EA Access will only give you 6 hours of Madden 15 demo

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for The_Last_Ride
#1 Posted by The_Last_Ride (76371 posts) -

Link

Is anyone surprised by EA?

Last month, EA surprised games with the announcement of its new PlayStation Plus-esque digital game service, EA Access, which will not only provide gamers with the ability to access and download older EA titles from “the Vault,” but also get the chance to try out several of EA’s new releases prior to their official release. However, that time with those select new titles may be very limited, according to the latest developments.

EA Access’s Twitter account confirmed that when Madden NFL 15 is made available through the EA Access subscription service, players will be limited to “six gameplay hours” with the title, though the publisher did not clarify whether this means time spent actually playing the game, or gameplay time in total, whether the game is paused, players spend time with in-game menus, etc.

Madden NFL 15 releases for PS4, Xbox One, PS3, and Xbox 360 on August 26th, 2014 – stay tuned for more information on when to expect the EA Access demo for the title on Xbox One, which should (presumably) arrive by the end of this week.

Avatar image for SolidTy
#2 Posted by SolidTy (49991 posts) -

EA pulling a fast one will be the theme over and over with this EA Access. I don't like EA anyways so I have no interest in this subscription.

Avatar image for Pedro
#3 Posted by Pedro (28995 posts) -

So, EA allows subscribers to play 6 hours of the full version of a game users did not purchase and this is bad because?

Avatar image for Black_Knight_00
#4 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (21090 posts) -

@Pedro said:

So, EA allows subscribers to play 6 hours of the full version of a game users did not purchase and this is bad because?

Because the whole service is pointless.

Avatar image for SoNin360
#5 Posted by SoNin360 (6747 posts) -

6 hours is a lot of time to spend on a demo, so I don't see the big deal.

Avatar image for Archangel3371
#6 Edited by Archangel3371 (23851 posts) -

I don't see what the big deal is, these are demos of newly released games. Six hours seems to be ample enough time give people the idea of if they want to buy the game. The bulk of the EA Access service is for people to play the free games that are in the vault.

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#7 Edited by uninspiredcup (26102 posts) -

Knew a mile and a half away EA would try screw you.

Avatar image for ShortTall
#8 Posted by ShortTall (667 posts) -

What a rip. Madden is the exact same game as all of its predecessors, idk if they think they're doing the community a favor by letting them have a 6 hour demo of the same game.

Avatar image for Threesixtyci
#9 Posted by Threesixtyci (4451 posts) -

Pretty much my take on the whole thing:

Loading Video...

Avatar image for Blueresident87
#10 Posted by Blueresident87 (5684 posts) -

I would never subscribe to any service from EA.

Avatar image for The_Last_Ride
#11 Posted by The_Last_Ride (76371 posts) -

@uninspiredcup said:

Knew a mile and a half away EA would try screw you.

Yup, that's the only thing you get with EA Access. It's a total rip-off

Avatar image for Ish_basic
#12 Posted by Ish_basic (4799 posts) -

@Pedro said:

So, EA allows subscribers to play 6 hours of the full version of a game users did not purchase and this is bad because?

because you have to pay for EA access in the first place. It's a trend we all expected: EA access will give you access to every game you don't want in EA's library on a subscription basis. All the big titles you will have to fork over $60 on day one like everyone else. So the point is, EA access is indeed as pointless as we all thought it would be.

Avatar image for Pedro
#13 Edited by Pedro (28995 posts) -

@Ish_basic said:

@Pedro said:

So, EA allows subscribers to play 6 hours of the full version of a game users did not purchase and this is bad because?

because you have to pay for EA access in the first place. It's a trend we all expected: EA access will give you access to every game you don't want in EA's library on a subscription basis. All the big titles you will have to fork over $60 on day one like everyone else. So the point is, EA access is indeed as pointless as we all thought it would be.

Then the option to not get the sub is always on the table. Making a big deal about this seems rather pointless. I don't see people bitching when early access demos are limited to subscribers for Live and PS+. The fact is that you are not paying the sub for demo but for the other games. If anyone is subbing for the demo then they are simply a fool. This is EA's attempt to make their service more attractive. This is not a new practice and folks have to stop acting as if everything EA do is evil. The fact that EA is being called for ripping customers by allowing subscribers of their service to try before they buy is nothing short absolute madness. No one would have cared if the same was done with PS+ or Live.

Avatar image for yd816er
#14 Edited by YD816er (37 posts) -

@ShortTall: prove that it's the same as the other maddens with evidence and not dumb groupie sayings.

Avatar image for yd816er
#15 Posted by YD816er (37 posts) -

first off it's not a demo, demos are samples. It's a full game which they are letting you test out as a perk. The vault is what you pay for with EA Access but i notice not to many smart people are on here to understand that. 6 hours, 5 days ahead to test out a brand new game as a perk is a great deal.

Avatar image for The_Last_Ride
#16 Posted by The_Last_Ride (76371 posts) -

@Blueresident87 said:

I would never subscribe to any service from EA.

I applaud you good sir!

Avatar image for Ilovegames1992
#17 Posted by Ilovegames1992 (14221 posts) -

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@Pedro said:

So, EA allows subscribers to play 6 hours of the full version of a game users did not purchase and this is bad because?

Because the whole service is pointless.

Its not if you regularly buy a series of EA sports titles every year. A lot of gamers do. Myself included until this.

Avatar image for firefox59
#18 Edited by firefox59 (4530 posts) -

@Pedro said:

@Ish_basic said:

@Pedro said:

So, EA allows subscribers to play 6 hours of the full version of a game users did not purchase and this is bad because?

because you have to pay for EA access in the first place. It's a trend we all expected: EA access will give you access to every game you don't want in EA's library on a subscription basis. All the big titles you will have to fork over $60 on day one like everyone else. So the point is, EA access is indeed as pointless as we all thought it would be.

Then the option to not get the sub is always on the table. Making a big deal about this seems rather pointless. I don't see people bitching when early access demos are limited to subscribers for Live and PS+. The fact is that you are not paying the sub for demo but for the other games. If anyone is subbing for the demo then they are simply a fool. This is EA's attempt to make their service more attractive. This is not a new practice and folks have to stop acting as if everything EA do is evil. The fact that EA is being called for ripping customers by allowing subscribers of their service to try before they buy is nothing short absolute madness. No one would have cared if the same was done with PS+ or Live.

Not just Sony or Nintendo but other companies as well. If Valve had done this people would be foaming with excitement. There is just this inherent hatred for EA and it doesn't make sense. You guys want a brand new game for free as part of a $30 a year program? That's absurd. There are already 4 qualifying games and the number will only increase. This is an amazing deal for anyone that wants to play 3 or more games a year. It's not like this is CD Projekt Red either with a small number of titles. It's EA, they have a dozen IPs not counting the annual releases that still sell even if some people don't like it.

Avatar image for Black_Knight_00
#19 Edited by Black_Knight_00 (21090 posts) -

@Ilovegames1992 said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@Pedro said:

So, EA allows subscribers to play 6 hours of the full version of a game users did not purchase and this is bad because?

Because the whole service is pointless.

Its not if you regularly buy a series of EA sports titles every year. A lot of gamers do. Myself included until this.

And that does nothing for you then. You pay $30 a year to save $6 on the latest FIFA game and gain access to a bunch of old games you probably already own or could buy (instead of renting) for the same price. Also, you can't resell the FIFA game because it's digital, meaning you lose another $15-20.

In short: this year you paid $60 for a FIFA game, resold it for $20.

Next year you'll pay $84 for a FIFA game you can't resell.

