Support NeoGAF

[Daviii]

Stop with the whining. Sony doesn't sell the PS4 at a lost so that other companies use it to make money and throw them a bone.

 

[nib95]

There is no logical answer to this question.

Of course there is. If giving a portion of consumers the choice of a new service means hampering an older service tens of millions already use, then offering such a choice could absolutely be seen as a negative or anti consumer. In this instance to the consumers already invested in PS+, who already get tent pole EA games from time to time, who presumably may no longer get them were this new service to come in to competing fruition.

 

[TomShoe]

Hopefully other publishers do it. That way people can pick and choose what stable of content they want access to in this manner.

Then it'll become just like Cable. Paying for extra shit you don't want and don't need.

You want ESPN? Fuck you, pay for Univision while you're at it.

Stop with the whining. Sony doesn't sell the PS4 at a lost so that other companies use it to make money and throw them a bone.

Heh.

 

[Decepticon]

Talk about being sore losers.

Yeah, your subscriptions are up 200% because i have to pay for online MP now. So do all of people who never had to pay for online MP on your system. Did you think of that Sony? No you didn't you are sore losers on this "I DIDNT WANT IT ANYWAYS" LOL

 

[DOWN]

PS+ would suffer if each publisher had an interest in holding old titles for their own service.

Do you all really want a system where you need to pay all the major publishers $5 a month if you want access to all the good games?

 

[Rurunaki]

Hopefully other publishers do it. That way people can pick and choose what stable of content they want access to in this manner.

Do you not even think of the prospect on how they will market their own subscriptions? Exclusive contents being hidden within a paywall. Content available only to those who are subbed. This is dangerous territory we're crossing. I hope people think it over before jumping and running because of that 10% discount and 2 hours early access.

 

[FleetFeet]

Sony clearly agrees.

And I wholeheartedly agree with sony... consumers can do more damage than good without actually arming themselves with proper information, yet it seems like most everyone who is for EAA are just taking EA's word for it and hoping for the best, not taking into consideration who is the one behind these moves.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

-Einstein

Listen, when are we going to stop to seceding our rights as consumers to the likes of EA and expect things to actually become better for us?

 

[Banfield]

Good for who though? The consumer or the business?

Both. I think a good example is the iPhone. You can't just install apps from any website. So when I set up my mom's phone, I don't worry about it, but it is very limiting to the consumer. It's not ideal for everyone, but there is another platform that offers the ability to use unsigned apps, Android.

 

[Mikey Jr.]

(Posting my thoughts here as well.)

Really dont understand the point of this service at this point in time.

If it really is Xbone only, no 360, then what are you paying $30 for?

I looked at all the current gen games that have come out so far.

-Titanfall
-PVZ
-BF4
-Peggle
-Need for speed
-Madden
-NBA
-Fifa
-UFC
(sorry if I forgot any more)

If you aren't into sports games, you essentially have 5 games. According to wiki, lets take out sports games (never seemed super popular here, but if thats your thing, then add that in), for rest of 2014 you have Dragon Age. Thats it.

Chances of dragon age being available to play are zero.

So what are you paying for? Pretty much $5 a month to play those 5 games for months. Probably until February? When DA is old enough that they can put it on the service?

So I really don't understand the point of this. Feels kinda reactionary from EA to me. Like something pissed them off, so they are shoehorning this undercooked service.

Maybe they want to kill PS+? Not surprised Xbox was all over this. I guarantee you, MS reluctantly introduced GWG. That is just more revenue out of their pocket, but they were forced when Playstation finally became a threat.
So having a service they don't have to maintain and they can say "Look at this awesome service! Only on Xbox One!" looks good for them. And it seems like it will remain exclusive for a long time.

And on paper, it does seem like a great service. But a 2016 service. Not a 2014 service.

 

[RoslindaleOne]

We shouldn't want this. Next will be Ubisoft, then Activision etc.

Why shouldn't we want this? The more competition the better. It's not like you can't go out and buy, sell and trade games anymore. So, let's say EA's games don't do it for you. Why not have Ubisoft or Activision in the mix? That way if you do want to subscribe to a service, you can choose a publisher that has the games your more interested in.

 

[CambriaRising]

You know what, you're right. EA's service can't be appealing. An alternative to purchasing games as they are today is unanimously a negative thing. EA isn't trying to provide value in titles that largely aren't bought a year after release with this service. This is clearly the gateway drug to gaming dystopia. First this, then all games will require subscriptions. They'll be unavailable outside of them.

Stop. This prophesing is ridiculous.

It has to start somewhere.

WHAT?

PlayStation is doing this service already. They're milking you too, if that's your stance. But I take it that's better, because...?

I stand by what I said. You already know how PS+ is different.

 

[Neuromancer]

1. It's not just me.

2. How would it even impact you?

Because if EA makes a game I'm interested in, but not interested enough to buy it, and they make it part of their Access subscription program, then common sense dictates it'll be an Access game, and never a PS+ game, and I won't get it.

 

[jem0208]

why cant they just offer a 10% discount through deal with gold or something? wait a second, they already are lol so again why do we need this service? not to mention in europe the digital prices of games are ridiculous and it would be cheaper to just buy it from retail anyway

If you're buying a brand new game they aren't going to give you %10 off.


You also don't get a month of free games for nothing this way.


Seriously, why are you complaining about this?

 

[CambriaRising]

They are denying another option, simply to protect their services from competition.

I feel like you're messing with me. Surely you understand.

They are also protecting existing and future PS+ subscribers, and the industry at large if EAA does eventually fail.

 

[Alienous]

Because if EA makes a game I'm interested in, but not interested enough to buy it, and they make it part of their Access subscription program, then common sense dictates it'll be an Access game, and never a PS+ game, and I won't get it.

It won't be a PS+ game anyway. It's doubtful that EA will just ok "Ok, you said no, here, have our games".

 

[coldone]

PS+ would suffer if each publisher had an interest in holding old titles for their own service.

Do you all really want a system where you need to pay all the major publishers $5 a month if you want access to all the good games?

$30/mo to get access to Madden/FIFA is a far better option. PS+ never had EA sports title. Heck, I will be happy to cancel PS+ and just stick with Ubi+EA, if they offer a similar service.

Most of the games I play are from Ubi like Rayman, Crew, AC, Far Cry etc.

 

[DarthWalden]

Maybe the PS4 isn't set up to do this sort of thing?

 

[Synth]

So you basically want to add another $5/month to get you Battlefield, Madden, and Fifa? What's stopping other publishers from doing the same if I want CoD, Assassin's Creed, Tombraider, NBA 2K?

How will people react if PS+/XBLG ups its price to accommodate those must have titles? Too many unknown variables. The thing is EA vault will start a precedent and it could be a trojan horse for us consumers.

I have no problem with that personally. I've wanted to try out BF4 since getting my X1, but not enough to actually purchase it outright. (I only wanna run through the campaign). I used to pay a similar amount to Blockbuster in other to rent a game for 3 nights. Here I can try out 4 games I would be interested in playing but unwilling to buy, and have the option to do this for £20 a year? I'm not seeing an issue. If every publisher had a similar offering (which I would REALLY like btw), I would simply move my sub between the ones that have what I'm interested in playing each month. Anything that I wish to have permanent access to, I'd simply buy as usual.

GwG and PS+ are nice, but I don't really care about their offerings in general. They both generally offer stuff I already have, or didn't really want to play anyway (not PS3, some of that stuff was great, talking more about current gen). I don't expect the offerings to remain at the PS3's level regardless as so many more people are subscribing as a result of it now being required for MP. This makes recent(ish) retail games both less important for Sony to acquire to keep people on the service, and also probably more expensive as the publishers are aware of the content now being offered to a much higher percentage of users.

I'd rather simply look at what the service has today, and choose whether or not I want to bother playing any of it, rather than hope the lottery-like offerings of Gold or PS+ magically dispense a game I give a shit about (which has so far happened once this gen with Resogun).

 

[Alienous]

They are also protecting existing and future PS+ subscribers, and the industry at large if EAA does eventually fail.

Protecting us from what?

 

[icespide]

Maybe the PS4 isn't set up to do this sort of thing?

non-issue

 

[Birgitte2004]

I would love it. If I can get last years game for $30/yr subscription... I will be happy to do so. It is similar to Hulu, HBO Plus, Netflix. Subscribe to what you want and dont have to worry about paying huge cable bills. I dont have any urgency when it comes to games like AC, Rayman, Madden etc.

Especially on PS3/360, there are so many good games I will be happy to subscribe to Ubi and Activision.

I can't believe people are happy with a Netflix that has a dozen programs instead of thousands.

And for about the same price too.

 

[Gestault]

Of course there is. If giving a portion of consumers the choice of a new service means hampering an older service tens of millions already use, then offering such a choice could absolutely be seen as a negative or anti consumer. In this instance to the consumers already invested in PS+, who already get tent pole EA games from time to time, who presumably may no longer get them were this new service to come in to competing fruition.

To be fair, most would consider that the nature of competition, and I haven't seen anything identified that would take away from existing memberships except that potential value is offered elsewhere. EA hasn't given signs that they'll stop including their games in PS+.

 

[Neuromancer]

It won't be a PS+ game anyway. It's doubtful that EA will just ok "Ok, you said no, here, have our games".

You're right, I fully expect them to be bitches about this and take their ball and go home.

 

[Alienous]

I can't believe people are happy with a Netflix that has a dozen programs instead of thousands.

And for about the same price too.

Battlefield 4 is a television program?

I don't think I'm understanding you.

 

[coldone]

Maybe the PS4 isn't set up to do this sort of thing?

They are setup to do PS+. If they can do PS+.. they can do other timed subscription too. The reason is it competes with their PS+.. Sony is giving games like Road Not Taken, if EA can give Madden/FIFA.. far more people may just get EA+ than PS+.

 

[Apt101]

I was thinking, groups of publishers could get behind a collective service similar to how media companies formed Hulu. But they already have platform holders to partner with. Maybe that's something Sony as hopes for with PS Now, and that's one reason they're declining EA's service right now.

 

[Mostlypainless]

Sony gives EA a FU. Will there be consequences?

 

[Stare-Bear]

Why shouldn't we want this? The more competition the better. It's not like you can't go out and buy, sell and trade games anymore. So, let's say EA's games don't do it for you. Why not have Ubisoft or Activision in the mix? That way if you do want to subscribe to a service, you can choose a publisher that has the games your more interested in.

They will put dlc and other stuff behind their pay wall.

So if I would want a full game, I would have pre order at a certain store, get the collectors edition which costs more and subscribe to the publishers service for exclusive content. Yeah, that's the future I want.

Remember Watchdogs and all its versions? It will get worse.

 

[EdgeXL]

PS+ would suffer if each publisher had an interest in holding old titles for their own service.

Do you all really want a system where you need to pay all the major publishers $5 a month if you want access to all the good games?

No, but there is no system where we need to pay $5 a month to access good games. This is just a way to access games past their tail, early access on new titles and a slight discount. Not much different than Plus, really.

The old way of buying games will remain intact for quite some time.

 

[Percy]

Actually, I'm maybe wondering if EA not releasing all of it's current gen titles on PS4 might be playing a role in Sony blocking this service from PS4. If EA are going to continue delaying PS4 versions of some games and skipping the console entirely with others then any iteration of this service on PS4 would be comparatively a much poorer proposition than it would on Xbox One, assuming it ends up actually being what is currently being promised anyways, and it would still cost the same price anyway.

Though tbh, I'm also wondering if Sony had any say in this matter at all, and it's simply skipping PS4 because it's another result of EA/MS partnering this gen, and Sony's current stance is mostly salt from that.

Guess we won't be able to say anything for sure until the next publisher does this (And they will do it... you know they will. Ubisoft are probably drawing up the plans as we speak.) and we see if Sony adopt the same stance or if they let it happen with no fuss.

I am betting on the latter.

 

[HocusPocus]

Glad I have an xbox one to enjoy this deal. Too bad for ps4 only users. Not good spin on sony's part.

 

[boredandlazy]

Talk about being sore losers.

Yeah, your subscriptions are up 200% because i have to pay for online MP now. So do all of people who never had to pay for online MP on your system. Did you think of that Sony? No you didn't you are sore losers on this "I DIDNT WANT IT ANYWAYS" LOL

Sore losers? Huh?
Sony said they had a chance to be a part of this subscription service and they decided against it, how does this statement make them 'Sore Losers'?

 

[coldone]

I can't believe people are happy with a Netflix that has a dozen programs instead of thousands.

And for about the same price too.

Leave it to the consumer.. why does Sony need to talk for me. If EA's service is good with lot of games, I will buy. Else I will stop buying them. My remark is how consumers choose between Hulu, Netflix, HBO Plus.. people will choose the gaming subscription service based on their taste and value. Sony doesn't need to be the middle man telling me what is good for me.

 

[JaggedSac]

Do you not even think of the prospect on how they will market their own subscriptions? Exclusive contents being hidden within a paywall. Content available only to those who are subbed. This is dangerous territory we're crossing. I hope people think it over before jumping and running because of that 10% discount and 2 hours early access.

Shits already gotten terrible there. Platform holders buying content, preorder bonuses exclusive to outlets. This would just be one more.

Then it'll become just like Cable. Paying for extra shit you don't want and don't need.

You want ESPN? Fuck you, pay for Univision while you're at it
.

Actually, this is more like a la carte. PS+ and GwG are random smatterings of offerings across all possible titles. U don't like Activision games? Fuck you, this month's game is an Activision game.

 

[icespide]

Actually, I'm maybe wondering if EA not releasing all of it's current gen titles on PS4 might be playing a role in Sony blocking this service from PS4. If EA are going to continue delaying PS4 versions of some games and skipping the console entirely with others then any iteration of this service on PS4 would be comparatively a much poorer proposition than it would on Xbox One, assuming it ends up actually being what is currently being promised anyways, and it would still cost the same price anyway.

Though tbh, I'm also wondering if Sony had any say in this matter at all, and it's simply skipping PS4 because it's another result of EA/MS partnering this gen, and Sony's current stance is mostly salt from that.

Guess we won't be able to say anything for sure until the next publisher does this (And they will do it... you know they will. Ubisoft are probably drawing up the plans as we speak.) and we see if Sony adopt the same stance or if they let it happen with no fuss.

I am betting on the latter.

what games have EA delayed only the PS4 version?

 

[Alienous]

No, but there is no system where we need to pay $5 a month to access good games. This is just a way to access games past their tail, early access on new titles and a slight discount. Not much different than Plus, really.

The old way of buying games will remain intact for quite some time.

What are you taking about? When Netflix sprouted up DVD boxsets simply ceased to exist. /s

I don't see why people aren't getting it. You're explaining it perfectly.

 

[CosmicQueso]

It won't be a PS+ game anyway. It's doubtful that EA will just ok "Ok, you said no, here, have our games".

Man. This isn't how it works. It's business. It isn't personal.

EA tries this, Sony says no. If Sony comes back next month and says "hey, we want X EA game on PS+ for $X" do you really think EA won't consider participating because Sony declined this program?

Please tell me you don't seriously think business people at a publicly traded corporation that has a responsibility to its shareholders will say "no way, you said no to our service so screw you!"

I mean, come on people.

They are also protecting existing and future PS+ subscribers, and the industry at large if EAA does eventually fail.

Joke post? Joke post.

I don't think they will undermine their service on Xbox One by caving in. That isn't good business.

Caving in? Caving in to what? To accepting a fee for allowing its product on a service? Caving in to perform a normal course of business evaluation and agreement?

 

[Alienous]

Man. This isn't how it works. It's business. It isn't personal.

EA tries this, Sony says no. If Sony comes back next month and says "hey, we want X EA game on PS+ for $X" do you really think EA won't consider participating because Sony declined this program?

Please tell me you don't seriously think business people at a publicly traded corporation that has a responsibility to its shareholders will say "no way, you said no to our service so screw you!"

I mean, come on people.

I don't think they will undermine their service on Xbox One by caving in. That isn't good business.

 

[FleetFeet]

That makes sense, but only if "people" share your (and no doubt my) definition of bad. They don't.

