Support NeoGAF

[EdgeXL]

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.

I don't see more choices in how games are delivered and more publishers experimenting with this as a bad thing.

 

[Lemondish]

Hmm, I don't think Sony "needed" to say anything. In fact, it looks almost childish what they said.

While I am slightly biased (I have an xbone, though I previously owned a PS4) I would far prefer the choice than to not have it. Not everyone buys every game they want, and most of the games I avoid paying retail for are sports games which are EA games generally.

Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if Sony changes there stance in the future. Especially if Activision and Ubisoft start to do something similar.

Seems more like they were asked.

 

[Teletraan1]

I have only purchased like 4 EA titles in the last decade. This EA access is probably not for me but I guess people who choose to play soon to be outdated sports games and shooters that are about to get their online component shutdown might find solace in the fact they only had to pay $30 a year for these games rather than paying $15 a piece to some used mom and pop store.

My other issue with this is recently EA has just been rolling out the same old IPs and have cut their release schedule down to less than 5-7 console games per year (could have coincided with the end of a generation slowing down but I would like to wait and see if their release schedule picks up), zero of which will be free with this service day one. Can't really fill that vault with a huge selection if you are focusing on less titles. For me EA just doesn't make enough games to justify this and definitely doesn't have a huge selection on either XB1 or PS4. At least plus is drawing from First Party/Indies/3rd Party. This seems too early. Maybe when we are in year 2 or 3 of this generation this could have been more enticing for me. (probably not)

 

[OccamsLightsaber]

I thought EA was a bad bad company that everyone hated.

 

[ocean]

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 I we'll only have ourselves to blame.

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?

 

[j-wood]

Why does everyone think Sony said no because EA would be competing with PS+?

If it was, that would be assuming that EA all access gives you multiplayer on the ps4...which it does not. It's also only EA games.

Who in their right mind would cancel PS+ for EA all access? No one.

 

[Omega]

EA Access for $30/year, UbiPlay for $30/year, ActivisionAlpha for $30/year. Oh look, to play this content, or download this map, you have to subscribe to our service! "Okay ill sub, I reall want that content!"

Dont worry, you get early limited access to new games and a %10 discount on new digital releases. Also access to our vault of old games!

Then you do the math and realize, to make back the money on all 3 of those subs you would need to buy 15 new digital games from those 3 pubs. Say you only buy 3 from each. Youre leaving $12 on the table from each sub and then have to use your discretion to determine if the vault of old games, and early limited access is worth it.

I dont like where this could end up and really hope the cosumers who have a "choice" on Xbox choose wisely.

uh, not everything has to be about "making back money"

If you've enjoyed those games included in the vault, then you got value for your money.

 

[The Illiterati]

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.

It's a strawman only if you compare the content of the comparison. I was comparing the idea of gamers thinking options are better for them in the long run to internet users thinking options are better. Both are ignorant and wrong. I don't want EA to start setting precedent to start segmenting each companies games behind stupid paywalls. This is not an "option" that benefits anyone.

 

[kingocfs]

I don't see more choices in how games are delivered and more publishers experimenting with this as a bad thing.

Yeah I must be missing something, because a lot of talk in this thread is about how these services will eventually be bad for consumers. Why? Am I supposed to believe they'd lock content behind these subs and fuck over retail sales?

Sony's PR response makes no sense. Why is this not a good value?

 

[KingSnake]

I thought EA was a bad bad company that everyone hated.

It's so much hated that it's the top seller publisher on the best selling current gen console.

 

[Insane Metal]

I really don't like this EA sub thing. PS+ and Live are services provided for the platform as a whole. Having single companies throwing out similar services is definetely NOT good. I'm sure that if that business model is good, other devs will follow. 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.

 

[Kssio_Aug]

Why does everyone think Sony said no because EA would be competing with PS+?

If it was, that would be assuming that EA all access gives you multiplayer on the ps4...which it does not. It's also only EA games.

Who in their right mind would cancel PS+ for EA all access? No one.

Not like that. If EA subscriptions works out and other companies also do that, consumers will have more options and may not see a huge advantage for PS Now, for example, for their preferences.

 

[Admiral Woofington]

Like most of this thread both ways?

The whole thread has been a clusterfuck of ignorance and assumptions. But the thing that grinds my gears the most is bringing fanboy bullshit into it.

 

[KingSnake]

Having single companies throwing out similar services is definetely NOT good.

Why?

 

[TimeEffect]

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.

Wouldn't this just be a problem for EA, and not Sony to allow users to choose?

PS+ is necessary for online gaming, so isn't it all on EA if their sub service fails?

Edit: Well, I guess it creates conflict with PSNow, since that is also a separate service, and that wouldnt be good for Sony.

 

[PSYGN]

Umm, the more choices the merrier. I can agree with Sony if I were in their shoes, but I'm a consumer and it sucks not having this choice.

 

[Fnord]

Sony talking the value game when they have such shocking prices with PSNow?

My 2 cents is that they feel it too cheap and makes their PSNow service look like even more of a rip off, hence why they don't want it on Playstation.

"More of a ripoff?" It's in no way a "ripoff."

 

[3rdamention]

Something I find weird was in the press release, the EA Subscription service was quoted as being "co developed by Microsoft and EA."



If Microsoft and EA "co developed it" how in the hell could it have come out on PS4? I wonder if Sony even had a choice at all, in accepting the service, or if Sony did turn down the EA Subscription, if they just added the "co developed" to make it sound more exclusive.



I really wonder if Sony was even contacted at all, and this response is just saying "We weren't interested" instead of saying "we were never even given a choice."

 

[MORTALIS]

That first place hauteur.

This thread = Another front row seat to the greatest show on earth.

 

[Freeman]

Sony is probably not trying to create a precedent. Their business model will be at risk if every publisher starts coming up with their own services.

Saying its for the players is just a PR spin.

 

[Dreamgazer]

That first place hauteur.

This thread = Another front row seat to the greatest show on earth.

Nah. There's no good gifs, leak bombs or embarrassing personal stories.

 

[AgentP]

Umm, the more choices the merrier. I can agree with Sony if I were in their shoes, but I'm a consumer and it sucks not having this choice.

Well there still is a choice, play on the inferior box that is in bed with EA.

 

[jem0208]

I can't believe there's a defense force for this. If you don't like the idea of the service, don't buy it. That's fine. However there are many people who are very interested and feel that it's good value for money.


If what Sony is saying is true and they chose not to have it on the PS4 then that decision is completely anti consumer and anti choice. It's a benefit for them, not the consumers.

 

[Nzyme32]

Not like that. If EA subscriptions works out and other companies also do that, consumers will have more options and may not see a huge advantage for PS Now, for example, for their preferences.

This is pretty much what I think the issue is rather than what Sony have said in their statement. I don't think this has anything to do with ps+

 

[MORTALIS]

Nah. There's no good gifs, leak bombs or embarrassing personal stories.

Haha fair enough. Ya, this is no anal leakage thread.

 

[Dreamgazer]

Anyone made a "If you wanted choices you would play on PC!" post yet?

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

It's so much hated that it's the top seller publisher on the best selling current gen console.

That may or may not negate them winning Worst Company of the Year for two (maybe going on three?) years in a row :S.

Something I find weird was in the press release, the EA Subscription service was quoted as being "co developed by Microsoft and EA."



If Microsoft and EA "co developed it" how in the hell could it have come out on PS4? I wonder if Sony even had a choice at all, in accepting the service, or if Sony did turn down the EA Subscription, if they just added the "co developed" to make it sound more exclusive.



I really wonder if Sony was even contacted at all, and this response is just saying "We weren't interested" instead of saying "we were never even given a choice."

Good point; we need to be reading between the lines on this one. Something also tells me this was EA-initiated and was planned from the start, but probably delayed and retooled after the DRM 180s began to kick in.

