Support NeoGAF

[Opus Angelorum]

By telling you what you can and can not play.

Indeed.

Imagine walking into a convenience store. You fancy a nice cold drink.

The 500ml bottle of Pepsi Max is £1.30, a 500ml bottle of Pepsi Max is £0.99 if you buy an annual Pepsi Club membership at £10 a year.

You take the £0.99 bottle to the clerk and ask for the subscription and they say 'sorry sir/miss, you can't buy that option because we believe it doesn't offer better value'.

Silly analogy but do you see the problem?

 

[ethomaz]

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.

Curiosity... when these games launched? I meant your friends bought them them.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Why would people abandon ship? Sony just showed that they had a 200% rise in membership when they jumped from PS3 to PS4, which also happened to coincide with them adding an online multiplayer paywall.

This is how it will go down.

2014 - EA Access launches with a few games in the vault and a discount on other EA digital purchases.
2015 - They add one month of timed exclusivity for all DLC for subscribers, they say the DLC is going to be released a month earlier for them rather than delaying DLC for non-subscribers. Exclusive access to all EA beta programmes is added.
2016 - EA add elongated online game support for subscribers, instead of servers closing two years after release, subscribers can continue to play online for four years.
2017 - online support for games is cut from two years to a year.
2018 - Madden requires EA Access to play online. You also need XBLG/PS+.
2019 - All EA games require it to play online.

Where in that incremental addition of "services", which is what they will call it, would people unsubscribe. They didn't do it for PS+ so why would that change? It's wishful thinking to believe that a similar blue print doesn't exist at EA's headquarters and that people won't lap it up like they did for PS+. Don't forget that EA has a monopoly on NFL and a virtual monopoly on football games given that PES is a pile of wank. Their games aren't optional for a lot of people and EA know it.

If you are naive enough to believe that the service currently on offer is the only thing that will ever be on offer then that's up to you. I remain extremely sceptical.

Also the failure to broaden the appeal of gaming is why current gen consoles will be the worst selling since the 4th generation. Rather than better monetising fewer users publishers should have concentrated on broadening the base. My gf is absolutely anti-games, especially shootbang ones, but she sat there in the evenings and watched me play TLOU, and even had a go at some of the easier parts. I showed her a clip of Splatoon and she immediately wanted to play it because "it looks fun".

The likes of EA, Activision, Ubisoft and others have failed to broaden the base and now they will all want us to pay them separate subscription fees. Pardon me if I don't welcome this development with open arms.

Also, don't think I'm defending Sony here or something stupid like that, it is very clear that they have rejected this to protect PS+. In doing so they have, IMO, accidentally protected the consumer's long term interest.

Games like Madden, FIFA, NFL will never require EA access to play, that's a completely ridiculous notion that it's hard not to laugh.

The same applies to most of that overly alarmist timetable. Most of that won't happen, there's literally nothing you can point to and say it happened in the past, so it will happen here too. And no, the progression of DLC isn't at all comparable to how you think this will all play out.

And as people have proven time and time again. If they feel the value proposition is no longer worth subscribing, they will abandon ship.

You're making some good points and you're right to be sceptical, bur you're also being overly alarmist. To the point where it's hard to take you seriously.

And no, Sony won't have protected anyone apart from themselves and their Plus and Now services. If Sony didn't need Plus as much as they do to drive subscriptions, you can bet they would be all over this in a heartbeat.

They also see games as a service after all.

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

Dead Space 3 couple weeks ago.

I do still think that if Sony allowed the EA Access, they wouldn't allow free games via PS+ anymore as well.

 

[Barkley's Justice]

You can play what you want... subscription don't change that.

Sony controls what games and services come to their platform. It is the very definition of curation.

There's a lot of people that find this appealing. I would argue we're being short-changed and not receiving the full spectrum of what is available. This holds true for MS as well.

It's better than it was before on PS3/360, but Sony's wording regarding the EA service makes it sound like Sony is protecting us from the evils of more choices. Fuck that.

 

[RE_Player]

Indeed.

