Sony Was Right To Turn Down EA's Video Game Subscription Plan

Soon, Xbox One gamers will be able to pay $5 a month for a Netflix -like subscription to EA games. The EA Access program is coming exclusively to Xbox One because Sony turned down the idea, stating that the company doesn’t think “asking our fans to pay an additional $5 a month for this EA-specific program represents good value to the PlayStation gamer.

[XiNarutoUzumaki]

Too me, that was the right thing to do. PS+ already offers a pretty good service with so many games, discounts, and freebies, not even Games with gold comes close yet(thought they've been getting better lately). Also, If PS Now offers better prices and a subcription model for it, then it will be another win for Sony. No needs for EA Access thing.

I just don't want this to happen. Good value? possibly. But the paywall, to me, is heralding something else in the future. It's like we are digging our graves:

We allowed DLC to happen.

We allowed microtransactions to happen.

We allowed crappy games to keep selling.

and Now we are about to allow developers to hide their game behind a paywall. Like if there wasn't enough BS damaging this industry. If this successes, all publishers will do the same, and PS+, Steam, and GWG will become irrelevant. We will have to subscribe to a service in order to play games, I'm afraid. How is this good in any way?

[4logpc]

A paywall? Try again.

If EA access was the only way to get to EA content, that would be a paywall.

You can still buy EA games on disc or digitally.

[psuedo]

Not when they become all digital and stop producing physical copies....why wouldnt they? Thats a step in the direction this is going.

[--Onilink--]

@psuedo

So your thought process for this being a bad thing is that in your imaginary future EA will stop releasing games individually and only do it through a subscription service...?

I dont recall anything thinking that when PS Now was announced

[OC_MurphysLaw]

@psuedo EA still absolutely 100% wants you buying new games at full price. What they don't want is you going to Gamestop 9 months to a 12 months later and buying used versions of their games which yield them 0 money. with EA access for $30 a year you basically are getting access to those 9 to 12 month old games. The difference is EA is making money instead of getting nothing.

This service is more about gaining back some of the missed opportunity money from the used game market that Gamestop refuses to share with Publishers.

[choujij]

From a business standpoint, its competition on their own platform with what they're trying to do with PS+ & PS Now. I'd be lying if I said even a part of me was upset that this is not available on PS4. If the decision came down to either PS Now or EA access, I would take PS+ & PS Now in a heartbeat, because it's not limited just to one publisher's content.

"But what if in a few months Ubisoft offers a $5 subscription to Ubisoft Infinity for $3.99 a month and then Activision comes out with Activision SuperMegaJoy for $6 a month and then…well, you get the picture."

Yikes. O_o

[morganfell]

This isn't the first time I have seen an article refer to this as a Netflix like subscription. But I cannot find any concrete proof of that. PS Now is similar to Netflix but is this EA plan really similar? And what I mean by that is will X1 gamers select a title and then be able to start playing the game immediately ala streaming? Or does this access mean for a subscription price you can download selected titles?

[Deltaohio]

When MS made choices for their consumer all hell breaks lose. When Sony makes choices for their consumers (withholding EA Access from their platform) some how it's the "right thing to do". That is so funny. The hypocrisy!
Even if you think EA Access isn't worth the money it still doesn't change the fact that it's an option that a consumer has (or should have if someone is willing to offer it).

As far as the article is concerned his basic argument this this:
1) it some how is confusing (or could be)
2) it's too much work for Sony because:
A) the purchase of such subscription would be on Sonys part
B) questions or issues must go through Sony

All are silly reasons.
If you are going to argue that Sony would have too much of a hand in this deal then why the hell would they make it confusing? I'm sure it's not hard to clearly explain to consumers what the subscription is. Claiming it would get confusing is an insult to not only consumers intelligence but Sonys as well.
Being responsible for payment and subsequent issue troubleshootIng REALLY is not that hard of a task. The payment system is already automated. Chances are you ALREADY BUY EA GAMES DIGITALLY! So what's the problem?

At the end of the day xbox owners have one more option that PS4 owners don't. I'm sure there maybe some ppl that would like Madden 14, FIFA 14, Peggle, and battlefield 4 for $30.

[ShinMaster]

Assuming that the games you're paying to play "early" are finished, then they're simply delaying the games for everyone else.

[DeadMansHand]

The only question we all should be asking is WHAT GAMES are going to be available. Are we going to have access to brand new titles? If yes, then there is something here. If the only titles they make available are 2 year old games then no, this would suck. Also, how is exclusive dlc and preorder bonuses going to work? If gamestop has a bonus mission for preorder will you have to buy the game from them? What if Ubisoft does this deal with Sony? Now, people on other platforms will have to buy the other system to get preorder stuff? I mean, really, it's hard enough with retailer specific content now is console/subscription as well?

[DragonKnight]

Dlacy13g: "This service is more about gaining back some of the missed opportunity money from the used game market that Gamestop refuses to share with Publishers."

Because the publisher isn't entitled to it. Every used game was at one point a new game, meaning they made their money off the new copy and the used copy doesn't equate to any additional costs as it is merely a transfer, not an addition.

There's absolutely no reason for publishers to be allowed to infinitely dip.

[creatchee]

@DragonKnight

"Because the publisher isn't entitled to it. Every used game was at one point a new game, meaning they made their money off the new copy and the used copy doesn't equate to any additional costs as it is merely a transfer, not an addition.

There's absolutely no reason for publishers to be allowed to infinitely dip."

Theoretically, one person could buy one new copy of a game. They could then sell it or trade it to GameStop. Then somebody buys the used copy, plays then sells or trades. Repeat the process ten times. A hundred times. Hell - a million times. So theoretically, a million people could play a game from only one copy sold new. If those people bought it new, at the current average price of a new game of $60 (American), that's potentially $60 million not received by the publisher by people who got to play their game. Is that fair to the publisher?

And yes, a million used transactions from one new is a big and unrealistic number, but it's in theory. Now let's put it practically.

A game sells 1 million copies new. Let's say 200,000 sell or trade it to GameStop. The process only has to repeat 5 times to hit a million new copies NOT sold.

I'm not saying that publishers should infinitely dip, but to say that they aren't having their new sales significantly cut into by second hand sales is irresponsible. Console-side DRM was summarily rejected by everyone this generation. Welcome to Plan B.

[donthate]

@DragonKnight

We have gotten accustomed to having all the rights that go with a physical copy and publishers have no right to it.

GameStop hires thousands of employees so I can't complain. However, if we talk from an industry perspective like this article suggests, wouldn't it be better if the money I spend directly goes to publishers and developers, rather than leeches that produces no game content?

If more of us spent money that goes directly to those making and producing content, then games can be cheaper!

[DOMination-]

Morganfell

This is closer to netflix than PSNow because its a subscription for unlimited access to the games in the vault. PSNow I believe is different. I may be wrong but I thought you payed to effectively rent a game for a set period of time

[4Sh0w]

creatchee, Yep you explained it well, I'm no EA fan but devs deserve to be paid for their hard work instead of more studios closing while the suits at Gamestop get rich.

I don't know how many times it has to be said that games can not be treated like other products; cars for example. Games are a high overhead cost DIGITAL MEDIA It's very different from when a car is sold each individual car earns a hefty profit where all the manufacturing costs, etc will be recouped and no 1 car can have the magnitude of used sales a game can.

Games and other digital mediums but especially games because of high budgets rely on 1st sales which can be drastically reduced by used sales or piracy; car manufacturers don't have to worry about anybody buying and making a copy of their BMW in their garage to sale at a discount to 30 other people looking for a cheap deal on a BMW also whenever a consumer resales that BMW although a car is typically sold used for alot less due to miles/usage, but its not like BMW care because they made huge profit long ago on the original sale but the beauty of digital is the next end user gets the same exact quality/experience so just like with piracy that means you potentially might sell 1mil but actually many millions more played your game and you never got a dime from those sales, how is that a fair system?

The author did a terrible job of explaining his position, it just sounded like a bunch of convoluted excuses for not giving gamers a choice.

[morganfell]

@creatchee,

Is it fair for you to pay hard earned cash for something called a sale (not a rental) but not really own it? It's called a free market economy, of course you should own it. Make something people want to not only buy but they want to keep. That is the best protection against used games. Also the one most fair. Why does the game industry get special treatment forbidden to the music and movie industry?

To many regulations protect companies to the point it is like legal life support. Quite honestly EA should have taken a huge hit over BF4 but they were protected in other yet related ways. Products would be fewer but they would also be less inferior if we would pull the protection.

[morganfell]

@Domination, I agree in that respect but we also know that the full plans for Now have not been revealed. Alos, let's look hard at how many titles will be avbailable. It's easy to do a game subscription when numbers are more limited.

[gedden7]

For now sir.... You never know what may happen in the future. Knowing EA and their track record, its very possible that they will pass that along onto us...

[creatchee]

@morganfell

"Make something people want to not only buy but they want to keep. That is the best protection against used games. Also the one most fair."

I would agree with this statement, but the fact is that even the best games ever made end up in used circulation. Uncharted 2 is one of my favorite games ever and one of the most highly regarded games of all time, but 2 weeks after launch, GameStop had used copies. I wouldn't feel comfortable telling Naughty Dog that they should've tried harder to avoid having those games traded in.

Traders gonna trade, as it were.

[Infamazdre]

Playstation fanboys try anything to make this looks bad. Fanboys you don't need Xbox live gold to purchase Ea access. Also you don't need Ea access to purchase Ea games. With Ea access you just get a discount on new games and free full versions of older games that you can even play offline. It's a great deal like Netflix but for games(and cheaper than Netflix) why are Sony fans crying about this? Tbh I hope Microsoft gets more publishers to hop on board with this

[XB1_PS4]

and Now we are about to allow developers to make their games available through subscription as well as any place that I could have gotten it before.

FTFY

[Darrius Cole]

@creatchee

No way!

What is fair is that I own what I pay for. That means that I can sell it for whatever I want, to whomever I want.

And you are outright wrong on you analysis of the used sales market.

The used sales market brings in people who can't or won't afford to buy games at the new price. That money subsidizes the net price that buyers of new games pay and allows them to buy new games. It lets the developers make more money, not less money.

[HumanatPlay]

Gamers need to exercise some foresight and see just what this little experiment from EA means for us as consumers. You all get soon excited when they dangle a new way for you to spend your money and then complain when you realize you've been had. Like do American's need another great depression to get a clue? Just how many services are you paying for right now in your life? Why don't these companies find ways to release polished games on time and improve DLC content so its better value for money. Instead credit card babies just get lost in the hype and think oh...its only 5 bucks so what the heck. The ignorance and foolish spending habits of drone consumers allow these assholes to take advantage of people who only want to have a good time with their games both on and offline.

[morganfell]

"Traders gonna trade". True. There is no 100% full proof method. But great games insure the number of traders is at a minimum. I think you know this already so pointing out that some people were trading the game makes me question why you felt it necessary and if my regard of you is in error.

Some of these publishers had better think about used games like Napster. The RIAA sought to kill Napster and other prominent file sharing apps. In doing so they drove people even further underground and they devised unstoppable means of sharing. The RIAA should have co-opted file sharing and controlled it to a degree. Its the Chinese water principle. When you cannot stop it you go along with it and redirect it from inside.

Instead of publishers getting into the used game industry they have stupidly and quite uselessly tried to stop it. Why not have a buyback program of some sort? Not recognizing the unstoppable was the mistake made by the RIAA. The game industry has been making the same error.

[2cents]

Dlacy summed it up perfectly.

As to this article... "EA Access is just EA. How many consumers will sign up thinking that it is, in fact, the Netflix of games, only to find out that Call of Duty isn’t a part of the plan. The headache for Sony is obvious. They’ve dodged a bullet. Microsoft is right in the cross-hairs." yet again, journalists thinking that gamers are dumb as sh1t, that we need the likes of sony to protect us and for journo's to drip[ feed us with the 'truth'.

What the F is going on this gen?

[guitarded77]

@ Deltaohio

I know you got "Well Said" for your comment, but your argument is flawed. You claim "all hell breaks loose" when MS makes a decision for the consumer... I guess you're referring to policy of the initial XBOX One announcement.

But offering/denying a service are different than restricting capability. Sony isn't taking anything away here. Look, I'm not certain Sony made a good or bad choice here yet, and none of us can be.

What if not offering the service keeps competition higher for EA titles on a PS platform because they're limiting what EA can charge from possibly (NOTE: I say "possibly") monopolizing the market for their games getting to the consumer?

There are many arguments I have considered for and against what the service COULD potentially do (good or bad) for gamers. We all know EA's track record at shafting gamers is pretty bad, so in that respect I have some doubts. But what happens with this service on XBOX One will be the tell all for the rest of us. We all know how much people love Origin ;) <please note the sarcasm in the last sentence>

[UltimateMaster]

How many services will we need to have?

Paying for PS+ is enough for person, but if you own multiple consoles, then you pay for Xbox Gold and EA Access. It's really starting to add up.

We'll see like 10 different yearly services giving out "free" games and costing 540$? No thanks.

[DLConspiracy]

Psuedo has a point. EA has said they want digital more. That's what a move like this is sort of after. Still don't think DRM is as evil as people are making it. Subscription based gaming online is the future. Just like movie streaming on Netflix is doing so well. Sooner or later we are all gonna be online.

[creatchee]

@morganfell

I agree with you for the most part. We're never going to keep both gamers and publishers/developers happy. In some ways, this is a micro-version of the debate as to whether the best way to stimulate a country's economy is to give money/tax breaks to companies and hope it trickles down or do so to the people and hope that they buy more. I don't want to give up my rights, options, and expected costs of gaming, but I also don't want to see games canceled or studios closed because the money isn't there.

[DragonKnight]

@creatchee: The problem with your example is that it tries to say that money not gained is the same as money lost. Not even getting into how wildly unlikely your example is, if the system were as you explained it then the gaming industry would have caved a long time ago.

The used games business is just the current scapegoat publishers are using to avoid accountability for their poor planning and bloated spending. If you've gamed long enough, then you've seen the following examples that were sure to destroy the industry.

Too many consoles on the market.
Rentals.
Demos.
Piracy.
Used Games.

The excuses have been around as long as gaming has been, and that's all they are... excuses.

Every used game was at one point a new game. Every publisher will tell you that the first month a game is out is the crucial time, and after that new sales start to die off. The reality is that good games will either flash fry in sales, or have long legs but only if the game is good.

There's also the fact that gaming isn't exactly a cheap hobby, and so many developers tend to release their best games at around the same time which forces people into choosing because most can't afford every game they want all at the same time. The used market is crucial to those people.

So I reiterate, the publishers and developers are only entitled to the new sale, not the used sale. The work they put into making the game was repaid with each new sale. They do literally no more work for that game once it's released (barring patches and DLC that's paid for) and so are entitled to no more compensation. No used game adds an additional expense as it is simply a transfer of ownership, so no costs are created from a used game.

There is no justification for the infinite dip that publishers and developers want to take from the used games market, it's nothing but wanton greed.

[BitbyDeath]

Exactly, if it took off then others would follow suit.
Likely Ubisoft being the next one and eventually the consumers get screwed as instead of paying for one service to get all the publisher content they end up needing to pay for 10-20+ services.

[iamnsuperman]

The only way this will work (and be good) if they offered all their games (new and old) for a monthly fee. It would give the consumer greater power as cancelling a subscription when a game comes out buggy is easier than buying it in the first place. Though what would happen is only the big publishers could do this model and we will get less options (because those not doing it will struggle to sell their games and the smaller and less popular publishers don't have the catalogue). So instead of 10+ subscriptions we will get 5 and a lot of independent developers/smaller publishers will collapse. Not to mention issues I listed in my comment below

[Bigpappy]

Obviously every publisher is going to be able to command the 30/yr or 5/month asking price. That is why I think it is a great move for those of us who buy digitally. Ubi and Activision, are not going to sit back and allow EA to be the only deal on offer. They will no doubt complete. I predict they offer even better deals, and that the cost of gaming will decrease as a result. Digital is going to get cheaper and cheaper this gen. Publishers already make major profit selling digitally, and they have a lot of room to attract more fans to their user base buy offering deals on pricing.

Many PS gamers are thinking that PS+ is there so they don't need any other deals. You may believe that right now, buy when you start seeing Xbox gamers getting all the great EA releases earlier and at a lesser price, it will start to bother you. Mark my word on this. EA bought or publish for some of the most popular studios in the business. What will also happen as a result, is that you will see EA, making even more exclusive deals with Xbox1 and doing nothing special for PS4. I don't see how Sony can win this battle. They need to go ahead and let publishers offer their own deals, and use PS+ and NOW for indies and exclusive deals.

[its_JEFF]

@BigPappy

You make some good points, you may get a 10% discount on EA games. But you're not getting the point the article is making. People love to complain about all the different Pre-Order/DLC deals from GameStop/Target/Amazon/BestBuy what do you think will happen if Activision/Ubisoft get into the mix. What If Ubisoft or Activison go to Sony. If you're a big AC/COD fan and you're on Xbox, what if all the new content comes out sooner on PS or even if it's exclusive?

You think it's confusing now with Store specific deals. Wait till it's platform specific and subscription specific.

[donthate]

@BitbyDeath

That is kind of ridiculous, because competition in general has always been healthy. Having another vendor do this means, Sony and MS has to up their game to give YOU more quality content.

If you are concerned about the industry you would have agreed to an all digital future, because that would remove GameStop from the equation AND boycotted PS+ when it was released!

After all, the PS+ model (and subsequently GwG and now EA Access) has stopped me from buying games. I would have bought BF4 eventually, but instead got it as part of a subscription. I regretted buying Dishonored on sale, and will no longer buy games on extreme discount expecting them to appear on GwG/PS+ & EAA.

Only select few that I must have day one or multiplayer games will I get day-1 now.

I am expecting Ubisoft and Activision to follow suite soon. My gaming spend will drastically reduce.

[4Sh0w]

That makes no sense, how can it be bad if 1 publisher offering a good deal means that other publishers will offer you a good deal(maybe better)? Sure it could add up but having more options doesn't mean you are forced at gunpoint to subscribe to ALL OF THEM= No that just means you are spoiled with an abundance of choices. You the consumer wins, just like all the options for services on pc and in general everyday retail services, nobody pays for every service just because somebody is selling it. Lol, no just pick which 1, or 2, or 3 you like, then buy games from other publishers you don't subscribe to the same way you do now.

[XxExacutionerxX]

Sony Fanboy HYPOCRITES!!! If Microsoft turned this down, every sony fanboy would have bash microsoft. Talking about this is why your not selling as many consoles as Sony. Wow lol Sony wants to push PsNow, one heck of a major bad idea. Charge full price for rentals. Sony is a joke company and so are sony fanboys. I see more games come out of Xbox 360 than PS3 and more better games out of X1 than Ps4. (Last of Us is just a remake cash in because there are no good games on the Ps4) This takes the cake, sony could far in a bottle and sell it. Sony fanboys will still praise it. Microsoft has done more for the business in 8 yrs, than sony has done in 25. Bring on the insults because sony fanboys are about as old as the Playstation 3.

[psuedo]

No if sony, or nintendo picked this up I would be MORE upset over it. Only reason m$ picked this up, because this is a step in the direction they wanted anyways. Remember always on xbox where you HAD to have a subscription to play games, and drm policies. Its the same damn thing in a different form.

[MelvinTheGreat]

Amen brotha

[SniperControl]

Haha, hypocrites?? When ms announced this type of model post e3 2013, all xbox gamers were shouting blue murder at ms for having outdated draconian DRM, always online requirements & trade-in restrictions. EAA is exactly what ms wanted to implement a year ago, you guys have fallen for it hook, line & sinker because the x1 has nothing to offer at the moment.
MS just pulled a rope a dope on you guys with this.

You are paying to play demos?? , the 10% discount is pointless as hardcopy games from online retailers will always be cheaper than the totally ripoff prices ea will charge, you just have to look at origin to see that.

[JackBNimble]

Just a snip of EA's TOS...

As part of the EA Access Services, members with an active subscription are offered (1) the ability to play a limited trial of certain EA Content 5 days prior to the date that EA Content is otherwise available on the Xbox Marketplace (“Play First”), (2) discounts on EA Content offered through the Xbox Marketplace (“Discounts”); and (3) access to a limited library of certain EA Content (“Vault Title(s)”) for unlimited online play (“Vault Access”) for the duration of their availability in the Vault. Limitations and exclusions may apply. For upcoming EA Content eligible for Play First and Discounts, and for current EA Content available in the Vault, and current details on other membership benefits, see http://www.ea.com/eaaccess. Certain EA Content may be excluded from Play First, the Vault, and/or Discounts; see http://www.ea.com/eaaccess for details on such exclusions as they become available.