The good news on that front is, it'd clarify that Sony in fact, did not have a DRM system in place for PS4 whatsoever.

 

[barrok]

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.​

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.

 

[Devilgunman]

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.

EA can't treat the Access the same way they treat Origin though. Origin shares the same market with Steam because they both are on PC. The Access is Xbone exclusive, which excludes millions of players on other systems. If EA pull the plug from PS+, they won't gain anything since those PS users aren't going to migrate to MS side just to take advantage of to EA Access.

 

[Dreamgazer]

I can't believe there's a defense force for this. If you don't like the idea of the service, don't buy it. That's fine. However there are many people who are very interested and feel that it's good value for money.


If what Sony is saying is true and they chose not to have it on the PS4 then that decision is completely anti consumer and anti choice. It's a benefit for them, not the consumers.

To EA's credit, the subscription is an innovative enough move that it does warrant discussion. It's not unreasonable for people to discuss the potential trends and changes to the industry. Similar to how we can have negative PSNow pricing discussions.

As for whether Sony made the decision to deny the service on PS4...I see no evidence indicating either way. So no comments on that.

 

[Yopis]

Well there still is a choice, play on the inferior box that is in bed with EA.

So shut up and play on Xbox or get in line with what Sony says? Why not have the choice on the superior box also?

 

[Goodacre0081]

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?

what might potentially happen is the publishers games no longer appear on PS+/GWG and you have multiple subscriptions for one console. it devalues the platforms subscription service while adding cost to the consumer. you'll be left with first party games and indies to fill out your "free games" program.

you also have the possibility of even more segregated DLC content which I mentioned in the other post.

 

[De_Legend]

Good job Sony!

Lol @ people who says that's anti-consumer.. it's the total opposite.

 

[Alienous]

That's for saving me from the choice, Lord Gatekeeper.

What the fuck?

I hope they're bullshitting. What a ridiculous excuse.

 

[Gxgear]

If Sony lets EA have its own service on their platforms, then every publisher will want to follow suit. Where does it end? If EA wants a piece of the pie they could easily work something out with Sony to be featured more prominently with the PS+ service. Microsoft made paying for online a thing, let's not repeat the same mistakes again.

 

[Dunlop]

Good job Sony!

Lol @ people who says that's anti-consumer.. it's the total opposite.

how so?

 

[sometimes i game]

If Sony lets EA have its own service on their platforms, then every publisher will want to follow suit. Where does it end? If EA wants a piece of the pie they could easily work something out with Sony to be featured more prominently with the PS+ service. Microsoft made paying for online a thing, let's not repeat the same mistakes again.

This. Sony carefully weighs what they contribute to in the market. They could have gone DRM with Microsoft and have an industry standard people had to deal with, but they didn't. They don't want to give publishers this much power.

 

[CosmicQueso]

Well there still is a choice, play on the inferior box that is in bed with EA.

Same exact rationale Mattrick used about Online services that Sony grilled him over the coals for.

Amazing.

 

[Cat Party]

Something I find weird was in the press release, the EA Subscription service was quoted as being "co developed by Microsoft and EA."



If Microsoft and EA "co developed it" how in the hell could it have come out on PS4? I wonder if Sony even had a choice at all, in accepting the service, or if Sony did turn down the EA Subscription, if they just added the "co developed" to make it sound more exclusive.



I really wonder if Sony was even contacted at all, and this response is just saying "We weren't interested" instead of saying "we were never even given a choice."

Maybe they turned it down early on, so it became a closer deal with MS over time.

 

[3rdamention]

That may or may not negate them winning Worst Company of the Year for two (maybe going on three?) years in a row :S.

Good point; we need to be reading between the lines on this one. Something also tells me this was EA-initiated and was planned from the start, but probably delayed and retooled after the DRM 180s began to kick in.

The good news on that front is, it'd clarify that Sony in fact, did not have a DRM system in place for PS4 whatsoever.

