EA Access, Xbox One - $5/mo, $30/yr

[baten]

I would be extremely happy with one subscription that allows me to play any game for PS4/Xone.

There should be no need for multiple subscriptions - one for each individual publisher.
It could be one subscription, and each publisher gets paid a percent proportional with the amount of time (game hours) you spent playing their software/games.

10-15$ a month would make anybody happy if it would mean access to ALL the games on that platform.

 

[zed]

I would be extremely happy with one subscription that allows me to play any game for PS4/Xone.

There should be no need for multiple subscriptions - one for each individual publisher.
It could be one subscription, and each publisher gets paid a percent proportional with the amount of time (game hours) you spent playing their software/games.

10-15$ a month would make anybody happy if it would mean access to ALL the games on that platform.

Now this I can agree with, though it would be at least double the price per month.
In fact I agree with this model for music/films/tv etc (caveat - gotta be implemented well & fair)

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Sorry if my post was unclear, Perhaps this is better worded

yes having a iphone and all your apps on that doesnt stop you from also buying a android/winphone and getting apps on that but at the end of the day most ppl don't have unlimited cash thus will choose company X or company Y or even company X & Y (but not company A to Z) thus the person will get 'locked' into that company somewhat (sure you can argue they can stop at any time and get something else, but we've seen with phones some ppl don't)

That's describing each company having their own console. If every company had their own $300 console, the price to use all of them would be too high. A $10 per month subscription that can be stopped whenever is very different.

The media comparison would be every movie publisher having their own disc format, every movie publisher having their own online service, or all movies on the same unified platforms as we have now.

I think if in a year (when theres X number of companies doing this and some people go hold on I'm subscribed to 5 different 'access' services costing >$100 a year plus their consoles 'access' service as well and also buying the latest release games they'll go hold on I'm paying a lot more for gaming than I was a year ago, how did this happen?

1) If people look at their expenditure and don't feel their getting the worth from it, they'll cancel their subscriptions (compelling the service companies to try different tactics, as cjail notes above, until maybe consolidating under one).

2) If they don't cancel their subscriptions and end up paying more (and note that's only the price of two games from each publisher), that's business! Personally, as per the DLC thread, I don't see an issue with that. We used to spend $50 to get a game that cost $10 million to make. Now we spend $60 to get a game that costs $50 million. With devs spending more on developing games, they need more money back, natch.

hey look at that a whole bunch of nice choices for the consumer, so why does noone (except the power companies) argue the consumer is better off today

Going OT. Choice isn't always better. However, this choice being presented is no different from other consumer choice. No-one being forced to do anything any more than they were. Consoles and games are optional luxuries people can live without, meaning no-one can leverage them to screw consumers over.

It's no different to having a choice of hardware platforms or a choice of games to buy (I have to pay $60 for FIFA and $60 for COD and $60 for Destiny...I can't afford all the games. I'll have to buy one and be 'locked into it'.). It'll settle down into a system that consumers are comfortable with, just as movie rentals have, and in doing so broaden the console market landscape to provide better revenue streams and all round more stability I'd have thought.

 

[Cjail]

Games do have multiple revenue streams, just not console games currently. Console games are locked to one device and then thrown away when that device is no longer made, compared to games on Steam that go back 20+ years and are still sold today for a myriad of different devices. That's what let's older games continue to make profit because no matter how many times someone changes their pc, laptop or tablet they can still keep buying and playing the same games. A new pc gamer for example can still buy and play Sleeping Dogs, whereas a new xb1/ps4 customer can't, that game can no longer be monetized to the console audience and is effectively dead in that market. The console gaming model I feel will have to adapt to allow game developers to have multiple revenue streams across many devices over many years just like movies, books, etc do.

What you describe is not a different revenue stream.
Simply on PC a game can generate money for much longer than on console but it's not a completely different way to monetize it.
Publishers on PC still make money by selling the games either physically or digitally but there is no "theatrical release", or syndication, or subscription like for movies.
Micro-transaction, DLC are the existing alternative ways to make money for publishers.

P.S.
Now is possible to buy PS One games on the PSN so old games still can generate money longer on consoles as well.
In time we might even arrive to have access to all previous generations' titles on PS4/PS5 or via streaming but I sincerely doubt that in 2020 many will want to buy games from 2012, not mention from 1998.

