Support NeoGAF

[Qassim]

Thank god. No matter how noble EAs offering sounds, lets do not forget: This is EA. This company constantly tries to screw customers, not offer them a good deal. ´So I'm happy that this EA poison-vault stays away from PSN.

Why not go one step further? BAN EA GAMES FROM PLAYSTATION PLATFORMS. I don't want that poison on the PlayStation platform!

 

[Xando]

Its optional though... if someone buys a particularly large amount of games from 1 publisher and they get a good deal why not let them do it?

You don't have to subscribe and you can still buy the games either digitally or on a disc

it is optional now like ps + was with ps3 but what if EA decides 2 years from now that you have to have it to play Fifa online?

 

[Shyakugaun]

But Those PS Now Prices tho lol

 

[Sodding_Gamer]

Not the right call at all from Sony, give the consumers the choice.

To be fair to Sony, this wasn't promised when the console was announced as a feature so if they don't want it on their console then they don't have to have it. Anything else is an added extra.

True it's good to give consumers a choice but in my opinion don't want games becoming services. I'd like to hold off that inevitable future for as long as humanly possible.

Each to their own of course. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you.

 

[p3tran]

The monthly fee is a bit balls, the yearly however seems pretty good value.

Gotta wonder if they *really* chose not to do it, or are covering themselves.

I forsee this thread been an interesting split of opinion

for me, this easily means that all my ea purchases go to xbone. I dont see how sony wins from this. and this is from a person with both consoles.
even more, I dont see how a person who only has a ps4 can feel ...benefited(?) from this. strange wording that sony rep uses....


---

it is optional now like ps + was with ps3 but what if EA decides 2 years from now that you have to have it to play Fifa online?

come on, we can do better than FUD ourselves... if this thing happens, then I guess fifa will become an xbone exclusive too. so think about that instead.

 

[SuperÑ]

I thought options were good...

 

[Hellraider]

Good Sony is taking a stand.. For all we know Ubisoft might be planning their own subscription type deal if EA gets big mobey out of theirs, and then it will be the norm for all publishers..

And that's bad because...?

 

[BeforeU]

lol such BS. Is it possible that they didnt read through the whole plan properly. Hoe is this possibly not a good idea when its optional and provides value to gamers? not cool, not cool sony.

 

[Saiyu]

Is this what we've become? People are applauding a company for making decisions on their behalf, decisions that remove choice and inhibit competition?

Good God, the EA deal is something I wouldn't do but I'd like a say in the first place please.

 

[GamerMax73]

Sony talking the value game when they have such shocking prices with PSNow?

My 2 cents is that they feel it too cheap and makes their PSNow service look like even more of a rip off, hence why they don't want it on Playstation.

Nail hit squarely on the head!

Why would Sony approve a competing service to PS Now on their platform? Especially when PS Now is failing to live up to the hype...

 

[Nightengale]

Hmm, such aggressive language from Sony.

 

[biglittleps]

Yeah, like the value in paying $60 (only dropped to 50 because of consumer backlash) dollars for a port of a year-old game.....

Its not just year old game, it includes all the DLC released so far in the year gap and one more DLC planned for Holiday. Also it has Upgrades to graphics in double and ported from different architecture which it was made for.

 

[Niven]

I thought options were good...

You was lied to...

 

[Steverulez]

it is optional now like ps + was with ps3 but what if EA decides 2 years from now that you have to have it to play Fifa online?

Its extremely unlikely because Fifa already sells loads of copies and they won't want to mess with Fifa's sales and get less money.

 

[Human_me]

Good Sony is taking a stand.. For all we know Ubisoft might be planning their own subscription type deal if EA gets big mobey out of theirs, and then it will be the norm for all publishers..

Yes, we don't want to see several different subscriptions across all consoles.

I'd rather only have the one central one.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

No matter how they responded, for it or against it, they would get some backlash.

For it? Damn you Sony, we pay enough already!

Against it? Damn you Sony! What happened to
choice?

 

[Deleted member 125677]

I see how they're thinking, not wanting competition for their own subscription program. Sony sort of poisoned the well themselves here though, every large developer must see what a potential gold mine this sort of rental program is, and how you can turn it into a much more consumer hostile program once the user base is already there with their library of "free games" (paywall for mp etc).

I also fear this is the general direction this industry is heading

 

[supersaw]

There must be a financial reason as to why they don't want to do it, likely higher royalties for Sony from disc based sales and digital downloads.

How does EA access handle DLC, so you get Battlefield 4 I'm assuming it's the base game with no dlc, do you then have to do a full digital purchase of the game and it's DLC if you decide you actually want to "own" it?

 

[secondspace]

It does look like strong competition for PS+ and Gold on Xbox. Sony might not be keen on that when they've only just started to get people to pay.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Yup, if they allow EA, it won't take long before every other pub starts their own little subscription service.

And what's wrong with that if they all offer the same kind of EA Access does?

If Ubi launched an access service and most of their games were available for a similar price to access (£20 for the year), how is that bad for gamers?

 

[Spacecowboy77]

That's a bad move on Sony's part.

Let the customers choose what is good value for them and what's not.

More options are good.

 

[Niven]

No matter how they responded, for it or against it, they would get some backlash.

For it? Damn you Sony, we pay enough already!

Against it? Damn you Sony! What happened to
choice?

The pay enough already is not really a argument as no one is making you do it ?

 

[DarkMehm]

That's a really anti-consumer decision on their part, it's up to consumers to decide whether or not the program represents a good value for them.

It's anti-consumer in the short term. In the long term Sony (obviously) wants a unified service where customers pay once and get all the games from all the publishers (ideally). EA wants to have a split market where every publisher has their own money making service, like they did with Origin in the PC industry. You decide which of these two really sounds anti-consumer.

