Might have been 'useful' for you...
Sony's response to EA Access Subscription plan
- Thread starter RexNovis
- Start date
- Status
Might have been 'useful' for you...
Neuromancer
Member
Let's all start making generalizations about groups of people who may or may not exist and then let's hypothesize what those people would think about if things were different. There is a lot of good discussion there to be had, with many opportunities for those with opposing views to explain their positions.
Ctrl-F
FIFA 14
Madden NFL 25
Peggle 2
Battlefield 4
holy shit I would get all the games you listed AND the EA offering
Amazing
I'm pro EA All Access
ScatheZombie
Member
Potentially, yes.
Probably because there is no separation between base accounts and subscription accounts in the proposed EA Access system. It appears that 'free' games and discounts are specifically through your EA Access account and not XBL.
So unlike XBL or PSN, your purchases aren't tied to a base account (while your 'free' games and services are tied to your subscription account - Gold/PS+).
It's all tied to your EA Access account. And that needs to be active (i.e. subscribed) in order to access anything tied to that account - free or purchased.
I could be wrong. They really need to clarify a lot of the wording there.
LookAtMeGo
Member
Im pointing out that there is value there as well. Im not saying EA access is not valuable. I'm totally either way about this. The only EA games in the future I plan on playing right now are Battlefront and Dragon Age, so it doesnt concern me all too much. But if you like it and want the EA service, all the power to ya.
Bingo.
I recall a time in the near past where EA was taken to task about their policies, unfinished games, broken systems, etc
Just goes to show you, offer something that looks like a good deal and memories get really short.
I'm all for allowing companies a chance to redeem themselves but the proof is in the pudding and I'd like to see where this is going to wind up before declaring it a "good deal," especially when we're talking about a publisher whose history goes against everything consistent with getting a "good deal."
Boom! Why not have both?
For sure, to be honest this doesn't have a lot of value for me yet. But I'm keen to see where it goes.
CosmicQueso
Member
So, there's that TLOU thread going on about MTX...
Good thing Sony is saying no to the EA thing and protecting all of us. #4thegamers
“We evaluated the EA Access subscription offering and decided that it does not bring the kind of value PlayStation customers have come to expect,”
Yep, $9 hat packs are so much better than $5 a month for a bunch of games.
Good thing Sony is saying no to the EA thing and protecting all of us. #4thegamers
“We evaluated the EA Access subscription offering and decided that it does not bring the kind of value PlayStation customers have come to expect,”
Yep, $9 hat packs are so much better than $5 a month for a bunch of games.
It's not very clearly worded, but to me that simply sounds like what happens with GwG and PS+ today. You get access to a 'free' game... you buy DLC for it... your sub ends, so you can't play the full game anymore. As a result you also can't play the DLC you purchased for it.
If you went and bought the game after your sub lapsed, I'd imagine everything would work as normal.
LookAtMeGo
Member
Ctrl-F
FIFA 14
Madden NFL 25
Peggle 2
Battlefield 4
holy shit I would get all the games you listed AND the EA offering
Amazing
I'm pro EA All Access
I never said EA access held no value, my "list" was just showing the value in PS+. I never meant to say that the EA thing sucks or people should think it holds no value.
Can I ask you a question... would I be correct that you're a member of XBLG? And if so, how long? I know it's random, but I'm quite curious.
I'm going to be blunt, but I think you're part of the problem, mate. Depending on how long you've been a live subscriber, you've contributed to an environment that now has me paying for online services which were free to me the previous gen, due to making that business practice so profitable and inviting to the likes of sony. I have you and your friends, if they also pay for live to thank for a this newfound fee in my life. And the fact that you admit that you were all for MS's DRM, and that you have no issues with EAA or DLC tells me that your views represent the antithesis of what gaming use to be and what it should be today. You seem to not have any issues ceding any ground to these companies, and it does turn around and hurt consumers who wanted no part in this type of environment.