 

[Nesh]

That's a question about what's best for consumers or not, which is an RSPCA topic. This forum simply deals with the business details. If the market decides that way, so be it, for good or for ill. The choice rests with the consumers.

I feel the need to reply on this since it was the point of my post which appears to not have been made clear based on your reply. The market is not defined simply by consumer choice. Based on who has the most power to influence it can be either the consumer or the supplier. The idea that the market is defined simply by consumer choice is a common fallacy that has been nurtured by "political" correctness of marketing, politicians, PR spokesmen and in general those that hold large or critical enough resources to manipulate the market. It is myopic and misses the big picture of how the economy works.
In the case of gaming and not only if a good/service is considered important by the consumer, important enough so that they dont want to remove it from their daily lives easily there is a "zone" where the resource holder can incur monetary or non-monetary costs that the consumer may not like (but will be beneficial for the resource holder), but arent enough to make the consumption abandon consumption. This is often misinterpreted as choice: "you dont like it? then dont buy it. You bought it? Then I presume you liked what we did" but the purchase was done because the consumer had no other choice than to pay the extra cost in order to obtain it.
In real economics this is a problem we face quite often.

Now, if these subscriptions will fall in that example or not, its not something I can comment yet for certainty

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I feel the need to reply on this since it was the point of my post which appears to not have been made clear based on your reply. The market is not defined simply by consumer choice. Based on who has the most power to influence it can be either the consumer or the supplier. The idea that the market is defined simply by consumer choice is a common fallacy that has been nurtured by "political" correctness of marketing, politicians, PR spokesmen and in general those that hold large or critical enough resources to manipulate the market. It is myopic and misses the big picture of how the economy works.

In the case of gaming and not only if a good/service is considered important by the consumer, important enough so that they dont want to remove it from their daily lives easily there is a "zone" where the resource holder can incur monetary or non-monetary costs that the consumer may not like (but will be beneficial for the resource holder), but arent enough to make the consumption abandon consumption. This is often misinterpreted as choice: "you dont like it? then dont buy it. You bought it? Then I presume you liked what we did" but the purchase was done because the consumer had no other choice than to pay the extra cost in order to obtain it.
In real economics this is a problem we face quite often.

Yet with non-essentials, the consumer always has a choice not to purchase. Like it or not, that's how our market works. Debating the rights and wrongs of that is beyond the scope of this forum.

Intrinsically regards the rise of subscription services, if it's price too high ($100 pm) consumers won't buy into it because they don't have to. The price at which people are willing to pay is the financial worth of that product or service regardless what the person's voiced opinions are. People saying they don't like it but still pay for it means that in business terms they find enough value in it, and for a business who's sole aim is to make as much money as possible, they are operating as they should according to the rules of engagement of the free market.

 

[Cjail]

People saying they don't like it but still pay for it means that in business terms they find enough value in it.

Or simply they have been mind-tricked.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Or simply they have been mind-tricked.

Mind tricked in what way? Saying they don't like it when in fact they do?

 

[Scott_Arm]

Or simply they have been mind-tricked.

LOL.

I don't want to buy x, so anyone that wants to buy x must have a screw loose.

 

[Cjail]

Mind tricked in what way? Saying they don't like it when in fact they do?

Well mine was a joke.
Poel that say thay dilke aprodcut but then buy it alwys makes me thino mid-trick

LOL.

I don't want to buy x, so anyone that wants to buy x must have a screw loose.

I don't think that people that have different desires, tastes or needs are fools.
I meant no offence to anyone.

 

[wco81]

A guy on GAF was talking about just getting the service for one month for $5 and playing BF4.

If you look at it that way, which I never had, it makes a ton of sense too. It's like a rental, but you never have to leave your house, and it's $5 for a month, which I'm pretty sure even Redbox cant come close to competing with.

It almost seems too cheap in that light. Are they undercutting BF4 sales more than $5 is worth to them?

I just paid $15 for BF4 on X1 and thought I got a sensational deal. Imagine if i had paid the ~$30 Amazon is asking, let alone $60 Wal Mart is.

Of course, that's all for a guy who generally just plays campaigns. It makes more sense for EA if you are somebody who plays MP, as you're not going to want to just play that for one month.

