EA announces a subscription service for Xbox One

[Qbah]

Imagine if there would be 10 million people who signed up for this (that means MS would need to sell 10M X1s first), that's still only $300M in revenue a year for EA with lowered sales too... That's not a huge sum at all for them. Something seems off... Buying one EA game a year probably gives them more... I have no idea how this can be profitable for them in the long run...

 

[Bman123]

I'll sign up for this tomorrow and get the year long sub. I'll just sell my bf4 copy for $30 on craigslist to pay for this since I'll be getting the game right back its not like I'm losing anything.
Between this EA sub, games with gold and PS+ I should never run out of games to play.

Its going to be interesting to see what ea does with the servers tho. When madden 15 comes out will they just shut down the Madden 25 server so you can't play online at all?

Either way this will work out as me not paying anything for it after I sell bf4. I'm hoping plants vs zombies gets on there soon so I can sell that game too. It would be nice to go mostly digital this gen without paying a arm and a leg to do it.

I told a couple of friends about this and they are all for it. Majority of them said they'll stop buying Madden every year since they'll end up getting it for free more then likely with this service. They all want to try FIFA so that's a plus for them too.

I'm surprised my friends acted the way they did, the most agreed thing was they are tired of buying Madden every year for just a roster update, that's been my biggest complaint since Madden 2010

 

[Bateluer]

The attempt to move gaming to subscription service has begun.

Cancel your sub, lose all your games.
When games are 'retired', you'll likely lose the ability to play them.

Tread with caution.

 

[RussianSensation]

The attempt to move gaming to subscription service has begun.

Cancel your sub, lose all your games.
When games are 'retired', you'll likely lose the ability to play them.

Tread with caution.

Yea, but even so in the long term the cost savings could be worthwhile. When I owned N64, I was still a high school student and didn't have much money. I felt it was too expensive for me to buy $60-80 games that I would beat in 3-4 days and never play again, which is why I only bought games with long campaigns (Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time) or multiplayer component such as Goldeneye. Everything else I rented at places like Blockbuster. It saved me sooooo much $$$ to not have to buy games with low replay value and allowed me to play a lot more games than what I would have been able to if I strictly purchased games.

There are so many games today with short 7-15 hour SP campaigns that they simply aren't worth $60, not even $30 if one could rent them for $3-5 and return them. Subscription gaming makes so much sense for the future of console gaming since we would save a lot by just renting these games and once PS5/XB next come out, we would move on to newer games. Also, with the switch to x86, I have no doubt that next gen consoles will be backwards compatible which would allow you to keep your subscription and replay old PS4/XB1 games while the next gen's consoles gaming library started to build up.

The reason Steam is different is because there are so many games that are $5-15 and newer games fall to $30 very fast. For consoles this is not the case which is why the subscription based gaming model would save $ long term if implemented correctly.

http://www.polygon.com/2014/7/29/5948829/ea-access-owning-games

 

[blurredvision]

Imagine if there would be 10 million people who signed up for this (that means MS would need to sell 10M X1s first), that's still only $300M in revenue a year for EA with lowered sales too... That's not a huge sum at all for them. Something seems off... Buying one EA game a year probably gives them more... I have no idea how this can be profitable for them in the long run...

It's profitable because they are likely to only offer old games with this service, games which they have been losing money on to used sales. I feel like BF4 and Peggle 2 were thrown in to make it enticing at first, but IMO this is really aimed at sports games.

I have a couple of friends and have heard of many who do this, who buy last year's sports game cheap and used. EA gets absolutely zero money from this so they attempted to tap into it by doing the Online Pass thing. Either it wasn't as successful as they hoped or they wanted something different due to the bad PR, so they did away with it last year and are now introducing EA Access, very much its spiritual successor. We all thought they got rid of it because we anticipated the next gen consoles were going with online DRM, but it's possible we now know the real reason.

To me, it seems like a smart offering by EA. I don't see this eating into new game sales at all, no more than PS+ or XLG free games do currently to other developers.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Developers are paid when retailers buy a copy for their inventory. There are likely deals where a certain sales expectation is met and a bonus is paid out though. Developers are paid to have their game on psn+ and GWG as far as I know.

I think on line pass didn't work because most people aren't playing sports games online.

 

[MikeyLSU]

This looks like something I will be getting when it is available. Like someone else said, I have never played FIFA, but would like to give it a shot without having to buy the game. Plus BF4 and the promise of other games sounds great. If after a year, they haven't added any games worth anything, I just wouldn't renew. But so far, I like the idea and the offer of games.

