And how is it not giving you a service that you otherwise cannot have on your platform?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
EA Access is surpassing all internal sales expectations
- Thread starter Saty
- Start date
And how is it not giving you a service that you otherwise cannot have on your platform?
secondspace
Member
Games as a service is inevitable, music and video are already there with Spotify and Netflix. Neither of those control the medium and it's even less likely with games.
It'll be interesting to see what happens if BF: Hardline or Dragon Age bomb hard, people waiting for the second tier games to appear rather than buy them does look like the biggest problem with this for EA.
It'll be interesting to see what happens if BF: Hardline or Dragon Age bomb hard, people waiting for the second tier games to appear rather than buy them does look like the biggest problem with this for EA.
immortal-joe
Member
Oh yeah, that would be great. Here's the thing though...
EA Access cannot be Spotify since it's limited to their games
Activision Access cannot be Spotify since it (would) be limited to their games
Namco cannot be Spotify since it (would) be limited to their games
...etc
This is why so many of us were clamoring for subscription pricing on PS Now; it's the closest the industry would get to a Netflix-style format. In the meantime, PSPlus has been providing ridiculous value with games from various pubs. If the above becomes reality, it will undoubtedly undermine that as well.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
It gates content (which for now is available at retail granted) behind one publishers paywall. PS+ would be nothing if it was limited to Sony games for example, likewise with GWG.
Not only that but I like my librarys integrated. One reason why I own zero EA games and Ubisoft games on my PC is because I want one client, one set of login credentials. I dont like the extra fuss and trying to remember what is connected.
I log into steam, there is my library. I log into PSN, there is my library.
in the long run, this is the future and I want no part of it.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
You can still buy every one of those games outright.
You cannot put ps3 games in a PS4 or vita.
GrizzleBoy
Banned
I dont think ill ever be able to relate to people who propritise the way they launch a game.higher than their emjoyment of actually gaming.
PS+/PSNow also aren't really equipped to be Spotify though as the price difference between games and music/movies is too great. Spotify costs $9.99 monthly, which is around the price of an album. You're not going to see a comparable gaming equivalent at that price range due to games costing $60 each in general. I'm not sure how many people would be onboard for a $50 or so monthly subscription for gaming, but probably not enough for the idea to succeed. It would be easier to just have services like EA Access, and let people combine whichever ones they're actually interested in.
It's not too dissimilar to the a la carte cable channels that everyone clamours for. I'd rather that, than the equivalent "pay a fuckload for stuff you probably won't use" model that a Spotify equivalent would likely end up like.
Maybe it would work well if the various Access services could be combined for discounts, so instead of getting EA Access through EA directly, you get it from MS (this is kinda the case already I guess...) and you could instead get a Trifecta Access pass for say $75 annually containing EA, Activision and Ubisoft access, rather than paying $30 for each individually.
I'll admit, I did mistake PSNow in your post for PS+.
That said though, EA Access itself is a service. The service of renting retail games digitally is otherwise not available. Being able to buy them outright doesn't change this, as it isn't the same service, despite being the same games. Netflix doesn't provide the same service as when Amazon sells you the movie/album.
wow.... reading some stuff sometimes, really makes me think that ....some players are slowly creating a ..rift(?) between them and reality.
no water in my boat, just thought that its strange.
personally, if I was to cut down from my current-gen gaming subscriptions right now, I guess ps plus cut would come before ea access. waaaay before.
no water in my boat, just thought that its strange.
personally, if I was to cut down from my current-gen gaming subscriptions right now, I guess ps plus cut would come before ea access. waaaay before.
I wasn't referring to Access when I was thinking of a Spotify style games service. If I could get access to almost every game around for a fixed monthly/yearly sum I would sign up in an instant.
What content is gated behind Access?
As for the unified library thing, that is exactly how it works on the X1. All your EA Access games are in your library as normal, just as if you own the full digital copy. Once you've signed up for the service you never need to enter the app again.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
Full copies of games that otherwise would of on GWG or plus. Make no mistake, The chances of seeing anything but indies and old games on these services is getting slimmer by the day.
