Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 47027]

So, you aren't interested in having an adult discussion about this then. Gotcha.

Look, you didn't want to answer the question, instead you wanted to cry about something else. "I can't make decisions! It doesn't fit my needs and I have a weird problem with it, that means nobody else should see if it fits theirs!" Come on now.

 

[Chris1]

Did the interviewer even know it was Sony that turned it down? seems like he was fishing for answers that weren't there.

What he really should have been asking is why it isn't on PC, I get that the console version is partly to help combat used games but PC has piracy to deal with aswell, so it doesn't make much sense for it not to be on there.

 

[TBiddy]

The 10 hour preview is probably the biggest marketing point of EA Access. Regardless of other things included, you are still paying to access a demo. Something that used to be fairly standard and free.

Yes, it is mostly older games but that doesn't change the fact that these games get devalued in a really weird way. Instead of pricing the actual games in accordance with their actual value, we see games staying at the same price for far longer than they should be. There is still the issue of losing access.

I dont view a 10 hour preview as a demo. In my eyes, a demo is a limited preview of a game (like, the first level or something like that).

You can lose access to EA Access, if you stop paying or they close the service. I don't see how that changes things. Lets say I use EA Access for three years and then cancel my subscription.

That's ~90USD for three years unlimited gaming of some pretty great titles (matter of taste, obviously). For a guy like me, that primarily plays sports-games and LOVES Peggle, there's no way around EA Access.

I frankly don't understand why EA Access needs to exist outside of purely for profit. Thus it's anti-consumer.

By that logic, all companies are anti-consumer.

 

[Synth]

Unless all EA games stop appearing from PS+ ever and get no more PS+ discounts... which would happen for sure and then see every big publisher having the same program on every console.... and PC.

a) EA's games hit Deals With Gold all the time.
b) PS4 hasn't received any EA games via PS+ anyway.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

Did the interviewer even know it was Sony that turned it down? seems like he was fishing for answers that weren't there.

What he really should have been asking is why it isn't on PC, I get that the console version is partly to help combat used games but PC has piracy to deal with aswell, so it doesn't make much sense for it not to be on there.

It sounds like the interviewer had no idea and Peter couldn't get his point across to this person, no matter what.

 

[TheKeyPit]

Let's ask something : every owner of Xbox One here who didn't suscribe to EA Access, can you come forward and explain why ?

Let me tell you why I only have subscribed two times so far for only a month each time:

First time: Paying 3,99€ to play Battlefield 4(Story + Multiplayer = value redeemed after lots of hours), Peggle, FIFA(Career + Multiplayer = value redeemed again).

Second time: Paying 3,99€ to play UFC( again lots of hours) and Battlefield(Multiplayer) again. I had lots of fun for 7,98€.

I'm going to subscribe for another month in the near future to play Dragon Age, Plants vs Zombies and FIFA for just 3,99€.

I dont view a 10 hour preview as a demo. In my eyes, a demo is a limited preview of a game (like, the first level or something like that).

Another difference between a demo and the preview: You can earn achievements during that 10 hours.

 

[ohImlaughin]

Classic response by Peter Moore. Interviewer completely clueless to the history of what he was asking. No value my arse

 

[gogogow]

Unless all EA games stop appearing from PS+ ever and get no more PS+ discounts... which would happen for sure and then see every big publisher having the same program on every console.... and PC.

Like the big publishers aren't going in that direction already on the PC. EA with Origin, Ubisoft with UPlay. Only Activision is staying with Steam for their non-Blizzard games, otherwise they have their own Battle.net store. First they create their own storefront and it won't surprise me if they offer subscription based services next. Let's be real, all media/entertainment are going to become services. Music, movies/tv-series already have very popular subscription based services. With games it's gonna take a lot longer before everyone are onboard the subscription train, but ironically it was Sony who started it with PS+ and PSNow. Then Xbox with GwG and most recent, EA with EA Access.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

I dont view a 10 hour preview as a demo. In my eyes, a demo is a limited preview of a game (like, the first level or something like that).

You can lose access to EA Access, if you stop paying or they close the service. I don't see how that changes things. Lets say I use EA Access for three years and then cancel my subscription.

