Support NeoGAF

[BibiMaghoo]

Throughout this thread people have talked about narratives and positions used to back up their arguments, yet everyone and their dog that is making a comparison between EAA and PS+ ignores that you are paying for multiple platforms with the latter.

"bu-bu-but EA access is next gen only, not fair to count Vita, PS3 in comparison"

I'll say it in bold, maybe even italics also -

Spoiler

No, that's too far

When paying for either service. You are paying for it all. Not the bits you want. Not the bits you have space to install. Not the games on the platforms you own. Not the games you don't already have.

You are paying for everything. The price you pay, encompasses everything. You cannot pick and chose what is included to make a point or take a position, because at that point you cease to argue the value of either service, and instead argue their value to you personally, which is obviously completely subjective.

Use your brains people. "This vs That" is not "Some of this vs some of that that I like".

 

[Into]

So you're saying the lack of Xbox One sales are directly attributable to the Xbox Live subscription fee?

Nope. Produce a quote where i ever said that. A classic thing to do on message boards is to make up arguments that your "opponent" made and then counter them, you have been trying to do this for a while now.

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

.

This is directly from Sony:

“We evaluated the EA Access subscription offering and decided that it does not bring the kind of value PlayStation customers have come to expect,” a Sony representative said via email.

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.

They are refusing it because they do not think it brings value to the consumer. That is what they are saying. Value is what i discussed in 1983 crash, something which you are unable to see the connection off.

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

Again with the "romantic" crap. Nobody is saying Sony is doing this to be virtuous and fair, like a long bearded Paladin of light fighting against the dark evil Microsoft. This is what you are trying to push, very hard, its not going to work.

They want to offer the best VALUE to their consumers, instead of just offering them anything that is put out there.

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.

You cannot handle actual topics being raised, its how you entered the discussion with one a snippy one liner. In turn you have made up phantom arguments that nobody has made and still harping on about "romantic" Sony.

You have chosen to ignore MS and EA, their stance on the market, their dealings with each other, Nintendo and Sony saying "no" to this company and original vision of the XB1, which absolutely has traces to how EA wants games to be more service based, where you have no chance to trade your games.

You arent looking at the whole thing, because only then does the partnership of EA and MS make perfect sense.

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.

You dont like it when more context and the full spectrum of what we have seen and witnessed are exposed. You call this "console warrior bullshit". You absolutely do not want 12 months ago and the ideas MS expressed to be brought into this because you know full well how it all makes perfect sense that they are the ones who accepted this, and nobody else.

If you arent ready or emotionally able to detach yourself from MS to look at the full spectrum of the things then so be it.


You have run away from one simple fact: If more options for the consumer was a inherit good thing, then why isent Xbox Live (or PSN for that matter) more open? Right? RIGHT? Let the consumer decide? What happened to that?

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.

Then address how it was "weak as hell", instead implying someone was "crying" about something, it makes you look like your are 14 years old.

 

[flkraven]

Throughout this thread people have talked about narratives and positions used to back up their arguments, yet everyone and their dog that is making a comparison between EAA and PS+ ignores that you are paying for multiple platforms with the latter.

"bu-bu-but EA access is next gen only, not fair to count Vita, PS3 in comparison"

I'll say it in bold, maybe even italics also -

Spoiler

No, that's too far

When paying for either service. You are paying for it all. Not the bits you want. Not the bits you have space to install. Not the games on the platforms you own. Not the games you don't already have.

You are paying for everything. The price you pay, encompasses everything. You cannot pick and chose what is included to make a point or take a position, because at that point you cease to argue the value of either service, and instead argue their value to you personally, which is obviously completely subjective.

Use your brains people. "This vs That" is not "Some of this vs some of that that I like".

Being condescending by saying 'B-b-but' and 'use your brains' makes your argument seem immature and nearly impossible to take seriously. If you go back and read the majority of the posts lamenting Sony's decision, they have nothing to do with comparative value. These arguments are primarily centered around the idea that Sony is restricting their consumer's choice and deciding for them what is valuable, and is not in line with their #4theplayers messaging. I'm sure PS+ has more value to a whole host of people than EAs service does, but why should Sony not allow their consumers to make this choice for themselves?

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Being condescending by saying 'B-b-but' and 'use your brains' makes your argument seem immature and nearly impossible to take seriously. If you go back and read the majority of the posts lamenting Sony's decision, they have nothing to do with comparative value. These arguments are primarily centered around the idea that Sony is restricting their consumer's choice and deciding for them what is valuable, and is not in line with their #4theplayers messaging. I'm sure PS+ has more value to a whole host of people than EAs service does, but why should Sony not allow their consumers to make this choice for themselves?

Firstly, I'm genuinely sorry you felt that was condescending. That was not the intent. However, dismissing my argument for that reason is likely just as immature. You'll also note it was not aimed at anyone in particular. It was more me speaking to no one, about the posts of many.

Secondly, my post is not addressing that issue, which I agree with in full, that Sony should have allowed the choice to customers, even if it doesn't interest me (mainly as I play no sports games).

What it was aimed at, and addressing, was the posts arguing the factual value offerings between each service, and that only certain parts of each service should be included when making a comparison, because X reasons ( EAA is only next gen / I don't have all Sony consoles / Only things I want should be compared etc).

As I said above, when it comes to that point, you are no longer speaking of a services value, but it's value to you personally. That is not a comparison in quality, but a comparison in a persons taste / likes and wants.

 

[Pseudo judo]

Throughout this thread people have talked about narratives and positions used to back up their arguments, yet everyone and their dog that is making a comparison between EAA and PS+ ignores that you are paying for multiple platforms with the latter.

"bu-bu-but EA access is next gen only, not fair to count Vita, PS3 in comparison"

I'll say it in bold, maybe even italics also -

Spoiler

No, that's too far

When paying for either service. You are paying for it all. Not the bits you want. Not the bits you have space to install. Not the games on the platforms you own. Not the games you don't already have.

You are paying for everything. The price you pay, encompasses everything. You cannot pick and chose what is included to make a point or take a position, because at that point you cease to argue the value of either service, and instead argue their value to you personally, which is obviously completely subjective.

Use your brains people. "This vs That" is not "Some of this vs some of that that I like".

Since when has value not been "completely subjective"?

 

[flkraven]

Firstly, I'm genuinely sorry you felt that was condescending. That was not the intent. However, dismissing my argument for that reason is likely just as immature. You'll also note it was not aimed at anyone in particular. It was more me speaking to no one, about the posts of many.

Secondly, my post is not addressing that issue, which I agree with in full, that Sony should have allowed the choice to customers, even if it doesn't interest me (mainly as I play no sports games).

What it was aimed at, and addressing, was the posts arguing the factual value offerings between each service, and that only certain parts of each service should be included when making a comparison, because X reasons ( EAA is only next gen / I don't have all Sony consoles / Only things I want should be compared etc).

As I said above, when it comes to that point, you are no longer speaking of a services value, but it's value to you personally. That is not a comparison in quality, but a comparison in a persons taste / likes and wants.

I didn't dismiss your post, as I clearly responded to it. But I'm happy we cleared that up!

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Maybe you should actually read what I was responding to.

