Top
210°

Why EA Access is a step forward for console gaming

Console Monster writes: "The likes of Netflix, blinkbox and Amazon Instant Video (formerly Lovefilm) have changed the way we access films. The on-demand services allow users to stream movies from a huge library for as little as £5.99 a month. That’s cheaper than buying the latest DVD release and it’s considerably less than an outing to the cinema. In fact, £5.99 would just about buy you a drink and popcorn."

Read Full Story >>
consolemonster.com
The story is too old to be commented.
DanielGearSolid1175d ago

How is this any different from Ps+?

Both offer free access to games

Both offer discounts

The early access thing I guess

IMO EA could have easily just put their games on Ps+

Feel like I would be paying for something I already had

frenchtoast1175d ago

PS+ is actually better value, bigger discounts, more games, more variety, more platforms, cheaper. I think it's because it's on Xbox that the fanboys have stuck on to it like leeches

Wizard_King1175d ago

If this style of cash grabbing is the way forward for gaming then count me out. Golf seems nice. Giving more\any money to EA is the last thing on my mind.

On a side note this whole vault thing is just designed so that the gamer in the end winds up owning nothing at all. It also makes it easier for them to pull up online services for games and use the servers for this years title.

Read the fine print, you basically want lube for the f*^*@! EA wants to give you.

DeadRabbits1175d ago Show
Funantic11175d ago

PS+ is way overpriced for old games.

youndamie1175d ago

@fun Really bro you think 49.99/Year is over priced?

Death1175d ago

The value of Plus is based on the games you actually play that are available on the service. My sub just expired and I'm not sure if I will renew anytime soon. The couple games I have actually played I could have bought cheaper and owned. If you play every game or even half the games available it is a great value. The same will hold true for EA's service. Value will be based on individual use and is subjective.

marlinfan101175d ago (Edited 1175d ago )

@youndamie

yeah if were talking about the free games then its way overpriced. striders the only ps+ game ive had any sort of interest in so far and i played that for about an hr. id much rather pay 30$ and get the 4 games ea access is offering than pay 50$ and get 2 games that i have no interest in every month. the only reason ill continue to purchase ps+ is to play online. of course it'll get better over time but I'm talking about what we've seen so far and what ea access has to offer already

Reddzfoxx1175d ago (Edited 1175d ago )

I don't get the comparison to PS+ and EA Access. If anything its comparable to PSNow except its a subscription based and right now only a single publisher.

PS+ is comparable to Xbox Live because they are online subscriptions services offered by console manufacturers to play online.

I think $30 a year to get EA's games easily pays for itself if your a sports enthusiast. And with Dragon Age coming age coming soon it offer people a chance to play it for a few months before buying it ...that is if they decide its worth a purchase.

I am not sure why Sony feels there isn't value for the customer... Sounds like Sony thought they could make more overcharging on PSNow and this would take away sales because its too good of a deal.

killcole1175d ago

You're missing the point. The services don't have to be comparable by value or what they can offer.
If you're the kind of person that will 100% by every FIFA title, Madden title, BF title et then this is great value. You get discounted DLC and presumably packs in UT which is important to many, PLUS the free games.
You're guarenteed to be getting some EA freebies and if you like the majority of what EA publish then you're going to win pretty much everytime.

The pot luck that is PS+ may not always be offering something you care about.

Some gamers nowadays can't see past their own noses.
And in response to the fanboy comment, the nature in which the story was initially reported was by and large, very positive. So unless Xbox fanboys have infiltrated every news outlet akin to some trojan horse scheme, I very much doubt your implication has any substantial truth.

Team_Litt1175d ago

Problem with PS+ is that you are swimming in indie cheap games most of the time, heck all the time on PS4.
EA access lets you have at AAA and you know what you are getting into from the get go, EA games.

I'm a fanboy because I like Fifa 14, BF4, Peggle 2 and Madden 25 for $5? Well then I'm happy to be called an Xbot if that's all it takes.

Charybdis1175d ago (Edited 1175d ago )

Ps + services should be compared to xbox live/gold. Ps now is not really compable to ea access as ps now is an always online streaming service. Ps now a streaming service for games ea access is simply an ea app/ service. Until microsoft comes with their own streaming service psnow provides a online only service which isn't available on the x1. I do however see why people want to compare the value of the different services on the different platforms.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 1175d ago
mhunterjr1175d ago (Edited 1175d ago )

But why would they want to put their game on ps+ given another option? All that would do is take the revenue they've recovered from retailers and give it to Sony.

