Sony's response to EA Access Subscription plan
- Thread starter RexNovis
- Start date
- Status
Yeah that post was bizarre. I mean who bookmarks things anymore?
thehypocrite
Member
This.
Omnistalgic
Member
hmmm....just have to wait and see if this is value or not or EA trying to make some extra buck...
Seems like good value for yearly EA guys, although everyone I know into sports titles usually are into them when they are new. This does seems to butt-heads with PS+ though. Sony's stance is interesting to say the least.
Seems like good value for yearly EA guys, although everyone I know into sports titles usually are into them when they are new. This does seems to butt-heads with PS+ though. Sony's stance is interesting to say the least.
Ha, no - PS+ memberships are up more than 200% because it is now a requirement for online gaming on a PS4.
Sony isn't looking out for you. If they were maybe my left stick on my controller would not be falling apart. Maybe disc read error and flipping my PS1 would not have happened. Those seem like going cheap on parts to save a buck not looking out for me. How about looking out for my launch Vita and getting sone AAA games.
Gaming was one of the last good divisions Sony had left they went all in. Glad it worked but no company is a saint. Most of the time you get better deals from the guy in second place. Where are all the announced features again for my PS4?
Where are the regular and large FW updates. They are coasting and made a choice to protect a money source. They veil that in the value statement to lessen the fact your choice was made for you.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
The future of the industry is a scary place.
Ubisoft Access, Activision Access, EA Access, with service-exclusive DLC and the latest titles being released earlier across three different subscription services that cost 5 bucks per month, each.
And that's on top of having a PS+ or Xbone Gold subscription for an addition 30-40 bucks a year so that you can play the games online.
The industry wanted $60+ prices for the latest games, and it looks like they're going to get it one way or another through "optional" DLC & subscriptions.
Ol No Bones
Banned
Um Sony... Its just another option people can choose if its right for them.
While EA access is interesting im with Sony on this one - dont want every publisher to start their own PS+ like service. First partys should handle such stuff.
lol no.
lol no.
Dragonborn
Member
Yup, in that case I definitely don't see the worth unless you buy everu spots game that comes out each year.
gamechanger87
Member
The FAQ from EA lays this out as does their Twitter feed. You download the entire game early. Based on the game, you will have a certain amount of time to play it. Regarding DA, its likely going to have a time limit of say 6 hours. After 6 hours you can't play it unless you buy the full game. At that point in time, you pick up right where you left off after MS/EA unlocks the game on your console.
Sports games will likely have no such time limit as there are no "Spoilers".
Cornbread78
Member
I'll bookmark it for the inevitable day EA screw over everyone.
You know, it'll probably be both. Just tweet Yosp and then you can get the service, I'm sure they would cave...
The1stOfHisName
Member
Meh, don't see the fuss.
I already pay for PS+, I already own the EA games I wish to own, and I've paid my money for Battlefield Premium. What I don't need is another subscription service, taking a gamble on the potential content included within it, and running the risk that Ubi, Activision etc all decide to also throw up competitor schemes.
What happens when EA decides to only offer access to certain (or all) games through this scheme? If you aren't signed up, you can't play. People already bitch that with PS+ you never actually own the games, surely this is just paying more for exactly the same thing?
I don't see this as anti-consumerist. Sony have their own service to protect, and PS+ already offers a terrific amount of content for your £30. EA Access looks like it will intrude into what Sony already offers, and while it may in itself offer a great deal, its potential impact on PS+ and the wider marketplace is a worry.
I don't blame Sony for taking the stand they have.
I already pay for PS+, I already own the EA games I wish to own, and I've paid my money for Battlefield Premium. What I don't need is another subscription service, taking a gamble on the potential content included within it, and running the risk that Ubi, Activision etc all decide to also throw up competitor schemes.
What happens when EA decides to only offer access to certain (or all) games through this scheme? If you aren't signed up, you can't play. People already bitch that with PS+ you never actually own the games, surely this is just paying more for exactly the same thing?
I don't see this as anti-consumerist. Sony have their own service to protect, and PS+ already offers a terrific amount of content for your £30. EA Access looks like it will intrude into what Sony already offers, and while it may in itself offer a great deal, its potential impact on PS+ and the wider marketplace is a worry.
