Welcome to an incoming age of subscriptions, subscriptions everywhere!
Oh look, someone besides Sony can see through EA's B.S. Used to be a time when that was everyone; but ever since EA Access was introduced suddenly EA is trustworthy, was never voted the worst company in America, and EA Access is the same as PS Now even though it's not. Gamers, you have it within you not to support the future continued gouging of your wallets by not supporting this service that will just prompt every publisher to try and do the same thing. Remember how we're always telling developers like Square Enix that they must not like money because they haven't remade Final Fantasy VII? Well by supporting EA Access, you're showing that you don't like having money because you'll just throw it at any publisher that pulls a P.T. Barnum on you and then later complain that the industry is going down the toilet.
Your comment makes zero sense. Because I like the idea of subscription gaming, and only want to play $30 a year to access some games, I am showing the publishers I dont like having money? Sounds more like you will just hate on anything EA does.
My comment makes zero sense to someone who is blind. You're showing publishers that they can milk every penny out of you any time they want to and do anything they want to ruin the industry in the process. EA Access takes off, and like Jim said Ubisoft will be next, Activision will revamp Call of Duty Elite to encompass all of their games, Square Enix, etc.. etc... etc.... Pretty soon you're not buying games anymore, you're just subscribing to publishers, hoping they'll deliver on their content promises for the piles of subscriptions you've paid for. People like you said DLC wasn't a problem, you don't have to buy it. Now we have Season Passes and cut out content. People like you said microtransactions aren't a problem, they're there for people who don't have the time to game (which in itself is B.S.), now we have freemium games literally forcing you to pay money to advance in any meaningful ways. Contributing to the idea that we are paying publishers to loan us games, and that we're willingly doing so on a yearly basis the same way we pay for our phones and tvs is wrong. Don't complain about any publisher in the future if you support this because they will abuse it.
@Dragonknight I agree with you, I just don't think it's going to matter much. Logically we can look at this as a bad omen for the industry, but I really do think we are in the minority. The die-hards of EA SportsBall franchises will make this work, then will come Activision with their COD crowd, then Ubisoft with their AC crowd and so forth. This subsription plan has been the works for years now, this is the publishers attempt to attack "used game sales" and of course bring in more of the DLC/early access/preorder money they so covet.
@dragon First off, dont try to lump me, or anyone else for that matter, as someone who thinks EA acess is fine idea, with the same people that think DLC, Microtansactions, etc are good things for the industry. You have no idea what I, or anyone else thinks and prefers. It makes you sound like a complete jerk. Second, You are making assumptions to things you have NO IDEA will actually happen. You are saying that if EA access succeeds, somehow all gaming will turn to it, and it will become the only way to get games. Get real. Not only is that impossible to predict, its high illogical to assume. EA access doesn't even offer new games in their vault section for subscription yet. SO how you get to the conlusion subscriptions will become the only way to get games altogether makes no sense. It also makes zero sense to even only offer their big fracnhises subscription only. THere are people that are willing to pay $60 on day one for their content. There is no need to change that model since companies are already making money hand over fist. EA access is an attempt to get people, like myself, who arent into or arent willing to pay $60 for the yearly madden or Fifa iteration. And instead of walking into Gamestop and picking up a used copy for $30. They would rather make money off me and give me their games for cheap with a subscription and hope i buy some DLC, than get zero dollars at all. You can't just look at EA Access and sit and speculate on what the entire gaming industry will do, then trash EA access because of your speculation.
Basically EA access is a smaller EA version of Live Gold. You can use it to play EA vames on line too. It should be included in Live but EA wants to their own version.
