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

[iroboto]

EA Access addresses the most underserved market, users that have more than one console.

Being a Xbox Exclusive service is quite sensible. If everyone buys a PS4 and buys their games for PS4. EA only sold 1 copy. Even if you did own a X1, you wouldn't re-purchase the games for X1. In the end, EA doesn't care which platform you buy it for because you're likely only going to buy 1 copy only and that's where your buck stops with them. And they know the trend today is for the market to go PS4.

With EA Access, you can buy all your games for PS4, and have EA Access provide you the same games on X1 at a cost of (a) 30 dollars per year and a 6 month or so wait. You can play with all your Xbox friends without needing to go out and physically buy those copies. And when you're done with your fun with your friends, CANCEL your sub!

This is amazing when you think about it. When you as a consumer goes multi platform, it's a marginal increase in cost to make your library truly multi platform. This is also a SOLID win for EA as well. Value is added for everyone.

I've read so many complaints that _no_ game should be exclusive, and should exist on all platforms, this is it. Services like this is the answer. It makes people want to own more consoles, and it doesn't nearly penalize you doing it. You are no longer owning a second console for just their exclusives.

How one could see this as poor value is clearly zooming in on the trees and not seeing the forest.

 

[zed]

How one could see this as poor value is clearly zooming in on the trees and not seeing the forest.

If its a hit then expect shortly

Ubisoft access
take two access
Activision access
indy access
sega access
etc

Do you really want to go down that path?

 

[-tkf-]

It's a subscription service for old games. If the others add this service, fine.

The early access is worthless, and the discount is only useful for those that doesn't shop around for the best price anyway.

I can see a purpose for those that will use it as rental service at $5 a month, but who else would do this to get access to semi old and often discounted games?

 

[dobwal]

If its a hit then expect shortly

Ubisoft access
take two access
Activision access
indy access
sega access
etc

Do you really want to go down that path?

Do you see anyone complaining about there being more than on premium cable network? Or subscription services other than Netflix? Should we will hope for one smartphone manufacturer so all apps fall under one store? I have never seen anyone describe the coexists of services like Steam and GOG as bad?

Exactly what's bad about choices?

Supposedly it's good in just about in every market except when it comes to competing subscription services on a console.

If I only want access to older take 2 titles, why should I pay the inflated price because of the inclusion of titles from publishers I don't care about. How about if I do care about those other titles, what wrong with avoiding that one inflated flat fee and just alternating subscriptions and burn through each library one at a time?

 

[Brad Grenz]

Choice can be bad if a Balkanized marketplace of siloed publisher subscriptions undermine consumer confidence, destabilize the sector and create another industry crash.

 

[TrungGap]

Yes, choice is bad....Sony and MS shouldn't have released X1/PS4, because N won last gen. Now, consumers have to face uncertainty of which console to get. This undermine consumer confidence, destabilize the sector and create another industry crash.

Yes, we should just have one ISP. Too many ISP giving me headache, and will surely be the doom of internet.

/s

Publishers going to try different methods of maximizing their profit from existing assets. They could either give them cheaper to Steam summer sales, or do their things. Some will be successfully, some will fail spectacularly. Many will try to copy the successful model, which is good, because competition is good for free market.

Currently, the game publishing business is risky. Game development cost is high, the reward is high, but failure can bankrupt you. So you either stop taking chances on large projects and do smaller projects or innovate (shotgun approach...try to do everything to see what sticks). Ultimately, I think game publishing business model will more in alignment with cable tv/entertain publishing model. Subscription based. At this point, I would love to have more 1 choice to choose from.

 

[Florin]

I have never seen anyone describe the coexists of services like Steam and GOG as bad?

I've never seen anyone describe Origin, Uplay and G4WL as good either

Exactly what's bad about choices?

Agreed. I'm not sure why anyone would complain about EA putting this option out there.

Personally as an XBox One owner my interest in this happens to be pretty close to zero though.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I think Origin is pretty good So far nothing but a solid experience for me. Uplay on the other hand is clearly worse.

 

[zed]

Do you see anyone complaining about there being more than on premium cable network? Or subscription services other than Netflix?

Is this the netflix that lets you watch thousands of choices from paramont, 20century fox, universal studios, warner brothers, dreamworks etc etc etc.

I suppose my question is, So is EA going to rent you stuff from activision, ubisoft etc etc or is it just a handful of older titles from a single company

Steams OK, since theres lots of different companies releasing stuff on it.
with this EA thing if you're wanting a good choice of games you'll have to subscribe to them as well as activision/ubisoft etc. all for the low price of a couple of hundred per year (plus you need to pay for xboxlive)

Agreed. I'm not sure why anyone would complain about EA putting this option out there.

what happens if they start releasing stuff thats only possible to get if you join this subscription service?