That's ~90USD for three years unlimited gaming of some pretty great titles (matter of taste, obviously). For a guy like me, that primarily plays sports-games and LOVES Peggle, there's no way around EA Access.



By that logic, all companies are anti-consumer.

Companies who take preexisting things such as free demos and games decreasing in price proportionally to demand and age and putting them behind a paywall are anti-consumer.

PS+ being required for online play is anti-consumer, but it backs you into a corner. Paying for mods is anti-consumer. Having Netflix behind XBLGold was anti-consumer.

All companies do things that are anti-consumer but that doesn't mean you shouldn't speak against it, even if you indulge in it.

 

[FordGTGuy]

EA still not acting in the best interest of consumers, but rather indulge in corporate mingling and general bullshittery. No lessons learned yet, let's see how long it will take.

Every company does this.

 

[Neuromancer]

Why would what Sony wants ever matter to the end consumer? Unless you're an investor in Sony this should strike you as an overt anti-consumer move only perpetrated to protect corporate interests.

Because in this case, what they want lines up with what I want. I'd rather have EA games as part of the subscription I already pay for. Having EA Access on PS4 basically means that won't happen.

 

[JoJo UK]

I think it's pretty clear EA was in bed with MS from before the gen started with Titanfall and all.

That franchise never really took off thanks to that decision for one.

Perfect example of a tinfoil hat post.

Do your research, Titanfall was going to be canned if it weren't for MS.

Plus, Sony actually declined that too... making the whole point kinda hilarious.

I take it you guys also both read Titanfal the Final Hours? sogood.gif

Because in this case, what they want lines up with what I want. I'd rather have EA games as part of the subscription I already pay for. Having EA Access on PS4 basically means that won't happen.

EA games still hits deal with gold outside of EA Access, why do you think it would work differently on PS4?

 

[Grimgrillz]

You mean the chump change they pay the bluray association in which there are 20 companies that include Microsoft?

No I mean the Royalty money he has to pay Sony when they gobble up and consume 65% of their next ip software sales in NA and 70% - "frequently" 90% everything outside of NA.

Clearer now?

 

[Torment]

Sony dismissed it, not Moore's fault in the least. I love it, greatest gaming related service in a long time.

 

[Synth]

No I mean the Royalty money he has to pay Sony when they gobble up and consume 65% of their next ip software sales in NA and 70% - "frequently" 90% everything outside of NA.

Clearer now?

Not really... no...

 

[Torment]

Plus, Sony actually declined that too... making the whole point kinda hilarious.

Sony wanted it on Vita and Respawn wanted to make a AAA console game, I think they did the right thing going to MS to fund it.

 

[sangreal]

Not really... no...

I think he is trying to say Peter Moore hates paying royalties to Sony

Phil and Peter were part of a round table at e3 where Moore discussed Sony killing the dreamcast . I think that is what he is referring to

 

[Neuromancer]

EA games still hits deal with gold outside of EA Access, why do you think it would work differently on PS4?

Like what, out of curiosity? I don't think the PS4 has gotten any in a long while.

 

[TBiddy]

Companies who take preexisting things such as free demos and games decreasing in price proportionally to demand and age and putting them behind a paywall are anti-consumer.

PS+ being required for online play is anti-consumer, but it backs you into a corner. Paying for mods is anti-consumer. Having Netflix behind XBLGold was anti-consumer.

All companies do things that are anti-consumer but that doesn't mean you shouldn't speak against it, even if you indulge in it.

But the games aren't behind a paywall. You can go buy any of the games in the vault, right now, if you wish.

There are no demos in EA Access. There are timed trials - there's a major difference. You can use your 10 hour trial to get a head-start, since all progress are carried over, if you wish. Demos do not provide that.

I don't see EA Access as particularely anti-consumer. It's a great offering, if you like the games.

 

[JoJo UK]

Like what, out of curiosity? I don't think we PS4 has gotten any in a long while.

Was UFC and NHL not on deals with gold a few months ago? I'm not 100% about any FIFA games (I think there might have been)?

