Sony's response to EA Access Subscription plan
- Thread starter RexNovis
- Start date
- Status
This. To be frank, Sony's statement doesn't make much sense and is as if they are hiding something, and this is it. They evaluated the service and then decided they did not want to introduce it to compete with their own. PS + is a big initiative for them and they want to increase its profits as reported by Sony CEOs and analysts.
I don't buy enough titles from EA that would warrant a subscription. I buy maybe one title per publisher a year.
With all the deals out there 10% off of digital purchases only. $30 annually on top of live, brings it to $90. It just depends on how many EA titles you plan to buy.
With all the deals out there 10% off of digital purchases only. $30 annually on top of live, brings it to $90. It just depends on how many EA titles you plan to buy.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
Are you suggesting that everyone would be ok with that? That's a pretty big slap in the face to the fans who have been supporting those games for over a decade. A optional subscription service is a decision few can live without. Completely cutting off the supply just because I don't want your subscription is down right shady and underhanded.
I'm talking about games as a service behind a subscription fee. That the future that many are preparing for including Sony and EA. So your only concern is that this is done by the publisher? The basic principles are the same. And for now the only thing hidden behind a paywall is online MP. In the future? Depends only on how big the competition will be and what will be valuable for the customers.
Some people think EA will drop Sony if they dont play ball and make their own console.
It's a fair point to make, but others have made a fair point in mentioning that the last time stuff like this went down, we ended up getting platform exclusive DLC and even retailer exclusive DLC.
It's just a really slippery slope to go down.
LOL no I was responding to the argument being made of who needs who more (EA/Sony).
NullPointer
Member
Interestingly harsh response from Sony there.
That seems like more than waving off a competing service. I wonder what demands, if any, EA was making from Sony on this, and MS for that matter.
That seems like more than waving off a competing service. I wonder what demands, if any, EA was making from Sony on this, and MS for that matter.
tfur
Member
If anything, I see this as a way to squeeze the teat of the under performing console audience. I would imagine they would like both consoles to bring in as much and matching revenue as possible. They are going to get it, one way or the other. This is a way to boost their sales on the hardcore Xbox fans.
I am not too convinced that the casual audience would take this up in quantity. Another subscription is always hard to swallow.
RedHotChimiChanga
Banned
FIFA PS4 doubles Xbone's active users
BF4 PS4 doubles Xbone's active users
Yes, EA needs Sony.
KampferZeon
Neo Member
We are on Page 36 now, but i am just curious about one thing.
The "email" reply is a bit mildly put unprofessional.
Not sure if we can take it serious.
Is GameInformer trustworthy? Or Is this a click-bait article?
GameInformer simply says "a Sony representative told us via email."
For something this big. i mean third-party relation on competitor's console, can't imagine this being handled so casually by email from some unknown "Sony employee"
I would have imagined GameInformer got a "No Comment" response instead .
The official response would have been handled by some Sony figure head speaking on playstation blog or GameIndustry interview.
Microsoft is OK with this because they are on the defensive. They are trying a different angle tactic by bringing some market destructive force in the the console war while laying claims to the pro-consumer pro-choice banner.
EA is just being greedy and trying to have some of that "PSN+ / Live subscription" money.
And without spending a penny doing it, the cost of running the network infrastructure is all on Microsoft.
It takes a lot of money and making a big risk to be a console maker.
No one should be mad with Sony.
It makes total business sense for Sony refusing to share its privileges with 3rd party publishers.
The "email" reply is a bit mildly put unprofessional.
Not sure if we can take it serious.
Is GameInformer trustworthy? Or Is this a click-bait article?
GameInformer simply says "a Sony representative told us via email."
For something this big. i mean third-party relation on competitor's console, can't imagine this being handled so casually by email from some unknown "Sony employee"
I would have imagined GameInformer got a "No Comment" response instead .
The official response would have been handled by some Sony figure head speaking on playstation blog or GameIndustry interview.
Microsoft is OK with this because they are on the defensive. They are trying a different angle tactic by bringing some market destructive force in the the console war while laying claims to the pro-consumer pro-choice banner.
EA is just being greedy and trying to have some of that "PSN+ / Live subscription" money.
And without spending a penny doing it, the cost of running the network infrastructure is all on Microsoft.
It takes a lot of money and making a big risk to be a console maker.
No one should be mad with Sony.
It makes total business sense for Sony refusing to share its privileges with 3rd party publishers.
Right now EA often releases it's games for Playstation gamers for free as part of PS+. If EA had a competing subscription service there's less draw and leverage on Sony's end for EA to keep releasing games on PS+. This was likely a calculated business decision by Sony, probably made after considering a multitude of factors.
An Ubisoft service like this would be even more tempting than EA's for me
Play all their buggy games a year after theyve been patched on the cheap? Sign me up!
Honestly: FIFA Battlefield and Madden for US$30 a year is better value than the crapload of indies my PS4 has gotten from the IGC.
I'd welcome this plan, and if it included all their titles (NFS, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Crysis et al) I'd consider getting an Xbox for it. It's a shame Sony is acting like a nanny here and not letting consumers decide.
If Ubi followed suit and offered a comparable plan, I'd get it quick too. US$60 a year between them and I'd get all the major annualized triple-As except for CoD. That would be amazing value.
A lot of people fear games a service but I'm a gamer, not a collector. If I can get all these major IPs for the cost of a single retail game a year, I'd be getting my content at a super fair price and have loads of fun.
Some peoples arguments here are strange. Assuming I wanted to watch Breaking Bad, is it insane to just pay for netflix? Sure it might be removed from catalogue some day and servers might go down in years and I'll lose access but so what? I saw it and enjoyed it and if in ten years I wanna go back to it I'll buy a Blu Ray version. In the meantime, I'm getting my content at a deep subscribed discount.
I'd welcome this plan, and if it included all their titles (NFS, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Crysis et al) I'd consider getting an Xbox for it. It's a shame Sony is acting like a nanny here and not letting consumers decide.
If Ubi followed suit and offered a comparable plan, I'd get it quick too. US$60 a year between them and I'd get all the major annualized triple-As except for CoD. That would be amazing value.
A lot of people fear games a service but I'm a gamer, not a collector. If I can get all these major IPs for the cost of a single retail game a year, I'd be getting my content at a super fair price and have loads of fun.
Some peoples arguments here are strange. Assuming I wanted to watch Breaking Bad, is it insane to just pay for netflix? Sure it might be removed from catalogue some day and servers might go down in years and I'll lose access but so what? I saw it and enjoyed it and if in ten years I wanna go back to it I'll buy a Blu Ray version. In the meantime, I'm getting my content at a deep subscribed discount.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Well, sometimes it takes several months for EA to patch a game so it's playable.
How insane would you have to be to even consider owning a console made by EA?
The Illiterati
Member
People arguing FOR this subscription model have ZERO vision, ZERO forethought.
More options are not better when they lead to further fragmentation.
"Comcast asks me to pay 10 more dollars for faster Netflix, why isn't having that OPTION better for me as a consumer?"
More options are not better when they lead to further fragmentation.
"Comcast asks me to pay 10 more dollars for faster Netflix, why isn't having that OPTION better for me as a consumer?"
robovanburen
Member
Not even remotely the same thing.
I have no idea
DidntKnowJack
Member
I don't understand the controversy here. We've all been boycotting EA games for years now, haven't we?
God dammit did I miss a memo somewhere along the way?
God dammit did I miss a memo somewhere along the way?
CambriaRising
Member
Which is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
lol, sure. This is exactly like the net-neutrality debate.
EatinOlives
Member
I know EA's saying that they won't stop supporting PS+ now, but things can change. That's really the one thing that worries me, EA pulling support from PS+ like they did Steam just because they have their own version of it that's mildly successful.
But at the same time, Sony being forced to give the option for an additional $5/mo just for EA games on top of the cost of PS+, effectively doubling the price of PS+, sounds like a far worse alternative. I don't think an option would've been better here. The idea of separating one publisher's titles from the pack of PS+ and charging extra for it as an "option" frankly sounds terrible.
But at the same time, Sony being forced to give the option for an additional $5/mo just for EA games on top of the cost of PS+, effectively doubling the price of PS+, sounds like a far worse alternative. I don't think an option would've been better here. The idea of separating one publisher's titles from the pack of PS+ and charging extra for it as an "option" frankly sounds terrible.
Metalingus5150
Member
My thoughts on it. EA wanted someone to help fund it, Microsoft would, Sony wouldn't.
Just a PR statement here.
Just a PR statement here.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
Explain..
silvermember
Banned
It's funny, listening to the same people proudly declare customer choice and yet they turn around and bitch how people are supporting DLC purchases. How people are supporting companies bad behavior by purchasing DLC. FYI that is also customer choice.
Also funny, you say customer choice then turn around and complain about online pass, aren't all those up to the customers themselves?
The point being customer choice isn't a real choice. People only use that idiotic excuse on things they don't like.
The only real customer choice you have is the decision to whether to buy a sony, microsoft or nintendo console, that is the only real choice you have.​
Also funny, you say customer choice then turn around and complain about online pass, aren't all those up to the customers themselves?
The point being customer choice isn't a real choice. People only use that idiotic excuse on things they don't like.
The only real customer choice you have is the decision to whether to buy a sony, microsoft or nintendo console, that is the only real choice you have.​
I think the argument could be made that while the PS4 is selling very well, Sony's financials still aren't in the greatest place. When subscriptions to PS+ are up 200%, PS Now is in the works, PS TV is a thing, and not wanting to pay EA to offer their subscription (if it works that way) there doesn't seem to be any reason for it. Not to mention the actual and opportunity cost of working to implement it with the PS4. There's always the chance that it could cause firmware and other updates to be delayed. This last part is speculation that Sony will have to help implement it into their system.
It might not make sense from a consumer standpoint, but it does make a pretty valid business standpoint. It's not the most draconian decision either. Don't get me wrong, I'm not thanking Sony for turning it down or saying it doesn't have a chance to be successful, but do be aware of the risks and costs of implementing it.
Kssio_Aug
Member
How I do see things: with EA subscription service you will still be able to buy the titles alone without it and play normally. If they end up restricting online access to non subscribers (what I doubt) they will sacrifice a good ammount of retail sales. If that happens and people dont like, then people will not buy it and they will hardly have enough subscriptions... Then they will have to walk back and lower the restrictions again!
Theres too much to take into consideration. EA cant jusr make a restriction without risk to scratch other companies that works on a certain type of partnership and also the risk to lower their sales. If things turn out being bad people will reject and even if takes a little time things will turn around. A company alone, against many competitors cant do everything they want.
Microsoft is just a recent example. They tried those ridiculous policies on Xone and their competitor kicked their ass, not because the competitor (Sony) loves the players, but because they saw the opportunnity. Microsoft seems to have learned its lesson and Xone is becoming a GREAT console now! The same can would happen with any company that tries absurds, the market itself ends up adjusting things. Thats why competition is important.
So yeah, I do understand why Sony did it (to protect their own services from competitors), but Im not in favour of it. Let consumers chose what they prefer, and things will adjust sooner or later.
Theres too much to take into consideration. EA cant jusr make a restriction without risk to scratch other companies that works on a certain type of partnership and also the risk to lower their sales. If things turn out being bad people will reject and even if takes a little time things will turn around. A company alone, against many competitors cant do everything they want.
Microsoft is just a recent example. They tried those ridiculous policies on Xone and their competitor kicked their ass, not because the competitor (Sony) loves the players, but because they saw the opportunnity. Microsoft seems to have learned its lesson and Xone is becoming a GREAT console now! The same can would happen with any company that tries absurds, the market itself ends up adjusting things. Thats why competition is important.
So yeah, I do understand why Sony did it (to protect their own services from competitors), but Im not in favour of it. Let consumers chose what they prefer, and things will adjust sooner or later.
Goodacre0081
Member
this sets a precedent for publishers in the future. if this takes off we'll see UBI, Square, Activision and others adopt this tactic and we could see even more content locked behind these new services. we already have content being split between retailers, consoles, and pre-orders. it will be the same for this too.
hey, if the consumers don't see this coming a mile away and stop it now, we'll only have ourselves to blame.
EA doesn't operate that way. They don't just suddenly cut support.
They cut corners, ship sloppily-made products to gradually degrade interest in buying their games on that particular platform, prioritize a "lead SKU"... all while showing "full support".
Not supporting Steam costs EA a lot too, but they don't even bat a damn eyelash over that. Not offering Access to PlayStation customers also costs EA. If the situation is due to not coming to terms with Sony, they have means of recourse that have been implemented before while still making claims of "full support" that don't drastically hurt their bottom line.
Sarcasm.
Description
Member
He was being sarcastic.
InfiniteUnrest
Member
Sony did the right thing. If they partnered up with EA on this, you could pretty much count on losing PS+'s Instant Game Collection for anything from a major publisher, because all of the other publishers would follow suit, and PS+ would instantly lose value.
That's why they did it, and that's exactly why EA Access is a terrible idea for consumers on PSN.
That's why they did it, and that's exactly why EA Access is a terrible idea for consumers on PSN.
That last sentence has a lot of strong and weird assumptions in it, but to the former points, this is a situation where one platform is restricting a buying option that was offered to several. I never meant to suggest that Sony doesn't have that right as a platform holder, and as I said among my first posts, it makes sense in terms of protecting their own similar offerings. That said, they're limiting an offering that some would choose, so I find the rationale offered by some that this is to the benefit of the end-user a strange one of they're at once commending the value model for something like PS+ but also deriding a similar offering by another company for selling its own games.
If the offering is bad, people won't take buy into it, or the company can choose to change those offerings.
I wish MS also passed on this deal. It's bad for consumers in the long run. If EA has success then Ubisoft, [insert company here] will go ahead and do it too. This lessens the chance of getting games from those companies in services such as playstation plus.
It has greater implications than just player choice. I
This is a terrible terrible strawman. It would be hard to come up with a worse analogy.
This is a completely optional service that does not impact your ability to otherwise buy the games involved. You don't take any hit or lose anything if you choose not to subscribe. If you like what is being offered you can choose to subscribe.
This is one of the first moves by Sony this generation that I would characterize as anti-gamer. The are not putting players first - they're putting corporate interests first. I have been a fan of almost everything else Sony has done this generation.
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
EA might be asking and/or require more money for this than Sony is willing/able to front. In the end it always comes down to economics.
They did it to Dreamcast and Saturn
If that occurs and sales of EA games on PS4 take a nosedive, I would fully support Sony revoking their dev/pub license from the company, 100%. Would send a good message, no company's too big to get shut out if they don't play ball.
This post is brilliant. Editing op to add it. Exceedingly well said. Sums up the situation amazingly well.
Well that's .... an interesting theory...
Yea I don't see how that would ever happen. It would be far more likely that EA would buy out Xbox from MS and even that's a massive leap. What a bizarre thing to argue.
It was cool to support Sony when they stood up against Microsoft/EA plans in the beginning of this young gen.
Some people are incredibly misguided if they think that's a safe assumption. EA games aren't going anywhere, re: Sony platforms.
This.
Could you not still just buy retail to alleviate most of these concerns?
EA really hasn't earned any confidence from consumers. I think it's best to err on the side of caution and wait at least 6 months to see how much "value" is actually in this EA sub service. Do not take the initial vault offerings as any indication of what you will get further down the line. This is a launch and they are going for first impressions.
I don't like that they made that choice for me. I don't give a fuck what Sony thinks is or isn't "good value", let me decide that. I think they just didn't want any type of competition with PS+ on their own platform(although PS+ is still the better offering, both give access to games for a sub fee).
Admiral Woofington
Member
Oh did you read what the contract was about exactly and the actual reasoning behind it or are you talking out of your ass?
Because some of us don't really see how this removes all that much choice, relatively speaking. I'm not sure why we're supposed to automatically feel substantially deprived because a company repackages products they already have which can already be obtained in other ways under some new service offering that, for the moment, can only be gotten here but not there...I mean, if game industry customers were truly this sensitive about "choice" and "options", this whole market should have imploded by now.
- Status