Sony's response : EA Access Doesn't 'Represent Good Value To The PlayStation Gamer'

Game Informer: Following EA’s announcement of the company’s new subscription program, Access, we were curious about it being tied only to Xbox One. We reached out to Sony for clarification, and it seems like PlayStation 4 owners shouldn’t hold their breath for the program.

[Kid-Prodigy-KP]

Hell Yeah.

[Ballsack]

Not really hell yeh

Coz playstation now at its current pricing is even less value to a gamer than EAs offering

[Mikelarry]

not really, ps+ offers you discounts on multiple titles from different publishers big or small not just Sony first party titles. EA subscription only offers discounts on EA titles nothing more nothing less how is that better value to the gamer??

@ riverstars86: thanks for pointing that out, ok then you are right ballsack and apologies for reading your comment wrong

[PeaSFor]

EA rly Access, So they are just delaying games for a week so they can make people pay more..

EA can barely release a finished product on their normal release schedule and they want me to pay $5 to play it even earlier or have discounts on (probably) old EA titles, LULZ!

thx but no thx even if DanzoSAMA think otherwise.

[riverstars86]

Mikelarry, Ballsack said PS Now, not PS+.

[G20WLY]

When did EA ever offer good value to anybody? Everyone knows they're among the most money grabbing companies in existence.

EA Access is just another mechanism, ultimately designed to milk the gamer wallet, whether through direct transaction or hidden via the MS Money Hatting Program...

[Darkstares]

When is Sony going to admit that 200% rise in PS+ membership fees are largely due to having online multiplayer behind a paywall (which is now like XBox Gold)?

For $5 a month or $30 a year with EA access you get,

1. 10% off digital purchases (meaning a $60 game is $6 off, already paying for itself)

2. Game trials 5 days before it's released

3. Full access to some EA games, The Vault.

PS+ also offers some good value but the members have no idea what those free games are (which are almost always older titles that nobody wants to buy any longer) and the discounts are only towards certain games. Isn't it the consumers who should decide, not Sony, on what we view value on?

[torchic]

why are people comparing PSNow to EA Access? two completely different things.

asking gamers to pay another $30 on top of the PS+ $50/$60 is steep for basically the same thing... PS+ gives you a wide variety of publishers over 3 different platforms (PSV/PS3/PS4) for $60 while for half that you only get EA titles and discounts on one platform...

Microsoft agreed to this plan as a shortcut method of bringing Xbox services on par with PS+

[FATAL1TY]

EA access = Trojan Horse

Achievement unlocked

http://mygaming.co.za/news/...

[donthate]

The only reason it isn't good value to "Playstation Gamers" is because it ain't good value to Sony!

For almost half the cost of PS+, I get access to a vault of multiple games that grow as time goes by as opposed to getting a few games every month.

I would ask Sony:

a) if it is good value to pay to be able to play online on a console that rarely has updates (after all, it is FREE on PC!)?

b) does Sony really think PS Now is good value "Playstation Gamers"?

c) why not let "Playstation Gamers" decide if it is good value?

Simply put, Sony doesn't want to have a service to compete with their own, or they are just SALTY for screwing up the deal!

I personally just subscribed to EA Access and downloading BF4 and Peggle 2 while looking forward to more games being added into the mix.

[truefan1]

So 1 game 4 hours for $5 is good value but 4 games 1 month $5 is bad value? Sony is clearly salty, in this damage control sratement.

I thought ps4 was for the gamers. I guess this should be revised for the gamers, excluding those who like EA.

[stuna1]

With EA and Microsoft showing their hands with this program, this actually gives Sony the overall advantage! With their pricing scheme as well as what they have on offer.

Nothing dictates really what Sony will offer in the long run with PS now still being in Beta, and not really being aclimated to how well it will be received. Looking at it from one perspective, PS Now already has a huge advantage simply on how many devices it'll be offered on. Not only that, Developer backing that I'm sure will include not only 1st party developers, but 2nd, 3rd and Independent developers as well.

To me I don't really believe there's a comparison to be made.

[stuff]

I have a feeling that they will only offer games that have sold to a certain quota. EA still has to make a profit and are responsible to their shareholders. This, in a lot of ways,is an incentive for people to buy games digitally. But in the end it's a technique for getting people to give them money for there year old games instead of buying a used copy.

Madden 25 for Xbo is less than $20 now on ebay and will be far cheaper when Madden 26 releases.

[Ocsta]

Dude. Sony know what EA are. THEY weren't interested.

[Darkstares]

Sony,

"we don't see value in EA offering a subscription model to play games early, get discounts and to play some games as much as they want"

???

In what bizarro world is this? Thanks Sony for choosing for me and not letting me decide what is of value or not.

How can the same company endorse 4 hour rentals that cost upwards of $4 yet tell me that I don't want this for $5 a month or $30 a year. What a joke.

[UltraNova]

@^^^

I guess you really wanted that Kinect when you bought the XB1 for 500 bucks didn't you?

Double standards much?

PSnow pricing was part of the BETA. If and when PSnow is released with that kind of pricing or even close to that I will join the crowd dissing it myself. For now lets be civilized here.

One question though are xbox fans ok with paying an additional 30 bucks on top of the 60 already paid for live gold?

@Truefan

So I take it your are still SALTY since June's NPD results...

[nicksetzer1]

Yea, I agree with you guys ... choice totally sucks. I am glad Sony can make all my decisions for me. Thanks Sony.

[ramiuk1]

well EA service isnt great,sounds better than it is.

Old games on it,who plays fifa 14 when 15 is out?
same with all others that on it.
new games are not included but you can buy them at 10% off price(which going off digital)would still be more than retail with no resale value.

what peopel need to remember is its EA and they a pure greed,so there is more bad to come from this and alot of direct profit.

[jmac53]

@Salty You are still paying for Gold are you not? $60 + $30 does not equal $50.

[SonyWarrior]

im glad sony doesnt let these turd companys clutter the PS store with there trash and clutter.

[MorePowerOfGreen]

Clearly this was a painful and devastating thing for Sony to find out about. Fanboys are either envious or really worried. The fact Sony had to do PR on it tells you the gravity of this EA and MSFT partnership. Sony knows that this isn't some superficial deal but a co developed program by both companies .

The web was shocked/stunned and was silent for a day, now here comes the damage control, then the attacks will follow.

This PR damage control will only be comforting to the most fanatical and delusional PS4 fans.

[Prime157]

Psnow is streaming, that's the difference. Psnow will be playable on bravia TV's. It also has plans to go to tablets. Ea access is downloading to one system.

[cemelc]

I dont understand something, do xbox owners have to pay for live + EA acces? or does EA acces comes with the live price already included?

Cos youll otherwise be paying a 60$+30$ year to keep playing online right?

[Teddy-Duchamp]

Nice try! U wish, jelly fish.

[Sevir]

Devastating? The normal XB trolls are out in full force, seriously, EA's line up is paltry and outside of the Mass Effect and Dead Space IP, the games they have are broken and unfinished experiences rushed to compete with another stale IP that's stifling innovation in the gaming industry.

Why on earth would I pay $30 a year to play pre release battlefield, or A slew of sports titles I don't give a rat's ass about..

Most of their IP's only sell 2-3 million with the exception of Battlefield.

The value simply isn't there. Most of these games come to PS+ in a matter of months anyway so what's the flipping point. They get larger discounts on PS+ anyway.

It's great to have options, but this is clearly a price gouge. And the program brings no value to Xbox fans either.

[TheGreatAndPowerful]

This could be the reason why Sony said no to this service.

EA reserves the right to change and update the EA Access Services, and the EA Content offered through the EA Access Services without any liability to you. In particular, Vault Titles are subject to change and may be removed, and the online services for certain Vault Titles may be discontinued.

[BallsEye]

@UltraNova

@jmac53

Funny how horde of people copy info from one another that is completely false. If you pay 60$ for gold I feel sorry for you. You can get 12 months for 40$ on amazon (even cheaper at my place).

As for EA Access, I never was fan of it but it does look pretty tempting. 30$ a year is NOTHING and you get ever growing library of actually amazing games. So far even ps+ and xblg don't offer that good titles... I mean...battlefield 4, that's pretty neat!

Whoever say it has no value need to go back and see how sony charges for ps now. How can you defend this and bash ea access?

[incredibleMULK]

Agreed. Insecure Sony. Not one positive comment all generation. Nothing but negative shit all generation toward Xbox/Microsoft even when they showed professionalism and spoke high of the ps4.

Now they're talking shit to ea. Someone needs some humble pie...how quick we feel what number 3 feels like....cough cough ps3.

[MSBAUSTX]

@Mikelarry

I think EA is doing this because they don't feel they are getting enough money from what PS+ is offering and they want in on the money train that Sony has stumbled across with PS+.

[TheGreatAndPowerful]

@incredibleMULK

nothing but nice? professional? they were nothing but d**kheads all last gen but now they're too busy eating humble pie to open their mouths to say anything else.

MS marketing director: "We are going to kill Sony at E3!"
However, the key for me was the end of a revealing interview with Craig Davidson, Director of Global Marketing Microsoft. According to him, "Xbox One will surprise the world during E3." Ending with a resounding "We will kill Sony at E3".

[DragonKnight]

Wow. People are really trying to compare EA Access, which is a subscription service that tries to justify (apparently successfully based on the ignorant comments here) the Early Access model that PC gaming already has and gets blasted for; to PSNow which is a streaming service and thus has an entirely different infrastructure, and is indeed completely different to EA Access?

The lengths some "gamers" will go to defend the complete lack of willpower they have so as to justify their need to be without any money and allow companies like EA and Microsoft to nickle and dime them to death.

There's nothing of value in EA Access. These are EA games. EA's games are terrible. Paying to access garbage early is still paying to access garbage, and you're trying to be proud of that?

And the absolute irony of this situation is that the people who are saying "thanks for deciding this for me Sony, why not let US decide what value is for US" would also be the first people to jump on the hate wagon if Sony did do this saying "first you make us pay for online on the PS4 (which they don't, considering there are so many games that don't require you to have PS+ to play online, so that's a B.S. argument) and now you're letting this add another $30 a year onto the price? You're just as bad as Microsoft."

And when people say that one company is as bad as another, yet support the other company they just said was bad with such fervor, guess what that is?

[4Sh0w]

@badz
lol, Who said Xbox gamers love EA now? No, Xbox gamers who want to play a bunch of EA games for a fraction of the price, get early access and 10% off new games just appreciate a good deal.

By your logic do ps owners love Bobby Kotick/ Activision now?

pfft despite the soap box rants gamers ultimately play games they like.

Call a spade a spade, sonys done a great job so far this gen but this statement is self-serving BS. Yesterday this **OPTION wasn't available, if it has no value let the end user decide.

[Visiblemarc]

Ps+ is an awesome value.

The bizarre thing is people complaining that Sony won't let a company cut them out of their own ecosystem.

EA is, generally speaking, a greedy bully. I wish they didn't own so many IP's I enjoy.

[bmf7364]

Sony should really consider a $10/mo sub-fee to PS Now for unlimited access to the titles.

[ABizzel1]

Well that makes it even more interesting then, since it seems like EA did come to Sony as well, who denied it.

Personally I think it has potential, but first and foremost you have to be a big EA fan for this to even matter. How it currently looks, this is nothing more than a cash grab from EA, since the games they're trying to add are all games that are about to have their online community replaced due to annual installments with the exception of Peggle 2.

It only makes sense depending on when they replace the games in the EA line-up (Do the sports games go up at the beginning of the year), and what games they add to the catalog (PS360Wii / PS2XBCG / etc...).

I think this EA program is most beneficial to Sports gamers. You could theoretically, buy the game new, trade it in when it hits the service (probably 6 - 9 months after launch), and play them for the remainder of the year until the next installment comes out. At the end of the day EA is still getting over, but it give you a bit more value than you currently get with trading / keeping sports games too long.

The early access game trail is nice, and 10% digital discounts is good if that's your lane. It has potential, but for it to be great they need to make sure the Vault builds up fast.

PS3/360/Wii/PS2/XB/GC/DC/olde r: Mirror's Edge 1, Mass Effect Trilogy, Syndicate, Need for Speed, Medal of Honor, Burnout, Dragon Age, Portal 2, Dead Space, Crysis, Army of Two, Dante's Inferno, Brutal Legend, Mercenaries 2, The Godfather, Unreal Tournament 3, Alice, Bulletstorm, Skate, Def Jam, Harry Potter, Hasbro Game Night, Shadows of the Damned, NBA Streets, Fuse, Plants vs Zombies, Command and Conquer, Boom Blox, etc...

If they really push their back catalog it could be a worthwhile service. But I understand Sony, because right now where it's at it's just not worth it to most gamers, but later down the line that could change.

But at the same time, more options are almost always best (too many options can become a problem), and this is a case where Sony should have went ahead and just did it IMO.

[ziggurcat]

@truefan:

How is sony's statement "damage control" or "salty"? it's pretty funny seeing you attack/trolling people/sony for doing exactly what you do here *every single day*. Based on your activity over the last few days, the only one being "salty" or controlling any damage here is you (with your desperate attempts at downplaying PSNow, and TLOU).

Sony's right, too - PS+ gives you much more value than EA's service (because their service is more akin to PS+ than it is PSNow). You get discounts/freebies for games from *all publishers*, not just EA. Plus, you're paying an extra $30 on top of what you already pay for your XBL subscription - and they didn't even include titanfall as one of the games available as part of their service.

@youaresalty:

"For almost half the cost of PS+, I get access to a vault of multiple games that grow as time goes by as opposed to getting a few games every month."

you're limited only to EA titles...

[diehardmetallicafan]

wow, darkstares gets 'well said' and zodtheripper gets 'trolling'? wooow.
Alot of people claiming that one service is better than the other, why not pay for both? Isn't that what all the neutral fence sitters always say when it comes to buying a console?

[RosweeSon]

My mates just text me to say pretty much the same thing playstation now prices are not even final... It's a beta!!! Microsoft's marketplace is overpriced but hey that's just the way it is, it's launched and overpriced deal with it. They could change it like they could do this and that but it's Microsoft they won't unless there's an outrage like when both consoles revealed.

[Eddie20101]

Xbox One get shiny new turd, Sony doesn't want it.
Xbox One fanboys praise the Shiny new turd because it is something Playstation 4 will not have.

EA, previously despised by Xbox and Playstation gamer's for crapy business practices is suddenly the hero of Xbox fanboys, not surprising.

[ShinMaster]

A small number of games from EA is not a good value.
Especially when they're delaying the games on purpose to make people pay for "EA Access".

[DanzoSAMA]

"EA Access Doesn't 'Represent Good Value To The PlayStation Gamer"

Lmao..

[Killz4Twinkies]

As PS4 owner i wish sony would have given the consumer the choice to pick this up or not. However most ppl havent read the fine print...

Games will leave the vault (similar to PS Plus)
$100 value at any given time (last years madden will account for $40 of this)
"Unlimited Online Play (not for certain single player will be avail)
Partial early access to new sport titles five days in advance (you can play a 2 minute quarter demo)

Seems like everyone thinks they will have this huge library of EA games to play when in reality it will probably be 2-3 old games at a time (one previous year sport title / one old indie game / Franchise Game #1 (when the 4th is on the way for xmas)

[mixolydian_id]

30$ for access to an ever changing pool of EA games for a year?

This is a better deal to those who buy one new EA game per year.

I think I worked out XBL is something like 11p per day.
So were looking at 16p-ish per day for both services.

Not too shabby to be fair.

Games with gold and a number if EA titles available. Brand spanking games available as standard.

Sounds like there'll always be games available.

[mochachino]

Agreed, Sony should let me decide what I think a good value is. I don't want them dictating what services I can or can't purchase.

I love my PS4 but shame shame Sony. I hope this trend doesn't continue.

[objdadon]

I have all three systems and I have no interest in ea subscription or playstation now! I buy my games, own my games, when I'm done I sell my games! I pay for xbox live and psn+. My wii u is free, the way it should be!

[redwin]

Got my code. I'm downloading ... I'm gaming. Maybe I'll get early bata for bf5. ...take my $30 now please.

[turdburgler1080]

I commented on how this was going to go down yesterday and I was right. Sony at the height of their hubris took jabs at EA during E3 and now EA took a jab back. I said Sony would make some PR comment trying to downplay their screw up and they just did. EA doesn't hurt for money so they don't have to give anything to Sony despite their reputation. Sony on the other hand needs EA so they can get money from EA's game sales. You don't bite the hand that feeds.

[cee773]

It do not represent A good value when xbone has more EA games than ps4 and yet we still pay the same price hell no and I dont like the precedent EA is starting next thing you know every pub will want 30$ A year.

[Jonny5isalive]

yea it is not a good value to ps gamers because if they paid for it, then it wouldnt work on their PS consoles.

[JasonKCK]

Sony thinks $2.99 for 4 hrs is just so much better.

N4Gaf never changes.

[lelo]

EA Access doesn't represent good value, but PS Now does?
Unless PS Now is offered free with PS+ (witch I highly doubt), it's a no go for me. Paying a high price to play last gen games, no thanks.

As for EA Access, I'm sceptical...

[Menkyo]

The price model is set up by the publishers of the games on Psnow. Plus its a beta.

[chrisarsenalsavart]

Psnow is a streaming service.
Nothing to do with ea access or ps+ for that matter.

[madpuppy]

I guess if they were the same thing, the first part of your comment would mean something.

as for the second part....you have seen the final pricing list for playstation now? I love it when no actual pricing has been revealed but, everyone "knows" what its going to be in lieu of an "actual" finalized pricing list.

[Utalkin2me]

@lelo

First EA access is more like PS+ and not PS Now. And plus blows EA access out of the water in value. And i didn't know PS Now prices was set in stone yet anyways.

[dcbronco]

@Menkyo

I believe EA Access is also a beta so maybe the price will go down.

[Pogmathoin]

Its $30 a year, for this, its great value.

[Keltech]

You can also add the $50-60 that customers have to pay for XBL. Let's not ignore that.

[Sheikh Yerbouti]

Whatever happened to Games for Gold? Will Activision have their own service too if they wanted? This is just a money grab.

[Ginesis]

Add in the price to rent games on PS Now and the Plus subscription. Let's not ignore that.

[XStation]

@Keltech

1.) It's optional to get the EA subscription service, so if you're having money issues you wouldn't get it anyways.

2.) $10 a month for XBL or $60 for a year...

3.) PS+ comes with a cost also, so it would be the same thing if it was on the PS4.

[frostypants]

$30 a year, with no guarantee whatsoever that a given game will be available.

[thekhurg]

Until you factor in this service forces digital purchases meaning you can never sell or trade the game to get more value back once you're done.

[JorboTron]

@Keltech
I have never paid more than $45 for a year of XBL. It's called being a savvy consumer.
OT: EA Access is clearly not for everyone. But I wouldnt mind throwing down $5 once in awhile to play some older EA annual releases that I would never pay a full $60 for. To each his own. It's at least a good option to have. and PS+ > EA access clearly. but its nice to see more competition that will improve future offerings

[jnemesh]

$30/year + DLC costs. For games that are in a bargain bin at your local pawn shop.

Who wants to play old versions of FIFA and Madden anyway? Usually sports game enthusiasts want to play with the most current stats and rosters!

Then there is BF4, the most BROKEN shooter ever. Maybe by the time this service launches, they will have fixed the bugs! (yeah, I couldn't say that with a straight face either...)

$30 for FOUR games? Four OLD and BROKEN EA games? No thanks!

I have done just fine without buying or playing a single EA game for years now.

Thanks Sony (honestly!) for keeping a CRAP service off of your console!

[OmegaShen]

Doesn't matter if PS+ or PS Now, both are far better and both offer more working games.

Its funny how people keep using a beta as a finally product.

[mrpsychoticstalker]

I'm not a big fan of the consoles war . But this is a big win for Microsoft. Whoever doesn't think the same is in plain denial. It's a great deal, for a cheap price.

[OmegaShen]

Need to try harder to not sound like a troll buddy, its EA. Theres no real win with them, so far the have screw up on alot of things that do online.

They weren't on the list for worst company for nothing.

[ThePope]

"Its funny how people keep using a beta as a finally product."

The same can be said to you. EA Access is a beta as well so how do you know which is a better value. Maybe you should shut your mouth.

[OmegaShen]

If you seen how there games been online,an them being the worst company. Beta or not, its EA.

[bluzone]

Is this an example of MS buying its way out of a deficit in offerings? Much like it's buying its way into "owning Titan Fall" as an exclusive.

@mrpsychoticstalker "I'm not a big fan of the consoles war" Now that I've that watched your comments for a while this seems like a strange statement from you. troll much?

[Jonny5isalive]

yea 30$ to rent FF 13-2 for 90 days. you can probably buy it forever for 10 on sale like it was last year. You can say these are just test prices, but who ever at sony thought those were good test prices was a moron and needs to be fired.

It reminds me of the vita when it came out and they charged 25$ for a ridge racer demo that oyu could buy more DLC for, or 40$ for dungeon hunter alliance that was old and only 10-15$ on PS3. Seems to me like alot of sonys pricing is way to high for some old shit. THey have good sales now but thats the only time Id buy stuff from the PS store. If its not on sale or BRAND NEW then its a ripoff.

[HaydenJameSmith]

I don't care about EA Access regardless of Xbox One exclusivity but these statements are coming from the Guys who thinks its good value to gamers to have to pay extra money for an extra difficulty mode in Killzone Shadow Fall and The Last of Us...

C'mon this is just BS article, how is EA Access any different from PS+ either ? PS+ forces you to pay for discounts for certain exclusive games and pay to play your free games that you get every month... this is just specifically for EA Games and also includes 5 day early access so...

[Sheikh Yerbouti]

That's the point Hayden. If we already have PS+, how is this any more valuable. Why can't EA offerings be on PS+? Because it is just an EA moneygrab. You already have Games for Gold.

[HaydenJameSmith]

@Sheikh Yerbouti

But shouldn't it be left up to the Players to decide if its worth the money or not ? It seems to me that Sony just want a monopoly on what gets discounted and what can be played for free from there store... there only saying its not good value to player cause its not good value for them, it may stop people subscribing to PS+ and decide to subscribe to EA access instead or effect sony published games sales etc. Not everyone plays online games... and may see little value in paying for PS+ if they can pay half the price for big games like BF4, FIFA or Titanfall... and not everyone has all three PS platforms the PS3, PS4 and Vita like me for example I can only take advantage of the PS+ for my PS4.

I just find it ironic there talking value for players and then they charge for dlc thats adds a difficulty to a game, allow ridiculous pricing for playstation now services and then state that EA Access is not good value. there limiting the players choice... I personally wont be subscribing cause I dont like that many EA Games but I don't think its a particularly bad service, it would be great for ppl who love EA Games. If ubisoft did one I may subscribe to that...

Edit;
for the record I didnt disagree with you and I have been too because people prefer to just stealth disagree with ya without giving any logical reason....

[MotherLight]

PS+ forces you? No, unless you're a moron who can't think for himself there isn't anything in this world that can force you to do anything if you don't want to.

If you don't want PS+ or want to use the benefits or features, you simply have the choice not to buy it.

No one is forcing you to.

Funny seeing all the Xbox fans try to hate on PS+ now ever since it is needed for online multiplayer on PS4 but oh god when Playstation fans talked about Xbox Live before when it was just Xbox 360 and PS3, they would take a bullet for that service.

You people talking shit about PS+ really never had it, it is pretty obvious or sadly you only own a PS4, which really is your choice but anyone who owns a PS3, PS4 and PS Vita, they know damn well how amazing PS+ and it's discounts can be.

What is stupid is anyone trying to downplay a service that actually has value when you people never said shit about Xbox Live when all it offered was using your internet and nothing more.

[HaydenJameSmith]

@MotherLight

okay I used the wrong syntax but If you build up a collection of Games from the Instant Games service PS+ provides you have to continue paying for that service to play those games... that is a bit forceful... I wasn't trying to say that they make you pay for the service.

But you are just singling out one thing I said when my point I was trying to get across was clearly that PS+ and EA Access are similar in principal... and EA Access is not necessarily bad value for users, and its kind or ironic that they said it was bad value when PS+ is similar and that they have PS now service that is terribly priced and that charge for difficulty mode dlc...

Edit:
for above

I wasn't downplaying PS+, I think its a great service... same with Xbox Gold, both pretty similar services now. I just don't see how its fair for Sony to state EA Access is of no value to PSN Users and then offer a service is based on the same principals. So don't go putting words in my mouth.

And I dont see how its sad that I Dont own a PS3 or Vita as well as a PS4. I didn't have enough money to have both an 360 and PS3 when I was younger so I just got the 360, and the Vita never appealed to me... So it would have been no value to me having those extra consoles. I have gotten to the stage where i can own both the X1 and PS4 and pay for both the servies but I just dont see why you people have a problem with an additional service that doesn't force you to pay for it either that further gives users more games to play and discounts if the user so wishes to pay for, Sony shouldnt be limiting there audience and stating that it is no value to them when they can decide for themselves.

[MotherLight]

Of course you don't have to use either subscriptions but I think Sony's point is this.

I think the reason Sony doesn't see the value is honestly because there isn't much. It is a subscription service from people who mainly release their games annually ever single year and it is also a way for them to make more money from digital content without worrying about their games being bought used which I bet is a big problem for EA.

Another problem is EA closes down their servers for a lot of these games fairly quickly because of how fast they release these titles, so you're essentially paying to be locked into a subscription you really don't need or a bunch of old games you can't even play online anymore, which are usually a huge selling point of many of their games.

The reason I see a problem with it is also the numbers. Essentially this will net them more income for games you would probably already pay less in a year to play anyway or games you probably had no intent on buying period but will just play them if you end up a subscriber. So all in all it is more money for them at the cost of the consumer but with no real added value since you would already pay that anyway most the time.

The difference between PS+ and this is PS+ has some benefit to the actual subscriber, the only people this will benefit is EA.

This is also an obvious ploy for them to make even more money from microtransactions, why? Because again just like I said those games people had no interest in or intent on ever buying at retail, they might end up playing now and spending money in those particular games.

I mean it is a good business tactic on their behalf I'll give them that.

From my perspective and I think Sony's, it would just be easier to stick to what you did before when buying EA games either used or new because there really isn't much difference.

EA has never once cared about value for the consumer and they have done some of the shadiest things in gaming and still continue to do so, to the average joe who doesn't know any better this will seem like heaven but in reality it is perfect for EA to rake in more cash off DLC, microtrans and further monetize digital content.

From a business perspective it all makes sense but from Sony's it is a unnecessary service.

I mean I understand where you're coming from, I don't like needing a subscription for anything honestly myself but I have PS+ because I have had it long before it was ever needed for online multiplayer, I know that aspect sucks and I am not saying it doesn't but because of that I knew regardless I planned on keeping PS+ anyway before I ever heard of Sony planning on doing that for the PS4.

[jcnba28]

Sony are becoming arrogant again. Last time I checked PS Plus wasn't optional to play online. Also how is $4.99 a month to play a bunch of games not better than paying $4.99 just to play one game on PS Now for a few hours?

[Volkama]

Quite ridiculous and petty response. It is clearly good value, even with only these initial 4 games available.

What I do find intersting is that EA are forging this path hand-in-hand with Microsoft, with no mention of bringing a similar deal to their own Origin platform. That suggests Microsoft are driving this, with EA the willing partner.

[Volkama]

jkendrick if they offered the service and you did not see it as good value you would just not subscribe. Do you think other gamers are incapable of making that assessment?

Personally I already own FIFA14 and Battlefield 4, and I have no interest in Madden or Peggle. The access pass doesn't represent great value to me at this time. But I certainly think I'll be a subscriber sooner rather than later, and I would not be thankful if Microsoft turned around and said "No we don't want to offer XBox gamers something like that".

[Utalkin2me]

Please give me a link where Sony has officially stated that pricing for PS Now is going to be 4.99 to stream a game for a few hours.

[kenshiro100]

Where's the arrogance?

Explain.

[trouble_bubble]

PSNow isn't out yet geniuses. It's a closed beta. Proof? I'm not in it. Stop quoting old test prices on unrelated services or I'll just say EA should be free like Crackle.

This honestly sounds like some kind of EA employee plan for people already in bed with them. Who honestly cares that much for one publisher?!

I don't buy full retail games digitally anyways as there's no resale value and I'm limited on how many systems I can play it on, so the 10% discount is a joke. Simply not interested in the EA roster other than mass effect. If brokenfield's online is borked at launch every year, why would I wanna pay extra for 5 day early access to a loading screen? It's Overpriced already. BF3 and DeadSpace3 were already free on Plus.

