An early harbinger of streaming services, the Sega Channel was amazingly decent - dare I say "good" - for the time. As this system likely will be, the "play all you want" model relied on a few dozen games at a time being available and then they'd cycle out every month or so.
For someone who was a kid that played a lot of video games, this was ideal. My father once relayed to me that we'd rented Super Mario Bros 2 enough times to have purchased it 3 times over.
The resale market for video games is pretty absurd. Here, of course, is where I admit that even though I've cracked 30 I'm still playing a lot of video games. If I plop down $60-$70 on a game it's not a recoupible expense in any way, and in the days of all digital everything, this feels ludicrous.
The fact that consoles are still relying on DRM media is an amazing but predictable anachronism, and it feels like it exists solely because the game companies cannot figure out how to properly handle this model.
Having used the new Adobe Creative Cloud for a while, I find it's a really nice approach that doesn't end up costing any less but gives me some flexibility.
My father worked for a cable company, so I was familiar with the Sega Channel. Blew my mind that you could deliver Sonic over a cable line. We didn't have dial-up at home, let alone broadband (did cable internet exist then?). I didn't know how it worked and I didn't care. I didn't get a new console until the Sega Channel shut down.
This seems like a pretty great deal, what's the catch?
I'm guessing that the games will only be available for a limited period of time, then if you still want to play them you'll have to purchase them, which would be very different from Netflix.
I doubt these games have any of the DLC. You might be able to purchase the DLC, but then when the game is no longer offered on the service you'll be left with worthless DLC until you buy the full game.
Some people also purchase all services of this type, even if they already have the full games, because it's also offering exclusive content and betas, so it's basically a free $30 for each of those people to EA, millions of people times $30.
If you click through to EA's site - the catch is very apparent: new games aren't included: "If you’re an EA Access member, you can download upcoming EA games five days before the release date to play for a limited time."
"For a limited time" = play for a few days before the game comes out, then wait 3 months? 6 months? longer? for this year's game to be available on EA Access while being stuck with last year's game. EA was never going to cannibalize their top games' sales - just make their customers pay $5 / month to play for 5 days pre-launch.
A good example may be to look at the PS+ service offered for Playstation owners. Basically, you get access to games only while you subscribe. If you let the subscription lapse, then the contents becomes locked, even though it is still installed on your machine.
Part of the catch may be that they are bidding to cut out used game stores like Gamestop. Through this system, they get paid directly, diminish the supply of used (substitute) goods and can combat rental outlets like Redbox and Gamefly, by having less capital costs.
Playstation Plus is a great value, particularly if you own two or more consoles. (Say a PS3 or a Vita) You don't get the latest games but you get the last version of the new game that is out now.
I found being in Playstation Plus has gotten me into the downloadable habit, even though I almost always buy games when they are on sale, but again, that keeps me away from the used games from Amazon and Gamestop.
I definitely see this as their attempt to capture the used-game revenue stream.
From a financials standpoint, this makes the same case as SaaS software does -- recurring revenue stream, predictable income, and so on.
It also increases the consequences of getting banned by the XBox staff. Not only can't you go online for multiplayer, you can't play your subscription games either.
"It also increases the consequences of getting banned by the XBox staff. Not only can't you go online for multiplayer, you can't play your subscription games either."
Sounds like a classic case of "this is feature not a bug". With this system the stakes will be significantly raised for those who are verbally abusive on Live. Although admittedly I don't know if increasing penalties for the riff raff will improve their behavior or not.
Maybe, although blasting the secondary market can have effects on the primary market by directly and tangibly increasing their lifetime cost. I'd hazard to guess that the most valuable consumers don't hang onto their games until they reach $0 residual value.
I'm a collector. I don't really buy any games unless I plan on holding onto it forever. Steam is really the only exception, and hopefully I can pass that on after I'm dead too.
> I'm guessing that the games will only be available for a limited period of time, then if you still want to play them you'll have to purchase them, which would be very different from Netflix.
Actually that'd be exactly the same as Netflix. Netflix takes content down all the time. I have quite a few movies in my queue that are no longer available for streaming.
Netflix takes down content when they fail or decline to renew licensing terms with the content owner. In this case EA is the content owner. It will be interesting to see if they introduce their own artificial scarcity when they control both content and distribution. A situation which Netflix only enjoys for a handful of shows.
