Support NeoGAF

[staticneuron]

You used the idea of it becoming "Origin for the consoles" as a reason for why this should be avoided. So I'd hope you have some problems with Origin in order for you to be using its name as some sort of doom scenario. Ignoring the fact that EA simply CANNOT sidestep MS and Sony in the way they sidestepped Valve, would you mind explaining what "Origin for the consoles" is supposed to entail? Origin works for EA on the PC because it allows them to see 100% of each sale. They don't charge you to use it, as that would simply ensure that they'd have a drastically reduced potential audience to sell to.

A point brought up before and one I have already addressed....

Exactly and we do not know the terms of the agreements EA put forth. Either way the first parties are going to get royalties for any game that is sold for the consoles but there is no telling if the terms outline a deal with having a restriction on how to purchase a game on their platform.

No matter what, on a console EA is not going to see 100% of a sale. What they can do, is try to make a perpetual stream of income exist by using a subscription and putting the ability to purchase a new game behind that subscription. MS and Sony will still get their royalties no matter what and this would not affect the sale of physical releases. So all that is in the way is if MS or Sony will allow EA to try this experiment of theirs.

What is this "behaviour on an open system" that you keep bringing up? They're selling their content on their own store. There's nothing wrong with this at all, and is what Valve does. What Blizzard does. What Riot does. What Mojang does. If you have a problem with this, then I can only assume your problem is the absence of EA games on Steam, which prevents what I'm saying from being a false equivalency. You simply do expect them to pay a 30% cut to a middleman in order to see their games on a platform that they can distribute to themselves without problems. None of what they can accomplish on PC with Origin can realistically be applied to the consoles, due to Sony and MS getting their cut regardless of what portal EA adds on top. Not that any of what they've done with Origin so far even warrants being brought up for "behaviour" anyway.

Being a gatekeeper for digital content can certainly happen on a console and probably isn't a hard sell to the the first parties due to them getting their cut in the first place. Like I mentioned in my first few posts, the deal breakdown most likely would be about ToS and Distribution. Who delivers what and who services what. Granted Sony started out this gen with an all about gamers push but I really don't see them refusing a deal on ideology alone.They simply didn't agree to something in the deal and it is probably about cost.

 

[Synth]

A point brought up before and one I have already addressed....

No matter what, on a console EA is not going to see 100% of a sale. What they can do, is try to make a perpetual stream of income exist by using a subscription and putting the ability to purchase a new game behind that subscription. MS and Sony will still get their royalties no matter what and this would not affect the sale of physical releases. So all that is in the way is if MS or Sony will allow EA to try this experiment of theirs.

So you actually are suggesting that EA will charge you a sub for you to be able to purchase their games. They'd be like, "We're sorry, but anyone that doesn't sign up for $5 or $30 can't buy Battlefield 5".

You're probably right, we probably should just stop discussing this, because we seriously disagree on what the realistic scenarios are. You're creating apocalyptic scenarios, that I'm struggling to even see making business sense for EA themselves, with no prior reasons to believe that it's a route that would be taken (and no, Origin on PC has nothing in common with what you're suggesting).

Being a gatekeeper for digital content can certainly happen on a console and probably isn't a hard sell to the the first parties due to them getting their cut in the first place. Like I mentioned in my first few posts, the deal breakdown most likely would be about ToS and Distribution. Who delivers what and who services what. Granted Sony started out this gen with an all about gamers push but I really don't see them refusing a deal on ideology alone.They simply didn't agree to something in the deal and it is probably about cost.

The thing is though, is that this "gatekeeper" you refer to would only be by name. MS in this case is still hosting the game files. MS still charges EA for every sale. MS can still kick EA out if ever they piss them off enough. MS still determines if anyone can play online without paying extra or not. How much of a parallel can really be drawn with Origin here, where EA is in charge of everything to do with it... and somehow still hasn't screwed us over with it yet?

 

[staticneuron]

So you actually are suggesting that EA will charge you a sub for you to be able to purchase their games. They'd be like, "We're sorry, but anyone that doesn't sign up for $5 or $30 can't buy Battlefield 5".

You're probably right, we probably should just stop discussing this, because we seriously disagree on what the realistic scenarios are. You're creating apocalyptic scenarios, that I'm struggling to even see making business sense for EA themselves, with no prior reasons to believe that it's a route that would be taken (and no, Origin on PC has nothing in common with what you're suggesting).

It isn't as crazy or out there as you are presenting it. If they completely blocked of other means of accessing it (such as physical or other devices) then I would say it is pretty extreme. Doing that for consoles and only digitally could simply be a test (Sort of like Sony's market test, the PSPgo). If it doesn't work it won't crush the company.

The thing is though, is that this "gatekeeper" you refer to would only be by name. MS in this case is still hosting the game files. MS still charges EA for every sale. MS can still kick EA out if ever they piss them off enough. MS still determines if anyone can play online without paying extra or not. How much of a parallel can really be drawn with Origin here, where EA is in charge of everything to do with it... and somehow still hasn't screwed us over with it yet?

What do you think they did? Spit in their hands and shook on it? Swore a blood oath? Pinky Promise? In this industry things are done in contracts, and there are penalties for breaking contracts. It is about money in the end and if they made a deal to bring this service to fruition they are going to stick with it until the deal is over or pay a fee to get out of it.

 

[AgentP]

I hope Sony changes their mind, the EA access is something I'd do, so stupid they won't even let me decide that

It's their ecosystem, not yours. "Letting you decide" is equivalent to coming to a business agreement with EA, which clearly they didn't. The sooner you stop thinking of corporations as people the better.

 

[Synth]

It isn't as crazy or out there as you are presenting it. If they completely blocked of other means of accessing it (such as physical or other devices) then I would say it is pretty extreme. Doing that for consoles and only digitally could simply be a test (Sort of like Sony's market test, the PSPgo). If it doesn't work it won't crush the company.

It still sounds plenty out there to me. The PSPGo as a market test is completely different. They weren't testing charging people to right to pay. What you're suggesting would work one of two ways. One way is you'd need to have a sub in order to buy the game, after which it functions as normal, which makes little sense when combined with the 10% discounts as that would cause the game to cost the same, but also give the person a month of EA Access, and would also make any other games purchased during that sub cheaper, equalling EA seeing less money overall. Or you have to have a sub to buy the game, and then you'd have to keep the sub active forever (ala PS+ and GwG) in order to continue playing the game you just purchased. This scenario sounds absolutely insane to me, and I can't think of a single thing either from EA, or anyone else that lends a credence to this being a realistic scenario. EA would be better off if everyone moved to buying their games digitally, and something like this would make the current 10% they see rapidly become 0%.

