It is quite hilarious, but it's also very worrying. Two businesses known for anti-consumer practices joining forces to... create the ultimate anti-consumer atmosphere! What a fucking catastrophe that would be.
Sony's response to EA Access Subscription plan
- Thread starter RexNovis
- Start date
- Status
It is quite hilarious, but it's also very worrying. Two businesses known for anti-consumer practices joining forces to... create the ultimate anti-consumer atmosphere! What a fucking catastrophe that would be.
Petrae
Member
As much as some of us don't like the ideas of DLC, Online Passes, paying for online play, and other things-- the fact is that more consumers buy in to a lot of these things than those who don't. "Voting with your wallet" only goes as far as the majority of gaming consumers are willing to go, and it often doesn't work.
We'll see how this subscription service idea works out.
If you feel a game is lacking content with the only purpose of being used for DLC to fork money out of you then don't buy the game at full price and wait for a sale. This is what I do and what a lot of other people do. Not everyone, of course. You have a choice. Again, no one will protect you from yourself. Companies will do whatever they can do to obtain profit. That's their only purpose.
So I should just go for that speculation that it's based on nothing? Do we know the prices and the content behind those hypothetical subscriptions? Do you have to pay for all the subscriptions? Or you could just chose the one that you're interested in and for the rest buy the games as usual? What if in the end you get to pay in total less money than you pay now for games? Until these subscriptions will exists and will have real info behind it to assume that their potential existence is bad is quite a stretch.
I don't think you even know what your talking bout at this point
True competition, yes. That isn't what will occur in this scenario. Let's keep in mind that the only reason PS+ is the way it is today is because Sony needed to give an incentive to pay for a service that was already free. The only reason the PSN sales are nearly as good as they are is because for a long time Sony was playing the "catch up" game.
People were concerned about the idea of a completely digital future because once you purchase a system you're more or less locked into that ecosystem, and these are long term devices. Within these ecosystems, though, there's nothing relative to competition. Steam is kept in line by GMG, Origin, Amazon, etc. We saw Games For Gold becomes a thing because Microsoft needed to pull people back in. Remember, it was originally a limited time thing for 360 only. We saw them remove the necessity for Gold recently. Price cut on the Xbone. This is all because they need to do these things to stay competitive, but this is to sell their system, not their service.
If you have something like this EA Vault being done by everyone, then the value will maintain itself. But, if only by one or two people in cahoots? You end up with the ISP situation in NA, where the goal is to fuck the consumer if they want to use their services. So, I guess the big concern is, what if people bite and this becomes a method to release games exclusively?
I don't see how a completely different digital platform could influence a different entirely unrelated platform. This strictly apples and oranges. They aren't the same thing and this will not exert much if any market pressure on one another. To put it simply, PSNow has precisely no relation to the subject of Access EA.
Well it's not too bad, considering both companies are actually being pretty consumer friendly at the moment.
The (possible) arrogance is making the decision for us. What happened to 'always doing the right thing for gamers'?
SmoothRunningGun
Member
Maybe, maybe not but consumers should decide, not Sony. Clearly they're protecting plus and now. Either that or they think we're all their children.
Fbh
Member
This.
Although I still don't fully understand it. Is anyone really going to stop paying for Ps+ on Ps4, with it being needed to play online, in order to pay for just EA games?.
I see this EA thing more like something you would get on top of Ps+ rather than something that will make you move away from it
Amentallica
Unconfirmed Member
Here we go, again with competition, only this time it's any and all competition.
Eh.
Sony is well within their rights to to what they did obviously. The debate is on why the fuck a consumer would champion a decision that removes choice from them
Uno Venova
Banned
In this case, just this case, they don't like the choice, the company that's running it, and what it could mean for the future.
Well, I can't really see MS changing that for the time being as they are still (and almost certainly will stay) behind Sony in sales.
