412 réponses à ce sujet

[LinksOcarina]

Sure but i just don't like this trend of slapping subscription on everything AND what about PC players, why are they once again forgotten??!!

 

When people on PC's get flash deals all the time due to service models on Steam, GOG and Origin, I say it's fair game so the console crowd can get a little value out. 

 

As for the trend, well it's been heading that way for over ten years now because its proven to be both popular, and lucrative. When smaller flash games are getting in on the act it's basically the evolution of the industry, the question now is how abusive it can get, and it will in some cases. Got to find those limits and see what happens. 

[Joe25]

So, who hopes that DAO and DA2 get added to Access? It would be kind of fun to play them on the One.   

[Joe25]

I'll play most of my games on the One since I just got mine a week ago. But, I don't see how you are saving anything with Access. You pay $29.999 if you pay for a year up front, or $4.99 per month equaling $60 dollars a year. With the 10% off I still don't see you saving any money. With a month member ship you would have to pay for DAI and it's deluxe DLC to get your money back. But, what happens if DAI is the only EA game you plan on buying. I hope they have a good back log of game from the 360 because I don't think Access could stand without it. But, for now I think I'll wait the week for DAI. I already have my copy of DAI payed for, and Nov 11th to the 18th is not that long a wait time for the game.         

[Fiery Phoenix]

I'll play most of my games on the One since I just got mine a week ago. But, I don't see how you are saving anything with Access. You pay $29.999 if you pay for a year up front, or $4.99 per month equaling $60 dollars a year. With the 10% off I still don't see you saving any money. With a month member ship you would have to pay for DAI and it's deluxe DLC to get your money back. But, what happens if DAI is the only EA game you plan on buying. I hope they have a good back log of game from the 360 because I don't think Access could stand without it. But, for now I think I'll wait the week for DAI. I already have my copy of DAI payed for, and Nov 11th to the 18th is not that long a wait time for the game.         

This service is only really good if you are the type that often plays EA titles. That being said, I don't think it's wrong if someone pays 5 bucks and subscribes for a month just to try out DA:I before launch.

[durasteel]

Why does PC never get cool stuff like this, early access to DLC and such? 

 

I think many people are confused by the marketing term "early access." No one is getting early access to anything, ever.

 

The way it works is, the content in question is delayed by a day, a week, a month, whatever. The content is ready to be released, but the publisher sits on it, and then offers a console maker the opportunity to pay the publisher to release the already completed content. Early access is a load of bull--the reality is that anyone whose platform maker doesn't pay off the publisher is getting delayed access.

 

It's the same load of BS that broadband providers are trying to sell the USA in the current "net neutrality" debate. They argue that regular content won't be throttled down in transfer speed, it is simply that premium content will gain access to an internet fast lane. But if regular content wasn't throttled, it would move at speeds governed by the capacity of the network hardware and the other traffic on it at the time of transfer. No one is even pretending that an infrastructure of fatter pipe is going to be laid to support this "fast lane," so of course the only way to effect this plan is to throttle plebian content while allowing patrician content that buys off the broadband provider to operate without that limitation.

 

Recently the release date for DAI was pushed back about 6 weeks. While I'm sure that some of this additional time will be used for polishing the game and catching bugs, clearly the game will have to be finished and ready for release, including console certification and all that business, a week or two earlier than we might otherwise think, to give EA time to put an artificial delay on its release and then offer MicroSoft and Sony a chance to bribe EA for the opportunity for their customers to get around the delay.

 

The same thing is true of the "first story DLC" that will be a timed exclusive for the x-box. XB customers aren't getting the content early, it is the rest of us that are getting it late. That's how EA does business: you may pre-order the deluxe edition of their product at full price, but that won't keep EA from throwing up another gate on the content you've already bought just to try to sell some more tickets. In this case, MicroSoft bought the tickets (for x-box, not for PC) while Sony didn't. It might be that EA will provide tickets to Origin customers, but probably not.

