Sony responds to exclusive EA Access on Xbox One
Honestly, I just thought Sony would ignore this even happened. But apparently they did decide to comment on it. And in my opinion their comments are incredibly dubious to me.
I'm, personally not psyched about this service in its current state, as you can read in my last post. But, if there was one things I was fairly confident of, it was that it was indeed a good value for a good number of people. While it is fair to trash it for being limited to a single game studio, it is also one of the largest games studios, and the nature of the subscription would work for pretty much any game studio as being fair.
In my opinion, there is nothing about the pricing scheme here which it seems could be justifiably considered not a good value. There are some caveats of course. As I said in my post after I first looked over it, there 2 ways in which this becomes not only a good deal, but a deal you'd be an idiot to pass up. And that is if you want even one of the games that are free with the subscription, let alone multiple. Or, if you plan on buying any EA game that costs more than $50.
In the first case, even the annual subscription is roughly half the price of a single one of those games. So, if you knew were going to buy FIFA, NFL or Battefield 4 at some point in the near future, you might as well just pick up the annual pass instead. Sure, the games are DRM'd and you'd lose access to them if your subscription lapsed, but in my experience there are VERY few games anyone is still playing a year after purchasing. So, if in the year since you got your subscription no new games of value to you were added to the vault, you could probably walk away and still feel like you saved almost 50% of the cost of the game. Frankly, if you had bought a physical disc and traded it in a year later for cash, you would probably STILL be down money vs. this approach.
The second case is an even one easier to justify. As an example, the next EA game I'll probably be interested in is Assassin's Creed Unity. It will probably cost $69.99 when it launches. If I sign up for a months worth of EA access prior to making the purchase, it will cost me $5 but save $7 from my purchase. So, $2 profit. Nothing to write home about, except that it means for $2 less than I would have paid anyway, I can now also check out some free titles on the side or pick up a season pass or other DLC at 10% off. Fundamentally, using it in this way is having EA pay you $2 to check out other games in the so-called Vault for a month while giving a discount on other downloaded content for good measure. Saving any money is a good thing, but saving money and getting those other perks is HUGE.
If you're in neither one of those camps... then yeah, today it should be a hard sell. But a huge part of the problem is the age of the console. At less than a year old, that "measly" 4 free games actually represents a sizeable portion of the EA titles available on the Xbox One (heck, it represents a sizeable number of the total games released on the platform). In another year or two, if this is still around and games are added regularly to the Vault, it will be a no-brainer. Especially for the annual pass which is half the cost of what the monthly one would put you back over the same period of time.
Sony saying that they don't think it gives good value tells me they are either idiotic, trying to make the most of a bad situation or turned it down for more politically motivated reasons. And I think probably a combination of the above is true, but I would wager it is primarily that last point. This is in some ways a competitor to Sony's Play Station Now service and a competitor for their fans dollars for a Play Station Plus subscription.
Play Station Now will have a broader catalogue and won't (as far as I know) be limited much in terms of game studios. But what I read on PS Now (that you can find here) indicates it is actually a MONSTROUSLY worse value. There is a good chance that if this were offered on the PS4, it might actually kill off PS Now simply on the basis that value IS better and the model is better too.
I wouldn't even pay $8/month for Netflix if I knew I was only going to watch one episode of a show or one movie. My Xbox Music pass would be cancelled if my monthly listening was averaging 1 song a month. I wouldn't buy a Canada's Wonderland season pass if I would only the park once a summer. But I WOULD pay for a month of EA Access if I was planning to buy even a SINGLE premium title that month. And I WOULD buy an annual subscription if even a SINGLE premium title I wanted to play was in the vault. THAT is how good of a deal this potentially is. And THAT is why Sony saying it isn't should be insulting to anyone who reads it.
I'm, personally not psyched about this service in its current state, as you can read in my last post. But, if there was one things I was fairly confident of, it was that it was indeed a good value for a good number of people. While it is fair to trash it for being limited to a single game studio, it is also one of the largest games studios, and the nature of the subscription would work for pretty much any game studio as being fair.
In my opinion, there is nothing about the pricing scheme here which it seems could be justifiably considered not a good value. There are some caveats of course. As I said in my post after I first looked over it, there 2 ways in which this becomes not only a good deal, but a deal you'd be an idiot to pass up. And that is if you want even one of the games that are free with the subscription, let alone multiple. Or, if you plan on buying any EA game that costs more than $50.
In the first case, even the annual subscription is roughly half the price of a single one of those games. So, if you knew were going to buy FIFA, NFL or Battefield 4 at some point in the near future, you might as well just pick up the annual pass instead. Sure, the games are DRM'd and you'd lose access to them if your subscription lapsed, but in my experience there are VERY few games anyone is still playing a year after purchasing. So, if in the year since you got your subscription no new games of value to you were added to the vault, you could probably walk away and still feel like you saved almost 50% of the cost of the game. Frankly, if you had bought a physical disc and traded it in a year later for cash, you would probably STILL be down money vs. this approach.
The second case is an even one easier to justify. As an example, the next EA game I'll probably be interested in is Assassin's Creed Unity. It will probably cost $69.99 when it launches. If I sign up for a months worth of EA access prior to making the purchase, it will cost me $5 but save $7 from my purchase. So, $2 profit. Nothing to write home about, except that it means for $2 less than I would have paid anyway, I can now also check out some free titles on the side or pick up a season pass or other DLC at 10% off. Fundamentally, using it in this way is having EA pay you $2 to check out other games in the so-called Vault for a month while giving a discount on other downloaded content for good measure. Saving any money is a good thing, but saving money and getting those other perks is HUGE.
If you're in neither one of those camps... then yeah, today it should be a hard sell. But a huge part of the problem is the age of the console. At less than a year old, that "measly" 4 free games actually represents a sizeable portion of the EA titles available on the Xbox One (heck, it represents a sizeable number of the total games released on the platform). In another year or two, if this is still around and games are added regularly to the Vault, it will be a no-brainer. Especially for the annual pass which is half the cost of what the monthly one would put you back over the same period of time.
Sony saying that they don't think it gives good value tells me they are either idiotic, trying to make the most of a bad situation or turned it down for more politically motivated reasons. And I think probably a combination of the above is true, but I would wager it is primarily that last point. This is in some ways a competitor to Sony's Play Station Now service and a competitor for their fans dollars for a Play Station Plus subscription.
Play Station Now will have a broader catalogue and won't (as far as I know) be limited much in terms of game studios. But what I read on PS Now (that you can find here) indicates it is actually a MONSTROUSLY worse value. There is a good chance that if this were offered on the PS4, it might actually kill off PS Now simply on the basis that value IS better and the model is better too.
I wouldn't even pay $8/month for Netflix if I knew I was only going to watch one episode of a show or one movie. My Xbox Music pass would be cancelled if my monthly listening was averaging 1 song a month. I wouldn't buy a Canada's Wonderland season pass if I would only the park once a summer. But I WOULD pay for a month of EA Access if I was planning to buy even a SINGLE premium title that month. And I WOULD buy an annual subscription if even a SINGLE premium title I wanted to play was in the vault. THAT is how good of a deal this potentially is. And THAT is why Sony saying it isn't should be insulting to anyone who reads it.
Comments
Post a Comment