ethomaz
Banned
This option was suppose to never exists in my opinion... btw you can buy a Xbone for EA access and that is called option.
With EA creating segregation between EA Access users and non-EA Access users.... yeap "value".
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Sony's response to EA Access Subscription plan
- Thread starter RexNovis
- Start date
- Status
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
I can't tell if you are being intentionally dense or not. Look at this way Netflix is PS4, Amazon Instant is Xbone, Crunchy Roll is Wii U, and HBO is Valve.
There is no industry comparison for what EA is trying to do.
Dragonborn
Member
He's not wrong though. We have paid online because MS could charge for it and laugh to the bank. We have DLC because people supported it. We have Microtransaction because that consumer chose to buy into it. We have exclusive DLC deals, because MS thought it'd be a great idea and other publishers went with it. The consumer doesn't always make the right choice. Sony keeping this off the PS4 will prevent it from getting widespread, which is good.
Exactly, people can still vote with their wallets. If it's so great, then buy an X1 and give EA the money, problem solved.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
No the consumer can choose to buy the Xbox One if they love EA's subscription so much. That's the consumer's option right there.
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
On Netflix I can watch every single thing, even though I might not like it all. I can't play PS3 or Vita games if I don't own them, another terrible comparison. They could give me the full PS3 library and it wouldn't matter.
We also have even more recent opposite precedents. Microsoft locked non-gaming services away behind the XBLG paywall on 360. Now they are removing that constraint on the XB1. Consumers accepted online DRM on Steam, but then rejected it on XB1.
The basic problem with slippery slope fallacies like the one you presented is that they are based around the premise that if you allow one action, you are completely powerless to any oppose further actions. That is demonstrably false.
Wozzer
Member
Surprised at the lack of support for Sony and their public stance on this.
Allowing a publisher to establish a montlhy subscription service, thats to rival PS+ or XBG, would just open the flood gates for the other publishers to follow.
The platforms instant collections would reduce in value as publishers opt to use their own subscription distribution services. Why lose out on profit to serve the middle man?
You'd be left with 'choices' of paying for a handful of limited library subscription services established by publishers that have a track record of exploiting the consumer.
.. it's EA.. since when have we started giving them the benefit of doubt?
Allowing a publisher to establish a montlhy subscription service, thats to rival PS+ or XBG, would just open the flood gates for the other publishers to follow.
The platforms instant collections would reduce in value as publishers opt to use their own subscription distribution services. Why lose out on profit to serve the middle man?
You'd be left with 'choices' of paying for a handful of limited library subscription services established by publishers that have a track record of exploiting the consumer.
.. it's EA.. since when have we started giving them the benefit of doubt?
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
I've got Madden 25 for free. I imagine I might get the next one around this time next year.
Agreed. When I read the first posts, I actually checked the users, thinking they might be shills (they are quite certainly not); I really didn't expect this reaction.
No matter what motivated Sony to decide to not allow it: It is a very good decision in my opinion. If successfull, this subscription service will get mandatory,.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
Like I said, they will take their business elsewhere and if it happens to be Xbox then that's where it is. Consumers still lose due to politics. Options can be exclusive.
Dragonborn
Member
MS is doing that because they have no other choice. They're in no position to keep charging for something that's not worth it.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
The worst part of it all? It wouldn't just be EA. It will be Activision and Ubisoft as well. Each of the three main publishers will eventually require $30-40 per year in addition to XBLG/PS+ to play their games online and get day one access to DLC and betas.
Again it shows how naive people are being if they don't think this is what's coming. As Opiate said earlier in the thread, monetisation needs to go up if production values keep rising with the same sized (or smaller IMO) user base. This is just the beginning.
Every move they make will be small when taken in isolation, people won't care and will look at the additions as providing extra value for their money. That's how it always happens, they slowly turn up the heat so no one notices their goose is being cooked.
Puppet Shadow
Member
Heh. And considering it's likely Sony was shown more of the long term details than us, we're willing to give EA the benefit of the doubt over Sony.
I was going to make a comment on people having the oportunity to pick up games they'd never have bought without this, but my Steam backlog is still pretty big.
That said, if you enjoy EA games, not having this if you own a PS4 would suck.
SolidSnakeUS
Member
You really think this changes the game that much?
Coulomb_Barrier
Member
For the tat that EA put out, no.
Opus Angelorum
Member
So going by your logic, Sony should never have created PSN+.
I didn't even believe that was a real response at first, read like something a Sony fanboy would write just to oppose whatever Microsoft is doing. It doesn't even really have a spin to cover up exclusivity or something, it's just flat out "we don't believe consumers can assess value for themselves," for something that isn't nearly as bad as some season passes that are out there (or ones they let onto their store even though the consumer has no guarantee of what the content will be in some cases).
But it's not. Ea isn't giving their shit away they are testing the waters if enough fishes bite I guarantee mark my words I'll take this to the grave, basic features such as roster updates online services etc will get locked behind this payroll!
Brad Grenz
Member
Yeah, there's an NHL game, occasionally a broken NBA game and the odd Need for Speed or Mass Effect game. Aside from annual sports games their output each year is not very high, and there's no guarantee everything will be added to the vault. So again you're paying $30 a year to play a couple games you didn't care to buy? This isn't like PS Plus where even if you're only interested in 20% of the titles added you've still gotten to play ~20 games over a year. With EA Access that's like 1 or 2 of your 6 options in a year. For $30.
