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

[Bagel seed]

What? Who doesn't want HBO? If anything, people are demanding they should be able to subscribe to HBO directly, without having to get a cable/satellite package. Lots of people want to be able to pay for HBO without going through Comcast or whatever. A direct subscription for HBO Go is exactly what they want.

EA is already capable of offering what they can provide to us (games) over Sony and MS' networks. Here, EA is testing the nickel portion of the nickel and dime strategy by offering things not of any significant cost to them (older games and early access). It's not like they'll have exclusive distribution rights to their content for a large amount of time like with HBO and its shows, BUT, that is exactly the fear going forward - that regular run of the mill EA content that we play out of the box now will be locked behind their paywall, timed or otherwise.

If this kind of thing picks up (and it would if unchecked) among pubs, they become the ones in full control of what constitutes a full game at launch. The bar of value for consumers could easily swing wildly in their favor and become the norm.

 

[dobwal]

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.

Have the length of full feature films shorten over the years? Has the lack of such a model kept full game prices from increasing over the years? No.

In fact, the money derived from DVDs, VOD, cable subscription and TV has encouraged the level one can invest in a film given all the available revenue streams.

Making a game today is like making a movie 70-80 years ago when theaters were the sole revenue stream for films.

I'd be more afraid of advertising than locking everything behind a sub, because thats the next step, a free tier but a ton of commericial breaks with commericals slowly sneaking their way up the tiers.

 

[Rangers]

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?

Doesn't PS Now have streaming, intrinsically lower quality gaming?

And it's limited to last gen?

And wasn't PS Now pricing mooted to be atrocious (19.99 rentals?)

And where are you getting the 20 hours-60 days thing?

But the short answer is, those 2-6 games could be much more premium, and in demand, than whats being offered on PS Now. That's for gamers to decide.

I've lost all track of PS Now, is it even available?

This is all pointless really, it's a choice, and Sony should have at least allowed gamers the choice to decide for themselves. The real reason is probably business/greed, Sony protecting PS Now potential profits I guess.

It'll just be interesting to watch how things go. Will EA access fail? Will it succeed and force Sony to accept it? Will it need tweaking? Time will tell.

I honestly think one of the biggest draws could end up being early access. That's something that possibly I have long thought more game companies should look into selling, because this is such an anticipatory hobby, we are always looking to the next game. What if EA said "subscribe to EA access, and you can purchase full new releases 5 days early (digital only)"? That might be a big deal. If there's that game you really, really, want, you'll probably fork over $30 just for that right, and see the other benefits as bonuses.

 

[Scott_Arm]

EA is already capable of offering what they can provide to us (games) over Sony and MS' networks. Here, EA is testing the nickel portion of the nickel and dime strategy by offering things not of any significant cost to them (older games and early access). It's not like they'll have exclusive distribution rights to their content for a large amount of time like with HBO and its shows, BUT, that is exactly the fear going forward - that regular run of the mill EA content that we play out of the box now will be locked behind their paywall, timed or otherwise.

If this kind of thing picks up (and it would if unchecked) among pubs, they become the ones in full control of what constitutes a full game at launch. The bar of value for consumers could easily swing wildly in their favor and become the norm.

I have no fear of such things, because it's a videogame and if I don't like the value proposition I'll just do something else. Ultimately, they have to offer value to a customer or a customer won't pay for it. The only thing stopping what you're living in fear of is customers and their wallets. If people are willing to pay the same price for a third of the content, or pay three times the price for the same content, then that's what the consumer wants and that's what the consumer will get. What's stopping companies from releasing games that can be completed in two or three hours for retail price? Customers won't pay for it (unless they're the idiots that buy shitty Metal Gear prologues). Customers don't need Sony to "defend" them from poor value propositions. They already do that by deciding what they will and will not buy.

 

[Scott_Arm]

"I hope Sony builds an anti-competitive anti-consumer walled-garden so the publishers don't build anti-competitive anti-consumer walled-gardens."

