My thoughts/worries on this though are that while their initial offering may be attractive for some (not really me, sports aren't my thing and bf will always be a used purchase after 4) that if consumers choose this what doors does it open up for games as a service? Do they wall off content/games behind the sub? And what happens when the market says yes to that? All the other pubs will follow suit. PS+ and games for gold would no longer see games from these pubs. It's just worrying. There is no basis for it I just look at past trends with DLC and micro-transactions and worry about how those would be applied to these services.
Sony's response to EA Access Subscription plan
- Thread starter RexNovis
- Start date
- Status
My thoughts/worries on this though are that while their initial offering may be attractive for some (not really me, sports aren't my thing and bf will always be a used purchase after 4) that if consumers choose this what doors does it open up for games as a service? Do they wall off content/games behind the sub? And what happens when the market says yes to that? All the other pubs will follow suit. PS+ and games for gold would no longer see games from these pubs. It's just worrying. There is no basis for it I just look at past trends with DLC and micro-transactions and worry about how those would be applied to these services.
You say this like it is fact. You are assuming. We know little to nothing about EAs content plans for the program. We don't know how often the plan to refresh the vault content. We don't know if they plan to keep content in the vault or flush it with each refresh. We know essentially nothing except that these are the titles it debuts with. The difference is you are assuming best case scenarios and legitimate consumer value out of a company that is notorious for it's willingness to exploit the consumer. Logic would dictate that historical precedent overrules warm fuzzy feelings and happy thoughts.
ArkkAngel007
Member
I've been silent on this issue in order to think long and hard about it, and this is sort of my line of thought when it comes to the service as it is.
On that note:
- Sony's PR is terrible. I highly doubt they'd do it for the consumer's behalf, nor do I appreciate it being deflected towards us on the consumer when we weren't even given the chance to decide for ourselves.
- With that said, this is a competitive service in regards to where consumers spend their money on Sony's closed platform. Add together PS+, PS Now, EA Access, and all these other subscription services on the platform, consumers will have to make a choice that may not favor Sony, despite it being on a Sony platform.
- I don't view PS+/PS Now being the only allowed game subscriptions as a monopoly since this is a closed platform by that service holder. It makes no sense to open up the doors for someone to undercut your services to their benefit. Just like I wouldn't have begrudged Microsoft if they made the same choice and this became an Origin program (which why isn't it?).
- EA has built a reputation that warrents some caution. Doesn't mean it's a bad service or they can't move up in the realm of goodwill, but it will be curious to see things a year or two from now if this takes off well.
- Competition is good. We decide, and that allows for better services to hopefully be offered by the trounced competition in the future or keep the chosen competitor on their feet to keep ahead of the rest. But that doesn't mean all the consequences are good in competition. See game companies making exclusive deals with GameStop, who are supposed revenue competitors due to used game sales.
I'll look into the service, and I'm admittedly disappointed this wasn't offered on PS4 since that's what I would want to play BF4 on. But I'm not going to jump the shark and crucify Sony over it.
I don't understand how it isn't a value, at least compared to PS Now. I understand that is a beta, so things may change.
Just going by prices right now
$5 a month gets 4 games on EA Access
$14.99 gets Deus Ex for 30 days, or $5 for 4 hours.
Depending on utility factors, since everyone is different. But if you look at quantity wise, the $5 sounds better to me.
At this point, I'm more likely to use EA Access as a rental. I would rather pay $5 and play the shit out of one game that I know is in the Vault than drop $30 on a bunch of unknowns at this point.
Just going by prices right now
$5 a month gets 4 games on EA Access
$14.99 gets Deus Ex for 30 days, or $5 for 4 hours.
Depending on utility factors, since everyone is different. But if you look at quantity wise, the $5 sounds better to me.
At this point, I'm more likely to use EA Access as a rental. I would rather pay $5 and play the shit out of one game that I know is in the Vault than drop $30 on a bunch of unknowns at this point.