For now. If their service gets enough uptake, though, it's not hard to imagine other publishers wanting to get in on it as well. And why build your own service (and go through all the hassle of getting it on all the devices in the world) if you can just piggyback on EA's work? (As long as the fees and contracts are reasonable, of course.)
When Steam started out it was only a delivery channel for Valve titles, remember...
EA rep told me "we have no plans to remove any games from The Vault at this time." Hedging, certainly, but there you go. DLC is not included but Acccess people get 10 percent off it and new titles.
I don't think it's a bad deal if you don't mind playing a vanilla best-of library. Got a new Xbox One? Get this and you have a few games to start with. It'll probably be bundled soon - 6 months free. $30 for a year of proven mainstream games may strike many as a bargain.
Honestly, I haven't bought an EA sports game in years but I will subscribe to this. And if they do have additional content you can purchase, well they might just squeeze me for more than $30 by the end of the year. :)
... which is Disney's polite way of explaining why only a segment of their most popular animated titles are available to buy on home video at any given time. Each title has a window of time when it's available for purchase, and at the end of that time, it goes "into the Vault" -- meaning that Disney deliberately stops selling it for several years.
This strategy ensures a pop of sales from pent-up demand when the title rotates back "out of the Vault" into circulation again; and, since titles spend years in the Vault, it puts pressure on potential buyers to buy now or potentially lose the chance to do so for a long time.
I'm currently locked out of ~4 games I purchased legitimately because they changed my password after a hacker broke into their system and their customer service department can't seem to figure out how to let me back into my account. One of them wasn't even through Origin (it was Steam), but since they have a separate login process once you launch the game, I'm locked out of that as well.
Sorry that the best I can do is a sympathy upvote. Anyhow, yeah, once a company starts treating customers like that, I stop doing business with them, as I also did with Sony.
The sad thing is, though, that sometimes they buy up the good name of decent companies, as happened to Speakeasy (now Megapath), who was once a wonderful company before succumbing and earning a ban.
Almost every parent comment so far contains "What's the catch?" or something similar. Speaks volumes of EA's lack of transparency with their customers. They make great games, but seem to have some sleaziness when it comes to the pricing/terms of their products.
I think EA's continued popularity is a damning indictment of consumers. They complain incessently about DLC, DRM, 0-day patches, unimaginative games, yet line up, year after year, to plunk down $60 for the next Madden.
I think the people who are loudly complaining about these things aren't the same ones purchasing the next vers^H^H^H^H itera^H^H^H^H full price expansion pack for the existing game.
I don't think 4 or 5 comments from HN readers "speaks volumes" about much of anything.
People seem to want to see EA suffer for their past transgressions, but wishing doesn't make it so. Online commenters (especially in an echo chamber like HN) aren't evidence of a grassroots uprising against DRM and DLC.
It does speak volumes about people's eagerness to use comment sections to push an agenda.
As someone who has generally bought 2 or 3 sports titles a year from EA, this seems like an awesome deal. But since it is EA afterall, I have to ask "What is the catch?" I just don't see what exactly they get from this type of system. At $30 per year it is the cost of one game every two years. I have to imagine most of EA's customers who would be interested in this type of program make a lot more frequent purchases than that.
I'm pretty sure that they just want to push more downloadable content on to you, and start releasing less and less complete games. Just look at the Battlefield-series, you have to buy four individual extra packages in order to play it (more or less), or you're basically stuck with the single player or empty servers. They also offer a "premium" service, where you get all the packages at a better price, but you have to pay up front.
Yeah - or almost F2P. You can get AAA titles for $10-15, so they're almost there already. I think they've realised that releasing often is much more profitable. People are more inclined to pay a little fee many times, than one big one time fee. Even if the total adds up to more.
I had problems purchasing with the about a year ago (it was my first purchase from them) and never tried again. There was just a generic error message after I entered my credit card info saying "sorry, your order cannot be completed" but it still charged my card and their support didn't get back to me for over a week. I'm not even sure I ever received the game key.
It seemed to be common with them when I searched for that error message and their site (from what I can remember), but just not a good way to treat a first time customer. They might be better now, I see they have good deals on steamgamesales.com all the time.
