Sony's response to EA Access Subscription plan

Status
Not open for further replies.
I implore you think for yourself and not take their statements at face value. You have argued to your wits' end for several hours on how this is supposedly anti-consumer, drawing all types of conclusions, but you won't at least stretch their statements to dig deeper and realize that they're just delivering news nicely, or in other words lying. They're not going to say "we want to maximize PSN profits", or whatever their real reason is. Think about that.

I implore you to remember you are a consumer. You are not Sony or MS. As consumers we should always be wanting more options in gaming (any industry) There is no way that this can be argued that it is not a type of anti-consumerism. They rejected an option so they can continue to push their own product. It is likely a smart business decision even. However that doesnt change that they limited options for gamers on their console and they deserve a little flak for it.
 
I implore you to remember you are a consumer. You are not Sony or MS. As consumers we should always be wanting more options in gaming (any industry) There is no way that this can be argued that it is not a type of anti-consumerism. They rejected an option so they can continue to push their own product. It is likely a smart business decision even. However that doesnt change that they limited options for gamers on their console and they deserve a little flak for it.

We're just running around in circles. Some of you are ridiculous. Good night.
 
These meltdown type threads on Gaf are always the same. It's just pages upon pages of circular arguments! Sometimes I think a Reddit style upvoting format would serve this place better as it grows.
 
Thank god no one has ever made a bad decision in their lives or a decision while beneficial to them ended up hurting someone else. This personal outrage over a decision you may or may not make just obscures the topic away from rational reasoned thoughts and into taking it as a personal affront.

Man videogames is serious business.
 
These meltdown type threads on Gaf are always the same. It's just pages upon pages of circular arguments! Sometimes I think a Reddit style upvoting format would serve this place better as it grows.

Nah, then how would the best meltdowns ever get read? They'd get downvoted so fast we won't be able to quote them :P
 
Remember when Nintendo was supposed to be working on something with EA? Maybe this was the unprecedented partnership that Nintendo turned down? Lol...
 
We're just running around in circles. Some of you are ridiculous. Good night.

These meltdown type threads on Gaf are always the same. It's just pages upon pages of circular arguments! Sometimes I think a Reddit style upvoting format would serve this place better as it grows.

I don't know if it was mentioned before but the TOS

Please note, the purchase of an EA Access subscription is made with Microsoft and not EA. In order to subscribe to EA Access, you must complete Microsoft’s purchase process. You will be bound by Microsoft’s terms and conditions, including Microsoft’s Terms of Use (http://www.xbox.com/legal/livetou). Please contact Microsoft with any questions regarding your purchase.

An active EA Origin Account (“Origin Account”) is required to subscribe to EA Access. To open an Origin Account you must be at least 13 years of age and accept EA’s Online Terms of Service (http://www.ea.com/terms-of-service) and Privacy and Cookie Policy (http://www.ea.com/privacy-policy), see www.ea.com. In addition, the download of certain EA Content, as defined below, may require acceptance of the EA End User License Agreement (http://www.ea.com/1/product-eulas).


Breaks the idea that it is a simple offering of choice. If the same deal was offered to Sony, I could understand why they wouldn't want to deal with that.

To be honest, I am probably not viewing this as a good thing because of my Gamefly subscription. Perhaps those without access to a service like that would find this stuff more attractive.
 
I gotta say I like post launch Microsoft more than post launch Sony.

I have to agree.... I've always been more of an Xbox gamer than Playstation, but I have both the PS4 and One, and play both equally. It really seems like MS is making more significant and meaningful changes to their system. I don't care about 180's or backpedalling, I care about the product that I have in my hands and how it functions and is supported. At this point, MS is trumping Sony when it comes to system updates and added functionality.
 
i mean after reading this, i gotta take sony's side on this one. I can completly understand why they would turn it down.
Yeap... if the subscription purchase and all customer service is managed by MS (or Sony) then I agree Sony already have Plus... why have trouble with a 3rd-party service.
 
Forbes also disagrees with Sony?

two separate writers in two separate sections of Forbes. Understandable how there can be a mix up.

So you don't like AAA games for dirt cheap?

I do. But thinking progressively, I cannot imagine a multitude of publishers also releasing something like this and having to juggle all the other subscriptions. this is good for EA, but this is not the Netflix of games. Plus I'm pretty sure this all would have to be managed by Sony and I can see why they don't want to deal with the headaches associated with digital distribution.
 
Plus already do that... and I'm sure the AAA games will need a lot of time to reach the service like Crisys 3 on Plus this month.

Yeah. If you think EA will give you a new game each month, oh boy do i have news for you. They barely have a backlog and they already excluded Titanfall what's left NFS?
 
I can understand that having multiple subscriptions for gaming services could be confusing to the average consumer. I think Sony is just trying to avoid a PR headache. This isnt like subscribing for FF14 or Netflix. Its a gaming service just like PS+.
Amazing, this thread keeps delivering.
 
Forbes seems to agree with Sony.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...o-turn-down-eas-video-game-subscription-plan/

I agree with the issues he posted.

Wait is this right?

Like PS Plus, cancelling your EA Access account means loss of access to all content you may have purchased through the program. Unlike Netflix, only some titles are available for free. The rest—and this includes basically all new content—is simply discounted. This is just another potential confusion for customers and problem for Sony customer service

If you cancel ps+ you keep anything you bought with a plus discount. Surely if you buy stuff using the ea access discount you get to keep it even if you cancel your ea access account? Can't see anything concrete in the T&Cs (
http://www.ea.com/eaaccess/terms.html )either way but this surely has to be the case?
 
That's what I thought but he specifically mentions the new stuff bought at a discount ( new stuff -10% off if you're a member )

Going to have to assume he got that wrong, seems insane to think EA would lock you out of that stuff if you stopped paying.
 
I can understand that having multiple subscriptions for gaming services could be confusing to the average consumer. I think Sony is just trying to avoid a PR headache. This isnt like subscribing for FF14 or Netflix. Its a gaming service just like PS+.
But actually its different. I dont yhink it would be confusing at all considering its completely optional. Every consumer can still go about their gaming the same way they I before and not be hurt at all.

Am I the only one here that thinks EA didnt agree with what they would've gotten out of a PSnow deal and said well screw this we will do our own way? I keep seeing every one saunA pitched Sony but it very well could have been the opposite . EA and o th ER pubs still want DRM in place so they Rican recoup rhe losses of used game sales. And PSNow only adds fuel because someone can rent a game for a couple days and decide that since they already paid money to rent they the would just buy the game used to finish it out. So EA said screw this we can recover alot of used sale money by offering our games as part of a sub after so many months.

As many people that complain that annualized sports games arent worth full price for updated roster and a couple of gameplay tweaks, you would think those people would rejoice at being able to get all of them $30 a year. Unless of course they were ju.st being haters cuz they could. EAA went out of their way to try and convince those folks and people still complain.the hypocrisy is off the charts

Sight
 
Forbes blogs. Anyone can be a Forbes contributor.

I guess? But I believe Erik Kain has been doing pieces for Forbes for quite a while now, and I honestly just think Forbes is not the type of organization that is willing to dedicate an entire division to video games, thus the "contributor" label... but I digress. Also, it doesn't hurt that he called out Kevin Dent on his BS on twitter. I gots respect for the guy.
 
If you read the article, Forbes doesn't necessarily agree with Sony. They moreso hint that Sony did the right thing because of their limited infrastructure and higher responsibilities that their not capable to execute this service with confidence.
Well they already have responsability over Plus...
 
These meltdown type threads on Gaf are always the same. It's just pages upon pages of circular arguments! Sometimes I think a Reddit style upvoting format would serve this place better as it grows.

I think that would not be such a good idea... especially considering how Reddit continues to grow, that place becomes a bigger and easier target to game, from the likes of gov't. agencies and corporations. It's very easy to propagate a message, which would most likely be falsities with enough people to manipulate the system. Plus that place always ends up like the rest of the internet, a perpetual circlejerk.
 
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.

I laughed, I cried and I nodded my head vigorously in agreement. You sir are a scholar and a gentleman. Good in you for your apt little parable here.
 
Well said.. it would be a nightmare if/when other publishers do the same
There are only like 3 or 4 publishers even capable of doing something like this. Also, how is potentially getting more games for less money a nightmare? I'm sure you could figure it out.
 
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.

Quite easily the best post I've seen in a while. Pretty much sums up my thoughts.

As much as I enjoy options, EA doesn't exactly have a track record of consumer friendly behaviour. If Sony refusing the EA vault prevents this sort of stuff catching on in a big way - I'm all for it.
 
If other publishers offer deals that are just as good would it really be a nightmare?

Today it’s just EA Access and Sony’s own offerings. But what if in a few months Ubisoft offers a $5 subscription to Ubisoft Infinity for $3.99 a month and then Activision comes out with Activision SuperMegaJoy for $6 a month and then…well, you get the picture.

This starts to become confusing for consumers, and it becomes a huge task for Sony since each of these plans is funneled through Sony’s framework and ultimately Sony’s customer service.

Lots of gamers don’t think about the publisher of game X or game Y. Unlike Netflix, which offers movies and TV from myriad studios, EA Access is just EA. How many consumers will sign up thinking that it is, in fact, the Netflix of games, only to find out that Call of Duty isn’t a part of the plan. The headache for Sony is obvious. They’ve dodged a bullet. Microsoft is right in the cross-hairs.

If you read the EA Access Terms of Service, you’ll notice that the subscription purchase is made directly through Microsoft; that an EA Origin account is required; and that all customer service related questions are directed to Microsoft, not EA. If Sony had embraced EA Access, Sony would have been responsible for all the same burdens.

Plenty of other problems could arise.

From the Forbes article.
 
I would rather side with EA than Sony.. atleast they fixed BF4 after 3 months. Sony wont even fix most of their ports like Jak, God of War, BL2 .. after I spent 100's of dollars on those.

I have to call you out on this, because that is pure BS. In fact, the game is getting progressively worse! So, I'm curious what version of BF are you playing? The game crashed on me during matches more times in one weekend during double xp weekend, two weeks ago, than it has since I purchased it. Also still have lag and rubber banding... and afaik, since I sure as shit won't waste anymore of my time with it... a broken single player campaign.
 
I have to call you out on this, because that is pure BS. In fact, the game is getting progressively worse! So, I'm curious what version of BF are you playing? The game crashed on me during matches more times in one weekend during double xp weekend, two weeks ago, than it has since I purchased it. Also still have lag and rubber banding... and afaik, since I sure as shit won't waste anymore of my time with it... a broken single player campaign.

If you are upset about that. How about BL2... they out right refuse to fix it. Atleast EA is trying...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom