Support NeoGAF

[robertlebrone]

This looks like a good value to me. Thanks Sony?

 

[backflip10019]

Also,

Lets talk about the slippery slope argument:

1) Lets say this leads to Ubi, Activision and others creating the same service.
2) Lets say they all charge roughly the same amount as EA.

Ok, where is the downside?

1) That's a lot of money out the door a month.

Sure, but who cares. Say you are now paying 20 dollars a month and you have access to all of the year old EA, Ubi and Activision games plus whatever is on PS+ and GwG. That is a lot of content for 20 bucks a month. Probably more than your average consumer even has the bandwidth to absorb. And certainly enough for hard-core gamers to have plenty of filler between major releases.

2) It will confuse the consumer because they'll have to keep up with who published what/

And? Consumers do a pretty good job of knowing who airs what TV show when it matters. The reason your average consumer might not know who makes what game is because it never mattered before. Once it begins to matter they will start to educate themselves. Ok, Activision offers last years Call of Duty. And EA is giving me Madden. Which do I want? Do I want both? This is the same way with streaming at this point. Ok, this show requires HBO Go. This show is on Hulu Plus, or CW Now or Netflix or whatever service.

3) If there is a market for a one-stop Netflix style subscription it will happen.

The market will dictate the future. If the bifurcation of services starts to become a strong deterent and companies aren't maximizing value someone will step up and find a way to create a similar service that bridges the gap and allows for multiple publishers. It might be super expensive, it might not have the entire catalog these piecemeal services have, but it will happen.

There are a lot of people willing to let Sony curate their future for them. If this were TWC blocking Netflix access to protect the consumer from the confusion of streaming media I doubt anyone would be leaping to their defense. If this falls on its face fine, but I for one am really excited that someone is stepping up to the plate with a really revolutionary offering that at face value is a good value and may help turn around this industry.

I agree with all you've said, the bolded example particularly standing out.

To me, it doesn't matter that EA has been what some call anti-consumer up until now. The value in the new Access program is apparent for some people (myself included -- I've subscribed to the $5 option to try the service out). Openly disavowing this service is inherently anti-consumer as it denies consumers the choice to even access it. And what's more -- Sony is openly quashing and even condemning an innovation in the industry (read: competition), which is bad for business and ultimately bad for the consumer.

 

[StoOgE]

One more post and I'm done for a while.

I find it very ironic that a lot of people are complaining that you have to go publisher by publisher for this service.

In the cable/Satellite world consumers have been begging for a la carte programming for years. The ability to pay for the channels they want access to and not pay for access to channels they don't watch. Now that EA is offering something similar it's a bad thing.

Look, if you don't like sports games, EA has probably made this choice easy for you. It probably isn't a good value.

Are you a casual gamer who enjoys sports games but doesn't need the latest version? I've got a deal for you! Don't like sports games? Probably not where you want to be.

In many ways this is better than a hypothetical 30 dollar a month service with every single publisher. I don't tend to purchase Activision games. I tend to purchase Ubisoft games and EA games.

Therefore for me I would probably be most interested in Ubisoft, 2K and EA services but not Activision, Capcom or Namco.

So in a world where all of these publishers have services I know which ones I would want and which I wouldn't and could save a fair bit of money.

 

[Bgamer90]

Also,

Lets talk about the slippery slope argument:

1) Lets say this leads to Ubi, Activision and others creating the same service.
2) Lets say they all charge roughly the same amount as EA.

Ok, where is the downside?

1) That's a lot of money out the door a month.

Sure, but who cares. Say you are now paying 20 dollars a month and you have access to all of the year old EA, Ubi and Activision games plus whatever is on PS+ and GwG. That is a lot of content for 20 bucks a month. Probably more than your average consumer even has the bandwidth to absorb. And certainly enough for hard-core gamers to have plenty of filler between major releases.

2) It will confuse the consumer because they'll have to keep up with who published what/

And? Consumers do a pretty good job of knowing who airs what TV show when it matters. The reason your average consumer might not know who makes what game is because it never mattered before. Once it begins to matter they will start to educate themselves. Ok, Activision offers last years Call of Duty. And EA is giving me Madden. Which do I want? Do I want both? This is the same way with streaming at this point. Ok, this show requires HBO Go. This show is on Hulu Plus, or CW Now or Netflix or whatever service.

3) If there is a market for a one-stop Netflix style subscription it will happen.

The market will dictate the future. If the bifurcation of services starts to become a strong deterent and companies aren't maximizing value someone will step up and find a way to create a similar service that bridges the gap and allows for multiple publishers. It might be super expensive, it might not have the entire catalog these piecemeal services have, but it will happen.

There are a lot of people willing to let Sony curate their future for them. If this were TWC blocking Netflix access to protect the consumer from the confusion of streaming media I doubt anyone would be leaping to their defense. If this falls on its face fine, but I for one am really excited that someone is stepping up to the plate with a really revolutionary offering that at face value is a good value and may help turn around this industry.

Very good post/points.

 

[ebullientprism]

Its hilarious that of all the shitty practices that exist today on both consoles and PC this is what Sony thinks gamers need protection from.

Not pre order exclusives, not microtransactions, not costume and skin packs, not over priced DLC, not online passes etc etc.

But this is what would really hurt their consumers. Sure Sony.

I still don't understand people trying to argue this is a good value while having basically zero details about how things actually work. There's some pretty big red flags going up, and not just because it's EA ... a company people should have learned, a dozen times over by now, to simply not trust at face value.

First, there is basically no chance in hell they'll give out 4 free games once this service is out of beta. That's half of their entire catalog and will be until the end of the year. I would be surprised if it's more than 2 titles at once.

Second, they still haven't clarified how long the 'free' game cycle actually is. Even if they did give you 4 free games, they can't turn that over every month. They'd be out of available titles by November. It's probably going to be at least every 3 or 6 months. Potentially the entire year. And you'd have to be crazy to think they're gonna put any game less than 4-6 months old on there.

Third, 10% discount ... on everything except Titanfall. If they are already excluding one game, and the service isn't even out yet, you can be sure they'll exclude more in the future.

And the TOS. This is already a mess. It's unclear on a lot of important shit that you really shouldn't be unclear about. Like when/if you lose access and to what (free games, DLC, discount purchases) when your subscription lapses. If it were any other company, it probably would be ok to gloss over that. But it isn't. It's EA.

I'm just sayin', based on those four things, I'm highly skeptical this will play out anything like they are up-selling it.

Its ironic how you complaint that people think this is great without knowing details and then go on to make assumptions about how it wont be great without knowing any details.

 

[Neuromancer]

Stooge, you missed the biggest issue for me: Sony already has a 'free' game subscription program, one that I'm very happy with as it is and I think many people would agree with me. I have zero doubt EA Access would directly and negatively affect PS+ when EA stops supporting it in lieu of their program and if every publisher had their program PS+ would likely become a first party and indie service with no big 3rd party games. And that would suck, for me.

 

[JaggedSac]

One more post and I'm done for a while.

I find it very ironic that a lot of people are complaining that you have to go publisher by publisher for this service.

In the cable/Satellite world consumers have been begging for a la carte programming for years. The ability to pay for the channels they want access to and not pay for access to channels they don't watch. Now that EA is offering something similar it's a bad thing.

Look, if you don't like sports games, EA has probably made this choice easy for you. It probably isn't a good value.

Are you a casual gamer who enjoys sports games but doesn't need the latest version? I've got a deal for you! Don't like sports games? Probably not where you want to be.

In many ways this is better than a hypothetical 30 dollar a month service with every single publisher. I don't tend to purchase Activision games. I tend to purchase Ubisoft games and EA games.

Therefore I would probably be most interested in Ubisoft, 2K and EA services but not Activision, Capcom or Namco.

I have said similar things in this thread. You, however, have said it in a much more better way, lol.

 

[Joe White]

Excellent post

And I actually would like to see Sony and Microsoft changing their current PS+/Gold model to something similar. Don't prevent anything, like access to MP, and offer huge enough selection of games and other content to warrant subscription. Preferable on multiple platforms, but at least something that is tailored for their own systems. I don't like this current way where I must go twice a month to their marketplaces to see if they offer something that I might like or not to get anything other out of their subscription services than the possibility to play online.

 

[Dunlop]

Stooge, you missed the biggest issue for me: Sony already has a 'free' game subscription program, one that I'm very happy with as it is and I think many people would agree with me. I have zero doubt EA Access would directly and negatively affect PS+ when EA stops supporting it in lieu of their program and if every publisher had their program PS+ would likely become a first party and indie service with no big 3rd party games. And that would suck, for me.

PS+ is a good service, however you have no control on what is offered.

As mentioned each publisher having a service let's you have more control on getting the content that is useful for you (value).

If these services are successful it forces Sony to offer more value in order to compete (in theory, in reality they have most trapped because of the MP restriction)

Example currently for PS4, PS+ is just indie games, with a service like EA offering complete retail games it could force Sony's hand to push out retail games as well

 

[OccamsLightsaber]

thank you,

Aside from capitalizing on MS's blunder, I'm not sure what direction Sony has taken in the last year that makes everyone put so much faith in them.

They've done a pretty good job at not trying to fuck at every turn. Most people are happy with the status quo, and there is no need to turn into an annoying girlfriend by nagging about where this relationship is going. The industry is profitable and as gamers we getting the games we ask for.

 

[StoOgE]

Stooge, you missed the biggest issue for me: Sony already has a 'free' game subscription program, one that I'm very happy with as it is and I think many people would agree with me. I have zero doubt EA Access would directly and negatively affect PS+ when EA stops supporting it in lieu of their program and if every publisher had their program PS+ would likely become a first party and indie service with no big 3rd party games. And that would suck, for me.

And?

That will likely happen anyway. Sony doesn't own EA games. If I am an EA stock-holder I want to know why we aren't maximizing the value of our products and instead allowing Sony to turn a profit with PS+.

As a consumer the EA vault is a better service because you don't have to subscribe every single month to unlock your two free games for PS4. You can drop off and drop back on when the value works for you and the vault won't have disappeared (EA does need to be more transparent about how games are added and when they are lost).

With PS+ and GwG it's like a mystery box you are paying 5 dollars a month for. Is it a game I already own? No value for you. Is it a game I've always wanted to play? Congrats you win this month! Is it a game I don't like? Haha, sucker.

Theoretically this could kill GwG and PS+ or at least force those platform holders to reform to keep the value there. Maybe this means they have to start putting more money into development so that they have a steady flow of games. Maybe it forces them into a first party and indie vault style program where they don't just hand you a mystery box every month.

But the idea that we should quash consumer choice because it might negatively impact something else is silly and would kill innovation.

Guys, I like my DVD collection, let's not do HDTV because it makes them look bad and I'll need to replace my movies.

Like HDTV and Bluray ended DVDs reign it's because it was a better offer for consumers. The only way this EA program will strongly impact PS+ is if it's better and forces a change. If it's a worse service it will die and PS+ will win.

 

[OccamsLightsaber]

PS+ is a good service, however you have no control on what is offered.

As mentioned each publisher having a service let's you have more control on getting the content that is useful for you (value).

If these services are successful it forces Sony to offer more value in order to compete (in theory, in reality they have most trapped because of the MP restriction)

Example currently for PS4, PS+ is just indie games, with a service like EA offering complete retail games it could force Sony's hand to push out retail games as well

Seems great for people who typically only play EA sports games. You have more control at the cost of actually paying more.

 

[flkraven]

Also,

Lets talk about the slippery slope argument:

1) Lets say this leads to Ubi, Activision and others creating the same service.
2) Lets say they all charge roughly the same amount as EA.

Ok, where is the downside?

1) That's a lot of money out the door a month.

Sure, but who cares. Say you are now paying 20 dollars a month and you have access to all of the year old EA, Ubi and Activision games plus whatever is on PS+ and GwG. That is a lot of content for 20 bucks a month. Probably more than your average consumer even has the bandwidth to absorb. And certainly enough for hard-core gamers to have plenty of filler between major releases.

2) It will confuse the consumer because they'll have to keep up with who published what/

And? Consumers do a pretty good job of knowing who airs what TV show when it matters. The reason your average consumer might not know who makes what game is because it never mattered before. Once it begins to matter they will start to educate themselves. Ok, Activision offers last years Call of Duty. And EA is giving me Madden. Which do I want? Do I want both? This is the same way with streaming at this point. Ok, this show requires HBO Go. This show is on Hulu Plus, or CW Now or Netflix or whatever service.

3) If there is a market for a one-stop Netflix style subscription it will happen.

The market will dictate the future. If the bifurcation of services starts to become a strong deterent and companies aren't maximizing value someone will step up and find a way to create a similar service that bridges the gap and allows for multiple publishers. It might be super expensive, it might not have the entire catalog these piecemeal services have, but it will happen.

There are a lot of people willing to let Sony curate their future for them. If this were TWC blocking Netflix access to protect the consumer from the confusion of streaming media I doubt anyone would be leaping to their defense. If this falls on its face fine, but I for one am really excited that someone is stepping up to the plate with a really revolutionary offering that at face value is a good value and may help turn around this industry.

Perfect. I agree that this should be in OP, but maybe that's because I believe all the same things. If EA's program is successful and Sony inevitabley caves and allows it on their platform, I'm curious to see if there will be a proportional outcry and petitions to stop it from happening.

 

[RexNovis]

Your entire argument basically comes down to: I trust Sony to look after my interests. Which is curious since they themselves don't exactly have a sterling consumer protection history.

It's curious your argument basically boils down to: I trust Sony to steer the direction of the video game market and how we will play games down the road. I would rather the consumer make that decision.

Its more that I do not trust EA at all. Them being in a position to further radically alter the industry as a whole is at the very least worthy of pause and not blind optimism. Their anti consumer actions in the immediate history have merited as much.

My point was less that I trust don't to guide the market and more that EAs vision stands to be the antithesis of Sony's and as such it makes sense that they would choose to deny access to it on the network they have so diligently cultivated to what would seem to be, considering sales numbers, a great success. As a company that has invested substantial amounts of tone and money into their network it's a perfectly reasonable action on their part.

As far as the consumer directing the market that is inevitably always the case. Sony's decision dies nothing to change that. Should the EA Access program indeed prove to be a massive success and forever alter the industry Sony will either be forced to adapt to those changes or face a sales catastrophe.

Personally, the sort of future that such a service promises seems foreboding and terrifying. But, I acknowledge that this us my opinion. However, I do maintain that EAs recent actions should be enough to promote moderate hesitation and concern when it comes to such a paradigm shift for the industry as a whole.

And how are consumers supposed to make a fair market determination how this will play out in the long run if they are denied the opportunity to test the offering out?

By being patient and observing. Watch how things progress. See what sort of plan the company displays for the consumer in the industry. We live in the age of the internet. Participation is not really necessary for every individual to garner information and form an informed opinion on the matter. Jumping in blind and supporting a vision for the industry that had vast ramifications and is largely still a mystery is a fool's errand.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

Stooge, you missed the biggest issue for me: Sony already has a 'free' game subscription program, one that I'm very happy with as it is and I think many people would agree with me. I have zero doubt EA Access would directly and negatively affect PS+ when EA stops supporting it in lieu of their program and if every publisher had their program PS+ would likely become a first party and indie service with no big 3rd party games. And that would suck, for me.

Again this is assuming if no other subscription services existed all of the games would go to PS+, they won't and certainly not for free.

By being patient and observing. Watch how things progress. See what sort of plan the company displays for the consumer in the industry. We live in the age of the internet. Participation is not really necessary for every individual to garner information and form an informed opinion on the matter.

So what happens if EA Access is a great success (lots of subscribers and great content) on Xbox One and in six months time Sony still refuse to cater for it?

 

[quest]

So? The big publishers like EA create multiplatform titles that span across consoles and PC. The overall audience their games are reaching hasn't shrunk.

It has shrunk the overall money increase is inflated by mobile/ftp. It is like saying 100 years ago because overall vehicle sales are increasing the horse and buggy market has not shrunk and is fine.

 

[TheFurizzlyBear]

Why are people still bringing up Titanfall? Its an EA partners game... Why would you expect that to be on here? When Rock Band comes out on next Gen (god I hope it happens sooner than later) and if EA continues to publish it I don't expect it to be part of this service (IE the discount on DLC).

 

[StoOgE]

My point was less that I trust don't to guide the market and more that EAs vision stands to be the antithesis of Sony's and as such it makes sense that they would choose to deny access to it on the network they have so diligently cultivated to what would seem to be, considering sales numbers, a great success. As a company that has invested substantial amounts of tone and money into their network it's a perfectly reasonable action on their part.

Yeah, and ISPs don't like a whole lot of stuff you do on the internet because they are also cable companies.

Should they block services to Netflix and Hulu Plus because they want to make sure you don't cut the cord and keep paying for cable? I mean, they invested a lot of money into that cable network and diligently cultivated to what would seem to be given revenues a great success.

By being patient and observing. Watch how things progress. See what sort of plan the company displays for the consumer in the industry. We live in the age of the internet. Participation is not really necessary for every individual to garner information and form an informed opinion on the matter. Jumping in blind and supporting a vision for the industry that had vast ramifications and is largely still a mystery is a fool's errand.

And what is Sony blocking it kills the service before it has a chance to prove itself? The loss in revenue from not being on the largest platform could be detrimental to the service if it doesn't pick up enough users. No one here is jumping in blind. It's 5 bucks a month. If it's not a good value you lost 5 dollars and can move on. I jumped in blind with Netflix Streaming which had vast ramifications for that industry and it also cost 5 dollars.

 

[quest]

Stooge, you missed the biggest issue for me: Sony already has a 'free' game subscription program, one that I'm very happy with as it is and I think many people would agree with me. I have zero doubt EA Access would directly and negatively affect PS+ when EA stops supporting it in lieu of their program and if every publisher had their program PS+ would likely become a first party and indie service with no big 3rd party games. And that would suck, for me.

Welcome to PS+ for the PS4 it is all indy games. Sony won't even put their own retail first/second party titles on there. I asked before no one will answer. Why should EA put its retail games on PS+ for pennies on the dollar when Sony won't even put their retail games on it? It is a nice double standard to expect EA to bend over for Sony to make all the money while they protect their own games from being devalued by PS+.

 

[darkside31337]

Yeah, and ISPs don't like a whole lot of stuff you do on the internet because they are also cable companies.

Should they block services to Netflix and Hulu Plus because they want to make sure you don't cut the cord and keep paying for cable? I mean, they invested a lot of money into that cable network and diligently cultivated to what would seem to be given revenues a great success.

I agree with the gist of what you're saying but its a bit of a false analogy. In most markets you don't have a choice as to who your cable provider or internet provider will be. You are stuck with TWC or Comcast, there is almost no competition in most major markets.

With a PS4, you chose to enter that closed ecosystem and take the ramifications that come with that. You always have other alternatives to choose from.

 

[beercr8te]

I would have preferred if Sony had let me choose what I want to do, I chose to subscribe to the EA service on my xbone courtesy of the preview program, just to check out it out for a few months.

 

[Widge]

Plus, if you find the cost prohibitive, buy the game outright instead of subscribing to services.

 

[jryi]

As mentioned each publisher having a service let's you have more control on getting the content that is useful for you (value).

Not really.

With PS+, Sony is able to pick and choose (to some extent, at least) from all publishers' and indie content, resulting in a pretty decent offering. No single publisher has a portfolio with enough quality and variety to justify a yearly fee of $60.

Also, Sony was likely given a much more detailed proposition by EA than us watching from the sidelines. They were far more informed about any caveats, and they do have a business of their own to consider. And at the risk of sounding snide, I do think that Sony has a vision of sorts with regard to future of PS+, whereas MS is in full reactionary mode and accepts any feeble excuse of an exclusive partnership.

Still, I don't really care one way or the other. If PS+ gets Need for Speed at some point, I'm happy. But it might very well be, that EA feels slighted, and refuses to allow any of their games in PS+ for a while. Which I could also live with.

Interesting to see how it all plays out.

 

[Aztechnology]

This is purely my interpretation, based on my experiences with EA.

1. The Vault - Access to Fifa 14, Madden NFL 25, Peggle 2, and battlefield 4 "with more titles being added soon".

All games that you have access to will be older games beyond the initial release, where they garner interests with a "great" starting lineup. My other speculation is that unlike PS+, when games rotate out of the vault, you lose access to them and need to guy the game in order to continue playing them. There are possible exceptions with arcade type games.

2. Play for less - "As an additional perk, EA Access members get an exclusive 10% discount on EA digital purchases on Xbox One."

There are plenty of deals out there already, between amazon, newegg, walmart, target, gamestop and many other retailers willing to give you possibly greater discounts than 10% for physical copies you can lend friends. Imo there's no reason to pay 5 dollars for a paltry 10%, I guess the idea is if you are buying 50 dollars of content from EA a month it is returned and your membership is "FREE"!

3. Play First - "If you’re an EA Access member, you can download upcoming EA games five days before the release date to play for a limited time."

Jesus, paying for demos... really? Oh wait I forgot something "If you love it, buy it, and you can pick up right where you left off." Oh, of course, how could I be so naive, they allow me to export the save from my demo if I'm subscribed, that's some real value, thanks EA!



So yea, I would say Sony made a good call there. HOWEVER, that being said, If we take a look at Playstation Now's pricing. Suddenly EA's deal looks like bargain pricing.

 

[RexNovis]

Yeah, and ISPs don't like a whole lot of stuff you do on the internet because they are also cable companies.

Should they block services to Netflix and Hulu Plus because they want to make sure you don't cut the cord and keep paying for cable? I mean, they invested a lot of money into that cable network and diligently cultivated to what would seem to be given revenues a great success.

This analogy doesn't really work since (at least in the US) the vast number of cable/ISP are monopolies. There is little to no viable competition across each market. So should they block such services you are shit out of luck and there are no other options for you to flock to in response. Whereas, if the EA Access plan and the future it brings is overwhelmingly appealing for the consumer they can sell their PS4 and buy an XB1.

Sony is not obligated to provide a storefront and infrastructure for EAs service on their platform. They decided not to. Should it end up being a success they will face the consequences for that. Cable/ISP monopolies, however, face little to no consequence for their actions and should they block or throttle certain services (which is actually already happening) the consumer would (does) have basically no recourse. The two scenarios are not equivalent.

But again I'm just arguing in circles here. I'll simply say that I would urge everyone to treat this recent development with the necessary parts of both suspicion and genuine concern. Such changes tend to be both rapid and overwhelming.

 

[AmFreak]

Also,

Lets talk about the slippery slope argument:

1) Lets say this leads to Ubi, Activision and others creating the same service.
2) Lets say they all charge roughly the same amount as EA.
[...].

I think you are missing one big point.
The point that this would devaluate PS+ immensly.
In a future where every big publisher has it's own service, who would bring games to +?
All that would be left for + then, would be Sony and small/indie devs.
And if you think it even further, what would stop EA/Ubisoft/whoever from approaching a small/indie dev offering them to be on their service instead of Sony's?

I think that's the reason why Sony doesn't show any interest in this.

 

[Nubian Star]

I'm pretty sure they said this because they have their own subscription based service coming out. They don't want an alternative to PlayStation Now on their own console.

 

[StoOgE]

I think you are missing one big point.
The point that this would devaluate PS+ immensly.
In a future where every big publisher has it's own service, who would bring games to +?
All that would be left for + then, would be Sony and small/indie devs.
And if you think it even further, what would stop EA/Ubisoft/whoever from approaching a small/indie dev offering them to be on their service instead of Sony's?

I think that's the reason why Sony doesn't show any interest in this.

Right.

Which is fine, but Sony didn't say "EA is going to devalue our cash cow" they are trying to pawn off a decision that will limit their customers access to a service and sell it as Sony looking out for their customers best interests.

 

[Spottiettiedop]

This one should be in the OP too...

I agree.

 

[StoOgE]

This analogy doesn't really work since (at least in the US) the vast number of cable/ISP are monopolies. There is little to no viable competition across each market. So should they block such services you are shit out of luck and there are no other options for you to flock to in response. Whereas, if the EA Access plan and the future it brings is overwhelmingly appealing for the consumer they can sell their PS4 and buy an XB1.

