EA Launches a $30 Per Year Netflix for Games on Xbox One(techcrunch.com) |
EA Launches a $30 Per Year Netflix for Games on Xbox One(techcrunch.com) |
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.
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+.
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.
"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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's like "free-to-play" with a guarantee you won't lose money.
-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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Vault
... 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.
Doesn't matter to me, I got sick of EA's antics and stopped doing business with them years ago.
Fuck EA.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Their support was always responsive in my case at least.
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.
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.
The reason why others are skeptical is because EA has a history of "nickle and diming" customers for quite some time now.
In this case it sounds too good to be true. I mean really EA is saying you get 4 games for $7.50 each.
My only guess is that under this program games are released quite late or the quality the games degrades based on these small updates.
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.
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.
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.
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 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?
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.