Support NeoGAF

[SmokedMeat]

I noticed that you're not guaranteed access to the full games in the vault. You might just be given access to certain modes.

I can see the meltdowns from those expecting full access to something like Battlefield 4, but winding up with access to death match only.

 

[Ambition]

I really dont like the idea of every third party publisher having their own subscription based service.

Me either i'd hate for everything to get fragmented into subscription services.

 

[FleetFeet]

I noticed that you're not guaranteed access to the full games in the vault. You might just be given access to certain modes.

I can see the meltdowns from those expecting full access to something like Battlefield 4, but winding up with access to death match only.

Can you share this finding in more detail, please? I'd really like to look into it! Thanks!

Oh wait, I forgot, BF4 SP is broken... so they have to stipulate such things.

 

[Rurunaki]

They don't own the IP. Not sure where you're getting at here.

Where I'm going with this is how could you justify the "awesome value" of this EA Access? $30/yr to get 10% discount on annually released games does not sound that good.

So now it falls into EA to make the Access appear more valueable - how? By adding incentives that will more or less be hiddem behind the paywall sub. I've already cited different examples on what they can and might do.

- Exclusive Maps
- Exclusive in game perks
- Faster matchmaking queue

This are all false values as they would intentionally gimp the services they provide to make the EA Access more appealing. If they succeed in this, other pyblishers will follow suit because EA got away with it and the consumers allowed it.

 

[Memorabilia]

So Steam is the best that will ever be? No one else should bother?

Please dont engage in straw man arguments with me. Just because I stand by what I believe is a factual statement that Origin/Uplay, etc...are garbage, does not mean that I dont believe someone else should enter the market. The problem is that aside from overly intrusive DRM these other "services" offer zero reason for their existence...there is no value add or consumer benefit. In fact, Id argue the opposite is true...they are generally so bad they actively encourage piracy as pirates enjoy greater freedom and less headaches than using these services.

 

[grumble]

Yeah, the have a point. If Sony allowed this, it would compromise ps+, probably quite severely. Fragmentation wouldn't be good for the platform either, and it would likely end up being more expensive for moderate consumers of content.

Ps+ has big issues around discovery (where is my you might like page?!) but consumers are better served by having a cohesive service.

 

[SmokedMeat]

I'm starting to believe it's not that Sony is against the service. They want parity for their customers.

 

[Rurunaki]

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.

How is Sony denying EA Access to be accessed? It's clearly being accessed on Xbox One. This is the same as EA not publishing on Wii U because it's bad investment for them. Sony said No because it's bad for them.

 

[Synth]

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.

What's the cheapest you can find me the ability to play Battlefield 4, FIFA 14 and Madden 25 on PS4? Can you beat £4 for a month with CAG and Amazon? It's been about 9 months now, so they should all be dirt cheap right?

 

[jem0208]

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.

I'm not really seeing your point. First, why would EA want to integrate with steam? They don't even sell their games on steam. Second, EA access is a way they could attract people to origin.

The fact that anyone can get origin for free means you still have the choice on PC.

If valve were to reject it as Sony has done. I might be slightly inconvenienced, however it's not like valve has completely prevented me from accessing the service on my PC. I'd just need to get origin.

 

[BigSoftieFF]

How is Sony denying EA Access to be accessed? It's clearly being accessed on Xbox One. This is the same as EA not publishing on Wii U because it's bad investment for them. Sony said No because it's bad for them.

Pretty much. Want access? Buy an XBOX.

 

[GVA1987]

I'm starting to believe it's not that Sony is against the service. They want parity for their customers.

Based on what exactly? If they wanted parity surely they would realise that parity would mean allowing the service to be a choice their consumers could make on their own.

 

[Pandacon]

I'm not much of an EA customer, nor am I interested in this service, but I do find it weird that Sony rejected having this available on the PS4. Maybe we'll understand better when the service starts. I wouldn't be surprised to see Sony do a 180 on this though.

 

[jem0208]

How is Sony denying EA Access to be accessed? It's clearly being accessed on Xbox One. This is the same as EA not publishing on Wii U because it's bad investment for them. Sony said No because it's bad for them.

No. Sony apparently said no because according to them it's supposedly bad value for their customers.