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. In the event that EA changes the EA Access Services, including the removal of Vault Titles or discontinuation of online services for certain Vault Titles, we will provide thirty (30) days advance notice to you by posting a notice on http://www.ea.com/eaaccess.

Unlimited online, what about offline?

So for $30 a year I can download any game in the vault, but when EA wants to discontinue it I lose the game?

So how do I know how long any game is going to be in EA's vault?

In particular, Vault Titles are subject to change and may be removed, and the online services for certain Vault Titles may be discontinued.

WOW... what a great deal/s

At least with ps+ I get to keep any game I download for as long as I have a subscription.

If EA let us keep any tittle you download the way ps+ does , then it might be worth it. The way it is now it's an absolute scam, and xbox fanboys are going to be bitching about this in the next few months to come.

[objdadon]

Get ready for a s - load of subscription services if this does well. For old games that customers have to be patient to wait to play! I like physical copies so this isn't for me. But I don't see this being good for us, especially when the subscriptions start adding up to ridiculous levels! And I could care less about ps now also.

[Clogmaster]

I still think they should have just went with it. Is there a way it could have cost Sony money to partner with the program? It could potentially lead to more sales.

Unless they think its fud and don't want it on the console.

Still though. It adds an option to the column of their competitor.

[TKCMuzzer]

Lets be honest, if EA have spoken to Sony about this then I imagine Sony went through it with a fine tooth comb and made the conclusion that it wasn't quite right. Maybe Sony have other plans, or have spoken to other publishers. Honestly, I don't want all the publishers doing this as it could get expensive and I wouldn't be able to play all the games to get my money back. It could set a bad example that will get milked more and more by the big boys of the publishing world.
Microsoft on other hand will take a risk on anything at the moment because they are looking for feathers in their cap.
In concept in could be a good idea, the fact that it's been dreamt up by EA leaves more than a little cautious.

[Deadpool101]

I can only assume Sony turned it down as they are in the process of releasing PS NOW.
To go from a company that didnt charge for online play last gen to now charging with PS+ and they are soon to ask customers to pay for PS NOW. Maybe they thought that to ask for people to pay out again for EA Access would have just seemed like too much too quickly. Obviously that only my opinion.
Saying that, I have seen some folks on here worrying about other publishers (like Ubisoft and Activision) following suit with their own subscriptons. To be honest if they are the same price as EA's I'd say bring it on.
For $90 a year i would have unlimited access to a large collection of next gen games. When you think a 2nd hand copy of Madden 14 or Call of Duty Ghosts can still cost $35 - $45, suddenly the price of subscription really doesnt seem that bad at all.

[truefan1]

The spin and damage control I have seen from the ps4 community is pathetic. We saw article after article condemning MSFT for not giving gamers a choice. To hear these same fans excuse Sony is the biggest problem with the gaming community, ps4 fans flip flop more than politicians. Sony can literally do and say whatever they want without repercussion. Who are they to say what is valuable to someone else.

EA Access is fairly priced and optional, the main outcry is because it's currently exclusive to XB1. Just yesterday I read a lot of it will come to ps4 soon after type comments, now all of a sudden those changed to never wanted it type comments.

[MRMagoo123]

Have you ever been on topic ever ? How are you not banned already ? Anything you type involves trying to bring up hypocrisy, its never about anything but trolling full stop.

OT I for one am glad sony said no to this scheme and I can bet you most ppl think the same, this kind of "service" is just gonna lead to that BS MS wanted in the first place, If MS continue like this they wont be around for another gen because people wont buy anything they make anymore, even the most extreme hardcore ones on this site.

[700p]

Sony fanboys are blind puppets.

[ziggurcat]

@truefan:

"We saw article after article condemning MSFT for not giving gamers a choice."

a service being offered by EA =/= MS giving people options. the only option MS has given their customers recently was the kinectless xbone SKU, but that was only because they were getting spanked in sales, and they needed to generate more interest in the console.

"To hear these same fans excuse Sony is the biggest problem with the gaming community, ps4 fans flip flop more than politicians."

*ahem*

"Racing, fighting, and shooter should be 60fps, no exceptions."

http://n4g.com/comments/red...

"PS i still prefer 60fps, but if Playground would have had to sacrifice some of the ambitious details, locked 30fps will suffice."

http://n4g.com/comments/red...

"To hear these same fans excuse Sony is the biggest problem with the gaming community..."

what are PS fans excusing Sony for, exactly?

"Sony can literally do and say whatever they want without repercussion. Who are they to say what is valuable to someone else."

... just like how, according to you, MS can do or say anything they want without repucussion, so don't be a hypocrite. And who are MS to say what is valuable to someone else?

[Zenith4k]

Read sniper controls post it's 2 up not hard to find he hit the nail on the head go swimming some where else,

[badaxx]

truefan1 All them great games you claim to play and you have time to comment 15 times today? i think its time to move out of your moms basement and grow up and get a job!!!! you comment more on sony news than xbox news. why is that?

[GTgamer]

"The spin and damage control I have seen from the ps4 community is pathetic."

Lmao says the spin master of the Xbox community do you accept that your a troll and everything you say is moot and I put that on your pride but since you lost that theirs no hope in sight for you.

"We saw article after article condemning MSFT for not giving gamers a choice."

Choice you say now please tell me something do you really think MS would of done what they did if Sony werent ahead ಠ_ಠ isn't MS the Company that kept manufacturing consoles with RROD problem for how many years again? But hey y'all still bought the console but yet Sony fans are the blind puppets on a string ¬_¬.

"To hear these same fans excuse Sony is the biggest problem with the gaming community, ps4 fans flip flop more than politicians."

Nooooooooo did you get amnesia this generation the only flip flops were from Xbox fans and MS themselves like how you guys defended kinect but when MS dropped it you guys were the first to say hooray that's a Good Decision Ms.

"Sony can literally do and say whatever they want without repercussion."
So your saying that everything that happened with the PS3 Sony faced no repercussions so the price cut/money lost on every sale of the PS3/ the cell that was critized by gaming media,gamers and DeVs which caused the PS3 to have bad port of games now wouldn't you count that as repercussions for bad decisions made by Sony,you see what you wanna see don't ya.

"Who are they to say what is valuable to someone else."

Your right Sony should not have done that I agree but who were MS to say that we can't lend our games to ANYONE without them paying to access it, who were MS to say we needed kinect in our home, who were Ms to say that we can only play our games by being connected to internet which neglected the gamers with bad or no internet at all,who were MS to say that all the services that we pay for should be behind a paywall. it seems MS had been making decisions for all of you from the start (•ิ_•ิ)

[Magicite]

EA and MS deserve each other.

[HaydenJameSmith]

I still don't get what all the fuss is about...

There not hiding any games or content behind a Pay wall you can buy any of those games retail or digitally without paying for the service same goes for DLC, there just providing an additional service that provides games, discounts (just like PS+ and Xbox Gold) and additionally early access to new releases. How can you support Playstation Now, PS+ and Xbox's GWG... then say EA Access is a terrible idea...

It doesn't even require Gold to have it either so why is everyone saying there is no value to the service and its a subscription on top of another sub when its optional and doesnt require gold, it looks genuine to me... Xbox Gold and PSN hide online mp and access to online apps behind a pay wall, no one is complaining about that. Btw for the record I think PS+ and Gold are great services, but I think its ridiculous for anyone to say EA Access is terrible and then say the opposite about Gold or PS+. Even PS Now as it stands is a lot worse, not nearly as much scrutiny over that.

For an additional 5 dollars a month on top of my xbl sub... I am getting an extra 4 EA games (btw of those 4 games that are currently available they stand at 192 dollars to buy from the Xbox Store, probably a bit a good bit less retail but the point is that your paying 5 dollars a month or 30 dollars a year for that. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me), discounts for all EA digital content and early access to new releases... I think you have to be stupid to say there is no value in that program.

@Zenith4k

So... whats your point ? All 4 games can be played offline too. Online Matchmaking/Multiplayer has always been a service provided by MS and Sony so they are gonna naturally charge you for the service...

[Zenith4k]

You would need gold and ps+ to play multiplier

[Krakatomia]

Just EA content only for 5$ monthly?

No thanks i prefer much more Ps+ and even GWG, EA will go the one or two games a month i can swear thats whats going to happen, and dont even dream about playing an entire backlog library that you carry like Ps+

[FanboyKilla]

Looking at all the upset ps fans, i would say ps made a mistake. You said its not a good value to the ps gamer? Well i want it just like everyone else does. How does having the option hurt? Or maybe you want to be the only paid gaming service on your system. Thanks sony for making the wrong choice for me. Xbox on.

[Ocsta]

Yeah go play with the 'Boners for ever and ever and ever because of something as stupid as this. Good riddance FANBOY.

[Mystogan]

You and this article sound like bitter PS4 fanboys looking for an excuse for Sony's obvious mistake.

There's nothing wrong with having this OPTION. That btw actually saves you tons of money if you are patient enough.

[lowkey10011]

News flash you dont have to buy it its not forced on you if you dont want it dont buy it. If you think its a good idea try it out if you dont like it cancel. I for one like options.

[Christopher]

Personally, I'm not for the subscription model. I think it's just a way to get people to pay to play games they otherwise wouldn't buy and will have a lot of limitations on games available. It's also a way to get people to buy digital. That means more money for EA and no trading them in.

As far as Sony, I think they should have left it up to the individual to make that decision. I think what really happened here is the associated cost on Sony's end as well as integrating yet another price cut outside of the PS+ arena. I just don't think Sony is capable of implementing it well right now and are thinking of how it opposes their own goals.

[liquidhalos]

As a consumer I would have preferred it if Sony let me decide if I want it for myself or not.

[CaptainObvious878]

Are the people praising this EA subscription service really this blind and naive? smh

There's a reason EA was voted the worst company in the US 2 years in a row and continues to remain in the top top.

What do you think is going to happen if this takes off?

EA: Oh? What's that? you don't have our subscription?

You'll have to wait 2 weeks for the new BF game then.

You can't buy any DLC then.

You can't play the MP of any of our games then.

You can't buy any of our games full stop.

Of course this will be very gradual, but eventually this is where the subscription will end up because gamers just don't seem to have any control and will gladly bend over for any kind of anti-consumer policy as long as they get their favorite game.

Thank the Lord that sony said no, otherwise what I described what be all but certain.

Wake up people.