I don't blame Sony for taking the stand they have.
If activistison did the same the I'd be paying £40 a year to access games from them and ea, still seems like a bargain to me!
The issue is with whether this kills off publishers who don't have the library, with access to a load of games why would people spent £50 on a one off title?
jts
...hate me...
Wanted =/= Willing.
Exactly. And I'm fine with this as it makes total sense.
Yea, I'm glad Sony are trying to stifle any competition #4theplayers.
You may have been projecting when you brought up political strategy. The bolded is almost the gaming equivalent of "end-of-life care will lead to death panels."
A bigger point, though: "pro-gamer" and "wants money" are not mutually exclusive qualities. That so many people have managed to convince themselves otherwise shows two things: yes, they're sometimes in conflict, but they're also very compatible with one another. The company that manages to create the most perceived value is in an advantaged position, and being anti-gamer is hardly conducive toward that.
A version of EA Access that did all those things would be a complete disaster. Speaking of simplifying things, the idea that the most crudely exploitative business model is by default the most profitable is ridiculously simplistic.
And guess what happens then - those people stop buying their games and the particular dev/pubs in question will have to change their plans or take the hit. Their loss, not mine
Then go play your Xbox? I've had nothing but a great time with the ps4 and I've been gaming since 1990.
toddhunter
Member
Which makes sense.
But remember the original plans for the xbox one? Clearly EA was up to its neck in the planning for that and I don't see how any of that is really different to the mentioned scenario. All the concerns you raised are exactly the same ones raised then.
Microsoft backed away, but that doesn't mean EA will not push ahead with their "future".
Sony made the right choice. This service has no track record. This is EA and over the past few years they have been incredibly anti consumer until this service is proven I honestly wouldn't trust them with this. No doubt they will find a way to fuck gamers over somehow and there is zero reason to believe they won't.
This isn't about taking away your choice this is making sure that a service (which isn't nessecary) doesn't get out if hand. There is no reason why EA can't offer 10% off games thru PSN, plenty of games do it already. Play a game 5 days early? You mean a demo? They dangle a few new games in front right now but these guys will find a way to screw gamers once your in.
Allowing this will only open the door for other companies to come along and do this and trust me if this works then you can bet the companies like Ubisoft will come along and pull the same thing.
This isn't about taking away your choice this is making sure that a service (which isn't nessecary) doesn't get out if hand. There is no reason why EA can't offer 10% off games thru PSN, plenty of games do it already. Play a game 5 days early? You mean a demo? They dangle a few new games in front right now but these guys will find a way to screw gamers once your in.
Allowing this will only open the door for other companies to come along and do this and trust me if this works then you can bet the companies like Ubisoft will come along and pull the same thing.
Demos you'll already get on just about every platform prior to release and a discount that's less than what retailers offer for the full game. It's added value but it's not enough to make me want to support a subscription model where every major publisher will eventually be charging me a monthly fee to access, not own, a small selection of their library.
I'm not sure why he even cares about modern tech since he's bookmarking pages on his Netscape Navigator and watching videos on his RealPlayer.
You don't want another sub service that's fine and your choice what about those that did?
You don't have to use it.
I don't understand how anyone supports a console manufactor giving you less options.
The Jackdog
Member
the FAQ actually says every game will be different for early access.
Some youll just play a mode, some you'll have the full game.
We have to actually see this in action of course, but at least thats what they are saying they are gonna do
Kssio_Aug
Member
All of those subscriptions (except plus) would be optional, so I can't see the huge deal with it.
Also Sony is not a hero, theyre not taking your hands and making a decision for you because they care with you... Theyre a big company, and probably are denying it for the sake of PS Plus or PS Now, or they werent offered and are spitting out an excuse.
Im not all in favour of the publishers subscriptions, but since theyre "small" and dont have their own plataform, I dont believe they would risky go too far with their subscriptions benefits restricting non subscribers, otherwise they could end up losing a good ammount of sales and players fidelity.
Dragonborn
Member
You actually believe that will happen? Lime I said earlier, the consumer base doesn't always make the right choice which as led to all this DLC and mocro transactions being widespread.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
What's amazing is that the same people who welcomed Microsoft's original DRM hell hole are pretty much the same one's saying that people should be given a choice. Corporate ballwashers, I just don't get them. It's like they can't wait to be butt-fucked by EA/MS/Sony/Ubi/Acti-Blizz.
Introducing this "choice" is a one way road to an industry collapse over the long term as publishers concentrate on monetising fewer more hardcore players rather than trying to broaden the appeal of gaming.
Ol No Bones
Banned
I don't know what this ultimately look like but to pretend like more options is a bad thing is just silly. Acting like you are protecting your user base is just silly.
Handy Fake
Member
I think people are more worried about the implications for those unwilling to pay an extra $30 to EA on top of their online subscription.
TheKastorian
Member
This. People are just not understanding that they are getting fooled into buying a plan that should have been free through PSN and XBL.
Wickerbasket
Member
If they have a big enough subscriber base then none of that matters. Their subscriber base is pure profit from their point of view.
Nothing would change for subscribers, they'd see themselves as getting more value as they have access to all these features that non subscribers don't.
It's a shitty tactic, but companies use it all the time. They offer a sweet deal for subscribers, then gradually make the free experience worse to promote subscribing.
BruiserBear
Banned
This is interesting to see. I'm not exactly sure what Sony's angle is here, but I guess they must feel like this somehow encroaches on their PS+ business model.
Also, lol at the people who are spinning this as pro consumer and Sony looking out for us. This is a pure business decision.
Also, lol at the people who are spinning this as pro consumer and Sony looking out for us. This is a pure business decision.
Wow... talk about reading between the lines.
Basically they were also offered the same thing but makes total sense for Sony not to offer it. Why eat into PS Plus memberships sales? Why offer two memberships?
If you're a gamer - maybe you opt for a cheaper model that offers a few games to play i.e. EA Access. That means Sony segregates its membership base by having some people on EA Access and some on PS Plus, meaning fewer people playing online games on multiplayer.
Secondly having so many memberships to choose from makes it confusing, I think thats also one of the reasons why PSNow is on a per game basis for the time being and not membership based.
The Jackdog
Member
If they are gonna do something to combat used games, id much rather something like this than DRM.
Have to agree here, there is already a PS subscription to pay for so there is no way I will pay for another, and a company specific one at that.
Wouldn't do this for EA especially since their games don't interest me but I can't think of a single company I would be willing to do it for overall tbh.
Wouldn't do this for EA especially since their games don't interest me but I can't think of a single company I would be willing to do it for overall tbh.
ForsakenLotus
Member
So to me the biggest loss is the 10% discount for digital games. The free games are something that could be huge or could be not much more than older sports games.
With that being said options are always nice. If the program turns out to be really good it's going to be a shame not having it.
With that being said options are always nice. If the program turns out to be really good it's going to be a shame not having it.
pokeystaples
Banned
Don't have an Xbone bud. Had every Sony system at launch. Gaming is about games first not brands. Sony has come through but I don't drink the kool aid they are perfect. They have a track record also. Thanks for going Gamefaq on my post.
Interfectum
Member
As the console industry shrinks expect this to get a lot worse as they will try to milk every nickel and dime out of the consumer base they have left.
What implications? You suddenly can't go to a shop and buy EA games without it?
If they don't offer Ultimate Team for FIFA early access they might as well prepare themselves for the backlash.
It will be a debacle if people think they are getting the entire game 5 days earlier just to realize they paid for something that don't offer the only mode that interest them in the game. And right now FUT is the biggest mode for FIFA.
A dumb decision. And their statement seems like it was written by an intern that didn't realize how bitter it makes them. At first I thought it was one of the "I was the one that said no. I was not the one being dumped here. It was me that dump her" moments.
It will be a debacle if people think they are getting the entire game 5 days earlier just to realize they paid for something that don't offer the only mode that interest them in the game. And right now FUT is the biggest mode for FIFA.
A dumb decision. And their statement seems like it was written by an intern that didn't realize how bitter it makes them. At first I thought it was one of the "I was the one that said no. I was not the one being dumped here. It was me that dump her" moments.
Handy Fake
Member
Therein lies the rub.
- Status