Sony rejected EA Access for the PS4 because it's not worth the money


Recommended Posts

Ok, so you dont see the value, great. But obviously others do see it and they wouldnt mind paying $30 for a year to "rent" 4 games that are being offered at the moment. Why wouldnt Sony let its customers make that decision? Its not that different from the multiple options we have today on streaming movies Amazon video, Netflix, Vudu, Hulu Plus, etc. I'll be signing up for 1 year of EA Access, its $30 bucks and worth the trial for me, if it sucks over the 1 year ill cancel and its only $30 lost.

Fair point about the content/publisher split, but if EA games arent part of PS Plus or Gold, it will at least force MS/Sony to give us something else...

Time will tell. It seems like Sony are going to try and muscle EA into still being part of Plus. From what we know from some devs money is given upfront but also per amount of downloads. EA value money, clearly, so putting slightly older content that may not be selling as well on Plus vs not doing anything with it in protest will be the test of both companies locking horns.

I'm sure their dedicated service on Live will offer "better" content than what they'll ever put on Plus now, and that's the risk for Sony, but its a battle between the two of them we'll need to wait to see the outcome.

A lot of people were saying EA would go exclusive MS when we found out about the XB1 DRM, but even before the 180 that was just untrue. EA wouldn't be what it is without MS and Sony, especially right now with how the PS4 is selling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really have any other thoughts to add to my earlier post about why SOME people are cautious. But I would like to say why are you guys comparing PSNow to a download rental scheme, EAs is not streaming?

PS Plus is the comparison, not PSNow.

Also in regards to 10% discounts, if you use Plus you'll already know you get discounts off a lot of titles. No idea if XBL Gold does that. Again that's why some people think they have a good thing going with one sub, we already have discounts given off games and EA games have already been given out in the past years. We could end up like the video streaming market where HBO shows aren't on Netflix, and Amazon prime doesn't have show X. Choice usually always is good but it can be frustrating when content you want is split over multiple services. There's no doubt now EA games will stop being in XBL Gold and you'll "need" this EA sub and your Live one.

PS+(free games, discounts etc.) <--> XBLG (free games, occasional free movies, discounts etc.)

 

People are only comparing PSNow with EA Access because Sony questioned the value of EA Access when their PSNow prices are outrageous and nowhere near "providing value".

 

I wouldn't count on EA staying in PS+ if this program is a hit on XB1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so you dont see the value, great.  But obviously others do see it and they wouldnt mind paying $30 for a year to "rent" 4 games that are being offered at the moment.  Why wouldnt Sony let its customers make that decision?  Its not that different from the multiple options we have today on streaming movies Amazon video, Netflix, Vudu, Hulu Plus, etc.  I'll be signing up for 1 year of EA Access, its $30 bucks and worth the trial for me, if it sucks over the 1 year ill cancel and its only $30 lost.

Fair point about the content/publisher split, but if EA games arent part of PS Plus or Gold, it will at least force MS/Sony to give us something else... 

 

12 x $5 = $60 not $30 , not sure what calculator you're using to make it out as $30.

 

And the fact in europe it will be ?60 makes it $80 make's it very not worth it.

 

I've lined EA's pockets enough, I'm not about to pay that much for a mediocre service, specially at beta level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a gamer who doesn't jump to buy the latest games the minute they hit the shelfs, it will probably suit me quite well. This means that i'll get access to games as they get added.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are $5/month or $30/year sub options.

 

so you pay $30 for 3 games from last year and a 10% discount but still have to pay for DLC.

 

You could get a loan of them for nothing they're that old or pick them in a bargin basket.

 

still nothing that i would use,or intend to.

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so you pay $30 for 3 games from last year and a 10% discount but still have to pay for DLC.

 

You could get a loan of them for nothing they're that old or pick them in a bargin basket.

 

still nothing that i would use,or intend to.

 

:D

So...just like PS+?

As he said, it's ok if you don't see the value but there are people who seem to like the deal. Why wouldn't Sony offer this and see if "the gamers" like it? let the gamers decide, not the suites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So yeah, Good for Sony, at least they'll have their own, expensive, service to charge you to "rent" games as long as you want. 

You put "rent" in quotes?? Why? Do you think you get to keep these EA games once your subscription runs out??? You are renting them with this EA service as well. So really not sure what your point was there.

 

The only mistake Sony made here is releasing a comment at all about EA's service. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out they did not want it on the PSN as it directly competes with PS+.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...just like PS+?

As he said, it's ok if you don't see the value but there are people who seem to like the deal. Why wouldn't Sony offer this and see if "the gamers" like it? let the gamers decide, not the suites.

 

Well like xbox live gold, PS+ is a requirement, not exactly a privledge anymore, anything that comes with that is a "plus", pardon the pun.

 

If EAaccess is subbed by the likes of microsoft to make that 4.99 / month price exist, why would sony waste money funding EA's money hunger?

 

MS may have money to throw around but Sony does not, Xbox needs the exclusive extras if it's gonna get anywhere near the PS4 sales anyways.

 

on http://www.ea.com/coming-soon you have 4 games to look forward to...next year sometime, all fo which will "not" be on EAaccess.

 

As stated above, it may play to a persons needs who is a gamer who is 2 years behind everyone else but not much more than that.

 

My 2c worth.

Edited by Andrew G.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well like xbox live gold, PS+ is a requirement, not exactly a privledge anymore, anything that comes with that is a "plus", pardon the pun.

 

If EAaccess is subbed by the likes of microsoft to make that 4.99 / month price exist, why would sony waste money funding EA's money hunger?

 

MS may have money to throw around but Sony does not, Xbox needs the exclusive extras if it's gonna get anywhere near the PS4 sales anyways.

 

on http://www.ea.com/coming-soon you have 4 games to look forward to...next year sometime, all fo which will "not" be on EAaccess.

 

As stated above, it may play to a persons needs who is a gamer who is 2 years behind everyone else but not much more than that.

 

My 2c worth.

You whole post is based on assumption that Microsoft is subsidizing EA Access, which we have no proof of.

Edited by Andrew G.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snip

 

You assumed that games will take 1+ year to make it onto EA Vault. Don't get me wrong, that may the case but that's a huge assumption. 

 

And there are more than 4 games coming to EA Access, just have a look on the news article on the front page, as well as the games that you mentioned, there's also the usual sports franchises and Dragon Age. 

 

As people have stated on here, it's not for everyone, but for some people it's great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You assumed that games will take 1+ year to make it onto EA Vault. Don't get me wrong, that may the case but that's a huge assumption. 

 

And there are more than 4 games coming to EA Access, just have a look on the news article on the front page, as well as the games that you mentioned, there's also the usual sports franchises and Dragon Age. 

 

As people have stated on here, it's not for everyone, but for some people it's great.

 

Assumption it may be but this is EA we're talking about, have you ever seen them release a "new game" then give it away free to "subscribers"

 

hell they just gave battlefield 3 without any dlc away free to origin members a couple of months back and it's been out since october 2011.

 

dragon age and battlefield hardlines have been delayed into 2015 like most EA games on next gen, this means any sub this year would be an entire waste.

 

I said 4 games to start off with, as there are only 4 on xbox one? and them saying no new releases will be out in the vault..their words.

 

if you also read the small print, you will also see.. "Titanfall excluded from all EA Access features"

 

so thats another title off the list for EA subscribers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snip

 

They're not giving it away for free, people are paying a subscription! Free would imply there's no money being exchanged which there is. I'm assuming that it's not a question of if it comes, more a question of when.

 

Dragon Age is still penned for release later this year, and Hardline early 2015 so buying a years sub now would still have the benefits of both of those games. 

 

You said none of those games are coming to EA Access which I disagreed, you didn't say Vault. Make sure you keep the terms consistent, otherwise it's really confusing :p

 

You're excluding two huge title, FIFA and NFL. Both maybe be slight improvements over last years but will be in high demand. Giving people early access, will be huge. 

 

Anyway, all of this is off topic so I'm going to stop. We can take our discussion to the topic in the Xbox forum if you wish ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS+(free games, discounts etc.) <--> XBLG (free games, occasional free movies, discounts etc.)

