Jester, like charging for online play?
As far as getting the latest content with a subscription, publishers do this now. A subscription to get content is no different than paying for DLC.
EA Access: Sony's response, is it the future of gaming and does it affect gamers?
- Thread starter Plainview
- Start date
As far as getting the latest content with a subscription, publishers do this now. A subscription to get content is no different than paying for DLC.
Both services suck. This is the beginning of the end where eventually you won't own (yes I'm sure somewhere in the EULA says you don't own it anyways) any games and will only be able to stream them either on a title by title basis or monthly. Once that happens I'm out. Won't be supporting either of these.
Might not happen this gen or next but we'll see. Plenty of times I've heard "that won't happen!" only for it to happen.
Next gen, retail will be a minority. That has nothing to do with this though. That's just technology evolution. The PC retail industry is gone completely gone. Smartphone app industry is completely digital. Music CD sales are finally below downloads and won't be making a comeback. Video games, movies and CDs are the last frontiers.
Not saying I agree with charging for online play, but for me personally it is a non-issue as I would pay for PS+ either way, with it offering me more than enough free content. Also, I feel mostly OK paying for one and only one subscription service.
DLC has gotten out of hand already, so I can't agree with you that their is no difference in them adding yet another layer to bifurcate content.
I don't see subscription services ever replacing the good old "buy the game" model. EA has already said that this will only be for games 6 months old and older. No other publisher would be large enough to even make it worth while (maybe UBsoft).
I'm not saying EA is the best company in the world to trust with this, but a subscription only model would destroy them. This is just going to be an option for getting into the back catalog. I think someone already mentioned it either in this thread or on the Xbox one, but this is more of a shot at used games. You're not going to pay $30 for a year old used game when you can get more games for a subscription fee.
Shhhhhhiiiiiit! I can see gift cards or bundle deals with 3 months free of Live and EA Access to go along with that $400 dollar price tag. I suspect this will be marketed beyond belief come the holiday season. Lawd!
I don't have a problem with digital content. My issue comes with the possibility that streaming where you pay each time or whatever is the only way. Unlikely to happen sure but the idea of it is what I don't like.
Plainview replied with more or less what I was going to say. I don't want to gaming turned into a slew of subscription services either but that will never happen as long there are games like the last of us, titanfall, cod, battlefield, and other big titles that people are willing to spend millions on at launch to own a copy.
I hope more companies follow EA's lead and do this as well, it sounds great. I don't understand why sony commented on this negatively, why say anything at all?
PC retail is not completely gone. I can still walk in to Game, Tesco..etc and buy Physical PC games.
I doubt that will ever happen. Subscription based streaming though, yeah. I said a few weeks back that this is where I see next-gen going.
What's with the talk of this hurting Sony? if people want these games they'll be able to buy them so it's not like anything is being kept from people who don't want to subscribe to their service. From what was on the launch list it seems everything is from last year, this is likely a way to try to sway people from buying used games more than a trap to get people to subscribe instead of buying new titles. People spend as much on one new game as that service would make for EA in an entire year, if that was the model they were going for in the future they'd have to raise the price significantly.
I love this idea. I think we should absolutely do it. Give everyone a free month of Gold AND a free month of EA Access... that would be huge. You get high quality games right away for no additional cost, and you get 10% discounts on all of the EA games, not to mention the free Games with Gold for that month too...
That would be an unbelievable value.
You're missing the point. With this service you get access to the new games pre release (before anyone else on any other platform), not to mention a discount when you buy it. That may not seem like much, but with gamers looking for value and bargain (repeating trends especially this gen) its a big deal. And this is exclusive to the X1. Words like "exclusive" create urgency, and it doesnt exactly send shivers up anyone's spine to hurry up and buy a 4. Not at all. There's only one place to get it. Not to mention how EA will finally make added revenue from rentals.
I think his concern is completely valid that EA would try and hide things like betas, DLC, MP maps, early access to MP maps, etc behind their service paywall.
So now, to get all of a games content, not only do you have to buy a EA game at x store on y platform, but now you could possibly also have to pay for a subscription to EA Access too.
It hasn't happened yet, but given recent trends in gaming, this is definitely possible. I think it's pretty likely.
Personally I don't really care for Sony Now or EA Access. But if content I now get for free gets hidden behind either these services, I will be pissed.
Last edited:
Because it's a fantastic value that's very pro-consumer, and it's not available on Sony's box. Additionally, it makes Sony's own rental service seem far overpriced.
It's bad for Sony. It's wonderful for MS/EA.
If it proves to be successful (doubtful) than Sony could change their minds, it's not exclusive because EA didn't want Sony to have it. Again I think this service and PS Now are wastes of money that could be better spent on something else by these companies.
Honestly if they are that hard up for money I'd rather they raised the price of the retail games another $10 than go this route.
The "dudebro" demographic that loves sports games may be more attracted to the Xbox One than the PS4 due to this service since they can get discounts on new games, early access to those games (earlier than PS4), as well as discounts on DLC.
Last edited:
...This doesn't make any sense as it would impact people who don't have good enough internet connections to benefit from the service. Again, people WILL be saving money from EA Access... they just need to be people who actually by a good amount of EA content each year.
Your suggestion makes it sound as if you want the playing field to be the same on both consoles (retail price of games being the same on both) so that one console doesn't have an advantage -- regardless of it impacting all users interested in EA content.
So people that don't buy digital and couldn't benefit from such a service should pay more?
I don't follow.
Retail can kick rocks, I'm very interested in seeing benefits come to the digital spectrum, but I don't think it's a good idea to add expense to retail just to do so.
You don't know the complexities behind why Sony isn't allowing it. All you know is that Sony's said in a press release, which amounts to squat.
The xbox 360 eco system/marketplace wouldn't have been capable of allowing such a monetary structure. It wasn't designed for such a flexible, and partner-driven model like this. It's actually highly possible Sony's not allowing it because they didn't design their marketplace to support monetary models of this kind.
For Sony to say that they don't think it provides the value their customers are used to dealing with tells me they're hiding something. That's a horrible reason. It's one of the best values in gaming I've seen in years...
Yeah. That seemed like a strange suggestion. Raise the price of games $10? I'd quit gaming if that happened.