Is PSNow out already? I think I missed the services launch, I'll have to check out the prices.
Sony's response to EA Access Subscription plan
- Thread starter RexNovis
- Start date
- Status
Is PSNow out already? I think I missed the services launch, I'll have to check out the prices.
Sony should of said nothing this was a mistake IMO. MS was seen as the bad guy because people assumed it was another MS money hat. Now Sony is the bad guy for not allowing their customers choice. I have 0 interest in the service because I don't play many EA games outside NHL. But having the option is never a bad thing.
People thinking that a "good" corporation is "saving" them from the "bad" corporation are actually fucking blind. EA is garbage but it's baseline game industry mark stuff to think that Sony is the good guy here.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
People were liking this service in the other thread, in this one it's the opposite. Typical. I thought it looked like good value if you buy a lot of ea games. I don't so it's not for me but I can see why people would want it.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
They haven't changed anything yet, and no prices are final. Really now?
This cant be said often enough.
Short term its a pretty good deal and a nice option but 3+ years from now it will be required to play online if its successfull i would bet my consoles on it.
"Customers", as in the gaming public as a whole, are the dumbest fucks, as last generation remarkably proved. So sure, for this specific case they certainly know better.
Do you really expect the prices to change significantly, given Sony's overall financial situation and costly investment in game streaming?
I initially chose a 360 last generation. I regretted my choice in the end and eventually bought a PS3. Am I bad person? /s
SquiddyCracker
Banned
The market has shown again and again that consumers will go for these optional transactions in gaming, even when they are taking advantage of fan loyalty.
That means that us who aren't interested in games being divided up over multiple subscriptions will be pulled along simply because the market dictates it.
It's not like we can vote with our wallet against an "optional" transaction, all that publishers will see is that the subscription is making money from some individuals - and other publishers will follow suit.
Opus Angelorum
Member
Let's be straight, EA and Microsoft like money...as do Sony, Nintendo and every other company in the world.
People have the choice to say no. If the subscription uptake is low it won't succeed.
It's no different to moving from TV or broadband providers, if you aren't happy paying for the content/service move on.
Officerrob
Banned
It's in beta, same as EA Access... If Sony can make value decisions based on beta prices and content should we not with PS Now?
Yes because it will bring in more loss if no one uses it than if the prices are lower.
Chobel
Member
I thought it was about the choice, not whether it's good value or not.
If you want to play online, you have to pay for PS+/XBLG.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Worth the cost? This is why I don't want consumers to have the option of screwing things up further for me.
Impeccable
Member
You don't see how it's possible that regardless of Sony's spin they actually believe the potential for these services could damage the industry further?
I am firmly in the "this is just the beginning" group and am worried EA's service could spiral out of control extremely quickly and could mark the start of a dangerous trend going forward. Is Sony being completely honest about why? Certainly not.
Could Sony genuinely be worried about how this could scar the landscape of gaming? Yeah.
You'd lose them because it makes no sense whatsoever. They would lose a significant chunk of their player base will also risking their relationship with both Sony and Microsoft. Retail sales would likely also suffer. Unless you're talking about some sort of MMO I don't see it happening. It directly impacts the Gold and PS+ service significantly.
Because it'll compete with plus subscriptions? I don't think many people would want to pay for two services.
Gen.Grievous
Member
Slippery slope. EA starts it, next all the other publishers want their own subscription based model and PS Plus will lose a lot of it's value.
Comparison with PS Now is simply laughable. Completely different service that isn't even out of beta yet. When it's released compare it to other game rental services as much as you like.
Comparison with PS Now is simply laughable. Completely different service that isn't even out of beta yet. When it's released compare it to other game rental services as much as you like.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Its worth noting I think that the value of this service was not guaranteed to be symmetrical across PS4 and XBone. I can't imagine (former) exclusives like Titanfall and Garden Warfare to be made available on PS4, whereas it seems highly probable to me that they will appear at some point on Xbone.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
Idk that. I don't get what financial situation has to do with any of this. Are we really going to argue the "break even" approach to PS Now when there's so much we still don't know what it's going to do.
Opus Angelorum
Member
PSN+ wouldn't exist if Sony were genuinely doing it 'for the gamers'.
Do people think EA are going to release brand new Fifa 15 and Madden 26, NHL 15 as part of this deal? You will be getting games that have been out a good while.
As you know, the fans of those series tend to buy on release. All you are going to get is a 10 percent discount. You will wait probably at least 6 months to get those games. Therefore a lot of people will have bought the game already. A 10 percent discount on those games will work out at probably still more than you can buy from online sellers.
I think people seem to be thinking this service is going to offer every great ea title and I think you'll be disappointed.
As you know, the fans of those series tend to buy on release. All you are going to get is a 10 percent discount. You will wait probably at least 6 months to get those games. Therefore a lot of people will have bought the game already. A 10 percent discount on those games will work out at probably still more than you can buy from online sellers.
I think people seem to be thinking this service is going to offer every great ea title and I think you'll be disappointed.
MaulerX
Member
But why should they feel the need to "ask" you to do anything? I just don't get it. It's a choice that the gamer would make.
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
Well it was the success of XBL that has now made PS+ a subscription service.
Handy Fake
Member
There's still the choice to buy EA games from the PS service.
However, if a person wanted to buy an EA game digitally - just the one, has no interest in any others - he has no choice but to pay a subscription fee as there's no way it would be available through the PS network if any deal was reached.
That's my view of it anyway. And like I say, I don't know how far this goes - does cancelling your EA subscription means you can't play their digital content? And all the other things mentioned that they could easily introduce on top of having their foot in the online digital door - paid online for EA games, exclusive DLC for subscription holders only...
And that makes horse armor as an option bad? Even in retrospective? That's quite a twisted logic. The horse armor is now DLC because people pay for it. Because they find value in paying for it. You might not like it, I might not like it, but that's the reality. And the fact that the horse armor was an option at some point of time has nothing to do with it.
Edit: and Sony being the white knight here? Saving all the poor souls from the evil subscription? When they put the online MP behind paywall? Come on, everyone is out for your money out there.
Wouldn't ps+ be the beginning?
Competition and choice are usually good for the user. Whoever "wins" and how that affects the future remains to be seen.
I believe Sony are looking out for themselves and what's theirs, like every corporation out there.
If Sony didn't charge people for online you might have had a point. As it stands it's just sony being afraid that it will undercut their own business.
Complain about EA games. Complain about EA's own delivery services elsewhere. Complain about the quality of EA's digital content and nickel and diming.
Sony opt out of EA nickel and diming further, and we oppose... ?
It's not like EA are going to keep their games off PS4. It just means you're not going to pay extra for their splendid DLC...
I seriously doubt over the course of the life cycles of both systems that this service is gonna put a crapload of worthwhile catalogue on one system or the other. More like Dead Space 4 flamboyant pink gun skins.
Sony opt out of EA nickel and diming further, and we oppose... ?
It's not like EA are going to keep their games off PS4. It just means you're not going to pay extra for their splendid DLC...
I seriously doubt over the course of the life cycles of both systems that this service is gonna put a crapload of worthwhile catalogue on one system or the other. More like Dead Space 4 flamboyant pink gun skins.
I thought the difference is that EA gives you access to all of their 'vault games', do they not? Even if you subscribe 3 years from now, you'd still have acces to the games they're offering right now, even if you aren't subscribing from the start. With Plus, you only have access to games you've claimed when you're an active subscriber.
EA Access then is more like Netflix, PS Plus is a bit different.
Unless, I misread about EA Access?
I'm actually kind of surprised by how many people don't seem to think EA will take advantage of this service the moment they believe they can. I mean....it's fucking EA of all publishers. No company is our friend, but EA has proven time and time again that they will fleece and fuck who ever is willing to bend over developers and consumers alike.
I interpreted the response as the standard "it's a timed Xbox exclusive and we can't talk about it for a while so we will talk up our own service"
Then I read the comments saying Sony is denying them a choice which I didn't pick up on at all. People again jumping to conclusions without any evidence. For all we know this could have been in the partnership deal back when Titanfall was being developed.
To me it is a poor service after reflecting on it.
4 one year old games for free only one I would play.
5 day early access but can only play for 2 hours within those 5 days then you have to wait until release.
The Vault only has 7 games and if you take part in the 10% discount you won't get any more free games unless EA starts porting all there games to run on current generation.
Then I read the comments saying Sony is denying them a choice which I didn't pick up on at all. People again jumping to conclusions without any evidence. For all we know this could have been in the partnership deal back when Titanfall was being developed.
To me it is a poor service after reflecting on it.
4 one year old games for free only one I would play.
5 day early access but can only play for 2 hours within those 5 days then you have to wait until release.
The Vault only has 7 games and if you take part in the 10% discount you won't get any more free games unless EA starts porting all there games to run on current generation.
Oh please. Sony just wants to control the party themselves. They want the exact same thing as EA. That's why it's a problem.
You don't need to buy the subscription to buy the game digitally?
BibiMaghoo
Member
No, your post is accurate.
Garrett 2U
Member
All I'm saying is that last month they were ok with charging PS Now customers 5$ to play 4 hours of a Ben 10 game.
This month they aren't okay with offering their customers the option to pay 5$ for a month of EA Access.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
True, which I can't argue with.
Breakfast at Noon
Member
The way this is worded it sounds like it is part of the already subscription charge
So is gold subscription going up? the way Sony worded it was like PS+ monthly price would of gone up 5$ that is why they turned it down..
If that is the case, FUCK THAT i have little interest in 90% of EA games.
So is gold subscription going up? the way Sony worded it was like PS+ monthly price would of gone up 5$ that is why they turned it down..
If that is the case, FUCK THAT i have little interest in 90% of EA games.
When I re-read it, the statement that EA Access "does not bring the kind of value PlayStation customers have come to expect" is such a horseshit excuse. If that is the case, Sony, why did you allow EA Season Ticket on PSN for years which represented far less value than EA Access does?
Perhaps I'd have a little more empathy for Sony if they were actually honest about why they have chosen not to support EA Access, instead of making up some bullshit.
Perhaps I'd have a little more empathy for Sony if they were actually honest about why they have chosen not to support EA Access, instead of making up some bullshit.
So you are saying EA would follow directly in Sony's footsteps by offering a service of free games and then lock multiplayer behind it?
GeordieMark
Member
You are forgetting that they will also see the money they make from traditional game sales, and that they are hardly likely to want to abandon that revenue stream.
It makes a lot of sense if you think about it from a business point of view.
They make more money and as long as they give some money to MS or Sony they wont be mad about it.
Also i cant see how they would loose a significant chunk of their player base, the consumers EA is going for with the likes of Fifa,Madden and Battlefield are mostly casual gamers who dont really give a fuck about how much the new Fifa costs as long as they can play it with their friends.
No, it is not mandatory. There is no cost increase to XBL.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Since when has any "vote with your wallet" campaign worked in gaming? Gamers are stupid and fickle people, in the short term $5/m for a few games is not a great deal, but next year when EA Access is required to get EA DLC day one, is that enhancing EA Access or is it punishing regular consumers and getting more of them to pay EA, a few years down the road when EA Access is required to play FIFA/Madden/BF/Titanfall online is that enhancing EA Access or getting more people to pay EA $5/m.
It is bad for the industry, specifically consoles which is probably the most expensive form of gaming, to have more monthly subscription fees on the market. Today's EA Access does not pose a threat, but one would have to be very, very naive to think that it will remain this way for the entirety of its lifespan.
Why do you think I am wary of this service? MS proved one thing with XBLG, consumers are willing to pay for what was previous included in the $60 purchase price.
If I let my PS+ sub run out tomorrow I would still be able to play just about every game I own multiplayer included...
BibiMaghoo
Member
It seems a perfectly honest answer to me.
EA service = $30 a year, four games + discount
PS+ = $40 (?) a year, about 20 games or more + discount
I mean, they don't really compare in value at all at this time. In 5 years they might, but now it is garbage in comparison.
- Status