I think your friends are looking at the whole DLC issue backwards. Pubs have been actively releasing titles with day 1 DLC... think about that. Before they at least use to wait a few months, in case they were actually crafting content, or in the guise to make it seem that way... now they don't even care to pretend anymore. So, the argument that they want to keep playing new things with said game is a hallow one, since they just lock that content out, when it would be in the full title in years past.
joecanada
Member
Basically to keep out competition, which they can do because of the success of PSplus... noone is saying choice is bad, but Sony's first and foremost responsibility is the health and wealth of their own ecosystem, plus the issue of EA and them being the worst company ever. So if this is part of Sony developing a healthier ecosystem, I will trust their PR until proven otherwise.
Scully Scully Scoo
Member
why cant ea just release their games on ps+ like every other publisher?
boredandlazy
Member
Remember that time 7 years ago when Sony took PS2 backwards compatibility out of the PS3? #4thegamers...
Jackbooted
Member
This seems a little hyperbolic...
If this service becomes so terrible in the future then customers will just dump it and the feedback will be immediate for EA. Giving people a choice is a preferable option over denying them the choice. Do people make bad decisions? Yes, just look at politics. But I would still prefer people have the options available to them.
TaroYamada
Member
I think sony denying access is good; these "consumer choice" arguments remind me of the arguments I saw for horse armor and other DLC when I was opposed to DLC in the early days of Xbox 360.
I didn't like where that took the industry, I doubt I'll like where this will either.
I didn't like where that took the industry, I doubt I'll like where this will either.
Memorabilia
Member
If Sony saw it for what it was, I think it'd be an easy choice for them. EA needs to sell games too, and Sony knows this. They're not about to pull the next Battlefield game because Sony wouldn't let them cram it full of Origin.
And I didn't say most. I said many.
I actually think Sony will let EA do their thing if they don't see success with PSNow (which from a 'value' perspective, currently looks HORRIBLE when compared). I don't think PS+ is the problem, as they'll always have the MP to hold people to that. I'm confident that the differentiating factor here is that Sony bought Gaikai and MS didn't, so MS doesn't really care and Sony very much does.
You don't just magically change shipment dates. Why don't they have it in stores the day the game goes gold? There's shit that takes time before the game is ready for full release. Things that digital is largely immune to, but has to follow anyway in order not to step on retailers toes. Offering early access via a subscription is mostly harmless. Selling the game early before retailers have a chance to sell it, is a surefire way to get Saturn'd/Beyonce'd,
We're in total agreement here...as it currently stands, PSNow is a cluster-fuck of bad value. Sony is going to have to re-think the pricing structure big time or its going to go out in a ball of flame.
I also think Sony wanting to push PSNow / PS+ is the #1 reason they would reject EA's proposal. That doesnt mean EA's idea is actually good for most gamers...rather, PSNow and EA Access are equally bad as far as future trends are concerned.
Edit: I should clarify I like the concept of PSNow...just not the current pricing/value. EA Access just doesn't seem like a good idea to me long term.
LookAtMeGo
Member
But it was #4thegamers wallets no? We wanted a cheaper console and they delivered one... I'm still sour about it.
Memorabilia
Member
Took the words right out of my mouth. You pretty much nailed it.
boredandlazy
Member
How about when they removed Linux then? #4thehackers
Not sure if you realised but my first response was making fun of the post I was quoting... 
Posted on July 12, 2011, Jim Sterling
crazy the parallels here. the hesitation should be real.
Sony didn't give consumers the choice with this. That is true.
They also didn't give a publisher the choice of embedding a service within their service, and giving every other publisher, big or small, the middle finger unless they follow suit.
ComputerBlue
Member
I have no idea why people think this is a threat to Sony and that they can't compete. EA games are so online focused these days that the majority of people would still need Plus to enjoy these games in their entirety.
