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

[Polonium]

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

So no, that's not all you get.

 

10% discount on their digital prices isn't much to shout about really. Brings it a little closer to the price you'd pay at retail.

[Mr. Gibs]

10% discount on their digital prices isn't much to shout about really. Brings it a little closer to the price you'd pay at retail.

Depends where you live I guess. I've never seen new games priced less retail vs. origin store here in the US. Now as the games get older, retail stores tend to end up having better deals.

But the 10% also applies to DLC, which retail stores don't usually sell.

[Xerino]

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

So no, that's not all you get.

Yeah... $6 off a $60 digital download isn't much

[Mr. Gibs]

Yeah... $6 off a $60 digital download isn't much

When you throw in the games you can easily get your moneys worth at $30 a year.

For example, BF4 right now is $25-$35 (depending on where you buy it). You can get it through this for $30 a year as well as the other games.

If you play a lot of EA games then it's worth it for you. If you don't, and only buy like 1 every year then it's not really worth it. But it's still an option for people who do.

[George P Global Moderator]

The benefits for this type of service, as long as newer games are added at a reasonable time, not years later but 4-6 months is fine, then the $30 a year price is very worth it.  I, as I've said a few times, hardly ever play the same game twice, if for $30 I get to play a number of their games throughout the year, again if they keep adding more and the vault grows, then Its a huge deal for me.  For the price of one game I can play at least 4 and since I play once or at best do a bit of MP and then move on I'm saving money in the end.  I can also jump in and out of the subscription if I feel like it, if the library isn't good at that time (if you pay per month and not for the year).

 

How this isn't worth the money that some say is beyond me, sure it depends on the titles they offer but for $30 a year, even if 3 out of the 4 or so are good then you've already saved money. 

[Polonium]

For $30 it will not contain new games, I'm pretty sure of that.

[Mr. Gibs]

For $30 it will not contain new games, I'm pretty sure of that.

It may not, we'll have to wait and see. But there are people who don't feel the need to buy a game on day one. Some people wait for sales, some people wait for the bugs to be ironed out, some people just don't care too much about getting it on day one.

And well it's also a way to get people to try games that they may not have been interested in before. Say you got this for BF4 because it works out to be cheaper in some cases, now you may try Madden because it's not costing you any more money.

[trooper11]

What I see here is a lot of people posting that do not represent the average gamer. DirtyLarry gets the value of it at least.

Even if the games offered in the vault are not the latest version of a franchise, there is tremendous value for those that do not buy every game at launch. Many gamers, I would argue most gamers, buy games maybe a year or more out from launch.

Heck, Sony is only offering older games via PS Now and yet that still has a good chance of being successful. There is a huge base of gamers that would be very interested in a service like EA is offering here, even if the games are not brand new.

The sports titles alone offer value for anyone that is into sports games.

Plus, now that we know Sony is developing a subscription service as well, we know why they passed on EA giving the option to gamers. The thread title pretty much falls away at that point and we can move on. Personally, I think any further discussion should remain in the thread about EA's service. There is nothing else to be said about Sony's pr response.

[Polonium]

It may not, we'll have to wait and see. But there are people who don't feel the need to buy a game on day one. Some people wait for sales, some people wait for the bugs to be ironed out, some people just don't care too much about getting it on day one.

And well it's also a way to get people to try games that they may not have been interested in before. Say you got this for BF4 because it works out to be cheaper in some cases, now you may try Madden because it's not costing you any more money.

I'm not saying its not value for money, I was simply stating it won't have the latest games.

For that reason, and the others I've stated before I hope it fails and it is not something I would invest in on any console.

Publishers seem to think that console gamers are there for the taking. PC gamers don't get this nonsense and they get far cheaper games.

[trooper11]

I'm not saying its not value for money, I was simply stating it won't have the latest games.

For that reason, and the others I've stated before I hope it fails and it is not something I would invest in on any console.

Publishers seem to think that console gamers are there for the taking. PC gamers don't get this nonsense and they get far cheaper games.

I agree, but Sony and EA see an opportunity to sell access to games. They both want to sell older games either as a subscription or some kind of rental.

Its all one big experiment and it will be up to us, the consumers, whether it succeeds or not.

By the way, pc gamers do get that 'nonsense'. The whole idea of paying a rental or subscription fee to stream games or download/physically mail them started on the pc with varied success.

[Polonium]

What service does this on PC now? I'm out of the loop with PC gaming

[Showan]

I'm not saying its not value for money, I was simply stating it won't have the latest games.

For that reason, and the others I've stated before I hope it fails and it is not something I would invest in on any console.

Publishers seem to think that console gamers are there for the taking. PC gamers don't get this nonsense and they get far cheaper games.

 

 

I wouldn't mind a subscription model (only if subs priced at $30 or below for the year).  And buy the 2 or 3 big must own games.

 

If I could pay $80-$90 for 3 subs, and get a huge catalog from say (ex: Ubisoft, 2K/Rockstar, and EA)  and then buy my must own titles WItcher 3, Master Chief Collection and Quantum Break (which none of them come out close together) is  no brainer deal.

 

People can say what they want.  There are some games that just aren't worth a day one purchase.  And you can wait for it to hit the 'vault' several months later.

 

Once again this is all hypothetically speaking of course.

 

What people really aren't seeing is, this isn't really about PS+ or PS=Now...  This is a way to put a knife in the GameStops of the world.

 

I've said this a million times before, Microsoft's DRM attempts netted them some I.O.U.'s and this is just the beginning. 

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

What service does this on PC now? I'm out of the loop with PC gaming

 

The only one I know of is OnLive and they went bust. They've came back recently but they target Android gaming now IIRC.

 

 

 

I wouldn't mind a subscription model (only if subs priced at $30 or below for the year).  And buy the 2 or 3 big must own games.

 

If I could pay $80-$90 for 3 subs, and get a huge catalog from say (ex: Ubisoft, 2K/Rockstar, and EA)  and then buy my must own titles WItcher 3, Master Chief Collection and Quantum Break (which none of them come out close together) is  no brainer deal.

 

People can say what they want.  There are some games that just aren't worth a day one purchase.  And you can wait for it to hit the 'vault' several months later.

 

Once again this is all hypothetically speaking of course.

 

What people really aren't seeing is, this isn't really about PS+ or PS=Now...  This is a way to put a knife in the GameStops of the world.

 

I've said this a million times before, Microsoft's DRM attempts netted them some I.O.U.'s and this is just the beginning. 

 

Putting a "knife in the gamestops of the world" is about as short sighted as it gets when it comes to gaming. Who is going to sell your consoles if you kill them off? The specialist game shop is the most important one to all 3 platform holders.

[Showan]

The only one I know of is OnLive and they went bust. They've came back recently but they target Android gaming now IIRC.

 

 

 

 

Putting a "knife in the gamestops of the world" is about as short sighted as it gets when it comes to gaming. Who is going to sell your consoles if you kill them off? The specialist game shop is the most important one to all 3 platform holders.

 

 

I understand what your saying...  But lets look at EA access (since it's available now)... How much money does Gamestop get from this?  They get $0 from it. 

 

Now lets say people pay the $5 a month.  Microsoft gets $1.50 per customer, and EA gets the other $3.50.  Now say 2million people sign up for the monthly service.  That's loot back to EA.

 

Now what if you have another 5million people who just decided to spend the $30 for the year sub and call it day.  That's $7.33 (guessing here :D) back to MS and $22.66 back to EA per customer.  Not bad at all

 

Gamestop die?  Well no, they aren't going to go anywhere, anytime soon.

 

But EA-Access is basically 'used' games scheme that gives the $$$ back to the publisher.  Noticed how EA Season pass conveniently died at the right time. 

 

Better believe that Ubisoft, 2K/Rockstar, etc are all watching this carefully.

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

I understand what your saying...  But lets look at EA access (since it's available now)... How much money does Gamestop get from this?  They get $0 from it. 

 

Now lets say people pay the $5 a month.  Microsoft gets $1.50 per customer, and EA gets the other $3.50.  Now say 2million people sign up for the monthly service.  That's loot back to EA.

 

Now what if you have another 5million people who just decided to spend the $30 for the year sub and call it day.  That's $7.33 (guessing here :D) back to MS and $22.66 back to EA per customer.  Not bad at all

 

Gamestop die?  Well no, they aren't going to go anywhere, anytime soon.

 

But EA-Access is basically 'used' games scheme that gives the $$$ back to the publisher.  Noticed how EA Season pass conveniently died at the right time. 

 

Better believe that Ubisoft, 2K/Rockstar, etc are all watching this carefully.

 

I know they are all watching it carefully and no doubt we'll see the others follow suit.

 

But killing Gamestop isn't part of anyone's agenda, not even Microsoft's. EA killed the season pass the week before Microsoft confirmed their original DRM policies. But even with those policies, Gamestop was part of the loop and it would be their stores who you would have to visit to transfer licenses with.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

PS Now prices being lowered...

 

[DeltaXray]

PS Now prices being lowered...

They are still not getting it, are they?

Game streaming simply will not take off unless it follows existing streaming pricing. E.g netflix/spotify level pricing for all you can eat.

Others have tested the market and found what it can sustain. Anything else is nonsense.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

They are still not getting it, are they?

Game streaming simply will not take off unless it follows existing streaming pricing. E.g netflix/spotify level pricing for all you can eat.

