Sony's stance here is a lot like the GOP's stance on universal healthcare. Their worry isn't that it will suck, but rather, that it will be good and successful, and hence have a negative effect on their interests.
Sony's stance here is a lot like the GOP's stance on universal healthcare. Their worry isn't that it will suck, but rather, that it will be good and successful, and hence have a negative effect on their interests.
Well if universal health care was ran by EA, it would be the first I would agree with them.
Well if universal health care was ran by EA, it would be the first I would agree with them.
EA is basically irrelevant here, though. It could be any publisher and Sony would refuse and cite something about value for the customer. Because value for the customer isn't the real reason; the real reason is that the success of this model damages Sony's interests.
EA is basically irrelevant here, though. It could be any publisher and Sony would refuse and cite something about value for the customer. Because value for the customer isn't the real reason; the real reason is that the success of this model damages Sony's interests.
you don't know that. Ubisoft could have done a similar deal and Sony woulda totally gone for it. we have no idea
You and Sony are both correct though.
This makes things a hassle for Sony, it takes value away from PS+, and imagine if every other publisher decided to have their own subscription service.
No more third party instant game collection games, no more third party PS+ sales, and if they wanted to be ass holes they could put exclusive content behind these services (Such as DLC or even entire games).
Except that I do have an idea, because it's fairly plain that this kind of service is a threat to Sony's interests, so Sony wouldn't want to go for it.
The idea that Sony are the 'good guys' protecting us from the 'bad guys' EA is pretty amusing though.
EA is basically irrelevant here, though. It could be any publisher and Sony would refuse and cite something about value for the customer. Because value for the customer isn't the real reason; the real reason is that the success of this model damages Sony's interests.
I don't know about every publisher. In my head, part of the reason why this is not on the table for Sony completely disregarding their services, is because the service itself was not made injunction with them. This EA Access was a joint collaboration with Microsoft and EA in which Sony was not directly approach with first. Even that line saying they evaluated it does not guarantee that they were initially approached with it.
Besides the point, yes it does directly compete with there services and of course they see that as a threat, however trying to justify the value of this up and coming not yet proven service that at this point has absolutely no type of straight strategy yet is kind of ridiculous. I'd rather Sony not make the choice for me on where I want to spend my money, but I can understand where they stand.
Honestly sis I think that 'In my head' says everything I need to say about your first paragraph. There's absolutely no reason to think that EA wouldn't have also approached Sony.
And I'm not apportioning any value to the service. Sony, and her defenders in this thread, are, though.
But there's more at play here than the obvious, of which neither of us know about. It's not just as cut and dry as we would like to believe.
No it's not. Initial value is not any sort of indication of long term value. Not when the program is brand new and basically nothing is known about their plans or oddly worded policies.
PS+ and GWG both do not take away access to any discounted purchased content after the end if the subscription. The way that the ToS is worded EA access could very easily do this so no you are 100% wrong PS+ and GWG do nat take away paid DLC (or purchased content if any kind) when your subscription lapses whereas EA Access could given its confusing word choice. So once again with spouting false equivalency.
Actually all I pointed out is that I do not trust EA to make that type of a call. As far as incorrect or incorrect I leave that up in the air because I mentioned several times we do not know what the details of the deal were so there is no possible way to state Sony was correct or incorrect.
.... maybe I should start paying attention to the posters themselves because I am seeing a theme being repeated.
1. The narrative that I am seeing is that this service is beneficial as a choice. It seemingly coming from some of the strongest XBO supporters I have seen on gaf.
And you are of the assumption that there are no third party vendors with similar sales? Do you know if the 10% off is immediate or do you need to be signed up for a certain period of time?
Here is value proposition for you.
UFC for the one Digitally is $59.99. 10% off makes it around $54. The sub price, $4.99. brings it back up to $58.99.
Or I could order it off of Amazon for $50.
No need to sub at all.
Again like I pointed out to you before digital prices are inflated not to anger B&M locations so if you are going to start focusing on price saving methods of acquiring games, purchasing digitally is not the best step forward.