Sony is not obligated to provide a storefront and infrastructure for EAs service on their platform. They decided not to. Should it end up being a success they will face the consequences for that. Cable/ISP monopolies, however, face little to no consequence for their actions and should they block or throttle certain services (which is actually already happening) the consumer would (does) have basically no recourse. The two scenarios are not equivalent.

The scenarios are not equivalent because of mitigating factors, but the decision to block access is the same, as is the thought process behind them "this is bad for our business, therefore prevent access to it".

The repercussions are just less severe because Sony isn't the only game in town, but that doesn't mean the intent behind the decision is any different. Sony just isn't playing with as stacked of a deck as a cable company.

Just because there is a way around a bad consumer decision doesn't mean we should be ok with it.

 

[Dragon]

One more post and I'm done for a while.

I find it very ironic that a lot of people are complaining that you have to go publisher by publisher for this service.

In the cable/Satellite world consumers have been begging for a la carte programming for years. The ability to pay for the channels they want access to and not pay for access to channels they don't watch. Now that EA is offering something similar it's a bad thing.

Look, if you don't like sports games, EA has probably made this choice easy for you. It probably isn't a good value.

Are you a casual gamer who enjoys sports games but doesn't need the latest version? I've got a deal for you! Don't like sports games? Probably not where you want to be.

In many ways this is better than a hypothetical 30 dollar a month service with every single publisher. I don't tend to purchase Activision games. I tend to purchase Ubisoft games and EA games.

Therefore for me I would probably be most interested in Ubisoft, 2K and EA services but not Activision, Capcom or Namco.

So in a world where all of these publishers have services I know which ones I would want and which I wouldn't and could save a fair bit of money.

I don't see how this is at all applicable. The advantage of a la carte programming from different publishers would be to avoid this piecemeal bullshit. Instead EA isn't offering every game it makes on this service. I don't see how that's a relevant comparison at all.

 

[StoOgE]

I don't see how this is at all applicable. The advantage of a la carte programming from different publishers would be to avoid this piecemeal bullshit. Instead EA isn't offering every game it makes on this service. I don't see how that's a relevant comparison at all.

... I'm not following you. Sony isn't offering every game as part of PS+ either.

It's a given with these services that we are only talking about a specific type of game whose value at full price has completely eroded or never existing (indies)

 

[flkraven]

This analogy doesn't really work since (at least in the US) the vast number of cable/ISP are monopolies. There is little to no viable competition across each market. So should they block such services you are shit out of luck and there are no other options for you to flock to in response. Whereas, if the EA Access plan and the future it brings is overwhelmingly appealing for the consumer they can sell their PS4 and buy an XB1.

Sony is not obligated to provide a storefront and infrastructure for EAs service on their platform. They decided not to. Should it end up being a success they will face the consequences for that. Cable/ISP monopolies, however, face little to no consequence for their actions and should they block or throttle certain services (which is actually already happening) the consumer would (does) have basically no recourse. The two scenarios are not equivalent.

Why do people keep saying ISPs and this console situation aren't comparable. I have lived in various areas across the US and Canada, and everywhere is structured much more like an Oligopoly rather than a Monopoly. Not only 1 option for internet, but very few. That is identical to us only having 2 consoles to choose (or PC and yes I am sepecifically excluding Nintendo since they don't really have EA games).

In this situation, 1 of the 2 Oligopolies are choosing to allow EAs service while the other blocks it. No different than if the Cable provider blocks Netflix and the DSL provider allows it. I'd prefer we live in a world where they both allow it, rather than neither.

I think you are missing one big point.
The point that this would devaluate PS+ immensly.
In a future where every big publisher has it's own service, who would bring games to +?
All that would be left for + then, would be Sony and small/indie devs.
And if you think it even further, what would stop EA/Ubisoft/whoever from approaching a small/indie dev offering them to be on their service instead of Sony's?

I think that's the reason why Sony doesn't show any interest in this.

You have listed reasons why Sony wouldn't want this service, but why would this hurt the consumer? A future 'where every big publisher has it's own service' would mean that these services are actually attractive and successful, since unpopular services will fail.

 

[Dragon]

... I'm not following you. Sony isn't offering every game as part of PS+ either.

It's a given with these services that we are only talking about a specific type of game whose value at full price has completely eroded or never existing (indies)

You compared it to cable companies though didn't you? Pretty sure I didn't compare it to plus.

And now indies don't have any sort of value? What? What am I reading?

 

[StoOgE]

You have listed reasons why Sony wouldn't want this service, but why would this hurt the consumer? A future 'where every big publisher has it's own service' would mean that these services are actually attractive and successful, since unpopular services will fail.

This. Exactly this.

This 'nightmare' scenario only exists if the services are successful. Activision and Ubi will only roll this out if people like EAs service and it is doing well.

 

[justsomeguy]

Also,

Lets talk about the slippery slope argument:

1) Lets say this leads to Ubi, Activision and others creating the same service.
2) Lets say they all charge roughly the same amount as EA.

Ok, where is the downside?

1) That's a lot of money out the door a month.

Sure, but who cares. Say you are now paying 20 dollars a month and you have access to all of the year old EA, Ubi and Activision games plus whatever is on PS+ and GwG. That is a lot of content for 20 bucks a month. Probably more than your average consumer even has the bandwidth to absorb. And certainly enough for hard-core gamers to have plenty of filler between major releases.

2) It will confuse the consumer because they'll have to keep up with who published what/

And? Consumers do a pretty good job of knowing who airs what TV show when it matters. The reason your average consumer might not know who makes what game is because it never mattered before. Once it begins to matter they will start to educate themselves. Ok, Activision offers last years Call of Duty. And EA is giving me Madden. Which do I want? Do I want both? This is the same way with streaming at this point. Ok, this show requires HBO Go. This show is on Hulu Plus, or CW Now or Netflix or whatever service.

3) If there is a market for a one-stop Netflix style subscription it will happen.

The market will dictate the future. If the bifurcation of services starts to become a strong deterent and companies aren't maximizing value someone will step up and find a way to create a similar service that bridges the gap and allows for multiple publishers. It might be super expensive, it might not have the entire catalog these piecemeal services have, but it will happen.

There are a lot of people willing to let Sony curate their future for them. If this were TWC blocking Netflix access to protect the consumer from the confusion of streaming media I doubt anyone would be leaping to their defense. If this falls on its face fine, but I for one am really excited that someone is stepping up to the plate with a really revolutionary offering that at face value is a good value and may help turn around this industry.

What a fantastic post, very well put sir.

 

[StoOgE]

You compared it to cable companies though didn't you? Pretty sure I didn't compare it to plus.

And now indies don't have any sort of value? What? What am I reading?

I think you are sticking on a really tangential/not related point.

We are talking about the sphere of games that are going to be available in these services. That sphere is limited.

The reason you see Indies and old games on these services is because they have little retail value compared to say Destiny at the moment. It's why Sony won't offer Battlefield Hardline on PS+.

Within the realm of games that are going to be available on these sorts of services (i.e. older or indie games) it is better to have an a la carte choice than a one stop shop.

Not all games need to be available on these services for the a la carte comparison to cable to be pertinent.

 

[Mrbob]

Right.

Which is fine, but Sony didn't say "EA is going to devalue our cash cow" they are trying to pawn off a decision that will limit their customers access to a service and sell it as Sony looking out for their customers best interests.

It could be argued Sony is looking out after our interests while maintaining their own. As a consumer I do not want a console future where I'm choosing subscriptions between publisher stores. Since the PS4 is currently burying the XB1 in hardware sales Sony is basically the only thing standing in the way of this reality. Companies won't go all in until Sony gives the ok on PS4.

EA wants Access on PS4 badly as they would make most of their revenue on the platform. I think Sony will eventually give in though.

 

[mentallyinept]

You have listed reasons why Sony wouldn't want this service, but why would this hurt the consumer? A future 'where every big publisher has it's own service' would mean that these services are actually attractive and successful, since unpopular services will fail.

In a world where every big publisher has it's own service, consumers have no choice but to subscribe to one or more of them.

The services won't be successful because they are attractive, they are successful because they have a captive audience.

 

[AmFreak]

Right.

Which is fine, but Sony didn't say "EA is going to devalue our cash cow" they are trying to pawn off a decision that will limit their customers access to a service and sell it as Sony looking out for their customers best interests.

True, but anything else would be shocking (and their pr department fired )

 

[LiquidMetal14]

This. Exactly this.

This 'nightmare' scenario only exists if the services are successful. Activision and Ubi will only roll this out if people like EAs service and it is doing well.

Too many cooks in the kitchen and strings attached though. I'm not knocking this idea entirely but if this is going to happen then it needs to fall under 1 banner subscription. So the platform holder is the subscription or gate keeper and devs get their money from users who rent or buy their games from said service. I don't want 5 gaming services stacked on each other. I seen your long winded and thoughtful post and that's where my line of thinking comes from. For now, EA can do that and I think it could be good. Setting a precedent for not just the publishing houses you mentioned, but for several others? That's slippery slope. I don't see that as a positive in the longrun.

Also, the stigma attached to this comes a lot from how EA has handled their things. Especially on PC. I want to see how things evolve but pessimism is there.

 

[pompidu]

The service is not coming to PS4. If you want the service, go buy an xbox. If people are being this apprehensive about this, there is other options.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Also,

Lets talk about the slippery slope argument:

1) Lets say this leads to Ubi, Activision and others creating the same service.
2) Lets say they all charge roughly the same amount as EA.

Ok, where is the downside?

1) That's a lot of money out the door a month.

Sure, but who cares. Say you are now paying 20 dollars a month and you have access to all of the year old EA, Ubi and Activision games plus whatever is on PS+ and GwG. That is a lot of content for 20 bucks a month. Probably more than your average consumer even has the bandwidth to absorb. And certainly enough for hard-core gamers to have plenty of filler between major releases.

*Snipped for relevance to response*

I just want to address one thought I had about this one point. Say everyone has their own service, similar price, last years titles etc. Doesn't this have the potential to actually harm the industry in the long run, including each of those publishers?

I say this because if the service is popular enough for each company to do the same, that means a significant number of people are no longer going to buy the current years lineup of games - because it makes next years sub redundant - reducing front loading of sales for new games considerably. Is that in the interest of publishers? as this is when games are at their highest price, and so profit. This works the other way around also, so people that want day 1 and buy them have no need for the sub anyway. A middle ground of sorts would need to balance out the lost day 1 buyers to the people paying subs, and across all publishers, that seems incredibly dangerous ground.

Consumer aside for this, but I think it's a game someone is going to suffer for playing.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

thank you,

Aside from capitalizing on MS's blunder, I'm not sure what direction Sony has taken in the last year that makes everyone put so much faith in them.

Same could be said about EA but here we are.

 

[blazeuk]

Right.

Which is fine, but Sony didn't say "EA is going to devalue our cash cow" they are trying to pawn off a decision that will limit their customers access to a service and sell it as Sony looking out for their customers best interests.

This for me is exactly what's wrong with their statement, it's absolutely fine if Sony want to protect their own service and the profits involved in that but don't then try to take credit for "protecting" the consumer when it seems pretty clear the decision has been made to protect themselves from any sort of competition. They should have just not said anything or said it's currently not something they're interested in offering at this time, no reason to go into attack mode on the service.

 

[PhatSaqs]

It could be argued Sony is looking out after our interests while maintaining their own. As a consumer I do not want a console future where I'm choosing subscriptions between publisher stores. Since the PS4 is currently burying the XB1 in hardware sales Sony is basically the only thing standing in the way of this reality. Companies won't go all in until Sony gives the ok on PS4.

Just because you dont want it doesnt mean others dont. Most times people dont even know they'd like something until they experience it. Many didnt want an all broadband online network at some point either...

Point is, it should be up to the consumer to decide what is and isnt necessary ultimately. If there is no demand for it, it should fail and lessons will be learned on both sides. If it's successful lessons will be learned as well as it could potentially blossom (negatively or positively). Sony is effectively eliminating the potential for a lesson to be learned on either side with their decision IMO.

 

[flkraven]

It could be argued Sony is looking out after our interests while maintaining their own. As a consumer I do not want a console future where I'm choosing subscriptions between publisher stores. Since the PS4 is currently burying the XB1 in hardware sales Sony is basically the only thing standing in the way of this reality. Companies won't go all in until Sony gives the ok on PS4.

EA wants Access on PS4 badly as they would make most of their revenue on the platform. I think Sony will eventually give in though.

You just described everything that is wrong with a Monopoloy (and thank god Sony isn't one in this space, yet).

 

[duessano]

If Sony could offer EA Access without it costing them a dime and they rejected it, then I would be upset. But if they rejected it due to a cost benefit analysis based on the premise it would cost them, then I'm fine without it. Also if it was a joint EA/Microsoft venture then why would Sony want any part of it?

Also maybe Sony never got a serious offer from EA but is trying to act like they did and turned it down.

Why is this thread so large?

 

[LiquidMetal14]

This for me is exactly what's wrong with their statement, it's absolutely fine if Sony want to protect their own service and the profits involved in that but don't then try to take credit for "protecting" the consumer when it seems pretty clear the decision has been made to protect themselves from any sort of competition. They should have just not said anything or said it's currently not something they're interested in offering at this time, not reason to go into attack mode on the service.

The extent of which you'll hear about it is this I think. Fortunately, the other main Sony folk who we mainly get our news from probably won't say anything so there is no other long threads about it like this guy.

He should have left it alone even though he didn't exactly say anything out of bounds.

 

[DevilFox]

I thought it was a strange coincidence that Sony announces that they think EA Access is a poor value for gamers (July 30), then 12 hours later announce PSNow is in open beta. Even if the two announcements are unrelated, it's hard not to infer something from that.

Looking at the prices for PS Now titles, I can say that if I had a PS4 I would not be willing to pay to rent any of the available games for any amount of time - the price points do not represent a good value to me. On the other hand, I've just subscribed to EA Access for 1 month (to test it out), and feel that playing through BF4 and Peggle is worth $5 from me.

I agree with the sentiment of many others in this threat, Sony should've at least given gamers the opportunity to choose what they feel is a good value, rather then making that decision for them.

What people keep forgetting about PSNow is that you don't need the console to play the games. Some keep to bring this up for comparison but PSNow is another thing, it's born as a streaming service to be available on more than a device, there comes its value. EA Access, as far as I understand, requires a console.
Also, the comparison with TV services is nonsense to me. They try their best because they don't own the content, they have to be competitive if they don't want to be crushed. Same for Steam, same for PS Plus and XBL for example.
EA Access is different, they sell their own content and they can do what they want with it.