Support NeoGAF

[Dark Rider]

yeah that's completely different than "a bad practice and an ominous precedent for the gaming industry"

I guess to me if I'm charged for a service that is not a good value for me then it's a rip off
which is in my book "a bad practice and an ominous precedent for the gaming industry"

 

[Burai]

Other then EA, Ubisoft, and Activision what other publishers are big enough to be able to create a program like EA Access?

Most publishers are deluded enough to believe they are, even if they aren't.

 

[Burai]

Very good points, but it is the reality of the industry and what gamers expect. So wait for a inevitable crash or allow them to find another (optional) revenue source.

As of this point you can still physically buy all your media and even own it digitally. You can ignore all of these services (except PS+ if you play online) so there is no impact on your current habits.

Yet.

You wait, give it 12 months and EA will be locking stuff behind Access.

 

[icespide]

I guess to me if I'm charged for a service that is not a good value for me then it's a rip off
which is in my book "a bad practice and an ominous precedent for the gaming industry"

totally fine for you to think that. I'm just saying that isn't at all what Sony said

 

[Dunlop]

Yet.

You wait, give it 12 months and EA will be locking stuff behind Access.

or Sony will raise PS+ to $100 to make it too difficult to buy multiple services

We can all just make up stuff about what the future holds.

If Access becomes unattractive they will lose subs and game sales

I'm not saying your wrong, it is the extreme anger posted when changes are proposed. Let the service fail because it sucks and holds no value

 

[Mass Effect]

Other then EA, Ubisoft, and Activision what other publishers are big enough to be able to create a program like EA Access?

Take-Two/2K? Maybe Bethesda?

The moralising tone on this forum is becoming increasingly grating. I think I need a hiatus.

Says the one constantly telling those that were worrying about this exact thing happening that they were just riding slippery slope into hyperbole.

But hey, let's keep running with it. It won't just stop at other publishers wanting their own subscriptions. Demos and betas will be "exclusive" to these services. I wouldn't even be surprised to see major DLC locked behind these subscriptions.

 

[Dark Rider]

totally fine for you to think that. I'm just saying that isn't at all what Sony said

I wasn't taking quotation from Sony press release anyway for you to expect my post to contain the exact words that Sony used. and I really don't know what worse could they say and still sound professional while flat out telling people that EA access is a bad deal for the customers (since it's not good value for them). I'm not here to talk about what Sony does or doesn't (I said that they for sure also trying to protect their bottom line in my first post in this thread) I was merely mentioning that they acknowledged that this is bad for the customers. And yes if they flat out said it's not good value then it is not out of reason to interpret it as bad for the customers and thus the industry.

 

[clutch.as.it.gets.]

I think every company should allow gamers to choose whether or not to access these services, but to me it's a void that is set to collapse the last tenuous bit of grasp we have to fight back against unscrupulous companies.

This last gen, gamers of all stripes - fans of Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft - continually complained about the decline of respect publishers/developers had toward the very people who kept these business open. Respect is one thing, but it translated into real world actions in which various policies and games were made that slowly but surely painted a damning picture of an industry which feels that nickle-and-diming is the name of the game, that withholding content from launch day release just so they can charge $14.99 for 2 hours of extra content a month down the line and squeeze gamers dry over their knee like a pool-side towel is now thought by these pubs/devs to be appropriate behavior.

The sheer number of deceptions and damning behavior practiced by Ubisoft, Activision and EA made up a non-trivial percentage of GAF'a discussion about these companies. No, it's not in the past. Even now, we complain at a near daily basis about the negative things they do. EA is currently mired in The Sims 4 controversy. Earlier the spent a ton of money being underhanded as shit in the Machinima Ad Buy scandal, and this isn't something that is remotely tiny. It was them trying to trick gamers who were interested in titles into believing someone's viewpoints were legitimate instead of paid for. We have companies that put pressure on game websites when they review high profile games too negatively (Jeff Gerstmann). We have companies that release horse armor. Companies that release a version of a certain game so fucking borderline unplayable at times that it's a miracle anyone ever purchased a game from them again on the platform (Bethesda).