What do you think they did? Spit in their hands and shook on it? Swore a blood oath? Pinky Promise? In this industry things are done in contracts, and there are penalties for breaking contracts. It is about money in the end and if they made a deal to bring this service to fruition they are going to stick with it until the deal is over or pay a fee to get out of it.

Sure MS could sign a contract with EA that locks them into a long-term agreement of somehow having less control over their own system, whilst also managing to make the current revenue split between themselves and EA favour EA more. I'm having some serious difficulties trying to work out what proposal EA could be offering to get MS to agree to something like that though (feel free to suggest some). Unlike the PC, EA can't do anything on the Xbox without MS okaying it first. That means they'll never be in full control of the platform unless MS has some 6 year old signing off on suicide contracts that'd leave them royally fucked in the future. What they're offering now isn't a valid test bed for what you're suggesting. I buy ALL of my games digitally right now, and have signed up to EA Access because the current offering is really good value for me. That doesn't mean I'd ever purchase a digital game from them if I had to maintain the sub to even play it afterwards. I'm probably one of the easiest people on the planet to sell digital stuff to right now, and they'd never see a sale from me, so a transition from the current offer to "pay us to pay us" seems basically impossible. If they think that's going to work, they may as well just go for it instantly, because the reaction is unlikely to be affected by leading off with something that's nothing like it.

 

[staticneuron]

It still sounds plenty out there to me. The PSPGo as a market test is completely different. They weren't testing charging people to right to pay. What you're suggesting would work one of two ways. One way is you'd need to have a sub in order to buy the game, after which it functions as normal, which makes little sense when combined with the 10% discounts as that would cause the game to cost the same, but also give the person a month of EA Access, and would also make any other games purchased during that sub cheaper, equalling EA seeing less money overall. Or you have to have a sub to buy the game, and then you'd have to keep the sub active forever (ala PS+ and GwG) in order to continue playing the game you just purchased. This scenario sounds absolutely insane to me, and I can't think of a single thing either from EA, or anyone else that lends a credence to this being a realistic scenario. EA would be better off if everyone moved to buying their games digitally, and something like this would make the current 10% they see rapidly become 0%.

If you are paying a monthly fee just to access games EA already has designated in thier vault then the offering 10% off a new purchase may not seem so extreme considering the months between releases a subscriber would still be paying money to them.

You don't have to keep the sub forever to keep a new game (at least I have not read that anywhere) you only sub for the vault.

But EA doesn't lose money if you are paying a subscription. Also The MSRP of Digital titles are set high not to anger B&M locations. 10% of a digital release should still bring in profit for EA.

The market test for PSPgo was to test digital sales. People purchased digital titles basically only through PSN. Iirc there were no codes for sale. So the market test is similar because it is about control and what consumers are willing to accept.

Sure MS could sign a contract with EA that locks them into a long-term agreement of somehow having less control over their own system, whilst also managing to make the current revenue split between themselves and EA favour EA more. I'm having some serious difficulties trying to work out what proposal EA could be offering to get MS to agree to something like that though (feel free to suggest some). Unlike the PC, EA can't do anything on the Xbox without MS okaying it first. That means they'll never be in full control of the platform unless MS has some 6 year old signing off on suicide contracts that'd leave them royally fucked in the future. What they're offering now isn't a valid test bed for what you're suggesting. I buy ALL of my games digitally right now, and have signed up to EA Access because the current offering is really good value for me. That doesn't mean I'd ever purchase a digital game from them if I had to maintain the sub to even play it afterwards. I'm probably one of the easiest people on the planet to sell digital stuff to right now, and they'd never see a sale from me, so a transition from the current offer to "pay us to pay us" seems basically impossible. If they think that's going to work, they may as well just go for it instantly, because the reaction is unlikely to be affected by leading off with something that's nothing like it.

Getting into a deal doesn't mean they have less control of their system. it simply means that they have agreed to something and they either see it to or use money to back out.

I am not sure if you became confused about the point I was bringing up. I wasn't saying that games you purchase would require a subscription perpetually. Only initially. And yes it may seem absurd now, but that doesn't mean they won't try it. MS thought what they were planning for the One was a great idea as well and stuck to their guns until they say numbers proving the market wasn't buying into it.

And want to talk about deals that leave a company stuck? How do you think Activision feels? Do you think the deals for CoD:Ghosts and Advanced Warfare were created this gen?

The deals won't kill these companies and over time they will just try something else once the contract is up. It is never a dire situation.

 

[BeforeU]

It's their ecosystem, not yours. "Letting you decide" is equivalent to coming to a business agreement with EA, which clearly they didn't. The sooner you stop thinking of corporations as people the better.

I never saw these types of posts during MS's initial Xbox policies.

 

[staticneuron]

I never saw these types of posts during MS's initial Xbox policies.

Yep, they were there. All people were saying were "I don't like this idea so I am not going to preorder the One" and MS responded after seeing the numbers.

That is the choice consumers have, accept what is offered or reject it.

 

[Neuromancer]

I never saw these types of posts during MS's initial Xbox policies.

I remember a few people defending MS on those same grounds. It's a poor comparison anyway. On one hand you have a company restricting consumers rights to sell, trade or give away games, and making consumers log in every day to access their games (something no game platform including Steam or iOS makes you do); and on the other hand you have a company not letting another company sell what is, arguably, a pretty shitty subscription service on that first company's storefront. Not even remotely comparable in my opinion.

 

[Beboh13]

I remember a few people defending MS on those same grounds. It's a poor comparison anyway. On one hand you have a company restricting consumers rights to sell, trade or give away games, and making consumers log in every day to access their games (something no game platform including Steam or iOS makes you do); and on the other hand you have a company not letting another company sell what is, arguably, a pretty shitty subscription service on that first company's storefront. Not even remotely comparable in my opinion.

It's only shitty if you are not allowed to access it. Asking people who own XB1's, I think most would agree its a good subscription service based on it's price and content right now.

 

[Metfanant]

It's only shitty if you are not allowed to access it. Asking people who own XB1's, I think most would agree its a good subscription service based on it's price and content right now.

Having done the math based on my spending habits in regards to EA games...it would cost me more on the EA Plan...

The problem for me is that I'm big into sports games...and I want them at release...so waiting for them to hit the vault is just not an option...

So there are other ways for it to be shitty as well

 

[Beboh13]

Having done the math based on my spending habits in regards to EA games...it would cost me more on the EA Plan...

The problem for me is that I'm big into sports games...and I want them at release...so waiting for them to hit the vault is just not an option...

So there are other ways for it to be shitty as well

I find it unreasonable to label an entire service as shitty if it doesn't cater to someone's particular circumstances. I play a lot of sports games as well, but refuse to buy them every year. So this works out great for me

 

[Synth]

If you are paying a monthly fee just to access games EA already has designated in thier vault then the offering 10% off a new purchase may not seem so extreme considering the months between releases a subscriber would still be paying money to them.

You don't have to keep the sub forever to keep a new game (at least I have not read that anywhere) you only sub for the vault.

But EA doesn't lose money if you are paying a subscription. Also The MSRP of Digital titles are set high not to anger B&M locations. 10% of a digital release should still bring in profit for EA.

The market test for PSPgo was to test digital sales. People purchased digital titles basically only through PSN. Iirc there were no codes for sale. So the market test is similar because it is about control and what consumers are willing to accept.

Getting into a deal doesn't mean they have less control of their system. it simply means that they have agreed to something and they either see it to or use money to back out.

I am not sure if you became confused about the point I was bringing up. I wasn't saying that games you purchase would require a subscription perpetually. Only initially. And yes it may seem absurd now, but that doesn't mean they won't try it. MS thought what they were planning for the One was a great idea as well and stuck to their guns until they say numbers proving the market wasn't buying into it.

And want to talk about deals that leave a company stuck? How do you think Activision feels? Do you think the deals for CoD:Ghosts and Advanced Warfare were created this gen?

The deals won't kill these companies and over time they will just try something else once the contract is up. It is never a dire situation.

Ok, the reason why I'm getting confused by your point is that you seem to be implying that Sony is making the correct call to restrict us from having this service on the PS4 because of what it could evolve to be in the future. That naturally caused me to assume the scenario you were talking about (having to be subbed in order to buy a game) would be something that would be objectively bad for the consumer and good for EA. Removing the need to remain subbed changes the dynamics of this dramatically for the following reason:

Say I want to buy Need for Speed Rivals digitally. Currently it costs £54.99 to purchase. With EA Access it costs £3.99 for the sub, and then £49.49 to purchase. So buy taking an EA Access sub I pay £1.51 less, whilst gaining a month's access to the vault games. This isn't something I need EA to force on me, as right now if I was going to buy Need for Speed Rivals digitally, it makes absolutely no sense not to take up EA's offer, and that's only after purchasing a single game. Now let's imagine I also decide to buy UFC. I've already paid the sub, so that doesn't get charged again, yet I still get another 10% off. So now I've paid a total of £102.97 as opposed to £109.98. And this doesn't even factor in the 10% off also being applied to any Season Passes or DLC I may want for either game.

Basically, as of right now, as soon as you take out an EA Access subscription, it becomes literally impossible to pay EA as much for the same content as it would have cost without EA Access. So why are we assuming that EA's master plan is to force this scenario of paying less whilst gaining access to more content on everyone? And even if we did assume that... how is this a dire situation that must be avoided at all costs?

As for the contract stuff, yea I know about Activision. The difference is that it made perfect sense for Activision to jump into those deals with MS at the time because it was actually beneficial for them back then (as well as MS). They probably wouldn't have signed the same agreement today, so again... why would MS agree to this today? What would EA be offering them to make it worthwhile?

All people were saying were "I don't like this idea so I am not going to preorder the One" and MS responded after seeing the numbers.

This is completely BS actually. I know this for a fact, as I am one of the few people who did like the previous offering (again 100% digital here). People weren't simply saying that they didn't like it, so they wouldn't buy it. People were acting as though it was the single most evil thing a company could have dared to attempt. People weren't even stopping at just MS, and were extremely hostile to anyone else that didn't hate it, as we were apparently part of the problem. I've been through so many discussions about it over the past year that if you like I can PM you examples of some of the things people were saying.

I remember a few people defending MS on those same grounds. It's a poor comparison anyway. On one hand you have a company restricting consumers rights to sell, trade or give away games, and making consumers log in every day to access their games (something no game platform including Steam or iOS makes you do); and on the other hand you have a company not letting another company sell what is, arguably, a pretty shitty subscription service on that first company's storefront. Not even remotely comparable in my opinion.

Yea, I was one of those people. I disagree that it's a poor comparison though. Although what is actually being offered (or not offered) is rather the different, the end argument basically boils down to "you disagree? buy the other console then". I actually think that's ok, neither company is obligated to do what we want, but people are free to complain in both situations. I don't want to go through the whole DRM stuff in yet another thread, but it wasn't all restrictions. They were offering quite a few things that would have made digital ownership better for a lot people, myself included. If something being arguably "a pretty shitty subscription service" (and I'd argue that you'd struggle to explain why it's shitty), is a reason to simply not allow people to try it for themselves, then an arguably extremely shitty rental service like PS Now should also be something they'd want to protect us from.

Having done the math based on my spending habits in regards to EA games...it would cost me more on the EA Plan...

The problem for me is that I'm big into sports games...and I want them at release...so waiting for them to hit the vault is just not an option...

So there are other ways for it to be shitty as well

Firstly, something being shitty for you personally is a pretty poor reason for wanting it to not exist for anyone else. Secondly, you can still buy your big sports games at release anyway, EA Access isn't preventing you from doing that. Thirdly, if you wanted them digitally then you need to re-run your math, because as shown above, it's actually cheaper to sub to EA Access for a month AND buy the game outright, than it is to just buy the game digitally. So you may need to rethink what makes it shitty.

 

[FairXchange]

If you think about it, why would Sony give EA an opportunity to launch a competing subscription service on their platform, when the entire Xbox One launch was defined by exclusive EA products and time releases? Maybe EA's cachet at Sony has dropped since EA attempted to box Sony out of the next-gen console launch with big, exclusive offers to the Xbox platform (Titanfall, PvZ, Fifa 14 free with Xbox One in Europe, time exclusive DLC in BF4, the list goes on).

 

[Amir0x]

If you think about it, why would Sony give EA an opportunity to launch a competing subscription service on their platform, when the entire Xbox One launch was defined by exclusive EA products and time releases? Maybe EA's cachet at Sony has dropped since EA attempted to box Sony out of the next-gen console launch with big, exclusive offers to the Xbox platform (Titanfall, PvZ, Fifa 14 free with Xbox One in Europe, time exclusive DLC in BF4, the list goes on).

I would actually think if any such thought process were to follow this sort of line, it'd be the other way around. That EA probably has been in discussions about this program with Sony for some time (since it was likely for a while to be a part of EA's strategy going forward), and Sony told them they wouldn't allow it. As a result, EA started giving high preferential treatment toward MS, who would allow it. Given Peter Moore's relationship with Microsoft in the past, it wouldn't have been a terribly big leap anyway. Probably has a great working relationship with MS.