Others have tested the market and found what it can sustain. Anything else is nonsense.

 

Streaming a game isn't as technically easy as streaming video. Game streaming is more of a 2 way thing, there's input and calculations, it isn't passive like with video where the content only really needs to come to you. 

 

You're not going to get ?5.99 a month stream all you want gaming. It's going to cost more than that.

 

As for the prices for hours, they're crap, always will be - No different than it costing ?5 to use a hotels WiFi for 2 hours, or ?10 for a week. The short and "cheaper" option is always geared at raking in money based upon convenience and appearance of it costing less. Talking about hotels, Sony are rolling this service out to TVs, if it works as planned maybe you will see it in hotels/airports and the likes. That's when the play for 4 hours pricing rakes in the money. Why pay ?10 for a week when you're only in your hotel room for one night, or airport for a few hours?

[Showan]

I have yet to give PS-Now a shot. Can anyone tell my how much data is being juiced. Cox (my ISP provider has me capped at 250GB per month...

With Netflix, Amazon, Instant Video, Youtube, Xbox One, Ps4, 360, 4-5 tablets, 2 laptops, and a desktop running at any given time, adding something like this to the mix may not be feasible for me.

[DeltaXray]

Streaming a game isn't as technically easy as streaming video. Game streaming is more of a 2 way thing, there's input and calculations, it isn't passive like with video where the content only really needs to come to you. 

 

You're not going to get ?5.99 a month stream all you want gaming. It's going to cost more than that.

 

As for the prices for hours, they're crap, always will be - No different than it costing ?5 to use a hotels WiFi for 2 hours, or ?10 for a week. The short and "cheaper" option is always geared at raking in money based upon convenience and appearance of it costing less. Talking about hotels, Sony are rolling this service out to TVs, if it works as planned maybe you will see it in hotels/airports and the likes. That's when the play for 4 hours pricing rakes in the money. Why pay ?10 for a week when you're only in your hotel room for one night, or airport for a few hours?

Regardless of the method of delivery it is still paying to rent old games. There are all you can eat packages for postal disc delivery which only cost around netflix/spotify level pricing. They need to realise that the average consumer doesn't care how the service is delivered. In fact, you're getting less quality, more lag just for the convenience of streaming.

 

I will understand higher pricing if they are streaming new PS4 games, but for streaming old games premium pricing simply will not work. Not when you can get better value buying and owning a used game, or even a new copy for some of the older titles.

 

 

That's not to say i'm not rooting for this to succeed. I think it is great, if they can get PS4 games working on the service, then it is a viable channel for game delivery to complement traditional methods going forward. Really is part of the future of gaming. However, they NEED to get the pricing right.

 

Just look at OnLive. Technically, they managed to pull off the impossible and have workable, playable games with pretty decent image quality streaming if you had a decent connection. It worked, it was a great piece of technology.  Lack of new games and more importantly poor pricing for what they did have killed it off.  If they make the same mistake with the pricing then it will just follow OnLive's lead.  They are not heading into uncharted ground here, OnLive tested the market and already found what people would not pay.

[compl3x]

Having too many subscription options does seem like a bit of a risk. PS+, then the Now thing, then a special one for EA, it might seem like you're trying to bleed consumers from all different angles.

 

If you have a Plus sub, but not an EA sub, would you not get access to EA titles in your Plus sub? EA wouldn't want Sony to "give away" EA titles in PS Plus.

[trooper11]

Its good to see Sony adjusting pricing down, but regardless of how much it costs Sony to implement, the reality is that consumers may still demand a cheaper option more like Netflix, etc when talking about older games.

 

Sometimes consumers will not listen to the argument that something costs more because it costs a lot to produce, even if that is true.

 

I very much want to see services like PS Now or EA Access succeed, but at the right price points. I'm ready to embrace that part of the future. I don't really care who runs the service as long as its reasonably priced.

[DeltaXray]

Its good to see Sony adjusting pricing down, but regardless of how much it costs Sony to implement, the reality is that consumers may still demand a cheaper option more like Netflix, etc when talking about older games.

 

Sometimes consumers will not listen to the argument that something costs more because it costs a lot to produce, even if that is true.

 

I very much want to see services like PS Now or EA Access succeed, but at the right price points. I'm ready to embrace that part of the future. I don't really care who runs the service as long as its reasonably priced.

 

Agreed. Gaming is just another entertainment medium to a lot of consumers.  Granted, a new game costs more than a new Blu Ray or music album, but we are talking about old games here. For old games the market will only go for either a low priced subscription model similar to netflix/spotify, or *very* low priced single game rental.  They seem to forget that the whole used game sector exists or even the bargain bin for new copies of older games. We have already seen that premium pricing does not work for this exact same product.  Hopefully Sony do not just see dollar signs and actually think carefully about their pricing.