Support NeoGAF

[LookAtMeGo]

Right.

Which is fine, but Sony didn't say "EA is going to devalue our cash cow" they are trying to pawn off a decision that will limit their customers access to a service and sell it as Sony looking out for their customers best interests.

Isn't that how PR works?

 

[//DEVIL//]

did really sony decline EA proposal to have EA subscription ? or did MS strike a deal with EA ?

if anything, Sony was always known for being more open minded when it comes to things like this as opposite to MS.

the way I look at this, it doesn't look like Sony and EA are really in not a very good healthy relationship. and this response is a direct hit on EA instead of keeping their mouth shut or at least use a decent PR. As if Sony is bitter with EA decision and acted like a little kid without a proper response.

things will be interesting now for sure.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

PS+ is a good service, however you have no control on what is offered.

As mentioned each publisher having a service let's you have more control on getting the content that is useful for you (value).

If these services are successful it forces Sony to offer more value in order to compete (in theory, in reality they have most trapped because of the MP restriction)

Example currently for PS4, PS+ is just indie games, with a service like EA offering complete retail games it could force Sony's hand to push out retail games as well

I think most of us who are familiar with Plus on PS3 and Vita fully understand what they are doing with PS4. PS3 and Vita plus were abysmal in comparison to PS4 during their initial offering stages. It became a damn good service when they finally were able to add a mix of bigger games to the compliment of some very good indies. Many of the indies offered with Plus have been more than good. I see reason to clearly point that out. If there's something Sony has been doing right it's their Plus offerings. I own a PS3/4/Vita and have been thoroughly served with games I probably wouldn't have bought but ended up supporting the devs on PC or buying the sequels as well.

Plus isn't even a problem on PS3 and Vita but if one looks at which pillar is lagging, it's on PS4. I have enjoyed a lot of the offerings but I think people are still looking for a bigger retail game to be offered. That will likely come when a more fleshed out lineup is out and when devs see fit to put those games up as they are likely making good SW sales on PS4.

 

[TheKastorian]

I just want to address one thought I had about this one point. Say everyone has their own service, similar price, last years titles etc. Doesn't this have the potential to actually harm the industry in the long run, including each of those publishers?

I say this because if the service is popular enough for each company to do the same, that means a significant number of people are no longer going to buy the current years lineup of games - because it makes next years sub redundant - reducing front loading of sales for new games considerably. Is that in the interest of publishers? as this is when games are at their highest price, and so profit. This works the other way around also, so people that want day 1 and buy them have no need for the sub anyway. A middle ground of sorts would need to balance out the lost day 1 buyers to the people paying subs, and across all publishers, that seems incredibly dangerous ground.

Consumer aside for this, but I think it's a game someone is going to suffer for playing.

This will almost certainly happen if these subscription-type services become popular. Which means fewer people will be buying AAA games on Day 1, more studios will shutdown etc.

 

[jim2011]

I'll just say this, I gave EA my $30 and will probably continue next year. Don't care about latest sports games but do want sports games for when friends come over.

Sony's statement was terrible pr

 

[Chobel]

Right.

Which is fine, but Sony didn't say "EA is going to devalue our cash cow" they are trying to pawn off a decision that will limit their customers access to a service and sell it as Sony looking out for their customers best interests.

It's just PR from Sony, bad one though.

 

[AndrewDean84xX]

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.

Nailed it.

 

[jay23]

Isn't that how PR works?

They shouldn't have said anything at all.

 

[flkraven]

In a world where every big publisher has it's own service, consumers have no choice but to subscribe to one or more of them.

The services won't be successful because they are attractive, they are successful because they have a captive audience.

But consumers do have a choice. EA still sells all of their products normally, so this is an alternative. The service will be successful because it is good, not because it is the only option. If the service is crap, people will just buy EA games normally and ignore it, and then it will fail. We only get to your 'no choice' future if the services are SO good, that consumers buy it in droves and prefer it to the current model (ie. PC games going mostly digital now, since the market prefered it to physical PC games).