Dragonborn
Member
PS+ Only has Sony games in it? I save well over a hundred bucks a year with discounts alone. Free games are just the cherry on top.
False. You get early access to all games as a subscriber.
How does it rival PS+ and XBL? It sounds like a completely different service to me. From what I have read so far, it sounds like a rental service for selected EA games, kind of like a Netflix type service, and I haven't seen that its necessary to play their games online.
Confidence Man
Member
Value for what? You get absolute shit for it.
I already think we've seen the last of EA games on IGC
Speaking of options, Is it not an option for EA to fold this kind of thing under PS+ rather than as a distinct sub and for us to express our personal choice that they go with that option? Options and choice are fun that way.
I said my piece in the last thread - it's not the end of the world as long as you can continue to purchase individual titles through retail. Season Ticket was much more egregious. I don't buy many EA games (Titanfall and NHL 14 over the last few years) and don't own an Xbone, so it's not the service for me. PSN plus is a much better value and Sony has apparently drawn a line in the sand, so I'm content to watch and see how it plays out. MS needs the help.
Long term, the principals involved would give me reason to be wary, based on past practices. Today, though? Let them experiment and see what happens.
Opus Angelorum
Member
But why not give them away for free?
BibiMaghoo
Member
Keep on ignoring the part where you pay for it all, not the bits you want. Maybe then you can feel comfortable with your position, of stripping down a service to the parts you want, when comparing them in full.
Choice is never a bad thing? Allow me to disagree.
Too many decisions has been made in recent years from people who think with their asses rather than their brains. Those decisions led to the present situation of the console market, situation I'm not exactly a great fan of.
If there's even the thinnest chance that this becomes a trend for other publishers that make yearly games, then I'm all in to stop this thing from spreading.
Too many decisions has been made in recent years from people who think with their asses rather than their brains. Those decisions led to the present situation of the console market, situation I'm not exactly a great fan of.
If there's even the thinnest chance that this becomes a trend for other publishers that make yearly games, then I'm all in to stop this thing from spreading.
Scrupulous
Banned
Maybe Sony don't want to give the publishers more power. If ea is successful with this Activision and ubi will follow suit. And giving these guys anymore reason to abuse there power. It could get messy id much prefer a 3rd party that isn't tied to a major pub to do this.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
It's likely the end of EA discounts and free games on Xbox Live Gold as well.
Indeed. I am once again surprised by the lack of foresight many people are exhibiting in this thread. Then again, maybe that's just representative of how consumers think (or don't think) in general, given that NeoGAF now has 136,897 members.
Dragonborn
Member
Because that wouldn't make sense at all. That's a terrible argument.
Cynn
Member
Even if they remove them it's not like they're going to be deleted from your system or back up HDD. Once you download it, it's yours. (I hope)
n00bsauce87
Member
so what happens if you stop the subscription, do the games get deleted from your harddrive? So that mean you will have to be online to use play their games?
Opus Angelorum
Member
Thanks for the response. I like that you are wary of it but are willing to let it develop.
But you saying people were 'stupid enough' to pay for Xbox Live, micro-transactions and DLC. How is PS+ any different?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/eas-project-ten-dollar-explained
http://www.examiner.com/article/ea-s-project-10-dollar-flaw
My problem seems to stem that EA has generally turned anything innocuous as something that screws over consumer. Even before Ps4 reveal, wasn't EA and Ubi pushing for DRM on consoles? Perhaps there are things not yet apparent behind the EA vault which made Sony reluctant.
I can't see how anyone is anything but skeptical about EA's motives.
Is it early access? Or is it holding a carrot on a stick and purposely delaying the retail availability to garner more subscribers.
People wake up!!!! This is ea they aren't doing you any favors they aren't going to just give you their games, it's another way to get more money from you!!
GrizzleBoy
Banned
Seems like everyone forgot that EA also sells games from other publishers/third parties via Origin.
Who's to say that they couldn't try to evolve the service into something that offers more than EA games like they did for Origin?
Now that is something that would scare the crap out of Sony as it would be direct competition with PS+.
Who's to say that they couldn't try to evolve the service into something that offers more than EA games like they did for Origin?
Now that is something that would scare the crap out of Sony as it would be direct competition with PS+.
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
To me the question of the thread is, while what you are saying is true to what lengths would a company like EA go to in order to entice/force you to subscribe?
That's why a lot of the slippery slope stuff comes up. It is a legitimate concern until proven otherwise.
Handy Fake
Member
I agree with all of this.
theusedversion
Member
I read this as Sony evaluating this subscription after it was announced... as in this is the first time that they have heard about it which is why they made the unusual move to make this kind of statement. A PR move to deflect that this isn't showing up on their platform. I don't think Sony had an option to turn this subscription down which would have been an unusual move for them to do.
Anyways, I will get my pitchfork out. Go GAF!!!!
Anyways, I will get my pitchfork out. Go GAF!!!!
I'd guess they would stop working the next time they have to do a check in with EA's servers
- Status