EA Having their own services gives then a more direct line to their customers, simultaneously improving their margins and providing loyal customers with savings. It also means they can promote their titles when they see fit, instead of being at the mercy of Sony's schedule.

If this takes off, we'll see competition from other publishers driving the costs of these services down and driving consumer benefits up. We might FINALLY start to see the benefits of going digital on console. The number one issue plaguing digital is the lack of competion in these marketplaces... That may have just started to changed.

Ashlen1175d ago (Edited 1175d ago )

I know right... why wouldn't EA want to nickel and dime people? /s

They should have just offered there games on games for gold. MS should have only given them that option.

DanielGearSolid1175d ago

If u read the details they don't have direct line to the customer.

The purchases go thru Ms Store, they say to direct all customer service issues to MS. If youre gonna funnel all of that thru MS, why not just put the damn thing on Xbox live gold?

I can't see how this is different from or better than Gold or PS+ at all... Not to mention most of their games have online functions so you'd pretty much be forced to keep ur XBLG or Ps+ account

Chevalier1175d ago

What?! EA nickel and diming people is not a good thing. This article mentions netflix which offers a wide variety of shows and movies from many studios with exclusive content and available across ALL platforms and customers. How does EA with it's yearly games and only a single publisher even comparable?!

Is it available to all EA customers? No
Is it on all platforms where EA games are available? No.

It's nothing close to netflix, blinkbox or Amazon Instant video. It's available to a very small group of 4+ million Xbone owners not all of which are EA customers.

If this takes off this will fragment the market and we'll end up with each publisher do their own service and pricing scheme. There won't be a need to compete.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1175d ago
LackTrue4K1175d ago

@ article...."a step forward??"

On what....it's more and more subscription fees. Gaming prices are getting out of hand!!
I don't want published to follow their steps, I just want one thing from them....

"GAMES"

thunderbird861175d ago

Gaming prices are lower than they ever have been and haven't been raised since the beginning of last gen. This is an optional service. Don't understand why people are getting bent out of shape. You can't find FIFA 14 right now for under 30 bucks. That plus three other games for 30 a year? Plus more to come. How does this not make sense?

djplonker1175d ago (Edited 1175d ago )

Fifa 14 - in TWO months fifa 15 will be out and the value of fifa 14 will fall below $5/£3 pretty much instantly - (has microtansactions)

Battlefield 4 - No dlc included and will be replaced by hardline in half a year or so - (has microtansactions)

madden nfl 25 - in 27 DAYS madden 15 will be out - (has microtansactions)

https://forums.oneplus.net/...

TearsOfARapper1175d ago

These are two ENTIRELY different services you're reaching to compare right now. You compare PS Plus to Xbox Live, NOT this EA Access. EA Access is only providing their library of published games. You're getting newer, albeit much less, but full-on retail games to play to your heart's content. Once this year's sports games get a few months under their belt, I'm sure they'll be tossed into the vault as well. Or if you choose not to wait, and you really enjoy your two hour demo, then you get a discount to buy the full game right away to keep. That alone saves you the cost of one month of service. The writer was correct to compare Netflix and such whereas I don't know where you're pulling your comparison. Sony turned it down because it'd take away money from PS Now which is going to be like this but better, it's not a bad thing, get over it.

DanielGearSolid1175d ago (Edited 1175d ago )

If u honestly can't see (or maybe admit) the obvious similarities (redundancies almost) in PS+ and EA access theres no point in wasting time talking to u

Chevalier1175d ago

Wait how does EA access compare to Netflix? Netflix has content from multiple major movie studios, exclusive content, far more value and available on all platforms. EA is a single publisher focus with limited offerings on a yearly basis and available on a single platform only to gold members of Xbone with 4+ million people. So how is that anything like Netflix?!

user74029311175d ago

ps+ is a better value, your not limited to one publisher

truefan11175d ago (Edited 1175d ago )

How is ps+ any different from XBL and GWG?

Both offer free access to games
Both offer dicounts
Both are required to play online

Couldn't MSFT have used the same excuse? They gave gamers a choice. I usually spend at minimum $120 on EA gamers per year, I find great value in EA Access. If they make me wait a few months before I get the new Madden and Fifa so be it, I'll just have the most recent rosters. I would pay up to $100 per year for EA, Ubisoft, Activision.... If that meant I got all the new Games from each publisher. Remember 10 games per year is $600. With subscriptions we could get ALL the games instead of 1 singular game. The only drawback is that you can't resell the games, which you shouldn't be doing anyway. You can't say give us new ips then buy used copies or rent the games.

