PC Aficionado: "Electronic Arts have been pushing subscription based video games services like EA Access and Origin Access of Xbox One and PC. However, it seems they want to go even further than that."
Of course you will say pass since Sony has pretty much made the decision for you already with EA Access. I don't get why people can see the potential for the way music is listened to and the way movies are watched but the gaming audience to be so fickle about everything. “Right now if you want to play FIFA in the United States, it will cost you $460,” Evenden said. “You have to buy the game; you have to buy the console. In a streaming world, it could be $9.99 a month. The commercial details have to be worked out, but whatever number it ends up at is very much less than $460. So that extends your market, because all you need locally is literally a smart TV.” Nothing in there suggests you won't still be able to buy games like you already can now. It's called an option but some fo you manage to turn options into a bad thing because like I said, one console maker doesn't want competition against their own online streaming service.
* a smart tv that also has to have good reliable internet for fifa to be streamed and improved latency with unknown technologies as of today
EA will release this subscription based stream and if people buy into it they will milk the living hell out of it. If you pay this much more you can get this too! You want 4K content? Pay an additional ___! You want HDR? That will be more! We are talking about EA -- the masterminds of DLC. And if this happens plus trashing Net Neutrality consumers are gonna being gutted.
Moldy I own a xbox one ....relax. Fact of the matter is EA doesn't have enough quality games to run a subscription service. This conversation had nothing going to do with ps4 or xbox...it was about EA subscription service...and I'll pass. Not everything has to be console war bs.
@Kingthrash360: "Moldy I own a xbox one ....relax." You're asking for too much.
Wait, why si defensive? He didnt even mention Sony, he only said Pass. Calm down Let's not forget that EA was voted one of the worst company in america. What let me guess PlayStation fans, made that happen?
Making this about Sony? Of course you are.
This is just stupid. $460? Really. Most would have had the console already. Most would use the console for other games as well. Most FIFA players would already have used their consoles for past fifa games. If you just play fifa you'd be paying double ($120) the price per year.
@moldy The problem with their comment, is that they are claiming that its 460$ to play fifa, or madden on a console when it doesn't cost anywhere near that. it will cost 60$ not an extra 400, why, people people already have the console if they are planning on playign one of EA's sports games. they wouldn't wait 4 years to pick it up if all they do if buy fifa, they would ahve picked up the console years ago. i guess if this is to be taken seriously, it'll cost someone 460$ to play Horizon in 4k and 560$ to play Sea of Theives in 4k. see how unrealistic that statement sounds now?
Streaming games is a garbage concept. The latency is terrible. Also add the fact you always have to be only for even games that have nothing to do with online. Even Spotify music which is built to stream music know the value of off line play since you can download music onto your device and listen to it without needing a online connection. Just stop, EA is not doing this for anyone's benefit. They want increase the profit margin out of their content and in the end we get nothing to show for it.
You say it's $460 but any decision as such would be decided on to make the company more profits than it currently is. EA as a company is based off continous growth and EPS. So I wouldn't expect anything to be cheaper
The good subscription model is Xbox Game Pass and EA Access. The bad one is PS Now. Terrible latency and the internet wasn't designed for it, so it will continue to be terrible for the foreseeable future.
@Erik7357: How is what you said not applicable to any device including consoles? Unknown technologies? Then what are Gamefly & PlayStation offering? The only difference in PlayStation would be it works on devices other than PS4 & PC since Sony cut other options out that were offered before. https://www.playstation.com... Gamefly already does it without the need for a controller. http://m.gamefly.com/stream...
he just said 1 word, yet you're able to twist it into a console war and somehow made an assumption of the detail of his opinion you're broken in the head or something aren't you
I called this when EA first unveiled EA access. It's just another step towards total control. For now it's an "option". Then it becomes the only way to play EA games. No more ownership, just a streaming rental service in which EA (and inevitably every company) has its subscription model. 10$ for base model. 20$ if you want all dlc. 5$ add on for 4k. 5$ add on for downloading game to local storage option.
