Uno Venova
Banned
Why won't Sony allow for this awesome future to happen faster.
Sony's response to EA Access Subscription plan
- Thread starter RexNovis
- Start date
- Status
Why won't Sony allow for this awesome future to happen faster.
Wickerbasket
Member
Features withheld from non subscribers most likely. Which would be shit.
Think missing game modes and such.
toddhunter
Member
All of them would be required to play online, access exclusive DLC and exclusive subscription content like the end of the game.
That is making an assumption on the nature of those made up services, so it may not come to pass. But what it is highlighting is how "more options" is not necessarily this thing you should automatically want.
The Jackdog
Member
Ive seen this here a few times and i really dont understand it at all.
I have live, ps+, netflix, spotify, etc. My head has not exploded yet. I can function like a normal person. Throwing ea all access in isnt gonna all the sudden make me just unable to walk straight.
Brad Grenz
Member
Of course they aren't. That's how this particular rhetorical device works. I'm demonstrating the fault in your logic by applying it to a more extreme or absurd situation.
DarthWalden
Banned
So cynical...
If/When they start doing that stuff then I'll take my money elsewhere. For now this presents a great value for me if the program evolves to a point where I feel it's a cash grab then I can cancel my subscription
it's a competing service to PS+ in some ways, I don't blame Sony... but what bugs me is that the very fact that EA is doing this may mean that we won't see future EA titles come to PS+... which sucks.
EA did this with steam too, they release almost all of their games on Origin now and not on Steam, much to the dismay of so many of us
Damn you EA... why won't you play ball.
EA did this with steam too, they release almost all of their games on Origin now and not on Steam, much to the dismay of so many of us
Damn you EA... why won't you play ball.
I was actually curious when someone would sink to this low, but I'm surprised it was one of the more eloquent people in this thread to have done so.
I love how we're now equating EA Access with future industry collapse, however. Imagine if this were a higher stakes conversation?
And EU also got Dead Space 3 this month.
You mean like witholding multiplayer unless you subscribe to PS+?
Whipped Spartan
Member
They probably don't want to muddy the water worth PS now launching soon.
Green Yoshi
Member
Are you the CEO of Supercell? ;-)
@Topic: Sony wanted to see more of the 4$ than EA was ready to share, I assume.
Folks in Redmond need their GAF time too.
I don't care about the old versions.
it's a competing service to PS+ in some ways, I don't blame Sony... but what bugs me is that the very fact that EA is doing this may mean that we won't see future EA titles come to PS+... which sucks.
EA did this with steam too, they release almost all of their games on Origin now and not on Steam, much to the dismay of so many of us
Damn you EA... why won't you play ball.
It's strange though. MS now have GwG, wouldn't they be as cautious of allowing this as Sony then?
Obviously this is largely due to Sony protecting their own turf, but it has potentially positive benefits for gamers, by not leading us down the path of subscription mayhem... just like Sony releasing a version of PS4 that wasn't swamped in DRM wasn't out of pure love for the gamers, but had the effect of making Microsoft back off their original plans for a DRM laden monstrosity.
The Jackdog
Member
For sure has to be a big part of it, understandably.
PS Now has criminally bad prices, of which no-one is defending. But nice try.
Even if those arent important to you, It's still a very low price per game. If you don't like ea games this is not a subscription for you. Even if the other large publishers join in it will not restrict anyone from purchasing games like they always have. One side note..say there is an ea single player game that you want to play but hate ea..you only have to give them 5 dollars as long as you run through the game in a month.
So, is Sony protecting the customers also against tons of microstransactions, increased proliferation of 'free-to-play', and the gift of online gaming being locked behind a paywall? Or just against the services that compete somehow with their own?
I learned today that competition is bad and that the ultimate hell would be that publishers would have their own services and PS+ value would be diminished. What is the publishers will have their own subscription services? They must make them appealing to be successful. More competition the better. Isn't this the future anyhow? Games as a service? This is what Sony promotes now. So when Sony does it is good, but any competition to that is bad? If that's anyhow the future (and it probably is) more competition will bring more value. This statement here is exactly like paywall for online last gen, it is bad until we get the money out of it.
Microsoft doesn't have the position of force that Sony has now. Plus, if this will be a success it will make Xbone as the main console to go for EA fans. If.
Don't people realize this is just a way for ea and Microsoft to curve used game sales and make everything digital?
They offer discounts in digital games that you could probably get cheaper in store months after release anyway. They offer you old games for free, ones you probably would buy used at this point in their life anyway.
They give battlefield 4 for free with a 10% discount in Premium, which would still be $45. This is just a way for ea to make more money and prevent used game sales.
As a person who buys physical games, this is a waste of my time.
They offer discounts in digital games that you could probably get cheaper in store months after release anyway. They offer you old games for free, ones you probably would buy used at this point in their life anyway.
They give battlefield 4 for free with a 10% discount in Premium, which would still be $45. This is just a way for ea to make more money and prevent used game sales.
As a person who buys physical games, this is a waste of my time.
PJV3
Member
They will call the removed features value when stuck behind the subscription.
I think you will be getting it so that you can play fifa 15 five days in advance, buy it preloaded day 1 with 10% off, and for whatever dlc price cuts will happen through the channel.
now, on top of that, you will also have other ea sports games to try and fool around for free, games that maybe you where not very interested before, as well as fps like bf4 and whatever else the factories at ea pour out. and they do pour out.
as for me, I just counted how many games I have already bought from ea this gen, then immediately clicked 1 year subscription.
Handy Fake
Member
So why should I have to pay a subscription twice?
By the way, you've repeated that little nugget a few times and it's not even remotely similar. That's why people are ignoring it. Just for future reference.
