Leave it up to Sony to let everyone know how they're totally in it for the gamers. And zombie games. Lots and lots of zombie games.
Sony: EA Access is Poor Value for PlayStation Users
- Thread starter roseofbattle
- Start date
It may be worth noting that Microsoft stumped up a 'significant' portion of Titanfall's development cost to make sure it never saw the light of Sony.tdylan said:
In this situation I expect that EA has had to ask permission from both parties to put up a secondary subscription within the subscription and Sony either told them flatly no or wanted a bigger chunk of any income it generated or wanted it somehow integrated into PS+. Much the same way Valve wouldn't let EA run sales through their games without involving Steam I can't see Sony or Microsoft allowing a service that essentially cuts them out the revenue stream.
EA access is so much of a shit concept that Sony is refusing to place it anywhere NEAR their console.
Still do not get why people think EA access is a good thing. It seems WAY cheaper to just buy/rent the games instead of subscribing to a service for them.
Still do not get why people think EA access is a good thing. It seems WAY cheaper to just buy/rent the games instead of subscribing to a service for them.
You know, after reading the original article about EA's service, I realized I've bought maybe 2 or 3 EA games in the last ten years, and they were dirt cheap used copies, that I barely played. I wonder how many other people might have only a few games from from recent years from such a major publisher. Also, considering how they treated Battlefield 4 and especially Sim City, the amount of of people who will probably not touch an EA game has gone up dramatically. EA still has tons of customers and is in no danger of dying, but dealing with this extra service and potentially more if Ubisoft and Activision want a piece of the pie might be something Sony doesn't want to mess with. Maybe it would be better if publishers offered deals like this on PS Plus and GFG, but that means they don't get as much money and the consumer actually gets a good deal.
EA Access really only caters to fans of their franchises. Sony knows most PS4 users won't even touch that service since it's limited to one publisher's games and PS Plus is required for online play anyway. (Some PSN users are probably still sore about having to pay for online multiplayer when moving to the PS4. Whereas, xbox users have had to foot the bill since the beginning and are more acclimated to paying for something.) Another thing is the limited number of games in the "Vault" right now and the fact that we're talking about EA here. How often are they going to add more free games? It of course can't be monthly right now with so few EA published PS4/Xbone titles, but they never mentioned the frequency of releases.
EA Access really only caters to fans of their franchises. Sony knows most PS4 users won't even touch that service since it's limited to one publisher's games and PS Plus is required for online play anyway. (Some PSN users are probably still sore about having to pay for online multiplayer when moving to the PS4. Whereas, xbox users have had to foot the bill since the beginning and are more acclimated to paying for something.) Another thing is the limited number of games in the "Vault" right now and the fact that we're talking about EA here. How often are they going to add more free games? It of course can't be monthly right now with so few EA published PS4/Xbone titles, but they never mentioned the frequency of releases.
I fully agree with Sony. This isn't an Anti-EA thing by any means. I really like EA's idea, but I don't want to have the service JUST be for EA games because, as Sony said, the value really isn't there. If this extended to other companies as well, (even just handful like Deep Silver, Sega, Ubisoft, and 2k THAT would be worth it). I get it's unlike to get a rental service with EVERY company, but unless you can get more than one (or that one is someone with an extensive library of fun games like Nintendo, Sega, or maybe Sony) it really isn't worth it long run.
You know I've seen these kind of comments a lot more then I thought I would and it's really perplexing. EA essentially released PS Plus but with just ea games. Sure it closes the platform but I'm glad to see them do some quality control. There is nothing inherently wrong with a self regulated market and man games needs a little bit of restraint like this.Andy Shandy said:
Oh, it's not that. They sell God Mode and RIPD, so they're not concerned with value or quality or even care for their consumers. It's a PR move, and possibly covering something else up.Andy Shandy said:
I think people are willing to buy into it because of bad will towards both EA and Microsoft.
I like people mocking EA for worst company ever while while they've done some shit with games recently, they've also given away a load of games for either dirt cheap or free with DLC included. Yes they're are EVER so terrible, let's not look at Square for FFVII and FFVIII on PC having extra DRM that requires your information to play the game you bought, or Ubisoft for skewing things with video cards or their incredibly irritating history of DRM and general distaste for people playing on a different platform. Rockstar for loads of DRM, crap ports (even to another console), etc. Microsoft with offensive shit-tastic DRM schemes that yes didn't make it out but boy were they ready to force this. Not saying EA is great or anything but for goodness sake worst people? Have a look at your local banks if you need worst company in the world.
The real reason Sony isn't accepting this? Because their own Playstation Now service has prices that are flat out offensive, and EA is probably providing a competitive edge to those prices that make it hard to justify Sony's own pricing.
The real reason Sony isn't accepting this? Because their own Playstation Now service has prices that are flat out offensive, and EA is probably providing a competitive edge to those prices that make it hard to justify Sony's own pricing.
And yet, it's less than a month before God Mode goes back on the discounted list on the PSN store in a desperate attempt to move it.Kameburger said:
Yes, EA Access is where quality control is needed.
There's definitely something Sony isn't mentioning there, because fucking nobody in AAA actually considers the consumer-value of what they're selling beyond the market standard pricing.
PS Plus seems like the obvious place to start, but personally I don't think that's it. Or rather that there's more to it than just being a competitor to PS Plus.
