-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Sony's response to EA Access Subscription plan
- Thread starter RexNovis
- Start date
- Status
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
Well if universal health care was ran by EA, it would be the first I would agree with them.
The only problem with universal healthcare is that it's almost toooo good, just like Gears 2 apparently.
Hah! Dude you made me spit my coffee out and just terrify the guy sitting next to me. Now I'm getting the stink eye from some of the other customers. If I get deported from Japan for being a public nuisance it's all your fault.
But still, well said.
EA is basically irrelevant here, though. It could be any publisher and Sony would refuse and cite something about value for the customer. Because value for the customer isn't the real reason; the real reason is that the success of this model damages Sony's interests.
you don't know that. Ubisoft could have done a similar deal and Sony woulda totally gone for it. we have no idea
ArkhamFantasy
Member
You and Sony are both correct though.
This makes things a hassle for Sony, it takes value away from PS+, and imagine if every other publisher decided to have their own subscription service.
No more third party instant game collection games, no more third party PS+ sales, and if they wanted to be ass holes they could put exclusive content behind these services (Such as DLC or even entire games).
Except that I do have an idea, because it's fairly plain that this kind of service is a threat to Sony's interests, so Sony wouldn't want to go for it.
The idea that Sony are the 'good guys' protecting us from the 'bad guys' EA is pretty amusing though.
Why would they do this? Do Apple not sell through other stores, just because they have Apple stores? Do Microsoft? Do Samsung? It's all extra revenue for the companies, why would they stop doing it just because they have their own subscription service?
And let's stop and think for a second; if the proliferation of other subscription services devalues PS+, it's only because PS+ would not have remained competitive with them. Why should I want PS+ to do well, if it isn't remaining competitive with competing services from other publishers?
you're just inferring and guessing though... I agree it seems plausible but you can't say for sure unless you work for Sony
I'm not saying Sony is trying to protect anyone from EA, I'm just saying another publisher could have come to them with different terms and Sony may have said yes. The point is no one knows
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
I don't know about every publisher. In my head, part of the reason why this is not on the table for Sony completely disregarding their services, is because the service itself was not made injunction with them. This EA Access was a joint collaboration with Microsoft and EA in which Sony was not directly approach with first. Even that line saying they evaluated it does not guarantee that they were initially approached with it.
Besides the point, yes it does directly compete with there services and of course they see that as a threat, however trying to justify the value of this up and coming not yet proven service that at this point has absolutely no type of straight strategy yet is kind of ridiculous. I'd rather Sony not make the choice for me on where I want to spend my money, but I can understand where they stand.
Honestly sis I think that 'In my head' says everything I need to say about your first paragraph. There's absolutely no reason to think that EA wouldn't have also approached Sony.
And I'm not apportioning any value to the service. Sony, and her defenders in this thread, are, though.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
The notion that is directly competes with their service isn't far fetch but pretty close to the reality. I think we all get that. But there's more at play here than the obvious, of which neither of us know about. It's not just as cut and dry as we would like to believe.
But why do you think that? Seems to me just like a company (Sony) protecting its interests. Why should I think there's anything more to it than that?
Did I say long term value? That 'initial value' is still value, and it can be evaluated. I have a month subscription, EA gives at least 30 days notice before altering any vault content. In other words, I know absolutely everything I need to in order to evaluate the service for me this month, and will have enough value to do the same when my sub is up for renewal next month. Extending that far into the future is unimportant, as pretty much any service can change over time, and so you'd be arguing that we can never evaluate any service until is ceases to exist. You take out a one year PS+ sub, and you don't know if anything will change in that year. You take out a month sub though, and you have all the info you need. This is the same.
I'm not saying they take the DLC away from you (neither does EA). I'm saying if you buy the DLC and NOT the game, you'll have no way to play that DLC later if your sub lapses. I could buy DLC for BF4 now and play it, if I then stop my sub, I won't be able to play the DLC, because I don't own BF4... not because I no longer own the DLC. PS+ and GwG will do this too.
Not going to bother with the rest of your post, as I can't be assed arguing potential future scenarios that nobody knows, and everyone is making up, versus value for me today based on what actually exists. People say that EA needs to show signs of treating the customer better, but choose to ignore when the offer refunds on digital content, when they hand out legitimately free Origin software, and now when they offer the ability to try current gen retail games at a low cost. Have whatever misgivings you like, but I'm not going to choose to not take them up on offers that benefit me, because Sim City wasn't working well.
Dude, you initially quoted me and alluded to "a pattern" of people that actually like the sound of the service creating "a narrative". Feel free to not trust EA, or not like the service... but once you start confronting people purely because they do like it, then you can't really act like you're not making a claim about "correct or incorrect". Do you need a reminder as to how you began addressing me in this topic?
... so, if you're not making any judgement calls, and this is purely you personally not not seeing value in it... why did you have such an issue with me seeing value in it for myself? Of course I see it being beneficial as a choice if it's a choice I would want to make.
I'm not claiming that jumping through hoops to save £1.50 is something that is really worth doing. What I'm claiming is that if you're buying a game digitally anyway, then signing up for EA Access gives you a month's access to the vault for what is effectively -£1.50, yet you're telling me the selection of games in the vault make this a bad value proposition.
Plus, I find it hilarious that you respond to me as if I'm joking with my replies, whilst your rebuttal to the price savings on EA Access is the physical copy (AKA a completely different product) being cheaper on Amazon. Did you somehow forget that we're talking about digital content here. Maybe I don't want a physical copy (which as I've told you before... I don't). Your response is no more helpful than if someone was to chime in with "you could just get it on Steam for really cheap!!!". This isn't even taking into account the instant access given from the digital option, versus waiting for Amazon to deliver... or that fact that a digital purchase grants two licenses, so it's possible for me to play the game with my brother off a single purchase (which then makes the price of your Amazon deal $100 for equivalence). If you're going to claim I can get it cheaper elsewhere, then you have to find example of getting the same product for cheaper. You won't be able to though, because you can only buy X1 games digitally from MS.
Whilst I agree with this in general, it's not entirely accurate. Right now, the only way to gain an EA Access subscription is through MS (correct me if I'm wrong), as such MS is likely to be receiving a cut of every new subscriber the service sees (similar to in-app purchase from the iStore). It's not like Netflix where the user is able to bring an already paid for subscription to the service for free. This actually may be one of the larger complications to having the service on PS actually... If the service was on both platforms, it would make sense for the sub to carry across ecosystems, however each console manufacturer would only see any money from purchases made from within their own ecosystem, despite the same games being playable on the other. I'm actually not sure how you would resolve this short of charging a separate sub for PS access.
PanicFreak
Member
Sony has already lost EA games for PS+. Just you watch, they will play hardball with Sony just like they did with Microsoft when Microsoft launched Xbox Live.
EA will not have another free game on PS+.
.... assuming you meant after this week.. where they have a free game on plus, a large discount sale via plus, and dragon age costumes being talked about for Sony's LBP3....
EA aren't going to stop supporting Sony. It would, at best, be mutually assured (profit) destruction for both companies, but it would probably be far more damaging to EA than to Sony because Sony are a platform holder.
You all need to shake the idea that these major game companies bear the same kind of childish grudges towards each other
that the average internet fan does.
You all need to shake the idea that these major game companies bear the same kind of childish grudges towards each other
or for that matter are as concerned about the shady business practices of each other
staticneuron
Member
Well dude, my quotes and responses were not about people "liking" the EA service, but about how every post felt to mention PS+ and it's supposed lack of value as if comparing the two services. It is one thing to claim you like a service but they "way" quite a few posters went about debating the topic is what raised flags.
Since you found my post originally, please try rereading again for better comprehension. I didn't even mention EA Access once in the first post you quoted and in the second quote again was to inquire about value because as I describe below.......
Uhh... that is exactly what you did... right here...
So going with the idea of cancelling I was simply talking about the effort needed to save some money. And the idea that ignoring the vault, that the service finds merit because you can save $1 then cancel the service, imo, is going to a pretty extreme length to find value in the service. We already covered the vault because this is what your quote was responding to when I mentioned that the value of the service is heavily tied into the games that are in the vault.
And this thread
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=872309
Is the example of what I was talking about when talking about EA's behavior with the service. Debates on the difference between demo's and trials aside, the idea is that there is now a subscription service that you would need to sign up to just to get a hands on feel for the changes they made to Madden. Why would they make a demo and give out for free when they can put the trial behind the sub?
This is a test for them. And one I feel they will only react to the numbers they are seeing from consumers.
Right, ok. So then that initial post where you quoted me... did you actually read (or comprehend) what I was replying to?
I was replying to a post, that tried to paint the picture that any of us opting to subscribe to EA Access, were basically being complete fucking idiots, because we should have been taking up an alternative offer that that would provide us with the ability to get the exact same thing, only more. PS+ is being used as a point of comparison by many people that are for EA Access, as it is so often being used as a deterrent by people that are against it. I'm sure you've noticed a similar number of posts saying something along the lines of "EA Access is bad news, as if it takes off it means these games won't be on PS+". My point is as of right now these games wouldn't be accessible on either of those services anyway. If Sony is yet to offer one of their own retail games... even one that wasn't even that greatly received, and certainly can't be pulling in many sales today... why should we be expecting EA to offer 4 of their own titles, that have more value in the market? EA Access is the only way I can play these games for this sort of price today. If it didn't exist, then its very likely there would be no alternative to what it offers. That story would be more accurate if the original offer was "here's $100, but fuck no you can't buy any apples! You can buy an apple tree for $500 though!".
Though I can definitely see how what I wrote can be read that way, those two quotes don't actually contradict each other. Saying you could sub and cancel to save £1.50, isn't the same thing as saying it would be worth doing (and even then.. to someone, somewhere, it may be). My point there was that by subbing you save money of digital purchases. If after buying the game and paying for a sub you came out negative.. then the value of the service would be dependent on the games in the vault as they would be required to make up the cost difference. If someone however is looking to pick up this year's round of sports games (Madden, FIFA, NBA, and NHL let's say), then subbing to the service and buying those just saved them over £15, even if they never play a single vault game (and it'd be more if they were buying DLC). The value of the service doesn't isn't only vault games, as there are reasons somebody may wish to sign up even with them excluded.
I'd like to say that I was surprised to see this thread bumped... unfortunately that isn't the case... and upon seeing it, I already knew exactly what had triggered a reply. There's three major issues with this example though.
The first is that Madden had no XBO or PS4 demo last year either, and demos have been growing ever more scarce as the generation began to wind down. Bioshock Infinite had no demo (unlike the original), CoD:Ghosts had no demo (unlike BO2), XBLA mandatory demos aren't a thing anymore... and so on. The absence of demos is not something unique to EA at all, and has actually become the norm rather than the exception.
The second issue is that what they're offering isn't even a demo.. at least not in the way demos have been historically. This is early access to the game itself, for a limited time before release. If I were to compare it to anything, it would be Sony's Full Game Trials which... surprise, surprise... you needed a PS+ sub to access. Was the BF4 Full Game Trial via PS+ the reason why that game had no demo elsewhere?
The third issue is that this early access to EA's sports games had already existed in previous years as the EA Season Ticket (also a subscription service)... so its not even new to EA Access.
Look, I get that they will be monitoring the reception to the service, and may change and introduce things as time passes. However, to me the important thing is simply if the options I have post EA Access are better than the options I had pre EA Access. Concessions are bound to happen, but they exist in pretty much every service. Nothing is for free from any company. Even Steam required the concession of having to tie your physical game purchases to a digital license. PS+ now requires a sub in order to play online multiplayer... but people were paying for PS+ before the MP paywall was added right? So, for these people a world with PS+ and MP behind a paywall, may be preferable to a world where the MP is still free, but the Instant Game Collection doesn't exist. Some people (you maybe) wouldn't agree, but that doesn't make the former set wrong. Right now, and for foreseeable future EA Access benefits me and I'm glad it exists. I also don't consider the possible scenarios that would change my opinion on this to be very likely at all (hint: putting a demo behind the sub, wouldn't suddenly make me wish the service was gone so I could get my demo back).
staticneuron
Member
Well put, I may not have understood the context of earlier posts since the thread was moving so quickly at the time. I apologize if I misunderstood you.
Also good point mentioning demos reducing in numbers. I actually had to look back to see the deal. There has been a great reduction in demo's only to be replaced by Beta's and trials. BF4 had open beta's on all consoles so people could still get hands on. Maybe this was the trend we were heading for anyways giving how many pubs openly talked about development costs of AAA titles.
But I think the only thing that I still disagree with for now is the value proposition. Maybe in the future when more titles are added to the vault I could see it as being worth it personally but for now, it just isn't for me.
trippy_n00b
Neo Member
for any of you that believe we should have the option of subscribing to EA access please support my petition to sony linked here:
https://www.change.org/p/sony-allow...ill-decide-if-it-is-good-value-for-us-not-you
thank you
https://www.change.org/p/sony-allow...ill-decide-if-it-is-good-value-for-us-not-you
thank you
ghostwritingduck
Member
I'd much rather continue getting the occasional EA game as a Playstation Plus member than have to pay an additional fee.
Yup, because so far on the PS4/Xbox One, this has worked out wonderfully for all sorts of great retail games from various first and third-party publishers.
Neuromancer
Member
Yep whereas EA Access gives you a year old Madden game. What a value.
8 people strong so far!
Plus 3 other games. Ea access seems good to me so far . I'm not complaining .
Ok... and so I suppose if there were no EA Access then that year old Madden game would be on PS+/GwG, along with the year old (almost) BF4. This is why the year old (almost) Call of Duty: Ghosts is available along with other non-EA retail games. Sony and MS themselves have been leading by example, putting up their own retail games from launch, proving without a doubt that the only reason we don't have EA's offerings on these services is because of EA Access.
Neuromancer
Member
It's been a year; how long are you going to wait?
Seriously dude?
... That bump. How do people keep track of these things? I can't even remember what I had for breakfast.
... That vendetta.
crazyrabbits
Banned
I'm going to say "as long as it takes".
Steverulez
Member
It wasn't even a good bump, what a shame.
Dumb bump.
PAULINK
I microwave steaks.
how owned are you on a scale of 1 to owned
lmfao
Xaero Gravity
NEXT LEVEL lame™
Damn, that's pretty sad.
Jackbooted
Member
The mental gymnastics in this thread are a treat to read back through. Slippery slopes everywhere!
Neuromancer
Member
Haha
It wasn't that hard you guys. I just set up a reminder.
It wasn't that hard you guys. I just set up a reminder.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Oh man, lol.
Kacho
Member
FEEL BAD FOR WHAT YOU SAID!
- Status