SmoothBrain
Member
EA Access might compete with PlayStation Now in the future, so I can see why they don't want it on the PS. And honestly - after Medal of Honor, DLC everywhere and the Battlefield 4 beta I'm not going to pay for anything from EA anytime soon. Goodbye, Dragon Age Inquisiton...
kinoki
Illness is the doctor to whom we pay most heed; to kindness, to knowledge, we make promise only; pain we obey.
The more I think about it the less I like it and I thought it was a scam at first sight. It's basically EA trying to take a bigger share of the day 1 sales by pushing them to digital. Like they've done with Titanfall not being physical copies in the bundles. Eliminating second hand sales as best they can.
*sigh* Should I just recycle the same posts over and over again since that's what people seem to be doing? I should just literally respond to every post with a generalization/strawman with a picture of the scarecrow from Wizard of Oz.
Not to mention being hypocritical doesn't make you wrong. But yeah strawman #2!
gamechanger87
Member
Unlikely. EA knows they would get killed for that after the online play code fiasco. I downloaded Peggle 2 and I will have full access to it as long as I remain a member.
While I don't own it, I would never have downloaded it in the first place if I didn't get it with this service.
DustyVonEric
Member
Yes, I understand that. It would just be great for it to be all under one umbrella for cheaper price, I feel.
Like I would hate to have multiple subscriptions from among different movie studios, when I could simply subscribe to Netflix for example.
BruiserBear
Banned
It's going to be just like what's happened with the music industry. All these people subscribing to Spotify, and now we can't even buy CD's in the stores! Itunes has stopped selling music! You can't even watch movies anymore unless you subscribe to Netflix! Thank god Sony saved us all from this calamity.
jts
...hate me...
Sony doesn't defend their own prices?
It might come to that but what they are offering right now seems okay and it should be up to the customers to decide not Sony.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
What does this have to do with what's being discussed here. I suggest get an Xbox if you feel some type of way. You know, you do have a choice.
tfur
Member
It sets a bad precedent. They should negotiate within the consoles plan. We should not be getting another bill. Instead of going on the consoles manufactures back, it is now on ours.
We don't need half a dozen subscriptions to keep shitty companies like ea on the dole. They should be paying me for beta testing bf4 a year after launch. Paying for early demos? Fuck them.
Wickerbasket
Member
Yeah, and if you let one company set the precedent and it works, like Microsoft, then other companies will follow. It's shit, and it worked because Microsoft held nearly all it's features behind the paywall from non subscribers.
Do you really want more of that happening?
I'd think so. Maybe since GwG isnt as old or because they didnt really want to do it and their hand was forced.
The1stOfHisName
Member
Well, I'm certainly not crying into my cornflakes about it, but I appreciate that some people may have wanted the choice. More choice in the short term, however, simply cracks the door open a little wider for every publisher to squeeze through and get their own service out.
If in six months time we have UbiAccess, ActivisionAccess, RockstarAccess, CrytekAccess (lol, as if they'll still be around in six months), would you still be happy with having the choice?
What happens when you are suddenly subscribed to half a dozen different programs, spending £30 or £40 per month, on top of PS+ or Live, plus having to pay for any games that you actually would normally still want to buy? Yes, you may have access to more content, but if you can't play it all, and you're just subscribed to take advantage of one or two games, then it's a waste of money.
Still think that Sony have done the right thing. Shutting EA out will have been made for purely business considerations on their part, but the byproduct is that it may help to dissuade the other publishers from getting involved too.
TheKastorian
Member
Yep. If the EA plan works then I guarantee you that every major publisher will jump on board the whole industry will become a shit-fest (not that it's not one already). And we are going to be the ones to blame for supporting this crap. We complain about microtransactions? WE are the ones that buy them! It is only an "option" though...
I, and it seems plenty of others, don't want that scenario. Sony has a platform wide subscription service for gaming software. EA and Sony should make a deal that could result in the features of EA Access be included on the PS Plus service. That would be a consumer best scenario in the current state of things. As it is EA seems to want the lion's share of the subscription payment without dealing with the platform holder/gatekeeper. That's their prerogative as a business. They want more money/revenue/profits, as Sony. It sets a worrisome precedent, even more so if it succeeds. I don't want a future with per publisher subscription services. I will have a choice to not subscribe in theory. But publishers will get around finding ways to make them "mandatory". We already have mandatory "subscription" services on each consoles, we don't need subscription on top of subscriptions.
EA = Money hungry monsters, that only create a service for profit.
Sony = Goodwill ambassadors, only creating their service #4theplayers
It's complete bullocks.
Sony said no to this service because they believe it isn't in Sony's best interest. Period. Anyone that thinks that PS+ and PS Now don't exist entirely for profit is out of touch.
I completely understand the people in here that don't see the value in EAs service. If you don't want another subscription or don't buy many EA games, all power to you. But why defend Sony when they choose to not allow it as an option for others that may see value in it?
Sony = Goodwill ambassadors, only creating their service #4theplayers
It's complete bullocks.
Sony said no to this service because they believe it isn't in Sony's best interest. Period. Anyone that thinks that PS+ and PS Now don't exist entirely for profit is out of touch.
I completely understand the people in here that don't see the value in EAs service. If you don't want another subscription or don't buy many EA games, all power to you. But why defend Sony when they choose to not allow it as an option for others that may see value in it?
Thank you based Sony for saving us from spending less money...we thank you
/s
I don't have a ps4 but I would be a bit angry if I did after this news...I own Battlefield and i am not interested in sports games, but when a few more games are added I will be plopping down my 30 dollars.
I'm sorry that you don't like choice. Regardless of how good or bad it is for you, its up to you to decide that, not Sony.
- Status