Support NeoGAF

[scoobs]

Ummm, how.....what......? I don't want it and it is not being offered on my platform so there isn't a decision to make. People are complaining about Sony not offering their consumers this option. My point was if you're that invested into EA titles, then buy an Xbox One. Spend $90 annually and be happy. I don't understand you arrived to the quote above based on my post. Have you not read the thread?

Question: aren't they offering last years EA titles only, and then a $10 discount on actual new EA games? I'm struggling to see a reason to pay for last years games when newer versions are on shelves. The $10 discount is nice, but if you only want FIFA 15, Madden 15, and the new BF game... you've saved $30, but you also paid $30 for the service ... so you've broken even. Not much of a deal really, or am I missing something?

 

[staticneuron]

I'm not sure if they handing it off wholesale to MS, I'm sure they have some of their back end tech stuff to work through as well to ensure it works as well as possible. The downloading of games, etc is handed off to MS, but EA would have to build and maintain their own Vault in terms of adding games, ensuring there are no major hitches in accessing content, etc.

What does this have to do with preferred consoles? Are you incapable of discussing something without bringing it down to a console war and how if you like the idea of a subbed based system, you obvious love a specific console. Jog on with that bullshit.

And we don't have multiple ToS now? Almost every single online MP game has you accept its ToS before you can play. So that seems like a redundant complaint.

That makes no sense at all. EA wouldn't be handling any backend if the content and the service is all authorized and distributed through MS's network. And he is talking about the ToS of the services themselves not the games. That is a whole different topic to discuss because the confusion will now lie on which company supports the product if it gives trouble. Who do you go for a refund? Since you require Origin and the Xbox ToS, will there be any situation where you can point to Origin's ToS to resolve and issue or no?

With Playstation Plus you don't have any choice of games either. Some think it is a good deal while others don't. Granted, if you want to enjoy certain online games, then you have to get their service.

While you may not like EA games, others would find value in the service. Why not let the customer decide?

I understand Sony may not benefit financially greatly from the service, and I won't fault them for not wanting it because of that.

To claim it doesn't offer value to their customers as the reason for denying it is laughable in my opinion though.

Well considering they were first talking about PSnow but not PSplus, here is the single most defining aspect of all of this.

The value is not an added proposition if you have to deal with Sony's ToS outside of the benefits afforded by PSplus. Even if you signup with EA A if you have to agree to Sony's TOS as part of the process, you might run into issues where EA can refuse refunds on several types of purchases and refer you back to Sony where you can receive a firm no as described in their ToS.

So in the end, you talk about value, to me it sounds like a crappy situation that is bound to happen where EA can pass the buck and you will be out of luck.

 

[Lucreto]

I still see people are jumping the gun.

I won't let some faceless Sony representative determine what will actually happen.

We don't know the position this person has and if he actually knows what's going on since communication within Sony seems to be poor. For example an insiders in Sony Russia said The Last Guardian was cancelled and Shu said it was not true. I would believe him more than anyone else.

I would wait an official response from Shu or House before jumping on this.

 

[ScatheZombie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Death2494]

If you look at the state of XBL, Microsoft would say yes to anything. Whether it's truly beneficial to the consumer is irrelevant. You only need to watch the reveal to see what Microsoft thought gamers wanted.Gamers who consume alot of EA titles should be overjoyed. Others, that maybe buy an EA titles once a year, won't feel like as inclined to seize the opportunity.

Those who only own a Xbox One will see this as a godsend and champion it regardless of it's short commings. It will undoubtedly become ammunition to be fired in future battles. Sony would have nothing to gain while assuming all the responsibility/ backlash when things go array. This would overcomplicate PS+ should other publishers wish to adopt this format. Ultimately it would do more harm than good. I respect their decision as I also respect Microsoft for taking the initiative.

 

[RexNovis]

I actually think Sony will let EA do their thing if they don't see success with PSNow (which from a 'value' perspective, currently looks HORRIBLE when compared). I don't think PS+ is the problem, as they'll always have the MP to hold people to that. I'm confident that the differentiating factor here is that Sony bought Gaikai and MS didn't, so MS doesn't really care and Sony very much does.

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!

 

[Death2494]

Question: aren't they offering last years EA titles only, and then a $10 discount on actual new EA games? I'm struggling to see a reason to pay for last years games when never versions are on shelves. The $10 discount is nice, but if you only want FIFA 15, Madden 15, and the new BF game... you've saved $30, but you also paid $30 for the service ... so you've broken even. Not much of a deal really, or am I missing something?

Refer to my comment slightly above this reply. I don't, personally, think it's a deal. But some will hail it as the 2nd coming regardless of the details. They'll chastice Sony for dismissing this golden opportunity and praise Microsoft for being pioneers.

Sony reduced the price of TLoU remastered by 17% and you didn't need to pay them $30 annually or $5/month. Just saying

 

[Death2494]

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!

This! But says that you need logic to make an argument?

 

[Officerrob]

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!

Most of the PS Now arguments are in relation to the value argument brought by the Sony rep. Lots of people think EA Access is currently a better value than what is being charged for games on PS Now (regardless of how they are distributed or what generation they are). Yes, I'm aware that PS Now is in beta and currently doesn't have a subscription price, but EA Access is also just in beta, and apparently that was good enough for Sony to make a value evaluation, why can't we?

 

[Exploratory]

Why do I have the feeling that canceling will be an exercise in frustration? Oh that's right -EA. When did we start giving them the benefit of the doubt again?

You mean the same EA that gives refunds on digital games? That EA?

 

[staticneuron]

Most of the PS Now arguments are in relation to the value argument brought by the Sony rep. Lots of people think EA Access is currently a better value than what is being charged for games on PS Now (regardless of how they are distributed or what generation they are). Yes, I'm aware that PS Now is in beta and currently doesn't have a subscription price, but EA Access is also just in beta, and apparently that was good enough for Sony to make a value evaluation, why can't we?

Fine. Selection.

You can state that the EA proposal has a better value but what you are talking about is a subscription to a service that provides only 7 games in its vault right now. A racer, 2 shooters, a fighter and the rest are sports. The PSnow selection even in beta already outnumbers that and it has PS3 and PSN games from various pubs to choose from.

So yeah the deal sounds good until you realize yo do not have much of a selection to begin with and going foward it isn't going to grow by leaps and bounds.

 

[ILoveBish]

You mean the same EA that gives refunds on digital games? That EA?

Could you direct me to whom I need to contact to get a full refund on battlefield 4 ps4? I bought it digitally. Thanks.

 

[ItAintEasyBeinCheesy]

Don't think I would pay any sort of subscription for one publisher alone.

Unless it was Rockstar and they had GTA, Red Dead on alternating years.

 

[Dunlop]

You mean the same EA that gives refunds on digital games? That EA?

Lol,I remember calling Sony about a movie that didn't work on PSN and they refused to give me my money back.

Last time I used their service for media after that

 

[Fortinbras]

Question: aren't they offering last years EA titles only, and then a $10 discount on actual new EA games? I'm struggling to see a reason to pay for last years games when newer versions are on shelves. The $10 discount is nice, but if you only want FIFA 15, Madden 15, and the new BF game... you've saved $30, but you also paid $30 for the service ... so you've broken even. Not much of a deal really, or am I missing something?

I just wanted to play some Fifa and try Battlefield 4. Being able to play these games for 3.99 € for a whole month seems like a good deal to me.

We don't have any Gamefly type services here. The cheapest one I've seen is verleihshop with one week rentals for 8.90 € per game.

I'm not interested in buying these games or the new games for 50 to 70 €.

 

[Derpcrawler]

Could you direct me to whom I need to contact to get a full refund on battlefield 4 ps4? I bought it digitally. Thanks.

They give refunds on origin for next 24 hours after you launch the game, no questions asked. They don't have any control over Sony store.

 

[ILoveBish]

They give refunds on origin for next 24 hours after you launch the game, no questions asked. They don't have any control over Sony store.

So what he said was wrong. Thanks. Still avoiding anything with an ea logo on it till I'm given a full refund for bf4 ps4. Paid for broken trash. Unacceptable.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

Don't think I would pay any sort of subscription for one publisher alone.

Unless it was Rockstar and they had GTA, Red Dead on alternating years.

This. I'm not for EA doing this because I don't feel their catalog justifies a subscription. None of their games are crack (must have every year) to me.

