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

[Gerowen]

I applaud Sony for this, because EA's business practices are absolutely deplorable.  They have made things like "pay-to-win" mainstream, and it's absolutely sickening.  When I bought Dragon Age: Origins and Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning back in the day, one of the first things that happened when I started both games was a little advertisement wanting me to purchase additional items from EA to make the game easier.  It's disgusting, and their sports games are as boring and repetitive as Call of Duty.  I really wish people like Bioware would stop dealing with EA.

[Bigkaye]

 

The games are not streamed. You literally download them like you would when buying a game digitally. The only online check involved is the one to verify you have an active subscription. Think of it like ps+ or GwG. You can keep playing the games as long as you keep an active subscription. There is no xbox live requirement unless you want to play online.

 

"EA Access will let subscribers download four titles from what the publisher is calling the "EA Vault": FIFA 14, Madden 25, Peggle 2, and Battlefield 4. Subscribers will also get 10 percent off all digital content from EA, including full game downloads and DLC content like Battlefield 4 Premium and FIFA Ultimate Team (though Titanfall is explicitly excluded in the fine print). EA Access also grants trial access to upcoming games "up to five days before the release date," with progress that will carry over to the full release if and when you purchase it."

and

"It's currently unclear when EA will add new games to the Vault, for instance, and it seems unlikely that brand new releases will be given away for "free" until they stop generating significant sales to standard purchasers (EA just says that the Vault will see "more titles being added soon")." -http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/07/ea-unveils-subscription-plan-for-access-to-its-xbox-one-games/

Just four legacy titles and demos/early release? 10% off new titles?? So those won't be in 'the vault'... I'll wait to see what really happens as what you are saying and what that article is saying vastly conflict (chance of more than 4 games in the vault? chance of downloading more than 4?). Sony may have a point saying no to this.

[Mr. Gibs]

I applaud Sony for this, because EA's business practices are absolutely deplorable.  They have made things like "pay-to-win" mainstream, and it's absolutely sickening.  When I bought Dragon Age: Origins and Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning back in the day, one of the first things that happened when I started both games was a little advertisement wanting me to purchase additional items from EA to make the game easier.  It's disgusting, and their sports games are as boring and repetitive as Call of Duty.  I really wish people like Bioware would stop dealing with EA.

Um I've played DA:O several times and I've never once seen an advertisement for "buy items to make the game easier" And secondly, Bioware has been owned by EA for a long long time now. They can't "stop dealing with them."

[Ironman273]

I'm not going to start a new thread because I'd probably be labeled a "basher" but since it has to do with Playstation and price, here it is:

 

"PlayStation Now Is Still Way Too Expensive
 

 

Right now, on your PlayStation 4, you can enjoy 90 days of the PS3 racing game F1 2013 for the low, low price of $49.99.

 

Too rich for your blood? You could try 90 days of NASCAR 14 for $39.99, or 90 days of Dirt 3for $26.99. Codemasters' Grid 2 comes in at the relatively affordable $22.99?also for 90 days.
What if you're not in the mood for a racing game? What if, say, you want to rent a nice meaty RPG? You could try Deus Ex: Revolution, which comes in at $29.99 for 90 days, $14.99 for 30 days, $6.99 for seven days, and $4.99 for four hours.

 

Or, if you're feeling like some stealth action, you could rent Metal Gear Solid 4 at $14.99 for 90 days, $12.99 for 30 days, $7.99 for seven days, and $3.99 for four hours.

 

If those numbers are making your head hurt, you're not alone. PlayStation Now?a streaming service that allows users to rent old PlayStation 3 games?entered open beta on the PlayStation 4 today, and with it, every PS4 owner has entered a fantasy world where Sony believes it's acceptable to charge up to $50 for 90-day rentals.

 

Last month, when Sony first launched pricing in the PlayStation Now closed beta, I called the costs insane. Things haven't changed very much. The service?which now offers 100-something PS3 games for streaming on your PS4?is still ? la carte, and will still cost you way more than buying used PS3 games at GameStop or Best Buy ever would.
 

Earlier this week, when I had the chance to chat on the phone with PlayStation Now senior director Jack Buser and Gaikai chief business officer Robert Stevenson, I asked if they planned to lower their prices at all.
"One of those things that we heard about was we received some critical feedback around certain price points as you're very familiar with," said Buser. "As a direct result of that feedback, we're gonna soon introduce titles starting at $1.99. We hope this offers users a wider range of price points to choose from, and we encourage our testers to continue to tell us about what their experience is with every aspect of the service."

 

During our conversation, Buser continually emphasized that Sony is listening to beta testers and will incorporate as much feedback as possible. The service is in beta, after all. Sony wants to hear to what people want.
So here's my feedback: PlayStation Now games need to be cheaper. Who in the world thinks it's OK that Sony wants you to pay $14.99 for 30 days of Final Fantasy XIII-2 when you can buy it new for that same price at GameStop?

 

Sony's new service isn't even out of beta yet, and it already feels obsolete. We live in a world dominated by streaming services like Netflix and Amazon Prime, which offer monthly subscriptions for unlimited access to their content. That's the type of model that people want. Even EA knows that?though Sony doesn't think their service has much value.
 

Granted, Sony's already aware that fans would like to see them take the Netflix approach and offer subscription-based pricing. But they don't see it as a replacement for piecemeal rentals.
"We are looking for the subscription offering to complement our rental offering," Buser told me. "We believe both options provide gamers the freedom to discover and play games in a way that weren't previously possible before."

 

It's unclear just what that subscription offering will look like?Buser wouldn't go into details?but if it isn't something like "unlimited rentals for a reasonable amount of money per month," I don't see how it could ever be good for gamers. We are talking about old games here, not the hottest new shipments that are coming in at $59.99 a pop.
Two years ago, Sony helped sink the Vita by charging way too much for the proprietary memory cards you need in order to use it. History is repeating itself with PlayStation Now, as the folks behind the PS4?who ostensibly care about and listen to their fans?continue to choose indefensible money-grabs over respecting and investing in their most loyal customers. That's a real shame.
 
Right now, PlayStation Now's pricing is just straight-up unacceptable. Which really is too bad, because in theory, Sony's fancy new PS4 could be a powerhouse for fans of retro games. Sony has missed a grand opportunity to beat Nintendo at its own game and offer up its own version of the Virtual Console complete with selections from the past two decades of PlayStation gaming, from Final Fantasy VII to Uncharted 2.
 
And, yes, Sony's inability to commit to getting PS1 and PS2 games running on PlayStation 4 is also a real shame, especially today, in the thick of the summer drought, as we all wait for this fall's games to be delayed to next year.

 

I mean, just picture it: imagine a veritable buffet of PlayStation games from the last three generations, streaming and playable whenever you want, all for, say, $20/month. Maybe you can only rent a couple of games at a time?or maybe you can only rent a few games every month?but instead of paying exorbitant prices for each of them, you pay for the all-you-can-eat special featuring as many games as Sony can stick on there.
Maybe we'll get there one day. Hopefully. But today...

 

Well, today we have this:

"

 

 

Source: Kotaku

Edited August 1, 2014 by Andrew G.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

You should have started a thread, this topic is no place for PS Now.

 

Shouldn't take for EA to do something similar to PS+ for people to say PS Now costs too much. It costs far too much for an average consumer. But it's got the luxury of becoming 'one of a kind' and having no real competition to start with so prices can be whatever Sony want to recoup all the costs going into it. 

 

Prices will come down for gaming streaming if and when it becomes more mainstream and more people do it - Until then it's always going to take one company to invest into it and take the risks for the others to follow, hence non-mainstream pricing to lead the way.

[Mr. Gibs]

You should have started a thread, this topic is no place for PS Now.

 

Shouldn't take for EA to do something similar to PS+ for people to say PS Now costs too much. It costs far too much for an average consumer. But it's got the luxury of becoming 'one of a kind' and having no real competition to start with so prices can be whatever Sony want to recoup all the costs going into it. 

 

Prices will come down for gaming streaming if and when it becomes more mainstream and more people do it - Until then it's always going to take one company to invest into it and take the risks for the others to follow, hence non-mainstream pricing to lead the way.

Did you forget about OnLive lol? Sure it's PC only but I'm sure they could have easily make a PS / Xbox / Wii app if the manufacturer allowed them to.

[Ironman273]

I think it makes sense.  Sony (and people here are agreeing) are saying that EA Access is not a financially good deal.  They recently released a "pay for game access" model so now that people have brought it up we get to compare them.

[spenser.d]

I think it makes sense.  Sony (and people here are agreeing) are saying that EA Access is not a financially good deal.  They recently released a "pay for game access" model so now that people have brought it up we get to compare them.

But it makes Sony look bad if you do that...

Seriously though it's pretty astounding they would call EA's thing a bad deal given what they're offering up.

