I honestly would hate it being a subscription and sadly I most likely would no longer be able to play. These types of games require you to always make sure you have enough money on hand just so you can play. I rather the pay once and no longer have to worry about it. Sure they would make more money probably but I imagine they would also lose a ton of casual players.
SamuraiKnight27 If the subscription was a yearly cost with only a slight increase from what they already charge for the yearly release, it would basically be the same thing we’re doing now. The difference is that a subscription guarantees EA gets that payment every single year, no matter what.
If they made the greatest NHL game ever, some people might buy it once and skip a year or two before buying again. A subscription removes that option—it’s a built-in safety net for EA.
At the end of the day, the whole goal for us as fans is to see passionate, dedicated developers roll out every single feature they want—and that we want—without EA getting in the way. But for that to happen, the model still has to make EA more money. Otherwise, what incentive would they have to change?
I would just cancel my subscription after a year so how is EA guaranteed my money after that?
Of course — just like now, you don’t have to buy the game every year. But if it’s really good and you want to keep playing, most people would keep their subscription going year after year, the same way they currently buy the new release each year. I’m talking about the group of players who already purchase annually — for them, the subscription just replaces that yearly purchase. If you’re not someone who buys every year, then this idea wouldn’t really apply to you.
Community Manager
