"Our Jake Baldino discusses the merits of EA Access, and whether this will be the game changer for Xbox One in their competition with the Playstation 4."
Unlikely from the reasons you said. Also Games with Gold will suffer as a result. EA are not going to put EA games on the Games with Gold programme(a competing system). It will devalue Games with Gold (something, like you said, is [having gold] almost a necessity for the EA access service)
No it can't . But it can help MS compete. EA access is a very nice service with good pricing. Sony will be pushed to match this with their own services
It's a stupid question from the start. It's just a nice option, nothing more. I'm so sick of every new game, feature, update, etc turning into a fanboy argument that is essentially trying to sell you on notion that THIS means my platform is better than yours. I thought and I still think X1 is the better platform but obviously many feel differently and so far more chose ps4. I'd be happy to discuss why this EA Access make the platform I like even BETTER but come on its just dumb to even think if you really like ps4, sony games then this some how sways you to X1. No, at best if you are a "on the fence" type unbiased gamer looking to get into next gen it simply *might be a small part of many bigger reasons you might see more value in X1, lol but even then if you're smart you know this EA thing is coming eventually to ps4 or other services from other publishers, as we can see the digital landscape continues to grow its inevitable.
I agree EA access, especially at this point) will be a nice service to have, (as an option)but it certainpy won't sell XB1's. At leaat until the backlog is more impressive, even then unlikely that it SELLS consoles.
It's old games that most people interested in already got during release so.... no.
To repeat what I said in a previous article: Is EA Access a good deal? Sure. Is EA Access a big deal? Hell no. You're paying extra money just to access older EA games, and demo new ones. And when you sign up for it you have to agree to EA's TOS agreement, which reads like a devil's contract. The only thing I like about EA Access, it's watching all the fanboys hype it up like it's the second coming. According to them, the option to pay to access older EA games is what's gonna put the xbone over the PS4. Lol!
@iamnsuperman Again more scare tactics from those that don't like change. As I look around more competition in the digital landscape has brought new interesting ways to enjoy my music and movies AND made it CHEAPER. How many EA games have been offered through GWG anyway? Micro reacted to sony's ps+ by offering GWG but make no mistake this wont devalue GWG because Gold will always be primarily about paying for online access, which will always give micro & sony a leg up on publishers because they control online access= the only thing they have to do on top of that is throw in a few more discounts and a freebie from time to time and they will always be in the driver seat vs pubs, lol unless those pubs go make their own console which ironically contrary to your point because once again this all means that competition breeds better deals, always has, always will. Sony, Micro, EA, Activision, Ubisoft, and every other pub could all co-exist and thrive in this digital sales environment but only if they adjust and realize the ones who will do well are (A) the ones who offer good content= not necessarily their new releases but quality games from their backlog (B) the ones who offer the best or comparable deals, they may lose on individual purchases upfront but word of mouth of the great deals will drive up revenue, especially because its digital= very little extra costs between selling the same digital content to 1000 or 1mil customers.
Would it not make sense for the Xbox1 to surpass the WiiU 1st...before it worries about the PS4...
