Support NeoGAF

[RoKKeR]

Bad value my ass, this is such a silly response.

 

[Nocturno999]

It seems MS is still in bed with MS because their service is not coming to PC either. Most likely they still haven't finished paying for that silly Titanfall pseudo exclusive deal and EA still has them by the balls.

Sony seems salty and its statement is very bold for a business like this even if they want us to believe that they are the good guys.
It seems they are confident that they will dominate big time this generation if they can afford to make statements like this.

 

[Purdy]

Huh? As it stands right now, PS+ is the far better value than the proposed EA vault.

Okay

I said PS Now, not PS+

 

[Darmik]

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.

Microsoft already have online play locked behind a paywall. They advertise it heavily. Do you expect them to start advertising EA games as an exception? That would be pretty complicated for all parties involved.

 

[tuna_love]

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.

I'm talking just ps4, this is the system where ea access isn't good value remember.

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

Yeah, sign me up for the team that doesn't trust whatever EA does.

EA is definitely the greater evil

 

[Sorc3r3r]

It's up to me, not Sony, to determine what offers value to me. What a lame reason.

No, when, if, you bought a ps4, you have already entered in totally walled space,so is up to the platform holder to decide what is good or bad for its userbase, even more when it's a service competing and potentiality setting a dangerous precedent for its own very platform.

Instead buy a PC.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

I think Sony should offer it and use the opportunity to add more value to the digital marketplace. If EA is offering 10% off new games, what's stopping Sony from adding additional value by still giving customers that extra 10% which would still show they can make this model work. I don't get the hands on approach they feel they need to have to make this work.

 

[Nerokis]

Yes, that would be great. It's one of the reasons I still respect Nintendo, WYSIWYG with almost all of their games.

However, what I want is to halt the further erosion and fragmentation of the current market and destruction in value of my £45 purchase.

Allowing publishers a direct conduit to consumers will further enhance their profitability at the expense of the consumer, I think it sets a bad precedent to allow them this opportunity. Make no mistake, this is not about giving consumers a choice, it is about enhancing EA's bottom line, it wouldn't exist otherwise. I for one feel that gaming is reasonably well priced on consoles, if it gets any more expensive the market will undergo a severe contraction.

EA Access today may just offer a few old games in a vault for $30 a year or $5 a month, but EA Access in a few years may be required to play any EA title online and it may be required to get any EA DLC day one. I would rather not open the door to this eventuality, as it's not just EA who want this, every publisher does. Sony have made the right move here, whether or not they reached it to protect their own interests is of little relevance.

Going from one sentence to the other was somewhat jarring.

Anyway, I do agree that the self-interest factor is irrelevant - in both cases, however. EA Access constitutes another choice for consumers regardless of EA's aims for profitability, and the slippery slope arguments surrounding this subject are incredibly unpersuasive. Competition between Sony and Microsoft on this front did result in both ultimately putting online functionality behind a paywall, sure, but both are also offering higher value services than ever before. Even that "online functionality behind a paywall" thing was originally justified on the basis of value - it's not something people accepted completely arbitrarily.

Essentially all the forces of competition in this industry are pushing prices downward, even as financial pressures push in the opposite direction. Something like EA Access does not have to be nefarious, even if EA were to try really, really hard to make it so down the line. In and of itself, it's a pretty clever, innocuous way to offer value to an audience with more and more ways to avoid paying the standard price for the products these companies are offering.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

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?

That's a petulant counter point, and wasn't what I said. I said that today, now, PS+ is a far superior service in terms of value. I also said this could change down the years.

Want it or not, it does not offer the value Sony's current service does, and so their statement was fair.

 

[-MB-]

Microsoft have done very well to fix the utterly abysmal pre-launch PR. They have been open, communicative and quick to update their system.

That's not to say this should be greeted with open arms.

And EA?

