that doesnt excuse the fact that you flat out lied about BF4 being "fixed" in 3 months lol...and by BL2, what game are you referring to exactly? Boarderlands 2? because if so, wouldnt fixing that game fall in the lap of 2K, Take Two, or Gearbox?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Sony's response to EA Access Subscription plan
- Thread starter RexNovis
- Start date
- Status
that doesnt excuse the fact that you flat out lied about BF4 being "fixed" in 3 months lol...and by BL2, what game are you referring to exactly? Boarderlands 2? because if so, wouldnt fixing that game fall in the lap of 2K, Take Two, or Gearbox?
OuterLimits
Member
I'm confused Sony. So you don't think several EA games for $5 a month is of good value, but potentially renting one game for 4 hours for the same amount on your PSNow service is?
I may be looking at it the wrong way but ..
Having the EA service on the system in a way would fight vs SONYs one PlaystationNow service
People are looking at PsNow are a way to play old game and not at what it's in visioned to be like the video sony put out today a subscription will be coming
People will pay X amount to play X amount of game unlimited for the month
They will be able to provided a EA like system with PsNow and Ps+ combo easy using even EA games (and clearly every other plub) ...
And I think the point about Sony having to take the lead on every problem arising from an EA service for now may have weighted on Sony holding back using xboxone in a way to beat rest a service like EAs
..
But any ways I'm ok with it for now when pre ordering a ea game already for ps4 we can get 3 to 5 days early access to it and to be honest people like me know they will buy the new fifa every year like those battlefield player know they will buy the new one and so on with NHL NFL ...
But options are always a good thing
Having the EA service on the system in a way would fight vs SONYs one PlaystationNow service
People are looking at PsNow are a way to play old game and not at what it's in visioned to be like the video sony put out today a subscription will be coming
People will pay X amount to play X amount of game unlimited for the month
They will be able to provided a EA like system with PsNow and Ps+ combo easy using even EA games (and clearly every other plub) ...
And I think the point about Sony having to take the lead on every problem arising from an EA service for now may have weighted on Sony holding back using xboxone in a way to beat rest a service like EAs
..
But any ways I'm ok with it for now when pre ordering a ea game already for ps4 we can get 3 to 5 days early access to it and to be honest people like me know they will buy the new fifa every year like those battlefield player know they will buy the new one and so on with NHL NFL ...
But options are always a good thing
That was beautifully written.
Honestly? For it would be outraged? That's a stretch. That argument would apply to both consoles. It's much more likely that if it was a Sony Exclusive you would have seen "Xboned now!" and other comments rise up. This is, plain and simple, an unfortunate reaction Sony had to some unknown. Either MS made a deal (surprised there aren't more moneyhat comments) or EA honestly thought they had an interesting relationship with MS in the past (remember Tsunami XBL3.0 having EA backdoors) but either way, all this means is EA is offering a service to persons to either take or leave.
There's little wrong with this mindset to remove options from consumers. I see this much more like the "Netflix"/"AmazonPrime" of games... something Gamefly should have been looking into LONG ago, but now purchasing content has snagged it up.
I see this more as Sony is still loaded with arrogance when they should be taking this opportunity to equalize EVERYTHING MS does or out perform.
I'm not even interested in the service to be honest but I'd much prefer the option.
No having several games for $5 is good
But when somy is playing their own service being PsNow and by BETA end adding a subscription that will have EA games on it is not a smart idea
..
Not all gamers are like us here on GAF some are the yearly release type they will buy FIFA every year and Battllefield year over year
On Sonys eyes those are some they can call in with the oh u can get your sports games and play many other for X amount a month ..
But if they already have a service that offers them the games they want they won't be inclined to to on top of their PS+ the EA service to pay again
Same if UBI did it and ACT for sony knowing they are going to offer a subscription service on top of a paid one that is PS+ is not smart to have other company's doing it on their system
Derpcrawler
Member
PS Now - get 48 hours game rental for 4.99, Sony: "Great value!"
EA Access - get 4 full games for the whole month for 4.99, Sony: "Poor value, do not want"
EA Access - get 4 full games for the whole month for 4.99, Sony: "Poor value, do not want"
are you implying im some sort of second class GAFer because i buy FIFA, BF, and CoD every year?
PS Now - get 48 hours game rental for 4.99, Sony: "Great value!"
EA Access - get 4 full games for the whole month for 4.99, Sony: "Poor value, do not want"
I think that's actually a terrible example, especially since they aren't even remotely the same service, but that's neither here nor there... where my problem with your comparison lies is that as far as I'm aware, pubs set the price for their own games on PS Now.
Is that right? Good to know I was on the right trail...
Calling you out on your lies constitutes me as being upset? Really? That's an odd thing to say.
And then there was my next question... what the hell is BL2??? lol...
No I'm not because I buy fifa cod every year too
Plus a lot other games I'm implying that us here step out of the norm of what normal gamers are
Guess I see most of us here falling under the "core/hardcore" part of gaming
And a $5 dollar service from a third party would take those gamers that fall just under the yearly release games from Sonys own subscription service right off the bat easy
And that to SONY would be a bad business move
So keeping EA UBI ACT subscription services away from their own is the best and a smartest move
People here just haven't realized that part it's not about the value of EAs service or any other third party it's just that it would take from the people that REALLY would go for a subscription like service not us the hardcore or core gamers but the netflix yearly release gamers
But in short naw buddy me and you just brace we do buy FIFA and COD ( even tho I kick my self on cod part) every year ain't no second class GAFers lol
And on that your right !
Most people seem to forget that part even tho in a way you can say why aren't Sonys first party games cheaper but like it was said they are working on pricing it is a BETA ...
Only way to look at it is once a sub like service comes to PsNow then ya there's a lot to look at like the easy part that other 3rd party services that you would pay sub for would fight directly VS SONYs own sub service PsNow
not to mention everyone knows PSNow is program completely in its infancy right now, and from an infrastructure standpoint significantly more complicated then EA Access...I agree PSNow prices are ASTRONOMICAL...but im willing to give Sony the benefit of the doubt that they will sort that shit quickly once they realize nobody is willing to rent old PS1 games for a 48hour window for that kind of money...
GoofsterStud
Member
PS Now - get 48 hours game rental for 4.99, Sony: "Great value!"
EA Access - get 4 full games for the whole month for 4.99, Sony: "Poor value, do not want"
Now say it with me!
Selection.
GoofsterStud
Member
According to EA terms, if you buy it through their system, then you have to keep the subscription.
Buying outside of the system is different. PSN discounts are bought outside of the system. EA discounts are bought in the system.
Neuromancer
Member
PS Now is still in beta, so who knows what the prices will really be when 1.0 is launched. But anyway 48 hours for $5 is comparable to Redbox, and with PS Now or Redbox you get to pick what game you want rather than whatever refuse EA has decided to give you whether you like a particular sporting event or not and for some reason didn't buy it last year.PS Now - get 48 hours game rental for 4.99, Sony: "Great value!"
EA Access - get 4 full games for the whole month for 4.99, Sony: "Poor value, do not want"
What am I lying about. They out right said no refunds and no fixes for BL2. BL2 on Vita is published by Sony. BF4 runs far better than BL2.
If someone proposes to be telling us why it's a bad idea, but their only real argument begins and ends with "what if people get confused and there are problems" then why should anyone listen?
"Like PS Plus, cancelling your EA Access account means loss of access to all content you may have purchased through the program. Unlike Netflix, only some titles are available for free. The restand this includes basically all new contentis simply discounted. This is just another potential confusion for customers and problem for Sony customer service."
Sony is smart to have avoided added EA Access because it might have the exact same problems they're already handling with "numerous content creators" via PS Plus? Is there supposed to be a downside there?
Yeah, it is still too early to really determine what kind of outcome the service is looking at, with the prices still in such fluidity. Only time will tell. I just hope they can get the pubs to actually create reasonable pricing.
I'm waiting to see how the sub model is priced before I make any final judgements on Now. If they solely rely on rentals, then it is destined to fail, but if they can actually create a comprehensive sub model, then that will be a massive paradigm shift, most like the elusive version of Netflix for games.
You lied about BF4 working properly after 3 months. I don't know what the hell BL2 is...
I totally agree.
But you have to add that streaming the game needs a lot more hardware power (and bandwidth) on Sony´s side than just a simple download.
But for the enduser => I totally agree.
Mike Works
Member
Here's my question:
It costs $5 a month to get this service where you get a bunch of older free games for the month, and you get a 10% discount on new digital software.
New digital software costs $60.
Therefore, wouldn't anyone (who's going digital) buying a new EA game subscribe to the service for (at least) one month to basically get $1 off and access to a bunch of free games for the month?
It costs $5 a month to get this service where you get a bunch of older free games for the month, and you get a 10% discount on new digital software.
New digital software costs $60.
Therefore, wouldn't anyone (who's going digital) buying a new EA game subscribe to the service for (at least) one month to basically get $1 off and access to a bunch of free games for the month?
Head.spawn
Junior Member
That makes sense, also you can potentially save more money if you planned on buying a Season Pass or some form of DLC as well for whatever new game... and even DLC for other games you currently own.
There are plenty possibilities out there where this service works in the favor of the consumer.
Also, to the people asking about BL2. Apparently that is Borderlands 2 and he is referring to a Vita version, which apparently Sony published. I don't own a Vita, so that's the first I even heard of that, lol.
Yep... well, at least people who know about this service and don't mind getting a game digitally.
If anything, I could see the $5/month sub being more popular with (hard)core gamers than the $30/year sub. The biggest EA games don't come out every month -- as long as you are interested in EA games that don't come out during 6 different months of the year then the $5/month sub would be a good choice; get the digital version of an EA game before it comes out in retail for $1 less (while having access to older games as you already said).
You see the issue with purchasing DLC with those free vault titles is that your DLC is worthless once your sub lapses, you either have to renew or purchase the title at full price. So, essentially, I don't see how that is beneficial for the consumer at all.
Ahh okay, that makes sense... I don't have a Vita either, so I'm out of the loop... but this is the first time I'm hearing of serious issues about the game.
Derpcrawler
Member
Well for me it's great value, I buy at least 3-4 games a year from EA, and lot of DLC. I plan to buy DA: Inquisition and probably all DLC for it, so even 10% discount almost completely covers the sub for me. Free sport games I would never buy otherwise is just an icing.
Neuromancer
Member
Yep absolutely. If you buy a lot of EA games digitally it's a good deal.
The BL2 (Borderlands 2) issue is this: Iron Galaxy ported the game to the Vita with Sony as the publisher (instead of Gearbox/2k games). The devs would like to work on a patch to improve the game (since it has performance and freezing issues) but say it's up to Sony to decide, but apparently they are not interested in fixing the game. No patch in the work until Sony decides otherwise. Same situation with porting the missing Story-DLCs. No plans to port them over.
By the end of this year, I'll have seven different gaming platforms and I would prefer to have a content delivery models like subscriptions that would benefit all or most of them instead just one or two. I would love to have an option to buy/subscribe game like BF4/Destiny/AC only once directly from developer/publisher and have access to play it on every xbox, playstation and pc that can run the game. And that is why, I think Sony made yet another bad decision (first was the PS4 MP requiring PS+) that will push me away from the Sony platforms and their own subscription offerings.
Agree absolutely. That entire article seems based on a hyper vigilant exaggeration of what could possibly happen one day, to someone.
It's also written as if this service replaces your normal access to EA games as opposed to simply supplementing it.
In fact there's not a single supportable reason in the Forbes piece as to why this isn't a good idea right now. Apparently the possibility of other publishers lining up to offer me great deals like this is something I should fear.
Opus Angelorum
Member
I love how the Forbes article assumes the average consumer has a low enough IQ to mistake EA Access (the hint is in the name folks) as a portal for all games.
And that assumption therefore makes it a bad idea.
And that assumption therefore makes it a bad idea.
I have read just about all of this thread and I still remain unconvinced that having this as a choice is a bad thing despite many ridiculous comparisons and hypotheticals.
PS4 not having its a HUGE deal though. But this offering is fine, as long as games are also still sold the normal way, which they will be.... So.. If you don't want to sub to the different publishers monthlies, you wouldn't have to, that little tid bit seems to get overlooked as everyone paints their doomsday scenario where theres 9 publisher subscriptions and its the end of the world and whatnot.
Many of the same people didn't have a problem with UPlay, GOG, Origin and Steam (tech issues with them aside) except for when it meant removing the games from the other services. In this case these publishers aren't pulling out of retail, no purchase option is being removed.
So more power to them, I dont play enough EA games for this to be valuable to me, but this is a HUGE plus to gamers that do.
PS4 not having its a HUGE deal though. But this offering is fine, as long as games are also still sold the normal way, which they will be.... So.. If you don't want to sub to the different publishers monthlies, you wouldn't have to, that little tid bit seems to get overlooked as everyone paints their doomsday scenario where theres 9 publisher subscriptions and its the end of the world and whatnot.
Many of the same people didn't have a problem with UPlay, GOG, Origin and Steam (tech issues with them aside) except for when it meant removing the games from the other services. In this case these publishers aren't pulling out of retail, no purchase option is being removed.
So more power to them, I dont play enough EA games for this to be valuable to me, but this is a HUGE plus to gamers that do.
The fuck is this? Forbes contributors on average are just as good if not better then 95% of the blo...erm I mean enthusiast press from the major game websites. Forbes contributors are not "just blogs".
Damn... well that's a shame... for the 20 people who own a vita and BL2.
JUST JOSHING GAIS. I like the vita, I really do.
No but seriously, I feel their pain... Not very fun to have a broken game and they won't even deal with fixing it. That kind of stuff really grinds my gears.
Miles Quaritch
Member
How many publishers have the money and infrastructure to offer something like this though? It seems it would only be the big publishers like Ubi, Acti and EA. Possibly Take2 and Bethesda as well.
Five subscriptions services doesn't sound like the end of the world to me. Especially if they all offer the same kind of value proposition that EA is currently offering with the Vault.
£1.67 a month for EA Access (if you pay for a year in advance), it's hard to find fault in that kind of service.
It's easy to focus on the larger monthly payment, but that really only serves to paint a slightly distorted picture of the true cost of Access if you intend to take full advantage of it.
LookAtMeGo
Member
I hear ya. I don't personally care at all if sony is for it or against it. Im not interested in it personally but if you want the service, having the choice would be great. But judging by this thread I think my original point stands, maybe not for the same reason I mentioned but that no matter sonys decision, it would have been met with some outrage.
Da fuq? Are you kidding me??? I can't even... nope.
If you guys like it and want the deals so badly. Drop your ps4 and buy a Xbox One. We know that games with gold have been an excellent success and puts it on equal footing with PS+ /s. Sony isn't forcing you guys to stick with ps4.
EA early access $5/month + XBL gold = $120.00
Or $30 annually + XBL = $90.00
* limited to (select) EA titles and measly %10 discount applies only to digital purchases made Xbox marketplace.
Just brought injustice ultimate edition through PS+ for $8.70 (75% off).
Seems people have already forgotten the the SimCity incident. I wonder how EA is going to implement the DRM? Well luckily Msft removed all that and they can't just "flip a switch" and turn the 24hr check back on. Phew!!!
EA early access $5/month + XBL gold = $120.00
Or $30 annually + XBL = $90.00
* limited to (select) EA titles and measly %10 discount applies only to digital purchases made Xbox marketplace.
Just brought injustice ultimate edition through PS+ for $8.70 (75% off).
Seems people have already forgotten the the SimCity incident. I wonder how EA is going to implement the DRM? Well luckily Msft removed all that and they can't just "flip a switch" and turn the 24hr check back on. Phew!!!
Pseudo judo
Member
Ok, the piece is still a poorly written red herring that relies on the stupidity of the reader to buy into it's premise.
LyleLanley
Banned
I read the article but I think it makes it seem overly complicated and gives the average consumer no credit at all. In my opinion the average gamer understands that there isn't one publisher for all games and I'd be willing to bet that they even know which company publishes their favorite games. Even if they don't it really wouldn't be so hard to make it clear what games belong under each publishers subscription plan.
Sure this could turn in to a nightmare if Microsoft lets any publisher get away with anything but if things are easy to understand and offer consumers a clear value I really don't see what the problem is.
and your point is? Injustice was like $7.50 on the steam sale without requiring a sub fee. I also don't give a shit about 90% of the games PS+ gives out, just PC indies ported to PS4. Nobody is forcing you to buy EA Access, if you don't want it don't buy it. Its not a difficult decision.
What I don't get is what infrastructure is EA providing? They are piggy backing off of MS. Would of done the same with Sony. Everything is being handed off to MS, so essentially EA is there to provide some games and take the pay check and not really provide much of a service. So why couldn't the other pubs do the same?
