Support NeoGAF

[gofreak]

I'm willing to believe this, but that's not what Sony said, and this explanation isn't any less PC than the answer they gave. They basically said EA's service stinks and they wanted to make sure their customers got "proper value."

If the reason is as you describe, I don't see why they wouldn't just say that.

It would be kind of acknowledging a vulnerability of the service. Saying 'we had to say no to keep other pubs from doing the same' kind of publicly acknowledges the position of publishers to en masse pull the rug.

Not acknowledging this publicly doesn't make it any less possible, but I don't think it's something they want to discuss like that.

Plus what they've said is the more PR-friendly spin of the two - making it about customer value and a philosophical thing about having all pubs under one roof/pricetag being better for the customer vs a fractured landscape. It's a bit more PR friendly than saying 'we view this as a threat to our existing business'.

edit - btw, sorry i'm lttp on this, but has EA said what their future is on PS+? They were a fairly regular participant in the past AFAIK, and from an early stage. I guess it whetted their appetite for their own EA-exclusive version. If EA isn't pulling out of PS+, Sony really has no incentive to change their mind on individual-publisher plans.

 

[And_Gignac]

Meh, if EA's vault is a success, Ubisoft and Activision may follow suit and Sony will have to concede.

Unless greed push them to believe their customers are unable to choose for themselves like thinking adults.

 

[YeSp]

Terrible anaology. Let me ask you rhis, how would you feel if instead of Netflix, each studio had their own service you had to subscribe to? Would you like that?

Exactly ... I dont mind subscription services for media but I dont have/want multiple subscription services for the same type of media content. It will cost the consumer more money for hopefully the same value and makes things more complicated.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

It's a service that Sony as a company don't offer..?

You can use it without actually paying for PS+..?

It's still a choice for some who would be paying for 2 subs no?

People can still buy EA games without Access. You know that right?

 

[foamdino]

So EA are trying to mix steam+sub model for consoles.

Well good luck to them - the last EA game I enjoyed was when Westwood still made RTS games, they are irrelevant to me these days. Now the only 'innovation' EA does is in business practices.

Sony should have given gamers the choice, but I completely understand why they didn't want an alternative marketplace running on their box.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

The big pubs wont abandon ps+ as long as they are getting payed.

If Microsoft is paying EA enough and it's a success on Xbox One, they won't need anyone else.

 

[Banjo-Kazooie]

Terrible anaology. Let me ask you rhis, how would you feel if instead of Netflix, each studio had their own service you had to subscribe to? Would you like that?

If I had the choice of only subscribing to certain TV channels I wanted to watch instead of having to buy a cable package...yes, I would greatly enjoy that.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

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.

Yeah but you can't compare companies on equal terms, even if that is what people are doing here.

EA was voted worst company in America for the last two years, which kind of skews anyone's opinions of their services. So I don't blame anyone for being sceptical at all, really.

 

[Brad Grenz]

But it's not good is it? If you are a Playstation owner who regularly buys Madden, FIFA or Battlefield, it's a pretty good deal. And you won't be getting it.

It's only 'a bad thing for gamers' if you believe in a future that hasn't happened yet, and may not happen at all.

If you buy those games every year all you're paying for is a 10% off coupon for this fall, in which case it's still a bad deal.

 

[Description]

Because it would be. As I said, Sony may be lolming out for their bottom line but that doesn't mean this isn't a good move.

Why would this be bad for gamers in the long term?

What I don't understand is why this "EA Access" subscription would be any more likely to lead to anti-consumer policies.

EA/Ubi could do that now with a secondary subscription. When logging into a game you must log into their service (Origin, Uplay, etc.) to allow you to download exclusive content, play online, etc. right? There have been/are MMOs on consoles that require additional fees.

I don't see why this service for downloading old games, or getting special discounts, etc. would make this any more likely to come into fruition. I feel like the publishers would be doing that now if they knew there wouldn't be a huge backlash.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

This is next gen only, 2 games per month to compare fairly.

Also who says its 4 games per year, total FUD.

You are the second person to say this, but it doesn't matter, because the service has you pay for all the games, not just to two you can play, or for the system you own. Service to service, PS+ is dramatically better value. I don't see any valid argument at this time that can show otherwise. Down the years, this may not be true, granted, but now it certainly is.

