SolidSnakeUS
Member
So 10% off and 5 days early is going to be a game changer for the new games? FIFA and Madden will be popular on both systems no matter what. You make it sound like that only people will buy these games on one console now.
-
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
So 10% off and 5 days early is going to be a game changer for the new games? FIFA and Madden will be popular on both systems no matter what. You make it sound like that only people will buy these games on one console now.
This argument is being thrown around like its the universal truth. I understand and agree with it to an extent but can you not see that by having a program like this it will effect the other marketplace. No more EA content on Plus and no more discounts on EA games unless you are signed up for this program. If this is a success more publishers follow suit and you have multiple subscriptions, for multiple publishers on the same platform.
Better question...does EA benefit more or less from not participating in PS+? Who cares who may benefit "most"? Is EA going to cut off their nose to spite their face?
Dragonborn
Member
I get the argument, but in this case, if the casual consumer chose to support something like this, it'd just lead us down a bad road. As I said before, we've seen time and again that the consumer doesn't always make the right choice, I'd rather the option just not be there. That way there's no chance.
Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but sorry, this is EA/MS we're talking about. They've given me reason enough to doubt them.
XBL could be good, but as it stands, it offers little. GWG is still way behind plus, and the sales aren't as great from what I've seen. It also helps that with Plus, I get 6 games a months. I'm not saying XBL can't be good, I'm saying that it just currently is (for me at least).
GAF is not a single entity. Many people here like EA's games and would see value in this service. Others will not.
Sony has made the decision (for the moment) to not give their users that choice. It certainly seems that it is based on not competing with their own service, which is understandable, but that doesn't make it any better for those who might have liked it (and don't own an X1).
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
Have you checked what on sale on Xbox Live this week?
Opus Angelorum
Member
This assumes the PS+ subscription cost would remain the same.
This assumes all of those games would have made it onto PS+.
I lost it @ Square Us too. Haha.
You're being harsh though, at the very least, I won't expect them to charge the highest.
Live Free or Die
Banned
Good.
Another analogy: Video Unlimited and Netflix. Both coexist in PS4 and nobody complains. You pay for whatever you want.
Hexa
Member
Crysis 3 next month.
I actually agree that this does not seem like a good value right now, but that could change. But I suspect Sony's real motivation is the perception by Sony that this is a slippery slope that could significantly diminish the value of PS+ in a drastic way if the larger publishers all start doing this.
Someday I may be annoyed that this is not on PlayStation, but today is not the day.
Someday I may be annoyed that this is not on PlayStation, but today is not the day.
This 'choice' mantra is getting really obnoxious. Sony likes to run a tight ship and keep things centralized. I like that.
What other people want is really not my concern when I personally don't want it. I would not subscribe to this service and felt like the service of PS+ was getting undermined by publishers, opening the gate to everyone and their dog to try and nickle and dime everyone for a monthly sampling of videogames.
If that's how this industry is going to be, then i'll either adapt or give it the finger for good. Right now, I can only be pleased that the PS4 remains hands-off.
Silvawuff
Member
I like that Sony is taking a shot at this. What EA is doing is setting a dangerous paradigm; do we really need to pay a subscription service in the future for each and every publisher out there? Gaming is already an expensive hobby. PS+ makes sense to me since that's selling a broader spectrum of games via their service.
Either way we're moving into a future where we don't "own" games anymore, and that scares me.
Either way we're moving into a future where we don't "own" games anymore, and that scares me.
Neuromancer
Member
Yep just like Sony exercised the choice not to get in bed with the worst publisher around. As a consumer I still have the choice to buy the occasional EA game that doesn't look like complete garbage. Nothing of value has been lost.
Dragonborn
Member
Correct, and if EA comes around with a real netlfix style sub (with multple publishers involved), and Sony refuses that, then it'll be an issue. That'd be an entirely different discussion.
Mass Effect
Member
Nobody cares. I wish people would stop doing this.
You are right now. It's just a mostly harmless experiment... for now. But as we've seen with DLC, online passes, season passes, and microtransactions, these things tend do develop on a predictable path, especially when it comes to certain parties... like EA.
I can understand why some people are concerned. Who knows how this might turn out in the future.
Opus Angelorum
Member
I'd suggest EA are happy making money, period. The actual physical cost to EA for this will be very low.