For example from Activision I will be getting Destiny and COD:AW = $120, Ubisoft-AC Unity and The Divison =$120, EA Madden & Fifa = $120. This stuff starts to add up, 2k-NBA2k15 and potentially Evolve = $120. On second thought I'm scaling back because this doesn't even include the XB1 exclusives.

The best part about it all is you DON'T HAVE TO BUY IT? People need to start thinking outside of the box. Gaming is the only industry where I have heard fans complain about innovation and moving forward.

DanielGearSolid1175d ago

Yea MS couldve used the same reasoning, but why stop EA when they get a cut of the profit.

You spend 120 on EA but how much do u spend on ALL publishers?

EA couldve easily tied these savings and free games into Gold. Why is it a better deal to pay for something u already had?

GW2121175d ago

Shhhh... Sony just posted a profit for their first fiscal quarter.

http://seekingalpha.com/new...

How are you doing over there bud? You ok? Did you just go on that rant because you're a little salty? Is that what happened? Aww, buddy, it'll be ok.

Death1175d ago

Shhhh...Sony posted a couple profitable quarters in the past also. That doesn't mean they will have a profitable year. They are absolutely headed in the right direction, but they still have a way to go. Sony already stated they expect another loss for the fiscal year ending March 2015 due to spinning off their PC division. Over half the profit this quarter was attributed to the sales of some buildings and properties. Exchange rates were also in Sony's favor along with increases in revenue from their movie divison. Of course PS4 sales helped in the video game division with an increase of 96% over last years quarterly results.

ichizon1175d ago (Edited 1175d ago )

These games are only worth that much because that's what the industry has led you to believe.

They already save a ton on getting digital purchases, but they aren't pricing it lower than retail because "they don't want to undermine retail sales". And what do you think they save by having loyal customers that subscribe? They can advertise all their games to you, and they'll forecast exactly what they'll earn. They can dangle some carrots that force you to get EA Access to get the full experience of a game, something they've already massively overdone with DLC. Don't you think that any new game that still sells well is coming to The Vault. Last year's Madden and FIFA are already overloaded in the GameStop used bin at $2.

Sheikh Yerbouti1174d ago

Probably cause MS "needs" something on their service to distract from PSNow. The question you need to ask yourself is why EA doesn't just use GfG or PS+...in case you don't already know (i.e., $$$$).

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1174d ago
shaenoide1175d ago

It's not the same because because PS+ is mandatory to play online AND you have access to "free" games.

What if every every publishers in the world ask you to pay 5 bucks? How much you will have to pay each month?

hello121175d ago (Edited 1175d ago )

[email protected] I'm fairly certain EA is an independent entity from Microsoft. So its entirely different.

Microsoft does not own the rights to this EA does and its solely up to them who what games they offer.

I see nothing wrong with the deal when you compare pricing of games like Battlefield 4 and Fifa 14 and other EA games on other sites of purchase.

DualWielding1175d ago

The difference is that these is what PS+ used to be you get offer a selection of triple A titles from the start.. if you feel renting the titles on offer for a year worths $30.00 to you, you subcribe.... the initial titles are the main dish and everything else is bonus..... that's how PS+ used to be on PS3

Now PS+ is like Xbox Live used to be, you pay for the right to play online, and get some free games as an afterthought but you don't get an instant selection of triple A games the moment you subscribe (on PS4 at least)

Godmars2901175d ago

PSNow, not PS+. Like XBL, PS+ as a service is meant to support and supplement online services - at least that's MS's and Sony's excuse.

What EA is doing is only about their games. And it should be an issue with gamers that discounts for microtransactions and DLC are a thing. That's only going to entrench them. Make them accepted.

Darkstares1174d ago (Edited 1174d ago )

DLC is not going to go away and why should it? 20 years ago game systems were unable to offer new content in the same manner so it makes perfect sense for them to utilize it now. Obviously some gamers want it otherwise it wouldn't sell.

It is in relation to PS+ because both require a membership. They also offer free gaming as long as you keep that membership and they both offer discounts on games. PS+ offers some early beta access and EA access offers the ability to play games 5 days in advance. It's very easy to compare the two as both were designed to be complimentary services within online gaming. It wasn't until the PS4 came out that to be able to play online you needed PS+.

