-
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
iceatcs
Junior Member
You need both.
Does the EA service have some sort of rental thing? I thought it was more akin to PS+ than PSnow.
$5 for EA today, next we will see UBI doing the same, then 2k ect...
Then we will see DLC for games locked exclusively for people who have this subscription ( bye bye pre order incentive, hello subscription incentives, difference is you will be paying for the service and still probably pay for the DLC too)
Probably for the best.
But I can see how it can effect PS + too, which is why SONY probably dont want it too.
Then we will see DLC for games locked exclusively for people who have this subscription ( bye bye pre order incentive, hello subscription incentives, difference is you will be paying for the service and still probably pay for the DLC too)
Probably for the best.
But I can see how it can effect PS + too, which is why SONY probably dont want it too.
Nightengale
Member
It's terrible PR.
The only world where it's good PR is if EA never offered it to Sony in the first place.
GamerMax73
Member
If anything could kill console gaming for me and turn me pro PC it's this. The Netflix 'House of Cards' syndrome. It'll only be a matter of time that the game you want to play is only available on it publishers subscription service. You'll be forced into subscribing to half a dozen services just to get access to every game you want.
They've been running a similar subscription for years so I don't see why not. If the Season Ticket wasn't a success for them on last-gen then I don't see why they'd invest in this.
More TV channels have their own distribution apps which is taking content from netflix and splitting it up. Right now a lot of those apps require you to have cable in the future they may each make you pay a fee a month.
Alternatively netflix keeps content but with increased pricing that is shifted off to the consumer.
I think it's short sited to look at the immediate value proposition. The impacts of such a model have huge implications on the video game industry. It's only a good deal until you get a replication of this model.
Steverulez
Member
This is what has been ignored.
it was the same price and only for sports titles having early access and Sony let it on PS3. If anything, its just a nice extension of that in terms of value
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
I understand that. Apple is notorious for not supporting services that directly compete with their own. However I still don't like the idea of Sony making that decision when they haven't discussed what their solution is otherwise. We know PS Now is there, but what can PS Now offer that will be if what, better than this that is why they came to this decision?
thewhitehawk
Member
I have near zero interest for most of EA's software offerings but this another example why closed systems are bad for everyone. This is basically Sony defending their PS+ service in lieu of a third-party offering and being back to their old arrogant selves. Whether or not EA's service offered value, that shouldn't be up to them to decide, but then again, I doubt there's any merit behind that justification, I think it's just a PR lie.
After the shit that happened last gen, the fear mongering isn't that hyperbolic.
jonnyp
Member
I swear some companies have some real idiots making decisions. I'm not interested in the service personally but why on earth would they deny their customers an option like this?
It's good if you don't think critically, which many don't. Playstation fanboys probably want to believe that Sony is protecting them and their 'value'.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
and it's EA, releaser of Battlefield 4, dragon age 2 and mass effect 3
EDIT:
Dead space 3, Plants vs zombies 2, Sim City 2013 and Dungeon Keeper Mobile
It's also cute how some people are just looking for ways to shit on a certain company whenever the opportunity arises.
Isn't psnow just older and last gen games? I haven't been following it add I have zero interest in paying to stream.
If not then there refusal to this makes more sense than the impact to ps+ which is essentially forced on you
thekiddfran
Member
Well not really becuase Live is mandatory so it is just an additonal service to your already mandatory one. Buying EA vault and not live will not allow you to suddenly play EA games online.
Yeah, actually it was a fantastic job by Sony.
gamers love paying more for less, so Sony is actually protecting them.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
It's only ps3 games IIRC
You're paying for access to a digital library of content that you don't really own. It's basically renting.
jts
...hate me...
So? That's competition for you. PS+ would have to lower its price or up its offer to justify its cost.
CecilRousso
Member
The EA Access program conflicts with the already existing PS+ service, with free games during the subcription, some percents off digital games and early access programs.
Its just one of those things where its hard to know what youre missing out on unless you have all the details, like MS family sharing. Look forward to when EA provide such info and the schedule as its just so easy to ignore it based on EAs previous form...
If it meant the exclusion of EA games on PS+ then I wouldnt be that interested purely as I dont buy that many EA published games - also digital pricing just isnt tempting even with the discounting.
ps3ud0 8)
If it meant the exclusion of EA games on PS+ then I wouldnt be that interested purely as I dont buy that many EA published games - also digital pricing just isnt tempting even with the discounting.
ps3ud0 8)
That doesn't relate to what I was originally quoting.
Multiple people are saying this Access thing is bad because EA might lock their online games behind it.
what's this season ticket thing?
Please explain how you are paying more for less lol
toddhunter
Member
Please include Dead Space 3
Hydrargyrus
Member
I think I understand the Sony's statement. If EA is able to do that, nothing should stop Activision and Ubisoft to do the same, so PSN+ could be only for minor publisher games and indies...
