Support NeoGAF

[Hoo-doo]

Wildly overblown expectations of what it will be providing? Or wildly overblown expectations of how this will hurt the industry?

I think both.

Yup. Both.

Because I don't see this getting a lot of traction on any platform, to be honest.
This is EA we are talking about, they'll screw consumers over with it eventually. Pro-consumer is not a word in their dictionary.

 

[Bgamer90]

Now where's that chalkboard again

Haha, don't think EA Access will "save" (aka make the system #1 in sales) the Xbox One but it will definitely influence some of the "dude bro" crowd.

Once more, if enough consumers demand the service, I don't doubt that Sony will cave... But that's going to need to be seen in the coming months. It also depends on if EA starts locking things away from PlayStation owners due to content being only available for subscribers (tinfoil warning), which may or may not happen. I can tell you, though... if EA generates tons of exclusive content for subscribers that PS4 owners couldn't access because of Sony's refusal, Sony would have a lot of pressure on them to offer the service.

Agreed. Someone made mention of possible compilation games like Mass Effect Trilogy being timed exclusive for EA Access members. Things like that would be pretty major IMO.

 

[TomShoe]

I have the feeling that it's more EA and MS deciding for Sony than Sony deciding for us.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Very true, but this is the same on Xbox.

Do you need Gold to use EA Access?

How else are you going to play online and download these titles? Got to have XBL.

 

[lukeskymac]

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

Wow, the TLOU salt leaves its numerous threads and echoes throughout the forum. Such an interesting phenomenon.

 

[Gestault]

Good question

They confirmed you don't [Need a Gold membership to use the EA Access service]

 

[AusRoachman]

How else are you going to play online and download these titles? Got to have XBL.

Can download without gold, can play single player as well, just can't go online gaming which is where ms/ps fit in.

 

[CosmicQueso]

Pretty much. I think it's better to nip this kinda stuff in the bud or it could get really stupid, really fast.

But if consumers don't want it, they won't buy it and it goes away.

Limiting consumer choice and reducing competition artificially is as anti-consumer as it gets.

Several "competing" publisher-exclusive services would appear to me to be be anti-competitive

Too much competition is anti-competitive. Are you kidding me?

Hearing the argument that "consumers will decide if it is a good value" is pretty naive given how consumers also decided that they wanted the likes of preorder DLC and microtransactions.

Good thing you're there to save people from themselves. It's not like I should be able to buy what I want with my own money. Glad people like you are out there looking out for my best interests.

 

[Goodacre0081]

this does help MS with one aspect. it's puts less pressure on GWG to go toe to toe with PS+. with this other service it can share the load and still bring a great offering of games.

 

[gai_shain]

People have wildly overblown expectations of the EA offer it seems. Will be interesting to revisit in a couple of months.

30$ for those 4 games is not a bad deal at all imo and If by the same time next year they add their next sports games to that, 30$ is still good value.

 

[Description]

How else are you going to play online and download these titles? Got to have XBL.

You'd need Gold to play online. But to download them? I sure assume not.

 

[wildfire]

Been thinking of reasons why Sony might be reluctant to allow this ( at least at this stage). People saying they're being anti-consumer by denying choice are, IMO, not thinking things through, merely knee-jerking. Sony aren't likely to deprive users of a service that might benefit the ecosystem as a whole, therefore we have to look for the potential for harm.

i. Firstly it obviously competes with and potentially devalues ps+ (you'd have to think EA games would be less likely to become available to plus, or potentially they could be even more outdated versions of the sports titles).

ii. End user support. For the tiny fraction of the fee Sony would receive, they'd be expected to manage the purchase and delivery as with any digital purchase, but the fact that it's not just a single transaction for a single item and rather the support of a yearly or monthly subscription service, opens the door to many more potential issues.
Sony would be the first point of call for end user support when anything went wrong (and with ea/origin on top of ps+, that might not be trivial). Reading the many threads on GAF, I'm sure Sony's CS support lines are busy enough as is regarding the various issues that are thrown up with with their own ps+ without generating more with an extra layer of potential pitfalls on top. There would no doubt be grey areas - problems where Sony think it's an EA issue, EA think it's a Sony issue. Not appetising.

iii. It's not just EA - you have to think further ahead. Other publishers are likely to expect to be able to be given the chance to offer a competing (but maybe not even necessarily that similar) service for their own titles. This would not only multiply the effects of the above concerns but, thinking it through a bit more, you'd have to factor in each publisher's competing service's rules, regulations and nuances... and you are now presenting an even more complex problem for Sony CS.