I'm not talking about what your responding to, because clearly this is not the first time you have said it. The argument here is consistently saying, well it's good because you can't find all games for the price of admission, which is total BS. A subscription price continues, a one time sale (that can be resold) does not. It is possible to find and get FIFA 14 cheaper than $30. Especially since it's going to phase out next month. Unless everyone has been blind to the constant sales that EA games has had various amount of times. It's not impossible.

 

[Synth]

I'm not talking about what your responding to, because clearly this is not the first time you have said it. The argument here is consistently saying, well it's good because you can't find all games for the price of admission, which is total BS. A subscription price continues, a one time sale (that can be resold) does not. It is possible to find and get FIFA 14 cheaper than $30. Especially since it's going to phase out next month. It's not impossible.

FIFA 14, Madden 25, and Battlefield 4 (I'll exclude Peggle 2, as it's digital only). Find me them all $5 for a month. You're allowed to use reselling as a way to bring the costs in line (not fluctuating random prices, such as eBay however). If you can't do it, then you don't really have a point. I'm not forced to continue my subscription.

It would be even more difficult for you to perform this task at the $30 for a year option, but I decided against using that, as the games could be rotated out during that timeframe.

 

[Pseudo judo]

Then address how it was "weak as hell", instead implying someone was "crying" about something, it makes you look like your are 14 years old.

Lol, sure, my bad. I tend to assume things that are obvious to me must be obvious to others. So here goes:

Acknowledging that Sony allows shit games on their platform and then using that as a point of correlation to hypothesize how shitty EA's offering must really be, since it wasn't excepted by Sony, is an extremely poor argument. One thing has absolutely no relationship to the other. It should be inconceivable to even make that argument.

Let me use an analogy for you.

Just because I love the McRib sandwich and can't stand eating fillet mignon doesn't mean you can assume that the quality of the fillet mignon is less then that of the McRib sandwich.

I hope this better illustrates why I called your earlier rebuttal pathetic. I wasn't trying to be harsh. It's like calling the sky blue. It is what it is.

 

[TitusGroan]

This is directly from Sony:

“We evaluated the EA Access subscription offering and decided that it does not bring the kind of value PlayStation customers have come to expect,” a Sony representative said via email.

And if everything every PR agent ever said was true, every new COD game would be a revolution in game design, Lords Of Shadow 2 would have been the best Castlevania game to date, and Battlefield would have been functional at launch. Bless your sweet innocent naivete for believing when a PR agent tells you he has your best interests at heart.

They are refusing it because they do not think it brings value to the consumer. That is what they are saying. Value is what i discussed in 1983 crash, something which you are unable to see the connection off.

They are saying they do not think it brings value. What they say, and what the boardroom thinks, is likely very two different things. That's how PR works. What they are doing is restricting competition on their platform in case it affects their income, then telling you it's a pro-consumer move so you feel better about it. And in your case, it's working.

Again with the "romantic" crap. Nobody is saying Sony is doing this to be virtuous and fair, like a long bearded Paladin of light fighting against the dark evil Microsoft. This is what you are trying to push, very hard, its not going to work.

They are refusing it because they do not think it brings value to the consumer. That is what they are saying.

Nobody is saying Sony is doing this to be virtuous and fair

They are refusing it because they do not think it brings value to the consumer. That is what they are saying.

You are taking them at their word, and ascribing pro-consumer motivations to what could alternatively be seen as a very financially motivated course of action. By saying they're doing it for reasons of value, you are yourself saying Sony are doing it to be fair.

It is really quite funny watching you contradict yourself in the course of a single post, especially when you constantly skip back and forth between arguments:

They want to offer the best VALUE to their consumers, instead of just offering them anything that is put out there.

You are ascribing notions here. You are trying to tell us Sony are doing this for pro-consumer reasons with nothing more than a PR statement to back you up, and despite every other argument made that this is being done for financial motivation. And despite being regularly pointed out that Sony are embracing subscription fees more than Microsoft or EA. I will re-iterate this point again for you in big bold letters:

Microsoft charge one subscription fee. EA, a third party, will charge one subscription fee. Sony will soon be charging two. Two subscription fees. Two pay-walls.

You have chosen to ignore MS and EA, their stance on the market, their dealings with each other, Nintendo and Sony saying "no" to this company and original vision of the XB1, which absolutely has traces to how EA wants games to be more service based, where you have no chance to trade your games.

I have chosen to look at MS' stance for what it is, not for the frothy, rage-fuelled anger at what it was a year or two ago. You argued that Microsoft pushing for fees is anti-consumer. Sony will soon be charging more fees than Microsoft, while disallowing third parties from charging fees for their own games.

You have run away from one simple fact: If more options for the consumer was a inherit good thing, then why isent Xbox Live (or PSN for that matter) more open? Right? RIGHT? Let the consumer decide? What happened to that?

What the fuck does that even mean? How do you mean 'more open'? More open to indie developers? The PS4 and Xbone are both more open than that regard than the PS3 and 360. Open to community betas and pre-release community involvement? Both consoles are allowing publishers to push betas out there earlier for more gamers to try before a game comes out. More open in terms of design? Both consoles use regular PC parts to make things easier for developers in making their games.

What the fuck do you even mean by more open? On every quantifiable level, they have made their new consoles more open than the previous ones.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Since when has value not been "completely subjective"?

Since it is factually measurable in terms of monetary value. That is not subjective in any way.

I didn't dismiss your post, as I clearly responded to it. But I'm happy we cleared that up!

I said you dismissed my argument, not my post, as you said you couldn't take it seriously because of phrases I used.

 

[Into]

Lol, sure, my bad. I tend to assume things that are obvious to me must be obvious to others. So here goes:

Acknowledging that Sony allows shit games on their platform and then using that as a point of correlation to hypothesize how shitty EA's offering must really be is an extremely poor argument. One thing has absolutely no relationship to the other. It should be inconceivable to even make that argument.

Let me use an analogy for you.

Just because I love the McRib sandwich and can't stand eating fillet mignon doesn't mean you can assume that the quality of the fillet mignon is less then that of the McRib sandwich.

I hope this better illustrates why I called your earlier rebuttal pathetic. I wasn't trying to be harsh. It's like calling the sky blue. It is what it is.

Your analogy falls apart when you say what *you* like, because its not about what people at Sony like, its what they believe will best give the value to their consumers, we are talking millions of people. Gauging what millions of people "like" is a incredibly hard thing to do.

Its fair to assume that all three companies debated this, and each had good reasons for the decisions they made, MS and Sony included. With MS it fits with what they wanted to do with XB1 in the first place in many ways. Something which TitusGroan calls "console warrior bullshit".

As to why you are implying that your original post was "obvious to you and not to anyone else" is a mystery, there was nothing there to extract from it

 

[DC1]

That makes sense, but only if "people" share your (and no doubt my) definition of bad. They don't.

Actually there seem to be a lot of people suggesting options are always better or that it will fail if it isn't good and go away. Perhaps I can illustrate why this isn't necessarily the case:

The tale begins with a man called George. He is just an ordinary man in a sleepy village somewhere in the Northern region of France. There isn't much to say about George, he is a good man, who loves eating all kinds of fruit and leads a peaceful existence.
The town too is unremarkable except for one astonishing detail. Every week members of the village (and only members of the village mind you!), go into the town square to get their share of the profits from the local fruit growers.
George enjoys this system. Each week he goes up to his friend Sonya and gets $100 in his hand. With this money he can buy all the fruit he wants, as well as other goods and services. Basically anything he needs and some things that he doesn't, should he choose to do so. George is particularly fond of apples, but sometimes buys pears, oranges and even the occasional strawberry.
"Life," thought George, "is good."