Why should they have to? It's their library. Sony shouldn't be allowed to tell content providers or consumers it's my way or none at all. Imagine Amazon blocking Netflix and Hulu on Fire TV and telling people "well Amazon Video exist".
If the market thinks EA's service is a rip off it will die or EA will be forced to change. The way it is now Sony has free reign and looking at PSNow's value that already looks like a terrible idea. It's hard to spin competition as being a negative.
Can I ask you a question?
Why do you get to decide what gaming should be today?
Like I said earlier, I don't buy all that much DLC but I liked having options to buy it. For instance, I loved Borderlands and certainly didn't mind adding additional content for the game via DLC. It beat Capcom's old model of releasing three different versions of Street Fighter II on SNES at full price. I like digital distribution in cases where I get to play games that otherwise would not have been allowed on the platform or in the case of sales where I can get full retail games for $3 to $5 each.
You are quite free to buy games the old way if you want to.
I mean, I am honestly more offended by what I have to pay for parking than I am about video game DLC.
xAngelSerranox
Neo Member
The wording does seem off but people have already reported being able to use game sharing with it so it so there must be some tie in with xbox marketplace, especially since the download for the games sends you to the marketplace to start the download.
Shyakugaun
Banned
What is thread even about anymore ? People have put on their tin foil hats by dozens lol
Everyone got their time machines out and are peering into the future to provide us with their insight about what is or isn't good for gaming.... at least that's what it seems to be.
Memorabilia
Member
Thanks for the re-post/link...it very clearly delineates the big picture.
It seems the loudest EA Access proponents want to simplify this argument and wrap themselves in the flag of "choice"...but that argument is very short-sighted and doesnt take into account the long term effects on the gaming industry or our enjoyment of our hobby.
Well, it's Sony's platform, so they should be allowed to tell consumers what is available on their platform. Amazon's platform doesn't actually offer Netflix It would be more like Apple not approving a competing store service on their platform. Would it be a net positive? Probably not for Apple, because now they don't control the content anymore, and have no say if the third party store allows banned apps, or changes service options. Would it be a benefit to consumers? Maybe, but what if this new store had all sorts of apps that installed crap on phones that made them unusable. This type of decision happens on every platform.
But you're okay with Sony turning games into a service without any competition?
xAngelSerranox
Neo Member
If the three big publishers (EA, Activision, and Ubisoft) you would be looking at $7.50 a month for access to their back catalog and for games you want earlier you get a modest discount. To me this seems very favorable.
The person who posted that neglects to mention the positive things Origin has done for the industry. Like a refund policy for digital games. Or a program that gives games away that are truly free.
Yes, I am all for having choice. I support your choice to not want EA Access. I hope you respect my choice to want options like this.
2 Slice Toaster
Member
Has the existence of Origin significantly diminished your enjoyment of the hobby since its creation?
Yes, I have a Live Gold subscription. I've had it running mostly consistently since around mid-2003. So yes, I would be part of the problem... or at least part of your problem.
Here's the thing though. You say that it was something free for last gen? That may be true for the PS3, however I didn't play my PS3 online much at all due to the inferiority of the service back then. I had both consoles, but had no problems paying for Live Gold rather than use PSN for free because actually trying to get any online gaming done on the PS3, especially with a group, was a nightmare. Would I have preferred if Live Gold was free? Sure. But if that £40 a year I was paying was the primary reason MS was the only one of the three to actually have their shit working, and move us beyond the SegaNet/DreamArena era of online console gaming then so be it. There's still one free MP service today, and surprise surprise, it's the one that doesn't have its shit together still.
As for the DLC stuff. I'm not claiming there isn't plenty of bad DLC. There is (especially from Capcom). However the DLC that I've seen/played for games such as Mass Effect, or Borderlands, or Forza Horizon and so on are NOT things that I imagine would have made the base game in a DLC'less world, and almost certainly wouldn't have been Hurricane Pack style free offerings. So for people that have these games as some of their favourites for the generation, the existence of DLC has allowed them to play more of what they love than the old model would have made feasible.
