Sony's response to EA Access Subscription plan

Status
Not open for further replies.
EdgeXL said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course, but this issue isnt just a simple one of "choice"...theres a lot more to it than that. What you or I want plays very little part in this. This is about massive companies fighting over how to carve up the revenue pie. In the end, one of the eventual market models will prevail and gamers/consumers will have what is given to them. If we're lucky it will be determined by individuals collectively choosing the best value...but really would you trust Microsoft and EA to give that to you?
 
“We evaluated the EA Access subscription offering and decided that it does not bring the kind of value PlayStation customers have come to expect,”

BOOOM
giphy.gif
Click to expand...
 
Banfield said:
If EA asked Steam to put this service in Steam, should Steam be obligated to provide choice?
Click to expand...

No, Steam should not be obligated to do so any more than Sony is not obligated to allow EA Access on PS4. However, I also think Steam gamers should have the right to express their unhappiness if Valve does something they do not like.
 
While I find the idea interesting and admit it is a good deal. I, as someone who rarely buys EA games, am not particularly interested in it.

However, I can see why there are worries. I mean, right now, I could get free games from Xbox Live Gold with the Games With Gold Program for $60 a year. If I paid for EA Access as well, it would be the $60 a year for Games With Gold and the $30 a year for EA Access raising the price to $90 total for a buyer, when EA could instead just offer their games on Games With Gold. I can see the slippery slope here even though it is a fairly good offering.

I'm just wondering why they have not tried EA Access with Origin since it would be a value-add to Origin in comparison to Steam and show that EA really is serious about taking Valve on by offering a real benefit which Steam doesn't have.
 
EdgeXL said:
No, Steam should not be obligated to do so any more than Sony is not obligated to allow EA Access on PS4. However, I also think Steam gamers should have the right to express their unhappiness if Valve does something they do not like.
Click to expand...
I am not stopping anyone from posting their opinion, just offering my own. My question was more, would you be outraged if Steam did not integrate EA in to Steam.
 
Synth said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes it is a problem, and thanks a lot for that lol! wrt PS3 online not working... I was not there from launch, and I imagine it was not the greatest, but when I did get my ps3, I never experienced the issues you're talking about. It wasn't perfect, like any IT service, but it was free and consistent. One thing I want to mention though, you say you paid for a superior service... but afaik, that service you were paying for was P2P and not dedicated servers. Am I correct? The same tech that PS3 was using... so I just don't understand how you could unequivocally say that this was a superior experience when you are essentially at the mercy of the persons internet you were connected to.

Now wrt digital games, I'm not here to say "BOO THIS MAN!" when it comes to digital content... in fact I've had my share of purchases in the digital format. My qualms solely lie with EA. I do not want those vampires (yes, I went there) in charge of any service that will determine the fate of my games and the content I could so choose to purchase. Not on a console, and not with Origin. I am sick and tired of what they represent, and this is recent announcement is the boiling point for me. So, no I'm not so adverse to change, I'm just fed up with the likes of EA masquerading this farce as a benefit for gamers.
 
Banfield said:
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.
Click to expand...


What would be wrong with multiple services competing with each other trying to show that their service offers the best value, from a consumer standpoint? Sony doesn't have an obligation, but pretending the decision is for the consumers is some crazy spin.
 
Memorabilia said:
Of course, but this issue isnt just a simple one of "choice"...theres a lot more to it than that. What you or I want plays very little part in this. This is about massive companies fighting over how to carve up the revenue pie. In the end, one of the eventual market models will prevail and gamers/consumers will have what is given to them. If we're lucky it will be determined by individuals collectively choosing the best value...but really would you trust Microsoft and EA to give that to you?
Click to expand...

So what else is new? Companies are *always* fighting over how to carve up the revenue pie.


but really would you trust Microsoft and EA to give that to you?
Click to expand...

Sony is the company people like me had to literally drag into court over the PS2 DRE issue. Sony is the company who deliberately infected my PC with a rootkit via BMG CDs. Sony is the company who charges obscene prices for Vita memory cards. Sony is the company that forced a mandatory Vita update that locked memory cards to a single PSN account thereby locking me out of save files with dozens of hours of progress on them.

Do I trust MS and EA to give me the best value? No, but I don't trust Sony either. However, if one company grows to be too oppressive then another company will respond with a more favorable service/product.
 
2 Slice Toaster said:
Has the existence of Origin significantly diminished your enjoyment of the hobby since its creation?
Click to expand...

Origin DRM has so far added zero value to gaming for me and in one specific instance has actually created a massive complication for my game collection that has lowered my enjoyment of the hobby. So, to answer your question...yes. Origin tech help is also 100% useless.

In light of the existence of Steam (which works far better in general and has less intrusive DRM) I fail to see why Origin even exists. The same goes for Uplay, Rockstar's garbage, etc....
 
Synth said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right that is all well and good but what would keep them from restricting sales to just their online service? Nothing.
 
EdgeXL said:
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.
Click to expand...

In that case, I apologize for the mishap. I read it as you were stating that Amazon is offering better choice because they have Netlfix when in fact, Netflix is pretty much on *almost* every device that has a micro-chip and a touch screen. It would be stupid of them not to have it.
 
So The Vault games consist solely of X1 EA games. That's it, no last gen titles. So knowing this, what could EA offer PS4 owners when X1 has more EA games available via timed exclusives?

Serious question and maybe this is why Sony saw no value in the program since PS4 users would be getting the shorter end of the stick compared to X1 users while being charged the same fees.

Just a thought, as that "vault" is more like a duffel bag considering the minuscule variety of new gen EA titles this early in the gen. This sounds like a service that will be more effective when EA actually has a decent sized library to offer. I agree with Sony on this. While they worded their response poorly they're right in rejecting a subscription service that needs more time in the oven, and parity with Microsoft's subscribers.

My two cents...
 
EdgeXL said:
EA has practically abandoned the Wii U. I imagine they didn't even bother.
Click to expand...

I wonder why.. oh right, the revenue is not there.. Same with Sony saying "No" to this, they're protecting their own interest much like EA snubbing Nintendo. So, the "more choice is better" falls flat on its face already. Offer the parity on all platforms --- because I doubt I'd be able to play Titanfall on my ps4 using EA Access.
 
Banfield said:
I am not stopping anyone from posting their opinion, just offering my own. My question was more, would you be outraged if Steam did not integrate EA in to Steam.
Click to expand...

Steam is a bit different.

It's merely a client on your PC. Assuming EA integrated into origin I could just download that. Free of charge.

The problem with Sony rejecting it is that there is literally no way for PS4 owners to access the system on their machines.
 
ShinUltramanJ said:
So The Vault games consist solely of X1 EA games. That's it, no last gen titles. So knowing this, what could EA offer PS4 owners when X1 has more EA games available via timed exclusives?

Serious question and maybe this is why Sony saw no value in the program since PS4 users would be getting the shorter end of the stick compared to X1 users while being charged the same fees.

Just a thought, as that "vault" is more like a duffel bag considering the minuscule variety of new gen EA titles this early in the gen. This sounds like a service that will be more effective when EA actually has a decent sized library to offer. I agree with Sony on this. While they worded their response poorly they're right in rejecting a subscription service that needs more time in the oven, and parity with Microsoft's subscribers.

My two cents...
Click to expand...
True, right now it's obviously not very robust. But, as I said before, love'em or hate'em, EA published a ton of pretty great games last gen so it has real potential. Plus, it has sports games that I don't really buy anymore but would absolutely like to try and play.
 
Rurunaki said:
I wonder why.. oh right, the revenue is not there.. Same with Sony saying "No" to this, they're protecting their own interest much like EA snubbing Nintendo. So, the "more choice is better" falls flat on its face already. Offer the parity on all platforms --- because I doubt I'd be able to play Titanfall on my ps4 using EA Access.
Click to expand...

No, the "more choices the better" argument is still valid. I would be all for having EA Access on PS4, Wii U and PC.
 
ShinUltramanJ said:
So The Vault games consist solely of X1 EA games. That's it, no last gen titles. So knowing this, what could EA offer PS4 owners when X1 has more EA games available via timed exclusives?

Serious question and maybe this is why Sony saw no value in the program since PS4 users would be getting the shorter end of the stick compared to X1 users while being charged the same fees.

Just a thought, as that "vault" is more like a duffel bag considering the minuscule variety of new gen EA titles this early in the gen. This sounds like a service that will be more effective when EA actually has a decent sized library to offer. I agree with Sony on this. While they worded their response poorly they're right in rejecting a subscription service that needs more time in the oven, and parity with Microsoft's subscribers.

My two cents...
Click to expand...

All the games in the vault are also on the PS4 though...?


Disregard this post, I was completely wrong.
 
jem0208 said:
All the games in the vault are also on the PS4 though...?
Click to expand...

So when Titanfall goes to the Vault.. I can play it on my ps4? Oh wait..

So why wasn't Nintendo even considered for this? EA deemed the platform of "no value" and fall short of what consumers expect of them?
 
Rurunaki said:
Speaking of #choices, where is Nintendo in all of this? Were they given a choice of the matter?
Click to expand...

Even if Nintendo was given a choice, how long would it take for them to fix the eStore ?. Them implementing new options like timed trials will take easily 2-4 years. They still are struggling to integrate Wii and WiiU store after 2 years.
 
Memorabilia said:
Origin DRM has so far added zero value to gaming for me and in one specific instance has actually created a massive complication for my game collection that has lowered my enjoyment of the hobby. So, to answer your question...yes. Origin tech help is also 100% useless.