Actually there seem to be a lot of people suggesting options are always better or that it will fail if it isn't good and go away. Perhaps I can illustrate why this isn't necessarily the case:

The tale begins with a man called George. He is just an ordinary man in a sleepy village somewhere in the Northern region of France. There isn't much to say about George, he is a good man, who loves eating all kinds of fruit and leads a peaceful existence.
The town too is unremarkable except for one astonishing detail. Every week members of the village (and only members of the village mind you!), go into the town square to get their share of the profits from the local fruit growers.
George enjoys this system. Each week he goes up to his friend Sonya and gets $100 in his hand. With this money he can buy all the fruit he wants, as well as other goods and services. Basically anything he needs and some things that he doesn't, should he choose to do so. George is particularly fond of apples, but sometimes buys pears, oranges and even the occasional strawberry.
"Life," thought George, "is good."

But one day, without warning or consultation everything changed. George appeared at the same place and at the same time to get his $100. But now? There was another man there called Ed.
"Hold on there!" Ed cried as George prepared to take his usual $100. "I'm from the apple farm and the Mayor has authorised me to offer a choice. You can take the $100 from Sonya, or you can take $80 from me and this shiny new apple!"
George was shocked by this. Apples cost much less than $20, so why on earth would he take this deal? There was no value in it and he certainly didn't want other fruit sellers getting similar ideas. So he simply shook his head politely (laughing at such a bad deal was not something George would do), took his $100 as usual and turned to go home.
But there was a problem. Just as he was leaving he saw his friend Mike walk up to Ed, the seemingly dodgy apple representative. Then, inexplicably he reached out his hand and took the $80 and asked for his apple too.
George had to confront him about this. "Why did you take that deal?" He asked in a confused manner.
"I don't know, I just like the choice and I spend my money on apples anyway...so what is the big deal?"
George didn't know what to say. He also didn't know what to say the next few weeks as more and more people appeared to be taking up the other deal. It wasn't a big problem for him, because he still got his $100 and could buy several apples with the extra profits, but it somehow gave him chills. George was a wise man and he could see that it was not going to end well.

When he appeared one morning to see another provider offering $75 and two pears, he knew things were about to get very bad indeed. Sure pear lovers were ecstatic, for some reason that George still failed to understand, but collecting the weekly share of the profits was now a confusing ordeal.
"Oh well," sighed George, a little too loudly. "People can be stupid if they want. Morning Sonya, $100 please!"
"Here you go George! I'm glad you still come to me. I don't understand why anybody would take those other deals, they are terrible!"
George nodded. "I'm with you. Oh well, I'm off to buy about 10 apples with my extra $20!" He ended with a conspiratorial wink.
"Oh I'm sorry!" Ed cut in, offensively listening in on the conversation. "Apples can now only be received through my deal. But don't worry, with the $65 I give you, I also now include two Apples!"
"Wasn't it $80?" George asked in shock.
"Yes it was!" Grinned Ed, holding a number of apples close to his chest.

The weeks passed and George lived without apples, stubbornly refusing to take the now terrible deal. Unfortunately the other fruit vendors soon followed Ed's lead, holding their own tasty delights to ransom as they held on to more and more of the profits.
Then it finally happened. George, now an alcoholic, appeared one final time to receive his usual $100. But Sonya wasn't there, she was now selling insurance in another town. Through no fault of his own, the usual and best option had been removed.
Almost crying, George walked up to Ed and asked for his usual deal. Ed smiled knowingly and handed George $65.
George was in tears now. "But, but...where are the apples?"
"Oh you'll get some apples," Ed laughed, "but only after 10 weeks in a row of taking my deal. But don't worry, you then get three of them, which is amazing value!"

The following week, George left town, swore to never eat fruit again and started a semi-successful shop selling odd socks. Sometimes he would wonder "where did it all go wrong? What could I have done?" There was no good answer, there was nothing he could have done. All he had now was socks.

Great way to describe the outcome of certain options and the possible negative effects they can have on us as consumers... also loved the ending! lol

 

[DarthWalden]

what games have EA delayed only the PS4 version?

Peggle 2 and PvZ

 

[icespide]

Peggle 2 and PvZ

those are times exclusives though. I guess I misunderstood you

 

[Ape]

Peggle 2 and PvZ

Put PvZ on the vault the day and date it launches on PS4 and I'll think EA is trolling.

 

[Corto]

They are setup to do PS+. If they can do PS+.. they can do other timed subscription too. The reason is it competes with their PS+.. Sony is giving games like Road Not Taken, if EA can give Madden/FIFA.. far more people may just get EA+ than PS+.

