Sony's response to EA Access Subscription plan

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sony is almost definitely not allowing this because it could set a precedent and hurt Playstation Plus. However, they are right about the EA Access plan being a horrible value. EA doesn't have a hell of a lot of Xbox One or PS4 games right now and most of their titles are sports titles. And most of their upcoming titles within the year are sports titles. So if you're an EA sports fan, then I guess this plan is for you. If you're not, then save that $30 and pick up Dragon Age Inquisition for $40 two weeks later.

Now, if EA retooled this to be a plan that is supported on 360, Xbox One, PC, PS3, and PS4 and included a vast library of older titles, then it could be a worthwhile bargain.

Why not let the customer decide if it is a good value or not. Why are they talking for me ?. For me it is a great value to be able to play Madden, FIFA (yes last years version) for $30. I dont like buying used copy, a digital copy of Madden is worth $30 for me.

You should accept that reality that there is another platform where this will be available, and if not that, that there are other means by which you can obtain these very same games you are moaning about not having access to unless you have EA Vault. Sony is not depriving you of EA games.
Look at what is happening with WiiU/Vita. If Sony is going to start pissing of 3rd party publishers and come in the way between consumers and 3rd party.. once the ship sinks it will be hard to rescue. It is great to be cocky and throw a fist pump now... it is not that hard to fall of the cliff in this business.
 
I'd subscribe to the service that gives me the most of what I want, and buy anything else separately. Like getting a DVD boxset of a show I like that isn't in the service I use.

Ok now you just have to be trolling. Why pay for a service to that will have access to everything imaginable when you can just buy it individually right? Pro consumerism indeed.
 
EA is not this villainous evil corporation that so many want to portray
I actually wouldn't be surprised if most corporations weren't, and it's mainly that their nature pushes them to putting some very selfish people on top and making selfish decisions. And game companies are generally far lighter there than others like banks or Monsanto.

But you don't have be outright malevolent to possibly do something that might be problematic, and I do think offering this service can make others decide they should too and fragment the good thing Sony had going on. We already saw how EA or Ubisoft wanted to have their own services logged into with consoles, and while optional they have tied some content to that and we've seen just about every major, larger sized publisher do similar. Not a SERIOUS problem admittedly but it is a little irritating that everyone wants to act like a special snowflake with their own, possibly flaky service, rather than fall on a stable backbone. This could easily end up a twist on that which requires blowing a lot more money depending on your preferences, and at an extreme make PS+ dwindle down to basically online play plus free Sony and probably indie games.
 
If people are really upset over this I urge them all to buy Xbox Ones, if they haven't already, and enroll in EA Access.

Nothing about this is anti-consumer. You've over-complicated what anti-consumer is.

Just go buy an Xbox One. If you want the most out of everything, there are exclusives, and now EA Vault, on that system. Heed your own words.

I don't understand where this sort of ultimatum is a reasonable part of discussion. People can own the system without wanting this particular offering, or not want the system but understand why the offering has reason to exist.
 
Everything about this particular topic is anti consumer

Don't agree even the slightest for what I've regurgitated several times already.

I don't care that they are. It's people defending it like it's a positive thing that I'm debating.

And "Go buy an Xbox One". You couldn't be missing the point harder.

Should I be missing a point, then you certainly are too, if this doesn't, once again, set a precedent for an 'anti-consumer' digital future.

I don't understand where this sort of ultimatum is a reasonable part of discussion. People can own the system without wanting this particular offering, or not want the system but understand why the offering has reason to exist.

This particular ultimatum came about because Alienious mentioned he wants services that have the most of everything, and Playstation certainly does not have Xbox exclusives, and now EA Vault, which is why I said that.
 
Whoever is interested in this can go ahead and lap it up sure. But it's a slippery fucking slope.

Don't agree even the slightest for what I've regurgitated several times already.



Should I be missing a point, then you certainly are too, if this doesn't, once again, set a precedent for an 'anti-consumer' digital future.

It may seem fine now, but this paves the way for rampant anti-consumerism in the future if this effort is successful.
 
You should accept that reality that there is another platform where this will be available, and if not that, that there are other means by which you can obtain these very same games you are moaning about not having access to unless you have EA Vault. Sony is not depriving you of EA games.