... but there are only indy games now!!!!! So, what could it be worse?, only one indy game per month?.
I think I could live with that. Even more, I think I could live without PSN+ right now, because I don't play online and the "free" games (besides Resogun and Strider) really really sucks.
So, if I have to choose between the current PSN+ and the EA access, I would choose the EA service. At least the 4 games are better and 1 year is cheaper.
Btw, what are the PSN+ games of this month?, Flower (another PS3 game)??
... but there are only indy games now!!!!! So, what could it be worse?, only one indy game per month?.
I think I could live with that. Even more, I think I could live without PSN+ right now, because I don't play online and the "free" games (besides Resogun and Strider) really really sucks.
So, if I have to choose between the current PSN+ and the EA access, I would choose the EA service. At least the 4 games are better and 1 year is cheaper.
Btw, what are the PSN+ games of this month?, Flower (another PS3 game)??
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Haven't played it so I can't =p
Nightengale
Member
I can understand the rationale behind the value thing, but I'll laugh to my death if any corporation said they're doing it for my value.
It's obviously to protect Plus's value, not ours. If we end up benefitting from it, it's only because they protected their business first and foremost, and we end up benefitting as a side effect.
Banjo-Kazooie
Member
It's optional...I don't get their response at all. If people are willing to buy into the program, which judging by the reveal topic, are, then why not give your player base the option?
what are you guys even talking about?
facts:
I have bought from ea in this new gen
battlefield 4 (+some dlc) , nfs rivals, peggle 2 (+2$ dlc
), titanfall, tf season pass, garden warfare, fifa.
thats easily more than 250euros. and all but rivals where release day purchases.
just a 10% on that, practically pays the year itself.
I mean, its not like they're going to be pumping out less games now, is it?
then you got the vault, and you got the preview thing, and the dlc price cuts....
how does anybody try to see this wrong? I mean, see it wrong in the case he does play them games.... not see it wrong like...academically
facts:
I have bought from ea in this new gen
battlefield 4 (+some dlc) , nfs rivals, peggle 2 (+2$ dlc
), titanfall, tf season pass, garden warfare, fifa.thats easily more than 250euros. and all but rivals where release day purchases.
just a 10% on that, practically pays the year itself.
I mean, its not like they're going to be pumping out less games now, is it?
then you got the vault, and you got the preview thing, and the dlc price cuts....
how does anybody try to see this wrong? I mean, see it wrong in the case he does play them games.... not see it wrong like...academically
And Sim City 2013 and Dungeon Keeper Mobile
They aren't, EA needs Sony and vice versa.
Also, EA's relationship with MS looks just like the one they had with Sony last gen and that didn't do MS much harm.
No issues with this although I can understand why some people may not like it. Can't help but feel that if this works out for EA and Microsoft that we'll see other companies getting involved with similar subscriptions game channels from Ubisoft, 2K, Crytek, etc, etc and it'll end up being paying to get access to loads of games that they end up not playing. Maybe it'll have become the standard way of doing things on the next round of consoles?
Baleoce
Member
As soon as the consumers freedom of choice is put into question, I don't personally see that as a good sign, regardless of the situation. I'm not super into the idea of having lots of subscriptions, but people should have the choice of whether or not to use it. But.. it's a proprietary device in a closed ecosystem, so these things are gonna happen I guess. It's a competing service and no matter how they word it, it's obvious that's the main reason they don't want it on there. Not terribly good PR though.
That didn't really occur to me bit it's an excellent point. Really hits my fears about this publisher based subscription model on the head. Well said.
We just ignoring the good games they make...
toddhunter
Member
You still can.
But you can download that content to your console, just like PS+ and it's monthly games. PS Now is a streaming service.
We're shedding light on the fact that they make a whole lot of scummy business decisions, and they've done so in very recent times.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
No and that's the huge misconception with the service. It's a service that will be able to play all games via the cloud. It has been doc as this service they are offering just to play last gen titles when they have never even said that. However, I don't see how EA can't have cut a deal with Sony down the road to offer this, but seeing as EA wants more of the cut, they will not do it within PS now. It's like the Netflix and HBO, Showtime etc situation. They basically pulled their own shows to start their own sub services which you still need the approved ISP to watch.
ive read that. unless you are really into sports games, I don't see how there's any value. all the free sports games are going to be from last year, and noone buys those anyways. EA just doesn't put out enough quality content to justify spending $60 on a subscription.
and if they make this mandatory for online like people are scared of? lol, BF4 ain't that serious.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
and that is... come on now.. what are they? because I got nothing
CecilRousso
Member
Pretty much that, This is not just a nice little sales alternative, they want to get in under your skin, and they will lock more things behind it once it has a large enough userbase.
With how good PS4 is selling EA shouldnt make an enemy out of sony.
- Status