Sony's response to EA Access Subscription plan
- Thread starter RexNovis
- Start date
- Status
What in the hell is wrong with you? lol...
I'm sorry but how are they not competing? You don't have to be on the same machine to compete, ya know. I think the competition provided by sony has led to a GwG and Netflix access without gold, without sony do you honestly believe MS would give those up to consumers??? If you do, there's a bridge yada yada... Both services mirror each other now, and the idea that PS+ is a monopoly is absurd.
Amentallica
Unconfirmed Member
Once again, this sets a precedent for other publishers to release their own service, therefore creating the dilemma of having to subscribe to even MORE than we already do normally. Your view is shortsighted, I think. No one is saying it would have caused them to go bankrupt, but why would Sony want to suddenly take a step back when they've been making strides to correct all of their PSN issues since last gen? That's the perspective I can believe they took.
Where did he say this was as bad as the X1 DRM?
Origin is generally shat on by the legion of people who think Steam should be the only delivery system until the end of time. EA is criticized for not publishing it's games on Steam but the reverse is seldom mentioned.
Similar to the debate here, no PC user is forced to install either or both on their PC
Amen, brotha...
How are any of you doofs arguing this? Do you have access to some alternate dimension where Microsoft's and Sony's policies are reversed and the NeoGaf of that universe has a similar thread playing out?
Supporting EAs system will not mean that 'every' developer will do this. It makes no sense, since other devs will find it damn near impossible to justify a subscription fee. It's like saying that if you support uPlay or Origin instead of Steam, then every dev will create their own digital distribution platform. It just isn't feasible for 99% of other companies.
May I ask what the flying fuck you are talking about?
It's about options. Full stop. You can still get all the games EA's service offers outside of the service. You have the option. And there's no signs of it being any different.
I have no idea what your talking about, but I hope that helps you understand.
Leyasu
Banned
This... You need a large library and a plethora of studios and many games launching per year to even contemplate this! Only EA can pull this off imo
I don't have an issue with other pubs creating their own services similar to this one. As long as they don't prevent us from accessing our games as we normally do and have done for years I'm perfectly fine with it.
The only negative I can really see with other pubs starting their own services is that it gets a bit confusing.
Again, I can see why Sony wouldn't want this. However I think their excuse for rejecting it is a bullshit one. And one which they shouldn't be praised for.
No, they were directly bashing EA's service and games. Although, it was just a PR email response to GI. Wouldn't be surprised if a much more sanitized and official response is forthcoming.
FranXico
Member
I don't think anybody has made that comparison here.
The debate here is whether Sony actually did the right thing by denying EA their subscription offer on PSN or not. It is anti-consumer in that they blocked an optional service that some people are interested in. Let the market decide.
I think there is a huge distinction between happily paying for a service and doing so begrudgingly.... I'm in the latter, because you know... I can't play online without it! it's either that or I'm left with no other choice but to go with Nintendo exclusively, and I really don't want to do that, or build a PC, which I also prefer not to do.
There is no dilemma. Subscribe to the services you want (or none of them.) Buy the games you want in the traditional ways.
This offers more choices. I don't see that as bad. I also think the market can and should decide what publisher services are worthy.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
I'm confident that they will have to say a formal response on this since this decision is very controversial. I can possibly bet they will change there stance very soon. When that happens, well, we are either all fucked or not.
Wait. How does this impact you?
You think a subscription service that gives you year old EA games impedes your ability to purchase EA games for $60? Why?
This isn't like Xbox Live. You still have alternative ways to get the same content. A choice. Take it or leave it, it's just another option.
So, again, what is your argument?
AndrewDean84xX
Banned
Let me make that choice.
Amentallica
Unconfirmed Member
Hey, I'm not praising them, I'm being realistic. And if when I think of it long term, I think of it this way: many of the things we hate today started off small and experimental, but because of people who add up to a number large enough to make something trend or popular, we arrive to a norm.
That's about the easiest way I can put it for me to think of this. Let's just agree to disagree.
I hope every developer does do it. What is the harm? You dont have to sub to any of them. You can still buy the games just like you always have.
It sets the precedent, and that's all that needs to happen to blow the door open...
I hate to keep going back to this argument, but it screams of history repeating itself... but did anyone think we'd be paying $50 for BF Premium after paying full retail price, when people first started to buy $3 horse armor???
Bumblebeetuna
Member
What a joke. #4theplayers I guess.
Pretty much. This argument is straw man horse poop.
Scully Scully Scoo
Member
TheOhrenberger.
Banned
No, Sony is just saying "we don't want anything to compete with PS+ and PSnow on our platform" and spinning it to make it look like they're doing something good for you. Seems like people are falling for it though if we're judging by some posts in this thread.
#4theplayers lol
Doug Heffernan
Member
That explanation makes no sense.
It's just as boneheaded as Microsoft's launch parity clause.
It's just as boneheaded as Microsoft's launch parity clause.
What precedent? EA's games aren't exclusive to the service. That would be entirely different.
It's nothing like season passes or microtransactions.
Well subscription services seems like a success to me, as proven by PS+. Something that you are also supporting.
I can agree that there's a chance this could lead to something worse, I think there's also a more likely chance that it could lead to something better.
I think a yearly sub which grants access to every single EA title as soon as they release would be fantastic. I think this is the sort of this which could lead to that.
Damn giving the consumers choices!
(As far as I know, BF Premium is optional just as horse armor is optional.)
FranXico
Member
I think he's referring to fragmentation and market saturation of subscription services once all large publishers start doing this. He probably doesn't want that to happen.
Maybe it is inevitable and the business model is doomed to fail no matter what...
Doctor_Thomas
Member
Still can't believe there's people who trust an EA subscription service, even if Sony's reasoning is bullshit.
TheOhrenberger.
Banned
Right now EA's service seems pretty good. If that ever changes people can just cancel their subscriptions.
Scully Scully Scoo
Member
What's really wrong with it though? It's optional and seems pretty good value for money. If that ever changes, just stop supporting it and cancel your sub.
It's really that simple.
DangerMouse
Member
This. I totally understand not wanting to have to subscribe to 20 different companies on top of how we already have to consider subscription fees with Hulu, Netflix, Crunchyroll, Amazon Prime Video, etc., something like Plus with games from multiple companies is much better.
I guess it's probably inevitable though.
Edit: Beaten by FranXico.
You don't think that's EA's endgoal after how they supported MS' DRM harder than any other company?
SwiftDeath
Member
Interesting times we live in, that's for sure
AndrewDean84xX
Banned
I don't know about most, but a lot of folks are loving this great idea.
I don't see the harm in letting us choose if we want this or not. It doesn't compete with PS+ or Xbox live's GWG.
DoubleTake
Member
Just like people can stop preordering for DLC...oh wait
Don't you see how that would massively hurt EA though?
Too many people wouldn't pay for it, massively cutting down on sales. Unless it was actually a good deal, then there's no real issue.
What is wrong with that? I can always stop subscribing if EA pulls off something stupid.
PS+ was profitable before they made mp mandatory for it.
Also you hope it flops and are still paying for it.
Liberty4all
Banned
Speaking for myself I feel that EA will need to make the Vault appealing by offering exclusive content and discounts via that Vault on the platforms the Vault is available. I would prefer for that content to not be locked away on the Vault behind yet another paywall. We are already paying Sony (or Microsoft or both). Adding another payee to my list of bills each month is not an appealing option to me. Especially when this "EA Vault" lowers the chances of me seeing that same EA content offered through PS+.
If EA is successful with this, how long before we see the "Activision Bank" or the "Rockstar Safe", or perhaps the "Ubisoft Archive" each with their own $5 a month fee. Content that once would have appeared as Games for Gold or PS+ monthly freebies, now locked behind another paywall. Discounts for these games locked behind paywalls. Exclusive content, DLC locked behind another fee.
On the surface I'm ambivalent towards the EA Vault. I worry more about where this road could go. I have no doubt that Sony is too in terms of how it will affect their own ecosystem they have worked very hard to build. It just so happens that my interests and Sony's are the same ... it's better for both consumers and platform owner for the ecosystem to be under the platform owners roof rather than to be fractured by the publishers.
Just IMHO. Choice is good, but is being forced to make a choice really a choice at all?
Scully Scully Scoo
Member
BOOM! headshot. MONSTER KILL!!
supporting this crap is bad for the industry, and it does not surprise me ea is the one leading the way
It's funny how you bring up two hot bed topics that EA is notorious for... yet you still can't see what kind of precedent would be set by EA setting up a service that is out to grip their money grubbing claws deep into consumers, to attempt to lock them into an ecosystem, with DRM mind you. But let's just forget about all that and focus on the positive... choices!
I think people want to make the choice for themselves. Give them the option. I also think people wanted the choice to buy a Xbox with always online DRM. I won't buy another ea title till I get a full refund for bf4 so this all means nothing to me, but I see where people are coming from.
The1stOfHisName
Member
The short term memories on display here are pretty amusing. This whole industry operates by trends and precedents.
Remember DLC? Now that's ubiquitous and all publishers shovel it into everything.
Microtransactions? Yup.
Online passes?
F2P?
In each case consumers, exercising their right to choose, voted with their wallets and gave their blessing to being gouged in new and exciting ways. This will be exactly the same
Remember DLC? Now that's ubiquitous and all publishers shovel it into everything.
Microtransactions? Yup.
Online passes?
F2P?
In each case consumers, exercising their right to choose, voted with their wallets and gave their blessing to being gouged in new and exciting ways. This will be exactly the same
BurnOutBrighter
Banned
Why would Sony do that if it means they make less money?
It'd be like walking into the Apple store and seeing Dells on the shelves.
- Status