Gaming News

All the latest Xbox and gaming news. Only TA Newshounds can post in this forum.

EA Access Will Be Free During E3 2016

  • xPut Name HerexxPut Name Herex1,273,820
    Posted on 18 May 16 at 23:42
    kashmyr7 said:Had a feeling that they were going to do some sort of major announcement with backwards compatibility for EA this year. In my mind, I think this confirms it.They've already stated backwards compatible titles are eligible for the EA Access Vault. Dead Space and Plants vs Zombies are already included.
  • Posted on 18 May 16 at 23:42
    ronnie42 said:Or buy permanent copies instead of wasting money on limited access trials. rollThe games in the vault are full games. From the 12th to the 22nd, since EA Access will be free, you will be able to download and play every single bit (apart from anything locked behind microtransactions that would also be locked in the physical/digital releases) of the games in the vault.

    I haven't subscribed, as right now it's only sports titles (which I personally don't care for), a shooter and an RPG I already owned, and a smattering of other shooters that aren't worth it to me. As the vault grows however, and more variety shows up, I expect I will start subscribing. It's not all that expensive, and the value proposition is growing.
    [URL=http://www.trueachievements.com/Stryker+can+has.htm][IMG]http://www.trueachievements.com/gamercards/Stryker+can+has.png[/IMG][/URL]
  • MaesenkoMaesenko319,608
    Posted on 19 May 16 at 02:38
    I feel bad that I read that subheader to the tune of "Do you want to build a snowman?" from Frozen.

    I'll show myself out now.
    "You can't spell ignorant without IGN."
  • Removed Gamer

    Removed Gamer

    Posted on 19 May 16 at 03:58
    UltraAmoeba said:How does anyone not have EA Access already?Because EA is the devil.
  • Posted on 19 May 16 at 04:23
    Cool.
  • HolyHalfDeadHolyHalfDead651,572
    Posted on 19 May 16 at 05:51, Edited on 19 May 16 at 05:53 by HolyHalfDead
    Eurydace said:EA Access will be available for free to everyone June 12th-22nd.I heard it will only be free to XBL Gold members, not everyone.
    He's not a man. He's the holy Half-Dead who has seen the Underverse and returned with powers you can't imagine.
  • aphexbraphexbr196,476
    Posted on 19 May 16 at 07:00
    UltraAmoeba said:How does anyone not have EA Access already?Because it's only a rental service and is full of sports games that I don't give a damn about, so isn't worth any money for me. I'd rather own the games I care about and not have publishers setting up their own walled gardens to leech more money for the illusion of special treatment.
  • RacxieRacxie525,292
    Posted on 19 May 16 at 07:45
    UltraAmoeba said:How does anyone not have EA Access already?Because realistically it's not that good unless you're an achievement hunter.

    Going by the list in the article there's currently 20 games so you might argue that it works out at £1/$1.50 per game for the entire year which yes, looking at it like that it's pretty good.

    BUT as someone who's not into sports (whether in real life or simulated videogames) that's counts off more than half of the games as 11 of them are sports. Out of the 9 remaining games I personally already own 4 of them and am only interested in 2 of them (Battlefield) so it'd work out as £10 per game and I could already get both of those for less than that on eBay and if I played it for more than a year it end up costing me even more compared to owning it. And with this free promotion I can finish off NFR which I started during the last promotion so I'll essentially have got to play/complete 1 of the games for free (because I expected it would come around again).

    As for someone who's into sports but not into achievements, some of those games are outdated (e.g. FIFA 14 & 15), so when 16 is out and on the list why would those people want to play the older titles? So they'd be losing out too (and again some of them could likely be picked up for really cheap now). Not to mention those people are not likely to play most of the games on the list on the list within a year (unless they get bored easily) so it'll cost them a lot more in the long run.

    Then of course there's also the upcoming games, but as far as I'm aware newer games can only be played for a limited time and then you have to buy them but get a measly 10% discount? So you'd have to spend at least £180 just to break even on the cost of EA Access just for a year, and that's not including it renewing.

    So what can we take away from this? EA Access is realistically very poor value for money unless you're a serious achievement whore/sports fan who will focus & play on nothing but the games in this list & complete them all within like a year, because anything more than that is going more than likely going to be at a pretty big loss, especially right now with the limited library there is.
  • Boots OrionBoots Orion842,865
    Posted on 19 May 16 at 12:06
    Very poor value? I've paid $60 for two years of EA Access at this point. That's about $2.50 a month. Well under $5 per game that's in the vault. Some of these games still sell for $60-70 in Canada (e.g., FIFA 16). Many more sell for $30-40. Meaning, if you've played 3 of these games, it's already been more than worth it.

    You can argue that the games aren't for you, but there is no way that you can argue that's it's a bad value. Unless of course, you add so many contingencies that your point isn't worth considering.
  • RacxieRacxie525,292
    Posted on 19 May 16 at 13:56
    Boots Orion said:Very poor value? I've paid $60 for two years of EA Access at this point. That's about $2.50 a month. Well under $5 per game that's in the vault. Some of these games still sell for $60-70 in Canada (e.g., FIFA 16). Many more sell for $30-40. Meaning, if you've played 3 of these games, it's already been more than worth it.

    You can argue that the games aren't for you, but there is no way that you can argue that's it's a bad value. Unless of course, you add so many contingencies that your point isn't worth considering.
    And out of the 20 games you've got access to how many of those have you actually played properly? Because as I pointed out unless you actually play a lot of the games (which most people are unlikely to do) it is poor value for money. You also seem to be going by shop prices, although unless everything is extortionate in Canada (as it is in somewhere like Australia) then I doubt you'll be paying those sort of prices for games from places like eBay or Amazon Marketplace which would be the sensible place to buy older games from.

    And yes, it is still bad value unless you're an achievement whore who will dedicate their time to these games or someone who will happily play through every game for the hell of it. After all if you buy FIFA 16 then why would you want to play FIFA 14 or 15 for any reason other than achievements? And how often is it that someone who's into FIFA is also into Madden & NFL?

    Plus there are also a lot of people who will trade their games in once they're done with it making a potentially large portion of their money back, something you can't do with digital.

    I did give reasons as to why it'd be pointless for me, but I also covered a good chunk of the general population. Of course for some people it will be good value, but for the majority it really isn't when you think about it.
  • ukinsproukinspro1,382,522
    Posted on 19 May 16 at 14:57
    Racxie said:I did give reasons as to why it'd be pointless for me, but I also covered a good chunk of the general population. Of course for some people it will be good value, but for the majority it really isn't when you think about it.For the majority of who, those who don't like Sports or EA.

    If you have no interest, there is no value, good or bad.
    For those with interest £20 for a year clearly is good value.

    Am sure I've seen you in Poundland buying up the place, you have no use for any of it, but at a quid its good value. Well on your logic.
  • Boots OrionBoots Orion842,865
    Posted on 19 May 16 at 15:22, Edited on 19 May 16 at 15:25 by Boots Orion
    Not liking the benefits of a membership has very little to do with whether or not it holds a good value. It either does or it doesn't. It may not be worth it for you personally, but you can't look at value subjectively. Especially not in cases like this. And whether or not I've taken advantage of the membership's value is also irrelevant. I've purchased hundreds of games over the years for great prices that I've barely played if at all. Me not playing them doesn't mean I got ripped off.

    Your point about this only being of value for achievement hunters is ridiculous as well. Obviously, many non-achievement hunters have taken advantage of this service.

    Regarding why someone would play an older sports game when they have the newer edition is pointless too unless you are a month-to-month member. As an annual membership subscriber, when looking at the value I consider what I have had access to over the course of the year - not just what I have access to at this moment.
  • RacxieRacxie525,292
    Posted on 19 May 16 at 15:25, Edited on 19 May 16 at 15:26 by Racxie
    This post contains unbalanced formatting tags and cannot be rendered at this time.
  • RacxieRacxie525,292
    Posted on 19 May 16 at 15:39, Edited on 19 May 16 at 15:39 by Racxie
    Boots Orion said:Not liking the benefits of a membership has very little to do with whether or not it holds a good value. It either does or it doesn't. It may not be worth it for you personally, but you can't look at value subjectively. Especially not in cases like this. And whether or not I've taken advantage of the membership's value is also irrelevant. I've purchased hundreds of games over the years for great prices that I've barely played if at all. Me not playing them doesn't mean I got ripped off.

