Gheez Louise, Is there no end to their relentless nickel-and-dime attempts? 

I love all the anti-EA comments on this from folks with the subscriber badges.

I have no problems with subscribing for something I'd use regularly or has awesome content, like Whiskey Media or Netflix but, it has to offer more than just discounted prices.  I would subscribe to this if I didn't have to buy a new football game every year just for a roster upgrade.

Alex sure spends at lot of time on The Onion.

Fine, as long as the base game doesn't cost much. Even though I don't play sports titles from EA (especially since they benched Skate), as a gamer with limited income, I hate when companies get away with charging more than they should. It sets a terrible precedent that others follow.

I do love me some sports games, and as long as they keep the Ultimate Team stuff free, I won't subscribe to a thing, since I usually play my sports games offline due to annoying lag in Madden.

Thank god I don't buy EA Sports games at all let alone EA games that much.

I think this model would only work if the games they made weren't yearly releases. If they made a game and it lasted at least 2 years, then a subscription might make sense. But if there's a new one guarenteed to be out in 12 months then what's the point in subscribing.

" And the Death Knell sounds at EA.  People are soon to be fired. :/ "

" @Portis said:

" Well, I'd be angry if I played any EA sports games, which I do not. The only sports games I play are the NBA 2K series, so I'm good.
You have fun with that though, Madden players. I'll be over here hangin' out.
"

EA doesn't only publish sports games you know.  They fucking own Bioware for god sakes! "

Oh this is great.  You buy one game and pay a subscription and get all the roster updates for free!  Oh wait, that's what EA would do in a perfect world.  They just want you to pay a monthly fee to get what you're already buying the game for...

Also, "discounts on DLC".  Why not give it for free if they're already paying you monthly?

I don't have a problem with this at all so long as it's Electronic Arts adding value.

I'm happy with the 60 dollar value they provide right now in their yearly releases - so as long as they don't subtract from that package in order to bolster this subscription, I'm happy.

I'd be interested to see what value they'll be adding in order to justify a subscription though...

"Ability to transfer paid content from older titles to newer titles"

" @heatDrive88:  Yeah, I don't see that happening. EA wants to make even more money, so they will keep titles at $59.99 AND expect you to buy a subscription. "

Yea.... no.

I am pretty sure this would sell like hotcakes, so good move EA.

" I love all the anti-EA comments on this from folks with the subscriber badges.

It's the exact same model as GiantBomb!  

A lot of people would say subscribing to Whiskey Media is nickel and diming and ridiculous or whatever but if you enjoy it and want to pay for it because you like it then who cares?

So much f'ing handwringning and complaining from the gaming community when it comes to how other people want to spend their money.

"

The price is not as shockingly offensive as I'd originally imagined. This only seems useful if you're getting several EA Sports titles a year and I'm not sure how many people who do that would also be interested in this too.

The majority of EA sports titles are top quality and each year they seem to include more and more features. It is inevitable that a company such as EA with innumerable sports titles, all of them extremely profitable, would want to monetize the hell out of them. EA is a business and it's in the business of making money.

I like the way you write, Alex. Tongue and cheek is the way to go.

Is there really enough new content for these game that a subscribtion is viable? Sure as hell don't think so.

I'm not against subscription models, in fact I think it's an inevitable part of the evolution of video games, but I just wish people would make subscription models for shit people will actually care about. The best you can do for me is discounts on DLC? Come on, man...

"

"Ability to transfer paid content from older titles to newer titles"

So that means they're going to charge you for something you should be able to do for free considering that you're already paid for the DLC.  

"

" @CosmicQueso said:

" I love all the anti-EA comments on this from folks with the subscriber badges.

It's the exact same model as GiantBomb!  

A lot of people would say subscribing to Whiskey Media is nickel and diming and ridiculous or whatever but if you enjoy it and want to pay for it because you like it then who cares?

So much f'ing handwringning and complaining from the gaming community when it comes to how other people want to spend their money.

"

I wouldn't say it is exactly the same.Imagine if you had to buy an annual membership to GiantBomb to view it at all, and then on top of that there was an additional subscription to view quicklooks, and you start to get closer to what this EA thing sounds like. "

Subscription and releasing new game every year. Isn't that the same thing

" What's the point of getting mad about something you don't plan on purchasing?  If it's a bad deal, you don't buy it, and then it goes away.  If you don't buy it, they change it until the value is such that you do buy it.Video game players seem like they have no control over their money.  Whenever a company makes some low-value product, they bitch and moan like they don't have the option to just not purchase it.  If a game isn't a good value, you don't purchase it, you don't really have any reason to be upset. "

" @Khann: So what you're saying is you're not a big voter? "

I've sunk about 200h into my NHL09 "be a pro" career. There is no way I'm going to start over in a new game. Only way I'd pay for a subscription or even buy another NHL game is if that save can transfer over. It takes about 50h to play through one season. How did they expect people to finish a career in a year? It has the same problem as the Fotball (soccer) Manager games. I'm still playing FM2007 every now and then and I've still got plenty to do in that game. Unless my save can transfer why buy a newer version of the game? These games have become like MMO's where you have invested hundreds of hours and you don't want to start over from scratch.

" The big question is that will this be where one has to go for roster updates. "

" What's the point of getting mad about something you don't plan on purchasing?  If it's a bad deal, you don't buy it, and then it goes away.  If you don't buy it, they change it until the value is such that you do buy it.Video game players seem like they have no control over their money.  Whenever a company makes some low-value product, they bitch and moan like they don't have the option to just not purchase it.  If a game isn't a good value, you don't purchase it, you don't really have any reason to be upset. "

You know what? Fuck EA. This is idiocy. I'm glad it's only their sports brand this affects but still

 It's such a fucking simple-minded way of looking at things, and it's a retarded catch-all defense for this bullshit. 

" @Brodehouse said:

" What's the point of getting mad about something you don't plan on purchasing?  If it's a bad deal, you don't buy it, and then it goes away.  If you don't buy it, they change it until the value is such that you do buy it.Video game players seem like they have no control over their money.  Whenever a company makes some low-value product, they bitch and moan like they don't have the option to just not purchase it.  If a game isn't a good value, you don't purchase it, you don't really have any reason to be upset. "

I'm sick of this idea of, "if it doesn't affect you, then don't bitch." It's such a fucking simple-minded way of looking at things, and it's a retarded catch-all defense for this bullshit. This is like the expanded Cerberus Network. You'll get some stuff for free, but at the end of the day, you'll be paying the same amount as everybody else when it comes to content. Can I say Cerberus Network was a true value? It was for trivial stuff like armor and weapons, but at the end of the day, the actual meaty content had to be paid in full the same amount by everybody. "

" @CosmicQueso said:

" @Khann: So what you're saying is you're not a big voter? "

I don't vote, no. 

I do however not buy games or services that I don't agree with in one way or another. I am under no false belief that my non-purchases have any effect whatsoever, because the masses will continue to buy any bullshit that is shoved down their throats.

"

" @Napalm said:

" @Brodehouse said:

" What's the point of getting mad about something you don't plan on purchasing?  If it's a bad deal, you don't buy it, and then it goes away.  If you don't buy it, they change it until the value is such that you do buy it.Video game players seem like they have no control over their money.  Whenever a company makes some low-value product, they bitch and moan like they don't have the option to just not purchase it.  If a game isn't a good value, you don't purchase it, you don't really have any reason to be upset. "

I'm sick of this idea of, "if it doesn't affect you, then don't bitch." It's such a fucking simple-minded way of looking at things, and it's a retarded catch-all defense for this bullshit. This is like the expanded Cerberus Network. You'll get some stuff for free, but at the end of the day, you'll be paying the same amount as everybody else when it comes to content. Can I say Cerberus Network was a true value? It was for trivial stuff like armor and weapons, but at the end of the day, the actual meaty content had to be paid in full the same amount by everybody. "

Then... don't buy Cerberus Network?  I don't understand your point.  If it's a bad value, don't buy it.  But it's impossible for them to 'screw you over' as tons of people are making believe. "

I'm not a sports fan, but a good way to make the ones of us that do like sports okay with this whole idea is by not selling us a game and simply selling us a new download of the next years worth of roster upgrades, graphics improvements and other stuff like new gameplay features etc.

I mean this's basically what people do already when they buy the next years' game, which is just a rehashed version of last years videogame but with some updates.

Except that gamers have to actually leave their house and waste petrol and time to go and buy a physical copy from the shop, where, very likely, the assistant is useless when it comes to talking about video games and being helpful.

