Support NeoGAF

[GeordieMark]

Anyone who believes that Sony's decision not to have EA Access on Playstation is down to anything but money is seriously naïve.

It's always about money.

If you believe #4theplayers is anything but marketing, you need a reality check.

 

[wildfire]

So the merit behind the particular decision doesn't matter, because you have a pre-determined characterization of the companies?

The merit of the matter was already looked at. Secondary subscription models on top of existing subscriptions historically have made things more expensive (see AOL or cable TV). There is little reason to think this will change so we are better off with two completely different business models to see if yet again this fails to deliver on the value we are looking for.

As for predertermined characterization, what do you expect customers to do? If Sony, MS or Nintendo tried to fund their game developments through kickstarter do you think people wouldn't gauge their past history to make donation decisions? It's disingenuous to imply past history isn't a valid form of analyzing companies or people.

 

[Handy Fake]

Company wants to monetize it's intellectual property, news at 11.

But monetize it behind an extra paywall.

The deal they're offering isn't going to add anything substantial to their coffers - the $30 is just going to balance out the discounts they're giving. On top of internal costs for the service, you have to ask what the end game is here.

 

[Marcel]

But PSN+ is better value!

I like it better but to say like people who want more choices are wrong or foolish is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[wumster3000]

Look up the price of BF4 on amazon for ps4. Its already cost more right now than the entire $30 per year EA's service. So yes Sony is ripping you off by not allowing you to do this (according to their statement). So yes they are holding your hand.

I don't know why it's so hard for people to realize that this is not bad at all. IMO, this is great. You don't have to buy the sub if you don't want it. If you do, you get free games that currently cost more than the dam sub.

Get this on the PS4 now Sony...even though I have an Xbox One too.

 

[vypek]

Now that EA pitched this to Sony and MS, does that mean EA access was going to let you have one account and get the benefits in all platforms (pay once, play everywhere)?

That would be awesome. But Im skeptical they would do that.

 

[BruiserBear]

:jnc

http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Wizard-of-Oz-Scarecrow.jpeg

Dragon, I need to repent for my sins against Master Sony. Please tell me how I can make this right.

 

[Joe White]

I, and it seems plenty of others, don't want that scenario. Sony has a platform wide subscription service for gaming software. EA and Sony should make a deal that could result in the features of EA Access be included on the PS Plus service. That would be a consumer best scenario in the current state of things. As it is EA seems to want the lion's share of the subscription payment without dealing with the platform holder/gatekeeper. That's their prerogative as a business. They want more money/revenue/profits, as Sony. It sets a worrisome precedent, even more so if it succeeds. I don't want a future with per publisher subscription services. I will have a choice to not subscribe in theory. But publishers will get around finding ways to make them "mandatory". We already have mandatory "subscription" services on each consoles, we don't need subscription on top of subscriptions.

The main problem with PSN+ is that it's locked to a platform/ecosystem. I like the Netflix model where I can enjoy same content on basically any device that can run their client with one subscription. Similar to that, I see how EA and other multiplatform publishers have possibility and interest to provide subscription service that allow consumer with subscription to enjoy their games on multiple platforms (PC, Mac, Xbox, Playstation, mobile etc). So I agree, we don't need subscription on top of subscriptions, but the ones that we don't need are Gold/PSN+.

 

[BadWolf]

You don't see a problem with features being held back for subscribers that used to be free for everyone?

I have a real problem with that. I don't want stuff taken away, it sucks.

I hate exclusivity agreements too, they suck.

All this reminds me of DLC and how it took off last gen.

Things we previously expected to be part of the game are now sold as extras.

 

[Nzyme32]

Sony likes being the only ones doling out rented games on their platform, and they certainly didn't want someone doing it for half price.

You can still rent physical games for their platform outside of digital releases though right? Otherwise it would be analogous to microsofts original plans that would essential give them entire control of pre-owned and rented titles except both physical and digital

 

[bayman]

Do all the people who think more choice is always the right answer, also hate that Nintendo set standards for what games could be released for their system?

Sony has it's own selfish reasons for doing what it's doing but maybe you people should read a video game industry history book before preaching how great infinite choice is.

 

[StoOgE]

Oh man I love all of them! What company should I subscribe to?

Sony wants you to be a PS+ subscriber ala Netflix.

In EAs world we all pay a subscription to each publisher for their content.

How awesome would it be if I had to buy a sub to MGM online! Universal plus and lucasfilm archives to watch their movies online?

No thanks.

It's still bullshit that Sony made that decision for gamers since obviously some people want it.

From your perspective, sure.

From EAs perspective: Sony is getting 5 bucks a month from millions of people and is spending substantially less than 5 dollars a month renting them other publishers content and turning a profit.

If I were EA I would have taken a long hard look and asked "why the fuck should those guys make money renting out our games with PS+ or GwG instead of us?"

And your netflix example is probably apt. I would expect to see more and more bifurcation of streaming services as the content holders who have value start to take a long hard look at lost revenue when they simply sell the rights to a 3rd party instead of self monetizing.

 

[shanafan]

Oh man I love all of them! What company should I subscribe to?

Sony wants you to be a PS+ subscriber ala Netflix.

In EAs world we all pay a subscription to each publisher for their content.

How awesome would it be if I had to buy a sub to MGM online! Universal plus and lucasfilm archives to watch their movies online?

No thanks.

It's still bullshit that Sony made that decision for gamers since obviously some people want it.

In Sony's world we should all pay them a subscription fee to enjoy the full range of what they offer.

They are just as guilty.

 

[Banjo-Kazooie]

What's amazing is that the same people who welcomed Microsoft's original DRM hell hole are pretty much the same one's saying that people should be given a choice. Corporate ballwashers, I just don't get them. It's like they can't wait to be butt-fucked by EA/MS/Sony/Ubi/Acti-Blizz.

Introducing this "choice" is a one way road to an industry collapse over the long term as publishers concentrate on monetising fewer more hardcore players rather than trying to broaden the appeal of gaming.

Let's see the receipts. I'll wait.

 

[itzknickknac]

Yeah. It's a little disturbing how many people seem to "pick a side" on these new consoles and from there on out it's cheering for "your team" no matter what happens.

Many of the people who are against this EA Access thing, probably subscribe to Netflix and Spotify, and don't even realize the irony of it all.

I pick a side bc I don't like the other. In this case, I'm on Sony's. Because I don't agree with EA's money hungry practices. Plus, I don't play a lot of EA games anyway.

Netflix, spotify, etc on the other hand, has tons of choices to listen/watch/what have you from. Netflix isn't making their service make only Netflix movie/show available to you. You have many choices. What does EA have? Only EA games. What does PS+ have? More (certainly more variety than EA) variety of games to choose from. This is just one perspective.

 

[squall211]

To me, online gaming is basic functionality of a console in 2014.

That's fine. To me, it's not. I consider myself a "core" gamer, and I can probably count on both hands the number of hours I've spent playing games online in the last 6 or 7 years. I have PS+ for the online storage, discounts, and instant game collection. The fact that I *need* it when I get a PS4 in order to play online is irrelevant to me.

 

[DarthWalden]

If you were interested in battlefield, madden, or FIFA, you would've bought them buy now. Don't make it act like people were dying for games over 9 months old that they refused to buy new and now they're so happy they get them for this cheap.

EA wants people to buy digital, so they offer games no one are buying anymore to make it look like they'rewrr giving you a deal for the right to buy digital games to increase their profits.

This my line of thinking when PS+ was introduced. I was wrong..

 

[Dragon]

Dragon, I need to repent for my sins against Master Sony. Please tell me how I can make this right.

I'd say the first step is to admit you aren't the bastion of objectivity and move on from there.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

If you apply the same logic to the actual software, every holiday season we would all go insane at the amount of choices in games.

"Dragon age or halo or the order or....nvm im just gonna give up forever"

Doesnt happen. "Too many subscriptions" is such a cop out. I get people being kinda worried it sets a bad precedent, like we saw from F2P, but.....again....these companies arent going to start doing something that doesnt WORK.

So if this works, its not like Ubi can come out with a competing service and completely rips everyone off and be successful.

If something comes out and is a bad deal....dont buy it. Seriously, give it a shot. Its a wonder how much money youll save.

That is the thing though:

F2P worked.

And it is still shitty because a game designed with F2P in mind will result in your 60 bucks giving you less content than if the game was a paid for game that cost that amount in the first place.

But thanks to whales, consumer wishes aren't really adequately represented through wallet voting.

Subscriptions will work as well, regardless of how many individuals avoid them, because there's plenty of fans that these publishes can take advantage of and hold tantalizing exclusive DLC in front of. Then it's just a downward slope towards more and more content locked behind subscription gates. A lot of people who might be interested in a few select games from a number of different publishers might in a couple of years be forced to get multiple subs just not to get a gimped game.

Or they'll just not buy those games, while the publishers squeeze out more and more money from the hardcore fans who are willing to spend $200 on the latest fantasy/alien dating simulator from Bioware.

Fuck that future.

 

[Dragonborn]

Anyone who believes that Sony's decision not to have EA Access on Playstation is down to anything but money is seriously naïve.