@Dudebro: "First off..." Where did I say that anyone thought DLC and microtransactions were good for the industry? I said people used the same B.S. logic you're using. That they "might like the idea of..." and "you don't have to pay for it" lines of thinking are what pushed the industry to abuse DLC and microtransactions and you're definitely part of it if you can't see the problem. "Second, You are making assumptions to things you have NO IDEA will actually happen...." Are you kidding me? I have no idea that this will actually happen? You mean like, again, DLC and microtransactions with people telling everyone not to support this garbage because of what it would turn into and those people being right? It's also not highly illogical to assume that other publishers will do this. EA Access is still in beta, you don't know that it will never include new games, but the probability that it will is very high given the industry's push for digital downloads over physical media and retail stores like Gamestop massively changing their business focus. The trends are all there, all that's needed now is a show of success. "It also makes zero sense to even only offer their big fracnhises subscription only...." Except for the fact that people will pay more to gain early access, exclusive content, etc.. etc... etc.... The plan can easily be adapted to look like it's cheaper than buying a game straight up, but to get everything you want will cost you more. "EA access is an attempt to get people..." If someone isn't into Madden, EA Access won't get them into it. EA Access is an attempt to acclimate you to subscription based game rentals provided by a publisher that controls the content rather than a 3rd party service that simply offers you the game. As many have already said, this kind of service carries with it the potential to lock behind its paywall things we used to get out of loyalty or bought with the game in the first place. Sony has already proven this themselves on the PS3 with the B.S. move of putting cloud saves behind the PS+ paywall and EA is probably the biggest rat of a company in the entire gaming industry. "You can't just look at EA Access and sit and speculate on what the entire gaming industry will do, then trash EA access because of your speculation." I can, and did, but I don't even have to bash EA when their track record speaks for itself. And if you choose to remain blind to the trends, that's your business, but again don't complain when the inevitable "we told you so" comes up and this kind of thing is abused.
The worst thing that will happen if EA, Ubi and Activision go to a subscription model is less variety for Sony's subscription service. It's absurd for someone to think Plus and Now are great values, but EA Access is not. Either you are for subscription service or you are against it. Picking and choosing which subscription service is right and wrong simply makes you a hypocrite. People voted with their wallet with PS+, Sony got smart and made it mandatory with the PS4. Atleast with EA Access you still have a choice. You need to take the thorn out of your eye before you can take it out of your brothers.
Dragonknight you are just upset hat EA Access is not on the ps4. Anyone that knows you should know that. Jimquisition is just doing his usual click bait nonsense trying to get a rise out of people. I would be willing to bet that he is already a subscriber to EA Access, assuming he even has a X1. He would be stupid not to. Instead of just hating for no reason, why don't you explain whats wrong with EA Access, and services like it. EA Access doesnt stop anyone from buying a game, on the contrary you get a 10% discount if you buy digital. There is no way that a publisher is going abandon selling new games for $65 at retail, or DD, for a subscription service. Two reasons, first the sub price would be astronomical, and it wouldn't float with consumers. Secondly, they would lose a tremendous amount of money. EA Access, and PS Now are trying to do the same thing. They are trying to create a way to make money on games that have stopped making money. What about that is so terrifying to you? EA Access is an excellent value for any fan of EAs games. I got $80 worth of games for $30, with even more to come since I have a 1yr sub. Anyone that cant see the value in that should just be quiet, because they sound like a fool trying to find something bad in something that's actually very good. I don't see anyone complaining about getting free games through PS+, and GwG. Those 2 services are doing the same thing as EA Access. Only difference is sony, and MS are paying other publishers for their content. EA is a publisher, so it likely doesn't cost them much, if anything at all, to do the same thing as PS+,and GwG. Do you hate PS+? If you need me to explain the business side to PS Now, and EA Access to you, it would be a pleasure. It might even calm some of your fears. Edit- The business behind these services is very simple. When a game slows down, or stops getting retail orders, and DD of the title get low, it gets added to the service. Why? Because it gives sony, MS, and now EA a chance to make money through new subs, and dlc on a game that has basically become worthless. What about this is so wrong for gamers? Depending on the service there are all kinds of great benefits to subscribing.
