Support NeoGAF

[Corto]

Sure is hurting Valve to have all those Tom, Dick and Janes putting their games up on Steam, isn't it?

Some are starting to argue that yes, it's starting to hurt Steam. Mainly in terms of discoverability. A problem that iOS and Android are struggling for years, now Valve will struggle with it too.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

If you are on PS4 where can you get any version of Fifa for less than what a year of EA access costs?

Why do you keeping saying this? Fifa 15 and Madden 15 is about to come out, and I will ask you, can you get both of those games at $40 at launch, when I can? You won't, and you won't see those in the vault for a good period of time. So screw the Olds ones that no one is going to play as much when the new ones debut. This is such a weird stance to take when we all know sports fans always buy the latest and greatest. And while you're getting shafted to pay $56 dollars a pop, I'll likely to find it less than the sub.

See how that works.

 

[TitusGroan]

Because a open platform like PC is the same as a video game console, right? See i am imitating your "argument"

Steam is a videogame platform. The argument you're making is that an influx of developers leads to a massive drop in quality, killing the platform. Steam as a platform has had that influx of developers. And despite the fact that initiatives like Greenlight are pretty turd-tastic, the platform is thriving, with new users arriving at a phenomenal pace. By your logic, Steam as a platform should be dying. Instead, it's going from strength to strength.

Whats with ending your posts as questions, you think you are Gandalf?

Makes fun of user ending post with a question. Ends post with a question.

And to answer your question: do not take me for some conjurer of cheap tricks.

 

[blazeuk]

A console platform holder denies its customers of many options making decisions for them right from the start. This one is one of them, MS agreed with including such service because its subscription service is not mature enough and established, Sony's program it's an already established and successful program across every Sony platform and agreeing to a publisher specific service would devalue its own.

I have to disagree with that, it's actually the complete opposite of what you're saying, MS' service is much more mature at this point and is obviously well established in the market, they have been charging for online for a long time now and they aren't adding any big subscriber numbers anymore, so to them adding a service like EA Access isn't going to affect them.

Sony on the other hand have only just locked online behind a paywall which has forced tons of people to have no choice but to subscribe to get the most out of their PS4, something they haven't had to do before so the number of subscribers are spiking. That's what Sony are protecting, they don't want another subscription service getting in the way of their own service growth. They basically say as much when they're talking about their 200% increase.

 

[Into]

Steam is a videogame platform. The argument you're making is that an influx of developers leads to a massive drop in quality, killing the platform. Steam as a platform has had that influx of developers. And despite the fact that initiatives like Greenlight are pretty turd-tastic, the platform is thriving, with new users arriving at a phenomenal pace. By your logic, Steam as a platform should be dying. Instead, it's going from strength to strength.
.

Steam on PC is not comparable to the services that are PS4 or XB1. Anyone could at any point release as many games on PC as they wanted, physical or not. Consoles had restrictions.

Why? Because the crash, hence the original post you tried your best to argue against.

No. "Steam is a videogame platform" does not cut it. Its not good enough and you know it.

 

[Zok310]

Took this from my post from another site.
Too long to write a second time.

It's simple. Sony is trying to sell PlayStation not EA. Selfish, I know, but such is business

Sony says you own a PS4 a Vita, and a PS3 and you give me $3.99 per month and I will give you 6 free games per month plus discounts on certain new games. And this applies to all consoles currently supported by the PS family. $3.99 per month grants you the + library on all of our consoles.

EA says give me $5 per month and I will only give you 3 games on your PS4 along with some discounts. Give me an additional $5 per month and you get Access on your PS3, and an additional $5 will get Access on the Vita.

Compare the 2 programs and you see that a person that owns all 3 PS consoles (this is what Sony wants) is not getting anywhere near the same value with EA:A.

They would have to pay over 3 times the current PS+ cost to EA to get Access on all 3 consoles.

After fine tuning the PS+ value proposition for so long, how can Sony turn around and say hey we now support less value for a higher price, please buy EA:A.
Supporting EA won't be consistent with PS message of value.

Sony have 3 consoles on the market not 1, programs like this have to consider the entire PS user base, similar to how PS+ takes all 3 PS consoles into account.
This can't compete with + for multi PS console owners.
In their statement Sony should have acknowledge the multi console owners and discussed how it is a horrible deal for them compared to +. That would have been the end of the debate.

 

[Ensoul]

I am not a huge fan of EA games but why not at least offer it and let the customer decide?

 

[Steroyd]

Sure is hurting Valve to have all those Tom, Dick and Janes putting their games up on Steam, isn't it?

There are calls for Valve to implement quality control on Steam and that sentiment is growing as it gets closer and closer to mobile app store levels.

 

[ArtHands]

Why dont they allow every Tom, Dick and Jane to design their own app and put it on the Xbox or PS store then? "Let the consumer decide!"

Because it floods the service with crap that in the end does more damage than good.

Saying "Let the consumer decide" is lacking basic understanding of what it means to have a platform and develop it. More is not better. Nintendo told EA off years ago, now Sony told them off with their EA Access plan. The only company willing to carry this is the company that a year ago had a gigantic purple boner for anti used games, DRM, always online and the whole shabang. What a coincidence

That doesn't explain why sony is letting every tom, dick and harry to make games on the vita now, and not stopping their junks like men's room mayhem.