[Aceman18]

aren't these the same MS fannies that bashed the holy hell out of EA for releasing the broken as hell BF4 game?

now they are praising EA for this particular service now yea ok i've seen and heard it all now lol.

[4Sh0w]

Aceman, I don't get your point...so what if they are the same folks who bashed EA for BF4 problems, right along with many ps fans who did the same as well Are you serious? Hell yeah we should all do it again when any pub/dev sells a unfinished/broken product that has issues months after release. EA is not the only publisher guilty of that, unfortunately post launch patches have become the norm in the industry but we should still expect a mostly smooth gameplay experience from day 1.

At any rate being critical of a company DOES NOT MEAN YOU CANT ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE WHEN THEY DO SOMETHING YOU BELIEVE IS GOOD. That's what adults do they complain/advise when necessary to encourage change and congratulate when they deem a product, service or actions to be worthy of it, which encourages more of the same.

[Azzanation]

What you gamers don't understand is gaming is a hobby and its an expensive hobby. Its also very hard to maintain a gaming company since it requires a lot of resources and time to deliver us games. Many companies have fallen thought to bankruptcy. Only Nintendo have found a way to survive the gaming industry without being owned by a mega corporation while producing games and hardware.

The way you see it, is lets keep it the old way and never improve the industry. Lets watch more companies die like THQ because of the way you think. How about lets support an industry that helps the gaming companies survive and maintain a good balance income and outcome. No one is forcing your hand to play video games and to subscribe to there services. I would rather gaming continue to survive then watch it slowly crash and burn based off fanboys who have no idea what the industry needs. Live/EA Access/Steam/PSN these are strategies to keep our companies afloat while they deliver us great games. Not have the industry ran off cheap skates who want to buy 2nd hand copies of games and pirates who cheat the system based off the lack of DRM.

[cee773]

Please EA is the second biggest pub. They release the same madden every year, NBA Live is horrible they blackballed sega (Further helping Kill The Dreamcast) because they wanted sports exclusivity, Killed NFL2k. Hell they wanted to buy Rockstar once upon A time.

So now the PS4 owners are supposed to pay the same price for this service when xbox's EA access will have more EA games in its vault (tiatanfall,Plants vs zombies)

Next thing you know every Pub will have something
behind A pay wall the precedent EA is setting is not good for gaming it devalues it.

Why buy any EA game on xbox one at this point if will be free eventually (except the sports games that will be outdated once they hit the vault).

A lot of early adopters paid over $200 for EA's games it will feel like A slap n the face to them.Further putting them in the mind state of why buy battlefield hardline or titanfall 2 etc(just examples) because it will be free 9 months later and bug free.

Now all that oppose this service will have to wait 5 extra days to play new releases.

[Ocsta]

You're words. There are truth nuggets hidden within.

[THamm]

It's all coming to cable like set up for consoles. It's going to be like subscriptions to different channels

[Knushwood Butt]

Does EA even have enough content to keep this going?

[thisismyaccount]

PS NOW online streaming service for older PlayStation Platforms, like PS1, PS2, PS3 and Vita games | NO PS4 Games |

EA Access a download portal thru Microsoft store, for upcoming and 1year?old EA only games, that are not that many to start with, even Battlefield 4 got it´s deserved criticism.

Besides PS+ can only get better :

US IGC PS3/VITA/PS4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
EU IGC PS3/VITA/PS4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

.. the only good ips from EA are Mirror´s Edge (which flopped commercially and obv. financially), Mass Effect, Dragon Age 1 a true PC game by old standards "did not well", Dead Space 3 $$$ and Battlecry... i bet i missed or two, but the rest are EA Sports games + NFS.

ME4 will get it for the PC, if they
re going to pull anotehr exclusive deal out of their ...

[RantandRave]

@XiNarutoUzumaki

Off Topic:

I'm impressed. If you continue this type of relevant comment posting you'll be on your way to earning your bubbles back.

On Topic:

I still think Sony should had giving us the choice of the EA access option as they have with everything else do date.

[Major_Glitch]

Lol. Before anyone starts praising EA Access as a good thing, please read their TOS agreement. Silly fanboys, once again over-hyping something they don't fully understand.

[3-4-5]

If they accepted it, that could have allowed EA to go All Digital at some point, because they would have reason to.

This completely destroys that idea, which I think was the REAL idea behind this anyways.

It would have probably destroyed any chance of Nintendo getting more EA games as well.

This helps everyone I think.

[Rscottyg]

All of those things were allowed because more people like it then didn't... And how is paying $30 a year for $200 worth of games, a paywall? Okay, go pay your $200 and tell me in 8 years worth of game time, who got stuck behind a paywall, lmao!

[deafdani]

So... you condemn EA for having their subscription model, you condemn DLC and microtransactions, etc... yet you applaud Sony's PS+ service?

In other words: it's OK if Sony does it, but not anyone else?

Regarding us gamers "digging our graves":

- We also allowed paid online play to happen with Xbox Live.
- Then we allowed that cancer to happen on the PS4, by allowing Sony to put online play behind a paywall with PS+ (when online play was FREE on the PS3, and that console had PS+ as well).

I just can't believe the amount of double standards I see in your comment, nor the amount of agrees you got for it. Are we seriously THIS blind?

[Funantic1]

PS+ is just plainly expensive for the average consumer. No way for anyone to debate that.

[ebreda]

Sony is pretty nice, taking choice away from you.
Now, what else do you want them to block?

[Deltaohio]

@guitarded77

My comparison really isn't that much different. It's a restriction period. No matter how you twist it Sony is still restricting your options. The reason for the restriction is not "for the consumer". Why would you not LET THE CONSUMER DECIDED IF ITS WORTH THE MONEY OR NOT? I don't need Sony telling me what has value and what doesn't.

The only reason even bring anything up is because this is something Sony should not be choosing for me. Just like how you want the choice of form your media takes (disc/digital ect).

The guys arguments are invalid because all the issues he presents already exist without EAA. The only reason why Sony is "involved" is because you are still getting the game from their store. So of course any issues that come up should go to Sony.

"What if not offering the service keeps competition higher for EA titles on a PS platform because they're limiting what EA can charge from possibly (NOTE: I say "possibly") monopolizing the market for their games getting to the consumer? "

This statement is anti-free market and had you made this comment about MS and not Sony you would be chastised frequently. If EA wants to charge $1 for EAA who cares? We will all vote with our wallets and I don't need big brother Sony telling me what I should and shouldn't buy.

EAA is not a burden to Sony and they didn't decline it because it violates any policy. So why should they deny you that service?

[KennyCiseroJr]

It seems like all Sony fans are upset that they passed up on this sick deal. Now they're writing these articles mostly to convince themselves that their preferred system can do no wrong.

[iamnsuperman]

Publisher run subscription services won't work for the exact reason the author gives. It is like Netflix offering subscriptions to other studios. They don't because it becomes confusing and expensive for the end user (one is okay but it does set a president for others to explot)

Though this doesn't mean Sony is right to deny the services. They could still alow it. Options. Though I feel this service will not take off because of the back catalogue stuff. Much of EA titles (their big ones) become irrelevant when the new one comes up due to yearly releases

[Darkstares]

Cable companies have done this for years, why are some gamers inept at figuring this stuff out?

[Bigpappy]

I really don't see why you guys are attacking this so hard. It is an option given by a publisher. M$ accepted it on their system, and Sony said you guys don't want it don't know how they arrived at that, but I don't see why they would not allow the option and just let is fail if what they are saying is true.

People who see value will buy it. Those who don't will continue to pay full price or go to the store and try to find a deal there. It is not like you are coerced into buying the service in order to play the games. It is all about perceived value or lack thereof.

[Krakatomia]

No one is attacking, the question is, can you see a little more farther than your nose? did you know how EA works year after year?

People are giving sincere opinion about it, thi is not going to be an amazing value and your people are giving this too much credit.

Year after year EA gives the same game updated and you think EA is going to give you a backlog of games to play or if you constantly renew your suscription carry with all those games forever? think again my friend

[iamnsuperman]

It isn't an attack. Merely questioning is the service going to work and any long term impact it will have. EA access is playstation plus but just for EA games. It is offering less variety of games for the same amount. I am confused what EA is trying to do here because it doesn't make sense. If they offered all their games (new and old with none being taken out of the vault) for a flat monthly fee I could understand but they are not. If they did I would worry about the possible trends that would decrease the amount of publishers (as others would have to follow suit). You cant deny the worrying trend

[4logpc]

I really dont see it as the "right" move. Its more of a move to protect their PS Now service. While EA Aceess and Now are very different, it can become confusing having so many services that offer downloadable games.

I personally think its just a matter of time until Sony will change their mind.

I know a few people who have already signed up for the year of Ea Access and are loving it.

Also so many of these articles keep driving home the $5 plan, and just kind of brush off the $30 plan which is the much more sensible route in terms of value.

[GribbleGrunger]

There's an excellent post over at Gaff by panda-zebra that I agree with:

'Been thinking of reasons why Sony might be reluctant to allow this ( at least at this stage). People saying they're being anti-consumer by denying choice are, IMO, not thinking things through, merely knee-jerking. Sony aren't likely to deprive users of a service that might benefit the ecosystem as a whole, therefore we have to look for the potential for harm.

i. Firstly it obviously competes with and potentially devalues ps+ (you'd have to think EA games would be less likely to become available to plus, or potentially they could be even more outdated versions of the sports titles).

ii. End user support. For the tiny fraction of the fee Sony would receive, they'd be expected to manage the purchase and delivery as with any digital purchase, but the fact that it's not just a single transaction for a single item and rather the support of a yearly or monthly subscription service, opens the door to many more potential issues.

Sony would be the first point of call for end user support when anything went wrong (and with ea/origin on top of ps+, that might not be trivial). Reading the many threads on GAF, I'm sure Sony's CS support lines are busy enough as is regarding the various issues that are thrown up with with their own ps+ without generating more with an extra layer of potential pitfalls on top. There would no doubt be grey areas - problems where Sony think it's an EA issue, EA think it's a Sony issue. Not appetising.

iii. It's not just EA - you have to think further ahead. Other publishers are likely to expect to be able to be given the chance to offer a competing (but maybe not even necessarily that similar) service for their own titles. This would not only multiply the effects of the above concerns but, thinking it through a bit more, you'd have to factor in each publisher's competing service's rules, regulations and nuances... and you are now presenting an even more complex problem for Sony CS.