@Death The choice is an illusion. Either you buy EA Access or you don't get deals on EA Xbox content. Live Gold no longer covers EA deals. PS+ subscribers still get deals on EA content. But not Xbox Live Gold members. They now have the choice to buy another sub to continue receiving content. It diminishes the value of Gold.
@Death: I don't have a PS+ subscription and won't be using PS Now, what does that tell you about my opinion on either service? I could argue that PS+ and Now are a better value simply by virtue of selection, but the truth is that all of these services will become mandatory (those that aren't already) in the future, and that's the problem. @Gozer: I don't give a damn where EA Access is. If it were on PS4 I'd have the same opinion about it. It's a ripoff, especially because it's old EA games only, and it sets a bad precedent. Period. I could say that you only love it because it's exclusive to Xbox One, but it's more likely that you just don't have any perception of value, nor foresight as to what direction this will take the industry going forward. Your lack of vision is the problem of your optometrist, not me.
say goodbye to ea demos unless u have there service. madden 15 the 1st of all to come out.
Its the fanboy flag. Since Sony turned it down making it an XB1 "exclusive" by default, "gamers" are defending it without thinking. Hell, maybe EA paid Sony *not* to offer it just for this result. @Dudebro90: "Sounds more like you will just hate on anything EA does." They have literally given reason to. Use such logic as saying you wont have to pay for XBL to play EA Access games, but then the majority of EA Access games are based around online multiplayer. And then there's this: http://www.polygon.com/2014... You now have no choice but to pay for a demo if you want to play a *DEMO*. [email protected]: "maybe EA paid Sony *not* to offer it just for this result." A suggestion of collusion sounds like I consider Sony to be "the good guys"?
While he didn't state it out right Jim refereed to all paid for services and ps now is the same as ea access and in direct competition with ea. So saying sony's the good guy by not allowing the service is repugnant. @ Dragon I'm not saying it's exactly the same, but it's a similar service. And if more publishers start their own service and denies sony the ability to offer for free or trials through them, then it would be the same thing.
"Its the fanboy flag. Since Sony turned it down making it an XB1 "exclusive" by default, "gamers" are defending it without thinking. Hell, maybe EA paid Sony *not* to offer it just for this result." Go ahead and point out to me please any part of my post where I'm defending Sony's decision. Saying Sony saw through EA's B.S. is not praising Sony, it's an indictment on EA's service. I'd have the same opinion if Sony hadn't turned it down. I find it hilarious how many people are such pancakes when it comes to corporate tactics in the gaming industry. In your very own post you're taking the position that anyone against EA Access is obviously a Sony fanboy and can't see it for the B.S. that it is, yet you're also showing why people have a reason to hate EA thereby defeating the previous stance altogether. cl1983: So a service that rents you games to download to your harddrive, and only provides games from one publisher, is the same as a service that lets you stream games from pretty much every publisher because... you're paying for rentals? The fact that they are logistically different, and that one is on a much larger scale than the other doesn't matter?
DK, What are you rambling about? If Xbox gamers don't see the value in EA Access they simply don't need to subscribe. It's a choice, not a mandate. It's nice that Sony is looking out for Playstation gamers by making the choice for them, but what about those that found value in the service and own a Playstation? Sony can make Plus mandatory for those that didn't find value in it, but refuse to let people choose with EA Access? It sounds more like Sony trying to protect their assets by eliminating competition on their console. Those mandatory Plus dollars have helped tremendously.
This is on fire. This service is for the xbox gamers. playstation gamers will have their own service. Both sides are going to pay for additional gaming content... If one is incorrect, then both is, right??? These two services are grown from the same tree.
I loved your comment and I have been saying the same thing...bubbles. I no longer support EA
Is this a mandatory subscription? Last I heard its optional. If you like what's offered then pay the $30, if you don't then don't worry about it.
See "you don't have to buy DLC" turning to Season Passes and "you don't have to buy microtransactions" turning into freemium games forcing you to pay to progress. The attitude of "you don't have to do something" doesn't mean it doesn't have a negative impact on the industry that will affect people who didn't do something but still have to deal with the B.S. anyway.
Please tell me you are not one of the fans that promoted all the fee to play Sony games offered on PSN...
I have mixed feelings about this, I like the idea that if it's a slow month, I can pay a small fee to play a number of games. Sadly though, if this takes off, it's only a matter of time where (like DLC and Microtransactions) it will be abused and become detrimental for gamers.
You're just making too much sense for many to see what's actually going on. EA and Microsoft have been in bed together for a mighty long time, it's only logical that someone's bound to catch cooties in the process. Microsoft and EA have been grooming the fanbases for this for a very long time! Just think a military shooter released yearly, by a list of developers under EA yearly! Plastered by DLC, Maps from the older games and Season passes. People need to wake up. And for the record EA Access is not like PS+ or even PS Now, you're talking one developer as opposed to multiple developers.
How does this constitutes not liking money. EA access doesn't threaten new physical game sales, it provides a cheaper alternative to buying from a used retailer. If all the publishers copied EA Access, and OFFERED year old games for a monthly/yearly subscription, how would that make gaming more expensive? You'd only subscribe to those who had the games you want for the price you want... otherwise, you'd just continue buying used... It's simply another option.
If you have 3 developers doing this for $30/year that's $90 for old games. That's just one year. Three years that's $270. I don't know how many used games you buy, but that's way more than I'd spend. If I pay $20 for a used game that would be 13 games and I don't buy that many used games in 3 years. So I guess for me, I'd be spending more money with EAA. Also I can see games being at retail still for a larger sum of money won't make it to EAA for a longer period of time. Who knows Edit @Mikelarry Lol of course EA will say it's a good value. They want our monies!! All companies say "good" or "great value" to disguise the truth
@Muzikguy: not really. as you have other choices. You can completely ignore them all and continue to get your gaming content like you always have; you can just buy a month access to EA this month, then switch to Ubi the next or activision or Bethesda or Rockstar ...; You can just choose to buy access on months when there is nothing else on the horizon that interest you. You people act like you need access to 20 games a month. The $30 is there for those who play a lot of EA games (PvZ, Titan Falls, Battle field, Mass Effect, Dragon Age ... but there is also a $5 option, and the option not to participate at all and still be able to play all of the games on offer. I can see the concern if people are saying that publisher with go to a membership only model, but there is Zero evidence that any publisher is even slightly considering that. It is just a choice that the publisher is offering to try and attract more gamers to play their old games while at the same time encouraging Digital, while still making some profit. I see no harm what so ever in this offer.
@Bigpappy That's still more than I would pay. If you could go and find a game in a bargain bin for $10 and keep it forever, why would you pay monthly to have access to old EA games only while you keep paying? I pay for PSPlus. That has been so worth my money in games I've gotten. Most EA games don't hold high retail value for very long. There's no way they're going to compete with PSPlus as greedy as EA are
@muzikguy, If someone doesn't buy that many used games, why would the Hell would they subscribe to all 3 devs? Subscribe to the dev that has the games you want, and you'll be saving...If the dev doesn't fit that subscription, just buy used... Likewise, if you're the type of person who spend $90 a year on used games any way, signing up for 3 subscriptions would surely get you more games than gamestop would for comparatively aged games
"Gamers, you have it within you not to support the future continued gouging of your wallets by not supporting this service that will just prompt every publisher to try and do the same thing" now that would require common sense. some gamers are quick to give up everything so as its disguised as " good value"
I won't support PS Now or EA Access. Both of them are cash grabs. Go me. EDIT:Strangely enough I don't see Mr Knight talking about how PS Now is a big con. Actually, that's not too strange as everyone knows which way his flags blows. Just another day for the Sony man.
