EA Access will be free to Xbox One Gold Members on June 12-22nd

[spaceelf]

On 5/19/2016 at 11:30 AM, SierraSonic said:

What do you get when EA discontinues the access program?

You keep your saves locally and in the cloud and life goes on just as if you'd unsubscribed.

[SierraSonic]

15 hours ago, LostCat said:

You keep your saves locally and in the cloud and life goes on just as if you'd unsubscribed.

That sounds like a nice way of saying "you get screwed out of all the titles you paid for monthly, and now to continue playing them, have to pay what any other person would have".

[spaceelf]

2 minutes ago, SierraSonic said:

That sounds like a nice way of saying "you get screwed out of all the titles you paid for monthly, and now to continue playing them, have to pay what any other person would have".

If this line of thought had any relevance they wouldn't have introduced it for PC gamers just now.

 

Fact is, if they drop the subs at all, it won't be anytime soon.

[SierraSonic]

6 minutes ago, LostCat said:

If this line of thought had any relevance they wouldn't have introduced it for PC gamers just now.

 

Fact is, if they drop the subs at all, it won't be anytime soon.

EA's track record has been to abandon games within 10 years, even if they keep EA Access afloat, the back end game services will close down and the games will be useless.

[spaceelf]

At which point the single player would most likely still work fine where available, and multiplayer will have tens of new titles available anyway.

 

Next I suppose you'll tell me how the great god Origin fell under their command and they continue killing puppies and strangling babies.

[SierraSonic]

12 minutes ago, LostCat said:

At which point the single player would most likely still work fine where available, and multiplayer will have tens of new titles available anyway.

 

Next I suppose you'll tell me how the great god Origin fell under their command and they continue killing puppies and strangling babies.

Battlefield games, specifically BF2, are a great example of games that were screwed over by EA, saved by the community.

Great God What? Yes, you got me, I'm going to use wild and wacky fairy tales to try to win an argument based on facts.

I'm sure I own more EA titles than people with EA access and still spent less than someone who had it from the start. I put more faith in Valve with the Steam platform than I would ever put into EA with origin.

[spaceelf]

What you're using is a template of ancient history and applying it to a modern service, despite it's irrelevance to the topic at hand.

 

Origin Systems.  And yes, I have basically heard that one from a bunch of Ultima fanatics I know.

[SierraSonic]

Ancient? It literally happened June of last year, to over 50 EA games, AFTER Origin was a thing.

 

Never played Ultima. Keep trying these misguided attempts instead of arguing the subject matter though, which should be the perceived value of EA Access, specifically it being free for a limited time for members of another pay for service that should be free, and wouldn't be paid for if it didn't hold multiplayer hostage.

[MikeChipshop Member]

5 hours ago, SierraSonic said:

That sounds like a nice way of saying "you get screwed out of all the titles you paid for monthly, and now to continue playing them, have to pay what any other person would have".

I'm sorry, are you not familiar with 'renting'? 

[HawkMan]

On 18.5.2016 at 5:30 PM, SierraSonic said:

That wasn't my intent, I was showing my dislike for EA Access and Gold/Plus, consoles are great devices that are being held back by said services. Like I said, for people who find the value in them, they are good/better, than the alternatives, such as not having them.

 

Regarding discounts, I think its overall cheaper to buy outright if your willing to wait for the GOTY editions of games or when there are bundles/sales than the savings you get by paying for savings. EA Access is for people who need the latest, right away, but I think in the long run they end up paying more. I've spent less than $500 for this gaming library. https://steamdb.info/calculator/76561197969306956/?cc=us

I realize the site says over $1k spent, but that's not fair seeing as I spent $8 or less for multiple bundles of 8-10 games, and they are calculating based only on steams lowest price.

EA access isn't for multiplayer. EA access gives you rebates on games, AND access to a very nice ever expanding library fo games while you pay. 

 

So why are you complainign about paying for multiplayer in a thread about EA access. Gold is also worth if for the Games With Gold alone. But, think of how the Live community(or any online gaming community) is now, Then imagine if every teen and pre teen kid has access to live for free and could make new accounts with full online access whenever they wanted and banning had no measurable impact on them...

 

yeah, online would be an absolute cess pool. just like F2P games are a cesspool compared to the mild annoyance that is P2P games. 

[HawkMan]

5 hours ago, SierraSonic said:

That sounds like a nice way of saying "you get screwed out of all the titles you paid for monthly, and now to continue playing them, have to pay what any other person would have".

You didn't pay for them you paid for access to them, like you pay for access to Spotify/Groove/et al, or Netflix. 

 

and if you buy their games, the rebates makes EA Access worth it as well. 

[HawkMan]

5 hours ago, SierraSonic said:

EA's track record has been to abandon games within 10 years, even if they keep EA Access afloat, the back end game services will close down and the games will be useless.

But by the time they close down their ea sports 2015 games, their 2017 and 2018 and possibly 2019 games will be out. 

[spaceelf]

http://www.ea.com/1/service-updates Yes, it happened.  But not last year.  And to titles who had a good five or more year run and for the most part barely anyone was actually playing online.  And in most cases the single player portion still worked.

 

The reason it's irrelevant to this conversation is it hasn't happened to anything under the EA Access program.

 

And as they said, EA Access has nothing to do with paying for multiplayer, though it might well help pay server costs to keep services going longer.

[SierraSonic]

17 hours ago, MikeChipshop said:

I'm sorry, are you not familiar with 'renting'? 

Yes I am, and it is a waste of money.

17 hours ago, HawkMan said:

EA access isn't for multiplayer. EA access gives you rebates on games, AND access to a very nice ever expanding library fo games while you pay. 

 

So why are you complainign about paying for multiplayer in a thread about EA access. Gold is also worth if for the Games With Gold alone. But, think of how the Live community(or any online gaming community) is now, Then imagine if every teen and pre teen kid has access to live for free and could make new accounts with full online access whenever they wanted and banning had no measurable impact on them...

 

yeah, online would be an absolute cess pool. just like F2P games are a cesspool compared to the mild annoyance that is P2P games. 

Xbox Live is for multiplayer, and the title clearly states that XBL gets EA Access for free for a short time.

 

Games for gold is MS's EA Access, as long as you pay you get the games, stop paying and lose them, like renting.

 

Paywalls aren't a good solution to solve annoyingness, have you play l4d? Those games are troll city and aren't free. The main problem with paying for multiplayer is that people who can't afford to ###### away money monthly on entertainment are locked out. Rich bastards who want to troll still get access.

 

13 hours ago, LostCat said:

http://www.ea.com/1/service-updates Yes, it happened.  But not last year.  And to titles who had a good five or more year run and for the most part barely anyone was actually playing online.  And in most cases the single player portion still worked.

 

The reason it's irrelevant to this conversation is it hasn't happened to anything under the EA Access program.

 

And as they said, EA Access has nothing to do with paying for multiplayer, though it might well help pay server costs to keep services going longer.

Yet.

 

And yes, I mixed up BF2's date with BF:P4F, but they were within a year of each other, and how many games were dropped when BF2 was? A lot.

 

And you have to realise, I buy games when they either become GOTY editions that include all DLC, or when they are around $20, which means my playtime gets even more limited. Yet I still play HL and it's mods since 1999. They even completely overhauled the games since then. I just prefer to support the better support model. I'm just explaining my side of the story. Plus playing monthly isn't viable for gaming when I could barely play 4 hours a month now a days.

[MikeChipshop Member]

7 hours ago, SierraSonic said:

Yes I am, and it is a waste of money.

In your opinion. Seems quite a few folk, myself included, disagree with that. You know what though? That's fine.

[SierraSonic]

10 hours ago, MikeChipshop said:

In your opinion. Seems quite a few folk, myself included, disagree with that. You know what though? That's fine.

Actually the only time to rent something is when something you bought is broken and you need it out of necessity, for example a car. Almost every other time it just doesn't make sense to spend money to temporarily have something, especially with long term renting, as it usually ends up being cheaper to buy outright.  Unless we are talking about rent to own, where you pay extra to pay toward eventually keeping what you rented. I read articles online that state it make sense to rent a house where you live instead of buying, but that only makes sense if you plan on upgrading your house constantly or selling it off. But IMO renting it out instead of selling it makes more sense. It's easy to rent to those who think it saves them money, and even then it basically only makes sense if you plan to move a lot.

 

Regardless, when it comes to these services, it makes just as much sense as it does for a car or house, spend money for instant gratification and only lose out long term.

[HawkMan]

On 28.5.2016 at 2:46 AM, SierraSonic said:

 

Xbox Live is for multiplayer

 

Games for gold is MS's EA Access, as long as you pay you get the games, stop paying and lose them, like renting.