Is paying extra to unlock extra content on a disc (for a small price) a good thing, its choice for the customer after all? choice is not always good, 5 years ago that content on the disc was included when you paid for the game

Its a slippery slope mate

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Choice can be bad if a Balkanized marketplace of siloed publisher subscriptions undermine consumer confidence, destabilize the sector and create another industry crash.

It'd 'crash' only briefly. If the strategy doesn't work, all the companies who's lives depend on successful sales will adapt. They'll give up their own proprietary services and roll out a unified one. There's no way they'd persist in a financially dead business plan for long enough for it to impact the industry on a large scale. Heck, they're trialling it first to get a measure. It'll only go that route if the market decides it should.

 

[Brad Grenz]

It'd 'crash' only briefly. If the strategy doesn't work, all the companies who's lives depend on successful sales will adapt. They'll give up their own proprietary services and roll out a unified one. There's no way they'd persist in a financially dead business plan for long enough for it to impact the industry on a large scale. Heck, they're trialling it first to get a measure. It'll only go that route if the market decides it should.

But the problem isn't a question of whether this service is successful or unsuccessful. The problem arises if it is successful, but materially harms the industry as a whole even as the company running the service continues to make money. People talk about the need to offer "choice" but this is a service implicitly designed to stifle competition. So the danger is one of the rich getting richer (EA, Activision, Ubisoft) while the bottom falls out on the rest of the market. It's a road to less competition, less diversity, fewer new IPs and an even greater reliance on annualized franchises until the foundation of the console market has been sufficiently undermined for it all to collapse.

 

[Cjail]

They'll give up their own proprietary services and roll out a unified one...

Unlikely, that would lead to a monopoly.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Unlikely, that would lead to a monopoly.

Huh? It'll be a distribution platform like PSN or XBL or Steam or NetFlix or Spotify running content for companies that want to contribute. It wouldn't have to be exclusive.

The argument seems to be that a subscription based model shouldn't be allowed because either it involves having to have individual subscriptions, or because it offers a unified service with access to everyone's content and that's a monopoly! How else can a subscription model be done?

 

[Nesh]

We make the mistake quite often that when a consumer buys something he is necessarily "happy" about it and also much better off than before. We also confuse this with choice. I tell you, one day when they will be selling clean air to humanity, nobody will be "happier" than they are now despite that they will be giving the cash. Having to pay multiple subscriptions or extra to have access to content when before I didnt need to isnt a positive development even if eventually I end up doing it.

 

[Cjail]

Huh? It'll be a distribution platform like PSN or XBL or Steam or NetFlix or Spotify running content for companies that want to contribute. It wouldn't have to be exclusive.

The argument seems to be that a subscription based model shouldn't be allowed because either it involves having to have individual subscriptions, or because it offers a unified service with access to everyone's content and that's a monopoly! How else can a subscription model be done?

For now publishers need need PSN, XBL because it the only way to sell digitally on consoles but when consoles are no more it will be much, much better to provide yourself the games to the customer without intermediaries...if you can afford it.
Why should EA, Ubi, Acti and so on, all pay Sony and MS or Valve once they can deliver the games directly themselves?

A unified distribution platform/store/marketplace IMO will truly work only if it will be free or with minimal fees and even then paying a subscription to the publisher directly would be better than subscribe to all.

 

[iroboto]

But the problem isn't a question of whether this service is successful or unsuccessful. The problem arises if it is successful, but materially harms the industry as a whole even as the company running the service continues to make money. People talk about the need to offer "choice" but this is a service implicitly designed to stifle competition. So the danger is one of the rich getting richer (EA, Activision, Ubisoft) while the bottom falls out on the rest of the market. It's a road to less competition, less diversity, fewer new IPs and an even greater reliance on annualized franchises until the foundation of the console market has been sufficiently undermined for it all to collapse.

Rampant speculation. You think people are going to sign up for a vault that says FIFA 2014-2018, battlefield 3-8 and call that value?

As you speculate about the less competition and less diversity and greater reliance on annualized franchises I can make the opposite claims on how it would increase diversity, reduce the need for annualized franchises and put more smaller games on the map.

You talk like those problems don't exist today- they do. They are only willing to fund games that mitigate risk and have an ideal rate of return. We've had this model FOREVER, the model hasn't changed and games industry has been on this trajectory for a long time. Indies will stay around forever now that they have an easy way to publish and because of its ability to generate a large amount of return on a small amount of investment; indies aren't going to die off because of these services.