Regardless if you have to just login one time, you still have create an account with them. Your content is still controlled by factors external to the relationship you have with your hardware vendor. When problems arise (which eventually they will, thinking otherwise is naive) you have more than one company you need to contact. It might sound pedantic, but it is still an issue.
Honestly, id be slightly more supportive if the service was adminstrated by Sony or Microsoft and EA access was just a separate tier of GWG or PS+. But going about things the way EA are to me is not just about increased revenue, it is about tying gamers to their branding too. In the short term this maky come off across as perfectly innocent, but eventually EA access will have a userbase sizable enough to monitize seperate from console platforms.
Make no mistake. EA access in its current form is fine. Its what comes next is what concerns me.
EA access as it stands today is the best value subscription service for next gen consoles, it has put out 6 full fledged AAA games and has massive discounts and early access to games that people are clamouring to play.
For me the vault is all I use, I don't need the rest (I'll never buy an EA game digitally at full price) and it still has tremendous value more so than ps+ as I rarely game online and the games for ps4 have been just OK by and large.
But as gamers if you see a good deal jump on it, tell these companies what we want using currency, don't buy season passes they are bullshit, if games have day 1 dlc skip em, but a good deal should be rewarded.
I don't see this as a "slippery slope" companies have been working on monetising us for years and that's fine that's capitalism, but capitalism works because money dictates the market and letting nickel and dime bullshit slide (often in service of a specific platform holder) is why games are carved up and served to us in every increasingly expensive slices.
If we stopped being aligned to platform holders and started to engage as a cohesive force, voting with cash then we would get better results consistently.
For me the vault is all I use, I don't need the rest (I'll never buy an EA game digitally at full price) and it still has tremendous value more so than ps+ as I rarely game online and the games for ps4 have been just OK by and large.
But as gamers if you see a good deal jump on it, tell these companies what we want using currency, don't buy season passes they are bullshit, if games have day 1 dlc skip em, but a good deal should be rewarded.
I don't see this as a "slippery slope" companies have been working on monetising us for years and that's fine that's capitalism, but capitalism works because money dictates the market and letting nickel and dime bullshit slide (often in service of a specific platform holder) is why games are carved up and served to us in every increasingly expensive slices.
If we stopped being aligned to platform holders and started to engage as a cohesive force, voting with cash then we would get better results consistently.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
^^^^^This this this.
EA Access has Battlefield 4, Plants vs Zombies: Garden Warfare, Need for Speed Rivals, and various sports games as their retail offerings.
PlayStation Plus does not have Knack.
Games with Gold does not have Ryse.
How can the blame be laid at EA's feet, whilst the other services don't even offer a single retail game of their own for their services?
Like p3tran said... if it's between EA Access and GwG/PS+, then I'd rather keep EA Access personally.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
No one is laying the blame at solely EAs feet, but its clear this is something that has been in the works for a while.
Both Knack and Ryse are shit.
Likewise, I wish people would stop seeing this through PS4 vs Xbox one filters.
There are plenty microsoft and Sony games on Plus and GWG, just not not on currect gen. That is to be expected.
As for the rest meh.
I'm not "seeing this through PS4 vs Xbox One filters"... I have both consoles (along with a Wii U), and have had subscriptions to both PS+ and XBLG for years. I don't personally think Ryse was shit (never played Knack), but that's besides the point. The point here is that EA has put 6 current gen retail games up on their service, whilst Sony and MS have put up zero. You say that's to be expected.. but why? The launch games are almost a year old now, which is longer than many of the PS+ offerings last gen, even some third-party ones. What's so special about the Xbox One or PS4 games preventing any of them from being placed on these services (along with any non-EA third-party retail game)?