 

 

A or B, not both

[SierraSonic]

10 minutes ago, HawkMan said:

A or B, not both

What do you mean?

 

Both were available subject matter due to the way the title and content of the article were presented.

On ‎5‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 2:11 AM, HawkMan said:

But by the time they close down their ea sports 2015 games, their 2017 and 2018 and possibly 2019 games will be out. 

That's supposed to be a good thing? I've hated yearly game titles since the 90s. Great way to make small changes and make full profit year on year, even car manufactures make noticeable mid cycle refreshes and then worthwhile changes every cycle. Yearly cycles are just a money grab and work as a way of outdating the previous title quicker. Same with yearly refreshes of phones. All pointless in the end when you can just wait a bit longer to get the significant updates.

Edited May 30, 2016 by SierraSonic

[HawkMan]

Live is for MP. EA access is for games subscription of rebates. not MP, Live offers some if it to, but it's not it's reason for existing.

 

they are up for 2-3 years at least. and they're sports games, regular improvements and changes are part of the game. 

[SierraSonic]

10 hours ago, HawkMan said:

Live is for MP. EA access is for games subscription of rebates. not MP, Live offers some if it to, but it's not it's reason for existing.

 

they are up for 2-3 years at least. and they're sports games, regular improvements and changes are part of the game. 

Live, and thus Games for gold, were mentioned in the article and title, they can be talked about. They are comparable services that other than also giving access to multiplayer also allow renting of games such as EA access does.

 

Small patch like changes and roster updates do not make for full game releases.

[HawkMan]

EA access is a pure renting service, Live is not, live is a multiplayer access service. the games you get are completely a bonus, it's also not a rent in the same way since you only get games released while you subscribed not all of them. 

 

you're working very hard to compare apples to grilled steak for some reason. 

[xendrome]

14 hours ago, SierraSonic said:

Actually the only time to rent something is when something you bought is broken and you need it out of necessity, for example a car. Almost every other time it just doesn't make sense to spend money to temporarily have something, especially with long term renting, as it usually ends up being cheaper to buy outright.  

So you buy every movie you want to watch? Never go to the theater, or pay for TV? That's the same thing.

[SierraSonic]

1 hour ago, HawkMan said:

EA access is a pure renting service, Live is not, live is a multiplayer access service. the games you get are completely a bonus, it's also not a rent in the same way since you only get games released while you subscribed not all of them. 

 

you're working very hard to compare apples to grilled steak for some reason. 

My comparison is with games for gold and ea access, my extra hate is requiring gold for multiplayer in the first place. Making live even worse, but both are still bad.

1 hour ago, xendrome said:

So you buy every movie you want to watch? Never go to the theater, or pay for TV? That's the same thing.

The difference with movies is that even if I bought every movie I ever watched I wouldn't be able to live long enough to see all the ones I want to, and even then, most of the movies I'd watch once and that satisfies me enough at that point. I own movies I want to watch over and over, I rent* movies for filling in the gap.

 

*Rent includes subscribing to xfinity triple play (because it overall saves me money with phone and internet services, and I have free HBO and ShowTime for life). Hulu, Netflix, and amazon prime (because my girlfriend likes to watch series in one sitting, needs access to exclusives, and I like the other benefits of prime as I more than cover free shipping twice over a year), and going to the theater (mainly for the experience with others).

 

I have justifications for my renting, even though overall I hate the idea of it I can find ways to make it worth it. I always use coupons for the movie theater, usually a free ticket coupon. Hulu and Netflix are technically my only extra renting services, but again not mainly for me. Pandora is my main guilt trip with renting, but if I'm not watching tv, or playing games, I always have music playing especially at work, and it's quality is better than youtube, and it keeps the ads away, also I have pretty generic taste in music and don't like to specify my musical interests. Even in the car I only started to use it to bypass radio ads. If multiplayer was more worth it (as if I had more time to dedicate to gaming specifically on the xbox) I'd consider getting it, but it's value right now would only increase if I limit pc gaming and had 4x more free time. As it is, I use the 2 week trials and am done after that, not one game that is exclusive to a console has held my interest enough to force me to pay monthly for it.

 

I want to get solar panels and live off the grid, have an electric car to stop "renting" gas, and overall do not like to give money away on one time expenses unless they are for my survival or a rare lifetime event. I want to have enough money stored away to be able to get a insurance exemption. I value my life enough to rent health insurance. ETC

Edited May 30, 2016 by SierraSonic