Taking this further, it's not difficult to imagine the potential for a sea of confusion customer-side when Johnny Gamer expects certain things of one service that is actually only a part of a rival service he also subscribes to. This would only compound with every new service added. All customers would go directly to Sony to air their grievances and have their minds set at ease. Those CS staff are going to spend the next few years in and out of training courses like an mcse.

iii. Having to set up an auto-renewal with a credit card held on file. Sony don't really want to go there, do they? And that Johnny Gamer guy - what if he forgets to cancel and the service auto-renews - Sony CS have to deal with enough "my dog bought COD Ghosts when it scratched its arse on my DS4 help me please!" kind of gripes as it is.'

[GribbleGrunger]

Interestingly, That disagree appeared on immediate submission. It clearly shows that some people actually just disagree without even reading the comment.

@WeAreLegion: Touché, that happens too :)

Bubble for irony and balancing the world for the last of us.

[WeAreLegion]

I agree with you without reading your comments.

[700p]

I disagreed with your comment once you started to complain about disagrees. Stop whining.

[christian hour]

I gotta agree with you there, I regularly check stories I'v commented on from the last 3 days (dont usually go back any further) just in case anyone has added any interesting points to the discussion or someone directly replied to me.

And sometimes I notice a pattern, nearly every comment has mysteriously gained a precise number, usually 2-3 disagrees, the whole way down, though its usually restrained to numbered posts like #1 #2 #3 #4 and not comment replies like #2.2 etc. As if several people just came in and scrolled down clicking disagree systematically on all comments.

People on this site are just wierd, it also tends to happen more commonly if its an Xbone related article, A ps4 related article, or an article relating to an exclusive game.

Just something I've noticed in the decade I've been visiting this gaming news hub.

Fan boys eh?

Personally I don't click the disagree button without also adding why I disagreed, just out of common courtesy to save the original poster the confusion of a "phantom" disagree.

I think they should add a feature to the site so you have to leave a comment with your disagrees, similar to article disapprovals, stop cowards from spamming it.

*edit* Hey, I got a disagree :D WOO!

[GribbleGrunger]

@700p: Merely an observation. A disagree means nothing to me.

@christian hour: That would be a great idea. I like it.

[MRMagoo123]

@christian hour

I tend to just click disagree because I dont have the bubbles to comment on why I disagree, I also notice the more times you explain why you disagree the more times you get voted down and lose a bubble.

[MonstaTruk]

@GribbleGrunger

Same here, as WeAreLegion. I think I clicked on "Agree" on your original comment before I finished reading, just in case I left the page without agreeing. Don't argue with it, just accept it as LIFE. :o

[SniperControl]

I wrote a "no comment" comment earlier to delete a comment i had posted. The comment was deleted as soon as i pressed add comment. Yet 10 mins later i had a disagree.

[Gh05t]

"There's an excellent post over at Gaff by panda-zebra that I agree with:"

That is all I needed to read to know that I disagree with you so yeah doesn't take long.

I did read the whole thing but that doesn't change that I disagree with you.

[chrisarsenalsavart]

Gribblegrunger u re the wisest PlayStation fan on this site.

[spektical]

the point i agree with is all other publishers will jump in , "ME TOO!"

Sony probably prefers not to confuse the consumer with so many subscriptions to manage

[JorboTron]

Sony doesn't think their customers are intelligent enough to make their own decisions? i subscribe to netflix and amazon prime, i'm not confused. Sony lost out on this one it's ok, you cant win em all.

I plan on bingeing on the $5 every once in awhile when they have compelling titles

[Gh05t]

If you cant manage a few subscriptions how are you going to manage paying the real bills?

i.e.
Mortgage
car
Home Owners Insurance
Car Insurance
Life Insurance
Cable
Phone
Water/sewer/trash
Gas
electricity
TAXES!

then you have stuff like

Charitable Donations
netflix
hulu
amazon prime
spotify
pandora
PS+
Xbox Gold
WoW
ESO
Countless other money buckets...

I have all these (Minus MMO stuff) and I can manage them... Its called being responsible and its not that hard. If your not responsible (or of age to have a credit card) that's why they came out with buying the cards at Gamestop which takes the subscription renewal right out just go pick one up every year/month.

I am sure glad that Sony is baby sitting me so that I dont have to think about another monthly/yearly fee they will just deny me the service. /s

I am waiting for Activision and Ubisoft to do this and for Xbox to come out with Xbox Platinum which includes all services for a higher price than gold.

[spektical]

People who can handle a lot of bills are the minority in many countries. Just look at average debt in the states for example. The fact is we are the minority, I think the N4G community completely forgets that. Most gamers dont even get news from online, let alone know what "n4g" is.

[Pinkdolphinyfg]

In other words-- it competes with ps+ and ps now, a burden on customer support that makes them little cash, and it paves the way for other publishers to mimic EA access amplifying the effects of the first two reasons while causing consumer confusion due to different policies/services. Fair enough.

[Darkstares]

Want to know why Sony doesn't want it?

http://www.forbes.com/sites...

You have that, as well the PS+ model and the upcoming PS Now service. It's no wonder Sony doesn't want it. However the real question is how are they able to determine if we want? Oh that's right, they are all about the gamers.

[TKCMuzzer]

I don't understand gamers. They must understand that Sony and EA would have gone through this properly, that means all of the above is taken into account. There is so much more than just the games and your comments hold true. The cause and effect could cause all kinds of clashes down the line. At the moment Sony are in control of their network but by allowing publishers greater access and control you start having to balance things you never did before.
We are not Sony, we did not sit in on the meetings, we haven't seen the EA blueprint, something wasn't quite right otherwise Sony would have gone with it.

[rawshack]

i never trust e a.they might bumb up the price once people get use to the idea

[extermin8or]

Might? Might? Will. There is one important factor no ones thought of. Why isn't some form of this on pc? Hmmmm or do they already know the open nature of that market means it wouldn't swing?

[Corpser]

Don't like it? Don't subscribe! If the value is not there this optional service will not survive. 10% off EA digital products alone is worth $30 a year to me, saves me money!

[700p]

Agreed. I think its gonna be a great service so im definitely subscribing!

[WeAreLegion]

I completely agree.

[yarbie1000]

I'm Dizzy....feels like everything is spinning...

[Silly gameAr]

That's funny. A lot of the articles you post feel like spin most of the time.

[Speak_da_Truth]

I don't play Ea games like that so i'm not bothered with Sony's Decision.

[Aceman18]

yea i only care about NFS and Burnout so i wouldnt pay for this service when i could just buy those for cheap already

[n4rc]

I feel the excuse is a cop out..

Allowing customers to choose isn't screwing them.. Its protecting their interests with psnow.

I can still go out and buy any ea game I want.. Or I can subscribe.. How is offering a choice a bad thing?

Its fine to say no.. But some excuses people are making for them is a little silly

[psuedo]

Driving up the cost of their own services to have to control someone elses service, and do customer support for a service not theirs. Also its called conflict of interest. Every business has one, so if you dont like "conflict of interest" you should just become a mountain man.

[ziggurcat]

@n4rc:

"Allowing customers to choose isn't screwing them.. Its protecting their interests with psnow."

that would be true if EA Access was an online streaming service... but it's not, so it has nothing to do with PSNow.

[TKCMuzzer]

I assume your a business guru, hence why your on here. There is so much more than "allowing customers to choose". If the service is run through the PSN then Sony potentially become responsible for it, from complaints, to miss downloads, every possible issue means Sony will get involved. Do you want your PS+ subscription to go towards paying for it? the $5 a month EA are charging won't cover it, I imagine Microsoft are swallowing some of the extra costs, and if it takes off EA will up the price to try and help cover them additional costs.

[n4rc]

Are you?

They would be responsible if you downloaded the game or bought the disk.. What's the difference?

Dlc suffers the same problems.. Cod elite being a huge one.. Season passes etc

It honestly sounds like you're all just making excuses.. Sorry if that bothers you

[KentBlake]

I'd like this to come to PS4, since it's my main console right now. But if it's only on X1, I'll subscribe to it anyway.

[MysticStrummer]

I'm not likely to pay for any gaming subscriptions beyond PS+, so whatever.

[manchesterman22]

well im enjoying it already, i didnt want to buy madden 25 but wanted to play it and i got rid of my BF4 ages ago, now i have signed up for a month to test it out and for $5 i have madden 25 and bf4 again!! what is there to complain about?? if you dont want it no one is forcing you

[Kingoftherodeo]

how is this a right move? you pretty much said no to giving ps4 gamers a chance to get access to this. is not like microsoft is pushing its costumers to it its more like hey guys heres this paid membership that will get you these games.

you wanted games and deals. well they made a deal to get ea access on their console so this is a good deal for gamers. ps4 could have gotten it but maybe they didn't wanna spend money on this or maybe they felt it would get in the way of their psnow

[chaosx]

They turned it down because it is competition for PS+.
They don't want it to be successful because others will do the same thing. Ubisoft , Activision??
Whats to stop EA from re-releasing remastered version of there best selling titles and adding them in also.
You can't tell me the idea of a subscription model for The CoD back catalog remastered would not be a money maker.

This could be bad for PS+

[incredibleMULK]

I know its great isn't? Finally a decent subscription service. This and games with gold rock

I would go for a cod hd remaster. all of them.

[turdburgler1080]

When Sony made fun of EA at E3 this is what happens. Sony played with the bull and got the horns. EA may have a bad rap but they don't hurt for money. Sony needs them more then they need Sony. Sony needs to get revenue from sales of EA games on their system. They shouldn't be biting the hand that feeds. EA will let Sony say they declined but we all know Sony got shafted for acting like a tard at E3 to EA.

[Goku781]

Yeah, Sony was like "TURN DOWN FOR WHAT!" and smacked that deal away. Let Xbox One try to spin it into a good idea. EA is only good for recycling sports games over and over.

[MultiConsoleGamer]

Oh boy. Another Forbes contributor piece.

No they weren't, and to say otherwise is pure damage control.

It was a poor business decision. I also believe Sony isn't telling the truth when they say they "turned it down." This company never tells the truth.

You know what they say about liars?

"...not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

[extermin8or]

Well they were from a business perspective and that isnt an opinion that is a fact. A) conflict of interest. B) ea expected them todo customer service for it and pick up the costs and potentially bad PR that could incur. Plus add on that the deal is pretty shit anyway. All the bad PR they'd get from people blaming them for the lack of value that they already sometimes monarch about for ps plus? It would've been a bad move to say yes..

