Netflix doesn't have everything. Amazon Prime has some stuff Netflix doesn't... then there's HBOGo, etc.
Yes, and I'd rather it all be on Netflix. Which is the point. This is a step backwards.
Netflix doesn't have everything. Amazon Prime has some stuff Netflix doesn't... then there's HBOGo, etc.
Now flip that around.
Why would Ubisoft offer all of their games for $30 if they can sell each game for $30-60?
I'd sign up for that too.
As opposed to spending hundreds of dollars each year on video games?
So the nightmare scenario of needing 3 or more $30 dollar subscriptions for each pub on top of an online subscription to Live is never going to happen?
...
Right?
Why did EA offer a subscription plan for $30 for all of the Vault games if they can cancel EA Access and continue selling their games for $30-60 each?
I wonder why? Oh that's right, everyone wanted a piece of the pie. So instead of just paying for Netflix like before, now I have to get HBOGo and Starz and Amazon Prime..
Yes, and I'd rather it all be on Netflix. Which is the point. This is a step backwards.
So the nightmare scenario of needing 3 or more $30 dollar subscriptions for each pub on top of an online subscription to Live is never going to happen?
...
Right?
Microsoft will be on the phone asking all publishers to offer similar services and try to get some form of exclusivity for them
I would be really suprised if you see the new Dragon Age on EA Acess before 2016.
2 year old catalog titles.
Welp, it was fun while it lasted. I suppose we should have seen this coming. Every major publisher will have their own Access plan.
Sure... but subscriber numbers are strong and growing, and people are shifting quickly to watching content on these services rather than buying DVDs. The market has embraced this model.
If you don't like this model for games, that's cool. There are early adopters that will be the guinea pigs. And either it'll work or it won't. Evidence from other entertainment categories show that this kind of thing has appeal.
Sure... but subscriber numbers are strong and growing, and people are shifting quickly to watching content on these services rather than buying DVDs. The market has embraced this model.
So you guys would rather pay $30-60 for each Ubisoft game, or $30 for all Ubisoft games? What is with the hate with EA Access? It's a great deal.
Guys I want to pay 7.99 a month and get every piece of content i want. Why won't these money making corporations make this happen?/s
Indeed my good man!Yeah. It's perfect for Ubisoft games as those games tank in value rather quickly. They also put out a ton of games and the digital only games like Child of Light and Valiant Hearts will likely show up. I don't feel like paying $19.99 for those titles, but in a vault, hell yeah.
There are two sides to this:
1. The people who see EA Access as a good value (which if you buy a lot of EA published game, it really is) and would like Ubisoft and other major publishers to follow suit.
2. The people wary of EA and major publishers who believe that if people buy into this then eventually the publishers will make it where you can only get their games on their specific Access program.
And really both sides carry weight, EA Access is a good value for the customer, but its hard to deny that EA hasn't had the most trust worthy background and its healthy to have skepticism. Really I'm on the fence, I can see how people would want the service, but I just don't want the publishers to start fencing off content.
You get a %10 discount when buying new games from EA. It'll probably take a year for DA to end up on it. Once the Vault has about 20+ games, that $30 value will be well worth it.
However PS Now can run on non-consoles in the future (TV's, PC's, Tablets) which targets additional markets than the Ubi/Ea services likely will. I just don't want to see everything become a service... (hello Office 360) and prevent people from playing games in the future 10-20 years after launch. Being able to play NES/SNES etc. many, many years later is great, and I don't want to see this age (which already loses a decent portion of games due to DLC that will disappear in the future when DLC is no longer offered) lose full games in the future.
You mean when 15 of these 20 games are sports games from 2014,2015 and 2016?
Do you seriously buy 5 EA games a year to breakeven with this discount?
Exactly, being able to go back and play classic games at will is something that is priceless for me. It really saddens me to think of a future with games being a service. I foolishly hoped that model had died with OnLive, but apparently not.
I can see the value in EA Access at the moment but how anyone expects them to maintain value over years and years is beyond me. Will continue to watch the world burn from over here.
Exactly, being able to go back and play classic games at will is something that is priceless for me. It really saddens me to think of a future with games being a service. I foolishly hoped that model had died with OnLive, but apparently not.
You mean when 15 of these 20 games are sports games from 2014,2015 and 2016?
Do you seriously buy 5 EA games a year to breakeven with this discount?
These subscriptions are also being used as a way to curb used games I assume, since with the discount it's only on the digital versions so yea you save 10% but lose the ability to trade your game in and get something else.
Yeah, this is not going to end well.
I'm glad that Sony is blocking this from PSN for now. I'm really not interested in having to pay multiple yearly fees just to access specific publishers' digital storefronts or discounts. If publishers want to do their own subscription services with their own discounts and offers, then they can make their own box to do so.
Why wouldn't publishers look to get a piece of the subscription pie when it's already proven that consumers are willing to pay a certain amount to rent/renew game licenses? Why let Sony and MS get more cash than you could make by doing it yourself?
The success of PS3-era PlayStation Plus really laid the groundwork for EA Access. There was precedent. Now, if EA Access works well, Ubisoft should consider its own program, and so on.
I don't have a problem with it. If I want to buy a game, I'll buy it and not wait for it to maybe hit a subscription service. If I find that pieces are stripped out to serve the sub service, I'll avoid the game. It's not up to me to tell others how they should or shouldn't spend their money; my only responsibility is an individual one and how my purchasing habits will adapt to changing market conditions.
So you guys would rather pay $30-60 for each Ubisoft game, or $30 for all Ubisoft games? What is with the hate with EA Access? It's a great deal.
If Ubisoft had a UbiAccess program, I would definitely hop on that subscription because I have never played a bad Ubisoft game. Yes, I loved Assassin's Creed 3.
That kind of business model has been around much longer than OnLive though (i.e. SEGA Channel and GameTap).