Support NeoGAF

[The Jackdog]

If you buy FIFA, Madden and Battlefield every year you already own the games that are going to be in the vault, and you're going to buy the games they will be adding to the vault next year. Other than that it's a limited trial of games you have to buy a few days early. And a 10% coupon you paid $30 to have.

Or, maybe now that I have the service, and know sports games will be on it, i just got all my sports games for the year for 30 bucks.

I skipped madden this year. I dont care to spend 60 bucks on this years. But now I can get that and fifa for 30 bucks, neither of which ive played

 

[Dragonborn]

That suggests EA approached them.



But if it was GG/Sony it would be fine?

If Sony's streaming subscription included only Sony games and nothing else, you bet it wouldn't be fine. In the same vein, if EA offered a netflix style sub with multiple publishers on board and Sony then said no to that, that wouldn't be fine either. You get what I'm saying here?

 

[wildfire]

More than one streaming service exists on the same devices. Hulu Plus, Vudu, Amazon Instant and Crackle (noted partly because it's owned by Sony and distributes content licensed through Sony itself) demonstrates that the effect of this is a landscape with options that are manifestly positive, as each service has to tailor to attract a different kind of customer. They offer slightly different things on terms each production house is comfortable with.

Maybe you just chose a poor analogy, but you seem to misunderstand the market you're using for comparison.

Where you see slight differences I see companies that have different media libraries not because they make the content themselves but because of exclusivity for various reasons from 3rd parties.

 

[Spades]

Other than that it's a limited trial of games you have to buy a few days early. And a 10% coupon you paid $30 to have.

Chances are the sports games will be pretty much the full game, with a feature or two (like Ultimate Team) missing - just like it was with EA Season Ticket. Your $30 therefore also covers an early rental of the game before you decide to buy it or not.

 

[Con_Smith]

Don't understand the people having issues with this, but as someone who hasn't been satisfied with EA's output I'm not really the market this is for. It's cool Ea is giving gamers a great way to access content for the cheap but I'm not one of those people who are easily swayed by a company who constantly looks for ways to game the consumer so I'll be watching this to see how they move forward. If they can make a great service that doesn't screw over gamers or people who love their games then great but if not, EA gonna EA right?

Best thing to come out of this though is more nails for the Gamestop coffin.

 

[icespide]

I'm sure it's been said but:

“PlayStation Plus memberships are up more than 200% since the launch of PlayStation 4, which shows that gamers are looking for memberships that offer a multitude of services, across various devices, for one low price."

Because it's required on PS4.

I think you left out a few words there

 

[AusRoachman]

Have you never met anyone that chose to do a stupid thing?

I meet them every day of my life. Consumers as an entity, are not smart. Informed consumers are. We are the latter, not the former when it comes to games. Unfortunately, the former vastly outnumber that latter.

Tonnes of informed consumers here still would like this service .....

 

[TechnicPuppet]

You are the second person to say this, but it doesn't matter, because the service has you pay for all the games, not just to two you can play, or for the system you own. Service to service, PS+ is dramatically better value. I don't see any valid argument at this time that can show otherwise. Down the years, this may not be true, granted, but now it certainly is.

That's just a terrible argument. Madden alone is greater value than every single PS+ game on PS4 added together for me. I don't have a PS3 and I gave my Vita away. Lots of people only have a PS4 or XB1. This service is next gen only.

Its much better value than both PS+ and GWG on PS4/XB1 for me. That may change in the future but right now, month 1 its better.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

This is what is called a Slippery-slope Fallacy.

But Sony, the company people are defending so much, did it. They baited people with free games and cloud storage, and then added what was previously free to their paid subscription. We have very recent precedent for it going down almost exactly as I laid out. Ignore it at your own peril. "This time it will be different" is an expensive phrase.

 

[Shpeshal Nick]

Exactly, and some people are arguing something like this would be good for gaming. I don't think so.

I don't see too many arguing EA Access will be good for gaming.