This is completely blind speculation, but I suspect low royalty yields for Sony might be involved.
PS Plus seems like the obvious place to start, but personally I don't think that's it. Or rather that there's more to it than just being a competitor to PS Plus.
This is completely blind speculation, but I suspect low royalty yields for Sony might be involved.
Sony is concerned about value for their customers? I guess that explains those memory cards for the Vita...
Isn't Playstation Now all about the past-gen games, though? Don't get me wrong, I agree Now's prices are ridiiiiculous, and I snorted with scarcely repressed laughter when Sony used the words 'not enough value' without a trace of irony, but I find it more likely that if Sony is concerned about competition, it'd be competition against PS+, not Playstation Now; short of cross-platform sports games, or Sony deciding to start adding PS4 games to the service next, I don't see many of EA's Vault games ending up on Playstation Now. o.oSnotnarok said:
OT: Now, the question becomes, what will EA's response be.
More specifically, assuming PS+ ever builds up to releasing old AAA games, I wonder if EA will keep their titles off the service in the hopes that Sony will give in and allow EA Access whatever. If this service was only being released in North America, I could see both EA and Sony stubbornly holding their ground, waiting for the other to blink first; though Sony does have a lead in the U.S., there's still (an admittedly steadily dwindling) chance of Microsoft turning things around, especially if EA jumps behind them to help push. In the short term, even the long term, EA might be content keeping their stuff out of PS+, in the hope that Sony will eventually cave in and let them host their own service.But Europe is preeeetty much Sonyland, and keeping their games off PS+ services, particularly the European one, is akin to waving goodbye to a substantial part of the market there. If Sony holds their ground (basically, if Sony continues to outsell the Xbox One and has no reason to backtrack on anything,) I could see EA grudgingly deciding that 'Some money gained from PS+' is better than 'No money gained from a service Sony won't allow on their platform anyway.'
Edit: giving it a bit of thought I've decided to reword things a bit. The EA access option wouldn't hurt, but PS+ already offers 2 free games per console per month with discounts and other freebies. that's 24 full free games a year per console with a max total of 72 free games a year if you own all 3 systems. Sure MP is pay gated on PS4, but I honestly don't get PS+ for the multiplayer. heck I haven't even played a single online match since I got the damn thing. The ability to play games I may have not otherwise been able to is why I personally buy into PS+. It's the better paid subscription on the market as it doesn't lock away shit that's standard like netflix (and yes I know MS recently changed it, but that doesn't automatically erase everything else).
With EA's recent track record with it's games I'm too burnt out to care for them. "Hey we're sorry BF4 was broken, here is some DLC.". How about SIMSHITTY, they tried to tie the thing with shitty DRM and defended it for quite a bit of time, only for them to recant it later much like MS did with the Xbone. With the exception of Titan Fall I'm not getting into anything EA related.
With EA's recent track record with it's games I'm too burnt out to care for them. "Hey we're sorry BF4 was broken, here is some DLC.". How about SIMSHITTY, they tried to tie the thing with shitty DRM and defended it for quite a bit of time, only for them to recant it later much like MS did with the Xbone. With the exception of Titan Fall I'm not getting into anything EA related.
Of course its bad value. you get acess to 4 old games and a bunch of demos. Demos need to be paid now, such great value here certainly!
in a sane world EA would pay for its own service hosting. We do not live in a sane world though.vonSanneck said:
so a game in beta testing, two sports games and one free game is in the vault. such great value right there!Elijin said:
yes absolutely; EA needs quality control. But I mean I think my though overall is that PSN shouldn't even think about allowing EA's system until it's completely free of bugs etc and even then I'm not sure if they should.Zachary Amaranth said:
Does Battlefield 4 even work? will this service even work? Half of their games don't even work online when they're released. They are constantly pushing the boundaries of ethics in monetization. And even in their relatively safe markets of sports games they've still been compared to slave owners by critics. There is rarely a game they released that isn't soaked in scandal.
So while I agree with you that there is an element of players choice that is lost, I can't tell you how pissed I was about the process of playing battlefield 3 online and how it burned me and how I wished in that moment that they had just integrated their games in with a system that worked like Steam or PSN or even XBL. So yeah I don't trust EA, and if I had a platform that my customers used, I wouldn't go rushing to cut myself out of the process for them.
Remind me: is Sony still selling Battlefield 4 on PSN? They are? Well, that sounds like a really bad reason to refuse the service.Kameburger said:
Maybe Sony shouldn't sell them. Hell, Sony features a good chunk of them on their storefront.
To the contrary, I'm not arguing player choice is lost, I'm arguing that the premise is a non-issue because the "quality control" angle is a farce.
You've kind of proved my point. Sony has no problem selling you broken, shitty games. They don't care about QA, they don't care about the customer. Something else is up here, because this being their line in the sand is absurd enough that Weird Al passed on it.
Would you still sell their broken games to customers like yourself? That, I think, would be more telling of where you really stand.
Um... people complain about those companies all the time. Heck, Ubisoft underwent a good two weeks of hate earlier this summer. I don't think anyone's saying that those companies don't do shitty things. This thread just seems to be more focused around hating EA. And yes, it's absurd to think that EA is the worst company in the world when there are companies out there that are actually ruining people's lives.Snotnarok said: