Sony's response to EA Access Subscription plan

Status
Not open for further replies.
FleetFeet said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok, forget it. If you think monopoly will save you from having content hidden behind paywall, fine.
 
Alienous said:
If they said "We're not providing the options as it conflicts with our own interests" that would be different. But instead their choice is masquerading as good for consumers. It is not.
Click to expand...

I agree that their PR spin is bad for this specific incident. However, I'm more concerned about how people are defending this type of "subscription" based service from a company as a good thing. To me it just sets a bad precedent for others to follow.
 
Pop said:
I'm fine with this.

If you wanna pay $5 a month for "early access" and 5 yr old sports games then go ahead. EA has shown me that I shouldn't trust them or what they have to say.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I find the controversy interesting for controversies' sake, but this is such a non issue for me that I find the passion shown here interesting.
 
People need to cool it with this "arrogance" nonsense. Sony is a company and they make business decisions that may or may not appeal to you. This isn't arrogant. This is Sony in a position of power not wanting to invite competition with PS+ onto THEIR platform and rightly so. The only reason MS is even allowing this to compete with XBL is because of the position they're in right now and they need every advantage they can get even if its going to cost them.

Do think a company like Apple should allow the Google Play marketplace or other storefronts on their phones? No that would be an idiotic business decision because it would just compete and take sales away from Apple's App store. Same situation. Don't get mad when a company doesn't allow something that isn't conducive to their ecosystem.
 
Metfanant said:
except, as has been pointed out eleventybillion times...PS Now and EA Access are not direct competitors in any way..
Click to expand...

True. But Sony probably want everything aligned perfectly to give PS Now the best possible chance. Other subscription services vying for that subscription spot probably isn't the optimal situation for Now.
 
Rurunaki said:
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."
Click to expand...

I am not the one who is giving you the option to buy a PC. The gaming hardware makers (Sony, MS, PC hardware companies, etc are.) I am just a gamer. However, I do advocate having the option to go to a platform that does not charge for online multiplayer. I would never advocate that option to be taken away from another gamer. I only hope other games would show me the same courtesy and not advocate the removal of options for things that interest me.

If EA decides to use their vault as leverage against the consumers then the consumers are free to choose to go elsewhere. We have seen many, many examples in this industry of companies losing in the market for their arrogant decisions (See original vision for Xbox One.)
 
Metfanant said:
not necessarily....there are many reasons why this program doesnt hold much value...
Click to expand...

For some people may, Why limit choice? seem such either a pedantic patronizing stament (if they actually being honest), or a way to hold control of their platform. Both options are bad for costumers.
 
Metfanant said:
except, as has been pointed out eleventybillion times...PS Now and EA Access are not direct competitors in any way..
Click to expand...

they are competing in the sense that there's only so much money people are willing to throw at a subscription service. its conceivable that someone that was considering PSNow and then hears about EA Access now won't bother with PSNow because they'd rather use EA Access.

Even if they aren't necessarily selling similar products, they are still competing for dollars.
 
For me personally im ok with it not coming to PS4.

I buy most of the sports games day 1. About a month (sometimes earlier) before they are refreshed I sell them on for between £15-20 that goes towards the new release.

That sale just got a whole lot harder on x-one.
 
Xando said:
#thisisforthegamers?
Click to expand...

First post fail...

Anyways, i don't really care for EA titles, the most recent ones that i bought from them were SSX and Fight Night Champion, and it appears that both of them won't be making a comeback anytime soon, i'll be alright. I hope that it doesn't take off, because if it does then more publishers are likely to get ideas and try something similar.
 
I don't understand this move by Sony other than the fact they don't want ppl to get EA Vault. It's not like EA is forcing ppl to use it, what they want to do is the consumers choice. Very bad PR move by Sony.
 
loaf of bread said:
People need to cool it with this "arrogance" nonsense. Sony is a company and they make business decisions that may or may not appeal to you. This isn't arrogant. This is Sony in a position of power not wanting to invite competition with PS+ onto THEIR platform and rightly so. The only reason MS is even allowing this to compete with XBL is because of the position they're in right now and they need every advantage they can get even if its going to cost them.