[trooper11]

  

"EA Access will let subscribers download four titles from what the publisher is calling the "EA Vault": FIFA 14, Madden 25, Peggle 2, and Battlefield 4. Subscribers will also get 10 percent off all digital content from EA, including full game downloads and DLC content like Battlefield 4 Premium and FIFA Ultimate Team (though Titanfall is explicitly excluded in the fine print). EA Access also grants trial access to upcoming games "up to five days before the release date," with progress that will carry over to the full release if and when you purchase it."

and

"It's currently unclear when EA will add new games to the Vault, for instance, and it seems unlikely that brand new releases will be given away for "free" until they stop generating significant sales to standard purchasers (EA just says that the Vault will see "more titles being added soon")." -http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/07/ea-unveils-subscription-plan-for-access-to-its-xbox-one-games/

Just four legacy titles and demos/early release? 10% off new titles?? So those won't be in 'the vault'... I'll wait to see what really happens as what you are saying and what that article is saying vastly conflict (chance of more than 4 games in the vault? chance of downloading more than 4?). Sony may have a point saying no to this.

So, um, what part of my reply is incorrect based on what you posted?

No where there does it say it requires Xbox Live. They also clearly say games will be downloaded, not streamed, so that backs up my reply as well. Your very own quote shows EA saying that more titles will be added to the vault, which clearly means there will be more than the four they currently list to download. The discount is for games not yet in the vault, meaning brand new games.

The only part that has not been explicitly confirmed is if you keep access to those games as long as you keep an active subscription.

My point is simple: Why does Sony need to come out and justify its actions in such a way? Sony are outright saying that they have decided for us. They refused to allow an optional service to even be tested out. If the deal ended up being crappy, then who is going to buy into it? That kills the service. The consumer is out nothing and EA drops the program. Sony could have just stayed quiet, gave no comment, and moved on, but no. They made one of those pr mistakes that leads to a negative reaction.

In the past, Sony was happy to let a competing service onto its platform (i.e. Steam) at least partially, but they were not ready to let something on that could more directly compete with their plans. Again, I'm not against their business decision, just wishing they had not tried to spin it.

[George P Global Moderator]

Either way you look at it those Sony PS Now prices are crazy, we didn't need to see EA's deal to know that much.  You'd have to be blind or a insane fan to buy into that model.  $3-$4 for 4 hours?  I mean come on, that's what they call highway robbery.   Who cares if it's "one of it's kind" which it's not, I mean they flat out bought the company who was doing it, and then there's also OnLive and so on.  There's also the fact that streaming games as appose to fully downloading them and playing them local has it's own downsides, unless all those arguments about latency and how you can't do XYZ because of bandwidth is now dropped because we've shifted over to Sony and not MS and they somehow get a pass.

 

Sure EA isn't the best out there, sure this has it's questions, but what it doesn't have going wrong for it is the price.  If it works then that just means the other big publishers will take note and jump on the bandwagon.  I think this is a good thing, competition remember?  And through that competition they'll have to offer better games (newer) and or better prices.

 

Use whatever you want in the end, good for you, but to see some just disregard this because "it's EA and they suck" is missing the big picture and the future possibilities it brings if it works out.  Or you can just be happy with letting Sony rape your wallet, because hey, it's new and not mainstream and some such nonsense. 

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Either way you look at it those Sony PS Now prices are crazy, we didn't need to see EA's deal to know that much. You'd have to be blind or a insane fan to buy into that model. $3-$4 for 4 hours? I mean come on, that's what they call highway robbery. Who cares if it's "one of it's kind" which it's not, I mean they flat out bought the company who was doing it, and then there's also OnLive and so on. There's also the fact that streaming games as appose to fully downloading them and playing them local has it's own downsides, unless all those arguments about latency and how you can't do XYZ because of bandwidth is now dropped because we've shifted over to Sony and not MS and they somehow get a pass.

Sure EA isn't the best out there, sure this has it's questions, but what it doesn't have going wrong for it is the price. If it works then that just means the other big publishers will take note and jump on the bandwagon. I think this is a good thing, competition remember? And through that competition they'll have to offer better games (newer) and or better prices.

Use whatever you want in the end, good for you, but to see some just disregard this because "it's EA and they suck" is missing the big picture and the future possibilities it brings if it works out. Or you can just be happy with letting Sony rape your wallet, because hey, it's new and not mainstream and some such nonsense.

Not one person is "happy" with PS Now prices, its just really telling the lengths some are going to defend EA that they'll compare EAs vault to PS Now rather than PS Plus to make some sort of bitter point.

How anyone thinks you're going to get better prices than $4-6 dollars a month is off their heads. Competition is not going to drive down already rock bottom prices. Netflix have only put their prices up since other video streaming services have come about. Even XBLG went up in price since Plus came about. The pricing for XBLG and Plus is never going down, only up.

[dipsylalapo Supervisor]

How anyone thinks you're going to get better prices than $4-6 dollars a month is off their heads. Competition is not going to drive down already rock bottom prices. Netflix have only put their prices up since other video streaming services have come about. Even XBLG went up in price since Plus came about. The pricing for XBLG and Plus is never going down, only up.

 

Competition won't drive prices but hopefully it'll make better content available and larger discounts on DLC etc

[JonnyLH]

You should have started a thread, this topic is no place for PS Now.

 

Shouldn't take for EA to do something similar to PS+ for people to say PS Now costs too much. It costs far too much for an average consumer. But it's got the luxury of becoming 'one of a kind' and having no real competition to start with so prices can be whatever Sony want to recoup all the costs going into it. 

 

Prices will come down for gaming streaming if and when it becomes more mainstream and more people do it - Until then it's always going to take one company to invest into it and take the risks for the others to follow, hence non-mainstream pricing to lead the way.

Why is it not? Both services are similar in-terms of what they offer. You can't bash a company for not bringing value when your similar service is ridiculously overpriced.

[coresx]

Competition, seriously doubt it. All that will happen is other big publishers will jump in and offer something similar.  Not like they are offering the same the content, just their own plus perks.  They aren't doing this to gain a few dollars per user a month on old games, the end game is selling more DLC, making the subscription more of a necessity than an option to all games. The old games are the hook. EA don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. Walled gardens, do what they want, end of story. Competition doesn't come into it, user reactions do and lets not forget how things started with DLC, Horse Armour. F2P. Taking a stand might not have stopped those but at least you can and hope for the best.

[jerzdawg]

Not one person is "happy" with PS Now prices, its just really telling the lengths some are going to defend EA that they'll compare EAs vault to PS Now rather than PS Plus to make some sort of bitter point.

How anyone thinks you're going to get better prices than $4-6 dollars a month is off their heads. Competition is not going to drive down already rock bottom prices. Netflix have only put their prices up since other video streaming services have come about. Even XBLG went up in price since Plus came about. The pricing for XBLG and Plus is never going down, only up.

I dont think people are comparing the services as much as they are saying how can Sony say something like EA Access has no value yet their own PS Now service is even worse.  But as Ive stated before, dont like the service, dont subscribe, this applies to ANYTHING!

[DirtyLarry Veteran]

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.

No, I picked out the thing that you wrong about and decided to let you know about it. If you would like to be pick apart your whole damn post I will do that.

And it was not minor. Even if it was bolded and not in quotes, they both make a very similar statement. You RENT the game on either service. You were clearly trying to take a dig at Sony saying only their service lets you rent, when that simply is not the case.

 

 

Why is it not? Both services are similar in-terms of what they offer. You can't bash a company for not bringing value when your similar service is ridiculously overpriced.

But that is the exact point. PS Now is NOT the similar service. PS+, PLUS is. They are literally two very different things. That is why it does not make much sense to compare EA Access and PS Now, as they are vastly different. It does however make sense to compare PS PLUS.

So people taking the time to compare EA Access to PS Now. Why??? To make the point that PS Now is the worse service? Who the hell is going to argue with that??? No one, as it clearly is.

 

Therefor those people insisting on comparing EA Access to Now really seem to be grasping at straws.

 

I did not post about Now here but I did on Neogaf and I said it was a joke, that the pricing was highway robbery, and I stand by that.

By Playstation PLUS? One of the best deals as far as a subscription in gaming.

 

I hope this EA Access also becomes that good of a deal, as I indicated I am already in for the year, but at only $30 it seems a tad to good to be true. But comparing it to NOW makes zero sense unless all you are trying to do is prove how good of a deal EA Access is. If that is your only point, congrats, you and Captain Obvious are clearly best friends.

[Ironman273]

jerzdawg got it right. The OP was not about EA Access directly, but about Sony's response to EA Access. I think the takeaway is not that EA service is or is not worth the money, but that Sony is saying it while having a service launching in beta at the same time that is a worse value. We all know that Sony likes to control everything, whether it's better for the consumer or not. The Vita memory, Blu-Ray, minidisc and Betamax (although that one was better) are just some examples.

With the PS4 Sony seemed to be making all the right choices, but this is getting away from that. Giving gamers choice was their E3 battle cry. Don't go back on it now.

[DeltaXray]

PS Now and EA Access comparisons aren't entirely unfair. I mean you are still paying to rent games for a limited amount of time and never own them. Granted they both have their own slants and delivery methods of it but that's the basic element of it.