The service is not coming to PS4. If you want the service, go buy an xbox. If people are being this apprehensive about this, there is other options.

I remember people being chastised for saying the same thing about Xbox and always-online DRM. Not exactly the same, but its not really a valid argument when people complain about a companies actions.

I just want to address one thought I had about this one point. Say everyone has their own service, similar price, last years titles etc. Doesn't this have the potential to actually harm the industry in the long run, including each of those publishers?

I say this because if the service is popular enough for each company to do the same, that means a significant number of people are no longer going to buy the current years lineup of games - because it makes next years sub redundant - reducing front loading of sales for new games considerably. Is that in the interest of publishers? as this is when games are at their highest price, and so profit. This works the other way around also, so people that want day 1 and buy them have no need for the sub anyway. A middle ground of sorts would need to balance out the lost day 1 buyers to the people paying subs, and across all publishers, that seems incredibly dangerous ground.

Consumer aside for this, but I think it's a game someone is going to suffer for playing.

If publishers see that their services are cannablizing their own sales in a substantial manner, then they will stop providing it. I wouldn't worry too much about them, since they can take care of themselves.

 

[AdventureRacing]

It could be argued Sony is looking out after our interests while maintaining their own. As a consumer I do not want a console future where I'm choosing subscriptions between publisher stores.

Except that situation will only occur if consumers embrace that model. If the general consumer reject this as bad value then it will rightfully fail and EA along with everyone else will either give up on the idea or try to find more ways to make it attractive. This type of subscription will only become common place if the general consumer sees it as good value and decide they want to pay for it.

So i disagree with the idea that Sony is in anyway looking out for the consumer here because in the end the consumer still has the choice to buy in or not.

 

[AmFreak]

You have listed reasons why Sony wouldn't want this service, but why would this hurt the consumer? A future 'where every big publisher has it's own service' would mean that these services are actually attractive and successful, since unpopular services will fail.

That's right i was talking from Sony pov and why they doesn't want it.

If this is better for the consumer, i don't know.
In the short term, like now, it sure looks like a win/win.
But it all has pros and cons.
Lots of competition will certainly lead to better services.
But it also tends to lead to making the services "necessary" like Gold and PS+.
What's stopping EA from putting online behind the service e.g.?
Gold is a good example for what you can do, to force people to subscribe to your service.

 

[ukas]

They shouldn't have said anything at all.

People would have bitched and moaned about it not coming to Playstation and want to know why. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[ryuken-d]

this is weird, sony knows what people think of EA maybe they are trying to nip this in the butt for us, or maby some bad blood. Did I miss what EA would be giving out for the service? discounts? on-line? free shit? EA sucks, even though I have a lot of their games.

 

[Dunlop]

I think most of us who are familiar with Plus on PS3 and Vita fully understand what they are doing with PS4. PS3 and Vita plus were abysmal in comparison to PS4 during their initial offering stages. It became a damn good service when they finally were able to add a mix of bigger games to the compliment of some very good indies. Many of the indies offered with Plus have been more than good. I see reason to clearly point that out. If there's something Sony has been doing right it's their Plus offerings. I own a PS3/4/Vita and have been thoroughly served with games I probably wouldn't have bought but ended up supporting the devs on PC or buying the sequels as well.

Plus isn't even a problem on PS3 and Vita but if one looks at which pillar is lagging, it's on PS4. I have enjoyed a lot of the offerings but I think people are still looking for a bigger retail game to be offered. That will likely come when a more fleshed out lineup is out and when devs see fit to put those games up as they are likely making good SW sales on PS4.

I own a PS3 and have a crapton of games thanks to PS+, none of which I had any imput on what I received and like the rest of you wait with baited breath each month to see what the offerings will be.

But if other publishers had their own I would have more control on what I get (like sports?EA, Assasins Creed?Ubi....)

