Sony's response to EA Access Subscription plan

Status
Not open for further replies.
ManThatYouFear said:
Sony worded it was like PS+ monthly price would of gone up 5$ that is why they turned it down
Click to expand...

No, it's completely optional.

It gives you the opportunity to essentially rent EA's new releases around 5 days ahead of release date (game progress then carries over if you decide to buy the game on release) as well as instant access to a library of older games (much like PS+ or GwG). In addition, you get 10% off all EA's DLC and digital game purchases.
 
Like I said before I have PS+ and that is enough!
I have no need for another subscription so I'm glad. And on the other hand I dont want to support EA.
 
Garrett 2U said:
All I'm saying is that last month they were ok with charging PS Now customers 5$ to play 4 hours of a Ben 10 game.
This month they aren't okay with offering their customers the option to pay 5$ for a month of EA Access.
Click to expand...

They haven't changed anything to anyone. It's still in beta and prices haven't finalized. EA access is. And the reason why they didn't like the idea was because it singles out EA's own title amongst the rest that they carry within PS+. Yes I do think it's wrong of them by not offering the choice of gamers to make that decision. Part of me feels like they want it to be Within PS+ without asking more from their customers.
 
Can we sum up the X1 users like the service because it´s on their platform ?

And PS4 users don´t like the service because it´s not on their platform ?

:D
 
I think this makes sense for Sony. I personally don't like the idea or trend of multiple subscription services coming out for each big publisher. It seems people who support this have zero foresight. its not enough that we have day one DLC and micro-transactions, now the people(evidenced by this thread) are willing to return to the feet of EA and say "please sir may I have some more".

I'll be waiting to see people's reactions if this becomes mainstream and turns from a good deal into a shit deal. Remember, the frog's water didn't start out hot.
 
BibiMaghoo said:
It seems a perfectly honest answer to me.

EA service = $30 a year, four games + discount
PS+ = $40 (?) a year, about 20 games or more + discount

I mean, they don't really compare in value at all at this time. In 5 years they might, but now it is garbage in comparison.
Click to expand...

So answer my question: Why did Sony think that EA Season Ticket offered the kind of value PlayStation customers have come to expect but not EA Access?
 
Handy Fake said:
There's still the choice to buy EA games from the PS service.

However, if a person wanted to buy an EA game digitally - just the one, has no interest in any others - he has no choice but to pay a subscription fee as there's no way it would be available through the PS network if any deal was reached.

That's my view of it anyway. And like I say, I don't know how far this goes - does cancelling your EA subscription means you can't play their digital content? And all the other things mentioned that they could easily introduce on top of having their foot in the online digital door - paid online for EA games, exclusive DLC for subscription holders only...
Click to expand...

If 20% of PS4 owners sub to EA Access for example (which would be pretty damn successful) they're not going to cut off possible revenue from the remaining 80%. It wouldn't be worth it at all. Same thing with online play and DLC. It doesn't make sense. Even Netflix sell their exclusive content on DVD.
 
mike4001_ said:
Can we sum up the X1 users like the service because it´s on their platform ?

And PS4 users don´t like the service because it´s not on their platform ?

:D
Click to expand...

No, because it's fucking childish, and ignores every post that has explained the reasoning for one position over another.

Spades said:
So answer my question: Why did Sony think that EA Season Ticket offered the kind of value PlayStation customers have come to expect but not EA Access?
Click to expand...

Perhaps because it was cheaper and specified the financial value within it, perhaps it was because it is very specific to sports game DLC. I have no idea. But it is clear to anyone with eyes that the value difference between the EA service and PS+ at this time is poor, which is essentially what Sony said.
 
I think Sony wanted something that EA didn't want to give them, maybe a partnership similar to the one they have with Microsoft or maybe it was more about the amount of money they receive from a deal like this, so Sony is saying that's fine then your service isn't going to be available on the (next-gen*)console with the largest user base.
It seems more like Sony is trying to strong arm EA with this. It's probably not good for the user, but without knowing what Sony was looking for it's hard to tell. Also with the next-gen sales numbers skewed so far in the favor of the PS4, EA might just give whatever they wanted here.

The other option is if Microsoft threw a ton of money at EA to offer this exclusively, but I really don't see how that benefits Microsoft.
 