In light of the existence of Steam (which works far better in general and has less intrusive DRM) I fail to see why Origin even exists. The same goes for Uplay, Rockstar's garbage, etc....
Click to expand...

Control. The same reason Sony is not implementing the EA service.
 
FleetFeet said:
Yes it is a problem, and thanks a lot for that lol! wrt PS3 online not working... I was not there from launch, and I imagine it was not the greatest, but when I did get my ps3, I never experienced the issues you're talking about. It wasn't perfect, like any IT service, but it was free and consistent. One thing I want to mention though, you say you paid for a superior service... but afaik, that service you were paying for was P2P and not dedicated servers. Am I correct? The same tech that PS3 was using... so I just don't understand how you could unequivocally say that this was a superior experience when you are essentially at the mercy of the persons internet you were connected to.

Now wrt digital games, I'm not here to say "BOO THIS MAN!" when it comes to digital content... in fact I've had my share of purchases in the digital format. My qualms solely lie with EA. I do not want those vampires (yes, I went there) in charge of any service that will determine the fate of my games and the content I could so choose to purchase. Not on a console, and not with Origin. I am sick and tired of what they represent, and this is recent announcement is the boiling point for me. So, no I'm not so adverse to change, I'm just fed up with the likes of EA masquerading this farce as a benefit for gamers.
Click to expand...

You're welcome!

I'm actually not limiting my view of the PS3's online to its early period. I dislike using the PS3 for online gaming to this day. Yes they were both p2p in general, but the effects of the service being a sellable product affects more than just the connection itself.

I remember attempting to play RE5 on both the Xbox 360 and PS3 (one of my friends traded his 360 in for a PS3, because free online). We were constantly having connection issues with one of us getting dropped from the game. This isn't something PSN specific, however on XBLG we'd simply try to work out what happened as we continued to chat to each over comms. On PSN however, each time we got dropped it was time for a phone call, as we couldn't chat to one another from outside of the game itself. We basically stopped playing online with each other eventually mostly because it was so much more of a hassle to actually coordinate playing together. This problem was even worse when there was more than 2 people and any difficulties arose. The service itself wasn't terrible, but there was enough of a disparity that nobody I knew that had access to both console ever wanted to use the PS3 when it came time to play together.

The 360 from day one was very obviously designed with an online focus in mind, rather than it being something that was pretty much just bolted on because it needed to be there now. Even simple things like achievements being quickly viewable and comparable in comparison to what always seemed like an endless wait for trophy syncing just made the system and service worth that £40 difference without question for many people. It's a lot more equal this time around (hence why Sony can actually dare charge for it), but even today there's still things on the PSN side that leave me gravitating towards Live for online play (such as it actually telling me when someone comes online!).

InsaneTiger said:
Right that is all well and good but what would keep them from restricting sales to just their online service? Nothing.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that they'd charge you for the right to purchase their games?

Surely you don't think they're that stupid.
 
EdgeXL said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is a fair comparison in convenience factor to compare 2014 and 1993. That just doesn't make much sense. And if anything you've had your wish up till now, so this reality we face in the gaming community is what you've wanted. The fact that we have to pay absurds amount of money just to enjoy one title... I mean 110 dollars for the full BF4 package... a BROKEN game nonetheless! Now they want to sell us DLC and rent out games. Honestly, I don't really care anymore... I just hope their endeavor fails.

I've had no issues finding amazing deals through CAG and Amazon... they have saved me HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of dollars on titles. There was a period of a year or two where I only payed full price for one title, out of the 25+ titles I purchased in that span, and most of those games were within 3 months of release. I think patience and a little bit of searching goes a long way, and it's better than just giving into EA, of all companies.

Like I said in my other post, I'm not against the idea of digital... I'm against giving EA such unprecedented access to this type of service on consoles. Essentially, what I've been trying to say is...

Let's not open up pandora's box... please?
 
BlackBuzzard said:
Wahaha the fine print says it will not come to the vault. Also thats 10% off is not on all dlc/games, which is also stated in the small print.
Click to expand...

So you're telling me I'm gonna pay $5/mo for early access and 10% discount on POSSIBLE games I may want? Well if you put it that way that's great value /s
 
Rurunaki said:
I wonder why.. oh right, the revenue is not there.. Same with Sony saying "No" to this, they're protecting their own interest much like EA snubbing Nintendo. So, the "more choice is better" falls flat on its face already. Offer the parity on all platforms --- because I doubt I'd be able to play Titanfall on my ps4 using EA Access.
Click to expand...
What's the point that you're trying to make here?

Sony decided that ps4 owners would not see any value in the service (when clearly many do) and therefore are preventing any people from accessing said service. This is not comparable to EA not publishing titles on the Wii U because there's no sales there.
 
EdgeXL said:
So what else is new? Companies are *always* fighting over how to carve up the revenue pie.




Sony is the company people like me had to literally drag into court over the PS2 DRE issue. Sony is the company who deliberately infected my PC with a rootkit via BMG CDs. Sony is the company who charges obscene prices for Vita memory cards. Sony is the company that forced a mandatory Vita update that locked memory cards to a single PSN account thereby locking me out of save files with dozens of hours of progress on them.

Do I trust MS and EA to give me the best value? No, but I don't trust Sony either. However, if one company grows to be too oppressive then another company will respond with a more favorable service/product.
Click to expand...

Im really sorry to hear about your problems with Sony in the past. That genuinely sucks. But, I fail to see how even the most feverish anti-Sony zealot could possibly consider PS+ as being "oppressive". Thats simply ridiculous. PS+ is so "bad" that MS was essentially forced to reluctantly copy it after stalling for how many months? I believe you'll find the vast majority of people who actually use PS+ find it to be a great value. I was an XBL subber for about 7 yrs and dropped it like a hot rock a year ago because it was by comparison a truly bad value. Now that MS woke up I may re-sub to XBL...but that only happened bc Sony provided a much better value. Competition and all that....

As for how this will play out, well its difficult to say. But, if the platform centric sub model we currently have is replaced by a publisher sub model in which we pay every publisher a monthly fee I dont see how thats better for gamers.
 
jem0208 said:
Steam is a bit different.

It's merely a client on your PC. Assuming EA integrated into origin I could just download that. Free of charge.

The problem with Sony rejecting it is that there is literally no way for PS4 owners to access the system on their machines.
Click to expand...
Well, the idea is that a lot of people just don't like Origin, so to get those Steam only people, EA has Steam integrate their Vault, or maybe all of Origin right in to Steam. It would offer more choice, so it's automatically better then Origin only.
 
FleetFeet said:
I don't think it is a fair comparison in convenience factor to compare 2014 and 1993. That just doesn't make much sense. And if anything you've had your wish up till now, so this reality we face in the gaming community is what you've wanted. The fact that we have to pay absurds amount of money just to enjoy one title... I mean 110 dollars for the full BF4 package... a BROKEN game nonetheless! Now they want to sell us DLC and rent out games. Honestly, I don't really care anymore... I just hope their endeavor fails.

I've had no issues finding amazing deals through CAG and Amazon... they have saved me HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of dollars on titles. There was a period of a year or two where I only payed full price for one title, out of the 25+ titles I purchased in that span, and most of those games were within 3 months of release. I think patience and a little bit of searching goes a long way, and it's better than just giving into EA, of all companies.

Like I said in my other post, I'm not against the idea of digital... I'm against giving EA such unprecedented access to this type of service on consoles. Essentially, what I've been trying to say is...

Let's not open up pandora's box... please?
Click to expand...

The box has already been opened. Nothing we post here will change that or how the industry will evolve. I just don't think things will be as bad as you fear and you will still have the ability to buy games the old way if that is what you want.
 
Memorabilia said:
Im really sorry to hear about your problems with Sony in the past. That genuinely sucks. But, I fail to see how even the most feverish anti-Sony zealot could possibly consider PS+ as being "oppressive". Thats simply ridiculous. PS+ is so "bad" that MS was essentially forced to reluctantly copy it after stalling for how many months? I believe you'll find the vast majority of people who actually use PS+ find it to be a great value. I was an XBL subber for about 7 yrs and dropped it like a hot rock a year ago because it was by comparison a truly bad value. Now that MS woke up I may re-sub to XBL...but that only happened bc Sony provided a much better value. Competition and all that....

As for how this will play out, well its difficult to say. But, if the platform centric sub model we currently have is replaced by a publisher sub model in which we pay every publisher a monthly fee I dont see how thats better for gamers.
Click to expand...

I am not calling Plus oppressive. I am a subscriber after all, even before it became popular.

I was saying that if one company becomes overly oppressive then another company will come along that is far more lenient. See Nintendo and Sega.
 
EdgeXL said:
The box has already been opened. Nothing we post here will change that or how the industry will evolve. I just don't think things will be as bad as you fear and you will still have the ability to buy games the old way if that is what you want.
Click to expand...

Oh no, if it's a success, then it's been opened, right now, it's just a fart in the wind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Wild Assault Early Access Trailer
27
836
Hawk The Slayer replied
Geoguessr Steam edition coming to early access in April
1
245
jshackles replied
[IGN] EA Bucks Industry Trend And Says It Has No Plans to Increase Video Game Prices
2
52
221
mckmas8808 replied
inZOI Early Access sales top one million
News 
7
438
Hari Seldon replied
NEIGHBORS: Suburban Warfare - Early Access Release Trailer
Trailer 
5
498
RaptorGTA replied
Top Bottom