS+ and games for gold.  However now you get "The Choice" of paying $30 for them instead getting them for free.  Congratulations!

More negative guessing lol. Congratulations

In the last 2/3 years, Dead Space 2 and 3 have appeared on PS+, if EA Access existed at the time, they wouldn't, they would have put them on that to make that more appealing. If numerous companies did this, PS+ and GwG wouldn't have as much to offer and so they become devalued. While EA themselves are fine with making more on older games, we as consumers are geting less and paying more.



Hmm, pie.