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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why would anyone call EA Access a scam?!?

yvanjean on 05 December 2014
Jazz2K said:
The Fury said:
Jazz2K said:
The Fury said:
Jazz2K said:
Especially if people are willing to shell 2.99$/4 hours of gameplay...

Lower it to $1.50/£1 and I'd very much be willing to pay just a £1 to try a game to see if I like it... I'd then go out and buy it used from a store. :P

Demos should remain free... why would you pay to test a game?

Because not every game has a demo and I'm not going to spend £20 on a game I might not like to take it back to get £10 trade it for it. There is a reason why I haven't bought KH 1.5HD or Drakengard 3, because I don't know if they are worth it, a £1 down, played for 2-4 hours so I can get a feel for it and then I can decide if I want to own it.

We should ask for free demos for every games instead of surrendering to a service that makes you pay for them.


Consummer need to stop wanting everything for free... if you want a quality product be ready to pay. The free to play model is a broken and extremelly annoying model where the core of the game is hidden behind a pay wall or all additional content is DLC's. But don't mistake demo with EA access 6 hours Trial version, it's very different than a demo and actually worth paying $5. Especially if it save you from spending $60 on a game you don't enjoy.  They Also come before the game is release therefore allowing you to make a informed buying decision. I'd rather spend $30/year get to trials all of EA games especially for game that I would not purchase like Fifa 15 and NFL 15.

Dragon age inquisition is good but not good enough enough for me to pay $60. I'll wait for it to drop in price. 



Around the Network
sales2099 on 05 December 2014

I only see PS4 owners and EA haters saying It's a scam

Otherwise, it is pretty clear on pricing and what goodies you get for it.

You, the consumer, are presented with all information, pros and cons, and ultimately it is up to you if you want in.

In that regard, it isn't a scam.



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

 

Jazz2K on 05 December 2014
yvanjean said:
Jazz2K said:
The Fury said:

Because not every game has a demo and I'm not going to spend £20 on a game I might not like to take it back to get £10 trade it for it. There is a reason why I haven't bought KH 1.5HD or Drakengard 3, because I don't know if they are worth it, a £1 down, played for 2-4 hours so I can get a feel for it and then I can decide if I want to own it.

We should ask for free demos for every games instead of surrendering to a service that makes you pay for them.


Consummer need to stop wanting everything for free... if you want a quality product be ready to pay. The free to play model is a broken and extremelly annoying model where the core of the game is hidden behind a pay wall or all additional content is DLC's. But don't mistake demo with EA access 6 hours Trial version, it's very different than a demo and actually worth paying $5. Especially if it save you from spending $60 on a game you don't enjoy.  They Also come before the game is release therefore allowing you to make a informed buying decision. I'd rather spend $30/year get to trials all of EA games especially for game that I would not purchase like Fifa 15 and NFL 15.

Dragon age inquisition is good but not good enough enough for me to pay $60. I'll wait for it to drop in price. 


Yes I'm not agains't EAA at all in fact I hope every major publishers will offer something similar. I was replying to Fury about not paying 2.99$ for 4h gameplay because it's pretty much paying 3$ to test a game, comparing EAA to PSNow I prefer EA's approach.



LudicrousSpeed on 05 December 2014

Because one day other publishers might want to jump in and offer their own awesome service that is extremely valuable to fans of said publishers. Then you'd have an open market competition of big publishers all going for your money with their own great deals and unique perks. The horror.

But fuck that anti-consumer nonsense. It's better if there is one person in control and they decide what is or is not good for me.



Intrinsic on 05 December 2014
Landguy said:

I agree that things started out cheap and eventually change to something more expensive.  But, the product that people receive is generally way more attractive than the original item too.  For intance, we had the Beamed transmission(over the air) system in my home back then.  That was the shit back then.  We had to buy a "special" antenna and the box for the tv.  If I remember right, we paid something like $50 for the Box and $75 for the antenna.  The service cost $10 a month.  That would be the equivelant of about $30 today.  That was for 2 channels, that had programming for only most of the day.  Today, you are right, that the minimum package is $50.  But, that $50 gets you 50 channels.  

Just like EA or other similar deals are now, they offer very little and charge only small amounts.  But, when the do as you predict and get more content and maybe even some smaller publishers games, they will have to charge more.  But, the buyer will also get more.

The problem you seem to really have is that PS+ is already providing some of the same or similar content now, and you seem to not want to rock the boat and create an additional cost to you/consumer and not get much more in return.  At first glance, that is somewhat true.  But, the model that you suggest isn't the reality long term.  Almost every content creator now has an ability to provide that content through the internet at no middle man cost.  Sure, consoles have a HISTORICALLY controlled that interface.  For the consoles to remain relevant long term, they need to cater to the masses that want to pick and choose exactly what they are interested in.  

Why do you think so many people are dropping cable/Satellite TV?  Lack of choice.  They would rather just pay netflix $9 a month and get their classic tv/older movie fix with no commercials.  They can get Hulu if they want current TV.  They can get HBO direct soon and buy that if they really want it.  Why pay $50 for 50 channels, when you can pay $20 and get all that you may need personally?  CHOICE.  

If you only have the PS4, Sony has made that CHOICE for you.

You are right, theer is way more value in what we are paying for today than what we could get back then in relation to Tv.

However, the model I want doesn't actually exist yet. I do not want publisher based subscriptions not cause i think or feel the boat will be rocked, but cause i feel it will sink the boat. You are right again on that every publisher has themeans now to make their content easily available. And that everyone is cutting of Tv and going to thing like netflix. But now lets apply that to gaming and you will end up with what i want. I don't mind paying for a subscription, but i don't want the subscription to be on a publisher by publisher basis. So why don't they have a subscription service where you pay $10-$20 a month (like netflix) and be able to play whatever game you want to play? Hell even $30 a month for unlimited access to every game released. Then they can make the games only available theer three months after retail release. That would be a much better system for everyone. 

You say sony is taking that choice away if you won a Ps4, I say thank God someone is preventing everyone from doiing something that I feel we as gamers will ultimately end up regreting.