Support NeoGAF

[Scully Scully Scoo]

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?

like i said earlier, i think more than 90% of the users subscribe, probably around 95%, to ps+ just to play online. the opinion some seem to have on here that sony is protecting ps+ is flat out insane, ps+ doesnt need protecting at all, people are going to buy it regardless of this ea access.

it makes no sense for sony to just refuse this service to protect what it probably around 5% of its users who subscribe just for the monthly games, when they would probably make that subscription money back from royalties fees or something ea would have to pay sony for this service.

 

[gioGAF]

What is up with all the morons that are butthurt because Sony "made the decision for them"? This has nothing to do with you or your decision. It has everything to do with Sony protecting their ecosystem. None of us have the full picture on this "EA Service", perhaps the platform holder knows more about the details than you do?

I personally think EA is garbage, so I am 100% behind Sony's decision on this even though I don't have the exact ToS for the EA service.

I don't see how allowing EA to have their own subscription service on Sony's network would benefit Sony in any way. As many have said, all it does is fragment the service (Playstation Network as a whole, not just PS+). Then a bunch of "me too" services would pop up from all the other major publishers. Any time something would go wrong with any service, Sony would be contacted by the masses.

 

[Alienous]

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.

Exactly. I'm not paying for my 2 indie games a month on PS4. I'm paying because online would be withheld from me if I didn't.

If online was free, I'd absolutely get EA's service ahead of PS Plus.

 

[icespide]

like i said earlier, i think more than 90% of the users subscribe, probably around 95%, to ps+ just to play online. the opinion some seem to have on here that sony is protecting ps+ is flat out insane, ps+ doesnt need protecting at all, people are going to buy it regardless of this ea access.

it makes no sense for sony to just refuse this service to protect what it probably around 5% of its users who subscribe just for the monthly games, when they would probably make that subscription money back from royalties fees or something ea would have to pay sony for this service.

well to be fair I never once argued that ea access is a threat to ps+ the only thing I said in my original post was that not everyone cares about multiplayer....

 

[Xone9]

Sounds like Sony hired a bunch of Fanboys for their PR dept.

heh, cmon sony, how about choice?

 

[jem0208]

What is up with all the morons that are butthurt because Sony "made the decision for them"? This has nothing to do with you or your decision. It has everything to do with Sony protecting their ecosystem. None of us have the full picture on this "EA Service", perhaps the platform holder knows more about the details than you do?

I personally think EA is garbage, so I am 100% behind Sony's decision on this even though I don't have the exact ToS for the EA service.

I don't see how allowing EA to have their own subscription service on Sony's network would benefit Sony in any way. As many have said, all it does is fragment the service. Then a bunch of "me too" services would pop up from all the other major publishers. Any time something would go wrong with any service, Sony would be contacted by the masses.

Because people want to use this service. And Sony isn't letting them.


Screw the fact that this won't benefit Sony.

 

[Gartooth]

PS+ is not a competing service now that online multiplayer is behind a paywall. The ideal competition talked of in this thread would've only existed if we were comparing EA Access and PS3's version of Plus.

In that scenario the consumer has the freedom to choose which subscription offers better value and support that one.

However, Sony has those who participate in online gaming by the balls, and they won't change a bit if EA decided tomorrow to remove all their games from the service. Subscribers will end up paying the same price for less, and those that do subscribe to EA Access will still need to pay for PS+ in order to enable online multiplayer for their games. What we end up with isn't two competing services, it is one service that will see less value but still have its subscribers entrenched in it, and another service that winds up as complementary to the former due to needing it to get the full value from its service.

 

[Jomjom]

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.

Hmmm I'm the complete opposite. I'm of the belief that online play should be free. If PS+ didn't have those games I wouldn't sub.

And I definitely wouldn't sub to multiple publishers. If that dystopia happens I'll just go back to buying more retail games like before we had PS+.

 

[icespide]

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.

ok? I'm agreeing with you in my post you quoted?

 

[Dunlop]

Hey look, the Persecution complex returns.

This is getting right up there with "Sony too(tm)" in terms of ridiculousness.

It's not as black and white as he posted, but for shits and giggles one day go into a few XB1 dedicated threads and see if you come to any conclusions about differences in the tone of discussions

What is up with all the morons that are butthurt because Sony "made the decision for them"? This has nothing to do with you or your decision.

classy...the brunt of the discussion is not why Sony did it as that is pretty obvious and well within their rights, it's about how them taking choice away was beneficial to us

 

[maomao]

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.

why the hell not? options? pay $5 a month to play some games or buy them for $20 each (majority of money goes to gamestop)

As a (cheapass) gamer, my goal is to experience the most games in my life time for the least amount of $, the subscription model gives me exactly that.

 

[zedge]

What is up with all the morons that are butthurt because Sony "made the decision for them"? This has nothing to do with you or your decision. It has everything to do with Sony protecting their ecosystem. None of us have the full picture on this "EA Service", perhaps the platform holder knows more about the details than you do?

I personally think EA is garbage, so I am 100% behind Sony's decision on this even though I don't have the exact ToS for the EA service.

I don't see how allowing EA to have their own subscription service on Sony's network would benefit Sony in any way. As many have said, all it does is fragment the service (Playstation Network as a whole, not just PS+). Then a bunch of "me too" services would pop up from all the other major publishers. Any time something would go wrong with any service, Sony would be contacted by the masses.

Translation. I don't like something so no one else should.

Get a grip.

 

[Gestault]

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.

In a weird way, only having first-party games and indie titles (and describing it that way) seems like something that I'd appreciate. I'm subscribed to both already (I think both offer value beyond what I put in dollar-wise).

 

[Rurunaki]

Exactly. I'm not paying for my 2 indie games a month on PS4. I'm paying because online would be withheld from me if I didn't.

If online was free, I'd absolutely get EA's service ahead of PS Plus.

This may sound like a myth, but PSN Multiplayer was FREE in the past. Guess who set the precedent of having multiplayer hidden behind a paywall because consumers felt it was a good value?

 

[MaulerX]

EA Access has 72 games a year?

I've been reading people throw this number around. But unless you're 100% invested in Sony's hardware ecosystem (PS4, PS3, Vita) then your not getting 72 games. I mean, by that definition then XBL would offer more than that if you count XB1, 360, WP/Tablets W8 PC (all full XBL games that give you achievements and all).

 

[tfur]

Mmmm hmmm. We're on the way!

Saw this in the only Facebook and Twitter plan on Sprint contract in the OT.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=864680

Nope.

 

[mugwhump]

Eh, I'm with Sony on this one.

Spoiler

unprecedented partnership pt.2 incoming

 

[jem0208]

Hmmm I'm the complete opposite. I'm of the belief that online play should be free. If PS+ didn't have those games I wouldn't sub.

Oh, I'd much prefer it if online were free. I wouldn't have Gold if MP wasn't locked behind it (I don't actually have PS+)

 

[Scully Scully Scoo]

well to be fair I never once argued that ea access is a threat to ps+ the only thing I ever said was that not everyone cares about multiplayer....

well not everyone does care about multiplayer, that is correct, but vast majority do. it turns out the 90% increase number i provided earlier has actually now increased to 200%, that is an insane increase which has to be attributed to the multiplayer requirement of ps+.

 

[eddfromtheriver]

Sounds like Sony hired a bunch of Fanboys for their PR dept.

heh, cmon sony, how about choice?

Really?... and with your username?... ok...

 

[Alienous]

What is up with all the morons that are butthurt because Sony "made the decision for them"? This has nothing to do with you or your decision. It has everything to do with Sony protecting their ecosystem. None of us have the full picture on this "EA Service", perhaps the platform holder knows more about the details than you do?

I personally think EA is garbage, so I am 100% behind Sony's decision on this even though I don't have the exact ToS for the EA service.

I don't see how allowing EA to have their own subscription service on Sony's network would benefit Sony in any way. As many have said, all it does is fragment the service (Playstation Network as a whole, not just PS+). Then a bunch of "me too" services would pop up from all the other major publishers. Any time something would go wrong with any service, Sony would be contacted by the masses.

People who don't think that this decision is pro-consumer are morons?

They can do this, clearly, because they have. But people shouldn't must have to be happy about an opt-in option being withheld from them.

And of course we'd have me-too services. Remember that time when Konami decided to take Metal Gear Solid and PES and compete with Steam, Origin and Uplay? What nonsense.

 

[jesu]

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

As far as I can tell, the people that are against it are against because it means(to them) that EA will lock online multiplayer and dlc behind an extra paywall.