 

[Into]

That doesn't explain why sony is letting every tom, dick and harry to make games on the vita now, and not stopping their junks like men's room mayhem.

The Vita is not a open platform. You need permission to release your game there.

Every modern platform today has this, except those that are defunct and left in the dust like the Dreamcast, where you can make a game for it and Sega likely wont give a shit.

But lets pretend you are right, they are letting anyone release anything on the Vita, they allow that but no EA Access on their platform? What does that tell you?

 

[Corto]

I have to disagree with that, it's actually the complete opposite of what you're saying, MS' service is much more mature at this point and is obviously well established in the market, they have been charging for online for a long time now and they aren't adding any big subscriber numbers anymore, so to them adding a service like EA Access isn't going to affect them.

Sony on the other hand have only just locked online behind a paywall which has forced tons of people to have no choice but to subscribe to get the most out of their PS4, something they haven't had to do before so the number of subscribers are spiking. That's what Sony are protecting, they don't want another subscription service getting in the way of their own service growth. They basically say as much when they're talking about their 200% increase.

The game subscription program is more mature on Sony platforms. They started the service last gen. I'm not talking about online play paywall. Sony included that on the Plus program/fee with the launch of the PS4 as you say, but the subscription program with program specific video games software sales, promos and offerings precedes it.

 

[Caayn]

...

How convenient for your argument that you used the PS+ price of a year and divided that by 12 months, while you used the EAA price of a single month instead of doing the same to the EAA year price like you did with PS+, which results in $2.5 and not in the $5 which you claim.

And do you have proof that every console would need it's own sub?

 

[TitusGroan]

Steam on PC is not comparable to the services that are PS4 or XB1. Anyone could at any point release as many games on PC as they wanted, physical or not. Consoles had restrictions.

Why? Because the crash, hence the original post you tried your best to argue against.

No. "Steam is a videogame platform" does not cut it. Its not good enough and you know it.

Then to bring this horrible tangent back to the original point about Sony vs EA, there is no way in which Sony refusing to allow EA to run their subscription service on Playstaiton is comparable to the Eighties. I'm sorry, there's not. EA are not using this service to flood the market with ET-level broken shovelware, they're allowing players the option to play Battlefield and Peggle for cheaper. In what alternate universe is a subscription service for cheaper already released games comparable to the Crash that you are so intent on bringing up? Are you worried they're going to end up burying PS4's in the desert because people get fed up of having too much cheap access to Battlefield?

Sony are not doing this out of consumer good will, or for the good of the industry. The only reason they are doing this is because they don't want a competing service on the same console as PS+. That's it. They have no problem pushing games as a service, games as something to be rented and streamed rather than owned, as long as they're the ones holding the keys. Which is why this is all so stupid. If Sony didn't already have PS+ and PS Now, then perhaps their intentions would be better, but right now this is them trying to crack down on competition on their platform. Which they're perfectly entitled to do, of course, but it isn't particularly noble, and it doesn't work out better for us consumers. If streaming services like this end up crashing the industry like you seem to believe, Sony will be just as culpable as anyone through the existence of Plus and Now. Blocking EA is a move which accomplishes nothing for the gaming community.

 

[PanicFreak]

Took this from my post from another site.
Too long to write a second time.

It's simple. Sony is trying to sell PlayStation not EA. Selfish, I know, but such is business

Sony says you own a PS4 a Vita, and a PS3 and you give me $3.99 per month and I will give you 6 free games per month plus discounts on certain new games. And this applies to all consoles currently supported by the PS family. $3.99 per month grants you the + library on all of our consoles.

EA says give me $5 per month and I will only give you 3 games on your PS4 along with some discounts. Give me an additional $5 per month and you get Access on your PS3, and an additional $5 will get Access on the Vita.

Compare the 2 programs and you see that a person that owns all 3 PS consoles (this is what Sony wants) is not getting anywhere near the same value with EA:A.

They would have to pay over 3 times the current PS+ cost to EA to get Access on all 3 consoles.

After fine tuning the PS+ value proposition for so long, how can Sony turn around and say hey we now support less value for a higher price, please buy EA:A.
Supporting EA won't be consistent with PS message of value.

Sony have 3 consoles on the market not 1, programs like this have to consider the entire PS user base, similar to how PS+ takes all 3 PS consoles into account.
This can't compete with + for multi PS console owners.
In their statement Sony should have acknowledge the multi console owners and discussed how it is a horrible deal for them compared to +. That would have been the end of the debate.

Ok, let's take a step back here. Who is saying that every console would need its own sub? Where is the evidence?

 

[BriGuy]

That doesn't explain why sony is letting every tom, dick and harry to make games on the vita now, and not stopping their junks like men's room mayhem.

I wasn't aware that that was the case, but if it is, it's not like Sony has anything to lose with the Vita at this point.

Anyway, while the Vault seems to be a good value for the moment, what about a few years down the line when it's filled with the yearly installments of roughly five distinct games? When you have access to Madden '17 (which bear in mind, will be placed in the vault roughly when the brand, spanking new Madden '18 launches) are you ever going to go back to Madden '16 or 15' or '14 for any reason?

 

[ArtHands]

The Vita is not a open platform. You need permission to release your game there.

Every modern platform today has this, except those that are defunct and left in the dust like the Dreamcast, where you can make a game for it and Sega likely wont give a shit.

But lets pretend you are right, they are letting anyone release anything on the Vita, they allow that but no EA Access on their platform? What does that tell you?

If permission is required, then clearly that this permission thingy useless.

That tells me that the whole "we are helping our customers to make the decision" isn't really a convincing point.

 

[LiquidSolid]

That doesn't explain why sony is letting every tom, dick and harry to make games on the vita now, and not stopping their junks like men's room mayhem.

Junk like Men's Room Mayhem? Uh, you realise that game had some experienced devs on its staff, right? All three console manufacturers would've given them a devkit if they'd asked for one.

 

[Zok310]

Ok, let's take a step back here. Who is saying that every console would need its own sub? Where is the evidence?

Safe to assume that most that own an XBO also own a 360, but yet this program is exclusive to XBO? What did EA and MS forget about 80 million 360 owners?
Why not offer it to both XBO and 360 owners for just $5 per month?

 

[Caayn]

Safe to assume that most that own an XBO also own a 360, but yet this program is exclusive to XBO? What did EA and MS forget about 80 million 360 owners?
Why not offer it to both XBO and 360 owners for just $5 per month?

The 360 and PS3 are going to get slowly phased out, now that there are successors on the market for both of these. And most likely why this program isn't coming to the 360 is because the 360 doesn't support these kind of services, just like why you get to keep your games on the 360 with GWG but are tied to your subscription on the Xbox One. A technical limitation so to say.

Besides, that isn't any evidence as to why you'd need to pay per platform/console.

 

[Into]

Then to bring this horrible tangent back to the original point about Sony vs EA, there is no way in which Sony refusing to allow EA to run their subscription service on Playstaiton is comparable to the Eighties. I'm sorry, there's not. EA are not using this service to flood the market with ET-level broken shovelware, they're allowing players the option to play Battlefield and Peggle for cheaper. In what alternate universe is a subscription service for cheaper already released games comparable to the Crash that you are so intent on bringing up?

I addressed this already, this is the problem when you reply with a sarcastic one liner that you did. After EA who is next? They likely do not want their platform to be stacked with pay walls upon pay walls, aka bad ideas that scare away customers that in the end feel like they are bought a credit card reader that will take more of their money.

Sony and MS do not share the same views when it comes to where gaming is going, this has been clear for a while.

Are you worried they're going to end up burying PS4's in the desert because people get fed up of having too much cheap access to Battlefield?

I am worried that on this forum, which prides itself in being enthusiastic and knowing more than the average joe schmoe, is now parading this "let the customer decide!" when they should know better.

All console platform holders already have very severe restrictions what is allowed on their platform. The entire idea of allowing everything and anything is a bad business practice that Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft all agree upon.

Sony are not doing this out of consumer good will, or for the good of the industry. The only reason they are doing this is because they don't want a competing service on the same console as PS+. That's it. They have no problem pushing games as a service, games as something to be rented and streamed rather than owned, as long as they're the ones holding the keys. Which is why this is all so stupid. If Sony didn't already have PS+ and PS Now, then perhaps their intentions would be better, but right now this is them trying to crack down on competition on their platform. Which they're perfectly entitled to do, of course, but it isn't particularly noble, and it doesn't work out better for us consumers.

Sony is doing this to protect their own platform and not have it be full of subscriptions, so we can agree at least on that. They do not want extensive amount of pay walls on their store. PS+ is already a barrier and, with the possibility of PS Now becoming sub based maybe in the future, that is more than enough. Who is to say other publishers wont want to follow suit?

MS has no problems with this, because pay walls is not new to them and its something they will gladly push if they can get away with it. Considering the relationship between EA and MS it makes perfect sense that they share similar views.

MS is the company that required a subscription to just to do things you could do for free on any other platform. When it comes to treating the consumer well, they are in the bottom of the barrel, with..you guess it, EA right down there.

 

[Jhriad]

Sure is hurting Valve to have all those Tom, Dick and Janes putting their games up on Steam, isn't it?

I'm sure plenty of people can make the argument that as Steam has opened up more the store has gotten worse for the average consumer. Content curation is an important responsibility of platform holders when it comes to storefronts and Steam has gotten considerably worse in this respect over the past year or two. Early Access hasn't helped either. The same reasons why people complain about content curation on the iOS app store have become more and more applicable to the Steam store recently as the deluge of content has overburdened their store and made it harder to find new, interesting content.

 

[Steroyd]

That doesn't explain why sony is letting every tom, dick and harry to make games on the vita now, and not stopping their junks like men's room mayhem.

Is Men's room Mayhem a broken game that doesn't function like Big Rigs, or do you just think it's a shit game?

 

[Into]

If permission is required, then clearly that this permission thingy useless.

That tells me that the whole "we are helping our customers to make the decision" isn't really a convincing point.

Sony has allowed plenty of shit games on their consoles, nobody can deny that.

