Most research showed that game demo's on the whole decreased the amount of sales that a up and coming game would get. Which is why some companies started to release demos a few months after the game had come up.

The problem here is gamers... on the whole buying a game is built on hype and those first two weeks of sales are ever so important to the overall sales figures. So for example I have a feeling I want Need for Speed, I internalise it against a number of things, release date, cost, competition. If all of those things are good, then I go out and buy it day 1. After I get the game I might play it for 1-2 hours and then thats it. Rinse repeat.

Now the problem with a demo or something like EA access is that you can download the latest games, play for a few hours, then the hype to actually buy the game is gone. Thus sales will drop and then the normal "Water Cooler" conversations with friends won't happen, and other people don't buy because it's basically killed the hype for the actual launch.

I would expect EA Access to start to focus on older games rather than brand new releases if the idea is that it is costing them too much.

As for need for speed, some people said you could actually complete the game in ten hours, so why would those people even want to buy the game, the people who would play it for more than a few hours. Absolutely stupid system imho.

Trial's and demo's are two completely different things.

O rly?

According to research presented by game designer Jesse Schell at the Gamelab conference in Barcelona today, a demo can cut into a game's sales by more than 50 percent, CVG reports.

http://kotaku.com/demos-are-great-for-gamers-not-so-great-for-game-sales-608603895

So it's justifiable to question this business model. Or they get compensated by Microsoft. Either way it wasn't really a well thought out and productive idea.

I pay for EA Access, but hardly play anything from it. I have the ability to download games ahead of time and try them out, but I don't. The thought of getting drawn into a game and then just being shut off after a certain amount of time is a cock block to me. It's like a girl that will tease you, then cut you off. Nevertheless I keep paying for the service, cuz it's so cheap and the vault games are there if I ever get bored and want to play them. I also have PS Plus and download all the games, but never play them. Like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime, I don't use them all the time, but I don't get rid of them. It's also like paying for a gym membership and not going. There are a lot of people like this. That is how these sub services make money. It evens out with the people that overuse a service and I'm betting there are more slackers than abusers.

Or they don't get compensated, and any losses from potential lost sales are made up by new sales and other digital purchases, not to mention the subscription fees? People are making a mistake here in assuming that people who play the game in the trial and decide not to buy, would have otherwise went out and paid full price for the game had the trial not existed. It's the same illogical leap publishers used to make regarding pirates. Oh noes, 2 million pirated downloads.. thats 2 million lost sales!! No it isn't.

And by having the vault with their old games they entice people to pay them money for older games instead of buying used copies that EA gets no money from. And slap a discount on any DLC they might wanna buy. Seems like a pretty sound business model. EA has said they are pleased with it and the subscription number is growing.

"It's the same illogical leap publishers used to make regarding pirates. Oh noes, 2 million pirated downloads.. thats 2 million lost sales!! No it isn't."

Straw man. Software piracy is damaging software sales severely. It is a proven fact.

Also that demos don't have a positive influence either.

"Seems like a pretty sound business model."

It seems. Doesn't mean it's a sound foundation.

Btw. i found demos on steam. 99% shovel ware. The first game i clicked on (Zombie Exodus) is a text adventure. Who would've thought.

This, This is why PC for the most part has free online and doesn't involve paying subs to get games at cheaper prices or paying to play multiplayer games besides the odd few MMOs. I personally can't see EA charging or getting PC users to accept paying to get a game a few days/hours earlier, it works for consoles due to paying an overall online sub and generally accepting the concept EA has bestowed already.

There were demos for most 360 games if im not mistaken. Sold a ton of software. 

lol @ straw man argument. I am comparing the logical fallacy people made with pirated games to the same reaction to EA Access here.  If you think that's a straw man argument, you don't understand what a straw man argument is.

I am aware piracy hurts software sales. However, it is not a proven fact that EA Access is hurting software sales :)

Regarding how good the foundation is, idk, I guess I'll side with EA's satisfaction over VGChartz forum dwellers.

I still think it's great how the EA Access narrative began as terrible for gamers and a waste of money but we're now talking about how it saves gamers so much money that it must be hurting EA.

They should limit the amount of time for the trial? Actually they've only increased it since launch (6 to 10). They should wait longer to add games to the vault? Actually they've only decreased the time it takes to add a game to the vault.

They're doing this for ONE reason only, to INCREASE digital sales. That's it. Most people who have EAA will probably buy EA games digitally. Personally, I prefer digital so it doesn't bother me. Since we don't have access to digital sales for their games, all of this discussion is pointless.