 

[dobwal]

And where are you getting the 20 hours-60 days thing?

Either you rent 6 games at $5 for 4 hours a piece or 2 games for at $15 for 30 days a piece. I was just going off the top of my head with PS Now pricing and applying to that scheme to the EA service.

The point being is that the benefits of a rental model comes from using it less not using more. Because once you reached $30 in a year's time renting, you might as well have bought a sub. And for anyone who will play more than 6 games for a total of 24 hours or 2 games for a total of 60 days, the rental feature becomes worthless.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Netflix balances that out by offering 150K movies and TV shows to watch.

Really?! Or is that US? The range seems pretty miniscule on the UK offering. Never have anything one searches for and the recommendations are very limited.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Really?! Or is that US? The range seems pretty miniscule on the UK offering. Never have anything one searches for and the recommendations are very limited.

If you go by this site, Netflix USA has less than 10000 unique shows or movies, if you count multiple episodes of the same tv series as one piece of content.

http://netflixukvsusa.blogspot.com/

 

[eastmen]

Wow we are really picking up steam running to the cliff's edge. PS NOW , Games for GOLD and now this are just going to further de-value games.

 

[dobwal]

Wow we are really picking up steam running to the cliff's edge. PS NOW , Games for GOLD and now this are just going to further de-value games.

If film has been able to thrive with the advent of TV, cable/satellite and VCR/DVD/VOD/DD, then I doubt somehow games are going to suffer.

We do live in a reality where a console gen produces 1000s of titles of which, the average console gamer buys into less 1% at full retail prices. There is a bunch of value that can be extracted by publishers by simply offering that other 99% at a cost that gamers find acceptable. Whether that comes through subscriptions, rentals, free with advertising or a hybrid of all three methods is up to the market to decide.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Wow we are really picking up steam running to the cliff's edge. PS NOW , Games for GOLD and now this are just going to further de-value games.

I'm not sure what this means. Are you talking about getting less for your money? I think games have more content than ever. You get a lot for your $60.

 

[joker454]

Wow we are really picking up steam running to the cliff's edge. PS NOW , Games for GOLD and now this are just going to further de-value games.

Games to me are already devalued really. I consider gaming to be free now, basically roughly the cost of a coffee.I add them to my wishlist and when they hit the $1 to $5 range I buy, if I have nothing already clogging my playlist. The thing is with a metric fuckton of games out there to play, even at $5 I often don't buy now because there are just so many damn games in my playlist that I have yet to touch.

So to me the concept of $60 is long since gone, gaming is now free. I can go buy a hotdog or get a AAA game to play. That's what it's become because of so much content out there that it's impossible for me to get to play it all even at just $1 to $5 a pop. That will in turn put pressure on higher priced games as people drift away from that to far cheaper forms of entertainment. Supply and demand, there is so much supply of cheap games that demand of more expensive games will drop. Enter things like EA Access, something I think most of us many years ago predicted would eventually come to be. It's the inevitable evolution of it all. Just like movies start in the theater and then enter the all you can eat buffets called HBO, Showtime, etc, games will eventually be the same. Some will still pay top dollar to play games at launch, others like me will eventually sample them at the buffet...when I finally have time to get around to them. It's not a bad thing, it's just the evolution of gaming. As a bonus it may be the only way to force console gaming to join the digital age, as right now their digital pricing model pretty much relegates their digital marketplaces to niche status.

 

[Billy Idol]

Does EA Access include an Xbox One system rental?

No, but in my case: I have a PS4 and a X1...so I don't care about this particular point. I care for value that is offered to me.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

...when I finally have time to get around to them. It's not a bad thing, it's just the evolution of gaming.

It's unsustainable. You playing $60 games when they've dropped in price to $5 is only workable because others buy them at full price. If everyone waited for them to drop to $5, these games wouldn't exist, and we'd be left with only $5 quality games from the outset.