But one day, without warning or consultation everything changed. George appeared at the same place and at the same time to get his $100. But now? There was another man there called Ed.
"Hold on there!" Ed cried as George prepared to take his usual $100. "I'm from the apple farm and the Mayor has authorised me to offer a choice. You can take the $100 from Sonya, or you can take $80 from me and this shiny new apple!"
George was shocked by this. Apples cost much less than $20, so why on earth would he take this deal? There was no value in it and he certainly didn't want other fruit sellers getting similar ideas. So he simply shook his head politely (laughing at such a bad deal was not something George would do), took his $100 as usual and turned to go home.
But there was a problem. Just as he was leaving he saw his friend Mike walk up to Ed, the seemingly dodgy apple representative. Then, inexplicably he reached out his hand and took the $80 and asked for his apple too.
George had to confront him about this. "Why did you take that deal?" He asked in a confused manner.
"I don't know, I just like the choice and I spend my money on apples anyway...so what is the big deal?"
George didn't know what to say. He also didn't know what to say the next few weeks as more and more people appeared to be taking up the other deal. It wasn't a big problem for him, because he still got his $100 and could buy several apples with the extra profits, but it somehow gave him chills. George was a wise man and he could see that it was not going to end well.

When he appeared one morning to see another provider offering $75 and two pears, he knew things were about to get very bad indeed. Sure pear lovers were ecstatic, for some reason that George still failed to understand, but collecting the weekly share of the profits was now a confusing ordeal.
"Oh well," sighed George, a little too loudly. "People can be stupid if they want. Morning Sonya, $100 please!"
"Here you go George! I'm glad you still come to me. I don't understand why anybody would take those other deals, they are terrible!"
George nodded. "I'm with you. Oh well, I'm off to buy about 10 apples with my extra $20!" He ended with a conspiratorial wink.
"Oh I'm sorry!" Ed cut in, offensively listening in on the conversation. "Apples can now only be received through my deal. But don't worry, with the $65 I give you, I also now include two Apples!"
"Wasn't it $80?" George asked in shock.
"Yes it was!" Grinned Ed, holding a number of apples close to his chest.

The weeks passed and George lived without apples, stubbornly refusing to take the now terrible deal. Unfortunately the other fruit vendors soon followed Ed's lead, holding their own tasty delights to ransom as they held on to more and more of the profits.
Then it finally happened. George, now an alcoholic, appeared one final time to receive his usual $100. But Sonya wasn't there, she was now selling insurance in another town. Through no fault of his own, the usual and best option had been removed.
Almost crying, George walked up to Ed and asked for his usual deal. Ed smiled knowingly and handed George $65.
George was in tears now. "But, but...where are the apples?"
"Oh you'll get some apples," Ed laughed, "but only after 10 weeks in a row of taking my deal. But don't worry, you then get three of them, which is amazing value!"

The following week, George left town, swore to never eat fruit again and started a semi-successful shop selling odd socks. Sometimes he would wonder "where did it all go wrong? What could I have done?" There was no good answer, there was nothing he could have done. All he had now was socks.

Repeated for the educational prosperity of the masses.

 

[TitusGroan]

Your analogy falls apart when you say what *you* like, because its not about what people at Sony like, its what they believe will best give the value to their consumers, we are talking millions of people. Gauging what millions of people "like" is a incredibly hard thing to do.

Its fair to assume that all three companies debated this, and each had good reasons for the decisions they made, MS and Sony included. With MS it fits with what they wanted to do with XB1 in the first place in many ways. Something which TitusGroan calls "console warrior bullshit".

The people running Xbox now are not the people who designed the Xbox One. Phil Spencer is not Don Mattrick. Acting as if the Kinect somehow has relevance to a third-party subscription fee policy, when it was put in the box by Mattrick and taken out by Spencer, is just ludicrous. You're finding anything you can pass of as a negative, regardless of its validity, and using that as an example of how Microsoft is so much worse than Sony, despite in this particular circumstance actually having fewer subscription fees.

 

[flkraven]

That makes sense, but only if "people" share your (and no doubt my) definition of bad. They don't.

Actually there seem to be a lot of people suggesting options are always better or that it will fail if it isn't good and go away. Perhaps I can illustrate why this isn't necessarily the case:

The tale begins with a man called George. He is just an ordinary man in a sleepy village somewhere in the Northern region of France. There isn't much to say about George, he is a good man, who loves eating all kinds of fruit and leads a peaceful existence.
The town too is unremarkable except for one astonishing detail. Every week members of the village (and only members of the village mind you!), go into the town square to get their share of the profits from the local fruit growers.
George enjoys this system. Each week he goes up to his friend Sonya and gets $100 in his hand. With this money he can buy all the fruit he wants, as well as other goods and services. Basically anything he needs and some things that he doesn't, should he choose to do so. George is particularly fond of apples, but sometimes buys pears, oranges and even the occasional strawberry.
"Life," thought George, "is good."

But one day, without warning or consultation everything changed. George appeared at the same place and at the same time to get his $100. But now? There was another man there called Ed.
"Hold on there!" Ed cried as George prepared to take his usual $100. "I'm from the apple farm and the Mayor has authorised me to offer a choice. You can take the $100 from Sonya, or you can take $80 from me and this shiny new apple!"
George was shocked by this. Apples cost much less than $20, so why on earth would he take this deal? There was no value in it and he certainly didn't want other fruit sellers getting similar ideas. So he simply shook his head politely (laughing at such a bad deal was not something George would do), took his $100 as usual and turned to go home.
But there was a problem. Just as he was leaving he saw his friend Mike walk up to Ed, the seemingly dodgy apple representative. Then, inexplicably he reached out his hand and took the $80 and asked for his apple too.
George had to confront him about this. "Why did you take that deal?" He asked in a confused manner.
"I don't know, I just like the choice and I spend my money on apples anyway...so what is the big deal?"
George didn't know what to say. He also didn't know what to say the next few weeks as more and more people appeared to be taking up the other deal. It wasn't a big problem for him, because he still got his $100 and could buy several apples with the extra profits, but it somehow gave him chills. George was a wise man and he could see that it was not going to end well.

When he appeared one morning to see another provider offering $75 and two pears, he knew things were about to get very bad indeed. Sure pear lovers were ecstatic, for some reason that George still failed to understand, but collecting the weekly share of the profits was now a confusing ordeal.
"Oh well," sighed George, a little too loudly. "People can be stupid if they want. Morning Sonya, $100 please!"
"Here you go George! I'm glad you still come to me. I don't understand why anybody would take those other deals, they are terrible!"
George nodded. "I'm with you. Oh well, I'm off to buy about 10 apples with my extra $20!" He ended with a conspiratorial wink.
"Oh I'm sorry!" Ed cut in, offensively listening in on the conversation. "Apples can now only be received through my deal. But don't worry, with the $65 I give you, I also now include two Apples!"
"Wasn't it $80?" George asked in shock.
"Yes it was!" Grinned Ed, holding a number of apples close to his chest.

The weeks passed and George lived without apples, stubbornly refusing to take the now terrible deal. Unfortunately the other fruit vendors soon followed Ed's lead, holding their own tasty delights to ransom as they held on to more and more of the profits.
Then it finally happened. George, now an alcoholic, appeared one final time to receive his usual $100. But Sonya wasn't there, she was now selling insurance in another town. Through no fault of his own, the usual and best option had been removed.
Almost crying, George walked up to Ed and asked for his usual deal. Ed smiled knowingly and handed George $65.
George was in tears now. "But, but...where are the apples?"
"Oh you'll get some apples," Ed laughed, "but only after 10 weeks in a row of taking my deal. But don't worry, you then get three of them, which is amazing value!"

The following week, George left town, swore to never eat fruit again and started a semi-successful shop selling odd socks. Sometimes he would wonder "where did it all go wrong? What could I have done?" There was no good answer, there was nothing he could have done. All he had now was socks.

Repeated for the educational prosperity of the masses.

Doesn't this story make the assumption that consumers are idiots. So much so that they influence the market enough to push out the most beneficial options? That they would choose the worst option 9 times out of 10? An assumption that goes entirely counter to the most base-level, agree-upon theories of rational self-interest in economics? Forgive me if I am not willing to take that leap.

 

[Uno Venova]

The people running Xbox now are not the people who designed the Xbox One. Phil Spencer is not Don Mattrick. Acting as if the Kinect somehow has relevance to a third-party subscription fee policy, when it was put in the box by Mattrick and taken out by Spencer, is just ludicrous. You're finding anything you can pass of as a negative, regardless of its validity, and using that as an example of how Microsoft is so much worse than Sony, despite in this particular circumstance actually having fewer subscription fees.

What makes you think Phil wasn't a part of the original design, he was there wasn't he?

 

[Into]

And if everything every PR agent ever said was true, every new COD game would be a revolution in game design, Lords Of Shadow 2 would have been the best Castlevania game to date, and Battlefield would have been functional at launch. Bless your sweet innocent naivete for believing when a PR agent tells you he has your best interests at heart.

Right, so lets ignore what they say, and ramble on how PR works.

They are saying they do not think it brings value. What they say, and what the boardroom thinks, is likely very two different things. That's how PR works. What they are doing is restricting competition on their platform in case it affects their income, then telling you it's a pro-consumer move so you feel better about it. And in your case, it's working.

How come Sony the company that allowed almost anything third parties wanted, suddenly is "restricting" them? If restricting third parties was the only goal, why arent they doing it more often? This just reeks of assumptions that Sony is only greedy and willing to fuck over their partners just to make a few bucks.

You are ascribing notions here. You are trying to tell us Sony are doing this for pro-consumer reasons with nothing more than a PR statement to back you up, and despite every other argument made that this is being done for financial motivation. And despite being regularly pointed out that Sony are embracing subscription fees more than Microsoft or EA. I will re-iterate this point again for you in big bold letters:

Microsoft charge one subscription fee. EA, a third party, will charge one subscription fee. Sony will soon be charging two. Two subscription fees. Two pay-walls.

You are the one contradicting yourself, if Sony is "embracing" subscription fees more than MS or EA, then surely they would embrace EA's new subscription model right?

How do you embrace something by saying "no" to it?

Its impossible to debate this when you outright dismiss their own reasons for not allowing it with "lolPR". Then we can just make up reasons such as "RESTRICT THOSE THIRD PARTIES NOW!!!"

What the fuck does that even mean? How do you mean 'more open'? More open to indie developers? The PS4 and Xbone are both more open than that regard than the PS3 and 360. Open to community betas and pre-release community involvement? Both consoles are allowing publishers to push betas out there earlier for more gamers to try before a game comes out. More open in terms of design? Both consoles use regular PC parts to make things easier for developers in making their games.

What the fuck do you even mean by more open? On every quantifiable level, they have made their new consoles more open than the previous ones.

Open in terms of what services, apps and games they allow on their system. If "Let the consumer decide" equals good, then why not open their platforms to all the crap they can get?

Because "let the consumer decide" is not always a good thing, it can devalue your brand, make consumers vary of what they are purchasing and not have any trust in what you are putting on your closed platform.

 

[TTOOLL]

Very late for the this topic but for me it's simple. It's EA, I don't trust them.

 

[Into]

The people running Xbox now are not the people who designed the Xbox One. Phil Spencer is not Don Mattrick. Acting as if the Kinect somehow has relevance to a third-party subscription fee policy, when it was put in the box by Mattrick and taken out by Spencer, is just ludicrous. You're finding anything you can pass of as a negative, regardless of its validity, and using that as an example of how Microsoft is so much worse than Sony, despite in this particular circumstance actually having fewer subscription fees.

Nobody should trust any company, ever.

But when it comes to bottom of the barrel, i would put MS and EA nicely together at the very bottom, at least in the world of videogames.

You are trying hard to portray this phoney Xbox fan "I Believe In Spencer" movement, that reeks of desperation and adds nothing to discussion. He was on the same stage as Mattrick and he did not take the Kinect out of the box, the consumer who refused to buy the console did for them.

 

[bitcloudrzr]

The people running Xbox now are not the people who designed the Xbox One. Phil Spencer is not Don Mattrick. Acting as if the Kinect somehow has relevance to a third-party subscription fee policy, when it was put in the box by Mattrick and taken out by Spencer, is just ludicrous. You're finding anything you can pass of as a negative, regardless of its validity, and using that as an example of how Microsoft is so much worse than Sony, despite in this particular circumstance actually having fewer subscription fees.

Phil Spencer was part of the core team at Microsoft that was part of the original design of the XB1. Unless you're saying that the chief of Microsoft Studios had absolutely nothing to do with any of those decisions.

 

[TitusGroan]

What makes you think Phil wasn't a part of the original design, he was there wasn't he?

He wasn't in charge. Now he's in charge, he's making changes.

Listen, corporations are not these monolithic sentient creatures akin to the Reapers who pass on their mandates to management no matter the personnel changes. Corporate policy is mandated by people. People are fired, kicked out, move on and are replaced. microsoft have given the Xbox division a huge shake-up. Acting as if it's the same Microsoft making the new decisions for Xbox is silly, as it ignores the very real way that changes in management and personell can change the direction of any company or product. You're assigning a will to an inhuman object, rather than to the actual people who are making the decisions.

I don't see people assigning this level of monolithic will to Sony, despite Kaz Hirai's chosen direction being very different from Howard Stringer's. I don't see people talking about the Playstation department as one monolithic entity. I see people recognizing Ken Kutaragi as the architect of the PS3, Mark Cerny as architect of the PS4, and Yoshida and House as the guys in charge of the studios. I see people acknowledging Iwata as the CEO of Nintendo, Reggie as COO of NoA, and Miyamoto as the head of EAD. With both those companies, changes in personnel would be recognized as leading to a change in direction (and many in GAF are hoping for as much with Iwata). When Cerny replaced Kutaragi, a change of direction was expected. When Tretton stepped down as President, a change of leadership was acknowledged.

And yet with Microsoft, there is for some reason this desire to overlook the actual people who make up the departments, and a desire to ascribe a will to the corporation itself. The only reason seemingly being to then use that as ammunition in console warrior bullshit where every new decision from a new manager or department head is instead seen as a flip-flop on the part of this living corporate entity. Instead of acknowledging that this department head, or that president maybe had different ideas from their predecessor, people paint this narrative of a sentient corporation changing stuff willy nilly. And that's now how fucking corporations work. They are not sentient. They are made up of people. The people in charge of Xbox now have their own ideas of where to take the product, and are taking it there. With any other company, this would be expected. With Microsoft, it's barely even acknowledged.

I'm not saying this to support their stuff with online-only DRM, only that all that stuff is irrelevant here. There is no point in bringing it up. A change in management and new decisions dare not responsible for some kind of anti-consumer conspiracy with EA when it comes to subscription fees.

EDIT

Phil Spencer was part of the core team at Microsoft that was part of the original design of the XB1. Unless you're saying that the chief of Microsoft Studios had absolutely nothing to do with any of those decisions.

He was head of the studios. He wasn't head of the department. Mattrick was, a man with a more clear focus on casual gaming. His input on hardware design was probably minimal, given the bulk of his time would have been spent organising, scheduling, budgeting and reviewing the studios Microsoft has. Now that he's in charge of the whole thing, he's elected to make Kinect optional, and focus more on actual games. Because, I would wager, he doesn't share Mattrick's fondness of Zynga-style experiences, and prefers focusing on stuff he knows gamers want.

That makes much more sense to me than this idea that Microsoft is this blundering corporate elephant that is constantly tripping over itself. People have different ideas about how to do things. When they get into positions of power, they execute those ideas. Now that Spencer is head of the whole department, he's executing his ideas.

 

[Dragonborn]

I really don't get the argument. The consumer can still vote with their wallets. If this is such an amazing deal, we'll see an increase in X1 sales. If not, then obviously it really isn't that big a deal.

 

[Navy Bean]

There are many straw men being constructed to make Sony look good here. Sony made a business decision not to offer the service. Plain and simple. It had nothing to do with their customers. I think it sucks, and you may disagree, but let's not pretend it was anything other than Sony protecting it's own services at the expense of a competing service.

For example, let's say Spotify wanted to come to PS4. Sony says no, we have Music Unlimited (lol), and hence there is not value for our fans. I find it hard that anyone would justify that decision, but that's essentially what they've done here.

 

[bitcloudrzr]

He wasn't in charge. Now he's in charge, he's making changes.

Listen, corporations are not these monolithic sentient creatures akin to the Reapers who pass on their mandates to management no matter the personnel changes. Corporate policy is mandated by people. People are fired, kicked out, move on and are replaced. microsoft have given the Xbox division a huge shake-up. Acting as if it's the same Microsoft making the new decisions for Xbox is silly, as it ignores the very real way that changes in management and personell can change the direction of any company or product. You're assigning a will to an inhuman object, rather than to the actual people who are making the decisions.

I don't see people assigning this level of monolithic will to Sony, despite Kaz Hirai's chosen direction being very different from Howard Stringer's. I don't see people talking about the Playstation department as one monolithic entity. I see people recognizing Ken Kutaragi as the architect of the PS3, Mark Cerny as architect of the PS4, and Yoshida and House as the guys in charge of the studios. I see people acknowledging Iwata as the CEO of Nintendo, Reggie as COO of NoA, and Miyamoto as the head of EAD. With both those companies, changes in personnel would be recognized as leading to a change in direction (and many in GAF are hoping for as much with Iwata). When Cerny replaced Kutaragi, a change of direction was expected. When Tretton stepped down as President, a change of leadership was acknowledged.

And yet with Microsoft, there is for some reason this desire to overlook the actual people who make up the departments, and a desire to ascribe a will to the corporation itself. The only reason seemingly being to then use that as ammunition in console warrior bullshit where every new decision from a new manager or department head is instead seen as a flip-flop on the part of this living corporate entity. Instead of acknowledging that this department head, or that president maybe had different ideas from their predecessor, people paint this narrative of a sentient corporation changing stuff willy nilly. And that's now how fucking corporations work. They are not sentient. They are made up of people. The people in charge of Xbox now have their own ideas of where to take the product, and are taking it there. With any other company, this would be expected. With Microsoft, it's barely even acknowledged.

I'm not saying this to support their stuff with online-only DRM, only that all that stuff is irrelevant here. There is no point in bringing it up. A change in management and new decisions dare not responsible for some kind of anti-consumer conspiracy with EA when it comes to subscription fees.

EDIT



He was head of the studios. He wasn't head of the department. Mattrick was, a man with a more clear focus on casual gaming. His input on hardware design was probably minimal, given the bulk of his time would have been spent organising, scheduling, budgeting and reviewing the studios Microsoft has. Now that he's in charge of the whole thing, he's elected to make Kinect optional, and focus more on actual games. Because, I would wager, he doesn't share Mattrick's fondness of Zynga-style experiences, and prefers focusing on stuff he knows gamers want.

That makes much more sense to me than this idea that Microsoft is this blundering corporate elephant that is constantly tripping over itself. People have different ideas about how to do things. When they get into positions of power, they execute those ideas. Now that Spencer is head of the whole department, he's executing his ideas.

Microsoft as a company decided to move forward with the original ideas in the original plan for the XB1. Do you honestly think Mattrick went ahead with what he wanted while everyone was just agreeing with him for the sake of it? You're assume that the people under him thought these ideas were bad and couldn't wait to turn things around.

You answered your own question by the way, Microsoft is a blundering corporate elephant that is constantly tripping over itself......in the consumer space to be precise.

 

[PSYGN]

There are many straw men being constructed to make Sony look good here. Sony made a business decision not to offer the service. Plain and simple. It had nothing to do with their customers. I think it sucks, and you may disagree, but let's not pretend it was anything other than Sony protecting it's own services at the expense of a competing service.

For example, let's say Spotify wanted to come to PS4. Sony says no, we have Music Unlimited (lol), and hence there is not value for our fans. I find it hard that anyone would justify that decision, but that's essentially what they've done here.

But Sony is always right! /s

 

[staticneuron]

Just to make sure I understand you correctly. Are you suggesting it is a possibility that EA would impose a subscription fee to use origin? Despite people like myself already owning multiple games on it? Would i suddenly lose access to my games unless I paid the fee?

That doesn't sound like an even remote possibility. More importantly, I don't understand why you even bring up Origin to begin with. There's nothing wrong with EA wanting their games to run through their client. It's simply a client. I have all my games routed to my steam library whole origin hangs out on my taskbar. I can be playing Mass Effect or Titanfall in seconds. I'm not sure why this bothers you. Origin keys can be bought outside of Origin, often with great discounts.

Nothing would happen to the games you own. They might not be part of whatever vault they will try to offer. Again, as with the steam reference, they didn't remove their old games but prevented the new ones from gracing other services. So if they started a EAA type service for their Origin client they would start off by locking things behind the subscription while leaving everything else alone.

Why is this a tough concept to grasp. It is not like the haven't done this before.

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.

Those are two different service entirely. Do you know what a paywall is? PS Now doesn't have a subscription cost but has individual rental pricing for titles.

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 don't have a problem with origin as a stated before nor do I feel every game needs to go through steam. So please stop with the false equivalencies. I am simply pointing out that given their behavior with Origin that the situation could turn even worse when they are given a choice to lock content behind a subscription on a closed service.

If you can't draw the lines to see how their behavior on an open system might not be to pretty on a closed one then there is really nothing more to say about it.

 

[Into]

How can it not be relevant, that a company that wanted to add DRM, anti used games and require always online, is the ONLY company that has accepted a publishers new service that is offering something that is very similar to what XB1 was about?

And not just any publisher, oh no

But EA, the company that clearly sided with Microsoft in 2013, and the two showcased a strong partnership, with exclusives, various deals and bundles.


I mean what a coincidence right, its like a season of the TV show Lost. EA and MS want this, its likely why they got so close even before the consoles launched, they had similar ideas for the future and what they thought would be the best way to do this. Nintendo told them to take a walk and now Sony did.

 

[Dragonborn]

But Sony is always right! /s

No, but they are right in this case

 

[TitusGroan]

How come Sony the company that allowed almost anything third parties wanted, suddenly is "restricting" them? If restricting third parties was the only goal, why arent they doing it more often?

Because it's direct competition. This has been spelled out for you god knows how many times. EA's service is direct competition to Sony's PS+ and PS Now services. The reason they are restricting it is because they want less competiton for their services on their platform. More competition means potentially less money. People could spend money on renting games from PS Now, or they could pay money for EA's games instead. Now they don't have that choice.

This just reeks of assumptions that Sony is only greedy and willing to fuck over their partners just to make a few bucks.

All companies are greedy. I'll ask you to provide evidence that Sony are not what you just described.

You are the one contradicting yourself, if Sony is "embracing" subscription fees more than MS or EA, then surely they would embrace EA's new subscription model right?

How do you embrace something by saying "no" to it?

See above point regarding competition. Microsoft is allowing competition by allowing third parties to offer their own subscription models. Sony is denying them to instead offer more subscription services of their own. Sony is pushing for less competition so they can push for more of their own subscription services (Two, thus far). Microsoft is pushing for more competiton, even if it means less subscription models for them (just the one Xbox Live model).

Its impossible to debate this when you outright dismiss their own reasons for not allowing it with "lolPR".

No, it's impossible to debate with someone who'll just swallow up anything a PR company says without applying critical or independent thought. I work with PR companies. I signed up with my work email and, if you wish, I can get a mod to vouch that my company works in the PR field (though not in the games sector, before anyone asks). I know how PR works. It is the same as political spin, trying to take anything negative and actually spin it as a huge positive.

It's weird how you're so critical of Microsoft's PR from a year ago, for consumer reasons, yet are so willing to lap up Sony's PR now, despite it essentially being the same thing. Consumer choice restricted by a platform holder, dressed up by PR to be a nicer decision than it actually is.

Open in terms of what services, apps and games they allow on their system. If "Let the consumer decide" equals good, then why not open their platforms to all the crap they can get?

Because "let the consumer decide" is not always a good thing, it can devalue your brand, make consumers vary of what they are purchasing and not have any trust in what you are putting on your closed platform.

Which is a far cry from allowing additional subscription models, which is the topic at hand. If you cannot discuss subscription models for AAA games from big publishers without bringing up the '83 Crash and the bottom of the market being cut out by shovelware, then this debate will go nowhere. You clearly have no sense of perspective, and are just throwing out whatever industry ills you can think of to make one side look better and the other one worse. "Oh, but the Crash of '83! Oh, but Microsoft got rid of tje Kinect! Oh, Sony's PR is fine, but at the same time don't trust Microsoft's PR."

If nothing else, it is very impressive watching you hold two such conflicting ideas in your head at the same time. I have never witnessed someone simultaneously slag the shit out of Microsoft for introducing subscription fees to the market, then praise Sony for their emphasis on consumer value by offering two subscription fee services.

 

[bitcloudrzr]

How can it not be relevant, that a company that wanted to add DRM, anti used games and require always online, is the ONLY company that has accepted a publishers new service that is offering something that is very similar to what XB1 was about?

And not just any publisher, oh no

But EA, the company that clearly sided with Microsoft in 2013, and the two showcased a strong partnership, with exclusives, various deals and bundles.


I mean what a coincidence right, its like a season of the TV show Lost. EA and MS want this, its likely why they got so close even before the consoles launched, they had similar ideas for the future and what they thought would be the best way to do this. Nintendo told them to take a walk and now Sony did.

Without going into the whole painting EA as evil nonsense. I just don't see Sony wanting a no ownership digital service from a third party on their system. There really isn't that much to look into and I'm surprised people are making the dumb comparison to PS Now.

If nothing else, it is very impressive watching you hold two such conflicting ideas in your head at the same time. I have never witnessed someone simultaneously slag the shit out of Microsoft for introducing subscription fees to the market, then praise Sony for their emphasis on consumer value by offering two subscription fee services.

XBL was shitty for a long time because it was a paid for service, but everything was P2P. Under the current gen, both parties are moving towards pushing everything hosted on dedicated servers. Also many PS3 games were server hosted and PSN was still free. Now that things are even in terms of pricing, it's no longer a complaint because both are actually giving a good reason to pay for the service, dedicated servers. The sub games and extra features are nice, but that is probably the most important aspect to all of this.

 

[TitusGroan]

Those are two different service entirely. Do you know what a paywall is? PS Now doesn't have a subscription cost but has individual rental pricing for titles.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/...scription-plan-for-playstation-now-streaming/

 

[Spottiettiedop]

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/...scription-plan-for-playstation-now-streaming/

Well I think that shows you know what a pay wall is. Right?

 

[bitcloudrzr]

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/...scription-plan-for-playstation-now-streaming/

Subscription is an OPTION to individual pricing, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

 

[TitusGroan]

Well I think that shows you know what a pay wall is. Right?

Ok, fine: not a paywall, an additional subscription service on top of PS+. Pardon my choice of word, but it's pretty clear what my meaning was regarding the subject of this thread. Sony have no problem with multiple subscription services of their own, which was my point of contention in the debate. This isn't about them being pro-consumer or offering value for players, it's about them making sure they hold the purse strings on their platform, not a third party. Which is fine, but it is not a pro-consumer move in comparison to Microsoft.

Subscription is an OPTION to individual pricing, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

That Sony has no problem charging subscriptions for access to games that you won't own in the long term, won't be able to trade-in, and will have to be online to play.

This isn't about value for players, this is simply Sony deciding they are going to own all the keys on their marketplace. Which is all well and good, but it doesn't need an army of fanboys making excuses for what is, at the end of the day, a financially motivated move. They are doing this because less competition on their platform regarding services means more potential money for them. That's it. It's not #4theplayers, it's not about gamer value, it's about Sony trying to make money off one of their last profitable departments.

 

[Into]

Which is a far cry from allowing additional subscription models, which is the topic at hand. If you cannot discuss subscription models for AAA games from big publishers without bringing up the '83 Crash and the bottom of the market being cut out by shovelware, then this debate will go nowhere. You clearly have no sense of perspective, and are just throwing out whatever industry ills you can think of to make one side look better and the other one worse. "Oh, but the Crash of '83! Oh, but Microsoft got rid of tje Kinect! Oh, Sony's PR is fine, but at the same time don't trust Microsoft's PR."

If nothing else, it is very impressive watching you hold two such conflicting ideas in your head at the same time. I have never witnessed someone simultaneously slag the shit out of Microsoft for introducing subscription fees to the market, then praise Sony for their emphasis on consumer value by offering two subscription fee services.