 

[iceatcs]

One platform with massive installed base only is all publishers' dream.

Cheap to make and more guarantee to sell. So EA thought MS is the one before this gen start.

 

[staticneuron]

Ok, the reason why I'm getting confused by your point is that you seem to be implying that Sony is making the correct call to restrict us from having this service on the PS4 because of what it could evolve to be in the future. That naturally caused me to assume the scenario you were talking about (having to be subbed in order to buy a game) would be something that would be objectively bad for the consumer and good for EA. Removing the need to remain subbed changes the dynamics of this dramatically for the following reason:

Say I want to buy Need for Speed Rivals digitally. Currently it costs £54.99 to purchase. With EA Access it costs £3.99 for the sub, and then £49.49 to purchase. So buy taking an EA Access sub I pay £1.51 less, whilst gaining a month's access to the vault games. This isn't something I need EA to force on me, as right now if I was going to buy Need for Speed Rivals digitally, it makes absolutely no sense not to take up EA's offer, and that's only after purchasing a single game. Now let's imagine I also decide to buy UFC. I've already paid the sub, so that doesn't get charged again, yet I still get another 10% off. So now I've paid a total of £102.97 as opposed to £109.98. And this doesn't even factor in the 10% off also being applied to any Season Passes or DLC I may want for either game.

Basically, as of right now, as soon as you take out an EA Access subscription, it becomes literally impossible to pay EA as much for the same content as it would have cost without EA Access. So why are we assuming that EA's master plan is to force this scenario of paying less whilst gaining access to more content on everyone? And even if we did assume that... how is this a dire situation that must be avoided at all costs?

Ok... I am not sure how this confusion cam about so I am just going to post something I stated before. Just to make it really clear though.

1. The reason I believe Sony said no to EA is because something didn't benefit them
2. My opinions and worries about what EA might do are personal and not even speculation about what Sony may or may not believe.

Right here

Granted Sony started out this gen with an all about gamers push but I really don't see them refusing a deal on ideology alone.They simply didn't agree to something in the deal and it is probably about cost.

And as far as subbing just to get the 10% off as a logical call, that is they type of logic they would bank on if they restricted new purchases behind a subscription. The concept is for you to think you save more in the long run.

But this is really dependent on wanting the 4 games in the Vault. That is where it loses value proposition for me. Also, some titles are excluded from these benefits (example: Titanfall) so looking at the vault and the type of titles they would release in the future, this isn't attractive for me personally.

As for the contract stuff, yea I know about Activision. The difference is that it made perfect sense for Activision to jump into those deals with MS at the time because it was actually beneficial for them back then (as well as MS). They probably wouldn't have signed the same agreement today, so again... why would MS agree to this today? What would EA be offering them to make it worthwhile?

Simply because there is no downside for them. Both Sony and MS are playing a game where which console has more services and features. As long as the deal doesn't negatively affect them there is no reason for them to allow it.

This is completely BS actually. I know this for a fact, as I am one of the few people who did like the previous offering (again 100% digital here). People weren't simply saying that they didn't like it, so they wouldn't buy it. People were acting as though it was the single most evil thing a company could have dared to attempt. People weren't even stopping at just MS, and were extremely hostile to anyone else that didn't hate it, as we were apparently part of the problem. I've been through so many discussions about it over the past year that if you like I can PM you examples of some of the things people were saying.

I believe you.... but most of what you can point out to will be on the internet. And that level of vitriol was only found on the internet. I stated before I would have still purchased my XBone but MS did not really budge over comments on the internet. They only reacted to pre-order sales in conjunction to what people are saying. Sometimes the internet can be a very loud echo chamber so I can understand their behavior. They also didn't remove Kinect until the sales numbers, especially after Titanfall's release. Imo, if they were more careful with their PR less mud would have been thrown. What made some of it worse was what they stated in return and some of the confusion surrounding statements about their policies.

 

[the_champ]

I don't approve of those either. But one thing at a time.

Lol. You "dont approve" that, but you "applauded" Sony in previous message for being against the same thing.

 

[Laconic]

I don't approve of those either. But one thing at a time.

My one thing at a time currently involves owning and playing a Wii U and a Sager, whilst leaving my PS4 in its box, sealed, awaiting a compelling enough reason to completely bend my moral fiber, and NOT return it.

Paying an ongoing subscription fee for online multi-player is bollocks.

 

[icespide]

My one thing at a time currently involves owning and playing a Wii U and a Sager, whilst leaving my PS4 in its box, sealed, awaiting a compelling enough reason to completely bend my moral fiber, and NOT return it.

Paying an ongoing subscription fee for online multi-player is bollocks.

from the PS4/PS3 hardware revision thread http://neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=123946079&postcount=301

Whelp.

Now I am definitely going to return that unopened PS4 laying collecting dust in my game room, and wait for this version... and hopefully some games to make it worth opening up.

from the PS4 deals thread http://neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=123944513&postcount=10

That is what I paid at Target for the unopened one I have sitting in my den.

I really ought to return that - thanks for reminding me.

PS4 has no game. Yes, singular.

this is the 3rd time in less than an hour that you've replied to a thread talking about the boxed up PS4 that you really ought to return. why don't you just go ahead and return it instead of telling us about it?

 

[Laconic]

from the PS4/PS3 hardware revision thread http://neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=123946079&postcount=301


from the PS4 deals thread http://neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=123944513&postcount=10


this is the 3rd time in less than an hour that you've replied to a thread talking about the boxed up PS4 that you really ought to return. why don't you just go ahead and return it instead of telling us about it?

I am... flattered, I guess, or something, that you took the time out of your very busy day to read and quote my posts.

Obviously this elicits an emotive response in you; one that you seem uncomfortable with.

But I'll bring it up whenever and wherever I feel it is applicable to do so, thank you very much.

On topic, paying for online multi-player is ludicrous.

Asserting that a business owes a competitor access to its own store and the ability to set up shop therein, is pure, undiluted nuttery.

 

[RexNovis]

Buying a console and never opening it only to thread whine about it at every opportunity, is pure, undiluted nuttery.

There fixed that for you.

 

[RMS Gigantic]

It's their ecosystem, not yours. "Letting you decide" is equivalent to coming to a business agreement with EA, which clearly they didn't. The sooner you stop thinking of corporations as people the better.