[MultiConsoleGamer]

More damage control.

EA, love them or hate them, controls some of the biggest franchises in the industry.

Madden alone will make this worthwhile for potential consumers, and especially for MS which will reap huge rewards.

I believe the reality is that EA chose MS for two reasons, the history of their execs (Peter Moore specifically) and the working relationship between EA and MS.

But yeah, love them or hate them, this is huge news.

[Oner]

So then you feel the same way about Microsoft "MultiConsoleGamer"?

"We can't just go and flip a switch and turn off online DRM requirements for Xbox One."

"Kinect is an integral part of Xbox One, it would not even work without Kinect being connected".

"We have no intention of selling the Xbox without Kinect"

/rollseyes

[MultiConsoleGamer]

Microsoft has definitely told their share of lies, no doubt, but nothing comes close to the long history of Sony bullsh**.

They're a company that sells their products with lies.

"4D gaming! Emotion Engine! 77 Million Polys! Power of the Cell! Super Computer! %50 More Powerfull! Reality Synthesizer! Secure Network! Console X Killer! Toy Story Graphics! David Manning loved it! Bullshots and Fake Video! We can't do rumble in the Six Axis! Sony doesn't pay for exclusives! Trophies aren't achievements!" Etc...

But yeah, Microsoft's recent lies, especially after the DRM fiasco were particularly embarassing.

[Oner]

So you must have quite a small selection of "multiconsoles" if that's your only point of view on gaming manufacturers.

[extermin8or]

Well at the time the ps3 was a supercomputer. Why science labs were using clusters of ps3s... 4d just means 3d with some kind of experience in the room with you (motion? Vibration?) 50% more powerful if you talk just GPU initially on paper it was.No network is truly secure but everyone gets hit nowadays amd seeing as no one got money nicked despite how badly compromised they were more secure than it might seem but no one is truly secure. At the time they were refusing to pay for exclusive stuff. Sixaxis was BS but at the time might have had a technical problem they overcame we will
never know.We'll trophies aren't achievements they are trophies lol all companies have some problems BS from time to time although lately ms has done some barefaced lying and on this occasion Sony aren't.BSing they probably really do believe that ps plus is better value and would be damaged if ea had reason not to release their games as part of it

[MysticStrummer]

@extermin8or - Actually 4D means 3D plus the element of time.

I remember Kojima talking about it back then.

An example would be setting a forest on fire, watching it burn, coming back later to see the charred aftermath, coming back still later and seeing new growth, etc.

@Multi - Please stop spreading BS. Either that or change your name.

[turdburgler1080]

@multiconsolegamer

Don't forget when they lied about killzone 2 and said the trailer was actual in game footage. Then they lied about the new killzone and it's resolution. I think there's still law suits out against them for that one.

[MultiConsoleGamer]

The only group shoveling BS here are the single console owning fanboys who swallow corporate lies and insist their favorite company be universally praised without question.

Sony doesn't just have a bad rep for lying in the gaming industry, they also lie when selling their other products. Just ask David Manning.

[MysticStrummer]

"Microsoft has definitely told their share of lies, no doubt, but nothing comes close to the long history of Sony bullsh**."

Completely ridiculous.

[Menkyo]

The deal between EA and MS was in the works for a while. Many MS executives were once EA executive. This is just more of EA's DRM crap. So yes I won't buy it. You people are plain nuts trusting EA.

[kenshiro100]

Common sense isn't allowed on N4G.

[Ace Killa 08]

What if this is Sony's idea of laying down the law for all future publisher subscriptions?? The current next gen market leader (Sorry PC gamers EA didn't even include us on this deal) just rejected this plan from EA who does own some popular IPs. It is a big message for other publishers will need to consider if they want to go this route. Of course everything can and most likely will change in the future, however Sony wants to provide their customers their own services and with help of other companies, but never losing control of their own services.

I personally don't like EA and wouldn't want to join this services as I just don't like any game outside of battlefield and the next battlefield won't be coming out soon.

Also my judgement can change, but at the moment I do not feel like I'm losing out on something.

[S2Killinit]

it would compete to some extent with PSNow. so why would they want it when they will be doing the same thing on a bigger scale?

[Pinkdolphinyfg]

If Sony sees that there isn't any value in Ea access why should it mean they get to block it. The only people that can decide that is the consumers. Theres an obvious conflict of interest going on at Sony and not the white knight company guardians of the gamers that some people have been led to believe. Understandably so, Sony invested and built ps+ and Ps now from the ground up they don't want any competition. Though this may have russled EA's feathers a bit and cause them to align themselves with Microsoft even more because they did throw a bit of a jab there saying that.

[jnemesh]

Comments here in favor of this subscription plan are just plain ignorant. Did you guys even READ the damn article??? Sony would have had to SUPPORT this service, which they were unwilling to do. It's going to confuse customers...who won't understand OR CARE that a title is "too new" to be on it. It also requires an Origin account! There are SO many negatives for Sony here it is no wonder they rejected it! I really can't believe MS decided to play along, honestly!

Aside from business decisions, or support issues...the MAIN problem I have from this is subscription fatigue! I ALREADY pay for PS+...and I have a Netflix account, Hulu+, Funimation, and Google Play Music! How many MORE companies want $5-$10 a month! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH with the damn subscriptions!

Even IF I paid the $30...there is still a HUGE issue. It's EA! I don't buy EA games, and I refuse to support them in ANY way! Don't you guys remember Battlefield 4? (which is just NOW starting to become playable!) Don't you remember SimCity? Hell, they can't even GIVE AWAY games without infesting them with dodgy DRM (see SimCity2 stories that are out there)!

Screw EA and screw their worthless subscription model for their OLD BROKEN games! Sony did us all a huge favor by telling them to kick rocks!

[jeremiah64]

Sony logic: $4.99 for 4 hours of sub-optimal streaming
gameplay with PS Now is a good value
4.99 for 30 days access to 4 (possibly more) downloaded
games is a bad value

[extermin8or]

It's in beta with publisher determined pricing you tool. They need to come to agreements over pricing and.see.what works

[ebreda]

Spot on.
That and: "let me choose for you.. it's a BAD proposition, okay? you don't even need to try it. Really, you don't. Let me handle choice for you".

[Duke19]

Wow lots of haters just because M$ picked this up. I personally think it sounds pretty excellent.

Especially for games like madden I would gladly pay $5 a month, rather than be stuck with a $60 disk.

[iHazelwood]

The funny thing is if this was Sony exclusive, and Microsoft gave the same reason's Sony did to turn this down; because Xbox Live Gold is on par with PS Plus now- There would be FLOODS of articles saying "Microsoft made the wrong move denying EA's Sub Service".

[Dread]

true that.

hipocricy and double standards are the norm in N4G, the sony decdictaed fan site.

[jmac53]

So are spelling errors

[RosettaStoned]

I'm so happy Sony made my decision for me, because there's no way I could've done so on my own. Perhaps I could have tried it for a month, but nay... that's suggesting I know what to do with my own $. Thank you, all knowing!

[Sheikh Yerbouti]

Why Sony would have to put out money to have a similar service compete PS+? Not only that, but compete poorly against it. That's throwing good money after bad. All companies make similar decisions.

[RosettaStoned]

Then come out and say that instead of "Oh, it's a bad value for gamers". No, it's not... it's bad for your new service that boasts $14.99 for 3 months. When faced with $30 for a whole year, they'd be dumb to accept it.

No one's saying it's not a smart move by Sony. I'm saying their press release stinks.

[Sheikh Yerbouti]

Silly...this was not a reply from a press release. Re-read for comprehension, please.

I pay @45 for a year...a whopping $15 more for not only EA games, but games from other publishers...! Across the three platforms I own - PS3, PS4 and Vita.

[Sheikh Yerbouti]

FACTS PEOPLE!!!

Two major EA games were just made available free on PS+ for the past two months - Dead Space 3 and Crysis 3. Do you think any of those games would be better value on EA Access than PS+...?

[NeoGamer232]

So, let me get this straight...

If this would've been a Sony exclusive thing and MS said what Sony did, then it would've been a conversation about how MS supresses consumer choice.

But, since Sony "says" they reviewed it and didn't see the value... Its a good move...

OK. I am a n00b on this site but it is pretty clear it is a Sony Defense Force site...

[oSHINSAo]

You have proven your point with your Disagrees... (Plus mine)

[jmac53]

We are talking about EA and their servers here. A company that took 6 months to fix server related issues on their flagship franchise Battlefield 4. Have fun with EA Access intermittently.

[strangeaeon]

My head spins at what the comments would be like if this had been an exclusive deal between EA and Sony. I imagine we would see "supreme victory", "xbox done", or "last nail in the xb1 coffin" comments. It would definitely be a pony squaredance up in here.

[user9558903]

Sony was right to turn it down because they're Sony right? That's it. Just cause sony can do no wrong
/s

[quenomamen]

Just another way to get us to be renters and never owners. Screw EA

[Revengeance]

Wow only the Xbox drones find EA Access a deal simply because it's happening on their console. The usual hypocrites. Only the sensible gamers know this is a ripoff.

[mediate-this]

Ea allaccess is bad but its almost the same type of rental service as ps plus and now, cant really call one dumb with out the other. You sound like the hypocrite

[mixolydian_id]

Both services are offering something.

Whether it caters to your needs is different.

Have fun with your 5hr rentals... Does that include the full installation time too?

[Flames76]

No sony was stupid as always they knew their service is gonna be high so they didnt want EA coming in making playstation now look bad.Its ok though they went with the big dog the X1 which is the right move.

[jules]

very nice service... sucks for us hoping for bc... sony will change their mind real soon I think... then it will be the greatest thing ever...

[HacSawJimThugin]

Sony has turned down some big deals this gen so far. Titanfall, EA Access...I wonder what's next.

[Gore-Content]

Yup. Smart move from Sony. The only people who benifit from this program are EA. Consumers get NOTHING.

[DJustinUNCHAIND]

I just bought access to this. Interested to see what happens.

[jmac53]

Xbots: We hate EA! Wait, console exclusivity to Xbox; We love EA!

[stripe814]

i think its smart move of Sony, EA for me is not that exciting to partner up with..i think with this MS and EA move, probably other developers are willing to open timed exclusive deals for Sony and Nintendo..

[ghostface9]

Wow another sony spin article. Taking away things that brings games to gamers should not be turned away just because sony wants people to use ps now. Such a greedy move by sony if you cant see how bad this is you are blind

[mediate-this]

People that are saying this bad are ridiculous, its a rental service for 30$ dollars a year, whats the problem? If it doesnt work well oh well, but just to be frank, i think this is a gpod in the right direction, its competition, now watch sony come out and make a deal with someone.