PSNow is more like a rental service that streams games. EA Access doesn't stream games.

cabinotier1174d ago

if EA put thair games on PS+, EA can get a little from PS+ fee.
EA get full fee on EA Access.
Huge difference here.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 1174d ago
Mikelarry1175d ago (Edited 1175d ago )

I have to respectively disagree, there is no need for publisher specific subscriptions and i will not support this movement. what most gamers dont seem to understand is if this takes off every publisher will start their own access programs making a mess of what should be a straight forward process of purchasing games from these publishers.
let me break it down to some of you supporters of this approach

ps+: $49.99
xbox live:$60
EA access: 30

if this catches on (the below are not factual prices for how much they will charge)

Ubisoft: 30
Activision: 30
Take two: 30
Deep silver: 30

i hope you start to see the point i am trying to make above

lets have a look at some of the benefits of ea access are

* discounts on digital games: this should have been cheaper from the get go. this is a deceitful approach and i am shocked most gamers are so easily swayed by this.

*get to play gamers 5 days earlier... are you kidding me so EA is going to deliberately delay games so early access users can play them first.

the early access is nothing but a trojan horse to get gamers hooked on digital approach and for publishers like EA to do as they please. don't get me wrong i am not against digital, i am against shady business publishers try to mask as " better options" for gamers

Edit: also you compare ea access to the likes of netflix, steam and the lot but you failed to point out a big difference, EA access only offers you EA content while netflix etc offers you content from multiple sources

Kayant1175d ago

To note early access is not that great. 2 hours time trial but can supposedly be more which sounds more like PR.
"You'll never have less than 2 hours, but each trial is different & will often be longer."
https://twitter.com/EAAcces...

thunderbird861175d ago

They don't want you to finish dragon age before the game is officially released. The time limit makes sense. If not people will play it for the five days and try to finish it.

mhunterjr1175d ago (Edited 1175d ago )

I have to respectfully disagree with you. If other publishers get into the fray, they would compete with each other on price and benefits. That would drive the overall cost to consumers downward, and they'd be throwing in benefits left and right in order to 1up each other.

Also t's not like you'd HAVE to subscribe to each publishers service or any service for that matter. If you typically buy 1 EA game a year, and 6 Ubisoft games... You'd only subscribe to Ubisoft. You'd buy your EA game the same way you've always bought it, no harm at all. Still overall, you'd be spending LESS money on software.

Most importantly, they are providing a monthly option. If the idea of another subscription bothers you (even if of does make gaming cheaper in the long run). You can drop 5 bucks and get a 30day rental on several games you might have missed. Only pay the 5 when the vault options are appealing to you. If every publisher offered something like this, I'd be spending A LOT less money on games every year, yet playing a lot more games.

Mikelarry1175d ago

currently publishers offer their games digitally via psn and xbox live but we the consumer have not seen any benefit on price and like so i cant see how this is going to change when they all decide to jump on the early access band wagon.

what you seem to forget is if early access becomes the norm these publishers will hold even more of the game back for those who don't sign up to the service to make the service attractive.

mhunterjr1175d ago

@MikeLarry

You are right, we haven't seen any benefit on price, and that's because until now, Sony and Microsoft have both had monopolies on their particular store fronts. Microsoft giving publishers the opportunity to interact more closely with their own customers, opens the door for competition in this digital space, which would be a driver towards lower costs.

As far as publishers holding things back for early access to encourage subscription, that's just speculation. EA wants to sell their game to you, digitally, whether you subscribe or not, so I don't see that happening. It remains to be seen how they'd behave in this regard. But having more publishers involved would ensure that consumers continue to get better deals thanks to competition.

Chevalier1175d ago

You seem to think Sony and MS online stores were some kind of monopoly holding EA back? Sorry that would be the case if EA didn't have control of their product pricing which is NOT the case.

You are so misinformed it's not even funny. You seriously think this will benefit customers and will drive up competition? It's the exact opposite of that.

Just go look on Steam which is a unified store that has multiple publishers and according to your logic of PSN/Live is holding EA back from getting better prices? If you purchased games like Dead Space, Dragons Age, Battlefield and how EA has limited that now. On Steam you can't preorder DA:Inquisition or Battlefield 4, Battlefield 3 isn't available along with Dead Space 3, Titanfall and a number of EA titles.

Now let's do a comparison.

Dragon Age Inquisition (ONLY digitally available on Origin)
https://www.origin.com/en-c...

Price $69.99
Preorder savings? $0

No physical media cost associated or shipping cost and they can't even give a discount?

Steam Witcher 3 preorder:

Price $59.99
Preorder price $53.99
Savings 10% = $6

If you bought Witcher 1+2 from steam
Savings go up to 15% = $9
Package deal for trilogy $69.99 (Separately $84) = Savings $14
Also you get all the Witcher 3 preorder bonuses.

Sims 4
https://www.origin.com/en-c...

Preorder price $69.99
Savings for preordering $0
Savings for buying Sims 3 from Origin offer? NONE

Crysis trilogy
https://www.origin.com/en-c...
Price: $49.99
Amazon store front? All 3 games total $39.99

Big publishers will NOT start offering discounts for digital preorders or compete like you think. They control the prices and don't have to offer discounts and honestly why would they?! They have no need to pay for shipping or printing disc, do they pass on the savings? Nope.

You think 10% is a great deal off digital content? Guess what you paid $29.99 so they recouped that discount and they let you play their vault games for a limited time. You don't OWN those games. It's nothing like Netflix, Amazon instant video where there are exclusives, multiple publishers and much more value. This is ONE publisher and to a very limited base of 4+ million Xbone owners, not available on all platforms.

Slevon1175d ago

You can still purchase games normally.. and if they make the sub mandatory for each company i'm sure $60 buck for a year of EA and Activision is gonna be a better deal than 1 game now wouldnt you agree?

xDHAV0K24x1175d ago

LIVE isn't needed for EA Access

jnemesh1175d ago

It most certainly IS needed, if you want to play those games online!

ichizon1175d ago

I made a blog post earlier today, pretty much agreeing with your points here. Especially when it comes to the Netflix sentiment. A third party service (like Netflix and Spotify) or first party service (PS Plus) could work out great for this kind of stuff. I just don't think EA has any good intentions. Ever.

http://n4g.com/user/blogpos...

Mikelarry1175d ago (Edited 1175d ago )

just read your blog very interesting read indeed, great blog i especially like the line "PS Now is nothing like EAA, being a streaming service and all. PS Now requires no download after you rent a game, and you have full control over what games you get at any given time"

some gamers are quick to relinquish their control over some marketing talk of "cheaper options for gamers" without fully understanding what they are giving up. the psnow of current i dont see the value as its price is a bit too steep for me but atleast i have some sort of control of what games i want to play if i did decide to subscribe

with the way the industry is going i can see my self finding a new hobby as gaming is becoming more and more about screwing gamers at every turn

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1175d ago
iamnsuperman1175d ago (Edited 1175d ago )

It is one step forward and five back. Like mentioned above the service is identical to playstation plus (but just for EA titles). EA wants a peice of the pie (which begs the question about value considering EA are only offering old EA titles)

Now if they offered all their games for £10 a month (new and old and none being taken out of the vault) that would be progression but this progression would be a worrying one. I have said this before but if EA did do this Ubisoft and Activision would have to follow suit. The issue is other publishers (with less popular titles) could not afford the competition and essential it will drive them out. We will have less to choose from. But it does give the end user more power (one company releases buggy games you can cancel the subscription).

At the end of the day EA access is nothing new. But if EA take it further we are going to see more studios and publishers closing down

mhunterjr1175d ago (Edited 1175d ago )

EA is making EA games cheaper for EA fans. If other publisher come out with similar programs, it will mean digital games across the board will be getting cheaper. It would also mean competition (FINALLY), within the digital marketplace, which would mean better prices and benefits for gamers.

PS+ and GwG, only showcase a few games per month. Publishers are at Sony and MS mercy concerning when their game will be highlighted. This service ensures that more games are up for free or discount at any given time.

The other publishers with smaller catalogs who "can't afford to compete" would be perfect candidates for PS+ and GwG offerings. The idea that they would be pushed out, or that we'd have fewer options is not realistic.

iamnsuperman1175d ago

You have misunderstood the problem of EA took it further and the impact it will have on smaller developers and publishers. Gwg and plus would have to follow suit if EA decided to go that one step further (as I described; all games for a monthly fee). These smaller publishers and developers will be pushed out as they can't rely on being put on Gwg or plus. Too infrequent and selling via brick and motor will die pretty quickly.

Now you may ask why I am discussing something EA isn't doing. Well that is the next step up. Once other publishers get on board the market will be to crowded to offer the end user any value (for back catalogue stuff from one publisher). Bare in mind a lot of the big games are now yearly releases (especially in EA's repertoire). The only way a Netflix model will work is if either a third party or the platform holders control it. At the publisher level it will not work and will mean a lot of redundancy and lack variety

mhunterjr1175d ago (Edited 1175d ago )

You are creating a problem where one doesn't exist, and failing to realize the problem that is being solved here. Xbox live (and PSN) was like a mall with one store. Anyone who wanted to sell something in the mall had to go through MS. You had to go to MS for advertising space , which was limited to just a few titles a month.

Now MS is allowing publishers to have their own storefronts within the mall. Now it's up to store owners (publishers) to lure customers into their respective store fronts. They are able to promote their products as they see fit. EA chose to do it with a subscription service,Activision might follow suit. Ubisoft might to it with a buyers rewards program, Capcom might do it by lowering all costs across the board. The possibilities are endless. As a customer I would love to have publishers fighting for my attention in this way as it gives me more options to find savings.

As far as the little guys who don't have enough content to open their own stores, they still have the option to go through the MS store, and take advantage of MS' regular promotions (games w/ gold, deals with gold etc) There is no indication that they won't continue to get support. And customers can still shop exclusively in xbox live store if they want to.

All this does is open the door to more options.

ichizon1175d ago (Edited 1175d ago )

What you're talking about would be more akin to having a category for each developer, where they could showcase their best titles and allow you to browse only their titles. If you don't believe Microsoft gets a cut from this, you're mistaken. It's all still in their store, but they have their own little club corner that you have to pay a member's fee to join.

While I do see the point of the people that are for this, I don't think it's something we should rush into. I think most people are excited because they believe they get good value back. I don't think they're wrong, but I'm critical to EA's reasoning. They want a hold on the second hand retail market and Microsoft's disc DRM was removed. I'm sure EA lobbied for that feature along with other developers behind the scenes. Now, they'll pick up these guys that buy every EA title and sell it off again, and if it succeeds as a service they'll probably start producing more exclusive content, so that you'll have to have this service to get the full experience. They just need to get a foothold first. Lowering their digital prices to a more respectable level would harm their profit margins, which is all the big ones think about.

Once they get a foothold, others might follow suit, which I'm thinking you aren't against either. But then everyone starts making exclusive content to draw more subscribers. Suddenly, we're stuck with a semi-required paid feature that has become an industry standard. Just like the digital pricing schemes, bad DLC habits, overpriced collector's editions with digital junk, early access to unfinished games, and so on.

Mikelarry1175d ago (Edited 1175d ago )

@ ichizon

i am glad someone gets it. most people are not looking past the now but i am glad there are some forward thinking gamers who think about where these actions could lead especially with the track record of the company pushing this service.

Death1175d ago

Most likely the EA deal is intended to impact PS+ game offerings in the future. EA is only getting a portion of the $4 in PS+ subs for the month they have a game on the service. If they can get $5 by offering their games with their own service, why wouldn't they? If Ubi and Activision follow suit, what is left for PS+ games? First party and indies? If Sony had to fill the service with first party games, that would have a serious imapact on new game sales since more people would wait for the "free" game. It's a business strategy that benefits EA and Microsoft. With Sony taking the choice away from their customers, only time will tell if the stategy works.

mhunterjr1175d ago (Edited 1175d ago )

@ichizon

OF COURSE Microsoft gets a cut from this. The same way the mall owner gets a cut from allowing you to do business in their mall. It still doesn't change the fact that having multiple stores in the mall makes the mall a great place to shop.

There is skepticism that the success of this program would encourage publishers to hold content back to bolster their services. I think the current industry trends suggest otherwise. If you look at how Steam crushed Games for Windows Live, or how PS+ helped turn Games w/ Gold into a better, How Ubisoft and EA both abandoned their online pass programs, how The Master Cheif Collection even exists, etc... it's clear to me that big companies are finding more profitability when they actually give more. With more publishers creating their own access programs, they'd be pressuring each other to offer BETTER deals for customers, not worse ones.

And this is just the beginning. The GoPro store just launched on Xbox live. Silly, right? Yes it is, on the surface. But then you realize that Microsoft is open to letting non game-centric companies operate withing their marketplace. How long until, Amazon has a store front, where prime subscribers can get deals on digital downloads right from the xbox, or until Target can offer digital B2G1...