Do think a company like Apple should allow the Google Play marketplace or other storefronts on their phones? No that would be an idiotic business decision because it would just compete and take sales away from Apple's App store. Same situation. Don't get mad when a company doesn't allow something that isn't conducive to their ecosystem.
Click to expand...

Nobody is disputing the fact that Sony has the right. Some are upset at Sony for taking the choice.

Your Apple/Google Play analogy is nonsense. This is not the same thing at all.

This would be more like Apple blocking HBOGO
 
Lynn616 said:
Anti-Consumer. Fuck that Sony. Let me decide.
Click to expand...

You can decide, buy an xbox. If sony doesn't want to cede money to ea on their infrastructure, why the hell would they. It's not anti consumer it's business they aren't forcing anything on you. Obviously the deal wasn't good, and they declined. Microsoft needs the deal to gain more marketshare.
Classic thread of people thinking a business is obligated to take it up the tailpipe for the consumer. Then when they go bankrupt everyone is like "oh they were stupid"
 
eddfromtheriver said:
First post fail...

Anyways, i don't really care for EA titles, the most recent ones that i bought from them were SSX and Fight Night Champion, and it appears that both of them won't be making a comeback anytime soon, i'll be alright. I hope that it doesn't take off, because if it does then more publishers are likely to get ideas and try something similar.
Click to expand...

I think that's a bad argument. EA Access, as currently implemented, doesn't hurt anyone and it does provide value for people interested in their catalog.
 
This new EA model makes me think that maybe this could be related to the fall out between Nintendo and them. Will Sony be the next causality?
 
EdgeXL said:
I am not the one who is giving you the option to buy a PC. The gaming hardware makers (Sony, MS, PC hardware companies, etc are.) I am just a gamer. However, I do advocate having the option to go to a platform that does not charge for online multiplayer. I would never advocate that option to be taken away from another gamer. I only hope other games would show me the same courtesy and not advocate the removal of options for things that interest me.

If EA decides to use their vault as leverage against the consumers then the consumers are free to choose to go elsewhere. We have seen many, many examples in this industry of companies losing in the market for their arrogant decisions (See original vision for Xbox One.)
Click to expand...

This is more of choosing the lesser of the two evils. Sure Sony is protecting their own and is limiting this EA vault to one platform. That to me is the "option." EA should not be given free reign on what they want to do as they have been known to screw consumers over and over again.

What is scary about this whole thing is how long before other publishers follow suit? How long before this becomes the norm? What is the fallout for this type of gaming eco sytem? For me, it's best to keep it to one console and see how it fairs.

I said it before, I would gladly eat crow if EA does "good" for the consumers with this Vault. For now, the lesser of the two evils is Sony putting on their big boy pants and saying "No" to EA.
 
Petrae said:
I'd be okay with EA pulling future support from PS+ based on this reaction. The publisher will obviously still support the PS4 platform, but it should feel compelled to support Sony's subscription service when it's focusing on its own.

I also don't see why more prominent publishers (Ubisoft, Activision) wouldn't want to try this and potentially earn more revenue instead of going through the Sony or Microsoft subscription service middle-man via the Instant Game Collection or Games With Gold services. Perhaps the EA plan will be an interesting pilot for others to watch/follow.
Click to expand...

From a financial perspective I get why Acti, Ubi and the rest would do a subscription service. That being said I wouldn't sign up for those personally as a consumer, because each individual service would grant access to a very narrow field of games. For example, PS+ would suck if it became only Sony games. I can get why people would be upset that they don't have access to the EA vault, but personally I'm not that interested in EA's potential offerings on the service, nor would I be interested in any other individual company's equivalent. Now, if Ubi, Actvision, and EA all teamed up to make one big service, that'd be another story.

All that being said I can understand people being upset for not being given a choice. But I also view Sony's decision the right one for the viability and variety of games on PS+ in the future.
 
Dunlop said:
The debate is on why the fuck a consumer would champion a decision that removes choice from them
Click to expand...

Because they can see the path this could eventually take, and it's not something they want to see happen.
Much like everyone pisses and moans they want retailer exclusive content to go away because they feel it's bad for the industry.
 
joecanada said:
You can decide, buy an xbox. If sony doesn't want to cede money to ea on their infrastructure, why the hell would they. It's not anti consumer it's business they aren't forcing anything on you. Obviously the deal wasn't good, and they declined. Microsoft needs the deal to gain more marketshare.
Classic thread of people thinking a business is obligated to take it up the tailpipe for the consumer. Then when they go bankrupt everyone is like "oh they were stupid"
Click to expand...

