Support NeoGAF

[DirtyLarry]

it always fascinates me when threads go on and on pontificating about the possible reasons for said piece of news when the reason is incredibly obvious.

Sony is a business.
This would be a service that (in)directly competes with +.
Therefore they decided not to offer it.

Really the only negative I can see is how they handled the whole thing. There was no need to make a statement. This was no doubt a case where things would have been better off not said.

But hey who am I to rain on a parade. Keep talking about all of the possible reasons and all of that. Just seems pretty damn obvious to me they did not want a service that competed with their own in any way.

 

[kaching]

And again, people assumes that this service will keep EA/Ubi/whatever games out of PS+. Not gonna happen. It doesn't make sense. PS+ is tied to the online fee, so the userbase is always going to be huge compared to EA Access one. If you can make a big profit offering your games in a service like that, why would you stop doing it?

Because, something something Sony too. Just like when MS wanted to DRM XB1 games to hell and back.

 

[Dragonborn]

And you seem to underestimate 3rd party sales dominating the market.

Third party games sell as much as they do because they're on multiple platforms. Making them exclusive would defeat the purpose

 

[PSGames]

They must legitimately view Access as competition other wise why talk down a major 3rd party's effort here? Sony's relationship with 3rd parties has historically been very good. Seems odd.

 

[LowerLevel]

Something also just hit me. I guess EA is using Microsoft's datacenters and resources to host this service? The vault games download straight from Xbox Live, do they not?

When I "downloaded" BF4 from he service, it just did a second long "queue" and I was able to play digitally rather than use the disk. No re-download or anything, just the data from the disk I already installed. So now I can just tell my Xbox to just "go to Battlefield 4" without the disk which is a plus for me.

 

[TheTwelve]

exactly what I said. MS wont invest nearly as much money into GWG now. I find it funny they finally get a proper answer to PS+ and this other service comes along to muddy the waters.

Microsoft is in the position to try anything if it will cause some splashes and give some momentum. Sony doesn't need to entertain this and won't unless something really significant comes out of this.

I don't think the EA subscription service is appealing at all but I guess others do and I love the discussion and competitive note it brings. Sony has more reason to stay on their game now.

 

[PJV3]

Good grief with all this speculation lol

Perhaps this is direct competition vs PS+ have you guys thought of that? That's why Sony didn't opt in.

A lot of us don't give a toss about what motivates Sony. I'm not declaring it a certain disaster for gamers, but I have concerns about where these corporations would take the hobby if they could.

 

[TrickyDaddy]

EA's titles do not carry enough weight for enough consumers to buy a console JUST for those titles. EA would then become a first party and then THEY would need 3rd Party support just as much as Xbox and PS do. It would cost these 3rd Party Publishers even MORE money to publish on that console because then they're making each game for Xbox, PS, possibly Nintendo, AND then EA. This means more employees and more time spent making games. That's a LOT of cash for publishers to spend on a console that may not even be bought by enough people to justify the price of making the game.

You're really not thinking this through at all.

My point is EA doesn't need Sony to sell their games. (flipping the table to play devils advocate). 3rd party publishers have the upper hand in today's game market. Gamers follow where the games are. Not where the TFLOPS are.

 

[Chobel]

Would it be stupid? Something as small as 1 day exclusivity to that would make many big Mass Effect fans sign up to the service and wouldn't really greatly impact sales IMO.

Just one day? OK, it's not as bad as fully exclusive and could work, but it's still bad deal for EA. Many will just buy month or two subscriptions instead of $60 for the game and stop subscribing right after that.

 

[Dragonborn]

This argument reminds of the 'Wii is the market leader' there's lots of money to be had on the platform. Lots. Developers won't abandon the Wii. They just won't.

And there was tons of money to be made, just not with core games. That's a false equivalence.

 

[Xando]

My point is EA doesn't need Sony to sell their games. (flipping the table to play devils advocate). 3rd party publishers have the upper hand in today's game market. Gamers follow where the games are. Not where the TFLOPS are.

If that would be true we would have always online DRM on every console

 

[Adam_Roman]

I guess it's nice to see that Sony has a vision of what their platform is, and that doesn't include charging several subscriptions for games. I wouldn't have been mad if it came to PS4, but I definitely wouldn't have bought it.

 

[sneaky77]

While I agree with Sony that there is not enough value there unless you're hardcore EA fan, I mean the 10% alone is not going to pay for the subscription for me, but I don't know that I agree they should deny the option. I guess if it works out ok they probably will add it.

 

[icespide]

My point is EA doesn't need Sony to sell their games. (flipping the table to play devils advocate). 3rd party publishers have the upper hand in today's game market. Gamers follow where the games are. Not where the TFLOPS are.

they kinda do...

 

[jackdoe]

This argument reminds of the 'Wii is the market leader' there's lots of money to be had on the platform. Lots. Developers won't abandon the Wii. They just won't.

Only difference is that multiplatform games sell more on the PS4 as of now. I don't think the Wii could ever make that claim.

 

[Hoo-doo]

This argument reminds of the 'Wii is the market leader' there's lots of money to be had on the platform. Lots. Developers won't abandon the Wii. They just won't.

Let's just completely ignore the different audiences here. Third parties tried, but the games weren't selling when shelved next to Nintendo games.

 

[Dragonborn]

My point is EA doesn't need Sony to sell their games. (flipping the table to play devils advocate). 3rd party publishers have the upper hand in today's game market. Gamers follow where the games are. Not where the TFLOPS are.

Again, EA needs Sony a heck of a lot more than Sony needs them. You're seriously overestimating them.

 

[DoubleTake]

EA Access for $30/year, UbiPlay for $30/year, ActivisionAlpha for $30/year. Oh look, to play this content, or download this map, you have to subscribe to our service! "Okay ill sub, I reall want that content!"

Dont worry, you get early limited access to new games and a %10 discount on new digital releases. Also access to our vault of old games!

Then you do the math and realize, to make back the money on all 3 of those subs you would need to buy 15 new digital games from those 3 pubs. Say you only buy 3 from each. Youre leaving $12 on the table from each sub and then have to use your discretion to determine if the vault of old games, and early limited access is worth it.

I dont like where this could end up and really hope the cosumers who have a "choice" on Xbox choose wisely.

 

[boredandlazy]

Funny how the thread about Sony's 'reaction' to this EA subscription is easily going to overtake the thread about the actual subscription itself.

 

[Toki767]

Just one day? OK, it's not as bad as fully exclusive and could work, but it's still bad deal for EA. Many will just buy month or two subscriptions instead of $60 for the game and stop subscribing right after that.

My thought is that at $60 for a digital game, EA is making enough profit on a game where it won't hurt them to give 10% off even if everyone pays $5 for a month to buy all the games during that month.

 

[Bgamer90]

Just one day? OK, it's not as bad as fully exclusive and could work, but it's still bad deal for EA. Many will just buy month or two subscriptions instead of $60 for the game and stop subscribing right after that.

Yeah, I never meant keeping it exclusive forever. No way (haha). Just meant possibly a day or two before retail.

And I didn't mean the game being free either since it will be new -- meant the game being 10% off via EA Access for those first few days.

 

[BuzzJive]

At least EA isn't forcing their game subscription service on you in order to play games online.

I would never subscribe to this as I don't care much for most EA games, but this lack of giving consumers a choice is disappointing.

 

[rokkerkory]

A lot of us don't give a toss about what motivates Sony. I'm not declaring it a certain disaster for gamers, but I have concerns about where these corporations would take the hobby if they could.

Well yeah but then it's up to gamers to decide with their wallets. If masses flock to it then yeah we'll new this as a standard new biz model going forward.

Now what if EA refuses to put its games on other subscription services, now that would be very jacked.

 

[Mrbob]

Well that will never happen and I'm surprised anyone would claim as much.

I could see a scenario where MS gets exclusive content if Access is a success and Sony still refuse to allow it on the PS4.

I don't like a scenario where content gets gated away on a secondary subscription for a platform. Hurray for the future of console gaming.

 

[TrickyDaddy]

Third party games sell as much as they do because they're on multiple platforms. Making them exclusive would defeat the purpose

Let's look at the sales:

For PS4, its top 5 games sold so far consist of
4 from 3rd party:
COD, Watch Dogs, FIFA, and Battlefield.

For X1, its top 5 sold games consist of 4 3rd party games:

Titanfall, COD, Battlefield and Dead Rising 3.

3rd party supports are crucial in today's game industry and it isn't very wise to undermine them by saying "Sony doesn't need EA, EA needs Sony."

 

[Jest Chillin]

My point is EA doesn't need Sony to sell their games. (flipping the table to play devils advocate). 3rd party publishers have the upper hand in today's game market. Gamers follow where the games are. Not where the TFLOPS are.

Publishers are beholden to their Shareholders and they are not interested in a Cold War that would stagnate their profits for even a single quarter. Shareholders value guaranteed profits now over losses now and a gamble of a possibility of gains at some unknown point in the future. If EA were to pull their games from Sony, it wouldn't take long at all before we saw EA Executives getting voted out of their roles in the company.

 

[TsuWave]

My point is EA doesn't need Sony to sell their games. (flipping the table to play devils advocate). 3rd party publishers have the upper hand in today's game market. Gamers follow where the games are. Not where the TFLOPS are.

EA games sell as much as they sell because they are available on multiple platforms

edit - someone had already said it.

 

[wildfire]

Funny how the thread about Sony's 'reaction' to this EA subscription is easily going to overtake the thread about the actual subscription itself.

More people brought into the Sony platform already.

 

[Nokterian]

Petition is up

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ea-access-to-ps4

No thank you i am ok with PS+. I do not trust EA at all and good call from Sony to step in and say what's needed to be said.

 

[PseudoViper]

At least make it optional!

Granted, all I can see is 2K, Madden, and FIFA in their collection of usual games :/

 

[CambriaRising]

I can see why thy wouldn't want it to compete with ps+. Hopefully this doesn't mean we won't get any more ea games on ps+, though to be honest I don't really care.

 

[bishoptl]

This argument reminds of the 'Wii is the market leader' there's lots of money to be had on the platform. Lots. Developers won't abandon the Wii. They just won't.

This is a comparison you want to make?

I don't believe you have thought this analogy through.

 

[kaching]

I don't like a scenario where content gets gated away on a secondary subscription for a platform. Hurray for the future of console gaming.

That's my general take as well. EA are welcome to pursue whatever business model they like, but the one I prefer is single universal subscription for as much content from as many different providers as possible. There's frankly no one publisher that provides a consistently appealing enough slate of titles on an ongoing basis for me to ever consider single publisher subscriptions like this.

 

[rokkerkory]

Let's look at the sales:

For PS4, its top 5 games sold so far consist of
4 from 3rd party:
COD, Watch Dogs, FIFA, and Battlefield.

For X1, its top 5 sold games consist of 4 3rd party games:

Titanfall, COD, Battlefield and Dead Rising 3.

3rd party supports are crucial in today's game industry and it isn't very wise to undermine them by saying "Sony doesn't need EA, EA needs Sony."

Man, gonna be crappy IF EA refuses to put its games on PS+. But that may just happen. Imagine this spiraling into each publisher doing this. LOL

 

[EdgeXL]

Sony's response strikes me as "We know what's best for you?"

Why not just allow EA's service on the PS4 and let gamers decide for themselves if it has value to them?

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Let's look at the sales:

For PS4, its top 5 games sold so far consist of
4 from 3rd party:
COD, Watch Dogs, FIFA, and Battlefield.

For X1, its top 5 sold games consist of 4 3rd party games:

Titanfall, COD, Battlefield and Dead Rising 3.

3rd party supports are crucial in today's game industry and it isn't very wise to undermine them by saying "Sony doesn't need EA, EA needs Sony."

I don't get how you are calling them 3rd party but then can't understand that they are 3rd party for a reason. Guy, EA needs Microsoft and Sony. Without them, none of their franchises would live. If that was the case, this service would be exclusive to Origin but it's not.

 

[Chobel]

Well that will never happen and I'm surprised anyone would claim as much.

I could see a scenario where MS gets exclusive content if Access is a success and Sony still refuse to allow it on the PS4.

Yeah, I never meant keeping it exclusive forever. No way (haha). Just meant possibly a day or two before retail.

And I didn't mean the game being free either since it will be new -- meant the game being 10% off via EA Access for those first few days.

Yeah, I could see EA doing that and putting pressure on Sony.

 

[bishoptl]

My point is EA doesn't need Sony to sell their games. (flipping the table to play devils advocate). 3rd party publishers have the upper hand in today's game market. Gamers follow where the games are. Not where the TFLOPS are.

100% incorrect.

 

[mentallyinept]

I don't have a problem with the EA Access as a concept, other than it seems like a ripoff unless you buy 5+ EA games per year.

What I have a problem with is this idea catching on with all major publishers causing the cost of owning a console to skyrocket and the potential locking of more and more content behind these paywalls.

I'm not sure if it is smart for Sony to take such a strong stance here, but I guess we will see how it plays out over the next year or so.

 

[dakun]

My point is EA doesn't need Sony to sell their games. (flipping the table to play devils advocate). 3rd party publishers have the upper hand in today's game market. Gamers follow where the games are. Not where the TFLOPS are.

EA literally needs Sony to sell their games.. Sony consoles are their biggest market. EA is a behemoth of a company that wouldn't be able to sustain itself the way they are now if they cut their market almost in half.

 

[Colbert]

Just one day? OK, it's not as bad as fully exclusive and could work, but it's still bad deal for EA. Many will just buy month or two subscriptions instead of $60 for the game and stop subscribing right after that.

I look on it the other way.

For people that went full digital there is no second-hand marketplace where you can sell and purchase used games for a lower pricepoint. As long this is the case you must buy games with a much higher price compared to retail or gamestop. For digital-only gamers (like me) this is a way to play some of the games that are not on my priority list for a small fee. For example I am not that kind of guy that buys sports games but now I can play it even if they are a year old.

So it is a good deal for me and for EA because if I would go the gamestop way of things they would see nothing from the money I would have spent there.

 

[Saucycarpdog]

Is this what we've become? People are applauding a company for making decisions on their behalf, decisions that remove choice and inhibit competition?

I'm not surprised. The system wars has been furthering that mentality for a long time now.

 

[nib95]

Well, PS+ has already had EA games on it in the past, so I wouldn't be surprised if they have more on it in future.

 

[Dineren]

It should be interesting to see how this ultimately plays out. I buy enough EA games to probably make this a good value so I'll be purchasing a year to try it out.

Seems like a pretty good idea on Microsoft's part to allow it, in the short term anyway, as I would almost certainly have bought the games for PS4 rather than the XB versions I'll be getting now. Of course I bought an EA season ticket last gen solely to get FIFA three days early last gen so I'm sure I'm in the minority.

 

[PhatSaqs]

EA literally needs Sony to sell their games.. Sony consoles are their biggest market. EA is a behemoth of a company that wouldn't be able to sustain itself the way they are now if they cut their market almost in half.

It goes both ways but its an age old argument. Imagine a PS4 that didnt launch with Madden, FIFA, Battlefield, etc. while its competitor did.....

 

[CastorTroy]

Really reads to me like a teenager who's angry they were not invited to a party, and instead shouts to anyone in the vicinity that they didn't even want to go in the first place.

 

[Mihalis0013]

I really don't get all this "I'm glad Sony didn't bother" reaction. If you don't like EA or the program fine. I get that. But why wouldn't you want the choice?

If anything, if you HATE EA, wouldn't you want the choice on PlayStation so that you could actually vote with your wallet by NOT buying in?

Just my thought on it.

 

[BlackBuzzard]

Are people seriously thinking Ea will snub the PS4. Are you people serious? They would lose every sports license. Nothing will change EA will still release games on PS4. Except Xbox One owners will get paywall demo's, sorry i mean 5 day early access thats limited to either 1 game mode or 2 hours of playtime.

 

[barrok]

No thank you i am ok with PS+. I do not trust EA at all and good call from Sony to step in and say what's needed to be said.

Hmm, I don't think Sony "needed" to say anything. In fact, it looks almost childish what they said.

While I am slightly biased (I have an xbone, though I previously owned a PS4) I would far prefer the choice than to not have it. Not everyone buys every game they want, and most of the games I avoid paying retail for are sports games which are EA games generally.

Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if Sony changes there stance in the future. Especially if Activision and Ubisoft start to do something similar.

 

[MechDX]

It goes both ways but its an age old argument. Imagine a PS4 that didnt launch with Madden, FIFA, Battlefield, etc. while its competitor did.....

Dreamcasted.