I've been playing games for a long time. Maybe you consider me to be a living example of everything that's wrong with games today. All I know is that I make choices based on what benefits me personally. I'm not going to side with physical rights over digital rights simply because that's what you, and many others want. I want my games digital today, so that was what was best for me. I've watched plenty of transitions that the industry has gone through that were against my interests (the largest being the death of arcades). I'm not bitter though, because I realise that what I want isn't unquestionably what's best for everyone else. You seem to believe that your preferences perfectly align with the universal truth of what gaming should be for everyone however... which seems to be the reason you're happy that many consumers aren't able to vote with their wallets on a new model of business, in case the numbers go against you.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005ZXWMUS/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Amazon does indeed offer Netflix even though they have a competing video streaming service. Thank you for offering choices, Amazon.
The competition is among platforms like Xbox, PC, and Nintendo. You think Sony should have to integrate a new service for every publisher when asked?
Maybe cause we're getting ripped off and I'm sick and tired of it? Though I'm not here to decide anything, I'm calling it as I see it and stating my feelings on the matter, even if they might not be what you like to hear. And I'm not saying let's got back to SNES days, cartridges, and everything that was also wrong with the industry then... also I'm not saying it was perfect, but from the standpoint where are at now, it is only worse for consumers in our day and age, and with EAA it will only get worse. Yeah, but it will only get worse the further we continue down this path of ceding to the likes of EA.
As far as I know, parking and driving aren't necessarily hobbies... but if you do have an issue with the parking in your city, you should contact your local reps.
ComputerBlue
Member
I think a lot of people look at EA and just automatically think pessimistically. But it's not their fault, it's EA's thanks to their past.
You can't really have a video streaming platform without Netflix, but you can have a game platform, and still buy EA games, without an EA service integrated in to playstation.
My mistake on the response, it detracted from my point, as the Apple platform is a better analogy.
They have the right to close their platform up as much as they want, but don't try and tell me it's for my own protection. I don't trust Sony anymore than I do EA. They are both trying to get as much money from me as they can and one shutting down the other because they don't think it represents good value to me is laughable.
ScatheZombie
Member
Correct me if I'm wrong, but those aren't the official first month games. Those are the beta games. And they haven't clarified the length of the EA Vault cycle, which people seem to be assuming is a month because that's what PS+ is.
EA doesn't have the library to support 4 new, free games every month in just the Xbox One ecosystem. Either the number of available titles will need to drop significantly (1 or 2 at most) or, more likely, the free game cycle will be a lot longer than one month (probably quarterly or bi-annual) once the system actually goes live.
InsaneTiger
Member
Are people forgetting EA's notorious past? This is EA we are talking about, the online pass, online-only Sim City, send BF4 out early EA. WTF people? Let Microsoft deal with that headache since any problem people have with EA Access will be dealt with by MS not EA, fun indeed for those CSR's.
EA gives out access to old titles with no promises to past content and a small discount on any other EA product. I don't see this working for long plus I fear what the other publishers will do.
What if Activision, Ubisoft, Deep Silver, or any other game publisher, start their own separate service with separate subscription fees? Holy shit that will suck!
EA Access is NOT like Netflix.
1) Movies and Games are not the same type of experience.
2) Access to only current gen games, no older game access
3) No promise of other games and how long any games stay in the "vault"
4) IT IS ONLY EA GAMES
5) No other publisher will sign-on to use their service.
6) You don't own the content, which may work fine with movies ala Netflix, but games are different in that you can play them over and over and find new things and get more enjoyment outta it. Movies are one-time experiences, you might watch over again for nostalgia purposes.
Or maybe I am just dumb.
EA gives out access to old titles with no promises to past content and a small discount on any other EA product. I don't see this working for long plus I fear what the other publishers will do.
What if Activision, Ubisoft, Deep Silver, or any other game publisher, start their own separate service with separate subscription fees? Holy shit that will suck!
EA Access is NOT like Netflix.
1) Movies and Games are not the same type of experience.
2) Access to only current gen games, no older game access
3) No promise of other games and how long any games stay in the "vault"
4) IT IS ONLY EA GAMES
5) No other publisher will sign-on to use their service.
6) You don't own the content, which may work fine with movies ala Netflix, but games are different in that you can play them over and over and find new things and get more enjoyment outta it. Movies are one-time experiences, you might watch over again for nostalgia purposes.
Or maybe I am just dumb.
I am saying we have many conveniences today that would not be possible if people like you had their way. Thanks to digital distribution I can play games from other regions without having to go through expensive import shops. That is good in my opinion. I can buy a $10-$15 DLC instead of paying full price for Street Fighter II on SNES, Street Fighter II Turbo and Super Street Fighter II Turbo all for full price. That is a good thing in my opinion.
I don't have to spend all day calling stores and going from place to place in search of a game I want to buy.
I am not subject to the tyrannic pricing of brick and mortar stores and can buy games cheaply on sale.
I can buy smaller scale games for lower prices instead of $60 because the logistics of distributing a game on physical media are thrown out the window.
I no longer have to pay $10/month + long distance fees to play online.
For a mere $5 I can play the Vault games all I want for 30 days. I remember when I paid about that much to rent one game for a single night.
These are all good things. On top of that, you are free to acquire games the old way if you choose.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
So does Sony. What a crap statement. Thank you for offering choices, Sony.
.. *eyeroll*
PS now does not only consist of Playstation games but also third parties who are partners with them in this service. It allows the customer to access everything without having to go a separate subscription for each. Whatever you want to rent and subscribe for is there, which will be a far greater catalog than EA as its servicing 3 different generations of games.
This is some crazy foreshadowing. I wonder if he's patting himself on the back as he reads this news. I would love to here what he thinks of it now.
You can also buy EA games with EA's service integrated into the system. Xbox One is proof of that.
EA Access does not replace buying EA games.
Not a crap statement at all. Somebody claimed this situation is akin to Amazon blocking Netflix in favor of their own service. He responded by saying Amazon does not offer Netflix. That was a false statement.
Truth is never crap.
Memorabilia
Member
Sony has competition from the XBL platform/ecosystem (as well as Steam, GOG.com, etc...if you want to consider gaming as a whole). There are plenty of other ways for publishers to deliver anf gamers to receive games. Thats an irrelevant supposition. Further, what Sony offers on their platform is their choice and like any company will do what is in their best interest. Just as EA or any other company does, irrespective of the consumer or public good. It turns out that some corporate actions are, however, by chance more benevolent to consumers while others are more malevolent.
In terms of how this will play out, platform based sub services may or may not be compatible with publisher specific subs. We cant tell the future, but its safe to say Sony sees EA Access as a threat to their PS+ model and they have the right to protect their revenue stream. It just so happens that I see their model as being more consumer friendly than what it might likely be replaced with if the EA Access idea catches on.
Fix'd for accuracy.
Then you just do what you're doing today and buy the games instead of subscribing?
Meanwhile I'd be happily subscribing to a couple of them to play a load of stuff that doesn't justify a $60 purchase. If they're all priced the same as EA, I'd be able to hold 12 concurrent subs for the same cost as buying a single new game each month.
Well, okay, you originally said Sony should not have that right. I don't care one way or another if it's included or not, but once you open it to EA, get ready to develop services for the 25 game publishers on your platform. It just don't seem to offer anything interesting or new.
To me this thread reads like if any service is developed by any publisher, Sony has an obligation to integrate it, whether it is a good service or not, let the consumers decide. Seems weird to me, but I'm not that invested in EA. I don't hate or like EA, and would never invest in an EA subscription.
- Status