If people are excited about these services, I feel it's just as important to present the other side of the coin. This is when the coin lands on the side that exposes a basic, stark truth: that if you were mugged, you wouldn't immediately after a few weeks later give the mugger whatever new money you had accumulated since then to invest in stocks. Likewise, if you are continually mistreated by game companies - and I don't see what the argument at this point would be against this, considering how often the biggest companies are mired in controversy, getting sued for demonstrably underhanded nonsense, having their horrific workplace practices exposed, being voted worst companies, etc - that we should be very cognizant that we about to actually subscribe to a longterm service these companies may offer in the future. Trust these very same companies who, like the mugger, continue to gouge us whenever they get a chance. With them, we'll be giving them complete control ever after to our access to the games (banned from service, weeks of trying to get it resolved since it was for something you did not do. online servers are down, lose access after a period of time until it's fixed. Time to update, servers are down for two days as the process is worked through. Company shuts down, all games you ever had access to evaporate. Once we start moving from Netflix-style access to the type of service dominating where you buy games digital forever, we're one step away from the day some big controversy explodes because one of these companies finally decided to exit the arena and with them shut down all services that gave you access).

For me, this is too dangerous a precedent to set, when a huge percentage of the actions from most major publishers last gen were moves to somehow diminish the quality of our overall experiences or the value we once gained from thenm

We share exactly the same viewpoint.

 

[Burai]

or Sony will raise PS+ to $100 to make it too difficult to buy multiple services

We can all just make up stuff about what the future holds.

If Access becomes unattractive they will lose subs and game sales

I'm not saying your wrong, it is the extreme anger posted when changes are proposed. Let the service fail because it sucks and holds no value

Make stuff up? Seriously, bookmark this shit. I'll take a ban bet even. The writing is so clearly on the wall for this it's not even funny.

Why would EA of all companies be giving their games away all of a sudden? Just think about it for a second. After all the shit they've pulled, after all the shit they are still pulling and people honestly think they are just going to be giving cheap access to Battlefield 4 just because?

Seriously, game modes and exclusive DLC will all be going behind the paywall along with the demos they've already snatched. This whole thing is going to get a hell of a lot more toxic going forward but they'll sugarcoat it with those "free" games. That's why this service won't fail. Because people will be so conditioned to subscribe to keep hold of their free library of shitty old sports games, people will just go along with it like every other piece of ass fuckery they've been subjected to on their way down the slippery slope that started with horse armour.

 

[SnakeEyes]

No. No. No. No.

Fuck off with your subscriptions to mediocre games pls.

Amen.

 

[Yagharek]

No. No. No. No.

Fuck off with your subscriptions to mediocre games pls.

At least it puts all the mediocrity in one or two places.

I'd pay for the privilege not to have to endure EA or Ubisoft games. In fact, I did

Spoiler

Wii U

 

[synce]

How much longer until subscriptions to these ripoff 'services' are required for online? Here's another idea: create exclusive DLC for subscribers only. The possibilities are endless! Let's embrace this wonderful future

 

[Yagharek]

How much longer until subscriptions to these ripoff 'services' are required for online? Here's another idea: create exclusive DLC for subscribers only. The possibilities are endless! Let's embrace this wonderful future

By next gen it will be the norm.

Last two gens conditioned people to pay for online services for the console hardware via mandatory XBL and the slower approach with PSN+ and bonuses. Now it is the default requirement on both.

Next gen you can all but guarantee that EA, Ubi, Activision, Bethesda etc will all have their own subscription services of some kind. And they will be normalised and expected, just as online passes have become.

 

[bbjvc]

I don't have to trust EA, I don't need to trust EA, I'm simply purchasing a service which current value met the price they asked in my point of view.

Why should I care if they lock something behind this service, if it's something worth to pay both sub fee + another fee in my eye then I will. they are entitled to do whatever they like with things they made, and I'm entitled to do whatever with my money.

if they can keep their end of the bargain, then I keep paying, if they fuck it up, I un-subscribe, fair and simple.

This is free market for you, I thought people appreciate it, as least I do, that's why I immigrate out of China, where they make a lot of decisions for you.

 

[Rebel Leader]

No, not like this.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

In 5 years, if this trend continues, gaming on consoles will suffer.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

EA Access is the worst thing to happen to this industry.

 

[Jigorath]

So this is the way the industry ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.

 

[OccamsLightsaber]

Integrity... of a closed platform? Wow... just wow.

I am all in favor of more options to the customer. Today I can go to the store and buy a movie on DVD or Blu-ray. I can rent it from Redbox. I can buy a digital copy from Amazon, iTunes, Google Play, from Disney, from Sony, I can rent these movies digitally or I can subscribe to Netflix, Hulu or any of dozens of options.

