Wow, really? What games does/doesn't require it?
-
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
Wow, really? What games does/doesn't require it?
Uno Venova
Banned
We've come a log way from wanting Sony to block any publisher that had any online passes or DRM.
Nightengale
Member
Escalation.
It could happen now,but there's clearly business partners who are currently content with the Plus business model, and perhaps they view it sufficient rather than launch their own service.
Well if Sony doesnt allow any subscriptions but MS did for every big pub they probably still go for PS+ games because they get paid for it(?) and they wont say no to Sonys money.
Birgitte2004
Member
At the same time, have you ever known EA pass up an opportunity where money is involved?
I sure have. I mean they continued their favoring of the Xbox One even as it fell further and further behind in sales.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
And EA is pro themselves as well. This is the company that has no problem selling consumers a product that doesn't even work. In this case, yes, I'm glad Sony's not offering it, because I don't trust gamers to make the right choice on their own. As I've said gamers signed up in droves to pay for an online service that offered zero value, so I have no problem with them not being given the option to ruin things further.
Mihael Mello Keehl
Banned
I already got both.. choices.. of course. There could of been another choice here but sony miss the boat I guess. Now all or most my ea games will be on X1 because of this. Who gonna straight up deny this good as deal? Its fact this is a good deal cant beat it man.
Maybe sony are afraid the EA fee will cut into their psPlus income, and a certain percentage of users will choose one over the other... EA's suspect either way, Lets see how EA access is after its up and running for a bit, game choose, etc, the small print, somebody read the small print!
AKA MS moneyhatted EA big time and Sony said "we have the most popular console, if you really want those subs you'll come to your senses". And they eventually will unless MS' moneyhat is just mindblowingly large enough to assure permanent exclusivity (hint: it's not). Bet on it.
blazeuk
Member
I imagine EA are already far less likely to offer their games on PS+ now, they're going to want to show their subscription service is worth the money and that's not going to happen if they're happy to give PS+ the games anyway. Sony are protecting their own interests but when it comes to EA offers on PSN they've probably caused their customers to lose out on having that option.
Chaos2Frozen
Member
I'm surprised people would still trust EA and give them the benefit of the doubt after... Well, pretty much EVERYTHING they do. I mean, it's one thing to buy a game from them that you like to play, it's another to trust them to keep to a good plan/deal/scheme....
And really though, after what happened with Disc-locked content and Pre-Order bonuses etc, I'm pretty hesitant to actually trust most gamers to make the right choice themselves.
And really though, after what happened with Disc-locked content and Pre-Order bonuses etc, I'm pretty hesitant to actually trust most gamers to make the right choice themselves.
Birgitte2004
Member
Free games do not require PS+. As opposed to free games still requiring Xbox Live Gold.
I agree. I am sure Peter Moore is somewhere cackling on top of a pile of money.
in all though, with subscriptions on top of PS+ from publishers, it kind of makes consoles redundant outside of 1st party exclusives, and expensive. Why even need a console at all in the future if this is where gaming is headed? Just get the App on PC when it is no longer exclusive.
It sets a terrible precedent imo, that i dont think is a long term solution for profits.
Online Services through console, publishers, in addition to DLC, season passes, and then the actual games.
I'll sit on the fence and see how this turns out.
As a PS4 owner i completely agree with Sony that EA service doesn't provide much value, But what i don't agree is them taking that decision for me, this is such a dumb response, they have no right to decide for me.
So maybe this time it's a service i don't care about, but next time they will deny me from a service that i really find value in, but Sony might think again that i shouldn't have access, fuck them.
So maybe this time it's a service i don't care about, but next time they will deny me from a service that i really find value in, but Sony might think again that i shouldn't have access, fuck them.
Opus Angelorum
Member
Does that go for PSN+ and Xbox Live as well?
FranXico
Member
It's too late for that. If Sony tells them no, Microsoft is more than happy to let them do it.
It's like EA dropping Dreamcast support all over again.
boneso
Member
Because PC as a platform is not owned by a company that can pay EA for an exclusive deal at the moment.
Rest assured though that it won't be long before this is part of Origin, they give away games for free on there at the moment, albeit slightly older titles than last years.
If they can charge a monthly/annual fee for a selection of last years games (which will have already been sold to those that wanted to buy them anyway) and make a bit more money selling them to people that weren't that interested at the time and wouldn't have bought them under normal circumstances, they will!
Those gamers that already bought last years sports games are the same people that will buy the new ones this year (I buy FIFA every year). So it's win win for EA!
I don't see how the service being skipped on the PS4 is a big deal, except that they framed it like it was solely for PS4 gamers. The service does compete with PS+, and it also devalues it a bit. While it may not seem like a big deal to some of you now, it certainly makes the package seem a bit more daunting.
"Get access to a wide variety of apps on your PS4! Including:
PS+(subscription required)
EA Access(subscription required)
Hulu+(subscription required)
Netflix(subscription required)
Amazon Instant Video(subscription required)
etc, etc(subscription required)"
When it is mostly just video or other entertainment apps it's one thing, those can easily be waved off as extras. No one is buying a PS4 just to use Netflix. But when you have multiple gaming subscriptions on one console it muddles things up. I hate to play the "slippery slope" card, but if EA's service succeeds there is reason to believe others will follow in its wake.
"Get access to a wide variety of apps on your PS4! Including:
PS+(subscription required)
EA Access(subscription required)
Hulu+(subscription required)
Netflix(subscription required)
Amazon Instant Video(subscription required)
etc, etc(subscription required)"
When it is mostly just video or other entertainment apps it's one thing, those can easily be waved off as extras. No one is buying a PS4 just to use Netflix. But when you have multiple gaming subscriptions on one console it muddles things up. I hate to play the "slippery slope" card, but if EA's service succeeds there is reason to believe others will follow in its wake.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
And then what, at that point it would be ok? Sure it won't stop the practice, but now we are going to be in subscription land where now we are at danger of service exclusive to platforms? That can happen like DLC happens today.
Opus Angelorum
Member
You get to keep the games you bought with the 10% discount.
CecilRousso
Member
It's most likely is. And if you are in a strong position with a succesful with your own service, there's really no good reason for your company to allow other companies to get in and start taking shares from it, when you can afford to say no.
On the other hand, they could turn PS Plus into the same kind of service that EA is offering, but then for older games of only their own first party studios and some indies to make Plus more attractive again if many publishers back out.
Officerrob
Banned
All those bad products, perhaps Sony should protect all us dumb consumers and not even offer their games on their system...
I can imagine that.
but do me a favor, and try to imagine how it will finally work out, with the ea service being exclusive to one console, and the other console making bad statements about it.
you see better outcome?
You don't have to do it to do it you can carry on buying games the way you do, also and you seem supportive of ps+ and it's services like this and games with gold that are making EA do things like this. on ps+ you may get a EA game that you wouldn't go out and buy personally but you still end up giving it a try because you pay for the service and may enjoy it, so EA wants in on this action and they have a wide enough range of games to do so. Also people saying this may set a president for other publishers I think that started when publishers started seeing the success of ps+ Before you need it for online and that's why Games with gold started and now EA want to launch there own.
Opus Angelorum
Member
We are long past the point of being able to change anything, Xbox Live and PSN+ are very successful because they offer good value for the services offered.
If the quality and value of these new services if good they will thrive. If one publisher get's greedy and makes the service poor value, people won't subscribe.
But isn't that the beauty of it? You can either pay the premium price on day 1 for a game like Battlefield 4 and enjoy all the bugs or you can get it in the non beta version for free in your EA Vault.
Oh and you don't "own" games nowadays. You always only purchase a license to play said game. Read the manual, normally the last page. You'll be surprised how little you actually own.
Handy Fake
Member
Pretty sure they're locked into a deal with MS from before the XB1 launch, I may be wrong though. If anything else it strengthens their reasoning behind using a subscription service to get a piece of the Sony pie.
It's even more hilarious people think EA or MS have no ulterior motives with this, based on their flawless past lol.
Uh, wow. That's...a pretty ridiculous response, to be honest. The success of PS Plus somehow shows that gamers do not want something along the lines of what EA Access is offering? In some way, not having the option to pay $30 yearly for a pretty solid array of games, discounts, etc. on the PS4 is advantageous to Sony's audience? "PS Plus > EA Access. Microsoft can have it. And by the way, you're welcome, everyone. "
I get the feeling either EA's terms were more favorable to Microsoft in some capacity (are we even 100% sure they made a concrete offer to Sony?), or Sony felt that EA Access was somehow inconsistent with their broader business model.
Such a strange statement, though. Inconsequential, but strange. Could have just stuck with something along the lines of, "PS Plus is great, here's a glimpse of what consumers get with it, it's an amazing success, interesting to see companies follow suit, and we are content right now. Unlikely to see EA Access on our platform."
"I get the feeling either EA's terms were more favorable to Microsoft in some capacity (are we even 100% sure they made a concrete offer to Sony?), or Sony felt that EA Access was somehow inconsistent with their broader business model.
Such a strange statement, though. Inconsequential, but strange. Could have just stuck with something along the lines of, "PS Plus is great, here's a glimpse of what consumers get with it, it's an amazing success, interesting to see companies follow suit, and we are content right now. Unlikely to see EA Access on our platform."
Grindlefly
Member
I don't really play online and soul suspect wolfenstein, thief, the lego games and apparently the order have no mp. That actually has made me want them more. Not every game needs a mp mode and some just have it tacked on to tick a box.
Also any f2p game doesn't require plus, neither does Netflix etc.
I actually think this on the surface seems ok value but will wait and see cos......ea
If Sony can have their subscription/paywall-service I don't see why third party publishers shouldn't be allowed to have their own one as well.
If this devalues PS Plus, that's Sony's problem to add value instead, not the responsibility of third parties.
Whether or not services like that will be successfully should always be in the hands of the customers. I don't like others to make decisions for me.
Personally I would prefer to not have any subscriptions at all.
If this devalues PS Plus, that's Sony's problem to add value instead, not the responsibility of third parties.
Whether or not services like that will be successfully should always be in the hands of the customers. I don't like others to make decisions for me.
Personally I would prefer to not have any subscriptions at all.
I said this a few pages back, but it got buried as the second to last post on that page...
Horse armor was completely optional too, guys... now look how many games ship with DLC on the disc. Before they just made and sold games... now they make games to sell DLC.
Why would it work like this though? I think it's unrealistic to expect most gamers to be subscribed to all of them. If Ubisoft are offering their catalogue for $30 a year why would I sub to Activision for $80 a year? They would constantly be compared in value. If a company is seen as crappy value, people will notice.
You think Netflix wouldn't suffer if they suddenly decided to raise it to $15 a month? You think Hulu wouldn't try and capitalize on that? Why would it be different for video games?
Like how always-online was going to be a thing and there was nothing anyone could do to stop it? Sony killed the phone home DRM and online passes in one fell swoop.
Except that this is an industry where everyone is tripping over themselves to push up the cost of entry. Look at the aforementioned online passes. Everyone lept on that shit. Competition should make things cheaper but in this industry the cost of entry rises with every generation. It's more like a cartel than a free market.
Almost certainly. Essentially, the big publishers will annexe the sub money and the smaller publishers and indies will be left out in the cold when consumers choose where to direct their finite subscription money.
Ubisoft:
EA needs PS4 and PS3. I highly doubt they would do anything to jeopardise such a large chunk of their business.
Does this EA service let you play online btw or do you need XBL and EAA to play those games online?
They need them now, wait till next gen, when EA will hit back at u in full force since the userbases will be reset again.
perfectsil
Member
Just look at the EA access thread, some people want this on ps4, those that don't want it? It's optional
That 10% off all EA games/DLCs alone just pays for itself for me at $30/year
That 10% off all EA games/DLCs alone just pays for itself for me at $30/year
Uno Venova
Banned
Though games that you 'don't own' on digital form can be taken away from access from any account mishap over physically 'not owning' games.
People don't think this far ahead anymore.
AusRoachman
Member
At least this clears up the Moneyhatting posts.
Problem is that due to consumers' choices in the past generation, I no longer have the choice of playing online without paying a gateway fee. Sony saw microsoft was immensely profitable with live, and they followed suit. Sure they are more value-added than live, but that's not the point. They could have easily have chosen not to put online play behind a paywall and been purely a value-added service.
Depends on where you stand.
Many of us have been burned badly by EA in the (recent) past, so it really depends how you look at it when calling it a good deal.
I certainly am not among those thinking this is a steal. Then again, I started despising EA after being treated like shit by them with BF3/4.
Right now, it's the company I trust the least in this business, even mores than MS. Which says a lot for me personally.
I could easily see EA buttering us up with a sweet deal only to screw us in the end.
I really don't believe that their end game is "let everyone pay $30 a year to play our top games instead of $60 a pop plus $50 season passes". Just doesn't make sense.
You know what they say: If something sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
Makes sense, why pay for a service that offers only EA games and discount when customers are already getting multiple publisher games and discount.
Thing is if EA is successful other publisher's will follow and that bill will rack up on top of what you already pay for live, and it will be essentially the same as what you get with playstation plus just more, I'd wait to see how the service grows before making judgement.
But it's understandable why Sony would say no.
Thing is if EA is successful other publisher's will follow and that bill will rack up on top of what you already pay for live, and it will be essentially the same as what you get with playstation plus just more, I'd wait to see how the service grows before making judgement.
But it's understandable why Sony would say no.
You do not need PSN+ to play Final Fantasy 14.
The trap you're falling into is assuming that it doesn't cost them anything to offer it. I suspect that's not the case, and I'm very curious exactly where the costs lie.
Opus Angelorum
Member
Microsoft have done very well to fix the utterly abysmal pre-launch PR. They have been open, communicative and quick to update their system.
That's not to say this should be greeted with open arms.
Opus Angelorum
Member
Entirely different context.
Neuromancer
Member
Probably a smart move on Sony's part. Personally I'd almost be willing to pay $5 a month to not have to play EA games.
- Status