 

[Piccoro]

I certainly wouldn't pay 30 dollars on top of the 50 dollars that PS+ costs.
Edit: Sony refused this because it would probably compete with they're own subscription services, Plus and Now.

 

[toddhunter]

I find it strange that they actively blocked it from appearing on PSN. Give us options.

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.

 

[LegendofDragoonLives]

Can't see why they'd pass on an optional subscription that provides a good value but eh.

Either Sony is annoyed at a timed exclusive and lashed out or a really dumb decision. They shouldn't take options away from the gamers (or is it #4thegamers now?)

 

[Officerrob]

it is optional now like ps + was with ps3 but what if EA decides 2 years from now that you have to have it to play Fifa online?

Then as a consumer, you make a CHOICE to decide to purchase the game and subscription or not.

 

[smurfx]

Other publishers will only do it if EA's service is successful, and it will only be successful if consumers CHOOSE to purchase the service. Consumer choice, a good thing

other publishers might not want EA to get ahead of them and reap the benefits of being first.

 

[Vashetti]

Too right.

Publishers trojan-horsing their own paid services onto the consoles is bad news, IMO

 

[TsuWave]

Honestly think they should provide the option, however, i'm also fearful of how these subscription services may evolve.

 

[Majine]

It's a weird situation when you are competing with GwG and PS+ but still need those services to play the games on your service online.

 

[Super Stardust]

But Those PS Now Prices tho lol

 

[Qassim]

It isn't t basic functionality of a gaming console for all.

As I said, if you believe this is true, then I don't know what to say to you. If the console was missing online play altogether, people would rightly say it was missing basic functionality of a modern games console.

Online gaming is a core part of this industry. The argument that because it isn't 100% of what happens on the console, it isn't basic functionality is ridiculous. We could apply this logic to so many basic things on the PS4 - there are games that don't come with single player components, if the PS4 limited single player games behind a subscription - then people would say it's missing basic functionality in the free tier.

 

[iceatcs]

Other publishers will only do it if EA's service is successful, and it will only be successful if consumers CHOOSE to purchase the service. Consumer choice, a good thing

I think some publishers will jump on it, no matter how it doing.

E.g Ubisoft, who also do the PC service system (Uplay) after EA (Origin).

 

[Rebel Leader]

No matter how they responded, for it or against it, they would get some backlash.

For it? Damn you Sony, we pay enough already!

Against it? Damn you Sony! What happened to
choice?

I would be a little happy for it because I would like to try ps4 version of the games without using gamefly.

The redboxs' near me do not have ps4/Xb1 games, so I would try this EA service for a month when the games I wanted to play get on there.

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.

Subscribe to our service to get exclusive content that you can't get anywhere else or otherwise.

 

[TechnicPuppet]

What a ridiculous response.

 

[Officerrob]

No matter how they responded, for it or against it, they would get some backlash.

For it? Damn you Sony, we pay enough already!

Against it? Damn you Sony! What happened to
choice?

I'm sorry, but this is a load of bullshit. If they offered the service, they are not making you buy anything, it's an option.

 

[Mikey Jr.]

Maybe they think it directly competes with ps now?

 

[Friction]

Can't really understand why not? Can't really see the overlap with PSN+ since Sony included MP as part the package. Options are a good thing IMO.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Hmm, such aggressive language from Sony.

It has the potential to derail PSNow if other publishers/developers decide to offer a similar service.

It also shows up the absurdity of the pricing on PSNow.

Sony looking out for theirs.

 

[Aostia]

I prefer the PSN approach, but accepting the EA deal would have simply add another option to the customes, I suppose...so probably there was some conflict between the two system (something like diminishing the Sony digital subscription attractive, I think)

 

[kevm3]

Great job Sony. Last thing we need is 10,000 subscriptions on top of subscriptions. What if EA, for example wanted to limit online access of some of their games to their exclusive service? So not only would you have to pay for PSN, but you would have to subscribe to their service as well. Imagine a ton of other developers following suit. No thanks.

 

[Kysen]

I don't agree with Sony's decision on this. How is this any different from having a netfix sub that you use only on the ps4? If they don't want people paying 2 subs then just waive the ps+ requirement on the ea games. As for whether I'd sub to the ea service lol no. My last FIFA was FIFA 95 and I have never bought any other ea sports game. For everything else I'd just buy day one.

 

[Guymelef]

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.
When you have a single service outside PS+ or Games With Live for 5$ is cool.

But is a giant trojan horse, what if Activision wants his piece? Ubisoft? Take Two?
At the end of the day PS+ and Games With Live lost all its value.

 

[Nightengale]

My speculation is that Sony is concerned that PS+ will be significantly devalued if they offer EA Access.

If PS4 gets EA Access, Plus can pretty much kiss EA games goodbye from ever being on Plus discount, free games,etc.

 

[Niven]

I don't get people, I can understand not wanted it personally as it may not be for you, but saying it shouldn't be on a console is just crazy as there is lots of people with ps4 who would want this service

 

[EL CUCO]

Count me in this bracket of not caring about EA's program

 

[Pooya]

I'm more surprised to see a first party saying bad things about a just announced offering from a 3rd party partner, that doesn't happen often. They could've just said something else, more neutral, this can't be good for politics lol.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

The pay enough already is not really a argument as no one is making you do it ?

I admit I dont even know what is offered in the EA subscription, but Im sure if sony or microsoft or anyone wants to support another subscription for something its going to piss some demographic off somewhere. The internet being the internet and all.

 

[Xando]

Then as a consumer, you make a CHOICE to decide to purchase the game and subscription or not.

So you have Indie games left to play?
If this is successfull every pub will jump on the train and you have the choice between boycotting them or pay 30€ per month for 5 subscriptions.