[Nicominoru]

There is no right or wrong answer for this. I hope people know that. Personally I think Sony did the right thing. I don't like EA's business practices and I don't feel like going in depth as to why I don't. Just the words "EA" & "Subscription Service" in the same sentence should be a red flag.

I don't even know why the Gaming Community exists anymore, the only thing they do is agree to disagree and damage control the hell out of corporations nonsense.

If this service was 20 dollars people would figure out a way to make it seem legit...I mean there are still people who try to argue PS+ has no value so whatever.

[FayZ_]

Sony most likely turned it down because they feel it may spike profits of their digital & physical copies of EA games, going through EA is cheaper than buying from sony also people would avoid paying for games via ps now (rubbish service again). Basically sony don't care if it adds value to their consumers unless you're paying sony enough for it.

the thing is EA access is an additional choice, you don't have to have it if you don't like it. it adds value to people who like ea games

pathetic sony.

[Adolph Fitler]

@Mediate-This.....
"This service is almost the same type of service as PS+"

Buzzzzzz, WRONG... PS+ is the same type of service as XBL.... Already THANKS entirely to MS, we pay to have internet twice...Once to our ISP server, which should have been the only one, & once to either MS for Live, or to Sony for PS+... And to Sony's credit, they still allowed us to play ALL our games over PSN with PS3, wheras Xbox gamers have been charged for the 3rd gen straight, to be able to use there own internet, with there console...
Sony has ONLY started charging now, after 2 previous online enabled consoles & 2 handhelds, that were & are always free to play on.... So, finally on there 4th console they've implemented a online fee, as they seen how MS recovered the RROD plague for 360, simply with the Live fee... So, with Sony's recent hard times, they stole that aspect of MS's strategy, so as to be profitable more quickly, as well as also to fund severs & such... And Sony, in there generosity, which obviously was a business tactic to help PS+ seem more viable & better value for money, have offered latest release & older games through PS+, which inspired positive change for Live, as well, because MS had to pony up & now they also copied Sony's strategy to give "free" games to subscribers (although pretty crap compared with PS+, but still, better than nothing, as previous, & has been improving)...

Now, in contrast, EA's gig is a 1 game developer gig, they ONLY can offer EA games, whereas PS+ & Live can offer ANY developers games. And when the console manufacturer is offering you free range games, as an incentive, or bonus to subscribing to THERE online service, you are getting these extras as a bonus, as remember, MS charged for merely being able to play the games you paid full freight for ($100Au/$49us), then whatever your ISP charges are..... So, to get extras, thanks in entirety to Sony's awesome scheme, then only a Sony hating fanboy would carry on, then play there Xbox freebies & rave how Live gives you free games & is awesome, when it wouldn't even be possibly for you hypocritical people, if not for Sony's initiative (no matter there ulterior motives)..

Getting back on track, WHO IN HELL wants to pay for this, & be the fools that gave the greenlight to EVERY developer & publisher to follow in EA's footsteps... & we all know, if successful, Activision & Capcom will be straight onto it...then the rest will follow, as they say.

[mixolydian_id]

Surely you remember how bad the PSN was on the PS3.

You can say "it was fine" but in my experience, PSN was diabolical. Laggy, shooting ghost hosts, disconnected all the time. This was likely because of the god awful G standard wifi adaptor they threw in to every console and the users having next to no idea what an ethernet cable was.

No party chat

XBL in previous generations was undoubtably the best place for online multiplayer gaming. Stable servers, Chat parties, DLNA support on content that could be played whilst gaming.

Yeah.. paywall on netflix... didn't have netflix... so didn't care.

It's easy to pull previous information like that out without putting into the context of present day.

I'll have a go
PS ripped off Nintendo with their analogue sticks.
PS failed to admit their thumbsticks were in the wrong place till this generation of console.

There are big differences between PSnow and EA access which make or break them.

PSnow streams games (smh, bound to be laggy as shit)
5 hr rental.... is that after a full game install..?
Discount on games/DLC you probably aren't going to buy anyway.
Multiple developer content
Paywall?

EA Access
Single developer AAA content
Rental as long as the game is available for
No paywall - confirmed
Discount on games/DLC you probably aren't going to buy anyway.

[NeoGamer232]

First, we don't pay to have Internet twice. You pay for Internet and then you pay to access gaming services (matchmaking, leaderboards, friends lists, dedicated servers in most major games, chat, etc.) You obviously have no clue how much it costs these companies to run the services provided by Sony and MS. That is why Sony is charging now... Because they would not make money otherwise. XB drove online console gaming not Sony. I can think of no online gaming features that Sony invented before MS on the console.

EA Access is a one publisher gig. Not a one developer gig. And they do happen to be one of the largest publishers on the planet with many top franchises including a dominance in most major world sporting leagues.

Your theory about the PSN+ is fine, but you seem to be talking about the PS3/Vita and not the PS4. On PS4 we haven't seen a lot of publisher games come to PSN+. To date, it has been almost all Indies. So, if this trend continues, Publisher based services like this will be valuable to people who buy a lot from a specific publisher. And the console services will become conduits for Indie and first party games only.

I bought my subscription yesterday. I buy all EA games on day one pretty much, so taking into account my purchase of FIFA, NHL, Madden, NBA Live, PGA Golf, UFC, and DLC each year this subscription service pays for itself before I get to buying Battlefield, Dragon Age, Mirror's Edge, Battlefront, Need for Speed, PvZ, Peggle, etc. Other people spend differently on EA stuff and they have every right not to use the service. No one is forcing anyone onto the service. But, with my purchasing habits, this service makes sense and saves me money.

[Clown_Syndr0me]

You do realise this is optional right? If its not for you then that's fine, if it is for you then great - enjoy!

[Flare149]

Truthfully we aren't gonna really know whether this was a good decision or not until a few months after it releases. I will say I didn't think of what the author said though, and while I imagine it's not a deal breaker it is true. I have friends that are "hardcore" gamers with headsets and the like, and they always ask me who makes what game and I have to explain to them how because company/publisher/developer* A or B is making a game impacts my feelings on how well it will do or not.

*Edit- Added in developer

[DynDasE]

XBOX ONE and EA ACCESS is a match made in heaven.
Because EA ACCESS is an attempt to slowly bring back DRM to console gaming :D

[mixolydian_id]

Sony were right to turn down EA access... because they need all the money they can get from PSnow

... buy a vita while you're at it

[lllll-lllll]

PS+ for PS4 currently sucks. Indie crap cant compete with EA; so i'd rather have ea's package. Who cares about the ps3 freebies anymore when you've got a ps4.

[SpinalRemains138]

Right, because playing old EA games is an entirely different animal than playing old PS games.

Jesus some of you have the IQ of a potato

[lllll-lllll]

You should learn to read before you answer. Battlefield is also a ps4 game and beats the worthless ps4 psplus indie 'freebies' (not by far :) but still). I wonder what IQ you've got mashed potato, ow sorry SpinalRemains138 that is.

[SpinalRemains138]

Wrong.

No one buys PS+ for the offerings. They're a bonus.

Does anyone buy Live Gold for the offerings?

No, they buy it to play online, and comparing one to the other (EA) is still wrong, potato.

If you wanted to compare and contrast PS Now to the EA service I would understand, but you're slighting the PS+ offerings while comparing them to a service which allows you to play EA backlogs of games. Its entirely different.

[lllll-lllll]

I'll just let you be, good luck with those hormones puppie (yeah i know, you're 25 and have a wonderfull life by now) haha

[dustknott]

As a PS owner, I am disappointed. Sony should allow for this from any publisher.

This basically limits consumers having a choice in the matter.

[lllll-lllll]

That hit the spot :)

[WishMeWell259]

They backed out because they already have EA Games for PSNow.
I dont understand some peoples thought process. Sony is already working on the same exact thing but with more content, including EA games. Accepting EA Access would just hurt the PS Now, they couldnt agree to use it. Yes, it takes away consumers that option. But I would be more worried if they accept EA Access, because that shows they are rethinking the PS Now.
What this does tho is put Sony in a bit of a spot. EA will try to make there Access great and EAs top priority is working on that. Sony now has to push things aside to work on this because if EA Access is better than PS Now but a lot it will hurt Sony. Not giving the consumer the option and not putting enough time in to give us a service that better or up to par with EA Access.
But seriously anyone that thinks it was stupid to deny EA Access, I worry about your personal future decisions

[lllll-lllll]

What about those people that don't have a good enough internetconnection to stream games?

[Malacath]

Sony don't want competition for playstation now.

That's all this is about.

EA access is actually a good deal.

I wanted Battlefield 4 so instead of paying full price for it. I payed £19.99 for a 12 months subscription of EA Access.

I now have Battlefield 4, Fifa, NFL Madden and Peggle 2 as well as the other benefits of the service. All for just £20 a year.

These are actually digital copies of games that are stored on the xbox hard drive. They are not streamed games like playstation now.

Much better deal especially when more games are added to the vault.

I actually own a ps4 as well as xbox one so because of the early access feature where you can play new games free for a week before release and keep the saves I will be buying all future EA games on xbox instead of ps4.

Also Sonys excuse about playstation plus member going up 200% is more to do that's it's compulsory for multiplayer gaming. The free games with ps4 are mostly crappy indie games and not worth subscribing for.

[Hardcore_gamerxbox]

Sony didn't turn it down Microsoft got exclusive deal for that with EA . What Sony says it's pure BS

[blueboyahs]

I personally think they were right to turn down EA Access because as far as EA is concerned, if they are only streaming the next gen system games then there are only a few games to offer to the consumer not to mention if they are offering the new games (NHL 15, Madden 15, and FIFA) that would be shooting themselves in the foot in regards to sales.

[beereal360]

Sony wasn't ask at all this is fanboy garbage

[wcdregon]

I'm an old gamer, I was there for the pre-nintendo era.
Im still a gamers and Ive owned PS3 and PS4, Xbox360 and XBox One and I have to say that Xbox is easier to use, easier to understand, easier to navigate, easier to physically see with bright colors and color coded menus. As i get older its harder to just pick-up and go, my brain isn't as flexible as it used to be. I prefer Xbox 1 because even though its not as technically superior, there are factors other than the tech inside that interest me. I work everyday at a good job, the sub cost for xbox isn't a factor especially when I can call and get assistance for any issues that arise, which I have needed to do.

