Support NeoGAF

[unbias]

Even if you have a CS in place, why on earth would you want to have to train your employees, to field calls and situations from an entirely different service?

That doesn't make any sense at all.

Sony doesn't "need" to share anything. They have already allowed other companies to provide services on SEN without requiring access to PSplus.

The reason MS is ok with taking this on is because MS normally provides this service as well. Their resources means that EA is probably paying them or giving them a cut to use their distributed services and that allows EA to pass the ToS along. With SEN, EA would have to maintain their own servers and services and wouldn't be able to pass the responsibility along.

Sony hires out their CS, the actual increase to costs via contracts wouldn't be that much, and they have no reason to care about training their staff. MS also hires out their CS, so the actual cost to this when you already have CS in place is, I would wager, quite small in comparison to potential profits. The difference is if you are willing to share space, which could potentially eat your own market share by allowing another player to come into what is currently a walled garden.

As for the bolded, this is an assumption, speaking for MS as the "reason" they are doing something other then profit motive is a pointless venture. I think it's as simple as MS is willing to share game service market share, sony not so much.

 

[StoOgE]

Sony hires out their CS, the actual increase to costs via contracts wouldn't be that much, and they have no reason to care about training their staff. MS also hires out their CS, so the actual cost to this, when you already have CS in place is, I would wager, quite small in comparison to potential profits. The difference is if you are willing to share space, which could potentially eat your own market share by allowing another player to come into what is currently a walled garden.

As for the bolded, this is an assumption, speaking for MS as the "reason" they are doing something other then profit motive is a pointless venture. I think it's as simple as MS is willing to share game service market share, sony not so much.

And my guess would be MS is very used to allowing access to their walled gardens via Windows platforms and is more comfortable playing platform holder for third party distributive services.

 

[unbias]

And my guess would be MS is very used to allowing access to their walled gardens via Windows platforms and is more comfortable playing platform holder for third party distributive services.

Ya, MS is trying to create the windows 8 experience as the go to for all content, they would technically be hurting the POV that you can get anything through MS/Windows environment, to me. Sony has no incentive to allow a company to eat into its own profits, currently, when Sony probably wants to be a game service company in the same vein as EA, with no other tangible outlet to make it happen(seeing as their PC presence is incredibly weak).

Also, I dont blame Sony for saying no, they suck as a game service company, imo, noticeibly so; dont get me wrong I dont think Xbox is amazing either compared to Origin, Steam, Vudu, Netflix, Amazon, and ect, but they are much better at it then Sony. Sony letting EA jump in on their system, to me, would highlight how bad Sony is at a digital content software distribution platform, currently it is not in Sony's best interest to allow EA to jump in. Maybe once Sony gets its digital shit together, EA will be allowed to join the ecosystem, until then MS's need for an edge plus their business model for a digital ecosystem makes it much easier for them to allow another player in the game.

 

[staticneuron]

Because the service will obviously be more than only these four games. You are also forgetting about the 10% off all EA titles and DLC, as well as early access to their games.

Come on, thinking all that doesn't have a value of $30 a year is what is truly unbelievable.

They only have 7 games available this generation. Most of them are sports related. They aren't adding "new" games to the vault as indicated by the reductions they are giving so that means you already know what they are going to add. I see how this might be beneficial for new customers of current gen consoles that like most of what EA has to offer but I don't know if that is going to be across the board for many. Out of those 4 games i would be only interested in one.... and I purchased it already. So the question is, do you like most of what they are offering or not? That is the only value proposition here because of you only like one game, chances are you can own it for around $30 bucks anyway.

Sony hires out their CS, the actual increase to costs via contracts wouldn't be that much, and they have no reason to care about training their staff. MS also hires out their CS, so the actual cost to this when you already have CS in place is, I would wager, quite small in comparison to potential profits. The difference is if you are willing to share space, which could potentially eat your own market share by allowing another player to come into what is currently a walled garden.

As for the bolded, this is an assumption, speaking for MS as the "reason" they are doing something other then profit motive is a pointless venture. I think it's as simple as MS is willing to share game service market share, sony not so much.

Of course they have to care. Again what is the point of doing something that cost you more money without a return? You have not even answered that. This service isn't a benefit to Sony, it is a benefit to EA.

But if Sony was really worried about sharing space they wouldn't allow Apps like Vudu, netflix, crunchyroll, epix, so on and so forth. They have their own store for movie, music, and games right? Why didn't they force games like blacklight, warthunder, warframe or FFXIV to require PSplus subscription? Again, it makes no sense to put forth the arguement that Sony said no only to have a stranglehold versus there being something in the agreement that would have cost them money or resources they didn't want to pay. It circles back to the point I made earlier and one you brushed of with the most tepid and weak rebuttals, why would Sony do anything that would cost them more money and doesn't have a direct benefit?

I am not talking about an assumption but simply how microsoft has handled XBL since the 360. The services that are distributed through XBL are hosted on servers owned by MS. So it is not about an assumption of profit, I am just pointing out why MS would be ok with EA allowing the ToS of their access service to be redirected back at MS.

