I don't think it's a good practice in the industry right now, all digital, subscription, EA, etc. It could change for Sony, but right now I feel that they don't want to be associated with this kind of practice.
Personnaly, I don't like it.
Sony's response to EA Access Subscription plan
- Thread starter RexNovis
- Start date
- Status
I don't think it's a good practice in the industry right now, all digital, subscription, EA, etc. It could change for Sony, but right now I feel that they don't want to be associated with this kind of practice.
Personnaly, I don't like it.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Yeah, not the best analogy to make.
My bad.
Definitely. This entirely depends on if Access if a success on X1 though and how far EA is willing to go to make it a success.
The price is right, now it comes down to the Vault and how regularly EA add new games.
perfectsil
Member
you think Sony is going to pay EA $30/year for putting Madden , Fifa and Battlefield on ps+? of course not.
3rdamention
Member
Those are good points. I really like that you brought up PSNow. One good that could come out of this is that it could provide a small competition for PSNow, and hopefully drive down the prices, or open up an annual subscription option to all the games on the service. Gamers win.
I could really see Sony seriously looking at their pricing structure for PSNow, since we now have a similar service that provides a vault of games for an affordable annual fee. I know Sony will not beat the EA Sub Service in Price, but they definitely have them beat on the quantity of titles they can offer. So hopefully, Sony offers an competitive annual price for full access to PSNow titles, in the very near future.
If Sony does offer a competitive annual PSNow price for full access, then it would make sense for them to not be very interested in the EA Sub Service. It sucks for us as gamers, I agree with everyone on that, not giving us a choice. But you could see Sony looking at it as a competitor's service, and they aren't ready to get in bed with that service at this moment when they are trying to launch their own service.
Thank God Microsoft and EA are here to save the day?
I woke up this morning in Bizarro World!
What kind of practice? The practice of charging money for a service that gives you some free games, discounts on other games, and various other perks? I think Sony has a bunch of experience in this regard...
Fragmenting a convenient per platform universal subscription service with a single fee/payment including software from all publishers to a per publisher subscription model adding up each services fees for a higher final price is indeed anti consumer. You don't agree?
Quadraphonic
Member
That's the issue.
One publisher does it and it's fine.
But that's not how things work. Other ones will follow. You can slowly this becoming a clusterfuck and that's why Sony chose to kill it.
TheKastorian
Member
Great post.
And actually, it all makes sense now. Don't support this model, people! It doesn't have to do with console preference or not. When every major publisher jumps into this model, we're screwed.
Battlefield 3 was on PS+. I do wonder how much Sony paid EA for that. Maybe EA thought they got the low end of the stick.
Thanks, Sony! I LOVE not having options and REALLY LOVE that you're making decisions for me... /s
You know.. This is what people talk about when they say Microsoft can't in no way drop out of the industry. Sony monopoly would fuck up everything, even worse then they were with the PS3 around 2005-07.
You know.. This is what people talk about when they say Microsoft can't in no way drop out of the industry. Sony monopoly would fuck up everything, even worse then they were with the PS3 around 2005-07.
And the issue with this would be what? (without knowing the prices and details)
Right. That's what we're saying. Let's have every publisher do this. Thus begins the dystopian future of gaming. Stop it, be real. Who other than EA produce enough games to support a service? Pretty much just Ubisoft.
What is the downside to options? Sony have the gall to call this bad value? Fuck you, Sony. Maybe their service appeals more than two indie games a month? No, Sony just don't want people stepping in their turf.
This is anti-consumer, inherently. A forced restriction of choice means that there will be people who are denied the option they'd prefer.
What a shitty move, Sony.
Killing_Joke
Member
After thinking about it I'm glad they did it. It sounds neat but this is just another Origin. They'll slowly stop supporting PS+/Games with Gold to encourage people to get the service. I'll rather they just continue a partnership with PS+. If you're a core EA gamer i can see why this would suck though.
Not saying i'm glad they made the decision for me. But i understand the business thought they went through to reject the idea. It's like why HBOGO won't go solo. We want it and would love it but it would hurt the business. So it will never happen.
Not saying i'm glad they made the decision for me. But i understand the business thought they went through to reject the idea. It's like why HBOGO won't go solo. We want it and would love it but it would hurt the business. So it will never happen.
No I do not agree. I like PS+ as a service, but I do not get a choice in the deals that are provided, nor do I have any input of the game selection offered to me. Sony is blocking a service that might solve that need for some people...this is anti consumer.
CosmicQueso
Member
No, I do not agree. At all.
The additional fee is for additional goods and services. Goods and services I should have the right to choose whether or not I want to purchase if a company wants to offer those goods and services.
I do not agree that a single service that allows for zero competition from competitors is a good practice or pro consumer.
I do not trust any corporation to put my interests as a consumer above their own interests to achieve their profit targets.
I do not agree that the PS+ offerings are all I ever want to have the option to experience.
So I completely disagree with this being anti-consumer. More options and more competition is always more pro-consumer.
Mihalis0013
Neo Member
Ok fair point, but again, that's where the choice part comes in right? If Sony adds this and consumers do not buy in, we made a choice.
I understand the concerns but again I don't understand why people will be glad the choice is taken away from them.
Also, isn't Sony charging for PS+ and going to be charging a separate subscription fee for PS Now? I just wonder why it's ok for Sony to double dip but not the publishers.
For the record, I also have an Xbox One and do not currently plan to jump in the EA Program.
i was making fun of the people calling sony anti-consumer for denying a service we still dont know how it exactly works. This is EA we are talking about, there has to be a
You're asking what other publisher could put out enough games for this?
Ubisoft, Activision, even smaller companies could jump in on this. It doesn't have to strictly be $30/year. They could easily go for $15-20/year if they don't have as many games coming out as other publishers.
PJV3
Member
To be super choice-y each publisher should launch a console as well.
benicillin
Banned
I think it's fair to say that even EA doesn't produce enough games to support the service. They've got 5 games announced with a hard release date. Another 6 or 7 TBD. And none of them would be free on launch, I'd imagine. You'd need to buy 6 games to even start saving money after paying 30 for the year.
Sony was the first to introduce the Online pass and it failed on it's own merits without them holding our hands to protect us from having to choose for ourselves
CosmicQueso
Member
And rather than participate, you could continue to buy the games you wanted, either on a disc or digitally, and then this service does no harm to you at all. In fact, it provides a competitive force that would encourage Sony to continue making PS+ an appealing option for consumers.
Agreed 100%
Right... Sony is just protecting the subscription services they want to release, and do so to a captive audience with limited options.
I get access to 24 games a year on the PS4 alone for 50 dollars a year.
Another 24 on my PS3
Another 24 on my Vita
All for 50 dollars a year.
Arrogant wut?
I'll accept Ubisoft. Activision? Right, they don't provide season passes and other consumer options.
And any offering would obviously be bad value.
What?
LittleJohnny
Banned
That's actually a good thing. It's like bitching you only want one cable service provider.
If Activision wants in, they'll have to provide better value by maybe offering more games or making it cheaper, then EA will be like Oh yea? we're giving away a free game every month to keep... and so on.
A list of services may seem like clutter, but you get to choose what you want and that forces companies to offer better value to attract gamers to subscribe. Having just one service though Sony means they control all the content and pricing.
Yup, you said it, they have enough experience in that. And with the PS Now coming, maybe they think they have enough subscriptions to the platform?
Mihalis0013
Neo Member
I don't feel "substantially deprived". I am simply saying that I would rather have more services available and choose which ones I like and don't like. That's all.
I am glad Sony is doing PlayStation Now. As of this moment in time I will not be subscribing when it comes out. Down the road that may change, who knows?
Put it to you this way, I won't be selling my Playstation 4 in some kind of protest.
Very well, let the publishers have a go at it. I don't buy enough EA and Activision games to worth it for me, but I would have an interest in an Ubisoft subscription with the right prices. What's wrong with that?
Quadraphonic
Member
'Competing' over games you never own.
Dreamgazer
Member
Well, IMO, it's kinda silly to equate the EA sub service to PSnow.
PSnow is for PS3/PSN titles while the EA sub service is going to be for current gen XB1 games. One could argue that EA's sub will be more appealing to new console buyers as the vault builds value.
PSnow is going to have a much higher maint cost, since it'll need 24/7 PS3 streaming servers. While EA's sub can be run on server just fine (it's just distribution of files + license.) In that sense, it's unlikely for Sony to ever get PSnow to a comparable, competitive price point.
FinalStageBoss
Banned
And nothing of value was lost
You would still have that with the EA service being available but you have the option now of adding even more games
But PS Now is for older titles right? Has sony said they are going to put PS4 titles on PS Now?
Right. But for people who, perhaps, just have or play a PS4 EA's service is unacceptable value. Unacceptable, according to Sony, who just want to protect us.
Consumers, ideally, would have the option. It's that simple.
Yes, that's fine for them, but why is this good for the consumer?
perfectsil
Member
that would be great, each of these subscriptions would survive only if consumers find value in them.
Hydrargyrus
Member
Sony responds EA access...
...with the worst PSN+ month of all times
...with the worst PSN+ month of all times
CosmicQueso
Member
It is already the best of all possible worlds apparently.
Exactly and they would be competing with each other's service to draw more people in
I just think the main fear is that they could easily just end up using this service as a way to lock you out of additional content if you aren't subscribed to the service. It could easily turn into this generation's platform/retailer exclusive DLC.
JayhawkerStL
Banned
I'm confused why Sony would consider EA Access competition for PS+. Had this happened last gen, it would make sense. But Sony successfully launched PS+ last gen in a way that made it easy to sell as a required service for online play this generation. Not charging for PSN was a bad move for Sony because it left a lot of money on the table.
Of course, now they can't go back, which was good for MS users, because it forced MS to create GWG.
So how come Microsoft can allow this without it being seen as competition for GWG, but people want to assume that it would compete with PS+.
Of course, now they can't go back, which was good for MS users, because it forced MS to create GWG.
So how come Microsoft can allow this without it being seen as competition for GWG, but people want to assume that it would compete with PS+.
CosmicQueso
Member
So we don't like this idea because FUD. Perfect.
LittleJohnny
Banned
Beaten.
Also, their comment is arrogant, just because they have a service with pretty good value, doesn't cancel out what they just said. I would like to add the option of getting EA service in addition, but they removed that choice for me.
Damn just getting back to this...
Okay, so you just made my point...
Horse armor was a terrible option... Even Bethesda knowns they released some vile shit. Look, it opened the doors to pubs who would find it more profitable to hold back content that would otherwise be in the game upon release so as to make more money on the back end off of the ignorance of consumers. And those people who bought that DLC set an absolutely horrible precedent, and you are blind if you can't see that. Quit it with the console wars bullshit... I'm sick and tired of EA! If you want to keep fucking that chicken, be my guest... but to say that you're actions will not have a reaction that will eventually affect me, even though I want no part of it, would simply be an understatement. I never wanted any shitty horse armor, but now almost every game released today gimped because they lock everything behind DLC. And I'm the unreasonable one?
- Status