It's always about money.

If you believe #4theplayers is anything but marketing, you need a reality check.

No one believes Sony is doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, rather they're saying it's good move regardless of motive. If you want a future with every publisher holding their own service then vote with your wallet, get an X1 and pay EA

 

[Flintty]

I read that as 'we don't need to offer this because we are winning'

Surely the choice should lay with the consumer.

 

[gamechanger87]

If the EA service essentially becomes nothing more than a 5 day early, %10 discount new game service with a good vault for 100% free games, it is a great idea.

EA has ZERO credibility and a huge track record that suggests it will not stay just that. I find it incredibly likely that they will move existing free things to this paid service, that is why I am against it as an option.

Yes Sony removed a choice, but by doing so they protected far more choices.

Fair point. There is always a deal of skepticism with this stuff, but I agree with your initial comment. Appreciate the logical response in a thread containing scattered illogical ones.

 

[InfiniteUnrest]

EA has so very few games of value to me in the first place, I have a hard time seeing Access ever being worth it to me even at $30/year. The very few games they have that ARE of value to me, I'd likely pick up day one, making this an unnecessary added expense.

I get what they are trying to do, but you need a stronger library of selections, IMO, to make this worthwhile, and none of the games that might have made it worthwhile are in the current vault library.


And maybe this is just me, but this just stinks to high heaven of being middle ground between what MS (and presumably EA, despite their denials) wanted to do last year with their anti-consumer ideas and DRM - a next step of sorts, if you will.

 

[Jhriad]

It has to happen if we want games to continue escalating in production value while the console market stagnates in size.

With the primary drivers for revenue growth in the industry outside the console market maybe it would be best if we didn't keep pushing production value/costs in the console space. That said, if it has to happen it needs to be through a single, unified service like Netflix and not through a mishmash of individual publisher subscription services.

 

[Fdkn]

It's not like those who really see the value in this and want to support it can't do it. You know where it's available

You need a deal to offer a service (paid or not) in any console, Sony is not interested in this deal. If they are making a mistake, time will say.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Doesn't Best Buy have a paid reward thing to that gives you 20% off all pre-ordered games, and can even be piled on with other sales/coupons?

Yes, I believe it's $60 per year for 20% off all games, not just preordered ones.

For many preorders they give you $10 back in a gift certificate with no paid membership needed. That alone tops EA's 10% off off paid service.

 

[Seanspeed]

And you're the worst with the "people" abstract post on a message board. There's the quote function for a reason, if you want to decry a particular post for being inconsistent, by all means do so, but the whole implication that there's a hive mind of collective subconscious on GAF for a certain segment of the population is as ridiculous as most of your other posts.

I edited to say 'lots of people', so its not assumed I'm generalizing absolutely everyone, if that makes a difference.

Otherwise, I'm simply not in the mood to fish out singular responses and get into arguments with people when its super obvious what's going on.

I never said anything about a hivemind, either. I did not say that 'everybody who likes Sony' feels this way, even though that's obviously how you took it(or something along those lines).

 

[Scrawnton]

But in your earlier post, you said you buy physical.

Sorry, but I am seeing this as.. EA and MS doing digital, no thanks. Sony doing digital, sign me up?

I'll give you more detail. I use plus and digital download deals mostly on vita because the games are smaller and I like goin digital only on handhelds. The ps4 is a different story with game sizes being so large and Comcast threatening a data cap in my area. Physical for that system is how I have to go.

I don't hate ea, I have bf4 and premium, but I don't see the value in this system. Last year everyone complained that Xbox one wanted to go always online and block used games. People rebelled. But now everyone is rejoicing because there will be a program you subscribe to that gives discounts on digital games and the free games probably require an always online convection to verify you earned access.

Something about this doesn't seem right. It seems like an alternate plan to kill used games now that the always online box was rejected.

Why support this?

 

[LNBL]

Sony looking out for their revenue and saw no place for a different service next to PS+. Choices need to be put out for the consumer to make and not something Sony or MS can dictate.

 

[Oppo]

Of course Sony is protecting Ps+ (and keeping the model simple). Like, of COURSE they are.

But this EA thing is also a terrible precedent.

Both are true.

And no I don't go along with this "consumer options are always better", it's not true, as a group consumers often make really terrible choices. See: crocs

 

[StoOgE]

But monetize it behind an extra paywall.

The deal they're offering isn't going to add anything substantial to their coffers - the $30 is just going to balance out the discounts they're giving. On top of internal costs for the service, you have to ask what the end game is here.

No they aren't.