 

[gioGAF]

Translation. I don't like something so no one else should.

Get a grip.

You and jem0208 live in lala land if you can't see the downside of having something like "EA Access" become the industry standard.

My justification was never "I don't like it so you don't get to like it". I don't think it is good for me as a consumer, so I will not support it and I will voice my opinion against it. If you like it, that is great, you are probably the same people that were okay with Xbone DRM and paying for XBL last gen.

 

[Wizman23]

It doesn't make sense to every game publisher to have a service, but EA, Ubisoft and Activision make great sense.

and I would subscribe to every one of them. Already have EA, lets hope the other 2 big dogs follow suit.

 

[jem0208]

In a weird way, only having first-party games and indie titles (and describing it that way) seems like something that I'd appreciate. I'm subscribed to both already (I think both offer value beyond what I put in dollar-wise).

Something somewhat related; I would definitely pay a yearly sub of something like £60 - £80 if I could get access to all of the first party MS titles as soon as they released.

"Xbox Live Ultimate subscription"


I don't know why none of the big publishers/console manufacturers haven't done something like this.

GwG is nice. A sub like I described would be fucking amazing.


I'm sure people would love the same from Sony.

 

[EdgeXL]

What is up with all the morons that are butthurt because Sony "made the decision for them"? This has nothing to do with you or your decision. It has everything to do with Sony protecting their ecosystem. None of us have the full picture on this "EA Service", perhaps the platform holder knows more about the details than you do?

I personally think EA is garbage, so I am 100% behind Sony's decision on this even though I don't have the exact ToS for the EA service.

I don't see how allowing EA to have their own subscription service on Sony's network would benefit Sony in any way. As many have said, all it does is fragment the service (Playstation Network as a whole, not just PS+). Then a bunch of "me too" services would pop up from all the other major publishers. Any time something would go wrong with any service, Sony would be contacted by the masses.

What is up with you resorting to name-calling? What is up with you trying to poke other apart on the basis they do not know all of the details and then say you 100% support Sony's decision when you do not know all of the details?

I am more concerned with my benefit as a customer than what most benefits Sony. I will likely hold that belief unless I end up working for Sony and then I may change my mind.

 

[Amentallica]

Because people want to use this service. And Sony isn't letting them.


Screw the fact that this won't benefit Sony.

Why screw that fact? EA isn't releasing this service out of good will, they're looking to turn a profit also. What do some of you really expect Sony to do? They were hemorrhaging money, and now that they're finally raking in profits from PS+ and PSN, after what the PS3 went through, is it really expected that they would allow other individual publisher services onto their network? While I would like my PS4 to retain as many services for me to choose from, I can understand why this would be rejected by Sony. Thinking long term, I can see myself having to subscribe to both services once EA realizes the profit and disconnects their games from PSN/PS+. This shit is stupid.

 

[Dunlop]

nvm

 

[rac]

You and jem0208 live in lala land if you can't see the downside of having something like "EA Access" become the industry standard.

My justification was never "I don't like it so you don't get to like it". I don't think it is good for me as a consumer, so I will not support it and I will voice my opinion against it. If you like it, that is great, you are probably the same people that were okay with Xbone DRM and paying for XBL last gen.

Sony never even gave anyone the opportunity to support it.

 

[Deadstar]

Not the right call at all from Sony, give the consumers the choice.

It is the right call. Do you want to be paying a subscription for every publisher going forward? It sets a bad precedent.

 

[Scully Scully Scoo]

Sony never even gave anyone the opportunity to support it.

good as far as im concerned. most console users are ill informed morons who buy things without knowing of the full consequences. this free will crap got us paying for multiplayer hasnt it?

 

[EdgeXL]

Why screw that fact? EA isn't releasing this service out of good will, they're looking to turn a profit also. What do some of you really expect Sony to do? They were hemorrhaging money, and now that they're finally raking in profits from PS+ and PSN, after what the PS3 went through, is it really expected that they would allow other individual publisher services onto their network? While I would like my PS4 to retain as many services for me to choose from, I can understand why this would be rejected by Sony. Thinking long term, I can see myself having to subscribe to both services once EA realizes the profit and disconnects their games from PSN/PS+. This shit is stupid.