NBA Live sucks
UFC is ok but really needs THQ talents badly (ignite engine is amazing though)
Madden is ok
i'm not into Peggle at all
PVZ is 50/50 and...
BF4 is my favorite multiplier shooter franchise.

Other games not apart of the vault for last gen however would well warrant the sub. As of right now for next gen, there just isn't anything there. For $5 a month, I guess if you are paying that, you are good, but I will be very hesitant to drop $30 knowing that the sub will not pay for itself if my discounts does not surpass the yearly fee.

 

[Lynn616]

Here's my question:

It costs $5 a month to get this service where you get a bunch of older free games for the month, and you get a 10% discount on new digital software.

New digital software costs $60.

Therefore, wouldn't anyone (who's going digital) buying a new EA game subscribe to the service for (at least) one month to basically get $1 off and access to a bunch of free games for the month?

Yes but Sony thinks saving $1 is not a good value. Three cheers for Sony for protecting us.

 

[alexandros]

I have near zero interest for most of EA's software offerings but this another example why closed systems are bad for everyone. This is basically Sony defending their PS+ service in lieu of a third-party offering and being back to their old arrogant selves. Whether or not EA's service offered value, that shouldn't be up to them to decide, but then again, I doubt there's any merit behind that justification, I think it's just a PR lie.

Pretty much.

 

[quest]

Good Sony is taking a stand.. For all we know Ubisoft might be planning their own subscription type deal if EA gets big mobey out of theirs, and then it will be the norm for all publishers..

I fully expect all the big publishers to have a similar service as a way to monetize their back catalog and a way to help push digital purchases with out pissing off retailers. With a shrinking market expect these big publishers to pull out all the stops to continue to make money.

 

[JaggedSac]

PS Now is still in beta, so who knows what the prices will really be when 1.0 is launched. But anyway 48 hours for $5 is comparable to Redbox, and with PS Now or Redbox you get to pick what game you want rather than whatever refuse EA has decided to give you whether you like a particular sporting event or not and for some reason didn't buy it last year.

To be fair Redbox selections are usually ass.

 

[RexNovis]

This thread is rapidly becoming toxic and pointless. People are arguing in circles without showing any signs of considering other's points of view. I didn't expect this to become such a vitriolic affair.

Was Sony's statement shit? Yes. It's clear this decision was made to protect their own interests. But, as far as PR is concerned, it's a mild fuck up compared to the "they just can't accept innovation" or "online is absolutely integral to the experience" crap we've seen out of EA. So, it seems to me to be a case of the lesser of two evils here.

As far as the whole argument of depriving the consumer of choice: if the choice ingratiates and obligates the consumer to a company that has been the epitome of anti consumer business practices I don't see how it's anti consumer to deny such a choice.

Regardless of whether or not people are clamoring for it it has the potential to impact the industry as a whole in a way that would be the complete antithesis to the sort of marketplace Sony is attempting to cultivate. Therefore, it's well within reason and rights for them to deny such a service a space in their own marketplace.

It's just crazy to me that people are buying this proposition at face value when a consistent historical precedent of anti consumer fuckery has been set by the company behind it. Everyone needs to take a deep breath step back and watch how this develops carefully. At this point, rushing on head first proclaiming it's merits from the rooftops when little to nothing is known about it is just the worst sort of foolishness and is precisely the sort of thing that companies count on to exploit the consumer.

Is it a shitty move to deny the consumer a choice in the matter? Arguably yes. Is it better for the consumer in the long run? A compelling argument can be made to say so and until there is evidence or precedent proving otherwise the wisest course of action is to pay attention closely and treat the situation with utmost skepticism.

So, please stop screaming from the rooftops about how great this program is when next to nothing is actually known about the plans of the company behind it or how it will play out in the long run. Doing so does nothing to win over people thinking logically about this and instead makes you look either exceedingly shortsighted or just plain foolish.

 

[DagnastyEp]

Most of the PS Now arguments are in relation to the value argument brought by the Sony rep. Lots of people think EA Access is currently a better value than what is being charged for games on PS Now (regardless of how they are distributed or what generation they are). Yes, I'm aware that PS Now is in beta and currently doesn't have a subscription price, but EA Access is also just in beta, and apparently that was good enough for Sony to make a value evaluation, why can't we?