But that just further reinforces the skepticism one should have for this EA Access, they said "FUCK YEAH" to shitty, crappy games, yet said NO to this.

And Sony isent the only company who told EA to take a hike, Nintendo did it a few years ago as well, when they supposedly had some unprecedented relationship. The biggest rumor being that EA was to handle some parts of the online part of the Wii U.

 

[EGM1966]

I am not a huge fan of EA games but why not at least offer it and let the costumer decide?

Seems obvious that right now Sony view is they have their own winning service -Plus - on their own winning platform - PS4 - and plan to provide their own multi-platform Vault "PSNow" and therefore no thanks EA we have no interest in your own individual offer muddying up the waters for our closed environment.

I'm still of view it would be better if they let consumer decide but their own business reasons for saying no - particularly right now - make sense.

MS needs help and traction in the market and seems willing to take chance on another service on their service to see if it helps them out (because don't think MS is doing it for their customers they're just looking for anything that might bring in more customers) whereas Sony really has no need to help EA potentially to their own detriment at the moment.

As it stands I think how well the service turns out on Xbox will determine if Sony rethink this or not. They let Steam creep onto PS3 when they were in similar position to MS so the precedence is there : if this turns out to be popular in West (particularly US) then I could see Sony relenting rather than give MS an actual advantage over them there.

It'd have to be a clear hit though : pretty sure Sony don't really want to go down a path that might result in all kinds of complex multiple subscription models if Ubi and other publishers started to follow EA's lead.

TBH I suspect Sony hopes the service falters on Xbox and kills of any such market move for the foreseeable future.

 

[thelastword]

Don't know why EA wouldn't continue to cut deals with Sony and Ms with their game rental programs. Ea can only offer games from their stall which is already a negative, with all the problems that BF4 had this year and the sub-par reception of some of their sports titles like Nba Live, I'm not sure that subbing to Ea for games is a viable option.

 

[Seeds]

Sony has allowed plenty of shit games on their consoles, nobody can deny that.

But that just further reinforces the skepticism one should have for this EA Access, they said "FUCK YEAH" to shitty, crappy games, yet said NO to this.

And Sony isent the only company who told EA to take a hike, Nintendo did it a few years ago as well, when they supposedly had some unprecedented relationship. The biggest rumor being that EA was to handle some parts of the online part of the Wii U.

No... that only further reinforces that Sony isn't doing it for the costumers but for themselves.

 

[TechnicPuppet]

Why do you keeping saying this? Fifa 15 and Madden 15 is about to come out, and I will ask you, can you get both of those games at $40 at launch, when I can? You won't, and you won't see those in the vault for a good period of time. So screw the Olds ones that no one is going to play as much when the new ones debut. This is such a weird stance to take when we all know sports fans always buy the latest and greatest. And while you're getting shafted to pay $56 dollars a pop, I'll likely to find it less than the sub.

See how that works.

Maybe you should actually read what I was responding to.

 

[PhatSaqs]

I am not a huge fan of EA games but why not at least offer it and let the costumer decide?

Because people are dumb and dont know that buying and possibly enjoying certain things can and will be unwgood.

 

[Ade]

Safe to assume that most that own an XBO also own a 360, but yet this program is exclusive to XBO? What did EA and MS forget about 80 million 360 owners?
Why not offer it to both XBO and 360 owners for just $5 per month?

Because for starters the 360 infrastructure just can't handle it. Why do you think GwG on the 360 are yours to keep? because the system just can't handle that kind of temporary license

 

[TitusGroan]

I addressed this already, this is the problem when you reply with a sarcastic one liner that you did. After EA who is next? They likely do not want their platform to be stacked with pay walls upon pay walls, aka bad ideas that scare away customers that in the end feel like they are bought a credit card reader that will take more of their money.

And yet they have hidden multiplayer functionality, almost a requirement of AAA gaming, behind a paywall. Something you lambaste Microsoft for doing later on in your post.

Sony and MS do not share the same views when it comes to where gaming is going, this has been clear for a while.

Sony and Microsoft share the same view of games making them money. That is all it comes down to. Sony are not in this industry of the love of the interactive medium, they are in it to make money. Heck even Nintendo would bow out of the industry if they felt they couldn't make money on games anymore. So let's no ascribe romantic notions to monolithic multinational corporate entities who are solely interested in making bank.

I am worried that on this forum, which prides itself in being enthusiastic and knowing more than the average joe schmoe, is now parading this "let the customer decide!" when they should know better.

All console platform holders already have very severe restrictions what is allowed on their platform. The entire idea of allowing everything and anything is a bad business practice that Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft all agree upon.

And yet the one thing that gave Sony success with the original PS1, away from CD drives or memory cards, was getting rid of the severe restrictions that Nintendo at the time placed on its consoles and on developers. The PS2 allowed more shovelware and cheap cash-in games than even the Wii, and yet went on to become the best selling console with the most celebrated library of all time. It's almost as if Sony has used a lack of restriction when it benefits them, then decides to clamp down on it as soon as they think it provides a serious threat to their bottom line.

Sony is doing this to protect their own platform and not have it be full of subscriptions, so we can agree at least on that. They do not want extensive amount of pay walls on their store. PS+ is already a barrier and, with the possibility of PS Now becoming sub based maybe in the future, that is more than enough. Who is to say other publishers wont want to follow suit?