Imagine walking into a convenience store. You fancy a nice cold drink.

The 500ml bottle of Pepsi Max is £1.30, a 500ml bottle of Pepsi Max is £0.99 if you buy an annual Pepsi Club membership at £10 a year.

You take the £0.99 bottle to the clerk and ask for the subscription and they say 'sorry sir/miss, you can't buy that option because we believe it doesn't offer better value'.

Silly analogy but do you see the problem?

Very silly analogy that is not analogous to this situation at all.

 

[Vyer]

Lol@'the value Playstation gamers have come to expect"

 

[icespide]

Sony controls what games and services come to their platform. It is the very definition of curation.

There's a lot of people that find this appealing. I would argue we're being short-changed and not receiving the full spectrum of what is available. This holds true for MS as well.

It's better than it was before on PS3/360, but Sony's wording regarding the EA service makes it sound like Sony is protecting us from the evils of more choices. Fuck that.

then you should have said "stop curating services" they aren't curating games

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Indeed.

Imagine walking into a convenience store. You fancy a nice cold drink.

The 500ml bottle of Pepsi Max is £1.30, a 500ml bottle of Pepsi Max is £0.99 if you buy an annual Pepsi Club membership at £10 a year.

You take the £0.99 bottle to the clerk and ask for the subscription and they say 'sorry sir/miss, you can't buy that option because we believe it doesn't offer better value'.

Silly analogy but do you see the problem?

This..... Is not a great analogy.

Sony is not allowing EA games to be played on the system, they aren't allowing the subscription. You could get the subscription elsewhere if you like however.

 

[Neuromancer]

Indeed.

Imagine walking into a convenience store. You fancy a nice cold drink.

The 500ml bottle of Pepsi Max is £1.30, a 500ml bottle of Pepsi Max is £0.99 if you buy an annual Pepsi Club membership at £10 a year.

You take the £0.99 bottle to the clerk and ask for the subscription and they say 'sorry sir/miss, you can't buy that option because we believe it doesn't offer better value'.

Silly analogy but do you see the problem?

Stores decide what to sell and what not to sell literally every day. This is no different. A better analogy would be walking into Burger King and wondering why you can't get the same deal McDonalds is offering.

 

[Brad Grenz]

You're missing the math in this.

If i have an idea what games the big three are releasing for a year and i feel paying $90 is cheaper than paying $180 ($60 per game), guess what I am doing.

You're missing the fact that you have to wait for a year for those games to hit the vault. By that time you probably could have bought all three for less than half price and spent less than $90 in total.

 

[duessano]

Totally fine with Sony on this. Maybe EA asked for too much cash. Maybe Sony couldn't afford the increased server load. Hell, maybe Sony is in cahoots with Ubisoft.

This isn't Sony blocking customer choice. The customer is free to buy an Xbox One and sign up to EA Access.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

Very silly analogy the is not analogous to this situation at all.

How is it not?

Pepsi would be offering me a subscription to consume their product at a lower cost, and the store owner not be offering the service because they believe it didn't offer good value.

This..... Is not a great analogy.

Sony is not allowing EA games to be played on the system, they aren't allowing the subscription. You could get the subscription elsewhere if you like however.

The store would still sell you the more expensive Pepsi.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Dead Space 3 couple weeks ago.

It's still on the service right now to download.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Sony controls what games and services come to their platform. It is the very definition of curation.

There's a lot of people that find this appealing. I would argue we're being short-changed and not receiving the full spectrum of what is available. This holds true for MS as well.

It's better than it was before on PS3/360, but Sony's wording regarding the EA service makes it sound like Sony is protecting us from the evils of more choices. Fuck that.

This feels like Deja Vu. Wasn't this one of the main sticking point why tons of people were against the original XB1 vision. Because they didn't want Microsoft dictating what games and services they want to carry?

 

[Maxim726X]

In reality, MS probably money-hatted the shit out of this exclusive deal and Sony didn't want to pony up. Why else wouldn't they offer an extra service to their customers?

 

[GeordieMark]

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.