    Your point about this only being of value for achievement hunters is ridiculous as well. Obviously, many non-achievement hunters have taken advantage of this service.

    Regarding why someone would play an older sports game when they have the newer edition is pointless too unless you are a month-to-month member. As an annual membership subscriber, when looking at the value I consider what I have had access to over the course of the year - not just what I have access to at this moment.
    I never said I didn't like the benefits, and value is subjective. But I was looking at the value objectively in term of its price vs the quantity available, the likelihood of titles being actually being played etc. - but even then you might end up paying more for the service overall but still see value in it due to reasons such as "convenience", which is after all one of the stronger arguments of digital vs physical.

    I also suggested that achievement hunters are likely to make the most out of this service, not that they were the only kind of person to do so. And just because many people pay for the service it doesn't mean it's financially a good idea to do so.

    I'm glad to know that you don't feel ripped off as I never suggested anyone has (considering you get a lot of people who do feel self-entitled when a game/console gets discounted after they bought it), and as you said at the time of purchase it was a good deal. But to try and say that the price you paid then is still good now when the games have become cheaper is just ridiculous. It's like trying to claim that £50 for a game is still a good price if the game is being sold elsewhere for something like £30 (unless of course you really feel that the convenience of digital is worth £20 roll).
  • EurydaceEurydace619,547
    Posted on 19 May 16 at 15:52
    Value is 100% subjective.
  • RacxieRacxie525,292
    Posted on 19 May 16 at 16:17
    Eurydace said:Value is 100% subjective.It's not 100% subjective. Look up intrinsic theory of value for example. Also if a game in a shop is £40 you can't say to the sales clerk "I don't value this game that high. I'll give you £20 for it" or "I think this game is worth more so I'll give you £50 for it" (a branded store isn't likely to let you do that after all). So in essence its objective value is its set price. If you then want to value it at £20 when you sell it on then its objective value has changed because you've set it. It becomes more subjective in a scenario such as an auction because you have no control over what others value it at that point (unless of course you set a "minimum" it has to go for).
  • ukinsproukinspro1,382,522
    Posted on 19 May 16 at 19:09
    This is really amusing, but I like the way you argue it without being a dick.

    It was more the fact you suggested that for most people it would be poor value, but then I could equally argue the opposite with the same amount of justification.

    To me EA Access had 2 games I wanted, retailing at the time (online/Internet) £45 best total price. OK I would have resale value upon completion, but how much of my £20 outlay would I actually have left? Very little I suspect.

    I'm now left with circa 18 games I can try or play for next to nothing.
    This in itself does not make it good value, equally it doesn't make it poor.
  • Posted on 20 May 16 at 00:15
    It's a great service to those who haven't tried it yet. I suggest waiting until there's a game you really want then buying a month long membership and finishing up all the games you can then waiting a few more months and repeat.
  • Posted on 20 May 16 at 01:57
    So how does this work? If I sign up during the free period I can download all of those games, but I can only play them during that period? Will I be cut off once that ends unless I buy a subscription?
  • EurydaceEurydace619,547
    Posted on 20 May 16 at 05:16
    Racxie said:Eurydace said:Value is 100% subjective.It's not 100% subjective. Look up intrinsic theory of value for example. Also if a game in a shop is £40 you can't say to the sales clerk "I don't value this game that high. I'll give you £20 for it" or "I think this game is worth more so I'll give you £50 for it" (a branded store isn't likely to let you do that after all). So in essence its objective value is its set price. If you then want to value it at £20 when you sell it on then its objective value has changed because you've set it. It becomes more subjective in a scenario such as an auction because you have no control over what others value it at that point (unless of course you set a "minimum" it has to go for).Value is subjective. There are plenty of games on sale for $50 that I think are worth $10. That is its value to me regardless of what the store thinks. No, they won't sell it to me for $10, but that's because they believe the value is higher.

    Under your theory it's impossible to reconcile stores putting a game on sale when another store does not. Those are two set values, but they are different. If it were objective, it could not be different.

    Value is subjective. You can set an objective value for an object, but that does not mean an individual will agree with that value. It's just that sometimes what an individual believes the value is doesn't matter (it matters at a macro level and is based on supply and demand).
Want to join in the discussion? Please log in or Register For Free to comment.