Sony's response to EA Access Subscription plan

Status
Not open for further replies.
Handy Fake said:
Not sure. Discounting the free (old) games, you're only going to be getting about $5 off a game. Can you see yourself buying six EA games in a year just to justify the discount? Seems awfully expensive for essentially a closed service.
Click to expand...

To me the discount is a perk. $30 to play the games is the main draw for me.
 
Spades said:
Of course not, but you get to play the game 5 days ahead of release to decide if you want to buy it or not (again, just like Season Ticket, a service that has been offered on PSN for years).
Click to expand...

you get to play limited trials aka demos.
 
Xando said:
Why 6? for one year ps+ i get more than 50 games.
For one year EA access i get 10(probably less than 10) if im lucky.
Click to expand...

Say you get 10..that's only $3/game..throw that in with early demos and discounts, I'd say that's a pretty good deal
 
Spades said:
And the ability to play the game 5 days early.
If you're an Ultimate Team player on Madden or FIFA, then that 10% can go a long way also.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's really what it comes down to. I play UT on both Madden and FIFA, it seems silly to keep playing those games on PS4 even though I prefer that system over my Xbone by a wide margin.

Dragonborn said:
Have they actually said you get 5 days to play the game in its entirety? Or is it something like you have 5 days to play a 1 hour trial?
Click to expand...

It literally is the full game. Then you can pay the discounted price to continue playing the full version on the release date.
 
B1G_A1AN said:
The EA thing is a none issue for me as it's not something i would've paid for anyway, the sports games are not worth their full price anyway as they are just different kits & player names etc.

I think that Sony should've allowed the ES Access on the PS4 platform & let people make up their own mind, i just hope this doesn't cause some sort of spat between Sony & EA like what happened between EA & Nintendo.
Click to expand...

Why?
Would be great to see something like that!
A leading platform without the monopoly of soccer and football games, would open the way to some new contender, holes are made to be filled.
I hope it will happen instead.
 
Gumball said:
Sony talking the value game when they have such shocking prices with PSNow?

My 2 cents is that they feel it too cheap and makes their PSNow service look like even more of a rip off, hence why they don't want it on Playstation.
Click to expand...

This is why they aren't allowing it. PSNow was tempting , but once you see the prices they wanted to charge, I wanted nothing to do with it.
 
Dragonborn said:
You'd have buy like 6 EA games a year for it to be worth it. I'd stick to the 20 percent discount that something like GCU provides.
Click to expand...

Why would you even have to buy ANY games for it to be worth it? For ME, the value is already there by offering me 4 games I don't own (yes I realize you don't really own these games) but would like to own for a fraction of the price if I were to even buy them all on sale.

Anything else on top of that is then gravy.

I don't get this argument where you have to actually buy anything for it to be worth it.
 
We do not know the exact details of the EA/Microsoft relationship on this subscription plan. I would bet that Microsoft is not making much money out of this or -hell- they might even paid EA a certain amount for this deal to go down (which Sony wasn't willing to do).

And honestly, EA doesn't care about consumer option, they know they are just going to make a shit-ton of money out of this by driving people to pay for games they will never own. I don't know about you but paying $90 a year (XBL + EA subscription) is too much and can almost certainly play great games on PSN for $50.

Again, I understand it is only an option.
 
Dragonborn said:
Have they actually said you get 5 days to play the game in its entirety? Or is it something like you have 5 days to play a 1 hour trial?
Click to expand...

If it's anything like Season Ticket, which it most likely will be, you got pretty much all of the features. On Madden, for example, I believe the only thing missing in the Season Ticket pre-release was the ability to play Ultimate Team. How they will handle things with non-sports games I don't know, but it doesn't make much sense to deviate much from what they've offered in the past to subscribers.
 
m@cross said:
People like to simplify topics down to single lines so the masses can have an opinion without needing to know the facts, typical political strategy here.

"Sony takes away our ability to chose" Pretty simply, gets right to A point, makes it easy to decide Sony is the bad guy. Sounds like something from a political add.

The truth?

Plus: By adding this service it dissuades EA from allowing Sony to offer their games for free or discount through plus. This in turn de-values plus and hurts the service and those who pay for it.

EA wants money: It may start off all sexy and pro gamer, but EA will figure out every method to maximize their profits with it. The most direct way is to drive up subscription rates. How do they do this? Migrate features currently desired as free content to part of the service and remove them from being free. Ideas? Ultimate team advantages with subscription (extra cards, bonus points etc.), roster updates, dynamic player attributes, special uniforms for sports games, preferred online matchmaking options, map pack discounts, bonus unlock rates for game add-ons, AND maybe their sports games no longer work online after 1 year unless you have it?

There are already signs of this with the verbiage they used in the announcement, EA WILL leverage this to make the service be almost necessary to fully enjoy their games.

No thank you; I'll keep the value I pay for in Plus now, and help prevent EA from shifting existing features they should include in their games to a pay service.
Click to expand...

So what Sony did by migrating free multiplayer?
 
At first, I was like "I wouldn't even use EA's service but at least give us the choice".

But then I began thinking about every other publisher jumping in doing the same thing. Not the future I want.

Then rationally, of course Sony wouldn't bring EA's service in to compete with PS Now; they'd rather use these pubs to enhance their own service.

While it feels messed up not having the choice initially, I think a lot of good could come of Sony holding back. Right now, Sony is positioned to be the overwhelming sales leader this gen. Pubs aren't going to ignore them easily.

If sales continue as they have, do you guys think it's possible that Sony can have the strength to tell an EA they not getting $5 a month for just their service; but take $1 or $2 dollars? And Activision, you take a $1 as well. And you, you don't have that big a catalog so you take $.50. And we're just gonna work out a PS Plus type deal for you little guy, but your games will be on Now instead. And so on, but you're all taking under the PS Now umbrella. And we can finally offer our customers a subscription plan of $15 - $25 a month.

Now this scenario and numbers could obviously be fantasy land, but it would be ideal for gamers, and Sony and publishers as well. Sure, pubs would get a lesser cut per person, but will make that up and then some with a larger PS Now base.

Do any of you see something like this happening? I mean, Sony has to know their customers want a subscription model. And I feel gamers' positive reaction to EA's service has to make Sony evaluate their own plans further.
 
m@cross said:
People like to simplify topics down to single lines so the masses can have an opinion without needing to know the facts, typical political strategy here.

"Sony takes away our ability to chose" Pretty simply, gets right to A point, makes it easy to decide Sony is the bad guy. Sounds like something from a political add.

The truth?

Plus: By adding this service it dissuades EA from allowing Sony to offer their games for free or discount through plus. This in turn de-values plus and hurts the service and those who pay for it.

EA wants money: It may start off all sexy and pro gamer, but EA will figure out every method to maximize their profits with it. The most direct way is to drive up subscription rates. How do they do this? Migrate features currently desired as free content to part of the service and remove them from being free. Ideas? Ultimate team advantages with subscription (extra cards, bonus points etc.), roster updates, dynamic player attributes, special uniforms for sports games, preferred online matchmaking options, map pack discounts, bonus unlock rates for game add-ons, AND maybe their sports games no longer work online after 1 year unless you have it?

There are already signs of this with the verbiage they used in the announcement, EA WILL leverage this to make the service be almost necessary to fully enjoy their games.

No thank you; I'll keep the value I pay for in Plus now, and help prevent EA from shifting existing features they should include in their games to a pay service.
Click to expand...

What EA games have ever been featured on PS+?

I know people love the slippery slope argument, but EA got pummeled for online access codes and said they aren't going down that road again. They view this as a way to pull some of the value back from the re-sale market. I don't see how this is a bad thing or why its a good thing that Sony said no.

It feels like a PR move by them to say we are "4dagamerz" rather than it actually being their driving force.

I just paid $30/year and I already downloaded and now own Peggle 2. Plus I get access to Madden and NHL 5 days early at 10% off. I would say this is a win for me already.
 
Sorc3r3r said:
Why?
Would be great to see something like that!
A leading platform without the monopoly of soccer and football games, would open the way to some new contender, holes are made to be filled.
I hope it will happen instead.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure they would loose the Fifa license if they went exclusive.
 