As I stated before this is all personal so as far as I am concerned you also fail at showing how this could be a boon for a consumer like me even without access to the vault or trying to gain the system by subbing for the sale then canceling.
EDIT: I just have to step back and be amazed that you actually think that jumping through the hoops of subbing then canceling just to save one dollar somehow proves how the service is worth it. I am not sure if you are just joking with me now.
If the console business model was built around monetizing on demand video content they wouldn't be so open to those services. There is a huge difference between allowing other video services on your game console and allowing other game services on your game console. The former might reduce ancillary profits while acting as a value add for users, the later is an existential threat.
You and Sony are both correct though.
This makes things a hassle for Sony, it takes value away from PS+, and imagine if every other publisher decided to have their own subscription service.
No more third party instant game collection games, no more third party PS+ sales, and if they wanted to be ass holes they could put exclusive content behind these services (Such as DLC or even entire games).
Sony has already lost EA games for PS+. Just you watch, they will play hardball with Sony just like they did with Microsoft when Microsoft launched Xbox Live.
EA will not have another free game on PS+.
Dude, you initially quoted me and alluded to "a pattern" of people that actually like the sound of the service creating "a narrative". Feel free to not trust EA, or not like the service... but once you start confronting people purely because they do like it, then you can't really act like you're not making a claim about "correct or incorrect". Do you need a reminder as to how you began addressing me in this topic?
... so, if you're not making any judgement calls, and this is purely you personally not not seeing value in it... why did you have such an issue with me seeing value in it for myself? Of course I see it being beneficial as a choice if it's a choice I would want to make.
I'm not claiming that jumping through hoops to save £1.50 is something that is really worth doing.
EA Access being good value isn't dependant on people liking the games within the vault at the moment, because you can simply sign up buy a game, spend £1.50 less, and then cancel.
Well dude, my quotes and responses were not about people "liking" the EA service, but about how every post felt to mention PS+ and it's supposed lack of value as if comparing the two services. It is one thing to claim you like a service but they "way" quite a few posters went about debating the topic is what raised flags.
Since you found my post originally, please try rereading again for better comprehension. I didn't even mention EA Access once in the first post you quoted and in the second quote again was to inquire about value because as I describe below.......
Uhh... that is exactly what you did... right here...
So going with the idea of cancelling I was simply talking about the effort needed to save some money. And the idea that ignoring the vault, that the service finds merit because you can save $1 then cancel the service, imo, is going to a pretty extreme length to find value in the service. We already covered the vault because this is what your quote was responding to when I mentioned that the value of the service is heavily tied into the games that are in the vault.
And this thread
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=872309
Is the example of what I was talking about when talking about EA's behavior with the service. Debates on the difference between demo's and trials aside, the idea is that there is now a subscription service that you would need to sign up to just to get a hands on feel for the changes they made to Madden. Why would they make a demo and give out for free when they can put the trial behind the sub?
This is a test for them. And one I feel they will only react to the numbers they are seeing from consumers.
Right, ok. So then that initial post where you quoted me... did you actually read (or comprehend) what I was replying to?
I was replying to a post, that tried to paint the picture that any of us opting to subscribe to EA Access, were basically being complete fucking idiots, because we should have been taking up an alternative offer that that would provide us with the ability to get the exact same thing, only more. PS+ is being used as a point of comparison by many people that are for EA Access, as it is so often being used as a deterrent by people that are against it. I'm sure you've noticed a similar number of posts saying something along the lines of "EA Access is bad news, as if it takes off it means these games won't be on PS+". My point is as of right now these games wouldn't be accessible on either of those services anyway. If Sony is yet to offer one of their own retail games... even one that wasn't even that greatly received, and certainly can't be pulling in many sales today... why should we be expecting EA to offer 4 of their own titles, that have more value in the market? EA Access is the only way I can play these games for this sort of price today. If it didn't exist, then its very likely there would be no alternative to what it offers. That story would be more accurate if the original offer was "here's $100, but fuck no you can't buy any apples! You can buy an apple tree for $500 though!".
Though I can definitely see how what I wrote can be read that way, those two quotes don't actually contradict each other. Saying you could sub and cancel to save £1.50, isn't the same thing as saying it would be worth doing (and even then.. to someone, somewhere, it may be). My point there was that by subbing you save money of digital purchases. If after buying the game and paying for a sub you came out negative.. then the value of the service would be dependent on the games in the vault as they would be required to make up the cost difference. If someone however is looking to pick up this year's round of sports games (Madden, FIFA, NBA, and NHL let's say), then subbing to the service and buying those just saved them over £15, even if they never play a single vault game (and it'd be more if they were buying DLC). The value of the service doesn't isn't only vault games, as there are reasons somebody may wish to sign up even with them excluded.
I'd like to say that I was surprised to see this thread bumped... unfortunately that isn't the case... and upon seeing it, I already knew exactly what had triggered a reply. There's three major issues with this example though.
The first is that Madden had no XBO or PS4 demo last year either, and demos have been growing ever more scarce as the generation began to wind down. Bioshock Infinite had no demo (unlike the original), CoD:Ghosts had no demo (unlike BO2), XBLA mandatory demos aren't a thing anymore... and so on. The absence of demos is not something unique to EA at all, and has actually become the norm rather than the exception.
The second issue is that what they're offering isn't even a demo.. at least not in the way demos have been historically. This is early access to the game itself, for a limited time before release. If I were to compare it to anything, it would be Sony's Full Game Trials which... surprise, surprise... you needed a PS+ sub to access. Was the BF4 Full Game Trial via PS+ the reason why that game had no demo elsewhere?
The third issue is that this early access to EA's sports games had already existed in previous years as the EA Season Ticket (also a subscription service)... so its not even new to EA Access.
Look, I get that they will be monitoring the reception to the service, and may change and introduce things as time passes. However, to me the important thing is simply if the options I have post EA Access are better than the options I had pre EA Access. Concessions are bound to happen, but they exist in pretty much every service. Nothing is for free from any company. Even Steam required the concession of having to tie your physical game purchases to a digital license. PS+ now requires a sub in order to play online multiplayer... but people were paying for PS+ before the MP paywall was added right? So, for these people a world with PS+ and MP behind a paywall, may be preferable to a world where the MP is still free, but the Instant Game Collection doesn't exist. Some people (you maybe) wouldn't agree, but that doesn't make the former set wrong. Right now, and for foreseeable future EA Access benefits me and I'm glad it exists. I also don't consider the possible scenarios that would change my opinion on this to be very likely at all (hint: putting a demo behind the sub, wouldn't suddenly make me wish the service was gone so I could get my demo back).
for any of you that believe we should have the option of subscribing to EA access please support my petition to sony linked here:
https://www.change.org/p/sony-allow...ill-decide-if-it-is-good-value-for-us-not-you
thank you
I'd much rather continue getting the occasional EA game as a Playstation Plus member than have to pay an additional fee.
Yep whereas EA Access gives you a year old Madden game. What a value.Yup, because so far on the PS4/Xbox One, this has worked out wonderfully for all sorts of great retail games from various first and third-party publishers.
for any of you that believe we should have the option of subscribing to EA access please support my petition to sony linked here:
https://www.change.org/p/sony-allow...ill-decide-if-it-is-good-value-for-us-not-you
thank you
Yep whereas EA Access gives you a year old Madden game. What a value.
Yep whereas EA Access gives you a year old Madden game. What a value.
It's been a year; how long are you going to wait?I will bookmark this thread for the inevitable day when EA Access hits the PS4.
It's been a year; how long are you going to wait?
It's been a year; how long are you going to wait?
... That vendetta.It's been a year; how long are you going to wait?
It's been a year; how long are you going to wait?
That is some sort of grudge or bitterness at play.
It's been a year; how long are you going to wait?
lol, necro bump because of me, I feel special.
lmfaoLooks like Neuromancer has gone a bit Single White Female.
lol, necro bump because of me, I feel special.