Support NeoGAF

[BlackBuzzard]

That's actually a good thing. It's like bitching you only want one cable service provider.

If Activision wants in, they'll have to provide better value by maybe offering more games or making it cheaper, then EA will be like Oh yea? we're giving away a free game every month to keep... and so on.

A list of services may seem like clutter, but you get to choose what you want and that forces companies to offer better value to attract gamers to subscribe. Having just one service though Sony means they control all the content and pricing.

What a dumb analogy.

Does Comcast only offer NBC,ABC and FOX? No it offers everything the other cable companies do. EA does not offer Sony games or Activision or any other third party publishers games. So if every third party publisher has their own subscription. With its own catalogue of games for 4,99 a month with exclusive dlc you only get if you have (insert publisher name here) access.

 

[Alienous]

I just think the main fear is that they could easily just end up using this service as a way to lock you out of additional content if you aren't subscribed to the service. It could easily turn into this generation's platform/retailer exclusive DLC.

Different issue. Sony could demand that all content within the subscription is available outside of it. If they said no to the subscription on that basis they might have a valid stance.

 

[barrok]

I think it's fair to say that even EA doesn't produce enough games to support the service. They've got 5 games announced with a hard release date. Another 6 or 7 TBD. And none of them would be free on launch, I'd imagine. You'd need to buy 6 games to even start saving money after paying 30 for the year.

Hmm, you don't have to buy anything to "start saving money". You get access to some of the EA library to play so you don't have to buy them.

If you are fine with FIFA and Madden added to the library late (possibly after the seasons are over), then this would be an upgrade to purchasing both before/at the start of there respective seasons.

 

[Corto]

No I do not agree. I like PS+ as a service, but I do not get a choice in the deals that are provided, nor do I have any input of the game selection offered to me. Sony is blocking a service that might solve that need for some people...this is anti consumer.

No, I do not agree. At all.

The additional fee is for additional goods and services. Goods and services I should have the right to choose whether or not I want to purchase if a company wants to offer those goods and services.

I do not agree that a single service that allows for zero competition from competitors is a good practice or pro consumer.

I do not trust any corporation to put my interests as a consumer above their own interests to achieve their profit targets.

I do not agree that the PS+ offerings are all I ever want to have the option to experience.

So I completely disagree with this being anti-consumer. More options and more competition is always more pro-consumer.

And do you trust that EA, Activision, Ubisoft, 2k will put their interests above yours? You expect that 4-5 subscription services sharing the same target audience will magically add 4-5 times more value than currently? A console is a closed ecosystem by its nature. There is a compromise accepted by the consumer right from the start that some options are not available in that market. Xbox, Playstation and Nintendo. All the same. What one can choose is the less "compromised" option of all. Which one gives consumers more value. Let the market answer that question.

 

[LittleJohnny]

'Competing' over games you never own.

Do you get to own movies from Netflix? Nope. Can Netflix get competition from other streaming services like Amazon Video? Yep. And does that force both Amazon Video and Netflix to be more competitive by adding value to their service? Yes indeed.

 

[Percy]

I'm a little late to this, but has this been represented in picture form by that guy trying to hold things yet?

"How do I hold all these monthly subscriptions?"

 

[KingSnake]

I just think the main fear is that they could easily just end up using this service as a way to lock you out of additional content if you aren't subscribed to the service. It could easily turn into this generation's platform/retailer exclusive DLC.

And as people took the paid online mp on PS4 without too much complaining, if the subscription's value proposition is good enough everything it will be fine. Breaking news: there is already a lot of hidden content (DLC, pre-order bonuses, console exclusivity, timed exclusivity) only the they way it's provided would diversify. And as long as people will find enough value to pay for them it will go on.

And following the logic used so often for PS+, you don't pay for the content, the content is free if you pay the subscription.

I never wanted any shitty horse armor, but now almost every game released today gimped because they lock everything behind DLC. And I'm the unreasonable one?

Play the game and don't pay for the DLC if you think the DLC is not worthy. You don't need someone else to protect you from yourself.

 

[Hockeymac18]

Ok fair point, but again, that's where the choice part comes in right? If Sony adds this and consumers do not buy in, we made a choice.

I understand the concerns but again I don't understand why people will be glad the choice is taken away from them.

Also, isn't Sony charging for PS+ and going to be charging a separate subscription fee for PS Now? I just wonder why it's ok for Sony to double dip but not the publishers.

For the record, I also have an Xbox One and do not currently plan to jump in the EA Program.