I do VASTLY prefer owning my games. For whatever reason, just having no pressure to complete the game at all is the way I like to roll. But even for me, a month is long enough to consider something like that. Provided the library has what you want, big if.

But yeah, the most hassle free and cheap rentals imaginable really. $5 for a month? Not even sure EA can continue that. Will depend on how alluring the game selection is of course.

That could hurt used game prices.

Hell last year's FIFA is still being sold for $60 at most places. Never goes below $40 either.

So who's going to buy a used copy for even $20 if you can rent for a month or two.

Depends on how quickly Madden 15, FIFA 15 and NHL 15 end up in the vault though.

If they wait until AFTER the 16 versions are released a year from now, then it won't affect them too much.

Some people are drooling over the 5 day access. I don't care about getting games on release day any more so no value for me there.

The 10% discount is kind of weak too. Hell this fall, Target and Toys R Us (if they're still in business) will do the 3 for 2 sale, effectively making the games $40 each. Best Buy and Amazon will follow suit.

Only for people who can't wait is the 10% discount that great a deal.

 

[Nesh]

Yet with non-essentials, the consumer always has a choice not to purchase. Like it or not, that's how our market works. Debating the rights and wrongs of that is beyond the scope of this forum.

Intrinsically regards the rise of subscription services, if it's price too high ($100 pm) consumers won't buy into it because they don't have to. The price at which people are willing to pay is the financial worth of that product or service regardless what the person's voiced opinions are. People saying they don't like it but still pay for it means that in business terms they find enough value in it, and for a business who's sole aim is to make as much money as possible, they are operating as they should according to the rules of engagement of the free market.

This doesnt apply only for essentials. It also applies for non essentials. What you describe as essentials are essentials for survival. The so called "non essentials" are also essentials for non survival needs which are subject of habits, culture, tradition, social acceptance etc. The same mechanisms of behavioral economics can apply everywhere and that can include videogames too.

Consumer choice should be governed by having a wide range of choices between competing products and the ability to participate in any market. It shouldnt be governed by a choice of whether an individual should pay a higher price than necessary or get out of the market. The latter is no choice.The latter involve unnecessary cost for the participant whether he choses to stay or chooses to leave.

The free market concept has too many logical fallacies that people take their validity for granted. There is a large tendency to confuse the business perspective with that of holistic economics. The former has become very dominant and gave birth to the neoclassical model of economics which is disconnected from reality beyond belief, yet it is often used as an argument because it misinterprets the numbers from the business perspective which has become popular. I run through economic research often and it shows huge contradictions between what you described above as "correct according to the rules of engagement of the free market" and what actually happens in the economy. Same numbers give different results once you view the whole picture.

Now regarding the price of game subscriptions. As I said there is a zone of discomfort and extra cost that the consumer can be burdened with but wont be sure whether he should leave the utility because its part of his life. If ofcourse there are perfect substitudes at a cheaper price, the zone will be very narrow and the consumer will easilly switch. This is real consumer choice,not what you described earlier.
If 100 people used to access a utility before but now only 60 access it because the price is too high, while providing the same revenue (or more) to the business, then the economy is a failure. Its not the result that should have been produced by the "free market". But in terms of the business this is a success story.
In addition this zone can widen substuntially if all providers increase the prices simultaneously. In that case instead of 100 people you might get 80 people accessing the utility but at a higher cost that they would have been willing to accept if there was choice available to pay less. This again is a sign of economic failure even though in the neoclassical theory (or free market) this is considered a success story.

Edit: Just want to clarify that with all that said I do believe that it is possible for alternative or complimentary subsciption services to be good for the consumer and offer real choice if modelled correctly.

 

[Cjail]

This doesnt apply only for essentials. It also applies for non essentials. What you describe as essentials are essentials for survival. The so called "non essentials" are also essentials for non survival needs which are subject of habits, culture, tradition, social acceptance etc.

Are you saying that in some way we need games just as much as need water or food and so such we have no other choice than to consonantly buy them?

 

[Nesh]

Are you saying that in some way we need games just as much as need water or food and so such we have no other choice than to consonantly buy them?

No.