 

[Spades]

Seriously, this whole "slippery slope" reasoning has got to stop. It's been 3 years and the service has improved, not got worse. So unless we have real reason to believe it's going to get worse, can we remove this as a reason why EA Access is a bad thing?

 

[nycgamer4ever]

Thanks for deciding for me Sony. I couldn't have dealt with that decision myself.



Wow, that's a big number. I wonder why? Now that it's mandatory for basic functionality of a gaming console might have something to do with it.

Actually you still have a choice. Get an Xbox One.

 

[Dragonborn]

You might want to also add into that question "and each studio charged less than $3 a month".

I'm sure you realize that if each studio charged 3 bucks it'd quickly add up to more than what we pay for Netflix, right?

 

[benicillin]

I think we need to see EAs service in action before anyone can say if it is a good deal or not. Yeah they're putting their best foot forward out of the gate, but who knows how often they'll add games to their Vault. At least with other subscription services like PS+ you at least know what schedule you're getting games on - 2 a month on each platform. The EA plan, as far as I've seen, just says that "we'll add games when we add them" and to start saving money from the 10% rebate on new games you'd have to purchase about 6 full priced retail titles from EA.

Especially on consoles I just don't think EA has the catalog to support such a service if you're not into sports titles, unless they suddenly start annualizing every single franchise they have.

 

[Nerokis]

Terrible anaology. Let me ask you rhis, how would you feel if instead of Netflix, each studio had their own service you had to subscribe to? Would you like that?

How would you feel if instead of paying for a Time Warner Cable package, you could simply subscribe to whatever individual channels you liked?

Which scenario do you think is more viable: Netflix crumbles as every single studio develops their own service, or PS Plus crumbles as every single publisher develops their own service?

In the unlikely scenario that every publisher (or big publisher, at least) develops their own service, would this actually be an inherently nefarious thing? Why?

 

[teiresias]

Very odd for them to offer any "response" to this sort of thing anyway, though I can see why they want to push against the idea of individual publishers each setting up their own digital distribution system on the consoles - and I'm not sure such a marketplace is really the best for gamers either.

MS's sales are in a position where they have to take what they can get, but I'm surprised even they went for this since Live and sales through it are such an integral part to the monetization strategy of their console business.

In any case EA isn't a publisher I'm interested in dealing with at a business level if I can help it, so this doesn't really affect me, but if other publishers jump on board I'll certainly have to decide if going PC-exclusive and avoiding a bloated console digital distribution experience is in the cards for me.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

If I had the choice of only subscribing to certain TV channels I wanted to watch instead of having to buy a cable package...yes, I would greatly enjoy that.

Not gonna lie, I would love that right now, but since it's more of IP owners such as Viacom showing they can do that, I don't think it's oh so great. Viacom straight up threatened Time Warner to pay more for their content by pulling away their channels from paying customers. That's a shady underhanded tactic.

 

[Xando]

If Microsoft is paying EA enough and it's a success on Xbox One, they won't need anyone else.

They always will take additional money.
You really think that if EA access is succesfull on XB1 they stop saying yes to sonys money?

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

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!

And in the months where you don't have time or money to play games, it costs you $0. And in months where nothing but shit has been released, it costs you $0.

But if you're subscribed to these services, you get to pay them to choke on whatever shitty old games they want to shove down your throat, on top of the fee you pay to connect to Xbox Live.

The fact that MS actually went for this and are now touting it as some brilliant future for gaming is the last fucking straw for me. I'm putting my Xbone on eBay. I'm firmly in the Sony camp now.

 

[Hendrick's]

This really is a bummer for PS4 owners. It seems like an awesome service. I wonder if Sony will block similar things down the road.

I hope so. Being the market leader this gen, perhaps that will dissuade other publishers from trying to further segregate content behind subscription services. Screams as the next DLC like monetization tactic to nickle and dime us to death.

 

[BruiserBear]

I'm sure you realize that if each studio charged 3 bucks it'd quickly add up to more than what we pay for Netflix, right?

