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.
> 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.
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. :)
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
[+] [-] nkozyra|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] freehunter|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jerf|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] opendais|11 years ago|reply
They are fun to relax and no worse than TV. :D
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm
2.8hrs of TV / day is the average for people 15+.
[+] [-] dm2|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] mfrommil|11 years ago|reply
"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.
[+] [-] BrianEatWorld|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] bsder|11 years ago|reply
They've determined that it's more profitable to suck $30 out of people every year and pummel them with DLC and kill the used market.
Uh, yeah, if I wanted any confirmation that this console generation should die, this is it.
[+] [-] driverdan|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] devindotcom|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] 7777777|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dfxm12|11 years ago|reply
-Microsoft is subsidizing this to help Xbox One sales (fair enough...)
-It STARTS at just $4.99 a month (where does it END?)
-"Free" games appear to limited to games they put in the "EA Vault" which is as vague as possible. Will all new games enter the vault? Probably not!
-DLC doesn't appear to be included (but you get 10% off any purchase!)
FWIW, it doesn't make me want to buy an Xbox One.
[+] [-] Natsu|11 years ago|reply
Doesn't matter to me, I got sick of EA's antics and stopped doing business with them years ago.
[+] [-] aashaykumar92|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hsod|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] slg|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vegardx|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] heyheyhey|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shmerl|11 years ago|reply
https://secure.gog.com/games##search=electronic%20arts
"Undying" is one of the best examples. But they never allowed re-releasing Neverhood and many other great games.
All those DRMed services are a no go.
[+] [-] dm2|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] lukasbarton|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mabramo|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davexunit|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DrMcFacekick|11 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] heyheyhey|11 years ago|reply
You're right. Instead of forcing customers to pay $60 for each game, they're allowing them to pay $30 for 1 year to play various games.
[+] [-] shmerl|11 years ago|reply