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

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

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

 

[SmokedMeat]

Question: aren't they offering last years EA titles only, and then a $10 discount on actual new EA games? I'm struggling to see a reason to pay for last years games when newer versions are on shelves. The $10 discount is nice, but if you only want FIFA 15, Madden 15, and the new BF game... you've saved $30, but you also paid $30 for the service ... so you've broken even. Not much of a deal really, or am I missing something?

I thought it was a 10% discount, so $6 off new titles.

 

[alexandros]

As far as the whole argument of depriving the consumer of choice: if the choice ingratiates and obligates the consumer to a company that has been the epitome of anti consumer business practices I don't see how it's anti consumer to deny such a choice.

Regardless of whether of not people are clamoring for it it has the potential to impact the industry as a whole in a way that would be the complete antithesis to the sort of marketplace Sony is attempting to cultivate. Therefore, it's well within reason and rights for them to deny such a service a space in their own marketplace.

How can you write this with a straight face? Sony is already doing the exact same thing that EA is doing, and going about it in a much more anti consumer way.

 

[Colbert]

Question: aren't they offering last years EA titles only, and then a $10 discount on actual new EA games? I'm struggling to see a reason to pay for last years games when newer versions are on shelves. The $10 discount is nice, but if you only want FIFA 15, Madden 15, and the new BF game... you've saved $30, but you also paid $30 for the service ... so you've broken even. Not much of a deal really, or am I missing something?

Its 10% off for all EA games, DLC, Season Passes, that are not content of the "vault". In addition if a game is part of the "vault" you get it totally for free and can play it as long you are subscribed and the content is part of the vault.

 

[AyaisMUsikWhore]

This thread is rapidly becoming toxic and pointless. People are arguing in circles without showing any signs of considering other's points of view. I didn't expect this to become such a vitriolic affair.

Was Sony's statement shit? Yes. It's clear this decision was made to protect their own interests. But, as far as PR is concerned, it's a mild fuck up compared to the "they just can't accept innovation" or "online is absolutely integral to the experience" crap we've seen out if EA. So, it seems to me to be a case if the lesser if two evils here.

As far as the whole argument of depriving the consumer of choice: if the choice ingratiates and obligates the consumer to a company that has been the epitome of anti consumer business practices I don't see how it's anti consumer to deny such a choice.

Regardless of whether of not people are clamoring for it it has the potential to impact the industry as a whole in a way that would be the complete antithesis to the sort of marketplace Sony is attempting to cultivate. Therefore, it's well within reason and rights for them to deny such a service a space in their own marketplace.

It's just crazy to me that people are buying this proposition at face value when a consistent historical precedent of anti consumer fuckery has been set by the company behind it. Everyone needs to take a deep breath step back and watch how this develops carefully. At this point, rushing on head first proclaiming it's merits from the rooftops when little to nothing is known about it is just the worst sort if foolishness and is precisely the sort of thing that companies count on to exploit the consumer.

Is it a shitty move to deny the consumer a choice in the matter? Arguably yes. Is it better for the consumer in the long run? A compelling argument can be made to say so and until there is evidence or precedent proving otherwise the wisest course of action is to pay attention closely and treat the situation with utmost skepticism.

So, please stop screaming from the rooftops about how great this program is when next to nothing is actually known about the plans of the company behind it or how it will play out in the long run. Doing so does nothing to win over people thinking logically about this and instead makes you look either exceedingly shortsighted or just plain foolish.

Thank You. Very well said.

 

[TheKastorian]

This thread is rapidly becoming toxic and pointless. People are arguing in circles without showing any signs of considering other's points of view. I didn't expect this to become such a vitriolic affair.

Was Sony's statement shit? Yes. It's clear this decision was made to protect their own interests. But, as far as PR is concerned, it's a mild fuck up compared to the "they just can't accept innovation" or "online is absolutely integral to the experience" crap we've seen out if EA. So, it seems to me to be a case if the lesser if two evils here.

As far as the whole argument of depriving the consumer of choice: if the choice ingratiates and obligates the consumer to a company that has been the epitome of anti consumer business practices I don't see how it's anti consumer to deny such a choice.