They're saying whether they see value in it or not and that Sony shouldn't make that decision on the customers behalf.

EA access poses no value to me personally. I don't buy many EA games anymore. But my cousin bought Battlefield, Titanfall and FIFA 14. This service would be right up his alley.

As an Xbox One owner. He has that choice to use the service. If he was PS4, he wouldn't because Sony made that choice on his behalf.

 

[m@cross]

Will be interesting to see how many people are happy to have THIS choice if existing free features start to become paid features....

Madden 26
Monthly roster updates*
Live attribute updates*
Premium online servers*
Real NFL rookie class*
Be a Pro mode*
Online match making**

*Free with paid subscription to EA vault service
**For 1 year, 2 years with EA vault service

 

[wildfire]

Why would people abandon ship? Sony just showed that they had a 200% rise in membership when they jumped from PS3 to PS4, which also happened to coincide with them adding an online multiplayer paywall.

This is how it will go down.

2014 - EA Access launches with a few games in the vault and a discount on other EA digital purchases.
2015 - They add one month of timed exclusivity for all DLC for subscribers, they say the DLC is going to be released a month earlier for them rather than delaying DLC for non-subscribers. Exclusive access to all EA beta programmes is added.
2016 - EA add elongated online game support for subscribers, instead of servers closing two years after release, subscribers can continue to play online for four years.
2017 - online support for games is cut from two years to a year.
2018 - Madden requires EA Access to play online. You also need XBLG/PS+.
2019 - All EA games require it to play online.

Where in that incremental addition of "services", which is what they will call it, would people unsubscribe. They didn't do it for PS+ so why would that change? It's wishful thinking to believe that a similar blue print doesn't exist at EA's headquarters and that people won't lap it up like they did for PS+. Don't forget that EA has a monopoly on NFL and a virtual monopoly on football games given that PES is a pile of wank. Their games aren't optional for a lot of people and EA know it.

If you are naive enough to believe that the service currently on offer is the only thing that will ever be on offer then that's up to you. I remain extremely sceptical.

Also the failure to broaden the appeal of gaming is why current gen consoles will be the worst selling since the 4th generation. Rather than better monetising fewer users publishers should have concentrated on broadening the base. My gf is absolutely anti-games, especially shootbang ones, but she sat there in the evenings and watched me play TLOU, and even had a go at some of the easier parts. I showed her a clip of Splatoon and she immediately wanted to play it because "it looks fun".

The likes of EA, Activision, Ubisoft and others have failed to broaden the base and now they will all want us to pay them separate subscription fees. Pardon me if I don't welcome this development with open arms.

Also, don't think I'm defending Sony here or something stupid like that, it is very clear that they have rejected this to protect PS+. In doing so they have, IMO, accidentally protected the consumer's long term interest.

Now I'm going to subscribe to this thread. Nice breakdown of one possibility.

 

[RedNumberFive]

I never thought I'd see the day in which GAF is upset that they can't give EA more money.

 

[flkraven]

So many people complaing about a 'subscription filled world', treating it like a tinfoil hat conspiracy. Before you know it, water and electricity will be subscription based!!! Wait...

It's $30 for a year for crying out loud. $2.50 a month if you go for a full year, so less than a Starbucks coffee. People spend double that on 1 game at launch. I've been toying with the idea of buying Madden, and I'm sure I could score a digital copy for $30 on sale. However, now I can have Madden and 3 other games + a few other perks for the same $30. Some people may not see this as valuable, but this isn't the root of all evil.

 

[Sloane_Ranger]

Lol, people are mad about this decision? Smh...

If shit like EA Access is successful, even more (big) publishers will do this.
They also wouldn't need to give "free" games or discounts to PS+/GwG subscribers then, because they'll be exclusive to EA/Activision/Ubisoft/whatever Access...

This! I really do not want to go down a road to subscription only gaming. Letting EA start us down that path, IMO, will only lead to LESS options for gamers in the long run.

 

[Mobile Suit Gooch]

I wonder how long until Sony does a 180 and let people has options? I hope this backlash is big enough.

 

[mckmas8808]

I re-read it again and I see it. Well that just confirms that it was a threat to them and this is the only way they could respond. Ugly really.

Why is it ugly?

 

[CrowdChant]

So one day EA is just going to have its own console right? They are just going backwards by offering this PS Plus type service before actually having their own console.

 

[ANDS]

But Sony, the company people are defending so much, did it. They baited people with free games and cloud storage, and then added what was previously free to their paid subscription. We have very recent precedent for it going down almost exactly as I laid out. Ignore it at your own peril. "This time it will be different" is an expensive phrase.

So you'd rather have the PS3 online system then?

 

[n00bsauce87]

2k make NFL, FIFA , NHL games ?

They have for football (2k 2005; argued as the best football video game that was made) as well as NHL. Soccer no. But for the other two EA bought exclusive rights. It's not for a lack of trying from 2k. But after that contract from EA runs out in two years, I expect 2k to be more active in the sports genre.

 

[Jhriad]

And your netflix example is probably apt. I would expect to see more and more bifurcation of streaming services as the content holders who have value start to take a long hard look at lost revenue when they simply sell the rights to a 3rd party instead of self monetizing.

When was the last time any of us used Crackle or Warner Archive Instant?

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.

How is the Vault portion of the EA subscription any different than Netflix? You're getting access to a limited portion of older content for a limited amount of time set by the content publisher. There's no reason why a Netflix style rotating library wouldn't work with games in combination with digital purchases. It's chance of success is limited if the model we're going with is a subscription for every publisher though.

 

[GeordieMark]

Sure, but this is EA/MS we're talking about. You're actually telling me there's no reason to worry

Actually, MS always required Live to play online.

It's Sony who went down the 'slippery slope' and first offered a subscription in exchange for free games etc, and then later made it required to play online.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Tonnes of informed consumers here still would like this service .....

I didn't suggest otherwise.

That's just a terrible argument. Madden alone is greater value than every single PS+ game on PS4 added together for me. I don't have a PS3 and I gave my Vita away. Lots of people only have a PS4 or XB1. This service is next gen only.

Its much better value than both PS+ and GWG on PS4/XB1 for me. That may change in the future but right now, month 1 its better.

Lol no, it is factual. When you pay for that service, you are paying for access to the lineup. When you pay for netflix, you are paying for access to the lineup, not the one movie you watch. When you pay for a music service, you are paying for the lineup, not the one album you listen to.

It is stripping down a service to your needs, to suit a position that makes the comparison better looking for EA. The two services, as they are, are not on the same level, because one offers vastly more games than the other. It may not be games you want to play, or can play, but that changes nothing, as you are paying for them anyway.

 

[Nzyme32]

Do people really care about the ability to play out dated sports games on their console for a subscription? Like let's face it, that's what it will mostly be.

Well FIFA14 isn't outdated yet, and Battlefield 4 is in there as well so it isn't just sports games. How EA add to that in future is yet to be seen but there no sign of it being titles that are excessively out dated, and the value is decent for those who buy lot of their games but wait and purchase later or buy pre-owned. I'm not sure how that can really be argued against yet?

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

So many people complaing about a 'subscription filled world', treating it like a tinfoil hat conspiracy. Before you know it, water and electricity will be subscription based!!! Wait...

It's $30 for a year for crying out loud. $2.50 a month if you go for a full year, so less than a Starbucks coffee. People spend double that on 1 game at launch. I've been toying with the idea of buying Madden, and I'm sure I could score a digital copy for $30 on sale. However, now I can have Madden and 3 other games + a few other perks for the same $30. Some people may not see this as valuable, but this isn't the root of all evil.

Full stop. It's ok if you find the service worth while, but this whole wall of text reads people should be ok with it because it's cheap. What's good and works for you is great but I find $2.50 much greater than spending $30 for games I other wise won't play, have any interest in, or don't play annually.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

I never thought I'd see the day in which GAF is upset that they can't choose to give EA more money.

Fixed.

 

[Portugeezer]

The EA thing sounded interesting, but I do not mind buying physical copies of games.

Sony found it was competing with PS+? I guess we won't get many EA games on PS+ then.

 

[conman]

This is definitely scaring me away from the new consoles. I have absolutely no interest in taking part in this new platform war over subscription-based access models.

 

[Brad Grenz]

Chances are the sports games will be pretty much the full game, with a feature or two (like Ultimate Team) missing - just like it was with EA Season Ticket. Your $30 therefore also covers an early rental of the game before you decide to buy it or not.

You don't get the early access unless you preordered the game.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

So I've learnt over the past few pages that EA, voted the worst company in America the last two years, are up for cutting their revenues by offering discounts to gamers through a subscription service. They don't want to make any money off this service in the long run because if they did, they would have kept their old titles at the prices they are now. This service will also not change, and all gamers will ever get is a great deal from EA. But Big Bad Sony has denied this benign scheme from EA.

 

[Xenon]

Well given that were are talking about the very consumers that paid for xbl for almost a decade to only play online, yes I guess that it's better to take away some choices when people appear to not have the ability to restrain themselves and know better.

Wow...

 

[GeordieMark]

If you buy FIFA, Madden and Battlefield every year you already own the games that are going to be in the vault, and you're going to buy the games they will be adding to the vault next year. Other than that it's a limited trial of games you have to buy a few days early. And a 10% coupon you paid $30 to have.

EA do publish games other than those.

 

[Redlight]

He he no.

I know for whom the Magpie sings.

It's all Black and White in the end. You're not alone here brother.

 

[AusRoachman]

Full stop. It's ok if you find the service worth while, but this whole wall of text reads people should be ok with it because it's cheap. What's good and works for you is great but I find $2.50 much greater than spending $30 for games I other wise won't play, have any interest in, or don't play annually.

So don't subscribe then, pretty simple really , no one is forcing this on you .

 

[ComputerBlue]

This is how it will go down.

2014 - EA Access launches with a few games in the vault and a discount on other EA digital purchases.
2015 - They add one month of timed exclusivity for all DLC for subscribers, they say the DLC is going to be released a month earlier for them rather than delaying DLC for non-subscribers. Exclusive access to all EA beta programmes is added.
2016 - EA add elongated online game support for subscribers, instead of servers closing two years after release, subscribers can continue to play online for four years.
2017 - online support for games is cut from two years to a year.
2018 - Madden requires EA Access to play online. You also need XBLG/PS+.
2019 - All EA games require it to play online.

This is definitely a huge possibility, and if it does happen I expect it to happen a lot sooner than 2019. The one thing I would say is wrong on this list is servers being shut down. If you haven't noticed, EA has been keeping their servers up a lot longer, even for sports games, seems to me they make a pretty penny from micro-transactions thanks to FUT, HUT etc.

 

[RMI]

I never thought I'd see the day in which GAF is upset that they can't give EA more money.

it's truly mind boggling.

 

[ethomaz]

Sony is right (well they are protecting PS+ but at the same time protecting us).

I don't want every publisher trying to make subscriptions programs to play/buy his games lol

 

[BadWolf]

Also, don't think I'm defending Sony here or something stupid like that, it is very clear that they have rejected this to protect PS+. In doing so they have, IMO, accidentally protected the consumer's long term interest.

Really like how you worded that.

Great post.

 

[mckmas8808]

That's just a terrible argument. Madden alone is greater value than every single PS+ game on PS4 added together for me. I don't have a PS3 and I gave my Vita away. Lots of people only have a PS4 or XB1. This service is next gen only.

Its much better value than both PS+ and GWG on PS4/XB1 for me. That may change in the future but right now, month 1 its better.

But you won't get the new Madden for free. So, what are you talking about?

 

[Nzyme32]

Will be interesting to see how many people are happy to have THIS choice if existing free features start to become paid features....

Madden 26
Monthly roster updates*
Live attribute updates*
Premium online servers*
Real NFL rookie class*
Be a Pro mode*
Online match making**

*Free with paid subscription to EA vault service
**For 1 year, 2 years with EA vault service

Simply don't buy the games or the subscirption at that point, it's your money and their policies to make. If it's awful people will move away, if it's borderline and EA keep doing it, you decide if you are happy to pay anyway or move on to other things. Simple.

 

[Occam]

Excellent. If this was allowed on Playstation, it would most likely be the end of EA games on PS Plus. I don't want any subscriptions on top of subscriptions. If Sony allowed this, then maybe other publishers would create their own subscription services next, and eventually there'd be nothing interesting left for PS Plus. So it most definitely would devalue PS Plus and lead to us having to spend more money to get the same level of quality as before.

Smart, Sony!

 

[tbm24]

So one day EA is just going to have its own console right? They are just going backwards by offering this PS Plus type service before actually having their own console.

Why would they need their own console?

Personally I think this service is amazing and I can't wait to use it. I already own FIFA for PS4 but ever since I bought my Xbox One, I've been using my PS4 less and less. Instead of me scouring ebay for a copy of FIFA on Xbox which I was literally doing a few days ago, I get the game with the sub for a little under the current price on ebay. Seems like a neat option to me?

 

[Usobuko]

I don't see the value too but another option wouldn't hurt at all.

 

[gtj1092]

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.

If you actually regularly buy these games how is it a good deal because I would say 90% of buyers get these games in the first 3 months. So them being in the vault didn't net you anything and the 10% discount is less than what you would get at GameStop when they have those trade in specials at launch.


I will say it's a good deal if EA increases their non shooter non sports games content and people don't mind waiting to play single player games. But the vault will have to increase before you can find value.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Why is it ugly?

Because it's conflict of interest. The option to have it is lost because it's a direct threat to an already existing models. Consumers lose point blank.

It will get ugly if other companies take note of this blatant backlash and opens up the gate to take their business elsewhere if they choice to do the same thing.

 

[PhatSaqs]

Sony is right.

I don't want every publisher trying to make subscriptions programs to play/buy his games lol

Yes options are bad lol. Thanks for saving us Sony! I will resub to PS Plus for your good gestures.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

So don't subscribe then, pretty simple really , no one is forcing this on you .

He wasn't saying that. He was talking about it from an affordability point of view. Not because he felt everyone who's against it should follow their hearts and skip it.

 

[ANDS]

Sony is right.

I don't want every publisher trying to make subscriptions programs to play/buy his games lol

I think the "value" of the system isn't really there, but you could always choose to simply buy games the traditional way.

 

[Aces&Eights]

Sounds good in theory.

Then in 2015 you have:

PS+ $5 a month
Ubisoft Uberservice $6 a month
EA Access $9 a month (price rise)
EA Online Access $5 a month (online play for EA titles)
Activision COD Pass $10 a month
Activision Destiny Pass $12 a month
Activision Do we make other games? Probably Pass $7 a month
Square Us too Pass $40 a month, $20 extra for games.

And so on.

Personally I'm happy for it to be all under one umbrella, that you have to pay anyway to pay online. Otherwise things could get stupid very fast... and lets face it, with these companies involved you know that it will.

This. I'm having flashbacks to when DLC was first starting to be made and some people were saying how options are good, that you don't have to buy it, yadda, yadda, yadda. Look where we are now with DLC. Every fucking game, story cut to be sold later, season passes, it's fucking ridiculous.

Edit: And lets not forget that this is EA we are taking about. Rated worst company in the world TWICE. There is a Trojan Horse here and once you accept the enemies "gift" is just a matter of time before you are attacked and destroyed.

 

[Gritesh]

I wonder if anyone considered that if EA's subscription plan works out and was available on both consoles if it would turn into a "this feature only available to EA subscription holders" eventually forcing you to subscribe to play their games online etc... I mean this is ea after all..