Yes, and I'd also realize that it's still an optional subscription. No one stops us from buying Blurays or DVDs these days. Noe one is going to break apart the game buying model we have now.

There is no rational way to argue these subscription models are bad for consumers. Just like no one argues Netflix is awful, or Hulu is awful, etc.

This is one of the more embarrassing threads I've seen on this forum in a while.

 

[Jeronimo Jones]

First, I'm not seeing a value for me in EA Access, I buy maybe one EA Sports game a year at launch, Madden. I don't think I'm touching BF5 until a while after its launch, if at all. Until EA Access includes the year's new Madden/other games or at least a significant discount (I doubt it'll ever happen), I'm out.

For comparison I'll have to see how this is better than the Season Pass thing they had. It seems similar and I wasn't interested in that either.

Second, I'm not looking to increase my number of subscriptions, especially one from each big publisher as they try to figure a way to squeeze more money out of players. Sounds like more nickel and diming that only benefits them.

Third, I generally like and prefer to make my own decisions, but this was a no-go for Sony for multiple reasons. I'd hate for this to have happened with something I actually was interested in, but it is Sony's right to choose which services it allows on it's platform for customers.

 

[Dragonborn]

But it's not good is it? If you are a Playstation owner who regularly buys Madden, FIFA or Battlefield, it's a pretty good deal. And you won't be getting it.

It's only 'a bad thing for gamers' if you believe in a future that hasn't happened yet, and may not happen at all.

You can still buy the games. If you're just looking out for the discount, wait for a sale on a GCU sub and get that instead.

 

[gamechanger87]

I still think subsidizing the service was probably as big a reason as competing with their offerings. The statement sounds to me like they evaluated the proposal, negotiated a potential deal and were unwilling to match Microsoft on subsidy and were also (smartly) unwilling to charge more for the service on Sony platforms. That would be a marketing nightmare.

I do not think there is a subsidy from MS. MS processes the payments takes a cut and sends it on to EA whom tells them what games to put in the vault and who have access. All MS needs to do is correctly license the software out as you download it from their store via the app. MS has no need to pay EA for this service.

 

[Gestault]

Terrible anaology. Let me ask you rhis, how would you feel if instead of Netflix, each studio had their own service you had to subscribe to? Would you like that?

More than one streaming service exists on the same devices. Hulu Plus, Vudu, Amazon Instant and Crackle (noted partly because it's owned by Sony and distributes content licensed through Sony itself) demonstrates that the effect of this is a landscape with options that are manifestly positive, as each service has to tailor to attract a different kind of customer. They offer slightly different things on terms each production house is comfortable with.

Maybe you just chose a poor analogy, but you seem to misunderstand the market you're using for comparison.

 

[Redlight]

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

I'll just start by noting that my reply is very specific to the post I quoted. I currently spend much more than $60 a month on gaming so the bleak new future suggested in that post really doesn't seem like such a bad result.

No one is suggesting that you can't buy these titles in the same way you always have, they're still available in the Playstation and MS stores as well as physically.

Give me the choice thanks, I'll decide for myself what represents good value.

 

[Papercuts]

Thanks for doing that, I really hate options.

 

[DarthWalden]

Terrible anaology. Let me ask you rhis, how would you feel if instead of Netflix, each studio had their own service you had to subscribe to? Would you like that?

It depends on the price and value that I'm getting

I would love the option to pay a cheapish subscription to get streaming access to the Disney vault for my kids.

Also there is no equivalent of Netflix on consoles so this isn't really a valid comparispn

 

[Corto]

It is not clear, but it could be. Your origin account ties to your "GT" at each console. As EA would be controlling who gets access, they should be able to dictate who gets what.

Yes. But my EA PC games or their DLC won't magically appear on my PSN account. There's no precedent to believe EA or any other publisher (besides Valve ie. Portal 2) would be platform agnostic with its content.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

Yeah but you can't compare companies on equal terms, even if that is what people are doing here.

EA was voted worst company in America for the last two years, which kind of skews anyone's opinions of their services. So I don't blame anyone for being sceptical at all, really.

Whether it's EA or Activision is irrelevant. The issue at hand is the subscription service model.

To simply say 'EA can go fuck themselves' is missing the point, and not addressing the wider issue.

They always will take additional money.
You really think that if EA access is succesfull on XB1 they stop saying yes to sonys money?

Not if Sony are insisting on their own terms, which is clearly what has happened.

 

[Chobel]

If Microsoft is paying EA enough and it's a success on Xbox One, they won't need anyone else.

EA getting payed enough? EA? Haha! Really good joke.

You know EA love the money, right?

 

[NolbertoS]

I already see a war brewing between Sony and EA. There always something in the backroom that goes on yhat we don't know about. How do wr know MS is taking a big cut from its XB gold subscription by letting EA piggy back off theirs. There's alot of negotiations going on. Sony may feel hurt like a wounded animal that they had to release thr PR immediately, downgrading this or they're being honest with gamers and saying there services on PS plus was adding competition. MS had nothing to lose signing there life away with the EA devil, the Xbox One is getting rocked worldwide, so hope this subscription pays off. They signed the deal hoping gamers would get enticed to sign up, only time will tell and this EA we're talking about. They are going to jack up the monthly and yearly subscription claiming that they offer more value for the buck and justify this.

 

[Green Yoshi]

Why there is no EA Access for Origin?

Perhaps Sony is still pissed about the Titanfall deal.

 

[Kogepan]

Payback for Titanfall. Don't see why Sony would be doing EA any favors.

 

[Man-is-Obsolete]

Don't forget Hulu Plus, Amazon Instant, MLB.tv Premium, NBA Game Time, NHL Gamecenter, the WWE Network, and Sony's own Music Unlimited. Wouldn't want these dirty optional subscription services clouding the gamers minds!

Just so we are clear you are:

1: comparing gaming and other entertainment industries as if they have the exact same distribution models.

2: are evidently ok with download only games in the future with each publisher having their own subscription needed to play them.

Otherwise apples and oranges.

 

[Dragonborn]

More than one streaming service exists on the same devices. Hulu Plus, Vudu, Amazon Instant and Crackle (noted partly because it's owned by Sony and distributes content licensed through Sony itself) demonstrates that the effect of this is a landscape with options that are manifestly positive, as each service has to tailor to attract a different kind of customer. They offer slightly different things on terms each production house is comfortable with.

Maybe you just chose a poor analogy, but you seem to misunderstand the market you're using for comparison.

Yes, and I'd also realize that it's still an optional subscription. No one stops us from buying Blurays or DVDs these days. Noe one is going to break apart the game buying model we have now.

There is no rational way to argue these subscription models are bad for consumers. Just like no one argues Netflix is awful, or Hulu is awful, etc.

This is one of the more embarrassing threads I've seen on this forum in a while.

No one's saying netflix is bad. If EA was offering a sub that included multiple publishers, it'd be a different thing entirely

 

[Spades]

I hope so. Being the market leader this gen, perhaps that will dissuade other publishers from trying to further segregate content behind subscription services. Screams as the next DLC like monetization tactic to nickle and dime us to death.

Maybe Sony should prevent certain games from being released on their platform also seeing as they know what PlayStation gamers want more than PlayStation gamers?

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

Whether it's EA or Activision is irrelevant. The issue at hand is the subscription service model.

To simply say 'EA can go fuck themselves' is missing the point, and not addressing the wider issue.

What's the point?

 

[deriks]

I'm ok with that, but it's a matter of time that other publishers will do the same thing, and then I will care who will have who

 

[striferser]

Well, Sony probably should said that EA don't give good offer to them rather than for the gamers Sony block EA since they don't want same service on one console.

 

[Dragonborn]

Maybe Sony should prevent certain games from being released on their platform also seeing as they know what PlayStation gamers want more than PlayStation gamers?

Why would they ever do that?

 

[gamechanger87]

I hope so. Being the market leader this gen, perhaps that will dissuade other publishers from trying to further segregate content behind subscription services. Screams as the next DLC like monetization tactic to nickle and dime us to death.

There is no segregation of content. You either pay and get this stuff or you don't. You can still buy the games other ways.

Sony may stand up "For the Gamerz" and say no, but if the big publishers all want this service expect it to show up on the XBO fairly soon. I have a feeling if Ubi or Activision weren't already discussing this they are now.

