ComputerMKII
Banned
I don't want to pay three subscriptions anyway.
-
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
Buying a game a year from a specific publisher vs paying an annual subscription to a publisher for access to their digital library. Choices! More options is always good.
Sony has a lot to lose. It's just like if every tv channel had it's own HBO go like service. This would cause netflix to lose content and devalue the service.
The same thing could happen to ps+ if Sony is no longer a conduit.
In general this piecemeal approach will likely have a big impact going forwards.
Sure choice is fine. I really hope EA's model doesn't become the norm.
Hellraider
Member
Why would you need all these, aside PS+ which you need for online, to have a complete gaming experience?
Hidden costs can also apply to any form, retail, digital and subscription based. Subscription doesn't magically make things worse.
Nightengale
Member
They never explicitly stated they were actually offered participation.
"Evaluation" doesn't have to be direct engagement.
We'll know soon enough.
What? No you don't. Think of it like a pre-release rental for 5 days. If you want to keep the game, then you go buy it and all of your progress carries over. You get the pre-release version regardless of if you've pre-ordered or bought the full game (digital or physical).
Birgitte2004
Member
Because it's hard to see this not going to a place where you can no longer play EA games without the service.
The service appears harmless, for now. It also won't be earning EA much money, which implies heavily that EA has an as-yet unrevealed end game.
Given just how behind the original Xbox One vision EA was, it's not surprising people don't trust that this end-game will be at all ok for users.
So you want a company, not a government, charity or other non-profit organisation to make that choice on the consumers behalf?
A company is a business. They are not pro consumer they are pro themselves. Whether it's Microsoft, Nintendo or Sony.
It's like microtransactions 2.0. You used to buy expansion packs that had a lot of content for a decent value, though it was a bigger price. Now you buy little pieces of content at cheaper prices per piece, but if you wanted to get the same amount of stuff that you'd get with an expansion, all those cheaper pieces add up and it costs you much more than before.
iceatcs
Junior Member
Keep away even more multi-subscription and future blockage.
Maybe I could see EA will start use this service only way to access EA online gaming. Therefore, in one day, you will need Xbox Live and EA subscription to access EA online.
toddhunter
Member
And then you are paying $40 a month to play online games from three publishers...and you suddenly realise that more options is not the same as better options.
So was horse armour and look at how that shitfest evolved.
I'm wary on this, I don't blame Sony sitting back and watching MS beta test this, and then jump in later, if consumer demand for it rises.
Other publishers having their own service will surely limit content that can be on ps+ and XBL subscription.
Alternate exclusive markets have an impact on available goods.
This is an extreme oversimplification of the possible impacts of this model.
immortal-joe
Member
Making an enemy out of EA is not a good idea.
Except it looks like you don't get any of the DLC with that subscription so to get the full experience for Bf4 you would then have to pony up for the DLC / Premium at a 10% discount and maybe even the base game (correct me if I'm wrong but that's what I can ascertain from the EA Access landing page).
Who says you have to subscribe to get a full gaming experience? How is just buying the games you want now impossible? Where was it even suggested parts of a game would be sectioned off for this subscription service? This is just hyperbolic fear mongering.
Takamura-San
Member
PR said that rumble was a last gen feature, implying that Sony didn't need it or want it.
Yet we have the dual shock 3.
For PR is only a lie if you get caught.
Yeah good job Sony for stamping down on hypothetical situations.
I'll say again, you all realise that EA have been offering a similar service (albeit nowhere near as good value) on both Xbox 360 and PS3 for the last few years, right? This is nothing dramatically new.
It was good enough for Sony then - even though the value it offered was less than EA Access.
It was good enough for Sony then - even though the value it offered was less than EA Access.
You wouldn't have to.
Some people seem to be coming at this from the angle that it's a paywall and it's not. It's a rather cheap subscription plan, a good option for consumers that Sony is not only blocking, but being catty about it, almost spitting in EAs face with that "bad value" crack, while they sing the praises of PS Now, a service tantamount to blind robbery.
LookAtMeGo
Member
So nobody would get mad if they were all supportive of it? I'm easy, I don't really care either way. I just meant to say if they had responded by being all supportive then some people would be mad about it.
It's a trojan horse. EA can pretty much do whatever they want with their service. They are pretty much testing the waters on how far they can go with this "subscription service." It's not like they have a good track record with consumers. The eventuality that this online service evolves into a draconic form of drm is ever a reality.
yurinka
Member
If Sony allows this, then every big company would make their own PS+, which would hurt PS+ content since it would be reduced to basically indies and Sony games.
Sony is smart protecting their PS+. It also does benefits users since reduces the amount of fees they should pay to enjoy the same content.
Sony is smart protecting their PS+. It also does benefits users since reduces the amount of fees they should pay to enjoy the same content.