Who are they to decide that it's bad value? That's for the consumer to decide.

EA not publishing on Wii U sucks yes, however they're not trying to claim it's because it's bad value for Wii U consumers.

 

[Metfanant]

No. Sony apparently said no because according to them it's supposedly bad value for their customers.

Who are they to decide that it's bad value? That's for the consumer to decide.

EA not publishing on Wii U sucks yes, however they're not trying to claim it's because it's bad value for Wii U consumers.

No, they would rather just deprive a whole set of gamers from playing their games because it might hurt the bottom line a little bit...

...SO much better...

 

[Rurunaki]

No. Sony apparently said no because according to them it's supposedly bad value for their customers.

Who are they to decide that it's bad value? That's for the consumer to decide.

EA not publishing on Wii U sucks yes, however they're not trying to claim it's because it's bad value for Wii U consumers.

It's a bad PR spin from Sony and no one is buying that. We all know Sony is looking out for their own interest. People here aren't defending Sony's PR, they're more concerned about the possible implications this EA Access can bring about.

 

[DangerMouse]

EA Access in its first month far surpasses PS+ on PS4. Its near half the price and has far better games. Sony dont want the competition because the cant compete. Their offerings have been very poor.

Holy shortsightedness Batman!

If you want to compare then the PS3 games put on it demolish EA Access and include big games from pretty much all publishers not just one. In another year the PS4 games they include probably would too if they follow PS3 and Vita Plus and start including the bigger games in the system's second year. They can't magically create a backlog of PS4 games to a system that's not even a year old other than maybe offer Knack and Killzone, the two launch games they control, which they may even still do before the year ends for all we know if they do it like they did Vita's Plus, while waiting for third parties to feel like their games have been on the shelves long enough to offer them to Sony to buy for its Plus service...

Vita didn't even get indie games through Plus until practically a year after launch since Plus didn't even exist on Vita until the bigger games were ready to be available on it, perhaps they should have done that again and not even bothered offering some great games in the meantime, they would have gotten less complaints from the AAA or nothing gamers...

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

What's the cheapest you can find me the ability to play Battlefield 4, FIFA 14 and Madden 25 on PS4? Can you beat £4 for a month with CAG and Amazon? It's been about 9 months now, so they should all be dirt cheap right?

So when FIFA 15, Madden 15 and BF5 comes out, you are going to wait for them to be free as well, correct?

 

[SmokedMeat]

Can you share this finding in more detail, please? I'd really like to look into it! Thanks!

Oh wait, I forgot, BF4 SP is broken... so they have to stipulate such things.

I read it in the OT for the service. I'm on my phone so I can't really copy/paste well. Check it out.
Obviously people in this thread aren't reading up on it since they think their $5 grants them full access to every vault game.

Also since vault games are new gen releases only I wouldn't hold my breath on new games added often. Realistically what can they offer?

I think in a couple years this could be of some value when there's actually games to offer.

 

[FleetFeet]

What's the cheapest you can find me the ability to play Battlefield 4, FIFA 14 and Madden 25 on PS4? Can you beat £4 for a month with CAG and Amazon? It's been about 9 months now, so they should all be dirt cheap right?

Actually what's funny is that I bought BF4 for 25 bucks on black friday... and have regretted it ever since

Nope, I'm a human being, not a fucking wizard from the moon! lol...

So when FIFA 15, Madden 15 and BF5 comes out, you are going to wait for them to be free as well, correct?

Making a great point... these titles we looking at being included in the vault are going to be titles that hold little value once their sequels arrive, and this are the types of titles that have yearly releases...

 

[jem0208]

It's a bad PR spin from Sony and no one is buying that. We all know Sony is looking out for their own interest. People here aren't defending Sony's PR, they're more concerned about the possible implications this EA Access can bring about.

So what was the point of the Nintendo thing?

 

[Rurunaki]

No, they would rather just deprive a whole set of gamers from playing their games because it might hurt the bottom line a little bit...

...SO much better...

"It's bad for business"

 

[Admiral Woofington]

No. Sony apparently said no because according to them it's supposedly bad value for their customers.

Who are they to decide that it's bad value? That's for the consumer to decide.

EA not publishing on Wii U sucks yes, however they're not trying to claim it's because it's bad value for Wii U consumers.