I would love to see this same universe of options for games. I absolutely support your right to access your games in whatever legal method you feel is best for you. However, it seems you want to deny me the same courtesy and imply that I am not smart enough to see your doom & gloom scenario. Very classy.

Wrong comparison. It would be like 20th Century Fox or Sony Pictures offering a subscription service of this games. Likewise, for the music industry, individual record label. These are the people looking to squeeze money out of you. Google play and Spotify are more akin to Sony's and MS's platforms, the method of distribution.

 

[Ichabod]

I, for one, look forward to a future where more and more gaming features are locked behind paywalls. If I could make a small suggestion though, let's get some tiers going on these subscriptions. I don't want to play alongside EA Access Bronze plebes. Give them access to campaign features if you must, but keep multiplayer content exclusive to us future Platinum members.

 

[JaggedSac]

You'll be able to do that, but as we've already seen from EA, the current free benefits you enjoy (demo's, betas) will be locked away behind a wall to "add value" to their subscription service.

Most betas are already locked behind preorders or purchases.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

Yeah, they can fuck right off with this shit.

Funny how the defenders of this shit sound just like the defenders of online fees, on-disc DLC and gated content in general.

Short-sighted and self absorbed.

 

[Steroyd]

or Sony will raise PS+ to $100 to make it too difficult to buy multiple services

We can all just make up stuff about what the future holds.

If Access becomes unattractive they will lose subs and game sales

I'm not saying your wrong, it is the extreme anger posted when changes are proposed. Let the service fail because it sucks and holds no value

People are talking about a future precedent based on past actions, it's a no brainer what EA is damn near garunteed to do at this point, and it's no surprise what these companies are going to do to "compete" with each other in a race to the bottom.

Also companies like EA get away with too much shit that should have failed, but don't, like Battlefield 4, Sim City and now looking inevitably The Sims 4.

 

[daniels]

Literally nobody denies that it could affect gaming in a bad way.

The issue is that a very large angry mob is treating these potentially bad things that could happen as though they're horrible things that already have happened. They've even started pointing fingers and denouncing people who are willing to try the service before they start flinging their poo.

These companies have a precedent of anti consumer behaviour and past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour.

 

[Llyrwenne]

Literally nobody denies that it could affect gaming in a bad way.

The issue is that a very large angry mob is treating these potentially bad things that could happen as though they're horrible things that already have happened. They've even started pointing fingers and denouncing people who are willing to try the service before they start flinging their poo.

Literally nobody?

Let's not divide discussions up in 'sides' and then have everyone that supports certain things held responsible for all other people also supporting those things. It's not 'us' versus 'them'. I am in this discussion as me and me myself alone. I'm not flinging poo. My posts are not intended as validation or defending of the 'angry mob' you are talking about.

It could also end up affecting gaming in a very favourable way. I could see these subs eventually giving rise to a different style of subscription where you pay yearly and get access to every single title from the publisher. I would love Ubisoft to do something like this assuming it'd be cheaper than buying the games normally. I'm actually surprised something like this hasn't come out yet.

Oh sure, it could end up affecting gaming in a favorable way, I'm not denying that. It's just that - as I have said many times before by now -, looking at the companies that are behind these programs, the evidence overwhelmingly points to these services very likely eventually evolving into something that will negatively impact a lot of things. You see it evolving into some Netflix-style deal where you can access the entire library of a publisher by paying for the subscription, but considering the companies behind this and the cost of game development, that is a very highly unlikely fringe scenario. You won't be getting full, unlimited access to the full library of any of these companies for just €30,- anytime soon with how the game industry and the companies in question are currently set up; that would be insane and would bankrupt these companies in no time. Basing your support for this service in something that you hope the service will become at some point in the future, despite it evolving into that makes no sense for the companies behind them, is not something I consider wise.

Or... let the consumer speak for themselves and have their own opinions. Novel idea, I know...

But as I have said; that is not unequivocally the best option in any situation at any time on any platform etc.. Letting the consumer decide for themselves is not always an unequivocally great idea, because while the individuals here on this forum might be smart enough to pull out when the shitty stuff comes, the people that made Candy Crush into a multi-billion dollar success, the people that slavishly only buy Call of Duty and Madden and FIFA every single year, the people that enable Battlefield Premium to exist, etc., etc., are not.