You are assuming that without these 'options' the publishers/platform holders would still be giving the consumer a better deal.
The mighty and most moral Sony Computer Entertainment to the rescue.
Several EA games have been available for Plus on PS3 or heavily discounted. Do you think that will continue with this program? I'm not saying we would have had all these games hit Plus but with the existence of the program it pretty much goes down to a 0% chance.
"People should not accept positive change because if we get used to allowing change we will be powerless when a negative change is proposed."
That is some arch-conservatism.
ethomaz
Banned
People saying no ore EA games on PS+ is not getting the full picture... Sony pays EA to put these games on PS+... so EA receives money having their games on PS+.
What do you thing EA will do?
1) Allow Sony to put their games on PS+ (+money)
2) Block Sony to put their games on PS+ (no money)
Well it is easy decision for EA.
BTW next month we have a new EA game on PS+
What do you thing EA will do?
1) Allow Sony to put their games on PS+ (+money)
2) Block Sony to put their games on PS+ (no money)
Well it is easy decision for EA.
BTW next month we have a new EA game on PS+
Neuromancer
Member
Giving EA the benefit of the doubt is like petting a dog with rabies and hoping you don't get bit.
Domcorleone
Member
I hope this means Sony will try to compete by offering 10% off all non EA titles. I want all digital dammit!
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
But the game is almost one whole year old. It's cool, but is it really that great?
Almost word for word how I feel about this.
Barkley's Justice
Member
Give the gamers a choice.
Stop curating Games. We don't need a chaperone.
Stop curating Games. We don't need a chaperone.
Dragonborn
Member
Perhaps I misunderstand but how am I assuming that?
Delicious Waffles
Member
For some, 10% off and early access might sway them.
You could pay $65 to play it on release on PS4 or get some money off, get to play it earlier, and have access to other games for a small yearly fee on XBO.
This could make people choose.
As always it's all about business, as I read it EA didn't want to take part in PS+ at the same conditions of the other publishers and they wanted to start a similar service to get subscriptions money for themselves.
Sony is obviously protecting the value of their own service and don't want competition on their own platform, so they didn't reach an agreement to bring EA access on PS4.
Microsoft has the same policy for games requiring an online subscription, hence why games like FFXIV are not on the Xbox One.
Everyone is thinking about their business, EA, Sony, Microsoft.
Sony is obviously protecting the value of their own service and don't want competition on their own platform, so they didn't reach an agreement to bring EA access on PS4.
Microsoft has the same policy for games requiring an online subscription, hence why games like FFXIV are not on the Xbox One.
Everyone is thinking about their business, EA, Sony, Microsoft.
um how exactly are they curating Games?
Opus Angelorum
Member
I'm not suggesting they would all appear on EA Access either.
You don't want theses options to exist, which presumes you are already getting the best deal without them in place.
SEGAvangelist
Member
But you can just refuse to buy it, and the people who want it can purchase it. Do you think it devalues your PS Plus subscription or something? I'm confused with your wording about undermined publishers.
Sounds like the exact same ignorance in OP reworded.
Ultimately Sony is dictating what is best for their consumers after arguably getting to the place they're in in the console digital space by promoting diversity of choice to consumers. This is the direct opposite of that and unprecedented. Assumptions of things being better under roof or EA dropping support of titles for PS+ IGC don't hold weight when those values are not universally applicable to all gamers, nor necessarily the case if both services existed on the same platform. Most defending this either use one of those two supports and both are flimsy as flimsy gets.
jim2point0
Banned
EA started up a service that made them look like the good guys and Sony look like the bad guys. I don't know what to believe anymore.
Barkley's Justice
Member
By telling you what you can and can not play.
It's interesting to see how many people are misinformed about this program, too, it's like they expect new games to be in this thing. They're only putting old games in here; the '14 sports games when the '15 ones are out in a couple months, BF4 and Peggle 2 which were launch titles etc. But from what I can see people defending EA have this expectation that Battlefield Hardline and Dragon Age are gonna be part of the thing at launch when they clearly won't be. Access, as I see it, is just EA's way of shoveling old games that aren't selling anymore to naive consumers.
