Sony resonds to EA's sub service

[Rafy]

 

“We evaluated the EA Access subscription offering and decided that it does not bring the kind of value PlayStation customers have come to expect,” a Sony representative told us via email. “PlayStation Plus memberships are up more than 200% since the launch of PlayStation 4, which shows that gamers are looking for memberships that offer a multitude of services, across various devices, for one low price. We don’t think asking our fans to pay an additional $5 a month for this EA-specific program represents good value to the PlayStation gamer.”

 

 

Our Take

While EA Access might not be coming to PS4, I wouldn’t necessarily count out the publisher’s games in PS Plus. There is still value for EA there, especially as those free-with-membership games have great potential to move the needle for DLC that has long since dropped down the sales chart.

This also doesn't mean that Sony can't change its mind later. If demand is great enough and value increases, EA Access could migrate over down the road. For now though, this is a clear statement that PS4 players shouldn't hold their breath for the program.

 

Source: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2014/07/30/sony-ea-access-doesn_2700_t-represent-good-value-to-the-playstation-gamer.aspx

 

I have doubts about anything EA but this might have been something good to have across all platforms.

[ivhyn]

PlayStation Plus memberships are up more than 200% since the launch of PlayStation 4, which shows that gamers are looking for memberships that offer a multitude of services, across various devices, for one low price. 

This passage is great. It's not like they don't have a choice, right?...

Microsoft probably put the higher amount of cash on EA's table to get exclusive rights.

[Puddleuk]

PlayStation Plus memberships are up more than 200% since the launch of PlayStation 4

 

 

 

Yes because its mandatory for online play now. Its like Microsoft bragging about Gold membership numbers on Xbox 360 when the only reason anyone had it was because 99% of all features (Even FREE ones) were behind the paywall.

[Silent_Xaxal]

Yes because its mandatory for online play now. Its like Microsoft bragging about Gold membership numbers on Xbox 360 when the only reason anyone had it was because 99% of all features (Even FREE ones) were behind the paywall.

 

And even then, Sony's still being better than Microsoft by not paywalling streaming and browsing, as well as F2P games.

[Misanthrope]

And even then, Sony's still being better than Microsoft by not paywalling streaming and browsing, as well as F2P games.

 

As of today, but don't count them out I'm calling it and say they will do all that shit in the future.

[Real_PhillBert]

As of today, but don't count them out I'm calling it and say they will do all that shit in the future.

 

Yep, Couldn't agree more.

[Bloodyvalley]

I don't understand why they don't bring this to Origin??????

[Vacsol]

I don't understand why they don't bring this to Origin??????

because EA loves us

[Bloodyvalley]

because EA loves us

*cries in a corner*

[Askew]

PS+ is better, I agree with Sony for now but it depends on how EA fill the new service with games.

 

However I don't agree that this is the reason why they're not offering it, that's far more likely because MS have an exclusivity deal.

[RH00D]

I don't understand why they don't bring this to Origin??????

EA already has their "On The House" and "Game Time" programs on Origin. On The House gives you a chance to grab the offered game for free and keep it forever. Game Time allows you to play a full game for 48 hours starting the moment you first launch the game. They most recently did this with Titanfall and I think it's a great program because now I will definitely be buying Titanfall after having the opportunity to play it whereas before it was only a "maybe" purchase.

[Victorious Secret]

LOL Sony. 

 

In other words: We couldn't pay up enough to get the service and let MS have it. 

 

If Sony had it, they'd be crying through the bloody roof about how great it is. 

 

Sony's own game rental thing is bullshit, pay for time? Really? Get out of my face. EAs at least makes sense as a game rental service. 

 

And please Sony, you FORCED people into PSN+. Because you finally saw how lucrative it is to charge people, just like MS did. Don't try and act like saints about it. 

[Mooshi]

I game on a PC, Sony nor Microsoft have Pokemon to care for their consoles and EA's cash cow is recycling the same sports game every year. 

 

[JAKEBAB]

Haha there idiots are they really trying to cover up the fact ms payed more lol why did they even bother responding this happens all the time with dlc for games like cod how Xbox gets dlc first. Also I think the ea thing is great I'm deff getting it as id rather pay $30 a year and get FIFA, madden and bf instead of paying like $80 just for FIFA.

[Helly]

Couldnt care less. Dont play anything EA anymore anyway. Won't be either no matter how awesome they become. They fucked it up to much for me to ever get my money again.

[JigglyPufflez]

Isn't play station increased by 200%bsince the launch of the PS4 because you're required to get a membership to play online? Similar to Xbox live good memberships? Or am I wrong I don't have any nex fen consoles.

[Vitalius]

And please Sony, you FORCED people into PSN+. Because you finally saw how lucrative it is to charge people, just like MS did. Don't try and act like saints about it. 

I honestly have no idea how Sony is making money off of Playstation Plus. It's such a great deal. The Good Game to $ ratio is awesome. 

Sure, people were forced into it effectively, but even then, it's still a great deal. Cloud saves, Discounts on many PS store games, and particularly all the games you get with PS+ makes it beyond worth it. 

I'd do the math, but I have done the math before and it only gets better as time goes on. So yeah.

[RelentlessAF]

And even then, Sony's still being better than Microsoft by not paywalling streaming and browsing, as well as F2P games.

Streaming Browsing and F2P games don't require a Gold subscription anymore. I stopped paying for mine last month.

[Misanthrope]

Here's another thought I had regarding this subject: This is dangerously close EA completely cutting the middle man, PS+ or XBL Gold. As they try to get more people into their service, they will start cutting off features and pieces from, and possibly entire games, until they establish EA as a monthly service to deliver games. This does stands in line with Origin on the PC side and I think they will try it there was well in the future.

The main issue Sony and Microsoft should have is that well, they're in the business of being not only hardware manufacturers (Which is really no fucking business at all they constantly loose money on the hardware alone) but mainly middle men between publishers and gamers. Now not all middle men are undesirable, they can certainly position themselves as offering a valuable service and added value to grow like Valve, but on the console side they try to use that size and user base to just nickle and dime people into oblivion. 

In this case however, I suspect that Microsoft is doing so poorly and not only that but basically ignored by the new MS CEO (He might even outright sell the entire fucking division eventually he's likely just holding the holiday season as a Damocles sword over the xbox team) is the only reason they agreed to go along with EA on this.

[Misanthrope]

I honestly have no idea how Sony is making money off of Playstation Plus. It's such a great deal. The Good Game to $ ratio is awesome. 

Sure, people were forced into it effectively, but even then, it's still a great deal. Cloud saves, Discounts on many PS store games, and particularly all the games you get with PS+ makes it beyond worth it. 

I'd do the math, but I have done the math before and it only gets better as time goes on. So yeah.

 

Here's a hint: Digital copies of existing games don't actually have any cost at all to create or distribute, not even marketing since that was already covered at those games' launches. I'm sorry but your math doesn't connects with reality: I have a free service which is to play fucking games online. I don't need anything else. Instead, Sony gives me a bunch of fucking shit I didn't ask for and didn't need and uses that to leverage the fact that now the service requires a monthly fee.

Guess what? The basic functionality I really want, the only thing I ever want which is online play hasn't changed in costs at all, yet now I am being charged for it because I do not have the option of opting out of all this other useless extra shit.

[Vitalius]

Here's a hint: Digital copies of existing games don't actually have any cost at all to create or distribute, not even marketing since that was already covered at those games' launches. I'm sorry but your math doesn't connects with reality: I have a free service which is to play fucking games online. I don't need anything else. Instead, Sony gives me a bunch of fucking shit I didn't ask for and didn't need and uses that to leverage the fact that now the service requires a monthly fee.

Guess what? The basic functionality I really want, the only thing I ever want which is online play hasn't changed in costs at all, yet now I am being charged for it because I do not have the option of opting out of all this other useless extra shit.

You do realize they have to pay the fees to the people who produced the games right? 

Like... I'm pretty sure the developers get something for every game they give out with PS+. As if it were sold through the store. 

Oh, you don't want a lot of good games for a cheap price? Duly noted. Screw Steam and their sales right? I realize it's different. However, "Gift horse in the mouth" and all that. 

[Misanthrope]

You do realize they have to pay the fees to the people who produced the games right? 

Like... I'm pretty sure the developers get something for every game they give out with PS+. As if it were sold through the store. 

Oh, you don't want a lot of good games for a cheap price? Duly noted. Screw Steam and their sales right? I realize it's different. However, "Gift horse in the mouth" and all that. 

 

As usual you're twisting words to fit your argument: I don't want cheap (as in discounted) games combined with online play. If I want a service that offers cheap* games I'd like to purchase that separately. Putting online play on PS+ it's nothing but putting a motherfucking paywall. You might like all of the other stuff, I might even consider it myself if the price was right and I didn't feel I was forced into accepting that service but again, NO OPTION to just get what we used to get for fucking free on the PS3.

You want a few other reasons why I don't want this "free" games bullshit?

 

1) I might own several, if not the majority of the games offered.

 

2) Regardless of how popular they are I might not want all of them. Yes I do choose what games I want to play even when there's several on sale, I don't want someone else choosing for me.

 

3) They're not free: you're paying a monthly fee. Stop calling it a gift

 

4) I might not always have money, yes even just 5 bucks, to continue the subscription so I'd like the again OPTION of not losing online playing functionality if I decide I can't afford it.

 

5) There's no guarantees that the level of quality of games will continue down the line. This is specially more relevant if you also consider points 1 and 2

 

Don't get me wrong I get it: You like the service, you were on board with the monthly games promotion anyway and this just seems like a good deal all around. But can you honestly tell me that you cannot envision any of the points made here for someone else? Is it that difficult to comprehend that someone might have an ethical objection about being forced to pay for a service that was free in the past and remains free on a superior platform like the PC? Is nothing relevant but "Look, look! I did the math I get this games AT A DISCOUNT!" 