It is more than enough for Sony to hold all the keys and purse strings to subscription services on their own platform, you mean? Again, if other publishers follow suit, what's wrong with that? As long as it's offering an alternative to buying games, not a replacement, what is wrong with wanting to be able to play ACIV and Far Cry 3 by subscription fee instead of at retail? Who are Sony to on the one hand tell me to buy into PS+ for the free games, yet on the other deny me from the same process with EA, Ubisoft or Activision? If I feel it makes more financial sense to me, surely I should be able to choose that?

MS has no problems with this, because pay walls is not new to them and its something they will gladly push if they can get away with it. Considering the relationship between EA and MS it makes perfect sense that they share similar views.

MS is the company that required a subscription to just to do things you could do for free on any other platform. When it comes to treating the consumer well, they are in the bottom of the barrel, with..you guess it, EA right down there.

Microsoft required a subscription fee to pay for what was, at the time, an unprecedented online network set up specifically for console gaming. The subscription fee was to pay for what was a huge investment on their part in pushing online gaming into the console realm. Lest we forget, the PS2's online alternative as an absolute joke, and the Gamecube didn't even have any. And clearly there must be something to that model, because now Sony are not only using it, but trying to take it even further with Now.

 

[Into]

No... that only further reinforces that Sony isn't doing it for the costumers but for themselves.

No. It reinforces that they do not want to add numerous pay walls for their platform.

MS allows them, enjoys them and even introduced them. They introduced the very concept of paying just to play non MMO games online. No wonder they like it.

 

[TitusGroan]

No. It reinforces that they do not want to add numerous pay walls for their platform.

MS allows them, enjoys them and even introduced them. They introduced the very concept of paying just to play non MMO games online. No wonder they like it.

And now Sony is requiring a paywall to play online, and another paywall to stream games from their servers. Pay walls within pay walls. If Microsoft likes it, then Sony is fucking enjoying themselves right now at the same banquet.

 

[blazeuk]

The game subscription program is more mature on Sony platforms. They started the service last gen. I'm not talking about online play paywall. Sony included that on the Plus program/fee with the launch of the PS4 as you say, but the subscription program with program specific video games software sales, promos and offerings precedes it.

If you're just talking about the other aspects away from online play then Sony are definitely in a better place with it, however I'd still argue that this whole thing has nothing to do with any of that, it's online play being locked behind the subscription that is making the numbers spike and Sony want nothing getting in the way of that. MS will have a fairly stable subscriber base already so something like EA Access is not likely to affect any growth.

This is all about Sony protecting their own profits which is fair enough, they're a business out to do exactly that, the rest of the stuff about looking out for the consumer is just PR talk deflecting away from that.

 

[Seeds]

No. It reinforces that they do not want to add numerous pay walls for their platform.

What EA is doing isn't a paywall.

A paywall is what Sony did with online gaming on ps4.

MS allows them, enjoys them and even introduced them. They introduced the very concept of paying just to play non MMO games online. No wonder they like it.

You say this as if Sony was forced to put online gaming behind a paywall. Sony did it for the very same reason MS did it.

 

[Into]

And yet they have hidden multiplayer functionality, almost a requirement of AAA gaming, behind a paywall. Something you lambaste Microsoft for doing later on in your post.

They followed a trend that MS set, a trend that shows that consumers will buy anything, even pay to play non MMO games online. That directly proves my argument that the average consumer today is not smarter than the one in 1983. How are XBox One sales doing recently? Their anti consumer stance eventually bit them in the ass. Well done.

Sony and Microsoft share the same view of games making them money. That is all it comes down to. Sony are not in this industry of the love of the interactive medium, they are in it to make money. Heck even Nintendo would bow out of the industry if they felt they couldn't make money on games anymore. So let's no ascribe romantic notions to monolithic multinational corporate entities who are solely interested in making bank.

Nobody is fucking ascribing romantic notions on anything here but yourself and people who argue your point of view. Nobody is saying they are a "benevolent" angel of fair and virtue here. Knock this shit off and stop making up arguments that nobody made. Elementary.

And yet the one thing that gave Sony success with the original PS1, away from CD drives or memory cards, was getting rid of the severe restrictions that Nintendo at the time placed on its consoles and on developers. The PS2 allowed more shovelware and cheap cash-in games than even the Wii, and yet went on to become the best selling console with the most celebrated library of all time. It's almost as if Sony has used a lack of restriction when it benefits them, then decides to clamp down on it as soon as they think it provides a serious threat to their bottom line.

They clamped down on it because they believe its a bad idea that does not fit what they want to do. They arent the ones who are desperate like Microsoft who has to flip flop on everything, kick the Kinect to the curb and do anything they can do gain some interest for their platform. They dont want to flood their platform with sub options and dilute it.

It is more than enough for Sony to hold all the keys and purse strings to subscription services on their own platform, you mean? Again, if other publishers follow suit, what's wrong with that? As long as it's offering an alternative to buying games, not a replacement, what is wrong with wanting to be able to play ACIV and Far Cry 3 by subscription fee instead of at retail?