As for EA, they are currently the top selling publisher around right? I don't think this shift is an attempt to win back customers. Seems like a policy shift to me, which may or may not stick. Looking pretty good though.
vpance
Member
Actually, the average joe will decide, not you or us on here.
I can see both sides of the argument..i DONT think Sony should have made the choice for its gamers...but i think its perfectly acceptable for Sony to make the choice...
at the end of the day it is their ecosystem...and surely if this is a mega hit, it will come to the PS4 as well because Sony and EA both like money...
but i dont consider that arrogance at all...
Sony protecting their interest is not the consumer's problem to worry about. I see no problem with letting the market decide. Putting online multiplayer behind a paywall does not seem to have hurt the PS4 at all and there are still options for free online multiplayer on there (and in the case of PC will usually be a superior experience to consoles.)
You are free to not participate in this service. I just don't like the arrogance of some who would deny others the choice. If the service is crap then let the market reject it. I also do not see a problem with publishers experimenting with new ways to let customers access games. It is not as if the option to just buy the games is suddenly going to vanish.
This is the bottom line. Agree or disagree with whether or not EA Access is a solid value (much of this is subjective, by the way) but people defending/giving props to Sony for removing a choice from their consumers is frankly embarrassing.
It's not some terrible mishap by Sony but I have a hard time painting their decision in much, if any sort of positive light.
I'm sorry, but do you really trust the consumers at this point? The same consumers that made it okay for multiplayer to be locked behind paywall? The same consumers that said okay to Horse Armor DLC? The consumers that proliferated "mobile gaming"? The consumers who are okay with pay-to-win type of games. Yeah.. No..
I'm sure Sony doesn't give a shit about us and is only protecting their own interest, but so does EA. I said it time and time again, this will lead to more nickel and diming.
Law and Order guy is pretty cool
Lol... god forbid they are businesses who want to make money... I guess making money is anti-consumer lol.
Nah, let them have it... and soon people will look up and shout ''save us'' and they'll whisper... no.
Well, I did write (possible) arrogance to reflect multiple viewpoints. PSN is Sony's property and they can choose what goes on it.
I see this decision as the same kind of arrogance behind Microsoft's parity clause. I say always let the gamers choose.
well this is also one of GAF's biggest problems in some senses...opinions swing to extremes at the slightest bit of news...
you can go from "based Sony" to "arrogant Sony" in one Kotaku article...both Sony and MS are corporations that need to protect their bottom line...
now...
1. are you talking about the "partity clause" in terms of how its actually written? or how its spun to include resolution/framerate etc??...because there is a big difference...
2. regardless, i dont look at the parity clause as arrogance either...in that sense its actually MS trying to protect its consumers by not allowing publishers to release games that lack features on their console...
I'm not arguing that having the option would be bad, I'm just stating that is far from meaning that Sony is reverting back to being arrogant.
The main reason is that it could cause complete fragmentation where we had a single solution before. There actually can be arguments both ways; pay for a single publishers library you really like but pay exponentially more to access everyone's, or pay for general access with a random sampling from everyone, which is cheaper and broader but may not really get into a publisher/developer you really care for.
Personally, at least for consoles I'd really rather not have stuff like Plus undermined, especially when you need to get it for MP access anyway. Computers can be different, though it's still annoying to have shows I'm interested in spread over multiple streaming services for instance, and unlike shows you really may only want one or two games from a publisher per year (oh, a Bioware game's coming? Guess I'll see whether or not it sucks then get it if not.)
No, releasing a Beta for $60 and telling people to clock-in every so often and trying to eliminate used-games is anti-consumer.
Chobel
Member
Obviously you're not getting what I'm saying... First, what I'm saying is that people do dumb things without thinking of the consequences, i.e. buying useless horse armor, and because of that everyone has to now deal with this. It has changed the way we consume games in an absolutely negative way. Now we are at a similar crossroad and people are arguing for having the ability to make a similarly foolish decision... but we have the choice, some say. A choice in giving EA, of all companies, more power over our gaming habits.