Taking this further, it's not difficult to imagine the potential for a sea of confusion customer-side when Johnny Gamer expects certain things of one service that is actually only a part of a rival service he also subscribes to. This would only compound with every new service added. All customers would go directly to Sony to air their grievances and have their minds set at ease. Those CS staff are going to spend the next few years in and out of training courses like an mcse.

iii. Having to set up an auto-renewal with a credit card held on file. Sony don't really want to go there, do they? And that Johnny Gamer guy - what if he forgets to cancel and the service auto-renews - Sony CS have to deal with enough "my dog bought COD Ghosts when it scratched its arse on my DS4 help me please!" kind of gripes as it is.


So those were some possible reasons are why I reckon Sony isn't keen to want to walk this path, there are likely many more I can't comprehend not being in a position to understand. It's more understandable why Microsoft, struggling as they appear to be to hang on to the coat tails of ps4, are more open to a roll of the dice with their comfortable bedfellows in this extending of an unprecedented relationship

Spoiler

;-)

The current setup with ps+ is actually the best for the consumer in my view. Sony is the platform holder - they have their store and their services. Keeping that simple and uniform for customers is key. Having ps+ with the potential for any and all publishers competing for exposure through this single subscription service is true competition between rival publishers and it keeps things dead simple for the end user. No nested bullshit.

Several "competing" publisher-exclusive services would appear to me to be be anti-competitive and funnel gamers into a more fractured and uncertain gaming-as-a-service future.

Away from Sony and on a personal level - the TOS on the EA site reads significantly differently to a few random EA spokespersons' comments I've seen quotes in this and the other thread over the past 24 hours (regarding expiration of titles and purchases made using the 10% discount). There's ambiguity there. Tweets and e-mails to gaming sites aren't good enough - the ToS needs to be edited to reassure. It's entirely reasonable to expect EA to stick to the letter of their TOS and not some quote given to gaming Website X or a tweet from some guy who might no longer even work for EA any longer. EA don't really have the gravitas to ensure faith in their future generosity or ability to play fair.

The discount thing is thrown in there as a deal clincher. At 10% it is fairly measly vs the actual retail price paid for physical copies (here in UK at least) and for it to have much benefit as a DLC discount the user would have to be a serious content-hoover, and I can't see that very niche kind of consumer being too thrifty. The time-limited game trials some 120 hours before release I can see appealing to a hardcore minority hell-bent on getting their hands on EA's latest offerings as soon as humanly possible.

Good overview. The only thing I would say is that the sub system could potentially have savings but past instances across multiple industries including this one says very few have lived up the promise. If there is value EA and the other publishers have to prove they can offer better value on Xbox 1 compared to the PS+ model on the similar but competing platform.

 

[Metfanant]

Haha, don't think EA Access will "save" (aka make the system #1 in sales) the Xbox One but it will definitely influence some of the "dude bro" crowd

Bit will it really? As a self professed member of the "dude bro" crowd, we are generally on to the next big thing when it comes out...you're not gonna have many people sticking to the old version of BF, FIFA, Madden, etc...so at that point you're dealing with the 10% discount...which isn't much after you've factored in sub fees...

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Can download without gold, can play single player as well, just can't go online gaming which is where ms/ps fit in.

Oh okay, thanks for the clarification.

 

[Bgamer90]

this does help MS with one aspect. it's puts less pressure on GWG to go toe to toe with PS+. with this other service it can share the load and still bring a great offering of games.

Agree. Future Xbox One bundles could tie in free month subs to both Xbox Live Gold and EA Access in the future.

That would be a decent library/set of Xbox One games as soon as someone connects their new console.