Besides, if current gen is such a special case, and it's not reasonable to expect these other subscription services to offer any retail games (even their own)... then that just makes EA Access look even better for having multiple at the current time.
biglittleps
Member
Beginning everyone try to offer more value to attract users but can't continue same in future because it will not generate enough money for them so they try move away from giving more offerings like they did at start. Lets see how EA access will be after one year and i can surely say it won't offer same value as now. Also this 30$ subscription is good only for those interested in EA games for others its useless, but PS+/GwG is useful for everyone and offers games in two/three platforms and discounts across all the games available in the platform regularly.
Takamura-San
Member
Who's we? Because I don't mind.
nah, you just wait until the new madden comes to ea access.
Hero Prinny
Member
Lame, wish it didn't do good. Now others are going to join in on the bs
yiepekaiyei
Banned
One step away from locking everything behind the paywall, even games. Wanna play some Battlefield? Fuck you, you have to subscribe all those games too!
Knowing EA, it's exactly what is going to happen in the future.
Knowing EA, it's exactly what is going to happen in the future.
jordan0386
Member
That'd be like 9 months after release.
Well.. it's not like either PS+ or GwG got off to amazing starts. The service may indeed offer less value in the future, but I'll worry about that when it does. I'm not going to avoid it whilst the value is currently fucking amazing.
And yea, this offer is only really of use to people with interest in EA's library... however I wouldn't say that PS+ and GwG are useful for everyone. The random nature of the games you receive on both of those services make them not much use to plenty of people. The last PS+ game that was actually of use to me was Resogun at the PS4 launch. Everything else has either been of no interest to me, or I already purchased it prior to it being offered. I don't actually think I've made use of anything provided to me via GwG yet. If these services weren't currently part of my general online subscription, I would probably have cancelled both at this point, even at half their current price.
I would rather have multiple subs like EA Access where I can determine if the games they offer are worthwhile to me at any point in time, rather than gamble on a rotating selection that may be of zero interest, but you need to have the service at any given point to prevent them disappearing from the offerings at a later date.
and why should a corporation give you any number you'd like to know?
I really cant understand some posts....
balladofwindfishes
Member
I'm uncomfortable with this service because it just seems to me to be a trojan horse towards moving towards an entirely subscription based gaming service and I really don't want gaming to go in that direction at all. It might be cheap now, but when every company is doing it and you're paying 100+ dollars a month just to play video games from a couple companies it won't be nice anymore or a good value, but it'll be too late to go back to the old system.
Oh yeah, that's really concerning and giving people headaches. Especially when the whole industry is constantly spreading concrete numbers on a daily basis...
Concerning, indeed...
Turin Turambar
Member
At the actual price, that would be the games of not two, but twenty companies.
If they increase the price, people will start to drop the subscription, don't worry.
RyanPierre
Member
Can someone explain what they mean when they say "all" internal sales expectations? How many of them are there?
balladofwindfishes
Member
Will they drop it? How many times has Live been raised with record subscribers despite it not really offering anything substantially new since it came out...
This is exactly how it works. They get you in at a low price to get you in, and once you're in, you don't really care enough to get out or you may not even realize the price is going up because it goes up over years and you get used to 5 tiny price increases and next thing you know you're paying 50 dollars a month to play games you probably could have just bought for 15 dollars or borrowed from a friend.
It's how subscription models work. It's why they want to move towards it.
$30 a year to ~$50 a month is quite a large jump to make...
the way I plan my business, is with scenarios.
usually, I go with three: the good, the bad and the ugly.
this way no matter what happens, I am prepared for it. or the closest to prepared.
I guess a multinational like EA has even more elaborate and analytical plans.
hell, I bet they even have a department full of analysts dedicated on forecasting.
balladofwindfishes
Member
It won't be a large jump. It'll be 2 dollars here, 5 dollars there.
I'm not sure you're reading what I typed.
It's currently $30 a YEAR (or $5 a month).
You're talking $50 a MONTH.
It's a ridiculous A to B scenario, regardless of how many $2 here $5 there you're suggesting. The service would have to become something different entirely for that to happen, and I'm not sure what any single publisher could provide in order to get there.
soul creator
Member
$2 here, $5 there, by the time 2050 comes around, EA Access will be screwing over gamers everywhere!
