Sony's response to EA Access Subscription plan

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's not about whether they directly compete feature for feature. It's about avoiding dilution. Its very existence devalues PS +.
 
SmoothRunningGun said:
Then don't subscribe. Not offering it under the guise of it being a bad deal is wrong.
Click to expand...

If a company thinks a proposition is a bad one it isn't "wrong." They made a business decision if a year down the line the EA sub service turns out to be amazing THEN they made a wrong decision but until it's had a good run then we don't know jack.
 
I don't trust EA for one second, if Sony saw a lack of value there, I'm okay with their decision to pass on the "service". Btw, games as a "service" can gtfo.
 
panda-zebra said:
Been thinking of reasons why Sony might be reluctant to allow this ( at least at this stage). People saying they're being anti-consumer by denying choice are, IMO, not thinking things through, merely knee-jerking. Sony aren't likely to deprive users of a service that might benefit the ecosystem as a whole, therefore we have to look for the potential for harm.

i. Firstly it obviously competes with and potentially devalues ps+ (you'd have to think EA games would be less likely to become available to plus, or potentially they could be even more outdated versions of the sports titles).

ii. End user support. For the tiny fraction of the fee Sony would receive, they'd be expected to manage the purchase and delivery as with any digital purchase, but the fact that it's not just a single transaction for a single item and rather the support of a yearly or monthly subscription service, opens the door to many more potential issues.
Sony would be the first point of call for end user support when anything went wrong (and with ea/origin on top of ps+, that might not be trivial). Reading the many threads on GAF, I'm sure Sony's CS support lines are busy enough as is regarding the various issues that are thrown up with with their own ps+ without generating more with an extra layer of potential pitfalls on top. There would no doubt be grey areas - problems where Sony think it's an EA issue, EA think it's a Sony issue. Not appetising.

iii. It's not just EA - you have to think further ahead. Other publishers are likely to expect to be able to be given the chance to offer a competing (but maybe not even necessarily that similar) service for their own titles. This would not only multiply the effects of the above concerns but, thinking it through a bit more, you'd have to factor in each publisher's competing service's rules, regulations and nuances... and you are now presenting an even more complex problem for Sony CS.

Taking this further, it's not difficult to imagine the potential for a sea of confusion customer-side when Johnny Gamer expects certain things of one service that is actually only a part of a rival service he also subscribes to. This would only compound with every new service added. All customers would go directly to Sony to air their grievances and have their minds set at ease. Those CS staff are going to spend the next few years in and out of training courses like an mcse.

iii. Having to set up an auto-renewal with a credit card held on file. Sony don't really want to go there, do they? And that Johnny Gamer guy - what if he forgets to cancel and the service auto-renews - Sony CS have to deal with enough "my dog bought COD Ghosts when it scratched its arse on my DS4 help me please!" kind of gripes as it is.


So those were some possible reasons are why I reckon Sony isn't keen to want to walk this path, there are likely many more I can't comprehend not being in a position to understand. It's more understandable why Microsoft, struggling as they appear to be to hang on to the coat tails of ps4, are more open to a roll of the dice with their comfortable bedfellows in this extending of an unprecedented relationship
;-)

The current setup with ps+ is actually the best for the consumer in my view. Sony is the platform holder - they have their store and their services. Keeping that simple and uniform for customers is key. Having ps+ with the potential for any and all publishers competing for exposure through this single subscription service is true competition between rival publishers and it keeps things dead simple for the end user. No nested bullshit.

Several "competing" publisher-exclusive services would appear to me to be be anti-competitive and funnel gamers into a more fractured and uncertain gaming-as-a-service future.

Away from Sony and on a personal level - the TOS on the EA site reads significantly differently to a few random EA spokespersons' comments I've seen quotes in this and the other thread over the past 24 hours (regarding expiration of titles and purchases made using the 10% discount). There's ambiguity there. Tweets and e-mails to gaming sites aren't good enough - the ToS needs to be edited to reassure. It's entirely reasonable to expect EA to stick to the letter of their TOS and not some quote given to gaming Website X or a tweet from some guy who might no longer even work for EA any longer. EA don't really have the gravitas to ensure faith in their future generosity or ability to play fair.