They will never admit it but they would actually be able to bring the price down if they did this, because pay for man hours would be brought down and cost of resources would brought down significantly so as well.

This's be awesome! But it'll likely never happen until it's legally enforced, which won't happen either because it isn't important enough.

"

"Ability to transfer paid content from older titles to newer titles"

So that means they're going to charge you for something you should be able to do for free considering that you're already paid for the DLC.  Where I come from we call that "double dipping".  

Wasn't that done with Rock Band or Guitar Hero, too?  If you paid some amount you could then use the DLC you bought for one game on another?   

I'd be upset if this was a genre I cared about but it's troubling because I am sure it will be adapted to RPGs and shooters soon enough.  Imagine if you want to use Kasumi in Mass Effect 3, you must have already purchased her DLC and then pay an extra fee to have access to the character in the new game.  Anyone who bought the Kasumi DLC could add the character to Shepard's party, but only those who paid the additional fee would be granted that option.   Or maybe you bought maps for Medal of Honor and if you pay the extra charge you get to use them in MoH 2.  That's good for EA because they get to sell you the same content twice.

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of DLC as it's marketed today.  It all seems like "horse armor" to me.  

"

Sports!

Clarification: I didn't actually purchase Cerberus Network. It was free with the new copy purchase of Mass Effect 2. My point being is that my one non-purchase isn't going to change anything, and I am open to state my feelings as I choose and discuss this as somebody who is a videogame consumer. The notion that, "stop complaining, because this is how it is," is a catch-all defense that makes no sense. This is just like preorder bonuses at GameStop, and day-one DLC. This was all shit that didn't used to be, but now it's, "this is how it is," so now it literally can't even be debated in terms of validity without somebody bringing up that it's how things are, and to stop whining about it. "

" But you're deliberately straw manning my argument.  And I think you know it.  My argument is not 'this is how it is'.

My argument is that games are consumer products.  If a consumer product is not a good value, it should not be purchased.  Or at least, it should be purchased at a price that makes it a value.  If a product is released that is a poor value, you have lost nothing.  And I don't understand why people get upset when they have lost nothing.

Marvel Capcom 3 came out, it had the game itself, 36 characters, I thought it was a good value, I purchased it.  They released Jill and Shuma as DLC for five bucks a pop, that wasn't a good value, I did not purchase it (actually I purchased Jill, but I like Jill).  But I did not lose anything by them offering a bad value to me.  My MvC3 purchase has not been devalued.  I still got what I wanted from my 60 dollar purchase.  Maybe they'll pack up all the DLC characters in a bundle that offers a decent value, but I'm not upset that they're a bad value now. "

" What's the point of getting mad about something you don't plan on purchasing?  If it's a bad deal, you don't buy it, and then it goes away.  If you don't buy it, they change it until the value is such that you do buy it.Video game players seem like they have no control over their money.  Whenever a company makes some low-value product, they bitch and moan like they don't have the option to just not purchase it.  If a game isn't a good value, you don't purchase it, you don't really have any reason to be upset. "

I'd be happy to pay a subscription fee... if they lowered the price of their games by the same amount. Although... isn't yearly offerings of Madden a subscription based service anyway?

Here is the point at which they could make the subscription service work: bi-annual or tri-annual releases of their sports games, but yearly roster  and feature updates. In essence: your purchasing a subscription to a madden system rather than a game.

I'm pretty curious as to who would actually subscribe to something like this.

" @Brodehouse said:

" What's the point of getting mad about something you don't plan on purchasing?  If it's a bad deal, you don't buy it, and then it goes away.  If you don't buy it, they change it until the value is such that you do buy it.Video game players seem like they have no control over their money.  Whenever a company makes some low-value product, they bitch and moan like they don't have the option to just not purchase it.  If a game isn't a good value, you don't purchase it, you don't really have any reason to be upset. "

The problem is that the people who frequent forums and bitch about these things are a small minority. Even if they don''t purchase the product, a large number of players who are less concerned with business tactics will. And, unfortunately, this will affect players who choose the high-road of opting out, since EA will surely begin to hide "should-be-boxed" features behind the subscription, leaving those players between a rock and hard place.

The market does vote with the dollar, but that does not mean it votes intelligently or for its own good.

"

" This is why I stopped buying EA games :) "