[ZeroX9876]

the deal seems nice for X1 owners, but I'm wondering if a just released title (example would be Fifa 15) will be available on launch on this service?
Or is it just previous released titles?

[Volkama]

The blurb on the service says you get a 10% discount on games like Fifa 15 and Dragon Age, so it is safe to say that new games are not included.

How long it takes for games to get added? We don't know. Potential for a higher tier price plan that includes new games? Similar packages from other publishers?

This is all breaking new ground, we'll just have to wait and see how it shapes up. It could potentially have a huge impact.

[Hardcore_gamerxbox]

Hell no Sony sayin this becaue it's only on Xbox one typical Sony

[Magicite]

EA has done nothing good in past few years. They screwed major franchises like dead space, dragon age, battlefield, simcity and more. They lost any trust.

[Anon1974]

I don't get this. If Microsoft were serious about beefing up XBL (which is already more expensive) to compete with the PSN+ offering for less money they would have cut a deal to include this in their XBL service and not just add it as another cash grab on top of an already paid service.

Seriously, if Microsoft was making this available at no extra cost to XBL subscribers to help boost their "Games with gold" program, I'd say this was excellent value for gamers. But it isn't. To get close to the type of service Sony has been offering for years with PSN+, Microsoft just made it an extra $30. How is this value for anyone? The only one that benefits is EA as they rake in the money from the naive.

[Team_Litt]

"Microsoft just made it an extra $30. How is this value for anyone?"
You don't NEED Gold for EA Access so how is it extra? And Microsoft did not just do anything, this is EA's subscription.

Also, GwG and deals with gold already offer what ps+ does.
Do you think you are going to see many more EA games on PS+ after this?

You see no value in $5 a month for access to 4 AAA games? Lol, sure buddy. Let me guess, you hate PS+ and PSNow as well right? Of course not, Lord Sony is perfect.

[Anon1974]

Wow. Thanks for that snarky response. Glad to see you seriously considered the points I raised.

I thought I made myself pretty clear. If Microsoft were serious in bringing their XBL offering on par with what we're seeing offered from PSN+ they would have worked out a deal to include this EA thing at no extra cost to their customers.

And actually, on the topic of PS Now, yes..yes I do hate the pricing of it currently and won't be using the service when it comes out.

[Azzanation]

Its a bad mistake to shut EA down as we learnt after Nintendo turning down there deals. EA might now offer better deals to MS and even exclusives since there willing to accept EA Access. I think MS just got a lot stronger.

[Ihatetrolls76]

I'd say if ever ms and ea went partners and ea stopped making games for ps that would definitely hurt sony in a bad way. I'd hate to see something like that happen used ps4s would be crowding local game stores definitely in America where ea sports games sell big time and all the diehard battlefield players

[t-hall785]

Lol I thought Sony was for the gamer. This would just be another option for the gamer to have. I don't know about you guys but 30.00 bucks a year for "used" games (follow me now). Is not a bad deal.

My personal example. I've been wanting to play battlefield for a while now but didn't feel like buying it. Didn't wanna pay gamestop an absurd amount either. But for 30.00 bucks i'll try that out and i'll maybe get back in to sports games. Albeit i'll be a year behind but i'd rather do that and play with all the other people who get the pass than pay 60/yr for the "sports update". Also been wanting to know what the big damn deal is about Peggle 2 but not willing to pay to firgure it out. So for 30 bucks a year you really can't beat this. Especially if they expand the library and the free previews are awesome as well.

Too bad for Sony. They're getting arrogant again...smh.

[PRock10]

Why hell yeah? Regardless of whether it's a good deal or not, that's my decision as the consumer to make, not Sony's decision to make for me. I think people are losing sight of that fact, your right as the consumer was taken from you.

[TheTwelve]

Hell yes to real competition taking place now...I like how Sony will attempt to do better than this EA/Microsoft bedding.

[baodeus]

@Twelve

I don't think you understand/see the bigger picture in this and why this might be problematic for Sony in the long run. Let me expand on your perspective on how this works.

First and for most, think of MS Azure (cloud infrastructure) like how Amazon works. MS can rent out this virtual space to developers/publisher for a small fee (MS been trying to keep it cheaper than Amazon to compete).

1. Advantage for Developers:
- Full ownership/control over their digital contents within that space = rip full profit from what ever they make on it.
- Developers/publisher can update, change contents, adjust price, sale, etc...without going through any certification (because it is their space)
- Massive distribution of contents across the globe almost instantly due to the large MS azure cloud network; MS practically has data center almost everywhere now. I CAN IMAGINE EVEN SMALL DEVELOPERS CAN DO THIS WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A PUBLISHER. Also MS azure/apps are not restricted to just MS devices (as seen from recent MS application on iphone/ipad/androi, etc...). You probably don't see how big of a deal this can be.

Advantage for MS:
- they get paid for the rental
- they get massive contents from 3rd parties
- they can keep exclusive contents for their own devices, while allowing 3rd party to distribute contents to any devices (it doesn't affect MS in anyways because 3rd party content are also on other systems anyways).
- MS just technically allow every developers/publisher to become like a Steam services, and with much larger market to distribute that contents.

Advantage for Consumers:
- You can pick and chose to pay for the services/contents that you want, rather than keep paying hoping to see that you might see something that you like
- convenient, convenient, convenient = access to any content, anywhere and you can bring it anywhere you want.
- Disadvantage, it could be come costly if you are greedy and want every contents out there.

[baodeus]

Now how all of this will be problematic for Sony:

1. Sony doesn't have the large cloud infrastructure network that they can rent out to developers/publisher. They have to rent virtual space from Rackspace no less just to run their PS Now/Gaikai service. Do you think Sony can afford to rent out virtual space to others when they are renting it themselves?

2. PS now services depend greatly on the amount of contents that they can deliver (mostly from 3rd parties). Now if each developers/publisher can charge $5 for their contents through MS azure and get full profit from it, can Sony able to adjust PS Now prices so that developers/publisher can still get the same benefit? Simple math, let say 5 publishers charging $5 each. That is $25 per month. Can PS now do that (because Sony have to include everyone into it, unlike MS where consumer can pick and chose their contents). Now if you imagine hundreds/thousand of developers/publisher, how much would that cost?

3. Can developers/publisher get the ability to vastly distribute contents across the globe through Sony PS Now and on the same infrastructure (which sony RENT from Rackspace)? Can Sony helps any developers to distribute contents anywhere and with ease like MS azure, where developers don't even need a publisher (they just need to pay for a space on MS Azure)?

4. With PS now, can developers/publisher do anything with their contents and getting full profit with those contents, or do they always have to adjust and make deals with Sony? Why would any developers/publisher would chose to have less control over their contents,make less profit just to put it on Sony while undermine/shafted their own services that they have full control over on MS Azure?

Are there any reason why you think any developers/publisher out their would chose PS Now or any other Sony services over MS azure?

and pretty funny that for such a group of gamers who take pride in making their own decisions or can think for themselves, now agree with Sony making decision for them or what best for PS4 gamers?

[FanboyKilla]

Lol still going at it today too. Obviously someones upset. And no class sony trying to hate. Lmfao you are sounding like a looser sony. Show some class. Im almost ashamed i bought a ps4. They all ways talking slick. You are the little guy. A flea on the big dogs balls. Shut up and be happy you are still here.

Lmfao hey sony, where is the value for me when you sell me tlou twice? Buying the same game twice isnt that good of a value either. Lol you got no problem with that. Sit yo ass down and watch how we do this.

[BoriboyShoGUN]

You save 10% on a digital copy you can no longer trade in!!!!! If the library us extensive it might be cool, but those old sports games are dirt cheap after a couple years anyways.

[ion666]

Well playstation already gives free awesome games already. Ea wants to nickle and dime everybody. Why not give a ea game to playstion plus members.Just goes to show you how ea are money hungry business men.So yeah it was not a value because sony didnt want us to have 2 subscriptions for games that should be free with plus members.

[lawgone]

@Kid Prodigy KP...Did you seriously just "hell yeah" Sony not giving you the option to use EA Access? Are you that blinded by your loyalty to one console over the other?

[greenlantern2814]

IMO that decision should be left to the consumer not sony. I have to disagree with them on this decision. If you want it you should be able to make that choice

[GamerRetro]

Hell yeah to what Sony screwing us once again , Sony thinks for itself and not the Gamers

[DonFreezer]

Well I can't remember the last time I have commented on N4G but I can see that the moto goes strong. We are talking about the biggest publisher of all times.The one that casuals sctream to their name. The one that releases the most profitable games except COD in consoles.And they don't represent great value to ps customers.Why do I have a feeling that if this was ps exclusive everyone would type the nails in the coffin for the Xbox One and scream victory for Sony?Why is it that you feel so threatened by just a service that you have to praise Sony for giving competitor;s services a bad name. Well in modern history companies that used bludder and lies were left in the dust. If Sony continues the same game of lies and fud then by Holiday when Master Chief comes back , Sunset Overdrive and Ori release and all those triple A games get gameplay footage I don't think they'll talk that much.

[Azzanation]

Sony just shot themselves in the foot. EA would have read that statement and you can bet your chickens they will do things similar to what they did with Nintendo. I don't like EA however they house amazing titles and franchises.

[jackanderson1985]

their response makes no sense at all unless they plan on offering PS Now as a freebie add on to PS+

[Kayant]

ikr.... The service is optional. The consumer will choose if it's represents value or not.

[BitbyDeath]

EA would have cut their titles from PS+ if they had their own service running alongside.

This way Sony gets EA titles and a magnitude of others still within PS+ where as Xbox owners will need to pay for both if they want EA games.

[jackanderson1985]

not necessarily, EA can just opt not to allow Sony put their titles on PS+

Also i think EA clarified yesterday you don't need the gold if you only intend to play the games as Single Player games so you could just pay the 5 dollars for the month or 30 dollars for the year and be done with it

[BitbyDeath]

Ea would cut their games going to other services to make their own look better. Sony gives them no choice but to only use PS+ or they miss out on extra revenue.

Think about it.

[jackanderson1985]

I somehow doubt Sony forces publishers onto PS+ seeing as they have to pay the publishers to get their games on it... if it was just the case of Sony demanding it surely they'd have brand new AAA games on it as it'd drive up the PS+ subs and the console sales

[user7402931]

this.

ps plus is simply a far better value

[Mikelarry]

"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"

exactly what i was thinking when they made this announcment yesterday and some fans were praising EA. i already pay for both xbox live and ps+ what sense does it make to get another subscription with EA for discounts on games but again if people are willing to pay for that more power to them, i for one will only be paying for live and ps+ and if i want any more savings on games shop aggressively around i could do without more subscriptions services

[mhunterjr]

But somehow, their PSNow prices are good for gamers?

[Mikelarry]

exactly what i meant with the last part of my comment. ps+ and xbox live are the only services i am willing to pay for. psnow and this new ea subscription services really does not make any sense to me or offer me any value i can think of.

in the case of psnnow sony seems to be on a roll with remastering all their hit titles of last gen so why would i want to pay a subscription when i know the big hitters will be remade or even better if the prices shown in beta is any indication then i might as well just stick with my ps3 to play the old games. i understand this might not be convenient for all gamers but i guess they must be paying for the convenience and kudos to them.

EDIT: just thought about this that means if this becomes successful every publisher would try this and the thought of activision going this route ...... GOD help us all

Edit 2: @ harry

i hope they don't but come on Sony knew those prices were rip off and if people accepted those prices that is what they would charge

[HarryMasonHerpderp]

I was under the impession that Sony hadn't set prices for PSNow since its in beta? there were just those place holders, which i agree they were a rip off. I cant see them sticking to those prices though when its officially released.

[OrangePowerz]

As someone who buys retro games, PS1 and PS2 are actually a lot more expensive to buy compared to last years EA sports games. I bought some old Fifa games recently and they cost all more than what I would need to pay for Fifa 14.

[mhunterjr]

@harry

So it's ok for Sony to criticize beta prices as 'not good for gamers', but Sony's own beta prices are not open to that same criticism?

Sony has no business making this comment. It's BS for them to pretend they are against the ea access because it's bad for consumers. Not to mention that it's pretty clear that EA's service is already widely regarded as a good deal for fans of EA games.

[TheFanboySlayer]

@mhunterjr

Sony already has been criticized for their PS Now prices from people like you and me......They are not going to criticize themselves.

The only thing they can do is change the prices cause if not they will fail miserably.

[Chevalier]

Please show factual proof of bad PSNow prices. They are in beta so your opinion is not proof. There's not enough info to compare even.

[mhunterjr]

@chevalier
Both of these services are in beta... It's ok for Sony to bash this beta, but not ok to bash sony's

PSNow beta $2.99 for a 4hr rental of a ps3 era game. EA access beta $2.5 for a month long rental of 4 current gen games...

How much proof do you need?

[Chevalier]

You seem to think Sony isn't getting criticized?! Lol. Just look at these links. And your proof is beta pricing in testing phases and aren't representative of final prices. They're trying to figure out the pricing.

http://n4g.com/news/1538473...

http://n4g.com/news/1433497...

http://n4g.com/news/1538628...

http://n4g.com/news/1536368...

http://n4g.com/news/1536246...

" Both of these services are in beta... It's ok for Sony to bash this beta, but not ok to bash sony's"

Okay wtf?! They are getting more then their fair share of criticism and like Thefanboyslayer mentioned why the hell would Sony criticize themselves when there are people like you already doing that?! You guys want to pay for demos which are usually free and play old games? Good for you.

"Sony has no business making this comment. It's BS for them to pretend they are against the ea access because it's bad for consumers. Not to mention that it's pretty clear that EA's service is already widely regarded as a good deal for fans of EA games."

Last time I checked it's everyones right to speak their minds and comment, just because you think it's a good deal and good for consumers doesn't mean we all agree with you. It is a free country and yeah Sony should comment as is their right considering they probably have more info than an armchair commentator. I think it's shitty to pay for access to demos which should be free and to play last years games on top of PSN/Live? Nope that's not value to me.

Also widely regarded?! By a handful of people like you on a forum speaking for everyone? That's just rich. Sorry did I miss a survey where 90% of the thousands of people came back with a positive result with statistical data with 95% accuracy?! Otherwise this 'wide regard' is from a very skewed group of individuals of a small and very vocal Xbone fanbase.

[mhunterjr]

@chevalier

You still seem to misunderstand me. Sony is being hypocritical. Sony has no right to bash EA Access Beta as a 'bad deal for gamers' when their own Beta is a worse deal for gamers. Looking at their own service, how can you their reasoning for passing on access as genuine? Clearly they did it because it competes with their own offering, not because it is a bad deal. I don't mind a company speaking their mind, but why not tell the truth? We passed on EA because we want to do our own thing so that we can make money.

As far as the value of EA's service, if you typically buy a lot of EA content each year, the service will pay for itself. So it may not be good for you, but for fans of EA titles, it's unarguably a good deal, as it will save them money. Paying for it on top of live isn't a bad thing if it means your spending LESS on software overall...

[TheFanboySlayer]

I don't think Sony was bashing EA Access at all they just said their reason for not allowing their service on the system was that they thought it was a bad deal...in no way were they saying "This service is sucks".

Its like ordering food. someone recommends you buy some pasta or something but you think that won't be enough to fill you up lol...you didn't say the pasta or whatever sucks lmao

[Chevalier]

The 'truth' as we know it is from a skewed point of view with bias. No one yet knows the full details enough to justify either point. Basing an argument on very limited info of the inside dealings and very far reaching implications during a beta is misinformed based on lack of information and idiotic. Your reaching to make your conclusion based on a beta.

If a year from the service began and every major studio started their own access program and things got fragmented I will say it's a terrible idea. Just imagine no netflix, except instead of the majority of the big studio's decided to have their own version of netflix? With separate subscriptions. Want to watch Disney/Marvel - buy subscription, want Lord of the Rings/Batman - buy a Warner bros. subscription etc.

So until more time has passed and we see how it shakes out it's jumping the gun a bit. Also it may be hypocritical to you, but, I could say based on context so are you. You haven't provided any info to support your argument and make it seem like Sony hasn't received their share of criticism yet there are all those links proving otherwise. We can judge 'value' when we've seen all the offerings and pricing.

" . Looking at their own service, how can you their reasoning for passing on access as genuine? Clearly they did it because it competes with their own offering, not because it is a bad deal"

It's clear?! How so? Do you have a list of all the studio's that will be involved in the final product? For all you know PS Now launches and they have 2K games, Ubisoft, Konami, Capcom, Square Enix, Sony's etc., and we end up with a netflix of games. Unless you know something we don't? It would be like me passing judgement on a 9 course meal based on the appetizer and NO knowledge of what the actual 9 dishes are.

" As far as the value of EA's service, if you typically buy a lot of EA content each year, the service will pay for itself. So it may not be good for you, but for fans of EA titles, it's unarguably a good deal, as it will save them money."

I don't so it's a terrible deal. So before your argument 'widely' regarded and now it's just EA customers?

Are EA customers only flocked on Xbone? This is only being offered to a small group of people. If it were available across all Xbox platforms then it'd support your argument more. As it stands I doubt just over 4 million Xbone users is representative of your typical EA customer.

Again stop assuming things and reaching based on limited information, for all we know a year from now PS Now launches and it turns out to be a netflix of games and EA decided to exclude themselves and it turns out terrible. Or EA started something worse and no gaming netflix occurs because all the studios have their own subscriptions because of EA's setting a precedent.

[mhunterjr]

@chevalier

Again, I have never said, implied, or otherwise suggested that Sony has not receive criticism. I said its hypocritical of Sony to levy criticism towards EA's Beta service, when their Beta service is actually guilty of the criticism that they are levying. The would have been better suited to say "we want to offer the only service in town" instead of giving a BS reason for not allowing their customers the CHOICE.

And your right PSNow could end up being the netflix of gaming, but right now it's in Beta. And the beta isn't a very good deal for gamers. Likewise, EAs offering is in beta, and it currently represents a good deal to EA fans ok xbox one. I'm not assuming things based on limited information, any more than Sony did when then passed on EA.

[Chevalier]

Sony doesn't think it's a good deal and yes we get they have their own similar service, but, I don't think it's a great deal. Hypocritical or not the truth may be bad for consumers in the end. Hypocrisy doesn't make it any less true.

The fracturing of EA from storefront is not good for consumers and it is a valid comment regardless of whether you think their is bias or not. You think it's a good deal to pay for access to some discounts and playing older games? Great. But not everyone like subscription models and for good reason.

I think it may lead to publishers pulling content to get you to buy the prescription. If you don't have the prescription you don't have access to that content pack etc. Just look at how they've pulled all their content from Steam? Origin is garbage and now they have purposely made it unavailable to a huge PC base from pulling all their new products from Steam. EA left the mall your referring to they have set up shop next door and are charging to get in the door.

Next is they pull all their content from PSN and Live if they get a foothold. Then what's to stop Ubisoft, Activision pulling their content from Steam and their sales? Nothing.

Let's just assume every major company has their own subscription and storefront rather than crowding into the mall and each has exclusives ONLY if your a member. Should I have to potentially own 10 subscriptions to get all the content I want from Deep Silver, 2K, Konami, Activision, Ubisoft, Sony, Microsoft, EA, Bethesda, Capcom, Nintendo? No, but, that is a possibility that may come from this. I don't see that as a good thing for customers do you?

This was quite well put by the blog:
http://n4g.com/user/blogpos...

[mhunterjr]

@chevalier

Let be preface this rebuttal by noting that I'm working with the assumption that MS will allow other companies (gaming or otherwise) to open their own storefronts on the xbox live marketplace, as evident by the GoPro, Dominoes, and EA Access apps present today.

I think other publishers will take advantage of the opportunity to open their own storefront, and I think it will benefit gamers.

"Not everyone likes subscription models, and for good reason". True. But EVERYONE likes having options. This is just another way to get contents, and for some people, it will be the cheapest method. Dont want the sub? You can still go to the store or download it from the MS store at regular price.

"I think it may lead to publishers pulling content to get you to subscribe". that's just conjecture. But even if it does happen, competition will handle that situation. Let's say EA does pull this stunt, but another publisher with a similar Access program promotes the fact that they don't do that kind of thing. Which publisher would get the good press and subsequently the support from customers? That pressure from the other publisher would force a change in behavior, in the same way Sony forced a change in Microsofts paywall behavior.

"Next they start pulling the content from PS+ and Gold" and? That would mean that Sony and Microsoft would have to find more creative ways to satisfy their customer, and couldn't just rely on 3rd parties to make their service justifiable. maybe it would mean 1st party exclusives would get discounted more quickly, maybe gold and ps+ would become even cheaper... Competition is a good thing.

"Let's assume each publisher has their own subscription" why should we assume that? A subscription model is just one possibility. Maybe Ubisoft store would give out a free game based one achievements you unlock in their games, maybe Activisions store would give you free DLC passes when you buy a game on launch day, maybe 2k's store will give you points towards a new game everytime you buy one. Maybe Amazon could get a store front, and sell games from all of these publishers at a discount to Prime account holders. Their is an infinite number of ways publishers could try to fight for our attention. And as a customer you could pick and choose between all of them, or you could get your games the way you've been doing it. you are too blinded by the worst case scenario to see the potential.

[Chevalier]

"A subscription model is just one possibility. Maybe Ubisoft store would give out a free game based one achievements you unlock in their games, maybe Activisions store would give you free DLC passes when you buy a game on launch day, maybe 2k's store will give you points towards a new game everytime you buy one"

It's still a possibility. As I've said before just look at EA pulling content from Steam and going their own way. By your logic if everyone had a site like Origin there would somehow come to be more competition and prices magically come down. Then how come their are much better deals with all publishers together on Steam vs. Origin?! They're not bothering because the content is ONLY available on Origin and did they discount anything? NOPE. They save on delivery/shipping and also not printed disc/case and have we seen that passed on to buyers or to make product cheaper or entice previous buyers? NOPE. Every cent ends back with EA. The 'service' your paying for pays forward any discount they 'give' you.

Your mall analogy doesn't even make sense as I've pointed out and your example of Amazon? Terrible, they're one of the top 5 internet companies in the world and make a ton of money, they don't need to make a storefront or App, their website is more then enough and guess what?! I don't pay an access fee to get on www.amazon.com for yearly access.

"Maybe Ubisoft store would give out a free game based one achievements you unlock in their games, maybe Activisions store would give you free DLC passes when you buy a game on launch day, maybe 2k's store will give you points towards a new game everytime you buy one. Maybe Amazon could get a store front, and sell games from all of these publishers at a discount to Prime account holders. Their is an infinite number of ways publishers could try to fight for our attention."

That's a lot of 'maybe's', is that some kind of argument?! Really maybe? Why would a company that has a strangle hold on their own product give you back anything? Is EA's Origin giving discounts on products? NOPE. Discount on preorders? NOPE. Discount for previous purchase? NOPE. Those discounts of 10% they saved on not having to make a physical media print or shipping cost and you've paid it forward with the membership fee.

The point is I shouldn't have to have a subscription these things, EA already gave us first expansion on Battlefield 4 China Rising for preordering at EB, did I pay for the right to get that? NOPE. I put down $5 preordered and could cancel anytime. By your logic I should pay a Gamestop membership fee of $30 for the right to order and get that DLC?! Really?!

You open your argument with an assumption

""I'm working with the assumption that MS will allow other companies (gaming or otherwise)"

then say to me:

"why should we assume that?"

So you can make assumptions then I shouldn't make assumptions of my own? Uh What?!

Microsoft won't just 'allow' them to do whatever, it's THEIR network, EA is paying them for that use. Guess who the costs for paying Microsoft get passed onto?! The consumer ends up paying that cost.

[NYC_Gamer]

What about giving people the option to decide for themselves?

[BitbyDeath]

Wouldn't be an option, read my post above.

[abc1233]

I really hope people aren't buying into this BS of them not offering it because they have the consumer in mind. If EA offers this service and it's successful, other companies will follow along, which won't be great for Sony's own subscription services.

[Spotie]

And you think that'll be good for us consumers? If every publisher has a $30 plan? Activision, Ubisoft, Square-Enix, Capcom, all charging for their own games. How does that sound better than getting games from all of them for one fee?

[abc1233]

Where did I say that this becoming the standard is good for consumers? I'm saying that Sony's primary motivation in this is their own subscription service. What is good for consumers is having options, which Sony is denying. If consumers feel that this is good value then it'll succeed, if not then it'll crash and burn, as it should be.

[MrBeatdown]

"which won't be great for Sony's own subscription services."

Services which we will be paying for anyway.

Services which no longer offer games from publishers who keep games exclusive to their own services.

That sure as hell isn't good for us. It's great for publishers. That's about it. Options aren't always in the consumer's best interest.

This is going to be the online pass all over again. EA sees a way to cash in, yanking their games off Plus and GWG to put on their own service, every publisher follows suit, and we get screwed in the end, stuck paying even more for something that once came free with what we were already paying for.

I'm glad at least Sony passed on it. DLC, season passes, online passes... once publishers see an idea succeed, they've got to milk it for every penny they can.

[maniacmayhem]

I'm with Mr. Beatdown on this. If Sony and EA's service proves to be successful we can expect a lot more big dev/publishers following in their footsteps.

I already mentioned in the past that PSNow was the foundation towards an all digital future. I am sure that it will be happening sooner than later.

[Corpser]

Exactly, don't see the value? Don't subscribe! That 10% off all EA digital games/DLCs alone is worth $30 a year to me, not worth it to you? It's optional!

[BattleTorn]

$30 really isn't much value to justify really.

But im still not seeing it for me, only value is the $5 I'd save on BF Premium.

Otherwise if I start buying EA titles Digital. (Not a sport game fan at all)

[PRock10]

BattleTorn. Might not be value to you but it is to some people. Why can't that be their decision and not yours and it shouldn't be Sony's.

[MrBeatdown]

@PRock10

There is no real value in it.

The 10% off is off standard prices. I read yesterday the discount don't even stack with a sale on EA games currently running on XBL. It's a discount that's only good if you're not getting a better deal for free.

Everybody seems to be in agreement digital versions of retail games should be cheaper. EA's trying to get us to pay for that. The standard pricing is absurd to begin with. It's $60 to buy Battlefield 4 or NFS on PSN, despite them being 9-10 months old. It's far less on Amazon any day of the week.

It's like a going out of business sale. 10% off everything in the store! What they don't tell you is the liquidators jack up everything to full price, so you think you're getting a deal when you're not.

And in the past year, Plus has gotten Battlefield 3, Kingdoms of Amalur, Dead Space 3, and in August, Crysis 3. Four good, recent EA games.

There's already a system in place for EA to offer their games for free, yet still make money off of them.

EA is essentially attempting to charge $30 for perks that are things we're already getting, and things we should be getting for free.

I'm glad Sony is saying no to it. Imagine if all publishers followed suit, the same way they did with EA's online pass. Before you know it, we're not getting third party game discounts via Plus, or demos for free. We're paying EA, Activision, WB, and Capcom for the "luxury" of reasonable digital pricing.

Choice isn't always a good thing. What next? We going to insist Sony let EA use Origin services for their online games, not PSN? We going to let EA games operate their multiplayer via their own paywall?

Is Sony the bad guy for making every game utilize PSN for multiplayer, so they can make all the money?

There's a reason EA is doing this. They can make more money off Access than Plus or GWG. But it doesn't necessarily benefit us. Just like the online pass, which started out as Project $10... bonus content for new buyers. "Choice". It ultimately didn't benefit us. It was just an inconvenience for us, having to put in a code to access standard features in our new games. It benefited them.

[Athonline]

Choice = less potential revenue. Sony, Microsoft, etc are all companies.

For me the £20 annual fee sounds about OK! It means I can sell my Fifa 14 copy for £20-25 and with that money get the subscription for "free" for a year, without loosing access to Fifa.

The real question is: Will it be a good value a year after? Will they add more games to the vault? I wouldn't mind waiting 8-12 months for a game to "enter the vault collection" and get it within the subscription.

[trouble_bubble]

EA has been in bed with MS for a while. From Mass Effect1 to Titanfall1. They probably had no aim of wanting/needing this on PS in the first place. It's like blaming Sony for MIcrosoft's COD contract with Activision, or the EA online pass and Origin experiment. It's just publishers looking out for themselves

[Ihatetrolls76]

They went to sony and offered the service sony turned it down seems like they wanted it on ps and xbox. Sony is as greedy as any other company there not the good guys looking out for you they will bend you over and take it from you while all the time you will be thanking them and I'm not as blind to think for one second ms doesn't do the same thing

[aquamala]

I would have subscribed just for the 10% off EA stuff. give me the option Sony

[imt558]

I smell good PS+ free games lineup and sales for August. :) That will be good Sony's response.

Anyway, quote from article :

“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..."

200% up! WOW!

[riverstars86]

PS+ is required for online multiplayer. This isn't surprising in the least.

[G20WLY]

PS4's FTP games have free online multiplayer.

[joeorc]

Why do people keep saying PS+ is required for online multiplayer? Because on the PS4 there is free 2 play online multi-player gaming. DCUniverse ,Soon to be added Planetside2 .etc so no you can still play online multiplayer gaming without the requirement of PS+

[skulz7]

Thank you Sony :) This Access thing is bullshit

[kneon]

If it's successful then this could really get stupid, we'll end up with subscription services from ubisoft, Activision etc.

I can live with a platform specific subscription, but developer specific subscriptions is going too far.

[Mikelarry]

Activision is the one that scares me the most, you cant get access to this map pack because although you have paid $60 for the game $30 for season pass you have not subscribed to activision early access

[mcstorm]

Yeah I posted the same thing yesterday but I think this is the way gaming could go and I think we are now seeing the push for digital service only on console. I do find it funny that MS kind of did this with the xbox one at the beginning and everyone kicked off but now everyone is looking to bring in their own service.

If done right it could be a good thing having subscription gaming but it all depends on the pricing of all the services and I also think the smaller developers could be the big losers in this as people will over look some of their games because they sign up to EA and AV for the YoY games.

I have not got a clue how this will turn out in the end but it will be interesting to see what happens.

[jkendrick]

^Excellent point sir.

If Microsoft came up with something that will compete with PSnow then that would be
Understandable, but this is EA, why would I want to pay another subscription for ea games. Boy look what happened when dlc was introduced, gaming is going into a direction we all will be afraid of if all publishers decide to do this.

Soon it will be the only way to play games is through subscriptions.

[Slevon]

Thank you sony for telling what to like/do :) I couldnt have made the decision to not subscribe on my own

[MysticStrummer]

It represents good value for people who think it's a good value.

Deep, I know. ; )

On a related note, it's funny how gamers keep voting EA "worst company" yet still make them the #1 next gen publisher by buying their products. Talk about mixed messages, but one message makes EA money so why would they try to do anything about the other? EA Access should go over well with fans of their games, but I wonder if this will finally get EA out of "worst company" status.

[Baka-akaB]

It can just mean that the people against them and voting for the title , are vastly outnumbered by the people that need their games

[MysticStrummer]

True, it just seems odd but you're right. Two extremes that aren't necessarily related at all.

[Athonline]

I think Activision Blizzard is the biggest publisher nowadays.

What I don't get is that people vote EA "worst company" over banks, oil companies, law firms, patent trolls, etc etc... and people seems to forget that micro-transactions, season passes and DLCs were not EA's original ideas. Ubisoft and their million pre-order bonuses/editions is as bad, if not worse than EA in my eyes.

[MysticStrummer]

http://n4g.com/news/1503948...

I'm just assuming that article was correct, and it's only referring to the west, but EA isn't being treated as a "worst company" candidate by gamers overall. Activision will definitely cut into that percentage as the generation goes on though.

I wholeheartedly agree that EA is nowhere near the worst company, and that much of what they do is done by other publishers.

[Athonline]

@MysticStrummer

The issue is that most people read one thing on the net and keep it going in comments/ posts.

I.e. The Internet Explorer is nowhere as slow as it used to be now, but still people make jokes how slow it is.

For me Ubisoft and Zenimax-Bethesda are the worst publishers.
The first for all the extra DLCs, pre-order bonuses, various editions and yearly franchises. The second for being the company that brought us in-disc and small, overpriced DLCs and for all the lawsuits Zenimax is doing -which is understandable for a company run by an ex-lawyer.

[CBaoth]

You know what, it was a stroke of genius for EA regardless if the program fails or not. In the matter of 30 seconds, after the online community digested this PR release, roughly a quarter of us instantly liked EA again!

I find the more revealing and provocative question underlining this announcement is the unofficial acknowledgement of Origin as a massive commercial failure. It's obvious the grand ambition of EA was to capture a significant portion of the PC market away from Steam using their own properties as a vehicle to drive sales. Why choose a competitor in the form of MS when you already have a digital distribution client of your own?

[MysticStrummer]

"You know what, it was a stroke of genius for EA regardless if the program fails or not. In the matter of 30 seconds, after the online community digested this PR release, roughly a quarter of us instantly liked EA again!"

Yeah image improvement was the first thing I thought of when I saw the title. I imagine EA did very well with this deal, because MS wants to do anything they can to possibly boost sales.

[mananimal]

DRM strikes again!!!!

[xxx_Solid_Snake_xxx]

oh really ?? -_-

[Perjoss]

One thing worries me about this new EA thing, its totally fine if there exists something like this as an option, but what if companies decided to make a subscription model the only way to play their games, it would mean you never actually own any games. It will be sad times for gamers that love to build a collection.

[andibandit]

Perhaps, but I dont think it's a really big problem.
I guess that if someone has to own a game in order to enjoy it while playing it, I suppose it makes sense.

Would I have had less fun in Battlefield 4, if i had paid a monthly fee to play it....problably not.

[Perjoss]

I guess we are from different generations, I grew up playing systems like the atari 2600, the first playstation, super nintendo, sega consoles, I pretty much bought them all. And they all still work perfectly, I can grab any of the games that I bought all those years ago and play them today. It's nice to have something to show for the money you have spent.

[iistuii]

We need physical copies. I buy loads of games per year & most of them, especially SP only games I play, complete & sell on, giving me money to buy the next title. EA are just doing the old sports pass like before, but now making it sweeter by throwing in their back catalogue. For people like me I've played all their games, so if they have MP I still have them or if not I've finished & sold them, so for me it would be paying $30 to play Fifa for 5 days before release, no thanks.

[Gh05t]

We need physical copies like we needed a/8-track, tape, vinyl, CD, mini disk, laser disk, dvd and blu-ray.

Its just a progression of technology.

I remember when people said digital players will never work because people want their CD's. Then they realized that a digital copy fits into a tiny player.

Same is happening with books and eReaders. I personally still like my hard copy of the books I want but that doesn't mean its not more convenient to have all the books I own on one tablet.

What about Netflix and then Netflix streaming ruining Hollywood Video and Blockbuster. I haven't put in a DVD in a long time because I have every DVD I own backed up as a digital copy and stream it through a htpc (much more convenient).

I understand people want to keep physical copies but this is the way things are progressing.

[DeadlyFire]

Subscription models for publishers are now cooking in the minds of Activision, 2K, Ubisoft, and so on. EA is giving them bad ideas and at least one of them likely will follow it up.

Fast forward 10 years then the subscription services say no downloads required. Just subscribe and play on the Cloud. They are hoping they can make 100% profit in the future without you ever touching a game disc.

[Imalwaysright]

If you think that publishers are greedy now that we're still able to have control over our games, just wait until this becomes the standard and publishers have ALL the power. We won't be able to anything but bendover or stop gaming altogether. Giving total control to publishers should be every gamer's nightmare. They will milk us dry.

[Ripco_Keller]

I'm surprised by this response. Personally I'm wary of EA Access, they wouldn't do this if it wasn't designed to make them more money than not having it. I'm sure that if you let your subscription lapse, you'll lose whatever content you bought through it, and I'm sure that people who don't pay for the program are going to miss out on content exclusive to EA Access. The only way to fight something like this and maintain your purchasing power is for the market as a whole to reject the system, and Sony has just closed the entirety of the playstation market off.

While I see Sony's response as a good thing, many short-sighted gamers are going to be miffed about not having the option to decide for themselves, and some of them will be multi-plat gamers and are going to start buying all of their EA games on a platform which offers an EA Access subscription, ultimately hurting Sony. I'm sure Sony knows this, and while I agree with them, I'm again surprised they're willing to take one on the chin to oppose it.

[kingdip90]

I agree, EA are not going to want to put their newer games and games that are still selling on this service in an effort to not to loose those sales to their own service. This means it will likely be games that I can get from gamestop for a couple of dollars in the bargain bin.

It sounds like a good idea until you really think about it, if people have to pay for xbox live and then have to pay EA extra for this service because they don't understand that buying these 4 games for 30 dollars combined at gamestop rather than the 60 bucks a year you pay on this subscription plan then the are getting the short end of the stick.

Businesses are out to maximize profit, all this service offers is convenience. You pay extra to not have to drive to gamestop. Sony are correct that is poor value for gamers.

[bobsmith]

well i almost bought madden 25 for 25 dollars with their ps plus sale like last week. could get fifa 14 and bf4 for a yr for 5 dollars more pretty good deal actually
i dont care about keeping just want to play while wait for other games

[DJustinUNCHAIND]

Yes. Because value to the PlayStation gamer means $5 for 4 hours as opposed to $5 for 30 days.

[MasterCornholio]

I was expecting it for the PS4 as well but I guess Sony doesn't want it for some reason.

As for me I won't judge the service until its out which is what I'm doing with PSnow.

I just hope EA titles continue to release on Games with Gold otherwise you have to pay an additional subscription for EA games which wouldn't be a good thing.

[from the beach]

Wow, let's keep an eye on this one..

[modesign]

playstation plus already has EA titles, are they titles that you would play over and over again, maybe a couple but overall probably not,

[Onenyte]

Considering EA showed sweet nothing at E3?

Who gives a shit...

[Sm00thNinja]

TITANFALL 2 Xbox XCLUSIVE CONF1RM3D /sarcasm. But really this represents a much better value than the current PSNOW model what gives? Sony getting cocky again lol. Although maybe the final PSNow prices will truly reflect the better bargain. No matter what way you slice it what gives Sony? Kind of a big deal if publisher subscriptions skip Playstation

[Goku781]

I dont really play EA games at all so yeah, I guess thats true for this Player.

[iistuii]

It does actually make me think about the PSnow price model. I mean you get to play the new games for 5 days before release then the EA back catalogue you get full access (not DLC) for $30 a year which is what PSnow charges for one game rental for 30 days.

[MrPerfect813]

So i can pay 30 bucks for the year and get Madden and battlefield until their next annual releases are ready. And other ea titles also. At minimum to me they sounds better than dropping 60 for Madden then testing it in for the next edition

[WeAreLegion]

You...and many others...read it wrong. You don't get the newest games for free. You get 10% off the digital copy of the newest games. You get a handful of old titles for free that are changed out every once in awhile though.

[SliceOfTruth888]

Rofl I think YOU are the one who read wrong...

[marlinfan10]

ps nows a worse deal (as of now) so idk what they're talking about.

[flappersack]

Brilliant! If the companies fight more and get more competitive, this is good for the consumer!

[Baka-akaB]

Not that i disagree with the sentiment expressed , what's with the "PSnow's current prices" argument ? There is no "current ps now" , it's in beta and testing stage , and in a flux . For all we know the final version will be far better , or worse

[Gh05t]

PS now "does" exist in one form or another (Ive seen it used) whether in beta or not its still in existence. There is also pricing for what form of existence there is of PS Now. Based on the "Current" existence of what PS Now is this is a better deal. Whether that changes or not is only for the future but as of this MOMENT in time with the current existence of services this shows a better value. And Sony who controls the current existence of PS Now is saying that its not a good value. This is the problem. Why doesn't PS Now "flux" to lower prices yet, whats stopping them.

[gamer7804]

It'll be competing with Sonys playstation now. That's why

[Sarobi]

How? If anything it competes with PS+

[gamer7804]

competes with both, both are paying money for temporary access to a game or game collection.

[NegativeCreep427]

So just a week ago EA goes from being the bane of every "true gamers" existence and being the worst company in America to Now all of a sudden EA is the greatest third-party publisher out there and they offer great value...hmmm I wonder why? Maybe Microsoft's strategy to just throw money in all directions to third-party publishers really is working. At least in restoring their sycophantic fanbase's attitude about the Xbox One.

[gamer7804]

The service is overpriced yah, but the option is nice to have if a game pops on the service you want to try.

[shadowsmoke36]

And all it will do is for now to have a subscription which most people want anyways and it probably will be around or just under that price. If the happens again then Sony would have undercut microsoft and EA yet again. See titanfall for more info.

[Ryan741]

Its all about options and Sony just denied their customers a choice, strange move.

[Onenyte]

Not if having that choice of option(ea) devalues the best option out there for your console of choice may it be ps+ or GwG, that would be stupid.

Seriously, people just think its great because they see low £/$.

Supermarkets have been doing this for years .

[Ryan741]

But they say they stand for the players, and now its all business. Really disappointed in Sony about this. The new slogan should be "For the players, when it suits us".

[MegaRay]

I think MS bought it for exclusivity, or maybe a timed one.

[shadowsmoke36]

Dude this is a direct response to ps now which will probably force sony to add a subscription to now for around the same price or just under that price and if that happens microsoft is done.

[shadowsmoke36]

Dude have you ever thought about this one fact. Lets look at the facts. This will give a 10% discount for new games on the store sony already does this with plus then it is cheaper for the retail copy anyways. Second does this not force sony hand in making ps now a subscription for probably the same price or less? Third we are talking about only EA games and mostly older games. This was a response by microsoft to force sony hand once again and we will have to see what sony does but my guess is a subscription service for the same price on now. Mark my words if that happens then this will be a afterthought. Now would crush the competition and it will show that microsoft has nothing to compete with it and it actually could move even more systems. So don't fret from what you hear first cause sony is listening we just have to hope we make a loud enough voice for them to do this.

[StifflerK]

It sounds interesting - on average I might buy maybe one EA game per year - but EA access gives me access to multiple games.

So long as they have a decent selection of games it might be worth it.

Also , I wouldn't be surprised if other publishers started doing things like this.

[VP37]

Errm...yeah...EA offered to let Sony in on the deal, and Sony said no. That's complete BS and Sony PR damage control.

[Clown_Syndr0me]

Oh if Sony said it, it must be true.

Can people not form their own opinions these days? Sheep comes to mind.

[iistuii]

On PS now, are the beta testers actually paying money at the beta prices ? I'm just curious as obviously being a Beta your probably getting poor performance or bugs whilst you test it out, so not getting a full bug free experience & paying for the privilege....

[Sarobi]

Why would Sony say no?: Because they aren't interested in putting a service that provides games that isn't going through them. They have PS+ going for a reason, so you'd expect that they'd want EA to put their games through that.

[Steptoe]

Much rather have ps+ anyday. With this your stuck with just ea games. If you love all EA games then great but otherwise i don't see the point.

[TearsOfARapper]

PS+ is not what should be compared. PS Now? Yes.

[Manubiggs]

this is from a "Sony Representative" so it is not the official response - unless the representative is named, I dont trust the source

[jcnba28]

Sony are getting arrogant again. Last time I checked PS Plus wasn't optional to play online. Also how is $4.99 a month to play a bunch of games not better than paying $4.99 just to play one game on PS Now for a few hours?

[kenshiro100]

There's not even a solid source for this comment.

[jcnba28]

Those are the prices for PS Now right now in BETA.

http://www.vg247.com/2014/0...

[Haki1112]

you give them proof and they still disagree lol

[kenshiro100]

I was talking about this article but nice try. We don't know if Sony actually said this. It sounds like flame bait to rile people up over nothing.

[Ginesis]

That Sony salt lol Sony didn't need to respond to EA Access news, they and some of their fans seem bitter. Maybe you should watch who you take shots at during your press conferences!

"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."

So what about that PS Now service? It's definitely not free lol

So it the Plus membership and the price to stream games off of PS Now...that's not one low price.

[WitWolfy]

Sony is much better value for money I get free games for my PSV, PS3 and PS4 each month. Go suck it EA

[coolbeans]

?

It sounds about the same as the prices I've seen for the PS Now Beta.

[OtakuDJK1NG-Rory]

actually worth $5 for 4 hrs I think

[coolbeans]

Yikes...that's a greater disparity than I remember.

[BobBelcher]

Sony... It's called "options."
It's not a forced service, so perhaps you should let your consumer base decide for their selves whether or not it's a good deal.

[TimeSkipLuffy]

It is not really an option if you want to play those games. Before those games could appear on PS+ or Gold! Now they demand $5 each month more to let you play those title...

before = free (even if it is only from time to time we get an EA title)

now = + $30 a year (and we don't even know how many games will be added or if games get removed)

[TimeSkipLuffy]

I hope we still get EA titles though! But it is move pro gamer. Just think about it!!!!

If we all jump on this every publisher would do this and we get retail games only with adding further subscriptions to our current subscription (PS+/Gold).

Do you really want that?

At first I thought uuhhh cool but the more I think about it the more I see what they are doing. Good marketing! This method allows the publisher to get more money than they will by giving it away for Sony or Microsoft and their IGC!

Please don't be fooled. As gamers we should get these games with PS+ or Gold! Not through an additional sub!

The only way I see this will be a great addition is if they let us know how many games exactly will be available and if games get removed over time or games will be added? Will they be added on a regular basis like 1-2 months?

Just be careful! It sounds cool but you could end up hurting your current subscription with that little trick they are doing here.

[madpuppy]

Knowing EA, it will mostly focus on it's crappy Sports games. I wouldnt pay a dollar every ten years for access to sports games.

[kryteris]

I am guessing that EA did not want to agree with adding their titles to PS Plus, and that they would rather do their own service. Control the profits, this is exactly what they have done with origin.

[hermsgerms]

Saw this on IGN: "Surely the best value for the consumer is choice? I have to agree 100%. If I buy 4 EA games a year it will pay for itself, plus have a backlog from EA as well.

[OtakuDJK1NG-Rory]

Yet they charge $5 for 4 hrs streaming

[TheRedButterfly]

Sounds more like they are pushing PS+ than anything else.

Also, that 200% figure probably has something to do with the fact that they started requiring the subscription to play games online, as apposed to the "play online for free" method that they used for the PS3.

[XStation]

“We evaluated the EA Access subscription offering and decided that it does not bring the kind of value PlayStation customers have come to expect.”

In other words: We don't have the money to pay for this service. (Not trying to go against them, but i think that's the only real reason they are saying this.)

[TimeSkipLuffy]

How many PS+ subscribers would complain if they had to pay more money to get EA titles? We got EA titles with PS+ for free for quite a while now. Now we subscribers need to pay extra for games of a certain publisher?
Next will be UbiSoft who wants $50 a year?

Don't you all get it? For most gamers this means you pay your subscription because you like PS+ free games or Games for Gold or need multiplayer + you pay extra to get certain titles from different publishers.
And PS+ / GfG is left only with indies!

I speak as a gamer here!

[XStation]

"We got EA titles with PS+ for free for quite a while now."

Damage control and more damage control. You're acting like EA has no NEW games coming. Also, it's more than just getting games for $5... you can get a 10% discount off games and you can play new games early before release.

[Phoenix76]

I have a serious question to ask? Well actually several in one :-)

1. How many games will ea be offering upon launch of this service?
2. What games will be offered on this service?
3. How long will those games remain available to subscribers before being replaced with new games?
4. Will there be time limits on how long you can play a game for?

[TimeSkipLuffy]

This is exactly what we need to know BEFORE we can decide if this is just a trick to milk more money from us gamers OR if it really adds value to our existing subscription!

[OC_MurphysLaw]

1) 4 at launch: madden, fifa, Bf4 and Pegg Le 2
2) access as long as you are subscriber from what I know. You download the games not streamed.
3) time limits only on new demos but progress on demos will carry over to retail game.

[OC_MurphysLaw]

Reading between the lines... Sony wants PS now to be only service like it on PS4. Spend your money on Sony not EA and to ensure that we won't allow the option.

[MegaSackman]

Hey, remember when EA was the worst company in the world? gee, time surely goes by.

[Haki1112]

Remember when gamers actually played games instead of worrying about resolutions and what paid service is better? gee, time surely goes by.

[TimeSkipLuffy]

WHY the HELL would gamers want to pay for more subscriptions rather than one???

We already got games for free with PS+ at least. Might also be the case for GfG now or in the future. So why should we pay if there are chances we get those games with our current subscription?

WHY?

Also we know nothing about yet to really say if it will be worth it. It will be great IF

1. once a game is in the vault it stays in the vault
2. 1-2 games will be added every 1-3 month

[Slevon]

Even the ps4 subreddit is saying sony is being stupid, Then you come here and its thank you sony's all around.

[Haki1112]

you didn't know? Sony does no evil in the eyes of their flock.

[1nsomniac]

Sometimes I'm not sonys biggest fan when it comes to the decisions they make but realistically this is 100% the right move. Realistically if EA got away with it across the board, you think Ubisoft wouldn't follow then Activision & then everybody else.

For once this is a decision made purely for the good of its customers using smart forward thinking. It has to be commended no matter which way you look at it!

[Bennibop]

This is a clever move by EA as games such as FIFA 14, Madden 14 and NHL 14 have no value to them when the 2015 versions come out.

Not sure why people are comparing this to either Steam or PS Plus as it is completely different. I do understand why Sony is turning away from it as PS Plus offers greater value (admittedly if you own Vita, PS4 and PS3) but at some point full games will make it on to PS4 (as not a big enough catalogue yet) and the PS3 options will be reduced and PS4 increased.

[il-JumperMT]

This is just a flamebait with no proof

Sony Representative told me by e-mail that Half-Life 3 will be PS4 exclusive released December 2014.

See what i did there?

[Predaking77]

I will tell you the two letters that instanly made me ignore this service:

EA

Simple as that and I'm glad Sony said no to EA.

[Dewitt]

I downloaded BF4, FIFA 14, and Madden 25 for 2.50 a month, that plus future games that come into the vault, would guess Rivals and PVZ soon. Plus get every EA game 5 days early and a free trial. Plus 10% off all EA games and DLC. For 2.50 a month I don't see how anyone can sayt his is not a good deal.

[bleedsoe9mm]

i'm with you , i signed up immediately $30 with 4 games . the discounts probably will mean i will play new ea games on the xb1 instead of my ps4 .

[hello12]

Rubbish the deal is good value, sorry Sony. The only problem is you got a waiting period to play newer games. I can't see how you can go wrong with 30 dollars a year when Battlefield 4 and Fifa 14 are still priced at 59 dollars. With more games been added its a great deal.

I think this going to hurt Sony because Microsoft will be getting EA demos and betas 5 days before release. I think this rules out EA betas for PS4 not sure needs to be clarified by EA!

[DanteVFenris666]

Besides bioware does anyone Actually care about the crap they make?

[TearsOfARapper]

AKA: "We don't want competition for PS Now."

[MilkMan]

EA is always looking for ways to rape pockets. SONY, please keep this garbage out of the PS4 ecosystem, thanks.

[Ashlen]

My problem is with Sony's messaging.

They say that it's not a good value for the gamers so they aren't offering it. How about they offer it and let the gamers decide if it's a good value.

I think the truth is, it was competing with PSNow which costs 4.99 for 24 hour rentals and only offers laggy streamed games.

And I really have to say after reading the comments and seeing the disagrees it's really become obvious that there are a HUGE amount of blind Sony supporters who will just agree with anything they say and defend every decision they make even when it doesn't benefit them.

[Funky Town_TX]

You will get a ban for that comment. I will get a ban for mine.

[Haki1112]

lmfao you will get flagged for trolling then the ban comes into effect.

[DanteVFenris666]

Or it cost 15 for 3 months. Dude seriously you display the worst price option of now and go with it. The 24 hour costs are ridiculous, but the 3 month one ain't bad. Way cheaper then block buster used to be

[Onenyte]

It's like paying for plus twice.

But on a MUCH smaller scale

[CuddlyREDRUM]

80 pieces of DLC for Last of Us Remastered is?

[Pro_TactX]

I have been a PlayStation fan since the day the original PlayStation was released, but I take issue with Sony's stance here. It should be up to the customers to determine whether or not something has value to them.

[hiawa23]

I got the code for EA Access, looked at it and I certainly would not pay EA for that. Wouldn't pay for the Playstation service either as all my PS3 games I already own the disc or digital copy, and the performance wasn't good. Another reason why I don't get rid of consoles or games. I hope these services are not the new norm.

[Macdaddy71]

BS!!
Sony don't because Sony wants to F€€€k gamers with there PS Now!!! Point Blake bout it....

[jmac53]

This is just a roundabout way for MS and EA to bring back their DRM plans with gamers more incentivized to buy their games digitally. Paying $30 a year to get $6 off a new game and access to games that don't make EA money anymore.

[MoreRPG]

i don't see how paying $30 a year to have access to a buch of games is a bad thing for gamers. Even if i only buy one game from EA a year i rather pay $30 for the whole thing than $60 (or whatever the price is for the game) for one game. Let us choose was good for us Sony.

[Funky Town_TX]

No Sony tells us what to think.

[Mikeyy]

So this is the future? Paying $30 a year to each publisher to buy their games at a reduced price?

You have got to be kidding me. Xbox can have it, I don't buy 5 EA games per year so it won't pay off.

[DevilishSix]

It's EA so my advice to fellow gamers is to read the fine print on this service then see if it is still a good deal.

Personally EA has no titles I am interested in other then curiousity if the new Dragon Age will actually be good.

[xxjabberxx]

This is not a great value for me because I haven't bought an EA game since madden 2011. So in order for the service to pay for its self I would have to buy 5 games per year. 5 games X $6 from the 10% discount = $30. Let's face it madden has sucked in recent yes, I don't play fifa and BF...well its BF it sucks.

[Funky Town_TX]

Sony speaks and the crowd goes wild. "Value" is all an opinion when the two services don't parallel each other. Once this is made available for the PS4 Sony will change their tune. I don't have an X1, so it matters not to me ATM.

[Dirkster_Dude]

Considering that Sony probably also considers it to compete with PlayStation Plus and the Streaming service they plan to implement. Why would they want to compete when they don't have to in this case?

[ARESWARLORD]

Sony is going down is North America.

[ARESWARLORD]

lol just had to troll this BS

[typittt69]

Of course everyone here will defend Sony and every word they say. If it was Microsoft that denied the service all we would read right is how evil they are, forcing stuff down gamers throats, etc.... Hilarious

[mochachino]

I would appreciate if Sony would let me decide what I consider a good value.

Making decisions that close their system off and restrict content is BS.

[Codewow]

EA doesn't represent good value to anyone. We all know it's only a timed thing.. Sony shouldn't be talking about it because they will eventually have to defend themselves when they allow it on their system.

[jjonez18]

Having options never hurt anyone, Sony. As a playstation gamer I would have liked to at least try the EA Access program before I knock it.

In fact, EA Access would work better for someone with my views. I would play EA games but I would never spend a full 60$ on them. I don't buy BF4, FIFA, or Madden because I don't see the point of paying full price when the next iteration will be out in the next year. And 5/month or 30/year would net me all three as opposed to going without. Sony shouldn't talk about Value to the Playstation Gamer" unless the playstation gamer is addressed first.

End Rant.

[NeoGamer232]

Sony and EA have a real love/hate relationship.

I think EA is just ticked that Sony did not implement DRM in their console like X1 was going to do.

So, now they are striking back. And Sony is ticked that EA isn't showing up to support the best selling console so far this generation.

Personally, I have bought less games in the past year than at any other time over the past decade. Why? 1) There has been too many re-makes 2) Because I am waiting for the pricing models to be finalized longer term and will purchase based on the best value for my spending habits. I've done the math and EA Access is good value for my game purchasing habits.

Sony or EA does not make that decision for me. And if people think EA is going to continue to support PSN+ and GwG with their games I think they will be sadly mistaken. One of the reasons EA is probably doing this is to unrest control from console vendors. I expect other major publishers to follow suit.

[ghostface9]

No sony is saying all this and not brining it to their console because they dont want competition for their ps now service because their greedy.

[xxjabberxx]

Looks I'm not defending anyone. I'm just stating my opinion that I see no added value/benefit only because I don't like any EA game. That's just my opinion. Let's say I had the annual service $30 and I only bought 2 games, I'm actually paying about $15 more if a don't buy 5 games.

[ghostface9]

but you get access to free games the 4 they showed are worth around a 100 which is way more than the 30 dollars cost for the year plus there going to add more games.

[CptVimes]

Kind of ironic really when you consider the test Playstation Now pricing, but hey ho!

[DanteVFenris666]

No matter if I got all games free from ea, ea makes shit games. Just because it's half the cost doesn't mean it'll be good value. Ea to simple put it hasn't made one game I've enjoyed in the past 10 years. I'm not one to defend plus but plus is miles better you get far more then 1 publisher, and that publisher not even being. Good one. Ps+ you got everyone else

[ghostface9]

They said this because they didnt want competition taking away from psnow. Sony is so petty not giving gamers a choice. Sony fanboys say playstation is all about the gamers well sony just proved them wrong by not letting ea access onto the console. Lack of value is that a joke for the 30 dollars for the year you get 4 free games value around a 100 dollars and thats not including the discount off other games and more free titles that will be on there later. Playstation owners should be upset about this is pure greed move by Sony to keep away competition from there ps now service.

[xxjabberxx]

But those 4 games are shit games.

[typittt69]

Don't waste your bubbles trying to make a valid point. Sony can do no wrong

[Muzikguy]

I'm glad for this. I don't see he value in this either. I don't even buy EA titles let alone want to play old ones. I think I bought 4 EA games last gen.

[Izzy408]

But it's OPTIONAL. YOU make the decision whether you want to subscribe. This is pretty muck like netflix on your console.

I like the idea of having full access to a game for $5 just to try it out for a month or so, as opposed to spending $60 on a game i'll get bored of after a few weeks.

[Muzikguy]

I understand that it's optional. I don't see good from it though. I mean, EA is singlehandedly the worst gaming company IMO. They're just so darn greedy because they're so big. The same company that messed up Sim City, the Sims, introduced Origin, closes down servers quickly, releases games that are unfinished, and has a bad record with milking and DLC will NOT be looking out for what's best for us. They're going to find new ways to pad their pockets, pure and simple.

[Ra3030]

For me the EA Vault is interesting and if you buy a EA title the cost of the vault would be worth it in the 10% discount. And let's face it EA has a lot of titles. But let's not forget who is offering this deal and surely before long EA will find a way to screw it up or at least they'll be asking for more. Microsoft can have it as both EA and Microsoft are all about greed and deserve each other. Maybe together with the blind Xbox gamer they can still bring their DMR plans to the world......I'll wait for Sony to give me these EA titles for free like they'll be giving me the EA title Crysis 3 in 7 days....thank you Sony.

[Nicominoru]

(sigh) I'm actually glad Sony gave EA the middle finger in their response. I get tired of people acting like EA exist for any other reason other than to make profit.

[Chris12]

And Sony exist for? Don't be misguided in what all corporates exist for.

[dmeador]

This might be a huge mistake on Sonys part in the long run. If this service allows you to have all the big EA hitters for $30 a year? That is a great deal. Even though the vocal EA haters will complain, millions of gamers buy FIFA, Madden,and NCAA. If they add most of their other titles, this is a big deal.

[AutoCad]

LOL...
SONY im am just so glad you can make decisions for people without being anti consumer..

These comments by sony just made me not want a ps4 in the future..sorry.But if yall gonna cry foul on MSFT for not offering the option consumers ,cry foul on this too.

[mahmoods26]

It does sort of make sense. You'll be paying for two subscriptions and if it available on PS4 you won't get those games as part of Ps Plus

[beereal360]

No duh because playstation gamers can't get it Lmao

[MeliMel]

I dont think Sony should be downplaying EA Access they should have atleast give the PS owner an option. At the end of the day we are the ones that have the say wheter its a great service or not.

That being said I also think Sony was just thinking of the best interest for PS+ which is already a great service with great value and the upcoming PSNow service.

[S2Killinit]

well. if Sony's Now service is priced right, then that is totally correct. Tbh Im not interested in either personally. But i do see the value in having PSNow. The EA one though, I mean what games are going to be available. there really isn't too many EA can offer.

[victorMaje]

I dunno...How many games have EA published since 2012? I honestly forgot, can some1 please say

[NoeLennon]

Well i plan on buying Dragon Age, NHL and most likely the next BF game... So two more and the discounts alone have paid for the entire year. On top of that, 5 day early access, the Vault, The other mentioned games. Awsome deal for me.

Dont worry tho folks, sony will probably throw you some amazing games into plus to make it up to you guys... Like Knack maybe (in case you forget thats the launch title you all said was better then dead rising 3), or a new Dorky Dorky Universe game! rofl

Xboner out.

[SquillieDeeWilliams]

Dude, this post literally made a coworker and I lol, f'in great man, thank you sir!!!!

[P_Bomb]

Umm, PS+ just had dead space 3 from EA this month and Crysis 3 in Aug. Plus they got the BF Hardline beta first I believe. No one's missing anything yet, I assure you.

I'm not spending more money for sloppy seconds. Be my guest. Ain't buying 5 EA games just to break even either! I'm already even buying none. See ya til Mass Effect 4.

[Izzy408]

Lets cut the B.S. and be honest with ourselves for a second here. Sony made this decision to protect their interests, not their customers. They know if they add EA access, they'll loose a good chunk of customers from their PSNow service.

I thought Sony was all about giving customers more options? It's not like people will be forced to subscribe to EA Access, it's just an extra option that will be sitting there in case you ever want to try it out. Sort of like Netflix.

[HappyWithOneBubble]

I just hope this don't affect Sony and EA relationship. EA and MS seem to be doing more deals lately.

[JMyers]

What planet are some people living on?

PS now Prices are set by the publishers, not Sony.

PS+ still offers better value. 6 games across 3 platforms.

MS is doing this because games with gold is poor. Secondly, more EA money hatting and partnerships.

I will never suscribe to anything EA related.

Is this service behind the Gold Paywall? Do we know?

[Chris12]

So if Sony doesn't think it's good value for customers and PSNow prices are set by publishers, why doesn't Sony bin PSNow to protect it's customers? Blinkers off people, Sony is keen to empty your wallet as quickly as any other corporate.

If you're playing single player you don't need gold, just like any game.

[JMyers]

PSNow will eventually offer games across 3 generations. Not only is a subscription model defeating the purpose of games with Plus, it also means stacking subscriptions if other publishers start to do the same.

If you read the fine print of the service, there are some limitations of the service, where your 10% discount expires and so on. I'll let you read it for yourself.

[Chanogram]

Games with gold is poor? Have you compared the games offered for the month of august? I'd say they are pretty much equal in quality, if not quantity.

PS+
PS4: Road not Taken and Fez (2 smaller games)
PS3: Crysis 3 and Proteus
PSV: Metrico and Dragon's Crown

GwG:
XBox One: Crimson Dragon and Strike Suit Zero
Xbox 360: Motocross Madness and Dishonored

Looking at it objectively, and not as a fanboy, they aren't far off. Sure you get two more games, IF you have a Vita. Both offer one AAA older game, both offer some decent smaller games. And yes, Crimson Dragon and SSZero are decent, but not great.

I'm getting sick of reading about how much better the PS+ games are than Games With Gold.

Also, the sales on GwG are a lot better, at least in my experience. XBL changes their deals every week, and they are DEALS, not just a dollar or two off.

In the end, it's all subjective, and will probably change on a month to month basis as to which is better. The blanket statement that one is flat out BETTER than the other doesnt work anymore though.

As a note: I own both X1, PS4 and a Vita (and their older siblings).

[P_Bomb]

Plus has had some great deals recently. MgsV for 10bucks, Crysis 3 for 5 bucks, arkham origins and Lego marvel for 10 bucks right now. What are you talking about?

Crimson dragon is 56% on metacritic btw and strike suit is like 67%. Neither would even qualify for Plus as they're rated too poorly. Fez averages over 90% and Dragons Crown over 80%. Plus remains objectively better.

[JMyers]

Actually PS+ is far superior because consumers get six games, some with cross play, cross buy and cross save. The games MS are offering and the discounts were all previously offered by PS+ on the PS3, when comparing 360 games that is.

They are comparable this gen because this gen has just started. Don't forget the big games offered on the PS3, like Bioshock, Saints Row, etc.

In my opinion much better value and service. I haven't even mentioned vita games and great discounts.

[inf3cted1]

Sonys answer is more like "We didn't have enough money to accept this deal, so we blame it on EA "

[Lionalliance]

This is still EA guys, i bet they gonna pull off something later on.

[turdburgler1080]

Lol I knew it was because Sony was insulting EA at E3 and I even said they would probably put out some kind of PR response. Height of hubris=Sony.

[Kingoftherodeo]

lol don't try to downplay a good deal. 30 bucks for one year those first 4 games pay for the membership it self and more.. they didn't feel like asking for 5 bucks a month more from their costumers neither is xbox. xbox just gave them a choice not forced and guess what plenty of people jumping on it

[BTBuck1]

I think us gamers pay enough "Fee's" and DLC costs... how about throwing us a bone from time to time instead of ANOTHER cost to enjoy your products! Thank you Sony and Playstation for understanding this.

[OldDude]

This attitude of hurt Sony boys: "I hate EA games, this service sucks! Thank you Sony!"...

Yeah...
Mass Effect
Dead Space
Mirrors Edge
Dragon Age
Madden
Fifa
NBA Live
PGA Golf
Nascar
Battlefield
Crysis
PvZ
Titanfall (publisher only)
and more...

Yeah EA sucks and has terrible games. Thank you Sony, I love you! /s

I also see the DRM argument a lot here. Guess what, everyone has DRM or you could just copy the BluRay. PC gamers (millions of us) use Steam, Origin and more, but we aren't looking to buy used games. We actually support the developers, publishers and the industry. We get rewarded by cheaper prices and even evil EA lets you return a game for a refund if you don't like it. Try that at Gamestop if ever actually buy a new retail copy. They will give you $18 for your $60 game.

[Vantage]

Sony is telling you how to think. Sony has told you that you don't think it's a good value. You need to be trendy and follow orders or you won't fit in.

[OldDude]

Only in Sony land does no choice equal a good thing... BAAAAAH.

[Sparticus_1]

Of course Sony is going to be against it. This completely trashes the ps plus system. While xbox players will be getting good titles, ps plus members are left with indies and honestly, games of no value. The ps plus games for ps4 are CRAP. This all coming from someone who ONLY plays ps. From the original ps to the ps4, Ive owned them all and NEVER owned nor played an xbox. To me, this seems like a good deal for xbox users and it may sway people. I see alot of people cheering the ps plus games for ps4 but there has been nothing released for it Im interested in. Ps3 has some good stuff for plus...but ps4...not so much.

[CAB1802]

Playstation+Ea=Worst combination EVER!

[AgentSmithPS4]

EA is on a roll lately with all their annoyances. First the BF4 bugs, rubber banding, etc, then some OP premium weapons (pay to win), double XP etc for only premium, hardline, some bugs still not fixed, team balancing not fixed for multiple rounds in a row, this, etc it's too many to list.

I'm done with them and their nasty practices, at best I'll pick up their new games many months later for a lower price and after they've proven themselves and I won't buy any games with p2win after BF4.

[Tuxmask55]

Agreed.

[BabyTownFrolics]

let me sum it up

playstation = options good
xbox = options bad

n4g debate in a nutshell

[TomahawkX]

really hope this EA subscription thing bombs, they are just trying push their always online DRM agenda BS.

[CarterMonsta]

EA Access doesn't offer indie games. Of course Sony passed on it.

[Flames76]

Sony wants to rip off its gamers with playstation now and they know a sweet deal like EA has would hurt them.Still it turned out for the best they went with the big dog the X1 so this is gonna be awesome.Joining day one this is an amazing deal almost to damn good to be true.Phil spencer has turned everything around.Kinect removed makes made the X1 $399.Then sales doubled and profits for the xbox division are up again ending june while sony still suffers.X1 day one pre orders sold out in japan already and number 1 on amazon there.Launching in china on september 23 and 40 more countrys the same month.On top of all that now xbox owners gets EAs sweet deal $5 a month games.

[XBOXPS1]

30 A YEAR

[overrated44]

How does the PS4 "still suffer" if it still outsold the Xbox One? And the only thing that sold out in Japan were the "Limited Edition" consoles, hence the name given to that version of the Xbox one (see: limited).

[InTheZoneAC]

ea access is a ripoff

I remember being part of madden elite about 4-6 years ago and it gave you these exact same discounts. I don't play other ea sports games so I would never see these deals. I just remember it being a lot cheaper than this $30 add on...

With ea access you have to buy 5 full priced ea games to simply even out the price you paid for this. That is a bs deal. So what if you get 5 days early access, to get that access you have to still pay for the game in advance. So not only are they getting $30 now, they're collecting interest on all these guaranteed purchases of the future just so you can save $6 on each game...

And don't for one second believe any free game you get from them will be worthy. They'll probably try to send you a code to some old ps3/360 game that you probably don't want.

DON'T EVER compare this service to ps+. PS+ is a great value, no matter how hard to troll or attempt to ignore it.

[saber00005]

Interesting, but what games can EA bring to the table that aren't bad? I know there are a handful of AMAZING GAMES from EA (back in the day), but... :P

[Petebloodyonion]

My response to Sony!

Thank you Dear Sony for knowing what's best for me! I know that you don't understand why I want AAA games that push the envelop and justify a purchase of a ps4 system but at least you know what's good for me and what I should want!

[overrated44]

Since when did an EA game "push the envelope". I would say they consistently play it safe so as to not "push the envelope" too far and scare off people who just want shooty games.

[Petebloodyonion]

My comment wasn't about EA pushing the envelope
It was about the PlayStation Boss who doesn't Understand Why Some People Only Want to Play AAA Games.
( http://www.gamespot.com/art...
But they have no problems about making decision for me regarding Ea Access.

But since you ask about Ea game that pushed the envelope how about Mass effect?, Dead Space?, Mirror Edge?

[overrated44]

Yes, because Mirror's Edge was such a success. And the original Mass Effect was published by Microsoft Studios, before they were acquired by EA. Oh and Dead Space, those guys DID make 2 VERY good games while being published by EA...and then the third came out and was riddled with microtransactions and absurd DLC, and since that team has been moved on to create EA's newest attempt at taking down CoD: Battlefield. EA doesn't "push the envelope" they acquire studios that have good ideas and drain any life left within them. I just completely ripped your argument apart, so enjoy that and get your shit together.

[Petebloodyonion]

"Yes, because Mirror's Edge was such a success"
So I guess that game like Heavy Rain didn't pushed the envelope since it wasn't a commercial success!

"And the original Mass Effect was published by Microsoft Studios"
And please remind me why Mass effect #2 is considered one of the best game of the past generation? I don't recall MS involvement in this game that won tons of awards.

"Oh and Dead Space, those guys DID make 2 VERY good games while being published by EA"
You just said it made 2 very good games .....

"since that team has been moved on to create EA's newest attempt at taking down CoD: Battlefield."
I find it ironic that as big fan of COD I'm called a noob gamer or a causal FPS player by N4G and that the real shit is Battlefield but hey suddenly now suck compare to COD. (never mentioned that BF is stellar game but just saying)

" EA doesn't "push the envelope" they acquire studios that have good ideas and drain any life left within them."

WOW you nailed it! Nothing to say except that I could say the same for Sony with Naughty Dog, MS with Rare, Activision with Blizzard, Etc.

"I just completely ripped your argument apart, so enjoy that and get your shit together."

You just did for sure, you remove Mirror Edge cause it's not a commercial success but crap on a huge commercial success like Mass effect 2 cause the 1st game (that actually wasn't a huge hit) wasn't published by EA as for Dead Space
If I apply your logic, it would mean that Batman Arkham didn't push the envelope cause the last game was made by a B team,riddled with bugs and shoddy DLC.
and lastly you acknowledge that Deadspace is made by some EA team (old EA Redwood) but goes on a rant about How EA can't create and need to buy studio while of course forgetting game 1 and game 3 that was create from scratch by a Ea studio.

[overrated44]

Are you still crying about this? I'm over it. Go get a life or a girlfriend or...a job? Do something.

[InTheZoneAC]

this is a horrible deal

buy 5 games, even out the the cost of the service
buy 6 games to see any discount

lol, and people think this is anywhere near of a great deal that ps+ offers? gtfo!

if ea wants to entice customers to buy more of their games and try games they'd never buy before this deal came out they should offer unlimited buy 2 get 1 free's.

ea access means spend $54 a game, for 5 games and all you've got out of the deal was 5 days early play time to those games you bought and whatever bs free game they give you, probably some download code to a select few of ps3 or 360 games..but if you buy 6 games then you have saved a total of $6!!!!

my suggestion is to have my deal, b2g1:

That means spend $150 for two games+ea access, get any 3rd game for free as long as it came out the same year. That's a $180 value for $150. Then if you double that, pay for four games at $240+ea access, you spent a total of $270 and got $360 in value back.

EA access is currently spend $54 get 5 days early and the only time you'll ever see a true discount is to buy 6 or more games.

But stupid people don't look at that and this is how M$ and EA get their money, by hoping they keep customers like this and bring in more customers like the one's they already have....

[lizard81288]

Oh boy, I remember when Nintendo said no to an EA service. Then EA, who supported the Wiiu heavily, all of the sudden said the wiiu is poop. I wonder if EA will say Xbox One is Truly next gen while Sony is is poop.

[FayZ_]

in the words of biggie: jealousy's a motherf***r!!!

if it includes the latest games on release such as bf hardline, fifa 15 to KEEP not to just trial for 5 days then i will deffo subscribe for life!

[TBONEJF]

Cause SONY KNOWS EA GAMES SUCKS. same shyt every year with NFL/NBA/BATTLEFIELD ECT. Plus i could care less if their games are 5$. i say HELL NO EA.

[Snappy]

Ea can eat ass. Get it after they got their devs too make mass effect 3 and dead space to be more action oranitated. Suprised FIFA 14 was turned into speed ball 2 or Adidas power soccer

[Snappy]

Rant over but to be I would not have signed up for it

[Snappy]

Come one people lol it's EA would your really sign up with that service lolz

[prologic]

whoa... lol... relax buddy! don't let that vigiana of yours get all dry! no is forcing anything upon anyone. It's the consumers choice to get the service or not. Having an option is advantageous. So you can relax and not freak out.

Remember... its not a right! it's a privilege. Having more options is only better for the consumer.

[Justindark]

don't need this kinda bull crap on the wii u. thats what backward compatibility is for. i mean how hard can it be? if they need to add ps2 games on the ps store now that would be awesome.

[NoeLennon]

Ponies: EA SUCKS, IM DONE WITH THEM!*

* Until they bring this to the ps4 and Titanfall 2 ships on PS4 of course...

Xboner out.

[busytoad]

Da fuk is a ponie? you mean the animal i think? Fuk titan fall that shyt is boring as heck and garbage no wonder it sales have been tanking since its release,not to mention it aint even on the top 20 list of games sales lol.

[n4gusername]

I switched from 360 to ps4 and don't regret it. However, this should be the choice of the consumer, which is exactly where MS started their downfall last year. This is a dagger at the heart of PSNow prices and a tactical blow. Well played by MS. MS still has me ticked from dropping the 360 family live plan though, so they can forget me buying a XB1 anytime soon even with this great plan.

[RosweeSon]

How many games a year do EA release and they are yearly overpriced re skins anyway this isn't a great deal but I'm glad you've seen sense and jumped ship and like me isn't righting an xbox one off but just won't be getting one anytime soon ie 12-18 months minimum and it'll still be a ps4 on the side next to it ;) ps+ with it's 12-36 games a year depending how many systems you have of sony's is a great deal, even better when compared to this offer from EA. Of course microsoft would agree to it tho until 3 months ago they didn't even wanna give free games away themselves.

[n4gusername]

They may be reskins, but I haven't bought an EA game like Madden or BF in several years, so for me they would be more fresh. I think Daunte C. was my QB in my from scratch draft, so how many years ago was that. We will see what PSNOW looks like once they introduce monthly subs, which I think will be needed to be successful.

[xx4xx]

Claims it EA service doesn't add value.

Scrambles furiously begins scenes to make quick, backroom deals with EA and others to bring service to PS4.

Once deal is complete and service is announced will make comments about giving gamers most options.

[Rachel_Alucard]

Explain to me this bizzaro world where people are actually defending a subscription service developed by EA?

[RosweeSon]

I fully agree with Sony when it's compared to PS+ unless your a BIG EA fan and want to play every game they release then it's no good, I like FIFA, I don't like American football (sorry I'm English) and the basketball game they release is rubbish ( it's all about NBA 2k...insert a year) but when you compare what EA are offering compared to the fact the sony offer you between 2-6 games if you own all 3 platforms per month, ea are allowing to play this games over the year by which point you might as well have just gone out and bought the games, even if you only have one of sony's consoles you'll get a bare minimum of 12 games sure they won't all be AAA games but it'll be better than what EA offer and it'll unlikely be just yearly updates as I said I like FIFA and I did the previous scheme they did where you could download that and their other games early but I won't be buying this and I fully agree with sony people just wanna get on their back because they've denied something Microsoft have agreed to, it's pathetic who cares, Microsoft have agreed to it as one it makes them look good, it'll likely help them with EA which hate them or love them are a big publisher to be in favour with and not only that xbox only have 2-4 games max they offer a month this now adds a few more..
As for the people who seem to think playstation now should also be included in this argument are just sad, sure it's a pretty similar system but EA have announced the final facts and more importantly a FINAL pricing structure, you can bitch and whine all you want about those ps Now prices but one thing is for certain they are NOT FINAL. It's a beta! Microsoft's marketplace is over priced but hey that's launched it's not a beta and yeah they could change it but they won't it's launched and they are of the if it ain't broke don't fix it philosophy, ps now prices are not final and won't be for a while consider the beta hasn't even starred Europe yet, just because you xbox people have over payed on your console now they have knocked the price down and no doubt the games came be picked up on the cheap dont hate Sony just because they are offering a better deal, just get over it and accept it, never been told not to look a gift horse in the mouth?!

[marloc_x]

Sony has you PAY for the "privilege" of beta testing. .

[busytoad]

you on drugs kid? the beta is free lol, at least here in the u.s.

[xx4xx]

DNR- WALL OF TEXT.

[bettergetdave]

I call bull crap. If you were concerned about it not being a value for the customers then why don't you leave it up to customer choice and make it available. Is it costing the MS and Sony money to make it available. Lastly I think this would compete with the PS Now service and possibly deter subscriptions and renters from going straight into Sony's pocket thus....they don't want to compete with them.

[Jeff257]

If EA really wanted this to do well and really have people possibly subscribe then it should be on PC. They have a huge back catalog of games they could open up there. Limiting it to XBOX One and trying to push it on PS4 just doesn't sit well because both have a very limited number of older EA games EA could provide to run on those consoles. As it stands now it truly is not a good value for what they are offering. Given time it could become better but that could take years before we start seeing more than just last year's sports games. I agree with Sony's decision on not even allowing EA to push this on to the PS4.

[Macdaddy71]

What happen to Sony giving gamers a choice, something MS was flame for.. N now MS giving gamers a choice Sony n Sony god

[HollywoodLA]

The fact that EA now has a digital service on a trailing platform, which is DYING globally -- I think THAT 'brilliant' strategy speaks for itself lol.

I wonder what the deal was. Did Sony turn it down, did Microsoft pay for exclusivity? The question is, why is EA so dumb? It's like they REFUSE to make money off the back of the PS4. Or, Sony really did turn it down, and instead chose to focus on PS+ and PS*Now.

I can't believe EA would turn down money in light of the failure that is the xbox one, at least when compared to the runaway success that is the PS4 this gen. It's strange. Lends credence Sony's claim of turning the service down.

By the way, lol@microsoft fanboys now claiming that xbox has it's own PSNow. Lol... the delusion never seems to end. It just continues to permeate within the fanboy echo chamber lol.

Can't wait for next months global sales. I wonder which console will lead, YET AGAIN.

[Dizzydrifter1]

Are you mad that you didn't get one of those special edition Gaystation 's ? It's ok buddy

http://i58.tinypic.com/2i75...

[HollywoodLA]

Dizzydrifter1 - That was your comment? Lol....

bettergdave - Why would you believe Sony just because they said they turned it down? You don't even have any evidence, nor is it illegal for them to lie in a statement to the public lol. Dude, try to put on your rather simplistic, tin-foil thinking hat -- the one with the little yellow propeller that you super-glued to the top, last Thursday. You understand that it may not actually be the case; and Sony may, in fact, be doing damage control to offset the fact that they are somehow missing out on the service? Do you believe everything that a corporation says in a public statement? You understand what I'm saying, correct?

[bettergetdave]

Did you even read the article man or just the header? You are so off point. It says Sony turned them down so why are you wondering what the deal was? EA approached them with it and they said no. Now you are probably right though it was most likely due to PS Now...not b/c of focus though but b/c they want to keep the money flowing in that direction and not cannibalize their own service.

[Revengeance]

Amen to that Sony

[busytoad]

No thx EA. Not only are they the most hated company but their games blow,only game worth playing from EA is madden but if nfl 2k came back to make football games id say fu madden.

[annus]

“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"

Either that, or the fact that it's required for most games to play online, but hey I'm not analyst.

Options are never bad, I don't see how this would have been an issue. I'd rather pay for some EA games rather than crappy indie games we have been given the last 7 months.

[P_Bomb]

Tomb Raider, Bioshock Infinite, Dead Space 3, Crysis 3, Arkham City, Remember Me, Payday2, Metro Last Light, Puppeteer, Sly: thieves in time, DMC are all "crappy Indie games from the last 7 months"?!

Incredible. I'm literally hearing "the earth is flat" here, all in defense of what's been voted as the worst company in America.

[annus]

This article is about next gen consoles, hence the deal being on Xbone, GameInformer reaching out about a PS4 deal, and Sony discussing PS+ increasing since PS4's release.

None of those games you have listed were on PS4.

[HollywoodLA]

How could Sony release AAA games on PS+ on PS4, when it's only been out for a few months lol...

Not only are you attacking great indie titles which are literally driving the industry, across the board, but you also seem to think every new AAA game should be on the PS4?

Okay, I'm sure that will be the case in the future. But not at launch. Your argument isn't even intellectually honest. It's a bit pathetic, actually. Transparent attacks, to be accurate lol.

[annus]

I guess I'm just to use to PC gaming where after 7 months games aren't full price still. They could even release partial versions of games if they really wanted to, anything but boring indie games.

And while many indie games are driving the industry, it sure as shit isn't many of the ones that Sony have for free on PS+. I have so many early access indie games that some would consider it a total waste of money, but they are worthy of driving the industry. So many of the indie games that have been in PS+ would barely sell if they cost money.

And you want an intellectual argument? Here's one, the very EA subscription in this article IS giving out games from the past few months at a CHEAPER cost than Sony.

[kantenkopf]

PlayStation Plus and the Instant Game Collection do not represent a good value to the PlayStation Gamer!

[Soosa]

Egg

[spike]

Its funny how many people on this site is brainwashed by Sony. This site blows now. Thank you Sony fanboys for making me laugh at your stupid comments.

[horndog]

EA access "does not represent good value"

LMAO!!

No wonder your ass is going broke sony. You old geezers can't tell the difference between good value and shitty deals.

Let me give you example

Sony led tv's= shitty deal,over priced junk that consumers don't buy. Crappy value compared to cheaper competitors.

EA Access= great value for discounts on games,early access to new releases and a shit load of games to boot.

See!

[Fusion_Ninja]

Frankly, I see this as Sony trying to PROTECT their consumers from scams, which EA Access totally IS. If anything, it would devalue the Playstation brand. EA has got a lot of balls to try and push an annual subscription service on players who are ALREADY paying a substantial subscription fee to play their console online...which in turn requires a monthly ISP fee.

I'm a huge fan of the Dragon Age and Mass Effect series', but that's because I love Bioware. As far as I'm concerned, screw EA and the horse they rode in on. EA Access is a racket, and anyone trying to defend it is economically ignorant, or a blind fanboy.

[horndog]

Right but if the deal went the opposite way where sony took the deal and not ms you ponies would have this placed flooded with shit articles like " the ends of zee xbone" and would have crowned the ps4 as the second coming of Jesus. Only bitter blind fanboys who don't have this awesome option woild tell you it's a bad deal. At least MS is giving us the option and not just shoving indies down our arses. Lol. I love ea games baby!! Take my money now and here is the advance for next year's too. Lol

[Type-R]

Good on Sony for standing up for the customer.

[BobBelcher]

We'll just let Sony make all our decisions for us...

[JMyers]

I don't trust anything EA related with the word subscription attached.

If this was on PS I wouldn't subscribe. But that's just me.

[Many-hat5]

Not a fan of EA's business practises,and this would not be a service I personally would subscribe to.Also, Sony certainly has the right to prevent this,the PS4 is their platform after all.However,I think it's quite a stretch to suggest they speak on behalf of all PS4 owners in relation to value. Clearly, it's a business decision only. Value is subjective, and I don't like being told it's not good value for me. My choice, not Sony's. Just like I chose to purchase PS4.In this instance I think comparisons to PS now are justified. Hate to say this, but smacks of Sony's old arrogance to me. Not impressed.

[Mithan]

My response :

Choice is always a good thing.

[Artemidorus]

It's clear, Sony are butthurt, it's 30 a year if you want EA cheaper. Sony wanted to provide it's own service and EA wanted to do the same, I keep saying this but Playstation fans can enjoy second rate gaming.

Anyone who thinks this isn't a good deal is deluded, it's perfect for the people who pay for yearly games.