Yes I know I can just not buy those games, but what good is that to me as a consumer? Why are we even in this situation to begin with? What a great argument you've laid out, in that I have to just deal with it by not buying it, even though there's a dozen other people willing to fork over their money and to continue this precedent until we're all just paying out microtransactions.
So you're giving me the option of building a "gaming pc" to avoid the multiplayer paywall? Then I'll say it again, just buy an xbox one to get into EA's Vault.
How is this arrogance on Sony? Their protecting their own interest, and you really thing the market will reject the notion of EA Vault? Please, this is the same market that said "hell yeah" to Horse DLC and brought about the advent of "mobile" pay to win gaming.
The games will not vanish that's for sure. Yet if the EA Vault becomes a thing, they can pretty much use this as a "leverage" against the "consumers."
Liberty4all
Banned
One has to consider that publishers with enough (subscribed) users can start putting DLC up for ransom.
Want that Battlefield DLC on your platform? Pony up. Otherwise it's going to be Vault exclusive.
Want that Battlefield DLC on your platform? Pony up. Otherwise it's going to be Vault exclusive.
Kssio_Aug
Member
Like theyre more evil or less good then Sony. Just because Sony took a golden oprtunnity to crush MS at E3 2013 it doesnt mean theyre heroes and MS a huge villain.
Actually, maybe if EA subs works out, it will be good for consumers afterall. You can bet that if Sony compete alone with their digital rent business, they will be "the villain" of tomorrow, charging expensive prices (like theyre already doing) so you can play a game for a month. So options are important... Have the option to choose a much lower value to play your favorite publisher games, would be better then have the only option to pay Sony for specific titles.
Now, if EA subs turn out being a bad deal, its competitors will figure out a way to make sure to crush it down as a oportunity to gain more consumers and make more money behind a "hero" mask, just like Sony did.
And I'm simply saying that on a forum where wondering aloud about if a game will be ported gets you a ban, this isn't exactly the community to be preaching about choice. The choice you have here is much the same as most other choices you have in the proprietary console gaming market.
Sony just decided for everyone.
Hockeymac18
Member
If they said "We're not providing the option as it conflicts with our own interests" that would be different. But instead their choice is masquerading as good for consumers. It is not.
GoofsterStud
Member
This is exactly what I heard the other day. Sony denied this. Things are going to get interesting.
Looks like Sony is opening up Playstation Now to all PS4 owners tomorrow. The timing is lovely. Competition rules.
And yeah, I prefer competition over choice.
There is a difference, especially in a free market in which I can work to buy what I want.
I don't want everything on every console because that waters down competition and competition is good for us all.
And yeah, I prefer competition over choice.
There is a difference, especially in a free market in which I can work to buy what I want.
I don't want everything on every console because that waters down competition and competition is good for us all.
I'm not sure how I feel about this subscription service. If EA has a steady stream of income coming in every month, there's a lot less pressure to make good games. In the end, you'll have access to a bunch of games that might not have purchased to begin with so the perceived value is much higher than the actual value.
Listen, obviously that's what a business does, but to say that those two have not infringed on consumer rights is just down right absurd! There's so many options out there to make money... like actually creating value and not locking content behind some bullshit day 1 DLC.
I'm really glad that this EA Access is going to be relegated to the smaller user base, so essentially it will have an uphill battle in succeeding, but it still leads me to worry for the industry as a whole in how they treat consumers.
We will just have to see about that in the coming years, but I disagree... they are not being consumer friendly at the moment. EA is just trying to manipulate consumers purchasing habits, by going all digital and locking them into their ecosystem, on top of another ecosystem consumers are already paying for and are currently locked to.
intheinbetween
Member
it would have been much better for Sony to keep its mouth shut, but well..
except, as has been pointed out eleventybillion times...PS Now and EA Access are not direct competitors in any way..
PS+ members have been lauding the virtues of games as a service since it's inception. I'm not sure I see the difference.
- Status