I had my say on potential reasoning for Sony's decision beyond their PR statement and followed it up with some personal opinion. Since then the discussion has moved away into a general assessment of Access and circled around Sony's stance. I'm done with the Sony angle (because there's only so many ways people can say "arrogant Sony" and "people's champion" without either having enough supporting evidence) but, reading through pretty much every post in this thread, I can't say that I have been at all swayed by the posts that were rallied around in support of Access, such as those by StoOgE. While he formed suitable points and offered sensible reasoning I don't think enough pure common sense and healthy skepticism played their part in their formulation. Afterall, it's Electronic Arts. I think we have every right to healthy skepticism until they offer enough evidence to prove otherwise rather than short term buying of opinion with unsustainable value. There, said it.
For me, EA: Access seems to be an impatient move by those clever chaps in the EA game-monetisation think tank. They've no doubt cast their green eyes over ps+, and more recently GWG, and want a slice of that sweet pie. The only trouble is their plan is somewhat premature. They don't currently have the content to sustain the service as advertised in the way that Sony's and MS' customers already enjoy (albeit ps4 owners are surely feeling the difference between plus on that platform vs plus on their ps3s for obvious reasons). This shallow pool is surely the reasoning behind the addition of the extra deal-clinchers I mentioned previously - the percentage discount and 2-hour+ 5-day-early previews - feel good incentives designed to push you over that line and leave that subscription ticking over...
Saying they can't live up to the service as advertised might seem like an odd comment given the size of EA and their history, but the vaults labelled "xbox one" and "ps4" are bare - there is nothing in the way of a back-catalogue to support the programme to any real extent. Making this open to new current gen only certainly raises an eyebrow.
VAULT: A room or compartment reserved for the storage and safekeeping of valuables, especially such a place in a bank.
What I can say about this vault is that it appears to have rather astounding acoustics... but that's only due to the fact that there's not much in here other than the echos of my footsteps as I turn and head back to the light. OK, that was too flowery, but there are very few valuables on show with only slight prospect of future bounties to accompany them.
Look at EA's release schedule. Consider the many yearly franchises, primarily sports and shootbang. Now look at the value of these titles in the used marketplace once the latest and greatest replacements are shipping. These aren't even the types of titles that would do well for EA in a programme such as plus or GWG other than a lump sum payment from the platform-holders - there's not going to be much DLC money splashed around on these types of offerings IMO, and my guess is that's one of the major earners for titles delivered in such a way. Now imagine what it'd be like if EA were to place anything outside the bounds of these yearly manufactured titles to one side, away from the programme. Apparently they already have with titanfall (or maybe, as some suggest, there's another reason for this exception).
What exactly are you buying into for your $30/£20/Euro25 per year? I'd say there's no telling what you're going to get but one things for sure - it'd be foolish to expect monthly updates as that's unsustainable. What about quarterly or biannual updates? Will they be updates or will they be rotation? Will there always be 4 titles, will there be less or will they just keep accumulating as time passes? Will titles and DLC purchased at discount expire with my subscription or remain live universally in every case? How long will the online component of these games remain supported?
So many questions, the biggest one for me:
Why have people already handed over their money for a yearly subscription when these questions remain unanswered or deep within a fog of uncertainty? To support "innovation" in the industry and to give EA a chance to prove themselves? Fuuuuck. Not buying that - the potential for a fractured 'car dealership' system of game services offering nothing in the way of true competition or value is far too great a risk to take for the sake of a few cheap games in the here and now. I wouldn't be quick to sell myself in that way.
There's always a but...
Now that monthly price - $5... and you get to play all four of those games for the next 4 weeks? OK EA, you got me! I honestly can't see any good reason not to jump at that. A 1 month rental of those seems like true value for money, even if I have to put my CC details up and remember to cancel right before you take the next monthly payment. Who's not going to buy that? Even someone who owns all four games physically is going to bite just to save having to get up off their arse to swap discs.
I suppose everyone has their price and that's good news for EA in pushing this programme forwards. They're not daft.
As for the future, I'd rather not consider how this programme might evolve. What could easily be dressed up a benefits for subscribers could actually simply be locking out of a wider user-base of the possibilities regarding content and access. Somewhat sobering after the jollies of a 4-game-5-dollar introduction, but once you get used to that monthly fee going out...
Sony has PSN on top of the upcoming PS Now. Yet MS are the only ones that want more services? Okay. Sure.
I don't know how many times you need to hear this, but apparently it's at least one more...
PS Now is irrelevant in the context of this discussion.
ps+ and GWG are clearly similar programmes although not actual rivals as far as the consumer is concerned as both would be required in the first place.
PSNow:
1. Streaming of incompatible back-catalogue in respect to ps4.
2. It's aiming to be much more than streamed ps3 games on ps4. It might be how it initially rolls out, but there's a much larger plan. It's PlayStation content on not only PlayStation devices but Sony televisions (no console!) and even other 3rd party hardware (other TVs? tablets?).
This thread is concerned with EA Access, Sony's PR regarding turning down the service and how genuine that might be, other reasons there might be away from the content of their PR and the reasoning why MS chose to allow it.
Compare Access to ps+ and GWG if you must, they at least have some parallels, unlike PS Now.
EA Access will go hand in hand with Xbox Live because people will need Xbox Live to play EA games online. I think it's pretty obvious that Sony said no to EA Access due them not wanting it to take attention away from PS Now.
People need ps+ to play EA games online... that doesn't mean it goes hand-in-hand with ps+. The likelihood of any EA game appearing on plus or GWG fall through the floor or become relegated to even older versions of the yearly franchises.
Whats with ending your posts as questions, you think you are Gandalf?
OK, I admit to giggling like a girl at that one.
