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

[trooper11]

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.

Technically, having the publishers push services would be better for gamers because it would mean less reliance on a single platform. The platform holders would be under pressure to support those services and the publisher would be competing against each other price wise. Under a single Sony or MS service, the publishers would all get the same treatment and pricing would be less likely to drop.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Technically, having the publishers push services would be better for gamers because it would mean less reliance on a single platform. The platform holders would be under pressure to support those services and the publisher would be competing against each other price wise. Under a single Sony or MS service, the publishers would all get the same treatment and pricing would be less likely to drop.

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).

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.

[spenser.d]

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).

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.

 

Competition in this space can hardly be a bad thing. If rental service 4 undercuts rental services 1, 2, and 3, then their prices go down. And you could probably pay for all four if they're priced like EAs service and pay less money than you would by renting all the games you'd play from their selections from PS Now with the prices Sony is charging.  Let the gamers choose, isn't that what you guys railed on Microsoft about?

[Showan]

If your with Playstation plus in some point you will get these games for free for live, paying $5 a month isnt for me.

Or you can pay $30 up front which equates to $2.43 a month or so...

And they will add content...

I'm not the biggest EA supporter, but this is a great deal...

[Showan]

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).

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.

Let's hypothetically say this.

EA sub: $60

Activision Sub: $60

Ubisoft Sub: $60

2K/Rockstar sub: $60

-----------------------------------

$240 a year for a ton of games.... And maybe buy the one AAA game you really want. That's $300

Buy 5 games in 12 calendar months: $300

Of course all of this depends on the games given and their age...

If I were EA I would put UFC in the Access program by September/October. A move like this would definitely have people's attention.

[vcfan]

If your with Playstation plus in some point you will get these games for free

im not so sure anymore

[KevinN206]

Sony's is a much better value:

 

 

And here directly from Sony CEO: 

 

Javascript is not enabled or refresh the page to view.

Click here to view the Tweet

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/s

[Showan]

Sony's is a much better value:

 

 

And here directly from Sony CEO: https://twitter.com/KazHiraiCEO/statuses/494561953525022720

 

Please tell me that's not really the pricing structure of PS-Now.

Those rates are horrendous...,

I'm gonna take it, that this is a old chart

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/s

Sony's is a much better value:

 

 

And here directly from Sony CEO: https://twitter.com/KazHiraiCEO/statuses/494561953525022720

 

 

I know u were being sarcastic...

But is this a real pricing list for Ps-Now? These rates are horrendous....

I'm gonna assume that this is an old price chart

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/s

[shastasheen]

This model will take over and will do so rapidly. It takes a fortune to make a AAA title now with no guarantee it will make back development costs. A minor misstep and a great game studio can be shuttered forever. How many publishers/studios have disappeared over the last five years? If EA/Microsoft get enough takers, this revenue model could explode. Sony can say what it wants publicly, but they're in no position to turn down potential revenue streams. If Xbox locks up Activision and EA to exclusives like CoD and Battlefield releases 5 days before Sony, the PS4 is dead man walking.

[Doli]

Looks like a ok deal but remember you are getting last year sports games and you still have to buy the new games or wait until they are added over time. You get access to new games 5 days before release but for a limited time... a time trial like PS+'s 60 min. time trial for some games. Nice you get a discount on new games and DLC. 

[George P Global Moderator]

The "value" argument is lame from them, it's a big undercut to their own PS Now model and that's why they don't want it on their system, plain and simple.  $30 is a way better deal compared to the silly prices Sony is trying to go with, $5 for 4 hours? Uh no thanks.

 

I also don't see how having the big publishers offering their own service instead of having it all in one is a negative, competition is good, the minor inconvenience of having to use multiple subscription stores vs one is hardly an issue when because of the competition between them they prices are so low.  Forget $5 for 4hrs, or $$ for any amount of hrs, let's talk a month or a year, anything less is "poor value".     

 

$3-$5 for 4 hours, hahaha.  Nice joke there guys.

[DeltaXray]

Sony say Playstation gamers want everything for the one low fee, and yet are going to be charging more for PS Now... 

[Brian M. Veteran]

This is a good deal from EA. I guess the money isn't the problem for Sony - I'd imagine they don't want two separate services which do essentially the same thing.

The digital sales model for games, outside of steam, is broken now. 99% of games on PSN and XBL stores are at full RRP, even years after purchase. I really do not understand why this is the case, given the production, distribution, etc costs associated with physical media.

It's the reason I make a point of, other than PS Plus, getting all of my games physically. It's normally cheaper, which is just ridiculous.

[red.]

Looks like a ok deal but remember you are getting last year sports games and you still have to buy the new games or wait until they are added over time. You get access to new games 5 days before release but for a limited time... a time trial like PS+'s 60 min. time trial for some games. Nice you get a discount on new games and DLC. 

 

This would have been interesting for me purely for FIFA but if, like you say, it would be last year's FIFA game then i don't know. You could get a new physical copy of that game for a cheap price anyway. I would see what other kind of content they offer before this seems like a good deal.

[JonnyLH]

Looks like a ok deal but remember you are getting last year sports games and you still have to buy the new games or wait until they are added over time. You get access to new games 5 days before release but for a limited time... a time trial like PS+'s 60 min. time trial for some games. Nice you get a discount on new games and DLC. 

These are my views on it. I don't see how it's an amazing deal like everyone is preaching it to be, the games which are going to be accessible on vault which you'll want you'll buy anyway. 

 

Regarding the OP though, WTH Sony? Choice is good. I'm guessing this is something to-do with software, time-scales and deals which were made. 

[MikeChipshop Member]

I love how Sony has decided it's customers aren't capable of deciding whether they think it's a good deal or not.

Smells of a quick PR claw back.

 

To all those saying the games are old and you'll have to wait ages for new games... isn't part of the deal that you get early access to games?

 

I'm no fan of EA and it's shody track record, but i think they may have hit on a winner here.

[red.]

I love how Sony has decided it's customers aren't capable of deciding whether they think it's a good deal or not.

Smells of a quick PR claw back.

 

To all those saying the games are old and you'll have to wait ages for new games... isn't part of the deal that you get early access to games?

 

I'm no fan of EA and it's shody track record, but i think they may have hit on a winner here.

 

I assumed that means that you get to buy games earlier. So they're not included as part of the vault.

 

I could be wrong though. I'm not certain about all of the details yet.

[MikeChipshop Member]

I assumed that means that you get to buy games earlier. So they're not included as part of the vault.

 

I could be wrong though. I'm not certain about all of the details yet.

 

I've been looking around and i think you may be right. Looks like you get to 'Demo' new releases for 5 days before the release.

[RatherLargeBear]

I've been looking around and i think you may be right. Looks like you get to 'Demo' new releases for 5 days before the release.

 

Yes it's this exactly, this is no different from their season ticket (that they've had for years now) you can buy for ~?20 per year where you get to play the full game for a week before release then if you decide to buy the game your progress is carried over and all the achievements you would've earnt unlock.

So this new service is this season ticket with the added game rental at the same price point.

[dipsylalapo Supervisor]

To all those saying the games are old and you'll have to wait ages for new games... isn't part of the deal that you get early access to games?

 

I think this is what I'm curious about, the games that you have unlimited access to are older games FIFA14, NFL 14 etc You get 5 days early access but after that you need to purchase. 

 

What will make or break (IMO) this for EA is how soon after release does a game get added to a vault. 

[BajiRav]

Sony sounds butthurt that they weren't invited to the party :p

[Dermot]

It seems most the argument here is people whinging they won't have access to new upcoming EA games which is if they bothered to read about access won't be on the Access program to begin with and all it will do is give you a 10% discount, not allow you to have the game straight off.

 

There will be only a Few titles on the program to begin with no sports games with 15 in the title will be available for free with the subscription.

 

you will get the chance to pay for a digital EA game and get it 5 days in advance of others.

 

So basically you're paying 60 quid a year to play last years select titles only.

 

Even then EA themselves word it so they still want a lil cash ontop of that to quote...

 

"EA Access lets you play more games for less."

 

..and you will still have to pay for DLC.

 

Look on the bright side, they're offering Battlefield 4 on it, you will just need to pay an extra 50 for premium on a game that's being broken for almost a year.

 

Personally i think Sony were on the ball not going near "EA Access"

 

http://www.ea.com/eaaccess

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

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.

[jerzdawg]

snipped.. 

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.

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.

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... 

[Showan]

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 this. 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.

 

 

Xbox Live Gold members do get some decent discounts on games (sometimes the games discounted aren't worth it, even at their discounted price)

 

EAaccess is NOT streaming.  The games are downed and played locally on the One.

 

I signed up the 1-month (at $5.00), and sure enough as soon as I did, Madden (still sucks), BF4, Peggle 2 (already owned it) and Fifa were free to download and play.

 

UFC was now priced down to $53.99.  Showing the 10% discount was in place.

 

PS-Now streams from what I've heard and read about it.  Nothing is cached locally, bandwith tapped until stream is done.