The discount thing is thrown in there as a deal clincher. At 10% it is fairly measly vs the actual retail price paid for physical copies (here in UK at least) and for it to have much benefit as a DLC discount the user would have to be a serious content-hoover, and I can't see that very niche kind of consumer being too thrifty. The time-limited game trials some 120 hours before release I can see appealing to a hardcore minority hell-bent on getting their hands on EA's latest offerings as soon as humanly possible.
Click to expand...

Excellent Post!!! The current setup with publishers competing for exposure in PS+ is the best set-up. Publishers each having their own subscription service would be very fractured, annoying and EXPENSIVE!!!
 
Spottiettiedop said:
So how do these retailers feel about PSNow? That is a bigger threat than the EA Vault right?
Click to expand...

One, it didn't cause their stock markets to crash. Two, it doesn't have any revelance at it's current pricing model to be seen as such a strong competitor. Three, you can't play PS3 games on the PS4, PSVita, Sony TV, so for them they are actually making more revenue selling this service than they would without. PS4 and Xbox One is where sustainability comes into play. Four, if priced right PS3 used games will already be less expensive with many added benefits! Five, PS3 used games have many benefits such as les latency, no need for an internet connection, less to no bandwidth usages, and they are yours for life.

This would be completely different if they were streaming PS4 titles. Not to mention ones that were less than a year old.
 
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.
Click to expand...

It's arrogance when they're saying they're making the decision on behalf of everyone "#4theplayers", we don't need the decision made for us, we can decide that ourselves but obviously it's nothing to do with that and everything to do with what you're talking about - keeping their ecosystem locked down and stopping any form of competition affecting PS+ which has been gaining tons of new subscribers since they've put online behind a paywall.

It's absolutely their system to do as they please with but the argument is let's not pretend they're doing this for any other reason other than maximising their own profits, they are not protecting us from anything, they're just stopping any form of competition from potentially taking money away from them.
 
CambriaRising said:
Just like micro-transactions, on the disc dlc, and always online DRM right?
Click to expand...

Sure, we have the choice not to invest into that.

The cost of making games is rising, technology is moving fast and more competition is making these boxes you plug into the TV less attractive to some

If these optional actions offsets the final cost to me from increasing or to keep people employed then great.

We can have less threads of people who are so sad to read about publisher layoffs
 
jem0208 said:
12 million + people didn't buy used games though.



I actually think online passes weren't that bad. Don't support the dev/publisher, don't cost them money by using their servers.
Click to expand...

It doesn't surprise me at all that you are okay with anti consumer practices.

This however, isn't one. The very existence of EAA on the PS4 would mean the devaluing of PS+ as a whole, which would be bad for the consumer as well as Sony. EA is a company who time and time again has screwed over the consumer, I don't want them to be able to shuffle in a new era of publisher's following suit and having their own subscriptions.

bishoptl said:
Nailed it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It is an absolute shame that some people don't see the long term ramifications of something like EAA succeeding or being allowed.
 
Rurunaki said:
Options yay indeed. So, it has never crossed your mind on how they're going to market this Vault to the common man? I can already see it. Exclusive Guns/Maps for Vault subscribers. The prospect of where the service can lead to is scary. It is a big "unknown" and I don't like it that people are just jumping in YOLO-ing as if there's no catch to this "Awesome Value."
Click to expand...

How is that any different than exclusive skins/weapons/maps to people who preorder physical games?
 
icespide said:
a lot of people don't care about multiplayer
Click to expand...

the ones paying for ps+ obviously do, u think ps+ users only subscribe for free games? compare the subscription stats of ps+ for ps3 users when ps+ wasnt necessary for multiplayer and ps4 users when it is necessary. subscription rates sky-rocketed when sony made ps+ mandatory for multiplayer

this ea service isnt a threat to ps+ at all period
 
HateGames said:
the ones paying for ps+ obviously do, u think ps+ users only subscribe for free games? compare the subscription stats of ps+ for ps3 users when ps+ wasnt necessary for multiplayer and ps4 users when it is necessary. subscription rates sky-rocketed when sony made ps+ mandatory for multiplayer

this ea service isnt a threat to ps+ at all period
Click to expand...

I think there's a significant amount of ps+ subscribers that very rarely play online yes
 
bishoptl said:
Nailed it.
Click to expand...

Seeing how annoying it can be needing several different marketplace launchers on PC with uPlay, Origin and Steam (which sometimes daisy-chain for individual games like Valiant Hearts), I can understand that potential for annoyance with segmented/overlapping offerings. It's not quite the same, but I can see the parallels.
 
Nibiru said:
If a company thinks a proposition is a bad one it isn't "wrong." They made a business decision if a year down the line the EA sub service turns out to be amazing THEN they made a wrong decision but until it's had a good run then we don't know jack.
Click to expand...

really? how about using your imagination since no pics, like the gif?

say for example you are a dude inside a shop looking to by a games machine..
you got you regular options, only one of them has an extra sticker saying: titanfall full game included, plus 3 months of battlefield 4, maden 25, fifa 14 and peggle 2.
the other console on the same place has no sticker at all, only the (same) price.
decide.

and this is only one aspect of this deal..
 
EdgeXL said:
How is that any different than exclusive skins/weapons/maps to people who preorder physical games?
Click to expand...

EXACTLY my point! The idea of having exclusive content (store) based is already a bad concept and now we're opening the flood gates to the next level of exclusivity --- "Paid Subscription" to enjoy fragmented pieces of the game.
 
KingSnake said:
As opposed to the current situation when there is no content exclusive to platforms. Right. "But I'm paying for the same game!"
Click to expand...

My point is that if people thing that this is going to be good for the consumer in the long run, theyre going to have another thing coming because EA isnt going to deny a huge wad of cash for the consumers sake.
 
Quadraphonic said:
But you can get just one and do alright.

They're competing services. EA Access is the same as a movie studio ONLY doing it.

IE:
Netflix for Paramount, Netflix for HBO, Netflix for Universal, Netflix for Disney, Netflix for Dreamworks. ZERO Overlap.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I rather have all the studios to do this rather than letting netflix/hulu/whatever distributor taking my $

why do I have to pay netflix to watch movies made by Disney?

at the end of the day, I still have the CHOICE to subscribe to studios (movies or games) that I support, plus buy any movies/games on disk. I would've never bought any individual EA games for $60, but now I get to play 4 of them and possibly more a year for $30

So I wish every major studio (movies or games) offer this subscription model in addition to individual releases in the future for me to choose how I want to pay them for their contents.
 
maomao said:
This is stupid. Does he know how many movie monthly subscription there is? netflix, hulu +, amazon prime, plus all major cable premium channels like hbo, showtime epix etc.

they all have exclusive movies/shows, so that's worst than every big movie studio having a subscription.
Click to expand...

Yes, he is saying it is not something he wants: to maintain a variety of different subscriptions.

Considering EA's big non-sports titles are all 2+ years away, they are probably looking at this as a short term salve. If it flops, Mass Effect/Battlefront/Battlefield 5 will be ready by then and you have made up some of your loss. If it doesn't, even better. I can certainly understand Sony preferring to offer EA's content on their Plus service instead of making their customers feel like they need another subscription and potentially losing their goodwill. There is a hidden cost to that.
 
Rurunaki said:
EXACTLY my point! The idea of having exclusive content (store) based is already a bad concept and now we're opening the flood gates to the next level of exclusivity --- "Paid Subscription" to enjoy fragmented pieces of the game.
Click to expand...

I have yet to see a preorder bonus that really skews the game to people who buy early. Most of them are pretty trivial in my opinion. That said, I don't mind having options and for companies to fight over my business.
 
Spottiettiedop said:
How do you figure expensive?
Click to expand...

well, if its not on ps4 (the alpha and omega it seems), then you gotta buy another console too, so that makes it expensive I guess?

I really cannot understand some posts... :)

KingSnake said:
PS+ is not competing with XBLG. That's the whole point. They're two subscriptions on two different systems. The systems are competing, not the subscriptions. PS+ has no competitors (that's a monopoly for you).
Click to expand...
thats not entirely correct either. I have both machines, did buy new subs for both when I got them. now i got another sub, maybe in the future I have a few more.
whenever I feel its time to cut on something, there definitely is no monopoly for me. the one less valuable gets the cut, period.
 
FleetFeet said:
And who do we really have to thank for that??? XBLG! Isn't all competition just grand?
Click to expand...

PS+ is not competing with XBLG. That's the whole point. They're two subscriptions on two different systems. The systems are competing, not the subscriptions. PS+ has no competitors (that's a monopoly for you).
 
DrkSage said:
My point is that if people thing that this is going to be good for the consumer in the long run, theyre going to have another thing coming because EA isnt going to deny a huge wad of cash for the consumers sake.
Click to expand...

No company is.

Although it makes sense for Sony to turn this down. Not enough people want this EA service for Sony to jump in blind. Just not enough incentives.
 
maxiell said:
Yes, he is saying it is not something he wants: to maintain a variety of different subscriptions.

Considering EA's big non-sports titles are all 2+ years away, they are probably looking at this as a short term salve. If it flops, Mass Effect/Battlefront/Battlefield 5 will be ready by then and you have made up some of your loss. If it doesn't, even better. I can certainly understand Sony preferring to offer EA's content on their Plus service instead of making their customers feel like they need another subscription and potentially losing their goodwill. There is a hidden cost to that.
Click to expand...

What if EA chooses not to their games on Plus?
 
blazeuk said:
It's absolutely their system to do as they please with but the argument is let's not pretend they're doing this for any other reason other than maximising their own profits, they are not protecting us from anything, they're just stopping any form of competition from potentially taking money away from them.
Click to expand...

What competition is there? Is EA offering me online play, and free games and discounts from all third parties? In that case I welcome the true competition.
 
CambriaRising said:
You are absolutely, 100% wrong about that. It cannot even be stressed enough.
Click to expand...

In the strictest, most technical sense EA Access by itself is not an immediate threat to PS+ as EA was not providing all that much to PS+ anyway (and we don't know that they won't again in the future just because of EA Access).

However, if multiple big publishers create their own subscription plan, then we can pretty much kiss PS+ and GwG goodbye (we will get indie games and nothing else). My guess is MS would be incredibly happy with that as it would remove what is probably the biggest advantage people see in PS+ over XBL Gold and would allow them to stop spending money doing something they obviously are not happy doing.
 
Sony wants control over the channel delivery on their platforms, they are way more invested into streaming and building a cross platform service. They see some future of taking this as the platform eventually.

A publisher specific package could work for Sony and the publishers if its a feature piggy backed onto sonys own services. Additional expansions which are optional is a way of testing ground with services like sonys which are far reaching yet maybe too inexpensive.
 
icespide said:
all this proves is that a lot of people bought PS4s that weren't previously PS+ subscribers.

I agree with you a lot of ps+ subscribers are playing online, probably most of them, but a significant amount of people subscribe just for free games and store discounts
Click to expand...

what do u think caused this 90%+ increase? u think sony are scared about ea offering some games that are mostly played online (fifa/bf)? this has nothing to do with sony protecting ps+, this is add-on service whereas ps+ is pretty much necessary for most ps4 owners
 
JAYSIMPLE said:
This is how I feel. If it's Sony it's obvious it was a good move by Sony and we are all stupid for not knowing the deal. If it was ms it would be ms being closed minded about xbox once again and taking choice from the consumer there deffo feels to be a double standard on here. Hopefully it changes soon if Sony makes more decisions for us. I just want it to be level
Click to expand...

There is a huge double standard going on here. Par for the course though unfortunately.
 
CambriaRising said:
It doesn't surprise me at all that you are okay with anti consumer practices.

This however, isn't one. The very existence of EAA on the PS4 would mean the devaluing of PS+ as a whole, which would be bad for the consumer as well as Sony. EA is a company who time and time again has screwed over the consumer, I don't want them to be able to shuffle in a new era of publisher's following suit and having their own subscriptions.
Click to expand...

Ha, was that meant to be offensive? Not every supposedly "anti consumer" action is inherently a bad thing. They could make all games free with no microtransactions! That would be massively pro-consumer. The industry wouldn't last for long though.


And yes, this is one. And a negative one. They're not letting consumers decide the value of a service for themselves, and instead are rejecting it to protect their own service. Something that does not benefit consumers at all. Also, there's nothing wrong with EA Access in it's current state, there are no negatives for those who don't want it. Sure, there's a possibility that it could evolve into something bad, however if that were to happen I would be one of the first to go against it. It could also evolve into something great. Imaging a service where you pay something like $12 a month and get access to every single EA game, including new releases. I could see something like that spawning from this. As long as this doesn't effect those who chose not to purchase it, it's perfectly fine.
 
EdgeXL said:
I have yet to see a preorder bonus that really skews the game to people who buy early. Most of them are pretty trivial in my opinion. That said, I don't mind having options and for companies to fight over my business.
Click to expand...

Skews the game? Not really, but devalues it --- yes. Recent example was the bonus mission for Playstation Watchdog. People who play "full retail" should be able to play those content regardless of platform; hence the fractured games we have now.

I'm all for companies fighting over my money, but like I said before, this is a big unknown right now. People need to tread carefully and not just blindly agreeing with everything being said by a company. Sony has their own interest and EA has their own. It's best to be skeptic specially with your money.
 
JAYSIMPLE said:
This is how I feel. If it's Sony it's obvious it was a good move by Sony and we are all stupid for not knowing the deal. If it was ms it would be ms being closed minded about xbox once again and taking choice from the consumer there deffo feels to be a double standard on here. Hopefully it changes soon if Sony makes more decisions for us. I just want it to be level
Click to expand...

Hey look, the Persecution complex returns.

This is getting right up there with "Sony too(tm)" in terms of ridiculousness.
 
What's wrong with multiple publisher vieing for our money for catalogue games via these subscription services anyway?

They'd be competing against each other to offer the most games and best discounts... And as the user we can make our decisions based on which publishers we like... I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing... Especially if you can job from subscription to subscription
 
HateGames said:
what do u think caused this 90%+ increase? u think sony are scared about ea offering some games that are mostly played online (fifa/bf)? this has nothing to do with sony protecting ps+, this is add-on service whereas ps+ is pretty much necessary for most ps4 owners
Click to expand...

requiring it for online certainly caused the increase. my only point was that there's a lot of PS+ subscribers that don't play online. are you trying to say that 100% of ps+ subscribers are playing games online?

ps+ is also hardly a necessity for most ps4 owners. There's also a decent amount of people that never play online, and don't see the value in the free ps+ games. These people can get along just fine on PS4 with out ps+
 
Qassim said:
Wow, that's a big number. I wonder why? Now that it's mandatory for basic functionality of a gaming console might have something to do with it.
Click to expand...
Yeah I loved that bit. Sony never passes an opportunity to pat themselves on the back for something meaningless.
 
Jomjom said:
In the strictest, most technical sense EA Access by itself is not an immediate threat to PS+ as EA was not providing all that much to PS+ anyway (and we don't know that they won't again in the future just because of EA Access).

However, if multiple big publishers create their own subscription plan, then we can pretty much kiss PS+ and GwG goodbye (we will get indie games and nothing else). My guess is MS would be incredibly happy with that as it would remove what is probably the biggest advantage people see in PS+ over XBL Gold and would allow them to stop spending money doing something they obviously are not happy doing.
Click to expand...

I would be perfectly fine if PS+ and GwG only provided indie games and first party titles. I'm paying to play online, the free games are just a bonus.
 
bishoptl said:
Nailed it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Because every other publisher could pull one off.

"Subscribe now for last year's Call of Duty, Destiny and ... Transformers game?"

EA and Ubisoft are the only ones who could provide a service meaningful enough to make any industry changing impact.
 
icespide said:
requiring it for online certainly caused the increase. my only point was that there's a lot of PS+ subscribers that don't play online. are you trying to say that 100% of ps+ subscribers are playing games online?

ps+ is also hardly a necessity for most ps4 owners. There's also a decent amount of people that never play online, and don't see the value in the free ps+ games. These people can get along just fine on PS4 with out ps+
Click to expand...


That 90% increase with PS4 is because of mandatory online PS+, not because these PS+ owners wanted to get 1 free indie game( at that time) each month.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Wild Assault Early Access Trailer
27
835
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
216
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