You do know that what is said in PR speech doesn't necessarily translate to what actually happened right?

 

[Rurunaki]

So what was the point of the Nintendo thing?

The point of the Nintendo thing is people saying SONY is not giving consumers the "CHOICE" when EA itself did not even give Nintendo the "CHOICE" for their games to be on.

 

[Bluemercury]

So Ea just wanted a bigger reason to suck up Ms more and they came up with this...i wonder if theyll cut ps4 support.

 

[Metfanant]

What's the cheapest you can find me the ability to play Battlefield 4, FIFA 14 and Madden 25 on PS4? Can you beat £4 for a month with CAG and Amazon? It's been about 9 months now, so they should all be dirt cheap right?

Those games are only going to be in the vault because they are about to be replaced by their newer versions...

Are you going to continue playing BF4, FIFA 14 and Madden 25 as you wait for Hardline, and the '15 sports titles to hit the vault?

 

[SmokedMeat]

Based on what exactly? If they wanted parity surely they would realise that parity would mean allowing the service to be a choice their consumers could make on their own.

Xbox One users would have the better service since X1 has more EA games. Why should PS4 users pay the same fee as Xbox users when they have less games to play?

There's no parity.

 

[Mikey Jr.]

You do know that what is said in PR speech doesn't necessarily translate to what actually happened right?

But why put it so bluntly?

Why not

"We are exploring options with our partners on if this service is right for our system" or something like that.

Sony flat out said "Guys, this shit is a rip off. Fuck EA mirite?"

 

[Synth]

So when FIFA 15, Madden 15 and BF5 comes out, you are going to wait for them to be free as well, correct?

Umm.. probably? I've never bought a FIFA or Madden game before, and the only Battlefield game I've ever purchased was Battlefield 2. They weren't very likely to see a sale from me outside of something like this or the games getting a 80% reduction or something.

Maybe I'll like Battlefield 4 enough to purchase Battlefield 5 at closer to full price though as a result of being able to try this one out for cheap (FIFA and Madden have basically no chance though).

Those games are only going to be in the vault because they are about to be replaced by their newer versions...

Are you going to continue playing BF4, FIFA 14 and Madden 25 as you wait for Hardline, and the '15 sports titles to hit the vault?

Either the games hold my attention across multiple months (it would take a while before the price creeps up on actually purchasing them), or I cancel my subscription because there's nothing else that I want to play that it offers. I'm somewhat expecting something like Need for Speed Rivals to pop up at some point though, which would keep me going for a while. It's not like they're asking me for a lot of money up front.

 

[jem0208]

No, they would rather just deprive a whole set of gamers from playing their games because it might hurt the bottom line a little bit...

...SO much better...

I'm not trying to argue that EA not publishing on Wii U is a good thing. It sucks, however it makes sense business wise. According to Sony they rejected EA access because it wasn't good value for their consumers. Something which the consumer should be allowed to decide. That is straight up anti consumer.

 

[2 Slice Toaster]

The point of the Nintendo thing is people saying SONY is not giving consumers the "CHOICE" when EA itself did not even give Nintendo the "CHOICE" for their games to be on.

Did Nintendo make a statement to confirm this?

 

[SparkTR]

Thanks Sony, I was afraid I'd have to use my brain for a second there.

 

[Dunlop]

The point of the Nintendo thing is people saying SONY is not giving consumers the "CHOICE" when EA itself did not even give Nintendo the "CHOICE" for their games to be on.

pretending that Nintendo's online infrastructure could handle this, none of the games in the vault are on the WiiU

In fact here is every EA game on the WiiU

http://www.ea.com/ca/wiiu

Nintendo was brought up in some weird attempt to put Sony in a better light

 

[Metfanant]

I'm not trying to argue that EA not publishing on Wii U is a good thing. It sucks, however it makes sense business wise. According to Sony they rejected EA access because it wasn't good value for their consumers. Something which the consumer should be allowed to decide. That is straight up anti consumer.

Well let's be perfectly honest...why I do believe the "bad value" reasoning played a part...we all know the biggest reason was because Sony has their own established digital content delivery model...

So it's "bad for business" just like the Nintendo situation...