 

[unbias]

Of course they have to care. Again what is the point of doing something that cost you more money without a return? You have not even answered that. This service isn't a benefit to Sony, it is a benefit to EA.

But if Sony was really worried about sharing space they wouldn't allow Apps like Vudu, netflix, crunchyroll, epix, so on and so forth. They have their own store for movie, music, and games right? Why didn't they force games like blacklight, warthunder, warframe or FFXIV to require PSplus subscription? Again, it makes no sense to put forth the arguement that Sony said no only to have a stranglehold versus there being something in the agreement that would have cost them money or resources they didn't want to pay. It circles back to the point I made earlier and one you brushed of with the most tepid and weak rebuttals, why would Sony do anything that would cost them more money and doesn't have a direct benefit?

I am not talking about an assumption but simply how microsoft has handled XBL since the 360. The services that are distributed through XBL are hosted on servers owned by MS. So it is not about an assumption of profit, I am just pointing out why MS would be ok with EA allowing the ToS of their access service to be redirected back at MS.

Vudu, Crunchyroll, and epix isnt in direct competition to their distribution model. As for how it profits them? Do you honestly believe that the deal with EA was a freebie? I mean seriously? They obviously would have deals in place that benefits them financially(relative to having them in the market place is a different story). MS doesnt simply "take the hit" to have EA on their system, without compensation... Why would you assume it works this way?

 

[Steverulez]

That's not a great analogy though. This is more like Amazon deciding to block a Netflix app from their new Amazon Fire phone and Kindle Fire tablets since it would compete with their own interests (Amazon Prime on demand).

If Amazon did that tomorrow, I could understand why. If I were a huge Netflix junkie, I'd probably steer clear from their devices.

This is the same situation, made murkier by the fact that this EA service is so new that we don't know the kind of value that it'll bring over the next 12 months. Eventually I'd imagine Sony will give in if this program takes off.

But why do you care about Amazon blocking it because it competes with their own interests?

You're not a shareholder, you're a consumer of the product, surely if a competing product has something that could be on your device too (and other people who own it might want it) you should be expecting to have the option of that?

It doesn't seem very pro-gamer which is what Sony have been about for the last year to not their users have the choice

 

[SenjutsuSage]

They only have 7 games available this generation. Most of them are sports related. They aren't adding "new" games to the vault as indicated by the reductions they are giving so that means you already know what they are going to add. I see how this might be beneficial for new customers of current gen consoles that like most of what EA has to offer but I don't know if that is going to be across the board for many. Out of those 4 games i would be only interested in one.... and I purchased it already. So the question is, do you like most of what they are offering or not? That is the only value proposition here because of you only like one game, chances are you can own it for around $30 bucks anyway.



Of course they have to care. Again what is the point of doing something that cost you more money without a return? You have not even answered that. This service isn't a benefit to Sony, it is a benefit to EA.

But if Sony was really worried about sharing space they wouldn't allow Apps like Vudu, netflix, crunchyroll, epix, so on and so forth. They have their own store for movie, music, and games right? Why didn't they force games like blacklight, warthunder, warframe or FFXIV to require PSplus subscription? Again, it makes no sense to put forth the arguement that Sony said no only to have a stranglehold versus there being something in the agreement that would have cost them money or resources they didn't want to pay. It circles back to the point I made earlier and one you brushed of with the most tepid and weak rebuttals, why would Sony do anything that would cost them more money and doesn't have a direct benefit?

I am not talking about an assumption but simply how microsoft has handled XBL since the 360. The services that are distributed through XBL are hosted on servers owned by MS. So it is not about an assumption of profit, I am just pointing out why MS would be ok with EA allowing the ToS of their access service to be redirected back at MS.

Whatever happened to what benefits gamers also directly benefits Sony and PlayStation? That was the E3 2013 mission statement. Bringing EA Access to the PS4 is something that directly benefits PS4 gamers, which in turn should also benefit Sony because it would only further increase excitement and satisfaction with the platform for those interested in taking advantage of it. Looking at it from the spectrum of something that's bad because it somehow helps EA more than Sony isn't the right way to look at this at all.

Take a guess, you're probably right.

I'm content to let this program be beta tested on Xbone while watching from afar. The recent 'innovative' business practices of both parties doesn't inspire any consumer confidence in me, so I'll be waiting for the other shoe to drop.

If you're an Xbone fan, isn't this clear differentiation between platforms a good thing? Something besides Kinect to show the value differential? Why the concern for those poor folks wandering the desert of PS Plus?

If Sony ends up going cap in hand to EA 6 months from now, your point will be proven and I'll be happy to eat crow. Today? I'll laugh at the obviously self serving PR messaging, enjoy my free demos, and try to figure out a way to hold all these games.

I want PS4 owners to have it, because then it will almost surely be even more successful, which will then directly lead to the service sticking around and becoming even better. It may even lead to other publishers offering similar services, except without the exclusivity. This could be the start of Netflix for gaming, Hulu for gaming, or more specifically HBO Go for gaming. Only in this case we aren't dealing with streaming content. We are getting the actual games locally on our consoles.

I'm well aware that getting it setup and integrated into their systems is probably no small task, which likely played a role, but Sony owns games and IP that EA does not, and will never be able to place inside EA Access. I see no reason Sony couldn't have allowed EA Access while also improving their own services. I mean, sure, PS4 owners will get an even better service than what xbox one owners are all starting out with should the program gain popularity and Sony later reverses their decision once it's matured a bit, but there's no upside to not even giving PS4 owners a choice on whether or not they want to participate right away.

 

[staticneuron]

Vudu, Crunchyroll, and epix isnt in direct competition to their distribution model. As for how it profits them? Do you honestly believe that the deal with EA was a freebie? I mean seriously? They obviously would have deals in place that benefits them financially(relative to having them in the market place is a different story). MS doesnt simply "take the hit" to have EA on their system, without compensation... Why would you assume it works this way?

There is no reason "not" to allow a particular service from a trusted partner as long as it doesn't impede. And of course the third party rental services are in direct competition with the SEN's rental service. Instead of renting a movie on SENS I can subscribe to another provider or rent from Vudu, Prime or Redbox. How exactly are they not competitors? They give the users options to get some of the same content in different ways.

Why do you assume it doesn't work this way? Either the company is making a profit or it is something to make the system more attractive. Both companies are going after those two goals but the difference is what they are willing to lose or sacrifice in going after that.

Whatever happened to what benefits gamers also directly benefits Sony and PlayStation? That was the E3 2013 mission statement. Bringing EA Access to the PS4 is something that directly benefits PS4 gamers, which in turn should also benefit Sony because it would only further increase excitement and satisfaction with the platform for those interested in taking advantage of it. Looking at it from the spectrum of something that's bad because it somehow helps EA more than Sony isn't the right way to look at this at all.

That is a very broad way of looking at it. This isn't really something that is a blanket boon for gamers as a whole. Again, 4 games, different genre's, one publisher. Why include this as a distribution method versus the deals Sony has in place with Amazon or the SEN store itself? Adding another distribution mode that is subscription based from one publisher really isn't something you can honestly point to as being a positive for all gamers. Especially if that publisher is tempted to hold something back from other distribution sources just to get you to subscribe. Looking at origin on the PC should tell you all you need to know about what EA would do if they get that type of a service going.

But why do you care about Amazon blocking it because it competes with their own interests?

You're not a shareholder, you're a consumer of the product, surely if a competing product has something that could be on your device too (and other people who own it might want it) you should be expecting to have the option of that?

It doesn't seem very pro-gamer which is what Sony have been about for the last year to not their users have the choice

The only choice a consumer has is to purchase what the product offers or simply avoid the product. You don't purchase and xbox one or a PS4 and then get mad at the lack of Mario titles do you? You accept a certain level of services and content offered when you purchase into a product. That has never changed.

 

[unbias]

There is no reason "not" to allow a particular service from a trusted partner as long as it doesn't impede. And of course the third party rental services are in direct competition with the SEN's rental service. Instead of renting a movie on SENS I can subscribe to another provider or rent from Vudu, Prime or Redbox. How exactly are they not competitors? They give the users options to get some of the same content in different ways.

Why do you assume it doesn't work this way? Either the company is making a profit or it is something to make the system more attractive. Both companies are going after those two goals but the difference is what they are willing to lose or sacrifice in going after that.

The distribution model of Sony on the PS4 is games driven, the movies are not threatening to their business model, even the quote from the link highlights this.

“PlayStation Plus memberships are up more than 200% since the launch of PlayStation 4, which shows that gamers are looking for memberships that offer a multitude of services, across various devices, for one low price. We don’t think asking our fans to pay an additional $5 a month for this EA-specific program represents good value to the PlayStation gamer.”

That seems pretty clear, to me, as to why they said no. PS plus membership is up 200%, they dont want to risk lowering this or anything that would risk continued growth. As for the bold, why dont I think a company wouldnt handle CS for another publicly traded company for free? Seriously? You think the pitch was, "Hey we got a great offer for you, we bring out own subscription plan to PS4 and you get to pay for the customer service, and we dont pay you anything."?

 

[Steverulez]

The only choice a consumer has is to purchase what the product offers or simply avoid the product. You don't purchase and xbox one or a PS4 and then get mad at the lack of Mario titles do you? You accept a certain level of services and content offered when you purchase into a product. That has never changed.

But thats completely different because Mario is owned by Nintendo and is never going to be on other platforms when they have their own hardware/services to offer.

EA are a third party company whose specific purpose is to release titles for multiple consoles/devices and seemingly it was a service offered to Sony. If I can have it on my product why wouldn't I want the choice (from the view of EA being willing to do it)?

 

[NickFire]

Lots of anger at Sony for not letting EA reduce the value of PS+ (while costing Sony more money dealing with inevitable customer support issues), make another attack on used games, move us closer to only purchasing timed services as opposed to games, and opening the door for having to pay countless subscriptions once all the other publishers copy EA's plans.

Seriously guys and gals, this is not the government playing nanny here. This is the investor in, and owner of a closed platform's ecosystem, who wants to protect its investment and who is by no means removing a feature that they ever suggested in any respect would be provided on their platform, and which no one had reasonably come to expect before purchasing the PS4. If you really cannot live without this exact model of renting old games from EA, switch to Xbox One. I am sure you will find the inferior hardware and combination of MS and EA trying anything they can to screw you over to be outweighed by a handful of outdated sports games that you could probably get used for chump change (until EA and MS finally kill the second hand market on Xbox One of course).

 

[staticneuron]

The distribution model of Sony on the PS4 is games driven, the movies are not threatening to their business model, even the quote from the link highlights this.



That seems pretty clear, to me, as to why they said no. PS plus membership is up 200%, they dont want to risk lowering this or anything that would risk continued growth. As for the bold, why dont I think a company wouldnt handle CS for another publicly traded company for free? Seriously? You think the pitch was, "Hey we got a great offer for you, we bring out own subscription plan to PS4 and you get to pay for the customer service, and we dont pay you anything."?

Not really. Those companies are still a form of competition across multiple devices. The PSplus growth has nothing to do with the IGC , if that is what you are implying and has more to do with the fact that PSplus is required for Multiplayer. IGC was around for years and there was no increase so obviously it is the requirement for MP.

In that case if Sony was straight for profit it would be in their best interest to allow something like this because chances are players that get into BF4 or even FIFA would eventually want to go online and they would have to pay Sony to do so. EA Access is not a threat in terms of online play and the idea that they would be a threat in terms of distribution is thin at best.

But thats completely different because Mario is owned by Nintendo and is never going to be on other platforms when they have their own hardware/services to offer.

EA are a third party company whose specific purpose is to release titles for multiple consoles/devices and seemingly it was a service offered to Sony. If I can have it on my product why wouldn't I want the choice (from the view of EA being willing to do it)?

Without the specific details of what was being asked of Sony there is no way of telling what was actually being offered. And again when it comes to services it belies expectation. Because Sony isn't speaking about a few people when they mention gamers, it is most likely for the benefit of many or their current services to refuse this offer.

 

[unbias]

Not really. Those companies are still a form of competition across multiple devices. The PSplus growth has nothing to do with the IGC , if that is what you are implying and has more to do with the fact that PSplus is required for Multiplayer. IGC was around for years and there was no increase so obviously it is the requirement for MP.

In that case if Sony was straight for profit it would be in their best interest to allow something like this because chances are players that get into BF4 or even FIFA would eventually want to go online and they would have to pay Sony to do so. EA Access is not a threat in terms of online play and the idea that they would be a threat in terms of distribution is thin at best.

Of course it was because of the multiplayer, but this still allows them to grow their distribution plaform as a result. Adding EA to the PS ecosystem takes more control away from said ecosystem, which is a big deal for companies. And I dont think the subscription plan would noticeably increase(although I do agre there is a chance it would increase) multiplayer anymore then it already is increasing, since EA sports games are already very popular. However, I dont think them potentially losing ground in their distribution platform is something they want to chance giving up, because like I said, their distribution platform isnt very good.

 

[NexusGamer]

A weak reply from Sony

 

[Killing_Joke]

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.

Sorry but this makes no sense to me. EA are partners and competition. Just because they don't have their own hardware Sony should just allow their service? I guess Window/Android phones should have iTunes because more choice! Who cares if it cannibalizes their sales on their own hardware, more choice for everybody! They have no reason to bow down to good guy EA because they potentially have a good thing happening.

 

[TechnicPuppet]

Seeing the games Sony are offering on PS+ on PS4 I'm not surprised they knocked back EA.

Really shows how poor a deal it is if you only have a PS4.

 

[AlphaDump]

why should they allow a big publisher to embed themselves within a console? It sets the precedent for others to join, and it will smother others who cant afford it.

that is not evolution, because this competition is gamed to the ones who can afford it. EA has been tactically buying out, and shutting down studios to now revive their corpses via an embedded app on a console through a fee. such hero, much trailblazing.

So what about the ones who cant afford it, but are talented? Why should the big publishers get to basically rock their services on the consoles while stiff arming the proprietary console they are currently embedding and advertising on? It is like exclusive advertising.

given both MS and EA's track records, I will remain at arms length until proven otherwise.

 

[staticneuron]

Of course it was because of the multiplayer, but this still allows them to grow their distribution plaform as a result. Adding EA to the PS ecosystem takes more control away from said ecosystem, which is a big deal for companies. And I dont think the subscription plan would noticeably increase(although I do agre there is a chance it would increase) multiplayer anymore then it already is increasing, since EA sports games are already very popular. However, I dont think them potentially losing ground in their distribution platform is something they want to chance giving up, because like I said, their distribution platform isnt very good.

I am not going to mention about distribution because there is no way of knowing the deal with who does what and on who's servers but the only thing that i can see is EA's behavior with Origin on the PC.

I own multiple consoles and PC's and have been gaming for years and seeing what EA did with origin on PC indicates that giving them a presence will allow them to pull some stuff that you won't have a choice for.

People have mentioned in this thread "give me a choice", Origin on PC goes to show how they don't offer games on any other service except theirs so you are forced to deal with Origin and EA.

So the choice you would be making isn't a distribution one.... it would be... do I want this EA title or not. If I want it, they may lock it behind their service so only people with EA Access can get the ability to even purchase the game digitally. Before Origin, that type of idea would sound like a conspiracy theory but they have already done this on PC and some here are embracing a method for them to try this on consoles. In the name of player 'choice' no less.

This has been an eye opening thread.

 

[Caayn]

I'm finding this really funny coming from the company that created PS Now.

Not enough value for the playstation gamer. Is an amazing spin.

 

[barneystuta83]

In other words "don't sign up for EA's subscription, use our PS now service".

 

[TheFurizzlyBear]

I am not going to mention about distribution because there is no way of knowing the deal with who does what and on who's servers but the only thing that i can see is EA's behavior with Origin on the PC.

I own multiple consoles and PC's and have been gaming for years and seeing what EA did with origin on PC indicates that giving them a presence will allow them to pull some stuff that you won't have a choice for.

People have mentioned in this thread "give me a choice", Origin on PC goes to show how they don't offer games on any other service except theirs so you are forced to deal with Origin and EA.

So the choice you would be making isn't a distribution one.... it would be... do I want this EA title or not. If I want it, they may lock it behind their service so only people with EA Access can get the ability to even purchase the game digitally. Before Origin, that type of idea would sound like a conspiracy theory but they have already done this on PC and some here are embracing a method for them to try this on consoles. In the name of player 'choice' no less.

This has been an eye opening thread.

EA has games on Steam

 

[staticneuron]

EA has games on Steam

After EA started Origin in March 2011 they do not offer their newer titles on Steam. The titles that already have seen release on Steam are fine but you don't see newer titles starting with Battlefield 3 (October 2011) and beyond. You wont see BF4, ME3, DS3, Titanfall and many others on Steam.

EDIT: And as an aside if you haven't noticed, despite being able to purchase the newer Ubisoft titles on steam they tend to start up uplay when you launch the game. Since EAA exists now I wouldn't be surprised if Ubisoft is the next to try to offer a similar service using uPlay as the backbone.

 

[Cyriades]

There are only like 3 or 4 publishers even capable of doing something like this. Also, how is potentially getting more games for less money a nightmare? I'm sure you could figure it out.

I hope EA Access fails miserably. Last i want is every big publisher to follow suit hitting me up with sub services so i can play their games.

 

[MightySpicyTaco]

This sounds like a great deal for the players that buy the yearly Madden and possibly now the Battlefield franchise.

What they're offering now is a starting point. I'm interested to see where it stands a year after launch.

 

[Synth]

If you're an Xbone fan, isn't this clear differentiation between platforms a good thing? Something besides Kinect to show the value differential? Why the concern for those poor folks wandering the desert of PS Plus?

I have a PS4 too (with PS+)?

I signed up primarily to have a cheap way to play through BF4's campaign. If the service were on PS4 too, then I would have played it there instead due to it running better. If there were also the option to use the sub across both consoles, it would also go a long way towards reducing the common issue of having to choose between one of two online communities to play the game with.

Liking the idea of this service isn't simply an Xbox vs PlayStation issue. The service itself has a chance to be better if allowed on more platforms.

 

[Etnos]

Maybe apples to oranges but I take as a grain of salt SONY's argument, considering the awful job they are doing pricing PS now.

I don't want every publisher to have their own subscription model, but then Sony is already adding a sub (PS now) to another sub (PS+). Talk about real value: I just downloaded Binnary Domain on my PC without having to pay a "fee" so I can play last gen titles.

 

[staticneuron]

Maybe apples to oranges but I take as a grain of salt SONY's argument, considering the awful job they are doing pricing PS now.

I don't want every publisher to have their own subscription model, but then Sony is already adding a sub (PS now) to another sub (PS+). Talk about real value: I just downloaded Binnary Domain on my PC without having to pay a "fee" so I can play last gen titles.

PS Now is not a sub though.

Many people are asking for that service to be a sub instead of individual rentals with influence from individual pubs.

The service itself has a chance to be better if allowed on more platforms.

And it has a chance of becoming Origin for the consoles if they all decide to give EA enough leeway.

 

[Synth]

And it has a chance of becoming Origin for the consoles if they all decide to give EA enough leeway.

I'm going to need some sort of explanation as to why Origin on PC is so terrible. I have it installed (and grabbed the actually free games they offered), but I haven't purchased or played anything using it so far. What exactly is so bad about it? I'm assuming there are reasons beyond "EA made it" and "it's not Steam".

Regardless, he asked a question and I answered it. It may end up great, it may not... but there's more reasons for someone who owns an Xbox to also want the service to be on PS4 than simple console wars nonsense. Saying "it could really suck someday" isn't a reason for me to not want something that's appealing to me today.

 

[staticneuron]

I'm going to need some sort of explanation as to why Origin on PC is so terrible. I have it installed (and grabbed the actually free games they offered), but I haven't purchased or played anything using it so far. What exactly is so bad about it? I'm assuming there are reasons beyond "EA made it" and "it's not Steam".

That is the point I made above. The worry is that EA will lock the ability to purchase digital titles or DLC behind subscription to the service. They have done shown on PC how they can lock content behind their service and it has remained that way for the past 3 years. They didn't even attempt to go Ubisoft's route which still lets you purchase their titles elsewhere but still boot up uPlay.

Origin is free for now. But if they gain traction in putting you in a situation where you have no choice they will do it as evidenced by their past actions.

But I guess if a couple of free games put you at ease regarding their behavior then more power to you. You may have fun enjoying the service but I am glad that Sony didn't allow this to fly because I actually believe that opens the doors for EA and other companies to follow the trend of digital games as a service and removing the concept of ownership.

 

[bishoptl]

I have a PS4 too (with PS+)?

I signed up primarily to have a cheap way to play through BF4's campaign. If the service were on PS4 too, then I would have played it there instead due to it running better. If there were also the option to use the sub across both consoles, it would also go a long way towards reducing the common issue of having to choose between one of two online communities to play the game with.

Liking the idea of this service isn't simply an Xbox vs PlayStation issue. The service itself has a chance to be better if allowed on more platforms.

I - and many others, as evidenced by this thread - am not sold on the consumer friendliness of this program, based on who's involved and recent business practices. Better to let it prove itself on a platform that needs it, and leave the value of PSN+ alone for now. If it's a success, EA will have to bring it to the market leader eventually.

 

[unbias]

That is the point I made above. The worry is that EA will lock the ability to purchase digital titles or DLC behind subscription to the service. They have done shown on PC how they can lock content behind their service and it has remained that way for the past 3 years. They didn't even attempt to go Ubisoft's route which still lets you purchase their titles elsewhere but still boot up uPlay.

Origin is free for now. But if they gain traction in putting you in a situation where you have no choice they will do it as evidenced by their past actions.

But I guess if a couple of free games put you at ease regarding their behavior then more power to you. You may have fun enjoying the service but I am glad that Sony didn't allow this to fly because I actually believe that opens the doors for EA and other companies to follow the trend of digital games as a service and removing the concept of ownership.

EA rarely gets away with their shit though, year to year they dont show growth and as for their ROI it's terrible. They wouldnt be able to charge for origin, because there is too much competition out there. Origin as a digital service is actually quite good.

I - and many others, as evidenced by this thread - am not sold on the consumer friendliness of this program, based on who's involved and recent business practices. Better to let it prove itself on a platform that needs it, and leave the value of PSN+ alone for now. If it's a success, EA will have to bring it to the market leader eventually.

I agree with the sentiment that it is, at face value, barely worth it, simply because as a sports fan I stay current with my sports. As for other titles, the only way I personally would be interested is if for, say, 15 a month I got access to all their 2 year old+ content or something similar. This 5 dollars for a revolving door just doesnt sound like a great deal. Hopefully it turns into something I'm interested in, until then let the early adopters be the guinea pigs. As it stands EA is famous for shooting themselves in the foot, I'm sure tehy will here as well at some point.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Because the service will obviously be more than only these four games. You are also forgetting about the 10% off all EA titles and DLC, as well as early access to their games.

Come on, thinking all that doesn't have a value of $30 a year is what is truly unbelievable.

There's no real rationale way to downplay how good an offer this is for what you're getting at the price that you're getting it, so I believe it makes reading any attempt to do just that all the more interesting. And with regards to the records of the companies involved, I'm sorry to say, but I do get the feeling that if you remove Microsoft and Xbox from this discussion entirely and swap in Sony as a replacement, somehow I don't think there would be quite as much question about the consumer friendliness of the program.

A little bit of mistrust is always a good thing, but I think the skepticism runs a little too extreme depending on the parties involved, and neither of the three are exactly gold standards for consumer friendliness, but it's also not very realistic to pretend as if they don't also occasionally get things right also.

 

[zhorkat]

That is the point I made above. The worry is that EA will lock the ability to purchase digital titles or DLC behind subscription to the service. They have done shown on PC how they can lock content behind their service and it has remained that way for the past 3 years. They didn't even attempt to go Ubisoft's route which still lets you purchase their titles elsewhere but still boot up uPlay.

Origin is free for now. But if they gain traction in putting you in a situation where you have no choice they will do it as evidenced by their past actions.

But I guess if a couple of free games put you at ease regarding their behavior then more power to you. You may have fun enjoying the service but I am glad that Sony didn't allow this to fly because I actually believe that opens the doors for EA and other companies to follow the trend of digital games as a service and removing the concept of ownership.

But EA can only do that on the PC because of the openness of the PC. EA can't do that on the Xbox One or the PS4 without the permission of Microsoft and Sony.

 

[unbias]

]There's no real rationale way to downplay how good an offer this is[/B] for what you're getting at the price that you're getting it, so I believe it makes reading any attempt to do just that all the more interesting.

Of course there is. The games offered are not worth it to you and you dont regularly buy EA games or their DLC. Seems like a pretty simple way to down play it. I mean, unless you are trying to infer this consumer good is just a must have, simply because.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Of course there is. The games offered are not worth it to you and you dont regularly buy EA games or their DLC. Seems like a pretty simple way to down play it. I mean, unless you are trying to infer this consumer good is just a must have, simply because.

I don't even want Madden or BF4 right now, or even Peggle 2 for that matter, and I already have FIFA 14 (My most heavily played game right now), yet for $5 a month I'll gladly participate in this program and put a little bit of time into the previously mentioned games. And it's a little shortsighted to just view it as these 4 games, because the catalog will grow with time. Sure, it's going to take quite a bit of time for it grow, and it's mostly going to be heavy on the yearly sports titles that are no longer selling very strongly, but even for the folks that don't always jump at the latest FIFA or Madden title year after year, it's a nice luxury to be able to, for such a good price, have access to the variety of games that you can imagine filling the vault over time.

At this price, we're practically in impulse buy territory. You give people access to enough of the right games for such a good price, and don't be surprised when even people with very little interest dip their toe in every now and then to play some stuff they'd never spend money on.

 

[unbias]

I don't even want Madden or BF4 right now, or even Peggle 2 for that matter, and I already have FIFA 14 (My most heavily played game right now), yet for $5 a month I'll gladly participate in this program and put a little bit of time into the previously mentioned games.

So you will play games you dont really have interest in, simply because?

=\

Ok, I get that to you those games are worth messing around with for $5 but not everyone cares about those games or already does not own them. Your initial comment made it sound like thinking this plan isnt worth it was just crazy talk...

 

[coolasj19]

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.

I have no idea if what I'm saying is relevant to what you're saying but I'm just gonna use your post as a springboard regardless. The "consumer" is also the one that has driven the console videogames industry in Japan into a corner. Mobile is now more revenue pulling than consoles and any of us who want in on those are SOL. The consumer has also decided that the market will accept DLC and micro-transactions riddled games. The consumer can be and is stupid. I doubt the consumer knows the consequences of what they want. I'll put some faith in SCE to shape and dictate the market for long-term sustainability and holding on to the somewhat traditional types of games development and distribution that we have now. They say having a monopoly is bad and competition is good. They forget that they also need to compete against mobile, PC, and the market itself. In the famous words of Jack Tretton when he quoted someone else "A rising tide lifts all ships".

Spoiler

I don't really know what I just went on about. Haven't done a ramble like this since the VTV Reveal.

 

[tuna_love]

I have no idea if what I'm saying is relevant to what you're saying but I'm just gonna use your post as a springboard regardless. The "consumer" is also the one that has driven the console videogames industry in Japan into a corner. Mobile is now more revenue pulling than consoles and any of us who want in on those are SOL. The consumer has also decided that the market will accept DLC and micro-transactions riddled games. The consumer can be and is stupid. I doubt the consumer knows the consequences of what they want. I'll put some faith in SCE to shape and dictate the market for long-term sustainability and holding on to the somewhat traditional types of games development and distribution that we have now. They say having a monopoly is bad and competition is good. They forget that they also need to compete against mobile, PC, and the market itself. In the famous words of Jack Tretton when he quoted someone else "A rising tide lifts all ships".

Spoiler

I don't really know what I just went on about. Haven't done a ramble like this since the VTV Reveal.

Maybe give the titles a rest?

 

[SenjutsuSage]

So you will play games you dont really have interest in, simply because?

=\

Ok, I get that to you those games are worth messing around with for $5 but not everyone cares about those games or already does not own them. Your initial comment made it sound like thinking this plan isnt worth it was just crazy talk...

Yea, these fall into the category of games that I would likely never buy (with the exception of the FIFA games obviously) for the sole reason that I prioritize many other games much higher on my must buy list, but they are certainly games that I would gladly try out on my own time or play with friends if given the opportunity. If they're in the vault, might as well give them a shot, right? Get your moneys worth.

 

[coolasj19]

Maybe give the titles a rest?

Sorry, but no, not just because you asked. I have my own personally set limitations. Like when posting consecutively in a thread or with very very short messages. Gimme a PM next time.

What did you think about the rest of my post?

 

[shem935]

Maybe give the titles a rest?

Don't try to dull his sparkle. I immediately identify his posts by that and almost always they are either thoughtful or witty.

Edit: Also coolasj that is an awesome tag.

Double Edit: Also I agree with your argument. To the people arguing about sony making plus mandatory, consumers chose that when they bought xbox live. PS now prices if they remain the same are equivalent to redbox prices and theoretically offer much more attractive content and easier access. The market has proven it is willing to accept those prices. We might not and I most certainly won't due to internet quality but the service is aimed at getting playstation onto non playstation devices I think. I'm afraid that if the market accepts this it will go the same route as the dlc you mentioned. More and more access to the content will be tied behind these subscriptions until (all theoretical here) you have to pay a sub to access a pub's content exclusively. Will that happen? I have no idea. But if you told me 10 years ago that I would be paying an extra 30 dollars to get content for games that was carved out of the main game I would have said you were crazy.

 

[Yagharek]

Because the service will obviously be more than only these four games. You are also forgetting about the 10% off all EA titles and DLC, as well as early access to their games.

Come on, thinking all that doesn't have a value of $30 a year is what is truly unbelievable.

Given that many EA games are sold in pre alpha state I think 30 bucks is too much.

 

[StreetDisciple]

So who's next after EA??? Ubisoft, 2k, Activision? Soon enough we will be paying 150 year for subscriptions to publishers and only benefiting from a few games we actually want.

I think EA saw all the money rolling in for subscription services and wanted in. Its a poison pill. If EA is successful with this, let it be known there will be another then another and another.

I like what PS+ offers....they set the standard. I would rather see EA offer a deeply discounted price for their games after a certain time than do this.

 

[PhatSaqs]

I don't really know what I just went on about.

Me either lol. Nice post title tho.

 

[tuna_love]

Sorry, but no, not just because you asked. I have my own personally set limitations. Like when posting consecutively in a thread or with very very short messages. Gimme a PM next time.

What did you think about the rest of my post?

I agree, but if that's what the mass consumer wants, that's what they will spend their money on. Not having a subscription may just force them onto mobile earlier.
Edit: That is if I even understand what your point was

 

[Orca]

So you will play games you dont really have interest in, simply because?

=\

Ok, I get that to you those games are worth messing around with for $5 but not everyone cares about those games or already does not own them. Your initial comment made it sound like thinking this plan isnt worth it was just crazy talk...

How else would you find new genres that you like? I wasn't really interested in roguelike games until I tried a couple unique ones.

I've always been kind of interested in FIFA, but never into soccer all that much and not sold enough on how much I'd play to actually buy one for $60, even though I have a couple friends who buy every one and think they're awesome. They play and follow soccer, I don't...it's really just that simple.

But the idea of having FIFA for a $30 for the year payment was interesting. Getting BF4 and Madden as well, turning the disc copies I already had into digital ones, was a great bonus for convenience. I'd probably have paid the $30 for just those three things, but having NHL and Dragon Age a week early is nice as well. Madden...we'll see. I guess it's nice to have the ability to demo it, since I'm not really sold on the game yet.

 

[statham]

I - and many others, as evidenced by this thread - am not sold on the consumer friendliness of this program, based on who's involved and recent business practices. Better to let it prove itself on a platform that needs it, and leave the value of PSN+ alone for now. If it's a success, EA will have to bring it to the market leader eventually.

why not let the customer decide not the platform holder?

 

[Gestault]

Right. And for 5 bucks for one month I will decide if I like it or not and either pay for a year or ditch the service. If you own a PS4 you won't get that choice because someone made it for you.

I think the EA service sounds great. It might not be. But I'll find out.

The same way I figured out if I wanted Netflix by mail or Netflix Streaming, or cable, or Hulu Plus or Spotify.

By trying it out.

If my ISP decided to block access to one of those services because it wasn't in their best interest or might not be a good enough "value" I would rightly be upset.

These are my feelings about the restriction, on principle.

I - and many others, as evidenced by this thread - am not sold on the consumer friendliness of this program, based on who's involved and recent business practices. Better to let it prove itself on a platform that needs it, and leave the value of PSN+ alone for now. If it's a success, EA will have to bring it to the market leader eventually.

This seems an overly broad assumption to be made on behalf of the market, simply because it already matches how you feel about the companies. If the offering is poor, it will perform poorly.

 

[Yagharek]

So who's next after EA??? Ubisoft, 2k, Activision? Soon enough we will be paying 150 year for subscriptions to publishers and only benefiting from a few games we actually want.

Aye. This is a very dangerous future scenario which will all but kill sales for the B-tier on consoles.

 

[yodathesoda]

As long as you can still buy games the old fashioned way this doesn't change anything than offer a benefit if you are into EA games.

If Activision and Ubisoft did this I wouldn't subscribe but I would buy Assasins Creed later on salejust like I always have.

The subscription model has absolutely no affect on me other than a discount and early access on games I would buy anyway.

I can't understand how anyone would not want the option other than sour grapes.