People were not just upset at MS PR but actually what they were doing with their system, there is no double standard here despite you pushing it as. This whole victim hood of Xbox fans is getting tiring, the company was judged on its decisions not on any bias hate as you seem to imply.

The rest of your post is you running in your own circles, with no coherent argument. Its pointless to address anymore as its a waste of my time.

You have made up phantom arguments and never at one point addressed the whole beginning of this "debate" likely because you did not understand it at all, or i failed to explain it to you, both are possible.

 

[bitcloudrzr]

Ok, fine: not a paywall, an additional subscription service on top of PS+. Pardon my choice of word, but it's pretty clear what my meaning was regarding the subject of this thread. Sony have no problem with multiple subscription services of their own, which was my point of contention in the debate. This isn't about them being pro-consumer or offering value for players, it's about them making sure they hold the purse strings on their platform, not a third party. Which is fine, but it is not a pro-consumer move in comparison to Microsoft.

No it wasn't clear what you're meaning was because a paywall and an optional sub are 2 very different things.

Sony has no problem with third party subscriptions. They have their own video service, but allow a significant number of others onto their system and we can probably expect lost more. As an example of course. I just want to make it clear that you do realize PS Now is for streaming PS3 games because there is no BC. The service EA is promoting is not the same.

I'm not arguing that they are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts or anything, but whatever terms EA wanted for this was probably unacceptable for Sony. Whether it is monetary or lack of control, we probably won't know any details unless something leaks.

 

[draetenth]

Doesn't this story make the assumption that consumers are idiots. So much so that they influence the market enough to push out the most beneficial options? That they would choose the worst option 9 times out of 10? An assumption that goes entirely counter to the most base-level, agree-upon theories of rational self-interest in economics? Forgive me if I am not willing to take that leap.

To be honest, I'm cynical enough about human nature to believe it to be true...

I don't have any proof or facts to back up my claim, I just default to being very cynical about what people would choose if they were given a choice.

Someone posted the Men in Black quote early in the thread that (paraphrasing here since I can't really remember it) where K told J that "A person is smart, people (that is more than one) are dumb, finicky creatures". Basically people are fine until you add mob rule/peer pressure to the equation.

I believe each person alone can decide whether the EA subscription is a good idea or not which I'm fine with. The people of this forum I believe are quite capable of deciding whether it's a good value or not (yes, I know the value depends on each person). My concern are the people who aren't doing it because they believe it's a good value, but are doing it because they feel the must since everyone else or at least all of their friends are all doing it.

On one hand I really don't like Sony making a choice for use, but on the other hand I really don't trust people to know whether the service should be used or not. My distrust of the average consumer's decision making is currently greater than my dislike of a company making a choice for me (and this can change) so I'm currently ok with the decision. Maybe if it was any company other than EA, I would think a bit differently...

What if EA decides that if you want to play online together you must be subscribed? People would have no choice, but to sign up if they want to play multiplayer. This would most likely be on top of the fees for Xbox and PS+ that you would already be paying if you want to play online for any other game.

To me, the subscription service would require me to give EA the benefit of the doubt that they won't do any of the things people fear. However, as someone who as played games for roughly 20 years. I've personally never seen anything from EA that has earned the right for me to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[TitusGroan]

No it wasn't clear what you're meaning was because a paywall and an optional sub are 2 very different things.

Sony has no problem with third party subscriptions. They have their own video service, but allow a significant number of others onto their system and we can probably expect lost more. As an example of course.

I just want to make it clear that you do realize PS Now is for streaming PS3 games because there is no BC. The service EA is promoting is not the same.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=865973

They're looking at ways to get full PS4 games on there. That would be the same realm of service as what EA is offering.

Sony has no problem with video services on their games console. It seems quite clear that they do have a problem with other gaming services on their game console. There is a world of difference between allowing a games console to play Netflix, and allowing it to play EA's games with a subscription fee going to EA. As soon as they get PS Now streaming PS1,2,3 and 4 games to PS4 owners, that's a service competing for the same money as EA's, and Sony have decided they want to makes things easy for themselves by not allowing EA to play that game in their court.

I don't understand why people are so stubborn to accept the idea that this is a financially motivated decision made for the benefit of Sony's bank balance. Yes, the #4theplayers thing was cute, but this is clearly a move being made for corporate reasons, not for consumer ones. I don't understand why people have such a hard time accepting that. Why is it so inconceivable that Sony is doing something for Sony's benefit?

 

[Dunlop]

On one hand I really don't like Sony making a choice for use, but on the other hand I really don't trust people to know whether the service should be used or not. My distrust of the average consumer's decision making is currently greater than my dislike of a company making a choice for me (and this can change) so I'm currently ok with the decision. Maybe if it was any company other than EA, I would think a bit differently...

Let's be 100% clear here, you should never trust any corporation to make choices for you ever.

Sony is within their rights to deny the service, but it is 100% because it could have an impact on their bottom line.

They are not the saviors of gaming that are looking out for the entire industry

 

[Synth]

Subscription is an OPTION to individual pricing, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.

So kinda like how EA Access is an OPTION to individual pricing of EA games?

 

[bitcloudrzr]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=865973

They're looking at ways to get full PS4 games on there. That would be the same realm of service as what EA is offering.

Sony has no problem with video services on their games console. It seems quite clear that they do have a problem with other gaming services on their game console. There is a world of difference between allowing a games console to play Netflix, and allowing it to play EA's games with a subscription fee going to EA. As soon as they get PS Now streaming PS1,2,3 and 4 games to PS4 owners, that's a service competing for the same money as EA's, and Sony have decided they want to makes things easy for themselves by not allowing EA to play that game in their court.

I don't understand why people are so stubborn to accept the idea that this is a financially motivated decision made for the benefit of Sony's bank balance. Yes, the #4theplayers thing was cute, but this is clearly a move being made for corporate reasons, not for consumer ones. I don't understand why people have such a hard time accepting that. Why is it so inconceivable that Sony is doing something for Sony's benefit?

I'm not saying Sony isn't doing this for Sony. They did talk about this by the way, in their first conference. The plan is to stream the game to you while it's downloading and then switch to the local mode once the PlayGo part of it was there. Also this system was to be used for short demos so you didn't have to download huge amounts of data.

It's kind of crappy considering the lag and artifacting, but in now way some sort of permanent streaming solution for PS4 games. This is mainly a BC service and apparently PS2 and PS1 games are going to have a local option anyway?

This is a far cry from EA's offering which would essentially be full game downloads locked behind a third party sub.

So kinda like how EA Access is an OPTION to individual pricing of EA games?

Not even close, unless you are saying that digital purchases and retail games should be treated the same as digital games with licenses locked away behind a third party sub. How can you be so obtuse?

 

[Nibiru]

On one hand I really don't like Sony making a choice for use, but on the other hand I really don't trust people to know whether the service should be used or not.

Sony not supporting the program was obviously a business decision on their part as I'm certain they felt it would lead to a conflict with PS PLUS. To them it was about protecting their own vision and less about robbing you of choice.

It is like game exclusivity. EA comes to these companies and offers them game exclusivity and MS or Sony decide whether to go for it or not. If they decide to not buy exclusivity are they "robbing" you of choice or just making a business decision they feel is better for them long term.

This "robbing" us of choice nonsense all stems from the pr statement they made. They should have just told the truth. They didn't like what EA was offering at that is that.

