EA Origin Access – Is It Worth It?

EA’s Origin Access is basically one of those gaming offers that sounds really economical on paper, but may not be quite so in the long run. It was one of the features introduced a while back by EA on its online platform, Origin. Access allows you take up a renewable membership with EA, at 5$ a month, or $30 a year, in return for full-time access to selected games, including a lot of good titles like Dragon Age: Inquisition, Mass Effect 2, etc. This collection of games is being known as the Vault, which is constantly being updated with new titles. Recently, EA confirmed that it will be adding two very successful shooters, Battlefield 1, and Titanfall 2 to the Vault:

[PiNkFaIrYbOi]

No, horrid company not worth it.

[lelo2play]

You must work for Sony...

[PiNkFaIrYbOi]

Nope, just think EA sucks.

[Aenea]

Yeah, only Sony dislikes EA! /s

What a silly thing to say....

[freshslicepizza]

@Aenea
"Yeah, only Sony dislikes EA! /s

What a silly thing to say...."

Who else is blocking its users from trying it out?

[rainslacker]

I'm not a huge fan of EA, and I was very skeptical about the service when it was first announced, but since it's release, I think EA has handled it pretty well. While I certainly am not into a lot of the games offered on the service, I do think there is enough there to make it worth the $30 a year.

[freshslicepizza]

Of course it all depends on the user, getting access to Battlefield 1 and Titanfall 2 on top of what is already available sure seems worth $5 a month or $30 a year to me.

[Aenea]

Unless you already bought them when they were released almost a year ago then it's totally worthless...

[freshslicepizza]

Same could be said for any Playstation Plus or Xbox Live games offered in the monthly giveaways.

[gangsta_red]

@aenea

I am positive that not everyone has bought every EA game that Access/Orgins offers.

Just with the inclusion of Titanfall 2 and Battlefield 1 alone has made Access extremely worth it. Side note: That on top of Game Pass and GWG, definitely filling up my 4 TB HDD with some goodness.

[Aenea]

"Same could be said for any Playstation Plus or Xbox Live games offered in the monthly giveaways."

1) this isn't about either of those
2) for both PS+ and XBL you don't just pay for access to the games, with EA/Origins Access you mainly do (the rest of the benefits, a few days earlier access and discounts aren't worth the price of the sub)

------
@fleece

LOL, what? What crazy silly comparison are you making? Makes no sense at all.

If you, like milllions do, buy new games when they release you have no use for EA's vault because you already own them. The rest of the benefits certainly aren't worth the price either.

So it all depends on if you buy new EA games regularly or wait until they are put in the vault a year after they released and pay for the sub.

It's a nice alternative if you don't have much money and can wait a year, otherwise it simply is not...

Absurd how some people just defend about anything.

----------
@gansta

If one was really interested in them, they've already bought them, simple as that...

[freshslicepizza]

What exactly is there to defend about an OPTION? See, it's an OPTION, can you not comprehend it's an OPTION? So enough is enough to sit there and downplay the service because it's not available on every platform you own.

"2) for both PS+ and XBL you don't just pay for access to the games, with EA/Origins Access you mainly do (the rest of the benefits, a few days earlier access and discounts aren't worth the price of the sub)"

And you don't just pay for vault games either, you get a 10% discount on digital sales and early acces to the FULL game with up to multiple hours of playtime. But again it's an OPTION but for some bizarre reason some platform holder figures that option is not good for its users. Which is so bloody stupid it's embarassing. It's like me getting cable for my TV and my cable provider blocking Netflix because I have HBO. So try to defend that.

[freshslicepizza]

@Aenea
"If one was really interested in them, they've already bought them, simple as that..."

I didn't hear you say that when Playstation Plus just offered Until Dawn for PS Plus members. The fact is back catalog games are still fun to play and maybe some people just didn't get around to playing them. Titanfall 2 isn't even that old and has never been $5 to play the campaign.

So tell me again why you feel you need to put in any effort to downplay EA Access when it's an OPTION and people can try it for one month for $5?

[Aenea]

"And you don't just pay for vault games either"

Nope, you pay for vault access, discounts and a few days early access, that's it, nothing less, nothing more...

If you already have the games the discounts and few days early access is absolutely not worth it, not even as an OPTION as you like to keep shouting.

Most people with PS+/XBL have one huge reason to pay for the sub: online play
The games are just a bonus.

As for discounts, well, this is for the digital stores and where I live they are €69.99 on PSN/XBL, with 10% discount that is €72.99 which is €3 more than the MOST expensive retail shop where I live and if I use a price comparison site I can get them between €45 and €55 on release. So the discount is totally NOT worth it.

The couple of days early access for a few hours is not something that one is going to pay €4.99 a month for either.

So don't give me this BS that the games are a bonus with EA/Origin Access since it's the main reason!

Like I said, if you're too cheap to buy the games when they come out this is a nice option, otherwise it's a waste of money...

[freshslicepizza]

Well it will be interesting if you use that same attitude towards any of the games offered on PS Plus that are old too each month. It's also quite alarming how you just dismiss the early access you get games like Mass Effect for a 10 hour trial. That's a long time to test a game out to see if you like it or not before it's even released.