 

[manual4]

i subbed to it yesterday for a full year, i like it. ended up buying pvz with discount

 

[Dragonborn]

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 OPTION subscription service just like Call of Duty Elite was. Guess what happened to that optinal 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.

Sony ia selling PS4s hamd over fist and they're set to dominate this gen. Then not being on board presents a masssive obstacle to EA's program spreading to other publishers, which might not be bad thing. If MS eabts the future of Xbox to be filled witg multiple subscriptions, that's their choice, but I'd prefer to keep that out

 

[toddhunter]

Microsoft already have online play locked behind a paywall. They advertise it heavily. Do you expect them to start advertising EA games as an exception? That would be pretty complicated for all parties involved.

That was the point. You pay for live and then you pay extra for EA games. It would be consistent for Sony to turn this down and would also match with their statement.

Tin foil hat time of course. But remember EA is the company that dropped online passes, just before the always online xbox one was revealed. So maybe not tin foil hat time.

 

[theytookourjobz]

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.

That is exactly what Sony did with Playstation Plus.

 

[Chuck Norris]

Whatever happened to options?

You really want every publisher putting out their own $5 per month subscription service? Son has it right, integrate all publishers under PSN+

 

[Conan-san]

Any other company I'd be at it with pitch torches and flame forks but this is EA late of Origin.

Good on Sony.

 

[mclem]

Yes, that would be great. It's one of the reasons I still respect Nintendo, WYSIWYG with almost all of their games.

The irony here being that Nintendo is the one company who, if they were to offer a service of this nature the right way, I would snap up *right* away.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

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

This is a great point.

Considering how successful the Call of Duty series is and how fanatical their fans genrally are with DLC...it's absolute proof that if a service comes along with poor value they won't pay for it.

That's a petulant counter point, and wasn't what I said. I said that today, now, PS+ is a far superior service in terms of value. I also said this could change down the years.

Want it or not, it does not offer the value Sony's current service does, and so their statement was fair.

You implied that EA Access can't compete and therefore shouldn't even compared because PSN+ already exists and has built up a better library.

 

[Spades]

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.

 

[dyergram]

I kinda assumed this meant that next gen ea games were a lock for future ps+ downloads now.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

I'm talking just ps4, this is the system where ea access isn't good value remember.

No, the service is not good value in comparison to Sony's current service. You are paying for all those games, regardless of system, and regardless of if you will play them. Measuring up the financial value of each has nothing to do with skimming it down to the system you own.

Goal posts and all.

 

[C-PK]

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

Oh sorry. Do you want sony to pay for all the servers and maintenance? How are they supposed to sustain that business model? 😐

 

[waxer]

Seems pretty typical of sony assuming there are background transactions at work. Was it just an offer to have subscription or did EA ask for money to have on their console. Dont sony normally turn down exclusives etc and put money into first party games.
Is it possible the amount they subsidise their own ps+ games works out better for them and is exclusive vs EA?

 

[jaosobno]

I have hard time believing that Sony would turn down EA for no good reason. So this is either a matter of Microsoft signing some kind of exclusive deal with EA (not likely judging by Sony's wording, which implies that they've been offered the same thing as Microsoft) or they simply offered Sony terms which would (partially) defeat the purpose of PS+.

I believe there is a great deal of people who buy PS+, not to play multiplayer on PS4, but to get free games. If you could get free games from one of the biggest publishers for a smaller fee, perhaps Sony saw this as a potential threat to PS+. On the other hand, Microsoft is in no position to turn down anything, since XO sales, even after $100 price drop continue to struggle when compared to PS4.

 

[Brad Grenz]

I thought the difference is that EA gives you access to all of their 'vault games', do they not? Even if you subscribe 3 years from now, you'd still have acces to the games they're offering right now, even if you aren't subscribing from the start. With Plus, you only have access to games you've claimed when you're an active subscriber.

EA Access then is more like Netflix, PS Plus is a bit different.

Unless, I misread about EA Access?