 

[CosmicQueso]

But the games aren't behind a paywall. You can go buy any of the games in the vault, right now, if you wish.

There are no demos in EA Access. There are timed trials - there's a major difference. You can use your 10 hour trial to get a head-start, since all progress are carried over, if you wish. Demos do not provide that.

I don't see EA Access as particularely anti-consumer. It's a great offering, if you like the games.

Agreed.

I'm not sure if it's just poor communication on EA's part about the service, but people still have a lot of misconceptions, uncertainty and doubt about what EA Access is.

 

[The_Dama]

EA Access is the greatest thing ever. It being not on PS4 is a big loss for Sony.

 

[Mob_zter]

EA Access is the greatest thing ever. It being not on PS4 is a big loss for Sony.

its actually a Big loss for PS4 gamers

 

[Neuromancer]

Was UFC and NHL not on deals with gold a few months ago? I'm not 100% about any FIFA games (I think there might have been)?

Oh deals with gold, I misread that as Games with Gold (the 'free' ones). I don't really care about that. I'm sure EA games are on sale on all the systems.

 

[KORNdoggy]

Even if sony turned them down it's still quite a childish response for someone so high up in the company. I'd expect that from some random EA employee on twitter not peter moore. lol

 

[travisbickle]

I'm in the camp that believes there's a rivalry or at least poor relationship between Sony and MS at the top. EA threw a load of content at MS for the start of the gen, managed to be the only publisher to consistently provide graphical parity, and this year's highlight for the vault will be Titanfall, a game they didn't release for Playstation.

 

[Chris1]

managed to be the only publisher to consistently provide graphical parity

XB1 BF4 720/60
PS4 BF4 900/60

XB1 BFH 720/60
PS4 BFH 900/60

XB1 DA:I 900/30
PS4 DA:I 1080/30

XB1 PVZ 900/60
PS4 PVZ 1080/60

.. Pretty much every game except sports have a graphical advantage on PS4.

and this year's highlight for the vault will be Titanfall, a game they didn't release for Playstation.

So EA should have just said "Nah piss off Respawn" when Respawn asked for Titanfall to be added to the vault just incase Sony might change their opinion on the value it offers? Lol, why would they do that when adding Titanfall will add value to the service for virtually nothing? It's a win win for both Respawn and EA.

Is this a joke post or something

 

[a.wd]

I love EA access, plus P moore is a boss!

 

[CaptNink]

LOL - great interview! Attaboy, Pete!

 

[ohImlaughin]

Even if sony turned them down it's still quite a childish response for someone so high up in the company. I'd expect that from some random EA employee on twitter not peter moore. lol

What? I'd expect the interviewer to know the history. They set themselves up with that one and Peter gave a great response.

 

[EloKa]

Uhh... What? Please elaborate, as unless I'm ignorant, this is utter crap. It almost seems to me that you recognize you're unable to find fair criticism, so instead you're turning to vague
'apparent-lys' and 'mights' to obscure the reality of Access, which is that it is unmistakably a fantastic deal if EA's library interests you.

EA once wanted 100% of the Mass Effect 2 DLC revenue. Because Steam always takes their part first of the revenue EA tried to included a 3rd party payment system in the game so the money would flow under the Steam radar. It is also rumored that EA once demanded personal information like email addresses of the Steam users who bought EA games to run advertise campaigns which is also against the Steam rules.

And do you really think that there are no special deals between EA and Microsoft on the ealy access part? Like maybe all multiplayer instances of upcoming games are forced to be hosted in the azure cloud (regardless of multiplatform or not)? This isn't a bad thing for the guys who join the vault programm, but it will also affect people from other platforms by giving Microsoft a full control. (you were also a part of this thread and your guess about which game might be affected with this exclusivity was wrong)

 

[bishoptl]

EA Access is the greatest thing ever. It being not on PS4 is a big loss for Sony.

its actually a Big loss for PS4 gamers

Your concern is noted

 

[Klocker]

Haha Peter is like.... They turned us down so ...who cares.

EA Access is righteous man. Great for early buyers and even better for people that don't need to own the latest and greatest games at release.