TheRealTalker said:
Guessing Sony thinks that if they allow these guys to do it all these other companies will follow suit instead of making their games available for plus


Options are better but then again it is EA; they take something good and turn it to a scheme
Click to expand...
. Quite possible others would follow and splinter the subscription service model. Xbox wants that Sony does not and I do not. Could you imagine 5 years down the road and every publisher had their own service? You would still pay for online functionality without the games. No thanks.
 
BibiMaghoo said:
It seems a perfectly honest answer to me.

EA service = $30 a year, four games + discount
PS+ = $40 (?) a year, about 20 games or more + discount

I mean, they don't really compare in value at all at this time. In 5 years they might, but now it is garbage in comparison.
Click to expand...
If you sign up to ps+ today you get how many games? Sign up to ea access you get how many games. I think they are going to add games to there vault or whatever as well.
 
sciencerob said:
I think this makes sense for Sony. I personally don't like the idea or trend of multiple subscription services coming out for each big publisher. It seems people who support this have zero foresight. its not enough that we have day one DLC and micro-transactions, now the people(evidenced by this thread) are willing to return to the feet of EA and say "please sir may I have some more".

I'll be waiting to see people's reactions if this becomes mainstream and turns from a good deal into a shit deal. Remember, the frog's water didn't start out hot.
Click to expand...

I have no desire to pay for EA Access. As of right now, PS+ is the better value. That said, it's obvious that Sony is protecting themselves, not consumers.
 
Rurunaki said:
I'm still waiting for Nintendo's take on this. Why haven't they been offered?
Click to expand...

I wonder if something of this nature was bouncing around back at the time of the "Unprecedented partnership" blurb at E3 until one or the other parties pulled out of the plan.
 
commish said:
It's up to me, not Sony, to determine what offers value to me. What a lame reason.
Click to expand...

+1

This is like going to the cinema to watch a Sony Pictures movie and being told you can't buy the higher priced 'premium' seats at the front because Sony believe it doesn't offer their fans good value.
 
Spades said:
No, it's completely optional.

It gives you the opportunity to essentially rent EA's new releases around 5 days ahead of release date (game progress then carries over if you decide to buy the game on release) as well as instant access to a library of older games (much like PS+ or GwG). In addition, you get 10% off all EA's DLC and digital game purchases.
Click to expand...

so basically it is one of the exclusive deals EA signed with MS and Sony never got offered shit and this is there response.
 
As I said before, I'm only buying like 3 EA games in the next two years so I don't really care for the service. In a way, it's not that bad since the last thing I'd like is paying each publisher a subscription. Since the PS4 is so far ahead, it not being on the console will put a stop to EA's move. At the same time, the program will likely do nothing to help the X1's position so its not to much of a threat to Sony.

My guess is, they'll take a wait and see apprach while they formulate the streaming sub for PS Now. Unless MS bought exclusivity, the PR sounds like they can Sony can get it if they change their minds

tuna_love said:
If you sign up to ps+ today you get how many games? Sign up to ea access you get how many games. I think they are going to add games to there vault or whatever as well.
Click to expand...

You get 6, and a total of 72 by the end of the year. Pretty sweet deal
 
BibiMaghoo said:
It seems a perfectly honest answer to me.

EA service = $30 a year, four games + discount
PS+ = $40 (?) a year, about 20 games or more + discount

I mean, they don't really compare in value at all at this time. In 5 years they might, but now it is garbage in comparison.
Click to expand...

EA Access: 23,99 Euros
PS+: 49,99 Euros

(Europe prices ...)
 
TheExecutive said:
. Quite possible others would follow and splinter the subscription service model. Xbox wants that Sony does not and I do not. Could you imagine 5 years down the road and every publisher had their own service? You would still pay for online functionality without the games. No thanks.
Click to expand...

my thoughts exactly

it is already annoying that we have all those network services like Origin or Uplay
 
Gamers are indeed fickle. Look at what happened this past generation. We got DLC horse armor that turned into day 1 on disc dlc, season pass, COD/BF4 premium, microtransation in paid games, and mandatory paid online service.

All voted with our dollars. Didn't GTA5 raked in an extra 250 million due to microtransation?
 
Spades said:
So answer my question: Why did Sony think that EA Season Ticket offered the kind of value PlayStation customers have come to expect but not EA Access?
Click to expand...