 

That's why I find this so distasteful. I've already bought the game, but EA is blocking my access to it for a period of time just to try to shake me down for a few more dollars. If they are that desperate for money, I would much rather they just raise the price of the game by a dollar or two and release the game when it's bloody well ready, across all platforms without all this BS.

[Raven X]

I'm not too bothered by the 1 week early access.  we don't even know if it's the full game or just a trial portion.

 

besides, it's just one week.  now, if it expanded to 1 month early access, then I'd be none to pleased.

 

same with the timed exclusive DLC.  if it's just one month, I'm fine with that.

[LinksOcarina]

 

The way it works is, the content in question is delayed by a day, a week, a month, whatever. The content is ready to be released, but the publisher sits on it, and then offers a console maker the opportunity to pay the publisher to release the already completed content. Early access is a load of bull--the reality is that anyone whose platform maker doesn't pay off the publisher is getting delayed access.

 

Recently the release date for DAI was pushed back about 6 weeks. While I'm sure that some of this additional time will be used for polishing the game and catching bugs, clearly the game will have to be finished and ready for release, including console certification and all that business, a week or two earlier than we might otherwise think, to give EA time to put an artificial delay on its release and then offer MicroSoft and Sony a chance to bribe EA for the opportunity for their customers to get around the delay.

 

 

One problem though, you already know the release date. There is no way you can possibly accuse a company from purposely delaying a game a week because of a kickback.

 

Speaking of kickbacks, if you really think this is a quasi bribing scheme like you assert above, you got a lot to learn about how business works.

 

The console makers, the Sonys and Microsofts of the world, already have a deal through licensing to release the games. A released game on disk for a console is then broken up through profit to the publisher, developer, advertisers, console makers, then the retail stores. The publishers don't "hold back" games from retail because they are expecting a big check from Microsoft or Sony to get it out early, for one that is bad business because of embargos on products that exist due to both the Gold process, and the distributors via the brick and mortar stores also get shafted in the process too if that is the case. Not to mention the fact that timed DLC is usually done via contract for the release scheme of the game, and is normally optioned through the distributors, not the publishers. Microsoft probably did pay extra for the time release there, but they also probably requested it basically, which is part of Microsofts plan right now to generate early access content to attract people to the system. What is EA to say to free money, don't do it?

 

Besides, even if it is a week delay between DLC packs due to early access, you get it in the end. What is the difference between now and later, other than impatience? 

 

I think you need to stop seeing mustache twirling villains everywhere you go. 

[Joe25]

This service is only really good if you are the type that often plays EA titles. That being said, I don't think it's wrong if someone pays 5 bucks and subscribes for a month just to try out DA:I before launch.

True 5 bucks is a great price to pay for the game a week early because if you look at it is just under a dollar a day for early access. I just don't see the savings in it if you're not a person who plays every EA Sports game and Battle Field. This is just me, but I mainly play EA and Bioware RPG games so if Access doesn't have a good back log of old games to buy from I'll just have to go without it. 

[AlanC9]

Recently the release date for DAI was pushed back about 6 weeks. While I'm sure that some of this additional time will be used for polishing the game and catching bugs, clearly the game will have to be finished and ready for release, including console certification and all that business, a week or two earlier than we might otherwise think, to give EA time to put an artificial delay on its release and then offer MicroSoft and Sony a chance to bribe EA for the opportunity for their customers to get around the delay.

 

 

A chance to bribe? Wouldn't it be more sensible to have the bribe in hand before announcing anything?

[Allan Schumacher]

Recently the release date for DAI was pushed back about 6 weeks. While I'm sure that some of this additional time will be used for polishing the game and catching bugs, clearly the game will have to be finished and ready for release, including console certification and all that business, a week or two earlier than we might otherwise think, to give EA time to put an artificial delay on its release and then offer MicroSoft and Sony a chance to bribe EA for the opportunity for their customers to get around the delay.