 

[clockpunk]

Bwahahaha, what bitter, sour grapes from Sony.

I worry that they do seem to becoming full of themselves once again...

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Just for the record, using other streaming services as a comparison doesn't work. Netflix and Hulu, nor Spotify or any of those services are exclusive to platforms nor created in bed with another platform . Is that concept hard to believe?

 

[GeordieMark]

If you buy those games every year all you're paying for is a 10% off coupon for this fall, in which case it's still a bad deal.

Plus a bunch of other free games and early access.

Regardless, wouldn't it be nice to have the option?

 

[Redlight]

And in the months where you don't have time or money to play games, it costs you $0. And in months where nothing but shit has been released, it costs you $0.

But if you're subscribed to these services, you get to pay them to choke on whatever shitty old games they want to shove down your throat, on top of the fee you pay to connect to Xbox Live.

The fact that MS actually went for this and are now touting it as some brilliant future for gaming is the last fucking straw for me. I'm putting my Xbone on eBay. I'm firmly in the Sony camp now.

Or you can opt in and out of your membership month by month as it suits. I'm sorry, but I don't see how having more options about how I choose to consume games is 'evil'.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Because most big developers have done such a fantastic job of broadening the appeal of gaming over the past decade?

Jog on what that bullshit.

The broadening has and will continue to come from indies. This business model makes perfect sense for big developers/publishers. It allows them to appeal to a larger audience who might otherwise not buy their games and it benefits gamers to a pool of potentially dozens of games for a low price.

It's entirely possible EA might pull a bait and switch and when that happens, the service will rightly collapse as people abandon ship, but the idea that those who support it in its current form or those who like it are corporate ball washers is moronic and worthy of ridicule.

Why would people abandon ship? Sony just showed that they had a 200% rise in membership when they jumped from PS3 to PS4, which also happened to coincide with them adding an online multiplayer paywall.

This is how it will go down.

2014 - EA Access launches with a few games in the vault and a discount on other EA digital purchases.
2015 - They add one month of timed exclusivity for all DLC for subscribers, they say the DLC is going to be released a month earlier for them rather than delaying DLC for non-subscribers. Exclusive access to all EA beta programmes is added.
2016 - EA add elongated online game support for subscribers, instead of servers closing two years after release, subscribers can continue to play online for four years.
2017 - online support for games is cut from two years to a year.
2018 - Madden requires EA Access to play online. You also need XBLG/PS+.
2019 - All EA games require it to play online.

Where in that incremental addition of "services", which is what they will call it, would people unsubscribe. They didn't do it for PS+ so why would that change? It's wishful thinking to believe that a similar blue print doesn't exist at EA's headquarters and that people won't lap it up like they did for PS+. Don't forget that EA has a monopoly on NFL and a virtual monopoly on football games given that PES is a pile of wank. Their games aren't optional for a lot of people and EA know it.

If you are naive enough to believe that the service currently on offer is the only thing that will ever be on offer then that's up to you. I remain extremely sceptical.

Also the failure to broaden the appeal of gaming is why current gen consoles will be the worst selling since the 4th generation. Rather than better monetising fewer users publishers should have concentrated on broadening the base. My gf is absolutely anti-games, especially shootbang ones, but she sat there in the evenings and watched me play TLOU, and even had a go at some of the easier parts. I showed her a clip of Splatoon and she immediately wanted to play it because "it looks fun".

The likes of EA, Activision, Ubisoft and others have failed to broaden the base and now they will all want us to pay them separate subscription fees. Pardon me if I don't welcome this development with open arms.

Also, don't think I'm defending Sony here or something stupid like that, it is very clear that they have rejected this to protect PS+. In doing so they have, IMO, accidentally protected the consumer's long term interest.

 

[Handy Fake]

It's still a choice for some who would be paying for 2 subs no?

People can still buy EA games without Access. You know that right?

My point being regarding Netflix is that it's a service Sony don't provide. It allows you to watch online movies. By your reasoning, you can still buy films without it.

Anyway, we're getting dragged away from the main point.


By the way, you're not the cricketer, are you?

 

[SmokedMeat]

People can still buy EA games without Access. You know that right?

Until we get the inevitable subscriber exclusives.