Top
130°

EA won't kill the gaming industry with a subscription model

PC Aficionado: "Earlier this week, EA announced that they were aiming to move to a subscription model like Netflix. To say the backlash was significant would be an understatement. The arguments of EA singlehandedly killing the gaming industry were rampant, with some pretty grounded claims to back up. EA will not kill the gaming industry though. While the fear of change is present, moving a subscription model may actually be more beneficial to the end consumer."

Read Full Story >>
pcaficionado.com
The story is too old to be commented.
-Foxtrot65d ago

After DLC, Season Passes and MT do you really want to risk it...I sure don't

trumpwonstopcrying65d ago

It will only help kill EA. I sure as hell won't be subscribing to psn or live AND EA. One subscription service is more than enough

AcidDvl64d ago

I like to physically own my games.

arkard64d ago

People that physically own games decline year over year. And you don't think the masses that are obsessed with sports games won't subscribe, you'd be wrong.

AcidDvl64d ago

I just made a statement about my personal preference. I don't understand the origin of that rant.

Apocalypse Shadow65d ago (Edited 65d ago )

This seems to be directed towards me or others who made statements like me
http://n4g.com/comments/red...

Let's be clear article writer.... EA are **GREEDY**. Everyone knows it. Let's not be shy about it. They also won worst company many times because of their decisions over companies you would think more deserve it in everyday life. Don't forget it. Don't also forget the companies, developers, etc they ruined over the years to get where they are. Just because they have a nice facade, doesn't mean they're not still greedy.... On with the show...

EA Game Pass introduced to hurt those that bought used games over new where you couldn't play online. If the code was already used for a used game, you had to spend $10 to make it work online.
http://www.gamesindustry.bi...

EA Microsoft strategic partnership. EA assumed Microsoft would be the company with the most momentum going into this gen because of Xbox 360.
https://arstechnica.com/gam...

Microsoft's original used game policies
https://www.theverge.com/20...

** However, publishers can opt in or out of game resales and are free to set up transfer fees with retailers. Games can also be given to friends via their discs. There are no fees associated with the transfer, but you can only pass them to friends who have been on your Xbox list for at least 30 days and each game can only be transfered once. Loaning or renting games won’t be available at launch, but Microsoft says it's exploring this as a possibility for the future.**

Companies like EA would have opted in to receive money on every used game traded in at *select* retail stores hurting mom and pop stores and gamers. Don't think they wouldn't have as they were on board with Microsoft with their "strategic partnership." You don't think they didn't know about the used game policy? You think loaning and renting would have showed up later after launch? #ell no!

When you trade in your car, CDs, DVDs, etc., do the companies get a cut from your trade in like Honda, Paramount, or Sony? No they don't. EA wanted a cut. And when that failed, they came up with EA access.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/...
A subscription service to cut in the used market because game pass failed, Microsoft's original Xbox one policies failed but they still want to cut out the used market where they can (((sell you digital products where you physically own nothing.))) Because once digital becomes the norm EA can make sure there are no refunds or exchanges just like when you open up a new physical copy game. And notice that EA are the ***only*** company on Xbox one with a service. Why is that?

Don't be stupid article writer. EA hasn't changed and are still greedy and not for the end user. Digital prices stay higher months after physical lowers. Not everyone has unlimited internet and you don't really own digital it at all. And all these subscriptions will hurt the console market and fracture it if everyone does it.

poolbuddy65d ago

The article is not in reference to you. Not sure if you read it.

Basically the idea is that EA couldn't move to a strictly steaming platform. It'd kill their business. Having the option there does allow people to try play some games that they may not have purchased otherwise and cancel at anytime. I'd rather spend a little money and play all the games I want then to buy all of them only to get nothing trying to resell them.

So, yes. It's a win-win. Unless, that is, it's strictly streaming. If that's the case then EA will kill themseleves, not the gaming industry.

And about them being greedy. Fuckin' right. They're a business. Their literal job is to make as much money as possible. So, if there's a middle ground where they get more money and the consumer gets more value (i.e. Playing unlimited games for a monthly) then I think it's a pretty good deal.

Apocalypse Shadow65d ago

They are a business that doesn't care about the end user. That's why they have so much dlc, micro transactions and season passes and shallow games. You think them going to a subscription service will benefit gamers? No it won't. Over time, they will stick it to gamers.

Subscription service means no used games, you don't physically own your content(just the license to use the product) while prices stay high with no refunds or exchanges. That does not benefit gamers.

Perfect example of high prices was when visual concepts released NFL 2K5 at $19.99. Which forced EA to lower Madden to $29.99. Then EA bought and made deals to have college football, NFL football, AFL football and the ESPN license creating a monopoly. Then raised Madden prices right back up. Again, not benefiting gamers. Now we have only one option.

EA has tried to cut into the used market any way they can or monopolize a market. Because they don't make money off of the second hand sales. The purpose of a subscription service from EA will not benefit gamers. Right now, it's an option like online play was. Now you have no choice but to pay for the privilege to play online. And even that subscription went up from $49 to $59. Watch as EA Access goes up in price and more things go behind that pay wall.

They are looking for that initial acceptance from the gaming community until it becomes the only option which screws gamers over in paying more and getting less. Just like when games used to have extra content, hidden characters, levels, items, etc for $49.99. Now we pay $59.99 and everything is sold extra because gamers bought things like horse armor for 99 cents. It won't be a good deal. You will be paying more and getting less guaranteed.

WeebLord64d ago

Sony also had online passes, EA introduced it but to lay it all at their feet is a bit much. It's just like Piracy, they view every copy downloaded as lost revenue, it's the same with used games every used copy sold is missed revenue in their eyes.

I subscribe to Origin Access if I want to play something that popped up there, cancel my subscription when I'm finished. The idea it's going to "fracture" anything is just good old fashioned paranoia.

65d ago
-GreenRanger65d ago

Nope, it will only kill their own games. They've acquired and shuttered game studios, and ruined others, they can cave in on themselves for all I give a shit.

bluefox75565d ago

In other news, water is wet.

Show all comments (20)
The story is too old to be commented.