We can't just plonk stuff like this this down on the market, 'let the consumer decide' and see what happens, because eventual expansions of these programs will inadvertently affect the market in potentially not wholly positive ways and 'well, we'll just pull out when the shitty stuff happens' is not a feasible or realistic situation or solution.

Before I can take anything you say seriously please explain how 5 dollars for a month of EA Access doesn't have value. It literally pays for itself if you purchase a game in the same month. And if you don't that's 5 dollars for, possibly, hundreds of hours of gaming.

Anyone who says there no value here is objectively wrong. Its not based on opinion its just simple math.

No. Value is not 'simple math'; perception of value differs from person to person and is thusly subjective.

I have never been interested in EA Sports games, so that part of EA Access does not represent any value to me personally. I do not like sports games, do not play them and would not play them for free because they do not interest me. And if for some reason I suddenly would get interested in sports games, I would want the new version when it comes out and not have to wait a year for it to potentially show up in the vault. These €6,- discounts are simply not enough for me to cover what I would be paying for the service. I would need to buy 5 full-price EA games via EA Access in a year for the savings to equal the cost, and even then I would need to buy more to actually get anything out of it. Looking at the EA games in my library right now ( Mass Effect 2, Mass Effect 3, Battlefield Bad Company 2, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Need for Speed Hot Pursuit, Need for Speed Most Wanted, Need for Speed Rivals ), me buying 5 EA games in a year is just simply not going to happen, especially since I've pretty much lost all interest I had in Battlefield with BF4 having so many issues and Hardline not interesting me personally at all.

As it is right now, EA Access does simply not represent value to me personally. If it represents value to you at this moment in time, again, I'm not saying you're wrong for seeing value in it; I just want to point you to the company behind it, what that likely means for the service's future and what opening the door to more similar programs from similar companies might mean for the future of the whole of gaming.

 

[fritolay]

It will be like television. You buy the console, pay for the basic service such as PSN+ or Live Gold to get content, such as your monthly cable or satellite bill to get service on your satellite or cable box.

Then if you want more content, you will have to pay different publishers for their content, like HBO and Showtime.

Now we won't be forced to do such a thing. But as time goes you will pay less for games if you have their channel or content subscription, and this will try to force people into these monthly subscriptions. Even things such as free games with in game purchases will have "discounts" if you are a service subscriber.

At first special badges or outfits or horse armor will also go to premium subscribers, much like preordering gets you now. Then later you will get premium items in game that will give you an upper hand to the competition, upgraded guns or swords.

Maybe you will be able to get a bunch of games, like channels, that you never wanted grouped together so you can get the games, or channels, you want. By this time the monthly premium costs will increase to the point that the few games you would have purchased are actually less than you are paying them for the complete premium service, full of games you never would have played. Now you are a video game subscriber getting stuff you never wanted just like a television subscriber.

 

[jordan0386]

Everybody needs great internet, long term, for this to be a smashing success.

 

[jorma]

I hope Sony stays strong, and that they sell enough consoles so that 3rd party can't possibly tell them to fuck off with their "negative attitude".

 

[block tower]

Yeah, they can fuck right off with this shit.

Funny how the defenders of this shit sound just like the defenders of online fees, on-disc DLC and gated content in general.

Short-sighted and self absorbed.

yeah its the same people with the same "i got mine" rational. "i want mediocre games i can play digitally for a premium price, its great". these people are the same people who buy ridiculous collectors editions, day one DLC, season passes, dont mind DRM, and think paying for Xbl and PSN is a deal. ive lost faith in a large amount of the gaming community after the 7th gen. too much bullshit supported by short sighted people willing to blow cash on half assed business ideas from console companies and AAA publishers. they'll keep saying "its my money ill do what i want", go ahead, you people ruin gaming for the ret of us.

 

[cripterion]

At least it puts all the mediocrity in one or two places.

I'd pay for the privilege not to have to endure EA or Ubisoft games. In fact, I did

Spoiler

Wii U

Sorry but I'll take a mediocre Ubisoft game over any throwaway title I got on PS4 with PS+ so far.

These companies have a precedent of anti consumer behaviour and past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour.

Sony too yet people seem more than happy to give then their money and sing them praises.

 

[Shito]

My main problem with this program is that, in its current state, it's a subscription without any clear promise / schedule on what I'll be getting from it month after month.
When you sub to netflix, you know you'll get access to a huge and ever increasing catalog of movies and series, that will grow each and every day.
When you sub to PSN+, you know you'll get new games to play / try every month.

Right now, people who are defending it are only seeing the "I get to play 4 games for 4$" aspect of it, but what about next month? And the month after that? The Vault isn't likely to get populated on a monthly basis, and we already know it'll be a rolling catalog of games, with only a few games in it at a given time.
If you enjoy subbing / unsubbing on a regular basis, sure it's a wonderful value, but if you're like the type of people these kinds of subscription aim for, you will let it lapse for a long time, and the value will only decrease.

 

[Burai]

I don't have to trust EA, I don't need to trust EA, I'm simply purchasing a service which current value met the price they asked in my point of view.

Why should I care if they lock something behind this service, if it's something worth to pay both sub fee + another fee in my eye then I will. they are entitled to do whatever they like with things they made, and I'm entitled to do whatever with my money.

if they can keep their end of the bargain, then I keep paying, if they fuck it up, I un-subscribe, fair and simple.

This is free market for you, I thought people appreciate it, as least I do, that's why I immigrate out of China, where they make a lot of decisions for you.

Except that by the time you realise the program is too toxic for you, you've already invested too much into it, you've got too much content to just throw away and there's no real alternative because everything has been stripped away from non subscribers.

It's no longer the great deal you originally signed up for, it's all your gaming held hostage.

 

[cripterion]

My main problem with this program is that, in its current state, it's a subscription without any clear promise / schedule on what I'll be getting from it month after month.
When you sub to netflix, you know you'll get access to a huge and ever increasing catalog of movies and series, that will grow each and every day.
When you sub to PSN+, you know you'll get new games to play / try every month.

Right now, people who are defending it are only seeing the "I get to play 4 games for 4$" aspect of it, but what about next month? And the month after that? The Vault isn't likely to get populated on a monthly basis, and we already know it'll be a rolling catalog of games, with only a few games in it at a given time.
If you enjoy subbing / unsubbing on a regular basis, sure it's a wonderful value, but if you're like the type of people these kinds of subscription aim for, you will let it lapse for a long time, and the value will only decrease.

In my case, I'm not defending it, I'm just not seeing the doom and gloom like others do and wish to have the choice to get this sub if I find it interesting or else I won't bite, simple as that.
EA sub is not interesting enough for me so I'm not getting it, but I'm not telling others that do that they are idiots for killing gaming and trying to rally them to buy Sony because they do what's best for gamers.

 

[intheinbetween]

imo, this Access thing will work only for publishers which release almost 20 titles a year, specially those with sport ips or ips which get annual releases, see: EA, Ubisoft or Activision

time will tell, but obviously, every publisher want their piece of the cake, they won't allow Sony or MS to get profit by lending their titles, when they could get a bigger slice of the cake.

guys, don't rage, just support or don't, it's ok to be against this, but please, don't overreact about this.

btw, none of the current services gives anything for free, they are just lending you the offered titles, so please, stop using the word "free", because it isn't

 

[Rozart]

“When you look on your console, you have many channels and you want that diversity,” he says. “Instead of saying everything’s in one place, we can say ‘Okay, try these channels: EA, Ubi, Activision.’

Please no.

 

[twobear]

Says the one constantly telling those that were worrying about this exact thing happening that they were just riding slippery slope into hyperbole.

But hey, let's keep running with it. It won't just stop at other publishers wanting their own subscriptions. Demos and betas will be "exclusive" to these services. I wouldn't even be surprised to see major DLC locked behind these subscriptions.

My argument is that the second half of your post is the slippery slope (and it is). I've been saying since EA Access was announced (more or less) that the success of PS+ made more subscriber services an inevitability.

My objection to the moralising is the posts—and there's a couple on this page—that essentially have the content 'this has ruined gaming and you people are responsible'.

 

[spwolf]

darn... basically Sony was right.

 

[I-hate-u]

3 years from now you will need Ubi access to play AC online.

 

[Shito]

In my case, I'm not defending it, I'm just not seeing the doom and gloom like others do and wish to have the choice to get this sub if I find it interesting or else I won't bite, simple as that.
EA sub is not interesting enough for me so I'm not getting it, but I'm not telling others that do that they are idiots for killing gaming and trying to rally them to buy Sony because they do what's best for gamers.

Yeah, I can totally agree with that. I do believe it *can* set a bad trend, but I'm also not a fan of the doom&gloom attitude, which can't lead to a reasonable and level-headed discussion.

 

[Pseudo judo]

I guess to me if I'm charged for a service that is not a good value for me then it's a rip off
which is in my book "a bad practice and an ominous precedent for the gaming industry"

Why are you paying to get ripped off.

 

[Xando]

PC gaming becoming more and more attractive every week.

I cant believe some Gafers trust EA so much, they will try to exploit this in every way possible.

 

[IonicSnake]

I have a Netflix and a PS+ sub, that's enough for me, tried HBO but canceled it. If we start getting Ubi Access, EA Access, Actiaccess I won't be supporting that.

 

[Pseudo judo]

yeah its the same people with the same "i got mine" rational. "i want mediocre games i can play digitally for a premium price, its great". these people are the same people who buy ridiculous collectors editions, day one DLC, season passes, dont mind DRM, and think paying for Xbl and PSN is a deal. ive lost faith in a large amount of the gaming community after the 7th gen. too much bullshit supported by short sighted people willing to blow cash on half assed business ideas from console companies and AAA publishers. they'll keep saying "its my money ill do what i want", go ahead, you people ruin gaming for the ret of us.

Go ahead, beat that straw man for all he's worth if it makes you feel better.

 

[bobbytkc]

I have been out of the loop, but if this means that instead of a single subscription, you have a bajillion of them, then fuck that.

And if MS is indeed the ones that kicked this off, well, to hell with them too.

 

[Pseudo judo]

I have a Netflix and a PS+ sub, that's enough for me, tried HBO but canceled it. If we start getting Ubi Access, EA Access, Actiaccess I won't be supporting that.

*claps*

This guy seems to get it.

There's no proverbial gun to his head forcing him to buy services he sees no value in, unlike so many others in this thread.

 

[Alx]

I'm mostly satisfied by my EA subscription now, and I would gladly pay the same price or even more for an Ubi subscription. With their diverse library it would be definitely worth it, the AC and Rayman titles alone would be great additions to their vault.

 

[soul creator]

PC gaming becoming more and more attractive every week.

I cant believe some Gafers trust EA so much, they will try to exploit this in every way possible.

The same PC gaming that has multiple download stores and clients to install from EA and Ubisoft, DRM on its game discs, zero resale value of those discs, and zero used games?

I thought those things were "anti-consumer" and should be opposed at all costs?

On a more serious note, and to use your post as a jumping off point, I obviously understand PC gaming has other benefits that outweigh those drawbacks, which is why it's a healthy platform. But I think that does mean that all the doomsday scenarios seems to be a bit over the top. And I think it also means that the "anti-consumer" complaints are really just "I think this may be a bad value" complaints in disguise. The gaming audience has already proven that supposed "anti-consumer" policies are fine...as long as it's at the right price. People may talk as if it's a deeply held moral conviction, when it's actually just the standard value discussion we apply to every product.

 

[twdnewh_k]

I sold BF4 for PS4 today and got $27.50 for it, which nearly pays for a year of EA Access. With this, I get BF4 back, as well as FIFA, Madden, Peggle 2, and a bunch of gravy. I had to switch to Xbox One, but whatever. I play games, not console warzzz.

It's a hell of a good deal.



It's a problem for who, exactly? Nobody's forcing you to spend a dime on anything. If enough people don't perceive these services to be a good value, they'll bomb. These companies exist to make money selling games and services, they're not charities who are there looking out for your best interests.

I don't know what your problem is.

I am not sure where I claimed it was a good or bad deal. Nothing to do with my argument.I expressed my worry that this subscription service will extend to many publishers who will then try and add more value by locking content.

There is no need to be so defensive, I never said they were charities but that does not mean I am not allowed to express my concerns. If it is fine for you then good for you.

 

[block tower]

Go ahead, beat that straw man for all he's worth if it makes you feel better.

dismiss my points if im wrong then?

 

[Camp Freddie]

So it begins...

The problem is that EA and Ubi are less trustworthy than a drug dealer.

The 'free' FIFA/BF4/Madden are a classic "the fist hit is free" tactic.
No schedule has been announced for further free hits.
Instead we get asked to buy all our stuff from them using their digital store, so we get a "discount" that will be undercut by Amazon on day 1
But if you want to get the game somewhere else, you'll be made to wait.
Soon we'll get exclusive stuff only from them.

The user experience should be going to a [digital] store and buying the game.
Emulating the cable TV subscription model is a terrible idea. It's nothing but confusing bundle deals and upselling.