 

[Gartooth]

Hearing the argument that "consumers will decide if it is a good value" is pretty naive given how consumers also decided that they wanted the likes of preorder DLC and microtransactions.

Does it suck for people who thought the service was a good value and wanted it? Yes, but at the same time it'll stop this trend from spreading on PS4 with other publishers who down the line decide to put exclusive DLC and services behind their own subscriptions.

 

[maltrain]

Situation is pretty clear. Sony has not one but TWO products that could compete -in a very limited way of course- with Access: PS Plus and PS Now.

Why would they open the door to a potential competitor?

 

[perfectsil]

Petition is up

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ea-access-to-ps4

 

[Corto]

I think it's unfortunate that people are happy Sony is protecting the community from a business model exactly like PS+.

They are not protecting anyone. They want money, every company wants money, they want to protect their money. Move on from that sort of charged language.

Sony has a subscription service already established on their platforms. Allowing per publisher subscriptions would devalue that already established service. People are wary of the possible future ramifications of a per publisher subscription services scenario that would limit their choices in terms of number of subscriptions because of course these different services fees will add up.

 

[Nzyme32]

People have wildly overblown expectations of the EA offer it seems. Will be interesting to revisit in a couple of months.

Well no matter what way you want to do it, from what is known, this first year only is pretty decent for the price, especially if you don't own anything already or you intend to purchase new EA games that may or may not be in the vault for a long while. Assuming you can back out after a year, $30 is very decent

 

[Waveset]

Man, stacking subscriptions on top of subscriptions? This is an inherently poor move.

 

[BlackBuzzard]

Petition is up

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ea-access-to-ps4

Thank god petitions never amount to anything.

 

[Azriell]

My original thought was that EA Access was moneyhatted by MS. I doubt Sony told EA no on the grounds of it not being a good enough value. Either EA didn't bring the offer to Sony, or Sony and EA couldn't reach an agreement on profit shares or something.

There's a small chance that Sony views EA Access as a rival service and therefore doesn't want to allow it, but I find this hard to believe. First, if Sony shuts EA Access down then EA's game already probably won't come to PS+. This means that, either way, EA Access is not a competitive service but rather a complimentary service. Sony would surely get a cut of the profits, so there's no reason not to allow EA Access, especially when PS+ is basically mandatory.

Either way, Sony is probably just spinning the story to maintain face.

 

[Jomjom]

I see this as a very smart move by MS. It's pretty clear MS doesn't really want to provide free games with Games with Gold because of how much they dragged their heels and the lack of quality. It's natural they wouldn't because it eats into their XBLG revenue. By promoting things like the EA subscription, they eventually will have an out where they can basically provide very cheap games or none at all when every big publisher withholds their games from the platform holders' subscription plans.

 

[SeanTSC]

GCU...120 dollars when not on sale GCU? You're comparing the option to pay 4 dollars for 2 months to 120 dollars for a year? I'm not saying GCU doesn't have value either (I wouldn't buy it because I don't buy most games day 1 and I missed the 60 dollar sale) I'm just saying its not comparable.

Is it a limited trial? Link? Even if it is that's still access to the game before release. Is it untrue you can get achievements in the trial?

It's 60 dollar for 2 years when on sale, 120 normally. So 30/year, same price as the EA shit. 20% off + rewards + frequent $10 rewards bonuses = shits all over EA's service. 4 out of 5 of EA's upcoming games are only $38 with GCU.

 

[BeforeJam]

Do you need Gold to use EA Access?

Holy shit, this might actually be why Sony rejected it. Sony is disallowing online passes on PS4 outright because you pay for multiplayer now, so this might be a similar thing.

 

[Navy Bean]

Agree. Future Xbox One bundles could tie in free month subs to both Xbox Live Gold and EA Access in the future.

That would be a decent library/set of Xbox One games as soon as someone connects their new console.

If this is successful I could see Xbox bundle in the EA Access with Xbox Live Gold for one price.

 

[gamechanger87]

Holy shit, this might actually be why Sony rejected it. Sony is disallowing online passes on PS4 outright because you pay for multiplayer now, so this might be a similar thing.