Well according to Sony themselves, they rejected it because they don't think it's good value for consumers. Something consumers should definitely be allowed to decide themselves.



robotvendingmachine said:
This new EA model makes me think that maybe this could be related to the fall out between Nintendo and them. Will Sony be the next causality?
Click to expand...

That would be interesting. Imagine an industry where EA is exclusive to Xbox and PC.


NOTE: I don't think this will ever actually happen, and I don't want to happen either. I just think it would be interesting.
 
Etnos said:
For some people may, Why limit choice? seem such either a pedantic patronizing stament (if they actually being honest), or a way to hold control of their platform. Both options are bad for costumers.
Click to expand...

i dont think Sony should have limited choice...i just dont think Sony goes from the "based Sony" savior of the gaming world to "arrogant Sony" evil empire because they didnt want EA Access on the PS4...thats all


TheTwelve said:
Clearly, Sony doesn't believe that.
Click to expand...

Alienous said:
True. But Sony probably want everything aligned perfectly to give PS Now the best possible chance. Other subscription services vying for that subscription spot probably isn't the optimal situation for Now.
Click to expand...


icespide said:
they are competing in the sense that there's only so much money people are willing to throw at a subscription service. its conceivable that someone that was considering PSNow and then hears about EA Access now won't bother with PSNow because they'd rather use EA Access.

Even if they aren't necessarily selling similar products, they are still competing for dollars.
Click to expand...

yes they are competing for dollars...but you could really say that about anything...one of these services is offering access to back catalogs of PS3 (and presumably PS1/2 games later on) over a streaming solution...

while the other is a digital distribution method for more current titles...offering discounts and early access as incentives...

i get the idea that if i say "hey, ive only got an extra $30-$40 of disposable income to throw into a service"...then a choice between PS Now or EA Access might need to be made...but they are offering such different products that i dont think there will be a lot of conflict between the two...


robotvendingmachine said:
This new EA model makes me think that maybe this could be related to the fall out between Nintendo and them. Will Sony be the next causality?
Click to expand...
EA's "fallout" with Nintendo is because nobody is buying Wii U's...going forward EA is going to sell more copies of their games on the PS4 (yes, even with this program) because the PS4's global sales gap is going to continue to grow...

EA would be committing corporate suicide by removing support for the market leader in hardware sales, where they are selling more copies of their software...
 
Soooo, EA doesn't want to monopolize things? Since when? Yesterday? Ok. Brand new narrative, I see.

And Sony supposedly stopping EA from having this on their console is anti-consumer, rather than pro-competition?

Microsoft having the right to have this exclusively as a reason to buy their console above the PS4 is bad, today?

Don't we have the choice to buy an X1 if we want this?

Again, Bizarro world today. I need to take a nap and wake up in the real world.
 
joecanada said:
You can decide, buy an xbox. If sony doesn't want to cede money to ea on their infrastructure, why the hell would they. It's not anti consumer it's business they aren't forcing anything on you. Obviously the deal wasn't good, and they declined. Microsoft needs the deal to gain more marketshare.
Classic thread of people thinking a business is obligated to take it up the tailpipe for the consumer. Then when they go bankrupt everyone is like "oh they were stupid"
Click to expand...

This post does not make sense. If MS will gain marketshare from this then why would Sony just hand that over to their competitor? If it is such a bad deal then why not let the gamers decide and still take a cut of the sales that are made on PSN?
 
I'm glad Sony didn't get in on this. While at first EA subs sounds like a good price, you'd have to be very naive to believe this won't all end in a bad way.

Also people thinking they'll get FIFA15 a few months after retail launch - lol yeah, good luck with that.
 
ShinUltramanJ said:
Because they can see the path this could eventually take, and it's not something they want to see happen.
Much like everyone pisses and moans they want retailer exclusive content to go away because they feel it's bad for the industry.
Click to expand...

Because this is optional, if it is successful then it was the path that was needed to keep the industry healthy.
 
jem0208 said:
Well according to Sony themselves, they rejected it because they don't think it's good value for consumers. Something consumers should definitely be allowed to decide themselves.
Click to expand...