Doesn't Sony already have a program to compete with this? Called PS+ as I recall. The actual details of it are different, but the end result is somewhat similar. In the end, you're at the whim of the company offering the service. Given that PS+ is now mandatory for online play, it seems that Sony isn't going to have to do much at all to compete since many people will have this service anyhow. People are getting games with their online subscription. Seems to be plenty of companies willing to put their games up on PS+. There are discounts. And with PS+, you get to keep the games as long as you're subscribed, as opposed to being at the whim of whatever 4 games EA keeps in rotation(they go away whenever they change them up...luckily you can purchase them for 10% off inflated MSRP though). The sales on PS+ are generally much better than 10% as well...albeit you're at the discretion of when publishers want to offer those generally very attractive PS+ sales offers. I'm not seeing how PS+ has to compete with this at all. I could see how MS would have to up it's games with gold program however to compete with PS+, as well as now compete with EA on it's very own system. One hour full game demos...yep PS+ has that. If you're talking about PSNow...well that's a completely different service, offering a completely different content delivery system. If EA were offering EA Access to multiple devices through streaming, then I could see you're point. @4Show. While you make some valid points, I find it a bit disingenuous that some Xbox fans are praising this EA service as awesome, yet downplayed Sony's music unlimited service which offers a huge catalog of music for what I imagine many consider a reasonable price. I bring this up, because you are talking about new and bold ways at digital distribution. Which I agree, should be explored. But, if people are going to praise one thing, they shouldn't discredit what is essentially the same thing in a different market when it suits them. Not saying you do the above(not sure your views on MU), just pointing out that it's a double standard that borders on hypocrisy. What I'm seeing is that Xbox fans seem to be OK with this in general, whereas PS fans don't care, or think it will open the doors to it becoming too convoluted with every publisher doing it so the value of the consumer decreases. (disclaimer: I speak in generalities to shorten my post) :) There's a certain simplicity to there being one outlet for consumers to get their value out of their consoles, and while I believe competition is great to get to what is best for the consumer, I don't feel each publisher competing with each other, and the console manufacturer to be the best route in this sort of service. I don't find EA Access to be a bad deal, particularly for certain types of gamers(likely much larger than us hard core). I just get tired of people acting like it's going to save MS, or saying how it's so much better than what is already being offered through PS+. It's different than PS+ for sure. But both have value in my eyes depending on how one games. Which is a better value could easily be debated...but at another time(or above if you wish).:)
How will it devalue games with gold? Games with gold gets you 24games a year on xb1, most of which have been smaller downloadable titles. how many of that 24 would have been EA titles? Besides,There are still a ton of games from different publishers that will end up on GWG. Since 2010, only 4 ea games have shown up on ps+, and none have shown up on GwG. If someone is looking for EA games, neither of those services have delivered like EA Access will and already has. And even if it did devaluate GwG, the onus would be on MS, to add more value to Gold, either by rolling in additional services (like xbox music), providing better bonuses (like offering 1st party titles sooner, steeper discounts), or by lowering the price. Competition is a good thing.
How does it devalue Games with Gold? Well one of the biggest publishers won't have any discount, free games, trials.... on the Games with Gold service as it competes with their own service. Hence one of the biggest publishers out there will not support it. That in itself devalues the service. Microsoft can give out Xbox Music and other bonuses all it likes but that support will not come close to a major publisher not supporting the service. A price drop is going to be out of the question (since the price hasn't changed since Gold was announced). I get it you're a big fan of the service but it does devalue something we have to pay for anyway (Gold does not compete with EA access as Gold is required for online functionality but EA access does compete with Gold as EA need to convince consumers to buy into the extra service. Also worth noting Playstation plus is around £3-5 a month, depending on payment scheme, how much lower can Microsoft go to generate the lost value and convince people that it is okay)
@iamnsuperman Like I said, EA never showed up to games with gold anyway. So For someone who buys a lot of EA content (games,dlc, ultimate team, etc), the savings of having live+EA access is already greater than having just gwg ever would have been...for those who don't care for EA content, their absence from GwG won't be missed. For everyone else, there are other ways to acquire this content. A price drop is never out of the question. there hasn't been one to date because consumers see it as being worth what it costs. If that perception changes, MS would have to adapt. People have always bought LIVE for access to multiplayer. gwg only came about because competition from Sony changed the value proposition. EA Access threatens to change the value proposition yet again. And price drop isn't the only way to increase value. as I've mentioned, the MS could leverage their own first party content and services, or provide benefits through other 3rd party partnerships. Also, whether or not their will be other ways to save on ea titles remains to be seen. For all we know, EA titles could go on sale in the MS store, and EA Access members would get to combine both offers...we'll just have to wait and see.