Ugh the same "let the consumer decide", i addressed this numerous times. They dont want the consumer to boot up a console and be met with all sorts of pay walls. They went with PS+ because MS proved that millions of people actually thought paying to play games online was a fair trade.

Who are Sony to on the one hand tell me to buy into PS+ for the free games, yet on the other deny me from the same process with EA, Ubisoft or Activision? If I feel it makes more financial sense to me, surely I should be able to choose that?

They are the platform holders, they can tell you anything they want. You as a consumer can chose buy what you want, its how transaction works. PS4 is their investment and they have their vision for it.

Microsoft required a subscription fee to pay for what was, at the time, an unprecedented online network set up specifically for console gaming. The subscription fee was to pay for what was a huge investment on their part in pushing online gaming into the console realm. Lest we forget, the PS2's online alternative as an absolute joke, and the Gamecube didn't even have any. And clearly there must be something to that model, because now Sony are not only using it, but trying to take it even further with Now.

Yes MS proved that people are gullible to pay for online, and Sony saw the cash cow and went after it after trying to stay free with the PS3.

Now MS is "pushing the innovative" envelope by getting more subscriptions in your face, the same company that desperately wanted games to become a service that they controlled merely a year ago.


TLDR: "Let the consumer decide" does not work. Ask Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony, they have closed platforms for a reason. Sony said no to EA, much like Nintendo did a few years ago, MS has said yes, which perfectly fits with the desperate times the XB1 is in and their original vision of games as service.

 

[Into]

The only company that wanted EA's "brilliant idea" is the one company that has no vision for their product, flip flops all the time and cannot even sustain a single idea of where their platform is going or how to handle it.

That says it all, they are desperate for just about anything. And are ready to accept anything publishers throw at them.

 

[Ade]

Id love to view this thread on Earth2 where EA access is currently only on the PS4 and see if everyone says the same things..

 

[mckmas8808]

The only company that wanted EA's "brilliant idea" is the one company that has no vision for their product, flip flops all the time and cannot even sustain a single idea of where their platform is going or how to handle it.

That says it all, they are desperate for just about anything. And are ready to accept anything publishers throw at them.

.

 

[Bundy]

The only company that wanted EA's "brilliant idea" is the one company that has no vision for their product, flip flops all the time and cannot even sustain a single idea of where their platform is going or how to handle it.

That says it all, they are desperate for just about anything. And are ready to accept anything publishers throw at them.

Exactly how I see it. And it fits.
EA again with MS. Perfect couple....

 

[TRios Zen]

The only company that wanted EA's "brilliant idea" is the one company that has no vision for their product, flip flops all the time and cannot even sustain a single idea of where their platform is going or how to handle it.

That says it all, they are desperate for just about anything. And are ready to accept anything publishers throw at them.

Sorry I have read nothing in your discussion that "proves" this. IN fact as with everything else in this tread, this is your opinion. You're welcome to it.

My opinion, which remains unchanged is that Sony has refused this on their service currently because A) they feel they don't need it and B) it would potentially hurt their own services.

It has nothing to do with "vision" or "flip-flopping" or any other justification you've thrown out there.

 

[Synth]

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.

Having to buy an EA game through Origin really doesn't have many negative effects on anyone other than Valve right now. You can still play it on that same PC. It will still cost essentially the same as it would were it on Steam. Steam is great, but I don't see why people assume that every publisher must be forced to sell through them and give them a cut of their revenue, when they are perfectly capable of distributing the game for themselves. Valve lock content behind their service too... just because you're more fond of their service, doesn't mean that they should be allowed to do things that we then forbid any other publisher to do also.

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 don't really see how that really has anything to do with what I responded to. You and others aren't sold on it at this moment, whilst I and other are. Implications of the motives being to do with Xbox fans are unnecessary, as it's perfectly possible for these people to want the service on PS4 for legitimate non-console war reasons. It's not just about EA having to bring the service over, as we don't know that they wouldn't already have chosen to if Sony saw the "value" in it.

You say this like it is fact. You are assuming. We know little to nothing about EAs content plans for the program. We don't know how often the plan to refresh the vault content. We don't know if they plan to keep content in the vault or flush it with each refresh. We know essentially nothing except that these are the titles it debuts with. The difference is you are assuming best case scenarios and legitimate consumer value out of a company that is notorious for it's willingness to exploit the consumer. Logic would dictate that historical precedent overrules warm fuzzy feelings and happy thoughts.

And you're assuming too. The difference is you're assuming worse case scenarios. I have far more information to work with right now to judge that it's worth the money I've just paid for the service, than you do to state that it shouldn't exist. I'm not forced to pay for it indefinitely. I can stop my subscription next month if I choose to. If I had bought a full year for £20, I wouldn't even have been taking virtually any risk, as I couldn't play BF4 (let alone any of the other games offered) for that price... and I'm almost certainly not going to be playing it still in a year. So for me the £20 yearly option is still much better value than any other means of playing it right now, today.

Why do you keeping saying this? Fifa 15 and Madden 15 is about to come out, and I will ask you, can you get both of those games at $40 at launch, when I can? You won't, and you won't see those in the vault for a good period of time. So screw the Olds ones that no one is going to play as much when the new ones debut. This is such a weird stance to take when we all know sports fans always buy the latest and greatest. And while you're getting shafted to pay $56 dollars a pop, I'll likely to find it less than the sub.