Yea, I dunno... that does not sound like a good future to me, so please don't conflate something that your preferred console is doing as something all consumers would be more than content/happy with. Paying for multiple subs for restrictive access to games with multiple ToS's... sounds like a pain in the ass to me.
OuterLimits
Member
With Playstation Plus you don't have any choice of games either. Some think it is a good deal while others don't. Granted, if you want to enjoy certain online games, then you have to get their service.
While you may not like EA games, others would find value in the service. Why not let the customer decide?
I understand Sony may not benefit financially greatly from the service, and I won't fault them for not wanting it because of that.
To claim it doesn't offer value to their customers as the reason for denying it is laughable in my opinion though.
I for one am glad I can use the service on my Xbox One.
Basically I paid 25 Euros to play Battlefield 4 (which I would not really get for 25 Euros in stores or digitally), I will get my next Peggle 2 DLC for -10% off. I sure will buy 1-2 EA DLC´s this year and assuming EA adds new titels to their Vault (which is a given), I hope to play 1-2 more games this year.
I really cannot understand how anyone can consider that a bad deal if it isn´t even mandatory.
All the BS that it could confuse people ... well that´s not my problem. I understand the concept.
Maybe Sony reconsideres some day ....
Basically I paid 25 Euros to play Battlefield 4 (which I would not really get for 25 Euros in stores or digitally), I will get my next Peggle 2 DLC for -10% off. I sure will buy 1-2 EA DLC´s this year and assuming EA adds new titels to their Vault (which is a given), I hope to play 1-2 more games this year.
I really cannot understand how anyone can consider that a bad deal if it isn´t even mandatory.
All the BS that it could confuse people ... well that´s not my problem. I understand the concept.
Maybe Sony reconsideres some day ....
Derpcrawler
Member
Lol, wtf, just noticed that someone tagged me. Now I am on the same level as toilet cloggers and astro-turfers. Nice.
staticneuron
Member
You seem to be harping on BL2. There is a difference and even if you spent a short time on the forum you would know it.
1. Borderlands 2 is a port via Iron Galaxy Studios. Any performance issue's revolve around the fact that it is a port. EVERY Vita game that has been a straight port of a taxing title has had issues.
2. While you can state that the game is unpleasant to play the issues with BF4 online issues simply made the game broken. Even worse when comparing the title that is mainly multiplayer versus a single player game. Poor framerate on a single player game is disappointing but to state it is worse than rubberbanding , sound and hit detection issues in an online shooter is unbelievable.
3. Out of all the Vita related posts and Sony related post I have seen you make on the forums one would think that you would be very informed of who is working on a vita title and how they were bringing it to the console. For you to actually "purchase" a ported game, especially after seeing what happen with resistance and COD, falls squarely in Caveat Emptor.
Read the article.... Responsibility over Plus is different than assuming responsibility and customer service over a third party service. It's a big liability and takes resources.
Miles Quaritch
Member
I'm not sure if they handing it off wholesale to MS, I'm sure they have some of their back end tech stuff to work through as well to ensure it works as well as possible. The downloading of games, etc is handed off to MS, but EA would have to build and maintain their own Vault in terms of adding games, ensuring there are no major hitches in accessing content, etc.
What does this have to do with preferred consoles? Are you incapable of discussing something without bringing it down to a console war and how if you like the idea of a subbed based system, you obvious love a specific console. Jog on with that bullshit.
And we don't have multiple ToS now? Almost every single online MP game has you accept its ToS before you can play. So that seems like a redundant complaint.
Ummm, how.....what......? I don't want it and it is not being offered on my platform so there isn't a decision to make. People are complaining about Sony not offering their consumers this option. My point was if you're that invested into EA titles, then buy an Xbox One. Spend $90 annually and be happy. I don't understand you arrived to the quote above based on my post. Have you not read the thread?
You're right, it was kind of a low blow... I take that jab back. My apologies.
On the matter of this service... everything is handed off to MS, even the customer service... so what type of infrastructure do you think is necessary in telling MS which games are free to download? The way you put it, it sounds very convoluted. I doubt it's that messy. It sounds like EA does not want to get its hands dirty.
Yes, multiple subs, with who knows what other types of stipulations they will enact in their ToS, with these shady pubs I would rather not put anything past them, so yes it would be a pain in the ass having to deal with that mess.
- Status