B1G_A1AN said:
The EA thing is a none issue for me as it's not something i would've paid for anyway, the sports games are not worth their full price anyway as they are just different kits & player names etc.

I think that Sony should've allowed the ES Access on the PS4 platform & let people make up their own mind, i just hope this doesn't cause some sort of spat between Sony & EA like what happened between EA & Nintendo.
Click to expand...

That would never happen. Not with the PS4 dominating this gen. Where would they go? Keep things MS only? That'd be a big hit to their bottom line. They may be in ved with MS but they still need Sony. And honestly, after all the BS EA has pulled, I'm kinda glad Sony's putting a stop to this before it gets out of hand
 
Collingwood said:
Oh right. That explains them charging for online multiplayer.

Give me a break.

Sony can do what they want. Clearly whatever deal EA struck with Microsoft is one Sony didn't believe benefitted them. That's fine.

But to try and say straight faced that you believe Sony could have done this "#4the players" is downright embarrassing and would make one sound like an astroturfer or shill.

This is an OPTIONAL subscription service just like Call of Duty Elite was. Guess what happened to that optional subscription service? No one saw value in it and it died.

Sony could easily give their customers the option to choose for themselves if they see the value in it.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The only reason to prevent EA's sub service is the threat of reduced revenue or more of these services from other developers having the same effect (or at least that's the only rational explanation I can see). I can't see this as anything other than a business decision than for the players. If it is a bad service, people will see that and leave it, and it dies.

And thus this is the most annoying issue of a gate keeper to a closed system. People should have decided for themselves whether this was a good service or not. If these services grow and cause issues to Sony's revenue, they need to change their business model.

In any case, it's interesting to see it on the Xbox One but not the PS4 (with a reason) and not the PC (which is already being a bit more experimental with Origin). It'll be good to hear what Xbox players think and see how the service evolves over time
 
Xando said:
you get to play limited trials aka demos.
Click to expand...

Again (lots of repetition in this thread), going by what they offered in Season Ticket, it was the full game minus a feature or two (like Ultimate Team).

All of your progress carries over if you buy the game on release date, so to think that the pre-release versions are going to be wildly different to what is included in the release version is somewhat silly.
 
Spades said:
If it's anything like Season Ticket, which it most likely will be, you got pretty much all of the features. On Madden, for example, I believe the only thing missing in the Season Ticket pre-release was the ability to play Ultimate Team. How they will handle things with non-sports games I don't know, but it doesn't make much sense to deviate much from what they've offered in the past to subscribers.
Click to expand...

Was Season Ticket on the PS3 when online was free? Because I think there's a huge difference from what they are saying here. They don't like the idea of $50 + $5.. When they would rather it be apart of the $50.
 
B1G_A1AN said:
The EA thing is a none issue for me as it's not something i would've paid for anyway, the sports games are not worth their full price anyway as they are just different kits & player names etc.

I think that Sony should've allowed the ES Access on the PS4 platform & let people make up their own mind, i just hope this doesn't cause some sort of spat between Sony & EA like what happened between EA & Nintendo.
Click to expand...

Whilst I'd agree that some of the yearly iterations aren't worth the full price and don't really play much different, I've played FIFA 15 and can honestly say they've made big changes this time.
 
Doesn't bother me too much. This is similar to EA not liking steam because they wanted more money, so they launched origin. This cutting out the middle man mindset is fine in theory but it might begin a trend. If EA starts this what prevents Activision and others from doing the same. Then all these games that theoretically could get deals in plus are less likely to.


I'd rather have plus be the only means to get deals in my console, at least as a subscription service. If it's a success with xbox then fuck it bring it over.
 
Brad Grenz said:
There really isn't any good reason toxic real estate derivatives shouldn't be available. What harm is there in giving investors the option and letting them decide whether the economy should be in shambles?
Click to expand...

wildfire said:
I applaud Sony's vision and honesty.

There are strengths and weaknesses to having Sony control over games access through subscriptions compared to letting anyone make their own micro-subscriptions.

History has shown through cable television and AOL that Sony's approach is better for consumers.

In a few years after other companies like Ubisoft and Capcom also offer micro subscriptions on Xbox One but not PS4 you guys will fully understand how badly this can get out of hand.
Click to expand...

mejin said:
Finally, a good post on this topic!