But again it's all too common to see people dismiss things they don't have access to.

[Aenea]

"of the games offered on PS Plus that are old too each month"

It's not the same thing, you probably missed the other times I mentioned it already, too many blinders on I suppose. People don't get PS+/XBL for the games, they get it to play online, with EA/Origin Access they do it for the game because the rest of the perks certainly can't be the reason they get a sub.

It's just okay for people who do not buy the games when they come out, nothing more, nothing less, for regular people it's a waste of money but some are still trying to find a reasonable excuse to have the sub while they really should let it go...

-------

"But again it's all too common to see people dismiss things they don't have access to."

Alright, that explains why you're always in all the Sony articles being negative! Totally understand it now!

[freshslicepizza]

I was a member of Plus long before the PS4 came out and put online behind the paywall. The point is people do look forward to the monthly games and I bet you didn't once sugest to anyone they should have bought the older games before. The fact you still marginalize older titles and scoff at them when the annual fee for EA Access is only $30 speaks volumes. What exactly do you expect for such a low fee?

We get it, you feel it's your duty to downplay EA Access just like you guys do for console crossplay because that;s the decision already decided for you, so it makes it much easier this way. People could play games like Mass Effect and save themselves $60 by trying the game out for 10 hours but again you try your best to minimize any benefit it has. members now have access to Titanfall 2 and can play the full campaign, that's worth $5 for the monthly fee right there.

Where is all this negative tone towards Playstation Now since they are all even older games than what EA Access offers? But hey, you guys will continue to argue against OPTIONS because those options are not widely available on other platforms.

[Aenea]

"I was a member of Plus long before the PS4 came out"

Back then it was indeed all about the games, was also the reason I never subscribed to it. I just buy the games I want, I'm not gonna pay a sub and hope to get them with the sub, it's silly.

PS Now is not the subject, neither is PS+/XBL either BTW, you dragged that in.

I don't see a point to pay for a sub to get old titles for 'free' when the ones I want I've already bought. You can keep telling yourself that PS Now or PS+/XBL is the same thing but it's not. People now pay for online play, not the games (well, most anyways). Also the biggest difference with PS Now or PS+/XBL (not sure why you keep singling out PS related things, ohh wait, I do know why!) with EA Access is that there's a way, way bigger library of titles available which makes it a lot harder to already have all the games, all the time. EA/Origins Access has like 25 titles, half of which are sports titles (those don't interest me one bit) and 4 or 5 of the same series (like FIFA 14, 15, 16 and 17, why on earth play 14 for free when the latest is also already free??). So no, even at half price it is not worth it to me at all...

Somehow tho you keep having this need to defend anything MS does and downplay everything Sony, are you that bored that you can't entertain yourself in a normal way, hmm?

[TheColbertinator]

To me Origin Access is pretty sweet. EA Access I dont have anymore,its not as enticing.

[Derceto]

No.

[ApocalypseShadow]

We've been over this again and again. With nothing new gained from talking about it. It all boils down to if you like EA and EA games. I used to like the company and its games a long time ago. But I would never sign up for EA Access. Because I no longer buy their games or miss them.

Their business model of doing less work for more money is something I've never liked. Their monopolizing and purchasing of companies to gain a technical advantage (Criterion-Renderware,Dice-Fro stbite) is something I've never liked. Their buying and destroying of some of my favorite developers is something I never liked. Some say you should forget the past. To them I say "never forget your history." And "how many licensed NFL football games can you buy?" EA was beat fair and square with basketball. But didn't allow competition with football. Now I don't buy football games and we all know why. For me, the vault isn't worth anything.

Having said that. Is EA Access a good deal for those that like EA games on Xbox? Yes. If you're willing to wait for old games to hit the vault, then it's a good deal....*IF* you are willing to wait. Just like I wait for sales,price drops or discounts on new games, I can see gamers looking for a good deal.

But, those that think it's not right for Sony to deny EA Access on PS4 don't see that's it's perfectly within their rights not to. Why would Sony allow a competing service of sales and discounts to one third party company? That cuts into their business. That's like asking Sony to offer Steam on PS4. Would it be consumer friendly? Sure. Would it be smart for Sony's business? H#&% no. PS Plus would lose sales. It's Sony's console. Not EA's. Not Valves.

Question gamers should be asking is "Why EA are the only ones allowed on Xbox?" Square, Activision, Ubisoft, etc have large back catalogs. But,only EA has this service on Xbox? Since Microsoft doesn't offer a similar service like Plus, it doesn't hurt them in offering it. And just gives a talking point. Like "cross game chat" from last gen. But those with *business common sense* can see that it would hurt Sony's bottom line with Plus. And no company would allow that. Ask Microsoft if it's consumer friendly to offer Steam on the Windows Game Store. Or Steam on Nintendo's Virtual Console. You'll get your answer.

[freshslicepizza]

@Apocalypse Shadow
"We've been over this again and again. With nothing new gained from talking about it. It all boils down to if you like EA and EA games. I used to like the company and its games a long time ago. But I would never sign up for EA Access. Because I no longer buy their games or miss them."