 

We're also sitting on a digital copy of the game as we wait for physical copies to be manufactured and delivered to stores.  Console certification typically happens more than a week or two before the "announced release date" (since it's required for us to deploy anything), so a week wouldn't make any difference in that regard.

 

After a game passes certification and goes gold, the content is locked down.  We can prep patches or DLC support (if we were doing Day One DLC, which we aren't) in that time, but digital versions of the game just sit idly by collecting virtual dust until stores receive their copies of the game.  Unless you're suggesting we release the digital version of the game for everybody before the physical copies are available?

[Saramel]

It seems like they are using the boiling frogs method of building up our tolerance to their shenanigans. Just introducing new nonsense a little at a time so we don't realize how far they have taken us.

[Battlebloodmage]

That's a very dirty way of promoting a console. Microsoft paid to get the other version delayed just so they have an upperhand. I like for Sony and Microsoft to exist since it would create competition, but this is just a way to screw over customers, not healthy competition.

[LinksOcarina]

That's a very dirty way of promoting a console. Microsoft paid to get the other version delayed just so they have an upperhand. I like for Sony and Microsoft to exist since it would create competition, but this is just a way to screw over customers, not healthy competition.

 

 Microsoft made it a mandate for what their current strategy regarding DLC is. So they paid to have it earlier because they think they will make more money with DLC earlier. 

[Gramatung]

That's a very dirty way of promoting a console. Microsoft paid to get the other version delayed just so they have an upperhand. I like for Sony and Microsoft to exist since it would create competition, but this is just a way to screw over customers, not healthy competition.

 

Sony just said they don't want to be bothered with EA Access because they don't think it represents a good value for their customers. Microsoft didn't screw anyone here, Sony just decided it was not good enough for the PlayStation owners.

[LinksOcarina]

Sony just said they don't want to be bothered with EA Access because they don't think it represents a good value for their customers. Microsoft didn't screw anyone here, Sony just decided it was not good enough for the PlayStation owners.

 

And considering Sony is launching Playstation Now really soon, EA Access would have been direct competition. The is less about value and more about safety regarding Sony I presume. Although Playstation Now is looking good if they changed their price structure.

[Gramatung]

And considering Sony is launching Playstation Now really soon, EA Access would have been direct competition. The is less about value and more about safety regarding Sony I presume. 

 

Yeah I suppose this is what you call a "spin" on Sony's part ...

[durasteel]

... Unless you're suggesting we release the digital version of the game for everybody before the physical copies are available?

 

 

You're releasing the digital version of the game for those who subscribe to a service available on one console platform before the physical copies are available. Clearly EA does not consider it a priority for everyone to get the game at the same time, so why not release the digital versions when they're ready, and the physical versions when they're burned and boxed?

 

I think whatever arguments apply against the general digital release ahead of physical availability would also apply against the special limited digital release to EA subscribers on the X Box. Don't you?

[LinksOcarina]

You're releasing the digital version of the game for those who subscribe to a service available on one console platform before the physical copies are available. Clearly EA does not consider it a priority for everyone to get the game at the same time, so why not release the digital versions when they're ready, and the physical versions when they're burned and boxed?

 

I think whatever arguments apply against the general digital release ahead of physical availability would also apply against the special limited digital release to EA subscribers on the X Box. Don't you?

 

Except they aren't...it's not the full game you are getting. Where did you pull that from? 

[durasteel]

One problem though, you already know the release date. There is no way you can possibly accuse a company from purposely delaying a game a week because of a kickback.

 

...

 

I think you need to stop seeing mustache twirling villains everywhere you go. 

 

The release date was recently changed from 10/7 to 11/18. Considering the time it would take to plan and execute the EA subscription service for the X Box, it is difficult to imagine that the deal with Microsoft wasn't finalized before the delay was announced.

 

Villains are certainly not everywhere, but figurative mustache twirling does happen, and in the business world it happens a lot. 

[Allan Schumacher]

Don't you?

