Jimquisition: EA Access ... Denied

grey_space

Magnetic Mutant
Apr 16, 2012
455
0
0
'Triple A shitehawkes'

I love you for bringing the word 'shitehawkes' to the world at large.

Thank God for Jim.
 

Mosesj

New member
Sep 19, 2010
155
0
0
YEah I can see where you're coming from jim. It might be pessimistic, but it is the safest way to deal with what this industry's being doing lately.

It's sad though, that you have to be so cautious and pessimistic in what should be a ENTERTAINMENT industry. you know, something that's supposed to be fun?
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,258
0
0
To be honest the cumulative money thing is the only reason I would want to avoid this deal (besides the fact that I don't tend to play EA games anyway). More money spent on being able to access features of games rather than spent on the actual games is not a good thing.
 

Grim Sterling

New member
Dec 27, 2013
21
0
0
Unless Jim gets a weekly bit on CNN or some other major news outlet on tv, the majority of the public will not know any different and most likely the industry will continue on as he speculated and just get worse because the largest chunk of the buying public is doing so ignorant of this stuff. They just walk into a store, grab what they like, and play what they like, and so fuel all this junk. Same with services like this, see it on tv, in a game insert, on the console new feed, and think HEY KOOL and go for it. They don't know what might happen, what will change, etc etc.

So Jim, get yer ass on TV damnit. If all else I'd love to see you on a Fox news show ***** slapping half their anchors when they try and counter argue you. :)

http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt213/evilkinggumby/Jim-Sterling-on-CNN.jpg
 

gigastar

Insert one-liner here.
Sep 13, 2010
4,419
0
0
But Jim! For EA to even have my attention, much less my trust, they must publish a game that even looks appealing.

Mosesj said:
It's sad though, that you have to be so cautious and pessimistic in what should be a ENTERTAINMENT industry. you know, something that's supposed to be fun?
Well if what i hear about people with histories in marketing departments running the game industry are true, we damn well better be cautious and pessimistic. People such as them made thier careers on selling to the naive and easily persuaded, after all.
 

WildFire15

New member
Jun 18, 2008
142
0
0
As always, I agree with Jim entirely and I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if Ubisoft and Activision are already working more their own 'access' programs. I've got enough subscriptions to worry about and really don't want more, even if it does look good. I'm still amazed EA came out with a program that's considerably better then one Sony came up with, ie Playstation Now.
 

cphonx

New member
Mar 23, 2009
1
0
0
Even since EA lobotomized Mythic Entertainment (the creators of Dark Age of Camelot amungst other things), I've lead a very happy EA free life and I recommend everyone else do the same. It's quite liberating. Granted they've locked in some proper nouns, such as NFL and Star Wars, but as far as gameplay goes you can get pretty much everything they offer elsewhere, only better.
 

Wulfram77

New member
Dec 8, 2013
43
0
0
It's $5/$30. That doesn't require massive amounts of trust.

And, yeah, eventually they'll try to screw us. But they'll do that anyway. I don't see why it'll be worse with subscriptions.

And really, are we so enamoured of the current AAA publishing model? I'm not, so why fight to defend it? A subscription model could end up encouraging a less short term approach, if retaining customer loyalty becomes more important than covering holes in your cash flow with rushed releases.
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
gigastar said:
But Jim! For EA to even have my attention, much less my trust, they must publish a game that even looks appealing.

Mosesj said:
It's sad though, that you have to be so cautious and pessimistic in what should be a ENTERTAINMENT industry. you know, something that's supposed to be fun?
Well if what i hear about people with histories in marketing departments running the game industry are true, we damn well better be cautious and pessimistic. People such as them made thier careers on selling to the naive and easily persuaded, after all.
Most tech companies (with a few exceptions) are run by people not with tech degrees but marketing degrees. Meaning they know shit all about the products they are selling, and only know how to apply marketing. If we could like institute a law where people with marketing degrees can only work in management positions that are part of a marketing company or the marketing department of a corporation.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
You're a fearmonger, Jim!

[sub]Well you told us to call you one...[/sub]

Seriously, though, I don't think you're completely off base, but I think it's hard to judge a service on what it might become. By that logic, we should pretty much avoid buying any current game because what its publishers might do down the road once they've got a taste of our money.

I don't have an Xbone and I don't know if I'll own a system that includes the service, but taking it as it is and working from there? It's not bad. 30 bucks to play is half a game. Which means the service still has some value as long as you play even one EA game a year. And if the service becomes a problem, drop it.

Hell, this might be great for me. I could subscribe on a monthly basis, play all the EA games I want, and once I've had my flll, still have 27 days to try out other titles. Or it could suck.

I'd drop PS plus if I thought it wasn't a value, too.

False Messiah said:
Same, my access whas... Denied
You need to sign up for Jim Sterling's new service. >.>

It played fine for me, though, so I'm betting it's back up.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Aaaaaaand Electronic Arts proves Jimquisition's point within forty-seven minutes!

http://www.polygon.com/2014/8/11/5991063/madden-nfl-15-no-demo-ea-access

In the words of Timon...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuhgHzuPYiI
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,760
0
0
WildFire15 said:
As always, I agree with Jim entirely and I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if Ubisoft and Activision are already working more their own 'access' programs. I've got enough subscriptions to worry about and really don't want more, even if it does look good. I'm still amazed EA came out with a program that's considerably better then one Sony came up with, ie Playstation Now.
It's always easy when you go second. Just look at Xbone v PS4. I'm betting Ea got a look at the response to PSNOW and said "hell, even we're not that stupid."

And then hastily revised their plans for a similar pricing structure.
 

Loop Stricken

Covered in bees!
Jun 17, 2009
4,723
0
0
Wulfram77 said:
It's $5/$30. That doesn't require massive amounts of trust.

And, yeah, eventually they'll try to screw us. But they'll do that anyway. I don't see why it'll be worse with subscriptions.

And really, are we so enamoured of the current AAA publishing model? I'm not, so why fight to defend it? A subscription model could end up encouraging a less short term approach, if retaining customer loyalty becomes more important than covering holes in your cash flow with rushed releases.
If I may approximate a Jimism, that's like saying "Ooh well they're gonna fuck us in the arse eventually so I might as well lube them with the moist demanding chasm of my mouth in the meantime"!

Madness.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Thanks.

This urged me to buy some more gog.com games which I've been thinking about. No client or subscription there and if the site goes down, I keep my games.

Not that I'd buy any of the subscription crap anyway, but I'll rather support some of the few companies that don't screw me over. Or rather, which even can't screw me over even if they wanted, due to their business model. (Or so I hope at least.)