Yeah, there are so many signs that this has been in the works for a long time.

* You have the program launching, I guess in beta, within like a day or two after it was announced. So it was up and ready.

* You had Pachter predicting in March of 2010 that EA would start charging for demos.

* You had the "technical issue" where Fifa and UFC Demos suddenly had a $4.99 price tag on the Xbox Store, the exact same price as 1 month of this service. These "technical issues" only appeared on Xbox, and not PSN.

* The press release says this was co-developed by Microsoft and EA. You know the DRM issues that Microsoft wanted to push very early in their reveal, which would battle the used game market. There were rumors that EA was also behind the DRM policies to battle used games. Now we have a service that does somewhat battle the used game market (However, I really like the "vault" idea), with EA co-developing it.

 

[DidntKnowJack]

Yes, lets have every publisher offer a subscription plan. That would make gaming so much more choice-y!

Its so hard not to be dismissive of a lot of comments I read on this forum. So I'm just going to stfu and stop typing.

 

[CosmicQueso]

Paying for what you want doesn't matter to me, I just don't want to be dragged along with you when every publisher under the sun now wants me to get another subscription to get the full value from my games.

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

 

[Dunlop]

Microsoft made paying for online a thing, let's not repeat the same mistakes again.

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

 

[Nibiru]

I don't like that they made that choice for me.

I am pretty sure they made the choice for the betterment of their own business namely ps plus. The pr statement is just bs. So people need to stop with the "they made the choice for me" or "took away my choice" nonsense.

This is would be like slamming Sony for not ponying up for Titanfall or some other product. Sure they robbed you of the opportunity to have Titanfall but they didn't feel it was a good enough business proposition and that's that.

 

[Yopis]

If Sony lets EA have its own service on their platforms, then every publisher will want to follow suit. Where does it end? If EA wants a piece of the pie they could easily work something out with Sony to be featured more prominently with the PS+ service. Microsoft made paying for online a thing, let's not repeat the same mistakes again.

It ends with the consumer saying I wont pay for this like xbone drm or a host of other things.


Let the market decide.

 

[DrkSage]

arrogant and now anti-consumer sony is back, denying me a service that i still dont know how will it work exactly and that may or may not be the best thing.

i prefer to wait and see how this pans out.

 

[Avari]

It's a strawman only if you compare the content of the comparison. I was comparing the idea of gamers thinking options are better for them in the long run to internet users thinking options are better. Both are ignorant and wrong. I don't want EA to start setting precedent to start segmenting each companies games behind stupid paywalls. This is not an "option" that benefits anyone.

The difficulty is that it is complete speculation that this service will be popular, that it will mean EA games never appear as Gold rewards, and that other companies will follow suit. It could happen but it is by no means guaranteed, and may not even be particularly likely. I really don;t think there are very many developers who have the resources and the inclination to do this sort of thing.

I see others who appear to be hand waving and equivocating with this sort of speculation to turn this into a pro-consumer decision by Sony rather then a corporate interest decision. I would personally prefer to have the decision to make, rather then have it made for me.

 

[gamechanger87]

If Sony lets EA have its own service on their platforms, then every publisher will want to follow suit. Where does it end? If EA wants a piece of the pie they could easily work something out with Sony to be featured more prominently with the PS+ service. Microsoft made paying for online a thing, let's not repeat the same mistakes again.

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.

 

[BlackBuzzard]

If Sony lets EA have its own service on their platforms, then every publisher will want to follow suit. Where does it end? If EA wants a piece of the pie they could easily work something out with Sony to be featured more prominently with the PS+ service. Microsoft made paying for online a thing, let's not repeat the same mistakes again.

Yeah and Microsoft was also the first company to use paid DLC with Mech Assault. Horse armor was just the straw that broke the camels back.

 

[jem0208]

how so?

Because EA and the possible chance that it could maybe eventually potentially lead to something which may or may not be possibly less advantageous for the consumer.