 

[Admiral Woofington]

But why put it so bluntly?

Why not

"We are exploring options with our partners on if this service is right for our system" or something like that.

Sony flat out said "Guys, this shit is a rip off. Fuck EA mirite?"

No they didn't. I mean if that's the connotation/spin you want to put into it by all means, but that's not how it was meant to be interpreted. In general people should've understood this is PR speech. In fact you should always assume when shit like this doesn't fall through that there were legal disputes on agreements.

 

[Rurunaki]

pretending that Nintendo's online infrastructure could handle this, none of the games in the vault are on the WiiU

In fact here is every game on the WiiU

http://www.ea.com/ca/wiiu

Nintendo was brought up in some weird attempt to put Sony in a better light

Put Sony in a better light? Please, I don't care about what Sony does or MS does or what Nintendo does. I care about the precedent that will happen when things like this become a norm. I'm sorry but I'm sick and tired of corporations trying to get away with as much as they can because people let them.

People are thinking they're doing this out of the goodness of their hearts? These corporations have their own agendas and people should be more mindful of that. Instead of just, "oh shit 10% discount for just $5/mo." Have the foresight to see where the companies are coming from instead of relying on that 20/20 hindsight vision.

 

[jem0208]

You do know that what is said in PR speech doesn't necessarily translate to what actually happened right?

Sure, however that's Sony's reason and therefore they deserve the flak for it. We can sit around speculating as to why Sony may have done it. Doesn't change the fact that Sony themselves have said it's because of this reason, and hence I shall keep arguing this point.

The point of the Nintendo thing is people saying SONY is not giving consumers the "CHOICE" when EA itself did not even give Nintendo the "CHOICE" for their games to be on.

So? Sony aren't giving consumers the choice because of some bullshit value reason. EA aren't putting titles on Nintendo consoles because it makes no business sense to do so.

 

[professor_t]

Where I'm going with this is how could you justify the "awesome value" of this EA Access? $30/yr to get 10% discount on annually released games does not sound that good.

So now it falls into EA to make the Access appear more valueable - how? By adding incentives that will more or less be hiddem behind the paywall sub. I've already cited different examples on what they can and might do.

- Exclusive Maps
- Exclusive in game perks
- Faster matchmaking queue

This are all false values as they would intentionally gimp the services they provide to make the EA Access more appealing. If they succeed in this, other pyblishers will follow suit because EA got away with it and the consumers allowed it.

So you're complaining about a hypothetical that has not occurred and may never happen, while completely ignoring the existing value of the full games in the vault. That is . . . amazing.

 

[Rurunaki]

So you're complaining about a hypothetical that has not occurred and may never happen, while completely ignoring the existing value of the full games in the vault. That is . . . amazing.

What's more amazing is how shortsighted people are. It's like multiplayer was not put behind a paywall. It's not like DLC became a norm as well as preorder exclusives. But hey, value right?

 

[Rurunaki]

Sure, however that's Sony's reason and therefore they deserve the flak for it. We can sit around speculating as to why Sony may have done it. Doesn't change the fact that Sony themselves have said it's because of this reason, and hence I shall keep arguing this point.



So? Sony aren't giving consumers the choice because of some bullshit value reason. EA aren't putting titles on Nintendo consoles because it makes no business sense to do so.

What are you talking about not giving the consumers choice? You have a choice, access it on Xbox One. It's not like Sony filed a lawsuit against EA to not release their subscription plan on every other platforms.

 

[Dredd97]

Sure, however that's Sony's reason and therefore they deserve the flak for it. We can sit around speculating as to why Sony may have done it. Doesn't change the fact that Sony themselves have said it's because of this reason, and hence I shall keep arguing this point.



So? Sony aren't giving consumers the choice because of some bullshit value reason. EA aren't putting titles on Nintendo consoles because it makes no business sense to do so.

You are aware that it makes no business sense for Sony to put EA Access on the ps4 right?

 

[Amentallica]

I'm not trying to argue that EA not publishing on Wii U is a good thing. It sucks, however it makes sense business wise. According to Sony they rejected EA access because it wasn't good value for their consumers. Something which the consumer should be allowed to decide. That is straight up anti consumer.