So buying a console plus the game is more than it will cost to keep a subscription? Yeah so add 9.99 over the course of a console year and see which one costs more. Not only 9.99 because we all know EA or who ever does this shit will jack the prices up over time. Once I buy the console which by the way doesn't cost 460 bucks. I can pretty much do what I want same goes for the game. If I want to sell it great, if I want to trade it great. With this I am stuck paying for it each month. If the internet goes down, guess what so does the game. All this amounts to is Lazy people who would rather rent or buy games at home than get off their ass and go out and buy them.
I think people are extremely ignorant to understand what a subscription model implies as a primary source of gaming. 1. You own nothing and lose control of content availability. 2. Download only. 3. The desired profit marks will be incorporated into future games, which means more content locked behind paywalls (more DLC and more microtransactions) which are always additional payouts for content you technically don't own. Anyone who supports not owning the game or not having set prices for games that determine and allow us to review and criticize them based on market standards of price do not have the best interest of gamers and consumers and are merely parroting stuff to support a misaligned bias.
You can still own movies and music though. Streaming them is an OPTION, but it's not a requirement. There is actually plenty of streaming gaming content already, and clearly PSNow will be as cheap as Netflix eventually once the library has every title. Nonetheless, being hooked into HAVING to pay to play would be super annoying. There are games/services where it works (like multiplayer), but I don't see the point in making it a standard.
Moldy not everything is about Sony vs MS, many gamers don't care about EA that much should be apparent but like always you manage to make it about that. I stoped caring about EA games when I realized that they like to polish turds FIFA and Madden haven't changed that much over the years and games like Battlefield are half baked with many of the content lock out on DLC so tell me why would gamers want to support a company with a track record like that? You love EA access more power to you, you want to support this new BS service by all means but just because you care that they are in business with MS doesn't mean everyone else has to like their idea. IMO it's just another way for them to nickel and dime people.
@cdz while yes you can still own the movies you also aren't streaming the latest thing the day it comes out. Movies don't go to Netflix for what 5 to 7 years? EA wants to go 100% subscription I guarantee it. Don't have to pay any cuts to retailers. Nobody can share games with friends. If people support this streaming option it will one day be the only option.
Your obsession with Sony is unreal. Get some therapy bud.
***You can still own movies and music though. Streaming them is an OPTION, but it's not a requirement. *** They already have it as an option. They're talking about moving towards it as a whole.
I don't want EA to have any of my money, PERIOD!
um, moldy, what about those of us that also "pass" on PSNow because streaming gaming isn't what we want? Also, you're basically defending developers overcharging for DLC content as a means of forcing people into a streaming model where they own nothing.
Moldy, throughout my years here I've seen you develop from a neutral gamer to a pseudo-neutral gamer leaning towards MS's side, to the full blown MS blind cold-war-level propagandist you are today. Its sad really, what you've become. I mean did you just defend the beggining of the end for us non-rich gamers, as clearly planned by EA, while blaming Sony somehow? And what's exactly so evil about Sony wanting their own service to succeed? Is Netflix, Hulu, HBO etc evil too for not wanting to merge or collaborate (See EA Access) with each other? God man get a hold of yourself.
Just because someone doesn't agree with EA and you do, doesn't make you right or anyone else wrong. It's not for me but you knock yourself out kid. People are not all sheep, things start out little by little before long you can't remember how you ended up paying for stuff that used to be free or part of a retail game. I'm not predicting anything but people like choice. I choose to dislike EA for my reasons and want no part in their service. EA don't have enough games I'm into anyway so it has even less appeal.
But I prefer to BUY the music I like then transfer it to what I want to listen to it on. I've got CD's that are from 1983 - just consider the price I would have paid for that on subscription. And if you don't want to own it and keep paying there's always rental - it's not new but it's worked perfectly for many years. As for options; if the subscription takes hold then the price to buy will shoot up and it will continue in an effort to make subscription the only affordable / viable option. This in turn will drive more retailers/e-tailers out of business offering you less and less options and as with all monopolies - supply lower quality products at ever higher prices. A simple example: You want to buy an Audiobook - there are very few now available on the high street. You end up subscribing to Amazon Audible. I've been using this service for 4 years and during this period the length of the books keeps getting smaller so what was once 1 good length book is now in 3 parts - hell it's now going to 4's and 5's so I'm effectively paying 2 to 3 times as much to listen to a complete book.