You do NOT need Gold to access it. Just for the online portion as it stands now. This is a distribution method not a new subset of games.

 

[Poodlestrike]

I wonder what this means for EA games in PSNow and PS+? Will they just refuse to play ball?

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

"I come to bury Caeser, not to praise him"

 

[JetBlackPanda]

I wonder what this means for EA games in PSNow and PS+? Will they just refuse to play ball?

Do you think its smart for EA to ignore the market leader?

 

[Gestault]

Bit will it really? As a self professed member of the "dude bro" crowd, we are generally on to the next big thing when it comes out...you're not gonna have many people sticking to the old version of BF, FIFA, Madden, etc...so at that point you're dealing with the 10% discount...which isn't much after you've factored in sub fees...

Wait, if you know you're likely to buy three five (edit: bad math) titles from EA per year (which a lot of sports fans do), you'd already have covered the subscription fees without even considering the game vault and early access content. And if you're saying having the next big thing matters, I'd say the week+ early access to all the new games would matter.

I don't buy many EA games at full price, so I'm outside of the veil, but this seems to make a lot of sense for that market.

 

[icespide]

Does EA actually make enough money from PS+ games that they would care if they stopped offering them?

 

[Goodacre0081]

Petition is up

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ea-access-to-ps4

things are starting to snowball here.

 

[Spottiettiedop]

Do you think its smart for EA to ignore the market leader?

Is it smart for the market leader to ignore EA?

 

[LiquidMetal14]

1700 posts in 5~ hours. I wouldn't partake in this but it would merely servd me like PS plus but maybe for sports or other EA titles. It would be god for games I would never consider buying though. I barely play Pro Ev 14 or NBA 2k 14 and those were free offeings on PS3.

I would debate on this kind of service for PC though. That's also my dilemma. I rarely buy any EA games for consoles so this wouldn't be for me anyways.

 

[keit4]

I wonder what this means for EA games in PSNow and PS+? Will they just refuse to play ball?

Why would they? PS+ is bigger than EA Access will ever be.

 

[gamechanger87]

Do you think its smart for EA to ignore the market leader?

Why? This is such a dumb argument. People will buy it or they won't. EA doesn't have to do anything here. Why should they not do this because Sony doesn't want to?

 

[icespide]

Is it smart for the market leader to ignore EA?

they aren't ignoring EA, they just aren't allowing their subscription service. EA games are still coming to PS4

 

[Shining Sunshine]

Sony's PR response ( which is a blunder imo) made it sound like it was their choice.

If choosing not to pursue it is a choice, then they choose no.

The fact is that EA is only dealing with Microsoft in that plan. EA obviously was in the position to make the defining choice.

 

[JetBlackPanda]

Is it smart for the market leader to ignore EA?

There is an EA game on PS+ next month. EA games will still be sold on the platform under traditional methods. If PlayStation starts to lose EA games because of this they can always re-evaluate.

it's clear Sony and EA have some bad blood going on right now. Sony took a shot at them during their E3 conference.

 

[AmaterasuOni]

Petition is up

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ea-access-to-ps4

No thank you. EA is bad news. Sony was wise with this one. My guess is that people will subscribe to this, then in 2015 or 2016 EA and MS will raise the fee "because the value is well worth it" to $10/15 month. Many people leaves the service, but those who stay are enough to keep the ripoff running in the background. It might even turn into an early access service at some point to justify the higher price.

EA service is competing with PSNow and Sony wants to try their own portal first.

So I say it again: no thank you. I know what EA is capable of, so I'm really glad Sony is skipping this one.

 

[DoubleTake]

This is the future anyhow. PS Now (and PS+ with some extent), EA Access, whatever it might appear meanwhile. The music has gone in that direction, the movies have gone in that direction, it's just a matter of time. This now isn't some noble fight against this kind of future, it's just a fight on who's getting the bigger pie slice.

What in PSNow or PS+ equates to publisher-by-publisher subscriptions and the possibility of content locked behind paywalls? I understand digital is the future, but knowing that doesnt mean we should actively work to accelerate that future

 

[maomao]

arrogant Sony at it again. They should simply say they are evaluating it instead of this. So they won't have any backlash when they decide to bring EA Access in the future.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Do you think its smart for EA to ignore the market leader?

Why would they? PS+ is bigger than EA Access will ever be.

Because if they want to put pressure on Sony to let them port EA Access to the PS4, that's one way to do it. It also mimics their behavior in the early days of Xbox Live pretty well, where they didn't get the necessary concessions so they decided to set up their own online multiplayer network. They'll still sell games on the PS4, don't get me wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if you stopped seeing them in those two services.

 

[Exploratory]

You're not guaranteed to be able to run through the whole game in that 5 day period. It could, and likely will, have progress blocked at a certain point in the game, until you buy the full thing. Many Demo's currently operate like this. You d/l the full game but progress is blocked until you purchase it. Then you download an unlock key and have access to the full game.

The largest thing to be weary of in this case is that it's 100% up to EA's discretion as to what titles to add and when. Their sports titles are largely unwanted by the time the next years title comes out. That means singleplayer and local co-op are fine but online will largely be ghost towns. At least in these cases however, you can almost be certain that they'll add the sports games every year. Their non-sports games, however, are completely unknown.

If a game like Dragon Age becomes incredibly popular and continues to move units well after launch, they have no reason to offer it for the service and have made no guarantees that would force them to. This will almost assuredly result games not being added until their sales take a steep decline. At that point they add the title to the service, depending on subscribers to give the game a shot because "I'm paying for the service, so why not?" The strategy here is to hopefully hook the player on games they may not have otherwise even tried.. and entice them to buy the DLC. So even when the base game stops selling, they've built an install base to move DLC. For a game like BF4, this is a big deal as the more DLC Map Packs they offer, the more the playerbase becomes segmented. It's a slightly smaller deal for a game like Dragon Age, and it doesn't matter at all for Sports games really.

Nothing you said invalidates that I'm getting 4 games and early access to a game for 4 dollars.

I would play old Madden and so would my roommates. That's value.

I would play BF4. That's value.

I don't care about EA's business plan. I don't care that EA is trying to entice me to buy DLC. That's self control.

And I wouldn't buy a year of the service until I see what sort of games they'll be releasing but that doesn't change its month to month value at release.

 

[atomiksuperinsan]

i'm a huge fifa fan but otherwise i don't play ea games often. so my perspective i'll take ps+ with 3-4 ea published game per year over ea access. and also what i didn't like about ea access is that its not specific.(it can be in the future) which games will i play? how long those games will be last? etc.

ps+ is much more simple to consumer. here are the games for this month. stay subscribe to play those games any time you like. and where are you lord where we need you most?

 

[Dragonborn]

Is it smart for the market leader to ignore EA?

EA has a lot more to loose.

They've been in bad with MS, throwing exclusives and free game bundles at them (Fifa, TF), and that's done nothing for the X1 or in any way hampered the PS4's domination. I think they've started to see that they don't have as much pull as they thought.

 

[joecanada]

Hearing the argument that "consumers will decide if it is a good value" is pretty naive given how consumers also decided that they wanted the likes of preorder DLC and microtransactions.

Does it suck for people who thought the service was a good value and wanted it? Yes, but at the same time it'll stop this trend from spreading on PS4 with other publishers who down the line decide to put exclusive DLC and services behind their own subscriptions.

true and as a business model , its shit for sony anyway because in business you assume people have a finite amount of money, any money they spend elsewhere is money you are potentially losing. so no, it's not good for sony and on the back of their infrastructure.
PSplus is the way to go, and EA can get in or get out.

EA games are literally 10 dollars used anyway. they have zero value because they are rehashed year after year. go on any used website.

 

[HighResTomato]

People underestimate this access thing. Early access is always a good thing, no need to preorder shit anymore. 10% off from all EA purchases will make the sub pay for itself and it's 30$.

In this industry it's adapt or die, when they put up some games that interest me I'll sign up for it but they'll have to do much better than Peggle and BF4.

I do hope $30 doesn't translate to £30 that's typical MS so I hope EA doesn't follow.