 

[TitusGroan]

I'm not saying Sony isn't doing this for Sony. They did talk about this by the way, in their first conference. The plan is to stream the game to you while it's downloading and then switch to the local mode once the PlayGo part of it was there. Also this system was to be used for short demos so you didn't have to download huge amounts of data.

It's kind of crappy considering the lag and artifacting, but in now way some sort of permanent streaming solution for PS4 games. This is mainly a BC service and apparently PS2 and PS1 games are going to have a local option anyway?

This is a far cry from EA's offering which would essentially be full game downloads locked behind a third party sub.

Except EA's games wouldn't be locked behind a sub, because you would be able to go out and purchase them anyway, same as always. Putting Battlefield up for subscription is not going to stop people going out and buying it on a disc for whatever price they can find.

 

[bitcloudrzr]

Except EA's games wouldn't be locked behind a sub, because you would be able to go out and purchase them anyway, same as always. Putting Battlefield up for subscription is not going to stop people going out and buying it on a disc for whatever price they can find.

Under this service, game licenses would be locked behind a service that Sony would have no control over, on their platform. Does this sound good for Sony, or anyone using their platform?

Sony does not want this specific service on their system and has nothing to do with EA's games.

 

[TitusGroan]

Under this service, game licenses would be locked behind a service that Sony would have no control over, on their platform. Does this sound good for Sony, or anyone using their platform?

Well, it sounds good enough that Sony are pushing that model themselves, locking game licenses behind a service with PS Now. If it's good enough for PS4 owners with PS Now, why wouldn't it be good enough with EA's model?

 

[Bgamer90]

No, but they are right in this case

Seems like many find them to be "right" simply because they aren't interested in the service.

Sony is having a part in increasing the trend of "services for gaming" just like the other big companies. Find it pretty funny that some here don't realize that as well as the fact they said "no" largely because EA Access would have been competition for Sony's own service(s).

Again, for as much as some here are saying that only MS cares a lot about gaming services, Sony has PSN and now the upcoming PS Now. Yet somehow Sony doesn't care about services and chose to dismiss EA Access because "they care about consumers"? The main thing they care about in terms of consumers in this case is where their money is going. They don't want anything taking away from the possible money they could make from PS Now.

MS didn't dismiss EA Acccess probably because they don't have a service on the Xbox like PS Now. On top of this, the service they do have (Xbox Live) will benefit from EA Access because people will need Xbox Live to play EA games online.

The arguments in this area are starting to remind me of some people who say that Sony doesn't care about "living room/media goals" based on similar reasons (I.e.: PR statements) even though all one has to do is look at what the PS4 provides in the media area now and what it will provide in the future to see that isn't the case at all.

 

[bitcloudrzr]

Well, it sounds good enough that Sony are pushing that model themselves, locking game licenses behind a service with PS Now. If it's good enough for PS4 owners with PS Now, why wouldn't it be good enough with EA's model?

We are talking about PS+ and PS Now technically. It wouldn't be good enough because Sony has control over the service and the platform. Essentially EA would have pretty much total control over their service on Sony's platform, under Sony's services.

Seems like many find them to be "right" simply because they aren't interested in the service.

Sony is having a part in increasing the trend of "services for gaming" just like the other big companies. Find it pretty funny that some here don't realize that as well as the fact they said "no" largely because EA Access would have been competition for Sony's own service(s).

Again, for as much as some here are saying that only MS cares a lot about gaming services, Sony has PSN and now the upcoming PS Now. Yet somehow Sony doesn't care about services and chose to dismiss EA Access because "they care about consumers"? The main thing they care about in terms of consumers in this case is where their money is going. They don't want anything taking away from the possible money they could make from PS Now.

MS didn't dismiss EA Acccess probably because they don't have a service on the Xbox like PS Now. On top of this, the service they do have (Xbox Live) will benefit from EA Access because people will need Xbox Live to play EA games online.

The arguments in this area are starting to remind me of some people who say that Sony doesn't care about "living room/media goals" based on similar reasons (I.e.: PR statements) even though all one has to do is look at what the PS4 provides in the media area now and what it will provide in the future to see that isn't the case at all.

MS didn't deny EA Access because they have a set partnership for the time being. Can you quote the people who specifically said that Sony "doesn't care about living room and media"? Past performance with the PS3 would suggest the complete opposite.

 

[TitusGroan]

We are talking about PS+ and PS Now technically. It wouldn't be good enough because Sony has control over the service and the platform. Essentially EA would have pretty much total control over their service on Sony's platform, under Sony's services.

Clearly it's a valid model, otherwise Microsoft wouldn't be allowing it.

If this was some pie in the sky proposal with no real world application, I could understand the argument of Sony being hesitant for consumer reasons. But Microsoft has already helped make EA Access a reality. Whatever problems exist regarding control over services, clearly Microsoft has made them work. They've found a way to make the service work on their platform where Sony could not. And the reason for that is probably down to the fact that Sony will have a subscription service in direct competition with EA Access where they do not (for the time being at least).

This isn't some unworkable idea. Microsoft have made it work. Sony could have done the same, but elected not to.

 

[Dragonborn]

Seems like many find them to be "right" simply because they aren't interested in the service.

Sony is having a part in increasing the trend of "services for gaming" just like the other big companies. Find it pretty funny that some here don't realize that as well as the fact they said "no" largely because EA Access would have been competition for Sony's own service(s).

Again, for as much as some here are saying that only MS cares a lot about gaming services, Sony has PSN and now the upcoming PS Now. Yet somehow Sony doesn't care about services and chose to dismiss EA Access because "they care about consumers"? The main thing they care about in terms of consumers in this case is where their money is going. They don't want anything taking away from the possible money they could make from PS Now.

MS didn't dismiss EA Acccess probably because they don't have a service on the Xbox like PS Now. On top of this, the service they do have (Xbox Live) will benefit from EA Access because people will need Xbox Live to play EA games online.

The arguments in this area are starting to remind me of some people who say that Sony doesn't care about "living room/media goals" based on similar reasons (I.e.: PR statements) even though all one has to do is look at what the PS4 provides in the media area now and what it will provide in the future to see that isn't the case at all.

When it comes to gaming, EA is the one company I trust least (other than MS). So honestly, Sony is obviously doing this for business reasons (probably), but it doesn't matter. If it puts a stop to services like this becoming common, I'm all for it.

If in the future, they block a real netflix style company, then there might be issues, but as of now? No, the last thing I want is ever publisher having a subscription. Preventing access to what will no doubt be the largest install base this gen will prevent it from spreading.

And of course Sony is interested in media and the living room. The difference is, they put gaming first.

 

[bitcloudrzr]

Clearly it's a valid model, otherwise Microsoft wouldn't be allowing it.

If this was some pie in the sky proposal with no real world application, I could understand the argument of Sony being hesitant for consumer reasons. But Microsoft has already helped make EA Access a reality. Whatever problems exist regarding control over services, clearly Microsoft has made them work. They've found a way to make the service work on their platform where Sony could not. And the reason for that is probably down to the fact that Sony will have a subscription service in direct competition with EA Access where they do not (for the time being at least).

This isn't some unworkable idea. Microsoft have made it work. Sony could have done the same, but elected not to.

Microsoft has a big partnership with EA for now. That's how they made it work and whatever terms EA wants on this, Microsoft has accepted.