You don't even have to talk hypotheticals. Just look at the netflix content analogy. It's already happening in that VOD space.
This is precisely why MS allowed it. There subscription content is far weaker and this model allows them to move away from this.
CecilRousso
Member
Pretty understandable that Sony did that, that they do not want additional subscription programs disturbing and complicating things with their own service.
And since the EA Access program is so dumb, I'm grateful for them helping us stop it on at least one platform.
And since the EA Access program is so dumb, I'm grateful for them helping us stop it on at least one platform.
HORRORSHØW
Member
i ain't even mad
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
Hmmm.
On one hand, I don't think it's right for Sony to determine what games should want. That is making a decision for me otherwise that completely locks away and choice I may have. It is my money and I should pay for what I want with it.
One the other hand, I see that they don't like the idea if having to pay a subscription on top of a subscription for basically the same thing. The way I'm seeing it is, since PS+ is exactly the same thing, why would they not work with Sony in expanding the service within the membership instead of having a separate membership.
Overall, I think Sony should take a step back and see what it is that their fanbase does want instead of deciding that for them. However I don't necessarily wrong them for not liking the idea of selling a service on top of a service that can be meshed into what they are selling. Apple does the same thing.
On one hand, I don't think it's right for Sony to determine what games should want. That is making a decision for me otherwise that completely locks away and choice I may have. It is my money and I should pay for what I want with it.
One the other hand, I see that they don't like the idea if having to pay a subscription on top of a subscription for basically the same thing. The way I'm seeing it is, since PS+ is exactly the same thing, why would they not work with Sony in expanding the service within the membership instead of having a separate membership.
Overall, I think Sony should take a step back and see what it is that their fanbase does want instead of deciding that for them. However I don't necessarily wrong them for not liking the idea of selling a service on top of a service that can be meshed into what they are selling. Apple does the same thing.
What a strange answer. Uncalled for actually. What would happen if companies would start commenting on all the exclusives of the others like that?
I understand that they might consider this as a competition of some sorts for the PS4 owners' money (and probably less money for Sony from this than from the individual games) but quite a strange reaction.
I understand that they might consider this as a competition of some sorts for the PS4 owners' money (and probably less money for Sony from this than from the individual games) but quite a strange reaction.
People told this everyday when Sony announced no DRM.
Don't worry, EA is happy, they need PlayStation.
Slippery slope argument based on what can be seen with retailer exclusive DLC or platform exclusives now there's yet another avenue to cordon off with exclusive swag. Want this gun for bf5? EA Access exclusive. They are already touting early access as part of this initiative so it's not that far-fetched.
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
Ubisoft:
EA needs PS4 and PS3. I highly doubt they would do anything to jeopardise such a large chunk of their business.
Does this EA service let you play online btw or do you need XBL and EAA to play those games online?
Opus Angelorum
Member
Thanks for letting me decide Sony.
Even more worrying is that some people are clearly happy with that. Sony can't do any wrong I guess.
Even more worrying is that some people are clearly happy with that. Sony can't do any wrong I guess.
I can't see a single reason why you think EA wouldn't have offered this to the leading platform for both hardware and software? That would make no sense. Of course Sony was offered it.
I'm sure the PR part of this statement is why they turned it down. Its not because they didn't think it was a good value to us, its not a good value for them. This directly butts heads with PS+ and PSNow, especially since this could lead to even more developers wanting to offer their own subscription service. By shutting this down on the PS4, it means EA and others have some incentive to offer their games on Sony's services.
CecilRousso
Member
All owners of closed platforms are doing that all the time. It's not like the XBOX One is a free for all party console.
That's a bit of a 2+2=5 argument. I don't see that being an automatic thing at all.
Anyways, I'd rather get the option than for Sony to choose for me. But I wouldn't have subscribed to EA's thing anyway, so I don't have strong feelings about it either way.
Sony doesn't want competition for their own rental program. It's pretty transparent. People who think otherwise are kidding themselves.
It's a nice bit of PR they cooked up to cover their asses though.
They've been running a similar service for people who want early access to their sports games for years.
But Sony wants you to sub to Music Unlimited, PS+, and soon Gaikai
hydrophilic attack
Member
We will have to wait until the service launches and has been available for a while before we know whether it's worthwhile or not and, by extension, whether Sony or Microsoft has the right of it.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
What's the blind robbery of PS Now? This makes no sense since we know nothing of how it works or the prices. I mean, how are people still making these BS statements.
yurinka
Member
Yes, I think that in case of MS is positive, since you don't use to get there AAA games released a few months ago, so it makes sense to have there the 2 subscriptions providing different content for each one.
BeforeU
Oft hope is born when all is forlorn.
It has launched already.
- Status