Even if that is the case go take a look at the hot deals section or keep an eye out for steam sales, gog.com sales, greenman sales, humble bundles, etc. You'll save a shitload more money that way than with Sony's re-education program to eliminate free online play, something they don't even fucking contribute at all with P2P games or Publishers that pay for their servers anyway.

PS+ is about money and control.

[Vitalius]

As usual you're twisting words to fit your argument: I don't want cheap (as in discounted) games combined with online play. If I want a service that offers cheap* games I'd like to purchase that separately. Putting online play on PS+ it's nothing but putting a motherfucking paywall. You might like all of the other stuff, I might even consider it myself if the price was right and I didn't feel I was forced into accepting that service but again, NO OPTION to just get what we used to get for fucking free on the PS3.

You want a few other reasons why I don't want this "free" games bullshit?

 

1) I might own several, if not the majority of the games offered.

 

2) Regardless of how popular they are I might not want all of them. Yes I do choose what games I want to play even when there's several on sale, I don't want someone else choosing for me.

 

3) They're not free: you're paying a monthly fee. Stop calling it a gift

 

4) I might not always have money, yes even just 5 bucks, to continue the subscription so I'd like the again OPTION of not losing online playing functionality if I decide I can't afford it.

 

5) There's no guarantees that the level of quality of games will continue down the line. This is specially more relevant if you also consider points 1 and 2

I agree. That's exactly what it is. A paywall. Because online bandwidth costs money. I'm willing to bet that Sony did the math and figured that bundling it all together would help more people than it hurt. Mostly parents who didn't want to buy X games a year for their kids and could just let them play whatever PS+ pushed out. 

I don't think that's fair. We didn't get effectively free games on PS3. I say effectively free because of what I say below. M$ didn't give free games but charged for online play. Relative to that, the games are free. They aren't really free, but they are effectively free, because if Sony wanted to charge for online play alone and give nothing else, they could. It just wouldn't be a good business choice because they want to be better than the competition. I don't see Sony just letting us play online for free and that being it because I understand that servers and bandwidth cost money, and as the gaming community grows, Sony doesn't want to take all those costs on without a constant revenue stream to counter-act them. 

If you want to blame anyone for that, it'd be Microsoft for being the first popular ones to make it the norm for paying for online play. Regardless, we have to deal with it now that the genie is out of the bottle. It's either that, or what Sony offers, which is by and far a better value. 

Points 1 & 4 are counter to one another. Unless you are just bad with money. Because it's a lot of games in a year. Like $200+ worth at this point. So you can afford that, but not $50 a year? That makes no sense. None. 

You can choose what you play. They aren't forcing you to play anything. 

In relation to the other services, as I said, they are free. Sony could be like Microsoft and just charge us for multiplayer. The "going rate" for online play is $50 a year. That's BS, but that's what the community has let happen. Sony offers that, plus games, so effectively the games are free. I get it. That's stupid, but it's true.

True, but it's been well over a year and they have been pretty great so far. There's no reason to believe that will happen aside from being distrusting of corporations, which I get, but that's to each his own. 

I do realize that, for others, this isn't something they want. That doesn't mean it isn't a great deal/value relative to the other choices. In an absolute sense, it's terrible, but I don't expect it to change. 

If I weren't going to buy some of the PS+ games already or PS+ just so I could play online, I wouldn't be interested in it. But I'm still not gonna say it's bad on a cost effectiveness basis because it's not. I, and most people, get more value out of it than any other online service AFAIK. It still might be a shit practice, but of the ones doing it, Sony is doing it the best. 

[Misanthrope]

M$ didn't give free games but charged for online play.

 

Well inside your wall of text it finally comes out: yes that's the only reason why they did it, because they could since MS does it as well. They just needed a stronger console (Stronger as in market share though). However the costs of maintaining the network are overstated quite a bit: if it was ONLY online play and everything else was behind a paywall it wouldn't costs them nearly as much because as you might or might not know there's no dedicated servers for most console games it's just peer to peer meaning a player in the session is the server. And in the rare cases there is a dedicated servers it is usually not Sony who pays for it but the game publisher.

 

Points 1 & 4 are counter to one another. Unless you are just bad with money. Because it's a lot of games in a year. Like $200+ worth at this point. So you can afford that, but not $50 a year? That makes no sense. None.

That's borderline offensive: I am just bad with money if I can't manage? You don't know what the fuck you're talking try coming down here and living on Mexican salaries which are literally 8 times less than yours and pay 30 to 50% more for anything related to gaming then you can tell me I'm bad with money. Not only that but you missed the fucking point as well: If I can't afford the "free" games anymore then the ones I already have are bound offline, there's no conflict between 1 and 4 since one's situation changes and I shouldn't be fucking rendered offline because of it since I already paid for the stupid fucking games.

Again you continue to show your lack of empathy and inability to conceive any other situation other than your own.

[FratStar]

-snip-

Do you want to know what's also offensive? Your language. If you can't have a discussion without cursing at people, and making assumptions that this person knows your situation just stop using the replying. He/she didn't know your situation how about you explain it to him/her without being hostile. You're an adult act like one. Also to play devil's advocate you don't know how much he/she may be making either said person might not be on a great salary as well.