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

So it seems Sony did turn it down judging by their response, as I had initially guessed. Odd as they are supposed to be seen as the good guy, free and open, platform holder.

Well, the market will tell. It wont help EA to be cut off from two thirds+ of the next gen market. But if it holds good value it'll probably succeed on Xbox and eventually force Sony's hand. As I said, personally the price is low enough currently, it's pretty easy to get across that value threshold imo. If it had been $60 like Live or +, it'd be a lot less attractive.

 

If you'd buy one game a year from each of those pub for $60, a one year subscription to access that game is good value. Although for the latest content, you'll have to pay Sky-level prices. £5 a month for Beat'em'up channel. £10 a month COD channel.

 

More like HBO, Showtime, Cinemax and Starz and who all produced their own content.

 

I could easily justify participating in this model in the future. Paying $2.5 a month for each of the major publishers' backlog of 100s of games would work out $12-15 a month.

There are a ton of games I didn't get to experience last gen, not because I found no interest in them, but because I couldn't justify the expense or the time necessary to go look for them at justifiable prices.

I wouldn't mind the concept of only paying $60 for must have titles and simply waiting for everything else to fall under a subscribed service.

 

I think the second hand market would work out cheaper in that case and at least your know what you're getting.

The fact that it's EA doing this is a bit of a blind spot for me because I'm just not that into their games. I bought BF4 because I wanted a change from COD and Crysis 2 was the last EA game I bought. Before that.. god knows. SPORE on PC probably!

 

EA Access is a service that would have to appear in the PS Store right alongside other products and services. If they think it is a poor value, and worse, could create consumer confusion and damage the image of subscription game library services then they are doing right by their customers. After all, they are the ones who have to handle complaints and refunds. This would never have happened on Xbox One either, if MS was not falling so far behind so quickly.

Netflix balances that out by offering 150K movies and TV shows to watch. Even if you are only interested in a small fraction that works out to an awful lot of hours and options. EA Access only has four games in the vault. Three of those are sports games about to be superseded by this year's version.

Its completely unsustainable. Another reason Sony was smart to take a stand against it. It's bad for the industry if only because it disincentivizes people spread their gaming budget out across many publishers and indies. We watched mid tier games disappear last gen, what happens if these subscription services train the market not to buy anything that doesn't come from a publisher big enough to sustain a subscription base?

 

Which is what we don't want. Why move backwards? Ideally Netflix would have all of their shows and we'd only pay for 1 sub.

 

Yes, competition sucks.

 

Makes PS Now looking a bit expensive...

 

Why do all the PS fanboys keep referring to this offer as being one full of "expiring sports titles" when EA said themselves in the announcement that the first title available is the newest Madden and that EA Access members will get it either 1) Free or 2) Discounted but in either case 3) Earlier than anybody else can?

Getting new games prior to their actual release seems to be almost the exact opposite of getting a bunch of last year's crap that nobody wants to play anymore.

 

Does EA Access include an Xbox One system rental?

 

The "newest Madden" right now is Madden 25. Yes that is the game in the Vault. It is almost exactly 1 year old now and we are mere weeks from its successor, Madden 15, coming out. That game will only be offered at a 10% discount to members and in the form of a time limited demo a few days before the official launch. That is to say, you can play a total of 2 hours over the course of 5 days. The story is much the same for FIFA 14. It will be in the vault, but they are going to start selling FIFA 15 shortly.

So the reason you see people referring to the "expiring sports titles" is because that is one of the primary benefits EA is hinging this service on.

 

Does PS Now?

Of course not. You need a piece of Sony branded equipment to access it. Stop the spin, it's absurd.

 

Yes. That's literally how it works. You can play PS3 games running on PS3 hardware from a device that is not a PS3. Right now that includes PS4, Vita, PlayStation TV, Bravia TVs, and soon it will extend to tablets, phones, set top boxes, PCs, etc, etc.

 

Ideally Netflix would offer movies much sooner, but doesn't because content providers like HBO pay a premium to deliver them first. Netflix is like a on demand service of content more analogous with TBS or TNT than HBO or Cinemax.

Given the EA service isn't tiered with a premium tier how is it moving backwards?

 

It's very likely they would begin to offer 'added value' by tying in exclusive/timed DLC and the like to EA Access subs only. Soon enough we'll be paying $50-60 for half of what used to be a full game at launch with everything else held up in some form of sub access. You'll just have to wait a while if you want everything at the 'regular' price.

Anyways, if there is one company I'd put faith in giving real value in the long run it sure wouldn't be EA.

 

I read the therms and conditions and they don't say if you need Xbox God membership to access the online of those games.
Does anyone here know if it's the case?

 

Even if it did, it would only be worthwhile or attractive to anyone who spent less than $30 of a year on gaming if it carried the same pricing model as PS Now.

Why spend anywhere $30 to rent 2-6 games for anywhere from 20 hours-60 days when you can have access to the total library for the length of the subscription?

 

Amazon and Vudu already sit alongside Sony's own video app so Sony its clear that they aren't concerned with customer confusion or having to field complaints or concerns over quality or value. Your state also reiterates the issue: "if they think its a poor value". Not theirs to decide, its the customers job to decide. Someone who buys a lot of EA games would probably find this to be a great value.

Does your assertion as to why MS is allowing this have any roots in fact?