EA has been voted as the worst company in the gaming industry for multiple times now. That's not without reason They are greedy cocks! So for people to be wary isn't something strange. I see you are picturing it at its best with low monthly pricing. But games are more expensive than music or movies last time I checked. And remember this is EA. Options now, only option tomorrow. I like to resell games too sometimes.
Sony already provides the option to stream games and all we heard from you guys is how crap streaming games is and BC is better etc. yet you talk about others downplaying options. But when EA talks about streaming it's an option and a good thing.
The insecurity really does flow through you. Attacking Kingthrash360 who owns an XB1, while you don't have one at all. You are the same guy who goes into articles and criticizes Sony fans for bringing up MS or going off-topic... Yet here you are doing the EXACT SAME THING. Just face it, not everything that MS is doing and Sony isn't is as big a deal as you think it is. Remember that announcement they had of mods on consoles and you were attempting to drag Sony through the mud, just like you always do, and fast forward to 24+ months later and we have about 2-3 games with mods on consoles and ZERO game mods have come from Microsoft's first-party studios. Your comment is the epitome of somebody with an agenda, the kind of person that hates on everything they can that Sony does, but ignores similar activity from Microsoft on the platform (PC) that they actually game on and makes up senseless excuses as to why it's okay. And notice, in typical moldybread style, he skulks away and doesn't respond at all or hold himself accountable, after everybody called him out on his agenda-driven nonsense, and will to make up stories about people because it doesn't align with his expectation that everybody match his admiration for Microsoft and disdain for Sony. You know what, EA Access would suck for me because I'm not really a big fan of their games. Ubi Access would be absolutely RAD though. That would be awesome. I'll pass too on more EA games I don't want to play, thanks.
Thats a good thing, since im all digital i dont mind paying 8$ most a month, id get this activision and i don't know about ubi, theyve been facking up lately, Bethesda? Thats most likely a no.
You wouldn't be paying only $8 a month to access the latest games. They wouldn't be making money with that low of a fee. They will find new ways to make people pay more for content they do not own.
i agree..if they do they will fail instantly like PS Now ....games are not like movies that last 1-2 hourmax and never visiting them again ...they r completely different entertainment products wth completely different ownership value ..
I don't know man. EA Access/Origin Access has been pretty generous.
As an option. But if it was the only option, do you think they wouldn't do everything possible to maximize profits once you're locked in?
Hard pass, for sure.
Yeah, I'm not doing that
At least EA isn't completely downplaying the physical market anymore in a vain attempt to try and push the all digital agenda like they did last gen. They're seemingly more pragmatic about it now than before, and I guess they realized that it wasn't going to be a sudden thing no matter how much they stated physical was practically dead. Anyhow, unless it's the only option, it's fine if they do it. Probably will run something like PSNow or whatever MS download type service is. If they can bring it to more devices, then good for them. hopefully they have more success on multiple devices than Sony has had. Otherwise, I don't care about models like this. Too many subs for all these difference companies where I may only play one game, or none depending on the month, from any given publisher. Seems like a waste of money when I can just buy the game and own it.
“Right now if you want to play FIFA in the United States, it will cost you $460,” Evenden said. “You have to buy the game; you have to buy the console. In a streaming world, it could be $9.99 a month. The commercial details have to be worked out, but whatever number it ends up at is very much less than $460. So that extends your market, because all you need locally is literally a smart TV.” AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH Thanks for the laugh :D :D :D
Exactly. I've never played a FIFA game EVER.
I don't think most gamers are interested in paying a monthly fee to play re-skinned, annualized averageness.