Yea, I don't quite get this thought process, either. I understand the "slippery slope" people are talking about, and I think it is a very valid concern. But why not let it play out in the hands of gamers? Let us make the choice. If the service(s) is (are) shitty, then we won't support it. It's not like the traditional model of buying games is going away. We can still get used games. We can still get games in stores (of course, you can argue for "how long" that will be an option, but I think that's not really relevant to these services...that will change regardless of EA's service being successful). This is just another choice.

And the way it's currently being modeled by EA right now is actually pretty damned enticing. I signed up for one year as part of the preview program, and I got 3 games I didn't own already for 30 dollars (I already had peggle 2). And I'll be able to get games not in the vault for 10% off, which is pretty interesting. Most likely, I won't buy any games with this discount (I rarely buy games when they come out, so I'll probably be satisfied with the games they give me in the vault), but I do see how that would be appealing to many people.

And if the EA service actually turns out to have some major and terrible flaw/catch, I won't hesitate to cancel it. I'll just go back to buying/playing games the way I have been for years. I'll vote with my wallet if this is such a terrible thing (at the moment it doesn't appear to be terrible...quite the opposite).

The response in this thread and the announcement thread are like polar opposite...I know it's different people and all, but it's just funny sometimes to read two threads about the same thing on neogaf and get a completely different general response. Makes the whole "Sony-Gaf", "Nintendo-Gaf", or "MS-Gaf" (do people say that? haha) claims look pretty funny. Obviously a diverse set of opinions here.

Although I am a little surprised there aren't more people upset by Sony not wanting to give PS4 owners the option to try this out, at least in some form (Beta, for instance). There are people upset, of course, but it seems like quite a few in this thread are OK with Sony's response...

Do you get to own movies from Netflix? Nope. Can Netflix get competition from other streaming services like Amazon Video? Yep. And does that force both Amazon Video and Netflix to be more competitive by adding value to their service? Yes indeed.

Indeed. Fair points.

 

[cool_dude]

So wordy, and salty.

 

[Gxgear]

If EA asked Sony to increase the pricing of PS+ by $5.00 a month for access to EA Access would you pay it?

Sony will not be willing to give up a piece of the PS+ sub fees without a step up in pricing. They need those fees and they will not give someone a cut.

you think Sony is going to pay EA $30/year for putting Madden , Fifa and Battlefield on ps+? of course not.

The price wouldn't be increased, but based on how much additional content EA contributes to the PS+ offering they will gain a bigger share. The discounts for new releases also fits perfectly with what PS+ does.

It is a thing, Sony does it...right now (PS4)

If they had confidence in PS+ as a service on it's own they would not need to force MP to be part of it

That's why I said Microsoft made it a thing...its competitors now practice it, and we as consumers accept it.

 

[Petrae]

Long-term good call by Sony. I'd hate for subscriptions to start becoming a thing every company did. If we still see EA on PS+ I'd be surprised, but who knows.

I'd be okay with EA pulling future support from PS+ based on this reaction. The publisher will obviously still support the PS4 platform, but it should feel compelled to support Sony's subscription service when it's focusing on its own.

I also don't see why more prominent publishers (Ubisoft, Activision) wouldn't want to try this and potentially earn more revenue instead of going through the Sony or Microsoft subscription service middle-man via the Instant Game Collection or Games With Gold services. Perhaps the EA plan will be an interesting pilot for others to watch/follow.

 

[chrishackwood]

i was making fun of the people calling sony anti-consumer for denying a service we still dont know how it exactly works. This is EA we are talking about, there has to be a trap catch.

 

[EdgeXL]

So it seems that some people here are opposed to this service because they don't want other publishers to also offer a similar service.

To these people I say... let the market (gamers) decide.

 

[Dunlop]

And do you trust that EA, Activision, Ubisoft, 2k will put their interests above yours? .

i don't think any corporation (including Sony) will put my interest above theirs.

They want to make money, if the service is attractive to me I will purchase and both our interests are attained.

If not, neither is

 

[CosmicQueso]

And do you trust that EA, Activision, Ubisoft, 2k will put their interests above yours? You expect that 4-5 subscription services sharing the same target audience will magically add 4-5 times more value than currently? A console is a closed ecosystem by its nature. There is a compromise accepted by the consumer right from the start that some options are not available in that market. Xbox, Playstation and Nintendo. All the same. What one can choose is the less "compromised" option of all. Which one gives consumers more value. Let the market answer that question.