At least in the US legal system, corporations are people. It's the reason when such a company wrongs somebody, the wronged person can simply sue the corporation instead of needing to individually sue every single employee and shareholder in it. The American Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that many of its rulings about individuals also apply to entire corporations. It's legally easier this way, and when the US government views an issue a certain way, especially the Supreme Court, US citizens generally follow suit unless they have very strong opinions to the contrary.

 

[Laconic]

There whined in bold about my angst about your post for you.

Ditto.

Your particular brand of opinion trolling isn't particularly nuanced. Continue if you wish, but I'm not compelled to care.

 

[RexNovis]

Ditto.

Your particular brand of opinion trolling isn't particularly nuanced. Continue if you wish, but I'm not compelled to care.

Yep totally caught me particularly well on this particular occasion. It's definitely trolling to point out hypocrisy.

You can't claim offense and superiority about a mandatory multiplayer fee (+ free games and discounts) of at most $60 when you paid for a $400 console you don't even use. That's like bitching about the cost of video on demand titles after spending hundreds on a tv and never bothering to hooking it up to watch them.

So how about you either sell it back or stop proving your own idiocy by constantly alluding to your proclaimed useless purchase.

 

[Zeuanimals]

Has anyone actually done the math on EA Access? That thing does not sound good at all if you actually look at what it's giving you and for the price, but this "Sony is killing our options" talk is overshadowing all of that. EA's gotta be happy that Sony's taking the PR damage from this and not EA.

EA Access has certain games designated as "vault games" where they are playable until EA decides to take them down. That means it's totally up to them on how long they want those games on there. A year? That would be cool but I'd say it'd be more around the week/month format, you also only have EA games to choose from. Compare that to PS+ which gives you access to more than just EA games and you can play them forever, so long as you have PS+.

Then there's the discounts. 10% is $6 off of a $60 game, you'd have to buy 5 $60 games in order to break even with the $30 you spent on the service. You also only get a discount on EA games. PS+ gives you discounts of 10-50% across games on the entire store.

So if you want EA's vault games and "perks", you'd have to pay for the service on top of PS+ if you want to play online, that's $80 for a neutered PS+ and a weak PS+ wannabe with worse everything. Yeah, I prefer not having EA Access and its bad policies that almost no one is paying attention to, unless I missed the parts in the thread where people have. But the general consensus on the internet is "good guy EA, fuck you Sony".

 

[Laconic]

Yep totally caught me particularly well on this particular occasion. It's definitely trolling to point out hypocrisy.

You can't claim offense and superiority about a mandatory multiplayer fee (+ free games and discounts) of at most $60 when you paid for a $400 console you don't even use. That's like bitching about the cost of video on demand titles after spending hundreds on a tv and never bothering to hooking it up to watch them.

So how about you either sell it back or stop proving your own idiocy by constantly alluding to your proclaimed useless purchase.

Okay, I'll bite a final time.

How about Sony get some games out that justify the purchase?

Because as of now, it is as useless as your mouth-breathing fanboy stupidity.

I'd use the term idiocy, instead of mouth-breathing, except you've used it in reference to me, so you clearly don't understand what it means. Which makes a sad sort of sense, contextually, given your posts.

 

[Synth]

Ok... I am not sure how this confusion cam about so I am just going to post something I stated before. Just to make it really clear though.

1. The reason I believe Sony said no to EA is because something didn't benefit them
2. My opinions and worries about what EA might do are personal and not even speculation about what Sony may or may not believe.

Right here

And as far as subbing just to get the 10% off as a logical call, that is they type of logic they would bank on if they restricted new purchases behind a subscription. The concept is for you to think you save more in the long run.

But this is really dependent on wanting the 4 games in the Vault. That is where it loses value proposition for me. Also, some titles are excluded from these benefits (example: Titanfall) so looking at the vault and the type of titles they would release in the future, this isn't attractive for me personally.

Dropping the unimportant stuff like the contracts and Kinect from my reply as they're becoming a bit long winded.

I said you're implying, not explicitly stating. If your personal view is that EA Access is harmful and its existence will potentially fuck things up for people in the future, then you believe the call Sony has made to be the correct one, regardless of what you believe their reasons for making that call are.

EA Access being good value isn't dependant on people liking the games within the vault at the moment, because you can simply sign up buy a game, spend £1.50 less, and then cancel. The vault access is basically purely an added perk in this case. You paid £1.50 less than you could have paid without the sub AND got vault access for the month. This isn't where it loses value for you. You simply don't like the idea of the service, and so are looking for scenarios where the value proposition fails... and so far, you haven't been doing a very good job of it.

Also Titanfall being excluded is likely due to it being an EA Partners game, rather than EA's own game. They've been happy to apply the discount to their latest releases like UFC, along with what appears to be everything else they sell, so they don't appear to be very selective about the offer right now. Could this change in the future? Sure... but so can tons of other things that I don't waste my time creating doomsday scenarios to convince myself that the current offerings aren't worth taking advantage of.

Has anyone actually done the math on EA Access? That thing does not sound good at all if you actually look at what it's giving you and for the price, but this "Sony is killing our options" talk is overshadowing all of that. EA's gotta be happy that Sony's taking the PR damage from this and not EA.

EA Access has certain games designated as "vault games" where they are playable until EA decides to take them down. That means it's totally up to them on how long they want those games on there. A year? That would be cool but I'd say it'd be more around the week/month format, you also only have EA games to choose from. Compare that to PS+ which gives you access to more than just EA games and you can play them forever, so long as you have PS+.

Then there's the discounts. 10% is $6 off of a $60 game, you'd have to buy 5 $60 games in order to break even with the $30 you spent on the service. You also only get a discount on EA games. PS+ gives you discounts of 10-50% across games on the entire store.

So if you want EA's vault games and "perks", you'd have to pay for the service on top of PS+ if you want to play online, that's $80 for a neutered PS+ and a weak PS+ wannabe with worse everything. Yeah, I prefer not having EA Access and its bad policies that almost no one is paying attention to, unless I missed the parts in the thread where people have. But the general consensus on the internet is "good guy EA, fuck you Sony".

I did the math a few posts up actually, and it looks good. I'm not sure why you've decided that a yearly subscription is the only option, but no you don't have to buy 5 $60 games to break even with EA Access. Buying a single $60 breaks you even (with a small saving) immediately on a month sub, and EA will give 30 days notice before a game is removed from the vault, meaning that on a monthly sub you'd always know if a specific game will be available throughout the duration of the next month you're subbed for. Things become less certain when subbing for a year, but that's par for the course when taking an option to save more money. This is true for buying Season Passes where the DLC may turn out to be unappealing, or subbing for a year or PS+ only to find out that each months offerings are mostly games that you've already actually purchased.