Let's talk hypothetical for a moment. What if Activison does the same type service, followed by Rockstar and Naughty Dog and Square-Enix etc....what will services like these mean for GameStop and other game specialty pawn shops? Is this an industry solution to controlling that market? Before you say no, look what Netflix did to Blockbuster.
Movies and videos games are different though. This would be the same as every publisher having their own platform, and even now(networks are trying to do this) people aren't really buying into that. People aren't going to want to have a bunch of different subscriptions. Right now my house has Hulu, Prime, Funimation Now, and NFL GamePass. We don't have any xboxs anymore so our gaming is mostly PS. That's five platforms for video content and one of them is only for 6 months. Having a PS account, and an EA account, and a Rockstar account, and a Square Enix account, and an Ubisoft account, and so on... It's just too much in too many places. And like someone else said there just aren't enough games coming from these publishers to make it worth it. It takes all of these publishers and all of these developers to fill out most of our gaming habits. Just this week I've played games from EA, WB, Sony, and two little Indy games. The idea of all or most of those being on separate platforms is unappealing. Not saying it won't happen, just don't think people will like it very much. Who knows how they'd actually set it up and charge for it but if we're only talking EA i wouldn't trust them at all to run stable system, all they know is cutting corners.
Well, Blockbuster was charging $5-7 a week (4 movies per month). Netflix offered a more convenient and cheaper deal: watch and check out as many as you want for a month fee ($16 at the time?); the more you watch, the better the deal you get. The only advantage to Blockbuster was the new releases which were available sooner compared to Netflix. So, if they want to be the next Netflix and as popular, they need to offer deals at a rate and library that's so attractive that millions including me will flock to, but I doubt it.
And there is the slippery slope that people might overlook. If every major dev decides subscription services are the way to go then, much like how Netflix was gutted and movies went multiple places, we could be forced into multiple subscriptions just to play our favorite titles. That would suck. Instead of investing on an individual basis, we could be in a situation where we have to maintain a subscription for one game that we like. Sure, we gain access to other games. But, that's not a great value proposition if I don't care for those games. Even the mere idea of this as an option is a bit daunting simply because if it takes off, it will slowly but surely become the norm. I realize this idea is in it's infancy at this point, but the slippery slope isn't always just a logical fallacy.
A service like this makes more sense if there is a single provider for all the publishers. Or at least not having every publisher have their own service. Too many services, and it dilutes the markets, and makes it harder for other smaller publishers to participate. PSNow and Game Pass were a way to centralize this, but the downside is that the publishers get less money per copy sold. As far as if it ruins other businesses, that's a possibility. But we could say the same about Amazon. GameStop is already kind of going that way, and that has more to do with the terrible mark ups on new games, which is why they focus so much on used games. However, so long as there is a significant portion of the market that wants physical games, we'll still get them. No need to worry, because digital just doesn't have the numbers to go all digital like this....hence why MS still had retail versions for their digital program at the start of this gen. It will probably be a while before the internet is really at a place where this can sustain the entire industry. The movie streaming right now is enough to put more strain on the internet than it can really take, and it happened relatively fast, so throwing up a whole bunch of game streaming in the next 10 years or so isn't going to help matters.
Its just lazy people who can't get off the couch to go out and buy the games. EA access was the start along with PS now. I own both consoles but own neither of that garbage they are pushing on us. The more fools support that crap the worse off the gaming industry will be for the consumer but people just can't see it. All they see is "oh yeah it's like netflicks it has to be awesome, now I don't have to get my ass off the couch to get a game.
@CyberSentinel "What if Activison does the same type service, followed by Rockstar and Naughty Dog and Square-Enix etc" It would price people out and it would die on it's ass. No way could this subscription model work for games, the only way it is possible is if they all jumped in together on one subscription service, and even then i personally wouldn't jump on board. No way would i ever pay for a subscription service where streaming is the only the way to play, screw that. It's the reason why Playstation Now isn't something that appeals to me. Streaming just isn't reliable enough for something like gaming.