Regardless of whether of not people are clamoring for it it has the potential to impact the industry as a whole in a way that would be the complete antithesis to the sort of marketplace Sony is attempting to cultivate. Therefore, it's well within reason and rights for them to deny such a service a space in their own marketplace.

It's just crazy to me that people are buying this proposition at face value when a consistent historical precedent of anti consumer fuckery has been set by the company behind it. Everyone needs to take a deep breath step back and watch how this develops carefully. At this point, rushing on head first proclaiming it's merits from the rooftops when little to nothing is known about it is just the worst sort if foolishness and is precisely the sort of thing that companies count on to exploit the consumer.

Is it a shitty move to deny the consumer a choice in the matter? Arguably yes. Is it better for the consumer in the long run? A compelling argument can be made to say so and until there is evidence or precedent proving otherwise the wisest course of action is to pay attention closely and treat the situation with utmost skepticism.

So, please stop screaming from the rooftops about how great this program is when next to nothing is actually known about the plans of the company behind it or how it will play out in the long run. Doing so does nothing to win over people thinking logically about this and instead makes you look either exceedingly shortsighted or just plain foolish.

The most complete and logical post in this thread. I think we can move on, people.

 

[Llyrwenne]

Aside from personally not seeing the value in the EA program and having some very big question marks on what the 'service' will actually be and give out, people need to understand that this isn't just Sony 'making a decision for us' based on what they think the value of the program is.

Sony already has PlayStation+ going on, which for a lot of people represents a lot of value. If Sony would allow publishers to start their own subscription services next to it, the value of PS+ would naturally diminish as those publishers will likely be doing their stuff through their own channels instead of PS+. If a lot of big publishers jump in, this would inevitably undermine the value of PS+, resulting in a situation where we pay a lot more for multiple subscriptions that hold less value on their own than PS+ does today. I can definitely see why Sony made this call.

We'll see what happens as this develops.

EDIT;

Good stuff.

This is a good post.

 

[EdwardTeach]

Most of the PS Now arguments are in relation to the value argument brought by the Sony rep. Lots of people think EA Access is currently a better value than what is being charged for games on PS Now (regardless of how they are distributed or what generation they are). Yes, I'm aware that PS Now is in beta and currently doesn't have a subscription price, but EA Access is also just in beta, and apparently that was good enough for Sony to make a value evaluation, why can't we?

Ps now is a very distinct offering.

EA access is more equivalent to ps+. If the let EA do this then other publishers will want in. Ultimately this will really devalue ps+ as it won't get as many decent games. This is definitely a case where extra "competition" would really not work in the consumers interests. I hope that sony don't change their mind on this. As a ps+ subscriber with 2 Sony consoles I am very happy with what I get at the moment, and wouldn't like Sony to agree to anything that will compromise the service.

Bottom line is if this is really attractive feature to you, then get an xbone.

 

[Spades]

It's just crazy to me that people are buying this proposition at face value when a consistent historical precedent of anti consumer fuckery has been set by the company behind it.

This is the only bit that's bothered me. If you want to talk about historical facts, then why don't we focus on the EA service that has been up and running for 3 years, which is very similar to this, which has done nothing malicious to the industry at all?

People seem to want to focus so much on this "slippery slope" bullshit when there is no evidence to support it. Why wouldn't we take it as face value? I'll tell you why, because at face value, this is a pretty sweet deal - and for some reason, people don't want to be okay with that.

 

[SmokedMeat]

I fully expect all the big publishers to have a similar service as a way to monetize their back catalog and a way to help push digital purchases with out pissing off retailers. With a shrinking market expect these big publishers to pull out all the stops to continue to make money.

What shrinking market? Gaming has never been bigger.

 

[quest]

Aside from personally not seeing the value in the EA program and having some very big question marks on what the 'service' will actually be and give out, people need to understand that this isn't just Sony 'making a decision for us' based on what they think the value of the program is.

Sony already has PlayStation+ going on, which for a lot of people represents a lot of value. If Sony would allow publishers to start their own subscription services next to it, the value of PS+ would naturally diminish as those publishers will likely be doing their stuff through their own channels instead of PS+. If a lot of big publishers jump in, this would inevitably undermine the value of PS+, resulting in a situation where we pay a lot more for multiple subscriptions that hold less value on their own than PS+ does today. I can definitely see why Sony made this call.

We'll see what happens as this develops.