I doubt anybody believes Sony's BS on this. It is obvious they are trying to protect PS+.
 
Shinta said:
That clearly said casualty in his mind.
Click to expand...

haha my mind actually read it as casualty even so, I still say "huh?"

Metfanant said:
i get the idea that if i say "hey, ive only got an extra $30-$40 of disposable income to throw into a service"...then a choice between PS Now or EA Access might need to be made...but they are offering such different products that i dont think there will be a lot of conflict between the two...
Click to expand...

we'll have to agree to disagree there
 
Rurunaki said:
This is more of choosing the lesser of the two evils. Sure Sony is protecting their own and is limiting this EA vault to one platform. That to me is the "option." EA should not be given free reign on what they want to do as they have been known to screw consumers over and over again.

What is scary about this whole thing is how long before other publishers follow suit? How long before this becomes the norm? What is the fallout for this type of gaming eco sytem? For me, it's best to keep it to one console and see how it fairs.

I said it before, I would gladly eat crow if EA does "good" for the consumers with this Vault. For now, the lesser of the two evils is Sony putting on their big boy pants and saying "No" to EA.
Click to expand...

If EA's service is so bad then let them fail in the marketplace.

I really do not have a problem with more publishers experimenting with new ways to deliver games to us. Especially at relatively low cost to the consumer. Would I subscribe to every publisher service? No, but I would subscribe to the ones I like and it offers a low cost way to experiment with another company's games and I still have the option to ignore the "bad" services or just buy the games the same way we have been doing for years. Not seeing the bad here.
 
greenegt said:
I think that's a bad argument. EA Access, as currently implemented, doesn't hurt anyone and it does provide value for people interested in their catalog.
Click to expand...

Well if Sony allows EA's program and it takes off, there's the possibility that EA will no longer put EA titles on PS+, and if other publishers put out something similar they might end up doing the same thus narrowing the pool from which Sony can get game offerings on PS+. It's not a certainty but i could see how Sony might be contemplating it as i likely scenario... imagine if instead of playing for PS+ you'd have to pay for EA's, Ubi's, Capcom's, Konami's, etc services?, that's be really bad... i'd rather just pay for PS+ and that's it.
 
Metfanant said:
i dont think Sony should have limited choice...i just dont think Sony goes from the "based Sony" savior of the gaming world to "arrogant Sony" evil empire because they didnt want EA Access on the PS4...thats all
Click to expand...

I agree with you, it was probably a bussines decision and they issue the wrong statement to justify it. Anyway "saviour of the gaming world" like since when!? hyperbole much.
 
So will the EA service come to PC, tied to Origin perhaps? And will it be tied to Origin on XBLG?

It does seem a bit strange for Sony to turn it down. One would think you would want as much content as possible available on your platform to keep it flying off the shelves.
 
FranXico said:
I doubt anybody believes Sony's BS on this. It is obvious they are trying to protect PS+.
Click to expand...

Oh that's completely obvious. And I agree, chances are they're doing it to protect PS+. However Sony have chosen to present the reason for them rejecting it as "protecting" their customers. And as such rightfully deserve any negative discussion and blame associated with it.


This was some poor PR by Sony.
 
EdgeXL said:
If EA's service is so bad then let them fail in the marketplace.

I really do not have a problem with more publishers experimenting with new ways to deliver games to us. Especially at relatively low cost to the consumer. Would I subscribe to every publisher service? No, but I would subscribe to the ones I like and it offers a low cost way to experiment with another company's games and I still have the option to ignore the "bad" services or just buy the games the same way we have been doing for years. Not seeing the bad here.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If EA eventually tries to screw the consumer by hiding basic functionality behind the subscription, they'll take a deserved beating for it. As the service stands now, it does offer value for the money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Wild Assault Early Access Trailer
27
834
Hawk The Slayer replied
Geoguessr Steam edition coming to early access in April
1
244
jshackles replied
[IGN] EA Bucks Industry Trend And Says It Has No Plans to Increase Video Game Prices
2
52
215
mckmas8808 replied
inZOI Early Access sales top one million
News 
7
437
Hari Seldon replied
NEIGHBORS: Suburban Warfare - Early Access Release Trailer
Trailer 
5
498
RaptorGTA replied
Top Bottom