 

People are only comparing PSNow with EA Access because Sony questioned the value of EA Access when their PSNow prices are outrageous and nowhere near "providing value".

 

I wouldn't count on EA staying in PS+ if this program is a hit on XB1.

 

There is no other streaming service to compare to, I think the prices are way too high, but until someone invests in the infrastructure to do what Now is doing and releases their own prices we have no comparison.

 

EA Access is similar to PS Plus, not PS Now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesnt anyone see the problem with a 3rd party thing like this???? Sony gets NO MONEY, no money from a game sale, no money from a rental sale NOTHING.... so why would they allow something that earns them nothing. they need all the money they can get

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesnt anyone see the problem with a 3rd party thing like this???? Sony gets NO MONEY, no money from a game sale, no money from a rental sale NOTHING.... so why would they allow something that earns them nothing. they need all the money they can get

 

You have no way of confirming or proving that.

 

I'd bet very very highly EA are paying MS something to allow THEIR service onto the Live service. In fact, I'm 99.9% certain. MS are making money out of this. Maybe they're just at the point where they are happy for other companies to come in and pony up their money, as oppose to carrying down the path Sony did for Plus and giving out money to devs/publishers. MS did start XBL Games for Gold different than Sony (you owned content, but it was weak offerings), then they switched over to rental scheme and now this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EA Access currently has 4 games in its vault.

 

Battlefield 4, Fifa 14, Madden 25 and Peggle 2.

 

These games are close to or more than a year old, I'm assuming all other games in the vault will be the same.

 

It also gives you 10% on EA games, DLC and in-game currency.

 

So if you purchase more than $50 worth of EA products per month you would save $5 (Monthly subscription fee)

- I personally don't spend that much on EA ($600/year) to make the subscription worth it based on the 10% discount.

 

You also get to trial some EA games 5 days before they are released, It doesn't give much information on the trial. (It could be a regular demo or it could be full-access for 5 days, its EA so its probably not the full access one) but yet again $5 / month doesn't seem worth playing a trial of a game a few days before release and then needing to purchase it later anyway.

 

With that being said Sony should still have given that option to its customers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth of the matter is no one yet knows how good of a service this will ultimately wind up being.

It is also incredibly amusing to me that all of a sudden EA are good guys again. Let's not pretend that has everything to do with the fact that they partnered with MS here. So all of a sudden people are on board with EA just because this partnership involves MS. That is incredibly revealing to me as to who is supporting EA because this potentially could be a good service and who is defending EA simply because this is a partnership with MS.

 

I myself picked up the $30 year subscription as I was already very interested in playing Peggle 2, and I actually just traded in Battlefield 4, so right there for $30 it was not that bad of a deal, and although I would have not done so otherwise, I will now check out Fifa and Madden. However I recognize the fact that until we know what other games are coming to The Vault, all we know is:

 

  • Subscribers also get 10% off future digital releases and DLC. If you plan on picking up more than 3-5 EA games throughout the year, then the subscription paid for itself. If not, it does then come down to the level of games they release in The Vault.
     
  • I will also get to check out new releases 5 days before they are released with Play First. However there is some very specific wording in regards to this
    "If you?re an EA Access member, you can download upcoming EA games five days before the release date to play for a limited time."
    So that says to me yes, I can check out games up to 5 days before the game is released, however it will be a timed trial.

    I do hope people were not expecting full access to the game itself as they will be in for a rude awakening.

    I imagine it is going to be exactly the same as PS+ is where you usually get an hour or two to play the full game during the trial. Or perhaps just the first mission, etc.

So really at this point in time this is EA's version of Playstation +. Nothing less and nothing more. 

 

As such is it really that surprising Sony did not want this on the PSN?

 

As I said realistically Sony's only mistake with this whole thing was making the stupid comment they made about it not being a good value, which in all fairness, it may not wind up being a good value, that all depends on what additional games come to The Vault itself. Perhaps when Sony talked to EA and asked them what games they planned on releasing down the road in The Vault, that is what made them determine it was not going to be a good value. We just do not know. Or perhaps they just were in fact dumb and made a stupid comment to try and devalue the service.