Exactly. For them to say it doesn't provide the value PS gamer's expect - and, at the same time, charge ridiculous prices for renting streamed old PS3 games - is asinine.
staticneuron
Member
Yea, i don't have a problem with origin as far as managing and downloading games (both origin and Steam have some crazy download speeds) but when I mentioned free for now I was simply talking about being able to use Origin without a subscription attached. If theis takes off on the console then they will test to see if it works on the PC market. Then I am sure it will become a requirement if the tests pulls pleasing numbers.
Exactly and we do not know the terms of the agreements EA put forth. Either way the first parties are going to get royalties for any game that is sold for the consoles but there is no telling if the terms outline a deal with having a restriction on how to purchase a game on their platform.
They are different services entirely. From what is gathered the rental prices are something that the pubs have a hand in setting. So some of it is probably SE. The other point is that PSnow is a streaming service while EAA is not. You have to download the full title on EAA and that means you can only receive a title for that particular console. Their only issue is getting the content to you. PSnow is running the games remotely then streaming it to your console so it is more of a cost on Sony's end. You do not have the capabilities to even play PS3 games native on the PS4 so any comparison you make by default becomes moot.
People need to stop with the comparisons when it is not even level.
I was sceptical about EA Access as I've said at the start and I remain so after thinking more about it. The problem is that they've really left their future plans open to interpretation. At least PS+ you know you are getting two games per platform even if now the games are starting to get crappy.
People are seeing 4 games for $5 value, but what is the plan in te future? How fast will they rotate the games? How many games in the vault. Plus it's just EA games too.
People are seeing 4 games for $5 value, but what is the plan in te future? How fast will they rotate the games? How many games in the vault. Plus it's just EA games too.
QuantumZebra
Member
Admiral Woofington
Member
I'm not about to defend Sony if the real reason isn't given. This and the PS Now pricing are big issues, not to mention constant stability updates while other stuff we've been clamoring for gets left behind.
But the reaction of some here. Jesus.
But the reaction of some here. Jesus.
More often than not, most consumer don't have the long term vision for their purchasing decision and how it could affect the whole industry. Of course, the platform holder vision is not always right, but letting the consumer wholly decide it is just the extreme opposite of the spectrum.
Huh? I made it clear in my post that I would have definitely steered clear of Amazon tablets/phones if that impacted my enjoyment of said services.
Does the average gamer care how it works?
I agree that it is hard to equate them since it's PS3 games on PS4.
Why on earth would you subscribe to those if there were only few games you want?
alexandros
Banned
The actual value of the EA service is not the issue here. The problem lies with Sony denying its customers the right to make their own decision on the matter. Plus I am not at all sold on the consumer friendliness of a company that locked online multi player behind a pay wall.
SenjutsuSage
Banned
Sure, you could be right, although I really think at this point people may just be searching too hard for ways to make it seem less appealing. And so far the news has all been quite positive. I mean, what exactly do they gain by flushing the existing list of titles anyway? What, will those flushed titles suddenly start selling gangbusters at retail again after the fact? Flushing is completely counter to their objectives and the long term success of the service. What if someone subscribed specifically for Battlefield 4 and FIFA 14 only to see BOTH wiped from the vault later?
The more they add to the "vault" the better their service comes out looking over the long haul, and the easier it becomes to make sure people maintain their subscriptions. Not flushing would also be a pretty great way to make it even more appealing to newcomers, which will lead to more new subscribers. If they're going to flush anything at all, it'd make more sense to flush games like FIFA 14 over time, replacing it with FIFA 15 making sure only the absolute latest edition of the yearly sports titles is available, right? Not exactly.
The problem with doing even that is they (EA) could then potentially be directly interfering with people's ongoing gaming enjoyment by doing such a thing, and that obviously defeats the point of the service. What if someone is in the middle of a career mode in FIFA 14 that they are interested in seeing through to the end, but then all of a sudden FIFA 15 just up and replaces it and now suddenly all your saved data is totally useless. Maybe someone's friend who doesn't have EA Access only has FIFA 14, and the only way to keep playing with that friend is to play FIFA 14 instead of 15. EA Access has to be able to accommodate all these situations, which is why I think the vault list is just going to keep growing without any flushing. As unlikely as it might be to believe, the service really might end up being just as good as it looks without any secret gotchas.