I can totally understand the decision by Sony to ignore this thing entirely if it were a Shapiro thing and whoever calls back first gets the exclusivity. If Access turns out to be as shit as it seems and Sony had the exclusivity instead, they'd be accused of 'moneyhatting' a shit service.
Dragonborn
Member
Ah, I see. Well that's true, I suppose, but I'm more assuming that putting a stop to this means better deals can come off of it.
boneso
Member
Can we sum up the X1 users like the service because it´s on their platform ?
And PS4 users don´t like the service because it´s not on their platform ?
Sums up this thread perfectly
Also amazing how many people own EA games but hate EA.
You are talking in circles and you know it.
SolidSnakeUS
Member
I feel the same. PS+ would get undermined with something like EA Access and by keeping it as one system with the PS+, with the discounts and free games every month, it keeps things together, coherent, and works very well. EA games will still probably be included in the free monthly games for PS+, especially since Sony rejected this.
Plus, it's EA, do you really believe they are doing this for the betterment of you?
ethomaz
Banned
You can play what you want... subscription don't change that.
Bolts-n-Rays1109
Banned
Sony turned this down because EA Access isn't a "good value"?
1) This is a good value for people who buy lots of sports games.
2) It's optional. Why not provide that other option. I already know 2 people who have switched back to XB1 for NHL 15 and FIFA because of EA Access.
1) This is a good value for people who buy lots of sports games.
2) It's optional. Why not provide that other option. I already know 2 people who have switched back to XB1 for NHL 15 and FIFA because of EA Access.
TheKastorian
Member
It's a slippery slope for the industry as a whole. If we support this kind of strategy and companies profit, will be paying subscriptions for EVERYTHING. The people buying new AAA games will eventually get even lower because they can play the damn thing for "free" some months to a year later.
Gamers will see it as a bargain but eventually it's not going to be sustainable for this industry. So don't be disappointed if you see big -towards the worse- changes.
Slowly, but steadily, it seems like Microsoft are going to get the "DRM dream" they always wanted.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
Well they didn't say that. They didn't want to offer the service as an option, however that doesn't stop you from playing EA games without the subscription.
??? Then what were you trying to argue there? "most" was the concerned you raised, not me. If EA just wants to make money, what's wrong with folding this sort of thing into PS+? Most developer feedback about participating in the PS+ sub is that it is at least profitable to them, if not necessarily highly lucrative.
ElRenoRaven
Member
Yea. actually makes my head hurt. Look I have hated EA through the years as much as anyone. I've bought like 3 games in 10 years from them. This is nuts though. If a company does something right then consumers should say hey you're doing something right. Positive re-enforcement is the way to go. In this case EA is not saying you can't by their games still. They're offering this for folks who probably don't buy their games too often if at all like me. Even getting 30 bucks a year from those people is more then they were getting. At the same time it's like an EA PSN plus or MS Games for gold but for their games. Anyone subscribing knows what they're getting into and they're ok with that. It's win win for everyone.
Now should EA down the road require you to subscribe to get the newest games then hell yea rip them a new asshole. They'll deserve it then. Consumers have shown that we will speak up when shit is taken too far. Just as Microsoft.
they aren't though? they aren't refusing EA games on the PS4
Dragonborn
Member
That doens't work. As has been said before, why do you think we have DLC, Microtransactions, paid online, etc? It's because people buy them. Even if were to boycott DLC (which I actually rarely buy), it'll still exist because because publishers have embraced it.
You can still vote with your wallet, people who find this an amazing deal can buy an X1 and subscribe.
To follow on from what the previous guy was saying and what I assume he meant; what about when they do something you don't like and you are again given no choice. That was his issue but not yours, the next time it could be the other way around. Point being, as you said Sony do what they find is best for them and their ecosystem, and that is what you are buying into. The guy previously now might have to rethink that and I assume you might if something disagreeable happens from your perspective. But ultimately that is the cost of following what Sony want which is both good and bad to different people. The only other options are to follow Microsoft or Nintendo's way or go for the PC and get constant choice but no standardisation unless unanimously decided upon by a large majority.
My point is you saying the "choice mantra is getting really obnoxious" is a load of crap. Everyone doesn't have to be the same or follow a certain ideal. Sony could do no wrong to someone for years but one decision can change that for some people. There is nothing wrong with that
IISANDERII
Member
Dead Space 3 couple weeks ago.
- Status