The concept is flawed. Netflix works because it has a massive library and its freaking cheap thats it no extra costs. A game streaming service. Would have to be multi company to work. Mmos that are sub based work by addiction. The quest reward thing triggers endorphins. I dont think a streaming game service would work. Not on console. Pc maybe but console players like to oen stuff not rent it and if they did do it it would be milked everywhere
And Disney is about to remove all its properties from Netflix, and offer them instead through its new *subscription* streaming service. Now you'll need Netflix and the Disney thing to keep access to the same content you had under Netflix. See how that works?
Yea and people will pick and chose or pirate. With all these services coming i think we will see a resergence of rentals
Oh, no doubt. The more unaffordable they make it, the more people will find alternatives.
EA says that this would be good and cheaper for the end user.... Loll!!!! I do understand that most companies want to move to streaming and provide digital content to as many hardware devices as possible. But EA's idea is lack of physical ownership, death of the used/trade model and their hope that you won't go through the hassle of return or refund of their content. With movies and music streaming, there's no issue with content being bad sometimes because you are paying a cheap price to access gigs of old and new content. Customers don't need to refund or trade in content from Spotify and Netflix because you heard a song or watched a movie you didn't like. With games it's different. If there was a one time fee per year or low monthly fee each month to access hundreds of games for as long as you subscribe, I don't find anything wrong with the idea. But the idea of **selling** content you don't physically own still irks me because I come from an era where you bought a physical product with physical money. When there is an actual physical product, I buy that over digital every time. And the cost of games is higher than music and movies. Also, most areas still don't have high speed internet, have unlimited data caps or can afford the higher priced content that's cheaper at retail and not staying at a high price months after release that should be cheaper like the physical version. I'd be wary of EA's thoughts of moving customers away from physical. I think they just want to kill the used market and sell you things where you physically get nothing.
Just because you come from that era doesn't mean it's the best. In certain situations it was not. There were some irky things from that era too. Lets use Marvel vs Capcom 2 as an example. It had a very limitted run and the games shot up in price that made it inaccessible for a lot of gamers. If it was available digitally it would be acessible to all at normal price. I use MvC2 as an example due to the license not being available anymore and not being able to download it either. Which is one of the irky things this era has. Not so much physically owning it, but rather not being available to use due to corporate beauracracy. I forget specifically the game as an example but I recall at one point there was a game were even if it was downloaded, not streamed, the user couldn't access it, which is total bs. Nothing really stops Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft from getting a system firmware update from preventing an actual physical game from working either though :/
MvsC2 didn't have a limited run. Only so many people bought it at retail because not everyone plays fighting games. If you *read* what I said above, you would see that i don't have a problem with digital. I have a problem with digital prices not lowering in price like physical products do over time. They take longer to reduce. Meaning customers pay *more*. That's not good for the consumer. Also, we know EA doesn't like the used/trade market. That's why they were all in with Microsoft's original policies on Xbox one of taking ownership away. Where only "select" retailers could accept used/trade and developers got a cut from used/trade sales. Basically hurting mom and pop stores. When you trade in your car, does say, Honda get a cut from your sale of your car? No. They don't. When those policies were rejected by consumer, EA came up with things like Access to cut into the used market and make a profit. EA already made money off the first sale of their products. But want even more from the used market. That's greedy. Lastly,You speak of limited run, when the Spiderman games was offered digitally, but then removed from the market. What happens then? Some games get removed from the market place to never be sold again because of licensing deals. That's not good for consumers either. And if and when Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo prevent me from using my physically bought games to play on my physically bought console, I would not by their products ever again.
If it ever came to PS4 i would subscribe if the price was right. And by price is right i mean like Netflix price.
you mean like increasing every year? or that certain content is locked behind the subscription like the marvel series?
Been waiting for this, but honestly thought Netflix would try it first, as games have become so huge. Or I thought that Somy would eventually become the number one company for streaming games. We finally have PS4 games so maybe we are closer than we think. Though we may still be a couple years off. I'd pay $10 month to have access to whatever I westoted play.
Depends on what they offer and how much it costs