Ka-pi96 said: 'not good enough value for our customers' anyone remember that?

Where is it a good value? all what ea does is denying other people acess for 5 days to reward others who paid them. Ea is taking value from someone away not adding value.

Ruler said: Ka-pi96 said: 'not good enough value for our customers' anyone remember that? Where is it a good value? all what ea does is denying other people acess for 5 days to reward others who paid them. Ea is taking value from someone away not adding value.

They are not removing anything from people without EA Access. This would be true if 5 days early access would've been the default without EA Access but this wouln't have happened. So it is added value for people who pay for it.

You could also argue about DLC: Why do you have to pay for content that should be in the game? You don't have to but if you want more, pay for it.

Capcom has better games than ea imo. And ea access is starting to get how i was excepting it to be, corrupted. First they started to offer free games now they are denying none-subscribers the acces for 5 days. What comes next? removing content for none-subscribers?

imagine if every publishers does their own service, every game would be delayed for 5 days unless you pay their service. EA isnt creating value but is taking others away, how is this service good?

*sigh* Did you read my post? I was intentionally leaving out quality and mentioned quantity. Put aside your opinion about EA, Capcom or whatever but if you want people to buy your service to "rent" games you have to have a good amount for your service to ensure also variety.

It's almost as if you had repeated your initial post, this time augmented with your opinion on Capcom's game quality without even replying to anything I said.

It's almost like people don't understand why EA Access is only on the Xbox One. EA more than likely make higher margins off sales through EA Access than they would if it was sold through Xbox Live. Because of the arrangement, EA most likely more money per title, and thus selling at a discount through EA Access (depending on the discount) is probably more profitable than selling titles on Xbox Live. This gives them an unhealthy advantage over their competition since they can provide a discount while maintaining the same margins as their competitors. Since Origin shares no such margins, EA has no economic insensitive to release EA Access on their own PC platform.

This isn't about consumer choice, this is about creating an unfair economic advantage on a closed system.

Note: Gamer's can benefit from such a relationship, but it comes at a cost.

It's exactly what they are doing. Did you play BF4? Did you get to level 8 in the demo(max demo level). How much did you pay for EA access in 2013?

Things have been the same since EA Access started. Happened with Madden 15, Dragon Age Inquisition and now its happening with Battlefield.

Bloodborne is co devoloped by sony japan, sony sponsored these games who wouldnt exist without their money. Even street fighter 5 can be a risky game as capcom is almost bankrupt and cant afford any flop right now.

Not only that, but it's a very slippery slope.  If EA does it, and it succeeds, then every one will want to do it.  Then, it will be DLCx10.  Publishers will purposely delay games by a week or more, just to give subscribers "early access."  Then, they'll start taking content out of their games and keep part of it behind their paywall service and some for normal DLC.  It's really just becomes a mess for the consumer.  I'm glad Sony is leading this gen and said no.  Now, it shouldn't become standard.  And, hopefully, like online passes, will become a thing of the past.

With the abundance of Shooters on the market, people are angry about playing one that it's going to be a repaired version of the last BF, but with cops and obbers skins. I should have imagined it.