Either what it was unprofessional of Sony to make this "not a good value" comment publicly.

 

So there is a whole lot of speculation and a whole lot of talk in this thread about how dumb Sony is and how Sony was in the wrong for not giving the gamer the choice to choose this service. That just totally ignores the fact that gaming is a business. A big one at that. It was a business decision for Sony not to allow this service. 

 

And how good of a deal this winds up being for all involved remains to be seen. This service will no doubt have a different value to different people, as it is largely dependent on how many EA games one plays throughout the year.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Subscribers also get 10% off future digital releases and DLC. If you plan on picking up more than 3-5 EA games throughout the year, then the subscription paid for itself. If not, it does then come down to the level of games they release in The Vault.

 

The 10% off DLC could be worth while and prices for DLC tend to be pretty much the same. The 10% off digital releases is here nor there, new digital titles are usually overpriced (when compared to online retailers etc) and the 10% won't bring it inline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS Plus is the landmark "rental service" right now that EA are already part of.

Seems like Sony would rather EA opt into their service than the other way about. If this kicks off what's next, Ubisoft doing the same?

I'd rather have the risk right now that EA feel pressured into opting into Plus than Sony for EA. Or we will end up with goodness knows how many monthly subscriptions in a years time from every big publisher.

I have to agree with this. We're steering towards an age of subscriptions; Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, PS+, Xbox Live... but now we're going to add content subscriptions on games? I feel like everyone wants a piece of the pie, putting someone's card in to be autodrafted from upon subscription (just look at offers of free month(s) of [product] when you put in your credit card!).

 

EA of all companies I'm just not about to jump in bed with myself. That's my own personal choice at least.

 

Maybe I'm still a little sore back when EA/Mythic pulled $14.95 from my bank account 14 times by mistake for Warhammer Online...

 

I feel like it's a slippery slope to complete abuse, and I feel like any studio with 4 games could just strike up a deal to say, "Hey man, you want more games? Only $2.99 a month for these unfinished games!!"

 

Maybe if we were talking about Rockstar or Valve, this would be a completely different story, as they have a greater caliber for consistently decent games.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You put "rent" in quotes?? Why? Do you think you get to keep these EA games once your subscription runs out??? You are renting them with this EA service as well. So really not sure what your point was there.

 

The only mistake Sony made here is releasing a comment at all about EA's service. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out they did not want it on the PSN as it directly competes with PS+.

 

I like how you pick that one little thing to argue about, like me using quotes matters, I should've used bold text instead, it was supposed to be for emphasis so that was my mistake, but good on you, latch on to one thing, minor as it is, that doesn't in any way invalidate the rest of my post at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting how many are going to basically bash this service and ignore its clear value.

Just because you don't like EA or the games currently being offered, does not mean that applies to everyone. The inability of some people to step back and look at this as an observer is baffling sometimes.

If this was flipped around, I wonder what the responses would be.

EA aren't going to offer Ubisoft games. Ubisoft aren't going to offer Rockstar games. Catch my drift?

Sony and MS might be platform owners but right now they have EVERYONE coming to them to get their games featured in Plus/Games for Gold. That gets fragmented and you find yourself having to subscribe to 3, 4 or even 5 rental services in a few years time just so you can get a variety of games.

That's why some people have reservations. Plus already offers new games every month for 2x PS4, 2x PS3 and 2x Vita. We have a good thing going, people are understandably nervous an incoming boom in rental options is going to end up costing us more or affecting variety on the core service (Plus).

How in the world would this hurt plus? The only way it hurts plus is is EA happens to be offering a better deal that consumers buy into. If EA starts offering games only through their service and charging a high price, people will simply not buy into it. Remember, you can still buy games on disc and avoid this mess.

The boom in rental services is being spearheaded by Sony on its own platforms. Are people nervous about that at all? Worried that Sony might slowly start adjusting the selection for ps+ to 'nudge' users over to ps now? I'm not saying I believe that right now, but if your going to say that some people are concerned about the incoming rental services, then you can't ignore what Sony themselves are doing.