Can you not take something for face value? Obviously that's most likely not true. They're looking out for their best interest. They just tried to put it nicely and lied. That's PR, that is their purpose. Jesus.

 

[DangerMouse]

What's more amazing is how shortsighted people are. It's like multiplayer was not put behind a paywall. It's not like DLC became a norm as well as preorder exclusives. But hey, value right?

This.

 

[GVA1987]

Xbox One users would have the better service since X1 has more EA games. Why should PS4 users pay the same fee as Xbox users when they have less games to play?

There's no parity.

What company, or anyone for that matter, would think someone like EA would take a no from Sony and think to themselves, 'Well geez Sony said no because it is bad value, maybe we should reconsider offering this service...'. They're just going to take it to someone else who will let them peddle their services.

Sony aren't the white knight fighting for your consumer rights here.

 

[jem0208]

What are you talking about not giving the consumers choice? You have a choice, access it on Xbox One. It's not like Sony filed a lawsuit against EA to not release their subscription plan on every other platforms.

They're stopping people who bought a ps4 from accessing the service because it is apparently "bad value". Something which should be entirely up to the consumer to decide.

And sure, let's force people to buy a £350 machine just to access this service, instead of letting our customers decide whether or not the service is bad value.

You are aware that it makes no business sense for Sony to put EA Access on the ps4 right?

Yes. But according to Sony they rejected it because of "value" reasons.

 

[Mikey Jr.]

No they didn't. I mean if that's the connotation/spin you want to put into it by all means, but that's not how it was meant to be interpreted. In general people should've understood this is PR speech. In fact you should always assume when shit like this doesn't fall through that there were legal disputes on agreements.

Hmm, thats the way I see it.

Sony said that the EA vault wasn't a good value, meaning that its a bad value.

There are a lot of other ways to give PR. Sony chose this one.

 

[jem0208]

Can you not take something for face value? Obviously that's most likely not true. They're looking out for their best interest. They just tried to put it nicely and lied. That's PR, that is their purpose. Jesus.

I've already addressed this point.

We can sit around speculating all we like however Sony have stated their reasoning and it is anti consumer. Hence they deserve any flak they receive for it.

 

[SmokedMeat]

What company, or anyone for that matter, would think someone like EA would take a no from Sony and think to themselves, 'Well geez Sony said no because it is bad value, maybe we should reconsider offering this service...'. They're just going to take it to someone else who will let them peddle their services.

Sony aren't the white knight fighting for your consumer rights here.

All anyone can do is speculate on whatever talks Sony and EA had in regards to this service.

I'm not saying Sony's fighting for my consumer rights, because they're not. But requesting the same equal service as their competition? I could see them wanting that from EA.

 

[Rurunaki]

They're stopping people who bought a ps4 from accessing the service because it is apparently "bad value". Something which should be entirely up to the consumer to decide.

And sure, let's force people to buy a £350 machine just to access this service, instead of letting our customers decide whether or not the service is bad value.


Yes. But according to Sony they rejected it because of "value" reasons.

By that logic, EA is also stopping people who bought a Wii U from accessing the service -- something which should be entirely up to the consumer to decide. And yeah, let's force the Nintendo crowd to buy a $399 sysem just to access the service. However, you insist that it would be bad business for EA to invest in Wii U. Guess what? Sony also thinks it's a bad investment for them to have that access on their ecosystem.

These corporations will always look out for their own self. Sony PR bumbled today with their choice of words, but do not make this about "consumer choice."

 

[tfur]

Sure, however that's Sony's reason and therefore they deserve the flak for it. We can sit around speculating as to why Sony may have done it. Doesn't change the fact that Sony themselves have said it's because of this reason, and hence I shall keep arguing this point.



So? Sony aren't giving consumers the choice because of some bullshit value reason. EA aren't putting titles on Nintendo consoles because it makes no business sense to do so.

You give them flak, others including myself applaud them.

EA is not good enough to deserve a retainer outside of what I pay for psn. Send this scam to Xbox users to beta test. Let them embrace the drm service subscription model, where ea cannot even deliver working games. Although, I guess by the time the games make it into the vault, they have most of the major bugs worked out.

EA games don't hold my ps4 in the balance. I bought it without this subscription addition, and I am fine to keep it that way. If they have game of value, I will buy it.