People really only want access to or use a subset of the entire Hulu, Netflix or HBO Go catalogs, does that then make those things pointless? Not at all. Having access to everything else is a plus. There's a major plus in knowing you're able to try everything. You may end up liking things that you didn't even expect to enjoy. As these various game vaults grow, you could have yourself quite the collection of games that you didn't even pay full price for. Sure, there may be a number of games there that aren't your style of game, but the idea of it is something that I find very appealing in the videogame space. It's like being in the game section of a store and being able to unpack and play whatever you want whenever you want. On a publisher by publisher basis, but you get the idea.
Just to make sure I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting it is a possibility that EA would impose a subscription fee to use origin? Despite people like myself already owning multiple games on it? Would i suddenly lose access to my games unless I paid the fee?
That doesn't sound like an even remote possibility. More importantly, I don't understand why you even bring up Origin to begin with. There's nothing wrong with EA wanting their games to run through their client. It's simply a client. I have all my games routed to my steam library whole origin hangs out on my taskbar. I can be playing Mass Effect or Titanfall in seconds. I'm not sure why this bothers you. Origin keys can be bought outside of Origin, often with great discounts.
wsoxfan1214
Banned
So wait. It sounds like early access to NHL 15, etc. are locked behind this and Xbone exclusive? What the fuck did I pay for the season pass for a year ago then, EA?
Fucking christ.
Fucking christ.
Going by the website, Season Ticket remains available on PS3 and 360 and still gives you the 3 day early access. EA Access is Xbox One only.
wsoxfan1214
Banned
A console platform holder denies its customers of many options making decisions for them right from the start. This one is one of them, MS agreed with including such service because its subscription service is not mature enough and established, Sony's program it's an already established and successful program across every Sony platform and agreeing to a publisher specific service would devalue its own.
Like in the 1983 industry crash? Where the customers decided "to hell with this" and stopped buying video games because they felt ripped off by what they bought?
Why not let every publisher release as many games as they want, under no quality control, restrictions or anything? Using your logic "let the consumer decide and not platform holder"
Enter Atari and the video game crash that almost ruined the industry. Enter Nintendo who had to put restrictions on amount of games so it would not happen again
At some point you do need to protect the consumer, and make decisions for them otherwise if they have a bad experience with EA subscription that might put them off on everything else on the system.
It says a lot when Sony, who has been lax for 4 generations about pretty much everything, says no to this.
I'm not a fan of EA so I wouldn't sub to Access. I'd much rather play the occasional Need For Speed from PS+ than have to actually pay for a different service to access any of the games in EA's offering.
Looking at Steam and Origin, I've little doubt that EA would have stopped getting their games on PS+ if Sony let them in. The way Sony played it, PS+ remains the only way for EA to get a slice of that subscription cake. Sure they'll pout for a while, but they might be back.
Looking at Steam and Origin, I've little doubt that EA would have stopped getting their games on PS+ if Sony let them in. The way Sony played it, PS+ remains the only way for EA to get a slice of that subscription cake. Sure they'll pout for a while, but they might be back.
alexandros
Banned
Which is exactly why consumers should be wary of giving platform holders any more power than they already have. Otherwise this will not end well for consumer rights.
Sorc3r3r
Member
Still going with the''let me decide!''.
Buy a PC.
The moment you buy a console you have choosen to enter in a walled garden, where is up to the platform holder to decide what is good or bad for you: this is true for the playstation ecosystem, for the xbox one, for apple, for android, for steam, for nintendo, for windows and so on.
You don't like it?
Great, you are free to exit the garden and choose to sell your freedom to another gardener who dictates a policy more in line to your expectations.
But i guess you are free to uselessy rant over this simple fact.
Buy a PC.
The moment you buy a console you have choosen to enter in a walled garden, where is up to the platform holder to decide what is good or bad for you: this is true for the playstation ecosystem, for the xbox one, for apple, for android, for steam, for nintendo, for windows and so on.
You don't like it?
Great, you are free to exit the garden and choose to sell your freedom to another gardener who dictates a policy more in line to your expectations.
But i guess you are free to uselessy rant over this simple fact.
AmaterasuOni
Banned
But you have the choice: buy an Xbox or get Origin on PC.
The customer also decided horse armor was a good value proposition. How did that work out?
AmaterasuOni
Banned
Yeah, this is why we have microtransactions and day-1 DLCs now.
Sony platforms have a subscription service that includes gaming software from every publisher. Even EA. The consumer rights are not at risk.
edit: Sony made a deal last gen with Valve that enabled Portal 2 to tie in with the PC Steam service. For free. Valve didn't charge the user for any additional fee, and Sony didn't either. This is a consumer friendly strategy. This is added value for the same initial entry price. EA charging a subscription on top of an already paid service as Live is not consumer friendly, it is completely valid as a business strategy, it doesn't hurt any consumer right (yet), but it's not a "friendlier", open strategy.
I don't get it, if you're not into soccer (or any sport title for the matter) but wanted to try Fifa why not buy one of the old ones for $5 or less, and work your way from there?
Yes there are intricate changes every year, but it's not like an outdated roster would bother you?
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
If you are on PS4 where can you get any version of Fifa for less than what a year of EA access costs?
boredandlazy
Member
Shhh... No logic, only biddy...
Officerrob
Banned
So if this was Ubisoft, you would be in favor of it?
Sony are the ones who refused to have the service on PS4.
Dreamgazer
Member
Im not bish,, but I would consider that since ubi 's library is more appealing.
Sport game prices tank spectacularly when the new one comes out and around this time of year they're around half the price of their launch price, this year for new console's is an exception because every first year of a console's launch has that silly won't-go-cheap-ass-like-a-Nintendo-game-stubborness-tax in general.
Let's ignore EA's digital prices, yeesh!
If we're strictly looking at this year's prices then yes there is "value" which I think is bloated that we won't see next year because the prices will be more in line with PS360 prices.
Then you're comparing ownership prices to subscribed prices.
I don't like this games as a service the industry is moving towards.
To clarify, it was much easier to overlook when Sony and Microsoft give you the games because they are going to charge you a subscription anyways to play online. So to the consumer, Games with Gold and the Instant Game Collection is just gravy on the shit sandwich we have to eat but EA jumping in followed by possibly Ubisoft and Activation.... I don't know how I feel about this.
To clarify, it was much easier to overlook when Sony and Microsoft give you the games because they are going to charge you a subscription anyways to play online. So to the consumer, Games with Gold and the Instant Game Collection is just gravy on the shit sandwich we have to eat but EA jumping in followed by possibly Ubisoft and Activation.... I don't know how I feel about this.
TechnicPuppet
Nothing! I said nothing!
The reason they are holding value is because online passes are gone.
It could affect you though.
That Assassins Creed game you mention would probably have had a smaller print run if more people were getting it via a subscription, a significant change to supply and demand like that could mean that sale price you currently buy it for may come later or not at all.
Games may also be designed with subscribers in mind as their main customer which could effect how they are made, that could manifest itself as subscriber exclusive DLC, physical releases coming later or games being designed around DLC and micro-transactions to a higher extent than they are now.
Or maybe none of that would happen, it's too early to say for sure but it will almost certainly have an affect on you and the industry be that a positive or negative change or a bit of both.
DagnastyEp
Member
I see a lot of people in this thread who support Sony's decision suggest that it's because Sony wants to protect us from a future of games as a service, where we don't really own anything. Sony is not a benevolent non-profit company, they don't think this service is a good value to gamers, and I'll bet they're mostly worried about it's impact on their own bottom line and the services they're trying to offer.
