It shouldn't be a publishers job to prop up a service. If EA feels like they can offer value to a customer it should be that customers choice to pay for it or not.
Sony's response to EA Access Subscription plan
- Thread starter RexNovis
- Start date
- Status
It shouldn't be a publishers job to prop up a service. If EA feels like they can offer value to a customer it should be that customers choice to pay for it or not.
Leyasu
Banned
See I'm going all digital this gen, plus I want to get back into NHL and FIFA games.. I will definately get the benefit from this..
Never again will I buy a battlefield day one though
You can ignore the comparison that user made but the point is sound. This is an optional service and you will still have the option to buy games the way you used to. You really think physical is going to vanish anytime soon? The iPod has been a sales beat for 11 years now but aren't most music sales still in the form of CDs?
Unless you are referring to a fairly long time from now when games can only be purchased digitally but that is going to happen regardless of EA Access.
joecanada
Member
It doesn't make sense? Then explain why MS hands over millions of dollars to gain exclusive rights to games like titanfall. They use money to gain marketshare. Yes they may gain marketshare from this, Sony has elected to stick to their own business model and let the chips fall where they may.
Gamers don't decide because you don't let the competition run sales through your door. If it's a bad deal and thats their assessment, then it's a bad deal and it's a dead deal.
2 Slice Toaster
Member
Horse armor, horse armor, horse armor...consumers should be adult enough to make their own choice and support the publishers that they feel act in good faith, and not support those who don't, even if it means missing out on content they'd enjoy. There is plenty of worthwhile DLC that has been released that would not have been in the previous generations where the model wasn't available. Do publishers take advantage of the system. Of course! But I like that I can decide that for myself whether or not I want to give them my money.
You don't have to pay for anything, you just have to be adult enough to be willing to not pay to play if you don't feel its worth your while, and direct your money to where it makes sense. If subscription services for publishers take off, we'll get some really shitty services. We'll also get some really awesome values. Some people want to make these choices for themselves and aren't afraid to make hard choices.
First off, what the fuck are you talking about Mirror's Edge and Dead Space? The latter got two sequels and the former has a next gen sequel in the works.
As for people assuming Sony was given a choice; Sony has said that they rejected it, implying they did have a choice. People aren't assuming, they're going by what Sony themselves have said.
Edit: I find it quite amusing that this thread is more popular than the actual announcement thread. Gamers love controversy.
Shouta
Member
The post that was put into the OP explains it but basically, it's bad for Sony because it costs them money with no benefits. It has to be routed through their service, their support is the one that'd be taking calls/fixing issues, and they wouldn't be getting any money at all.
From Sony's perspective, it's also bad for consumers because they want to include these services under the PS+ banner. If they were to include it under that, you'd get a bigger benefit without paying anything extra which is better for the consumer overall.
That doesn't explain the contradiction from your earlier post. If Sony felt a service like EA Access would really increase Microsoft's market share then no way would Sony let that service stay exclusive on Xbone.
Sony allows publishers to run sales all of the time on PSN.
Scully Scully Scoo
Member
it leads to unnecessary fragmentation. what was the reason behind orgin again? what value did it create for customers except offer a shitter service/client that i still cant take a bloody screenshot with? this has nothing to do with ea offering value, its just ea being ea.
the better value is in a all-in-one service which ps+/xbl currently are so i dont see the need to change
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
But now you have choices dude! Choice to buy a product that used to be included for free as an unlockable. Don't worry, EA has your back
MaulerX
Member
I understand what you mean. But truth is this has been going on already. We have been getting gimped games with the extra content hidden behind the pseudo sub paywall that is called DLC.
Yet somehow I live outside this dystopian future, logging over 300 hours in Battlefield 4 without ever having to buy Premium. As expensive as it is, options remain options and aren't forced on anyone.
Yes and now we're allowing them to take that to another level.
Then clearly they'd be unable to charge $60 for retail games because they are missing content. Now since that's not going to happen, I'm not seeing the concern. EA has 0 reason to gimp their own retail copies.
Amentallica
Unconfirmed Member
Now this thread is turning into a support group and rationalization for overpriced DLC and micro transactions because of choices. Off to read The Scorch Trials as I see humanity heading down that path.
just kidding
PJV3
Member
I can't take it anymore, I'm going to add the word choice to the phrase- "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide" in my things that get on my nerves collection.
2 Slice Toaster
Member
Or choice to buy content that used to just be cut from the game and nobody ever knew about it, because there was no model to support the time and budget to finish it.
Infinite Xero
Member
Unless Sony thinks blocking a competitive PS+/Now subscription service is more valuable than whatever marketshare MS will gain through this. Sony allowing EA Access will set the precedent for other publisher to do same. If that happens, PS+ will look much less valuable and they will likely lose PS+ members.
So basically Sony is thinking that PS+ members are more valuable than a few more XB1 owners.
CosmicQueso
Member
Right. At this point, Sony has the Share, now it's time to maximize the Profit.
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
If you're getting the whole backlog of EA games and newer titles like BF4 and NFL14 etc, then what would be the point of buying a new EA game when you'll get access to them anyway for £20 quid a year.
There gotta be catch, unless EA thinks no one would do that.
There gotta be catch, unless EA thinks no one would do that.
I just realised something. How the hell is this sub bad value. Like at all?
- There's an EA game you want, it costs $60.
- The cost of subbing EA Access for a month = $4.99
- 10% discount on all titles.
- Total amount payed for game = 60 - (60 *0.1) + 4.99 = $58.99
You save $1 and you get access to a bunch of games you might not have for a month. Fucking awful value. /s
- There's an EA game you want, it costs $60.
- The cost of subbing EA Access for a month = $4.99
- 10% discount on all titles.
- Total amount payed for game = 60 - (60 *0.1) + 4.99 = $58.99
You save $1 and you get access to a bunch of games you might not have for a month. Fucking awful value. /s
Bending Kermit
Neo Member
Don't worry, Sony has your back also /s
DoubleTake
Member
Without a doubt I can see that. But once it does change, which I can guarantee without a shadow of a doubt to something meant to squeeze more money out of gamers, then we will look back on this time and say damn...couldve dodged that bullet.
What? I don't even know how you can rationalize the amount of content fractured just for the purpose of preorder bonus and dlc.
It has gone this far that people has already accepted this as a norm and not even pissed off that companies before used to offer maps just to get people to play their games to consumers basically clawing up to the publishers saying "Please sir may I have some more?"
Liberty4all
Banned
Personally I'm not interested in paying more monthly fees than I have to. One of the reasons I ditched Live is that I only want to pay for ONE ecosystem per month. An ecosystem that I know will get the best of everything. If publishers create their own ecosystems they will hold their content back from PS+ and Live Gold to use in their own digital store.
That is my concern. Multiple paywalls is bad for everyone involved IMHO.
Marketing Possibilities:
Vault Exclusive titles -- F2P titles available only to Vault members
Vault Exclusive Content -- extra missions only for Vault members
Vault Exclusive Pre Order DLC -- Vault members get (booster/special gun/dlc skin etc) ... stuff like this that I believe they will leverage to get more subscriptions.
Vault Booster -- Members of the Vault get a 25% XP bonus in <insert shooter>
Vault Exclusive Class -- Play as an exclusive <insert class> available only to Vault members!
How is it unnecessary fragmentation? If consumers want to pay for the service they will. If it is unnecessary the service will fail.
I'm sorry, but what????
This image is too damn big for gaf, so please take a look at this graph by clicking on the link.
http://blog.thecurrent.org/files/2014/02/units-vs-dollars-riaa.jpg
The whole landscape has changed since digital has taken off... albums are not what people buy in the digital space nowadays, they buy singles, and the market is reacting to this. And for the 3rd or 4th time now, including this year, digital album sales have actually surpassed physical based sales.
http://www.billboard.com/biz/articl...sales-fall-behind-album-downloads-is-2014-the
That is neither here nor there, we are talking about EA and their service and what it can mean to consumers and their rights as customers.
Yes digital is inevitable, nothing can change that, but do you want EA to be the gatekeeper? Seriously?!
I just don't see EA Access being that competitive with Plus. PS4 owners who want to play online wll still need Plus. Gamers who want "free" games from other publishers will still want Plus. People who want access to Plus sales will still need Plus. At worst this means EA games will have a smaller presence on Plus but EA has not offered many games on Plus anyways so no big loss.
darkside31337
Tomodachi wa Mahou
Then they try to work out a deal? I agree it was a dumb response, although I certainly understand why they refuse to cater to EA, but its not as if Sony can't ever change their mind. EA still makes needs to sell their games on PS platforms, its not as if they're suddenly going to stop doing business with each other.
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
EA has no replacement/continuation for Dead Space that I'm aware of, and the ME2 rumors are just that: rumors. Nothing concrete's been announced or shown yet.
So even if Sony was given a choice, we need to know the terms EA stipulated before saying Sony rejected it just to be a dick or they were arrogant or w/e.
2 Slice Toaster
Member
How do you know you're getting the best of everything?
vpance
Member
Because digital games shouldn't even be > $50 in the first place.
CosmicQueso
Member
You have rational, well thought out and constructive points to the discussion. Thanks.
Wait... are you saying the PS+ games offered each month are "the best of everything" and that no additional, similar programs would be nice to have the option of participating in? I get my 4-6 games per month of PS+, but no option to spend $5 more and play things like BF and other EA stuff? "Best of everything"... just laugh out loud.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Why exactly would you hope it collapses when so far it's nothing but a good thing for Xbox One owners? Or is that very fact right there the primary issue that you have with EA Access?
Leyasu
Banned
Bolded... Plus must have cost sony a fortune last gen. And I am sure that in order keep costs down, the games were basically rentals and you didn't get to keep the game after your subs expired.
Unless microsoft or sony are prepared to dig deep, then I can see gold and plus being more about indies and first party.
Now look at this:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/15/4227682/lady-gagas-manager-cds-are-still-a-huge-business
11 years after the iPod made its debut CDs are still selling very heavily. Physical game sales will be around for quite a while, methinks.
EA won't be the gatekeeper. They will be one company among many selling games... just as they are now. I will still be free to give them business or not as I see fit.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/15/4227682/lady-gagas-manager-cds-are-still-a-huge-business
11 years after the iPod made its debut CDs are still selling very heavily. Physical game sales will be around for quite a while, methinks.
EA won't be the gatekeeper. They will be one company among many selling games... just as they are now. I will still be free to give them business or not as I see fit.
I think you need to do some research.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s97...WE&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_143004
http://www.pcgamer.com/uk/2013/06/10/mirrors-edge-2-announced-with-debut-trailer-at-e3-2013/
ME2 was announced over a year ago.
As for Dead Space, no it hasn't had a next gen announcement yet. But it was hardly abandoned.
And sure, we don't know the terms that EA gave. However the reason Sony have given for rejecting it was bullshit, and hence they are receiving flak for that reason.
Killing_Joke
Member
Because it's Sony's hardware. If EA is that confident about their software then let them make their own console like they did with Origin. But they won't because they want MS/Sony to be the suckers. Online and season passes are good business decisions as well. Doesn't mean it's good for us.
I agree with everyone who says choice is good. Subs vs buying games at retail price. More options for gamers who play a lot of games i\s great. But it's directly effecting Sony's service on their hardware. It's also going to damage a service we already pay for. You can't understand why they said no?
Now if EA was going to continue to support PS+ and Games with Gold while the sub is released. Then yeah Sony fucked up. But i really doubt that was going to happen.
MaulerX
Member
That's just an assumption on your part. There's nothing wrong with choice as far as I'm concerned.
This is nothing more than Sony protecting their interest and not about "choice" because there is a choice; on the xbox one. If this bites Sony in the ass then so be it, but people make it out to be as if Sony has closed off its door on EA games.
Hey, be my guest in making the choice for yourself by purchasing an xbox and this service. I had my say about the likes of horse armor and it turned out exactly how I feared... yet here we are now, because people making poor decisions that gave pubs a dubious idea to milk the cow for all she's worth. Let's keep repeating history, shall we?
Oh that's great man, I'm really happy you're content with less bang for you're buck.
Will only happen if you stop paying for it.
- Status