The problem is the Vault is only 4 games right now. And even if they are adding games every year does it really matter to a new subscriber in 2016 that FIFA 2014 is in the vault if FIFA 2016 is also in the vault?

Look at it this way: What if Sony had announced they were adding a new tier of PS Plus called PS Platinum. Right now for $50 a year you get 72 games to play, but if you upgrade to Platinum for $80 a year you get to play 76 games a year! Even if 4 of those remain year round and you get 4 more the next year for a total of 8 permenent PS Platinum games I think most people would call that out as a crappy deal and crucify Sony for suggesting it.

 

[Darmik]

This http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/04/09/ea-voted-worst-company-in-america-again/ is the company we are defending? I never agreed with the idea that they were the "worst" company out there, but in terms of the gaming industry I would put them pretty close to the top of the shit heap.

I mean people bitch about Origin on a daily basis, this is basically the console version in which EA is trying to offer up the candy so you jump in the van.

What's the Origin bitching outside of not putting games on Steam? I mean they've offered no questions asked refunds and a bunch of free games. Outside of crappy regional pricing (which is a concern for me with EA Access too) I'm not really seeing how Origin is this terrible service.

 

[Nerokis]

That's a petulant counter point, and wasn't what I said. I said that today, now, PS+ is a far superior service in terms of value. I also said this could change down the years.

Want it or not, it does not offer the value Sony's current service does, and so their statement was fair.

As an argument for PS Plus being superior to EA Access, of course it's fair. As an argument for not offering EA Access on their platform, it's borderline bizarre.

 

[Dragonborn]

This is a great point.

Considering how successful the Call of Duty series is and how fanatical their fans genrally are with DLC...it's absolute proof that if a service comes along with poor value they won't pay for it.



You implied that EA Access can't compete and therefore shouldn't even compared because PSN+ already exists and has built up a better library.

Exactly, keeping it on X1 means the service will be kept small thus preventing it from srpeading too much. I'm not at all opposed to that

 

[SocksAndShoes]

Okay

I said PS Now, not PS+

My bad. But we really don't know the value of either of those programs yet....

Let's let all the details on these subscription models emerge before we start judging their value propositions.

 

[AusRoachman]

That's a petulant counter point, and wasn't what I said. I said that today, now, PS+ is a far superior service in terms of value. I also said this could change down the years.

Want it or not, it does not offer the value Sony's current service does, and so their statement was fair.

Actually I think eavault is better then ps+ and gwg combined because you are getting full AAA games and not indie games . Whilst indie games are cool they don't compare to full fledged AAA titles.

If sony wanted to give users value they would release AAA games in + , ps+ won't have significant value for a few years because if this.

Not having a swipe at + only , same applies to gwg

 

[p3tran]

Because Sony give them a lump sum payment every time an EA game is included in the IGC. EA won't say no to free money as the games that go into the IGC are heavily depreciated, it's pure profit.

ok then, lets see when sony's lump sum payment will bring fifa 14 and battlefield 4 to plus users. I mean, these games are played right now online in amounts, arent they?


It really hurts my head a little reading all this stuff about how this is a ....bad deal

 

[Yopis]

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.

The market will dictate like everything else. Sony can't stop that. If pubs decide to do that then people will pick and choose. What if people play majority of EA games? Better that some random choice of non selling games thrown at you every month, bolted on the fact your now paying for mp.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

Sony ia selling PS4s hamd over fist and they're set to dominate this gen. Then not being on board presents a masssive obstacle to EA's program spreading to other publishers, which might not be bad thing. If MS eabts the future of Xbox to be filled witg multiple subscriptions, that's their choice, but I'd prefer to keep that out

It's optional. What about optional is so hard to understand? If Xbox gamers see no value in it, they won't pay and the service will die.

If gamers DO see value in it, they will pay, EA will be happy and so will the customers. I'm not seeing the issue.

As I said. Just like CoD Elite. No one paid, it died. Simple. Customers CHOSE to let it die.

 

[Willy Wanka]

There really isn't any good reason why the option shouldn't at least be available to PS4 owners. Let the consumer decide what does and what doesn't represent 'good value' themselves.

 

[Mihos]

They are basically just taking Apples stand on 3rd party marketplaces. They seem to be doing alright.

Spoiler

I hate Apple

 

[DarthWalden]

I cannot believe the response from Sony (maybe they shouldn't have said anything so people just assumed MS money hated the program still) I also cannot believe the response from some of the people here.

This is an optional program that I think is a great value to some consumers. The consumers will decide that in the end by how well this program does. If other companies decide to provide a service like this then once again its optional and the consumer can decide if its worth it for them. Was there this much backlash when PS+ was announced?

I can't understand anyone who would be happy for Sony blocking this as the only real reason they are blocking it is because they think it's in direct competition of PS+ and PS Now and is totally monopolistic and anti consumer.


If Ea access ends up being complete shit it's still won't make a difference. I'd at least like the choice to make that decision for myself whether it is worth it or not

 

[Das_Blarthole]

The details on the EA Access program are far too ambiguous currently to say whether this was really a good thing or bad thing for Sony to do, especially given that the XB1 and PS4 games are rather thin on the ground even with EA, which would impact how often the games are cycled - what's the value in a yearly sub if the games only change 3 time a year, for instance, especially as we're used to these things (PS+ and GwG) changing every month.

Given that GwG really isn't anywhere near as entrenched as a corenerstone of value in XBLG as the IGC is in PS+, perhaps Sony felt that gamers would end up paying more and having two subscriptions whilst ending up pretty much with the same overall value as the PS+ program does, plus Sony would have to burden the cost of the managing the subs, etc. as well as extra bandwidth and so on.

Maybe Sony wanted them to support a PS3 Vault in the sub and EA wouldn't.

Also Sony and MS don't have to do what the other does all the time - there's no reason why EA would completely withdraw it's support for PS+ - after all they do get an amount of cash for putting their games on there.

I think there's more fact finding to be done on EA Access than what we're currently being told by EA and MS.

 

[m@cross]

People like to simplify topics down to single lines so the masses can have an opinion without needing to know the facts, typical political strategy here.

"Sony takes away our ability to chose" Pretty simply, gets right to A point, makes it easy to decide Sony is the bad guy. Sounds like something from a political add.

The truth?

Plus: By adding this service it dissuades EA from allowing Sony to offer their games for free or discount through plus. This in turn de-values plus and hurts the service and those who pay for it.

EA wants money: It may start off all sexy and pro gamer, but EA will figure out every method to maximize their profits with it. The most direct way is to drive up subscription rates. How do they do this? Migrate features currently desired as free content to part of the service and remove them from being free. Ideas? Ultimate team advantages with subscription (extra cards, bonus points etc.), roster updates, dynamic player attributes, special uniforms for sports games, preferred online matchmaking options, map pack discounts, bonus unlock rates for game add-ons, AND maybe their sports games no longer work online after 1 year unless you have it?

There are already signs of this with the verbiage they used in the announcement, EA WILL leverage this to make the service be almost necessary to fully enjoy their games.

No thank you; I'll keep the value I pay for in Plus now, and help prevent EA from shifting existing features they should include in their games to a pay service.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Actually I think eavault is better then ps+ and gwg combined because you are getting full AAA games and not indie games . Whilst indie games are cool they don't compare to full fledged AAA titles.

If sony wanted to give users value they would release AAA games in + , ps+ won't have significant value for a few years because if this.

Not having a swipe at + only , same applies to gwg

Clearly you have not been a member for very long, they have given away many, many, many full AAA games.

 

[Brad Grenz]

I'm talking just ps4, this is the system where ea access isn't good value remember.

Just on PS4 you get 20 more games in a year with PS Plus than EA Access is offering.

 

[Cheech]

You really want every publisher putting out their own $5 per month subscription service? Son has it right, integrate all publishers under PSN+

So... you want PS+ to cost $200 a year? Because that's now you get PS+ to $200 a year.

Sony not getting this service is a big miss. I'm cancelling FIFA/Madden on PS4 and going Xbone for most EA titles going forward.

 

[C-PK]

EA will not be offering all the big releases like fifa and Madden on release day. That would cost them money.

 

[Purdy]

My bad. But we really don't know the value of either of those programs yet....

Let's let all the details on these subscription models emerge before we start judging their value propositions.

Well I can see what EA is offering game wise so far and the discounts for £20 a year.

I can see how long you can rent a game for and price as it stands and its pretty poor value tbh, much more so than what EA is offering and sony choosing to 'protect' gamers from it is laughable

 

[Handy Fake]

People like to simplify topics down to single lines so the masses can have an opinion without needing to know the facts, typical political strategy here.

"Sony takes away our ability to chose" Pretty simply, gets right to A point, makes it easy to decide Sony is the bad guy. Sounds like something from a political add.

The truth?

Plus: By adding this service it dissuades EA from allowing Sony to offer their games for free or discount through plus. This in turn de-values plus and hurts the service and those who pay for it.

EA wants money: It may start off all sexy and pro gamer, but EA will figure out every method to maximize their profits with it. The most direct way is to drive up subscription rates. How do they do this? Migrate features currently desired as free content to part of the service and remove them from being free. Ideas? Ultimate team advantages with subscription (extra cards, bonus points etc.), roster updates, dynamic player attributes, special uniforms for sports games, preferred online matchmaking options, map pack discounts, bonus unlock rates for game add-ons, AND maybe their sports games no longer work online after 1 year unless you have it?

There are already signs of this with the verbiage they used in the announcement, EA WILL leverage this to make the service be almost necessary to fully enjoy their games.

No thank you; I'll keep the value I pay for in Plus now, and help prevent EA from shifting existing features they should include in their games to a pay service.

I want to have your babies.

 

[tuna_love]

No, the service is not good value in comparison to Sony's current service. You are paying for all those games, regardless of system, and regardless of if you will play them. Measuring up the financial value of each has nothing to do with skimming it down to the system you own.

Goal posts and all.

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

 

[Dragonborn]

It's optional. What about optional is so hard to understand? If Xbox gamers see no value in it, they won't pay and the service will die.

If gamers DO see value in it, they will pay, EA will be happy and so will the customers. I'm not seeing the issue.

As I said. Just like CoD Elite. No one paid, it died. Simple. Customers CHOSE to let it die.

Some cinsumers don't always make the best choices, which is why we have all konds of stupid DLC and Microtransactions. Keeping it optional gives it a chance. Stopping it from being on the only console that's selling great prevents it completely.

 

[ReaperXL7]

What's the Origin bitching outside of not putting games on Steam? I mean they've offered no questions asked refunds and a bunch of free games. Outside of crappy regional pricing (which is a concern for me with EA Access too) I'm not really seeing how Origin is this terrible service.

I don't game on PC so I'm not aware of all of the issues people have with it. I just know that people constantly bitch about it(same with Uplay), not to mention all of the other scenarios in which EA has been blasted over for fucking their customers. It's just bizarre to me that people are so ready to believe that EA has consumer best intentions planned for this service when everything they do on a regular basis would suggest otherwise.

 

[shanafan]

They don't think EA access offers the value playstation consumers have come to expect?
Yet they are perfectly fine with charging how much for a 30 day rental of a single PS Now title?

Guess Sony thinks $30 to rent Ben 10 over the course of 90 days is a better value than the EA Vault library. Glad Sony can help me guide me down the right path!

 

[AusRoachman]

Clearly you have not been a member for very long, they have given away many, many, many full AAA games.

I am talking ps4 / one gen only here. What full fledged title has been released on + or gwg. Eavault only applies to this gen.