News - 'EA Access' subscription service launched for Xbox One gamers

[HEXUS]

But the $4.99 a month subscription service excludes all Titanfall related games/content.

Read more.

[crossy]

Is anyone interested in this subscription service for their Xbox One or even a possible future 'EA Access' subscription for PC?

Zero interest in the XBone (or should that be XbOne?) service since I've no intentions of getting an XbOne.

A PC-based equivalent, might be interesting to me if they can make two changes:
1. Extend the range of titles available - since of the four on offer, two I already have and the other two have no interest for me (sports sims = meh in my book. Doubly so if that "sport" is US football).
2. Allow the possibility of converting some of your subscription titles to outright purchases (especially if that was at a small discount over the RRP). This covers the situation where someone decides that "EAA" isn't for them and doesn't want to renew their subscription. Would be a bit daft to, for example, buy a load of BF4 DLC and then find that you can't access the main game!

Actually there's a question - once you've bought DLC presumably it's yours, so if you don't renew then it's not suddenly going to become "disabled".

[Brewster0101]

Interestingly is that Sony have rejected this for the Ps4 and this looks like to be an Xbox one only product going forward.

I personally like the idea of this but I don't like the idea of it being limited to one games company. If Steam did this for their library, then hell yeah.

[csgohan4]

This

[Saracen]

Is anyone interested in this subscription service for their Xbox One or even a possible future 'EA Access' subscription for PC?

I'm sure somebody will be. Very likely, quite a lot of them.

But me? No.

First, I don't have an XBOne, and currently, no intention let alone plans to get one. If I did, it'd still be no, though.

As for PC, no. Partly, well, see the link csgohan4 gave. And partly, because I don't like subscriptions, except where either absolutely necessary, or where I need the service and the subscription model is overwhelmingly in my interest.

And partly, well, it's EA. 'Nuff said.

[csgohan4]

I hate subscription models, but unfortunately seems the rave for large companies with pay for content. They took a leaf out of MMO's and their raking in the money. I refuse to pay money if it's a naff or incomplete game, ala Sim City, need for speed (lol cars cost more than the game itself).

Although I admit I got the premium BF4 version because I liked BF3, however I didn;t buy it at the begining to get ripped off 65 bucks, but I got it 6 months later.

I agree with Saracen, EA sucks and origin is worse than steam.

[kalniel]

I like subscription models - not at the expense of stand alone, but I think they're a valid alternative. We have movie subscriptions and they are great - music I've dabbled with and might go back to, so why not games? For me, not worth it at the moment as it doesn't fit the kind of games I like to play (one game for hundreds of hours at a time), but if there's a demand then cool. It also means devs can just afford to stay on the books creating new content and further refining games rather than rushing to finish them and getting laid off.

[munkylord]

I tried this last night, I have peggle and fifa already so I guess at the moment its like a month's rental of BF4 and Madden for £3.99, they also had a years sub for £19.99. seems good value?

[crossy]

I agree with Saracen, EA sucks and origin is worse than steam.

I used to pour much scorn on Origin, then I got forced to use uPlay ... that made Origin go very high up in my estimation! Agree though that the primus inter pares of online game stores is still Steam, and I can't see anyone else taking that top spot anytime soon.

Made me smile though the other day, when I saw some poor guy complaining that have a Steam account was akin to a gambling addiction with similar negative effects on your bank account.

I like subscription models - not at the expense of stand alone, but I think they're a valid alternative. We have movie subscriptions and they are great - music I've dabbled with and might go back to, so why not games? For me, not worth it at the moment as it doesn't fit the kind of games I like to play (one game for hundreds of hours at a time), but if there's a demand then cool. It also means devs can just afford to stay on the books creating new content and further refining games rather than rushing to finish them and getting laid off.

Agree 100% with this, and well expressed too. I think I'd even welcome a credits-based "pay to play" scheme if offered. But like you I'd still want the normal outright-purchase options too.

[Saracen]

I like subscription models - not at the expense of stand alone, but I think they're a valid alternative. We have movie subscriptions and they are great - music I've dabbled with and might go back to, so why not games? For me, not worth it at the moment as it doesn't fit the kind of games I like to play (one game for hundreds of hours at a time), but if there's a demand then cool. ....

To add to my previous post, I see nothing wrong with subscriptions per se, so long as it's not, as you say, at the expense of standalone.

I'm not a fan of subscription models because they don't suit me, including for movies or music.But that's fine, because I can buy the CD or DVD if I want, and you (should you wish) can have the subscription. Each to his own. Same for games.

I must admit that it does give me the hump when a company whose software I've been using for about 20 years suddenly turn round and say you can only carry on if you sign up for a subscription. And yes, Adobe, I emphatically mean you.

However .... what worries me is the direction of the trend. What worries me is whether this is the thin end of the wedge. What worries me is that the direction of the trend is that, if not now, or yet, it will become at the expense of 'standalone'.

It just seems to me that there are do many little moves in the direction of turning "content" from a product to a service. For example, MS pushing subscription versions of Office, and online apps. For example, MS increasingly tying Windows to online storage. For instance, MS trying to force 'always on' into XBox One.

Other than Adobe, none of it is, in isolation, yet an issue especially as it's mostly (except 'always on') optional, and 'conventional' alternatives exist. For now. But I do suspect it's a deliberate direction of travel, with the pot of gold being moving everyone to subscription because that model holds serious advantages .... for the supplier. One is smoothing out revenue streams. Another is not having to convince users to 'upgrade', taking that decision out of our hands, and a third is consumer inertia - once people are on a sub, they're much less likely to move to something else.

I don't have any problem with companies offering a subscription model, or people that want them taking out a sub. What I do want, and am far from convinced I will continue to be able to have, is the standalone option.

[csgohan4]

I just wonder with more and more subscription based games or pay to have a complete game/software, piracy will again increase again?

[kalniel]

I just wonder with more and more subscription based games or pay to have a complete game/software, piracy will again increase again?

The opposite - piracy seems to reduce when easy access to subscription models is available.