"I don't have a PS+ subscription and won't be using PS Now, what does that tell you about my opinion on either service? I could argue that PS+ and Now are a better value simply by virtue of selection, but the truth is that all of these services will become mandatory (those that aren't already) in the future, and that's the problem." Interesting that what he has to say on the subject is completely the opposite of what you say.
"In your very own post you're taking the position that anyone against EA Access is obviously a Sony fanboy" I'm taking the position that because EA Access is only on one platform that any argument concerning it instantly becomes divisive. That many will only see black or white depending on their side and not think. Forgive EA for what they've done in the past and not consider they're likely to repeat mistakes in the future. Like Madden 15 being buggy as hell making early, paid, access stupid. If the thing was on both the PS4 and XB1 there would still be hardcore A fans defending them, but they'd be in a clear minority.
I am going to enjoy this feature, just like psnow. For me, I don't buy every game released during every gen, and I only retain some games that hold an iconic status in my gaming world. This way I can play games that I on't own, complete them, and move on without selling it back for a lost of an average of 30 dollars per trade in (when I can pay 30 for the year, or 4.99 when I want to engage this service for 30 days). This works for me. Game on.
@DragonKnight - People have the right to make what ever choices they want. I do not think people are sayign EA is so great and trustworthy since EA Access started. I think some people are excited at the potential and value. Sony did not pass on EA Access, because they thought it was BS. They passed on it, because they saw it as a hindrance to their new program...PS Now. Agreed, EA Access and PS Now are completely different. One is a subscription based program for games from EA. The other is a rental based system. It has potential, but it needs a overhaul on the fees.
Dude calm down..reading all your comments make you sound like an asshole and don't tell people what they can't buy with their money.
I vehemently hate micro-transactions and definitely don't accept the "you can ignore them if you don't like them" defence. I would love to be able to subscribe to services like EA access or a ubisoft equivalent in order to play games. I sincerely hope these services evolve to encompass new games and additional content. I hope the existence of these services heralds a complete re-think on content delivery. EA access and the terrifying future you are so opposed to are a step towards a future I want. It has me looking at consoles as a viable place to play games again. I want and expect to see ubisoft jump in next.
@Dragon I had to comment and give you a bubble. I feel the exact same way as you do. Starting to think I was the only one. It's nice to see someone thinking ahead for once and where this will lead, especially when you look at past trends and what has led up to this. DLC, micro transactions, f2p (P2W) have all been introduced fairly recently and have been a burden on gaming IMO since. I won't support EAA and I'm glad Sony doesn't want it. Even if Sony did get EAA, I'd be complaining about it. On their own forums no doubt
Dude, it's optional.. If you don't like it, vote with your money and don't buy it.. I personally like the value proposition of EA Access.. I'm not someone who has to buy every single game on day one because, let's face it, games are expensive.. They cost $60 each for maybe a month of prime enjoyment.. This is why I only buy a few "must have" titles a year and end up missing out on a bunch of interesting titles that I just couldn't justify spending $60 on.. And unfortunately, even if you wait 6 months to buy a game, you'd still be hard-pressed to find one under $30.. With EA Access (and hopefully other publishers follow), I can spend the $30 I would have spent on an 6~8 month old game from Gamestop, and apply that to full year's subscription.. A subscription that allows me access to a Vault of ever increasing content.. Just like you pay $8 a month to gain access to 100s of movies on Netflix, eventually you'll be able to pay $30 a year to gain access to loads of games.. Yearly, EA makes alot of games that I'm interested in, but only a few I want to buy on day one for $60 each.. The rest, I can wait and play once they drop into the Vault.. It's such an obvious value.. And again, it's OPTIONAL!!.. If other publishers get on board and i can pay $90 a year to get a back catalog of games from EA, Ubisoft, and Activision that range from 6~8 months old, that's infinitely better than paying $30~$40 for only ONE of those older games individually.. That's the "worst case scenario" of having to pay separate subscription fees and it STILL destroys the idea of paying $30-$60 for each and every game I want to play.. And again, that would still be OPTIONAL!!.. And this doesn't even take into consideration the 10% discount and 5 days early access on new games.. Sony (and therefore, Sony fanboys) don't see the value in this because if all the major publishers get on board, PS Now is dead.. A $380 million dollar flop.. That's the only reason EA Access isn't on the PS4 right now.. Period.. And besides, I thought everyone wants "choice".. Since when did it become ok for Sony or any other company to tell you what you want?.. This is a great option for those that are interested and people who arent interested can simply ignore it.. So what's the problem?.. Oh that's right, all of this is just more consoles war fan boy hypocrisy.. Carry on...