Nobody is talking about being deprived of games.

It's about Sony removing a choice because they 'don't think I'd like it'. Really removing it so that their services fare better. I don't have to be happy with that.
 
I don't care that they are. It's people defending it like it's a positive thing that I'm debating.

And "Go buy an Xbox One". You couldn't be missing the point harder.

It is the most positive thing they have done since not putting DRM in the PS4. EAA is slimy and sets a horrifying precedent in an industry that already sees it's customers as cows to be milked.
 
Sony already had the only worthwhile EA game on their subscription last month. Every other one is dirt cheap at this point or... y'know bad.
 
Nobody is talking about being deprived of games.

It's about Sony removing a choice because they 'don't think I'd like it'. Really removing it so that their services fare better. I don't have to be happy with that.
They aren't removing a choice at all. It was never on the platform, and they think it will devalue the PS value, so they aren't adopting it. Companies make these types of decisions on all sorts of scales all the time.
 
So, why can't they work that out with Sony on PSNow? People mentioned that this EA Vault is a collaborative effort from both EA and MS. Why would EA insists on having their own subscription system when you can easily incorporate that to PS+ or Gold Live?

Is it really that difficult to see how the $10 (or less) a month you pay for PS+/XBLG to keep a game perpetually, and is split god knows how between Sony/MS and all the other publishers on the service isn't getting you Battlefield, Madden and FIFA right now?
 
Whoever is interested in this can go ahead and lap it up sure. But it's a slippery fucking slope.



It may seem fine now, but this paves the way for rampant anti-consumerism in the future if this effort is successful.

I don't understand whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with my notion that an EA Vault, and presumably any other publisher in the future releasing their own vault, is crap.
 
So I'm assuming people agreeing with Sony are also against an a la carte system for tv channels.
Isn't buying only the game you want to play, exactly like just paying for one channel you want to see, while subscribing to the EA thing would be like subscribing to cable?
 
No. It is anti consumer to worsen an existing service that millions are already paying for to usher in a destructive precedent from an already contemptuous company just because it gives the illusion of choice.

You know what, you're right. EA's service can't be appealing. An alternative to purchasing games as they are today is unanimously a negative thing. EA isn't trying to provide value in titles that largely aren't bought a year after release with this service. This is clearly the gateway drug to gaming dystopia. First this, then all games will require subscriptions. They'll be unavailable outside of them.

Stop. This prophesing is ridiculous.
 
We shouldn't want this. Next will be Ubisoft, then Activision etc.

I would love it. If I can get last years game for $30/yr subscription... I will be happy to do so. It is similar to Hulu, HBO Plus, Netflix. Subscribe to what you want and dont have to worry about paying huge cable bills. I dont have any urgency when it comes to games like AC, Rayman, Madden etc.

Especially on PS3/360, there are so many good games I will be happy to subscribe to Ubi and Activision.
 
I don't care that they are. It's people defending it like it's a positive thing that I'm debating.

And "Go buy an Xbox One". You couldn't be missing the point harder.

But he is not. That is the point. Different competing devices/products have different features/services. It differentiates them and it's up to the consumer to make the decision to opt which one offers a better value for the asking price. That happened with Xbox One DRM policies versus PS4 and will happen here with EA Access versus PS Plus.
 
You know what, you're right. EA's service can't be appealing. An alternative to purchasing games as they are today is unanimously a negative thing. EA isn't trying to provide value in titles that largely aren't bought a year after release with this service. This is clearly the gateway drug to gaming dystopia. First this, then all games will require subscriptions. They'll be unavailable outside of them.

Stop. This prophesing is ridiculous.

Your sarcasm is quite odd and seems misplaced, simply because you've been arguing this entire time to have "options" to purchase these games when so many already exist.
 
Why not let the customer decide if it is a good value or not. Why are they talking for me ?.

They're speaking #4thegamers.

I think the clear answer here is that consumers don't know what's good for them.

But you... you do. Thank god for you. If only you were there to stop me from trying out Battlefield 4 for £4... please be quicker next time, before I really hurt myself.
 
I would love it. If I can get last years game for $30/yr subscription... I will be happy to do so. It is similar to Hulu, HBO Plus, Netflix. Subscribe to what you want and dont have to worry about paying huge cable bills. I dont have any urgency when it comes to games like AC, Rayman, Madden etc.

Especially on PS3/360, there are so many good games I will be happy to subscribe to Ubi and Activision.

If this service were on PS3/360 to begin with, it'd honestly make way more sense to me.

As of now, EA don't even know when they'll be adding more games to The Vault. It could be a month, or it could be a year.
 
It is the most positive thing they have done since not putting DRM in the PS4. EAA is slimy and sets a horrifying precedent in an industry that already sees it's customers as cows to be milked.

WHAT?

PlayStation is doing this service already. They're milking you too, if that's your stance. But I take it that's better, because...?
 
Yes, I should of been more clear and precise in that statement, in the sense that I'm a console gamer, always have been and hopefully always will be. What have they done for the likes of those consumers? I won't deny them those benefits with regards to your points, though I think we have to distinguish the business practices that have benefited consumers on PC have not translated into the same considerations for console gamers.

That is because consoles are walled gardens ruled with an iron fist by the manufacturer. PCs have many more options which is why games tend to be cheaper there.

I do think EA offering sales on console games as uch as 75% or even 90% off is of benefit to consumers.
 
I don't understand whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with my notion that an EA Vault, and presumably any other publisher in the future releasing their own vault, is crap.

Yes and no. It's fine in the short term, but it could have serious ramifications if this effort was successful. Sooner or later, every publisher will start their own subscription service, allowing you to "own" their games for a "cheap" price, psychologically locking you into their ecosystem by making you pay continuously for games that you don't own. It's taking advantage of the consumer's "I want it now" mindset, making them pay more in the long run.
 
I don't understand how this situation is comparable to TV/movie streaming services. Here your not deciding between PS+/Gold and EA Access for the better value, so much as your choosing whether you should pay for EA Access on top of your PS+/Gold service. That is, assuming online multiplayer matters to you.
 
How is blocking EA and their anti-consumer practices "anti-consumer"? If anything, this is a great benefit for those who don't want a future with EA and "games as a service".

As it portrayed by Sony, they were given the option for this service but passed on it, thereby not giving the consumer a choice in the matter, hence anti-consumer

Sony is a company in desperate need of money, so this decision is not wrong in a business sense for them
 
Is it really that difficult to see how the $10 (or less) a month you pay for PS+/XBLG to keep a game perpetually, and is split god knows how between Sony/MS and all the other publishers on the service isn't getting you Battlefield, Madden and FIFA right now?

So you basically want to add another $5/month to get you Battlefield, Madden, and Fifa? What's stopping other publishers from doing the same if I want CoD, Assassin's Creed, Tombraider, NBA 2K?

How will people react if PS+/XBLG ups its price to accommodate those must have titles? Too many unknown variables. The thing is EA vault will start a precedent and it could be a trojan horse for us consumers.
 
How is blocking EA and their anti-consumer practices "anti-consumer"? If anything, this is a great benefit for those who don't want a future with EA and "games as a service".

Really just seems like the evolution of Origin. It hasn't been nearly annoying enough on consoles.
 
Your sarcasm is quite odd and seems misplaced, simply because you've been arguing this entire time to have "options" to purchase these games when so many already exist.

They are denying another option, simply to protect their services from competition.

I feel like you're messing with me. Surely you understand.
 
To be fair, if the product/membership is bad, users wouldn't be drawn to it.

That makes sense, but only if "people" share your (and no doubt my) definition of bad. They don't.

Actually there seem to be a lot of people suggesting options are always better or that it will fail if it isn't good and go away. Perhaps I can illustrate why this isn't necessarily the case:

The tale begins with a man called George. He is just an ordinary man in a sleepy village somewhere in the Northern region of France. There isn't much to say about George, he is a good man, who loves eating all kinds of fruit and leads a peaceful existence.
The town too is unremarkable except for one astonishing detail. Every week members of the village (and only members of the village mind you!), go into the town square to get their share of the profits from the local fruit growers.
George enjoys this system. Each week he goes up to his friend Sonya and gets $100 in his hand. With this money he can buy all the fruit he wants, as well as other goods and services. Basically anything he needs and some things that he doesn't, should he choose to do so. George is particularly fond of apples, but sometimes buys pears, oranges and even the occasional strawberry.
"Life," thought George, "is good."

But one day, without warning or consultation everything changed. George appeared at the same place and at the same time to get his $100. But now? There was another man there called Ed.
"Hold on there!" Ed cried as George prepared to take his usual $100. "I'm from the apple farm and the Mayor has authorised me to offer a choice. You can take the $100 from Sonya, or you can take $80 from me and this shiny new apple!"
George was shocked by this. Apples cost much less than $20, so why on earth would he take this deal? There was no value in it and he certainly didn't want other fruit sellers getting similar ideas. So he simply shook his head politely (laughing at such a bad deal was not something George would do), took his $100 as usual and turned to go home.
But there was a problem. Just as he was leaving he saw his friend Mike walk up to Ed, the seemingly dodgy apple representative. Then, inexplicably he reached out his hand and took the $80 and asked for his apple too.
George had to confront him about this. "Why did you take that deal?" He asked in a confused manner.
"I don't know, I just like the choice and I spend my money on apples anyway...so what is the big deal?"
George didn't know what to say. He also didn't know what to say the next few weeks as more and more people appeared to be taking up the other deal. It wasn't a big problem for him, because he still got his $100 and could buy several apples with the extra profits, but it somehow gave him chills. George was a wise man and he could see that it was not going to end well.

When he appeared one morning to see another provider offering $75 and two pears, he knew things were about to get very bad indeed. Sure pear lovers were ecstatic, for some reason that George still failed to understand, but collecting the weekly share of the profits was now a confusing ordeal.
"Oh well," sighed George, a little too loudly. "People can be stupid if they want. Morning Sonya, $100 please!"
"Here you go George! I'm glad you still come to me. I don't understand why anybody would take those other deals, they are terrible!"
George nodded. "I'm with you. Oh well, I'm off to buy about 10 apples with my extra $20!" He ended with a conspiratorial wink.
"Oh I'm sorry!" Ed cut in, offensively listening in on the conversation. "Apples can now only be received through my deal. But don't worry, with the $65 I give you, I also now include two Apples!"
"Wasn't it $80?" George asked in shock.
"Yes it was!" Grinned Ed, holding a number of apples close to his chest.

The weeks passed and George lived without apples, stubbornly refusing to take the now terrible deal. Unfortunately the other fruit vendors soon followed Ed's lead, holding their own tasty delights to ransom as they held on to more and more of the profits.
Then it finally happened. George, now an alcoholic, appeared one final time to receive his usual $100. But Sonya wasn't there, she was now selling insurance in another town. Through no fault of his own, the usual and best option had been removed.
Almost crying, George walked up to Ed and asked for his usual deal. Ed smiled knowingly and handed George $65.
George was in tears now. "But, but...where are the apples?"
"Oh you'll get some apples," Ed laughed, "but only after 10 weeks in a row of taking my deal. But don't worry, you then get three of them, which is amazing value!"

The following week, George left town, swore to never eat fruit again and started a semi-successful shop selling odd socks. Sometimes he would wonder "where did it all go wrong? What could I have done?" There was no good answer, there was nothing he could have done. All he had now was socks.
 
Thanks Sony for making my decisions and protecting me as a consumer. I would have to make severe cuts to my lifestyle in order to afford those $2.5 per month.
 
So you basically want to add another $5/month to get you Battlefield, Madden, and Fifa? What's stopping other publishers from doing the same if I want CoD, Assassin's Creed, Tombraider, NBA 2K?

How will people react if PS+/XBLG ups its price to accommodate those must have titles? Too many unknown variables. The thing is EA vault will start a precedent and it could be a trojan horse for us consumers.

Hopefully other publishers do it. That way people can pick and choose what stable of content they want access to in this manner.
 
As it portrayed by Sony, they were given the option for this service but passed on it, thereby not giving the consumer a choice in the matter, hence anti-consumer

Sony is a company in desperate need of money, so this decision is not wrong in a business sense for them
Passing on a third party service isn't anti-consumer. Not giving the consumer every single option available for every platform, and every service isn't anti-consumer.
 
As its been described, how are consumers who don't want this offering harmed by its existence? Without resorting to a slippery slope fallacy, if possible.

They will be locking dlc behind this. Put demos that otherwise would be free behind the paywall. Thinking they won't is just plain naive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom