Amentallica
Unconfirmed Member
EA: "And then we told them the choices would 'trickle down'. Hahahaha"
Sony's response to EA Access Subscription plan
- Thread starter RexNovis
- Start date
- Status
My primary issue is with EA...
Even if a brand new title was $50, it wouldn't cost you anything to get a sub for the month of it's release. You'd basically be getting a bunch of other games for a month and the game you wanted to buy for the same price as buying the game completely seperately.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
Have you not read the thread. This isn't about Xbox owners and what good value they see in it for them (because as of right now it's exclusive to them and probably why some are championing it as well), this about the grand scheme of things where ultimately games become a service that people really don't want to become to new DLC, Microtransactions, etc etc etc.
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
Lol you know what? That is my fault. I didn't even remember they showed that trailer at the '13 conference; it was pretty much drowned out by all the DRM and anti-used games hoopla. They would've done well to show it at this year's tho.
Dead Space has kind of been on a gradual slide in what it should've been, so unless they make it more horror-like as the 1st game (or better yet, make it the System Shock 3 they were going to at first), don't know if I'd be interested.
As for Sony's response...well what else could they have said? They can't give a technical answer because that doesn't make for a short and sweet statement, and they probably don't want to piss EA off anymore than they have for rejecting the service to begin with. There are certain things companies can be transparent about; for reasons most of us aren't aware of, this isn't one of them.
2 Slice Toaster
Member
EA didn't create horse armor.
The Scientist
Member
EA and Sony should negotiate financial terms for Sony to keep it in house and handle all of the support and transactions.
Whoever named it PS+ was prophetic:
(Based on yearly cost broken down to monthly amount)
PS+ $5/Month
PS + EA collection add $3/month
PS + EA Sports Collection add $3/month
PS + Ubisoft Collection add $3/Month
PS + Activision Collection add $3/Month
PS + COD Collection add $3/month
PS + Ultimate Collection (All) add $10/Month
I know that I am not with the more vocal GAF, but I like game subs. I wish this was coming to PSN, I do not collect games or keep them when I am done playing them. I simply don't have the time to replay a game.
Whoever named it PS+ was prophetic:
(Based on yearly cost broken down to monthly amount)
PS+ $5/Month
PS + EA collection add $3/month
PS + EA Sports Collection add $3/month
PS + Ubisoft Collection add $3/Month
PS + Activision Collection add $3/Month
PS + COD Collection add $3/month
PS + Ultimate Collection (All) add $10/Month
I know that I am not with the more vocal GAF, but I like game subs. I wish this was coming to PSN, I do not collect games or keep them when I am done playing them. I simply don't have the time to replay a game.
how are they not putting in an effort into PS+?
Windom Earle
Member
Thanks Sony, fuck EA!
Amentallica
Unconfirmed Member
I am going to guess because they're not offering their imaginary hundreds or thousands of titles like the PS3 has access to, and only indie games which aren't real games because only AAA games are real.
EA probably looked at the stats of how much their gamers play these types of titles after an extended period of time. Say like older sports games.. .then thought they were not losing much by basically giving them away.
so the point would be to keep people as members with this "game vault", and EVEN if you don't want to buy a EA game that month to save on that 10%...they figure, that since you have the membership...you'd want to take advantage of it and might buy the game anyway.
edit- Sony says they don't see the value...and they know their gamers, so maybe from their perspective (like someone wrote earlier) it would not be worth the trouble that comes with covering the service.
so the point would be to keep people as members with this "game vault", and EVEN if you don't want to buy a EA game that month to save on that 10%...they figure, that since you have the membership...you'd want to take advantage of it and might buy the game anyway.
edit- Sony says they don't see the value...and they know their gamers, so maybe from their perspective (like someone wrote earlier) it would not be worth the trouble that comes with covering the service.
The question wasn't about horse armor... but horse armor is just the virus that caused this symptom we are now dealing with (DLC).
But I do dislike horse armor as much as I dislike EA, and DLC in general.
I don't consider any of the content that is either day 1 DLC or a preorder bonus to be substantial. I have barely ever purchased DLC content outside of fighting games. I played a lot of games last gen and I currently am this gen. I have yet to feel like any of my games were missing anything.
I feel like that's something really subjective so I can understand how others may view it differently, but that is not in anyway comparable to the suggestions others have made such as putting entire modes behind EA Access. I simply don't see EA doing it. You put FUT behind EA Access and people would burn down their buildings.
CosmicQueso
Member
I mean... "the best of everything"?
Or, for $5 more a month I can throw BF and Madden or whatever on the list?
I always download the PS+ games, but let's be real here. Fez is a hell of a good game, but it ain't exactly a screaming deal. The effort is there, sure, but what's wrong with additional options.
Leyasu
Banned
vpance
Member
Gotta see the forest for the trees here. I can still get a large portion of my money back for any retail game I sell back to the shop. That's the bar we should think about when evaluating pricing because retail copies are still a thing, for now.
Make it 50% off and I'd bite.
Neuromancer
Member
Reality: no one will really care, EA access will probably be gone or fundamentally changed in a couple years time.
Trust me: Sony ain't sweatin' this one.
I mean... "the best of everything"?
Or, for $5 more a month I can throw BF and Madden or whatever on the list?
I always download the PS+ games, but let's be real here. Fez is a hell of a good game, but it ain't exactly a screaming deal. The effort is there, sure, but what's wrong with additional options.
did I say there was anything wrong with additional options?
Scully Scully Scoo
Member
games a year old or more cost $60? lol, and the 10% discount on all titles well why cant they just offer that through xbl/psn right now? purchase an ea title get 10% off another one, whats stopping them from doing it right now?
so u are ok with having multiple clients that serve the exact same purpose? screw what casual consumers want, they are not informed enough to make these type of decisions.
CosmicQueso
Member
No, but Fez isn't really much of an effort, is it? Maybe it is.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
I mean... "the best of everything"?
Or, for $5 more a month I can throw BF and Madden or whatever on the list?
I always download the PS+ games, but let's be real here. Fez is a hell of a good game, but it ain't exactly a screaming deal. The effort is there, sure, but what's wrong with additional options.
So you'd rather them put Madden and FIFA and BF to justify Ps+ offerings? I mean what? What is it this, I only value AAA games mentality? I don't see them or publishers adding any sort of next gen AAA titles on a 9 month old console.
Any other company I would have given them the benefit of the doubt. This is EA we're talking abouy. They have a track record. You don't get voted the worst company in the US for no reason.
Congrats on your engagement.
I'm really not sure what to think about it but the best analogy I've seen is how it's been compared to netflix and Hulu. I can see it having benefits. Guess each camps having different models should highlight any pros and cons over time
its subjective. I really like Fez
Not a chance.
Infinite Xero
Member
As I said, the problem is the precedent that will be set from allowing EA Access on PS4. Other publishers would likely do the same and then PS+ loses its only other real selling point apart from online play. PS+ sales become irrelevant if you can just rent the game (and more) for a cheaper price.
They did show some stuff at E3 2014, lol.
Albeit it was some weird prototype footage with dev interviews.
Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYtlSqIPO7k
And yeah, Dead Space did take a weird turn. But I don't agree that they abandoned it.
As for Sony's response, I don't know what else they could have said. They could have come up with a better excuse though, Sony's PR has been excellent up until now. This is their first real blunder.
CosmicQueso
Member
Fez is a great game... but one that has been $1 on Humble Bundles and STEAM, and has been available on the old gen systems for years.
I'm not pointing out Fez as garbage. I own it on X360 and PC already. But people are here saying that PS+ is all they want and need, because Sony will give them all the games they could ever want, and no other service should even exist. Just seems nuts.
I am conflicted on this. On the one hand I see where this service of EA's is leading and don't want any part of it, and think the industry will be worse off if we show publishers that we do.
That said, I also support users having the option to buy this so that they can vote with their dollar. So I'd probably say slightly that Sony should allow it, but get compensated more for the extra user end support they'll need to provide.
That said, I also support users having the option to buy this so that they can vote with their dollar. So I'd probably say slightly that Sony should allow it, but get compensated more for the extra user end support they'll need to provide.
Oh that's great man, I'm really happy you're content with less bang for you're buck.
Please educate me on how Battlefield 4 came with any less content than Battlefield Bad Company? Sure I prefered bad company, but I got the same amount of content from bf4. Premium is added as an option that older battlefields did not have. I don't agree with paying $50, so I don't buy it, but I got the same amount of game that I got at the begininng of last gen. I lost nothing and was not forced to spend money on dlc. I'd love to read a detailed explanation on how I am actually accepting less now.
I'm ok with consumers paying for what they want.
That's fine, I just take issue with someone saying that they aren't putting any effort into PS+. Maybe they don't have all the games someone wants on there but you can't argue the value at least. There's a lot of great games on there. On the PS4 specifically, you can't expect a huge AAA game every month for free when the platform simply doesn't have the library to support that yet.
Then it would fall on Sony to provide even more value for Plus. As a consumer I do not have a problem with that. I can see why Sony would be opposed to that.
Neuromancer
Member
I'd rather have Fez than Madden, thanks. And this coming from someone with marginally non-zero interest in Fez.
What the hell is wrong with you?
consider this, why do you pay cable/satellite providers? they are your gatekeepers, they control the land lines and satellite that can get you the content. So you have to pay them to access movies/channels/whatever. What about netflix? why do I have to pay them like a virtual gate keeper?
now why do you need to pay netflix if the studios/publishers have a subscription model? wouldn't you rather cut the middle man and pay the content creators directly?
Scully Scully Scoo
Member
CosmicQueso
Member
It is good value. What's wrong with other, similar, good values? Perhaps we're not talking about quite the same thing.
i also wonder if this begins to explain EA's extreme favoritism toward Xbox One given the obvious market conditions. I mean there are other easy reasons, and Microsoft is paying up of course, but I wonder if EA has been trying to have these discussions with Sony for a while and Sony just told them no. Since this is probably going to be a big part of EA's business going forward (or so they hope), they would potentially be a decent reason to give massive preference to Xbox.
CosmicQueso
Member
MATTRICK: "Some of the advantages that you get, of having, a box that is designed to use an online state, so, that, uh, to me is the future-proof choice, and I think people, could've arguably gone the other way if we didn't do it and fortunately we have a product for people who aren't able to get some form of connectivity, it's called Xbox 360."
Similar line of reasoning I reckon.
2 Slice Toaster
Member
Who cares if their purpose is the same, if the publishers are more inclined to offer different, additional content on their own service than they would on Sony's? It is fine that you are happy to remain ignorant about what publishers might offer in terms of monthly bundles and deals on Playstation if they weren't strictly confined to playing by Sony's rules. Other people might be willing to find out and make the choice between these other services and PSPlus.
Yes, and this goes back to fracturing games to make it appeal to have of more value with said subscription.
+ Bonus Content
+ Bonus Access
+ Instant Queue
Things that should already be standard in all games, but will be marketed as value proposition just to make the subscription look the more worthwhile.
You know what would add more value? Pricing digital games below retail without any subs. To force other publishers to do the same.
Yeah I wasn't arguing against other good values or anything. I was just responding to the post questioning the effort put into ps+
sometimes i game
Member
The indie defense force always comes out if anyone ever expresses they'd like retail games to be provided in PS4 PS+. Nothing is wrong with the indie experiences but this isn't all people expect from PS+, and you can't tell me Knack and KZ are still selling like hot cakes. They should be permanents on the list, much like Uncharted was on PS+ Vita. Wouldn't hurt if Sony worked something out for a fun third party retail game either.
We have to pay for PS+ now to game online, would be nice to see PS+ continue to strive to provide great experiences rather than automatically pick the next indie in order of release date.
DoubleTake
Member
Momentary fulfillment of my entitlement to options will lead to future gouging of my wallet and yours.
There are still a lot of unknowns in regards to this. I've even talked to people that work at EA and they don't know exactly what's going to be offered when.
Could be Sony got a full breakdown, saw some things they didn't like and shut it down. Or it could just be they don't want any competition with PS+. Or it could be EA wanted money from them or something and they refused.
Let's way to see how this pans out and how great of a deal it is for consumers in the end. If it is great, Sony goofed. If it ends up being underwhelming or diminishes the regular $60 experience (i.e. exclusive content for subscribers, etc.) then I'd say Sony were right.
Could be Sony got a full breakdown, saw some things they didn't like and shut it down. Or it could just be they don't want any competition with PS+. Or it could be EA wanted money from them or something and they refused.
Let's way to see how this pans out and how great of a deal it is for consumers in the end. If it is great, Sony goofed. If it ends up being underwhelming or diminishes the regular $60 experience (i.e. exclusive content for subscribers, etc.) then I'd say Sony were right.
Is there a reason that EA Vault couldn't be an app like Netflix? Do people always call Sony if Netflix has a problem?
I get that games are not movies and there is more of a chance for confusion, but doesn't seem like a good excuse. Especially since we don't know how it will be implemented.
Are you seriously trying to frame BF Premium as actual benefit for consumers because it didn't exist during BF:BC??? Ummm... I dunno, maybe like limiting the number of maps available for vanilla BF customers... breaking the community up due to the fact that majority of the maps are locked behind a DLC paywall... the actual value of said maps is almost equal to the full asking price of the game itself. Oh did it forget to mention how the shipped the game while it was a broken mess, and still is months after? Yeah... great value add, for sure.
- Status