AAA publishers can finally bank on their subscribers to play their games longer and to use those profits to fund new IPS. Cause right now they are leveraging the profits of the annual titles to so that. That's why ubisoft has watch dogs, child of light, the crew and division: it's because ass creed, far cry and splinter cell have been funding it. And now if they get access to an even larger revenue stream based upon titles they created they can use that money and create an even larger library and hence create more diversity. Having a library of only hockey, baseball, battlefield , need for speed, FIFA, UFC, and madden seems quite small; and that is a very small market of players. If you want more subscribers you gotta increase the diversity of games to reach more players.

Like you said there are no games you want there, so you won't buy in. There's a reason why titanfall isn't there, it's not owned by EA. So it's pretty clear and simple to me that these profits will go back only to the developer where the funds can be used to actually break out of this terrible cycle of annualized titles.

We have it your way today Brad. It spawned 3 studios on rotating cycles to make call of duty every single year.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Change is scary. What if everything gets worse? Better keep everything the same forever.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Why should EA, Ubi, Acti and so on, all pay Sony and MS or Valve once they can deliver the games directly themselves?

Because they may find no-one signs up to their $10 a month service because they are signing up to their competitors instead and can't afford multiple monthly subscription fees. If people won't buy into multiple services, the publishers will feel pressure to consolidate into a single platform.

It depends entirely what the people decide. If you look at movies, there aren't individual services for Lionsgate, Sony, Twentieth Century, WB, Paramount etc. They instead distribute over Netflix, Amazon, Google Play, and a gazillion other services. Games will likely do the same, although if it works out otherwise, it'll be because people vote that way with their wallets.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

We make the mistake quite often that when a consumer buys something he is necessarily "happy" about it and also much better off than before. We also confuse this with choice. I tell you, one day when they will be selling clean air to humanity, nobody will be "happier" than they are now despite that they will be giving the cash. Having to pay multiple subscriptions or extra to have access to content when before I didnt need to isnt a positive development even if eventually I end up doing it.

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.

It's also worth pointing out that your argument is claiming an increase in expenditure for these subscription services. If expenditure does increase, it'll come with a much increased library of games potentially. eg. At the moment you may spend $120 a year on two EA games. Three if you get them cheap. In a few years' time maybe you'll have to spend $180 a year for an EA subscription, but if it comes with access to every game they make, you end up with a different value proposition.

Writing off the subscription/service model before it's even started is unfair. There'll like be bad choices made and some attempts at consuming gouging before things settle, but it isn't inherently worse for consumers. It'll be different.

 

[Brad Grenz]

Rampant speculation. You think people are going to sign up for a vault that says FIFA 2014-2018, battlefield 3-8 and call that value?

As you speculate about the less competition and less diversity and greater reliance on annualized franchises I can make the opposite claims on how it would increase diversity, reduce the need for annualized franchises and put more smaller games on the map.

You talk like those problems don't exist today- they do. They are only willing to fund games that mitigate risk and have an ideal rate of return. We've had this model FOREVER, the model hasn't changed and games industry has been on this trajectory for a long time. Indies will stay around forever now that they have an easy way to publish and because of its ability to generate a large amount of return on a small amount of investment; indies aren't going to die off because of these services.

AAA publishers can finally bank on their subscribers to play their games longer and to use those profits to fund new IPS. Cause right now they are leveraging the profits of the annual titles to so that. That's why ubisoft has watch dogs, child of light, the crew and division: it's because ass creed, far cry and splinter cell have been funding it. And now if they get access to an even larger revenue stream based upon titles they created they can use that money and create an even larger library and hence create more diversity. Having a library of only hockey, baseball, battlefield , need for speed, FIFA, UFC, and madden seems quite small; and that is a very small market of players. If you want more subscribers you gotta increase the diversity of games to reach more players.

Like you said there are no games you want there, so you won't buy in. There's a reason why titanfall isn't there, it's not owned by EA. So it's pretty clear and simple to me that these profits will go back only to the developer where the funds can be used to actually break out of this terrible cycle of annualized titles.

We have it your way today Brad. It spawned 3 studios on rotating cycles to make call of duty every single year.

Talk about rampant speculation! You expect that once Activision, Ubisoft and EA all have people locked into annual subscriptions that will result in more experimentation and diversity? I find that hard to believe. As you point out now we already have highly iterative, annualized games. That situation will only get worse when you start introducing barriers designed to prevent consumers from making purchasing decisions on a game by game basis. They are trying to create a situation where gamers are literally vested in specific publishers irrespective of the quality of individual games to make sure their purchasing power is less liquid. I think that's gross, and dangerous.

And to be clear, I don't think EA Access will succeed. I think it will land with a thud and slowly wither away. But I also think it's destructive in principle and Sony was wise to reject it.