I'm not willing to refer to EA Access as having "worse everything" than PS+, when it's offering me the chance to cheaply play 4 full priced, current gen retail games, whilst my PS+ subscription has yet to offer a single one. If we can't even get Knack or Killzone:SF onto PS+, how exactly do you expect it to offer BF4, FIFA 14, etc? PS+ is good, but much like how Games with Gold was limited in what games it could offer on the 360 compared to PS+ on PS3 (due to not being able to revoke the license after a sub expires), PS+ is similarly limited in the types of games it can offer when compared to EA Access.

 

[GoofsterStud]

Why are we arguing about the value of something not yet established?

We know next to nothing about the service. We don't even know if the discounted purchases will require an EA access subscription. The way it's worded, it can go either way. Why don't we wait and see... We also don't know how quickly they will add games to it, if they will remove games, and more. All we know is that EA can remove games from the Vault at any time. We know that if EA removes a game for the vault and you bought DLC for it you now have to buy the base game if you want to keep playing. If your subscription goes out the same rules apply.

There is no way to evaluate the service at this time, we have to many variables.

 

[Synth]

Why are we arguing about the value of something not yet established?

We know next to nothing about the service. We don't even know if the discounted purchases will require an EA access subscription. The way it's worded, it can go either way. Why don't we wait and see... We also don't know how quickly they will add games to it, if they will remove games, and more. All we know is that EA can remove games from the Vault at any time. We know that if EA removes a game for the vault and you bought DLC for it you now have to buy the base game if you want to keep playing. If your subscription goes out the same rules apply.

There is no way to evaluate the service at this time, we have to many variables.

It's quite easy to evaluate the value of something that I'm currently subscribed to and using. The possibility of games being stagnant means little if I can just cancel whenever it stops appealing to me. I find it weird to complain about DLC stuff though. If you Redbox a game, do you run off and purchase DLC for it expecting it to be consistently available? And as for losing access to the DLC for ending your sub, that would apply to GwG and PS+ too.

If you're signing up for a year, then yes things are less clear (amazingly cheap though...), but that applies for almost anything. Back last year, a lot of people were assuming that the PS4 would be seeing its first retail PS+ offerings around E3 time (with many predicting Knack to be first after about 6months). If you purchased a year sub with that expectation, then "oops". However, if you've been subbed monthly, then you knew what you were paying for on a month to month basis.

 

[unknownstranger]

My guess is Sony is going to do something similar with PS Now where you can rent most of a Publisher's catalog for X amount a month.

 

[RexNovis]

Okay, I'll bite a final time.

How about Sony get some games out that justify the purchase?

Because as of now, it is as useless as your mouth-breathing fanboy stupidity.

I'd use the term idiocy, instead of mouth-breathing, except you've used it in reference to me, so you clearly don't understand what it means. Which makes a sad sort of sense, contextually, given your posts.

Ok so who is the fanboy here exactly? The person posting in multiple threads about Sony bitching about his unopened console and dismissing points about added value with accusations of "mouth breathing fanboy" or the one calling said behavior out and drawing attention to the hypocrisy in buying a $400 console you don't even use and then turning around and complaining about a multiplayer fee that's a fraction of that cost.

Yep man you totally told me by completely ignoring what I said, taking the opportunity to bash PS+ added value after my merely mentioning there is an added value and then also simultaneously insulting and dismissing another member as a "mouth breathing fanboy" and an "idiot." Good luck with that.

Why are we arguing about the value of something not yet established?

We know next to nothing about the service. We don't even know if the discounted purchases will require an EA access subscription. The way it's worded, it can go either way. Why don't we wait and see... We also don't know how quickly they will add games to it, if they will remove games, and more. All we know is that EA can remove games from the Vault at any time. We know that if EA removes a game for the vault and you bought DLC for it you now have to buy the base game if you want to keep playing. If your subscription goes out the same rules apply.

There is no way to evaluate the service at this time, we have to many variables.

This is exactly my point as well. The bullshit EA has consistently pulled in the past few years merits at least a little caution in regards to a program like this. Throwing money their direction and proclaiming "value" in a program we know very little about is not a logical decision given their previous actions. High five for a fellow skeptic.

 

[RexNovis]

It's quite easy to evaluate the value of something that I'm currently subscribed to and using. The possibility of games being stagnant means little if I can just cancel whenever it stops appealing to me. I find it weird to complain about DLC stuff though.

No it's not. Initial value is not any sort of indication of long term value. Not when the program is brand new and basically nothing is known about their plans or oddly worded policies.

If you Redbox a game, do you run off and purchase DLC for it expecting it to be consistently available? And as for losing access to the DLC for ending your sub, that would apply to GwG and PS+ too.

PS+ and GWG both do not take away access to any discounted purchased content after the end if the subscription. The way that the ToS is worded EA access could very easily do this so no you are 100% wrong PS+ and GWG do nat take away paid DLC (or purchased content if any kind) when your subscription lapses whereas EA Access could given its confusing word choice. So once again with spouting false equivalency.

If you're signing up for a year, then yes things are less clear (amazingly cheap though...), but that applies for almost anything. Back last year, a lot of people were assuming that the PS4 would be seeing its first retail PS+ offerings around E3 time (with many predicting Knack to be first after about 6months). If you purchased a year sub with that expectation, then "oops". However, if you've been subbed monthly, then you knew what you were paying for on a month to month basis.

If you are signing up for a year or a month you are telling EA that you will support their program while knowing very little about their future plans or policies. Most are simply pointing out that the thought of supporting EA without second thought or hesitance is counter to consumer interests given the company's historical precedent. Individual value does not overshadow the overall implications for many here.

You insist on looking at this only through the lens of value to you personally whereas I am skeptical because of where the value might be for EA and until I know fir fact that the value EA is seeking does not negatively impact me or the market at large the personal value is a moot point.

 

[staticneuron]

I said you're implying, not explicitly stating. If your personal view is that EA Access is harmful and its existence will potentially fuck things up for people in the future, then you believe the call Sony has made to be the correct one, regardless of what you believe their reasons for making that call are.

Actually all I pointed out is that I do not trust EA to make that type of a call. As far as incorrect or incorrect I leave that up in the air because I mentioned several times we do not know what the details of the deal were so there is no possible way to state Sony was correct or incorrect.

EA Access being good value isn't dependant on people liking the games within the vault at the moment, because you can simply sign up buy a game, spend £1.50 less, and then cancel. The vault access is basically purely an added perk in this case. You paid £1.50 less than you could have paid without the sub AND got vault access for the month. This isn't where it loses value for you. You simply don't like the idea of the service, and so are looking for scenarios where the value proposition fails... and so far, you haven't been doing a very good job of it.

And you are of the assumption that there are no third party vendors with similar sales? Do you know if the 10% off is immediate or do you need to be signed up for a certain period of time?


Here is value proposition for you.

UFC for the one Digitally is $59.99. 10% off makes it around $54. The sub price, $4.99. brings it back up to $58.99.

Or I could order it off of Amazon for $50.

No need to sub at all.

Again like I pointed out to you before digital prices are inflated not to anger B&M locations so if you are going to start focusing on price saving methods of acquiring games, purchasing digitally is not the best step forward.

As I stated before this is all personal so as far as I am concerned you also fail at showing how this could be a boon for a consumer like me even without access to the vault or trying to gain the system by subbing for the sale then canceling.

EDIT: I just have to step back and be amazed that you actually think that jumping through the hoops of subbing then canceling just to save one dollar somehow proves how the service is worth it. I am not sure if you are just joking with me now.

 

[Orca]

Having done the math based on my spending habits in regards to EA games...it would cost me more on the EA Plan...

The problem for me is that I'm big into sports games...and I want them at release...so waiting for them to hit the vault is just not an option...

So there are other ways for it to be shitty as well

If you're big into sports games why not get it for the other benefits then - getting them a week early, getting a discount on DLC, and getting the vault games that you might find you like as an extra bonus?

I mean were people this fucking irate about Season Pass on last gen consoles, which only gave us early access (three days) and a discount on DLC...or did it escape this hyperbolic bullshit factory because it was available on both consoles?

 

[Aces&Eights]

snip
PS Now is a simple game rental service (with some ridiculous prices IMO, but that's beside the point).

I can see the 5 bucks for 4 hours being a little too much but I just do not see the other tiers being priced too high. 15 bucks for a 30 day rental? That is .50 a day. Those games that are not day one purchases that I usually hem and haw on, deciding if 49.99 is still too much, well, this is perfect for them. After the newness wears off, the games will hit PSNOW and for 15 dollars I can play the whole thing for a month. More than enough time to plat the SP and play a few weeks of MP if it seems engaging. Even for those game that have good MP, the 90 day rental is 30 bucks. .33 a day to have 3 months of playing? That works for me. Rarely have I played a game for that amount of time and for the games I do, I would have just bought it new day one.

 

[Poodlestrike]

I can see the 5 bucks for 4 hours being a little too much but I just do not see the other tiers being priced too high. 15 bucks for a 30 day rental? That is .50 a day. Those games that are not day one purchases that I usually hem and haw on, deciding if 49.99 is still too much, well, this is perfect for them. After the newness wears off, the games will hit PSNOW and for 15 dollars I can play the whole thing for a month. More than enough time to plat the SP and play a few weeks of MP if it seems engaging. Even for those game that have good MP, the 90 day rental is 30 bucks. .33 a day to have 3 months of playing? That works for me. Rarely have I played a game for that amount of time and for the games I do, I would have just bought it new day one.

The problem with this argument is, what if you don't feel the need to play for the full 30/90 days? With something like Gamefly, you can send the game back and get a new one, so you're effectively only paying for the time you use it (minus transit, time, of course). The longer rentals look attractive from a value point, but then you realize that you're effectively stuck with it for the duration. Want to play something else? You'll have to pay again.

 

[Aces&Eights]

The problem with this argument is, what if you don't feel the need to play for the full 30/90 days? With something like Gamefly, you can send the game back and get a new one, so you're effectively only paying for the time you use it (minus transit, time, of course). The longer rentals look attractive from a value point, but then you realize that you're effectively stuck with it for the duration. Want to play something else? You'll have to pay again.

That is where the 4 hour play for 5 bucks is a good deal. I can usually tell what a game is about but sometimes I just need to play it if it is not an established franchise that I know and love.

I suspect that Sony might offer the ability to roll a 4 hour sub into a 30 and just pay the difference. In this case, then I either hate the game and am out a latte or pay the full 30 and have the game for a month.

EDIT: I look at it like I do with the indie games I buy. I paid like 15 bucks for Child of Light and after a couple hours realized I did not like it. Oh well, 15 bucks gone. I would have much rather had the option to pay 5 bucks and play it for a few hours and saved the 10 bucks. Then there is Quantum Conundrum. I bought the game a little wary but ended up loving it so much I bought all the DLC. At the end of the day we all just have different habits of spending, tastes and different ways we go about spending our money. Sure, it's not going to work for everyone but having the option to pay 5 bucks to try a game out is a pretty OK deal if you ask me. Most people will know if they like a game in 4 hours (heck, thats half the game for some SP games) 30 days means I'm not on the clock at Redbox for 2 bucks a day to beat it and return it. Gives me more wiggle room. Just my opinion, though. To each their own.

The four hour feels more like a paid demo to me I think offering a free 1-2 hour trial wouldn't be the worst idea in the world. Gives you a sense of what the game is offering and whether or not you'd like to see more of it. Four hours for five bucks just feels... wrong.

Some games, though, 1-2 hours is not enough time. Lots of RPGs dont get started until well into the 3-6 hour mark. One hour with Skyrim would not nearly be enough to show you all the game has to offer because you literally couldn't see 90% of the world. Other games, combat doesn't hit full stride until you are leveled up. Wonderfull 101 a perfect example. That demo was not close to what the full game was about. Dark Souls, too. It's NG+ where it really shines and now you are talking 50 hours in. (triple edit) Dark Souls 2 is a great example for me. Didn't buy the ps3 version due to tech issues it was shown to have and the loading times. In the event it does not come to the ps4, I could just stream it for 30 days and binge play it on my ps4. 15 bucks is all that I would spend and I wouldn't have to dust of my ps3.

 

[Poodlestrike]

That is where the 4 hour play for 5 bucks is a good deal. I can usually tell what a game is about but sometimes I just need to play it if it is not an established franchise that I know and love.

I suspect that Sony might offer the ability to roll a 4 hour sub into a 30 and just pay the difference. In this case, then I either hate the game and am out a latte or pay the full 30 and have the game for a month.

The four hour feels more like a paid demo to me I think offering a free 1-2 hour trial wouldn't be the worst idea in the world. Gives you a sense of what the game is offering and whether or not you'd like to see more of it. Four hours for five bucks just feels... wrong.

 

[Codeblew]

Okay, I'll bite a final time.

How about Sony get some games out that justify the purchase?

Because as of now, it is as useless as your mouth-breathing fanboy stupidity.

I'd use the term idiocy, instead of mouth-breathing, except you've used it in reference to me, so you clearly don't understand what it means. Which makes a sad sort of sense, contextually, given your posts.

Why did you buy a PS4 knowing it had no games and a fee for multiplayer? You must not be very good with finances.

 

[Aces&Eights]

Why did you buy a PS4 knowing it had no games and a fee for multiplayer? You must not be very good with finances.

Someone made a left turn at N4G and thought they were heading to Reddit and landed here instead. In other words, obvious troll is obvious. Choosing to thread shit on a great discussion about the future of gaming subscriptions and the impact we could all experience, good and bad.... with nonsense.

 

[whome0]

Here is value proposition for you.

UFC for the one Digitally is $59.99. 10% off makes it around $54. The sub price, $4.99. brings it back up to $58.99.

Or I could order it off of Amazon for $50., No need to sub at all.

Again like I pointed out to you before digital prices are inflated not to anger B&M locations so .../... purchasing digitally is not the best step forward.

Not to mention physically copied game disc has a resell value of 10-20$. If player was to adjust behaviour to a one year off they can get cheap deals on annual sports games through B&M shops. EAPlan Vault has older sports titles for free I could imagine they get longer gaming lifetime if people are to sub EAPlan. Why buy 50-60$ sports game if I can just play almost identical game for free, wait one year and have access to a "new version". So there might be a tendency to change current consuming behaviour. All in all EASports (may) get my annual money anyway.

EAPlan is a corporation master plan that's why it is planted. EA (presumably) gets a steady cash flow, easier budgeting for next projects with that income, lock customers to EA titles, subscriptions are kept active once its signed by consumer why bother cancelling.

Competitors have hard time bringing a new golf or soccer title. If I already have access to EA soccer game "for free" why would I spend 50$ Konami PES title? It may be a better game but is it that much better? I am locked to be EA customer for convenience.

 

[RexNovis]

Not to mention physically copied game disc has a resell value of 10-20$. If player was to adjust behaviour to a one year off they can get cheap deals on annual sports games through B&M shops. EAPlan Vault has older sports titles for free I could imagine they get longer gaming lifetime if people are to sub EAPlan. Why buy 50-60$ sports game if I can just play almost identical game for free, wait one year and have access to a "new version". So there might be a tendency to change current consuming behaviour. All in all EASports (may) get my annual money anyway.

EAPlan is a corporation master plan that's why it is planted. EA (presumably) gets a steady cash flow, easier budgeting for next projects with that income, lock customers to EA titles, subscriptions are kept active once its signed by consumer why bother cancelling.

Competitors have hard time bringing a new golf or soccer title. If I already have access to EA soccer game "for free" why would I spend 50$ Konami PES title? It may be a better game but is it that much better? I am locked to be EA customer for convenience.

There is definitely some element of truth here but I still maintain that there must be something we aren't seeing here. EA is known to be consistently anti consumer and also isn't known fir providing "value." Time will tell.

 

[matty2Dfraud]

Why would Sony allow EA's competing service on PS4 when they're already trying to ripoff their customers with PSNow? Sounds like bad business.

 

[RexNovis]

Why would Sony allow EA's competing service on PS4 when they're already trying to ripoff their customers with PSNow? Sounds like bad business.

Right because PSNow is totally equivalent to EA Access. How many times does this need to be said?

I don't know how many times you need to hear this, but apparently it's at least one more...

PS Now is irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

ps+ and GWG are clearly similar programmes although not actual rivals as far as the consumer is concerned as both would be required in the first place.

PSNow:

1. Streaming of incompatible back-catalogue in respect to ps4.

2. It's aiming to be much more than streamed ps3 games on ps4. It might be how it initially rolls out, but there's a much larger plan. It's PlayStation content on not only PlayStation devices but Sony televisions (no console!) and even other 3rd party hardware (other TVs? tablets?).

This thread is concerned with EA Access, Sony's PR regarding turning down the service and how genuine that might be, other reasons there might be away from the content of their PR and the reasoning why MS chose to allow it.

Compare Access to ps+ and GWG if you must, they at least have some parallels, unlike PS Now.

PSNOW is an online streaming service, how does that even compare to downloading games locally?

PS Now is a completely different service, designed to do different things. I don't know why it's relevant here. PS Now is a simple game rental service (with some ridiculous prices IMO, but that's beside the point).

Why the hell do people keep bringing up PSNow?!? The two are not even slightly related. They aren't competing platforms. There's not even a subscription model for PSNow yet and even if there was it would offer PS1/PS2/PS3 games via steaming not Current gen games via digital distribution. The two are not comparable they are completely separate. Stop with the equivocating!

So yea this has been explained multiple times but you know nice drive by false equivalency post.

 

[mrklaw]

At the end, Sony is looking for a walled garden on Playstation ecosystem. Which is reasonable from a business perspective, but at the same time less convenient to consumers (mainly because that means less competition, in fact its a monopoly).
Microsoft strategy with Live would have been the same IF they wouldnt running behind PS4. Since they need to catch up competition, they need to open the game to companies like EA to increase perceived value of the platform. Its the very same scenario Sony was facing on previous generation: They needed to offer more value through PS+ to catch up initial 360 advantage. That's how market economy works. And its fine.

It isn't really opening anything up though - its just like Netflix or Amazon Instant Video - MS has xbox video so technically it is a competitor but they allow the service. And you need XBL gold for this.

 

[Brad Grenz]

It isn't really opening anything up though - its just like Netflix or Amazon Instant Video - MS has xbox video so technically it is a competitor but they allow the service. And you need XBL gold for this.

If the console business model was built around monetizing on demand video content they wouldn't be so open to those services. There is a huge difference between allowing other video services on your game console and allowing other game services on your game console. The former might reduce ancillary profits while acting as a value add for users, the later is an existential threat.

 

[Handy Fake]

If the console business model was built around monetizing on demand video content they wouldn't be so open to those services. There is a huge difference between allowing other video services on your game console and allowing other game services on your game console. The former might reduce ancillary profits while acting as a value add for users, the later is an existential threat.

I say, sir. Succinct and to the point.

 

[Black Mantis]

It isn't really opening anything up though - its just like Netflix or Amazon Instant Video - MS has xbox video so technically it is a competitor but they allow the service. And you need XBL gold for this.

No you don't.

http://www.polygon.com/2014/8/4/5968715/ea-access-xbox-live-gold-subscription-no-requirement

 

[gamechanger87]

It isn't really opening anything up though - its just like Netflix or Amazon Instant Video - MS has xbox video so technically it is a competitor but they allow the service. And you need XBL gold for this.

You do not need XBL gold for this. You need it for the online play in any game just like always.