GeordieMark
Member
I don't know if you are reading the same thread as me, but I've seen quite a few posts applauding Sony for not taking EA up on their offer as it would be bad for gamers in the long term.
Sony's response to EA Access Subscription plan
- Thread starter RexNovis
- Start date
- Status
I don't know if you are reading the same thread as me, but I've seen quite a few posts applauding Sony for not taking EA up on their offer as it would be bad for gamers in the long term.
Dragonborn
Member
Yes, every company wants money, that doesn't mean we're not free to dislike those that go about it the wrong way or encourage those who make the right choices. The way aboit which thwy go after our money matters.
Sony lookong out for the bottom line doesn't make this a wrong move.
BruiserBear
Banned
Well, I guess you're right. I'm gonna play some of the Last of Us Remastered tonight. Maybe you could play a game on your XB1 tonight, and we could talk over our differences tomorrow. As an objective person, I'm assuming you also own both consoles, right?
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Pretty arrogant
It's the only reason.
Sony sells plenty of shit that isn't a good deal on plenty of services. Sony isn't looking out for their consumers here,they are obviously protecting a little cash cow they've developed. And more importantly a cash cow that has tied a bunch of people into the Sony ecosystem permanently.
MS has only started the "rental" like service on the Xbox One, so they didn't really get their hooks into people the way Sony did with PS+ (good god, if I had PS+ when it started I would never leave the Sony ecosystem).
The last thing they want is a competing product that is platform agnostic.
Dragonborn
Member
Because it would be. As I said, Sony may be lolming out for their bottom line but that doesn't mean this isn't a good move.
Which extra paywall?
Also, the games that are part of the no-cost play library are out-of-print or past release window titles. The secondhand market is what monetizes most of those games (aside from download-only ones). The discounts on new digital games cover, at most, the share that many retailers are given as part of the physical distribution model. This doesn't even include shipping and manufacturing.
The end game is making their own games have a longer tail of profitability, and strengthening the digital distribution of their games by creating incentive over retail. The value a customer gets is exactly proportional to how many EA games they tend to buy, and in some cases it might be easier to justify something like this than buying what was originally one title a year.
shanafan
Member
Why would Sony want a company with zero credibility to release a game on the platform since they all they do is care about their gamers?
Jinfash
needs 2 extra inches
That is a very serious accusation. Name names please, or forever be silent.
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
How do you feel about the evil Netflix overlords being on PS4 then?
Handy Fake
Member
I don't know, honestly haven't the foggiest as to either will expand exponentially, nor as to whether they would charge.
But I'd rather not pay $30 on top of it for access to a single publisher's set of games.
However, that's not really my worry anyway. Like I said in my previous post, there's a rabbit away somewhere here.
Tertullian
Member
Anything that combats the nasty, anti-consumer "games as service" model is alright by me.
Get your facts right before you post something idiotic like this.
Would EA Access be platform agnostic?
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
So basically taking a page out of Apples play book.
Green Yoshi
Member
If I would like choice, I would play on PC where I can buy digital games from hundreds of different shops and not one single one as on WiiU, PS4 (to be fair, you can buy PSN games at Amazon as well) and Xbox One.
Brad Grenz
Member
There's actually a historical precedent for the kind of proliferation you describe and exactly why it should not be allowed. Movie studios used to own all the movie theaters. Paramount theaters would only show Paramount movies, Warner Brothers theaters would only show WB movies, etc. This was really bad for consumers because their access to movies was severely restricted by geography and it was all but impossible to see something made outside of the big studio system. In the US it took an anti-trust lawsuit and Supreme Court decision to break up their stranglehold on film distribution. EA seems to be attempting to recreate that monopolistic control in a digital era where gamers have their budgets tied up in publisher specific subscriptions that act as a barrier to purchases of games from smaller publishers or independent studios. They want people to be "company men" who stay inside the publisher's silo in exchange for small discounts and incentives of near-zero value.
Oh, really? Then I'm sure you can demonstrate why the logic does not translate, yes? If not, you should know that simply saying I'm wrong does not actually prove you are right.
Dreams-Visions
Member
*wipes sweat*
that was some hilarious spin there, Sony.
should be obvious to all. And yet, some people seem to be missing it entirely.
that was some hilarious spin there, Sony.
should be obvious to all. And yet, some people seem to be missing it entirely.
Handy Fake
Member
It's a service that Sony as a company don't offer..?
You can use it without actually paying for PS+..?
Dragonborn
Member
Terrible anaology. Let me ask you rhis, how would you feel if instead of Netflix, each studio had their own service you had to subscribe to? Would you like that?
Maybe Sony remembers when everyone complained about publisher specific network features on PS2 and the calls from gamers for universal services, and decided they just want one universal games-as-a-subscription plan on PSN. Ahem.
OR the alternative, and just as likely read: allowing EA to do their own would lead to every other publisher doing the same, and reducing PS+'s value to Sony games only. Saying 'no' to EA might lead to EA games drifting off of PS+ but might at least may prevent other pubs from trying the same. There's always the risk all pubs will demand this, though, in which case Sony may have no option but to concede in the future. If they can keep some pubs on board the PS+ wagon, though, they probably won't.
OR the alternative, and just as likely read: allowing EA to do their own would lead to every other publisher doing the same, and reducing PS+'s value to Sony games only. Saying 'no' to EA might lead to EA games drifting off of PS+ but might at least may prevent other pubs from trying the same. There's always the risk all pubs will demand this, though, in which case Sony may have no option but to concede in the future. If they can keep some pubs on board the PS+ wagon, though, they probably won't.
Doomshroom
Member
Stupid Sony i can decide for myself, thank you.
BruiserBear
Banned
You might want to also add into that question "and each studio charged less than $3 a month".
The Jackdog
Member
i think it reduces the value of PS Now more than PS Plus
I'm willing to believe this, but that's not what Sony said, and this explanation isn't any less PC than the answer they gave. They basically said EA's service stinks and they wanted to make sure their customers got "proper value."
If the reason is as you describe, I don't see why they wouldn't just say that.
Probably not, MS are the ones who are getting the money for the Sub, not EA.
Handy Fake
Member
Good post, and good argument.
But - and I realise this is just a personal hunch - I can't see EA stopping there.I really, really can't.
gamechanger87
Member
Seriously. People need to stop thinking that these companies are not-for-profits. Corporations exist to make money not for the greater good. Sony won't do this because it undercuts PSNow not because they are For The Gamerz. Its all marketing BS. If Sony really cared about gamers they would never have put MP under a paywall.
The amount of Kool Aid people drink sometimes is unreal.
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
This is next gen only, 2 games per month to compare fairly.
Also who says its 4 games per year, total FUD.
Opus Angelorum
Member
I don't think they will, and it's a very dangerous move on Sony's part.
Indeed, it's the more amicable response and would leave more possibly for them to reverse the decision.
It has gotten to the point where I hardly ever buy games anymore. I have a Gamefly subscription (3 games per month) and I usually rent out 3 - 6 games total per month. Considering I pay over $30 a month for the Gamefly subscription...your scenario actually sounds pretty good to me!
Shpeshal Nick
aka Collingwood
I'll admit it. I'm one of them. Why is it so hard for him to understand?
I loved the idea of buying a disc but not needing it. People still have the choice not to buy the console
Same here.
TrueGrime
Member
BruiserBear
Banned
Because they knew some percentage of their audience would be upset they didn't have this service, so they felt the need to explain themselves. They put their PR spin on it, the gullible eat it up as Sony looking out for them, and everything is good.
Delicious Waffles
Member
Their arrogance, my goodness.
GeordieMark
Member
But it's not good is it? If you are a Playstation owner who regularly buys Madden, FIFA or Battlefield, it's a pretty good deal. And you won't be getting it.
It's only 'a bad thing for gamers' if you believe in a future that hasn't happened yet, and may not happen at all.
I still think subsidizing the service was probably as big a reason as competing with their offerings. The statement sounds to me like they evaluated the proposal, negotiated a potential deal and were unwilling to match Microsoft on subsidy and were also (smartly) unwilling to charge more for the service on Sony platforms. That would be a marketing nightmare.
Heh, I suggest you re-read what I have posted. Never said Sony did any of this simply out of the goodness of their hearts.
As I stated; Sony made a business decision. It happens to also benefit consumer via my argument.
Miles Quaritch
Member
A Netflix type service with all games 'under one roof' isn't going to happen as the gaming industry doesn't have multiple sources of revenue for their games like movies, TV, music.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
No. Because obviously HBO and Showtime didn't feel that way. I think we are clearly underestimating companies who have much more to offer than others. Spotify can charge $10 a month, however iTunes can charge $15.
Banjo-Kazooie
Member
Don't forget Hulu Plus, Amazon Instant, MLB.tv Premium, NBA Game Time, NHL Gamecenter, the WWE Network, and Sony's own Music Unlimited. Wouldn't want these dirty optional subscription services clouding the gamers minds!
Oppo
Member
I bet this is what has been retooled from the flaming wreckage of the Xbox one's initial DRM system.
EA is still willing to try to go there. MS is willing to support them on a singular basis this way. Sony can continue to look like the good guy for simply not fucking with the sales model again.
EA is still willing to try to go there. MS is willing to support them on a singular basis this way. Sony can continue to look like the good guy for simply not fucking with the sales model again.
Man-is-Obsolete
Member
That EA thing to me is a big slippery slope, that will erode the value of PS+ and Gold. Especially if other publishers do the same. I find it ironic people throw a fit when retailer or platform specific exclusive content happens, yet there are such staunch defenders of a publisher creating a service to that enables them to take that to the extreme.
To me a service like EA's is only offering up more choices for consumers to decline and miss out on new content and services. If Sony and MS want a next gen they have to nip these types of services in the bud before they run rampant, and kill interest in gaming consoles. And before you say that is a bit presumptuous to say MS alone almost killed the Xbone before it launched. EA and others don't have as invested of an interest in the absolute success of consoles so long as they are getting paid. These publishers have big plans on how they want us to get games and it is not the current method.
To me a service like EA's is only offering up more choices for consumers to decline and miss out on new content and services. If Sony and MS want a next gen they have to nip these types of services in the bud before they run rampant, and kill interest in gaming consoles. And before you say that is a bit presumptuous to say MS alone almost killed the Xbone before it launched. EA and others don't have as invested of an interest in the absolute success of consoles so long as they are getting paid. These publishers have big plans on how they want us to get games and it is not the current method.
gamechanger87
Member
It is not clear, but it could be. Your origin account ties to your "GT" at each console. As EA would be controlling who gets access, they should be able to dictate who gets what.
Sony is market leader and pays for ps+ games.
The big pubs wont abandon ps+ as long as they are getting payed.
AusRoachman
Member
You can play eavault games without + as well! obviously can't play any online components but then blame sony / ms for that , not ea .
That was a thing with the PS2? Well I guess I have one more thing to bring up as a historical citation.
GerodieMark said:
If only we lived in a world where a corporation could both make a buck AND deliver a consumer focused product. Curses!
I'll never understand why the same people who bemoaned how awful the PSN service on PS3 was, continually moan about being given a better online experience and having to pay for it.
- Status