Son'y device is good but its not winning the console war, it started with a lead because microsoft is stupid but they wont win the war because Sony still thinks core gamers are 15-25. When in reality core gamers are more 26-45.

Sony deleoped a platform for young people, with dark edgy colors and technical hurdles to getting the most out of the device. On the other hand Microsoft didnt include as many features or options, but they made a device that easily interacts with all of my existing devices, pretty much right out of the box. Sony doesn't seem to get that they are pandering to people with no money... i have a home, a car, a wife and when I want to forget those things I look to my consoles. One of those consoles is mindlessly easy to use and the other isn't which do you think I use more often?

[b-dash]

Strangely, it is not applied to 360 same software.
It's a part of the sales promotion of XBONE.

[rorytmeadows]

How about letting consumers decide?

Basically saying what they did, they just told you that you're too dumb to make your own decision...

[Consoldtobots]

this is nothing more than origin for consoles

[DerrickCole]

I don't agree. Whether its good or bad Sony shouldn't make the decision for the gamer. I like Sony most of the time, and I like my PS4 and Xbox One, but Sony stepping in to make decisions for me just seems wrong. In my best interest or not I and I alone should be making my decisions. To me it looks like a cheap excuse to cut down on a competing service on their platform.

[InTheZoneAC]

I understand giving people options but when the deal is so fn bad for the customer, it's nice of Sony not to let these idiots customers buy into this.

That's that business practice on EA's part knowing dumb people will think they're getting a good deal.

Good companies should provide good service to make money, not get away with ripping people off. See xbox live during the xbox and 360 era...

[DerrickCole]

Although I will not use EA's new service(I own 3 of the 4 games) that don't mean its a bad deal you get 4 decent games for $5 a month or $2.50 a month if you pay for a year upfront. They are even promising to add more games to the deal plus game trials before new games are released. That seems like a pretty good deal to me.

You cant argue that Sony stepping in not allowing their customers even the option to say no themselves is wrong.

[Izzy408]

I thought Sony was all about giving customers more options?

[Rscottyg]

People who say Sony was right for backing out, are 100% fanboys who don't get to participate. Let’s break this down for the simpleminded folk out there... Each game that will be available sells for $59 each, except for one. Not to be exact, but that is over $200 worth of games for 30 dollars a year... How is this a bad thing in any way shape or form? Whoever can read that and still say it's bogus, is an idiot, lol.

Sony doesn't think it's right to ask their customers and fans to pay an extra $5... What the f*ck!?!?!? Because charging gamers $2.99 and more for a 4 hour run on PlayStation now, is right? HAHAHA!!! For an extra $2, you get full games and discounts... Sony has their own reason for opting out and it isn't, despite what you guys believe, for the customer's benefit. Give me a break!

One more point... Even if what Sony says is true about asking gamers to spend more, you dont have to even get it. It is an option. You can pay $60 for one of the games or you can pay 30 for 4 and more to come... It's a choice people and if any of you are like me... I like having choices...

Before anyone accuses me of being a fanboy of other companies, note that I took a break from playing the Last of Us Remastered on the PS4 to post this. I love my PlayStation and my Xbox One, but come public release of EA access; you better believe I'll be giving them $30.

[danny818]

microsoft and EA sleeping in bed again

[Rscottyg]

And the poor poor customer paying the price... It's called business... Would you rather pay $200 for the games or $30???

[Chevalier]

Depends can I play Dragon Age Inquisition, Madden 2015, NHL 2015 the day it launches? If your answer is no and we're playing old games then nope not interested.

It's not like EA will undercut themselves like that, because honestly if they were going to allow me to play those new games, then why would anyone want to pay full price for their new games?

[Rscottyg]

To attract more customers. 1 customer who pays $60 is not as valuable as 20 that pay $5. Now, times that by millions and you get where I'm going. I do believe that Dragon Age Inquisition will be part of the service. As to when it'll be available, I'm not 100% sure, but I doubt they'd bring it up now if the plan was to make you wait month in advance...

EA has to prove that they aren't the worst company in the USA, (which they have been voted as such two years in a row now), this is a step in the right direction. Not to say they would throw money away to make a point, but see the first point I made.

[Torgul]

I am an xbox one owner And this is a very good news. I trade bf4 few months ago despite I bought the premium. Too much problem online. One week ago I was thinking to rebuy bf4 because there s nothing To enjoy for me at this Time. Forza still fun and I play it on a daily basis but I really prefer fps. Waiting for 9/9. Ea deal is a good deal since where I leave Bf4 still cost more than 30€ in second hand. More choice is always good for me. Funny how sony decides for his customers And people agree....

[Chevalier]

"What they don't want is you going to Gamestop 9 months to a 12 months later and buying used versions of their games which yield them 0 money. with EA access for $30 a year you basically are getting access to those 9 to 12 month old games. The difference is EA is making money instead of getting nothing. "

Why should EA get money back? I bought it and it's mine to do with as I wish, I can gift if and they don't get more money and they don't deserve any more.

What other industries end up getting money back from buying used? Should Toyota get more money if I bought their car used from a car dealership? If I walk into a used book store does the publisher get more money when I walk out with a bag of used books? Do the clothing or toys I buy in a thrift store give back money to those any of them? If I buy a used DVD, Bluray or Music CD do they get money? NOPE, so why should the game developers be the only ones who are this greedy? Just like they don't if I sell on Ebay or on Amazon.com

[ZombieGamerMan]

I seriously don't see why people are jumping on Sony's throat for this, I mean think about for $60 extra dollars a year to the $50 you already pay for Xbox Live or PS+ all you get is discounts on EA titles and only get to try EA games before hand and only get EA games free.

EA does not have that many titles worth getting or enough to make paying this worth it, seriously if there's like 2 EA games you wanted and got a 10% discount than you would just pay $54 each but you paid $60 for the service with each month being $5 so in actuality you paid $59 for those games should they both come out on different months.

So you only save a dollar on those games, I mean god damn say what you will that Sony isn't giving you the option but considering playstation users already pay for PS+ and soon PS Now is going to a thing I wouldn't give consumers another sub service to pay as well especially when I already offer that same service but better and for less.

Although I think we all know the real reason is because they don't want anyone to compete with their PS+ and PS Now services on their system but even still my point still stands

[InTheZoneAC]

years ago EA was all for creating their own console to force people to buy it to play their games.

This is a step in that direction for those that lost all knowledge of this.

EA will do more and more each time to make consumers pay more for their games...

[Rscottyg]

This Doesn't make any sense. How is this paying more for their games? Or even a step in that direction???

EA; Hmm, how can we get more for the same or less? I know! Let's charge them less for more, give them discounts, give them early access to our games, then once they think they are saving money, we'll build our own system and take all that away and charge them more! We are geniuses!

Another question for you... Why didn't they build the system? Hmm...

One more question, why isn't anyone paying more for their games Now? LMAO.

... I'll wait.

[InTheZoneAC]

well let me break it down for you. Let's start with the basics:

-5 day early access means nothing to EA, they're not giving away anything to lose money

-Free games, such as previous year Madden's and FIFA's don't mean anything as they're not losing money, but they sell you this to add to the 5 day early access and people like you think GREAT this is awesome value...MOST people who buy EA games will have owned any year sports title immediately or soon after it came out...not a year later down the road. Same applies to Battlefield 4.

-So you save 10% on each game. This deal is only worth it if you pay the full price on many of their games. If you pay $5 a month or $30 a year, your deals aren't that great.

You pay $5 a month, you save $6 on a full priced game. If somehow you manage to find just enough games that month to buy more than 1 at full price you're doing fine:

-For 1 game you'd spend $59 with this access. ---For 2 games you'd spend $113 with this access.

These are about the best savings you'll get, if they release or have more than 1 game you're willing to buy in a single month.

Or you can spend the $30, which most people will instead of the monthly deal.

Initially you'll spend $84 for a single game. The savings are less, when trying to even out what you've paid, when you buy older games that have been discounted.

It'll take you buying 4 more full priced games just to even out...only on the 5th games will you have gotten anything out of this deal that has saved you money. BUT WHO IS GOING TO BUY 5 EA GAMES IN A SINGLE YEAR AT $60? It'll take more games at a lower price to even out so you see that's how it gets even worse.

At the point of breaking even you will have given EA $300. Any amount you spend after you will start to see savings. Again, 5 day early access isn't worth any amount so that's not helping me save...

EA isn't losing anything over this and they're only gaining. They sell you this thinking you're onto something but behind their monitors they're all laughing away.

The ONLY way this turns out decent is when they offer dragon age inquisition, madden 15, fifa 15, or whatever else they have for free soon after it releases, like free within a month or two, again, not a year down the road.

So, none of us even know if the free games will continue after the beta period and none of us know if the free games will be able to be kept after your access period as ended if you don't renew.

Think about this people, it's not a smart buy.

[Xb1ps4]

Who is forcing you to do anything? I mean really.... All I see is sony making a decision on what they think isn't good enough for you that's about as close to forcing anyone into anything..

The truth is Sony turned it down because of psnow...Sony doesn't want that kind of competition after spending hundreds of millions on gaikai... Especially now that Sony has fumbled the ball with that insane rental pricing they tried to start with.

[Xb1ps4]

Really "gamers"...... All this fuss over 30 dollars for 365 days! Really!!

It's an option that Sony claimed didn't have enough value for you, some of you are so far up you know who's what.... You now let them make that decision for you and come up with some stupid stuff on how it's ssoooo bad because you won't be able to trade it in or what ever bs reason you ppl come up with...

[Blacklash93]

I'd wager they didn't do so because then PS+ and PSNow would have to compete with it, on their own platform. Sony would want to prioritize the profits of its first-party subscription services, rather than compete with third-party company and risk PS+ and PSNow losing out on subscribers.

Meanwhile, Microsoft systems are generally the more popular platform for EA titles, particularly for sports titles. Those are massive franchises and MS currently doesn't have services quite like PS+ (although Games with Gold is close) or anything like PSNow. So it'll be more profitable for them.

[Steptoe]

Ahh! So they went to Sony first. I get it now!

[CuddlyREDRUM]

The reason they didn't want it was it would take money away from Playstation Now.

#fortheplayers

[KennyCiseroJr]

N4G is just one huge Sony fanboy circle-jerk.

[Steptoe]

I aint got no issues about signing my soul to the devil. But for Fifa? Fifa is the devil!