But the articles say they will offer more games, those 4 are just for the beta. I expect that to be true.

 

[Wingznut]

Fail, no way I'm paying $30 a year...

This is stupid unless they include some sort of newer sports title...

I'll sign up for this tomorrow and get the year long sub.

 

[Topweasel]

That logic's totally backwards. Who the hell would spend the $30/year to wait for a game? You get this is there's a game you want to play already. If you're waiting for a game you want, it costs you nothing. LIVE is a borderline-required service on the Xbox One because so many games are online-dependent.

This service optionally offers games at a significantly-lower price to those interested. If you don't want it, you can still get the exact games you want in the exact way you want without missing out on anything.

Like, I don't even see how you can convince yourself that you made a point there. Allowing you to choose to subscribe for games you want is somehow forcing you to subscribe to wait for games? What?

How you read any of that is totally screwed up.

Both our points are from our point of views. Lets take a look at launch titles for me.

BF4 no interest in playing on console.
Madden 25 already own it.
Fifa 14 no interest in playing.
Peggle 2 No interested in ever playing that game.

So a person in my shoes would either A.) Own the game in the first place or B.) not be terribly interested in it. This holds true for Live and PSN. The chances by offering the games a year + after release significantly increases the likelihood that it is either A.) or B.).

While this doesn't account for everyone or even a majority of people it's not a small piece of the pie. But it would actually be a large portion of early adopters of the One. You would think with as few games out there. If someone wanted to play BF they would have by now.

Most people buy games they want. A service that sole point of existence is to offer you to play games that didn't interest you the first time around doesn't seem like a smart investment in money.

 

[Wingznut]

Most people buy games they want. A service that sole point of existence is to offer you to play games that didn't interest you the first time around doesn't seem like a smart investment in money.

You don't think there's a scale of interest?

Aren't there games out there that you don't have the slightest urge to pay $60 for, but would be interested at $40? Or maybe at $20? Or maybe as part of a yearly subscription? Or maybe free?

Of course.

 

[MikeyLSU]

I love sony's response.
"It isn't a good value to the PS gamer" I'm sure it has nothing to do with not paying EA or something and being left out.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/...sent-good-value-to-the-playstation-gamer.aspx

 

[bearxor]

The attempt to move gaming to subscription service has begun.

Cancel your sub, lose all your games.
When games are 'retired', you'll likely lose the ability to play them.

Tread with caution.

That's basically what I thought about when I read about it.

But I feel that move is inevitable anyways and, actually, I fully support it. This actually edges me closer to a X1 over a PS4.

 

[smackababy]

I love sony's response.
"It isn't a good value to the PS gamer" I'm sure it has nothing to do with not paying EA or something and being left out.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/...sent-good-value-to-the-playstation-gamer.aspx

More likely "This is a service that competes with PS+ so it isn't a good value to Sony."

 

[Super56K]

That's basically what I thought about when I read about it.

But I feel that move is inevitable anyways and, actually, I fully support it. This actually edges me closer to a X1 over a PS4.

PC has been nudging the gaming industry towards these kinds of scenarios for a long time now. MMO subscriptions, the dominance of Steam and digital games that are bound to accounts, etc. These days PC gaming experience is tied to having an account in good standing. It's worked out well for consumers in other industries also. This likely is an inevitable move. It'll be interesting to see how well this service from EA does and the Playstation streaming service that is coming, I think, later this year. I really hope they catch on so long as I can download the full digital game, or potentially a week long rental service at fair prices.

Also, to counter one of TopWeasel's points - bold are my changes:

"Most people buy movies they want. A service that sole point of existence is to offer you movies that didn't interest you the first time around doesn't seem like a smart investment in money.

Netflix is doing well for themselves. The beauty of a subscription service is that many of us can't (or refuse to) buy all the games (or movies/tv/music) that interest us as they come out.

 

[zokudu]

I'm in the camp of someone who enjoys a sports game here and there, Madden and Fifa being the two that interest me the most (NHL being a close 3rd). I don't really follow the sports that closely in real life but I have a fun time with the games. Even if they're a year old I don't play online anyway and I balk at paying $60 for them at release. THis service really fits my usage which I feel some people are missing.