Sony can give whatever reason they want as PR, they above is why many gamers are cautious, not the headline for the PR release.

Games for Gold might be a fledgling service for many of the Xbox only guys, but Plus has been around for a while and we've been getting EA games and Ubisoft games for that matter for quite a while - Full titles as well, not just indie stuff.

I'm one of those ps guys that has had the luxury of ps+ for a while now, but I'm not scared of seeing EA Access as an option on the platform. PS+ still offers a better value to me even if EA games were to show up less there.

However, can you tell me when the last time we saw an EA sports titles as one of the free games on PS+? I'm sure I missed some, but I can't remember.

One advantage to having publisher subscriptions is that you would know exactly what games to expect. With Sony and MS, it could be a wide range of choices, some you may not want at all.

 

PS Plus is the comparison, not PSNow.

Also in regards to 10% discounts, if you use Plus you'll already know you get discounts off a lot of titles. No idea if XBL Gold does that. Again that's why some people think they have a good thing going with one sub, we already have discounts given off games and EA games have already been given out in the past years. We could end up like the video streaming market where HBO shows aren't on Netflix, and Amazon prime doesn't have show X. Choice usually always is good but it can be frustrating when content you want is split over multiple services. There's no doubt now EA games will stop being in XBL Gold and you'll "need" this EA sub and your Live one.

XBL Gold does indeed do that. Your under the assumption that Xbox only owners are in the dark ages still :laugh: Nope, they get discounts and free games too now. In fact, I think it was last month that Titanfall was being offers for $10-$15 off via GwG discounts.

I agree that the comparison should be with GwG or PS+, not PS Now. However, I think people brought PS Now into the conversation to point to a possible reason why Sony would be less interested in having a competing service at any level right now.

I also agree that having multiple services will be frustrating when all you want is one source for all of your games. For me personally, I wont be subscribing to any service like this outside of my current XBL Gold and PS+ unless it offers a clear value for games I want.

 

The truth of the matter is no one yet knows how good of a service this will ultimately wind up being.

It is also incredibly amusing to me that all of a sudden EA are good guys again. Let's not pretend that has everything to do with the fact that they partnered with MS here. So all of a sudden people are on board with EA just because this partnership involves MS. That is incredibly revealing to me as to who is supporting EA because this potentially could be a good service and who is defending EA simply because this is a partnership with MS.

 

I myself picked up the $30 year subscription as I was already very interested in playing Peggle 2, and I actually just traded in Battlefield 4, so right there for $30 it was not that bad of a deal, and although I would have not done so otherwise, I will now check out Fifa and Madden.

I know I personally called it a good value because it is. Heck, you are participating as well, so you admit it has some value. MS being partnered with EA doesn't matter if the deal is a bad value.

Its amusing to me that some would try and dismiss this deal simply because its EA or because of Sony's choice. EA has done plenty of bad things, but I'm still willing to at least look at the deal while setting that aside. A good deal is a good deal.

So the truth here is that, on the surface, this deal by EA could offer a great value to those that want to play the games being offered. If we get new info that changes the deal, then of course it could turn out bad. However, right now, at this moment, it looks like a nice deal to me.

So really at this point in time this is EA's version of Playstation +. Nothing less and nothing more. 

 

As such is it really that surprising Sony did not want this on the PSN?

 

As I said realistically Sony's only mistake with this whole thing was making the stupid comment they made about it not being a good value, which in all fairness, it may not wind up being a good value, that all depends on what additional games come to The Vault itself. Perhaps when Sony talked to EA and asked them what games they planned on releasing down the road in The Vault, that is what made them determine it was not going to be a good value. We just do not know. Or perhaps they just were in fact dumb and made a stupid comment to try and devalue the service.

Either what it was unprofessional of Sony to make this "not a good value" comment publicly.

 

So there is a whole lot of speculation and a whole lot of talk in this thread about how dumb Sony is and how Sony was in the wrong for not giving the gamer the choice to choose this service. That just totally ignores the fact that gaming is a business. A big one at that. It was a business decision for Sony not to allow this service. 