Imagine this scenario:

EA: We are starting up this new service. Pretty much the same as the old one, but once people are hooked we'll charge for online play of our games as well. Of course people will need live and ps+ hahaha.
MS: Sure, what do we care?
Sony: Nope.

Now this scenario might sound outlandish but it is actually pretty consistent with EA's past actions and MS has shown they have no trouble with subscription services being locked behind their own paywall.

So who knows really, but without all the details, and perhaps the benefit of hindsight it is hard to know exactly who is the bad guy here.
 
Spades said:
No, it's completely optional.

It gives you the opportunity to essentially rent EA's new releases around 5 days ahead of release date (game progress then carries over if you decide to buy the game on release) as well as instant access to a library of older games (much like PS+ or GwG). In addition, you get 10% off all EA's DLC and digital game purchases.
Click to expand...

It's a falsity of choice it would simply mean that ea games would no longer be a part of ps+ it would be the beginning of TV subscription like package, sure it adds choice but it doesn't add value
 
Spades said:
When I re-read it, the statement that EA Access "does not bring the kind of value PlayStation customers have come to expect" is such a horseshit excuse. If that is the case, Sony, why did you allow EA Season Ticket on PSN for years which represented far less value than EA Access does?

Perhaps I'd have a little more empathy for Sony if they were actually honest about why they have chosen not to support EA Access, instead of making up some bullshit.
Click to expand...


It's obvious but I mean, it's you so let's explain it like this.

This EA access is a joint effort created by Microsoft and EA. EA didn't come up with this one their own, as well as the fact that it's exclusive.

Secondly, PS+ offers the same exact thing. Now this is a direct threat to their business model as now, EA can scrape their titles out of the service entirely and offer a price on it outside Ps+

Thirdly, since EA is doing this, it devaluates the idea of PS+ which caters to all publishers because now it's puts them in the situation that if EA wants to make their own cut, to which would possibly cause all publishers to back out and do the same thing thus killing off PS+ major perks.

The terrible thing about this, is the fact that Sony didn't want to test the situation and went ahead and made the decision for its customer's what they feel is less valuable. They are never going to be honest that it's because it's a Microsoft exclusive, just the same way Microsoft won't say the same about how GWG was purely inspired by Ps+.
 
tuna_love said:
If you sign up to ps+ today you get how many games? Sign up to ea access you get how many games. I think they are going to add games to there vault or whatever as well.
Click to expand...

Thing is, once games are removed from the vault they're no longer accessible at all. At least, that's what I've seen surmised elsewhere.

By contrast, PS Plus allows access to all content you've ever "bought" whenever you have an active sub.
 
tuna_love said:
If you sign up to ps+ today you get how many games? Sign up to ea access you get how many games. I think they are going to add games to there vault or whatever as well.
Click to expand...

Sign up today, for one month, and you get 6 games + one duplicated on another two platforms. Next month, you will get at least 4 new ones, and so on. It will be years before the EA service can compete in terms of quantity.
 
Xando said:
It makes a lot of sense if you think about it from a business point of view.
They make more money and as long as they give some money to MS or Sony they wont be mad about it.
Also i cant see how they would loose a significant chunk of their player base, the consumers EA is going for with the likes of Fifa,Madden and Battlefield are mostly casual gamers who dont really give a fuck about how much the new Fifa costs as long as they can play it with their friends.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Give what money to Sony and Microsoft for what? Online play? What would Sony and Microsoft have to gain? They'd have to justify charging for online play now.

If they lock online play to their own subscription of course they'd lose a lot. Do you think all casual players are going to subscribe to this for their yearly sports title they'd still have to buy new? It doesn't make any sense. It would be a massive, massive change for them. It would complicate relationships with retailers and first parties for a subscription that people would likely be using for their other content anyway.
 
Are they going to evaluate the PS Now service and stop us from getting it as the value for money of it is fucking shit in comparison to this
 
tuna_love said:
You don't need to buy the subscription to buy the game digitally?
Click to expand...

Darmik said:
If 20% of PS4 owners sub to EA Access for example (which would be pretty damn successful) they're not going to cut off possible revenue from the remaining 80%. It wouldn't be worth it at all. Same thing with online play and DLC. It doesn't make sense. Even Netflix sell their exclusive content on DVD.
Click to expand...

Would you still be able to buy them digitally through normal channels? I can't see EA brokering a deal where you could. I suppose we'll see. Colour me dubious. :)

The METRO PAPER says this about Sony's statement though:

We suspect there’s a lot more going on behind the scenes than is suggested here, and Sony are probably being deliberately antagonist with EA in order to cut a more favourable deal with them. But either way it sounds like EA Access is going to stay Xbox One-only for quite a while.
 
BibiMaghoo said:
It seems a perfectly honest answer to me.

EA service = $30 a year, four games + discount
PS+ = $40 (?) a year, about 20 games or more + discount

I mean, they don't really compare in value at all at this time. In 5 years they might, but now it is garbage in comparison.
Click to expand...

Although I agree with your point, your math is a bit wrong. PS+ offers 6 titles every month. 2 for each Sony platform. That is 72 titles per year not 20. This isn't counting the other services that are included with PS+ like party communication, remote functionality for the systems, cloud storage, and other little things here and there.
 
toddhunter said:
Imagine this scenario:

EA: We are starting up this new service. Pretty much the same as the old one, but once people are hooked we'll charge for online play of our games as well. Of course people will need live and ps+ hahaha.
MS: Sure, what do we care?
Sony: Nope.

Now this scenario might sound outlandish but it is actually pretty consistent with EA's past actions and MS has shown they have no trouble with subscription services being locked behind their own paywall.

So who knows really, but without all the details, and perhaps the benefit of hindsight it is hard to know exactly who is the bad guy here.
Click to expand...
Lol. Well maybe good guy Sony should have said that in there statement. #4thegamers
 
Crakatak187 said:
Gamers are indeed fickle. Look at what happened this past generation. We got DLC horse armor that turned into day 1 on disc dlc, season pass, COD/BF4 premium, microtransation in paid games, and mandatory paid online service.

All voted with our dollars. Didn't GTA5 raked in an extra 250 million due to microtransation?
Click to expand...

Generally, we are also very much against the F2P model on mobile, it's vile and we'd never ever touch a game them because they offer such poor service and give us no value.

... and magically, F2P makes millions upon millions upon millions.

But hey, good guy EA suddenly.
 
Handy Fake said:
Would you still be able to buy them digitally through normal channels? I can't see EA brokering a deal where you could. I suppose we'll see. Colour me dubious. :)

The METRO PAPER says this about Sony's statement though:

We suspect there’s a lot more going on behind the scenes than is suggested here, and Sony are probably being deliberately antagonist with EA in order to cut a more favourable deal with them. But either way it sounds like EA Access is going to stay Xbox One-only for quite a while.
Click to expand...

Would make sense. MS is no place to negotiate. Sony, however, is, so why not go for a better deal?
 
Uh huh, they don't think it's good value , they do think it's good value to charge people to play online though, despite claiming that isn't something they'd do in the ps3 era
 
BibiMaghoo said:
Sign up today, for one month, and you get 6 games + one duplicated on another two platforms. Next month, you will get at least 4 new ones, and so on. It will be years before the EA service can compete in terms of quantity.
Click to expand...

So because a competing service comes along a few years after 'the first' they shouldn't even bother because they will be behind in what value they can offer?

TheKastorian said:
Yeah, sign me up for the team that doesn't trust whatever EA does.
Click to expand...

Completely missing the point.
 
Guess we'll have to wait and see how EA handles it to see if Sony made a good move or not.

Knowing EA we'll probably have to slice off another chunk of that mona lisa dlc/microtransactions picture for this service by the time the next Mass Effect rolls around.
 
Impeccable said:
Could Sony genuinely be worried about how this could scar the landscape of gaming? Yeah.
Click to expand...

Oh right. That explains them charging for online multiplayer.

Give me a break.

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

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

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

Sony could easily give their customers the option to choose for themselves if they see the value in it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Wild Assault Early Access Trailer
27
674
Hawk The Slayer replied
Geoguessr Steam edition coming to early access in April
1
234
jshackles replied
inZOI Early Access sales top one million
News 
7
388
Hari Seldon replied
NEIGHBORS: Suburban Warfare - Early Access Release Trailer
Trailer 
5
464
RaptorGTA replied
  • Locked
inZOI Early Access sales top one million on PC Steam
1
262
CyberCali replied
Top Bottom