This service isn't for everyone but for those that it does fit it seems really great.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I love sony's response.
"It isn't a good value to the PS gamer" I'm sure it has nothing to do with not paying EA or something and being left out.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/...sent-good-value-to-the-playstation-gamer.aspx

*shrug* I have found the average Xbox gamer and the average PlayStation gamer to have different tastes in games at times anyway.

Beyond that we already know that EA took money from MS in order to keep titanfall an Xbox console exclusive. So yeah I bet MS paid EA for this "beta access" or "first look" whatever they are calling it. Doesn't bother me and like i said, people who play sports games will generally buy the new one at or near release vs play last year's version.

So its free money for EA. I don't support paying a subscription for access to games, if I want them I will buy them and be fully in control of my gameplay. What I mean is, if say 2 years from now they remove a game from the game list that you are still playing...this can't happen if you buy it outright.

 

[cmdrdredd]

That's basically what I thought about when I read about it.

But I feel that move is inevitable anyways and, actually, I fully support it. This actually edges me closer to a X1 over a PS4.

For EA games? Really?...and chances are they will not be new release titles on there. Like when/if mass effect 4 comes out...it won't be on there day one. There is no incentive for that. If EA has a catellogue you like or something I guess this may work out.

 

[MikeyLSU]

For EA games? Really?...and chances are they will not be new release titles on there. Like when/if mass effect 4 comes out...it won't be on there day one. There is no incentive for that. If EA has a catellogue you like or something I guess this may work out.

The point is choices are good, sure for you it may be a bad deal. But many people who don't buy every game may like this.

 

[Topweasel]

PC has been nudging the gaming industry towards these kinds of scenarios for a long time now. MMO subscriptions, the dominance of Steam and digital games that are bound to accounts, etc. These days PC gaming experience is tied to having an account in good standing. It's worked out well for consumers in other industries also. This likely is an inevitable move. It'll be interesting to see how well this service from EA does and the Playstation streaming service that is coming, I think, later this year. I really hope they catch on so long as I can download the full digital game, or potentially a week long rental service at fair prices.

Also, to counter one of TopWeasel's points - bold are my changes:

"Most people buy movies they want. A service that sole point of existence is to offer you movies that didn't interest you the first time around doesn't seem like a smart investment in money.

Netflix is doing well for themselves. The beauty of a subscription service is that many of us can't (or refuse to) buy all the games (or movies/tv/music) that interest us as they come out.

Well it does hold true for me. I use netflix to supplement cable TV, Anime, and originals. My HD movie collection is nearing 400 movies and TV show seasons.

But I would think that market wise. There are less gamers that would sign up for 1+ year old games. I think there would be a bigger hit from sport game players deciding to only play year old ones on this instead of buying their games new.

But I would say that the movie rental environment and game subscription services would be two wildly different markets. The rental market is more of a Movie theater supplement and not a supplement for ownership. That's not the same for games.

Also Netflix does two things. It rented out movies and databased the transactions to model consumers tastes and between knowing that and just plain trying to License as much content as possible you can be assured when signing up with Netflix they will have something in your tastes. Then you have gamefly while much more expensive gives you immediate access to games you want to play but you are worried about purchasing.

This is restricted to 1+ year old, single studio titles, of which they tend to only have 4-5 a year that are not the same old sports games. Chances are the 1-2 of those 5 games you want to play A.) wouldn't be worth the sub compared to lets say 2 months of gamefly B.) Probably already purchased, because gamers tend to be even more immediate purchasers, over any other entertainment media.

Also you have to keep in mind that oddly enough the people more willing to sign up for sub in console for a particular studios titles are probably the ones least likely to get value out of it.

 

[smackababy]

For EA games? Really?...and chances are they will not be new release titles on there. Like when/if mass effect 4 comes out...it won't be on there day one. There is no incentive for that. If EA has a catellogue you like or something I guess this may work out.

The thing is, this service allows for cheap, unlimited demos for the previous game in a series. Say that Mass Effect 4 comes out this year and then next year, Mass Effect 5 release (totally made up time frame, btw). So, obviously the people who bought ME4 are interested in ME5, but what about those that didn't or aren't interested enough to go out and find the game. This service allows those people, who wouldn't likely buy a game they aren't interested in, to try it out and be a possible customer of the newest version at full price. That is only gaining a sale for EA. And, the trying it early is pretty much a demo of the full game as well.

I am not saying this is a great deal, but it has it's merits. Plus, the 10% savings on everything from full games to DLC to season pass things can be a big incentive for people who already buy EA games.