 

[Poodle Cannon]

I get a lot of use out of it personally, I think it's pretty cool. Even just to get to play games is early is nice. Not sure why Sony didn't just let the users decide if they would use it as opposed to choosing for them.

 

[sturgboski]

Sony wanted it on Vita and Respawn wanted to make a AAA console game, I think they did the right thing going to MS to fund it.

I can't believe this at all since Sony in the west doesn't even know what the Vita is.

 

[Neuromancer]

Haha Peter is like.... They turned us down so ...who cares.

EA Access is righteous man. Great for early buyers and even better for people that don't need to own the latest and greatest games at release.

We used to get demos and we didn't have to pay for them. Serves pretty much the same function.

 

[FordGTGuy]

Agreed.

I'm not sure if it's just poor communication on EA's part about the service, but people still have a lot of misconceptions, uncertainty and doubt about what EA Access is.

Poor communication?

They've been yelling what it does constantly since it has come out, they were on stage at E3 and Gamescom with Xbox saying what it does.

 

[Mob_zter]

Your concern is noted

Thanks Brother for noting my Concern

 

[x24hrs2livex]

We used to get demos and we didn't have to pay for them. Serves pretty much the same function.

But you're not paying for a demo. You pay for access to the vault. And you get a 6-10 trial of new releases which aren't exactly demos since you earn achievements.

 

[CosmicQueso]

Poor communication?

They've been yelling what it does constantly since it has come out, they were on stage at E3 and Gamescom with Xbox saying what it does.

Then how do so many people constantly confuse what this thing is versus what they conceive it to be? I'm trying to give people that call something like this "anti-consumer" the benefit of doubt. I can only think that it is because they don't understand what it is because it hasn't been communicated effectively to them.

 

[FordGTGuy]

Then how do so many people constantly confuse what this thing is versus what they conceive it to be? I'm trying to give people that call something like this "anti-consumer" the benefit of doubt. I can only think that it is because they don't understand what it is because it hasn't been communicated effectively to them.

People refuse to listen or refuse to believe the service is as good as it is because of a bias against the company.

Happens a lot.

 

[Drek]

I can't believe this at all since Sony in the west doesn't even know what the Vita is.

It is a puff piece about the game from a single perspective that also willingly acts like MS stepping in saved the game even though the stated issues they would lose without the cash were single player (which it didn't have at release anyway) and a time delay (and we have no idea what the original ETA was planned for).

I wouldn't treat it like a Woodward and Bernstein level investigative piece. It is a nice, heavily controlled, look behind the scenes complete with pointing issues at the guy who left (West) and acting like a company already negotiating exclusivity with MS, already signed to a 3rd party publisher who had largely hitched their wagon to MS' platform even late last generation, was totally the kind of guys you wanted to let in on the innermost secrets of PS4 hardware design.

Snubbing Respawn might just have won the generation for Sony, if you can imagine Respawn letting it slip to MS that Sony was going with a purpose built gaming system with 8 GB of GDDR5. After all, MS did completely retool the memory of the Xbox 360 at Epic's behest and if MS hadn't done that the PS3 would have smoked it graphically to the point where the 360 likely would have been stillborn.

I also can't really see the blame toward Sony for denying EA unfettered access to the PS4 customer base. EA worked to circumvent Steam before setting up a direct competitor for Steam. They had an extended row with MS over Xbox Live versus EA getting to handle gamers on their own network. EA is very protective of their own audience while being very quick to try and steal the audience of other platforms. That's business, but if you're Shu Yoshida and Peter Moore is suggesting a service like EA Access in broad generalities why wouldn't your first instinct be that 1. this is trying to step directly on the feet of PS+, and 2. could be a clear end-around to get at PS4 consumers outside the Playstation Network ecosystem. Add EA's vocal support for MS' original DRM model in the Xbox One and how EA Access could be used to create a similar, EA only, DRM scheme if they wished, and you're left with a pretty dubious offering.

Frankly, I was somewhat surprised MS was willing to accept it even given how much the tide had turned against them leading up to EA Access being revealed. It is a substantial weakening of the first party primacy within the console's network space. I personally see it as one of the many red flags indicating that MS is no longer particularly interested in the dedicated home console space beyond the Xbox One.

 

[FordGTGuy]

It is a puff piece about the game from a single perspective that also willingly acts like MS stepping in saved the game even though the stated issues they would lose without the cash were single player (which it didn't have at release anyway) and a time delay (and we have no idea what the original ETA was planned for).

I wouldn't treat it like a Woodward and Bernstein level investigative piece. It is a nice, heavily controlled, look behind the scenes complete with pointing issues at the guy who left (West) and acting like a company already negotiating exclusivity with MS, already signed to a 3rd party publisher who had largely hitched their wagon to MS' platform even late last generation, was totally the kind of guys you wanted to let in on the innermost secrets of PS4 hardware design.

Snubbing Respawn might just have won the generation for Sony, if you can imagine Respawn letting it slip to MS that Sony was going with a purpose built gaming system with 8 GB of GDDR5. After all, MS did completely retool the memory of the Xbox 360 at Epic's behest and if MS hadn't done that the PS3 would have smoked it graphically to the point where the 360 likely would have been stillborn.

I also can't really see the blame toward Sony for denying EA unfettered access to the PS4 customer base. EA worked to circumvent Steam before setting up a direct competitor for Steam. They had an extended row with MS over Xbox Live versus EA getting to handle gamers on their own network. EA is very protective of their own audience while being very quick to try and steal the audience of other platforms. That's business, but if you're Shu Yoshida and Peter Moore is suggesting a service like EA Access in broad generalities why wouldn't your first instinct be that 1. this is trying to step directly on the feet of PS+, and 2. could be a clear end-around to get at PS4 consumers outside the Playstation Network ecosystem. Add EA's vocal support for MS' original DRM model in the Xbox One and how EA Access could be used to create a similar, EA only, DRM scheme if they wished, and you're left with a pretty dubious offering.

Frankly, I was somewhat surprised MS was willing to accept it even given how much the tide had turned against them leading up to EA Access being revealed. It is a substantial weakening of the first party primacy within the console's network space. I personally see it as one of the many red flags indicating that MS is no longer particularly interested in the dedicated home console space beyond the Xbox One.

One of the best parts if not the best part of Titanfall was/is Azure servers, that wouldn't have happened without Microsoft.

 

[Drek]

One of the best parts if not the best part of Titanfall was/is Azure servers, that wouldn't have happened without Microsoft.

Because cloud computing and network servers exist nowhere else in the universe right?

I mean, it's not like EA is this company that had a prolonged dispute with two other partners (MS and Steam) about wanting to shunt all traffic through their own server system that they spent millions investing in. So clearly they can't provide that kind of network infrastructure for a single game.

Whatever will Titanfall 2, the obviously multi-platform sequel to this unique POWA OF DA CLOUD fueled experience do to make up for not having MS' legendary and entirely unique azure servers at their beck and call?

 

[FordGTGuy]

Because cloud computing and network servers exist nowhere else in the universe right?

I mean, it's not like EA is this company that had a prolonged dispute with two other partners (MS and Steam) about wanting to shunt all traffic through their own server system that they spent millions investing in. So clearly they can't provide that kind of network infrastructure for a single game.

Whatever will Titanfall 2, the obviously multi-platform sequel to this unique POWA OF DA CLOUD fueled experience do to make up for not having MS' legendary and entirely unique azure servers at their beck and call?

They might exist in other capacities but Titanfall is the smoothest fps I've ever played online, if Titanfall 2 doesn't use Azure I probably won't buy it.

unique POWA OF DA CLOUD fueled experience

You sound like an immature troll.

 

[Drek]

They might exist in other capacities but Titanfall is the smoothest fps I've ever played online, if Titanfall 2 doesn't use Azure I probably won't buy it.



You sound like an immature troll.

So Azure writes netcode for all games that use it now? Amazing stuff MS has there. Quite the marvel.

Or maybe the game ran smooth because the people at Respawn were on their umpteen billionth online multiplayer focused shooter when their entire goal with all of those titles was a smooth online experience (hence their insistence on 60 fps with CoD and Titanfall), had decades of experience under their cummulative belts, specifically chose to modify an old as dirt engine because it would benefit that very aspect of the game, and knew what the hell they were doing?