 

[zed]

If people look at their expenditure and don't feel their getting the worth from it, they'll cancel their subscriptions

The thing is mate, enuf ppl will do it that it justifies its inclusion.
In app purchases (eg horse armour), DLC, F2P (see the crytek thread for ppl bitching about this) etc
Perhaps the majority of people don't agree in these new methods of extracting cash from the consumer and bitch and moan etc but theres enough people that 'don't really care' that much and because theres enough people that do, the companies will keep on doing it.
How many games now don't come with in app purchases or DLC etc its become standard practice its not long ago game companies would release extra maps etc for free as reward for ppl buying their game / encouraging new ppl to buy their game.

(I have to pay $60 for FIFA and $60 for COD and $60 for Destiny...I can't afford all the games. I'll have to buy one and be 'locked into it'.)

I think EA won't be releasing any of their new $60 games on this service just older version, which I checked yesterday can be brought online (or elsewhere) for a couple of dollars sure they're second hand but its pay once and they're your's

btw Nesh hear hear it is a fallacy

 

[Shifty Geezer]

This doesnt apply only for essentials. It also applies for non essentials...

I don't disagree with your post, but that's a discussion about how economics work and the ills that a free market can put on people, which is out of scope.

In this forum, for the sake of sanity we are capped to talking the world as it is. As far as businesses are concerned, whether it makes people happy or not, there's the supply/demand curve and they price their products to try and maximise returns. If people are buying their products, as far as the company is concerned those people are happy to have said products - they have a choice not to buy.

I don't see that we can discuss this any further in this forum.

Consumer choice should be governed by having a wide range of choices between competing products and the ability to participate in any market.

In this case, there'll be other companies offering other games and other services, so I dare say that's covered. There'll only be one comapny supplying FIFA, but you can only take competiton so far.

The thing is mate, enuf ppl will do it that it justifies its inclusion.
In app purchases (eg horse armour), DLC, F2P (see the crytek thread for ppl bitching about this) etc
Perhaps the majority of people don't agree in these new methods of extracting cash from the consumer and bitch and moan etc but theres enough people that 'don't really care' that much and because theres enough people that do, the companies will keep on doing it.

And if they do that, that's the market that'll exist. These companies don't exist to please people - they exist to make money. If the offend a minority by making more cash, they'll do it. There's nothing altruistic about them. If it ends up you have to pay $100 a year to gain access to each publishers' library, you'll have to decide whether it's really worth that or not ot you. But don't expect companies to drop their prices from a sense of charity! That's not how the world works.

For me, I approach it philosophically. I'm not in favour of 'price gouging' but if they try it, I won't create a big fuss; I'll do something else other than game. I accept people's rights to choice, that the workd is made of different, that the economic systems we have work in a certain way regardless of whether I agree with them or not, and if the majority are content to live in a world with higher priced games that I'm not willing to be a part of, I should take myself elsewhere. We have enough consumer rights and movements potential to bring suitable pressure to bare, I think, to represent the majority opinion (maybe not the spending majority though!).

But ultimately, people are really jumping the gun! This is a cheap service to access old games, no different to PSN+ which is lauded for its awesomeness.

 

[AzBat]

But ultimately, people are really jumping the gun! This is a cheap service to access old games, no different to PSN+ which is lauded for its awesomeness.

+1 Agreed

Tommy McClain

 

[Cjail]

No.

Ok...but I still don't understand what you mean when you say: "non essentials" are also essentials for non survival needs"

 

[zed]

they exist to make money. If the offend a minority by making more cash,

Mate, I was just in a shop (paid by nz eftpos - the envy of the world, though now the banks want smartcards because they tell us more safer/convenient but the real reason is more cash for them )

OK heres a real world example of even if you don't opt into something you still have to pay

Credit cards - this comes to a shock to some ppl I tell it to so hold onto your seat, when you pay by creditcard you pay an extra 2%!
hold on person X saiz - I don't, me - you do, what the shops do is raise the price of everything in the shop so everyone pays the creditcard fee's even if you don't own a creditcard. NOTE - some shops (the minority though unfortunately do charge an extra 2% if you pay by creditcard)
the same is often true with loyalty cards etc

also I notice with this EA access they often cardholders a 10% discount on new games (hurry hurry for a limited time) this is also a sales tactic, related to this how often have you seen ppl go "oh product X is on sale or its discounted I'll buy this and ignore another shop where its cheaper cause its not on sale.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't see the relevance of your post to the subject matter. EA have introduced a service. People will chose whether to buy into it or not. Prices may or may not go up? It's just...life!