Do you mean GOG? Some credit cards can cause issues, because they are registered on Cyprus (or at least used to be, no idea why and no idea why such issues). But if you clarify it to the bank that it's OK, it should work.
Their support was always responsive in my case at least.
Their website is often unreachable, and it's been like that for over a year for me. I give up immediately if I can't get to them and do something else.
Will be very interesting to see what impact a successful model here would have on the trade-in/re-sell revenue of brick and mortar. I believe these numbers have been hovering in the 25% range for the past few years.
The catch is that you no longer have the physical copy of the game or the game data on disk. When this service goes away or your account is removed, no more games. You will be completely dependent upon EA, just like they want you to be.
I wish I had something more poignant to say other than this is dumb and EA is dumb.
They're nickle and diming their customers into oblivion. I guess there will always be the diehard sports game console-only fanatics, but there is no way EA can keep up with the trend of indies and on-demand on Steam.
That's not exactly an accurate analysis. In all likelihood, new releases will not be immediately available on this service. Just like Netflix. I can't see the new Planet of the Apes on Netflix and I probably cannot play the latest "Call of Honor: Medal of Warefare" sequel.
A good deal of games start to get in the $20-$30 range after six months to a year. So long as EA isn't trying to pull any other BS tactics, this is probably going to feature lesser know/desired titles and old releases of their "blockbuster" titles once they reach that "Bargain Basket" price. This is pretty much the Netflix streaming model.
The Netflix comparison falls apart a little bit. You don't see a new movie for the most part because a DVD/Bluray release hasn't dropped or the studio is holding it back for some marketing/whatever reason. The primary reason you don't see a TV show season is for the DVD release there as well, they seem to always coincide.
EA is in a completely different scenario with what they're proposing. Any delay is unequivocally artificial. You may get to play a game 5 days earlier but to even be pressed and certified to the media they come on, the game was "final" well before that. When I completely understand how a typical console game release works, I realize I'm not really getting any added value from this proposition. At least not when it comes to new releases. The largest value add is probably from a backlog of previous titles that I likely would never play otherwise, or wait until their price drops to absurd levels. It's pretty clear to me that EA is doing what is in EA's best interest and while that seems like a captain obvious statement, I fail to really understand as a gamer what this actually gives me as a benefit. I'm likely not the target audience but I seriously wonder who is? EA executives? Anyone?
Honestly, this service would probably be a good fit for someone like me. I own a console but rarely, if ever, buy a game. As a result I rarely play anything. I don't want to spend the time and effort to research games and figure out if something is worth my $30 or $60 or is just a steaming pile of crap.
I could see myself paying $5 a month to play a back catalog of games I would otherwise have not found. Discovery is a key aspect, but you know what, if I spent a week or two playing a less than stellar game I wouldn't really care all that much because it cost me what, $5 or so? No biggie. I don't care about the latest AAA shooter or playing the same Madden year after year with different uniforms. Just give me some decent entertainment at a decent price and I'll pay. Hell, I pay $50/month to run on a treadmill and sweat. I'll pay $5/month to sit on my ass and be entertained.
Well, EA is quite dumb, sitting on many games and not letting anyone to re-release them or to create sequels (Neverhood for example). Rarely they have sober moments and release some games DRM-free, but that's about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_Channel
An early harbinger of streaming services, the Sega Channel was amazingly decent - dare I say "good" - for the time. As this system likely will be, the "play all you want" model relied on a few dozen games at a time being available and then they'd cycle out every month or so.
For someone who was a kid that played a lot of video games, this was ideal. My father once relayed to me that we'd rented Super Mario Bros 2 enough times to have purchased it 3 times over.
The resale market for video games is pretty absurd. Here, of course, is where I admit that even though I've cracked 30 I'm still playing a lot of video games. If I plop down $60-$70 on a game it's not a recoupible expense in any way, and in the days of all digital everything, this feels ludicrous.
The fact that consoles are still relying on DRM media is an amazing but predictable anachronism, and it feels like it exists solely because the game companies cannot figure out how to properly handle this model.
Having used the new Adobe Creative Cloud for a while, I find it's a really nice approach that doesn't end up costing any less but gives me some flexibility.