Thankfully there's a wide range of consumers and the market breaks down into those who have gaming as a hobby and spend more, and then laggards who just provide a little extra revenue. PSN+ and EA's service et al will need to strike the balance where revenue from old games goes up while losses from new games doesn't. The moment people stop buying new $60 games until they drop in price, the whole model will need replacing (hence the service/subscription model some propose).

 

[Rangers]

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.

 

[Billy Idol]

It's unsustainable. You playing $60 games when they've dropped in price to $5 is only workable because others buy them at full price. If everyone waited for them to drop to $5, these games wouldn't exist, and we'd be left with only $5 quality games from the outset. Thankfully there's a wide range of consumers and the market breaks down into those who have gaming as a hobby and spend more, and then laggards who just provide a little extra revenue. PSN+ and EA's service et al will need to strike the balance where revenue from old games goes up while losses from new games doesn't. The moment people stop buying new $60 games until they drop in price, the whole model will need replacing (hence the service/subscription model some propose).

Good point - I do wonder if all these subscription models or steam sales or whatever are the downfall of AAA games. Luckily, atm, it seems that there are enough gaming enthusiast around that want to play new games at day one.

 

[Billy Idol]

Imo a problem with EAs service is that the amount of games, or better: different IPs, seems quite limited to me personally...I don't like sports games, BF is a dead IP, Crysis 4 is highly unlikely...so Dragon Age seems to look really good and of course Mass Effect. Did I miss an important EA series?

 

[Cyan]

Wow we are really picking up steam running to the cliff's edge. PS NOW , Games for GOLD and now this are just going to further de-value games.

I see nothing wrong with this, and in fact it sounds very interesting, specially when a new Dragon Age is close to be released.

Still... Microsoft should provide online for free, with the Games with Gold feature being there to lure attraction from people, so they would pay 60€ a year for the Games with Gold promotion, but could have all the gold advantages for free, like playing online.

 

[AzBat]

Imo a problem with EAs service is that the amount of games, or better: different IPs, seems quite limited to me personally...I don't like sports games, BF is a dead IP, Crysis 4 is highly unlikely...so Dragon Age seems to look really good and of course Mass Effect. Did I miss an important EA series?

Titanfall, Need for Speed, The Sims, Dead Space, SimCity, Command & Conquer, Burnout. Mirror's Edge.

Tommy McClain

 

[joker454]

It's unsustainable. You playing $60 games when they've dropped in price to $5 is only workable because others buy them at full price. If everyone waited for them to drop to $5, these games wouldn't exist, and we'd be left with only $5 quality games from the outset.

Thankfully there's a wide range of consumers and the market breaks down into those who have gaming as a hobby and spend more, and then laggards who just provide a little extra revenue. PSN+ and EA's service et al will need to strike the balance where revenue from old games goes up while losses from new games doesn't. The moment people stop buying new $60 games until they drop in price, the whole model will need replacing (hence the service/subscription model some propose).

Yeah both will remain, there will always be people that will pay full price to be there on day one, that's the same with anything be it movies, toasters or cars, so both models can co-exist for a while anyways. I just happen to not really care anymore about playing anything at launch, it just doesn't matter to me.

Also sometimes games only make a profit at extreme low pricing. One example is here:

http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/01/02/pixel-junk-edens-flash-sale-doubled-its-income/

Of note:

Q-Games' Dylan Cuthbert confirmed on Twitter that the Steam Winter Flash Sale of PixelJunk Eden, which slashed the price down from $10 to $1, doubled that game's income. In other words, with front page placement and the deeply discounted $1 price tag, PixelJunk Eden earned in just 8 hours what it previously earned over a little under a year.

Now that's obviously not a AAA game as we don't have that kind of data alas, but the point being that there is strength in numbers so I wouldn't say gaming will come to an end if prices of games were forced to fall. I wouldn't be surprised if there are some AAA games out there that were financial flops until they hit Steam pricing, and then were able to climb into profitability. It's too easy for everyone to point to COD or GTA as how much money $60 games can make, but I don't think that paints the whole picture. Things like EA all access, F2p, and new pricing models all need to be looked into and experimented with.