Sony's response to EA Access Subscription plan
- Thread starter RexNovis
- Start date
- Status
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
You are in for a shock if you believe that. People will pay for anything they feel is valuable. XBL thrived off of that for years when they practically offered nothing for it besides Multiplayer and a few stuff; even after the price hike and taking away silver and putting apps behind a paywall that were free on practically every other device's they have in their homes. So I would say don't underestimate the consumer who feels like even when something is being greedy, they will think twice about that value.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
What if the consumer perceives more value in the similar offering by this company? Is that customer PR? Sony, EA, and MS don't take money from the consumer/customer. There's an exchange of a service/good for money. The customer individually is the one that needs to evaluate the value of that proposition, not you. Sony not having EA access in their devices (for now) is not Sony making that choice for the customer. The customer has indeed the choice to buy the competition services and goods if they feel that's to their advantage.
And it's true, I don't want to pay 5/month per publisher subscription if I have a service that currently includes all publishers for the same value. That's a devaluing of an already established service.
Birgitte2004
Member
Userbases don't get reset, not really. There is some "neutral" territory you can sway, but there is a reason why the PS3 won Europe in spite of its start, and why the Xbox One has no chance to do the same.
EA stopped using Online Passes before Sony did. Just saying.
This is my problem, if this goes well for EA everyone will do it.
From then the next step is to require a subscription for online play.
Suddenly you have to pay for 2 paywall if you want to play a online game.
Opus Angelorum
Member
Nothing to say really. I like some EA games and dislike others. The issue at hand here is not Sony saying no to EA, it's Sony saying no the idea.
Because Netflix and Hulu have a huge amount of crossover in their libraries and video game publishers don't.
Plus we know how this market works. Once one publisher sees another ripping people off and succeeding they just jump on the bandwagon as well because they all think they are the same size and with the same clout.
I actually think the on-demand tv comparison illustrates what I don't want to see happen with games.
You get Netflix because you want to watch tv shows and movies, but certain movies and shows aren't available because HBO, Showtime and other companies want you to subscribe to their service in addition. It didn't used to be this way, but everyone started seeing dollar signs and started locking up exclusives. Now you spend forever searching Netflix for something to watch, but it's all crap. All of the good programs are now locked up in other exclusive services and the only solution is to subscribe to more and more and more.
Most of this is speculative at this point, but I don't see a need for this.
Who thinks that? You say you all but most people that agree with the move agree with it because they don't want Ubisoft and other big third party publishers to continue this trend. Seriously, if you're going to generalize a phrase like you all and not actually list what people have said what is the point?
Looking at this move in a vacuum isn't really the way to go. Sony knows that Microsoft currently has a close relationship with EA, perhaps this is a bit of a bargaining move on their part. Perhaps it is what it's implied in that statement, they don't want a competing subscription on their platform. Either way the actual value of EA's subscription remains to be seen, unlike something like PS+.
Yeah, because they thought everyone was onboard the used game-killing DRM train.
And then Sony backed out at the last minute and threw them under it.
And now we know why.
MaulerX
Member
I don't know. That statement sounded pretty shitty to me. They took a stance using a pretty fucked up choice of words imo.
That's not even close to accurate.
You're wrong... disc based sales are actually declining. Digital is taking over, big time.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304887104579306440621142958
Birgitte2004
Member
A service that EA Sports have been running for at least 2-3 years. Basically it's the same price as Access but is only for sports titles and gives you early access and DLC discount but no games to download like what we have here in the vault.
IE - it's nothing new, yet people are treating this like some sort of experiment.
Handy Fake
Member
As an aside, it is an odd statement. Which leads me to believe there's a lot more to this than meets the eye. Sounds like EA have been trying to play Billy Bigbollocks with the Sony team.
Birgitte2004
Member
Digital attached to Blu-Ray/DVD counts towards that number, and as the number of Blu-Rays and DVDs with digital attached have climbed, a flat "$ sales" doesn't tell you _anything_ about how much Digital is taking over.
Opus Angelorum
Member
Everything should be free!
PoweredBySoy
Banned
Didn't we see this coming from the One's initial E3? A generation of nickel-and-dime subscriptions?
It's a shitty road to go down in my opinion and I'm glad Sony is attempting to put on the brakes. Although I suspect it'll be popular and we'll hear lots of noise like "consumer value!" and "consumer choice!" and in a few years we're all going to be swimming in subscription and season pass charges.
It's a shitty road to go down in my opinion and I'm glad Sony is attempting to put on the brakes. Although I suspect it'll be popular and we'll hear lots of noise like "consumer value!" and "consumer choice!" and in a few years we're all going to be swimming in subscription and season pass charges.
Brad Grenz
Member
Good question, it's almost like there is no platform holder on PC desperate to differentiate itself and willing to gamble/invest in a scheme like this.
I don't think they're worried about competition as much as they are market confusion and a tarnishing of game library services in general. EA is offering 4 games to play for $30 a year. Sony offers 72 games a year for only $20 more. EA offers a 10% discount on new games, PS Plus frequently adds an additional discount of 20-25% over non-member prices. If you use the discount on EA Access you are literally diminishing the pool of games you might have been given access to next year. EA doesn't release enough games to draw from. Sony's options are every game published for the platform, some as early as day one, so the worry that you will have already bought them all is greatly diminished. The service is practically self-defeating as designed. Like Patrick Klepek suggests in his story about the announcement, it's built to upsell to full games, not to justify its own value like Netflix or PS Plus.
As it is now even people who buy lots of EA games would be best served by waiting until November, subscribing for a single month and buying 4 or 5 games at one time. You'll come out ahead by $20-25 or so and have no reason to keep paying.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
Netflix isn't suffering by raising their sub a dollar, and Amazon isn't suffering either.
And I disagree, it's not unrealistic to think gamers will subscribe to all other services. Based on library purposes, lots of people will pick their poison. If Nintendo had one, lots would buy it and they can charge probably $50. They have a huge catalog that seems worth the price if entry. So does Activision if they feel so, etc etc.
Just like this conversation, some of us may not be blindly trusting EA to buy into their "value" however, you can expect there will be people who do and will buy it. So it can happen.
They've done nothing but add value to this offering compared to what was offered 2-3 years ago when Access was called Season Ticket, so I don't see why I would think that at all.
They should protect us from services like EA Access since they're bound to become popular and incite other companies to try something similar.
Sony is setting a precedent here and saying "Hi, we're kind of a big deal. We have the majority of the playerbase and guess what: we wont allow shit like this."
It's encouraging.
Consumer choice sometimes doesn't pay out. Like others said, take Horse Armor for example.
Heh, I know you're partially joking (or I hope so) but let's not get ridiculous, having less alternatives is never any good, that's what leads to monopolies.
You both have terrible strawman posts if you really want to be pedantic.
The value is significantly less than the go to subscription on both Microsoft's and Sony's platforms. It's amazing to see someone espouse value though in terms of EA games. Especially sports games which retain value until the next one is released and then it's worth about five bucks.
Impeccable
Member
Free PS+ EA games? Not a head scratcher.
Opus Angelorum
Member
thatsthejoke.gif
aspiegamer
Member
Is this fair? No. But this comes down to being a simple matter to decipher. They'd be sabotaging their own games collection service and that's not a feature XBL offers at a comparable level at this time so Microsoft customers wouldn't but cutting into their pre-existing revenues the same way.
They stole a choice from players but it's an admission that they saw some value in it [for someone else], and in the long run that might add enough pressure for them to offer it. Perhaps there were a few more specific terms that they simply couldn't agree on? For example, maybe that EA Vault titles would never be able to be part of the PS+ selection? I can see that being a bit of a dealbreaker. Maybe Kaz and Yoshida have an ongoing "EA gonna EA" meme between one another? We'll never know.
Anyone trying to turn this into a console warring matter is being ridiculous. It's business. Differences between Microsoft and Sony online offerings aren't banned by law or anything. Sometimes things really can as straightforward as they appear to be.
That's corporate speak for "we determined that we'd be hurting our own bottom line if we introduced this service". To anyone asking "why?", there is your answer.
They stole a choice from players but it's an admission that they saw some value in it [for someone else], and in the long run that might add enough pressure for them to offer it. Perhaps there were a few more specific terms that they simply couldn't agree on? For example, maybe that EA Vault titles would never be able to be part of the PS+ selection? I can see that being a bit of a dealbreaker. Maybe Kaz and Yoshida have an ongoing "EA gonna EA" meme between one another? We'll never know.
Anyone trying to turn this into a console warring matter is being ridiculous. It's business. Differences between Microsoft and Sony online offerings aren't banned by law or anything. Sometimes things really can as straightforward as they appear to be.
GeordieMark
Member
Ah yes magnificent Sony. Sony who put rootkits on CDs that screwed over PCs of folks who bought legitimate CDs.
I'd like this service on my PS4 and can't see why Sony would decide not to have it as an option. Ultimately, this is about taking choice away from the consumer.
I'm still waiting for Nintendo's take on this. Why haven't they been offered?
Sony want all of the third parties under PS+. Losing a major publisher like EA for their monthly content is a pretty big loss for them.
Not from this statement... these are all gains made in 2013, when the Digital HD format debuted on marketplaces like iTunes and Amazon.
Officerrob
Banned
Sony is doing this because they are offering a competing service, period
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
You think they haven't lost them anyway?
Because EA doesn't offer games currently on the WiiU and has decided that their games don't sell on the WiiU.
That's a pretty good assumption, yeah, but not sure you can state it 100% definitively like you're doing
.
Handy Fake
Member
I think this would explain the rather harsh wording of the statement entirely.
Yep which makes everything more worrisome.
I'd rather have the choice than no choice at all. DLC is not really a tenable argument for why consumer choice in gaming rental services is a bad thing.
Alas poor Wii U.. I still love it though..
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
I completely agree with the notion that they should not choose for me. It's my money and I should do what I want, but bolded is what I think matters to them the most.
Impeccable
Member
I think it's in both parties interest to keep the door opened. So no, I don't think they've lost them at all.
- Status