I'm totally ok Sony took a stand this time.
Click to expand...

wildfire said:
Is it because you believe companies only look out for the interest of themselves and not their customers?

If so, that's ok but you can't hold onto that belief when one company has it and the other doesn't because one of them clearly has to be working less for your interest.



Considering their actions in the past year you would trust MS over Sony to be looking out for you?
Click to expand...

Yeah ok. I'm out of this thread now. The bile is building in my throat.
 
Cheech said:
So... you want PS+ to cost $200 a year? Because that's now you get PS+ to $200 a year.

Sony not getting this service is a big miss. I'm cancelling FIFA/Madden on PS4 and going Xbone for most EA titles going forward.
Click to expand...

So you can play last years version when the new ones come out? If you are talking about the discount, you know you Madden and Fifa is actually 20% off with PS+, right?
 
DustyVonEric said:
At first, I was like "I wouldn't even use EA's service but at least give us the choice".

But then I began thinking about every other publisher jumping in doing the same thing. Not the future I want.
Click to expand...

But it's not like you can't purchase games the exact same way you always have. This just another stream that is sort of ideal for people who like a lot of EA titles but perhaps always waited and bought pre-owned or on the cheap.
 
Spades said:
Again (lots of repetition in this thread), going by what they offered in Season Ticket, it was the full game minus a feature or two (like Ultimate Team).

All of your progress carries over if you buy the game on release date, so to think that the pre-release versions are going to be wildly different to what is included in the release version is somewhat silly.
Click to expand...

So you believe that they'd let you play something like Dragon Age in its entirety for 5 days? Somehow, I doubt that will happen
 
Xando said:
But then again on ps+ you get 50 thats 1$ per game + discounts.
Click to expand...

I agree that it is not as good a deal as gwg or PS+ but that doesn't automatically make it a bad deal...I look at things like this on their own. If there is enough value to me I'll buy it.
 
Really though the clue is in the OP, right from Sony:

"PlayStation Plus memberships are up more than 200% since the launch of PlayStation 4, which shows that gamers are looking for memberships that offer a multitude of services, across various devices, for one low price."

Sony realised with the PS4 that they would need to make PS+ pay to play to be a success. EA probably already know this having seen the XBLG/PS+ metrics from last gen to current gen.

The "multitude of services" I expect EA Access to offer by the end of this gen:

1+ year old EA titles in the "vault"
Online play for EA titles (XBLG/PS+ still required)
3 months of exclusivity on all EA DLC
10% discount on EA digital titles
Exclusive beta access to EA games

Otherwise it doesn't make sense, no one will pay $5/m or $30/y for the titles currently on offer or even future titles as I highly doubt current year sports titles will ever be added to the vault.

Incrementally it looks like they will be adding value for EA Access subscribers but as a whole it will just be charging money for what was previously free.
 
DarthWalden said:
I cannot believe the response from Sony (maybe they shouldn't have said anything so people just assumed MS money hated the program still) I also cannot believe the response from some of the people here.

This is an optional program that I think is a great value to some consumers. The consumers will decide that in the end by how well this program does. If other companies decide to provide a service like this then once again its optional and the consumer can decide if its worth it for them. Was there this much backlash when PS+ was announced?

I can't understand anyone who would be happy for Sony blocking this as the only real reason they are blocking it is because they think it's in direct competition of PS+ and PS Now and is totally monopolistic and anti consumer.


If Ea access ends up being complete shit it's still won't make a difference. I'd at least like the choice to make that decision for myself whether it is worth it or not
Click to expand...

The consumers don't get to decide whether to play EA games on steam. Sony is protecting their turf, and in my opinion, they are doing a favor for gamers overall unless they start letting publishers other than EA come through the door with their own subscription services. "Letting the gamers choose" is what gave us tons of microstransactions, increased proliferation of 'free-to-play', and the gift of online gaming being locked behind a paywall. What 'consumer choice' eventually gave us is NO choice in that you cannot play online without paying either Microsoft or Sony.

It's all about 'choice' now until several developers decide to start locking stuff behind subscription paywalls and there is no longer any choice, but we've essentially moved from into the 'subscription' model that publishers are so eager for us to move into. They don't necessarily even have to lock the online play behind the paywall. They could easily create subscription only maps or premium weapons, behind that subscription service, which would make it hard to compete with your normal weapons. So in essence, this could easily devolve into a worse version of free to play, which would be essentially pay to win... because you'd still have to pay for the game, but you need the extras the subscription gives you to be competitive.
 
Nzyme32 said:
But it's not like you can't purchase games the exact same way you always have. This just another stream that is sort of ideal for people who like a lot of EA titles but perhaps always waited and bought pre-owned or on the cheap.
Click to expand...
Until they all decide they want you subscribed to their particular service and start holding features from games hostage. Once they have enough people hooked in, they can fuck over the non subscribers.
 
Spades said:
Again (lots of repetition in this thread), going by what they offered in Season Ticket, it was the full game minus a feature or two (like Ultimate Team).

All of your progress carries over if you buy the game on release date, so to think that the pre-release versions are going to be wildly different to what is included in the release version is somewhat silly.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is, you don't know, you're making an assumption, and correcting people as if the assumption is true? Really?

Spades said:
#4theplayers
Click to expand...

Ah okay, now I see.
 
DustyVonEric said:
At first, I was like "I wouldn't even use EA's service but at least give us the choice".

But then I began thinking about every other publisher jumping in doing the same thing. Not the future I want.

Then rationally, of course Sony wouldn't bring EA's service in to compete with PS Now; they'd rather use these pubs to enhance their own service.

While it feels messed up not having the choice initially, I think a lot of good could come of Sony holding back. Right now, Sony is positioned to be the overwhelming sales leader this gen. Pubs aren't going to ignore them easily.

If sales continue as they have, do you guys think it's possible that Sony can have the strength to tell an EA they not getting $5 a month for just their service; but take $1 or $2 dollars? And Activision, you take a $1 as well. And you, you don't have that big a catalog so you take $.50. And we're just gonna work out a PS Plus type deal for you little guy, but your games will be on Now instead. And so on, but you're all taking under the PS Now umbrella. And we can finally offer our customers a subscription plan of $15 - $25 a month.

Now this scenario and numbers could obviously be fantasy land, but it would be ideal for gamers, and Sony and publishers as well. Sure, pubs would get a lesser cut per person, but will make that up and then some with a larger PS Now base.

Do any of you see something like this happening? I mean, Sony has to know their customers want a subscription model. And I feel gamers' positive reaction to EA's service has to make Sony evaluate their own plans further.
Click to expand...

The thing is Sony would get a cut of the EA Access fees as they process the payments and likely would have it structured such that there was a small kickback for hosting the products. You would be downloading the game from Sony's servers.

I don't think publishers are going to look at it and say Sony is leading and they don't want this program, we shouldn't offer it. They will still roll it out and let consumers decide. If Sony holds its position, those who want it will miss out. I wouldn't be surprised to see Ubisoft roll this out fairly soon.
 
Spades said:
Again (lots of repetition in this thread), going by what they offered in Season Ticket, it was the full game minus a feature or two (like Ultimate Team).

All of your progress carries over if you buy the game on release date, so to think that the pre-release versions are going to be wildly different to what is included in the release version is somewhat silly.
Click to expand...

I thought it would be the same as the Season Ticket aswell but then i read on major nelsons blog that this "demos" are time limited:

"Play First: EA Access members will get to experience trials of new EA games early on Xbox One. Starting 5 days before release, you’ll be able to try the game for at least two hours and then save your progress. Once you purchase the digital or physical copy, you can use your save game and continue the experience."
 
Can't believe people are defending Sony on this.

All the video apps have separate subscriptions...consumers can figure this stuff out just fine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Wild Assault Early Access Trailer
27
641
Hawk The Slayer replied
Geoguessr Steam edition coming to early access in April
1
228
jshackles replied
inZOI Early Access sales top one million
News 
7
379
Hari Seldon replied
  • Locked
inZOI Early Access sales top one million on PC Steam
1
255
CyberCali replied
Wreckfest 2 | Early Access Announcement Trailer
42
2K
VeganElduderino replied
Top Bottom