 

The only people EA Access doesn't have value for is Sony.  Judging by their PS Now pricing they don't know what good value is, they seem to be going crazy off of this wave of consumer goodwill they have been riding.  At the current prices I would never, ever use PS Now however I would be inclined to try EA Access depending on how game additions pan out.

 

In fact if a respectable library of included titles builds up and is continually built upon it might, just might, even provide a reason to buy an Xbox One.  We'll see.

[George P Global Moderator]

No, I picked out the thing that you wrong about and decided to let you know about it. If you would like to be pick apart your whole damn post I will do that.

And it was not minor. Even if it was bolded and not in quotes, they both make a very similar statement. You RENT the game on either service. You were clearly trying to take a dig at Sony saying only their service lets you rent, when that simply is not the case.

 

 

I was trying to emphasize that they're for rent,  you clearly missed it, even when I said as such in my reply only because you feel some deep need to start a fight over this it seems.    The point is that it's rent and those Sony prices are a joke, the need for you to try and defend this somehow is also funny to me but sure, more power to you Larry.   If you want to call that a dig at sony then feel free to, doesn't change the fact that my point stands.

[JonnyLH]

But that is the exact point. PS Now is NOT the similar service. PS+, PLUS is. They are literally two very different things. That is why it does not make much sense to compare EA Access and PS Now, as they are vastly different. It does however make sense to compare PS PLUS.

So people taking the time to compare EA Access to PS Now. Why??? To make the point that PS Now is the worse service? Who the hell is going to argue with that??? No one, as it clearly is.

Therefor those people insisting on comparing EA Access to Now really seem to be grasping at straws.

I did not post about Now here but I did on Neogaf and I said it was a joke, that the pricing was highway robbery, and I stand by that.

By Playstation PLUS? One of the best deals as far as a subscription in gaming.

I hope this EA Access also becomes that good of a deal, as I indicated I am already in for the year, but at only $30 it seems a tad to good to be true. But comparing it to NOW makes zero sense unless all you are trying to do is prove how good of a deal EA Access is. If that is your only point, congrats, you and Captain Obvious are clearly best friends.

So two services which provide game rentals, one with a subscription model and one with one of payments aren't similar? Then you say a service which facilitates online games rather than provides games is, ok then.

PS Plus one of the best subscription models for games? Its a service to pay for online gaming, not to get games, that's a perk, just like XBLG.

[jerzdawg]

PS Now and EA Access comparisons aren't entirely unfair. I mean you are still paying to rent games for a limited amount of time and never own them. Granted they both have their own slants and delivery methods of it but that's the basic element of it.

 

The only people EA Access doesn't have value for is Sony.  Judging by their PS Now pricing they don't know what good value is, they seem to be going crazy off of this wave of consumer goodwill they have been riding.  At the current prices I would never, ever use PS Now however I would be inclined to try EA Access depending on how game additions pan out.

 

In fact if a respectable library of included titles builds up and is continually built upon it might, just might, even provide a reason to buy an Xbox One.  We'll see.

I disagree that the services can be compared.  EA Access should allow you to keep the games you are "renting" as long as you continue to subscribe (obviously this will be dictated on how EA manages the vault).  PS Now is a set pre-determined amount of time (that you know before you pay).  So until we get more details on how EA access works with add/removing games it should be compared to PS+ or XB games for gold.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

So two services which provide game rentals, one with a subscription model and one with one of payments aren't similar? Then you say a service which facilitates online games rather than provides games is, ok then.

PS Plus one of the best subscription models for games? Its a service to pay for online gaming, not to get games, that's a perk, just like XBLG.

Before the PS4 was released PS Plus on the Vita and PS3 had nothing to do with paying to play online.

You get 2x Vita, PS3 and PS4 titles a month. Calling that just a perk is a little unflattering. I hardly play online gaming but I sub to Plus for all the games I get.

[Xerino]

Sony is right, it isn't worth the money.. basically all you get early access to timed demos, and the occasional beta that is probably going through a stress test anyways.

[Polonium]

If done right, this could work.

 

My fear is that if it IS done right, other companies will sit up and do the same thing - gaming will then become extremely expensive.

 

For that reason, I hope it fails big time and I'm glad that Sony didn't jump on board (also glad they have started to listen to the complaints about the pricing model on PS Now)

[Mr. Gibs]

Sony is right, it isn't worth the money.. basically all you get early access to timed demos, and the occasional beta that is probably going through a stress test anyways.

Did you miss the part about the games and the 10% discount on anything EA?

So no, that's not all you get.