Comparing this to the crash of 1982? That was because of shovelware flooding the market, with people not being informed if a game was crap, you're right it was a quality control issue. EA access is not that. It's an optional service that clearly informs consumers of what they'll be getting before they purchase.
Will this set a precedent for other companies to follow suit? It's possible. But right now, we still have the choice to not participate in the service, and to buy/own the games EA is offering, instead of renting them.
Is EA access a good value? That will depend on the individual who assess it. For me, I've paid $5 for a month to try it out, and now I'm playing BF4 (which is listed as $30 on Amazon), once I'm done with that I'll be trying Peggle 2. So far, seems like a decent value to me, and I think others would agree.
TitusGroan
Banned
Because cheap access to Battlefield is clearly comparable to the Crash of '83, right?
Those people don't make sense, because in such case Sony would have never created PSN+ and Playstation Now in the first place.
Sony is actually doing exactly that. Games as a service, where you don't really own anything anymore. Which is good for Sony and bad for the consumer. It's basically the arcades, but worse.
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
This is how I feel about it. Games as a Service is a terrible idea that will only erode consumer rights and remove ownership of games in the future. How long before EA decides to do something like "Online Play only with EA Access" or DLC or even full games only available through their service?
I am so glad that Sony said no to this and I really hope that it fails miserably so no other publisher decides to jump in the shit pool. PS+ and PSNow is different. I bet that when Sony launched PS+ they knew that they would make it required for online play on the PS4, so to lessen the burden they included discounts and games at no added cost to sweeten the pot. For PSNow, we are talking about a large backcatalog of PS3 games, not PS4 games. Even if they did release PS4 games on the service they pretty clearly define the service as a rental service, not some sort of remarkable deal like EA is doing with EA Access.
No it's because it's within 12-18 months of next gen, PS2, PS3 and Xbox 360 went through the same price non reduction nonsense in their first year of release and it's not just EA Sports games either compare any current gen game to their last gen counterpart whether they had a history of online passess or not.
I made no claims that Sony is a benevolent non-profit company, that is you inventing arguments to argue against.
The mainstream is about as clueless in regards to what is good or what is bad as every before, same goes for your average movie goer, who goes and buys a ticket to the newest Transformers movie. Your argument is basically "people are smarter now than in 82-83, i disagree with that. Horse armor, day 1 DLC, always online shows that not even many enthusiasts of this hobby are all that informed or wise with their money.
All three console manufacturers already limit and prevent tons of games from releasing on their consoles, same goes with apps, none of them are going to allow a Porn app or any app that does not fit with the what they are trying to do with their hardware and services.
The logic of "let the customer decide" only works in a world everyone is super informed about everything, that is not the case.
You should be asking MS to open up the platform and allow any app on it if "let consumer decide" is the mantra you are going with here. Yet we all know that would damage the brand and make it look cheap by having apps and services that are pure trash
Sony nixed the idea, i am sure they evaluated it in every way imagineable, just like MS did. And in Sony's case they said "no", which starts ringing the alarm bells because they have accepted more or less everything that MS has, except that DRM, anti used, always online stuff last year...huh funny that.
Why dont they allow every Tom, Dick and Jane to design their own app and put it on the Xbox or PS store then? "Let the consumer decide!"
Because it floods the service with crap that in the end does more damage than good.
Saying "Let the consumer decide" is lacking basic understanding of what it means to have a platform and develop it. More is not better. Nintendo told EA off years ago, now Sony told them off with their EA Access plan. The only company willing to carry this is the company that a year ago had a gigantic purple boner for anti used games, DRM, always online and the whole shabang. What a coincidence
TitusGroan
Banned
Sure is hurting Valve to have all those Tom, Dick and Janes putting their games up on Steam, isn't it?
Because a open platform like PC is the same as a video game console, right? See i am imitating your "argument"
Whats with ending your posts as questions, you think you are Gandalf?
toddhunter
Member
Which is fine until you realise you are not part of that market.
I can understand people being upset about Sony taking away their choices. They should be very glad Sony are taking away the choice from the people who are going to make a mess of it for the rest of us.
- Status