How would this take money away from Sony? Is EA planning to allow me access to other publisher games that would have gone to Plus? Is EA putting up their own multiplayer paywall on PSN? Would Sony not get a cut of EA Access sales purchased through PSN?

 

[Navy Bean]

and I would subscribe to every one of them. Already have EA, lets hope the other 2 big dogs follow suit.

The more I think about it I would welcome it if the big 3 all did this. $7.50 a month for a ton of games and other stuff. Or, $5.00 monthly rentals of a good selection of games. I know for me personally it would save me a ton of money from buying games and I would also get to play more things. Win/win.

 

[RoKKeR]

It is the right call. Do you want to be paying a subscription for every publisher going forward? It sets a bad precedent.

Oh please, EA is one of the few publishers with the infrastructure to even pull something like this off. Ubisoft and Activision are the only other ones that could as well.

Sony denying their consumers a choice is simply not the right call, it's silly.

 

[EdgeXL]

It is the right call. Do you want to be paying a subscription for every publisher going forward? It sets a bad precedent.

Games will still be available to purchase from stores (including network stores like PSN and XBL.)

I've said it many times but it doesn't hurt for me to repeat this: I see no problem with multiple publishers experimenting with ways to deliver games to consumers and still keeping traditional purchase methods available.

 

[Amentallica]

How would this take money away from Sony? Is EA planning to allow me access to other publisher games that would have gone to Plus? Is EA putting up their own multiplayer paywall on PSN? Would Sony not get a cut of EA Access sales purchased through PSN?

A cut of the profit from EA because of their service is not the same thing as a subscription to PS+. EA is not allowing access to other games from different publishers, but they make reduce or subtract entirely their games from PS+, which may coerce a person into subscribing to two services. EA could possibly stranglehold and force their own multiplayer paywall. You don't know what the future could entail, and neither do I, but this is EA we're talking about, not the salvation army.

 

[jem0208]

Why screw that fact? EA isn't releasing this service out of good will, they're looking to turn a profit also. What do some of you really expect Sony to do? They were hemorrhaging money, and now that they're finally raking in profits from PS+ and PSN, after what the PS3 went through, is it really expected that they would allow other individual publisher services onto their network? While I would like my PS4 to retain as many services for me to choose from, I can understand why this would be rejected by Sony. Thinking long term, I can see myself having to subscribe to both services once EA realizes the profit and disconnects their games from PSN/PS+. This shit is stupid.

Because I'm more concerned about the benefits of the consumer rather than Sony (or MS had they rejected this). EA Access wouldn't suddenly have caused Sony to go bankrupt. I also can see why they would reject this, however I don't think it's a good thing for consumers.


Also, unless you only get your games from PS+, I don't see how you'd be forced to buy EA Access. As long as you can still purchase and play your games normally I don't see what's wrong with having EA Access as an optional extra.

 

[Leyasu]

I'm sorry, but sonys response sounds a bit salty. I'm sure that in all honesty, they would have loved to get the royalties from the sales of EA's games through this system, plus had the chance to trumpet this extra service #forthegamers. At the end of the day, sony should've gave ps4 owners the choice.

anyway, although I do agree with many commentators that these sort of things are not great. I think that a big publisher with a big library that someone buys multiple games from per year can do this. And those people that fall into the category that I just described can and will benefit from this.

I will be in the first year or two atleast

 

[zedge]

It is the right call. Do you want to be paying a subscription for every publisher going forward? It sets a bad precedent.

I can see the alcan stock slowly rising.. Keep your physical dinosaur land games. Some of us want other options. Taking choice from consumers is pro consumer?! Smh

 

[MaulerX]

It is the right call. Do you want to be paying a subscription for every publisher going forward? It sets a bad precedent.

And the beauty about it is that you don't have to if you don't want to. You can still go about your business and buy games just as you do now.

 

[EdgeXL]

It is the right call. Do you want to be paying a subscription for every publisher going forward? It sets a bad precedent.

A cut of the profit from EA because of their service is not the same thing as a subscription to PS+. EA is not allowing access to other games from different publishers, but they make reduce or subtract entirely their games from PS+, which may coerce a person into subscribing to two services. EA could possibly stranglehold and force their own multiplayer paywall. You don't know what the future could entail, and neither do I, but this is EA we're talking about, not the salvation army.

How many EA games have ended up on Plus anyways? I doubt there were many. I'd argue EA has given away more games on Origin through their "On The House" program than they have ever put on Plus (and that is a relatively new program on Origin.)

Sorry, I am not convinced EA's service would pull profits away from Plus. Hell, if it were then why would MS allow it on their platform?

 

[Dunlop]

It is the right call. Do you want to be paying a subscription for every publisher going forward? It sets a bad precedent.

as it stands right now (not the projected evil future) this subscription does not prevent you from playing any EA games without it

 

[Killing_Joke]

Andy McNamara from Game Informer said it best:

https://twitter.com/GI_AndyMc/status/494553213169704962

@GI_AndyMc

"I really don't want EVERY video game pub to have their own sub service, just like I didn't want every movie studio have to one"

Exactly. Why is Netflix so successful? Because it has a bit of everything. Imagine if the Disney deal they made was a 5$/30$ add on instead of being part of the Netflix sub. That would be horrible. That's not pro consumer or pro choice. That's Netflix devaluing it's service just so movie companies can have a bigger piece of the pie. Then Sony will do it, then WB, then Marvel, and before you know we have 20 subscriptions.

Sony nor MS get anything out of this. Sony would rather give away EA games with it's service rather than EA using its own. Makes sense to me. Find it funny though Origin get's shitted on in damn near every thread. Yet, everyone is happy with this because of choice.

 

[Gestault]

good as far as im concerned. most console users are ill informed morons who buy things without knowing of the full consequences. this free will crap got us paying for multiplayer hasnt it?

It makes me really uncomfortable when people assume one company necessarily knows best, because consumers can't be trusted to make their own buying decisions.

 

[jhmtehgamr20xx]

Right. That's what we're saying. Let's have every publisher do this. Thus begins the dystopian future of gaming. Stop it, be real. Who other than EA produce enough games to support a service? Pretty much just Ubisoft.

What is the downside to options? Sony have the gall to call this bad value? Fuck you, Sony. Maybe their service appeals more than two indie games a month? No, Sony just don't want people stepping in their turf.

This is anti-consumer, inherently. A forced restriction of choice means that there will be people who are denied the option they'd prefer.

What a shitty move, Sony.

I just love, love this. Somehow, I don't know how they did it. I would really like to know how they did it but....somehow MS and EA have convinced some people that deciding against a competing service by evaluating its value proposition not being in-line with their current offering, is as negatively anti-consumer as the DRM MS was attempting to push on the XBO. W-O-W.

Can we at least use rationality when discussing this instead of needing to make anyone the boogeyman? Yeesh...

 

[jem0208]

Exactly. Why is Netflix so successful? Because it has a bit of everything. Imagine if the Disney deal they made was a 5$/30$ add on instead of being part of the Netflix sub. That would be horrible. That's not pro consumer or pro choice. That's Netflix devaluing it's service just so movie companies can have a bigger piece of the pie. Then Sony will do it, then WB, then Marvel, and before you know we have 20 subscriptions.

This analogy doesn't really apply IMO. You can still purchase games completely normally from the X1 store, you can completely ignore this sub and still access the games as you would normally.

 

[Nibiru]

It doesn't make sense to every game publisher to have a service, but EA, Ubisoft and Activision make great sense.

He wasn't saying it didn't make sense. He said that he didn't want it and I think most would agree with him.

 

[Spottiettiedop]

The more I think about it I would welcome it if the big 3 all did this. $7.50 a month for a ton of games and other stuff. Or, $5.00 monthly rentals of a good selection of games. I know for me personally it would save me a ton of money from buying games and I would also get to play more things. Win/win.

Just looking back on what I purchase from 7/30/13 to today, it would have been a win for my wallet.

 

[SmokedMeat]

good as far as im concerned. most console users are ill informed morons who buy things without knowing of the full consequences. this free will crap got us paying for multiplayer hasnt it?

Exactly what I've said. In this case I don't want consumers to be given the choice to screw things up for me, so I'm happy if they aren't given the option. They already screwed up free online.

 

[rac]

good as far as im concerned. most console users are ill informed morons who buy things without knowing of the full consequences. this free will crap got us paying for multiplayer hasnt it?

I'm assuming you have a ps+? So you don't mind that you are supporting a paywall for mp.