My take on this. If you're that big a fan of EA games that you would want to subscribe to this service, then you will likely get the big games from them anyhow. There are certain aspects to this whole thing that I find beneficial. Other things...not so much. Some of it depends on how you play games. For instance. If all you play is sports titles and whatever else EA offers that's big, then the discount could be good if you're OK with digital sales. That's if you buy enough of these games per year to make it worth a $30 subscription(5 a year). The rest could be considered bonus. If you're a casual player, and just want to play whatever once in a while and keep it fresh, then it may be worth $30 to just turn on the system to play whatever is in rotation. Those two scenarios make it attractive enough to what I would likely consider a casual gamer. $30 a year isn't much to always have games to play, if you're not picky that is. With GWG, you're at the discretion of whatever games they offer, but if you have XBL it's already included, so the games are there, and you can keep them indefinitely...which immediately makes it better than EA's proposition if you're just looking to launch the occasional game. Same with PS+ in this regard. EA isn't a huge supporter or either PS+ or GWG based on my quick research. Their most desirable titles never make it to either service. OTOH, Ubisoft and Activision seems to be a big supporter of both services, and Square is a decent supporter of PS+(not sure about GWG). Neither MS nor Sony are losing much with this service, because I doubt EA can really compete with either. GWG(through XBL) and PS+ are now somewhat mandatory services for their respective systems. The games can now be looked at as a bonus. When it comes to EA's value proposal with their service, it's not mandatory, and unless you're into buying digital content heavily from EA, there isn't a lot of value to it, especially since 4 games on rotation means that if not 1 game of 4 is there you want to play, you go 2-3 months without any free games to play. No value there. I've had months with PS+ where no game was offered I wanted to play. But I still had a huge back catalog of older PS+ offerings to choose from. GWG has this same benefit, even if you're subscription lapses. EA is coming into this whole thing gimped from the start. It's a limited service, which can have value to some people, but not overreaching appeal to a broader audience, despite that audience being larger than hardcore gamers that would likely want a service like this that would actually benefit a majority of us.
But if i get free ea games from ea access why would they need ea games on games with gold? With all the other company offerings,ubi capcom,activision etc.
Your not seeing the big picture what if other major publishers (ubi capcom,activision etc) begin to follow in EA's footsteps? Take PS+ IGC for example it received Dead Space 3 last month I can guarantee that will be the last EA game offered on PS+ .
@iamnsuperman, said: "Also Games with Gold will suffer as a result." Not at all. Unlike Sony and EA, this is a mutual partnership between EA and M$. GWG doesn't need EA games every month. EA never said it's full library of games will be available in the vault. It can easily set aside a few games for GWG every once in a while to attract people to XBL. It will help they business if they encourage XBL participation. This is where Sony's big public turndown of EA become a possible problem for Sony. Sony's has told EA that they can't setup their offerings on Sony's network. So that puts EA in a position, of why should I do anything that would benefit you when you are not willing to extend the same effort to what we are trying to do for our benefit? So PSNow and PS+ will obviously not get anymore special deals from EA, and EA could put all future content from the services if they want.
You look at the no too personally and not from the point of view of a business. So Sony said no. Is EA likely to pull future content from their services when A they get paid for content that appears on Plus B they control the price on Now and still get paid for the content In the example of plus EA isn't likely going to turn down a revenue stream from the console with the biggest market share because they said no. It is different with competing services on one system as EA has something to win by moving content over (increase subscribers) and could lose out majorily if they don't move content away from Games with Gold (what is the point of EA access if the main draw, the games, appear on Games with Gold) EA will only lose out if they move content away from Plus and Now (or Sony in general) since there is no benefit except for regaining pride. But pride doesn't bring in the money
My word, if that wasn't the most ridiculous claim I've read today. You do realise EA puts their content on the PlayStation Network to make money? You do realise that publishers get profits from every game bought through PS Now? You do realise that Sony pays EA to put their games on PS+? But because they has said no to a service that they don't believe will work for them, now EA has a vendetta and will boycott content for Sony services. JESUS, that is some strong spin. How about you understand how business works? Business men aren't fanboys who get personal at a turned down offer. They won't turn away from the console that makes them the most money.
@shinrock The games aren't free, you're paying for a subscription. @bigpappy Why would EA shun Sony when there are far more ps4's in the wild than xbone's?? And that includes Europe, where Fifa is a big seller for them? You're dead wrong. EA will go where the money is, they have established that quite clearly over the years, and ignoring the ps4 or Sony overall wouldn't do them any good business wise.