Quite frankly, the digital marketplace would be a much better place if we could ACTUALLY SHOP, instead of browsing only having one place to browse. In an ideal world, I could choose to 1) Buy Madden from the MS store. No extra subscription needed, but full price 2) Buy Madden from EA Access, get 10% off and early access, but have to subscribe 3) Buy Madden through Amazon's xbox store, who subsidizes the cost because I frequently shop amazon etc. Suddenly the online store offers as many options as physical retail. That's not how it is now, but This is a step In That direction.

Ps the above example is just an example... I would never buy madden, and There isn't an amazon store on xbox.

ichizon1175d ago

The thing is that there is already a venue. We aren't allowing new venues or competition in this regard. Everything still exists within the same store or mall, and there's no real competition between the two stores. If there is a third party, like in the Netflix case, there is room for actual competition. It's just that the publishers think about their own earnings over the consumer, which is why they would rather see the full first party earnings rather than a lower third party model. I don't blame them; they're businesses after all. I just think that it lies with us to stop it, as it's just as Sony said, not in the best interest of the consumers regardless of what they meant with that phrase.

There's nothing in the way of digital stores offering everything that physical stores offer, aside from the physical part. And they can do so with a much higher profit margin, but publishers are afraid of losing physical stores and the advertisement these stores offer.

In closing, I can see where you're coming from, but I do believe the scepticism is important. EA has shown time and time again that they only care about their own interests, and stuff like online passes were removed only after the backlash from GameStop and the likes of it, even though customers hated the idea from the get-go. I believe there are decent companies out there, and even while thinking about profits, I think companies like Steam and Sony care about quality and customers more than other companies. While I do believe Microsoft cares about these qualities as well, they seem to be much more involved in the US corporate lobby culture than the other two.

Chevalier1175d ago (Edited 1175d ago )

"The same way the mall owner gets a cut from allowing you to do business in their mall. It still doesn't change the fact that having multiple stores in the mall makes the mall a great place to shop. "

What?! This is ONE publisher not a mall of them. Steam would be more like the mall your referring to where I show up and their are multiple publishers and crazy summer and fall sales on all of the products. Do you have to pay $$$ for access to Steam? Nope. Now you want every store in that mall to set up shop and offer you discounts ONLY if you sign up for their program?

EA's storefront as you put it is like a exclusive club. You paid the fee at the door just for entering the store. Look at what Ichizon and Mikelarry are actually saying. This may set a precedent, just imagine if Activision and Ubisoft see this if it succeeds then why put their stuff in the Steam Store and offer free access to a store when the customer will pay? If they get a foothold just looking what it may lead to. EA has already stopped putting their products for preorder or on deals through Steam except their older content.

Ubisoft Access $30
Activision Access $30
Capcom Access $30
etc.

If this is the only way to get the full experience because they withhold stuff they would normally have given as a preorder bonus, except now ONLY for members. That possibility is one your overlooking and Ichizon and Mikelarry clearly stated. They're not saying it's necessarily bad, but, be very wary about what it may lead to, here is what is to be afraid of quote Ichizon:

"Once they get a foothold, others might follow suit, which I'm thinking you aren't against either. But then everyone starts making exclusive content to draw more subscribers. Suddenly, we're stuck with a semi-required paid feature that has become an industry standard. Just like the digital pricing schemes, bad DLC habits, overpriced collector's editions with digital junk, early access to unfinished games, and so on. "

You want to pay for the right to get a discount and play old games?! That's like me saying you have no access to www.amazon.com deals any longer unless you buy our year pass, but, they'll offer me 5 streaming movies or games a month.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1175d ago
imt5581175d ago

I think it's not good. If EA Access succeed, probably others will follow.

Especially with DLC and similar stuff. You buy Battlefield 5, outside EA Access. And you want to buy map pack. And you can't buy it if you don't have EA Access subcription. Want a map pack, buy a EA Access. NO!

marlinfan101175d ago (Edited 1175d ago )

We'll be able to go on there every 5-6 months and do the monthly subscription, play the new games as much as we want, and then cancel it when were done playing them or at the end of the month. Also you can time it for a ea game you want to buy and the discount alone pays for the months subscription and you still get to play whatever games you want out of the vault. Im really not seeing hows its a bad deal

The only people I can see complain are people that dont like ea games, but thats why youre not forced to buy it