Sony didn't make this decision for your benefit though, to stop you getting 'nickel and dimed'. They made it for their own, or more specifically, to benefit their pockets.

 

[Stone Ocean]

Eh, Sony needs to learn when to just shut up. Not every move by the competition needs to be a PR opportunity.

"We don't think our costumers want that", what are you, Nintendo? Either just say you don't want a secondary service to possibly devalue PS plus or say nothing, dont give me that patronizing bullshit.

Indeed.

Imagine walking into a convenience store. You fancy a nice cold drink.

The 500ml bottle of Pepsi Max is £1.30, a 500ml bottle of Pepsi Max is £0.99 if you buy an annual Pepsi Club membership at £10 a year.

You take the £0.99 bottle to the clerk and ask for the subscription and they say 'sorry sir/miss, you can't buy that option because we believe it doesn't offer better value'.

Silly analogy but do you see the problem?

To be fair that analogy doesn't work. The 0.99 bottle wouldn't be in the store in the first place.

 

[ethomaz]

Indeed.

Imagine walking into a convenience store. You fancy a nice cold drink.

The 500ml bottle of Pepsi Max is £1.30, a 500ml bottle of Pepsi Max is £0.99 if you buy an annual Pepsi Club membership at £10 a year.

You take the £0.99 bottle to the clerk and ask for the subscription and they say 'sorry sir/miss, you can't buy that option because we believe it doesn't offer better value'.

Silly analogy but do you see the problem?

The issues with your analogy is because you won't see that happening in the same supermarket... Sony and MS places are different... and you can have the "Pepsi Max is £0.99 with Plus" yet..

 

[SEGAvangelist]

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.

This is pretty laughable. You're suggesting EA fans who like the service should buy a $399 XB1 along with the $399 PS4 they already have in order to vote with their wallets? Usually voting with your wallet means not buying something, doesn't it?

 

[GifGafIsTheBestGaf]

Sounds good in theory.

Then in 2015 you have:

PS+ $5 a month
Ubisoft Uberservice $6 a month
EA Access $9 a month (price rise)
EA Online Access $5 a month (online play for EA titles)
Activision COD Pass $10 a month
Activision Destiny Pass $12 a month
Activision Do we make other games? Probably Pass $7 a month
Square Us too Pass $40 a month, $20 extra for games.

And so on.

Personally I'm happy for it to be all under one umbrella, that you have to pay anyway to pay online. Otherwise things could get stupid very fast... and lets face it, with these companies involved you know that it will.

this, i feel everything that can go wrong with this will go wrong

 

[Schweinehund]

Weird move. Personally I wouldn't have subbed for it but I don't see what Sony gains from not having this.

This thread #WheatFromChaff.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

To be fair that analogy doesn't work. The 0.99 bottle wouldn't be in the store in the first place.

Agreed, that's more accurate.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

How is it not?

Pepsi would be offering me a subscription to consume their product at a lower cost, and the store owner not be offering the service because they believe it didn't offer good value.

Or the store could just out right refuse to sell Pepsi because the store makes no profit off of it.

 

[Handy Fake]

Stores decide what to sell and what not to sell literally every day. This is no different. A better analogy would be walking into Burger King and wondering why you can't get the same deal McDonalds is offering.

I went into a Burger King, forgot where I was and tried to order a Big Mac, despite the increasingly flustered and panic-stricken urgings from the poor young lass serving that she "doesn't know what that is" and "check the menu".

Took me ages to click on.

True story. I felt foolish.

Anyway, I digress.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Games like Madden, FIFA, NFL will never require EA access to play, that's a completely ridiculous notion that it's hard not to laugh.

The same applies to most of that overly alarmist timetable. Most of that won't happen, there's literally nothing you can point to and say it happened in the past, so it will happen here too. And no, the progression of DLC isn't at all comparable to how you think this will all play out.

And as people have proven time and time again. If they feel the value proposition is no longer worth subscribing, they will abandon ship.

You're making some good points and you're right to be sceptical, bur you're also being overly alarmist. To the point where it's hard to take you seriously.