 

You've shifted the discussion point, so I'm not really interested in discussing this any further unfortunately.  I got the impression that you were of the opinion that we are intentionally delaying the game to then demand money from the platform makers in order to get preferential treatment.  I was pointing out that your assumptions are wrong because the digital copy of the game is always available before the release date.

 

I don't know the details of the arrangement, so I can't even confirm nor deny that this was a result of Microsoft paying us money or simply Microsoft saying "Sure we'll let you do that."

[LinksOcarina]

The release date was recently changed from 10/7 to 11/18. Considering the time it would take to plan and execute the EA subscription service for the X Box, it is difficult to imagine that the deal with Microsoft wasn't finalized before the delay was announced.

 

Villains are certainly not everywhere, but figurative mustache twirling does happen, and in the business world it happens a lot. 

 

Thats kinda bullshit dude. Just because the release date was changed, it doesn't mean it was revolving around this deal.

 

And if it was, it really doesn't matter either, since the release date is still known to you. If they hold it back an extra week on 11/18, then you have a point. 

[durasteel]

Except they aren't...it's not the full game you are getting. Where did you pull that from? 

 

I don't know if it is the full game or not. I do know that however much of it is unlocked, your character and progress carries over after the "demo" period.

 

I don't see how it matters that the release date is known to me. It was known to me when I pre-ordered, now a different date is known to me. If they need another month to polish it up, fine. Allan seems to be saying that none of that delay was to offer an "early start" to preferred customers, and I don't doubt his veracity.

 

The fact remains, however, that with regard to this delayed game, some customers seem to be looking at less of a delay than the rest of us, and that money changed hands to make that happen.

[LinksOcarina]

I don't know if it is the full game or not. I do know that however much of it is unlocked, your character and progress carries over after the "demo" period.

 

I don't see how it matters that the release date is known to me. It was known to me when I pre-ordered, now a different date is known to me. If they need another month to polish it up, fine. Allan seems to be saying that none of that delay was to offer an "early start" to preferred customers, and I don't doubt his veracity.

 

The fact remains, however, that with regard to this delayed game, some customers seem to be looking at less of a delay than the rest of us, and that money changed hands to make that happen.

 

They say in their own FAQ it's a trial version of the game. By all standards, trial versions are never the full game, and if they are it's likely timed so you can't play it that long anyway. 

 

The reason the release date matters is because you expect your game on that date. If the date is changed, the reason behind it is kind of a moot point because the date is still known to you, you still expect to get your game on the new official date, unless it goes back in the shadows for two years like Starcraft Ghost.

 

As I said, the only way you have a point is if they change the release date by a week for that specific reason, to give the trial run a go to people before the game comes out. That would be a dick move then, because it would be rewarding folks in EA Access or whatever the deal may be. 

 

Money changing hands also didn't cause the delay. That is an assumption. If anything it will take money to remedy the delay.

[yullyuk]

well.. seeing as im getting pc hard copy i will just have to ignore the computer for a few extra days to not see spoilers

[durasteel]

They say in their own FAQ it's a trial version of the game. By all standards, trial versions are never the full game, and if they are it's likely timed so you can't play it that long anyway. 

 

...

 

Read it again:

"Each game is different, so each game’s trial will be, too. In some titles you’ll be able to play one of the game's modes for a limited time, while other times you can jump right into the full game. And since you’ll always be playing the real game, any progress you make will carry over so you can pick up where you left off on launch day."

 

From here.

 

DAI doesn't have "modes" that I'm aware of, and this might very well be one of those "other times." If I had to guess, I would speculate this this will be like early access to an MMO--you can start playing the full game, and you have 5 days or so in which to put in a key to keep playing it. The other option would be to take the time to code a gate into the actual game to restrict access beyond point X without a code, something like the Soldier's Peak NPC at the party camp in Origins, only instead of holding the gate to one area he'd be gating the entire game. Depending on how much time it took to develop and code something like that, taking resources away from the polish and fix efforts, that would be a lot worse than full "early" access.