We in Europe will get Crysis 3, An EA published game.

 

[Scully Scully Scoo]

If you're buying a brand new game they aren't going to give you %10 off.


You also don't get a month of free games for nothing this way.


Seriously, why are you complaining about this?

10% off the already inflated digital prices and month of free games that otherwise could have been made available thorugh ps+/xbl so i ask u again what is the point of this service?

 

[Spades]

Hopefully other publishers do it. That way people can pick and choose what stable of content they want access to in this manner.

Exactly! I'd much rather pick and chose which subs I have, rather than just have something like PS+ where I'm basically stuck with indie games that I'll never play month on month.

 

[Dunlop]

PS+ and GwG are random smatterings of offerings across all possible titles. U don't like Activision games? Fuck you, this month's game is an Activision game.

pretty much this, I have all the free rentals for PS+ on my PS3/PS4 and don't really play any of them recently. The value is fine if the games interest people, but I have no choice in what is offered. For me PS+ is pretty much for some sales and MP

Fifa 14 and Madden would have more value to me just in the playtime they would get from my kids and I would happily plunk down the $30 for the trials and rebates

 

[FleetFeet]

Why shouldn't we want this? The more competition the better. It's not like you can't go out and buy, sell and trade games anymore. So, let's say EA's games don't do it for you. Why not have Ubisoft or Activision in the mix? That way if you do want to subscribe to a service, you can choose a publisher that has the games your more interested in.

And it's this line of thinking that we now have to deal with outrageous amounts of DLC...

Seriously, why would anyone not want to pay a pub for content that was normally apart of the initial transaction in previous generations... like take my money and stuff, please. /s

 

[Spades]

10% off the already inflated digital prices and month of free games that otherwise could have been made available thorugh ps+/xbl so i ask u again what is the point of this service?

The biggest selling point for many will be the early access, or basically 5 day rental, of the sports games. As I've said countless times - this is nothing new and people have been paying EA for this service on Xbox 360 AND PS3 for the past 3 years.

 

[DOWN]

No, but there is no system where we need to pay $5 a month to access good games. This is just a way to access games past their tail, early access on new titles and a slight discount. Not much different than Plus, really.

The old way of buying games will remain intact for quite some time.

But this is one of several publishers doing this on top of PS+. And it conflicts with PS+. Why sell Sony rights to a decent old game that would draw in subscribers? Now they've got to give their access customers those games and it is more important than giving Sony more PS+ subscribers.

You description of access is what PS+ is for, but Access is one publisher conflicting with it. What if they all were allowed to do this on top of PS+? They'd all put their subscribtion titles as a priority over the + deals.

 

[maomao]

(Posting my thoughts here as well.)

Really dont understand the point of this service at this point in time.

If it really is Xbone only, no 360, then what are you paying $30 for?

I looked at all the current gen games that have come out so far.

-Titanfall
-PVZ
-BF4
-Peggle
-Need for speed
-Madden
-NBA
-Fifa
-UFC
(sorry if I forgot any more)

If you aren't into sports games, you essentially have 5 games. According to wiki, lets take out sports games (never seemed super popular here, but if thats your thing, then add that in), for rest of 2014 you have Dragon Age. Thats it.

Chances of dragon age being available to play are zero.

So what are you paying for? Pretty much $5 a month to play those 5 games for months. Probably until February? When DA is old enough that they can put it on the service?

So I really don't understand the point of this. Feels kinda reactionary from EA to me. Like something pissed them off, so they are shoehorning this undercooked service.

Maybe they want to kill PS+? Not surprised Xbox was all over this. I guarantee you, MS reluctantly introduced GWG. That is just more revenue out of their pocket, but they were forced when Playstation finally became a threat.
So having a service they don't have to maintain and they can say "Look at this awesome service! Only on Xbox One!" looks good for them. And it seems like it will remain exclusive for a long time.

And on paper, it does seem like a great service. But a 2016 service. Not a 2014 service.

If I pay $5, I've paid for one month of game play for the 4 games that I do not own
If I pay $30, I've paid for one year of game play for the 4 games (and possibly more) that I do not own, this is July 2014 to July 2015

I would most likely pay $30, but if I have more times playing games I would pay $5 for one month