Nope, had to be Azure. Power of the cloud and all that. Obviously. Only with Azure do you get truly smooth online play. Counter-Strike, Quake, and a multitude of other great online shooters circa turn of the century and beyond were all a mirage. No Azure, no smooth online. Buddy here as spoken.

Now maybe I sound like an immature troll to you, but to me you sound like a PR mouthpiece who is too busy regurgitating the "facts" shoved down his throat to know what the hell he's on about.

Here's a hint: there was actually a valid reason why people threw a fit when Activision pulled dedicated servers from CoD: MW2's PC release. Azure isn't the only option for dedicated servers, FYI, and once upon a time we didn't rely on the benevolence of publishers or platform holders to enjoy it.

 

[etta]

Lol at the people calling him salty.
Imagine how salty Sony is after they saw how succesful the service got. Everyone thought the service would fail prior to release, including Sony.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

So Azure writes netcode for all games that use it now? Amazing stuff MS has there. Quite the marvel.

Or maybe the game ran smooth because the people at Respawn were on their umpteen billionth online multiplayer focused shooter when their entire goal with all of those titles was a smooth online experience (hence their insistence on 60 fps with CoD and Titanfall), had decades of experience under their cummulative belts, specifically chose to modify an old as dirt engine because it would benefit that very aspect of the game, and knew what the hell they were doing?

Nope, had to be Azure. Power of the cloud and all that. Obviously. Only with Azure do you get truly smooth online play. Counter-Strike, Quake, and a multitude of other great online shooters circa turn of the century and beyond were all a mirage. No Azure, no smooth online. Buddy here as spoken.

Now maybe I sound like an immature troll to you, but to me you sound like a PR mouthpiece who is too busy regurgitating the "facts" shoved down his throat to know what the hell he's on about.

Here's a hint: there was actually a valid reason why people threw a fit when Activision pulled dedicated servers from CoD: MW2's PC release. Azure isn't the only option for dedicated servers, FYI, and once upon a time we didn't rely on the benevolence of publishers or platform holders to enjoy it.

Damn, this is personal to you huh

 

[FordGTGuy]

So Azure writes netcode for all games that use it now? Amazing stuff MS has there. Quite the marvel.

Or maybe the game ran smooth because the people at Respawn were on their umpteen billionth online multiplayer focused shooter when their entire goal with all of those titles was a smooth online experience (hence their insistence on 60 fps with CoD and Titanfall), had decades of experience under their cummulative belts, specifically chose to modify an old as dirt engine because it would benefit that very aspect of the game, and knew what the hell they were doing?

Nope, had to be Azure. Power of the cloud and all that. Obviously. Only with Azure do you get truly smooth online play. Counter-Strike, Quake, and a multitude of other great online shooters circa turn of the century and beyond were all a mirage. No Azure, no smooth online. Buddy here as spoken.

Now maybe I sound like an immature troll to you, but to me you sound like a PR mouthpiece who is too busy regurgitating the "facts" shoved down his throat to know what the hell he's on about.

Here's a hint: there was actually a valid reason why people threw a fit when Activision pulled dedicated servers from CoD: MW2's PC release. Azure isn't the only option for dedicated servers, FYI, and once upon a time we didn't rely on the benevolence of publishers or platform holders to enjoy it.

Netcode is only part of it, the actual servers are a huge part of it and it makes Titanfall amazing.

 

[Led_Zeppelin]

I think it's because (from what I can remember from that thread) this would be bad if more developers did their own service like this. Instead of getting Ubi/EA/Acti games on PS+, you'd have a per month service for every company out there if the company wanted which would cheapen the PS+ benefit.

Something like that. Or people just believe EA will lock people into a service and then quit delivering goods.

IS not like we are getting any Ubisfot/EA/Activision big hitter (or old hitter) with PS+ this days anymore. I for one would be interested on EA access for PS4 since I could sell my copies of sport games as soon as they reach the vault instead of when the new version is out. Still sad that Sony said that EA access had no value and now it seems EA is really salty about that comment.