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.