But overtime won't the "vault" expand in content and overall value (by this time next year there could be ~15 games in there)? Does that not justify an incremental increase in price for new comers at least?
As far as I am aware live has gone up in price once despite offering the best online multiplayer gaming environment,(Parties, chat, messaging all integrated into a single unified interface). They have then ploughed that investment into azure (amongst other things) that allows them to have dedicated servers for every game that chooses to take advantage of it. PS+ while nowhere near as mature or functional a service, has offered retail games since its inception, they are probably spreading themselves slightly thin supporting PS3, Vita and PS4 hence the recent network issues but they are trying to improve the service.
The services are not inherently evil as long as you are getting value from them and are happy with the conditions they provide, if they don't, leave.
As I said earlier, we as gamers need to recognise that we have power as a single voice, platform identity be damned. If they start to nickel and dime us by raising price rather than passively taking the increase, start leaving these services in droves, find alternative ways to play and demonstrate that we wont be taken for granted.
By the same token, if a company offers something and it has value then tell them that value is rewarded, EA dungeon keeper mobile = bad, EA access = good.
Just got an XB1, and I will be getting this the second I burn through Sunset, Destiny, and Watch Dogs. This is great value for people that want something like this. Really don't get the haters. I understand not seeing value in the service so you choose not to buy it, but the people screaming off of rooftops that no one should enjoy this service because it is the Skynet of our gaming future just sound crazy.
I've got a news flash: If this is surpassing their internal sales expetations, it means people enjoy the service more than they expected. There is demand out there, and whether people like it or not, there are customers that desire this type of service.
I've got a news flash: If this is surpassing their internal sales expetations, it means people enjoy the service more than they expected. There is demand out there, and whether people like it or not, there are customers that desire this type of service.
Then just cancel your sub when the price goes up and it's no longer a good value.
Chip N Chance
Member
Fantastic service so far. When i bought it i accidentally bought 2 years worth. No regrets as i'm loving PvZ and Peggle to death.
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
Right now this service is optional. But how long until actual content is gated behind it? Whether it be DLC or even multiplayer. I will never support this or any other publisher service like it. Its a slippery slope to the removal of consumer ownership of games completely and I will not be complicit in it. It is unbelievable and incredibly dishearting that anyone would.
I'm glad I saw this thread - reminds me to sign up for a month to try out PvZ and to play Dragon Age early. All for the low, low price of -1 dollar when I buy Dragon Age (unless it sucks). I did the same for a month this summer and loved it - played Peggle 2, Madden, early NHL.
With the current pricing and offerings I find it to be a great value and service. If that changes, then guess what, I won't use the service.
I have a hunch that if/when it comes to the PS4 and more people here have a chance to use the service some minds might change...
With the current pricing and offerings I find it to be a great value and service. If that changes, then guess what, I won't use the service.
I have a hunch that if/when it comes to the PS4 and more people here have a chance to use the service some minds might change...
Eh...it's not like retail sales are going to stop. There's too much money in it. And it's not like they can force every Battlefield retail purchaser to sign a paid subscription beyond PS+/Gold to play it. So no, I don't really see anything like this happening anytime soon. Standard EA retail game purchases will still function as normal for the foreseeable future.
Looks like it will be for games which are 6-12 months old or older. This feels like a introductory offer to me where the price is kept low to get people interested - could be wrong.
EDIT: AAAAAH CRAP, my job is blocking all the image sharers and the one I find is blocked here. =_=
Whatever, I took the same pic and replaced what was written by ''Fuck me, harder'', there.
Yeah, god forbid we get more of this awesome "bs".
I believe that EA Access looks good in comparison with PS+/GwG, although I am not interested in any of the offered games, primarily because Sony has not allowed it to PS4.
To implement any shitty policies, one could expect from EA, such as putting multilayer behind EA Access paywall, EA desperately needs to have this service on both platforms. Until then they have no other choice but to make it good or to make it look good.
Once Sony surrenders, there will be no turning back.