How is EA leading the way? Sony has been doing this for way longer.
Sony's response to EA Access Subscription plan
- Thread starter RexNovis
- Start date
- Status
How is EA leading the way? Sony has been doing this for way longer.
AndrewDean84xX
Banned
It's $30 a year. No one is breaking the bank for this neat idea. If we end up not liking it, we can cancel. It's not rocket science.
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
Pretty much what he's implying. "Read between the lines".
HORRORSHØW
Member
snark aside, he has a point. if sony is going to act elitist about it, then their alternative rental service needs a better pay model.
while i understand and appreciate both sides of the argument, that EA's service is entirely optional, i agree that not all pubs need their own subscription service.
TheOhrenberger.
Banned
Let's not go down a slippery slope. Right now this is just a way to get discounts and "free" games.
FranXico
Member
I can proudly say I never spent a cent on a season pass. It saddens me that so many people justify the practice.
Killing_Joke
Member
You already have XBL that has a free games program. Why not just make a deal to give away EA games with that instead of another subscription? That's my point. EA is saying fuck your programs. We want to make more money and won't support your programs anymore so buy our new subscription service. Good business for them but Sony is playing it smart. Keep giving away EA games with their service WITHOUT adding more money. This is a good thing not bad. I can understand why some might be pissed off about the lack of choice. But they have a service to protect and grow.
That is the dilemma here. How are you going to push for this subscription to the consumers? By setting up incentives not offered outside the sub. Games are fractured as it is and now we're gonna butcher them up some more just to make the value appear higher for the sub.
Stealthcobra
Member
this is gonna bite ea in the ass. gonna be alot of xbox gamers not buying games on release day and just waiting until it falls under that service.
Liberty4all
Banned
It's just a matter of time before you see "Vault Exclusive" games if this goes forward. What better way to sell the service than to put say a Battlefield franchise available only to Vault subscribers. A Battlefield game that will undoubtedly be littered with extra DLC and microtransactions.
Battlefield FREE* with the Vault!
*not free
In my humble opinion it is better to have the option to make the choice than to have it taken away from us.
Although sony says this is not good value. If I wanted to buy fifa 15. Took out a one month subscription on September 1st. (Cost of $4.99) Got early access to the game. Then recieved a 10% discount (paying $53.99). Then cancelled my subscription would have saved $1 and got early access. For that one month I would have also had access to the vault, and EA would have payed me $1 for the privilege. How can that not be good value.
FranXico
Member
To be fair, isn't this the case of DriveClub PS+ Edition?
The1stOfHisName
Member
That's the point though. In a year's time, sure you could cancel, but by then the landscape will have changed.
Scully Scully Scoo
Member
sorry i mean this ea access thing flops. ps+ i actually started paying for when i had ps3 because they were offering good games. my problem with ea access is why cant they just put their games on ps+ like other publishers do? if we support this crap then ubisoft/activison/2k will follow and soon ps+/gwg offering, which we will be forced to pay for anyway because of multiplayer, will be crap.
so instead of gamers just paying for 1 service and getting games from all publishers + multiplayer access, we would have to pay the xbl/ps+ fees and in return get crap games
AndrewDean84xX
Banned
Or more sales will happen due to 10% off discounts and early game access.
Assumptions are fun.
FranXico
Member
The natural consequence of that situation is that gamers would abandon all subscription services en mass, leading to the death of this business model.
You're making it seem as if their gonna stop selling physical copies of games and make them available ONLY on the Access Hub to play them. This is a completely optional service that allows people to paly through multiple games without having to pay MSRP fort hem and then trade them in (which i do 90 % of the time for games i beat, i own 1) game for my X1, WiiU, and 360.
This is like saying that you dont want to buy a car that has navigation built in because you can use navigation on your phone, but the fact that the company offers navigation built in means that their hunting for your deep deep pockets.
Thats how you sound.
DLC is still optional. Hell, I rarely buy DLC. Now you can argue that DLC should have been in the game in the first place but I do not buy games that I do not think are worth my money.
Microtransactions are also optional. I do get that they can be abused for a pay-to-win environment but I also choose not to support those games.
I'd still rather have the choice than none at all.
Leyasu
Banned
I personally think that this will be popular for people that buy two or more EA games per year...
So basically fuck the publishers, protect PS+?
You are not upset with the current service. You are against what might be. A maybe. Something that does not exist. Hard to argue with that.
If it doesn't present value, it will collapse.
And much like the MMO revolution, if there are too many subscriptions, the system could easily collapse.
But as it is right now, with no reason to change, it presents a value that Sony denies exists. They aren't saving you. They're protecting their own interests.
And how many maps are locked behind premium??? Man, this is what makes me sick... I have to pay them piece meal or one lump sum to obtain the right to play maps that actually outnumber the of maps that the title released with. What kind of shit is that for consumers? It's fucking peachy for EA, but not for me... and yes it's an option that I can never seem to escape. Horse armor didn't do shit either, it was mainly cosmetic, but that lead to the likes of BF premium... do you see where I'm going? Something so small and insignificant has morphed into that giant mess of DLC we now have to pay $50 for. That opened the door to pubs, and look at how wild they have gone with DLC! You think this will be any different?! Puuuhleease...
Liberty4all
Banned
You can still buy DriveClub at retail though. But yes it's similar.
Like I said earlier, my main worry is that this will fracture the marketplaces and lower the quality of content we currently pay for through our respective services (Live Gold and PS+).
I could be wrong though ... it might drive competition even more fiercely. Certainly everyone will have to fight that much harder for a piece of the pie. Speaking for myself I have no interest in paying yet another monthly fee on top of my current expenses so I see this EA Vault thing as a net negative. It is not a jump to say that content that might have appeared on PS+ will move the Vault instead.
AndrewDean84xX
Banned
That I one silly scenario. You don't actually believe that, do you?
Making a Battlefield game exclusive to the Vault's userbase would not be in EA's best interest because the consumer pool would be much smaller. Let's be real, the Vault titles are games that are past their tails anyways.
timetokill
Banned
Sony starting to get that arrogance back now that they've got momentum, scary sight to see.
Should've let the players make the choice.
Should've let the players make the choice.
Scully Scully Scoo
Member
or much worse the console plebs pay $60 for ps+/xbl + $20 ea access (required for online pass now (lol)+ $20 ubisoft universe service + 2k service for $20. lets just knife this crap now before it gets out of hand
clutch.as.it.gets.
Member
I agree, it very worrisome some gamers dont understand the whole picture with services like EA wants to establish with EAA. Even if people just doesn`t get it should be even to those folks clear, that with changes in business models only one side will benefit long term - and that will not be the gamer.
Liberty4all
Banned
I screamed loudly when horse armour DLC came out. Because of "what might be" or what it might lead to.
It all came to pass =(
Amentallica
Unconfirmed Member
But they became optional with a price rather than optional for free because of people. Let's not turn everything to shit.
Who would do that? Why?
If they did the services would probably be saving them money.
MaulerX
Member
It's just like joining SamsClub or BJ's or whatever. You get discounts for being a member. If you don't like that sort of thing then you're free to shop anywhere. Membership incentives have been going on for a long long time.
Honestly, if they started offering full games at launch in the vault I would sign up in an instant. £20 a year for Battlefield and a bunch of other stuff? Sounds like a good deal to me. Better than £50 at release.
However, yes I see your point. I don't think that would happen though. Because they'd earn more money by making people pay full price at release.
I don't really understand why people are saying this is fine because it's a good business decision by Sony. But it's also bad because it's a good business decision by EA.
I can't see them offering any major incentives like exclusive DLC though. They'd earn more money by getting people to purchase the DLC without the sub. I could see them offering the DLC free or at a discounted price to subbed people though.
Something like weapon skins or exclusive emblems, sure. I couldn't really care less about that though.
Leyasu
Banned
I think that this is oing to change this gen... It must have cost sony a fortune! And probably the main reason why you dont get to keep the game when your subs have expired
Dreamgazer
Member
As a person that only buys about 2 EA game per year (BF, NFS), nah.
At 10% discount, it really has to be 3-4 or more.
Then again, I'm not going hardcore digital this gen.
Not to mention, it was great watching the tears of people who bought BF4 digital day 1.
OK? I am judging the service for what it is. Not what you predict it will become. As of now, there is no harm. It has value to some people. For people it doesn't they do not have to buy it.
AndrewDean84xX
Banned
So $120 for a years worth of discounts on games I would buy normally, plus have access to games I didn't care enough to buy at full price, but can play them at a later time?
Sign me up for this!
DangerMouse
Member
People do stuff like that right now as there are lots of people subscribing to more than one of the video services at the same time like Netflix and Hulu.
Scully Scully Scoo
Member
ps+ needs protecting? 200% increase in subscriptions since ps4 release says otherwise. i just want the best value for what im having to pay for anyway. ps+/xbl is mandotory for multiplayer so ive accepted that i need to pay for it but i would rather ea/ubisoft/2k keep offering their games on these services rather than create their own services and turn ps+/gwg in complete crap
Honestly, I'm not even going to really bother with your comparison, because it's far from apt. It's obvious you don't you see what is going on. The end goal is to eliminate those physical based sales, to migrate consumers to all digital... to dictate consumers purchasing habits... to earn more with each sale while not even coming close to giving a decent return for consumers in true savings. Figure out how much money EA will net when they cut out the middle man, i.e. retailers... They give you a peanuts, while they reap all the treasure.
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
There's no sign of that yet because they've just started. And tho I don't necessarily hate on EA...c'mon, it's EA. The same company that basically killed the Dreamcast. The same company that pretty much screwed over Visual Concepts, and has killed pretty much its two most unique IP last gen (Dead Space and Mirror's Edge), or at least abandoned them. People thinking they won't withhold on content for XBL and PS+ to help drive EA Access are in denial.
Again, we don't know the terms this was initially set up. For all we know EA never consulted to Sony for this. There are a lot of us who think this was already being planned much earlier and get the feeling this is moreso EA's initiative than it is Microsoft's, but MS is in the weaker position (compared to Sony) to "go along with it". It, which by all accounts is pretty legit-looking as-is.
The problem is when people assume Sony (if they were given a choice) did so just to be dicks. I'll quote this from another user that postulates things better:
*EDIT: I can't find the post but when I do I'll quote it here.
TropicanaTwista
Member
I actually agree to an extent, I have a feeling that the EA games are gonna be NHL 14.... but when NHL 15 is out and stuff like that. The problem I dont get is why not let the customer choose? Its $30 a year, even if the service is crap (strong possibility with it being run by EA), you're not spending a ton of money. Seems foolish to not have this on their system, I can see MS using this as a selling point that might win over some ppl.
I hope this happens sooner rather than later...
TheOhrenberger.
Banned
well that's still better than going out and buying battlefield for $60. I'd save $30 on it and I'd still get to play other games in the vault. And you know they wouldn't do that, they'd lose so many potential sales.
Honestly that doesn't sound nearly as bad as you probably wanted it to. Actually, it sounds pretty nice.
Were people saying stuff like this when Netflix first started? "What if they make a series netflix exclusive?! that would be so bad and set such a bad president!" I don't know about you, but house of cards was alright by me.
I'm all down for discount. However, I doubt it will stop there. What if contents start to be hidden behind this sub paywall? Intentionally gimping games just to add value proposition is a very plausible scenario.
- Status