I remember the arguments and "the sky is falling" here and on other forums when Valve first introduced Steam. Clearly that was indeed a terrible development... ;-)
EA Access, Xbox One - $5/mo, $30/yr
- Thread starter Scott_Arm
- Start date
If it was a lifetime commitment to just one publisher, maybe you'd have a point. If it's a monthly or yearly purchase, people will stop using a service if it doesn't serve up suitable goods. Bored of BF11 and FIFA 26? Don't bother renewing your EA sub and subscribe to Activision instead. Tired of COD 13? Want something new? Subscribe to PS+ or IndieChannelNeuvo.
No-one's stopping you taking your custom elsewhere, which means the comptetitive pressure to provide entertainment that consumer want remains exactly the same. The only possible change would be if your library if somehow destroyed if you stop subscribing. eg. Let's say you've used PS+ for 2 years and have 50 games available to you, but you want to stop subscribing. You know that if you want access to those 50 games again, you can resubscribe and they'll be available. Now if Sony had the caveat that if you stop subscribing, you'd lose access to all your past games, you'd be tied into paying that subscription to retain access to your full library. That caveat doesn't exist. It's unlikely a service with that caveat would find consumer success IMO, at least without considerable value. eg. If I had to pay £10 a year to keep access to all my past games, but that came with £100s of new games in value, I'd do it.
There's a lot of panicky, pessimistic response to this at the moment, which isn't at all founded. Gamers have a choice where to put their money, like every other business. The end result of this transition, such as it may become, will be something that fits in with what the market wants. You have precisely as much say as ever - the power of one consumer to choose which companies and services and products you spend you money on. Nothing has materially changed in terms of the producer/consumer relationship.
The only people that would sign up for such a subscription would only play those games that you offer, otherwise they wouldn't sign up. In order to increase subscribers you need more selection that reaches out to a larger consumer base. Why is this not obvious? There is nothing right now that reaches the RPG crowd, so why would RPG players sign up for EA Access. If you're in it for the money, you're going to start investing and filling out that library to have maximum spread over the market.
That makes absolutely no sense. We not talking about replacing the current model with some twisted subscription model which serves as the only outlet to acquire a publishers' titles.
How does it materially harm the industry? How does it stifle competition exactly? How does it allow big pubs to get rich while the bottom of the market falls out for the rest of everyone else? Why fewer IPs and less diversity?
All those arguments are normally used when you limit market choices not expand them.
All I see is a bunch of conjecture with no solid arguments on why any of us should be scared of any of that happening.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've never seen anyone describe Origin, Uplay and G4WL as good either
And that has nothing to do with them being marketplaces but rather forms of DRM.
I imagine that in a game as a service future every publishers that can afford it will want to be the one to provide the games it makes so you will either subscribe to "EA channel" or nowhere else you can find EA games.
Same will be for for Sony, MS, Ubi, etc...
Movies have several revenue streams but games don't.
It is much more important to make as much money as possible out of every single purchase so using other distribution channels would be less profitable.
If EA wanted to use other distribution channels it would not have created Orgins.
If the EA channel doesn't provide value for money, people won't subscribe to it, forcing EA to use other distribution channels. The choice is ultimately the consumers'.
Which can change. You can have selling the game as a disc (DVD), renting the game directly (like Google Play Movies or SEN Movies Unlimited, a temporary purchase of download that expires after x time), and subscription model where you play games available (a la Netflix). Why is this a bad thing?
You can't begrudge them trying, and if it works, it shows the consumers are comfortable with it and finding value. If no-one buys Origins based games because it's a PITA, EA will drop it.
Or it can lower the prices if customers deem they are too high OR can improve the service...or at least try to.
Giving up is the last option, not the first.
When did I say or suggest, it was a "bad thing"?
Now I would remove from the equation selling games on disc since is not very profitable for publishers.
Renting games could work, even if is also less profitable if you rely on intermediaries, but they at least can make more money out of the same copy more than once.
I don't begrudge them.
Last edited by a moderator:
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
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)
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?
Its a slippery slope mate
What?
Subscribing to a service doesn't lock you out to other content.
Do you know how much Take 2 would have to charge or how big its subscription base would have to be to generate the type of revenue GTA 5 did in six weeks? At $30 a year, Take 2 would need 30 million subscribers each paying 2 years worth of subscription to do 2 billion dollars.
EA did 2 billion in revenue off the PS3 and 360 last fiscal year. At $30 a year, EA would need 60 million subscribers on a yearly basis just to pull that type of revenue. About twice the subscription base of Netflix or Comcast. Or basically one of the biggest subscription services in the world for media based content.
Its not meant to replace the current method it meant to extract revenue from an older library that many don't make use of, especially digitally. DD is only 10-15% of EA's business so its hard to see this model as something meant to usurp the current model.
Its all about creating additional revenue streams not replacing old ones.
What happened when HBO and other subscription service start producing their own content. If you value it enough you will subscribe if you don't you won't. And more than likely if people value it enough it won't be restricted to the subscription service, not for long anyways.
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.
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)
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?
hint - EA is doing this to make more money, guess where they get this money from? the consumer.
more choice does not always equal better for the customers
Perfect case in point the nz electrity retail market.
1987 = 1 single government owned provider
2014 = Bosco Connect, Budgie Power, Contact Energy, Energy Direct, Energy Online, Genesis Energy, Just Energy, King Country Energy, Mercury Energy, Meridian Energy, Nova Energy, Opunake Hydro, Payless Energy, Powershop, Pulse Energy, Simply Energy, Tiny Mighty Power and TrustPower
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
I'm ok with these types of subscriptions on consoles and I'd be tempted to sign up if there are games I'm interested in. I really don't want to have to pay 4 - 6 different subscriptions separately. Sony and MS can allow publishers to have these types of services but require them to do it from the Live or PSN interface. It can be a check mark option and the cost goes up and down depending on how many subs there are. The money paid would go to the publishers selected. A unified interface for these subscriptions would also be nice. They could each get menus and sub menus, but not their own interfaces. This would be more preferable for me than to have to pay each publisher separately at different times. And at least this way it is still a subscription to each publisher and they each get their money, but it simplifies the process for many people and that could be a net benefit overall. Or not.
shredenvain
Regular
The thing alot of you guys seem to be forgetting is that this service is not mandatory.
What could possibly be wrong with having this kind of service from all the major publishers?
If they all cost $5 a month you could pick and choose every month which one to use and play a ton of different games and it would only cost you $30 a year. I know that there is alot of stigma attached to EA games but this is a pretty good deal. Sure there are only 4 free games now but if they keep their word it could be up to 12 games in a years time. Last I heard it doesnt require Gold either unless you wanna play online. I don't understand how this could be bad for gaming.
The code I received gave access to the app, but not the subscription. First thing the app does is "Contacting EA Servers" and then prompts for an Origin Logon (entry or setup). The game list page by default shows all EA titles available for the platform with an indicator for those that are in the vault (filter options are available). Accessing a game brings up the XBOX Store and will download the content from Live.
I guess the fact that this is linked via Origin would point to allowing the content to be available cross-platform should they enable the service on other platforms.