They are giving those discounts on digital copies which has two effects:

1) Higher margins. They are picking up 70% of the full SRP (less a 5% discount) as opposed to a bunch of middle men (distribution, retail, packaging, fulfilment of copies through shipping, physical production of discs).

2) They cut out used sales later.

There could be a chilling effect on certain titles, but I would expect they have a plan here and it is to give everyone a nice carrot to buy digital because it's cheaper day 1 than buying at retail.

 

[TheOhrenberger.]

The real reason is that they probably don't want it to compete with PSnow.

 

[Redlight]

Sounds good in theory.

Then in 2015 you have:

PS+ $5 a month
Ubisoft Uberservice $6 a month
EA Access $9 a month (price rise)
EA Online Access $5 a month (online play for EA titles)
Activision COD Pass $10 a month
Activision Destiny Pass $12 a month
Activision Do we make other games? Probably Pass $7 a month
Square Us too Pass $40 a month, $20 extra for games.

And so on.

Personally I'm happy for it to be all under one umbrella, that you have to pay anyway to pay online. Otherwise things could get stupid very fast... and lets face it, with these companies involved you know that it will.

I'm going to leave out the 'Square Pass' because I'm not interested in Square games. Others would leave out the services that don't appeal to them.

In my case your horror scenario from the post-apocalyptic future of gaming has me paying $54 a month to play all the games from the biggest publishers.

Whereas now it would cost me $60 to play any one title. I'm not a collector so this sounds brilliant to me.

Bring on the apocalypse!

 

[shanafan]

If the EA service essentially becomes nothing more than a 5 day early, %10 discount new game service with a good vault for 100% free games, it is a great idea.

EA has ZERO credibility and a huge track record that suggests it will not stay just that. I find it incredibly likely that they will move existing free things to this paid service, that is why I am against it as an option.

Yes Sony removed a choice, but by doing so they protected far more choices. Sony did this to protect their finances with plus more than anything sure, but that doesn't negate the benefit it has to me as a consumer.

Zero credibility? I guess Sony gamers won't be upset if Titanfall 2 doesn't come out for their platform since they have zero credibility. #4theplayers

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Add up the prices of the 6 ps+ games and discounts. Then add the ea vault games and discounts. Hows those goal posts?

You don't understand. They are 6 games a month. Not four games a year. Those Goal Posts are where you left them, on a field that Sony plays better on.

 

[BeforeU]

I cant believe so many people are downplaying this by shouting same thing over and over "this is EA" "this is Microsoft after all". Jesus guys, chill out. You cant even buy any of these free games for less than $30 anyways. If this turns out to be shit over the months and dont renew it. You are not bound to any contract or anything. Relax. This is a loss from Sony only, and they are trying to label this with as we are #fortheplayer nonsense. Stop being so dramatic, every company wants your money. Decide whats best for you.

 

[wildfire]

No I just want the maximum amount of choice to look out for myself is the point. I dont see a friend or enemy with these companies.

Fair enough on how you view your business relationship with these companies. I've already made my case about why choice already exists with very similar products now having an additional key differences allows you to weigh better the pros and cons of their value propositions. Having both do the same thing only obscures the situation.

 

[The Jackdog]

That is the thing though:

F2P worked.

And it is still shitty because a game designed with F2P in mind will result in your 60 bucks giving you less content than if the game was a paid for game that cost that amount in the first place.

But thanks to whales, consumer wishes aren't really adequately represented through wallet voting.

Subscriptions will work as well, regardless of how many individuals avoid them, because there's plenty of fans that these publishes can take advantage of and hold tantalizing exclusive DLC in front of. Then it's just a downward slope towards more and more content locked behind subscription gates. A lot of people who might be interested in a few select games from a number of different publishers might in a couple of years be forced to get multiple subs just not to get a gimped game.

Or they'll just not buy those games, while the publishers squeeze out more and more money from the hardcore fans who are willing to spend $200 on the latest fantasy/alien dating simulator from Bioware.

Fuck that future.

Arent we dealing with something much more tangible here though? Its a service not the game itself. If people arent seeing the return on the service, they wont use it, correct? Its not the carrot-on-a-stick model that F2P adopts.

Im gonna get this EA access stuff. Cause i think it sounds pretty good. But if after the first year they dont add a lot of games, i dont use the discount much, ill cancel it.

 

[StoOgE]

I pick a side bc I don't like the other. In this case, I'm on Sony's. Because I don't agree with EA's money hungry practices. Plus, I don't play a lot of EA games anyway.

Netflix, spotify, etc on the other hand, has tons of choices to listen/watch/what have you from. Netflix isn't making their service make only Netflix movie/show available to you. You have many choices. What does EA have? Only EA games. What does PS+ have? More (certainly more variety than EA) variety of games to choose from. This is just one perspective.

Every single for profit (and especially publicly held) company is by definition money hungry.

They all have shareholders.

Sony doesn't love you, Netflix isn't making sure you have options.

They are all trying to maximize profit for shareholders at minimal costs.

 

[Yopis]

Anyone who believes that Sony's decision not to have EA Access on Playstation is down to anything but money is seriously naïve.

It's always about money.

If you believe #4theplayers is anything but marketing, you need a reality check.

The branding worked people think these companies are close friends.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

But monetize it behind an extra paywall.

Do you think the cost of PSN+ and Xbox Live would stay the same while their 'free' games library expanded exponentially? You would always end up paying for it somewhere.

 

[jts]

If that was true, the PS4 would have been an always online console with no used games.

They were smart about it, because always online and no used games means a lot of bad press. Even MS had to backpedal on that.

That model will be perfected and accepted by the public when download and streaming services get enough traction. Companies are working on it.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

I'm glad Sony shut EA down. If this shit takes off on Xbone, every developer and publisher out there is going to want to offer their games (mostly old/shitty titles, with the occasional new gem to keep subscribers holding on) via subscription. And that's gonna be a fucking mess.

 

[Corto]

The main problem with PSN+ is that it's locked to a platform/ecosystem. I like the Netflix model where I can enjoy same content on basically any device that can run their client with one subscription. Similar to that, I see how EA and other multiplatform publishers have possibility and interest to provide subscription service that allow consumer with subscription to enjoy their games on multiple platforms (PC, Mac, Xbox, Playstation, mobile etc). So I agree, we don't need subscription on top of subscriptions, but the ones that we don't need are Gold/PSN+.

I agree 100% on mandatory Gold/PSN+ not needed. That bridge was already crossed though. This one (per publisher subscription services on closed ecosystems that have already subscription fees) we're just starting to cross. But this will happen, I know that. We will be talking about EA Access as the Horse Armour of this gen. It's inevitable. But I don't like it.

 

[LowerLevel]

I'm sorry, but if this "program/app" gets advertised correctly, the amount of people out there that constantly buy Madden/Fifa/Nascar/NHL/Tiger woods (or whatever it's called) EVERY year may see that 10% discount plus an additional library of older but very playable games may very well indeed decide to put their eggs in the Xbox basket for a mere $90 a year (these type of people don't necessarily know how to shop for Live sub discounts like most of us...) and that possible number, if high enough, may sway Sony's decision quickly.

Personally, with the games coming up soon (starting with Diablo in a few weeks), I may very well leave DA off my list for a short while. Now what if they decide to release DA on this program next year (maybe even around the time the Witcher comes...), then I saved myself some money. Probably an unlikely scenario, but a plausible one.

 

[m@cross]

Zero credibility? I guess Sony gamers won't be upset if Titanfall 2 doesn't come out for their platform since they have zero credibility. #4theplayers

huh? how does the fact that EA will or will not release Titan Fall 2 on the PS4 have anything to do with their credibility? #wtfUSaying

 

[Handy Fake]

No they aren't.

They are giving those discounts on digital copies which has two effects:

1) Higher margins. They are picking up 70% of the full SRP (less a 5% discount) as opposed to a bunch of middle men (distribution, retail, packaging, fulfilment of copies through shipping, physical production of discs).

2) They cut out used sales later.

There could be a chilling effect on certain titles, but I would expect they have a plan here and it is to give everyone a nice carrot to buy digital because it's cheaper day 1 than buying at retail.

Ohhh I'm dubious chief. Dubious at best.

Anyway, it's nothing they're not getting through standard online sales. Unless Sony are getting a cut - which they will do anyway if they allow EA Access onto their online portfolio.

I think this is a transparent foot in the door, but that's my personal opinion.

 

[Balphon]

They probably think it competes too directly with PS+ To support it.

Because, you know, it does.

 

[Gen.Grievous]

I'm going to leave out the 'Square Pass' because I'm not interested in Square games. Others would leave out the services that don't appeal to them.

In my case your horror scenario from the post-apocalyptic future of gaming has me paying $54 a month to play all the games from the biggest publishers.

Whereas now it would cost me $60 to play any one title. I'm not a collector so this sounds brilliant to me.

Bring on the apocalypse!

You don't get it. Before all those games were simply part of PS Plus and didn't cost you a penny extra.

 

[eznark]

Sony didn't want to subsidize the program at the same level as Microsoft so the program isn't going to be on the platform.

What's the controversy?