I said it is a good service, but Sony attaching MP to it and their initial offering on PS4 do not make me believe they desire to push as hard as when they were gunning against LIVE

 

[LiquidMetal14]

Gold is a good example for what you can do, to force people to subscribe to your service.

One thing to take from this particular bit of your post is that Sony had to build Plus's rep. It was subpar for months. There's a reason why PS+ is better than XBL and it took time and refinement. Forcing isn't what I would even use in the initial case as I un-subscribed and came back. For PS4, I already had over a year left on my PS3/Vita subscription but by that time, I had already seen the value as opposed to how some saw it as Sony forcing online subscription on us. I had already seen the benefits and was not only happy with the service on PS3/Vita but seen added value in PS4. That's the line of thinking from a consumer with at least one of the products under the Plus banner. I happen to have all 3.

Let's not dilute or forget that the reputation had to be cultivated though and Plus was not that good for months. If it didn't improve then you can bet people who transitioned to PS4 would be a lot more taken back by the new online fee requirement. Part of the softening was due to the equity they had built with PS3/Vita owners like myself. Not just wanting to throw more money at something blindly.

I own a PS3 and have a crapton of games thanks to PS+, none of which I had any imput on what I received and like the rest of you wait with baited breath each month to see what the offerings will be.

But if other publishers had their own I would have more control on what I get (like sports?EA, Assasins Creed?Ubi....)

I said it is a good service, but Sony attaching MP to it and their initial offering on PS4 do not make me believe they desire to push as hard as when they were gunning against LIVE

Read the other quote post above yours for further clarity.

To reiterate, XBL was a bad deal for a while without doing anything. The reason Plus is better than XBL now was due to adding value and the games they were offering to subscribers. While the back handed remark is understood, there is more to that story than just Sony adding online to compete but to further expand on the service. Luckily Plus hasn't suffered at all and I get great games for my 3 platforms every month. I just wanted to further clarify my stance.

 

[pompidu]

I remember people being chastised for saying the same thing about Xbox and always-online DRM. Not exactly the same, but its not really a valid argument when people complain about a companies actions.

I complain about companies actions all day, every day. There are other options available.

 

[StoOgE]

This will almost certainly happen if these subscription-type services become popular. Which means fewer people will be buying AAA games on Day 1, more studios will shutdown etc.

Why?

There are a few things at play here:

1) If 10 million people are subscribing to the service that is a lot of revenue on an annual basis.

2) Most gamers are not going to wait to get the game as part of the service if it is a game that they just absolutely must have. Online play, new rosters for the football season, big time BF players. They will need to have a game day 1.

3) Nothing says all games come at the 12 month mark. Could very well be a case that some titles don't get on for 2 or 3 years. Might devalue this service some, but I could see a really long RPG like Dragons Age taking 2 years go hit the service.

4) DLC purchases will still take place within a lot of these games. Perhaps more DLC than would have ever been thought possible since people see the game as "free" and they are only buying a map pack for it.

5) That 5 day early preview with 10% off the digital price is not by accident. That is designed to get you hooked on a game. Get you a save-file built up and then dangle a higher-margin than retail carrot in your face to jump in then.

Ultimitely there is a chance that some games will suffer because of the service. Its the one downside for EA if it could wind up eating into day 1 sales. If that happens, expect the service to shut down.

They will very easily be able to see if the people subscribing the service are or aren't buying games. But don't think that everyone will go headlong to their doom. If this service hurts the bottom line they'll end it.

 

[mentallyinept]

But consumers do have a choice. EA still sells all of their products normally, so this is an alternative. The service will be successful because it is good, not because it is the only option. If the service is crap, people will just buy EA games normally and ignore it, and then it will fail. We only get to your 'no choice' future if the services are SO good, that consumers buy it in droves and prefer it to the current model (ie. PC games going mostly digital now, since the market prefered it to physical PC games).

They have a choice now.

Right now the service offers very little. But as with DLC over the past 10 years, I see this going downhill quickly. Locked content, in game bonuses, online play access, DRM 24 hour lockdowns, etc.

Ubisoft follows EA, Activision follows Ubisoft, and the dominos keep falling.

Maybe I am being paranoid, but the publishers have done nothing to earn my trust. In fact they have continually raised the stakes on how to be anti-consumer.

In short, I don't share your optimism in this.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

They shouldn't have said anything at all.

I agree with you on that one.

 

[MaulerX]

I honestly think that at the end of the day, this will eventually come to PS4. Maybe after whatever timed exclusive the XB1 got expires. Sony will say that the market has spoken and after realizing that enough people will be willing to join. It's just that they really fucked up with their PR statement. I'm starting to wonder if they jumped the gun and got hyper defensive and now internally regret wording it the way they did.

 

[Knuf]

Already posted? SONY’S REJECTION OF EA ACCESS RAISES MANY QUESTIONS

Some good points made in that article, well worth a read IMO:

Sony’s belief that EA Access wasn’t a good value for PlayStation owners is rooted in a bit of reality. Sony wants to be very publisher and developer-friendly, and making a deal with a top-level publisher like that could do them far more harm than good. If you’re an indie developer or even just a small third-party, how important are you going to feel with Sony making a deal with EA and clearly showing bias towards their products ?

 

[ryuken-d]

One thing to take from this particular bit of your post is that Sony had to build Plus's rep. It was subpar for months. There's a reason why PS+ is better than XBL and it took time and refinement. Forcing isn't what I would even use in the initial case as I un-subscribed and came back. For PS4, I already had over a year left on my PS3/Vita subscription but by that time, I had already seen the value as opposed to how some saw it as Sony forcing online subscription on us. I had already seen the benefits and was not only happy with the service on PS3/Vita but seen added value in PS4. That's the line of thinking from a consumer with at least one of the products under the Plus banner. I happen to have all 3.

Let's not dilute or forget that the reputation had to be cultivated though and Plus was not that good for months. If it didn't improve then you can bet people who transitioned to PS4 would be a lot more taken back by the new online fee requirement. Part of the softening was due to the equity they had built with PS3/Vita owners like myself. Not just wanting to throw more money at something blindly.

Read the other quote post above yours for further clarity.

To reiterate, XBL was a bad deal for a while without doing anything. The reason Plus is better than XBL now was due to adding value and the games they were offering to subscribers. While the back handed remark is understood, there is more to that story than just Sony adding online to compete but to further expand on the service. Luckily Plus hasn't suffered at all and I get great games for my 3 platforms every month. I just wanted to further clarify my stance.

I agree. Not having to pay for online with the PS3 was amazing so when PS+ came out I was into the discounts and free games so much so that when it got better I was justified to keep signing up, now I get the perks of both the PS3, Vita PS+ and PS4 for the same one time charge, so many great games and discounts the transition to needing PS+ for online gaming was completely moot.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

They will very easily be able to see if the people subscribing the service are or aren't buying games. But don't think that everyone will go headlong to their doom. If this service hurts the bottom line they'll end it.

I agree. It's a given. Let's see how this evolves before completely tossing it aside. Just understand the warranted cynicism to the precedent this could set. I'm eager to see people try this but not just blindly throw money at it either but the pricing seems like a good start for sure.

 

[StoOgE]

Already posted? SONY’S REJECTION OF EA ACCESS RAISES MANY QUESTIONS

Some good points made in that article, well worth a read IMO:

That's a terrible point and a terrible meandering live journal dump of an article.

They already make 1 off deals with big publishers. IDestiny? Battlefield Hardline? Batman: Arkham City.

Sony isn't a benevolent benefactor treating all comers to the table the same.

There is already favoritism to the big publishers, as there should be. You court the guys that pay the bills.

 

[MaulerX]

Already posted? SONY’S REJECTION OF EA ACCESS RAISES MANY QUESTIONS

Some good points made in that article, well worth a read IMO:

That's just one of many excuses. Not a good one at that. It's the nature of the beast. Sony can't make every publisher/dev happy at the same time. The top tier guys will always get preferential treatment. Just look at the Destiny deal.

 

[kekke]

This for me is exactly what's wrong with their statement, it's absolutely fine if Sony want to protect their own service and the profits involved in that but don't then try to take credit for "protecting" the consumer when it seems pretty clear the decision has been made to protect themselves from any sort of competition. They should have just not said anything or said it's currently not something they're interested in offering at this time, no reason to go into attack mode on the service.

It's just direct continuity to their 4theplayers PR. I agree they should have sais anything. I think there's bit too much drama regarding this issue.

 

[bishoptl]

Why is this thread so large?

Take a guess, you're probably right.

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

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

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

 

[Banjo-Kazooie]

Already posted? SONY’S REJECTION OF EA ACCESS RAISES MANY QUESTIONS

Some good points made in that article, well worth a read IMO:

Those aren't good points.

 

[Eusis]

So Steam is the best that will ever be? No one else should bother?

Depending on the efforts of the others it does call into question whether they should be wasting their time, and what their motivation really is. Origin's actually a half decent attempt though it does have that sort of problematic "bigger publisher wants their fingers in every pie" angle, and GOG comes from a similar place to Steam in that a smaller game developer/publisher creates this service, and it wasn't even focused on newer games initially. Uplay generally comes off as a crap alternative though, bogging down Ubisoft games more often than not and not even offering some of the advantages Steam does, possibly BECAUSE they compromise more to be everywhere.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Why?

There are a few things at play here:

1) If 10 million people are subscribing to the service that is a lot of revenue on an annual basis.

2) Most gamers are not going to wait to get the game as part of the service if it is a game that they just absolutely must have. Online play, new rosters for the football season, big time BF players. They will need to have a game day 1.

3) Nothing says all games come at the 12 month mark. Could very well be a case that some titles don't get on for 2 or 3 years. Might devalue this service some, but I could see a really long RPG like Dragons Age taking 2 years go hit the service.

4) DLC purchases will still take place within a lot of these games. Perhaps more DLC than would have ever been thought possible since people see the game as "free" and they are only buying a map pack for it.

5) That 5 day early preview with 10% off the digital price is not by accident. That is designed to get you hooked on a game. Get you a save-file built up and then dangle a higher-margin than retail carrot in your face to jump in then.

Ultimitely there is a chance that some games will suffer because of the service. Its the one downside for EA if it could wind up eating into day 1 sales. If that happens, expect the service to shut down.

They will very easily be able to see if the people subscribing the service are or aren't buying games. But don't think that everyone will go headlong to their doom. If this service hurts the bottom line they'll end it.

What about the publishers that don't have a subscription model? So far only the giants like UBI Soft have been discussed, but what about a Sega or Konami?
I can see those publishers hurt as gamers are so wrapped up playing the subscription titles, that they cease or curb their purchases.

I'm sure the EAs, UBIs, and Activisions wouldn't care.

 

[TitusGroan]

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

Spoiler

Comment meant humorously, pls don't ban me.

 

[StoOgE]

What about the publishers that don't have a subscription model? So far only the giants like UBI Soft have been discussed, but what about a Sega or Konami?
I can see those publishers hurt as gamers are so wrapped up playing the subscription titles, that they cease or curb their purchases.

I'm sure the EAs, UBIs, and Activisions wouldn't care.

Evolve or die.

No one is under any obligation to look our for their peers.

 

[Joe White]

What about the publishers that don't have a subscription model? So far only the giants like UBI Soft have been discussed, but what about a Sega or Konami?

They would offer they games through existing or platform specific subscription services like gold and ps+ and get their share from there. That would also rouse their interest to publish on every possible platform.

 

[Hockeymac18]

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.

Best post of the thread.

Its ironic how you complaint that people think this is great without knowing details and then go on to make assumptions about how it wont be great without knowing any details.

It is ironic, indeed. I sure am seeing a lot of assumptions being made here. We do have details about the program, and the details we have are pretty good for certain people (such as me who don't buy games when they come out). I just subbed for a year and got 3 games I didn't own for 30 dollars. In my mind, it's already paid for itself.

And if the service turns out to be shit and there is some major issue, I'll cancel right away. It will fail in the market is it isn't good. I think people are making this more conjugated than it is.

 

[funkystudent]

Has EA responded to Sonys response to EA access?


This cold war between Sony and EA/MS is super interesting to watch.

 

[Xenon]

Companies are going to go after different revenue streams, it's been happening for years now. I prefer this model one million times over compared to F2P, P2W and DLC. Once you consider the effect it has had in contrast to the other models. Whether you agreed with MS charging for it or not, many of the great features added last gen were driven by MS desire to keep and increase that monthly revenue coming in. The same could be said for PS+. Apps locked behind a paywall was a problem, but it didn't affect the games. Compare that to the cancer that F2P and it's ilk have had on game design and how we play. I would take subscriptions over that other shit any day. Because I'd rather have companies looking to add value rather than take it away.

 

[Death2494]

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.

" Those that do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it."

Despite all the red flags from both these companies, people still honestly think they have the consumer's best interest in mind.

What publisher do you think Microsoft was in talks with when they decided the "24hr DRM check" idea? I mean seriously, have we forgotten the "Sim City" incident already? How about the launch of BF4 $60 beta?

 

[Dunlop]

Despite all the red flags from both these companies, people still honestly think they have the consumer's best interest in mind.

Nobody thinks that..or they shouldn't. Sony does not have your best interest in mind either.

It is a balance of their profitability vs creating attractive offerings for us to want to consume

 

[staticneuron]

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.

What are you talking about. People have mentioned PS+ and Vita cards before (PSnow doesn't really exist yet so there are no compelling arguments there). The Vita memory cards were priced that way to subsidize the cost of they console and considering how little have been sold, that is most likely the reason the prices haven't dropped. PS+ offers many other services other then the IGC but the IGC isn't limited to only Sony published games, nor is it limited to one device and one generation. For now the EA A gives you access to 7 games but next month? It will still be only 7 games. The deal doesn't extend to new purchases, those do not automatically go in the vault. On the other hand, the IGC ads two games a month per console and is not limited to a single pub. This months IGC even includes an EA game. How on earth is what ever Sony doing and what EA is offering remotely the same?

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.

The market doesn't dictate the future on a closed network. They only choose to buy into what is offered or not. And considering the ToS of EA A as I mentioned before, this wouldn't be about choice but responsibility. And I wouldn't be surprised if EA were to claim all responsibility for the financial transactions and distribution that Sony would allow it. But looking at the ToS indicates that EA didn't want that burden and Sony isn't going to pick up the slack for others.

EDIT: To put it more succinctly because so many people are missing the fine detail there; Offering the service is one thing but offering the service and letting MS/Sony be responsible for the blowback is another. Sony has been pretty easy going with certain things being on the PSN especially without being tied to PS+ simply because if you sign up for a subscription to a service it is NOT apart of the SEN. There for the ToS you agree to means you contact the third party company when issues arise not Sony.

 

[Vyer]

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.

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.

These seem to be the actual posts that 'convey the situation'.

 

[chubigans]

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.

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

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

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

 

[unbias]

The overhead for something like this cant be that high if y ou already have CS in place, so I dont think that is the reason Sony rejected it, probably is just simple competition in the game service space, Sony doesnt want to share, and currently, doesn't need too where as MS needs to, more so. What is dumb to me is, they have not been experimenting with this on the PC for the past couple years, where it would make the most sense before sending it out in the console world. EA already has origin customer support, seems you could just tie in all of that to origin.

 

[Corto]

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.

That's an absurd comparison/analogy. An ISP is just providing access to data in equal and neutral form to each of its customers, a console manufacturer/platform holder is by its nature a gatekeeper and landlord of a walled green where its content needs his pre-approval and consent to be included there.

 

[Spottiettiedop]

What about the publishers that don't have a subscription model? So far only the giants like UBI Soft have been discussed, but what about a Sega or Konami?
I can see those publishers hurt as gamers are so wrapped up playing the subscription titles, that they cease or curb their purchases.

I'm sure the EAs, UBIs, and Activisions wouldn't care.

Not every publisher is expected to follow EA, but I am intrigued if Sega has a service where their Vault had Genesis and Dreamcast favorites or if Konami's Vault had Double Dribble or Contra. Alot of people have professed doom and gloom but I see the potential. And for EA I think a reason for Access are the gamers who are purchasing used Madden 25/Fifa 14/BF 4 at Gamestop, Ebay etc. as we speak. Access may appeal that segment of gamers which publishers are not capitalizing on.

 

[TheRealTalker]

if it was any company I would be fine but EA always gives me a bad taste in my mouth

as a company that grabs gamers dreams and then begins to shit on them

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Already posted? SONY’S REJECTION OF EA ACCESS RAISES MANY QUESTIONS

Some good points made in that article, well worth a read IMO:

You mean like what was done for Watch Dogs with Ubisoft and Destiny with Activision? Indie devs are smart enough to know that deals with major publishers are apart of the business. And isn't this what self publishing was meant to help solve in the first place?

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.

Damn good post.

 

[Mrbob]

Just because you dont want it doesnt mean others dont. Most times people dont even know they'd like something until they experience it. Many didnt want an all broadband online network at some point either...

Point is, it should be up to the consumer to decide what is and isnt necessary ultimately. If there is no demand for it, it should fail and lessons will be learned on both sides. If it's successful lessons will be learned as well as it could potentially blossom (negatively or positively). Sony is effectively eliminating the potential for a lesson to be learned on either side with their decision IMO.

You just described everything that is wrong with a Monopoloy (and thank god Sony isn't one in this space, yet).

Except that situation will only occur if consumers embrace that model. If the general consumer reject this as bad value then it will rightfully fail and EA along with everyone else will either give up on the idea or try to find more ways to make it attractive. This type of subscription will only become common place if the general consumer sees it as good value and decide they want to pay for it.

So i disagree with the idea that Sony is in anyway looking out for the consumer here because in the end the consumer still has the choice to buy in or not.

I believe this is a case you have to pick your poison and a situation of "Be Careful what you Wish For" when we discuss options. Once the floodgates open I don't think they are closing and things will get much worse before they get better.

 

[vpance]

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

There'll definitely be value, to those 10% of people who buy digitally and are big fans of EA. Any kind of deal is better than paying full price for a new digital game. It won't sway the core market of GS customers though, so it's not going to make huge waves. Sony just needs to stand their ground and those same vault games will still make their way onto PS+ at some point, because EA still likes money.

 

[staticneuron]

The overhead for something like this cant be that high if y ou already have CS in place, so I dont think that is the reason Sony rejected it, probably is just simple competition in the game service space, Sony doesnt want to share, and currently, doesn't need too where as MS needs to, more so. What is dumb to me is, they have not been experimenting with this on the PC for the past couple years, where it would make the most sense before sending it out in the console world. EA already has origin customer support, seems you could just tie in all of that to origin.

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

That doesn't make any sense at all.

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

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

That's an absurd comparison/analogy. An ISP is just providing access to data in equal and neutral form to each of its customers, a console manufacturer/platform holder is by its nature a gatekeeper and landlord of a walled green where its content needs his pre-approval and consent to be included there.

Agreed.



What is blowing my mind is that I thought the vault was access to all current gen games. Seeing as it is actually only 4, (battlefield, peggle and 2 sports games) I find this 'value' discussion even more unbelievable.

 

[AndrewDean84xX]

What is blowing my mind is that I thought the vault was access to all current gen games. Seeing as it is actually only 4, (battlefield, peggle and 2 sports games) I find this 'value' discussion even more unbelievable.

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

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