It's an option, just like any other service and just like PSNow. You don't think that if PSNow is popular and takes off that Sony won't move in that direction and decide to release their new games for that service only? It's no secret that every game company is looking at an all digital future. EA Access and PSNow are the stepping stones, the foundation to this future. They are both testing this feature and seeing how successful it is. That is why both services seem so bare bones at the moment. As they grow and become more popular you will see their services, and offers grow as well. To sit there and say people are blind just because they like EA Access but then turn around and defend Sony and say it's "different" is equally as blind. Also the nerve to shut people down for their own opinion and to say these things just makes you look ridiculous. And as others have stated...wasn't "OPTIONS" the big buzz word around here not too long ago?
Well he pretty much spelled out all the fears and concerns I have for this whole, subscription model based service, but I'm afraid, this is the future. I know, I know, if we don't support it then it will go away, but we're talking EA here. They've been voted the worst company (not just gaming) a couple years in a row... and still posted a profit! The fact of the matter is, these large publishers have content that die-hards have to purchase every year, the Maddens, CODs, FIFAs, ACs, ect and with those, they pretty much a guaranteed customer base, that would in turn do a subscription service if they had to in order to get those games. This the preparing of the atom bomb against Gamestop and other used video game outlets. Once these services are launched and fleshed out, not only will we have the dreaded form of DRM in place, but kiss brick and mortar game stores good bye. Now I've been on record as saying EA access is a good deal, and on face value, it is. However, I see the writing on the wall, digital/subscription based content only coming... for all you collectors out there buy as much physical as you can.
Well it's simple, if this goes forward, retro-gaming is as good as dead. The games you play now won't reach your son and grandsons. It's the end of video-games as we know them. Guy's like AVGN won't exist in the future. I don't like this future.
Subscription services in the hands of publishers is a slippery slope. PS Now, EA Access, they're elements that focus on giving publishers the choice in how we access their content. Furthermore, EA Access is a system where you can see them abuse the need to have a subscription in order to get things we used to get just for being loyal fans and buying their games. You want a beta? You subscribe bro? Otherwise, we don't care about you. You want a demo? You subscribe bro? Otherwise we don't care since you obviously don't like our games enough to give us more money each month. You like DLC? You subscribe bro? Otherwise you ain't getting this content we cut from the game just for our subscribers. I understand there are good things about these items, but there is a slope right ahead of us. And if you trust a publisher to not take us right over it, then you're ignorant and blind to the last century of gaming.
Couldn't have said it better. I'd find some way of adding something along the lines of "You want the game on this day? You subscribe bro? Otherwise you have to wait a week because you're not paying us monthly to give it to you on this date." And to think other publishers won't go this route is just naive.
came out of N4G retirement just to say i agree with both of you.i read and still see a lot of knuckleheads with no common sense. told them for years that if they paid for online gaming,then we all would eventually have to pay for online gaming.told them if they paid for horse armor,then content that i used to onlock in games in the old days,you now have sold separately. they have no common sense.no sense of value.no sense of how being a great comsumer works and seeing through the BS.they will pay cell phone companies,cable companies,movie industry,sports industry and now things like the game industry.they are willing to pay MORE to get LESS. sure it's a choice to pay or not.but if you liked free online,free unlockables,free games through ONE service,they don't care.and it won't be any other options.they made the choice for all of us.because they don't look before seeing if it's good or not as a whole FOR ALL OF US.. back to my retirement....
Can we even give you well said bubbles :P. This is not a future I welcome. What is bad is what you say isn't such a giant leap away from where we are right now. EA access is just the means for that future. Demo, DLC, betas, sales, early access and so on will find themselves behind an additional payroll to what we have right now
I hope they do! If I'm paying for a service I expect to get some perks. Just like any other service I pay for. There's also a chance that they might give players access to things earlier than others who don't. You want to play the beta early? Sure! For all you subscribers! You want to play a demo? Sure! You paid for are service, let's hook you up with some demos. You want some DLC? You subscribe? How about we just give it to you for free or half off or even better earlier than the rest of the ones who didn't subscribe! The slope can go both ways my friend, no one complains when a paid service like PS+ starts giving away free games, early access to betas and discounts to their members and EA Access could easily go the same way.
***The slope can go both ways my friend,*** I guess if you consider that slope of moving from getting that stuff without having to pay anything extra to now having to pay money for access to them. Yeah, really good logic there. Don't think you're understanding the conversation at hand really well if you miss the fact that they're adding yet another paywall to stuff where there was no paywall. *** no one complains when a paid service like PS+ starts giving away free games,*** Well, first, you're paying for the games. Second, they aren't just a single publisher control model and actually give games from a wide variety of sources. EA Access is totally in control by a publisher, who isn't your friend and only wants your money and not to be your friends. Publishers aren't the people who slave for hours to make the games you want, they're the people who think of more ways to get more money from you for less content. EA Access already steps over the line that PS+ hasn't. EA Access gives early access to games to people. They already prioritize access to a game based on your ability to give them more money.
in every line of sarcasm there is so much truth that it scares how much people are willing to follow ea into this pile of sh*t.
to many people crying about this god it sickens me. you people act as if you HAVE to use this type of service my goodness there is NOTHING what so ever bad about these deal at all. you dont HAVE to buy the annual deal you can try it for a month or when games you want end up in the vault you can give 5 bucks to play em. and people who compare this to ps now are just dumbasses
It sets a precedence plain and simple! When someone comes up with a idea, there always someone else there with the sole purpose of benefiting off of that idea regardless of who's hurt or damaged in the process, because they know that there will be those who fall for it hook, line and, sinker. Do you not what sets a precedence for means? People go into something wishing the best, but end up with the worst! Companies see this influx as a reason to push the envelope a little further.
and again YOU DONT HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. those who are crying about it arent even using it. i actually HOPE others go the same rout cause that will allow me and many others to pay 5 bucks in ONE month to play games we havent had a chance to
The fear is not of CHOICE (as in not having to use the service now). The fear is that this is a slippery slope that could lead to a company deciding to remove choice. Not to mention setting precedents for other money hungry companies to do the same. If you don't think that Activision and Ubisoft will want in on some extra revenue from a service like this, you are sadly mistaken. The segmentation of the industry, by hiding content behind paywalls, would be the worst possible outcome for gamers in this industry. We've casually already drifted into paying for things that were free already. Xbox Live and PS+ prove that. Add to that DLC and micro-transactions. Now, a possible future with having to pony up another bit of money for publisher specific content. Sure, it's not there yet. But, I don't trust any company (regardless) to NOT want to go after supplemental revenue at the cost of consumers. These AREN'T irrational fears, there's already an established history of corporate greed. Hell, up until now, it was well ESTABLISHED that EA was an industry leader in this department.
IMHO Subscriptions, dlc, micro transactions, preorder bonuses, etc are flushing the gaming industry down the toilet.
What is bad is his fears barely scratch the surface of what could happen. We shouldn't be jumping for joy at this future. We should be deeply worried
Sometimes I think people don't know how business works. The people that support this are probably the same ones who didn't have a problem with DRM. Unfortunately this may sound like a good idea at first but it will start a ugly trend and I won't support it .
I happen to like this service and no matter how someone tries to persuade my opinion otherwise is just wasting their effort. I want all digital and after reviewing the service I think it's top notch especially since I get discounts and buy Madden every year religiously. 30 bucks a year is a great value for me. Digital is the future. I also love the steam service too.
I disagree with your decision but I respect it. But it proves my point if you are all for digital this isn't a problem for you. I am against all digital so I see the other side of it.
All digital makes it to where me or my brother buy a game and the both of us can play it with no limitations so if that's not what you want then idk what to tell you but i have 15+ games downloaded on my console (not mentioning the free ones) and I've payed for only 7... People hate what they can't have its as simple as that ... i bet if this was Sony exclusive people would be singing a different tone..
and I respect your opinion...that's what makes us individuals :D
It has nothing to do with a console of choice. Call me paranoid or whatever. But why am I paying full price for something that's not taking them as much to make. No packaging with digital. I don't like how EA or whatever company controls the prices. That's one of my problems with digital.
The funniest thing is that the naysayers who seem to think this is the downfall of the industry don't seem to realize that Gamestop and used game sales are the downfall of the industry.. And EA Access (and hopefully other subscription services) is designed to combat Gamestop.. Tired of yearly versions of Madden, Assassin's Creed, and Call of Duty?.. Well those franchises have become annualized so that they can fund other gaming projects.. Tired of sequel after sequel after sequel?.. Well, they have to milk popular franchises because that's the only way they can afford to take a risk on a new IP.. You wanna know why?.. Because next-gen AAA games cost a CRAZY amount of money to make.. But $60 for each game should mean that publishers are making that money back?.. Nope.. Gamestop sells that game for $60 brand-new, but sells recently released used games for $50~ .. People opt to buy the $50 used game and the publisher sees NOTHING.. Plus the cost of packaging, shipping, and manufacturing physical games is also expensive.. Digital games are cheaper to distribute and therefore COULD be cheaper for us to buy.. But Gamestop forces publishers to price match their online sales with the in-store prices.. Gamestop knows that if I can buy a digital game for $40, I'd never buy a physical game for $60.. "EA" isn't the enemy here.. It's Gamestop.. And here's how EA Access fights Gamestop: 1) Instead of paying $60 for a new game from Gamestop that's going to eventually turn into a used game sale for Gamestop, EA is going to take 10% off that new game price AND give it to you 5 days earlier.. If people can buy the game cheaper and play it earlier, they may decide to buy digital rather than buy from Gamestop.. And if EA can take that sale away from Gamestop, they actually make more money off of their game and eliminate a future used game sale that EA would make zero money from.. 2) Instead of waiting 6~8 months for Gamestop to finally drop the price of a game to $30, EA is going to give you access to that game AND a load of other games in their Vault for that same $30.. Why pay $30 for one old game when you can get access to a multitude?.. And again, EA can take that used game sale away from Gamestop and actually make money from their game.. Heck, go ahead and take EA out of the equation.. They're just the publisher.. Think of the developers like DICE, Respawn, and etc.. This kind of service will be much better in terms of supporting game developers.. And well supported game developers are more likely to take a risk on a new IP rather than churn out another yearly Call of Duty.. This is a good value for consumers, good support for developers, and it is optional.. Take off the conspiracy hats, stop listening to Sony's BS about "value" when all they want to do is protect PS Now from competition, and stop believing click-bait like this article.. I personally can't wait until Ubisoft and Activision make similar services..
Just a thought, but what if EA Access forces Sony to change PSNow into a subscription service, and thus makes all the stream-able games part of the PS-Now "Vault"? Either way, I do think both are just mechanisms for these companies to get more out of us, and I personally have zero interest in using them. That all said, as it stands EA Access > PS Now. I'd much rather pay $5/mnth for newish AAAs than $3/hr for older games.
love this guy ...