As a consumer you should have that choice.

"But, those that think it's not right for Sony to deny EA Access on PS4 don't see that's it's perfectly within their rights not to. Why would Sony allow a competing service of sales and discounts to one third party company? That cuts into their business. That's like asking Sony to offer Steam on PS4. Would it be consumer friendly? Sure. Would it be smart for Sony's business? H#&% no. PS Plus would lose sales. It's Sony's console. Not EA's. Not Valves."

It doesn't cut into Microsoft's business model and they also have Xbox Live and Gold giveaway games. Not sure what your point is. PS Plus would not lose sales as Sony has now hidden online play behind it just like Xbox Live. Xbox Gold gives away free games and has EA Access, how has it been any different now?

"Question gamers should be asking is "Why EA are the only ones allowed on Xbox?" Square, Activision, Ubisoft, etc have large back catalogs. But,only EA has this service on Xbox? Since Microsoft doesn't offer a similar service like Plus, it doesn't hurt them in offering it. And just gives a talking point. Like "cross game chat" from last gen. But those with *business common sense* can see that it would hurt Sony's bottom line with Plus. And no company would allow that. Ask Microsoft if it's consumer friendly to offer Steam on the Windows Game Store. Or Steam on Nintendo's Virtual Console. You'll get your answer."

Xbox Live is like PS Plus. Both are fees paid by the hardware owners to access online play while offering free games and cloud saves. There was a time when Sony had much more faith in Playstation Plus and didn't leverage online play behind it.

[ApocalypseShadow]

Doesn't matter if it's PC or console. It's the same Electronic Arts. Either you like them. Or you don't. I don't. Personally, they did nothing to me. But for my hobby, they ruined a lot. So their products and services are meaningless to me.

You must have also skipped the part above where I said it was a good deal if you like them. You did ****READ**** that part right? Access or Origin Access is good if you like their products. Learn to read what I said.

Live is not like Plus. Sony allows Access to a catalog of games for paying for online. Microsoft's offerings are not the same thing. They give you free games to actually have. Not the same.

I didn't say it cuts into Microsoft's. I said it would cut into Sony's as they are already offering a service like that. You see it as an option you should have. I see it as an option you should have if it makes perfect business sense to do so. But I'm guessing you've never had a business and are seeing it from the point of view of an entitled gamer. How come EA can't offer their titles on Plus? How come you only see it from the point of view of EA when it's **Sony's** console?

[freshslicepizza]

@Apocalypse Shadow
"Doesn't matter if it's PC or console. It's the same Electronic Arts. Either you like them. Or you don't. I don't. Personally, they did nothing to me. But for my hobby, they ruined a lot. So their products and services are meaningless to me."

And once again you seem to miss the point, it's an OPTION.

"You must have also skipped the part above where I said it was a good deal if you like them. You did ****READ**** that part right? Access or Origin Access is good if you like their products. Learn to read what I said."

Oh I did read and then you carried on like you always do, put a little postive in there then drag it out with a long essay about why it's not good.

"Live is not like Plus. Sony allows Access to a catalog of games for paying for online. Microsoft's offerings are not the same thing. They give you free games to actually have. Not the same."

They both give free games per month, you're just talking semantics not sure why.

"I didn't say it cuts into Microsoft's. I said it would cut into Sony's as they are already offering a service like that. You see it as an option you should have. I see it as an option you should have if it makes perfect business sense to do so. But I'm guessing you've never had a business and are seeing it from the point of view of an entitled gamer. How come EA can't offer their titles on Plus? How come you only see it from the point of view of EA when it's **Sony's** console?"

Oh I see, I forgot how you always like to speak on behalf of Sony and not as a consumer. You also just contradicted yourself, it's a business and EA would rather they offer it through them. You as a consumer are not getting EA games either way so tell me again how that helps PS4 consumers if you can't get EA games through PS Plus and you can't get them from EA Access because Sony blocks it? Sony would also still get revenue from EA Access and it would not cut into Plus, that's just you trying to come up with another excuse.

[ApocalypseShadow]

And you carry on as you always do. If it doesn't benefit you, it's anti consumer. I gave you 3 points of view. You gave 1 which is "I want it.""Give it to me." Definition of entitled gamer.

I don't like them anymore. Wouldn't subscribe if offered to me. Point of view 1.

It's a good service for those who do like them. Point of view 2.

It doesn't always benefit the console manufacturer. Point of view 3.

It works on PC because PC is open ended. Microsoft, Valve, EA, GOG,etc can offer whatever they like. It's a free market. Doesn't hold true for consoles.

But talking to you with a point of view of 1 always means I'm talking to someone of limited scope.

[freshslicepizza]

@Apocalypse Shadow
"And you carry on as you always do. If it doesn't benefit you, it's anti consumer. I gave you 3 points of view. You gave 1 which is "I want it.""Give it to me." Definition of entitled gamer."

Yes, you explained each point of view but you should still be advocating youself more as a consumer than one who is a shareholder. Which means only 2 of those views actually matter.

[MegamanXXX]

I use it for my PC