@iamnsuperman: "EA will only lose out if they move content away from Plus and Now (or Sony in general) since there is no benefit except for regaining pride. But pride doesn't bring in the money" May I remind you that they did this and are still doing it to the Wii. They also did it to the original Xbox when M$ had their own line of Sports games. They had to give it all up to get EA to bring their full line of game to Xbox. EA always uses their leverage. They also refused to host their games on M$ network, and you always had to log into both to platy EA games. They were the firs to be allowed to do that on XBL. So yea. The Wii thing shows that EA will ignore install base if they don't get what they want. The Xbox thing shows that they can get tough standards to bend their way because they have control over lots of popular content. PS+, GFG and PSNOW are not great revenue streams for developers. They just allow these consoles to use the games for a small fee. If EA were making effective profit from PS+ and GWG, why would they introduce they their own service? Because they obviously don't think they are getting a big enough return, that's why. Did you guy listen to How Sony talked about how much profit they made from PSN in their financial statement? Well EA wants a piece of that revenue stream. They are willing to flex some muscle to see it happen. They are not going to pull their games off PlayStation, but they surely don't give a darn about PS+ and NOW. If you think EA will just go away and not try and force Sony's hand, you don't know EA.
You really are delusional to think that EA will ignore that platform that not only only has the largest market share but also the one that sells the most EA games on the next generation systems. To put this into perspective I will show you. http://www.vgchartz.com/gam... http://www.vgchartz.com/gam... Fifa sales difference is around 1.5 million (the One sold less than a million) and BF4 is around 0.5 million in favour of the PS4. These aren't exceptions As for you Wii example well historically Nintendo system struggle to sell third party games. Taking games away from Nintendo systems isn't such a big loss since the risk to get them there is so great (for little return). Also the reason why developers allow games on GFG and PS+/PS Now is because they are revenue streams. Developers and publishers get paid. It is no secret. EA have introduce their own service to increase profits (it shouldn't shock you that a company wants to increase profits). Just like how EA introduce season pass and all that jazz in an attempt to squash the resell market.
MS has to pay to get those EA exclusives on their system. EA isn't trying to help or hinder either system right now. They certainly aren't trying to make sure MS surpasses the PS4, because they are smart enough to realize that with the PS4 having such a big lead in less than a year and everything going for it, they simply can't afford to ignore it. The days of EA actively trying to screw over another console maker are over. Console install base is just too big to ignore, and eventually they'll even come back to the Wii U if it manages to do better. The reason they're all buddy buddy with MS is because MS keeps dishing out the money for their titles. But they won't refuse Sony's money either if offered. EA is a big publisher. They have a lot of clout. But the days where them not putting their content on one system being disastrous to that system are over. Sony is no small fish in EA's big pond. EA goes where the money is, and right now, that money is on Sony's console, and to a lesser extent the X1. PSNow will see EA games because each time someone rents a game on that service, EA gets revenue without having to do anything for it but dump a game ISO onto Sony's servers. PS+ will see EA games(not many since they don't do many now) because Sony pays them for that content, and EA makes revenue off the DLC. GFG may or may not see EA Games. It competes with their own service. On the other hand, EA will still make money off the DLC revenues, and MS likely pays for that content just like Sony. Trust me, being a PS+ member for years now, I've never once lamented the fact that EA doesn't have a strong presence on there. I think most people with GWG will feel the same way, particularly if MS starts offering more and better games through the service. What's funny. MS actually gets a cut of EA's subscription fees, just like they do with every digital title EA sells on the MS marketplace. Kind of win/win for MS, since it doesn't require they do much to get that revenue. Moral of the story. EA is in the business of making money. They will publish their games, and deliver that content any place where the revenues and profits from that distribution is beneficial to them.
It won't.... Just like Pack-in Fifa don't help in the UK/EU none did the exclusive content. The only way for XB1 to catch to PS4 is to do better in EU which will be difficult for MS given it's a territory that has and still is dominated by Sony. It's a good deal if you're invested in EA titles especially Sports by affecting sales to a substantial degree I just don't see it personally. PS Now is not really comparable considering all it does is to stream games. PS+ is more along the lines.
No! It's just an incentive to purchase a Xbox1, not something that's a must have.
These "Xbox One surpass PS4" articles are comical. It's not happening. A single-publisher service that still contains all games available for PS4 is not going to help Xbone surpass the PS4 in ANY world, not even a dream world. PS3 launched 1 year (1.5 years in Europe) after the X360. It was $600, whilst X360 was cheaper than it for an entire generation. It had inferior multiplats. It had a barebones online network. It had the stigma of "no games" despite having lots of them. It had that media doom and gloom everywhere you looked. PS3 still outsold the X360 near to every year and cut down an 8 million unit lead. No amount of juggernaut Halo or Gear of War games could stop that from happening. PlayStation is the stronger global brand. If both consoles had launched simultaneously the PS3 would be ahead of the X360 by roughly 11 million units or more, and some of the things Microsoft could get away with by being ahead, would have drawn more attention. Last gen was an arrogant Sony who were making mistakes, and giving the floor to Microsoft. None of those disadvantages are existent with the PS4. Both consoles launched simultaneously, and PS4 is ahead by 4-5 million units without having dropped their heavy exclusives yet. Xbone sales have been down month-on-month since January except the odd sales spike from a game release or price cut. The decisions MS have made are difficult to recover from and that is why they are selling less and will continue to. Sony's heavy-hitters are yet to release for PS4, and their momentum is not slowing, so realistically there isn't really a scenario where Xbone surpasses the PS4. If you're not being realistic, you're being disingenuous.
While you're correct, it highlights a disturbing fact... basically Sony at their most arrogant, with an overpriced console giving lower performance, will still beat MS. Like that's supposed to be a good thing? Also, IMO Comparing sales means nothing, PS1/2 and Wii have sold more than PS3/OGXbox/360. Whoever thinks Sony is dominating are conveniently forgetting that the Xbox brand has halved Sonys market share. On point, X1 will never surpass PS4 in sales, that's been very clear for quite some time now.
For the sake of argument, can you please define the terms in which you base MS halving Sony's market share? While you're at it, look up the term market share and understand what it means. Next, please define how you can make your market share assumption despite Sony only losing roughly 10% sales of it's prior generation in the same time frame, particularly with the PS2 being an anomaly of sales for it's time with virtually no competition to speak of. Also, when defining the generational market share, are we going to include Sony's PS2 in the argument, since it sold roughly 60 million PS2's after the PS3's release? Yep. that's right, from the PS3's release, to date, Sony has sold roughly 140 million consoles. How's that market share looking now? MS did very well last gen. But so did Sony and Nintendo. But I do agree, MS is highly unlikely to pass Sony unless Sony screws up royally, or MS gets exclusive rights to Madden, FIFA, or Star Wars, which won't happen since their parent companies would never allow it. There is the slim possibility MS comes out with the next big thing, kind of like they did with Halo or buying up GeOW. But then they'd be putting all their eggs into one basket again, which is why Sony tends to trump MS, since they don't do that.
I don't need to look up basic terms in the english language thank you: PS2 160mil sales... PS3 80+mil - X360 80+mil You can play with different generations and timescales to achieve different conclusions but those figues paint a very clear irrefutable picture. You say PS2 was an anomoly, yet the total number of PS3's and 360's equal what the PS2 done without any real competition... I'd call that halving market share, and so would anyone else observering objectively. I'd be very interested as to where you think Xbox's market share came from if it wasn't from PS.
You may need to look up the term, because you just showed that you don't know what market share is by saying that Sony only sold half as many consoles. That's not how market share is defined. Market share is defined as the percentage of a given market that a company holds with it's products...in this case last gen vs the gen prior. Lets say for instance a given market has 100 customers. Company X sells 60 units, Company Y sells 40 units. Company X has a 60% market share, Company Y has a 40% market share. Pretty simple right? MS DID NOT take away half of Sony's market share. At the same time, Sony only lost 10% of unit sales for the gen compared to the gen prior. The entire market itself exploded and the actual market became huge. The biggest it's ever been by a long shot almost tripling in size. Nintendo had more to do with this than MS. At last look, a few months ago, Sony had only sold 88 million PS2 consoles within the same time frame that the PS3 had been out. Mathematically, I don't understand how 80 million comes out to half of 88 million. The other 70 million PS2 consoles you speak of were sold after the PS3's release. For the sake of a market share comparison, you have to define a time frame in order to make it meaningful. You decided to base your numbers off 13 years of PS2 sales versus 7 years of PS3 sales. However, given that Sony has sold roughly half the same number of PS3 units in half the time. Anyhow, to conclude the argument, since I feel you already made up your mind, I did the math a while back, and as I recall Sony lost roughly 30% of the current gen market with the PS3. That 30% was, again as I recall off the top of my head, caused 60% by Nintendo and 40% by MS. Where did MS market share come from? Lots of places. People switching from Sony. Newcomers getting in on the FPS craze that started last gen. People who didn't have $5-600 to buy a system. A large number of people that didn't want to wait a year to start a new gen. People who buy multiple consoles. Many people buying multiple consoles due to RROD, and it's just speculation but MS has been accused of padding the numbers by counting refurbished warranty replacements as a sold system. If one really wanted to get into the nitty gritty of it, actual active install base is where it's at. That's what publishers care about. Anyhow no matter how you work it, Given the same time frame, Sony sold more than MS. Sold less than PS2. I play the multi-generational card because it shows that if you want to take the 160 million number, Sony was still dominating MS 2:1, and in a way even dominated Nintendo if you want to use total systems sold. You can ignore whatever facts you want to make your argument. You can discredit me in any way you want. But my numbers are sound no matter how I work them because I use the term market share properly. Here's some food for thought. Say Sony ends up selling a total of 140 million PS3 consoles with what is already sold, and the next 6+ years of sales. At that time, can(or will) you say that Sony's market share was halved by your definition of the term? The reason I ask is because Sony is on track to do just that. I hope that makes it clear why you have to define how your calculating market share, and why it's would behoove you to learn what the term actually means. By the way...for the sake of argument, for when you ask about 360/PS3 sales and it's comparison to last gen PS2 sales. For the sake of simplicity it's can be said that the market doubled in size. Looking at just those two systems and disregarding Wii, that means that Sony's market share dropped 30% or so, from 80% to 50%.
It's nice to see you've done research on the topic, to answer my question you say it's due to an increase in overall sales... and MS only took roughly 10% of PS's market share (and Wii 20%). Then you basically say without Wii (which is it's own story anyway, arguably not detracting from core console gamer numbers) that PS has lost 30% of it's market share. I'm amazed you're completely avoiding if MS wasn't in the picture Sony would have that entire 'increased' market of Xbox (AAA console gamers). IF PS3 hit's 140mil and 360 stays at 80mil then sure your figures are spot on and I'm absolutely wrong, although I don't know how you expect the 360 to just stop selling. Also without Wii... Xbox 25mil PS2 160mil (Xbox 15% market share, PS 85%) that's 35% loss not 30%. The time frame I use is now today. At this point MS owns a virtually an equal part of the market as Sony (include software sales and it's OVER half). Your way of disproving me is basically saying NO WAY you're absolutely wrong it's hardware market share loss is 35% and not 50%.. well that's enough validation for me. We could factor in game sales (i.e. part of gaming market share) and bring that 35% very close to 50%.
We could factor in all sorts of things. My initial reply was calling into question what your parameters were for defining market share, and to say that you were using the term wrong. The fact that the way you were using it was wrong was just an addition overall. Excluding Wii is understandable, and there are all sorts of variables which can be used to make your argument, or mine. Keeping it simple is better though for the sake of what you were trying to say.
get the hell out of cloud cookcoo la d
Neither ps now or ea early access would enter my mind if I was choosing which system to buy