 

And how good of a deal this winds up being for all involved remains to be seen. This service will no doubt have a different value to different people, as it is largely dependent on how many EA games one plays throughout the year.

I agree completely with you on those points. Sony clearly made a business decision when they turned down EA. Sony should have just kept quiet and not tried to win points with gamers by claiming they were protecting them. I don't have any problem with them making the choice they did, but no one should be shocked that Sony would get flack for taking it too far.

EA Access is very much a ps+ or GwG type service focused on EA titles. So your perceived value will be all about how much you like EA games. Sometimes the PS+ and GwG deals for the month are bad for you, but great for someone else. EA Access will be the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth of the matter is no one yet knows how good of a service this will ultimately wind up being.

It is also incredibly amusing to me that all of a sudden EA are good guys again. Let's not pretend that has everything to do with the fact that they partnered with MS here. So all of a sudden people are on board with EA just because this partnership involves MS. That is incredibly revealing to me as to who is supporting EA because this potentially could be a good service and who is defending EA simply because this is a partnership with MS.

 

All I see is cautious optimism (by people who like the idea) followed by "ok EA, what's the catch". How do you read that as "EA are good guys again"? I would come and say from the other side that people don't like this because MS delivered on yet another reveal announcement (unprecedented partnership with EA) and Sony camp is just jealous?

 

I am not supporting EA and have taken a wait&watch approach because I have zero interest in EA's sports catalog but if they start adding their AAA catalog of Need For Speed XYZ, Mirror's Edge 2, Mass Effect 5 etc. even 4-6 months after release, I will sign up. 

 

In other words and because you are a GameFly fan - this is just EA's version of GameFly with added benefit of digital games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth of the matter is no one yet knows how good of a service this will ultimately wind up being.

It is also incredibly amusing to me that all of a sudden EA are good guys again. Let's not pretend that has everything to do with the fact that they partnered with MS here. So all of a sudden people are on board with EA just because this partnership involves MS. That is incredibly revealing to me as to who is supporting EA because this potentially could be a good service and who is defending EA simply because this is a partnership with MS.

 

I myself picked up the $30 year subscription as I was already very interested in playing Peggle 2, and I actually just traded in Battlefield 4, so right there for $30 it was not that bad of a deal, and although I would have not done so otherwise, I will now check out Fifa and Madden. However I recognize the fact that until we know what other games are coming to The Vault, all we know is:

 

  • Subscribers also get 10% off future digital releases and DLC. If you plan on picking up more than 3-5 EA games throughout the year, then the subscription paid for itself. If not, it does then come down to the level of games they release in The Vault.

     

  • I will also get to check out new releases 5 days before they are released with Play First. However there is some very specific wording in regards to this

    So that says to me yes, I can check out games up to 5 days before the game is released, however it will be a timed trial.

    I do hope people were not expecting full access to the game itself as they will be in for a rude awakening.

    I imagine it is going to be exactly the same as PS+ is where you usually get an hour or two to play the full game during the trial. Or perhaps just the first mission, etc.

So really at this point in time this is EA's version of Playstation +. Nothing less and nothing more. 

 

As such is it really that surprising Sony did not want this on the PSN?

 

As I said realistically Sony's only mistake with this whole thing was making the stupid comment they made about it not being a good value, which in all fairness, it may not wind up being a good value, that all depends on what additional games come to The Vault itself. Perhaps when Sony talked to EA and asked them what games they planned on releasing down the road in The Vault, that is what made them determine it was not going to be a good value. We just do not know. Or perhaps they just were in fact dumb and made a stupid comment to try and devalue the service.

Either what it was unprofessional of Sony to make this "not a good value" comment publicly.

 

So there is a whole lot of speculation and a whole lot of talk in this thread about how dumb Sony is and how Sony was in the wrong for not giving the gamer the choice to choose this service. That just totally ignores the fact that gaming is a business. A big one at that. It was a business decision for Sony not to allow this service. 

 

And how good of a deal this winds up being for all involved remains to be seen. This service will no doubt have a different value to different people, as it is largely dependent on how many EA games one plays throughout the year.

 

EA are never the good guys theyll find a way to screw us out of our money dont have to worry about that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.