And no, Sony won't have protected anyone apart from themselves and their Plus and Now services. If Sony didn't need Plus as much as they do to drive subscriptions, you can bet they would be all over this in a heartbeat.

They also see games as a service after all.

The value proposition increases with every move. Why would people stop subscribing? Sony proved that when they added online play to PS+. Any notion that people would reject PS+ on principal after that or reject the PS4 turned out to be wishful thinking, subscriptions rose by 200%. Tripled, in a few months.

People think that it will be different this time and EA won't go down the same road as Sony. I don't see the logic when Sony have proved consumers have no principles.

I also don't know why you think Madden or FIFA won't go behind a paywall, by all accounts EA absolutely hate the idea that MS and Sony make money from charging to play online modes in their games. It is a logical outcome of pushing services for their games directly to the consumer.

 

[Admiral Woofington]

Every fucking time we have a thread discussing something in the industry that has little to do with fanboy console wars it ends up devolving into cheap shots and snarky comments. We're better than this guys going "lol sony 'value' " brings little to the discussion. Please don't.

 

[Neuromancer]

How is it not?

Pepsi would be offering me a subscription to consume their product at a lower cost, and the store owner not be offering the service because they believe it didn't offer good value.

It's a bad analogy because stores decide what to carry and what deals and promotions and partnerships they have with other companies all the time, and people don't get upset. It's completely normal.

 

[N.Domixis]

I'm not surprised xbox owners are lapping this up. They are the reason we are all charged to play online now. They liked paying for things that should have been free all last gen. They will be the reason we will be charged by multiple publishers in the future if this is successful.

 

[Barkley's Justice]

You're basically being asked: Who's art gallery do you like better? Sony or Microsoft? And then you invest in that art gallery for 5+ years with your money and your time. And you walk around the art gallery and admire all the curated pieces that are hanging on the walls and you say to yourself, "Isn't this lovely?"

 

[LastGamer84]

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.

This is what worries me. EA has done nothing to earn trust on this. I want no subscription for games by publisher. The fees will only go up. Even PS+ is sort of bad but at least it's all games on one platform.

Slowly, but steadily, it seems like Microsoft are going to get the "DRM dream" they always wanted.

It's always been my opinion that EA and MS partnered on that debacle - EA was just savy enough to back out when they saw the backlash. They expected Sony to be on board with it and were surprised when they said no. Now they want to try a different tactic. I see no other reason for why they're doubling down on joint ventures with MS when the competition is outselling the Xbox One by 2:1. EA considers MS's original DRM plan to be beneficial to their long term strategy - so they've devised a better way to entice people into it.

I only hope people are smart enough to see where this is going and not support it - but deep down I doubt it

 

[AgentP]

Choice is great, but does Sony really want each publisher trying to have their own PS+? Personally I don't see EA having enough content to push this, but I guess there are some amount of dudebro gamers who loves sports.

I find it more interesting that MS/EA are going up against Gamestop. This is nothing short of anti-trade in which is essentially anti-physical games, which MS has wanted all along.

I bought Madden 25, but then traded it in for $25 when I was done. With this "deal" I'd pay $54 and never be able to unload it.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

I'm not surprised xbox owners are lapping this up. They are the reason we are all charged to play online now. They liked paying for things that should have been free all last gen. They will be the reason we will be charged by multiple publishers in the future if this is successful.

We've moved beyond that now.

 

[RE_Player]

How is it not?

Pepsi would be offering me a subscription to consume their product at a lower cost, and the store owner not be offering the service because they believe it didn't offer good value.

Does the store have a subscription plan that has previously offered Pepsi and other beverages with their subscription or at a lower cost? Is Pepsi trying to create it's on subscription even though another one exists?

Stop the analogies and talk about the topic at hand.

 

[icespide]

This is pretty laughable. You're suggesting EA fans who like the service should buy a $399 XB1 along with the $399 PS4 they already have in order to vote with their wallets? Usually voting with your wallet means not buying something, doesn't it?

re the bolded: no it doesn't. it can go both ways

 

[flkraven]

Stores decide what to sell and what not to sell literally every day. This is no different. A better analogy would be walking into Burger King and wondering why you can't get the same deal McDonalds is offering.