Avatar image for Ish_basic
#20 Edited by Ish_basic (4799 posts) -
@Pedro said:

@Ish_basic said:

@Pedro said:

So, EA allows subscribers to play 6 hours of the full version of a game users did not purchase and this is bad because?

because you have to pay for EA access in the first place. It's a trend we all expected: EA access will give you access to every game you don't want in EA's library on a subscription basis. All the big titles you will have to fork over $60 on day one like everyone else. So the point is, EA access is indeed as pointless as we all thought it would be.

Then the option to not get the sub is always on the table. Making a big deal about this seems rather pointless. I don't see people bitching when early access demos are limited to subscribers for Live and PS+. The fact is that you are not paying the sub for demo but for the other games. If anyone is subbing for the demo then they are simply a fool. This is EA's attempt to make their service more attractive. This is not a new practice and folks have to stop acting as if everything EA do is evil. The fact that EA is being called for ripping customers by allowing subscribers of their service to try before they buy is nothing short absolute madness. No one would have cared if the same was done with PS+ or Live.

When does commenting on something constitute "making a big deal?" We all needed to see how EA was going to handle its bigger, newer releases in this plan before we got the full sense of what it was about. Now we have some inkling, and so now we're commenting on it. We still don't know if games like Madden will ever make it into the list of game's you get full access to under the sub.

I think we can say now that EA access is clearly targeting used games sales, as there is no real benefit accrued by subscribing to this program when it comes to its newer titles. That's fine. But given the yearly quality of most of EA's releases, I want them new. That's just my personal preference and that dictates what I will get out of this program, which is to say nothing.

The problem is the yearly titles lend themselves to being traded in for the new version, yet if you plan on doing that, you're actually better off not subbing. And I personally don't buy enough of EA's non-yearly stuff to get anything out of a 30 a year sub on that front....maybe 1 or so a year if even that...honestly, if it's not one of EA's yearly games, it's probably shitty.

To sum up, it's pointless. Not because of evil or because they're not PS+ or Live but because of math. I've never once in my life disparaged EA for any of its practices. I just don't think this is a good product.

Avatar image for Pedro
#21 Posted by Pedro (28995 posts) -

@Ish_basic said:

When does commenting on something constitute "making a big deal?" We all needed to see how EA was going to handle its bigger, newer releases in this plan before we got the full sense of what it was about. Now we have some inkling, and so now we're commenting on it. We still don't know if games like Madden will ever make it into the list of game's you get full access to under the sub.

I think we can say now that EA access is clearly targeting used games sales, as there is no real benefit accrued by subscribing to this program when it comes to its newer titles. That's fine. But given the yearly quality of most of EA's releases, I want them new. That's just my personal preference and that dictates what I will get out of this program, which is to say nothing.

The problem is the yearly titles lend themselves to being traded in for the new version, yet if you plan on doing that, you're actually better off not subbing. And I personally don't buy enough of EA's non-yearly stuff to get anything out of a 30 a year sub on that front....maybe 1 or so a year if even that...honestly, if it's not one of EA's yearly games, it's probably shitty.

To sum up, it's pointless. Not because of evil or because they're not PS+ or Live but because of math. I've never once in my life disparaged EA for any of its practices. I just don't think this is a good product.

What does any of what you have stated has to do with being able to access a full version game for 6 hours as a subscriber to the service? You seemed to have a beef with the service itself but that is not the topic at hand.

Avatar image for The_Last_Ride
#22 Posted by The_Last_Ride (76371 posts) -

@Ilovegames1992 said:

@Black_Knight_00 said:

@Pedro said:

So, EA allows subscribers to play 6 hours of the full version of a game users did not purchase and this is bad because?

Because the whole service is pointless.

Its not if you regularly buy a series of EA sports titles every year. A lot of gamers do. Myself included until this.

You will need to get Live to have this aswell, so basicly it's 90 bucks a year and you pay for the discounts and games from only one developer. You also need to buy games for 300 bucks to be worth it