And, for what it's worth, MS and EA have a pretty close exclusive partnership, so it isn't a surprise that Sony didn't allow this service (which I'm sure wouldn't be exclusive for Sony, and that is the real reason). Fifa 14 (and Fifa 15) already has exclusive Xbox content (Legend players in FUT) as well as Titanfall being exclusive.

 

[Bman123]

I see it like this. You'll get the current sports titles a month or two before the new ones come out. That's fine for people who aren't hardcore sports fans and want to occasionally play a sports game here and there.
Its the same with bf4 on there right now considering hardline is about to release soon.
I have no clue how they will do the other games tho. The one thing that really bugs me is not knowing if the games you DL now will be pulled from the (vault) in a month or two and you lose (access) to them.

 

[smackababy]

I see it like this. You'll get the current sports titles a month or two before the new ones come out. That's fine for people who aren't hardcore sports fans and want to occasionally play a sports game here and there.
Its the same with bf4 on there right now considering hardline is about to release soon.
I have no clue how they will do the other games tho. The one thing that really bugs me is not knowing if the games you DL now will be pulled from the (vault) in a month or two and you lose (access) to them.

I would think any games pulled (say, when Madden 16 is about to come out and the replace Madden 25 with Madden 14 in the vault) you still have access if you downloaded them. The authentication server continues to work, you just aren't able to redownload the game.

But, who knows.

 

[Bman123]

We'll just have to see what happens, if EA had a better record with gamers this probably wouldn't even come up

 

[Super56K]

Well it does hold true for me. I use netflix to supplement cable TV, Anime, and originals. My HD movie collection is nearing 400 movies and TV show seasons.

But I would think that market wise. There are less gamers that would sign up for 1+ year old games. I think there would be a bigger hit from sport game players deciding to only play year old ones on this instead of buying their games new.

But I would say that the movie rental environment and game subscription services would be two wildly different markets. The rental market is more of a Movie theater supplement and not a supplement for ownership. That's not the same for games.

Also Netflix does two things. It rented out movies and databased the transactions to model consumers tastes and between knowing that and just plain trying to License as much content as possible you can be assured when signing up with Netflix they will have something in your tastes. Then you have gamefly while much more expensive gives you immediate access to games you want to play but you are worried about purchasing.

This is restricted to 1+ year old, single studio titles, of which they tend to only have 4-5 a year that are not the same old sports games. Chances are the 1-2 of those 5 games you want to play A.) wouldn't be worth the sub compared to lets say 2 months of gamefly B.) Probably already purchased, because gamers tend to be even more immediate purchasers, over any other entertainment media.

Also you have to keep in mind that oddly enough the people more willing to sign up for sub in console for a particular studios titles are probably the ones least likely to get value out of it.

I'm the same way with just my Blu-ray collection pushing a few hundred titles, but we're not representative of the market. For a lot of people cable TV + Redbox is more than enough stuff to watch. For the choosier person, Netflix is where it's at and it can be supplemented with Redbox or digital rentals for the latest titles. For weirdos like me, I need to own the majority of my favorite movies and shows at the best quality I can. All that said, it still took a while for the streaming side of Netflix to really catch on. I used to hate it because it was getting harder to rent Blu-ray titles from them in a timely manner. Now, years later, I only have a streaming sub.

For subscription based gaming, PS+ is one of the best bargains and has been for a while. When it's done right, people will pay for it. If a company hit the right balance of price/duration on digital rentals, it'll be a huge success. I don't see EA reaching those high levels of success (because they are just one studio and limiting it to one platform), but, from EA's standpoint, getting a chunk of Xbox One owners to pay for subscription based access to popular catalog titles is better than getting nothing from used sales. I personally kind of hate EA and wouldn't sign up for it if I could, but I do appreciate that they're trying to offer another way to access their titles.

 

[sze5003]

I would not pay a subscription to play demos or older games. I'm just not a huge fan of EA games. Usually if I want a sport game I will get it when it drops price and as long as I have owned consoles, sports games have dropped price the most, especially older ones.

I just don't like the idea of paying for live or ps + and also another subscription just to play games I didn't bother to look into.

If I'm interested in a game I'll buy it when it's released. With sports games I'll trade them in before the new ones come out. Why do I need nba 14,15, and 16 it's not like there is a different story to each one. I would rather have the latest one.