If EA, Activision, etc and Sony all have offerings available to me, the consumer, and are fighting for my dollars, every one of the services will have to compete with goods and services that will be appealing to me. My dollar is more powerful in this environment.

If only one company can dictate to me the content I will be allowed to purchase, then the choices, goods and services available to me will be more limited, meaning the power of my dollar is decreased.

Competition is always, 100% of the time, good for the consumer.

Let the market answer that question.

Exactly the point. Let the market answer the question if these services are worth our dollars or not. I don't need the omnipotent and omniscient Sony making that decision for me.

 

[rjcc]

Sorry, don't have time to read the full thread, what's the response of the people who swore yesterday that Microsoft was screwing over gamers and humanity in general by keeping EA Access as an exclusive?

 

[silvermember]

There are huge differences between the two that you are failing to acknowledge. Not all "customer choice" is good for everyone. But this is a service. Those who don't sign up for it miss out on nothing other than what the service offers.

This type of service is even less restrictive as, lets say, PS+. You don't have PS+ you don't have online gaming on the PS4. Here, you pay for a month, play some games, cancel it and you are done with it. Your system isn't lacking features and your bought EA games aren't missing out on anything.

Think of this like Microsoft Office 365. You can still go and buy Office regularly and you don't miss out on anything. But you also purchase it through a service. Both should be options that people can choose from.

The only difference is you are perfectly OK with it, ATM.

What do you think will happen if every publisher adopts since a thing, remember we have Online Passes as a precedent set by those publishers.

There was a time where people were OK with DLC, now you can't get people to stop whining how DLC are the worst thing ever.

So yes, this thing is a EA because you think only EA is going to do it. Once Ubisoft and Activision or other developers see how effective it is, you don't think they are not going to jump on it like they did with online passes? Soon you are going to have to buy all other publisher subs just to get content that was originally free.

Here is the thing a lot of people seem to delude themselves into thinking they know what is good for them. They think they can hide behind their actions by claiming it is their choice, the reality is most of the people claiming it is their choice, never look at the long term effects. They only look at the short term effects.

There is a reason why steve jobs always said something on the line of, customers don't know what they want and that is because they don't. They lack the ability to see the bigger picture.

 

[RexNovis]

I really like that you brought up PSNow. One good that could come out of this is that it could provide a small competition for PSNow, and hopefully drive down the prices, or open up an annual subscription option to all the games on the service. Gamers win.

What?!? PSNow has nothing to do with EA Access. They are not competing platforms. PSNow is a streaming service that aims for universal compatibility via streaming and charges a premium for that convenience. EA Access is a digital distribution incentive program. The only competing platform would be PS+ and I think it's safe to say that PS+ offers a much better value at this points with 2 PS4 games a month in addition to discounts upwards if 15% on a monthly basis. So, I don't really see how that's even a competition all things considered.

How did PSNow even become a part of this conversation? It's about as related as stamps to email.

 

[Metfanant]

Do you get to own movies from Netflix? Nope. Can Netflix get competition from other streaming services like Amazon Video? Yep. And does that force both Amazon Video and Netflix to be more competitive by adding value to their service? Yes indeed.

i can agree with your point...and appreciate it as im currently watching Netflix on my Amazon FireTV...lol

 

[Gartooth]

Now I'm pretty sure you haven't read the details of the program. So that's great.

I did actually. The program itself is fine, I'm more concerned about a precedent it will set.

 

[Rurunaki]

People keep spouting having an option is good. Well you guys have an option; buy an xbox one. If the value proposition is legit then I would gladly eat crow. For now, I don't want this to be the norm.

Corporates think of this stuff because people let them get away with it. Hey look multiplayer is now locked behind a paywall for Psn, that's because Sony saw MS get away with it on Gold. Voting with your wallet doesn't count if your in the minority. This is why Samsung and Apple keeps releasing a new phone yearly with just minor touch ups -- consumers are impulsuve buyers. Corporations count on that for profit.

I'm sure Sony has their own interest to look out for, but so does EA. Since when is paying $5/month to be able to play a 2 hour demo a good thing?

 

[ZServ]

Only EA Activision and Ubi have enough IPs to pull this off. If I could pay US$150 a year to access all their games I'd jump at it in a heartbeat. I mean I'd be getting: Call of Duty, Battlefield, Destiny, Diablo, Far Cry, Crysis, Assasin's Creed, FIFA, Madden, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Watch Dogs, Titanfall (you get the picture).

If there's a huge downside to this I'm just not seeing it. Can someone please not be snarky and sarcastic and just tell me what the serious negative implications of this would be? If you're not into AAA annualized titles it might not seem like good value to you, that I understand. But the service or concept itself seeming like a dangerous idea - how?

I think the concern is that it steps away from the concept of "owning" your games. PlayStation Plus/XBL are services that "get away with it" because they have substantial benefits outside of the games. It's easy to save the $50 you would spend on PS+ during sales, as an example. And, now XBL/PS+ is required for online play.


A 10% savings on DLC would mean practically having to own all the DLC to make up that cost in the long term. Let's take Battlefield 4, for example. Base game is included with this subscription, okay, cool. So, you decide you want the DLC. You will save 10% off of a $50 purchase. So, you'll save $5. BUT, you don't get to keep Battlefield 4. So, you've potentially spent $45 and locked yourself into paying $5 for every month you want to play Battlefield 4, even if it's just a singular day of that month.

Now, granted, I'm not gonna sit here and say "it's a shame that choice was taken away" because it's not a great option in the slightest, but I can empathize with both sides.

 

[AndrewDean84xX]

So basically Sony thinks we can't handle the choice of getting this completely optional service, and made it for us?

Thank goodness I own both consoles. Missing out on this service seems silly to me.

 

[SuperSonic1305]

Making an enemy out of EA is not a good idea.

EA has been doing that on their own for the last year.

 

[Arkam]

Not sure where the hell Sony is coming from in this response. Seems like a disservice to their users. Unless this idea was courted to MS first and Sony only getting lips service, I think they made a mistake.

Time will see. First we have to see if the EA service is a success or not.

 

[FleetFeet]

Play the game and don't pay for the DLC if you think the DLC is not worthy. You don't need someone else to protect you from yourself.

What you don't seem to understand is that because of some people who thought it was a great idea to even implement this DLC, then the people who were ignorant enough to fork over money for it set this precedent. I had no say, so now I get screwed? Now I have to say, oh thanks for making me pay full price for a game that is now lacking content that would otherwise be included? Yeah, that's a horrible thing to say. That's akin to "who would live there?" or "get a second job".

 

[gamechanger87]

The price wouldn't be increased, but based on how much additional content EA contributes to the PS+ offering they will gain a bigger share. The discounts for new releases also fits perfectly with what PS+ does.



That's why I said Microsoft made it a thing...its competitors now practice it, and we as consumers accept it.

Price would have to increase. Sony will not be willing to give EA enough of a cut to make the service palatable for them. PS+ is how Sony is expecting to make money here similar to how MS did it. They won't give the cut.

More than likely EA approached both with similar products. MS said we won't roll it into our XBL, but you can price it and we will handle distribution and payment processing. Sony said no with a thinly veiled value argument when in reality they didn't want to compete with PSNow.

 

[3rdamention]

Well, IMO, it's kinda silly to equate the EA sub service to PSnow.

PSnow is for PS3/PSN titles while the EA sub service is going to be for current gen XB1 games. One could argue that EA's sub will be more appealing to new console buyers as the vault builds value.

PSnow is going to have a much higher maint cost, since it'll need 24/7 PS3 streaming servers. While EA's sub can be run on server just fine (it's just distribution of files + license.) In that sense, it's unlikely for Sony to ever get PSnow to a comparable, competitive price point.

What?!? PSNow has nothing to do with EA Access. They are not competing platforms. PSNow is a streaming service that aims for universal compatibility via streaming and charges a premium for that convenience. EA Access is a digital distribution incentive program. The only competing platform would be PS+ and I think it's safe to say that PS+ offers a much better value at this points with 2 PS4 games a month in addition to discounts upwards if 15% on a monthly basis. So, I don't really see how that's even a competition all things considered.

How did PSNow even become a part of this conversation? It's about as related as stamps to email.

If you notice in my post you quoted, I said maybe one good that could come out of this for Sony is a subscription for PSNow. I am not necessarily comparing the services at all. I was saying that hopefully Sony would offer some type of Subscription Service for PSNow. Right now, it appears that you pay per game. I was hoping, in my opinion, that Sony would offer some type of subscription to play their games on PSNow, an annual fee, to get full access to their PSNow titles, a subscription based service for PSNow currently doesnt exist, or hasn't been announced.


We know how these services work. But average gamers aren't going to be familiar with all the nuances and fine print of how these services may work. So when someone says "Wow, if I get an Xbox One, I can buy the EA Subscription Service and play a handful of EA Games for only $30 a year."I was thinking that if Sony offers a subscription for all titles on PSNow, it would allow them to say "But we have this subscription service that lets you play hundreds of titles on PS4, PS3, Vita and PC for an annual subscription."

I was just hoping the EA Subscription Service would push Sony to offer a subscription for PSNow, cause I think that would be fantastic, versus paying per game to rent them and stream them. I am personally interested in PSNow, but not at the prices that the beta currently has.


I am not even talking about how they work, how much upkeep is involved, etc. I am just saying, on paper, for the average gamer, if Sony had a subscription service for PSNow, it could somewhat combat the EA Service on Xbox One if people were seriously considering buying an Xbox One for the EA Service.

 

[Corto]

If EA, Activision, etc and Sony all have offerings available to me, the consumer, and are fighting for my dollars, every one of the services will have to compete with goods and services that will be appealing to me. My dollar is more powerful in this environment.

If only one company can dictate to me the content I will be allowed to purchase, then the choices, goods and services available to me will be more limited, meaning the power of my dollar is decreased.

Competition is always, 100% of the time, good for the consumer.

No, it is not.

 

[Shinta]

Seems Sony is quickly reverting back to arrogance.

EA's plan looks like it humiliates PS Now prices.

 

[EdgeXL]

People keep spouting having an option is good. Well you guys have an option; buy an xbox one. If the value proposition is legit then I would gladly eat crow. For now, I don't want this to be the norm.

Corporates think of this stuff because people let them get away with it. Hey look multiplayer is now locked behind a paywall for Psn, that's because Sony saw MS get away with it on Gold. Voting with your wallet doesn't count if your in the minority. This is why Samsung and Apple keeps releasing a new phone yearly with just minor touch ups -- consumers are impulsuve buyers. Corporations count on that for profit.

I'm sure Sony has their own interest to look out for, but so does EA. Since when is paying $5/month to be able to play a 2 hour demo a good thing?

But why does Sony (or you) get to make that decision for me? Maybe I don't care enough about Madden to buy it every year but I'd be okay with a subscription service that let me play it now and then with friends only on my PSN list. I don't mind getting 2 hour trials just like I don't mind getting 1 hour trials through Plus.

I get that *you* don't want this service. I just don't get why you are okay with denying other games that choice. I mean, you counseled them to spend $400 on another system just to get this service. Really?

 

[Orca]

So wordy, and salty.

I got the taste of sour grapes more than anything.

 

[jem0208]

No, it is not.

Give an example where competition is a negative for consumers.

 

[FleetFeet]

People keep spouting having an option is good. Well you guys have an option; buy an xbox one. If the value proposition is legit then I would gladly eat crow. For now, I don't want this to be the norm.

Corporates think of this stuff because people let them get away with it. Hey look multiplayer is now locked behind a paywall for Psn, that's because Sony saw MS get away with it on Gold. Voting with your wallet doesn't count if your in the minority. This is why Samsung and Apple keeps releasing a new phone yearly with just minor touch ups -- consumers are impulsuve buyers. Corporations count on that for profit.

I'm sure Sony has their own interest to look out for, but so does EA. Since when is paying $5/month to be able to play a 2 hour demo a good thing?

Exactly! No one is stopping you from giving your money to EA if you really want to. I for one am so glad that EA is getting locked out of from this userbase. Let's see how they like it when they aren't in the drivers seat making demands.

 

[Killing_Joke]

Find it hilarious MS and EA are being used in a positive light for pro consumer. lol

 

[Toki767]

Seems Sony is quickly reverting back to arrogance.

EA's plan looks like it humiliates PS Now prices.

It's a good thing this doesn't compete with PS Now then. It's not as though EA's plan is going to let you play their back catalog of 360 games on the Xbox One.

 

[Goodacre0081]

I'm confused why Sony would consider EA Access competition for PS+. Had this happened last gen, it would make sense. But Sony successfully launched PS+ last gen in a way that made it easy to sell as a required service for online play this generation. Not charging for PSN was a bad move for Sony because it left a lot of money on the table.

Of course, now they can't go back, which was good for MS users, because it forced MS to create GWG.

So how come Microsoft can allow this without it being seen as competition for GWG, but people want to assume that it would compete with PS+.

I'm willing to bet EAccess was all a part of the pre-180 plan set forth by MS. the anti-DRM plans fucked it up and now we're seeing a different version of what was probably their answer to PS+ IGC.

now that they have another game service on their console with EA, MS wont have to push the GWG program as hard. just remember that MS avoided the "free games" thing for as long as possible. they never wanted it to begin with, seeing as it took so long to get up and going.

So we don't like this idea because FUD. Perfect.

i expect the worst with EA. like many other have said already. What's the catch?

 

[SmoothRunningGun]

So arrogant sony is back. How about you let me decide if I think it's a good deal or not? Really asinine decision by sony.

 

[Insane Metal]

Why?

I guess you could see it if you read the rest of that very post

Just imagine, things you would normally have just by buying the game, you'll have to make separate accounts and payments. UPlay, EA Vault, THQ HQ, R* online, etc. Imagine you have to pay 5$ a month to each... yeah, I don't like this idea at all.

 

[Metfanant]

Seems Sony is quickly reverting back to arrogance.

see this is the argument im not understanding...i can see why someone would want the chance to make the choice themselves...but i just dont see any sort of arrogance in the response AT ALL...

i think there is a combination of two things...

1. They are partially telling the truth in that they dont see the value of this type of program in their eco system

and

2. They are partially protecting their established service of PS+

 

[Qassim]

You make it sound like Sony decided, and not EA.

Sony made it sound like Sony decided, even if it isn't true, if they want to frame it that way, then I'll let them take the blame for it too.

 

[jem0208]

see this is the argument im not understanding...i can see why someone would want the chance to make the choice themselves...but i just dont see any sort of arrogance in the response AT ALL...

i think there is a combination of two things...

1. They are partially telling the truth in that they dont see the value of this type of program in their eco system

and

2. They are partially protecting their established service of PS+

I don't think it's really arrogant, more slightly shitty and annoying.

 

[FleetFeet]

Seems Sony is quickly reverting back to arrogance.

EA's plan looks like it humiliates PS Now prices.

Seriously, people need to read up on PS Now, because this is not even close to the same service. EA Access and PS+ are far more comparable.

 

[Lynn616]

Anti-Consumer. Fuck that Sony. Let me decide.

 

[TRios Zen]

This seems fairly cut and dry to me; Sony perceives a competitor to it's own service and so refuses that service (at this time) access to it's customers.

I'm not sure how you can objectively view this any other way. Subjectively sure, I guess.

 

[Shinta]

see this is the argument im not understanding...i can see why someone would want the chance to make the choice themselves...but i just dont see any sort of arrogance in the response AT ALL...

i think there is a combination of two things...

1. They are partially telling the truth in that they dont see the value of this type of program in their eco system

and

2. They are partially protecting their established service of PS+

Not seeing the value of the program is a complete lie. It's all choice #2.

 

[RexNovis]

Seems Sony is quickly reverting back to arrogance.

EA's plan looks like it humiliates PS Now prices.

What is this insistence on equivocating with PSNow?!? They are not even competing platforms. One is a digital distribution platform incentivizing day one purchases and microtransactions via discounts and the other is a streaming platform aimed at providing universal compatibility at a premium price. They are not the same.

They are not competing with each other. PSNow has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand: EA Access.

 

[Natureboy99]

Not the right call at all from Sony, give the consumers the choice.

What if they developed a taser attachment for Dualshock, then decided not to release it. They took away the choice of being able to taser people.

In this case, they may very well have thought that to give EA this service it would actually be anti consumer in the long run, since EVERY publisher would want a service, leading to some crazy complicated future of 20+ publisher specific subs to deal with.

To me it makes sense to have 1 sub service per platform. PS+, XBG, etc. Publishers getting sub services would be a nightmare in the long run.

 

[Metfanant]

Not seeing the value of the program is a complete lie. It's all choice #2.

not necessarily....there are many reasons why this program doesnt hold much value...

 

[Rurunaki]

But why does Sony (or you) get to make that decision for me? Maybe I don't care enough about Madden to buy it every year but I'd be okay with a subscription service that let me play it now and then with friends only on my PSN list. I don't mind getting 2 hour trials just like I don't mind getting 1 hour trials through Plus.

I get that *you* don't want this service. I just don't get why you are okay with denying other games that choice. I mean, you counseled them to spend $400 on another system just to get this service. Really?

I said it before, Sony is protecting their own interest. However, do not simply say "having choice is always good." Judging by how the market migrated from the xbox360 to the ps4, the people that will be "making the choice" for most of us are the same people that are okay with multiplayer being locked behind a paywall.

To me this whole thing, will just start a bad precedent. Other publishers will follow suit because they can already see how profitable it can be. Hell I would market the shit out of it if I were EA; "Exclusive maps/guns if you're an EA subscriber." Now that is a scary future --- it's a whole new level of nickle and diming.