See how that works.

What does an inability to buy new games cheaper digitally (which btw, doesn't work as an argument in the UK at launch) have to do with the ability to rent them? Nobody's stopping you from buying your $40 physical copy. Even if you do find it cheaper than the sub, that's one game... not everything in the vault. I don't see what your point is.

 

[Pseudo judo]

Sony has allowed plenty of shit games on their consoles, nobody can deny that.

But that just further reinforces the skepticism one should have for this EA Access, they said "FUCK YEAH" to shitty, crappy games, yet said NO to this.

And Sony isent the only company who told EA to take a hike, Nintendo did it a few years ago as well, when they supposedly had some unprecedented relationship. The biggest rumor being that EA was to handle some parts of the online part of the Wii U.

Unghh...that rebuttal is just pathetically weak.

 

[ArtHands]

Sony has allowed plenty of shit games on their consoles, nobody can deny that.

But that just further reinforces the skepticism one should have for this EA Access, they said "FUCK YEAH" to shitty, crappy games, yet said NO to this.

And Sony isent the only company who told EA to take a hike, Nintendo did it a few years ago as well, when they supposedly had some unprecedented relationship. The biggest rumor being that EA was to handle some parts of the online part of the Wii U.

Or maybe the reason they say "No" is like what everyone said..they dont want to devalue their own service

Bad for sony, good for the customers

 

[Into]

Unghh...that rebuttal is just pathetically weak.

What does that make your own post then? Useless garbage that contributes nothing perhaps?

 

[Into]

Or maybe the reason they say "No" is like what everyone said..they dont want to devalue their own service

Bad for sony, good for the customers

Not wanting to devalue your own service does not constitute "bad". If it did, they, and others would not be doing this. Only Microsoft has accepted this.

Unless you are arguing that they (Sony) are just making a bad decision by not allowing EA to go forth with this.

 

[Bgamer90]

The only company that wanted EA's "brilliant idea" is the one company that has no vision for their product, flip flops all the time and cannot even sustain a single idea of where their platform is going or how to handle it.

That says it all, they are desperate for just about anything. And are ready to accept anything publishers throw at them.

Oh please. Did it ever occur to you that maybe MS is okay with the service being added on to their system in part due to them just having Xbox Live?

Sony has PSN on top of the upcoming PS Now. Yet MS are the only ones that want more services? Okay. Sure.

EA Access will go hand in hand with Xbox Live because people will need Xbox Live to play EA games online. I think it's pretty obvious that Sony said no to EA Access due them not wanting it to take attention away from PS Now.

 

[TitusGroan]

They followed a trend that MS set, a trend that shows that consumers will buy anything, even pay to play non MMO games online. That directly proves my argument that the average consumer today is not smarter than the one in 1983. How are XBox One sales doing recently? Their anti consumer stance eventually bit them in the ass. Well done.

So you're saying the lack of Xbox One sales are directly attributable to the Xbox Live subscription fee? Because the PS4 has a sub fee, and is also selling much better. Unless you have sources or figures, you're cherry picking a subject and ascribing that sales importance with nothing to back it up. Xbox Live was not anti-consumer. It has nothing to do with the Xbone's sales now. If it did, the PS4 also wouldn't be selling for the same reasons.

Nobody is fucking ascribing romantic notions on anything here but yourself and people who argue your point of view.

you are doing exactly that when you try and ascribe Sony's stance as 'not wanting to scare the consumer with excessive paywalls'. You are ascribing motivations to a company that you have no way to prove or show. You prefer to think of this as a pro-consumer move from Sony, so that's how you describe it. To a number of us, it seems much more likely that this is a financially motivated move, and we see it as much easier and likely to ascribe financial reasons for why Sony refuses to have EA's service on PSN.

We're the ones going with financial motivations. You're the one ascribing pro-consumer motivations. Tell me who is being romantic.

They clamped down on it because they believe its a bad idea that does not fit what they want to do.

What they want to do namely being a subscription service locked behind a paywall that provides gamers with games-as-services instead of retail or digital products to be owned.

They arent the ones who are desperate like Microsoft who has to flip flop on everything, kick the Kinect to the curb and do anything they can do gain some interest for their platform.

Ah, some good old console warriors arguments. "Bu-bu-but Microsoft got rid of the kinect! What do they know?" When the Kinect has any actual fucking bearing on this topic, I will invite you to discuss it, but right now it's needless and irrelevant console warz shit, so I will ask you to stop making useless comparisons to shit that has no place (and that includes the Crash of '83), and start making actual points.

They dont want to flood their platform with sub options and dilute it.

Ie, they don't want competition on their home turf. Competition which could hurt their financials.

Ugh the same "let the consumer decide", i addressed this numerous times. They dont want the consumer to boot up a console and be met with all sorts of pay walls. They went with PS+ because MS proved that millions of people actually thought paying to play games online was a fair trade.

They are already adding extra pay-walls by having PS Now as a separate service you have to pay for on top of PS+. You cannot say they're trying to avoid numerous pay walls when they are offering two pay walls of their own: one for online multiplayer, one for streaming games. Thus far, Microsoft just has the one subscription fee. Soon, Sony will have two. How does that make Microsoft the greedier one, when you're the one trying to argue more sub fees are anti-consumer?

You are literally criticizing Microsoft for doing one thing, then turning around and praising Sony when they not only do the same thing, but do it to an even greater extent.

Yes MS proved that people are gullible to pay for online, and Sony saw the cash cow and went after it after trying to stay free with the PS3.

Now MS is "pushing the innovative" envelope by getting more subscriptions in your face, the same company that desperately wanted games to become a service that they controlled merely a year ago.

Microsoft has one direct subscription of their own, and are allowing EA the option for one as well as a third party. Sony are trying to push two of their own direct subscription fees, one for multiplayer, one for game rentals, and you somehow think microsoft are the ones pushing for more fees? Has Microsoft even made a statement on EA's service?

TLDR: "Let the consumer decide" does not work. Ask Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony, they have closed platforms for a reason. Sony said no to EA, much like Nintendo did a few years ago, MS has said yes, which perfectly fits with the desperate times the XB1 is in and their original vision of games as service.

Again, bringing more console warrior bullshit about the Xbox One, when the discussion is primarily around EA, a third party, and Sony. Microsoft allowed a third party to have their own subscription service. Sony is instead pushing for two of their own. You cannot, fucking cannot, tell me that Microsoft are the ones more focused on subscription services here.

 

[Pseudo judo]

What does that make your own post then? Useless garbage that contributes nothing perhaps?

Ending a post with a question? Wasn't someone recently complaint about that?

I rarely post. I generally like to read the flow of the discussion. I read many of your posts up until that point. Something's you said I agreed with, some not at all. The fact is that rebuttal was weak as hell and disappointing considering how th discussion was going. No need to cry about it, just form a better argument.

 

[condompickle]

The only company that wanted EA's "brilliant idea" is the one company that has no vision for their product, flip flops all the time and cannot even sustain a single idea of where their platform is going or how to handle it.

That says it all, they are desperate for just about anything. And are ready to accept anything publishers throw at them.

I'm mcdonalds lovin it how desperate ms is right now. Deals with gold, games with gold, and now I'm downloading fifa and madden for $5.34. Hope ms continues to flip flop.

 

[flkraven]

Took this from my post from another site.
Too long to write a second time.

It's simple. Sony is trying to sell PlayStation not EA. Selfish, I know, but such is business

Sony says you own a PS4 a Vita, and a PS3 and you give me $3.99 per month and I will give you 6 free games per month plus discounts on certain new games. And this applies to all consoles currently supported by the PS family. $3.99 per month grants you the + library on all of our consoles.

EA says give me $5 per month and I will only give you 3 games on your PS4 along with some discounts. Give me an additional $5 per month and you get Access on your PS3, and an additional $5 will get Access on the Vita.

Compare the 2 programs and you see that a person that owns all 3 PS consoles (this is what Sony wants) is not getting anywhere near the same value with EA:A.

They would have to pay over 3 times the current PS+ cost to EA to get Access on all 3 consoles.

After fine tuning the PS+ value proposition for so long, how can Sony turn around and say hey we now support less value for a higher price, please buy EA:A.
Supporting EA won't be consistent with PS message of value.

Sony have 3 consoles on the market not 1, programs like this have to consider the entire PS user base, similar to how PS+ takes all 3 PS consoles into account.
This can't compete with + for multi PS console owners.
In their statement Sony should have acknowledge the multi console owners and discussed how it is a horrible deal for them compared to +. That would have been the end of the debate.

This is a horribly misguided post on so many levels:

1) Firstly, you assume that all Sony customers own a PS4, PS3, and a Vita, which is ridiculous

2) You use the PS+ price of $3.99 per month, which works out to $47.88 annually, which is $2+ less than the cheapest option on Sony's website. I can let this one slide however, since most people can get PS+ cheaper than retail. But this leads to point 3:

3) You use the month-to-month price for EA's subscription model ($5) and compare it to Sony's annual cost ($4/month). Why not compare it to Sony's $9.99 / month price for month-to-month? Or why not compare EA's annual subscription price of $2.50/month vs Sony's $4/month? Ah, it's because it doesn't suit your narrative.

4) EA has only announced this for current-gen platforms, yet you completely invent a scenario where this subscription is available on Vita and PS3, and somehow requires new subscriptions for each console. You completely made this shit up.

5) Minor detail, but also wrong: EAs program has 4 included games, not 3.

6) Why in the heck does Sony need to account for PS3 and Vita owners? EAs service has nothing to do with those platforms and is exclusive to PS4

7) And finally, isn't it up to the consumer to decide what they find valuable or not? Sony has no qualms hosting a load of absolute shit games on PSN that anyone can buy. Sony doesn't protect customers from shit games on their platforms, so why protect them from EA's service?

You can make anything sounds like gold when you warp the facts to support your argument. Once again, Sony made this decision to support Sony. I agree, business is business, but I just find it strange that that is acceptable when their biggest draw 1 year ago was #4theplayers. The most exeptionally shocking thing in all of this is that you thought this post warranted multiple copies to other forums.