EDIT;

This is a good post.

Sony has done a good enough job of undermining the value of PS+ for the current generation. Why should EA or other big publishers put their current gen retail games on PS+ for pennies on the dollar when Sony won't even do it for their own games?

 

[quest]

What shrinking market? Gaming has never been bigger.

Gaming overall might be up but consoles are going to have a major contraction back to sub PS2 generation hardware sales.

 

[Hoo-doo]

This thread is rapidly becoming toxic and pointless. People are arguing in circles without showing any signs of considering other's points of view. I didn't expect this to become such a vitriolic affair.

Was Sony's statement shit? Yes. It's clear this decision was made to protect their own interests. But, as far as PR is concerned, it's a mild fuck up compared to the "they just can't accept innovation" or "online is absolutely integral to the experience" crap we've seen out of EA. So, it seems to me to be a case of the lesser of two evils here.

As far as the whole argument of depriving the consumer of choice: if the choice ingratiates and obligates the consumer to a company that has been the epitome of anti consumer business practices I don't see how it's anti consumer to deny such a choice.

Regardless of whether or not people are clamoring for it it has the potential to impact the industry as a whole in a way that would be the complete antithesis to the sort of marketplace Sony is attempting to cultivate. Therefore, it's well within reason and rights for them to deny such a service a space in their own marketplace.

It's just crazy to me that people are buying this proposition at face value when a consistent historical precedent of anti consumer fuckery has been set by the company behind it. Everyone needs to take a deep breath step back and watch how this develops carefully. At this point, rushing on head first proclaiming it's merits from the rooftops when little to nothing is known about it is just the worst sort of foolishness and is precisely the sort of thing that companies count on to exploit the consumer.

Is it a shitty move to deny the consumer a choice in the matter? Arguably yes. Is it better for the consumer in the long run? A compelling argument can be made to say so and until there is evidence or precedent proving otherwise the wisest course of action is to pay attention closely and treat the situation with utmost skepticism.

So, please stop screaming from the rooftops about how great this program is when next to nothing is actually known about the plans of the company behind it or how it will play out in the long run. Doing so does nothing to win over people thinking logically about this and instead makes you look either exceedingly shortsighted or just plain foolish.

Good points made in this post right here.

 

[PhatSaqs]

So, please stop screaming from the rooftops about how great this program is when next to nothing is actually known about the plans of the company behind it or how it will play out in the long run. Doing so does nothing to win over people thinking logically about this and instead makes you look either exceedingly shortsighted or just plain foolish.

So people that think this is a good deal (aka "screaming from rooftops about how great this program is") are not thinking logically? Excuse my language but what a crock of shit that undermines otherwise decent points.

 

[StoOgE]

That's not true at all. You have to be selected to be a contributer and many are paid.

Not true.

You have to be selected, but only certain of them are paid.

And it's really, really easy to get selected.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Gaming overall might be up but consoles are going to have a major contraction back to sub PS2 generation hardware sales.

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

 

[OccamsLightsaber]

You are talking about Sony saving you from EA. Sony is the one that deceived with PS+ and made it mandatory. They are ones charging $100 for a vita memory card. None of these guys care a crap about us. They will do what ever it takes to get the maximum amount of money from us. So instead of scare mongering... let us look at today. For today EA is giving a good value. If tomm, they decide to screw up.. We can go play some thing else and dump EA, they will wind up their tails and follow us quickly.

Exactly, EA is using the same exact foot in the door tactic and I counting the days until they make it mandatory so that I can play my games online or get the most "value" out of my games.

 

[Elios83]

Sony already has PlayStation+ going on, which for a lot of people represents a lot of value. If Sony would allow publishers to start their own subscription services next to it, the value of PS+ would naturally diminish as those publishers will likely be doing their stuff through their own channels instead of PS+. If a lot of big publishers jump in, this would inevitably undermine the value of PS+, resulting in a situation where we pay a lot more for multiple subscriptions that hold less value on their own than PS+ does today. I can definitely see why Sony made this call.

We'll see what happens as this develops.

That's pretty much the point, you might agree or not but it's clear that Sony doesn't want every big publisher to end up selling their subscription service on their platform.
Allowing Ea to do so would mean the beginning of the end for the PS+, which would be replaced eventually by multiple individual services by Ea, Ubisoft, Activision, Take-Two and the likes.
Obviously Sony as a company is not taking the decision for the sake of consumers but to protect themselves and what is becoming a big source of revenues for them.
But the scenario where you have to subscribe to individual services to get the best deals otherwise you get fucked with full prices with no discounts, is pretty much a nightmare for the consumer and that's where the EA Access thing is going to bring us.

 

[StoOgE]

This thread is rapidly becoming toxic and pointless. People are arguing in circles without showing any signs of considering other's points of view. I didn't expect this to become such a vitriolic affair.

Was Sony's statement shit? Yes. It's clear this decision was made to protect their own interests. But, as far as PR is concerned, it's a mild fuck up compared to the "they just can't accept innovation" or "online is absolutely integral to the experience" crap we've seen out of EA. So, it seems to me to be a case of the lesser of two evils here.

As far as the whole argument of depriving the consumer of choice: if the choice ingratiates and obligates the consumer to a company that has been the epitome of anti consumer business practices I don't see how it's anti consumer to deny such a choice.

Regardless of whether or not people are clamoring for it it has the potential to impact the industry as a whole in a way that would be the complete antithesis to the sort of marketplace Sony is attempting to cultivate. Therefore, it's well within reason and rights for them to deny such a service a space in their own marketplace.

It's just crazy to me that people are buying this proposition at face value when a consistent historical precedent of anti consumer fuckery has been set by the company behind it. Everyone needs to take a deep breath step back and watch how this develops carefully. At this point, rushing on head first proclaiming it's merits from the rooftops when little to nothing is known about it is just the worst sort of foolishness and is precisely the sort of thing that companies count on to exploit the consumer.

Is it a shitty move to deny the consumer a choice in the matter? Arguably yes. Is it better for the consumer in the long run? A compelling argument can be made to say so and until there is evidence or precedent proving otherwise the wisest course of action is to pay attention closely and treat the situation with utmost skepticism.

So, please stop screaming from the rooftops about how great this program is when next to nothing is actually known about the plans of the company behind it or how it will play out in the long run. Doing so does nothing to win over people thinking logically about this and instead makes you look either exceedingly shortsighted or just plain foolish.

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

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

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

 

[Neuromancer]

This is the only bit that's bothered me. If you want to talk about historical facts, then why don't we focus on the EA service that has been up and running for 3 years, which is very similar to this, which has done nothing malicious to the industry at all?

People seem to want to focus so much on this "slippery slope" bullshit when there is no evidence to support it. Why wouldn't we take it as face value? I'll tell you why, because at face value, this is a pretty sweet deal - and for some reason, people don't want to be okay with that.

The SimCity launch says otherwise. I don't appreciate being lied to about the reason why I can't play a game I bought from them and own. It took them 6 months to finally fix it by which time I'd long since stopped caring about the game.

 

[flatearthpandas]

Damn... well that's a shame... for the 20 people who own a vita and BL2.

No but seriously, I feel their pain... Not very fun to have a broken game and they won't even deal with fixing it. That kind of stuff really grinds my gears.

Games journalism actually did their job and warned people there were issues with the game prior to release. Not that it doesn't suck for the people who bought it in good faith, but the performance issues were known.

 

[TheKastorian]

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

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

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

He's saying that only time will tell. The same argument can be made for EA's subscription plan: why are people already supporting it when we still don't know most of the details! Everyone's biases towards/against a particular company/console seem to be coming out of this thread when the subject is much broader in scope and importance for the industry.

 

[StoOgE]

Also,

Lets talk about the slippery slope argument:

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

Ok, where is the downside?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[StoOgE]

He's saying that only time will tell. The same argument can be made for EA's subscription plan: why are people already supporting it when we still don't know most of the details! Everyone's biases towards/against a particular company/console seem to be coming out of this thread when the subject is much broader in scope and importance for the industry.

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

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

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

By trying it out.

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

 

[JaggedSac]

Also,

Lets talk about the slippery slope argument:

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

Ok, where is the downside?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excellent post.

 

[Dunlop]

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

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

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

thank you,

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

 

[PhatSaqs]

Also,

Lets talk about the slippery slope argument:

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

Ok, where is the downside?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This one should be in the OP too...