That is also a horrible analogy because Burger King and McDonalds have entirely different menus. I would just avoid the food analogies all together.

 

[ElNino]

then you should have said "stop curating services" they aren't curating games

They are to people who are only (or primarily) playing games that come to PS+.

 

[Hoo-doo]

Sony didn't make this decision for your benefit though, to stop you getting 'nickel and dimed'. They made it for their own, or more specifically, to benefit their pockets.

I recognize this, obviously.

Their strategy appeals to me more than letting EA do whatever the fuck they want.

 

[ethomaz]

Sony controls what games and services come to their platform. It is the very definition of curation.

There's a lot of people that find this appealing. I would argue we're being short-changed and not receiving the full spectrum of what is available. This holds true for MS as well.

It's better than it was before on PS3/360, but Sony's wording regarding the EA service makes it sound like Sony is protecting us from the evils of more choices. Fuck that.

So they are not curating Games... you worded it wrong... fine.

 

[Dragonborn]

This is pretty laughable. You're suggesting EA fans who like the service should buy a $399 XB1 along with the $399 PS4 they already have in order to vote with their wallets? Usually voting with your wallet means not buying something, doesn't it?

No, voting with your wallet means supporting what you like/agree with, and/or not supporting what you don't like/disagree with. It goes both ways. If it's such a big deal, people can just choose an X1 over PS4 and get the sub. That's still voting with one's wallet.

 

[N.Domixis]

We've moved beyond that now.

Yes, now they are moving into the next step

 

[SEGAvangelist]

It's a bad analogy because stores decide what to carry and what deals and promotions and partnerships they have with other companies all the time, and people don't get upset. It's completely normal.

Yeah, it's better if you compare stores with memberships like Sam's, Costco, and BJ's.

 

[Barkley's Justice]

then you should have said "stop curating services" they aren't curating games

Sony/MS says, "We want your game to come on our system...But not this one."

Curating much? Are we talking about the same thing in this thread?

 

[PhatSaqs]

I'm not surprised xbox owners are lapping this up. They are the reason we are all charged to play online now. They liked paying for things that should have been free all last gen. They will be the reason we will be charged by multiple publishers in the future if this is successful.

Your posts are almost always gold.

 

[icespide]

They are to people are only (or primarily) playing games that come to PS+.

uh ok...

 

[Elios83]

Totally fine with Sony on this. Maybe EA asked for too much cash. Maybe Sony couldn't afford the increased server load. Hell, maybe Sony is in cahoots with Ubisoft.

This isn't Sony blocking customer choice. The customer is free to buy an Xbox One and sign up to EA Access.

Emmm no, Sony doesn't want competition for their Playstation Plus service, they want a single unified service handled by them offering games for a subscription price. You can be for or against but it's their right to make that choice on their platform. Just like every store has the right to sell a particular brand or product or not.
If you see things in a broader way their point has a logic in the sense that what happens if Ubisoft, Activision all come up with their own subscriptions?
That is a pure nightmare, fighting against multiple subscriptions to get the best deals on different games, with PS+ the offering is clear and cover games from all publishers.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Thanks for deciding for me Sony. I couldn't have dealt with that decision myself.

Yeah this really scans to me like "EA burned us, but we're going to spin this as good for gamers!"

The EA sub would definitely not be for me but in terms of offering the option, why wouldn't they unless it was bad for Sony somehow?

 

[driver116]

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.

Yup 8 EA games in the last 2 years.

 

[Bolts-n-Rays1109]

Curiosity... when these games launched? I meant your friends bought them them.

What?

 

[icespide]

Sony/MS says, "We want your game to come on our system...But not this one."

Curating much? Are we talking about the same thing in this thread?

are we talking about why platforms want exclusive games on their consoles in this thread? no we're talking about Sony's response to an EA subscription service.